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 48 of 59.
“I do not have the exact numbers and breakdowns to give an analysis. I am also not sure whether it is factually correct that NTU provides more bursaries than NUS. We should also take into account that only part of the bursaries and scholarships is funded through the endowment. There are also non-endowed donations where donors donate to the university but it is non-endowed, that is, "I donate $100,000. Please use this $100,000 to distribute and help needy students." Those are non-endowed donations and NUS also has a lot of that. So, that assertion I am not sure if it is true. We really need to break down the numbers to compare NUS, NTU, SUTD and so on and so forth. Is there a limit? There is currently not a limit because our universities have started building endowments maybe over the last 20 years or so. Compared to international universities, their endowments are not excessively large at all. In fact, many international universities have endowment funds much bigger than that. Also, more importantly is that the incomes from the endowment funds are put to good use. NUS recently put out a statement outlining what they use their money for. It is for research, bursaries and to help with residential programmes. And so, they have good uses for it. And so long as there are such good uses, and donors are prepared to part with their donations to support the institution, then we should encourage that and the Government will continue to match one-to-one or 1.5-to-one.”
“It is common practice internationally for universities to build up their endowment funds through donations to support students and activities outside of education, such as research and enterprise. Donations are always voluntary and decided by donors based on their trust in the organisations and their causes. Donors to AUs will typically specify how the monies are to be used, which AUs do not have the liberty to change.”
“The size of the endowment funds of our autonomous universities (AUs) is available from their financial reports. Based on these reports, the sizes at the end of financial year 2017 are: National University of Singapore (NUS), $5.9 billion; Nanyang Technological University (NTU), $1.9 billion; Singapore Management University, $1 billion; Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), $1.1 billion; Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) and Singapore University of Social Sciences (SUSS), both $0.4 billion each. The Member also asked for the reserves accumulated. Reserves are operating surpluses, if any, accumulated over the years. They are typically tied up in assets, which can be buildings, facilities, long-term investments and so on. The numbers are also available in the financial reports of the AUs, so I will not read them out here. So, what is pertinent is the use of endowment funds. The AUs set up endowment funds, with Government support, because they should have a separate stream of income such that they can embark on their own programmes and activities without always depending on the Government. Every year, investments from the endowment fund will generate a return and only a portion of the investment returns is spent, with the rest reinvested. The biggest use of endowment income is to pay for operating expenditure in delivering subsidised education. And this is because the Ministry of Education (MOE) contributes significantly to the endowment funds of the universities, by matching donations that they raise. The other major uses are providing bursaries and scholarships, supporting additional programmes to enrich students' learning, such as overseas internships and residential learning programmes, funding research projects and sponsoring professorships.”
“For PayNow Corporate, the take-up is not so bad – as I mentioned earlier, it is now half of the UENs – considering that it was launched only in August 2018, a year ago. The take-up is fast and you see a corresponding drop in the use of cheques. So, I agree with the Member that the Monetary Authority of Singapore should encourage banks, and banks should also take the initiative, to promote PayNow Corporate, but at the same time we charge for the use of cheques. I think having this carrot-and-stick, push-and-pull approach, we will continue to see higher take-up of PayNow Corporate.”
“We will continue to enhance the e-payments infrastructure for Singaporeans from all walks to experience convenient and low-cost e-payments.”
“Specifically on hawker centres, Enterprise Singapore has collaborated with the Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) to deploy a unified e-payment solution at small food businesses since December 2018. To date, SGQR labels and unified point-of-sale terminals have been deployed at over 500 stalls spread across 10 hawker centres, 22 coffee shops and 12 industrial canteens. E-payments usage at these stalls is gradually increasing and four out of five e-payment transactions are via SGQR. While the volume of e-payments is still low compared to cash, we expect it to grow. E-payments are convenient to use at hawker stalls and payment operators are looking into ways to make it even more convenient for hawkers. Let me take the opportunity to reiterate our approach to promoting e-payments in Singapore. We made a deliberate decision not to have one player dominate the landscape and roll out very quickly where you end up dominating and monopolising the landscape. Instead, we put in place the backbone infrastructure, so that multiple providers can compete and innovate to increase consumer choice, while encouraging interoperability. As a result, Singaporeans can now make e-payments in multiple ways which are simple, swift and secure. Singaporeans are making more contactless payments using credit and debit cards, such as Apple Pay and Google Pay. They can use QR payments via e-wallets and also use PayNow. As a result, the ratio of cash and cheque usage relative to e-payments has decreased significantly over time. Cheque volumes have been reducing by 8% per year over the last three years and automated teller machine cash withdrawals relative to card and Fast And Secure Transfers payments have fallen from about 50% three years ago to 30% over the same period.”
“Since the launch of PayNow in July 2017 and PayNow Corporate in August 2018, take-up has been encouraging. There have been 2.8 million individual registrations for PayNow, of which 1.8 million are bank accounts linked to mobile phone numbers and the remainder are linked to National Registration Identity Card numbers. We estimate that more than 65% of Singaporeans aged between 20 and 75 have already registered for PayNow, and the numbers are still increasing. As for PayNow Corporate, over 115,000 unique entity numbers (UENs) have been registered. This represents approximately half of the total number of UENs issued to active businesses. The numbers are also on an upward trend. Two years ago, when PayNow was launched, there were about 150,000 transactions totaling about S$24 million in the first month of operations. In July this year, those volumes had increased to over five million transactions, with total values over S$1 billion per month. Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked about the adoption of quick response (QR) code payments. QR codes are a low-cost and effective way for merchants to receive e-payments from their customers. In September 2018, we collaborated with the industry to launch SGQR, our national QR code that consolidated the various QRs of international and domestic payment schemes into a single unified interface. Since then, over 32,000 SGQR codes have been deployed across a range of merchants, including hawker centres, retail stores, food and beverage outlets, supermarkets and healthcare outlets. This represents a penetration rate of about 20% of all retail acceptance points. So, there is a lot more work to do.”
“The expenditure on libraries varies across the institutes of higher learning (IHLs), depending on the volume and type of research they undertake, the range of academic disciplines they offer, the size of the student and faculty body, and other factors. Over the past few years, operating expenditure on libraries ranged between $1 million and $6 million per year, across each polytechnic. For the autonomous universities (AUs), their library expenditures ranged from $1 million to $32 million per year. This works out to be between 1% and 4% of the total operating expenditure for each of the IHLs. Table 1 below shows the breakdown of the library operating expenditures for AUs and polytechnics. The IHLs have put in place measures to share resources across institutions through inter-library loans, so that students can have access to more library materials than those in their own institutions. For example, the AU libraries are studying the possibility of joint subscription of e-resources. The IHLs will continue to work together to enhance such efforts.”
“For example, the Play Inclusive programme brought together student-athletes from several SPED and mainstream schools to share sports experiences. SPED students also participate in the National School Games, the Singapore Youth Festival Arts Presentation and the National Day Parade.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a broader definition of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). It includes students with learning difficulties, such as dyslexia and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or with Autism, physical and sensory impairment, who are enrolled in mainstream schools or study in Special Education (SPED) schools like Pathlight using the national curriculum. Those with moderate-to-severe SEN are enrolled in specialised SPED schools, with more assistance and customised teaching and learning approaches. As at December 2018, there were about 32,000 students with reported SEN, with 80% in mainstream schools and 20% in SPED schools. The proportion of students with SEN has increased from about 5% in 2014 to 7% in 2018. The rise in students with SEN is a worldwide trend. Part of this is due to increased awareness and reporting, and better identification by hospitals and schools. Mainstream schools educate students on inclusivity through classroom lessons, as well as school-based programmes that build up peer support. Through these, schools emphasise the importance of values, such as respect and care for others, and promote empathy and acceptance of differences. But it is not without challenges, and the system is still improving. SPED schools have established partnerships with mainstream schools to provide social mixing opportunities among the students. An example is the combined community service and co-curricular programmes for students of Bowen Secondary School and Asian Women’s Welfare Association (AWWA) School. MOE, schools and partner organisations also work together to promote inclusivity in arts and sports.”
“Expenditure for undergraduate education varies across the autonomous universities (AUs) and course clusters, depending on factors, such as the education model and pedagogy, faculty-to-student ratio for the courses, and the capital costs involved in delivering the course. Courses with better faculty-to-student ratios include the law programmes, while courses with higher capital costs include laboratory-based programmes like computing, science and engineering. For similar courses, the Ministry of Education does not vary our funding to AUs based on their expenditure. Instead, we establish a per-student cost norm for similar courses across universities and fund programmes based on these norms. This approach encourages cost discipline across our AUs even as they strive to deliver high-quality undergraduate education. Overall, the average Government funding for operating expenses per undergraduate in financial year 2019 is around $22,000. Government grants continue to be the main source of funding for university education. Students generally pay around 25% of the cost of education. The AUs tap on income from endowment, which is built up with Government matching, to supplement Government funding for their programmes.”
“Our institutes of higher learning (IHLs) offer a range of language programmes, including Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) languages, such as Bahasa Melayu, Bahasa Indonesia, Thai and Vietnamese. As Malay is one of our official languages, it is offered more widely in our IHLs – at four universities and two polytechnics. Bahasa Indonesia is available at the National University of Singapore and the Singapore University of Social Sciences as optional modules. Our IHLs also offer overseas exposure to various countries, including those in our region, to develop cross-cultural competencies in our students and help them appreciate the growing economic opportunities in our region. The IHLs send students to participate in exchanges and internships in Indonesia every year. Last year, 120 students went. We hope to increase this number over time as economic opportunities in Indonesia grow.”
“Schools commemorate Racial Harmony Day annually, during which schools may have their students wear ethnic outfits. The practice in schools is that under those circumstances, students may wear the headgear if it complements their ethnic outfits. However, Racial Harmony Day commemoration is not a full-day school programme. Students need to be appropriately attired for other lessons, including Physical Education, laboratory or workshop classes where ethnic gear can have safety implications. This year, there were some misunderstandings when those requirements were conveyed. The schools subsequently contacted the parents concerned and clarified the matter.”
“We hope more employers can come on board and join this meaningful initiative.”
“Singaporeans with special educational needs (SEN) require differentiated support to prepare for employment. For those with mild to moderate SEN, many are enrolled in mainstream schools and the institutes of higher learning. Students with more severe SEN would enrol in the Special Education (SPED) schools, and some have obtained vocational certifications, such as Workforce Skills Qualification and Institute of Technical Education Skills Certificate. For those who require additional help, the Government provides further support through the School-to-Work Transition Programme, which offers training and internships to help prepare students with SEN for the workplace. Students with SEN can use their Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to support their education and training needs until they reach the age of 30. This is on top of the $500 SkillsFuture Credit which they will receive when they reach the age of 25. In 2017, the Ministry of Education broadened the scope of PSEA to cover approved training courses offered by SG Enable for students aged 17 and above. This provides additional support for SEN students when they undergo continuing training beyond their school years. We welcome further ideas and suggestions from members on how PSEA and other schemes can be enhanced to achieve better outcomes for students with SEN. Supporting young adults with special needs is a whole-of-society effort. I encourage employers to partner our SPED schools, post-secondary education institutions and SG Enable, to provide internships, training and employment opportunities. For example, SG Enable has been working with hotels to provide job-related training opportunities through the School-to-Work Transition Programme.”
“The Ministry of Education adopts a holistic approach to supporting student well-being, covering physical health, social and emotional development and psychological support when necessary. We strengthen students' mental health through lessons on Character and Citizenship, Form Teacher Guidance Period and Physical Education. We build character in students through experiential learning platforms, such as Co-Curricular Activities, Values-in-Action programme and outdoor education. Our schools teach students social and emotional competencies, such as relationship management, stress management and help-seeking skills, which are then put into practice when students engage in various school activities. The curriculum was enhanced recently to raise greater awareness of common mental illnesses, normalise help-seeking behaviour, reduce stigmatisation and promote peer support. Teachers monitor the well-being of students and work closely with parents and school counsellors to render additional support to those who need it. Schools also work with partners, such as the Ministry of Social and Family Development, mental health professionals and Family Service Centres, to support students and their families within the community.”
“I thank the Member. I reported improving pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) and one big driving force of that improvement is really because of falling cohort sizes. We are keeping the teachers in our system and we improve PTRs as a result. And in general, what we wish to use the additional resources for are really pull-out classes – for Normal (Technical) and weaker students to give them more dedicated attention or in the lower primary, where we have the Learning Support Programme (LSP). We use these additional resources to be able to pull out the students. That is why I am always worried about across-the-board fixing of class sizes because it can mean that all these additional resources today which are used to help weaker students, may disappear overnight. So, we always provide for enough resourcing but let the schools have the flexibility to deploy the resources to help the students that need it most. And that is my preferred method. As for the administrative duties, I thank the Member for that question. Indeed, we cannot split hairs. I think every teacher has a great role to play beyond the classroom – working with parents, sometimes guiding the students outside of the classroom, and going out of their way to make sure they help students. Regarding administrative duties, I am talking about consent forms, making sure they are signed, collecting them, and taking attendance. I think we can use technology to better handle them.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. These are very valid observations. In fact, in my visits to schools, usually the top suggestion from teachers is, “Can we have more help from Allied Educators?”, partly to help them teach as teaching aids, but also to help them deal with, sometimes, disruption in class. Having an Allied Educator would be most useful. So, indeed, we are looking into it – trying to recruit more Allied Educators and give more resourcing to support schools, especially through Allied Educators in what we call Learning Behavioural Support. At the same time, as we recruit more, we will also have to look at their career paths, career progression as well as their professional training.”
“In the primary schools, levelling-up programmes, such as the Learning Support Programme for Lower Primary students and the School-based Dyslexia Remediation Programme for students with special education needs, are conducted in classes of eight to 10 and four to six respectively. In NorthLight School, Assumption Pathway School, Crest Secondary School and Spectra Secondary School, students are taught in class sizes of 20. Over the years, MOE has taken steps to also ease teachers' administrative duties through the use of technology to streamline processes through e-platforms, such as Parents Gateway and the use of apps for attendance-taking. In the 2018 OECD study on secondary school teachers, we are happy to see some positive outcomes as our teachers have reported 3.8 hours a week spent on administrative duties, a drop of 1.5 hours compared to the 2013 survey. MOE will continue to introduce additional measures and better leverage technology to reduce the administrative workload and other demands on our teachers' time, such as on lesson preparation and marking, to allow them to focus their day in school on teaching.”
“Given that resourcing is a zero-sum game, it means the French school may not have a lot of resources for lesson preparation, CCAs, learning journeys, teachers' training, as well as dedicated help for students with specific learning needs. So, something has got to give. A second way is to expand the teaching force so that we can have the best of both worlds – small class sizes, without undermining out-of-classroom activities. But that has significant budgetary implications, especially given that manpower is the largest cost component of our education budget. Remember, our resourcing level is already at OECD standards. Furthermore, a big increase in recruitment will also alter the quality of the teaching force – inevitable, when you try to recruit in such big numbers. It is also difficult to sustain, in our context, given increased manpower demands in other sectors, such as healthcare and the needs of the economy, all competing for the smaller and smaller cohorts of adults entering the workforce. Because of these reasons, we have decided not to implement any broad-based reduction in class sizes. But where we can, we deploy teaching resources to help students with a greater need for teachers' guidance. For example, the Ministry of Education (MOE) allocates additional teachers to our schools based on their student profiles and to allow them the autonomy to organise class sizes appropriately. In the secondary schools, for example, while Express classes are mostly taught in class sizes of close to 40, Normal (Technical) classes for some subjects are commonly sized at 20.”
“I thank the Member for his question and interest in teaching quality, especially class sizes. I note that he has raised this issue before, in fact, as early as October 2013 – I dug it out. Over the last decade, our Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) has improved and is currently 15:1 for primary schools, 12:1 for secondary schools and 11:1 for junior colleges. This is comparable to many Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and better than countries, such as the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Korea and Japan. However, PTR and class sizes are different concepts. PTR measures resourcing, that is, the total number of teachers provided against the student enrolment numbers. On the other hand, the class size reflects how we deploy our teachers, that is, how much teaching they conduct vis-à-vis out-of-classroom activities, such as curriculum planning, conducting co-curricular activities (CCAs), or attending professional development training. It also reflects whether teaching resources are deployed evenly for all students or varied depending on the needs of the students. Once we differentiate the two concepts, we will realise that there are only two ways to reduce class sizes. One is to stick to existing resourcing levels but give teachers more teaching load and reduce their out-of-classroom activities. I visited a French primary school recently that is run that way. It has a PTR of 19:1 – much less resources compared to Singapore, but it has class sizes of 15 to 20 – smaller than Singapore's. It is able to achieve this because it deploys its teachers fully for teaching.”
“When the Member asked the question a few years ago, we had a backlog of international students whom we were still trying to contact. Some were working here but they did not declare to us. So, they became question marks. And others are, indeed, defaulters. So, at that time, we put all of them together and it came up to $30 million still being unaccounted for. Of course, a couple of years have passed. We managed to contact practically all of them and, therefore, we can ascertain now it is a 4% default rate, representing about $5.5 million a year. But, again, that is a nominal figure. We have tightened the recovery over the last few years. It means there is no running away from calling them, giving them the right forms to fill at the right time and then also having good border controls. I think once we have their names and identity number, they cannot game the system to come back to Singapore. We will prevent them from working or residing in Singapore. If they want to work elsewhere, I think our enforcement cannot extend beyond those countries. But the fundamental point is still – so long as we believe that we need a suitable proportion of international students in our system and then we provide some tuition grants and scholarships to them, we will expect some of them to default and not fulfil their obligations. That is inevitable. But we will try to tighten the selection, make sure we pick the right people and make sure that they will continue to fulfil their obligation.”
“The proportion of defaulters is currently about 4% for the last three years. The grant amount to this group of international students is about $5.5 million annually. For this small proportion of defaulters, the Ministry of Education (MOE) takes a serious view. It is not just a matter of money, but also of honour and trust. We have managed to recover from a few and we will continue to make suitable recovery efforts. For those who fail to pay their liquidated damages, we will also take actions to prevent them from working or residing in Singapore.”
“I thank the Member for that suggestion. Today, some of the students are already net-fee payers. So, although they come and attend our universities, they receive no tuition grant nor scholarship. In fact, the process is that if you apply to enter the university, you must meet the standard, which is a higher one than locals and, after you are accepted, you can then apply for a tuition grant. And some students choose not to apply for a tuition grant and they do become net-fee payers, and I think this is something we ought to discuss with the universities.”
“Thank you. So, if I hear correctly, these are the Member’s position – the Member does not advocate a zero international student policy, he had no fundamental disagreement with our approach. But coming down to the exact number, he feels it is on the high side. So, if he is the Minister for Education one day, he will send back more international students. But I think, fundamentally, there has been no disagreement with the approach of MOE.”
“Do you advocate a zero international student policy?”
“Has there been any study on impact of spending on foreign students? I would very much welcome the academia or our economists, please do a learned study. But we know this has been beneficial to Singapore. Do it in the right proportion, do not overdo it, do not under-do it. Because, first, our Singapore students benefit from interacting and making friends with foreign students, building bridges, building bonds and friendships with them. We do know, many of us, many of the colleagues we work with, actually might have come to Singapore to study at a fairly young age, sometimes on scholarships and, over time, they sink roots here, have children here, and their children serve National Service. Today, they contribute to Singapore. We see so many of these cases around us. I recently came across an entrepreneur, a successful one from the People's Republic of China (PRC). He was a foreigner thinking of doing a startup. Then decided to go into it with a good friend, and the partner, in turn, has another friend, a lady, and both of them were PRCs and had studied in Singapore in secondary school. He ended up marrying the girl. After that, the partner and the wife said that, "We studied in Singapore, it is a wonderful place, how about you start your business in Singapore?" Therefore, that was what he did. Today, his company is a unicorn that hires a thousand people, and all three of them are now Singaporeans and have sunk roots here. So, I welcome any studies to measure the costs and benefits, but the benefits are clear, but do it in the right proportion. Given the Member's strong interest in this subject, if I may ask him in return a question: may I know what is the Member's or the Member's party's position with regard to international students in our schools and our universities?”
“Three questions. On the tuition grant, just to let Members know, there are scholarships that we give to foreign students who are very talented and we want them to be part of our system and they have an obligation to work here. But there are other students who are not Singaporeans studying in our system and they may apply for tuition grants. So, we can accord them a tuition grant, but bear in mind, Singaporeans pay around 25% of the total costs of a university place. Even after tuition grant, a foreigner will still pay about twice the amount of a Singaporean. The Member asked for the amount spent on tuition grant. So, scholarship is $130 million, tuition grant will be about—the total, will come up to be about $238 million. So, another $108 million for tuition grant. As the Member has also pointed out, this is a nominal figure. This is the worth of the scholarships and tuition grants to the foreign students but does not reflect the cost to our education system. The second question, the aid given by universities in other countries is from the universities, whereas for us, it is from the Government. Because, our situation is a bit different. They have state universities, they also have private universities. In our case, all our autonomous universities are all Government-run. Therefore, the circumstances are different; ours is a much more public and centralised system. As for whether we have numbers on how much other governments spend on foreign students, I am afraid I do not have that number. But there is no doubt that all systems around the world use their universities to attract talent from all over the world. Singapore students are also targeted. There is a fight for talent in the whole world. I think we cannot run away from that.”
“So, we give some and we also take some. And our IHLs cannot depart from this international practice norm and has to be part of this global education network.”
“We will also lose a catchment of people who can contribute to Singapore, potentially. Today, international students in IHLs who are awarded scholarships are required to work in Singapore for at least three years after they graduate. Many eventually sink roots, take up Permanent Residency or citizenship and raise their families here. Even if they decide to leave Singapore after fulfilling their obligations, they can be part of our valuable global network of fans and friends, who can speak up for Singapore from time to time and forge collaborations with Singapore. The third point I want to make is that because of the reasons above, every reputable IHL all around the world admits international students and provides them with some form of financial support. The best universities around the world – Oxford, Yale, Ecole Polytechnique, Technical University of Munich and so on – all have a diverse and international student body, far more than our IHLs, in fact. In fact, there are top United States (US) universities like Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton, who have needs-blind admission system. So, they do not admit you based on whether you can pay. So long as you meet their standards, you are admitted. If you cannot pay, there will be some form of donations, financial assistance to help you pay. Singaporean students must have entered those schools on that basis before as well. Because of that, Singaporeans studying overseas benefit from subsidised fees or scholarships from overseas universities as well. In fact, many European universities offer free or heavily subsidised education to all foreign students. There are around 400 Singaporean students currently studying in French and German universities and they benefit from highly subsidised tuition fees there.”
“The Ministry of Education (MOE) recently stated in a reply to a written question by the Member that the total Government spending on scholarships for international students in our schools and universities comes up to around 1% of our annual education budget, or $130 million a year. Unfortunately, immediately after we issued the written reply, I see online reports with a fabricated and inflated number of over $300 million. The real cost, actually, is well below $130 million per year, because $130 million is the worth of the scholarships to the students, not the cost to the education system as a whole. Let me use an analogy. Let us say a restaurant gives a $100 voucher to a customer. The voucher is worth $100 to the customer, but the incremental cost to the restaurant to fulfil the voucher can be much less. Why? Because the cost of rental, utilities, service staff, management and so on, are more or less fixed already, whether the customer turns up with the voucher or not. The same logic applies to our universities. Imagine, if tomorrow we send back all our international students on scholarships, how much of our education budget do we save? I think it would be much less than $130 million, because that is the worth of the scholarships to the international students, not the expenditure incurred by the system. Overhead costs, such as the buildings, laboratories, equipment, management, manpower, faculty will still need to be incurred anyway. Instead, if we send back all our international students, what we will lose, are the opportunities for Singaporean students to build bonds and bridges with students from other countries and expand their network of friends. This is an increasingly important aspect of education because we are all working in a globalised, multicultural world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, given the Member's considerable interest in Government spending on international students, I will give a more comprehensive reply today and I will make three points. The first point is that the core objective of our education system is to serve the needs of Singaporeans and no Singaporean is ever displaced from an institute of higher learning (IHL) because of an international student. This is because we plan the number of IHL places with Singaporean students in mind. Each IHL sets standards for admission. This ensures that students can cope with the rigour of the curriculum, the IHL continues to be held in high regard, both locally and internationally, and students are valued by employers upon graduation and they can secure jobs. When all Singaporean students who meet the standards have been admitted, the IHLs then raise the bar by a few notches and then admit a small minority of international students, over and above the local students. Because of this method, no Singaporean student is ever displaced from an IHL because of an international student. The second point I want to make is that the education budget of about $13 billion every year is overwhelmingly spent on local students, to make education affordable. Beyond the heavy Government subsidies available to all Singaporean students, there is also financial aid, in the form of assistance and bursaries, to ensure that fees remain affordable for lower- to middle-income families. To answer the Member's question, such financial aid is for Singapore Citizens only. The Member also asked for the trend of annual Government spending on international students in terms of scholarships and tuition grants. This has fallen by about 50% over the last 10 years.”
“In general, international students receive less funding than local students, and most of the Ministry of Education's (MOE’s) spending goes to supporting the education of Singapore Citizens. Government-funded financial assistance at our schools and Government-funded bursaries at our post-secondary education institutions are for Singapore Citizens only. The Government does give out a small number of scholarships for international students in our schools and autonomous universities. The total Government spending for this group of international students comes up to around $130 million a year, which is 1% of MOE's annual budget of $13 billion. For those international students on scholarships, their academic performance is closely monitored every semester, and the scholarship would be withdrawn if the scholar’s performance is not satisfactory. Additionally, international students on scholarships at the autonomous universities are also obliged to work in a Singapore entity for up to six years after graduation. Some of these international students eventually apply for and are granted Permanent Residency, and some may also take up citizenship. Every education system in the world will provide some support to international students, and Singaporeans are also benefiting from foreign sponsorships for their studies. This is the norm amongst the international network of education systems.”
“The Government has increased the number of subsidised university places in our autonomous universities (AUs) over the years to support the economy while maintaining good graduate employment outcomes. Between 2010 and 2019, we have raised the Cohort Participation Rate (CPR)1 in the AUs from 26% to close to 40%. Between 2014 and 2018, the annual number of Singaporeans who were admitted into full-time External Degree Programmes at Private Education Institutes has decreased from around 8,200 to 6,100. We should note that these institutes also cater to Singaporeans who were already in the workforce and seek to upgrade their academic qualifications. However, the Ministry of Education is unable to track the number of Singaporeans who have obtained bachelor's degrees from overseas universities.”
“Co-curricular activities remain integral to the school programme. In addition, the Applied Learning Programme and Learning for Life Programme in schools enable our students to apply learning in real-world settings and develop stronger life skills and socio-emotional competencies. Values in Action programme and outdoor adventure camps are also important platforms for character development and nurturing of 21st century competencies. Added together, these programmes ensure that a large part of the curriculum is devoted to authentic learning opportunities to discover new interests and develop character in our students.”
“Examinations continue to be important as they inculcate hard work and discipline amongst our students. However, it cannot be over-emphasised to the extent that it undermines the holistic development of children and douses their curiosity to learn. This is why the Ministry of Education undertook significant efforts to change the scoring system of the Primary School Leaving Examination, reduce school-based assessment load and modify the format of the school report card to move away from an over-emphasis on academic results. By 2021, schools will be removing the mid-year examinations at Primary 3, Primary 5, Secondary 1 and Secondary 3. This reduces assessment load at those levels by 25% and provides more time and space for engaged learning to take place. Starting from this year, we have also removed all tests and examinations for Primary 1 and Primary 2 and require schools to conduct no more than one test per subject per school term for Primary 3 to Secondary 5. School report cards will no longer indicate class and level positions to reduce over-emphasis on peer comparison. Some schools have decided to implement these changes earlier than scheduled. By 2020, more than half of our primary schools would have removed Primary 3 and Primary 5 mid-year examinations, and more than 90% of secondary schools would be removing their Secondary 3 mid-year examinations, one year ahead of schedule. It is too early to conclude on their impact. The feedback we received is that educators and parents see the value of such adjustments and support the direction of the move. These changes to school-based assessment load complement a broader set of efforts to develop our students more holistically. Character and Citizenship Education continues to be a big part of a student's school life.”
“Parents in Singapore are supportive of our schools and work well with our teachers. We have very few cases of harassment or abuse by parents. Teachers and School Leaders are expected to accord appropriate respect and courtesy to parents when engaging them, and the Ministry of Education (MOE) expects the same from parents in their interactions with our educators. At the start of 2019, MOE developed and shared the Guidelines for School-Home Partnership with parents on fostering positive school-home partnerships. This is in recognition of the need for parents and teachers to work closely together to support the children's holistic development. The guidelines also provide greater consistency of practice within and across schools. Parents have been supportive of these guidelines. On rare occasions when parents use abusive words or threaten teachers, they can inform their School Leaders or MOE, who will follow up with the parents. Where a teacher's safety is threatened, MOE and the school will support the teacher in making a Police report. Counselling support from MOE will also be extended to the affected teachers where required.”
“I take the Member's point. That is one value of this discourse that we have in this Chamber, that we are now a lot more careful in defining what is a disagreement and what is a falsehood. I think this law crystallised it. And we should be more disciplined in future.”
“I have no intention to reopen the 2003 case and go through the data to see whether there is any falsified data. I think that is the past. But it is obvious that the Manpower Minister then did not agree with the conclusion of the research report. That does not equal to it being caught under POFMA today. That is why I differentiated between research and activism; that, even when POFMA does not apply to research, please expect us, if we do not agree with the outcome, to present other data, present our arguments and try to correct public perceptions, and try to convince the public otherwise. That is political discourse. It cannot be that just because it is a research piece, we all have to shut up. It is not in the spirit of POFMA, nor the political discourse that we want. On the point that I am the Minister for Education so I am slightly more open whether all these cases concerning research will go through me. I think it should have my inputs, based on how the law is written today. But based on the WP's suggestion, I am afraid the decisions will all go to the Courts.”
“First, being a quantitative economist myself, I very much welcome the Humanities to use more data and empirical evidence. That is one. Two, the Member's point on public interest versus public harm is taken. I have given some illustrations of what I think is the measure of public harm before POFMA kicks in, and I am sure my colleagues will clarify the concept further. Third, on committees to decide what are falsehoods within universities. I think they already exist because the entire discipline of doing good research, comprising peer review, academic committees and so on, already make sure that all academics do their work properly using proper data, do not fabricate data, do not fabricate facts. When you stick to that, I do not see how POFMA will catch you.”
“Yes. I got the Member's point. I am prepared to explain this and have it recorded in the Hansard. Their conclusion that most of the jobs went to foreigners, that is the conclusion of the study. What they based that conclusion on was on data, although incomplete, was not fabricated. It was not falsified. So, there was no falsification and no falsehood involved. And as for the conclusion that most jobs went to foreigners, that was their conclusion and their opinion, which is also not part of POFMA. So, so long as researchers abide by research discipline, I do not see how they can be caught by POFMA unless they fabricated data.”
“Today, researchers continue to study and interpret those events: what caused them, what they represented, what is their impact today. But they cannot deny that they happened and continue to shape the character and psyche of societies today. A society that holds onto certain truths is a social necessity, a binding force in politics, and a prerequisite for civil discussions. Lose these and the country loses part of its soul. Otherwise, democracy becomes a marketplace of merchants peddling forgeries. Only by holding onto certain truths are we able to continue to collectively identify the issues that are important to us, the options and paths we can take, and decide the way forward, without the lies and without the manipulations. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said this is a vote of conscience. It is, indeed, a vote of conscience because look at the tectonic shifts that we are faced with. Technology has fundamentally changed society, changed the political discourse. It is changing politics and modern society as we know it. All governments around the world need new rules, new laws and new mechanisms to deal with this tectonic change. It is a vote of conscience. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. [Applause.]”
“When online falsehoods are perpetrated, it only gives the Government legislative powers for a surgical and judicious insertion of additional facts, through a Correction order. And that is as far as executive powers of Ministers go. It is not the omnipresent, draconian, nuclear weapon, Infinity Gauntlet Snap that some people make it out to be. While small, POFMA is a necessary response to this tectonic technological change, to protect democratic public discourse which we cherish. Let me raise one last point. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about the need for shared reality for any society and acknowledged the need for that. For democracy and constructive discourse to work, there must be a common understanding of the underlying facts of the country – what happened and what did not. And I am glad that the Member acknowledged that. Some of these facts shape the character and common ethos of a nation. Today, the understanding of shared reality, with Science and History, is no longer like the 17th century. I think we have a large body of scientific evidence and we have a good record of history. It is no longer like Galileo's time. So, in Germany, the Holocaust happened. The Germans had lived under a dark period of Nazism, and that is an undeniable fact. Denying it is actually illegal in Germany. In China, the May Fourth Movement happened 100 years ago. The Revolution of 1949 happened. And those events shaped modern China. The US liberated the slaves and went through a devastating civil war. That happened. In Singapore, we are a small, multicultural island state. We faced Communist threats and were thrusted into independence. Those events happened.”
“But I believe that the falsehoods that it targets are those that pose the greatest danger and have negative impact. Globally, falsehoods have already negatively impacted many democratic systems and the lives of people. The greater reason for tabling this Bill is to safeguard the lives of our people against such threats. (In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that online falsehoods have affected election and referendum results, twisted public sentiments, heightened public tensions, societal tensions and altered the political discourse. A big worry of the modern world is whether democracy can withstand this onslaught. And indeed, this is a major challenge of our times. Today, the odds are stacked against those of us who are trying to uphold institutions, all of us in this House. The balance of power is asymmetrical, heavily weighted in favour of those with malicious intentions. It is far easier to make a sensational falsehood viral, than a technical correction. It is far easier to use bots to spread falsehoods than to use a speech and use traditional media coverage. I give you an example. In the recent shooting in New Zealand, the shooter had a live Facebook feed for 17 minutes. Let us juxtapose that video against the standards under POFMA. Is there public harm, as a second gate? Definitely. Did the perpetrator possess knowledge of the harm, as a third gate? Certainly. Is there falsehood? There is not. For it was live; it was what took place. So, POFMA cannot enforce a takedown of this feed. In the end, it was taken down, not by the force of law, but by Facebook itself under a lot of pressure. Relative to the explosion of online capabilities that is now presented to those with malicious intent, the ambit of this law is not large.”
“Fortunately, there were timely clarifications for these two incidents and they did not lead to more panic and hysteria. As technology advances, this problem will worsen. In recent years, AI has developed the "Deepfake" capability, in which computers can be used to combine and superimpose existing images and videos and mimic a person's actions and speech. Such fabrication has frightening risks and implications. China has decided to ban the use of "Deepfake" technology. We cannot stop the advancement of technology, but neither can we evade the problems that come along with it. We have the responsibility to find solutions to rectify these problems. This Bill has clear goals and defined boundaries. For each of the examples I mentioned, the Bill can be used to request online platforms or media companies to issue corrections. Legal action can then be taken against those who spread such falsehoods with malicious intent. There are academics who worry that the Bill will stifle freedom of speech or even hamper academic research. There is no need to worry. The Bill is only applicable to the examples mentioned, covering facts and not opinions. Unless the research paper made use of falsified data or falsehoods, there is no need to worry. Furthermore, the Bill targets the writers of fake news and not the people who spread it. So, there is no need to worry about inadvertently sharing mistaken information. However, I hope that everyone can be vigilant at all times and verify the information they receive, before sharing them with family and friends. In summary, there is actually nothing new under the sun. But in this Internet era, strange things seem to be surfacing all the time. This Bill may only have an effect on a small amount of falsehoods out there.”
“That was how the Chinese Idiom "草木皆兵Cao Mu Jie Bing" (every plant is an enemy soldier) came about. There can never be too much deceit in times of war. This has been so since ancient times; falsehoods have been used to affect the emotions of societies and people. Singapore is no exception. However, the falsehoods of today are different from those of the past. Firstly, the channels of falsehoods have increased: through the Internet and the widespread usage of mobile devices. Secondly, the speed of spreading falsehoods has increased: a survey on social media conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that falsehoods can reach 20,000 individuals in a day, but facts and the truth can only reach 10,000 in three days. That is, falsehoods can spread six times faster than the truth. Thirdly, falsehoods have also become more destructive. Three years ago, during the UK's referendum on exiting the EU, that is, Brexit, the Internet was flooded with falsehoods, such as "Turkey is becoming part of the EU, which will cause large numbers of immigrants to enter the UK." Such intentional spread of falsehoods aimed to mislead the voters and affect the voting results. Apart from politics, falsehoods can disrupt the everyday lives of people. Eight years ago, when Northeast Japan was hit by a massive earthquake which damaged a nuclear power plant, there was a rumour circulating on social media that salt could guard against radiation exposure. This caused people to rush to the supermarkets and buy all the available salt supplies. Nearer to home, in 2017, there was a rumour that a hawker in Geylang was selling satay made of dog and cat meat. In the same year, there were also accusations that some local supermarkets were selling rice made of plastic.”
“Today, if anyone of us puts forward a view in a speech, during a dialogue or in an Instagram or Facebook post, and if the public does not agree with us, they will speak up and give us a piece of their mind. And we have to consider those views and re-evaluate our position. The interaction will get more active and rigorous. It is part and parcel of modern governance. When it comes to our decisions and actions, the scrutiny will be even more intense. We want this interaction and exchange of ideas and opinions to be free of malicious falsehoods which poison the atmosphere and mislead the discourse. POFMA enhances, and not diminishes, democratic public discourse. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I shall continue my speech in Mandarin. Fake news has been in existence since ancient times. For example, during the Jin Dynasty in China, the Qin army from the north sent their troops south to attack Eastern Jin. As the two troops battled at the Fei River, the troops from Eastern Jin suggested for the Qin troops to move back, to allow the Jin troops to cross the river, so that the two troops could battle to the death. As the vanguards of the Qin army moved back, Jin soldiers who had infiltrated this group started shouting: "The Qin army has lost! The Qin army has lost!" Amazingly, the Qin troops believed these words and thought that the command to move backwards was a sign of defeat. This led to a sharp drop in the Qin troops' morale, eventually resulting in the Qin army’s defeat and retreat. The Qin army was filled with anxiety and panic, and every movement in the surrounding plants made them suspect that it was the Jin army lying in ambush.”
“You are as free as an ordinary citizen to comment on current affairs or critique the Government. Conversely, any activist, whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street who uses the online medium to spread falsehoods and harm society, will come under POFMA. POFMA offers no special shield to academics either. But the law aside, in this era of free-for-all communications and interactions, public discourse is becoming more rigorous. Here is where things may get a little bit different for academics. Academics are well-respected members of society. We hold academics to "conduct professorial" high standards of integrity in their teaching, research and the validity of their views put forward in public. This is especially so when they speak or make social media posts on current affairs while bearing the title of a professor in a publicly-funded university. So, you can put out an opinion that Singapore’s growth model has failed. You can say meritocracy in Singapore has failed. You can say the education system is elitist, our social welfare does not work and it does more harm than good. POFMA will not apply to you because that is your opinion. But in the interest of open debate and given your stature in society and position in a publicly funded university, please expect Government agencies, if we do not agree with you, to put out the data and put out our arguments to convince the public otherwise. If that has a chilling effect, please chill. The same and, perhaps, even higher expectations apply to my Cabinet colleagues and I. Whatever we say needs to be well thought out, set the tone for society, and be in the best interest of our people.”
“I may be wrong, but I do not think it is about research. They are worried that POFMA will be used to stifle political discourse in Singapore. Because not all researchers are just researchers; most researchers may also be activists. Nothing wrong with that. But it is in their activist role that some of these academics are voicing their concerns about POFMA. So, there is a request for an explicit carve-out for opinions, criticisms, satires and so on in the Bill. I want to point out that we cannot conflate research with activism. I read a Facebook post by Dr Derek da Cunha and I thought he put it very well. He observed that some academics "spend every other week banging away on the subject online and offline because his or her motivation is to effect change. This isn’t even a case of any contentiousness over what is, or is not, the 'truth'." He added, "Instead, it brings up the question: what is the appropriate role of an academic? Any contention that academics should not adhere to boundaries or parameters, but such boundaries or parameters should exist for everyone else, might be an unreasonable proposition." The same point was made by a Straits Times Forum letter writer who asked, "Where is the line between exercising academic freedom to pursue truth and wisdom, and hiding behind academic freedom to fulfil partisan political and socioeconomic agendas? Does having academic freedom mean one has carte blanche to communicate irresponsibly and without credible evidence?" Let me put it quite plainly. Any activist will not be caught by POFMA if you express an opinion or even hurl criticisms at the Government. The law treats all activists equally, whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street. It does not target academics.”
“In which case, such work I do not think it can pass the academic and professional standards of any decent university or research institute. Mr Speaker, Sir, research that challenges conventional wisdom and shared belief is happening as we speak, in ways, I think, more significant than when Galileo was working on the Sun and the Earth. Quantum scientists have discovered that a very small particle can appear at two or more places at the same time until you look at it. So, it is a bit mind-boggling. You are not really there until I look at you. The score of the football match is not four-zero until I look at it. So, it did not really happen. That is too simplistic a way to put it, but they are questioning reality as we know it. In economics, the post Global Financial Crisis debate continues on the efficacy of fiscal, monetary policies and quantitative easing. Researchers are questioning the causal relationship between unemployment and the skills gap, and if a nation’s success should also include measures beyond gross domestic product to include ecological sustainability and social equity. So, big questions are undergoing research now. These works challenge existing beliefs in far more profound ways than any memes, blog post, video, opinion piece in the newspapers shared online, which is the practical focus of POFMA. These researches are ongoing, welcomed and embraced. If any of our researchers make such a breakthrough in our understanding of the world, rather than being persecuted, as Mr Cedric Foo said, they are more likely to be celebrated and maybe even accorded a National Day award! This Government will always honour empirical and evidence-based research. Let me try to address what I think some of the academics are really concerned about.”