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 14 of 32.
“It is the top 25% of those who apply for independent schools, not the top 25% of all the PSLE students. The good schools tend to attract better students. As you can see from the ranking of schools, there is already, with or without a scholarship, a certain orientation towards certain schools. But the school results are not everything. Parents and children do choose schools for various reasons, maybe old boys' links, maybe because they prefer the flavour of the school. So it is not a clear-cut orientation. The parents should really choose the schools that fit their children. If you look at the ranking of schools, you will find that the good schools are those that take in children with good results. The schools that have really done a lot for their pupils are those that add value, ie, they take in average children and produce good results. So we should judge schools not purely from the academic results, which depend to a great extent on what they take in, but also on the all-round development of their pupils.”
“I think it is not always true. It is true that most of the top students do tend to opt for certain schools. But there are other students who prefer, for example, Christian schools for various reasons. SJI is one example. They also have this feeder school arrangement. But the main point is that there is this free competition to enter into the top schools. The independent schools are among the best schools in Singapore. So there is free competition by all, regardless of family background, based on their PSLE results, to get scholarships to go into those schools. And I suspect most of the bright students will tend to orientate towards certain schools. There will not be an even spread of scholars across all the independent schools. In addition, there will be other schemes. There will be the scholarship scheme for all the other secondary schools. And we are also thinking of having autonomous schools to rival the independent schools, but charging lower fees.”
“That is not quite true. The children will have to submit their choice before the PSLE. So those who opt for the independent schools, of course, will be considered. But, in addition, the top students will again be given an option after the results are out, whether they want to opt for any particular independent school. We then rank all the applicants, those who applied before as well as those who qualify based on their results, by order of merit, and the top 25% will be given scholarships, and they can choose whatever school they want to go - RI, ACS, or any other school.”
“For the first year of operation next year, Parliament has already made special provision. Because there is no Edusave money yet, there is no earning of income. There is a special vote already approved by Parliament in the budget amounting to $40 million which will be the initial income, as it were, for the Fund over and above the $1 billion. So the initial sum of money going to the Edusave Fund from January next year will be the $1 billion capital plus $40 million, which is deemed to be income for the Fund, and that Fund will be used in the following ways. To provide for grants to the secondary schools, this will amount to about $13 million, because there are about 130 secondary schools, and on average, it is $100,000 per school. Then there will be another roughly $1.4 million for the Edusave scholarships for independent schools. In fact, the number is probably smaller because the fees are less than the amount used for this estimation. The Edusave scholarships for secondary schools will get another $1.6 million. Out of the $40 million, you deduct the $13 million, and you deduct $3 million for scholarships, there is still quite a lot of money left. Of course, you have to pay for the initial computerisation and administrative costs. But we estimate that in year one alone, we will be able to contribute to each pupil's account somewhere in the region of about $40 to $50. This is less than the original $100 because of the new schemes that I have mentioned. But the intention is that once we reach $5 billion, then the sum in the pupils' accounts will be much larger.”
“Administratively, I would like to keep this scheme as simple as possible. Because one of the drawbacks is that if you have parental choice, and the sum is initially not big, it could become very expensive to administer. So we should try and control it. One way, for example, would be to allow the Edusave funds to be used to pay for the second tier miscellaneous fees. The Edusave fund cannot be used for the basic school fees and miscellaneous fees which come to about $12 per month. But some schools are allowed to increase and have decided to increase their miscellaneous fees by 30%, which is another $2 per month. This money can be used for that purpose. It can also be used to pay the school fees of independent schools above the basic level of $12 per month. Dr Vasoo made the point that there is free competition to enter the schools. The point is valid. He asked whether we would allow this to be given to special education schools. Unfortunately, the answer has to be no, because the scheme is meant to improve our education in schools, meaning Government schools, Government-aided schools and independent schools. For the special education schools, we have a separate scheme where the Ministry does provide grants up to twice the per capita cost of primary schools. If there is need for more money, we can consider it. But I think we should treat it separately from the Edusave scheme. I am in full agreement with him that we do the best we can for these children. But I think Edusave is somewhat different. We are trying to invest and improve on the quality of our schools. So we have to draw a line at our schools and not include other schools. I think I have covered most of the points. If I have missed anything out, please let me know.”
“But we will observe how the scheme works for secondary schools and, depending on the availability of funds, we will consider primary schools at the next stage. But I take his point that we should try and do this as soon as possible. He asked why we limit this to three children. I have already explained. It has to be consistent with the population policy. The sum of money may be insignificant to rich parents, but to poor parents it may be attractive, and we do not want to give them the wrong signal. So, unfortunately, we do have to draw a line somewhere, and that is at the third child. In fact, for procreation, there are already various tax incentives to encourage those who can afford to have more children. Those who cannot afford, they really should confine themselves to three or less children. Mr Umar asked for the basis of grant to schools. It is on a per capita basis. I think that is fair because the money is basically to benefit the children and we are really taking part of the money from the Edusave pupils accounts, grouping it together, and giving it to the schools. So the bigger the enrolment, the more the money. He asked whether some of the contributions could be donated to community organisations after the member has reached 21 years of age. My answer is that there is no plan for that. I think the community-based organisations already have sufficient funds at their disposal through the CPF scheme where they check-off from the salaries of the workers who do not object to doing it or who have not opted out. So with that and the dollar-for-dollar matching from Government, I think there is enough money. Really, the Edusave scheme is for the benefit of the pupils. If they do not require the money, they should really donate to schools and benefit the other students.”
“So I would rather take a conservative approach and keep the money there and use it when necessary. The intention is not to benefit the teachers through higher pay and so on. That is not the intention. The intention is for the schools to come out with programmes where they can enhance the learning of the children. They might, for example, hire additional specialists for music, they might bring their children to excursions to see various museums and pay for their museum admission charges and so on. The money should not be used to build facilities or for school building projects. It should not be used, for example, to pay the existing teachers, who are already paid. The intention is for additional programmes, additional improvements, on a flexible basis, on a school-by-school, and with parental choice, basis. Just briefly on the Open University. The Government has not abandoned the plan to implement the Open University. It has merely decided on changing the vehicle for implementation. The Government is fully behind the Open University programme. It is in fact providing a big sum of $38 million to start off the programme. This is a point that has to be corrected. I will just briefly touch on some of the points raised by the other Members. Mr Peh asked that we control the scheme so that it will not be abused. I agree with him fully, and I have explained this point. He asked whether we should have higher fines than those stipulated in the Act. I do not think so at this point. But if need be, we can always raise them later. Mr Sinnakaruppan asked whether we are considering grants for primary schools. The answer is not yet.”
“But the sum will be increased over the years, as we put in more money into the fund so that eventually when we reach the $5 billion target and if you assume 5% interest earnings per year, then the sum could well approach $500 per child per year. Over a 10-year period, that is not an insignificant sum of $5,000 per pupil. The intention is for this sum to be used for the benefit of the pupils to enhance their education. It is not for the schools to start raising fees and so on, so that what we give out with one hand we take back with the other hand. That is not the intention. The Government is not short of money for education. We are spending 4%. If need be, we will spend more money. But there is this extra sum of money that can be used for enhancement programmes so that the schools can design programmes to meet the needs of the pupils, and the parents can have a choice. Through the pupils' fund, they will have a say whether the fund would be used for a particular activity. They themselves will have to approve that activity. So there is a choice there. My own approach to this is a cautious one. On the one hand, we want to improve the education of our children. So we want to have worthwhile programmes, we want to have value for money. We do not just want to spend the money on any spurious programme. That is why we insist that the programme must be school-based and school-controlled. Otherwise the private sector could come out with all kinds of schemes and very soon the money will be gone. I would rather that we keep the money in an account and use it carefully, and if there is no good scheme, maybe eventually the money could be transferred to CPF as a saving or for other uses, or it could be used later on to pay for university fees.”
“I think he can clarify later, because we are running short of time. It is rather late anyway. I was saying that the intention is, in fact, to try and let the schools innovate so that they will improve on the quality. In addition to independent schools, we are now contemplating to set up some autonomous schools where the fees will be kept lower so that bright children can not only apply for the independent schools, but also to other good schools. You may have noticed from the ranking of schools that, in fact, the independent schools are not all top schools. Mr Chia and Mr Chiam said we made some changes to the Edusave scheme. That is true. Firstly, we introduce scholarships to enhance the competitive element. Secondly, we allow block grants to schools. There, we have not really departed from the principle. The point is that the money from the pupils is sometimes best channelled en bloc to the schools as they are best able to know what scheme to meet the needs of the students. You can either do it on an individual basis, every pupil applying on his own, which is quite costly administratively. Or else, we do it en bloc. So the idea is for the benefit of all the pupils in the schools, we will yearly channel a sum of money to the schools. The sum will average $100,000 per secondary school. But the quantum per school would depend on the enrolment. So they will get the same quantum per capita. This is the point Mr Umar raised. We estimate that with all these schemes, for the first year of operation, the sum that will go to the individual pupil's account will be in the region of about $50 per year. This is somewhat lower than the original $100.”
“It has to be for the full four years; otherwise if a poor student comes in and then after one year he has no scholarship, he may have to leave. That is the reason why the scholarships for independent schools are based on the PSLE results and valid for the full four years. But, in addition, there will be scholarships for the other students who did not make it in the PSLE. So long as they come within the top 5% of the students in the school results of those independent schools, they will also qualify for scholarships on a year-by-year basis, if they have not already got the scholarship at the PSLE entry point. I think that covers mainly the points raised by Mr Low. The intention is not just to focus attention on the top 25% who enrol in independent schools.”
“Instead of giving a straight handout from the income of the fund to every pupil, there will now be scholarship schemes, not only for independent schools but also for all schools. So if the child is not so bright and he goes to a neighbourhood school of a lower standard, where the children are not so bright, the top students will also get scholarships. So there will be encouragement of this competition at all levels, and not only in the independent schools. Unfortunately, the independent schools are more expensive because they are experimenting with smaller class size, new programmes and so on. So the basic principle of the independent schools is that the State pays for the basic amount, as in all schools, and the parents pay for the extra. This extra does cost money. That is why some independent schools, like RI and ACS, are charging $200 per month in school fees. The other range will be $75 in some of the independent girl schools. So the complaint came about: "Okay, well and good, you have these independent schools trying to innovate, but because of the high fees, you are preventing some parents from sending their children to these schools". Therefore, the Government felt that it should provide scholarship schemes to enable bright children to compete for places in those schools. Through this scholarship scheme, the children will now be able to enrol in all these independent schools, depending on their own choice, so long as they are able to compete and win places in those schools. Because the school fees are higher in the independent schools, therefore, we have to provide scholarships to cater for the additional fees. Therefore, the quantum has to be bigger.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all those Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. If I am correct, I think Mr Low also supports the Bill, although he has some queries about certain aspects, especially about the scholarship scheme. Mr Chiam did not say whether he supports the Bill, but he seems a little bit confused about certain aspects of the scheme. Maybe after clarification, he might also support the scheme. I think it is hard to quarrel with the scheme because, basically, the Government's intention is to put aside some surplus money for educational purposes to benefit many generations of students. So this basic concept of putting aside, initially $1 billion, and building up to $5 billion for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, is something we cannot quarrel with. But, as expected, there will be some disagreement over how to use the money and whether it should be used this way or that way, and who should qualify. I think that is to be expected. Even within a family when they have a budget to renovate the house, everybody should be happy but they will be quarrelling about how to renovate the house. So I think the same problems will apply here. But the basic concept is a sound one and I am sure Members will support it. First, I would like to deal with the points made by Mr Chiam that the Government has not kept its election promise. That is entirely untrue. In fact, within a short spell of two years, my Ministry has worked extra hard to put the scheme into place. The scheme is basically the same as before. There has been no change, except for the fact that now the Prime Minister has decided to introduce the element of competition.”
“I hope that the proposed Advisory Council would furnish all the schools, parents and students with effective guidelines to prevent any misuse of the fund. In view of the aforesaid, I suggest that the penalty for anyone who misused the fund should be increased to a fine of not more than $5,000 or ten times the amount which was misused, in order to have any deterrent effect. In addition, in times of economic difficulties, this project should be suspended immediately so that this meaningful educational endowment scheme will not become an additional financial burden to the nation, in a time of crisis. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“To a certain extent, it will give our parents and students the opportunity to choose the learning programmes they prefer. Pupils from less-to-do families will no longer be shut off from the learning of piano, ballet, swimming or other interesting subjects. I am particularly glad that under the scheme, pupils from well-to-do families are allowed to donate their entitlement in the fund to the school, so that more pupils from poor families may benefit. Edusave scheme aims to maximise the use of human resources and it acts as a long-term investment to train the right person for the right job. I hope that the Government will publicise extensively and make the necessary explanations regarding the utilisation of the fund. This will help to avoid the Edusave scheme from being misinterpreted as a welfare project. The Edusave scheme should be confined to the enhancement programmes which are educational in nature and which will benefit the students, such as piano lessons, ballet, Chinese instrumental music, oriental dances, Malay language, Japanese language, swimming, or the provision of educational facilities like purchasing more library books, teaching aids, or computers to improve the educational standard of the pupils. I believe that remedial and tutorial classes should continue for those who are weak, but they should not be included as part of the Edusave scheme. Similarly, courses organised by private schools should not be included in the Edusave scheme. This will prevent the private schools from raising their fees and thereby resulting in the misuse of Edusave fund. Furthermore, Edusave fund should not be used for purchase of air-conditioners, sofa, tables and chairs for the teachers and staff, as these are irrelevant to the enhancement of educational quality.”
“Clause 13 enables the member or his parent, as the case may be, to donate money in the member's Edusave account to his school. It also empowers the CPF Board to transfer the Edusave funds of any member who has attained 21 years of age into his CPF account. However, he may apply to retain the money in his Edusave account to pay for further education or training. My Ministry is drawing up guidelines on the withdrawal and application of funds in pupils' Edusave accounts for educational purposes. I intend to keep the Edusave scheme as simple as possible to reduce administrative cost but with adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. Mr Speaker, Sir, the future progress and prosperity of Singapore depends on the education and training of our people. The Edusave scheme is a concrete step to further improve the quality of our education. The aim is to maximise and equalise opportunities for Singaporeans to improve themselves. With Edusave funds to assist them, more Singaporeans will have similar opportunities to enhance their education. They will all have a better start in life. How well they succeed will depend on their own abilities and effort. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. The establishment of the Edusave scheme is not a welfare project. It is a scheme which will benefit the present students and the younger generation of Singaporeans. This will enhance the quality of education in our schools which, in turn, will train and nurture the younger generation to become useful citizens. Therefore, the setting up of the Edusave fund is a bold and massive investment by the Government in the field of education.”
“In keeping with our population policy of "Have 3 or more if you can afford it", the Edusave scheme will be limited to three children per mother. Parents who can afford more than three children should provide for the additional children themselves. We do not want to unwittingly encourage those parents who cannot support a big family to have more children. Edusave is not a population incentive scheme to encourage parents to have more children. I will now briefly highlight the key aspects of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for the establishment of the Edusave Endowment Fund with capital money provided by Parliament. The capital money can only be used for investment in accordance with the Financial Procedure Act. Clause 6 sets out the purposes for which the income of the Edusave Fund may be expended. These include the provision of grants to schools to enable them to enhance the quality of teaching, provision of scholarships to deserving pupils and distribution of contributions to all eligible pupils. Clause 7 authorises the CPF Board to administer the Edusave Pupils Fund and to maintain an Edusave account for every eligible pupil who then becomes a member of the Edusave Pupils Fund. Clause 10 provides for an Advisory Council to be set up to advise the Minister on the application of the income of the Edusave Endowment Fund. The conditions for withdrawal of money from the Edusave Pupils Fund are spelt out in clause 12. Members may use their Edusave money to pay for expenses connected with any school-based extra-curricular activity or enhancement programme, to pay for school or miscellaneous fees above the basic amount or for such other purposes as may be prescribed.”
“In designing the Edusave scheme, the Government has applied the following principles: Firstly, Edusave is an investment in our people. It is not a welfare scheme. For the needy, there are various bursary and other financial assistance schemes. Secondly, Edusave should encourage Singaporeans to work hard, to be productive, to save and to excel. The build-up of the Edusave Endowment Fund will depend on economic growth generated by Singaporeans' collective efforts. There will be Edusave scholarships for all secondary schools to encourage their pupils to excel in their studies. Thirdly, to benefit Singaporeans who have contributed to Singapore's prosperity, earnings from the Edusave Endowment Fund will be distributed to the Edusave accounts of all eligible pupils. Those pupils and their parents who do not need the money can donate it to the pupils' schools. Fourthly, parents should continue to be responsible for financing part of their children's education, at least to the extent of the standard school and miscellaneous fees. These fees cannot be paid from Edusave. A main objective of the Edusave scheme is to enhance the quality of education in our schools. Therefore, the eligible programmes will be school-based and the eligible pupils will be those studying full-time at our schools. Our schools will have the flexibility to introduce enhancement programmes to meet their pupils' needs, making use of the annual grants from Edusave or paid for from the pupils' Edusave accounts. Our education system provides 10 years of schooling before pupils join the job market or proceed to post-secondary education or training. It is therefore equitable to set the age limit at 6 to 16 years, so that all eligible pupils will receive 10 years of Edusave benefits.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to establish an Education Endowment Scheme through the setting up of an Edusave Endowment Fund. The Prime Minister first announced this Edusave scheme in December 1990. The Edusave scheme will be launched in January next year with an initial capital sum of $1,000 million or $1 billion. The fund will be built up over the years from the Government's annual budgetary surplus to a target sum of $5,000 million or $5 billion. This is a massive sum by any standard and will be achieved only if Singaporeans continue to work together and there is sound economic growth. In comparison, it cost the Government about as much to build the MRT. Income generated by the Edusave Endowment Fund will benefit younger Singaporeans who are still in school as well as future generations to come. They will receive Edusave contributions paid into their individual Edusave accounts which can be used for educational purposes or be saved up. They will also benefit from educational programmes funded by Edusave and they can compete for Edusave scholarships. Unlike many countries which are in financial difficulties, Singaporeans are indeed fortunate if we can continue to enjoy healthy economic growth and generate enough surplus over the years to put aside $5 billion for further investment in education. The total impact of the Edusave scheme will be large when measured in terms of the sum total of benefits to be enjoyed over the years by many generations of Singaporeans. This investment in education is over and above the 4% of our GDP which the Government currently spends yearly on education.”
“At present, there are 2 secondary schools viz Anglican High School and Changkat Changi Secondary School in Changi Constituency. In addition, there are 11 other secondary schools in the neighbouring GRCs. As there are sufficient secondary school places to serve Changi and the eastern sector of the island, the Ministry of Education has no plan to build a secondary school in Changi. SCHEME B BUS IN POTONG PASIR ESTATE 26. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Communications whether he will allow a Scheme B bus operator to operate in the Potong Pasir Estate with the taking off of SBS Service No. 147 from the estate.”
“I think this is no different than, for example, when the students graduate and they borrow money to buy a house. So it is the same thing. The important point is that they are enjoying the most subsidy from the Government. Of course, the students will prefer that there is no fee increase. I think they should look at it positively that henceforth, the fee increases will be very moderate, keeping up with the cost increases and slowly creeping up to a 25% share. The students can be assured that over the next few years there will be no big sudden increase, unlike in the past few years. That is the essential point.”
“In terms of affordability, I think there is no difficulty. There are a number of schemes. For example, there is a Tuition Loan Scheme whereby students can borrow from the fund set up by the universities and they can repay over a period of up to 20 years, beginning two years after they graduate. In fact, the figure shows that only about 25% of the students are borrowing from that source. Some other students are borrowing from their parents' CPF. The increase this year has in fact been very marginal. It is only 5% to 7% as compared to the manpower cost increase of about 14%. So in that sense, the Government is in fact under-recovering the cost increase. It does not mean that the Government is spending less. The Government is also spending more. But it is a matter of policy that the share of the students should be maintained at about 20%, eventually increasing to 25%. The reason, as I have explained, is that it is fair to do this. Otherwise, they will be eating into the education budget and leaving less for the others.”
“I think the important figure is the 14% I mentioned. He can also find out the details from the budget book, for example, or from the University's annual report. It is no secret.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was giving the general picture. I do not have the details here. But if he wants them, I can supply them. There is no problem there.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, even with the recent fee revisions, university education in Singapore continues to be highly subsidised. The Government pays the entire capital cost and about 80% of the running cost of the two universities. Students in the universities make up about 5% of our student population but consume a disproportionate 20% of the total education budget. As university graduates will earn more than most Singaporeans, it is fair that they should eventually bear about 25% of the universities' operating budget. Otherwise the universities' share of the education budget will further increase, leaving less for those students who do not make it to the universities. The universities' operating budget for financial year 1992/93 is $517 million. This is an increase of 11% over their budget for financial year 1991. Manpower cost constitutes nearly 70% of their total operating budget and has increased by 14% in financial year 1992 over financial year 1991.”
“I was trying to explain to Mr Chiam and to Members that although the Ministry registers the schools, it does not run the schools. For example, it does not run the private schools and there are many private schools. In the same way, the PCF kindergarten is a private school. So it is not for the Ministry to say whether they have certain conditions for their enrolment or whether they should expand the capacity in certain places. These are entirely matters for the management of the kindergartens. In the same way, for example, the Ministry of Finance registers companies, but it does not interfere in the management of the companies. COST SHARING BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND FEE INCREASES 6. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Education if he will explain the rationale for the long-term target of 25% cost sharing by university students and justify the recent National University of Singapore fees hike (1992/93) by making public the details of "wage and other cost increases".”
“For example, a church may require that its students come from church members. The Ministry does not, for example, control private schools. [Interruptions.]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already stated that my Ministry approves and registers schools. To do so is to make sure that the schools are properly run and they have proper facilities and so on. But the Ministry is not responsible for running the school. The Ministry does not decide whether the pupils should be from a particular denomination.”
“Yes, the kindergartens of the PCF are approved by my Ministry under the Education Act.”
“The answer is a clear no. The Ministry is responsible for approving and registering schools and education centres. But the kindergartens of the PCF are run by the PCF. So his question should really be directed to the PCF. Mr Chiam See Tong: Are the kindergartens of the PCF set up under the Education Act?”
“It is still a matter of opinion. I think this was done during an election campaign. The PAP had the right to tell the public at that time that if they elect an Opposition Member, then obviously they cannot expect the PAP MP to serve them in the same way. If the PCF is set up by the PAP, obviously it must look after the interests of its founders first.”
“I think whether it is a political issue or not is a matter of opinion.”
“Sir, I believe Mr Goh Chok Tong was speaking in his capacity as the Leader of the PAP. Of course, the PAP is the one that set up the PCF. But the PCF will have to decide what are its plans, in view of its resource constraints.”
“To my knowledge, there was a recent announcement that the PCF has to cut back the kindergartens to some extent in certain wards. This was because of resource constraints. Anyway, the question should be properly directed to the PCF because it is a matter for PCF to decide.”
“Sir, I believe that the kindergartens referred to are those run by the PAP Community Foundation, not by the PAP. The PAP Community Foundation (PCF) is a charitable organisation to promote the welfare and interest of Singaporeans. One of its objectives is to foster, develop and improve education of all kinds, including the organising and running of kindergarten classes. As to whether the PCF will cut back on the numbers of students in certain sectors, it is up to the PCF to decide, based on their own resource constraints and their planning. It has nothing to do with the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Education Act, my Ministry will allow an organisation to register and set up a school provided it satisfies certain conditions. Generally, the requirements relate to the reliability and capability of the organisation and its management, the provision of safe and adequate premises for the school, the qualifications of the staff, and the school curriculum. The school has also to ensure that its activities are not detrimental to the public or the pupils.”
“The site in question is a reserved primary school site. There are no immediate plans to build a school there.”
“This is to foster school loyalty and to recognise the contributions of the school's management or advisory committees. Phase 2B retains priority for a child whose parent is directly connected with the school. It is important to foster stronger community and parental support for our schools. Many good schools were established by religious missions, clans and other community organisations which continue to render support and guidance to the schools, giving them their special characteristics. It is natural for the schools to recognise such bonds in their admission criteria. After these considerations comes distance which is an important factor for most parents. I have decided to accord first priority to children who live within one kilometre of the school, and second priority to those living further away but within two kilometres. If there are insufficient places in any phase, admission will be by balloting as at present. Members will notice that the previous limitation of priority to three children has been removed. This means that Singaporeans who can afford to have more children and who have three or more children will now be able to admit all their children in the same school. I think they will welcome this change.”
“Sir, I am pleased to inform Members that the Government has approved a revised Primary 1 Registration Scheme and it will be implemented from this year's registration exercise. With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerk to distribute a paper (Cols. 1091 - 1092). [Paper distributed to hon. Members.] paper - REVISED PRIMARY ONE REGISTRATION SCHEME (Cols. 1091 - 1092) I think most Singaporeans will welcome the new scheme. It will be a much simpler scheme than at present. Also, it gives priority to the child and his education. While the paper is being distributed, may I answer the other two points? First, on the point raised by Mr Kenneth Chen, I agree with him that we need to correct the impression that neighbourhood schools are not good schools. In fact, we are fully committed to raise the standard of the schools. Many neighbourhood schools have performed very well in examinations. We should give them full encouragement and publicity. Let me now explain the new registration scheme. The boxed items are remnants of population policies which were previously included as registration criteria. The last batch of the children concerned will be registered this year for admission to Primary 1 next year. Having honoured this commitment, the boxed items will be removed from the registration scheme next year. So there will be no more boxed items from next year onwards. In the revised scheme, the highest priority of Phase 1 will be given to a child who has a sibling studying in the same school. This is as it should be. The siblings can go to school together, share textbooks and so forth. Phase 2A retains the next priority for children of old boys and girls of the school, members of its management or advisory committee and its staff.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1992/93, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 16th March 1992.”
“May I just supplement what my Senior Minister of State has said in answer to Mr Chiam's question. I understand it is his favourite question and it is something worth debating.”
“Sir, first, I would like to suggest we drop the term "S" from "OU" because there will be no SOU. It will be just "OU", probably run by the private sector, but with the Government assisting the private sector to set it up. So maybe we should stop using the term SOU as if there is going to be a university called SOU. There will be OU courses and the Government is committed to helping to bring about those courses. But the idea is to let a well-established private sector organisation run those in addition to its normal courses. I think this is a better approach. As far as the use of polytechnic facilities is concerned, I think this is something we have to study. And it is in fact a problem if you want to introduce engineering and technology courses for those who missed out on these courses earlier on. I do not think that just using polytechnic facilities will necessarily mean that it is of a lower standard or a lower quality of degree. It depends on so many factors. As I said before, it depends on the admission criteria, whether these people can really make the grade or they are somewhat different and what is the course content. And ultimately the market will have to assess these people, just like you assess people who come back with foreign degrees, because the degrees of the Open University will be awarded by a foreign university in this case.”
“As regards the Preparatory Year materials and programme, these materials will not be wasted. They will be applied widely to as many private kindergartens as possible. The $1.3 million was spent on developing the course materials, in developing the teaching techniques, the methods and so on. All these will be made available to the private sector and whoever wants to make use of them. The course materials are in our four official languages. They are already being applied by some private kindergartens and if there is interest from other private kindergartens to make use of the materials, my Ministry will be very happy to advise them on the proper use of the materials, on the facilities needed and so forth. Ultimately, there will be wide benefits for all our pre-school children to enable us to uplift the quality of pre-school education. Mr Peh Chin Hua, Dr Arthur Beng and also Mr Lew have raised a few other points. I will leave it to my colleague, Dr Tay Eng Soon, to answer these points.”
“So much for the Open University. I would now move on to the points raised about the Edusave scholarships. The Edusave scholarships for the six independent schools, eventually eight, will have to be tied to the PSLE results because this is a national level examination. Because the fee level ranges from $70 to $200 per month, it is necessary to assure the scholars that once they go in they will be able to continue for the four years. That is the reason why the scholarships are valid for four years. I accept the point that some of these scholars may subsequently not do as well as some of their classmates. Unfortunately, this is also a practical problem. The same arrangement in fact also applies to university scholarships, that they must do well at the point of qualification and thereafter, even if they do not do as well as the others, so long as they do not fail, the scholarship will remain valid. The point suggested by Mr Lew is an interesting one. I think it can be considered, but there are also other practical considerations. For example, in the Secondary 1 to Secondary 3 examinations, these are really school-based and not national examinations, unlike the PSLE. So we cannot really compare students from one school with students from another school because the scholars will be free to choose whichever school they want to go to. So some of the students who do better than the scholars in School A may in fact not be as good as the scholars in School B. So there are these practical considerations. Whilst it is an interesting idea, my own preference is to stick to our original plans first, and to award to the top 25% of the students who enrol in the independent schools and subsequently, depending on the experience, we can modify and make improvements as we go along.”
“This will have to be discussed with the private sector institution as well as with the Open University of the United Kingdom. But I think we will basically have to consider a number of factors such as relevant working experience and the age of the applicant. Previously, we announced the applicant should be at least 21 years old. Mr Lew has suggested 25 years old. This is a point which has to be clarified in due course. As far as the use of the CPF is concerned, I am no longer the Labour Minister. So I think it is fair to leave it to my colleague, Dr Lee Boon Yang, to answer that point. Mr Lew might like to pose that question to him in due course. Mr Peh Chin Hua raised a number of points concerning offering the Open University courses in Chinese. If the courses come in from the United Kingdom, obviously they have no Chinese courses. So it will take some time to see whether it is feasible to do it. In principle, there is no objection, but it takes time and there must be an adequate demand. Also, we have to make sure that there will be adequate tutors to provide the teaching, and also maybe lecturers, if we adopt the lecturing mode. I should explain that with the Open University concept, there will be a central office and a place where you develop the materials. But there is no central place where you offer lectures. They just take home their package of materials, like you learn foreign languages, telling you what are the materials, what are the exercises and so on. We will have to find a number of centres where the students can be taught and helped by tutors. Also, the programme of the Open University will have to be out of phase with our University and Polytechnic year so that, if need be, we can make use of the facilities in our tertiary institutions.”
“Many students will be disappointed after they have put in tremendous effort and sacrifices to try and pursue a degree. Nevertheless, an acceptable standard must be achieved for the investment in the programme to be of value to its graduates and to Singapore. By the end of this decade, about 20% of each cohort of students will make it to NUS and NTU. Another 40% will go to the four polytechnics. This makes a total of about 60% of each cohort. Polytechnic graduates will also have more opportunities to enrol in the NUS and NTU. Many Singaporeans are also pursuing university education overseas. The proposed Open University programme will cater mainly to polytechnic graduates who want to work for university degrees on a part-time basis as well as to a smaller number of Singaporeans who did not make it either to NUS or to NTU or to the polytechnics, even though they had the ability to do so. It should add to our workforce qualified graduates with skills the economy is eager to absorb, not merely to promote an expensive and ultimately delusive paper chase. This is more likely to succeed if the Government works with the private sector to build on what they have already achieved and give them the support they need to expand the programmes and widen access to tertiary courses for working adults. Sir, you can see from my statement that most of the points raised by Mr Chew have in fact been considered and answered. I think we share the same concerns that he has expressed. The approach taken is therefore a cautious one. We are in the process of discussing with the private sector to see how best we can add on this Open University programme to what they already have, and not to compete with them. Mr Lew Syn Pau asked a few queries concerning the admission criteria and so on.”
“In this way, we do not start from scratch in offering Open University courses. The one year delay will give us more time to assess the market demand for various courses more accurately and to adapt the course content and instructional materials of the Open University of the United Kingdom to suit our local environment. For example, the UK Open University's Geography and History courses are oriented to the European context. They will have to be re-oriented to suit our local needs. Later, when it offers Engineering and Technology courses through the Open University mode, suitable laboratory and workshop facilities at our tertiary institutes will have to be made available. In providing the Open University programme, the Government should be careful not to raise unrealistic expectations which cannot be fulfilled. On this point, I agree entirely with Mr Chew Heng Ching. The programme has to be rigorous to make it a worthwhile investment for Singaporeans. However, the academic standards of the Open University programme cannot be strictly matched with the NUS and NTU because of the less stringent admission criteria, different course structure and the part-time distance-learning approach. The Open University programme cannot require the same admission criteria as the NUS and NTU or else few working adults will qualify. Instead, it will cater to working adults who have the advantage of maturity and work experience. They will require perseverance and determination to pursue a degree through intensive self-study over a prolonged period which may average about six years, on top of their career and family commitments. Also, if the Open University programme were to set its course structure and examinations at too high a level, the drop-out and failure rates will be very high.”
“Sir, I would first like to respond to the comments and queries made about the Open University. My Ministry is having further discussions with the Open University of the UK to make available appropriate Open University courses in Singapore. This, as previously announced, will give working Singaporeans opportunities to pursue a degree through open learning and part-time study. Instead of creating a new statutory organisation to run the programme, my Ministry is exploring with well-established institutions in the private sector on how best to make available Open University courses in Singapore. This means that the launching of the Open University courses will have to be deferred by one year to January 1994 to enable us to work out a suitable arrangement with a private sector institution for the successful implementation of the Open University programme. 3.15 pm Let me explain the reason for this change in plan. The courses in demand by our working population appear to be mainly in Business, Management and related disciplines. A preliminary study has shown that the degree programmes in Science and Arts, which the proposed Open University was planning to start, are not so popular except with the teachers. It suggests that Singaporeans will go for courses which have a strong market value. There is already a well-established and growing private sector that offers such distance-learning and part-time programmes in collaboration with reputable overseas universities. The Government should not duplicate what the private sector is doing well in this field. It is better for the Government to assist a well-established private sector institution to offer additional tertiary level courses beyond its existing programmes. The courses can lead to degrees awarded by a foreign university.”
“That is the meaning of the words "pilot project". But it may be useful here if I give Members a bit of the background on the history of how this scheme came about. Some Members may recall that in the late 70s many traditional Chinese schools were faced with declining enrolment. The Government therefore introduced pre-primary classes to make work for surplus Chinese language teachers and to arrest the declining enrolment. Despite these measures, the enrolment continued to decline and many of these schools had to close down. A small number of very good Chinese primary schools wanted to teach Chinese at CL1 level. The Government allowed these schools to continue to run their pre-primary classes. They were renamed as Preparatory Year classes and were confined to 10 SAP schools in 1990. The Ministry subsequently decided to use the Preparatory Year programme to develop better materials, curriculum and methods for children of all language streams. The pilot programme was therefore extended on a pilot basis to five more SAP schools and 20 non-SAP schools. The project has provided useful lessons on how to upgrade the kindergartens. It has also generated overwhelming response from parents. Demand for places far exceeds the number available. It is untenable to continue the project on the present scale. To extend the programme to all primary schools is neither cost effective nor practical. The Government has therefore decided to wind up the pilot project and apply the lessons learnt to help upgrade the private kindergartens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the objectives of the pilot Preparatory Year project are, firstly, to set a benchmark on the standard of pre-school education for private kindergartens to emulate and, secondly, to develop a well-structured systematic curriculum using multi-media materials and an effective teaching approach which can be adopted by the private kindergartens to provide good pre-school education. The project was generally well received. The teachers found the curriculum to be well structured and systematic. The multi-media materials have helped to make lessons more enjoyable and interesting to the children. The parents were generally satisfied with their children's progress. A total of $1.3 million has been spent on the development of the Preparatory Year instructional packages in four languages, English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil. This covered manpower cost and the production cost of the trial editions of the PY instructional materials. Production cost for the published editions was met by the co-publisher. These packages as well as the curriculum and teaching methods will benefit many pre-school children when the lessons from the PY project are widely applied. About 5,400 pupils were enroled in the PY project in 1990 and 1991. The schools involved incurred a total operating cost of about $14 million over the two years. This works out to an average cost of about $220 per month per child.”
“We also need knowledgeable, dedicated and well-trained teachers who can inspire and motivate our students and bring out the best in them. We must therefore continue our efforts to attract the best to the teaching profession, pay competitive salaries and reward them appropriately. We are fortunate to have a conducive schooling environment. Students are disciplined and eager to learn. Parents place strong emphasis on education and are prepared to invest in their children. With the support and involvement of parents, teachers and principals as well as community organisations, I am confident that the quality of education in Singapore will continue to improve in the coming years.”