R. Sinnakaruppan
Singapore
“In the first place, is the reporting system of the hand, foot and mouth disease cases by the GPs to the Ministry quick enough? Could it be that by the time the Ministry gathered all the data, the disease has already spread?”
“It is, in some ways, like what the Government has done for our university by setting up a private university, the Singapore Management University.”
“Sir, the question I really have is this. While it is very encouraging to see that the Government has started this scheme late last year, I would like to ask whether, in addition to looking at the priority for older estates, there are wards where there are more private estates than public estates.”
“I would also like to ask that this lift upgrading programme, on a pilot scheme that has been planned, can be expanded and more of the mature estates in the city centre can be considered for this upgrading.”
“It must have greater compassion and greater commitment to level up the lower strata of our society. Like the call by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, it must do much more on public education on what we want to achieve as a nation. It must rally our citizens to help them cope with the impending changes of our economy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this more calibrated approach to killer-litter offences by MND as well as MHA. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in the light of this approach, the Housing and Development Act could be reviewed to raise the maximum penalty from $1,000 to $5,000, same as the penalty imposed by the Town Council, for the n…”
The complete record
Every one of 370 lines we hold for R. Sinnakaruppan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 8.
“Depriving them of the opportunities that Edusave can provide will shut the door to enrichment programmes that they can benefit from and which would help them climb higher in the socio-economic ladder. The Ministry can perhaps consider implementing the three-child cap per family for children born after the policy is implemented. Our education system provides for 10 years of schooling before students join the job market or proceed to post-secondary education or training. The Edusave balances of Singaporeans between the ages of 16 and 21 years can be used for vocational and technical training and for young workers to upgrade their skills. Clause 13 of the Bill provides that the unused Edusave balance in each pupil's account would be transferred to his CPF ordinary account. The drawback of this provision is that it is possible that some parents may not bother to ensure that their children actually use the funds and enjoy the benefits of this scheme. Edusave is not intended to be a hand-out, but it is intended to give a boost to the education of our children. Parents must therefore be informed and educated on the uses of Edusave. The schools will play an important role in ensuring this. In conclusion, I would like to say that the Education Endowment Scheme Bill underscores the importance that the Government places on the education of its citizens. It is also heartening to note that we have moved beyond the provision of basic education and can now look forward to a more flexible and innovative approach. This is an important step in our climb towards achieving our vision of a 1984 Swiss standard of living in 1999. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“The Fund is intended to enrich the education provided to our children. It is important to start such enrichment programmes at a young age. For example, the aesthetic appreciation for the arts is best instilled at a young age. The Ministry should consider extending the grants to primary schools at this stage or as soon as is possible. The creation of the Edusave Pupils Fund recognises that although there is a good quality uniform education system for all, the Government is willing to give parents choices in enrichment programmes. Edusave Pupils Fund is particularly beneficial to the less well-off Singaporeans who have the greatest need for Government assistance as well as the well-to-do who already sent their children for such activities at their own expense. However, the usage of the Edusave Pupils Fund must be controlled as parents must still be responsible for the basic costs of education such as school and miscellaneous fees. Edusave is not a welfare scheme and there are various bursaries and other financial means for those who face difficulties in meeting these basic fees. It would be useful for the Ministry to indicate the type of programmes that can make use of Edusave Fund so as to avoid any misunderstanding that may arise from false expectations. Mr Speaker, Sir, Edusave accounts will also not be opened for children who are the fourth child and so on. Although the Government's intention is to discourage poorer families from having more than three children, I feel that this would deprive poorer families that have more than three children presently, and it is these children that need the assistance most.”
“The Ministry of Education must resist the temptation to use the Endowment Fund to fund its normal budgetary requirements. The Advisory Council to be established under clause 10 will play an important role in ensuring this. The composition of this Council is very important. Parents must be adequately represented as the best means to ensure effective and efficient use of the Fund is to give parents the final say, both as taxpayers as well as people, who could make the right decision for their children. The Edusave Endowment Fund will be used to fund scholarships for our brighter students, for grants to schools and to fund the Edusave accounts of individual pupils. The most important of these would be the grants to schools. Whilst scholarships will help and reward the brighter pupils, the grants to schools will ensure that the Fund is spent equitably and benefits the entire student population. Individual schools would be able to use the grants to fund a wide range of activities. Neighbourhood schools would be able to develop unique programmes and carve themselves a niche in a particular area of academic or extra-curricular activity. They can also use the funds made available to them to improve their infrastructure. The School Advisory Committees can play an important role in advising the principals and in raising funds to supplement the Endowment Fund grants. This would help avoid the danger that the grants are spent on a minority of students or on white elephant projects. The Ministry can give broad guidelines but must ensure that these are not too stifling. The grants will enable neighbourhood schools to attain some of the flexibility that our independent schools now possess. The Minister has not mentioned whether primary schools will be given the grants at this stage.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Education Endowment Scheme Bill. The Edusave Endowment Fund is recognition of the fact that education is an investment in our people, our greatest asset. By setting aside funds every year, specifically for education, the Government will provide for the educational needs of the people in the long term. Funding for education need not be dependent on the vagaries of the Budget which must be tailored to the economic performance of Singapore in each particular year. As the Minister for Education has pointed out, the Endowment Fund can be built up in good years from the fruits of the economic growth generated by the collective efforts of all Singaporeans. In lean years, when high standards of educational attainment and training are crucial to our survival and well-being, the Fund can continue to be used to finance quality education programmes. The main objective of the Fund, therefore, is to enhance and enrich the quality of education in our schools. The availability of financing by grants from the Endowment Fund or the use of the pupils' Edusave would permit schools to introduce enhancement programmes to meet their pupils' needs and interests. The schools are the best institutions to determine and run suitable programmes and the use of the Fund should be limited to school-based programmes. One worthy exception could be community-based education programmes that complement the efforts of the schools and which cater to the specific needs of each community. The usage of the Edusave Endowment Fund is governed by clause 6 of the Bill. This clause 6, as worded, is very wide indeed. The Fund can only be used for programmes to complement the basic education presently provided.”
“They can be invited to present their views in Parliament, or make a representation in writing to Parliament or any Member of Parliament, or express their views through the MPs. As it is, we have various channels, as Dr Ow mentioned just now. We have many channels for the public to present their views. In this present Parliament, we have four Opposition MPs. All the more, we do not need to have Nominated MPs. I feel that if anyone wants to be a Member of Parliament, or wants to present his views in Parliament, he should be dedicated, and subject himself to the voters through a General Election. In my view, the Government can play a very important role in this matter. The Government should encourage more Singaporeans to participate in politics. One thing the Government must always remember is that: if the Government wants more people to participate in politics, then it should seriously review the existing political culture which is unique to Singapore. It is because of this unique political culture that many people shy away or are afraid to participate in politics. I wish to reiterate that I oppose the motion to appoint Nominated MPs. Just now, we, the four Opposition Members, applauded Dr Tan Cheng Bock because Dr Tan dared to voice his personal opinion and feelings on the issue. He supported our stand.”
“Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): On the issue of Nominated MPs, different people have different views. I feel that the most important point is whether we need to have Nominated MPs. In my personal opinion, we do not need to have Nominated MPs. My reasons are as follows: First, we are a small nation. We have already a lot of MPs. Secondly, in our country, we have trade unions for the various trades and industries, and they can express their views to the Government. Thirdly, we have the Feedback Unit to collect feedback from the people. Besides that, the people can also express their views through the Select Committees of Parliament, newspapers and other publications. I personally feel that MPs are representatives of the people. They do not represent just their own views or contribute their own professional expertise, but, more importantly, they have to reflect the feelings of the people, and state the demands of the people. In my view, professional expertise is not an absolute necessity. It will be better for a Member of Parliament to be an all-rounder. In our Government, there are many professional organisations and specialized people who can help to formulate the Government's policies. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to have Nominated MPs here to assist us in our legislative process. I feel that MPs should be elected directly by the people, and not appointed. When Parliament has to pass an important legislation, it can set up a Select Committee to conduct public hearings, and seek the views of the people. We can seek the views from those people who have the specialized knowledge relating to the subject matter of the legislation.”
“44 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] When the Bill was first introduced in 1989, our Prime Minister, then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said, and I quote from the Hansard: 'Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than the form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good Government.' This statement by the Prime Minister is even more relevant to the present circumstances. Sir, Nominated MPs must be politically non-partisan. This non-partisan, neutral role of the NMPs, should not be restricted only to making speeches in Parliament. The role of NMPs should be enlarged so that they are tasked to play a more pre-eminent role in parliamentary Select Committees and perhaps take a lead role in the Feedback Unit. Their non-partisan role would help to reach out to a wider cross-section of Singaporeans who would perhaps be more forthcoming with their views and feedback on Government policies. As such, NMPs can become more effective and can make a greater impact and would be able to express the views of the people and at the same time voice their own thinking on policy matters. This would help to build consensus, encourage political participation and contribution and thereby strengthen our political process. Sir, finally, I would like to suggest that for NMPs to be regarded as truly non-partisan, it is important that the Special Select Committee, which nominates NMPs, comprises a larger proportion of people who are not linked to any political party. In this way, there will be greater acceptability of the NMPs and their loyalties would not be questioned. Sir, I support the motion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, considering that many MPs have spoken up, I shall be brief. Sir, the real question before us is whether NMPs have a role in the new Parliament to make our political process more representative, our policy debates more thorough and our feedback on issues more accurate. The NMP concept has been experimented during the latter half of the last session of Parliament. Though the general sentiment is that the merits of the scheme are not very clearly evident, I feel that we should not be too hasty to come to the conclusion that the concept will not be effective in the context of this new session of Parliament. We must take a fresh approach to the concept to see if it is worthy of acceptance, perhaps with some modifications under the renewed circumstances of the new Parliament. Sir, there are twice as many Opposition Members as there were in the last Parliament. But far from lending themselves to contribute to improving the quality of the debates, the Opposition MPs have chosen instead to indulge in populist deliberations on our policies and our system. This has led to the political process to be somewhat disruptive instead of being constructive. As a result, many PAP MPs, quite naturally, have to close ranks and debunk the Opposition's baseless but damaging remarks. This has taken up significant time and effort which otherwise would have been focused on more thorough policy debates. Nominated MPs would therefore be able to provide for a more balanced and broad based policy debate in the context of the new Parliament. 3.”
“As Mr Tarmugi has said earlier, I certainly do not subscribe to the idea of a welfare state. I do not believe that giving more assistance to the aged destitute would in any way lead to a welfare state. Rather, it will only show our compassion to these unfortunate members of our society. I would like to ask whether the Ministry would consider increasing the public assistance rates, particularly for the aged destitute, and also whether such reviews can be done on an annual basis to offset any rise in the cost of living.”
“Sir, as Singapore advances into the Next Lap, we must be mindful that not all Singaporeans can keep up with the main stream. There is a smaller number of Singaporeans who, due to their unfortunate circumstances, deserve further attention and support from us, and in particular, from the Ministry of Community Development. I am referring to some 2,300 Singaporeans who comprise the aged destitute, the disabled, the mentally-ill, the chronically sick, distressed wives or widows and orphans, all of whom are recipients of public assistance from MCD. The Government has been sympathetic to this lot of underprivileged citizens. However, I feel that more can be done. The present rates of assistance provide $140 per month for a one-person household and $215-$260 for a two-person household. This level of assistance, I feel, is still below the subsistence level in Singapore. During my house-to-house visits, I have met some of these recipients, particularly the aged destitutes. There is reason to believe that their lives are full of misery and poverty. Sir, more than 90% of the public assistance recipients are aged destitutes. These senior citizens who are young adults in their 50s and 60s had gone through the turbulent times in our nation's history and had helped in their own way in the development of modern Singapore. For some reason or other, they have become destitute and it is our moral obligation to provide for them in their old age as they cannot fend for themselves. As a compassionate society, we have an obligation to ensure that our aged can live their lives with dignity. The younger generation is provided the benefit of the CPF saving scheme and in the future they would not need such support.”
“Sir, I just want to add one or two observations on this. Presently, under the priority registration scheme, Phase 2A accords priority to children of old boys, or old girls, staff members of advisory committees, and so on. Phase 2B accords priority to children of parents who are directly connected with the school. 1.15 pm Sir, first, when viewed collectively, Phases 2A and 2B seem to cater to a select group and this may over the years lead to social stratification. The second observation is that the criterion for Phase 2B is ambiguous. This phase is for parents with direct connections with the school. This allows for possible abuse by schools. The recent controversy on cash for places may be a case in point. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider simplifying the registration scheme so that a wider cross-section of Singaporean children could have access to the more popular primary schools.”
“Given the increased sophistication of our workplace and the constant struggle to increase productivity, the curriculum in school must lay the foundation for our workforce to be adaptable, resilient and innovative. I would like to ask the Minister how frequently the curriculum in our schools is reviewed and whether input is obtained from the market on the strengths and weaknesses of our workforce. I would also like to ask the Minister what efforts are being made to provide our students a more broad-based education.”
“Sir, Singapore's dependence on human resources for its economic success cannot be over-stated. It is therefore not surprising that our Government spent a significant part of its expenditure on education. The primary aim of our school system is to develop each child to his or her fullest potential. In the report of the Review Committee on Improving Primary School Education, it has been pointed out that the primary school system has been successful in improving academic performance. However, improving academic performance alone is inadequate. One common criticism that still prevails is that our education system produces only "exam-smart" students. Perhaps this is the effect caused by the high premium placed by our society on academic success. The schools, the parents, and the peers place excessive pressure on a child to pass and excel in examinations. As a result, past years' papers and revision guide books have become the be-all and end-all for many students. Teachers, in their zeal to get their classes to perform well, tend to concentrate only on what they think is important for the examinations. Sir, undue emphasis placed by parents, teachers and students towards examinations will limit the development of our children to their fullest potential. We need to design a curriculum that would provide a broad-based education so that we can develop the inner faculties of our children. The school curriculum must provide ample opportunities to develop in our young thinking and analytical skills, creativity and confidence in self-expression. Parents and educationists to whom I have spoken are of the opinion that the present curriculum does not adequately promote the development of these qualities.”
“Proper administrative assistance would allow teachers to put more time and energy into honing their teaching skills, developing new teaching methods and to pay more attention to the weaker students. I would like to ask whether the Ministry would consider introducing more clerical and administrative support for teachers. As many Members have mentioned, the former MP for Moulmein, my predecessor, Mr Lawrence Sia, had also raised this issue at last year's Budget debate, and he was told that the proposal had been submitted to the Ministry of Finance. I would like to know from the Minister the outcome of this proposal.”
“Sir, the primary responsibility of our teachers is to provide effective teaching instruction in schools. We find that, increasingly, teachers are loaded with a number of non-teaching responsibilities. There are about 330 Government schools and junior colleges in Singapore. These schools and junior colleges employ about 15,000 teaching staff and about 500 clerical staff. This works out to an average of 45 teachers per school supported by one or, in some cases, two clerical staff. This ratio of teachers to clerks, even by private sector standards, is very low. As a result, school teachers get very little administrative support in preparing their teaching materials. I am told that teachers have to spend a lot of time in mundane activities, such as printing, photostating, stapling of stacks of notes, and having to draw even their own charts and diagrams. Sir, in addition to class administration, teachers also have to shoulder other responsibilities, such as ECA, participating in school project committees, fund-raising projects, and so on. All these activities, though necessary for the proper administration of the school, inevitably divert teachers' time and focus from their primary responsibility of teaching. As Mr Chin Harn Tong has pointed out, there is already a shortage of teachers in our schools and the inefficient use of available teachers would only make the situation worse. In recent years, the Ministry of Education has embarked on publicity programmes to enhance the professional image of our teachers. However, publicity alone is not enough. Teachers must be accorded professional treatment in their day-to-day work.”
“Employees of smaller companies generally are less able to cope with changes in the economy and therefore have a greater need to upgrade their skills. The SDF should therefore focus its efforts on these companies. It is heartening to note that the SDF has started the training voucher scheme to assist these smaller companies in utilising SDF funded programmes effectively. Further efforts like this are necessary to ensure that smaller companies can benefit from SDF funded training to remain competitive. An athlete wins his race because he has trained hard and is mentally prepared. Education is the training and preparation that will ensure that Singaporeans complete the Next Lap in record time. Sir, I support the motion.”
“In independent schools, principals and teachers are given the flexibility to tailor the curriculum and teaching methods to the needs of the students. The lessons learnt by the independent schools should be applied in the running and administration of neighbourhood schools as well. I am glad to hear from the Minister for Education that neighbourhood school principals and teachers would be given more flexibility in curriculum development and teaching methods. The proposed grant for each neighbourhood school of $100,000 from Edusave is a welcome move, as it would give them the resources to hire specialist teachers and acquire additional facilities and equipment. However, the $100,000 grant may not be enough for any one school to improve its curriculum and facilities in more than one field. Schools that are near each other can develop different programmes and facilities and share these with each other. By complementing each other in this manner, students can enjoy a wider range of choices made available by economies of scale. The gradual improvement of neighbourhood schools would reduce the gap in the standard between independent schools and neighbourhood schools, thus providing quality education for all Singaporeans. Sir, I also wish to touch on the continuing education for the members of the workforce. We have to constantly upgrade our skills so that Singapore can maintain its competitiveness in the international marketplace. One important measure for this has been the funding of training through the Skills Development Fund. Up to 1989, the SDF had reached out to only 11% of companies employing less than 10 workers, while it had reached out to 100% of companies employing more than 100 workers.”
“He had asked if the Government was for a Singaporean Singapore or for a Singapore where each racial group keeps to its own culture, language and traditions. I am surprised that he does not realise that Singapore's diversity of race, language and culture is our uniqueness and that it is our strength. A Singaporean Singapore is one where different racial and religious groups continue to live in harmony even though they may practise different cultures, different traditions or speak in different languages. It is not incompatible to have a Singaporean Singapore and at the same time cultural diversity. I am sure that the Indian community, for example, would be alarmed if they were told not to promote their culture, language or heritage. Therefore, it is important that no community in Singapore is ignored or eroded. While strengthening their own communities, the people of the different ethnic groups in Singapore must foster better understanding between each other. In this way, we would avoid racial extremism or chauvinism. It is this formula that has worked for Singapore in the past three decades and it is this formula that would carry us through as a multi-racial society as we approach a developed nation status. This Government has provided for the needs of all citizens regardless of race, language or religion, and to those who are less well off. I am confident that this Government will continue to do so. Sir, I am indeed glad to know that the Ministry of Education has decided to give greater support to neighbourhood schools to raise their standards. This support for our neighbourhood schools is timely, given that the bulk of Singaporean students are receiving their education in these schools.”
“Hence, both for the long-term good of Singapore and for the immediate betterment of its citizens' lives, a primary obligation of the Government must be to continually provide and upgrade educational opportunities so that every adult and child can better himself or herself. Such opportunities are critical to the economically less well off as it provides them the means to cope with the increasing cost of living and to enjoy a share of the economic success of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to touch on the question of improving educational opportunities in three areas. These are community-based programmes, the upgrading of standards of neighbourhood schools and continuing education for those in the workforce. There has been much public interest in the formation of community-based organisations, especially in respect of their role in educational upliftment. The formation of such organisations is a welcome development. Every means available should be used to improve the educational levels and skills of Singaporeans and hence raise the quality of their lives. It has been shown that different communities in Singapore face different problems in education. These often require specific solutions that are unique to that community. Community-based programmes are effective as there would be no barriers of language and culture in reaching out to those who are most in need. These efforts supplement those of the Government which is committed to improving the education system for all Singaporeans in our pursuit of excellence. At this point, I wish to address an important issue raised by the Member for Potong Pasir three days ago. Although many MPs have already spoken on this, I still think that I would add my views as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the hon. Member for Hong Kah GRC, Dr John Chen, to thank the President for his Address. The President has stated that education is the foundation of competitiveness and that it is a life long process. Like the two speakers before me, the Minister for Education and my fellow MP for Kampong Glam GRC, I intend to dwell on the topic of education. Continuing education is not only a worthy end in itself, but it is also critical to ensure a good standard of living for all Singaporeans. The main function of Government is to improve the quality of life of its citizens and to provide a secure and prosperous future for their children and their children's children. While assistance and even subsidies must always be given to the less fortunate members amongst us, the long-term prosperity of Singapore, as pointed out vividly by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, can only be assured by investing the fruits of the present economic success in areas such as education where we can continue to reap the benefits in the future. A stable society is achieved by an equitable distribution of the wealth of the country. It can only be done by harnessing the drive of the individuals to make a better life for themselves and their children, and by providing them the means to do so. Education has been the cornerstone of Singapore's success. Our parents came to Singapore to work as unskilled labourers. Succeeding generations improved their lot by acquiring knowledge and improving their skills. Ours is a meritocratic society where the ability and efforts of the individual can overcome the disadvantages that many of us are born into.”