Janil Puthucheary
Singapore
“Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions, which address what are our targets and what is it that we measure. Indeed, the issue of how we should think about recycling and waste disposal will be at the heart of our review of our Zero Waste Masterplan.”
“Another strategy that we are embarking on is the strengthening of the reuse of waste residue and treated toxic industrial waste before and after they are landfilled.”
“Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported. It is processed overseas. There are business arrangements between businesses here in Singapore and businesses in the region or overseas, to be able to handle the recycling of waste and recycling of material, whether domestic or non-domestic, already today.”
“Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. The incentives and disincentives around recycling and waste disposal are an important part of it. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees.”
“The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023.”
“Sir, in the planning of schools, the Ministry of Education ensures that our students can access a primary school near their homes. Except for a small number, 15 of Special Assistance Plan schools, all primary schools offer the three official mother tongue languages.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,326 lines we hold for Janil Puthucheary, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 27.
“Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan for his questions. On the first question, which is essentially about digital inclusion, certainly, English literacy, I suspect, is as big a problem, if not a greater problem than just age, for adoption. The simple answer would be to recommend for our resident to approach the Community Centre and CitizenConnect Centre where people can help him or her access that service, conduct their online business if necessary or, if possible, teach them how to do so. We do have services which are specifically targeted at this group of people. We are, in all our efforts, taking some extra effort to engage, to onboard people, and we are tracking the percentage of people who come onboard in our various services. But it is not going to be enough to just assume it would improve over time. There are segments of the population that we would have to reach out to especially, and we would have to think about what are the channels within the community that we can leverage to reach out to them. So, we welcome suggestions on how we can find people who are having difficulty engaging with Government services online and reach out to them better. The second question Dr Tan asked was about the user interface. Indeed, the Government does have a set of digital service standards, so that services should have a consistent level of userability, accessibility, should be mobile-ready, websites especially. We are also increasing the use of talent in the user interface phase, so that when we do the engineering, we have people with user interface, user experience talent, looking at the design process right from the start. It is an informed part of how we make sure that people can participate.”
“But there is still a lot of staff in the office, in the branches, at the counters, not to remove the need for human interaction but to change the nature of that human interaction, so that when customers step in, the staff are there with tablets, with the computers, guiding potential home owners through the process and helping them to navigate the process. So, rather than having staff deal with laborious data entry or merely deal with the process management, the HDB staff have been reskilled towards customer relations. Another example is our CitizenConnect Centres where individuals who do not have access to a computer or a phone, or do not have the confidence to deal with Government services online, can go to these CitizenConnect Centres. Most of them are located within Community Centres. Staff would be on hand. Why have we got the solution this way? Because it means that we give people access to e-services if they do not have a computer, a phone or the confidence, but also, there is an opportunity for the staff to interact with these citizens and explain to them the process, help them onboard, perhaps teach them so that they may be able to do it next time, or if they bring along a family member, staff can teach them, and to help them develop trust in the system. So, we have used that as solution, not just to provide people access and participation, but also to try to help to develop trust in the e-services and public services that are made available through the online centres.”
“I thank Ms Tin for the questions. Sir, let me start with the second part, which is the issue of the possibility of biometric systems as opposed to a card. Our general approach going forward is, rather than look at a singular form factor, whether it is a fob or a card, our general approach has been to try to look at software solutions. So, software tokens, software encryption. One of the reasons for this is that it can then be incorporated into a number of form factors. For example, if you had a phone which accepted biometric authentication, and you use that to access your software platform, that would be a different approach from someone who used a personal identification number (PIN) to access the same software. So, using software as a middle layer to allow engagements through a variety of form factors, is certainly part of the design principles of how we would do to increase adoption and utilisation of Smart Nation initiatives. If I could use an example to answer both the first and third questions from Ms Tin, the first question was about how we could help the elderly have trust in the system and the third question was about maintaining a face-to-face interaction. I would like to use two examples. One is the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the other is our CitizenConnect Centres. HDB has significantly digitalised much of its customer-facing processes. It has used backend software improvements, it has used user interfaces.”
“Sir, to answer the first question, to either regulate completely or leave it completely to the free market will all have its problems. We need to have a balanced approach between complete regulation and creating opportunities for innovative solutions from a number of players, including banking and non-banking institutions. Our role is really to ensure that there are common platforms and standards of interoperability, and then, in parallel, to make sure that all the regulations, oversight, compliance and enforcement around our monetary system and our financial system continue to be robust and relevant to both the technologies and the opportunities that the waves of digitalisation will make possible. So, we will take a balanced approach. We have worked with a number of players to introduce PayNow. We are working to increase adoption of QR codes. We will continue to take a balance between a regulatory stance as well as developmental. On the Member's second question about the submission of a unified e-payment system from Razer, MAS receives quite a lot of proposals and we study all the proposals carefully. But, really, we have to ensure that whoever is making these proposals, the standards are maintained. There is a common platform, a series of interoperable standards, space for competition and adherence to the regulations and compliance with the financial regulations that are already in place. We cannot afford to lower that bar of quality in terms of risk and risk management, and we cannot afford an e-payment ecosystem that is fragmented and not interoperable. We have several proposals to do so and we will study all the proposals that are put before us.”
“We need to step up these efforts as we advance along the Smart Nation journey. Sir, Smart Nation is about making all our lives easier. It is about building a strong society and economy for all, where businesses thrive, opportunities abound and we look forward with confidence to the future. Change is uncomfortable, but, if not for some of the bold, uncomfortable changes our founding leaders had the vision to make, Singapore will not be where we are today. Not only have we survived, but we have thrived. The nation-building narrative of the next generation will be about digital infrastructure as much as it is about physical infrastructure. Singaporeans are resilient enough to weather this change and will come out the better for it.”
“We are now facing another major need for such a movement, and we will have to ensure everyone is equipped with a set of basic digital skills, be it for work or in our daily lives. This applies to all Singaporeans. The Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) has set up a Digital Readiness Workgroup with representatives from the public and private sectors who have expertise and experience in applying technology to make lives better. The Workgroup, in its recommendations, will propose strategies to improve digital readiness in Singaporeans, by early next year. These will reinforce existing initiatives, such as the Silver Infocomm Initiative (SII) by IMDA which has reached out to more than 130,000 seniors to promote information technology (IT) awareness and literacy. An important part of being digitally ready is to understand the risks involved and to be proactive in risk mitigation. Financial institutions in Singapore have been taking measures to detect and deter cyber threats and strengthen the security of their digital platforms. MAS has set standards and expectations for financial institutions on the management of technology risks. But, as with other forms of payment, such as cash or cheque, the individual also has to exercise the responsibility to protect himself. In e-payments, there are simple steps that each of us can take to protect against fraudulent transactions or identity theft. MAS has been working closely with the banking industry and law enforcement agencies to raise consumer awareness of these measures. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) have also conducted several anti-scam public education initiatives over the years as well, and launched the Anti-Scam Helpline.”
“We have been and will continue to actively work together with the private sector. To achieve these outcomes, Smart Nation needs to be a whole-of-nation endeavour. This means benefiting and involving all segments of the population, including the elderly. We must strive to provide digital options that are user-friendly for all. For example, the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB) is working with some primary schools to explore child-friendly e-payment options, from wearables to biometric payment. We should similarly develop solutions to help the elderly embrace e-payments and other digital opportunities. We must be a nation of smart users and exploiters of technology. We should neither blindly adopt technology nor shut it out and refuse to change. This requires us to be prepared to try new things and pick up new skills. Reskilling is not easy but it is necessary, which is why we have put in place SkillsFuture and programmes, such as the Infocomm Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) TechSkills Accelerator (TeSA) to help all Singaporeans be digitally ready. We must enable digital access and we must also facilitate digital readiness to help everyone have the skills and literacy to use digital technology in a safe, responsible and confident way, and give everyone the ability and opportunity to participate meaningfully in the digital society. Basic digital skills are something we need to equip everyone with. In the 1980s, when we saw a wave of computerisation across offices in Singapore, moving from typewriters to word processing, the Public Service took the lead through the National Computerisation Plan to implement widespread training of basic computer skills.”
“Sir, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group has identified an initial tranche of five Strategic National Projects (SNPs). Each has a timeline for delivery that includes intermediate milestones. For example, under e-payments, the Payments Council has set up an industry task force to establish a common Quick Response (QR) code standard for Singapore, or SGQR, by the end of 2017. While critical to the Smart Nation's success, these and future SNPs are not outcomes in and of themselves. We do not chase technology for technology's sake. Instead, we must be people-centric, as Dr Tan Wu Meng has said. There are three levels of outcomes that we strive for under Smart Nation. First, at the individual level, Smart Nation must bring about practical convenience and a higher quality of life. For example, PayNow enables Singaporeans to pay one another, across accounts held in different banks using just the recipient's mobile number. Next, at the enterprise level, Smart Nation must boost efficiency, reduce costs and stimulate business. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the banking industry are working to extend PayNow to merchants and companies. The SGQR will provide merchants with an infrastructure-light and cheaper alternative to accept different types of e-payments, including PayNow. Finally, at the economy and societal level, Smart Nation is about opportunity. There will be new ways of doing things, new forms of businesses and new jobs. Businesses will be transformed through end-to-end digitalisation of their processes. Digital platforms will allow our enterprises to tap new markets. The Government will keep standards and platforms open so that as many enterprises as possible can take advantage of the opportunities.”
“In the other direction – this is addressing Mr Darryl David and also Mr Melvin Yong's points about the pool of talent and recruitment efforts – SPF and SCDF reach out to NPCC and NCDCC cadets beyond their CCA training sessions. They extend invitations to join officers in the Insight SPF and the Annual Workplan Seminar, send its Careers Centre Officers and Careers Counsellors to directly engage with the cadets to consider viable career options within the Home Team. However, there is no preferential treatment for applicants with NPCC and NCDCC background. MHA correctly wants to assess each applicant fairly based on individual merits during the recruitment process. However, it has been reported that SPF and SCDF have observed that the applicants with NPCC and NCDCC background tend to perform better during the recruitment and selection process, and this is a very understandable situation. It is reasonable that we leave the recruitment and selection process open to all applicants, but those students who are able to identify a passion or an aptitude early on can help to prepare themselves for that process. To answer the question, MHA does not track the number of NPCC or NCDCC cadets who eventually become members of the Home Team. Madam, the Bill will allow us to reap some efficiencies in terms of having a combined administrative process and efficiencies in the running of two separate uniformed groups. But the overall intent of what the uniformed groups are there for within our education system and the opportunities available to our students will not change. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.”
“The reasons for not having the Home Team Corps units in a given school is largely to do with the availability of staff who are skilled and available to supervise, but it is something that the combined Home Team Corps Council could address and see ways in which we improve the provision. Together with suggestions associated with the more realistic training, the possibility of extending to Primary schools, these are things that the new administrative structure will be well-placed to address. While NPCC and NCDCC will continue to function as two separate uniformed groups to maintain their distinctiveness, the Council will be a platform to discuss avenues for collaboration and to deepen the learning experience. Mr Darryl David, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Louis Ng have spoken about the variety of joint training activities and programmes that are available on SGSecure and engagement with the community. We do want our cadets to act as advocates and organise activities for their fellow students, as well as participate in the community activities. That intent has always been there and we would like to find ways to deepen that. Largely, it is going to depend on the availability of local partners that are willing to make this work. But, certainly, from an education perspective, we have every reason to support that type of initiative and we will find ways of making it happen. The cadets work with the community through the Emergency Preparedness Days and Grassroots Organisations, but also directly with SPF and SCDF to advocate SGSecure and emergency preparedness messages, conduct hands-on first aid, CPR, AED sessions − a wide variety of available avenues for cooperation, collaboration and community outreach.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I thank Mr Darryl David, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Melvin Yong for their speeches and questions. If I could address Mr Louis Ng's question first. The students who are interested in joining NPCC or NCDCC will need to meet selection criteria, such as being medically fit. The PRs and non-citizens who meet the selection criteria have been enrolled as cadets, and about 11% of our NPCC and NCDCC cadets are PRs and non-citizens. The route is available to them. For the spaces that are available, currently between 8% and 9% of the student cohort enrol within the NPCC and NCDCC annually. Both corps will have provision to expand their membership if there is additional interest from students who do meet the selection criteria. That is the key point; that we do have to have students who have the fitness and the interest and the ability to follow through the requirements of the corps. But there is provision for expansion. Similarly, Mr Melvin Yong asked about boosting membership. This is certainly an opportunity to leverage on the synergies between the two aspects of the now-combined corps administration to make it a more attractive proposition for students to join either of these uniformed groups. There is a happy problem of increasing competition for students because more schools are offering more diverse CCAs. So, we may see an individual unit's membership drop but, on the whole, membership within the uniformed groups is about one-third of our total student cohort, with the rest of the students pursuing other types of CCAs. So, we do have to continue to maintain a balance of CCA offerings throughout our education system.”
“Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, both NCDCC and NPCC play equally important roles in preparing our cadets for future challenges and strengthening their sense of national identity. With the enactment of the HTC Bill and the repeal of the NPCC Act, the administration of NCDCC and NPCC will be formalised, providing better support to our youth. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)] 5.32 pm”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to regularise the statutory status of the National Civil Defence Cadet Corps (NCDCC) under a new Home Team Corps (HTC) Act and repeal the current National Police Cadet Corps (NPCC) Act (Chapter 199 of the 2014 Revised Edition). Madam, the NPCC was established by an Act of Parliament in 1974. The Bill was tabled in Parliament by MOE to establish the NPCC in schools as part of nation-building efforts. The NPCC Act empowers the Minister to establish, organise and administer the Police Cadet Corps units in schools. Currently, the administration of the NPCC Act is jointly undertaken by both MOE and MHA. A Commandant from the Singapore Police Force (SPF) oversees the day-to-day management of the NPCC headquarters, staffed by MOE and SPF Officers. The NCDCC was set up in 2005 to augment the existing Uniformed Groups in our schools and provide more CCA choices. NCDCC also provides platforms for students to work with the community on broader civil defence and emergency preparedness initiatives. NCDCC has now been firmly established after 12 years. There are currently 35 NCDCC units and approximately 2,500 cadets. The enactment of the Home Team Corps (HTC) Bill will regularise the statutory status of NCDCC and create a single HTC Council comprising representatives of senior officials from SPF, Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and MOE to oversee both NCDCC and NPCC. This would provide platforms for NCDCC and NPCC to have greater synergistic collaborations in deepening the learning experiences for the cadets, while maintaining the distinctiveness of both Corps. The HTC Council also brings about efficiency in the common administration of NCDCC and NPCC.”
“So, it is always inappropriate to quote a clause out of context or quote only half a paragraph. Because if you try to sharpen iron against iron, both get blunted and a lot of heat is generated. Iron is sharpened against stone. The stone against which we have to sharpen our positions and our thoughts and achieve some clarity on where we are as politicians, as parties, as individual Singaporeans, is a combination of the law and our Constitution as represented by you, Mdm Speaker. In combination with the will of the people, we have to sharpen our iron against the will of the people and their expectations. But most importantly, we have to do so against our pride in ourselves as representatives of this Parliamentary democracy. Our pride in ourselves as instruments of our democracy and our governance, we must try as hard as possible to contest this space, to do right by Singapore and by Singaporeans. And if having tried as hard as possible to find the problem, to find some fact, to find some weakness, there is none, then surely, we should acknowledge that. Surely, that is the service that we do to the values of this House and the values of Singapore and the issues before us that we have to provide some resolution to. It is contingent upon us to do that. And that is how, we need, as a House, to close this matter over the next day. [Applause.]”
“End this saga now by standing up here and saying that you are satisfied with the explanations that have been given, that you understand the process of governance and Government and Parliamentary democracy. Then, there will be a strong bright line. Then, our system will be stronger and we can move on with our lives, and we can move on with all the other things that we need to do. This process is ugly, it is disquieting, it is upsetting. If it was easy and if it was fun, it would not have to be brought here in Parliament. I suppose Government is not there to just deal with the nice things. The Parliamentary debate, the idea of the contest that we have in our speeches and in our discussion that politics itself is contestable, that the issues brought before this House are to be contested over and that we must be rigorously applying ourselves to that contest in order to get the best possible outcome for the people that we serve and for Singapore. That is an important part of what has got us here today, and what will take us forward and make us a resilient and stronger system to withstand any further shocks, allegations and problems that surface. But that requires that we engage in this and that we believe that this contest is useful, that we believe that iron sharpens iron, that we believe that when we stand in this House, we are doing something worthwhile and not abrogating and abdicating our responsibility to somebody outside, that we are not elected by the people and throwing the problem back to the people. We have to solve and make decisions and analyse the facts on their behalf and hold ourselves accountable to them. Of course, the proverb is only half correct − Proverbs 27:17, "Iron sharpens iron, as man sharpens man".”
“You should accept that this is a good place and the right place to bring these issues out to have a debate. And if there are allegations, make them. If there are facts to substantiate these allegations, bring them here. And if it is appropriate, further action can and should be taken. But no one has said this. No one has been able to substantiate this. There are some things that WP and all the other MPs agree on. That this is something that really should go away and back into the private space because there are no substantive allegations on the issues of the abuse of power. I also share Mr Low Thia Khiang's sentiments about the bright red line between the public and private space. This is the essence of good Government and good governance. It is exactly the key issue that the public and the private space must be separated. But everything we have heard so far is detail after detail, document after document, attempt after attempt, in order to achieve that separation. You can say it is separated but it is the actions and the deeds that you take in order to make that separation real, make yourself accountable, that are far more important. We have had a detailed explanation of how the Prime Minister has done exactly that. I agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang's sentiment that we should end this now or as soon as possible. How? A suit is not going to end this now. A Select Committee is not going to end this now. "End this saga now" is a very nice throwaway sound bite. I am sure it will come up in the headline. But how can you follow that up by asking for the saga to then be protracted by a whole bunch of other mechanisms? End this saga now because you are satisfied because you have not been able to bring any evidence to bear.”
“The Ministerial Committee operates behind closed doors; information is shared with the participants and the people that are called to it. You want everything out in the public space for reasons of transparency. These are difficult contradictions to navigate. Parliament cannot make a private citizen sue his own brother; that is a choice for a private citizen to make. And yet, you are asking for us in this Parliamentary House to make a decision about a private act. You want to strengthen the standing of Singapore. When you stand up in this House, are you weakening it? Are you generating confidence in the public sector and the public servants and the public sector officers who try to make the system work? All of them have an understanding of what it means to separate the public and the private; this is part of their professionalism, their expectations. You want public transparency and yet you expect the Ministers cannot post on Facebook when allegations come in, when fake news come in, when misinformation comes in. We are not allowed to post on Facebook to counter this? We leave those allegations and misinformation and disinformation out there? We have to decide what it is we want out of this process. We all want for Singapore to be stronger and a big part of that is going to be taking a position on whether our system of governance, our system of Government and our Parliamentary democracy are correct. Not that there are no problems. Not that there have been no mistakes. The problems and the mistakes are there. But the question is, do we have a system that can detect it, that can deal with it and to prevent it from happening again? Are you trying to bring down this House? You should not. You should stand by the values of this House.”
“The words − the words of our Constitution, the words of our laws, the wording of clauses and paragraphs – they need to be turned into deeds, they need to be turned into deeds to demonstrate that we value them, that we value these processes and that we value this idea of accountability. The Prime Minister has held himself up as an example. He set the bar very, very high but he has made it absolutely transparent what he expects of all of us. Recusal whenever there is the possibility of conflict of interests, a removal of any benefit that you might accrue to yourself, expose yourself to questioning, waiving of the Parliamentary privilege. These are steps to deal with conflicts of interest, deal with possible abuses of power and remove the possibility of conflict of interest, remove the possibility of an abuse of power. Yet, all of these mechanisms are now being criticised as markers of the exact opposite. It is ridiculous. It is inappropriate. But it is of great interest that no one has been able to substantiate anything in this House. If we are going to have a Select Committee, you need to have some reason to have this Select Committee as opposed to just saying, "I was not able to do my job properly." These are important and serious allegations. One of the more serious allegations involves the issues to do with the AG, conflicts of interest. I am going to leave it to some of my colleagues in the Ministry of Law to answer that. The other serious statements are slightly contradictory. I just want to highlight a few of these. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin pointed out a few of these contradictions. You want this thing to be settled quick, you want it to go to the Courts. That is only going to drag it out. You want this thing to be dealt with behind closed doors.”
“This code of conduct, these values and these processes need to be understood by every officer in that chain of command so that they know when they are being asked to do something inappropriate, that they know that they have alternative lines of reporting, that they know that they can document these things and it will be there as a matter of record for the Courts, for a special Select Committee or for MPs to access, demonstrate and debate. Everything we have done so far today, our ability to talk about this in this House, is a marker of our system working. It is the form that many people are carried away with; but it is the substance that is far more appropriate. You can have a special Select Committee but if the Members on that special Select Committee do not do their job properly, it will not have the substance. We could have a debate here in Parliament but if we did not do our job properly, do our due diligence properly, search for questions, search for problems, search for evidence, search for substance to the allegations and bring them forth in this House, we would not be doing our job properly and we would not be giving substance to the form of a Parliamentary debate. Mr Singh's allegations that somehow this is an inappropriate place because MPs have not been able to bring up evidence, bring up substance to the allegations. That is a marker of an absence of evidence, that is a marker of an absence of a problem, assuming the Members of the Opposition have been diligent about trying to find a problem. I am sure they have. Why would they not? The substance is important.”
“Do you not have a scenario plan for this?" I suspect the social media posts and the subsequent storm of interest over the last two weeks were one of the few things that, perhaps, was not anticipated as a drawer plan. But what to do with the property, the house, the heritage values, the conflicting public sentiments, surely, this is something that we need to have a drawer plan on. I want to make it very clear that what we are doing, this forward planning, this developing of scenarios, this consideration of public views and Opposition views, and diverse views, this is part of how our system works. Coming to Parliament today is a demonstration that our system works, that our governance and our Government, the values and the expectations of our public are a marker of our system working. Our ability to talk about this, the documents that have been shared here today, the record of conversations, the record of interactions that we have had that we bring to bear to make this debate happen, are a marker of the transparency and effectiveness of our system working. The allegations that are being put across, the mechanisms, a separation from the public and the private space, an attempt to moderate and deal with the influences, potential allegations of the abuse of power, these are markers and demonstrations of our system working. These are markers of transparency, of accountability. Accountability around process, around documentation. Accountability not just at the top − it has to be especially at the top, the Prime Minister has talked about that − but accountability extends all the way through.”
“"Do not let this go on, end this saga now, because there is nothing to it" − these are things that have been brought up by PAP MPs, Nominated MPs (NMPs) and Opposition MPs. We have not yet had specifics about what we should be doing differently, other than debate this in Parliament. A special Select Committee is an instrument, a tool empowered by Parliament, as Mr Pritam Singh had argued just now. How can he say that it would be better than Parliament, if he says that there is something wrong fundamentally with Parliament? Yes, a special Select Committee has time, space and the opportunity to gather more evidence and to go into more details. But it is given those powers by Parliament. Ultimately, it provides a report to Parliament and the actions taken on its recommendations are done by Parliament. So, if we are going to choose these routes, the one thing we cannot do, is say that Parliament is not the appropriate place to deal with these matters. The expectations we have in Singapore are high. The expectations of Parliamentary process, the expectations of prudence, of probity. But even on a very pragmatic basis, we are expected to forward plan just about everything. If Members think back not many minutes, not many hours ago, to the Parliamentary Questions, I was standing at this very same rostrum, having to defend questions about the extent to which we could predict changes in our school landscape 15 years, 10 years, five years ahead of time. We are expected to have drawer plans for just about every eventuality. When something goes wrong, when a conflict arises, when something is brought out into the public space, people are unhappy about it. One of the first questions that would be asked is, "Could you not have anticipated this? Could you not have thought about it?”
“Mdm Speaker, a number of Members of the House have stood up to suggest that Parliament is the wrong place and that this should not have been brought to Parliament. There are two major arguments being made. One is, if there is no substance to these allegations, why are we spending our time in Parliament dealing with what is essentially a private family matter? The other is that there is potential substance but this needs to be better dealt with somewhere else. The first point I want to make is that coming to Parliament does not preclude anything else happening outside of Parliament. It is not a zero-sum game. Two weeks have passed since the first allegations were made. Can you imagine that this would have been resolved in the Courts in two weeks? Can you imagine that a special Select Committee could have been constituted, could have called witnesses, analysed the problem, submitted a report in two weeks? Nothing else could have happened in two weeks. But if it comes to Parliament, as we have done today, and we have to debate the Home Team Corps Bill, which I will be speaking on sometime after this debate – if we have to debate about issues to do with our finances, about MAS or other Statutory Boards and we have a lingering suspicion about our process of Government, about the authority of the Members of this House to debate, to analyse, to deal with the most pressing problems facing Singapore – how could we have gone forward? It is ridiculous to suggest that we cannot talk about this in Parliament. We have to talk about this in Parliament. The first point, I find more interesting − that there are no specifics, there is no evidence, there is no substance to the allegations.”
“We try to minimise the downsides, we try to have a key principle about why we are doing this and how we want to go forward in order to serve the future students of the education system, to service the next generation.”
“There is no deliberate attempt to put the burden of these school mergers on a particular segment of our population. What will happen over time is that the cut-off points and the choices that students make will change. And, really, there is no way to accurately plan or predict that except to say, on the whole, every JC-eligible student will have a place in the system. We are not denying that to anybody. The first question that the Member brought up was about lessons that have been learnt. This is going to be a dynamic process. The changes in birth cohort, the changes in where population lives and what we do in our education system, will require a dynamic process. Between 2005 and 2012, we significantly rammed up JC places. We had packed classrooms because we had maximised the capacity, because that was when we had the peak student cohort sizes going through. We are not going to turn around and say that was the wrong thing to do at that time because now we are reducing places and merging schools. That was what we needed to do then, and this is what we need to do now. We do have to take a dynamic approach. The forward projection of the birth cohort is unknown. We had some anticipation but we do also have some anticipation that things would change. We have a window, we know about the births that already happened, we do not know about births that have not happened yet. There is some uncertainty in this, just as there is uncertainty about the choices that students would make over the popularity of a new JC or a merged JC. There is some uncertainty about this. There are a number of factors to take into consideration.”
“If I could address the last question, we are looking at all staff, different groups of staff and different types of challenges. We are looking at all staff to ensure that they have opportunities. The third question is about the timing of the announcement, the curriculum review and training of teachers. Yes, there were announcements of specifics for the JC curriculum review. But the reality is that curriculum review, pedagogical development and professional training are ongoing all the time. There is always going to be tweaks to our system. There is always going to be new courses and new skills to be developed. There is never going to be a good time. There is never going to be the equivalent of a "Now it is school holidays and we can clean the canteen". In terms of our education system, this ongoing professional review is constant. We will always find something happening and something going on. So, we had to make the choice for the timing of this in terms of how far ahead we had to plan for birth cohorts, at which point we were going to have an enrolment that was so low that a JC was not going to be able to run a viable programme with CCAs and performing arts and so forth, and the academic curriculum. So, that is fundamentally what determines the timing, not anything else. As for the cut-off points, and how it may affect the students who are, perhaps, not performing so well, this will vary over time. As schools merge and other schools see changes in capacity, the cut-off point required to get into a given JC may change. It depends on some degree of competitiveness amongst the student cohort and it depends on the choices that students make. There is no deliberate attempt to penalise anybody here.”
“Whether it is the geographical distribution, the enrolment, the emotional distress of the alumni, we cannot allow any single factor to override completely what should be our prime concern, which is, how to develop an education system that is going to best serve the next generation, looking forward to the future. There are unknowns but that is how we have to approach this problem. We acknowledge the problems and the distress that it has caused and we are trying our best to minimise them.”
“I thank the Member for the question. We explored a wide range of possibilities to deal with this problem. I cannot speak specifically of the processes in 2010 but, certainly, across time, we have explored a wide variety of possibilities of how we might deal with falling enrolment, whether we need to change the models of some of the JCs, go for smaller JCs, go for larger JCs, including some of the suggestions that the Member has made. There was no singular reason why that was not done. It was the larger reason that, system wide, we wanted to preserve a number of outcomes. We wanted to have, in 2010, the three schools that we talked about to increase diversity in our landscape and provide a receptacle for the IP Programme for the secondary schools that I spoke about in my earlier response. And later on, as part of the programme, we wanted to ensure that geographical distribution and access to public transport, the changes where housing is going to be going forward, where the population shifts are going, are considered. So, there is no single neat reason why one particular route was not taken. It was really an overall approach, and judgement was made that this was perhaps the best way to go forward to try to deal with the problem, which is a painful problem. One consideration is the pain and the distress the alumni feel. It is very real. It is not something to be trivialised or ignored, and it is not something that MOE was unaware of. But MOE has to balance that with how we can best serve the next generation.”
“I thank the Member. To the first question, our anticipation is that the proportion of a given cohort that will apply for the JC pathway and then seek a graduate education is likely to be the same. In absolute numbers, it may change but in terms of proportions, the pathways are there. We anticipate that, likely, the proportions will remain about the same going forward. It is hard to say, but that is our anticipation of the future. The Member brought up a very important point about the methodology of teaching in JCs. If I understand that correctly, that perhaps there are aspects of the curricular experience or the student experience in our JCs which are different from what someone might experience at the polytechnics. But that is a good thing. We have increasing diversity in the post-secondary education landscape. For a student to be offered more choice where the choice is not merely about the certification pathway or the accreditation pathway, or the academic process that they are going through, but the holistic student experience they may have, is a good thing. If there is an opportunity for the JCs to think about how they can improve their provision of a student experience because of competition for the students to go to alternative pathways, that can also only be a good thing to improve our education landscape. I do not think the changes in enrolment numbers, the falling birth cohort and our need for mergers of institutions would change any of these. This is a natural outcome of the increasing diversity that we want to have and that we are developing within our education space.”
“As we merge these schools, these professionals who are part of our education landscape, the key part of our education landscape, the work that they have done in developing their profession and developing their schools, will be preserved within our system because they are all being retained within our system or have the opportunity to be retained within our system. All the stakeholders in all the merging schools have been consulted and continue to be engaged with thoroughly − staff, students, alumni − and the engagement is ongoing as we have to think of names and various other aspects. As for the issue of the Government non-IP schools, I think I have addressed that in my response initially that it is correct that the mergers involve the Government non-IP JCs, and there are a couple of reasons. I am just trying to find the paragraph, so I can refer the Member to it. One is the issue of governance. If you have a Government-aided school versus a Government school, the governance framework is different. If you are trying to merge two schools with two very different governance frameworks, there are additional challenges − not impossible but it adds an added layer of complexity and difficulty that we felt was not needed at this point in time, that we could do it without having to engage in an even more difficult exercise. So, I had addressed that. Was there an additional point about that that the Member had? I mean, we do acknowledge that it is so, and I hope I have explained why it is so.”
“Madam, I thank the Member for the four questions. With respect to the first and the third questions, the geographical considerations and enrolment were taken into account. But no single factor was overwhelming. So, for both dimensions − the enrolment as well as the geographical location − we can find examples where it is not ideal. There is no nice or ideal solution to this. It is painful to close a school, merge a school or relocate a school. There is anxiety when staff have to change jobs, to do something that they have not been doing, to move from one place of work to another. There is no easy answer to this. But we did try as far as possible to ensure that the merged pairs result in a good geographical spread of JC places across the nation. Yes, there would be some students who will end up having a slightly longer commute. It is not the only factor, but geographical considerations were taken into account. Low enrolment was taken into account. The point the Member made was that we were undoing the work of the staff to build up a JC. I think whether you are a low-enrolment school or a high-enrolment school, you would feel that your work has been undone. This is a very understandable concern. It is not about whether it is a low-enrolment school or a high-enrolment school. That anxiety is going to be there. So, we are trying as hard as possible to preserve the ethos and values of these schools when we merge them, through the preservation of their niche programmes, CCAs, engagements with the renaming, the history and the heritage. Ultimately, that work and the values and the effort rest in the professionals who are involved. The key part of a school is the teachers, staff and the ethos and values they bring. They are staying within our system; we are not losing them.”
“Madam, I agree with the Member that the transfers of staff, whether it is teaching or non-teaching staff, will, indeed, be associated with anxiety, and MOE will do as much as we can to ensure that these transfers are smooth. This is a combination of finding appropriate postings on the basis of skills as well as needs, and we do take into account the compatibility of the culture and socio-emotional aspects. We also provide pedagogical support, additional courses and training for staff who may be doing something that they are not familiar with, especially if they have been used to teaching a particular subject or level for many number of years. They will need professional training and assistance to make the transition work. The Member's point about engaging the union is an apt and appropriate one. As I have explained, the announcement of the specific merger pairs was not something that we could test the waters with extensively before a decision was made. So, I hope the Member appreciates that we made the announcements and began engagements as soon as we were able to, with some confidence that there was clarity over the decisions that we were going to go forward with. But the larger point that we do have to make sure that we work well with the teachers' unions and have good labour relations in this aspect is very important. I do agree with the Member.”
“I understand that the process of school mergers is a difficult and challenging one for the schools and all stakeholders involved. We are making every effort to ensure that the transition will be a smooth one. We value our students' learning experience and their attachment to our schools. Thus, we are also committed to continue the rich heritage and history of our schools through the cohorts of students to come.”
“They are also informed of the redeployment plans and support available to them. Many of these conversations take place on a one-to-one basis. Thereafter, staff are given time to explore options they are interested in through our internal posting exercise. MOE will also assist staff who need additional support during the redeployment process. MOE will provide the necessary training for teachers who will be redeployed to levels they have not taught before. The training includes bridging courses to equip them with the necessary pedagogical skills and content knowledge to teach at the redeployed level. Apart from deepening their understanding of the different learning profiles of the students they will teach, these bridging courses will also help teachers understand their students' different social and emotional needs, and how they can foster strong teacher-student rapport to help them better support these students in their learning. These teachers will also have the opportunity to be attached to their new schools before their formal postings begin. After they have been posted, MOE will continue to support these teachers through regular engagement sessions. Apart from providing teachers with the requisite training, we recognise that redeployed teachers will also need personal time and space to adapt to their new environment. The receiving schools will pair each redeployed teacher with a buddy or mentor and provide a supportive environment to ensure a smooth transition. We also encourage schools to, where possible, adjust the workload for cross-deployed teachers in their first year. MOE is committed as a system to help these teachers transit smoothly so that our teachers continue to make a positive difference in our students.”
“In the same vein, we set up the new EJC to cater to students who would benefit from the IP pathway at three secondary schools − Catholic High, Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (CHIJ) St Nicholas Girls' and Singapore Chinese Girls'. We started the new IP pathway in 2004, with the intention that this would, over time, admit up to 10% of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) cohort, and the IP pathway has been valued by students. The extension of IP to these three schools and the announcement of EJC in 2010 were part of this planned IP expansion. The suitability of a JC to partner its feeder secondary schools to offer IP is an important consideration to ensure that the programme offered will be meaningful for the students. At that time, there was no suitable JC to partner these three secondary schools. EJC was thus set up to leverage the strengths of the partner secondary schools and to add diversity to the JC landscape. Like Mr Desmond Choo, MOE recognises that school mergers are unsettling for school staff. In the case of teachers, this sometimes involves redeployment to another level, for example, from secondary school to primary school, or JC to secondary or primary school. There are also areas of needs in MOE Headquarters, such as developing resources for information and communications technology learning for our students, and other vacancies where teachers could contribute. MOE takes great care in managing staff matters in school mergers. We work closely with school leaders and support them in engaging affected staff. For all school mergers, we have assured our MOE staff that they will not be retrenched. Staff are engaged on the deployment plans and manpower needs for the merged schools.”
“A related question is how the eventual JC cut-off points for the 2018 Joint Admission Exercise would change with the JC mergers. MOE does not predetermine JC cut-off points. They vary from year to year depending on students' choices. We do not know how students' choices may change with the announcement of JC mergers. For this reason, I am unable to give specific answers to Mr Zaqy Mohamad's nor Mr Leon Perera's questions as to whether we will see higher aggregate scores for JC admissions or specific percentages following the mergers. With the change in the 2018 JC landscape, variations in cut-off points may be slightly more than in previous years. Most importantly, a student who qualifies for JC and chooses to go there, will have a JC place. Our educators, as well as Education and Career Guidance Counsellors, will continue to guide our students in selecting their post-secondary pathways based on their strengths, aspirations and interests. Mr Pritam Singh asked why we chose to set up Eunoia Junior College (EJC), and if we had anticipated falling JC cohort sizes in the coming years. MOE had decided to set up various new schools in 2010, namely, Crest, Spectra, as well as EJC, as part of our efforts to provide more options in our education landscape, and better meet our students' diverse aspirations and educational needs. This was even though we were aware of the falling cohort sizes in the coming years. Crest and Spectra were specially established to offer a special Normal (Technical) curriculum to cater to secondary school students who are more suited for the applied learning track.”
“In naming the merged schools, MOE will consider the schools' history and heritage, stakeholders' interests and the sentiments of all schools involved. Similar to primary and secondary school mergers, the merged JC will comprise a significant proportion of staff from both JCs. We will retain the special programmes and events, plus the signature CCAs of both JCs, so that the heritage of the merged JC is enriched from merging aspects of both colleges. Over the years, MOE has engaged school leaders and many educators on the issue of falling cohort sizes and the rationale for school mergers at various MOE engagement platforms. As Members would appreciate, the issue of the actual school merger is very emotive and we need to approach this matter with care. This is not a matter that we can do extensive pre-announcement engagements without causing unnecessary anxiety. Our engagements are focused on the post-announcement phase, targeting key areas of concerns for staff and students, such as support during the transition and preservation of their school heritage. I would like to assure Mr Dennis Tan that we work closely with our key stakeholders for the mergers and will continue to do so with the affected schools to ease the transition for all staff, students and parents. I understand that some parents and students are concerned that fewer JCs would mean stiffer competition for places. Let me give a categorical assurance that all JC-eligible students, that is, those with a score of 20 points or below, who opt for the JC pathway will be able to enrol in one of the JCs. For 2018, we plan to increase the JC1 student intake for the remaining JCs and we have sufficient capacity in our JCs to ensure that no JC-eligible student would be denied a place.”
“Our students' educational experience and their experience of school life would inevitably be compromised. We also believe that there is value in enabling students to immerse themselves in their schools. That is what builds a sense of belonging and school spirit. Mr Leon Perera suggested that instead of merging JCs, we allow a reduction in class sizes in those JCs with low enrolment. These are two separate issues. We are merging schools to ensure a good range of programmes for our students in schools that would otherwise face low enrolment. MOE takes a needs-based resourcing approach for teacher resourcing, targeting additional support at students with greater learning needs by reducing class sizes in a selective manner, so as to improve our educational outcomes across different schools and student profiles. We have been able to do this due to our steadily improving teacher-to-student ratios, which are now comparable to that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. We believe that this approach in reducing class size is more targeted and sustainable and can be applied across all schools based on needs, rather than just the schools with low enrolment. The sites of the merged schools in 2019 are chosen based on a number of factors, including the accessibility to public transport and the quality of school infrastructure, which includes the age of buildings and facilities available. In addition, for the JC mergers, the selected merged sites took into consideration the desire for us to have a good spread and distribution of JCs across the island. Schools' heritage and identities are valuable aspects of our students' experience. The names of the merged schools have not been decided.”
“Four pairs of junior colleges (JCs) will be merged for the first time in 2019. The JC1 intake is projected to fall by 20%, from 16,000 students in 2010 to around 12,800 students in 2019. This fall of 3,200 JC1 students is equal to the intake for four typical JCs. If MOE does not take any action now, several of our JCs would find themselves with JC1 intake of below 400, less than half of the typical 800. Some would even struggle to fill 200 places. When this happens, the educational experience of the students enrolled in these JCs will be severely compromised. We decided that it is better to plan for the mergers now to ensure a smooth transition for the merging schools and affected students and teachers. We settled on the eventual JC merger pairs after taking into consideration a few factors, especially student choice and the enrolment patterns of the JCs. We also considered geographical spread of the merged pairs and compatibility of merger partners. After the mergers, we would preserve good geographical distribution of Government non-IP JCs, with one each in the West, North, Northeast and East regions. The mergers involve the eight Government non-Integrated Programme (IP) JCs as mergers involving Government-aided schools pose significant issues and additional challenges due to their governance framework. MOE considered different options before making the difficult decision to merge schools. One was to retain schools even when enrolment has fallen very low and bring together students from various schools and run programmes at the cluster or regional level. However, we decided against it as staff and students will face operational challenges, such as timetabling constraints, and travelling between different schools for activities would add to their commute time.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the education landscape to ensure students' educational experience remains relevant. In planning for schools, our priorities are to meet the demand for school places at both the national and local levels and ensure accessibility to students based on proximity to housing developments and public transport. At the national level, the fall in live births over the past two decades has led to a corresponding decline in the demand for school places. This demographic wave is felt across all levels of our school system. Since 2015, MOE has merged or announced the mergers of 18 pairs of schools, including four pairs that would be merging in 2018. Earlier this year, MOE announced the mergers of 14 more pairs of schools in 2019. We recognise that school mergers are painful for students, staff and alumni, but they are necessary. Without mergers, some schools will be facing such low enrolment that they will not be able to provide our students with the array of subject combinations, co-curricular activities (CCAs) and enrichment programmes that they deserve. The 32 mergers which have been announced since 2015 will bring down our overall school places. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Seah Kian Peng asked if there would be further school mergers, given the falling cohort sizes. We want to give some time for things to settle down and monitor choice and enrolment patterns before making any further decisions. Our priority for the next few years is to support our schools, staff and students as we adjust to these mergers. However, in the longer term, with the demographic shifts both at the national and localised levels, we cannot rule out the need for more mergers in the next decade, difficult though they may be.”
“I would like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi that IMDA is cognisant that the forms and substance of arts entertainment are not static and will continue to evolve. IMDA keeps itself up to date with the developments in the arts scene through engaging stakeholders, such as the Arts Consultative Panel, the National Arts Council and the arts community. IMDA also reviews the AECC guidelines, as well as its interpretation and application of the guidelines, in consultation with stakeholders to ensure that it keeps up with changes and developments in artistic trends and community standards. Mdm Speaker, the latest Population Survey on the Arts released by the National Arts Council last year, shows that arts interest and attendance are at an all-time high in Singapore. This is a positive development. But it also means that with higher demand and, therefore, higher supply of arts entertainment, IMDA, as the regulator, will have its work cut out. However, through regular engagements and dialogues with the stakeholders, I believe that IMDA will continue to serve its role well in safeguarding the public space for arts entertainment, even as our arts scene continues to become more diverse and vibrant. I support the Bill, Mdm Speaker.”
“Madam, if I may speak now on the Government's approach to arts regulation in general so as to give additional context to the changes that we are making and also to reassure Members that the amendments will, in no way, affect the regulation of arts entertainment. First, IMDA adopts an age-based classification framework where content is classified according to their suitability for different age groups. Classification serves to protect the young, while allowing adults to make informed viewing choices on a wider range of arts content. In making its classification decisions, IMDA aims to strike a balance between reflecting generally accepted social norms, while giving due consideration to the arts entertainment's artistic and educational merits. IMDA classifies arts entertainment according to AECC. Content suitable for a general audience, including children, will be given a General rating, while those that are targeted at a more mature audience can either be rated Advisory, Advisory 16 or R18. Content that goes beyond the R18 rating, for example, those which may undermine national interest, are likely to cause feelings of ill-will between different racial or religious groups or are excessive and/or exploitative in their depictions, will be disallowed. The existing framework thus already addresses Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's concern about the misuse of arts entertainment as a means to offend or to promote radical ideology. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the breaches that had occurred after the last review of PEMA. Since IMDA took over the responsibility for enforcing and investigating breaches related to arts entertainment from the Police in 2014, it has issued 26 advisories and warnings for breaches of licence conditions and offences under the Act.”
“For instance, for the 2014 amendment that provides for the classification of arts entertainment regardless of where it is held at, IMDA held several engagement sessions with stakeholders, including SNBA, the Singapore Hotel Association (SHA) and major business precinct associations to inform them of the changes and also to consult them on ways to streamline regulatory processes for PE establishments offering various forms of arts entertainment. For the current round of amendments, IMDA held a briefing to arts groups despite the amendments having little impact on their operations. As mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin, the current rounds of amendments will not result in any change to the existing arts entertainment content standards or the IMDA's arts entertainment classification and licensing processes. I would also like to address the question from Ms Denise Phua and Mr Murali Pillai on the amendments to section 15A, which would allow IMDA to impose conditions as part of IMDA's classification of arts entertainment that comes under PE licence. The conditions are akin to the existing arts entertainment licensing conditions. Each arts entertainment should be assessed on its own merit and different conditions may be required depending on the content and the form of the arts entertainment. The more common conditions imposed include the need to display classification ratings and consumer advice at the performance venue, and to prevent persons below the age of 18 from viewing arts entertainment rated R18. Such conditions are not new, and applicants generally have not had issues complying with them.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to address the queries raised by the Members on the arts entertainment-related amendments and the regulation of arts entertainment before Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin wraps up the debate on the Bill. PEMA was last amended in 2014 to improve the administration of arts entertainment licensing. Changes were made to more clearly delineate the licensing regimes for arts entertainment and PE which fall under IMDA and the Police respectively, and to ensure the relevance of the Act in view of changing trends in the provision of arts entertainment. For instance, we introduced the requirement for all arts entertainment to be classified regardless of the venue that they are held at, be it at PE establishments licensed by the Police, such as nightclubs, or at other venues, such as theatres and concert halls. In line with technological trends, we also made it a requirement for the live streaming of arts entertainment to a public venue to be licensed and classified. I thank Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef for recognising the importance of increasing awareness of the regulation of arts entertainment. IMDA agrees that this is important and takes steps to ensure that the public and industry have access to such information. First, to inform members of the public interested in staging arts entertainment, IMDA publishes information on the licensing and classification of arts entertainment on its website. This includes AECC, information on the classification processes, as well as guidelines on the submission of licensing and classification applications. Second, whenever there are changes to be made to the regulatory framework, IMDA also consults the industry to inform them and seek their views on the proposed changes.”
“Mdm Speaker, I beg your indulgence. This point is not about the principles of the debate, but I have to clarify a comparison that Mr Pritam Singh is making, where the delay in transfer from PRPGTC to AHTC is being compared with the reverse transfer. The reasons for the delay in both cases are quite different. In the first instance, where there was a delay of transfer to the new Punggol East Town Council under WP, the issue was about an agreement about the terms and conditions and the liabilities and so forth. The delay in the other direction, which Mr Charles Chong has just talked about, is as a result of what has happened under the WP Punggol East Town Council, we were unable to ascertain how much should be transferred in the first place. There was a discrepancy between the first and the third sets of accounts that the WP themselves had submitted, so they were unable to ascertain, I believe, how much they should be transferring to us. If they were able to ascertain how much they were transferring to us, then there was no reason for it to be in three tranches, the last of which was only a few days ago, after the most recent sets of accounts. So, the comparison between those two sets of delays is entirely false. There was a delay on both sets, but the comparison is entirely false, because the reasons for the delay are entirely different.”
“I thank the Member for the question. Mdm Chairman, the supply largely does meet the demand. There are some localised areas where there are some waiting lists, and the SCCs will try to prioritise families in need. But I think the key issue is that we are ramping up the supply so that future demand can be well met. I take the Member's point that there are localised areas where there is a waiting time and we are trying our best to solve this.”
“Some of these things require a sort of complex approach involving multiple agencies and stakeholders before we can even think about arriving at something singular, like a SPED Academy. But I want to reassure Ms Phua that all the stakeholders involved have the same intent, which is, how can we improve the professionalism and expertise, either from an educator or other professionals' point of view, that we bring to bear to deliver the best possible education for all children, including those with special needs? And that is so, and everybody involved would like for us to be as excellent as possible in delivering these services. So, we have the same intent, and we can explore the various modalities. The Member's suggestion of some form of a centre of excellence around special education is a very good one. We will look at how we can make that possible.”
“Mdm Chairman, I want to thank Ms Denise Phua for her very bold and ambitious suggestion, one that will certainly require quite a lot of consideration from a variety of Government agencies and stakeholders. If I could start with the premise that she has put forward that we have to find ways to improve the effectiveness of the educators and the people who are working with children with special needs. We agree on that. I would also suggest that everybody involved agrees on that − MOE, MSF, our VWOs, community partners and also the groups of therapists and other professionals working within the SPED space. The issue then is how to achieve that. A specific academy is very bold and ambitious and, perhaps, there are several steps we need to consider first before we are in a position to be able to do something as bold and ambitious as that. I think it is worth studying and looking at. There are several lines that need to be blurred and it is reflective of the difficulty of making progress in terms of excellence within SPED. It is very hard to do research. Any jurisdiction around the world would have different models of education, policy and SPED delivery. So, to be absolutely sure that you are doing the right thing on the basis of somebody else's model, we have to do it on the basis of our own model. It is very difficult to delineate lines between professions. Many of the professional responsibilities are shared across the therapists with the educators. There are lines that need to be blurred between mainstream education and SPED education, between employers and educators, between administrators and the professionals.”
“Mdm Chairman, in conclusion, I want to emphasise that while our schools will do all we can to ensure that our students are in good physical and psychological health and have good eating habits, these efforts must not stop once our students walk out of the school gates each day. Otherwise, these efforts will be unsuccessful and any gains will not be sustained over a child's lifetime. We need to aim for healthy, active and resilient children who become healthy, active and resilient adults who take on a personal responsibility for their own well-being. Madam, finally our success so far is also the result of the efforts by many community partners and many parents working together in partnership with MOE and the schools. We welcome and thank them for all the efforts and we look forward to a continued and strengthened partnership with many more.”
“One of the NurtureSG Task Force's recommendations, therefore, is to set up an interagency workgroup on youth suicide. Dr Lam Pin Min and I thank Prof Daniel Fung from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for agreeing to lead this effort, and I am confident the workgroup's findings will be instructive. Madam, we also want to encourage our children to develop healthy eating and living habits. By the end of this year, all primary and secondary schools, junior colleges and the Millennia Institute will have implemented the "Healthy Meals in Schools Programme" which will allow our students to easily access healthy food options. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh suggested to start school later. Our schools determine their start time and do so based on various factors, including traffic conditions, parents' need to get to work on time after dropping their children off, and the afternoon heat affecting student attention. For better health and learning, the key is the amount and quality of sleep our students get. Lessons on good sleep habits are currently incorporated into our primary school curriculum. The importance of sleep and sleep hygiene will also be taught in the secondary school curriculum so that students can exercise self-management. We also hope to partner parents in instilling good sleep habits and the practice of good sleep hygiene in their children. We have also been encouraging our students to be active. Our formal PE curriculum has been increased to at least two hours a week for all schools. To provide students with more opportunities for "unstructured play", where they can initiate their own sports and games, our schools will also make available sports equipment and school facilities for our students to use during their break or after school hours.”
“The provision has largely kept pace with demand and we remain on track to open SCCs in all primary schools by the end of 2020 and will continue to work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) to monitor the demand for SCC places in our schools and in the community. Miss Cheng Li Hui had asked about MOE's involvement in NurtureSG and our ongoing efforts to build healthy bodies and healthy minds. MOE has been working with our schools, community partners and families to build resilience in our students. In school, the students themselves, particularly the older students, also play an important role in fostering a caring and supportive environment. Students in distress may confide first in their friends, who can provide them with a listening ear and critical support in a time of need. Some of our schools have already taken the lead to strengthen such peer support networks. We hope to build on this good work and establish the practice across our school system. Starting from this year, MOE will train a core group of students in each school to establish a caring environment in every class, to identify signs of distress in their peers and offer basic social and emotional support. We also hope that for this group of "peer supporters", such training and experience will serve as a unique development opportunity to hone their empathetic listening, interpersonal and communication skills. They can also help raise awareness of mental well-being amongst their schoolmates and engender a culture of support and resilience in the school where students are willing to seek help. There is no single solution to the underlying problems behind mental health issues, which are often complex and, in rare cases, may result in a tragic situation of suicide.”