Lee Yock Suan
Singapore
“The position will be clear when the regulations have been drafted. Right now we are debating it in the absence of actual wording of the regulations. The regulations will be fair, they are meant to maintain a level playing field, and we should wait for the regulations before we pass judgement. The intention is not to go after everybody.”
“I think the Member will be aware that Internet is a very dangerous place. We can have all kinds of poison letters and they will just spread like wild fire. So we must have some means to try and minimise this and make sure that everything is orderly and fair.”
“The other Members have no problem supporting the Bill, including Mr Chiam. I think the position is about 95% clear. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan].”
“Then we will have to see the actual situation. But, as I said, the intention is to go after the popular sites, the main sites of parties and non-party political sites. If it is an individual, eg, a young man posting up his own site and saying "These are my views", we are not going to go after those people.”
“The intention is to make the rules clear for the main parties involved in the contest, in other words, the party websites. These are the areas we are mainly after.”
“I thank Mr Chiam for reminding me about his question. On listening to his speech, I was under the impression that he was asking whether this ban on opinion polls applies to the mass media. The answer is yes, it applies to all media, not just the Internet but also newspapers, TV and so on. Thank you for pointing this out.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,595 lines we hold for Lee Yock Suan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 32.
“Dr Chee's contract was terminated because of his total misconduct, not just because of his misuse of research funds. Had Dr Chee admitted that he had improperly used the $226 and appeared genuinely contrite, NUS might have viewed the episode differently. Had he admitted his mistake and offered to resign, the NUS might have accepted his resignation instead of terminating his services. But when he tried to cover up his misdeeds by successive untruths and prevarications, it became necessary for NUS to terminate his contract. On the grounds of Dr Chee's misuse of research funds and his conduct during the investigations, the NUS had already concluded that his dishonesty warranted termination of his contract. There was therefore no necessity to investigate Dr Vasoo's other complaint that Dr Chee had over-claimed for taxi fares. In his letter of appeal dated 22nd March 1993, Dr Chee wrote, "Dr Vasoo had all the receipts with him when he approved the payments." He implied that Dr Vasoo knew the contents of the parcels when he approved payments. How could Dr Vasoo know what the parcels contained unless Dr Chee had told him? Dr Chee's statement is therefore calculated to mislead. When invoices from companies are received by the Department, they are endorsed by the Head and transmitted to the Bursar's office for payment. The Head's role is only to ensure that the company submitting the invoice has already undertaken the work; in this instance, the sending of the two parcels. In the circumstances, Dr Vasoo, the Head, passed the invoice for payment in good faith. At no time did Dr Chee seek approval from the Head to send his wife's PhD dissertation for her examination.”
“Dr Chee's wife was not his research collaborator. Her dissertation was sent to the US for the purpose of her PhD examination. The examination was strictly his wife's personal matter. Clearly, it was wrong to use University funds to meet expenses incurred in such a personal matter. If Dr Chee is right, then he can also claim expenses incurred by his wife when she travelled to the US to defend her PhD thesis. Nevertheless, since Dr Chee claimed that his wife's PhD thesis is relevant to his research work, NUS sought expert opinion on this matter. Dr John M. Elliott, Senior Lecturer, and Assoc. Prof. Ramadhar Singh, both of the NUS Department of Social Work and Psychology, have confirmed in writing that the wife's thesis has no relevance to Dr Chee's research. Thus, Dr Chee has not only misused NUS research funds but has also tried to mislead NUS in its investigations. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, NUS decided to terminate Dr Chee's Agreement for Service, giving him three months' notice with effect from 18th March 1993. The NUS was, in fact, being lenient with him. It could have dismissed him on the spot. But I will give you examples of how it has dealt with cases like this. This is in accordance with his contract which stipulates that either party can terminate the contract with three months' notice in writing. The University's system of research funding hinges on the honesty and integrity of the persons doing the research and using the funds. Once a person has been caught misusing research funds, he has shown himself untrustworthy with funds and unfit to be a lecturer. The University must discipline him and uphold its integrity and reputation.”
“The letter also suppressed the material fact that the thesis had been despatched for the purpose of his wife's PhD examination. Only when Dr Chee was confronted again on 11th March 1993 did he admit that the thesis was for his wife's examination. It was by four examiners in Pennsylvania State University, three within the wife's department and one external examiner in another department of the same university. He sent the three copies of his wife's thesis to her department under his own name and charged the cost of the courier service to his research fund. The fourth copy of the same thesis to be sent to the external examiner had to be despatched in the wife's name. Dr Vasoo has explained why. Hence, he could not charge this parcel to his research fund. Both parcels contained his wife's thesis, although Dr Chee subsequently claimed in his letter to the University dated 22nd March that the parcel in his wife's name contained material not relevant to his own research, and therefore he had to pay for this parcel himself. Here we have a simple case of a lecturer who cheated the University by misusing funds intended for his own research. When caught, at first he admitted it, but then, instead of apologising and refunding the money, he tried to wriggle his way out by claiming that he was entitled to use his research funds because his wife's PhD thesis was relevant to his own research. The key issue is whether he was entitled to use his research money to send his wife's thesis for her PhD examination. Even supposing that his wife's thesis was relevant to his research, the answer is clearly "no". He is not entitled to use NUS research funds for related research projects by anyone else, least of all his wife, unless there is a proper arrangement for research collaboration.”
“When first confronted on 4th March 1993, Dr Chee's immediate and most telling reaction was not to dispute that it was misuse of his research funds but to claim that he had intended to make payment. In other words, he knew that he had to pay and that he had done wrong by charging the sums to his research account. On the same day, 4th March, immediately after meeting Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew and Dr Vasoo, Dr Chee went to see Mrs Janice Chen, the NUS staff in charge of research accounts. Dr Chee asked Mrs Chen about the invoices for the courier services. He said that the invoices should not be sent to the office but should be sent to him directly, as he knew that invoices received by the office might be settled from his research funds. Mrs Chen told Dr Chee that there should be no mistake in the accounts as it was done according to his instruction. We have all the statements to show it. Later the same day, Dr Chee told Mrs Chen that the charging of the invoices was correct and okay. In other words, it was only after Dr Chee found that he could not conceal his dishonesty that he shifted his position and decided to defend instead of covering up his misdeeds. Dr Chee subsequently submitted a letter of explanation dated 4th March 1993, the same day he met Dr Vasoo and Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew. However, Dr Vasoo only received it on 9th March 1993, while Mr J.J. Isaac, the NUS Director of Personnel, received a carbon copy on 10th March 1993. In his letter, Dr Chee claimed that he felt entitled to use his research funds because his wife's thesis was related to his own research. This was a new claim which Dr Chee had not made at the meeting on 4th March. It contradicted his repeated statements at that meeting that he had intended to make payment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the detailed account from Dr Vasoo, I am wondering whether there is any need for me to say any more. But I do have to respond to Mr Chia's motion. This matter started as a disciplinary matter between an employer, the National University of Singapore (NUS), and its former employee, Dr Chee Soon Juan. But Dr Chee and his political party, the Singapore Democratic Party, have politicised the issue. They have questioned the integrity of the NUS and attributed his dismissal to political motives. Dr Chee has asked the SDP to put pressure on NUS to withdraw the charge of dishonesty against him, and the SDP has done so through various press comments. As Minister for Education, I cannot allow NUS' integrity to be impugned, or tolerate any political interference with the way NUS deals with staff matters. The NUS must be able to publicly defend any decision that it takes. Otherwise, its standing as an institution of higher learning will be diminished. Sir, based on the evidence, I am satisfied that NUS has acted correctly in dismissing Dr Chee for dishonest conduct. I am also satisfied that dismissal was the appropriate action, given the clear evidence of Dr Chee's dishonesty and the total gross misconduct which he had shown when he was found out for abusing his research grants. The NUS has released the letters concerning Dr Chee's termination and subsequent dismissal. Members have also heard from Dr Vasoo a detailed account of events and investigations leading to the termination. Let me briefly touch on the salient points. Dr Vasoo, as Head of Department, discovered the suspicious items of expenditure during his annual review of staff research projects and their financial accounts in January 1993.”
“The information requested is shown below: _______________________________________________________________________________ 1990 1991 1992 ________________________________________________________ Grad Non Total Grad Non Total Grad Non Total Grad Grad Grad _______________________________________________________________________________ Number 193 153 346 228 215 443 221 253 474 ___________________________________________________________________ Resignation Average Length of Service 7.9 13.3 10.6 7.5 12.4 9.9 8.4 12.6 10.6 (years) _______________________________________________________________________________ Recruitment 329 385 714 347 363 710 458 458 916 _______________________________________________________________________________ LAND RECLAMATION IN PUNGGOL 4. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development a) whether the Temporary Occupation Licences of boatel and restaurant owners in Punggol will be extended beyond December 1993; b) what are the commencement and completion dates of the land reclamation in the area; and c) when will the Housing & Development Board commence to build flats on the reclaimed land and/or in its vicinity.”
“On average, we spend about $20,000 per student per year in the other courses. But for Medicine, it is something like $60,000 per year. So for a 5-year course, it is $300,000 of taxpayers' money. We must make sure that the money is well invested and that the doctors will practise. I will need more time to study these figures. Perhaps we can be given more time and we can discuss this again.”
“Sir, firstly, in response to Mr Lew's question which I believe is a question which has been raised in this House before, the reason is that every year a disproportionately large number of high-flyer candidates apply for the medical courses. So in 1979, it was decided that the number of high-flyer applicants to be admitted to Medicine be limited to ensure a better spread of talent to other faculties, as Singapore also needs good minds trained in other disciplines. This was jointly announced by NUS and the PSC and reported in the press. High-flyer applicants for Medicine, therefore, have to compete amongst themselves for a certain number of places. In the selection process, aptitude and suitability for the course as assessed by the interview are taken into account together with the 'A' level performance. The selection is based entirely on merit. I hope MPs on their part will help to persuade their constituents that Medicine is not the only field that they can do well in. They can go into banking. Maybe they can also go into politics and come here as NMPs, for example. So why should we all rush into Medicine? As for female medical students, I have to study the data that Dr Soin has given me. I have just received them. What I am told is that, according to this write-up, one of the reasons for this lower intake of female students is that they cannot be assigned duties as freely as male doctors, especially after they marry and have children. I believe from my own personal observations that female doctors also have a higher tendency to stop work after they get married because of family reasons. As for the figures that she has produced, I do not know whether they include the people who have stopped practising. We are spending a lot of money on the training of doctors.”
“Sir, the Ministry has no plans to set up boarding facilities for polytechnic students. I think it is a question of use of resources. The polytechnics will cater to some 40% of our student cohort and the number is just too big. Singapore is, basically, a small place and the transportation system is excellent. So there is really no need from the transportation point of view to have boarding facilities. But I recognise the point that it is good for the students to have some experience in boarding. Perhaps, for some of these students, we should send them to outward bound courses, or overseas for trekking and develop the team work, team spirit, and so on, through other mechanisms. Mr Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“For the latter group, the schools are trying their best to provide remedial lessons and to provide a supportive environment to encourage the children to stay on in school, and as soon as the students are found to be showing signs of dropping out, they will be counselled by their form teachers, and later on by their principals who will bring in their parents, and so on. This is an area where the Ministry is studying to see what further improvements can be made. But it is not something that can be done by the Ministry alone. It has got to be in cooperation with the community groups, CDAC, SINDA, MENDAKI, and so on, especially if it involves also financial problems - whether these other groups can help them out in certain ways. Basically, we do not have differences of views on the need to tackle this problem. It is only a question of approach. I personally am not in favour of compulsory education for the primary school stage especially and also the secondary level because the experience in many developed countries which have compulsory education is that, despite all their best effort and all their enforcement and having big teams of truant officers going round to try and catch these people, the drop-out rate is very high, something like 30% or 40%. And they will, actually, be very happy to have our figures. Out of every cohort that goes into Primary 1, only 1.7% do not complete PSLE and another 2.7% do not complete `O' levels. Our figures are actually very good by world standards, basically because of parental support for education and that is our best insurance.”
“Of course, from the educational point of view, we would prefer that they complete 10 years successfully and be prepared for further training. But this depends on their own motivation and capacity to learn. As for the VITB converting to the present ITE, being a post-graduate institution, I think this is the right move. But I take her point that we should not forget about this other group who may not be able to make it to the full 10 years and `O' level. That is why in the new system we have this Normal (Technical) stream which is basically meant for this same group of people who would, otherwise, have remained in the primary school, P7, P8 and Monolingual stream. They will, henceforth, be promoted to secondary schools into this stream where they do more of the computer applications, technical workshop and learn skills which are relevant to their future careers. So, hopefully, with this move, there will be even fewer drop-outs from the primary school system and more of them will adjust to the secondary school system. But we will have to wait and see. If need be, I am prepared to have ITE re-look and see whether they can take in some of these people as well for training. But the essential point is that we should look at what is causing the pupils to drop out. I think the Ministry's concern is actually about this problem because of its potential to create future social problems. We have to look at the causes and there are basically two main reasons. For the older ones, it is very often the interest to go out and work, maybe, because of financial reasons at home, or they have lost interest in schooling. The other group will be children who have lost interest in schooling because they have not been able to keep up.”
“Sir, I would like to respond to Dr Soin's points. Firstly, concerning the table that she distributed, I am personally puzzled by this figure of 45% of the workers under 20 having less than secondary education. I suspect that this figure could include the foreign workers. But this will have to be verified because actually our recent school results have been excellent and out of every cohort, almost 90% score three `O' level passes. So this figure does not gel with the facts that I have. In fact, over the years, through the efforts of the Ministry and other groups concerned, the drop-out rate has been falling, especially in the primary schools. Let me give you some figures. Of the cohort that went into Primary 1 in 1985, 1.7% did not complete PSLE. These were probably the people who went on to P7, P8, and so on, and they dropped out mostly at the ages of 13 or 14. This figure of 1.7% could be compared to the figure of 2.7%, some six years ago, which was for the batch that entered schools in 1980. So the drop-out rate for primary school students out of every 100 that entered Primary 1, the present rate that does not complete PSLE is only about 1.7%. So it is actually very small. This is the figure that we should focus on because these are the children that could be led astray. Personally, I am not that concerned about the secondary school drop-outs, especially if they drop out, say, after Secondary 4 `N' and at the older ages because for some of these people, if they find it difficult to continue with the school system, it may be better for them to go into the field of work and learn on the job. Most of these people do eventually turn out to be well-adjusted adults. So we need not be that concerned from the social angle with this group.”
“The evidence from the winning of awards is similarly impressive. Several of them have won the Prime Minister's Book Prize for bilingualism. They have also won prestigious awards overseas. In the recent Lee Kuan Yew Awards for Mathematics and Science, which were offered for the first time last year, two of the three 'O' level awardees were from the GEP programme, and all three of the 'A' level winners were former GEP students. The GEP has produced four President's scholars so far from among three batches of students. So it is quite an impressive record. 2.15 pm More important than the academic achievements and the winning of awards is whether these people are also developed in the right manner, socially, and in terms of community responsibility and so on. I would like to assure the Member that this area has not been neglected. There is a community builder's programme in the GEP programme which involves the GEP pupils in voluntary work. For example, in February last year, some of the students scripted, produced and directed a double bill play to raise $13,700 for the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore. I think that was a very commendable effort. It is very important that the schools and the parents handle these bright children in the right way. They are very intelligent and so under the normal school programme they could be turned off. That is why we give them special programmes. But in the process, we must make sure that we do not turn out spoilt brats.”
“Mr Umar asked about streaming and I think most of his points have been answered. Basically, our position is that parents do have a responsibility for their children's education. At the point of streaming at Primary 4, we feel that it is best to give them a choice, after due counselling and advice from the schools who know their children well. From the experience, as quoted by my Minister of State, in fact, the evidence shows that parents are quite sensible, of the ones who are pushed up, for example, to EM1 from EM2 or from EM3 to EM2, about 50% are able to make the grade. So the parents know their children's abilities and also they are more supportive of their children. So in the process they help their children to make the grade. I would like to respond next to Mr Ho Peng Kee's points about the Gifted Programme. I note his support for the programme. He has various questions about the status of this programme and how the children are performing. As expected, the GEP pupils are performing very well in their school examinations. For example, in 1992, last year, their mean aggregate for six subjects, English and five subjects, is 7.2. That means almost a distinction, A1, for every subject. The mean number of distinctions is 7.8 and the mean number of A1s is 5.8. But this is only to be expected because they are gifted children academically. They are not necessarily all the top scholars, because to do well in examinations, you need not only intelligence but also application. So some gifted children may not score that well in examinations. But it is perhaps not so important as whether we are able to develop them to the full extent in terms of their total talent and capacity, whether it is creativity or arts or whatever.”
“Sir, I am responding to the points made by Mr Umar and his concern about the availability of counselling services and also the discipline problems. He may not be fully aware that there is a Pastoral Care and Career Guidance Section in the Ministry, which has been very actively helping the schools with their counselling problems. I think the scheme has worked well and it will be extended to all our secondary schools by the end of this year and, thereafter, gradually to all the primary schools. So there is a trained group of counsellors under this unit. It conducts workshops and trains the teachers and helps them to develop a good relationship between teachers and pupils so that the teachers are better able to counsel the pupils and help them with their personal problems. Concerning discipline, Mr Umar seems to be a strong advocate of corporal punishment. I think this is a controversial subject. If you ask teachers and parents, there will be a wide range of opinions. Personally, I feel that, yes, if there is a need, corporal punishment should be administered. But we should not use it in every instance. Very often, if the teacher shows care and concern, it might be better in winning the pupils around and getting them interested in school again, whereas if you punish and shame them, they may just leave the school. I have checked the data on this issue because I was concerned myself and I found no evidence that the schools are becoming more lax in terms of discipline or more unwilling to inflict corporal punishment. Of course, if the schools want to administer it, it must go through proper procedure, partly to protect the teachers themselves. I think the best way is to designate certain people, the principal or designated officers, to carry out this unpleasant duty.”
“I just want to respond briefly to Mr Peh Chin Hua who commented on the level of support for neighbourhood schools. First, I would like to thank him for his support for the autonomous schools scheme which I announced yesterday. I agree with him fully that we should give our full support to the neighbourhood schools. Indeed, it is the mission of the Ministry to make every school a good school. For example, over the next five years, my Ministry will be spending some $900 million to build new single session secondary schools and to upgrade secondary schools to single session standards. This comprises 34 new schools at a cost of $700 million and 17 schools are being upgraded at a cost of $173 million. The standards for the new single session schools are much better than for the schools which are now in place. If Members would like to go and visit the schools, they can see for themselves. You can see that we are not neglecting our neighbourhood schools. We should support all the neighbourhood schools and raise the general level of education of our children.”
“I am responding to Mr Chiam's question. Last year, out of about 11,500 students who sat for the "A" levels, about 83%, or 9,470 to be exact, obtained two 'A' and two 'O' level passes, including General Paper. So there were about 9,000 students. This is comparable to my figure of about 20% of the cohort. So there is some kind of matching here. But Mr Chiam has mentioned a figure of about 12,500 people studying overseas. They could be in a wide range of courses. I believe a lot of parents send their children to the United States to do "O" levels. So some of these could be in this figure. They could also be doing Ph.D, advanced courses, and so forth. And I know a lot are doing medicine and law. We may be over-producing people in these professions in years to come. In general, I think those who are able to make the grade, will be able to get a place in Singapore.”
“And if they are good and they want to upgrade themselves, there will be possibilities to upgrade through the university or through the Open University learning programme. We should learn from the experience of countries which have over-produced university graduates who end up unemployed or under-employed. More of them will migrate. During the 1985 recession, for example, some of our university and polytechnic graduates had to work in low-level jobs. Fortunately, the recession was short-lived. In time to come, as our education standard rises and the economy reaches a higher level, we may need a third university. So it is not ruled out. However, we should study the situation very carefully to assess the need. Mr Chiam mentioned some figures about the number of universities in Australia, New Zealand, and so on. But I think it is important to find out also what is the capacity of the universities and what kind of courses they are offering. For example, in the UK, they are converting many of their polytechnics to universities. So in time to come, we will have to assess the UK degrees, not based on whether it is a degree but where the students are from, and what is the quality of the person.”
“Of course, the two universities also have to cater for an increasing number of post-graduate students as we try and do more R&D and so forth. In addition, the Government has initiated the setting up of the Open University degree programme to be run by the Singapore Institute of Management. It will enable working Singaporeans to pursue a university degree through part-time self-study. In planning for a university education, we should also take into consideration that some Singaporean parents, who can afford it, prefer to send their children to foreign universities. On the other hand, as Mr Chiam has mentioned, we will also need more trained manpower as we try to develop our external economy, and graduates are also needed for our R&D efforts. The NUS and NTU are taking in as many local students as are able to make the grade and benefit from a tertiary education. Quite contrary to what Mr Chiam claimed, I do not think any students who qualify have been turned away, unless, of course, they prefer courses for which there are not enough places, for example, in medicine. So it is not true that if they qualify and meet the criteria they are turned away. I would like him to give me some examples if he has them. More polytechnic graduates are also being admitted. I think the target would be some 600 or so a year. However, we should not lower the standards to take in more students. Otherwise, more students will fail to complete the course. It will do the students and Singapore no good to have third rate university programmes. For those who are less academically inclined, the polytechnics provide a more direct route to worthwhile careers through a more practice-oriented and job- related education and training.”
“15 pm Mr Chiam has advocated that we set up a third university. Let me explain the Ministry's thinking on this important subject. In the planning of tertiary education in Singapore, the Government is guided by the following principles. Firstly, academic standards must be maintained. This is crucial. We do not want to set up universities for the sake of having more universities. Secondly, the expansion of tertiary education should be in accordance with the economic and social needs of Singapore. So these are the two requirements - maintenance of standards and in accordance with the needs. The target is to have about 20% of each cohort of students in the universities, 40% in the polytechnics, and 25% in the technical institutes. This will eventually leave only about 15% of our cohort who will not have some form of post-secondary education or training before they join the employment market and are trained on the job. With the achievement of these targets, we will have, over time, a highly educated and trained population well able to earn our living in the world market. With a cohort of about 45,000 children a year (the number is increasing, but this is the figure we are dealing with right now) a target of 20% going to universities means that we would need about 9,000 places a year. Some degree programmes take three years while others four or five years. If we take an average of three-and-a-half years, this means a total undergraduate enrolment of about 30,000 students. As you know, the NTU is still expanding its capacity rapidly. Eventually, NUS and NTU will have a total capacity of about 30,000 undergraduate places. Therefore, this appears adequate to meet our needs.”
“Mr Umar asked whether there will be Engineering courses provided under the Open University programme. The answer is no. Initially, the SIM will not be providing Engineering courses, mainly because Engineering courses are difficult to conduct in an Open University mode. They require workshops, laboratories and so on. In fact, the UK Open University which we are working with does not have this kind of programme for Engineering courses. But we realise that there is a need for this, for example, to enable Polytechnic graduates to upgrade themselves and this is something which we will consider in due course. But we will have to find out which are the best overseas institutions which will be able to work with us in this area. I agree with him that we should work together with the polytechnics and make use of their facilities. In fact, in the new Open University, SIM's facilities will be right next to Ngee Ann Polytechnic, and it will start by using one of the blocks within Ngee Ann Polytechnic to conduct these courses. So contrary to what Mr Chiam claimed again, the Government has not given up the Open University programme. It has just changed the mode of implementation. In fact, the Government is fully behind the programme. We are providing $38 million as an upfront grant to pay for the development of courses, collaboration with the Open University of UK and also to build the buildings and provide computer facilities and so on. So I hope Mr Chiam will stop repeating this point that the Open University has been dropped. It has not been dropped. The vehicle has been changed. That is all. Basically, because the SIM has been doing a good job in conducting these distance learning courses, part-time courses, we feel it is better to ride on them and make use of their expertise. 1.”
“The intention is to build up this School Psychological Service as a unit within the Ministry which will service the different schools. There will eventually be one teacher counsellor per primary school who will be guided by this Psychological Unit. The unit will conduct psychological tests and deal with children who have a special learning difficulty arising from social or psychological reasons. This Psychological Service came about as a result of one of the recommendations of the Advisory Council on the Disabled. So my Ministry is now in the process of implementing this scheme. In the process, I suppose they will also identify some of the children who have learning difficulties but who are actually quite bright. I think it is important that we rescue this kind of people who have learning difficulties and try and help them achieve their potential. Quite separate from this scheme, there is also an under-achievers' scheme in about 100 primary schools, where the teachers, on their own, try and find out who are the ones who are under-achieving and conduct special remedial lessons for them outside the school hours. So far, I think it has produced good results and my Ministry will be extending this to more primary schools. Mr Umar has asked about the Open University. The Open University degree programme is being set up at the Singapore Institute of Management and it will be launching three degree programmes from January next year. I do not know whether Mr Umar mentioned this year, but actually it is next year. The proposed intake will be about 500 students to start with in these three courses. Applications will be opened sometime in July and SIM will be announcing the details before then.”
“The retired teachers may be re-employed on a yearly or daily relief basis, depending on our needs and the preference of the retirees. My Ministry has successfully recruited about 20 retired teachers on a one-year basis and about 100 on a daily relief basis. Given the comfortable starting position in primary schools, my Ministry has also invited primary school teachers, who are qualified, to consider re-deployment to secondary schools, because we are shifting some of the pupils from primary to secondary schools. So far, there are 65 applications. I hope more will be forthcoming, because there will be a surplus situation in the primary schools and shortage in secondary schools. However, given the tight labour market locally, we do not expect to be able to meet our needs through local recruitment alone. We are, therefore, attempting to interest Singaporean and other Asian students studying overseas to consider teaching in Singapore. We are also conducting exercises to recruit expatriate teachers from the UK, Australia and New Zealand to teach the English language and Mathematics teachers from India. So we are mounting some kind of a crash effort this year to meet the problem next year. Mr Lew asked some questions about non-teaching staff. I think I have already explained that we have some provision to allow schools to hire staff, basically part- time staff, on a contract basis. I think this will also provide the schools with some flexibility, and instead of centralising all recruitment under the Education Service Commission (ESC) which is rather cumbersome, this may be one way of overcoming the problem. Dr Toh also asked about the School Psychological Service. I believe the 12 posts are for psychologists, social workers and people like that.”
“Secondly, under the new education system there will be no more Primary 7 and Primary 8 pupils next year. All pupils will proceed to secondary schools after the modified PSLE. Some will go into the new Normal (Technical) stream. As a result, the total number of pupils in primary schools has fallen from 271,000 last year to 261,000 this year. It will decline to 245,000 next year, a drop of 26,000 pupils from 1992. This means about 1,000 less teachers are required as compared to 1992. Even in 1995, when Dragon Year babies born in 1988 join primary one, the primary pupil enrolment will be 255,000, which is still lower than this year's total of 261,000 pupils. So we are not too concerned about the primary school situation, except over the long term, of course, as I have said, there will be problems of higher retirement and so on. As for secondary schools, the opposite situation will appear in the secondary schools. Total enrolment of secondary and pre-university students will rise from 178,000 this year to 199,000 next year and 204,000 in 1995. Secondary schools will have about 21,000 more pupils next year as all existing and potential Primary 7 and Primary 8 pupils move on to secondary schools. Secondary schools will require about 800 more teachers. The shortfall will mainly be for English language and Mathematics teachers. To cope with the increase in teacher requirement, my Ministry has therefore stepped up its local recruitment efforts. We have introduced two NIE selection exercises per year instead of one. We are also conducting recruitment exercises for trained teachers on a quarterly basis. We are re-employing retired teachers under the Associate Teachers Scheme.”
“Sir, several Members have expressed concern over the manpower situation in our schools. I would like to clarify the situation. Overall, the teaching staff situation in our schools is satisfactory. However, we will have a shortage of secondary school teachers next year because of changes in the education system to provide every child with at least 10 years of schooling. My Ministry is doing its best to recruit more teachers, both locally and overseas, to fill the shortfall. The attrition rate is a problem but it is still manageable at present. Last year, about 2% of our teachers resigned and 1.9% retired. Out of about 22,000 teachers, 837 resigned or retired. In comparison, the output from the NIE last year was 933 teachers, or about 100 more than the attrition rate. So we are just managing to keep our heads above the water, so to speak. The retirement age is rising, as the work force ages. This is especially so for the primary schools as they have older teachers. On the other hand, the number of 'A' level holders available to go into teaching is diminishing as more of them join the universities and more 'O' level holders join the polytechnics. In future, we will have to recruit more graduates for primary schools and try out polytechnic graduates for teaching, if there are takers. For the next two or three years, the staffing situation in primary schools will remain relatively comfortable. This is because of two reasons. Firstly, the pre-primary or Preparatory Year Programme has been phased out this year. This involved some 32 schools. The decision was taken last year to phase this out because the private sector was already doing a good job, and there is no need for the Government to be in this field.”
“Even though he is the fourth or fifth child or whatever order. But when we come to the Edusave fund, we have to limit to three children per mother. Because the amount given to the child will eventually amount, at a steady state, to about $4,000 per child over a 10-year period. It is not a small amount. So we do not want this amount to cause parents, who cannot afford, to have more than, say, three children. That is why it is important to have this consistency with the population policy, that is, you give it to the children but make sure that it does not act as an incentive for parents to have more children than they can afford. The same is not true of scholarships because it is meant for encouraging performance. 12.45 pm”
“First, to answer Dr Ow Chin Hock, I did not realise that Dr Ker is not here yet. He is supposed to answer this question. I hope he will arrive in a few minutes. I will first answer the question from Mr Lew about the Edusave scholarships. There is no restriction on the Edusave scholarships. So long as the child qualifies as one of the top 25% of the cohort applying to independent schools based on the PSLE results, he will be given the scholarship.”
“As I explained yesterday, the fees of autonomous schools will be up to $32. It is some sort of cap. The idea is that instead of the normal $12-$14 charged by the normal secondary schools, as a base case they will have to pay $3 more. This $3 is equivalent to 1% of the per capita cost. The Government, on its part, will pay 10%. So there will be 10% plus 1% additional amount for the school to spend in addition to the Edusave grant. But the schools, if they want to and have a need for more money, can raise the miscellaneous fees by another $15 which is equivalent to 5% of the per capita cost. The Government will also match by 5%. The maximum will be an additional 21% of the per capita cost and the fees will then range between $15 and $32 per month, $15 being the base case. And only if they need more money, then they can raise up to $32 per month.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1993/1994, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“So on the whole, this will be a very good scheme and I hope more students will be able to benefit from the scheme. As we are running out of time, I will touch briefly on the Edusave points. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked whether we could extend the Edusave to the fourth and subsequent child of a mother. For the same reason that he gave that we have to be consistent with the population policy, the answer has to be "no" because the population policy is, in fact, have three or more if you can afford it. So if you cannot afford it, please do not have more than three children. We give to three, but any child beyond that you should provide yourself. As for his concern about the paper work under the Edusave scheme, we are aware of this and we will try and simplify it as much as possible. If there is any good idea, we would like to know about it. We propose that the deduction from the scheme should be at least $10 per case to minimise the administrative work. Anyway, we are still evolving and trying to learn about the system and I agree with him fully that we should keep it as simple as possible. If there are no good ways to spend the money, keep it in the account first and use it later. But I do not think we should say that for younger primary schools, we should not touch the money at all because they too need to have enrichment programmes and various ECA activities. We should try and keep the administration as simple as possible. As for the extension of the Edusave scheme to children studying full time in non-Government schools, I mentioned before that the answer should be "no" because the Edusave scheme is meant to upgrade our Government schools. So if these parents want to have the benefit of the Edusave scheme, they should put their children into our Government schools.”
“In fact, quite a large percentage, probably more than 50% of the children this year, are enjoying Edusave scholarships because they are top scholars. So, in fact, through this system they are able to get a better education and I think they deserve the best we can provide for them. The autonomous schools will be somewhat different. In fact, we are trying to preserve the same ideas but with more funding from the Government. On the one hand, you have the independent schools. They will be free to experiment and they cost more because of the way they are operating. Having learnt from that, we are trying to establish an intermediate grade of schools known as autonomous schools which will be more like Government schools but with more funding, more autonomy and let us see how they operate. From then on, we can then evolve and try to improve on our education system. The staff of the autonomous schools will be staff of the Government under the Ministry. They will remain as staff of the Ministry. I think that has got its pros and cons. On the one hand, they will feel more secure because the Government system is a bigger system. On the other hand, Mr Low has mentioned that there is less flexibility to hire the staff. Perhaps that was Dr Toh's point, but I am not sure. We will allow the autonomous schools some flexibility in this area. For example, if they need to introduce enrichment programmes with the additional money which they will have, which will range from about $700,000 a year to about almost $1.2 million, they can hire specialist staff to provide enrichment programmes. So this will be the flexibility. They can also use the money to hire supporting staff and relieve the teachers of some of the teaching load.”
“Hence, in our Singapore context we have been setting up independent schools to try and raise the quality of our school system. The Government provides the same per capita grant as for the other schools. Parents pay for the extra in the independent schools. They get the same amount per child as in normal schools. But the parents have to pay the difference if they want the higher quality. If the parents cannot afford, financial assistance is provided by the State, through Edusave scholarships, financial assistance schemes, and so on. With the experience of the independent schools, we are now establishing autonomous schools to benefit more pupils. Lessons learnt from both types of schools will be applied to upgrade our other schools, especially the neighbourhood schools which take in the bulk of our pupils. This process of levelling up is the formula for success to create future growth and prosperity so that we can continue to invest heavily in the education of our children and we can put aside surpluses every year into the Edusave fund to benefit many future generations of Singaporeans. Members have raised a few specific questions about the autonomous schools and I will cover them now. Firstly, the intention is to limit the autonomous schools to secondary schools. We will try it out with four to six schools first and over a period of time they may expand to 10 to 15 schools. There is no plan at the moment to include primary schools. But, in principle, why not, but perhaps at a later stage. Dr Toh asked whether we should revert RI to its original status. I do not think so. Children who are in the school are benefiting from the system and those who are not able to afford, they have all kinds of schemes to assist them.”
“Curriculum Autonomous schools will adhere to broad educational policies, for example, the bilingual policy and offer a core curriculum for the GCE examinations as is done in all secondary schools. They will be given the same autonomy as independent schools in offering elective subjects. Admission of pupils Autonomous schools will admit pupils according to merit as is the case with Government and aided schools. Thus, they will continue to be accessible to all pupils based on their PSLE results. My Ministry will be selecting four to six schools which will function as autonomous schools from January next year. The selection process will take into account the school's track record, type of school, the quality of school leadership and geographical location. The plan is to have 10 to 15 autonomous schools spread throughout Singapore in the next few years. Schools will compete to be selected as autonomous schools based on their performance and track record. It is likely that some of these schools will be good neighbourhood schools with a long history of good performance. The schools will be announced sometime in the later part of this year, before August, so that pupils will have a chance to apply for admission to those schools and qualify on the basis of their PSLE results. Sir, our education system is a good example of the process of levelling up of our society. We should develop every child to his maximum potential. We should encourage our brightest and ablest to rise as far as they can and not hold them back resulting from politics of envy. Our brightest children are our future leaders, our cutting edge. Even the Communist government in the PRC talent spots its most gifted children and puts them through special education and training.”
“Parents should also play their part by contributing about 1% of the per capita cost or about $3 per month more in miscellaneous fees. The school will also receive the normal Edusave grant which averages $100,000 per annum. All in, the additional fund will be almost $700,000 per year for an enrolment of 1,500. This will be sufficient for the school to introduce various innovative and enhancement programmes. If additional funding is required, the autonomous schools will be allowed to raise miscellaneous fees further by up to 5% of the per capita cost or about $15 per month and the Government will match this dollar for dollar. Fees There is some concern about fees. Let me explain the situation. Autonomous schools will thus charge the normal fee of $12 to $14 per month. This consists of $5 school fee and $7 miscellaneous fees in the normal case but schools have the discretion to raise the miscellaneous fees by another 30% and so it may be another $2 more. Right now, the secondary schools are charging a total of either $12 or $14. The autonomous schools will charge $3 more in miscellaneous fees. So the Government will provide 10% more in terms of per capita cost, the parents provide 1% more, and the 1% is equivalent to $3 per month. So instead of $12 to $14 total fees, the schools could raise the fees by $3, making a total of either $15 or $17. This will be the base case. But if the schools need to have more funding because they want to have more programmes, then they will be allowed to charge up to another $15 per month in miscellaneous fees. Total fees will, therefore, be between $15 and $32 per month which should be affordable to most parents. The bulk of the additional funding will be provided by the Government.”
“The Government provides financial assistance and Edusave scholarships to deserving pupils so that no student who is able to qualify for admission to independent schools is prevented from doing so by financial circumstances. Useful lessons from the independent schools can be applied to other schools to help them improve. A good example is the provision of Edusave block grants averaging $100,000 per annum to all Government and aided secondary schools to give them greater financial flexibility. Another is the Government's decision to create a group of autonomous schools to complement the independent schools. The selected schools will be given additional resources and greater autonomy to function more like independent schools. However, their fees will be kept low. Pupils will, therefore, have more good schools to choose from. Let me now touch briefly on the key factors of the autonomous schools. Legal status Autonomous schools will retain their status as Government or aided schools. Personnel To be successful, a school must have an energetic, capable and dedicated principal with a keen sense of mission. He needs a strong team of teachers who share the same goals and vision The principal of an autonomous school will, therefore, be given a greater role in the selection of staff for the school so that he can build up an effective team. Staffing norm To keep costs down, autonomous schools will retain the present class size and staffing norm. However, they will be able to hire additional staff on contract basis for enrichment programmes and support services. Funding The annual running cost of Government secondary schools is about $3,500 per pupil. The Government will provide 10% more funding or about $350 more per pupil per annum to autonomous schools as a block grant.”
“Sir, I wish to thank all the speakers for their views and suggestions. They have covered a very wide range of topics. I would, first, like to deal with the question of autonomous schools because it is something that is of great interest to the public after it was announced by the Prime Minister last year. 4.45 pm The Government has succeeded in providing adequate school facilities and a good standard of education for our children. For example, for the 1992 batch of "O" level students, there were about 35,000 students who took the examination and 89% scored three or more 'O' level passes. 70% scored five or more 'O' level passes. I think this is a very credible performance and we are seeing improvement year by year, which is only possible with the hard work of all the teachers, staff and the children, of course, and because we have been putting so much emphasis on education. Now, the emphasis, henceforth, will be on raising the quality of education. Learning from the experience of outstanding private and independent schools in the UK and US, the conclusion was that excellence in education can be achieved by allowing selected schools to go independent. Such schools should be well managed, with a good track record and long traditions of scholastic achievement. Since 1988, eight secondary schools in Singapore have become independent schools. They are allowed to charge fees ranging from $70 to $200 per month as compared to $12 to $14 charged by Government and aided schools. With the additional resources and with autonomy over school management, the independent schools are able to introduce innovations to their school organisation and programmes.”
“The Member has come up with various suggestions on how to persuade our scholars to remain in local universities. I shall ask PSC to consider his suggestions.”
“Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question which concerns the PSC. I agree, in principle, with the Member's comments that more scholarship holders should study in our local universities. In fact, to a certain extent, this is already happening. In 1991 and 1992, out of 250 PSC scholarships awarded, 95 or 38% are tenable in NUS and NTU. Over the past 10 years, out of the 51 President's scholarships awarded, 13 or 25% were for Medicine at NUS. The remaining 38 or 75% were for study in Engineering, Arts, Science and other first degree courses at world-renowned universities overseas, mainly in the US and UK. I shall suggest to the PSC to persuade more President's Scholars to study at the NUS and NTU. This would be a boost to our local universities, in recognition of their academic standing. Sir, there are pros and cons of sending our top scholars to local or overseas universities. The Member has mentioned some advantages of studying locally. As against these, those who qualify for top universities overseas get to compete and build links with top students overseas and to benefit from the best education available in the chosen fields. By studying abroad, they also broaden their outlook and learn to be more self-confident and independent. We therefore need to strike a balance and also take into consideration the preferences of the scholars and their parents. We are building up the international standing and reputation of our two local universities. For medical courses, NUS is already recognised as the best in the region. I believe we are not far behind in engineering. In time to come, I hope more Singaporean scholars will choose our local universities as a matter of course.”
“The schools are already providing remedial lessons. For pupils who have difficulties in various subjects, the teachers will get them to stay back after school and provide additional lessons. I think a lot of pupils on their own have tuition. There could be other cases, eg, where the pupils need special help and they could be referred to special schools, schools for the disabled and so on. There are various special schemes available. SMOKING IN SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES 3. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether his Ministry has data on the extent of smoking in the Singapore Armed Forces, in particular among national servicemen; (b) whether national servicemen who smoke picked up the habit during National Service; (c) whether his Ministry has or will consider measures to help SAF servicemen cut down on smoking; and (d) whether, in support of the National Anti-Smoking Programme, the SAF will consider prohibiting its servicemen in uniform from smoking in public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with her that we should have a proper mechanism to counsel and, if possible, to follow up. But it is a total problem involving not only ourselves. It has to involve, for example, community organisations. It has to involve the families especially. In a practical sense, it is a big problem because the numbers are big. The schools are already loaded with their problems of providing general education. We do our best to persuade them and to keep track of them. But it has got to be a total approach involving not only ourselves but other groups. And to some extent, I think Members are straying away from the main line of the Question. If Members have interest in this topic, we can discuss it in the Budget debate.”
“Sir, as for the first question, I believe we do have the records, but I have to confirm this because I am speaking from memory. As for the second question, counselling is done by the teachers who know the pupils. As soon as they find that the pupils have lost interest and are showing signs of wanting to leave school, the teachers counsel them, the principals counsel them and the Ministry also gets involved with the counselling process. It is a matter of talking to them and trying to understand their problems and explaining to them why they should stay in school. So it depends on the case involved.”
“This problem of school drop-outs is a very big social problem in many countries. Fortunately for us, it is contained to very small proportions. For example, at each level, the drop-out rate is less than 1%. And if we take a cohort going through the whole 10 years of schooling, it comes up to about 6-7%, as she has mentioned. It is a total social problem. The Ministry on its part will do its best. We counsel the parents, we counsel the students, we try and give them more opportunities to come back to school if they want to. But in the end, we have to work with other groups, eg, SINDA, MENDAKI and CDAC. The intention is that we will henceforth refer some of these cases to these other organisations to look more closely into their social background, whether they have financial difficulties, whether they have learning difficulties and try to keep them in school and motivate them to learn, but not through compulsion. Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, does the Ministry of Education have records to monitor children who have reached school-going age but whose parents have not registered them for school? The Minister mentioned about counselling for parents whose children have left school. I would like to know from the Minister what sort of counselling the Ministry is providing and in what way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figure with me but I think the figure of 6-7% of pupils not completing primary education is probably within the ballpark. It goes to show that the drop-out rate is very low, especially in the primary school stage. The ones who leave tend to be the ones who are in the Extended stream. They are 13-14 years old and the problem is that usually they will go, for example, for vacation jobs. Once they have tasted the working experience and they have money, they tend not to come back. There is a tendency to try to drop out. It is important that the schools persuade and counsel them. The drop-out rates are higher in the secondary level. That is the stage when the children are older. Our system tries to keep them in school for 10 years. So I fully agree with her that we should, as far as possible, keep the children in school for at least 10 years. But it is no point forcing them to stay. It is only through persuasion, teaching and motivating them that we can achieve the result. As for the ITE, the intention is that eventually they will accept pupils who have completed secondary education. But this is still a plan and, if necessary, we may modify it to take in some of the other pupils or we may, for example, help to place them in factories through apprenticeship programmes. The whole point is to prepare our young people with education for proper employment eventually. While I agree fully with her on this point, it is a matter of approach. We feel that compulsion is not the way to do it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, starting from 1991, the Ministry of Education has introduced refinements to the education system to provide every child with at least 10 years of general education - six years of primary education and at least four years of secondary education. However, education is not compulsory in Singapore. Primary education comprises two stages - a 4-year Foundation stage and a 2-year Orientation stage. The Foundation stage aims at providing pupils with a good foundation in English, the mother tongue and Mathematics, while the Orientation stage offers a differentiated curriculum to match the different learning needs of pupils. At the end of Primary 6, all pupils will sit for a modified Primary School Leaving Examination, which will place them in an appropriate secondary course. In addition to the present Special, Express and Normal (Academic) courses in secondary schools, a new course - the Normal (Technical) course - will be introduced in 1994. This course will be technical-oriented and will prepare pupils for further technical-vocational education and training at the Institute of Technical Education. These pupils will take the GCE N-level examination at the end of four years and those who are able will do an additional year and take the O-level examination. At the end of 10 years of general education, pupils may pursue further education and training at junior colleges, polytechnics and the Institute of Technical Education, depending on their interests and abilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already a ceiling of 25% on the intake of Malay pupils into any primary school. This arose out of a proposal from the Malay Members of Parliament in 1987 to my Ministry to limit the intake of Malay pupils into a primary school. They had observed that Malay pupils from schools with a high proportion of Malays tended to mix among themselves and speak Malay only. As a result, their English language proficiency suffered and this affected their academic performance. By limiting the intake of Malay pupils to 25%, Malay pupils would be encouraged to mix more freely with pupils of other races and speak more English. However, this limit is applied flexibly in locations where the Malay population is high so that pupils do not have to travel too far to school. There has been no necessity to apply a similar ceiling on the proportion of other pupils in schools. 1.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has decided that it will concentrate on improving the formal education system and leave the provision of kindergarten education to the private sector. It is therefore up to the private kindergartens to decide where to locate and how many places to offer. It is not within the purview of my Ministry to ensure that there will be enough kindergarten places in every locality. Parents must seek out the kindergartens which best suit their needs and in some cases the kindergartens may not be so conveniently situated as some parents may like them to be. Similarly, my Ministry does not regulate other private schools in terms of their location and capacity. MEDICAL BENEFITS TO SENIOR CITIZENS (Concessions at age 60 years) 9. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider extending senior citizen medical benefits to Singaporeans and permanent residents at the age of 60 instead of 65, as in the case of public transport concessions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of the course that he was speaking about, but I will look into it. But the basic consideration is that, as I have explained, we must maintain standards. And it is difficult for us to cram the programme into three years. POLYTECHNIC DIPLOMA HOLDERS IN SINGAPORE UNIVERSITIES (Performance) 7. Mr Loh Meng See asked the Minister for Education how are polytechnic diploma holders performing in the Singapore universities.”
“We also need to enhance the image and status of teachers in our society.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Institute of Education (NIE) offers a 4-year course leading to the Bachelor of Arts or Science Degree with Diploma in Education. It is not feasible to reduce the course duration to three years without lowering standards. The course comprises pedagogical studies (taught mainly in the first two years) and academic studies (taught mainly in the last two years). It is designed to meet the requirements of school teachers. The academic studies component is comparable in rigour and standard to the BA/BSc course offered at the NUS. This is as it should be. Our future supply of graduate teachers will come from both our universities. Traditionally, trainee teachers with suitable NUS degrees do a 1-year Post-Graduate Diploma in Education course at the NIE before they are qualified to teach. Thus, a BA/BSc pass degree holder from the NUS will have spent a total of four years to master the academic and pedagogical content of teaching. This is comparable to the NIE's 4-year course for the BA/BSc with Diploma in Education. In structuring the 4-year course at the NIE, my Ministry has been careful to avoid the unhappy experiences of some countries which went into 3-year Bachelor of Education degree programmes. Reducing the course duration means lowering of course content if the course is not to become too crammed and could result in a sub-standard degree programme. Much as we want to attract more university graduates into the teaching profession, we should not do so by lowering standards. Good teachers are essential in our effort to develop our children to their full potential. To achieve an effective teaching force, we need to control both the quality of trainee teachers and the quality of their training.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained this. First year, we expect maybe $40 to $50 per account. This depends on detailed calculations. And later on, it depends on how much we can put aside, and if Parliament approves the amount. And eventually when it is $5 billion, at 5% interest per year, that is $250 million. After you minus the amounts for various scholarship and grant schemes, which are not very much relatively, most of the balance will go into the pupils' accounts. If it is $250 million divided by 400,000 qualifying pupils, it is about $500-$600 per pupil. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT”