Ong Ye Kung
Singapore
“The Ministry of Health (MOH) recently enhanced the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) dental subsidies, which are tiered by income, for common preventive and restorative procedures.”
“Healthier SG GP clinics may also refer their enrolled patients to Active Ageing Centres and Community Health Posts to fulfill their social prescriptions and for subsidised services, such as medication management.”
“Public hospitals, such as the National University Hospital, the Singapore General Hospital and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, have deployed robotic-assisted surgical (RAS) systems for minimally invasive soft-tissue surgeries.”
“The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) welcomes drug producers to choose Singapore as part of their first-wave filings. As long as a pharmaceutical product is approved by at least one regulatory agency, such as China's National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), it would also qualify for the abridged route.”
“A decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with diabetes can be due to multiple reasons. Doctors will first investigate the underlying cause before determining whether the patient should be referred to a specialist. Some causes are reversible and cause transient reduction in renal function.”
“Information on the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) cannot be made visible on the National Electronic Health Record system as it is protected under the Mental Capacity Act. Such information may only be disclosed by the Public Guardian to specified persons upon satisfactory submission of evidence(s) required under the law.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,932 lines we hold for Ong Ye Kung, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 47 of 59.
“The new section will empower MAS to impose on such arrangements, risk-proportionate, legally binding requirements, such as requiring a bank to include in its agreements with the service providers: the right of MAS to audit the service provider; the obligations of the service providers to protect the customer information against unauthorised disclosure, retention or use; and the bank’s right to terminate the arrangement under specified circumstances. MAS has considered the practices in other leading jurisdictions in setting out these requirements. These powers are practised in Australia and the European Union (EU). They are timely in light of the increased prevalence and complexity of banks' outsourcing arrangements today. The Bill will provide for the powers and MAS will be consulting on the detailed regulations in due course. Finally, the Bill will also introduce several other amendments to support MAS’ regulation and supervision of banks. These are as follows. First, in line with global regulatory standards, some of the key prudential requirements imposed by MAS include requiring banks to have a stable and sustainable funding structure for their activities and to address risks arising from related-party transactions. These requirements are currently issued under a general provision in the Banking Act, unlike other important requirements, such as minimum capital requirements which are issued under specific Banking Act provisions. The Bill will formalise MAS' current powers and raise the signature of these two requirements. Second, banks in Singapore are permitted to disclose customer information only in certain specified circumstances, such as when the customer has provided written consent, pursuant to Court orders, or to the bank's external auditor.”
“First, contraventions of provisions of the MAS Act. The MAS Act contains important regulatory requirements, such as those relating to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, of which non-compliance is regarded as a very severe breach of our regulatory requirements. Two, in the case of a foreign-owned bank incorporated in Singapore, when the parent bank's licence is withdrawn by the parent supervisory authority. This is in recognition that foreign banks are increasingly operating in Singapore through subsidiaries instead of just branches. It mirrors the current power MAS has over foreign bank branches today. Three, when MAS regards that it is in the public interest to do so. This is a ground that is currently available for revocation for most other financial institutions regulated by MAS, but not for banks. This additional ground is also in line with practices in other international jurisdictions, such as Australia and Hong Kong. Next, the Bill enhances MAS’ oversight of certain services, such as outsourcing services obtained by banks. When banks enter into outsourcing arrangements, MAS expects the bank to maintain the same risk management standards as if the services were performed by the bank itself. This includes similar standards and practices in ensuring customer information is safeguarded. The Bill will enhance MAS' oversight over outsourcing arrangements by introducing a new section 47A in the Banking Act.”
“Merchant banks have since been subject, therefore, to two pieces of legislation, namely, the MAS Act as an approved financial institution and then by the Banking Act by virtue of their ACU activities. As we remove the DBU-ACU divide, we are taking the opportunity to have the Bill also streamline the regulatory framework for merchant banks by consolidating them under the Banking Act. The Bill will introduce a new Part VIIB in the Banking Act to set out a new licensing framework for merchant banks as a class of financial institutions distinct from banks. The third amendment, the Bill will also introduce new or revised provisions to strengthen MAS' regulatory oversight of banks and merchant banks. As these rules apply to both banks and merchant banks, I will refer to them collectively as banks in this section. The key highlights are as follows. First, expand grounds for revocation of bank licence. In line with the international regulatory standards and practice, MAS has the power to revoke bank licences under certain circumstances, such as when a bank (a) is carrying on its business in a manner likely to be detrimental to the interests of the depositors of the bank; (b) is contravening the provisions of the Banking Act; or (c) in the case of a foreign bank branch in Singapore, has had its licence in its home jurisdiction withdrawn by its parent supervisory authority. As our banking landscape changes, new risks emerge, and our regulatory framework has to evolve to better manage these risks. As a result, it becomes necessary to expand the grounds for MAS to revoke a bank licence to better protect depositors, enhance MAS' enforcement powers over banks and uphold trust and confidence in our financial system. So, the three new grounds are as follows.”
“As a result, the DBU-ACU divide is no longer useful and will impose a compliance burden on banks with little benefits to prudential soundness or systemic stability. Therefore, the Bill will remove the DBU-ACU divide and make corresponding consequential amendments to the relevant provisions in the Banking Act. These include amendments to (a) rank uninsured non-bank deposits in insolvency by the currency denomination of the deposits, that is, Singapore dollar or a foreign currency, rather than by DBU or ACU; (b) apply asset maintenance ratios on Singapore dollar non-bank deposits, instead of DBU non-bank deposits; and (c) remove the regulatory limits imposed on the Singapore branches of foreign banks for equity investments, immovable property and large exposures. These limits are no longer necessary. MAS will rely on the consolidated supervision by these banks' home supervisors to manage such risks at the bank group level. The second amendment is the consolidation of merchant banks' regulation into the Banking Act. Merchant banks are a class of financial institutions approved under the MAS Act. Unlike banks, merchant banks are not allowed to accept deposits or raise funds in Singapore dollar from the public. Hence, when merchant banks were first introduced in Singapore in the 1970s, they engaged primarily in capital market services, such as corporate finance and fund management. They were, therefore, subject to a less stringent approval regime under the MAS Act. Subsequently, we encouraged merchant banks to participate in the Asian Dollar Market, by allowing them to apply to operate an ACU for their foreign currency activities. They were then subject to certain requirements in the Banking Act.”
“All home regulators, including Singapore, will now require their banks to meet enhanced standards on a group-wide and global basis, which include their branches and subsidiaries in Singapore. So, for example, new global rules have raised the amount and quality of capital with the introduction of a minimum 4.5% Common Equity Tier 1 capital adequacy ratio requirement and have introduced minimum standards on the amount of liquidity buffers that banks need to hold. Global regulators have also agreed on a common framework to control large exposures to a single counterparty or a group of connected counterparties, limiting these exposures to 25% of Tier 1 capital. Second, MAS has also enhanced its regulatory framework over time which has made the divide less meaningful. For example, banks in Singapore are required to meet liquidity requirements based on all-currency and Singapore dollar criteria, rather than DBU or ACU. MAS has also introduced the framework for domestic systemically important banks. Designated banks are subject to additional supervisory measures covering both their domestic and offshore businesses. So, a lot has changed in terms of the regulatory environment. Globally, you have higher standards now after GFC that covers all banks, offshore as well as onshore. Secondly, within domestic regulation, standards have risen and also blurred the lines between what is DBU and what is traditionally ACU. And the third reason is MAS' developmental incentives have also broadened. In the past, MAS' incentives were focused on ACU to encourage the growth of offshore banking activities out of Singapore. Today, MAS assesses the developmental merits of an activity much more broadly and no longer based on domestic versus offshore distinction.”
“DBU and ACU have their origins in the creation of the Asian Dollar Market in Singapore. Like the Euro market located in London, the Asian Dollar Market served as a major source of funding for investment, trading and risk-management needs for the region and beyond. The DBU is used to book domestic transactions, which are mostly denominated in the Singapore dollar. ACU is used to book offshore transactions and these are denominated in foreign currency. MAS' regulatory requirements for banks and merchant banks, in turn, apply depending on whether the activity was booked in DBU or ACU. Foreign banks that wished to participate in the Asian Dollar Market through their ACU had to meet high standards of admission and have reputable home regulators exercising oversight of their global operations. Those that also engaged in domestic businesses in Singapore through the DBU were then subject to additional prudential requirements from MAS, such as limits on large exposure and equity investment. The DBU-ACU divide provided a way to safeguard domestic financial stability, without unduly impinging on the growth of offshore banking activities conducted out of Singapore. It also provided a simple basis for awarding developmental incentives to encourage the growth of offshore banking activities out of Singapore. While the DBU-ACU divide has served us well for decades, it is no longer relevant and will be removed because of the following reasons. First, regulatory reforms since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) have put all banks around the world on a sounder footing. These developments mean that there is less need to distinguish between banks' offshore and domestic banking activities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Senior Minister and Minister-in-charge of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Mr Deputy Speaker, in a constantly changing environment, our legislation needs to be reviewed regularly to keep pace with changes. MAS, therefore, reviews the Banking Act from time to time to ensure that the regulatory framework for banks continues to foster safety and soundness in Singapore's banking system while making sure that requirements are not unduly burdensome. In this round of amendments, MAS is changing two long-standing regulatory practices which have lost relevance over time. First, the Bill will remove the requirement for banks to segregate their accounting books into the Domestic Banking Unit (DBU) and the Asian Currency Unit (ACU). This DBU-ACU divide has traditionally been used to distinguish the domestic and offshore operations of banks and merchant banks. The second change, the Bill will rationalise and consolidate the regulation of merchant banks under the Banking Act and subject them to a licensing regime, under which they will be licensed as a class of financial institutions distinct from banks. The Bill will also make other amendments to enhance MAS' regulatory and supervisory powers to tackle new and emerging risks. These include expanding the grounds for revoking bank licences and introducing new powers for MAS to impose requirements on outsourcing arrangements of banks and merchant banks. I will now go through the main amendments in the Bill. First, the removal of DBU-ACU divide. MAS has engaged the industry extensively on the proposed amendments and has taken into consideration their feedback on the implementation timeline. The divide has existed since 1968.”
“MOE enhanced professional development opportunities for AED(LBS) through modular training, conferences and milestone programmes, and offer scholarships and awards to AED(LBS) for further studies. The number of SPED teachers has increased by about 40% since 2014 to meet the needs of the growing enrolment of students with SEN. MOE and the National Council of Social Service will continue to support mainstream and SPED schools in the recruitment of educators with appropriate skillsets and aptitude to teach students with moderate-to-severe SEN.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) has studied a number of international models for supporting students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). The models differ, reflecting the specific context of each jurisdiction. British Columbia, for example, places great emphasis on the mainstreaming of students with SEN. However, other education authorities, such as that in the United Kingdom, recognise that the educational needs of children with higher needs are better met in more specialised settings, and are setting up more specialised schools and units for children with SEN. In Singapore, we have adopted a multi-pronged approach, so as to cater to the diverse range of educational needs of students with SEN. Hence, around 80% of students with SEN, including many with dyslexia, Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, as well as the majority of students with sensory and physical impairment, are in mainstream schools. The rest, who have moderate-to-severe SEN, are in Special Education (SPED) schools. That way, students with moderate-to-severe SEN can benefit from a highly customised curriculum and pedagogy, delivered by specially-trained SPED teachers, and supported by a range of allied professionals, such as psychologists and therapists. Having well-trained staff is key to the quality of support for students with SEN. In mainstream schools, all Allied Educators (Learning and Behavioural Support) [AED(LBS)] undergo the Diploma in Special Education programme at the National Institute of Education. In 2016, MOE enhanced the career structure, progression and development of AED(LBS), including creating higher appointments, such as Lead AED(LBS), Master AED(LBS) and Chief AED(LBS) to lead the fraternity at the school cluster, zonal and national levels.”
“In Academic Year (AY) 2018, more than 34,000 bursaries and/or scholarships were awarded to full-time Singaporean undergraduate students at the autonomous universities (AUs). This has increased significantly from AY2014, when around 21,000 were awarded. Please see Table 1 below. In financial year (FY) 2018, the Government spent a total of $65 million on bursaries. As announced at the National Day Rally in August 2019, the Government will further enhance bursaries to cover up to 75% of subsidised tuition fees from AY2020 onwards. Government bursaries provide financial support for Singaporean full-time undergraduate students from lower- and middle-income families with gross monthly household income up to $9,000 or gross monthly household per capita income up to $2,250. Apart from Government bursaries, the AUs also provide their own financial aid and scholarships, which are funded through the AUs' endowment fund returns and reserves. As these are administered by the AUs, the eligibility criteria may also vary. These could include students' family financial circumstances, academic merit, and/or co-curricular performance. The quanta vary, as the award may range from one-off awards to full scholarships. The sizes of the AUs' endowment funds are available in their annual reports. In FY2018, the AUs spent $23 million on bursaries alone for Singaporean undergraduates.”
“The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) school planning takes into account housing development programmes and projected population in the residential area, to ensure that there are sufficient school places to meet the demand of families with school-going children. For the Buangkok housing estate, MOE is aware of the recently completed and impending new housing developments. There are currently six primary schools within one kilometre (km) and another 10 primary schools within two km of the Buangkok housing estate. The 16 schools have sufficient capacity to meet the projected demand from residents. Specifically, at the end of Phase 2C of the recent Primary 1 registration exercises, there were about 270 vacancies in the schools within one km and another 315 vacancies in the schools within two km of the Buangkok estate. MOE will continue to monitor the demand and supply situation of the primary schools in this area closely. We will also make the necessary adjustments to meet the demand for school places in the area. If required, we can consider opening more school places in some of the existing schools near Buangkok estate.”
“Online versions of the syllabus for school subjects are already accessible from the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) website. Similarly, schools share their key learning programmes and activities on their school websites and through briefings to parents. These efforts help parents to understand what their children are learning in school and appreciate how schools have implemented the national curriculum to engage their children in holistic education. We encourage parents to support their children in learning by helping them to discover their interests and strengths and provide a home environment that encourages children to develop self-management skills, take ownership of their learning and grow holistically.”
“As part of the efforts to help our youths develop 21st Century competencies, schools organise overseas trips every year aimed to expand our students in areas like cultural enrichment, language immersion and education in history or geography. Depending on the objectives of the visit, community projects may be included as part of the trip. Where appropriate, schools could have our youths conduct English and Mathematics lessons for the local children, paint the walls in the school or refurbish the library. In the process, we hope our students develop a sense of empathy as they learn about the life of their peers in the countries they visit and draw lessons from the tenacity and resilience of these communities.”
“The Ministry of Education Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) provides financial support for Singapore Citizen (SC) students from lower-income families in our primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges. For primary and secondary schools, FAS covers school and miscellaneous fees, textbooks, uniforms, meals and transport expenses, including a 50% subsidy of school bus charges. As FAS is provided on a per child basis, families with more children are not disadvantaged nor adversely affected.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) promotes inclusive Physical Education (PE) and sports through multiple avenues. Para events have been introduced at the National School Games in Swimming, Track and Field, Tenpin Bowling and, most recently, Shooting. These para events have attracted steady participation from our Special Education schools and mainstream schools annually. MOE also supports Play Inclusive, a collaboration between Special Olympics Singapore and SportCares. During the inaugural event in 2018, 450 participants comprising athletes with intellectual disabilities partnered students from mainstream schools to play badminton, basketball, football and floorball. The number of participants doubled in the 2019 edition. In addition, almost every mainstream school is currently resourced with a teacher trained in Inclusive PE to enable all students with varying abilities to enjoy physical activities and sports together. Through these activities, students gain a better understanding of one another, including those with special needs. We will continue to explore ways that meaningfully meet the needs of our diverse profile of students, while helping them appreciate those with different abilities. But like many other meritorious topics, from climate change, computer coding, social equity to financial literacy, MOE will take great care before introducing them as compulsory subjects or activities. We can engage students in these topics through existing school lessons or activities, in an organic and interactive way, which can be more effective.”
“Based on MOM's Labour Force Survey, the training participation rate increased from 35% in 2015 to 48% in 2018. We are making good progress and achieving encouraging momentum with SkillsFuture. We will continue to monitor the training outcomes and enhance the programmes to prepare workers for changes in our economy and to support lifelong learning for Singaporeans.”
“The SkillsFuture programme comprises many initiatives to support the lifelong learning needs of Singaporeans from all walks of life. There has been no widely accepted metrics to measure the efficacy of training, despite many countries having worked on this for many years. Nonetheless, Singapore has been evaluating the outcomes of training through several measures. One such way is to collect feedback from employers and individuals on course quality and training outcomes. Post training surveys show that more than 80% of trainees felt that work performance improved after training. Additionally, the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) Employer-Supported Training Survey found that 92% of employers reported that training had a significant positive impact on the performance of their workers. There are also programme-specific studies to evaluate the impact of training on wage and employment outcomes. For example, a study by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) found that non-employed trainees who completed their Singapore Workforce Skills Qualification (WSQ) training were more likely to find employment and earn higher wages than their previous jobs. The same study also found that WSQ trainees experienced a wage premium of up to 6% compared to trainees who did not attend such training. MTI has also studied the wage data of the initial batches of graduates from the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn Programme (ELP). It found that ELP graduates enjoyed a sustained wage premium of about 10% over polytechnic diploma graduates. At the national level, we have seen a rise in the training participation rate of the resident labour force, in tandem with the rollout of various SkillsFuture programmes.”
“The Ministry of Education is committed to ensuring that all students, including those with Special Educational Needs (SEN) enrolled in our institutes of higher learning (IHLs), receive the support they need. Hence, all IHLs have set up dedicated SEN Support Offices which provide one-stop services to support students with SEN, from pre-enrolment to graduation. Before enrolling in an IHL, students can approach the SEN Support Offices in the IHLs for advice on the types of courses that might be more suited to their interests and learning needs. We also put in place arrangements where schools will share SEN-related information with IHLs, to facilitate the students’ transition to a new education environment. For polytechnic and Institute of Technical Education students who require financial support in purchasing education-related assistive technology devices and support services, they can tap on the SEN fund. Eligible students with physical impairment may draw up to $5,000 from the SEN fund while those with visual or hearing loss may draw up to $25,000 over the course of their study, with more support provided to those with higher needs. Students with severe hearing, physical and visual impairment may draw up to $70,000 from the SEN fund over the course of their study. To prepare students with SEN for the workforce, our IHLs put in additional effort in career guidance to these students, including helping them identify suitable internship opportunities and prepare them for their internships. The IHLs also work closely with SG Enable and voluntary welfare organisations for specialised mentorship programmes and job matching. There are also training faculty and staff to raise their awareness and understanding of SEN, and to build a more inclusive campus culture.”
“The SkillsFuture Study Awards support early to mid-career Singaporeans to deepen their skills in growth sectors or areas of demand. The number of study awards is determined by sectoral lead agencies based on each sector’s manpower and skills needs. Should economic and labour conditions worsen, the Government will consider introducing additional measures to help employers and employees with training and skills upgrading, so that our workers can acquire the relevant skills to stay employed or transit to other sectors and companies. This will include Professional Conversion Programmes.”
“I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they were added to the programme without their knowledge, they had nothing to do with the project and did not receive any invitation.”
“I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they had not agreed to participate in the programme, though they had received an invitation. [Please refer to "Reasons for Cancellation of “Dialogue and Dissent” Programme at Yale-NUS", Official Report, 7 October 2019, Vol 94, Issue No 112, Oral Answers to Question section.] [(proc text) Written statement by Mr Ong Ye Kung circulated with leave of the Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No 29 (5): (proc text)] After my statement during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question "Reasons for Cancellation of 'Dialogue and Dissent Programme' at Yale-NUS" at the Sitting of 7 October 2019, AWARE made a clarification with MOE. My reply should read as follows:”
“The Ministry of Education works with various economic agencies to plan the supply of diploma and degree places in the tertiary institutions, in line with national manpower demand across the different sectors to ensure relevance of the skills and knowledge of graduates. This approach is medium to long term in nature and should not fluctuate based on short-term economic performances. However, SkillsFuture Singapore supports many modular Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes across all sectors. Should economic and labour market conditions worsen, we will step up our support for workers through these CET programmes to help them acquire the relevant skills to stay employed or transition to growth sectors and companies.”
“The Ministry of Education takes a serious view of all incidences of bullying, regardless of whether the students involved have disabilities or special needs. Schools must be safe and secure environments for all students to learn in. The reported number of bullying incidents remains low and stable over the past five years. When such cases are reported, they are promptly investigated and appropriate disciplinary action is taken to guide perpetrators and restore relationships with those whom they have hurt. Counselling support is also provided to victims and perpetrators. Schools will also involve parents to reinforce the same values and expectations of their children’s behaviour. We believe that instilling good values, conduct and discipline in our students is a shared responsibility, and parents, schools and the community should work in partnership. Through Character and Citizenship Education and subjects, such as Social Studies, students are taught how to relate to others with care and respect, and to deal with conflicts. Schools have established peer support systems and promoted a positive culture, where students are sensitive to the needs of their peers with special educational needs. Students are also encouraged to speak up against bullying and report incidences to the school authorities.”
“The data is only meaningful with proper classification, such as by severity or circumstances. But as each case is sensitive, it has been very hard to classify them appropriately. Notwithstanding, the number of cases over the years has been consistently very low. For each case, the school principal will ensure that the victim receives timely support, with empathy and sensitivity. The school counsellor will provide counselling support to the victim. School counsellors are equipped with skills to assess the psycho-emotional state of the victims and provide the appropriate interventions or referrals required. Our schools also work with parents or caregivers and other relevant agencies, such as Child Protective Service, Child Protection Specialist Centres, and the Response, Early Intervention and Assessment in Community Mental Health to monitor and support the victims. Upstream, schools teach students about personal safety, sexual abuse and harassment. They are taught how to protect themselves, both in real life and online, and understand the laws that protect them in Singapore. They also learn to look out for one another and seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents, teachers and school counsellors.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) is the major supporter of the work of the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS). Our focus is the evidence-based Main Literacy Programme for dyslexia, but we do not provide funding for the other programmes offered by DAS, such as Chinese, Mathematics, Speech and Drama. Research into dyslexia for different languages, especially Mother Tongue Languages (MTLs) and the specific learning support, is a developing field. MOE monitors various research findings in MTL learning difficulties and is open to adopting evidence-based and effective targeted interventions for students with dyslexia. In the meantime, MOE provides additional support for students with difficulties in learning MTL in schools on a needs basis. Our primary school curriculum ensures that MTL learning in Primary 1 and Primary 2 focuses on listening and speaking. We will be implementing the Mother Tongue Support Programme for Primary 3 and 4 students in 2021 and 2022 respectively. After Primary 4, students who have persistent difficulties in coping with the standard MTL curriculum can consider offering Foundation MTL in Primary 5 and 6, and subsequently MTL "B" in secondary school and junior college.”
“The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) re-employment practices are aligned to those of the Singapore Public Service. From 2014 to 2018, about 90% of retiring teachers are offered re-employment every year. Whether a teacher is offered re-employment at age 62 is primarily determined by the teacher’s performance and conduct. It has nothing to do with school mergers. Our overall teacher workforce numbers have remained stable in the last five years. Against a backdrop of falling birth rates and smaller student cohort sizes, the pupil to teacher ratio has improved over the years and teachers have been deployed to do meaningful work.”
“Reducing an over-reliance on tuition is not something that MOE can do alone. It requires the support of parents and the wider community. It also requires a mindset change that shifts away from an excessive focus on academic grades to one of holistic education, and an understanding that there are many different pathways for our children to achieve their full potential and do well in life. To that end, we recently introduced guidelines for School-Home partnerships, to share ways in which parents and schools can work together to help enable children develop self-management skills and take ownership of their learning. Together with parents, we can shift the culture to one where our children have the self-confidence and support from their families, schools and peers to manage their learning, instead of turning to tuition as the default option whenever they feel they need help.”
“For example, we have expanded the number of Direct School Admission places in schools, reduced school-based assessments, and will be implementing changes to the Primary School Leaving Examination scoring system in 2021. By 2024, we will roll out Full Subject-Based Banding in all secondary schools. Our curriculum has also evolved to become more inquiry-based, more experiential. We continue to support students who need additional help in schools through initiatives, such as learning support programmes for English and Mathematics. Our schools will continue to provide more resources for students who have learning needs, including having smaller class sizes for these students. Schools will also maintain their partnerships with Self-Help Groups to provide support for our students. Mr Seah Kian Peng has asked what proportion of our teachers are currently giving tuition. Our surveys indicate that it is not a prevalent practice; around one in 10 teachers is giving paid tuition. Nevertheless, this is a matter that MOE continues to monitor closely, as we would be concerned if our teachers are distracted from their core responsibility to support their students in our schools, especially those who are in need of more support from our teachers. The public sector has existing guidelines on public servants participating in outside activities that may place them in possible conflict of interest situations, or where we would deem it necessary for approvals to be given to ensure proper conduct and avoid distraction of individual officers from their core duties. MOE will periodically review our guidelines and regulations for our teachers giving paid private tuition to ensure that they remain focused on their core duties.”
“The reasons for taking up tuition are multifaceted. It is important to be able to distinguish when it is desirable and when it is not. For example, we recognise that tuition can benefit students who are genuinely in need of more dedicated help in coping with their studies. This is why some of our schools have partnerships with volunteers and Self-Help Groups that provide affordable academic support. We also know that, at heart, many parents send their children for tuition out of care and concern for their child. They worry whether their children can cope with their studies and about examinations. However, if a child is generally coping well academically and understands the fundamentals, tuition may not be necessary and can even be detrimental. Excessive reliance on tuition can diminish the ability for independent learning, deprive students of opportunities to develop self-management skills and promote unhealthy competition. Further, widespread and continuous tuition can lead to a pervasive tuition culture anchored on excessive focus on academic grades, and a mindset that academic grades are only one way to succeed in life. This runs counter to our philosophy of holistic education and our goal of nurturing lifelong learners. In response to Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question on reducing reliance on tuition, we first have to address the excessive focus on academic grades, with the emphasis here being on "excessive". In order to strike the right balance, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has, in recent years, introduced several policy changes under our Learn for Life movement.”
“But apart from that, on the issue of context and understanding Singapore's context and teaching and doing research within Singapore's context, I would say that it is not just for locals. A foreign faculty can also acquire that sensitivity to our context. So, I would say it is not so much on that front. It is not so much a local versus foreign issue but that I think all academics and our institutions will have to understand Singapore's context and operate within it.”
“The first question on the four principles I outlined are for all educational institutions. We would not want them to each come up with their own principles. But they have to abide by these four which, I think, are eminently reasonable principles while protecting academic freedom. If it is breached, whether there will be an intervention from the Ministry, all I can say is that I stand before this House to answer on behalf of AU issues about sexual misconduct in campus, about how their endowment funds are raised and used, and recently about international students in AUs. So, I, as well as my colleagues in MOE, we are accountable to the House about what happens in the AUs. So, should something go wrong, it is our duty and responsibility to also work with the university to resolve the problems and be accountable to the House. Having said that, I would not characterise the relationship between MOE and the universities as a regulator-regulatee kind of relationship. In fact, we are constantly in conversation. They express their concerns to us and likewise, and we find compromises, consensus on how to move forward. And that is the kind of relationship we want. Just last week, we had a workplan seminar. So, one foreign academic from the UK who attended it, said that "In the UK, we will never have a forum like this where the university leadership and MOE get together to discuss about the future of universities." On the second question, the Member has raised that several times. It is a concern that MOE shares. We are taking various steps and I would be happy to outline maybe on another occasion all the steps we are taking to encourage more local academics to join our universities and make sure we have a strong local core.”
“The simple answer is that it was their own introspection and then they informed us after that. And, of course, as they expected, Yale University then raised an eyebrow, they wanted to find out what happened and so they did an independent report by Yale University's Vice President, Prof Pericles Lewis, and they confirmed and they are satisfied that this withdrawal does not affect academic freedom in the university.”
“In fact, we have Members of Parliament, both People's Action Party Members of Parliament as well as Opposition Members of Parliament, who are faculty members. And so long as they can keep those two activities separate, it is not a problem at all. But, of course, there is a third aspect, which is, what political activism does the person stand for? I think that matters. Remember, in many American universities, if someone, if a faculty is sexist or racist, he will not be engaged, no matter how good his research or teaching is. In Hollywood, we see the same thing. If you are convicted of a sexual offence, even if you are an Oscar Academy Award winner, the studios will not engage you. Therefore, it is not just the content of the course but also what the instructor stands for. So, depending on the person's history and track record, educational institutions, I am sure, will consider carefully whether this is someone they want to engage at all.”
“The first point is a fair one and I would expect AUs to have clear guidelines on how they set their academic standards. I believe they do have these. If it is not done robustly or detailed enough or not communicated well enough, I would encourage them to do so. As for the second issue, I think we have to leave a lot of room for educational institutions to decide for themselves. Whether a person is suitable to be a teacher or instructor at all, that is a relevant consideration. Because, in universities, to be a tenured professor, it is a very high bar. So, it is not a new concept. It is not just the course content, but the person has to meet certain standards. I do not think it is practical to have a blacklist. We have to leave room for the universities to exercise judgement. Is a person who is an activist, therefore, not suitable to teach? I think, no. In fact, it is the reverse. The world over, academics and faculty are encouraged to be activists because you cannot just focus on publications and citations. To realise the impact of research and your work, faculty are encouraged to be active. So, translate your findings into patents, enterprises or, if it is in the social sciences, discuss with the Ministries your ideas and see if you can contribute to policymaking. So, activism amongst faculty is actually quite encouraged. The second question then is: how about political activism? Then, that depends on professionalism. You cannot conflate your teaching and your political activism. You cannot conflate them within a classroom; you have to keep them separate. And so long as they are kept separate, there is actually no problem.”
“I will answer the second question first and then the first. As I mentioned earlier, we value open inquiry and critical thinking amongst our students, and liberal arts education will continue to have a place in the Singapore education system. So, from that perspective, we value the partnership with Yale in running YNC because they bring us a good quality liberal arts education. From Yale University's perspective, they value that partnership, too, because they can then have a liberal arts education delivered in Asia in Singapore. In fact, I would like to add that in the National University of Singapore (NUS), there is a University Scholars Programme, which is quite similar to a liberal arts education. For the partnership between Yale and NUS to work, both sides must agree to abide by the principles I set out earlier. The withdrawal of this project does not affect the partnership. The standard of the project is so far off the mark, I think both sides agree there are no implications on academic freedom. But I would not rule out that, in time to come, there will be incidents that test our partnership. When that happens, I expect both sides to have to constantly evaluate the strength of our understanding and adherence to the principles I stated earlier.”
“Academic institutions should internalise the principles I stated earlier. At the minimum, they should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law. They should not work with speakers and instructors who have been convicted of public order-related offences, or who are working with political advocacy groups funded by foreigners, or who openly show disloyalty to Singapore. Governance everywhere, of countries, companies and educational institutions, has become far more complex because of technology and the free flow of information. Governance calls for judgement and that judgement has to reflect the country's norms. Most countries share fundamental values, such as the rule of law, incorruptibility and open discourse. But the way these values are expressed will vary from country to country, depending on their histories, social values and cultures. In some societies, individuals are more concerned about how far can I extend my fist. But in Singapore, Singaporeans worry when my fist will reach your nose. I have tried to explain Singapore’s approach. In an increasingly globalised world, we must not try to impose one country’s values and culture on others, or unthinkingly import values and culture from elsewhere into our society. We must certainly work across boundaries and learn from one another, but we must do so while understanding and respecting one another’s contexts and norms. That is the best strategy for Singapore to progress and live peacefully in a diverse and interconnected world.”
“Recognise the challenges early, take a long-term view, find solutions, discuss, find compromises and prevent problems from spiralling beyond control. We should strengthen this collective, constructive approach and avoid falling into the divisions and dissensions that plague other societies. Mr Speaker, let me conclude. It is a fact of life that good things always get carried to excesses and then get misused. Free market competition is a good thing, and so is capitalism; they promise more jobs and better lives for people, but they are often marred by greed and exploitation. Democracy remains the best system of governance known to humankind, but faith in the system can be weakened by populism and divisive politics. Social media connect people and give voice to the previously voiceless, but falsehoods and manipulation can also proliferate in that space, too. In all these instances, society needs to recognise the problem and respond, and governments need to intervene in order to preserve the positive objectives and merits of the systems, what they set out to do. It is the same with academic freedom. We believe in this fundamental value. Modern-day Galileos would not exist without our academics and researchers being free to pursue the truth, understand nature, wherever it may lead. But let us also be aware that given the state of the world today, there will be people who want to misuse it as a cloak to advance their hidden agendas, sometimes not even very hidden. To preserve what we cherish, we must be ready to protect it when the situation calls for it. Academic freedom cannot be carte blanche for anyone to misuse an academic institution for political advocacy, for this would undermine the institution's academic standards and public standing.”
“When political officeholders attend events, give speeches or conduct dialogues with students, they will do so only for the purpose of discussing national policies, not to mobilise partisan political support. Fourth principle: educational institutions must recognise Singapore's cultural and social context. Every society is a product of its history, culture and unique circumstances, which set the context of what is acceptable and how things are done. Singapore is no exception. Our governance approach is shaped by our unique realities. We are a small, multiracial and multi-religious country. Our margin for error is very small compared to bigger countries. Imagine if the demonstrations and riots on the streets of Hong Kong, or the political confusion in the UK, were to take place in Singapore. Our international reputation would be destroyed. Trust and confidence in Singapore, whether by Singaporeans or others, would be severely damaged. Our future would be in grave jeopardy. Singapore has been able to progress and develop, not least because we have maintained stability. We have built strong governing institutions, engendered respect for the rule of law and engaged deeply with citizens. We have found solutions and struck compromises before the problems become so severe. Tripartism is an example. We did not wait for protests and strikes to break out before solving the problems downstream. But instead, the Government, employers and unions forged a compact amongst themselves, resolved problems and disputes upstream, and thus maintained industrial harmony. This also made Singapore an attractive investment destination. We adopt the same approach in tackling many other challenges, be it housing, ageing population or climate change.”
“This should be underpinned by rigorous intellectual reasoning, with students required to understand and interpret events and facts within a coherent intellectual framework and, at the same time, to examine theories against the facts and empirical evidence, and against competing theories or arguments. This is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues. Third principle: our educational institutions should not be misused as a platform for partisan politics. Prof Rajeev Patke, Director of YNC’s humanities division, put it very well. In an email to the College leadership, he wrote, "To study is distinct from to practise: to study 'contemporary resistance' or 'contemporary violence' or 'contemporary prejudice' is not the same as to practise resistance, violence or prejudice. We have to ensure that in our educational institutions, academic study does not get confused or compromised by courses of action and intervention which belong to the realm of individual choice." In Singapore's democracy, there are many avenues for political parties and activists to champion their causes, and for people to make their choices and exercise their political rights. Educational institutions, and especially the formal curriculum, are not the platforms to do this. When elections are impending, AUs will always host panel discussions comprising representatives from various political parties and seek to present a balanced range of viewpoints. Otherwise, politicians of any political party – Government or Opposition – may not campaign, mobilise support or advance their party politics in any of our educational institutions. This has always been the position – always been.”
“Finally, let me address Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on what activities are permitted or not on our AUs' campuses. It would not be practical or wise to be overly prescriptive in specifying what should or should not be taught in each subject. We have to leave room for the AUs to exercise their good judgement. But certain principles should be made clear. First, all educational institutions must operate within the laws of Singapore. Our laws are enacted by Parliament, which comprises Members of Parliament who are, in turn, elected by voters. These laws are the democratic expression of the will of the people. Our educational institutions must operate and exercise their academic freedom, within those legal limits. This is a principle that the founding President of YNC and the current Vice-President of Yale University, Prof Pericles Lewis, publicly committed to in 2012. Clarifying YNC's policy regarding freedom of expression, he said "any college or university must obey the laws of the countries where it operates". Every country has their rules and laws, red lines unique to themselves. For example, I do not think the US would tolerate an American university course designed by Jihadists to promote violence, or that France or Germany would accept a course teaching that Nazism is good. These would fall foul of their laws. Second principle: our educational institutions must not deviate from their missions to advance education and maintain high academic standards. Exploring and debating issues within the context of academic study helps students develop important critical thinking skills.”
“Dr Intan Mokhtar and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the implications on academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of this project. Let me first make it clear that the withdrawal of the project does not undermine in any way academic standards or open inquiry. Various academics have, indeed, acknowledged this, and Yale University's independent assessment also came to the same conclusion. MOE values academic freedom, as do our AUs. With academic freedom, our universities can create new knowledge, innovate and contribute to scientific, technological, economic and social progress. Our AUs have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and public discourse carried out vigorously and also rigorously. This is why a liberal arts school like YNC will have a place in Singapore's education landscape. In fact, in all our AUs, there is increasing focus on interdisciplinary learning and development of critical thinking skills in our students. But thinking critically is quite different from being unthinkingly critical; and any course offered by our AUs must be up to mark. Otherwise, it does not deserve to be part of a liberal arts programme. Political dissent is certainly a legitimate topic of academic inquiry. Our students read and assess classic works by revolutionary figures, such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Sun Yat Sen or Mao Zedong. It would also be valuable for students in the social sciences to examine critically present-day issues, such as the causes and implications of protests against climate change or globalisation, or the demonstrations currently happening in Hong Kong. Students can and should also discuss the implications of such political developments on a small country like Singapore. Such open academic inquiry will continue.”
“It means agitation aimed at making people conscious of the oppression in their lives, so that they will take action against these oppressive elements. And I think this is how Mr Alfian saw his project. I should add that a talk by the Association of Women for Action and Research in Singapore (AWARE) was also listed in the programme. But AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they had not agreed to participate in the programme, though they had received an invitation. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Education", Official Report, 7 October 2019, Vol 94, Issue No 112, Correction by Written Statement section.] These individuals responsible for the programme are entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore. They can write about them, even vent them on social media; in that process, even have a following. But we have to decide whether we allow such forms of political resistance free rein in our educational institutions and even taught as compulsory, credit-bearing programmes. Some may argue that academic freedom grants universities the licence to run such programmes, in the spirit of critically engaging the minds of our undergraduates. A few may go even further to claim that dissent is good for democracies and, hence, so is teaching students to become dissidents. I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his commonsense. He would readily conclude that taking into consideration all the elements and all the personalities involved, this is a programme that was filled with motives and objectives other than learning and education. And MOE's stand is that we cannot have such activities in our schools or IHLs. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer’s idea of what education means.”
“” Both Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum have since announced that while the "Dissent and Resistance" project was withdrawn, they will continue their work through New Naratif, an outfit they had set up which receives significant foreign funding. Another part of the project would have entailed watching films celebrating foreign dissidents, including Joshua Wong, the young Hong Kong activist, on the topic "Teenager versus Superpower". As for Mr Alfian Sa'at himself, in 1998, he wrote a poem entitled "Singapore You Are Not My Country". Let me quote some lines to give you a flavour of his thinking: "Singapore, I assert you are not a country at all, Do not raise your voice against me, I am not afraid of your anthem" And a later part of the poem says: "…how can you call yourself a country, you terrible hallucination of highways and cranes and condominiums 10 minutes’ drive from the MRT?" This is a poem and we might concede some artistic licence. But Mr Alfian Sa'at continues this attitude consistently in his activism. In 2013, when 21 Malaysians protested illegally at the Merlion Park, he apologised to Malaysians "on behalf of the Singapore Government" when the protestors were arrested by the Police. After the 2018 Malaysian General Election, he praised the "new Malaysia", juxtaposed it favourably against Singapore, and dismissed the fear of "chaos in the streets, clashes with riot police, traffic at a standstill." In a post over the weekend, Mr Alfian wrote of "a revival of student activism in Singapore, especially in areas, such as political conscientisation". The term "political conscientisation" comes from radical leftwing thought.”
“He worried that there were people seeking to initiate "colour revolutions" in Singapore, that is, revolutions which aim to overthrow governments. In particular, he was concerned that political dissidence had found its way into our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) and asked if foreigners who backed colour revolutions were trying to extend their influence in Singapore. Zaobao and Straits Times published several letters from readers sharing Mr Goh's concern. I know that these views make some academics and leaders within our AUs a little uncomfortable. I think this is not because they disagree with the views, but because they worry that the public and the Government will overreact, which would affect the academic freedom enjoyed by our AUs today. They also worry that the Government would henceforth disapprove of Liberal Arts education. Let me provide the Government's take on this issue. The worry that IHLs may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the Government is not unfounded. MOE had that concern, too, when we saw the itinerary of the "Dissent and Resistance" project. Besides making protest placards and visiting the Speakers' Corner, the programme included dialogues with personalities, such as Mr Jolovan Wham and Mr Seelan Palay, both of whom have previously been convicted of public order-related offences. It also included talks by Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum. Dr PJ Thum has publicly suggested that “Singaporeans should celebrate Malaysia’s independence day”, and that Dr Mahathir should “take the lead in lobbying for the promotion of democracy and freedom of expression and inquiry in Southeast Asia”, because Malaysia was “a beacon for many who are struggling for democracy not just in Singapore but in other parts of Southeast Asia.”
“Fifth, YNC accepts that it could have done better in its administrative processes, in organising the project and communicating their concerns on the project. It will strive to improve. But this does not change the basic fact that the proposed project was inappropriately designed. YNC tried in good faith to work with Mr Alfian Sa'at to make the necessary changes but ran out of time and then decided to withdraw the project. Finally, all the key facts and observations above are also stated in Yale University's own investigation report – this is Yale New Haven. The report was authored independently from YNC and based on interviews with staff, students, faculty and Mr Alfian Sa'at. This episode has drawn many comments. While a few disagree, most academics, including those from YNC, support the College's decision and its reasons for the decision. As Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, a law professor from Singapore Management University and former Nominated Member of Parliament told the Straits Times, "For me, the biggest concern is…the lack of even-handedness in engaging with competing and conflicting perspectives… (There is an) absence of even a rudimentary theoretical framework to approach and to understand dissent and resistance." Many members of the public supported YNC's decision, too. But reading their comments on social media and letters to the newspapers, it is clear their reasons differ from those of academics. Their concerns were simpler and more fundamental: they did not see why inciting and teaching students to protest should be condoned in our educational institutions. This is a valid view that we cannot ignore. One of those who made this point was Mr Goh Choon Kang, in an opinion piece published in Lianhe Zaobao, which The Straits Times later translated and published, too.”
“So, when YNC called for project proposals, faculty members and other teaching staff like Mr Alfian Sa'at were invited, and he responded. Third, from the moment YNC received the outline of his proposal in May 2019, it had questions about how academic objectives were to be achieved. But the discussions that followed resulted only in a cosmetic title change, from "Dissent and Resistance" to "Dialogue and Dissent". There were some adjustments to the itinerary, but no substantive change to the overall structure, content or objective of the programme. Fourth, when YNC received the revised itinerary in September 2019, it became even more concerned. The proposed project lacked academic rigour and did not expose students to a sufficient range of perspectives. Furthermore, specific activities – a workshop to make protest placards and a visit to the Speakers' Corner – would have put students at risk of breaking the law. From YNC's perspective, if that happened to foreign students, they could lose their student visas. So, to answer Ms Anthea Ong’s question, which was posed to the Minister for Home Affairs as Question No 7, the legal risk was real. AUs and their staff and students are not exempt from the law. YNC continued to engage Mr Alfian Sa'at to register their concerns and work with him to revise and refine the project itinerary. Eventually, YNC concluded that there was insufficient time to revise the project before the start of the Week 7 LAB programme. It, therefore, decided to withdraw the project and informed affected students on 13 September 2019. YNC informed MOE of its decision as it expected some public reactions. MOE looked through the itinerary and fully supported YNC's decision.”
“It is a bit of a long answer. I beg your indulgence. Members have raised three areas of concern with regard to Yale-NUS College's (YNC's) withdrawal of the project originally titled "Dissent and Resistance in Singapore". The first question they asked was what reasons underpinned the cancellation of the project. The second was the implications for academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of the project. And third, what are the rules on what topics and activities are or are not permitted in our autonomous universities (AUs)? I will lay out the facts of the case, state the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) views on the issue and, finally, set out the principles guiding what activities are permitted or not in all our educational institutions. First, the facts of the case and YNC's reasons for withdrawing the project. The project was to be run by Mr Alfian Sa'at, a playwright. There have been some media exchanges between YNC and Mr Alfian Sa'at on the details of their correspondences. Rather than dwell on the details, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me focus on the pertinent facts for the House, which are as follows. First, the "Dissent and Resistance" project was one of 14 projects on the slate for YNC’s Week 7 "Learning Across Boundaries", or LAB programme. LAB is a compulsory, credit-bearing programme for all first-year YNC students and they are required to take it. It is not an elective or a campus activity. There are clear learning and academic objectives to help students deepen and synergise different subjects they have learnt during the semester, through experiential learning. Second fact, there was no special invitation to Mr Alfian Sa'at. He had previously been hired by YNC as a part-time instructor to teach a playwriting course and that was in the first half of 2019.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take Question Nos 4 to 6 and part of Question No 7 together, please?”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the use of former school sites under its care. If there are no plans for the sites, MOE will return them to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA). Over the past 10 years, MOE has returned 30 former school sites to SLA. Another four sites are in the process of being returned. Of the 30 sites returned, eight have been demolished and redeveloped for a variety of uses, including public housing, while 12 have been repurposed into facilities like Special Education schools, childcare centres, foreign system schools, homes for the elderly, offices and even urban farms. For the remaining sites, SLA will continue to work with the relevant Government agencies to put them out either for adaptive reuse or for longer-term redevelopment plans. MOE currently has about 25 former school sites, with the majority of these being used or set aside to be used as interim holding sites for schools undergoing upgrading. A few of these sites are pending development plans, for example, to use for Special Education schools.”
“So, there is some issue of social inequality among the AUs. Just like society, we redistribute wealth, we support the weaker members of society more, but AUs are all not that weak, including our new AUs, such as SIT and SUSS. They are not bad. Within a short period, they have built up $400 million each. And part of the reason is that, from the Government's point of view, for the new universities, we match three-to-one. So, for every endowment fund dollar that you raise, we match three-to-one, whereas for the much more established universities with a larger reserve, we will match much less. Having said that, I do not think we want to be too draconian in redistributing the endowment. The logic is not dissimilar to a society because these are donors who willingly part with their donations to support the universities. They probably saw something they like institutionally and how they use their funds and decide to donate to that particular cause. And we should not discourage them either.”