Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Singapore
“EDB conducts regular reviews to GIP to ensure its effectiveness in attracting only top-tier business leaders who are interested to drive the growth of their businesses and investments from Singapore.”
“MAS may vary the size of the additional capital requirement imposed on the bank and take other regulatory actions depending on the outcome of ongoing reviews. MAS requires all retail banks in Singapore to ensure that their mission critical systems supporting digital banking are resilient.”
“This question will be answered in the reply to Dr Tan Wu Meng's Parliamentary Question filed for tomorrow's Sitting. [Please refer to "Probe into Recent Disruptions of DBS' Digital Bank and Physical ATM Services and Preventive Measures Implemented", Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 107, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Ans…”
“Borrowing from the banks is one of the ways in which MAS carries out MMOs to soak up such excess liquidity. Like other central banks, MAS does this daily through an auction system, enabling MAS to withdraw liquidity through the Primary Dealers that submit the most competitive prices.”
“To mitigate consumer over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions (FIs) to implement a range of safeguards when extending mortgage loans and unsecured credit.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore imposes on external asset managers the same stringent regulatory standards for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism that it imposes on banks.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,416 lines we hold for Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 39 of 49.
“Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) what is the rationale for not allowing the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) to follow the Singapore Sports Council's code of governance in having its council members democratically and fairly elected by its members, instead of being appointed by the Government, so as to help the FAS run its affairs more efficiently and professionally; and (b) which other sports association currently receives substantial funding from the Government or Singapore Pools Pte Ltd and yet still has its council members appointed by the Government.”
“The Takeover Code prevents minority shareholders from being abused, whether it is a local company or foreign company. And even if it is a foreign company that does not have takeover rules in its home country, by listing in Singapore, it has to amend its M&A to abide by Singapore's Takeover Code rules. The takeover offer has to be at a price that ensures minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. There are various rules, I think Mr Steve Chia must be familiar with them, ie, the price has to be higher than the last transacted price made by the offeror in the last three months, and so on and so forth. The rules that I had just mentioned on voluntary delistings ensure that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. The example he has given is where someone makes a takeover offer, the result of which is that less than 10% free float is available on the market and therefore a compulsory delisting is required. The takeover offer is subject to the Takeover Code and the subsequent compulsory delisting is subject to rules, both in the Takeover Code and SGX listing rules, which ensure that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. In any event, market discipline will operate. If the takeover offer was not attractive in the first place, minority shareholders would not have accepted it, and the free float would not have gone below 10%. FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF SINGAPORE (Election of council members) 5.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the SGX does not impose a minimum listing period requirement. This is similar to exchanges in other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom or Hong Kong. The issue of whether to voluntarily delist is a commercial decision best left to the company's shareholders. However, SGX has rules to safeguard the interests of minority shareholders in such an event. SGX rules require a shareholders' meeting to be convened to vote on a delisting resolution. To be successful, the resolution has to be (i) approved by a majority of shareholders representing at least 75% in value held by shareholders present and voting; and (ii) not voted against by more than 10% in value held by shareholders present and voting. SGX also requires that a reasonable exit offer, which should normally be in cash, be provided; and an independent financial adviser be appointed to advise shareholders on the exit offer. Taken together, these rules provide sufficient safeguard against minority shareholders being oppressed or forced to exit at unreasonable prices.”
“First, I would not conclude that because more than 60% have become Permanent Residents or Singapore citizens, the three- year bond is irrelevant. In fact, I think that studying here and then staying on to work here might in fact help more students decide to become Permanent Residents. And I should add that those who do not decide to stay on here, it is not a loss to Singapore. When they go back to their home countries, they remain part of a network with Singapore, and they will remember their years in Singapore with fondness. So it is not as if we are trying to achieve a 100% retention rate as such. Yes, with the fourth university coming in - we have not decided on a fifth - it will change the landscape. It offers the universities an opportunity to rethink their fee strategies. They have to be competitive vis-a-vis both additional local universities as well as the foreign universities that they are already competing with. MINDSET CHANGE TOWARDS CERTAIN JOBS 3. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Manpower in view of the strong cultural bias and prejudice among the public, the employers and the employees towards certain groups of jobs, which job redesign cannot change, what are the efforts (a) to educate employers to change their bias to pay better salaries; (b) to educate employees not to be prejudiced so that they will take up these jobs; and (c) to change the mindset of the general public so that they will not look down upon such employees.”
“I do not know the answer. We have not looked in detail at the income background of the student. I suspect some would have been able to pay more, and that is one of the reasons why we are reviewing this matter to see whether we should have differentiated fees for different types of foreign students. It is a complex matter. I do not think we want to go the way of Australia which has two classes of students, those who pay higher fees coming in on a less meritorious basis, in other words, they have low admission requirements for students who pay higher fees. I think the universities must, above everything else, maintain high quality and transparency of admission requirements. How much fees you charge and how much financial assistance you provide are the financial strategies of the universities to make sure that they remain competitive as a university and that good talents, local and foreign, are able to gain admission without having to worry about being unable to afford it. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim: As the Minister has said, more than 60% has since become PRs and Singapore citizens, so this has actually shown that the three-year service bond is a non-issue since they are more than happy to stay behind. My next question is, with the setting up of a fourth university, or even the possibility of a fifth university, and they will be charging fees similar to the campus back home, how would the Ministry and the universities try to compete with the fourth, or even the fifth, university to get these affordable students to pay full fees coming into NUS and NTU?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the majority of foreign undergraduates who receive tuition grant subsidies from the Government are from ASEAN, China and India. We do not track those who have left after serving their tuition grant bonds, in other words, after serving out the three-year period of working in Singapore. But more than 60% of those who were admitted to our universities between 1996 and 1999 - I stop at 1999 simply because those admitted subsequently are either still studying or at a very early stage of serving their tuition grant bond - more than 60% of those who were admitted to our universities between 1996 and 1999 have become Permanent Residents or Singapore citizens since graduating. And, indeed, in the more recent of those years, the figure has been even higher.”
“I think these are two quite separate matters. MOE provides each year to the universities a capitation grant for each student they take in. MOE provides a grant that will allow the universities to maintain a high quality of education and also allow the universities to keep tuition fees competitive and affordable for both local and foreign students. That is irrespective of the income background of the student. It is for a fundamental, strategic objective, ie, maintain a high quality education and attract good students. Bursaries, study loans and the other financial assistance schemes have the objective of making sure that no student is unable to get a university education on financial grounds. The bulk of the recipients are of course local students. But it is a different objective. FOREIGN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 2. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim asked the Minister for Education with regard to foreign undergraduate students who are subsidised with a tuition fee grant of $12,830 per year and who make up about 20% of our universities' enrolment, (a) how many of these students are from our lower-income neighbouring countries; and (b) how many have since returned to their home countries after finishing their 3-year service bonds in Singapore.”
“On the other hand, the tuition grant, which is not means-tested for either local or foreign students, is aimed at ensuring that the universities attract the best local and foreign talents that they need, by keeping fees competitive and affordable. Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): Sir, I understand the rationale behind having foreign students in Singapore. I also understand the reason behind our universities' bursaries and study loans and to apply means-testing to help the students. However, if you look at the foreign students who make up 20% of the undergraduate admission, and if we were to award approximately $12,000 to every foreign student, and when we apply means-testing to the bursary, the income is capped at, for example, $900 for a study loan ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, foreign undergraduates in our universities who are under the tuition grant scheme pay fees that are 10% higher than local students. Foreign students who receive the subsidy have to serve a three-year bond upon graduation by working in Singapore, thereby supplementing our workforce. Foreign students add to the vibrancy of our universities, just as they do in other top universities. They provide diversity and alternative perspectives, given their different educational, cultural and social backgrounds. This diversity enriches the university experience of our local undergraduates and add to the international standing of our universities. In providing a subsidised university education to foreign students, our universities have ensured that the students are admitted on stringent admission criteria. Those who matriculate are of good calibre and serve to spur our local students on. As I have mentioned in this year's Committee of Supply debate in response to Prof. Ong's queries, MOE and the universities will be reviewing foreign students' fees, in particular to consider that there should be differentiated fees for different types of foreign students. But this review would have to consider the larger strategic objectives of our universities. On the question of means-testing for the tuition grant for foreign students, Prof. Ong might want to distinguish between the tuition grant and the bursaries and study loans that are provided to students. The bursaries and study loans are means-tested as they are provided for needy students.”
“COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Companies Act (Chapter 50 of the 1994 Revised Edition), to make related amendments to the Trust Companies Act (Chapter 336 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other written laws", presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“I see no reason not to review the matter. I think MAS, MTI and the Ministry of Home Affairs can discuss this. I do not think it is a burning issue. But I see no reason not to review the matter. ORDER OF BUSINESS (Motion) 2.56 pm Resolved, That, in accordance with Standing Order 10(2), the Ministerial Statement by the Prime Minister and Minister for Finance be taken after the Introduction of Government Bills listed in the Order Paper for today. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. BILLS INTRODUCED STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL) BILL "to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore and to repeal the Government Hospitals Act (Chapter 119 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law (Prof. S Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218 of the 2001 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Presidential Elections Act (Chapter 240A of the 1999 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Wong Kan Seng; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Registration of Criminals Act (Chapter 268 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Wong Kan Seng; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“That is a developmental question - whether we should find ways to encourage more clubs to be formed. Intuitively, I think it is a good idea. But as to whether it is lax regulation, or lack of confidence on the part of consumers and investors, that is inhibiting the growth of clubs, I am not so sure. I think the landscape we have is a fairly clear one. For the average consumers, we now have the CPFTA which provides reasonable protection and compensation. For the informed and larger investors, there is recourse through the law; there is recourse under common law and contract law which in fact has been used in the recent past. So I think we do not want to over-regulate. There are one or two other countries which actually put it under the securities regulator, and I am not sure that is the right move for us. Let us put the onus on the part of the larger investor to get more information if he needs it, and otherwise live with the caveat emptor regime, a little messy, but I think it works reasonably well, and the courts are always there to provide recourse. Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang: Would the Minister support forming a working group to look into this further to see what the benefits would be of such regulation vis-a-vis the cost?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2005/2006, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“We will have to be satisfied with their meeting the performance targets. We have to be also satisfied that the cost increases are justifiable. A university cannot simply jack up costs and tell MOE, "Can you please fund me 75%?", and tell students to fund the extra. Because we look at the costs of the universities as a whole. Universities that want to launch major new costly initiatives will have to raise money from outside for such a purpose. We will keep track of this because we are not doing this for ideological reasons. We are doing it for very practical reasons. We must have our eye on the ball. We will be monitoring the situation, particularly in the early years, because autonomy will require several steps and I think financially autonomy is not something we want to leap towards ----”
“The attrition rate in recent years for the universities will be factored into the formula that MOE applies to the universities when it looks at the output funding formula. You assume that the university, if it sticks to its current high standards, would fail students, or some students would drop out because they could not meet standards. So I think his question was analytically the right one, but I would not worry about it because we have factored in some attrition to ensure that the universities hold on to the same standards as before.”
“The Government will be announcing its position on the whole set of recommendations of the UAGF review by April. At that point, I think the universities will set out the timetable on how they are going to move from the current status, as institutions with some autonomy, towards a final destination of autonomous institutions accountable to the public and to the Government by way of policy and performance agreements. It will occur in steps and we will not jump immediately from A to B.”
“I would say that it will take time for any university to change its culture, precisely because it does not just simply hire a CEO who cuts, hires and changes people. Universities have to evolve. Faculties have to deal with each other with a certain respect and collegiality. There is a plus in some circumstances and minus in other circumstances. But we have to let the culture evolve. They are still young institutions. I do not think they are anything near as rigid as most other Asian universities or European universities. They have a much larger pool of diverse faculty. Singaporeans trained in different universities, and foreigners coming in from various countries. The rigidities are less institutionalised and less deeply-rooted. So I am optimistic. On his second point, I would not make too much of a point about whether individuals internalise most of the benefits, university graduates internalise most of the benefits, or what are the externalities. The point I would rather make is a simpler one - that university graduates have a much higher lifetime income, on average, than polytechnic and ITE graduates. And looking at the spectrum of students that we produce from our system, and how we should finance them, we should take that into account. University students are already receiving a far higher subsidy per year, and over the entire duration of their studies, compared to other students. So I think it is not just efficient, but equitable, for us to have some rebalancing, particularly at a time when university enrolments and costs go up.”
“With greater autonomy, our universities will be able to better respond to the needs of their students and stakeholders, better differentiate themselves in the increasingly competitive higher education landscape and achieve the peaks of excellence, by global standards, that the universities and Singapore need. Our universities will be able to build upon the strong support from the Government to continue to maintain and attract good faculty and offer students quality education, with greater flexibility and choice. I am confident that giving autonomy to our universities will strategically position our universities to underpin Singapore's transition to a knowledge-based economy.”
“The loan is funded by the Government, not by the banks. It is all Government money but is administered by the banks. I think it is not so dissimilar in concept to the “Education Bank�? that Prof. Ong Soh Khim described. MOE will increase the loan quantum of the tuition fee loan from 80% to 90% so that students can defer the payment of any increase in tuition fees until after they graduate. MOE is also working with the universities to study how we could further enhance the existing schemes, such as expanding students' work-study schemes at the universities, and setting up of student financing offices to better customise financing packages to individual needs. The specific example Prof. Ong gave of a family that might not qualify under the current means-based rule. These are things that could be looked at by the student financing offices. They could be customised. I also agree with Prof. Ong that universities should raise the fees for coursework Masters' students since most of them have full-time jobs and fixed monthly income. This is sensible and was, in fact, proposed as part of the University Autonomy, Governance and Funding (UAGF) review. The change should, however, be phased in so that universities have sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments to tuition fees and manpower deployment. Let me conclude that our universities have made significant progress. They have reached the stage of development where they are poised to join the league of the best universities in the world.”
“So the fee increase, in the case of SMU, is due to a fundamentally different type of university that it wants to run, rather than the mere fact of it being corporatised. Moving forward, NUS and NTU will be given greater autonomy to set their own tuition fees, and to differentiate fees for different courses. But I would mention a few things. First, the Government will remain the major source of funding to the universities. Second, we have put in place systems to encourage and incentivise our universities to diversify and generate additional sources of revenues. Third, under the enhanced accountability framework, MOE will monitor the universities' costs closely and ensure that their costs are well managed. Fourth, there will also be a 10% cap on annual tuition fee increases for NUS and NTU. The 10% cap does not mean 10% per annum. It means anything from "0" to "10". I have no reason to expect that the universities will raise fees by 10% per year. Finally, our universities are well aware that they need to justify the need for any future fee increases, which would have to be commensurate with improvements in the quality of the education they provide. They also understand the importance of communication with students on any fee increase. I would encourage our universities to adopt the practice at many good US universities to make known to students, at the outset, the schedule of tuition fees they might expect during their course of study. This will help students and their families do their financial planning for the costs of their university education. Let me speak very briefly about the tuition fee loan scheme. It currently allows students to borrow up to 80% of their tuition fees and start repaying their loans only upon graduation.”
“Through the one-line block budget the universities will receive for recurrent and development expenditure put together, the universities will have greater flexibility to deploy their resources and make trade-off decisions, for instance, between expenditure on faculty and infrastructure. This will help generate cost consciousness and instil cost discipline. It is then up to each university to decide internally how the funds should be disbursed to the various faculties and programmes to best achieve their objectives. Next, the matter of fees, and the recent fee increases. I agree with Prof. Ong Soh Khim that we should explore the issue of the fees that should be charged to foreign students. There might be different types of fees for different types of students - whether they come in as scholars or on their own free basis. These are things that could be worked out. But it is a valid issue to be explored. I would add that in setting fees for foreign students, we should take into consideration the larger strategic objectives for the universities and Singapore. Foreign students add to the vibrancy of the learning environment in the universities, just like as we discussed this afternoon they add to the vibrancy of our schools. They provide a certain diversity, a different perspective, and they add ultimately to the international standing of our universities when put together with Singapore students. SMU's increase of 15% is not simply because it is a corporatised university. SMU is repositioning itself. It is adopting a different business model, a seminar-style pedagogy with very low student-to-teacher ratios, and is moving into large new facilities later this year.”
“We intend to maintain it at 75%, even after our universities become more autonomous. The universities, at the same time, are encouraged to diversify their sources of revenue, even as we remain committed to being the major source of funding for the universities. The generous donations received, in the recent past, for the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music, the donation from Ng Bok Eng's family to NTU, the Lee Foundation's donation to SMU, all show that financial support from university stakeholders could go a long way towards the successful launch of some of our universities' major initiatives. Corporatisation and autonomy offer tremendous opportunities for our universities to generate even stronger ownership and support from their alumni and stakeholders, including private benefactors and corporations. The Government will remain generous in co-funding donations that the universities receive for endowments. In fact, it is almost unheard of internationally. When our International Advisory Panel heard about it, they could not believe that we fund one-for-one. In fact, the universities have received more than one-for-one matching for certain large donations. I should add that our donors to the universities, whether individuals or corporations, also enjoy double tax deductions. I think this answers one of Prof. Ong Soh Khim's points. In the latest Budget, PM Lee had announced that double tax deduction will be granted for all donations to Institutions of Public Character (IPCs), whether or not they involve naming opportunities. This, again, would advantage the universities. Another source of funds is derived through the greater financial autonomy that is given to the universities.”
“Manpower costs account for the bulk of universities' costs, and our universities need to be able to pay competitive salaries in order to retain and recruit top faculty from around the world. MOE will not be able to increase the amount of funding to the university sector indefinitely, without impacting on other education sectors: our polytechnics, ITE and schools. In that context, I should point out that university students already enjoy a much higher dollar subsidy from Government compared to other students. If one were to take the last fiscal year for computation, the subsidy per year which a university undergraduate received was twice that of a polytechnic or ITE student, three times that of a secondary school student and five times that of a primary school student. Moreover, a university student is subsidised for more years of education, compared to students in polytechnics and ITE. After two years in junior college and four years in university, would have enjoyed five times more subsidies than an ITE student would have in his two years of post-secondary education. Take that, plus the fact that the benefits of a university education accrue mainly to the graduate. The graduates from the universities will earn over their lifetime more than polytechnic and ITE graduates, on average, and you realise that it is more reasonable, quite apart from being a more sustainable arrangement, for university students to contribute towards the development cost of universities as well, since they enjoy the use of the universities' facilities during their period of study. I should also add that 75% funding by the Government is very high, compared to the level of state funding for top universities in the US, UK and Australia.”
“With strong funding support from the Government, our universities' finances have remained healthy, unlike many overseas universities, such as those in the UK, half of which are estimated to be in the red largely because state funding is spread too thinly across a cohort participation rate of 40% in the universities. Even Cambridge has been suffering a deficit in recent years. Mr Inderjit Singh expressed some concern that NTU faces the greatest risk in the move to make universities more autonomous as it has just gotten used to operating as a fully-fledged university. He asked if MOE will consider this disadvantage when we allocate budgets and resources to NTU. Again, I would not be worried. I would like to reassure Mr Inderjit Singh that the universities will continue to receive substantial Government funding and I am optimistic that NTU will be able to build on its very strong present foundations to chart its own path into the future. The funding formula will not disadvantage NTU. 6.30 pm Costs in the university, however, will go up for a number of reasons. First, enrolment is going up. And so naturally, as we move from 21% to 25% cohort participation, the total cost of university education in the Education budget will go up. Second, it is a global phenomenon that the cost of higher education increases faster than general inflation. In the US, for example, the average cost of higher education increased by 12% between 2001 and 2004, whereas the Consumer Price Index only increased by 6%. Third, the universities need a continuous injection of funds to maintain a high quality of teaching and research that Singapore and our students deserve.”
“Are we sure we are not going to be letting standards go down? I think it is a right question to ask. The answer to that is that standards have been going up in our schools, in our JCs, and in our polytechnics. In fact, standards of cohorts exiting our secondary schools, JCs and polytechnics now, are far higher than they were even eight or 10 years ago. Our students are better-trained, they are sharper on the job, and they are better able to cope with a university education. It is a recognition of that upward drift in quality, that the universities have decided to take in more students. Let me now address the issue of funding. Let me just say that in the past, the Government had paid 75% of the operating cost of undergraduate education and borne in full the infrastructure cost of our universities. Last year, the Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, signalled that, "Going forward, we need to establish a more equitable and sustainable cost-sharing formula between the state and university students." The Government has now decided that over the medium term, it will move towards funding 75% of the total cost of undergraduate education, ie, including both operating and depreciation costs. Let me provide a perspective from the point of view of the Education budget as to why this is very sensible. Currently, the budget for the university sector is about a quarter of MOE's budget. At 1% of GDP, MOE's funding for the university sector is slightly higher than some OECD countries like the US, UK and Australia. It may surprise some, but it is, in fact, a higher ratio.”
“Mr Low Thia Khiang asked a very interesting question - whether funding based on the graduate output formula will compel the universities to pass students at the expense of quality. It is an analytically valid question, but I would not be unduly worried if I were Mr Low. MOE's funding to the universities has catered for attrition that the universities have experienced in past years, so universities will not feel compelled to lower their passing standards for funding reasons. More importantly, I am sure that the universities are fully aware that they have to maintain student quality so as to safeguard their institutional reputations. Their alumni, faculty and their stakeholders would hold them to it. He raised the example of Sweden and some other European countries. It is rather different there. In those countries, the universities are obliged by governments to take in massive numbers of students. As long as they pass their High School examinations, it does not matter whether the student is weak or barely able to cope with the university education, he has a right to a place. So what happens in those universities? The first year cohort is enormous and, at the end of the first year, you have what they fondly call the "chain saw massacre" - where examinations are set, students fail, and out they go. If you fund these universities only by an output model, you are not doing them justice for this massive cost they have to incur on teaching large lecture halls full of unshaven students. So you have got to have some components or a formula that factors in inputs as well. It is a peculiar institutional feature and not one that is directly relevant to us. He also raised an interesting point about cohort participation going up to 25%.”
“This is, in fact, what we see in reputable overseas universities where senior professors are committed to both teaching and research, with different balance in the case of different professors. If you look at a university like MIT, for instance, in fact, MIT is not renowned to be number one in research. If you look at the number of publications and scientific journals and various other measures, it is not the number one. But it is highly reputed for its teaching. So they have got top-rate minds doing top-rate research and top-rate teaching. They are known for that. Just compare MIT with a European university, state-owned, low fees, traditional structures - the difference is there, not just in research but in teaching. And students who pay high fees to get into MIT demand the highest quality. We should also recognise the very important point that when we attract top faculty, we are not just attracting top faculty, we are starting a virtuous cycle. Top faculty begets top junior faculty, and begets top students. And that becomes a virtuous cycle. It attracts more people who want to work with bright young students, attracts post-doctorates, who in turn provide the base for new top faculty to come in. They feed on themselves, reputation goes up, our students benefit. I am glad that performance in teaching is an essential component of the way both NUS and NTU assess their faculty, which is part of their annual appraisal process. I should also add that the universities' spending on research does not come at the expense of teaching. They receive the bulk of their research funding from A*STAR, the National Medical Research Council, the industry and other external sources, and this is over and above MOE's grants to the universities.”
“It is developing in pioneering ways at the post-graduate level, inter-disciplinary courses and research combining medicine, engineering and the natural sciences. NTU, too, is looking at providing students with global immersion opportunities in China and India, raising an entrepreneurial flag and wanting to provide students with a unique residential educational experience. NUS and NTU are key academic institutions in Singapore. They perform a critical supporting role to our economy, both in producing top quality graduates as well as in contributing to Singapore's vibrant research landscape. They are large, complex institutions offering a broad range of disciplines, and, in the case of NTU, becoming broader as it becomes a comprehensive university. They would need time to change. Change cannot be rushed. So the devolution of autonomy and corporatisation will be a gradual process to ensure that the quality of our universities will continue to be enhanced and the needs of the public and the economy will continue to be met. But our experience with SMU, albeit a much smaller younger university, gives us confidence that the proposed model of governance will work. Let me address some of the concerns about education outcomes. Dr Amy Khor asked about measures to ensure that. Ultimately, the students are given good teaching. Prof. Ong Soh Khim likewise has said that it would not be wise for the universities to spend big bucks to attract highly renowned overseas professors who only do research. I agree that we need good faculty who would not only do top-notch research but are also keen to teach, interact with and excite students, so that our universities can maintain a high quality of teaching and produce graduates of good calibre.”
“This very flexibility of the top American universities is what gives them their entrepreneurial spirit and is what has distinguished them from European and most Asian universities. The lack of rigidity that comes from traditional academic hierarchies leads to constant striving, constant bubbling up of ideas to the surface. And attracting young minds. They do not need to wait 30 years to be recognised because in five years, if they are doing well and have the science, they can be recognised immediately. It is a different structure, different incentives, but, most important, a different culture, a culture of excellence based on merit. This is what NUS and NTU will have to strive towards and evolve towards, changing not just the external relationships with Government, but the internal culture of the university. Mr Gan also asked about the strategic plans of the universities - how will they become world-class and how will they take advantage of their autonomous status. Such plans take time to formulate. If I were running a university, I would not want to rush it. It requires a thorough review, involving extensive consultations with different segments of the university community. I understand that both NUS and NTU have started a fresh round of strategic review and detailed plans will unfold in due course. But even now, we can see how the universities are starting to differentiate themselves in their pursuit for excellence. NUS, in seeking to develop a community of students with cross-culture exposure, is investing in developing extensive linkages with top overseas universities and establishing more overseas colleges. It is also offering its undergraduates more cross-faculty and specialised modules.”
“We are fortunate that our university Councils have capable and passionate people, and my interaction with the university Councils tells me that they warmly welcome the move towards greater autonomy and they also recognise their expanded roles and additional responsibilities. The Councils in particular will have to play a more significant role in charting the direction, optimising resources and ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of their institutions to support their pursuit of excellence. Mr Gan asked if the present leadership of our universities is appropriate and whether there is a need to strengthen them. I am confident that the teams that we have in place - key management and the Council members - are strong teams, in the case of both NUS and NTU. SMU is a private university. It has been autonomous from the outset. But I should add that it is important not to look at the universities through the prism of corporate organisational models. If you look at the top American private and autonomous state universities, their organisational structure is a bit of an enigma. They defy the established tenets of management science. They have loosely coupled structures, highly collegial, sometimes not even clear who is in charge. This looseness and collegiality extends all the way from the top right down to the basic unit of the university, ie, the department within a faculty. The department is not the property or the domain of a senior professor, as it would be in Japan, Germany, Russia, or most European countries. It is, in fact, an alliance of broadly equal members, an alliance of more or less equal colleagues, taking ownership over how the department operates and the goals that it should achieve.”
“Indeed, the proposal to change the legal status of NUS and NTU into not-for-profit corporations is to engender a mindset change among the university community at large, to encourage them to take greater ownership of the university, and to shape its future direction, culture and character. This is an excellent opportunity for greater civic participation in the ownership and running of key national institutions - our universities. Corporatisation will signal that the university belongs to its stakeholders - the university management, faculty, staff, students and the alumni - and not to the Government alone. I fully agree with Mr Gan Kim Yong that a critical success factor for autonomous universities is people, principally the university Council members, key management, faculty and staff. As with the autonomous universities in other countries, the university Councils will have to assume greater responsibility to provide oversight of the strategic direction for the universities, and ensure the proper use and accountability for their resources. Council members should be appointed based on competency and ability to contribute to the mission of the university. Universities will also have to enhance their governance structures and processes involving the Council, university management and faculty, given that decision-making will shift from the Ministry of Education to the autonomous universities. Council members in successful autonomous universities abroad invest a considerable amount of time to help the universities achieve excellence.”
“Sir, as Singapore progresses towards being a leading city in the knowledge-based economy, in Asia and in the world, our universities will have to play a larger role, in two regards. First, they will have to provide a high-quality education for Singaporeans and foreign students who attend the universities, but principally for Singaporean students. Second, they will have to excel in research so as to be able to create knowledge and wealth for Singapore. In order to achieve this, we need to re-orient the universities and establish a new relationship between the universities and Government, between the universities and their alumni, and within the universities, between faculty and the students of the university itself. A whole new set of external and internal corporate governance relationships needs to be established. We have to re-orient the universities. In April last year, we initiated the University Autonomy, Governance and Funding (UAGF) review. The preliminary recommendations were released in January this year and discussed extensively by the Ministry of Education's International Academic Advisory Panel - which Dr Ng Eng Hen happens to chair. It strongly endorsed the move to transform our universities into autonomous universities to enable them to achieve teaching and research excellence, raise their international standing and enhance their students' educational experience. I am glad that Mr Inderjit Singh, who is a member of the NTU Council, feels that the move towards autonomy is the right one for the universities and that he is excited by it, even if a little apprehensive.”
“I must say that, in the midst of all the changes that are happening and in the midst of the seeming stress that we often hear about on the part of both teachers and students, I am quite heartened by some of the tangible results that we are getting. Our recruitment programme is going very well. Last year, we recruited 2,000 teachers, right up to target, despite the recovery of the economy. So far this year, we are well on target, in fact, slightly ahead. We had a recent survey commissioned by MOE of members of the public, a large sample. They ranked the teaching profession as that which contributes the most to society, above doctors and lawyers. This positive perception of the teaching profession is what helps us in our job, and it becomes a virtuous circle. As we get more teachers into the system, push them out into schools, improve the teacher-student ratios, give them more time to deliver quality teaching, the attraction of the profession also goes up. Members have raised a few other issues that I have not dealt with, including Dr Ong Seh Hong's point about religious knowledge and several points on Special Education which my colleagues, MOS Chan and SPS Hawazi will be dealing with later.”
“So, schools are learning from the initial experience, first few months, and are re-calibrating their approach. In general, I am encouraged by the progress of schools to rationalise their existing activities, and not merely shift all Saturday activities to weekdays. It will take a bit of time to settle, but I think there is good sense and a pragmatic attitude that our schools have on this matter. They are trying to find creative ways of using their teachers where they are most needed, relying more on external coaches, parent volunteers and, in the secondary schools and junior colleges, relying more on student leaders themselves to organise CCAs, so that we can still deliver a high-quality broad-based education without overburdening our teachers. Finally, Sir, Dr Lily Neo asked whether we are preparing the teachers adequately to implement the changes we are making. That is absolutely important. We have found that one of the most effective ways to implement changes in policies in education is to engender ownership amongst our teachers and our schools. But the implementation of our policies will seldom be perfectly even across the board. Some of our schools are ready earlier to take on the changes we are making. We will let them press on, and not hold them back until every school is ready. These leaders will set the pace for the rest to follow. What is important is that we should be able to encourage innovative teachers and innovative schools to share their best practices with each other. In that way, we level up the system over time.”
“But I think the weight of opinion in Singapore, youths and students included, is one of broad acceptance, not just of the need for foreigners from an economic point of view to be part of our system, but also the benefits the students themselves get by having foreigners in the class, pushing them on in their Chinese, sometimes edging them out from the table tennis team but which spurs them on to train harder and get back in. They like the fact that we have a more diverse international climate in our schools than we would if we were a parochial and closed society. Our students know they benefit from the exposure to the world that comes from this easy way, of bringing foreigners in. And if we were to rely only on Singaporeans to compete with each other, we will never make it. Dr Tan spoke about the five-day work week, and I will explain very briefly that it is not the policy of the Ministry to move all Saturday activities to the weekdays. The five-day work week was implemented as part of the larger civil service move to be more pro-family. Our teachers are parents. They have their families, so they deserve their Saturday off as well. But we want to make sure we do not compromise on the quality of education we provide our students, including depth and quality of their CCA, CIP and the informal curriculum of the schools. So, in implementing the five-day work week, we have to balance these two considerations. We would not overburden the teachers, but should not compromise on the quality of education, particularly the quality of holistic education that we have been talking about. The school day has indeed lengthened in some schools and junior colleges. Many students are getting home later, and getting home more tired, and that is not good for family life.”
“programmes, various customised remedial programmes, parallel teaching that allows two teachers to split up a class in a particular subject or lesson in order to train the students at a different pace, or take them through different topics, all these things will become more the norm, as schools get more resources. But it will take time and, over the next four to five years as we recruit more and we are able to put more teachers into schools, there will be greater scope for differentiation and a more refined system of ability-based learning. So we are getting there. Our approach, therefore, is to recognise the diverse talents and needs of our students, and find practical ways to motivate them to go as far as they can. We will keep refining our methods and keep the system flexible, and never assume that anything is an article of faith in education. We will also provide schools with more teachers in the coming years and improve teacher-student ratios, so that they will have, as I have explained, more room to experiment with flexible classroom arrangements. Mr Chiam asked about our students showing lack of confidence and fearing the competition from foreign students. There will always be soundbites to that effect. In every society, you will find that if you put a microphone in front of an average local, some nasty things will come out about the nearest foreigner, be it Indian, Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese. The most liberal, open and confident societies have that latent, not far beneath the surface. We are no different.”
“What we will also do is to focus on early interventions that can help bridge some of the deficits in learning in the early primary years, as Mr Zainudin pointed out. The Learning Support Programme (LSP), which caters to students who are weak in their language and literacy skills in the early primary years, is working well. It has helped many of our weaker students catch up with their peers after one to two years in school. Mr Gan and Mr Zainudin have asked if we could do more for the academically weaker pupils, besides the Learning Support Programme. At the end of Primary 2, schools determine the most appropriate form of support for those students who continue to face difficulties in learning and reading, usually through customised remediation programmes as they go on to Primary 3. Where schools have the additional resources, the Learning Support Coordinators would actually cater to selected groups of Primary 3 students, typically those who were ex-Learning Support Programme students. Besides the Learning Support Programme, we have the Enhancing Achievement and Better Learning (ENABLE) Programme which provides support to Primary 2 and Primary 3 pupils with at least average academic or intellectual abilities but whose academic performance is not commensurate with their abilities. Here, too, the scheme is progressing quite well. What can we do further? We are providing more teachers to our schools and, through a variety of schemes that schools have, for example, “buddy reading�?”
“Because their parents want them to spend more time on English and Mathematics at the foundational level rather than mother tongue at the higher level. That is a valid parental choice and we should respect it. Schools are also taking a more flexible approach to how they deliver the EM3 curriculum. We have given schools the flexibility to integrate EM3 pupils with their peers for specific subjects where there is educational merit in doing so. This is similar to the way in which schools are banding pupils in the regular classes according to their strengths and weaknesses in a specific subject. For example, many schools band their pupils by Mathematics ability and then, during the mother tongue period, they take them out and rearrange them in mother tongue classes in a different order. This is banding by subject strength. This year, eight out of 10 primary schools no longer have "pure" EM3 classes, where EM3 students take all their subjects together. In other words, EM3 students are now integrated with their peers in regular classes in subjects such as Social Studies, Art and Craft, Music, Health Education and Project Work, and Physical Education and Civics and Moral Education (CME), all of which are not examined at the PSLE. They are then taught in separate classes typically in the four core academic subjects, where their gaps in ability, compared to the regular students, are usually greatest. Depending on the profile of the EM3 students and the size of the class, sometimes the EM3 students also join the regular class for some other core academic subjects. But we leave it to the school, trusting their judgment as to what is educationally sound.”
“Some EM3 students when taught at a slower pace in Primary 5 and 6, in fact, catch up and do well enough to go to the Normal (Academic) stream. Some make it to polytechnic and a handful even make it to JC. That does not mean that it was a mistake to have streamed them. It is often because they were given the opportunity to step back, start from basics again, get their foundations in place, gain confidence because they pass an examination instead of failing repeatedly, and then go on to their secondary school years with more enthusiasm for learning. 3.15 pm What we are doing, however, is to introduce greater flexibility into the streaming system wherever practical. Streaming need not be absolute, where a student takes every subject within his own stream. Some students will have strengths in specific subjects, which may allow them to study those subjects at a higher level or at a faster pace. We are letting them do so, both at the primary and secondary level. We have, in effect, been allowing for increased modularity and flexibility within the streaming system. We are doing it in steps, and learning as we go along. In primary school, we now allow EM3 students who are strong in their mother tongue language to take the subject at a higher level. Some are already doing so. But Mr Low mentioned that there is a bias in the assessment system towards English and Mathematics instead of the mother tongue. I have an interesting bit of feedback to relate to him which I get from schools quite often. There are, in fact, some EM3 students who can take advantage of the scheme we have opened up for them to study the mother tongue at a higher level. But their parents choose for them not to do it. Why?”
“Further, EM3 students spend 30% more curriculum time on Mathematics as other students do on Mathematics. They get good teachers. In fact, some of the most committed teachers I meet on my school visits are often the EM3 teachers. So it is not true, as Mr Low says, that schools have neglected the EM3 group as there are fewer resources for them. It is simply not true on the ground. Altogether, it is an arrangement that helps the majority of them pass their EM3 Mathematics examinations. However, some 20% of EM3 Mathematics students still fail to get a grade in the EM3 final Mathematics examinations; in other words, they get what we call Ungraded, in their final assessment. Would EM3 students do better if they had stayed with the regular curriculum, and taken it at the same pace as other students? Our differentiated curriculum through streaming was, in fact, one of the strengths highlighted in a recent study by the American Institutes of Research funded by the US Department of Education, that is, their Ministry of Education, entitled “What the United States can Learn from Singapore's World-Class Mathematics System�?. In contrast to the Singapore system of ability-based learning, the authors noted that in the US, “we expect all students to meet the standards in state frameworks, but the standards do not help teachers address the needs of slower students. In fact, US standards do not acknowledge that students learn at different rates�?. There is no reason to give up the EM3 stream. It keeps our weakest pupils keen on attending school, gives them a foundation of knowledge that they can master or pass, and prepares them for secondary school.”
“And they are going to differentiate pupils in 50% of their schools by ability; they are moving towards streaming. I cite them because they are, as I mentioned, a driven and competitive society. It would be much easier for me to cite examples of societies which are not particularly competitive or efficient. The Koreans have found out after 30 years that it does not work, and that they need to do better. Because they like us face the same competition, from China. And in China, the top schools, the elite schools, the elite streams are moving faster than us. And the Chinese have absolutely no compunction about putting the best resources - better facilities, better gymnasiums, heated swimming pools, the best teachers from universities coming down for their brightest students. Why? Because they want their brightest to help China leapfrog the competition. So we are up against that. Korea is up against that. We are lucky we did not make the same mistakes they did in the last 30 years. We have got a system that is imperfect but working fairly well, constant refinement, constant need to make it more flexible, but we are on the right track. Mr Gan has suggested doing away with EM3 and letting all students take the same PSLE examinations. To put matters in perspective, let me provide a few facts. Our EM3 pupils comprise just 7-8% of each age cohort. Students who fail every subject are given the option of taking the EM3 curriculum when they get to Primary 5. It is an option given to parents. And parents who accept this option do so because they know their child will benefit from a pruned down curriculum, that they can master at their own pace. To illustrate, the EM3 Mathematics curriculum is pitched at about 60% of the content of the regular PSLE Mathematics curriculum.”
“By differentiating the curriculum for students of different abilities, it has allowed us to motivate all our students to sustain an interest in learning, work hard to achieve realistic learning targets and get recognised, get some form of merit, for their achievements. It has helped us avoid the large drop-out rates that you see in many other countries or the fact that large numbers of students are graduating from high schools without basic competence in literacy and numeracy. We have avoided the pretence of inclusiveness in undifferentiated school systems. We have focused instead on getting real outcomes and real learning among all our students. It is not done perfectly and we can do better. But the vast majority of students in Singapore leave school with a real foundation of skills, ready for post-secondary education and to pick up further skills that they need in the workplace. It also happens to be the way the rest of the world is moving. I give you the example of Korea, because it is a driven society, Asian society, Confucianist majority, not very unlike us. Korea has historically not differentiated its students much by ability. They had minor variations but, by and large, they had an egalitarian approach. I quote what a recent editorial in a leading daily said in January this year, "It is already a proven fact that the standardisation policy of 30 years has failed at nurturing exceptionally bright minds. It is now clear that the policy is also not effective in increasing scholastic abilities on the whole." What are the Koreans doing? They are now setting aside 1% of pupils in elite classes, something like our gifted stream, and they are setting aside 5% of pupils who will take more advanced classes so that they can graduate faster than the others.”
“The school also has a sports programme that aims to involve all students who do not do a sport as a full CCA with some exposure to sporting activities. Even its operational manager has got into action and started a weekly Floorball session. And from term 2, the school hopes to introduce two other sports, Pushball and American football, for mass participation. I am sure Members know the differences between each of these games - Floorball, Pushball, American football! Our schools are also pooling their resources to enable students to take part in mass sports events. For example, the North Zone Primary School Sports Council has set aside funds that schools can use to organise fun activities for pupils not representing their school in sports. At the zonal level, we are organising many activities and competitions for students who do not take a sport CCA. In fact, last year, we had 12,000 primary school students and 700 secondary school students benefiting from these zonal activities organised by the Sports Development Committees. Another theme that has emerged in today's debate is the issue of how we should meet the learning needs of different ability groups in our schools. Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested that we remove the EM3 stream in primary schools. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked if we could not adopt a modular system, instead of streaming, in our schools. Mr Low's suggestion accepts that we need differentiation in the system to cater to students with different strengths. Let me first say that streaming in schools is not an article of faith in MOE. It is a practical approach aimed at helping every student to develop himself to the best of his abilities. It is an approach that we keep refining. And it has worked well.”
“For secondary students, we will also continue to have a grading system for their CCA which counts for entry to junior colleges and polytechnics. They are still young and will benefit from some structure and guidance to ensure that they get a holistic education, and to help them get the most out of their school years through CCA and involvement in the community. Dr Maliki asked about sports in schools. Our aim is to promote sporting excellence among students through training programmes and inter-school competitions, as well as sports for recreation for as many students as possible. Schools plan their own sports programmes, depending on the available manpower and physical infrastructure and the school's tradition. A school would typically offer some sports at a competitive level and others at the recreational level. While we aim to provide every student the opportunity to take a sport that he or she desires, the reality that we are faced with is that we do have resource constraints, both in terms of infrastructure and trained teachers and coaches. But I would like to reassure Dr Maliki that I am equally concerned about this, and that we are studying ways to overcome these constraints. We are making progress. The number of students participating in sports, outdoor activities and other physical fitness activities increased by 9% last year. This year, more than 80% of Secondary 1 students were also assigned the CCA they most wanted to do, in other words, their first choice CCA. That is a significant improvement. I will give you an example, Loyang Secondary School. This year, Loyang Secondary was able to give all Secondary 1 students their first choice of CCA.”
“The junior colleges will also move towards a more qualitative record of students' involvement in CCA and CIP, by reflecting their involvement and any special achievements and contributions in the School Graduation Certificate. In line with these changes, the Public Service Commission (PSC) will continue to look at scholarship applicants' achievements and participation in CCA and CIP within the new qualitative framework that JCs will implement. We will also remove the present six-hour minimum requirement for CIP in the junior colleges from this year. The CIP scheme, introduced in 1998, as I mentioned, is now a vibrant feature of junior college life. MOE is therefore comfortable with giving the junior colleges full autonomy to integrate CIP into their schools' curriculum in a way that best meets the needs and interests of their students. CIP will however remain an integral component of the junior college curriculum. The shift from a minimum time requirement for CIP is expected to help students to focus on authentic and enriching involvements, as many already do. The changes in CCA and CIP are consistent with feedback, extensive feedback, from students and the junior colleges over the last year. They would encourage students to take greater ownership over these activities, follow their passions and build camaraderie, rather than engage for the sake of getting points for university admission. The moves are also timely as they come before the new "A" level curriculum that will be introduced in 2006, which aims to give students greater room and more "white space" to pursue their passions and interests. However, for secondary and primary students, we will continue to keep the requirement for six hours of CIP.”
“Since last year, we have also allowed NUS and NTU to select students on their own independent criteria, under a new, discretionary admission scheme. It allows the universities to consider students on the basis of a broader range of intellectual and character attributes, besides their "A" level scores. NUS and NTU are currently allowed to admit up to 10% of their students under this discretionary scheme. The universities are now ready to take a further step that will allow for a more holistic and meaningful assessment of students' qualities. A student's CCA, which is currently given a single numerical score, will instead be assessed qualitatively under the universities' discretionary admission scheme. This change will take place in year 2007 which is when the current cohort of first year JC students applies for university. NUS and NTU will look at the student's involvement and achievements in CCA and CIP for evidence of desired attributes, like leadership, creative flair, perseverance and the pursuit of excellence. This would be similar to the qualitative assessment of CCA that SMU has had from the outset. It is also similar to the way in which many reputable overseas universities consider applicants, ie, a holistic qualitative assessment, besides their academic scores. MOE agrees with the universities' decision. With NUS and NTU's move to a more flexible and qualitative approach for considering CCA, there will no longer be a need for a fixed system or points for CCA in the JCs and the Centralised Institute. Starting from this year's JC1 students, we will no longer score the CCA achievements and involvements of junior college students.”
“It is now in its seventh year. On the whole, the CIP has been a very positive experience. The results of our annual CIP surveys and direct feedback from students in dialogue and feedback sessions indicate that CIP has made an impact in developing a spirit of volunteerism in our students during their school years. The tsunami relief effort that Mr Ong also asked about was a good expression of this. Because you can really tell what is working when you see it happening, and not in what they tell you. Our schools raised a total of $3.5 million for aid agencies helping in the relief efforts. The students did not just stand with tins in street corners. They organised bazaars and charity fairs, washed cars, painted faces, and all kinds of other things. They were also active in mobilising other schools. Pioneer JC, for example, led other schools in its cluster to collect tents, clothings and blankets for Sri Lanka. And tomorrow, 10th March, National Junior College will send some of its students to the Maldives, as part of its Overseas CIP to help rebuild some of the IT infrastructure that previous NJC students had in fact helped to build and which was destroyed by the tsunami. We are making changes that will give JC and CI students greater ownership over their CCA and CIP programmes. I agree with what Mr Gan and Mdm Ho Geok Choo have said about the need to adopt a more qualitative approach. Student's CCA performance in JC is currently scored under a points system called PEARLS, as some Members know, for the purpose of applying to NUS and NTU. The CCA points are included in the applicant's University Admission Score with a weight of 5%, the remaining 95% being computed from their "A" level grades.”
“We will recognise schools that work consistently and effectively at character development through the new Character Development Award that we will be introducing in year 2006. These schools can then share their best practices, particularly their processes, with other schools. But schools will have to rely on the support of parents and the community, without which the job is always incomplete. It is the total experience of the child - how he is raised at home, the experiences and relationships he develops in school, right through his years of schooling, his encounters in the community, what he sees in the media - as he grows up that shapes his character, quietly, in unseen ways, in the classroom, in the playing field, on the performing stage and in the cinema theatre. Schools cannot do it alone. I agree with Dr Lily Neo that character education can be more authentic where we engage our students in interesting and meaningful activities. It cannot be a textbook subject. One way is to expose the students to real-life stories - stories of men and women who have shown strength of character in difficult times and who have made significant contributions to society. This is what Yangzheng Primary School did recently. It got 50 students to interview 20 prominent ex-students about their life experiences, and especially on how their personal values helped to make them what they are today. Some of the students were so inspired by the project that they hope to publish a book about these real-life stories. The stories brought to life for them useful lessons on hard work, thrift, honesty, uprightness and community spirit. CCA and CIP programmes are integral to character education in all our schools. Mr Ong Ah Heng asked about the effectiveness of the CIP.”
“We should keep the culture of respect for school rules and respect for fellow students. But we will do more - to help students at risk of dropping out or of falling into delinquency, and to help students who are keen to resume their studies and observe school rules after they have dropped out and want to come back. By next year, we will have provided every secondary school with a full-time counsellor. By 2008, all primary schools and Junior Colleges will also have a full-time counsellor. This is in addition to the two teacher-counsellors we have already trained in our schools, and the two more we will train in secondary schools. They will help schools identify and assist students who need help. Let me move on to the broader agenda of character development in our schools. It is an agenda we are giving more importance to. But while the Ministry provides various platforms and resources for character development, such as through the Civics and Moral Education Programme (CME), pastoral care programmes, co-curricula activities (CCA) and Community Involvement Programmes (CIP), we cannot be too prescriptive about the specific activities we expect to see in schools. There is no single fix, no formula in education to impart sound values or to develop strength of character. Schools have to see what works for their own students - students with different backgrounds and needs - draw on their own school traditions, and develop their own programmes and practices over time. And it will take time. As the Chinese saying goes, it takes a hundred years to raise a man of character. So we will encourage schools to explore their own ways to develop the character of their students - ways that have to work in their own context.”
“But I am not keen to change our stance, that students should only be re-admitted if they show a genuine desire to learn and abide by school rules. It is not a “punitive approach�? as Mr Gan puts it, but one that preserves a culture of discipline in our schools. If we were to let students move in and out of school at will, we would demoralise the majority who remain. We will also lose the happy situation we have where the vast majority of students are keen to remain in school. We should do all we can to keep this culture of discipline and avoid the drop-out and delinquency problems we see in many other countries. In the UK, the government has spent more than S$2.7 billion since 1997 on schemes to tackle truancy in schools with virtually no success. They now intend to spend an additional $1.7 billion in the coming two years to try to entice 50,000 students who skip classes every day back to school. About 40% of schools in the UK reported pupils bringing weapons into the playground or classroom at least once a term - previously thought to be an American problem, it is now British. In the US, a recent Harvard University study found that 32% of American youths do not complete high school. In Japan, there has been a rising tide of serious crimes among students - crimes including pre-meditated homicide. Violence in school grounds is reported to have increased five-fold over the last decade. There is a sense of crisis in the Japanese society as a growing number of students seem to behave in ways that are completely alien to their parents, let alone their grandparents. We are fortunate that our social fabric is still intact and strong. The number of serious disciplinary cases in schools has not risen in recent years.”