Viswa Sadasivan
Singapore
“Having met some of the faculty and students of SOTA, I am confident the ideas that are likely to be catalysed will be fresh, bold and surprising! The NAC programme could have SOTA alumni coming together to apply for funding directly from NAC, or it could be more structured such that applications would be processed through SOTA.”
“Worse, there could be a transfer of cost, resulting in a further rise in inflation. As such, it would be useful if the Government could consider a six-month delay in implementing the foreign worker levy whilst sticking to the end date.”
“Sir, I see the value of ethnic category-based results to ethnic self-help groups, for example. Could the Ministry consider at the mass media level when the information is released to the general public – in other words, the announcement to the public – that it is presented as a whole instead of being divided along ethnic lines…”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response as well as the assurance he has provided. I am just wondering if the Government would be able to give further assurance to the ground, and in particular netizens, some of whom were concerned that this particular act of gazetting the TOC is politically motivated.”
“I brought up the minimum wage scheme as a proposal that I feel requires further debate, whether within Cabinet or outside. I am urging that before we push it aside or say that it may not be effective in our society – there are valid reasons for that argument as well – I am urging that we look at it once more, review it once mo…”
“Could the Minister give his opinion as to whether there is a correlation between the number of people who have registered and the convenience or inconvenience factor in voting? In some countries, I gather that Singaporeans living abroad have to travel seven hours to get to a polling station.”
The complete record
Every one of 174 lines we hold for Viswa Sadasivan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Sir, I like to seek clarification on the PSB. Perhaps the Ministry could consider broadening the definition of "PSB". Currently, it seems to be limited to the Broadcasting Act which basically refers to the national broadcaster. The reason I am saying this is because, clearly, if the plan works out, we are going to see a proliferation and a flourishing of activities in the various constituencies in all parts of Singapore. It will be a waste if many of these activities do not get sufficient coverage, and there is a limited amount of airtime that MediaCorp can allocate for the coverage of these various activities. I believe Tampines GRC tried several years back to have a community channel. But a lot has changed since then. Today, in the Internet-driven media scene, there is plenty of opportunities, for example, for YouTube channels to come about. One of the things that could happen, for example, is, at the CDC level, we could have YouTube channels created where PSB programming can be produced, in conjunction with the polytechnics in that particular CDC to churn out programming on the Internet, so that the residents of that particular district can have a stronger sense of belonging where you feel that many of the activities that you initiated, are involved in, also gets airing. But this perhaps requires a broadening of the definition of "PSB" and I am just wondering whether the Minister would consider being a little bit more flexible in providing funding for such activities and initiatives at the ground level.”
“This would not only improve productivity by eliminating physical search at MediaCorp and reduce search fees, but also help generate greater awareness of and interest in archived material. The aim is to make this precious archived content part of our National Archives. After all, it is part of our collective heritage. The second suggestion pertains to IP of MDA-funded productions. Currently, for programmes that are fully funded by MDA, the production company does not have any share of the IP. MDA retains the IP in full. While I can see the logic in this, I feel it makes more sense for the production company to have the IP, either in full or at least in part, to incentivise it to produce quality PSB programmes which, in turn, have better potential for distribution and sales. This is the right thing to do in my view, especially if the production company is responsible for the bulk of creative content. This arrangement would, in turn, meet MDA's mandate, that is, to generate better content and spur promising enterprises to scale up. To the best of my understanding, these two suggestions are in keeping with the practice and conventions in developed countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, where media production companies have grown in size and stature, as have the quality of their PSB productions.”
“And, third, whether this funding will see increased fluctuations year-on-year, which makes it challenging for production companies to plan for and invest in resources. I would appreciate the Minister's response to these questions. Allow me, now, to make two suggestions – with policy implications – that I believe would help foster a better environment that promotes greater interest in quality PSB content. First, let me touch on the need for easier access and use of archive footage. PSB programmes, especially those that trace history and evolution, use archive footage for authenticity and emotive quality. Currently, such archive material are owned by and stored at MediaCorp. Media production companies, or students from tertiary institutions, must go down physically to search, which could take hours and cost a few hundred dollars each time. Cost for one-time use of the footage can be quite prohibitive, about $2,500 per minute of usage. While it is understandable that MediaCorp, being a commercial entity, needs to charge a fee, it would help very much if it could review the fees. Alternatively, MDA could provide a subsidy to help offset the cost of using archive footage for at least "approved projects". The idea is to encourage greater usage of archive footage, not only by media production companies, but by students and members of the public at large. Therefore, generating greater awareness of what is available in the archives and providing easier access become a priority. In this regard, it would be useful to have a Government-subsidised one-off exercise to facilitate online search for such archival content.”
“Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) has always been, and continues to be, an important and essential contributor to nation building. It fosters deeper appreciation among our people, especially our young, of the trials and tribulations we endured in our journey to nationhood. The announcement that the radio and TV licence fees will cease, while being well received by residents, has raised concerns in the broadcast sector, especially among independent production companies. The key concern is that this could result in reduced funding for PSB programmes. The fact is that the primary source of PSB funding has always been the receipts from the radio and TV licence fees. MDA has been prompt in giving the assurance to industry players, that "MDA remains fully committed to supporting PSB programmes". This assurance is timely and appreciated. However, what is still unclear is whether the level of support and the amount of funding will continue to see a growth, in keeping with rising cost of production, or at least, be sustained. In recent years, there has already been growing concern in the industry that PSB funding has stagnated or, even possibly, declined because of competing demands on MDA's total funds. And this, when the radio and television licence fee receipts as the sacrosanct source of PSB funding was still in place. MDA would now have to find alternative funding directly from the Government to fill the gap. The concern is, firstly, whether MDA will continue to seek enough funding from the Government to sustain at least the current level of PSB output and quality. Second, whether the Government will continue to give what MDA asks.”
“Having met some of the faculty and students of SOTA, I am confident the ideas that are likely to be catalysed will be fresh, bold and surprising! The NAC programme could have SOTA alumni coming together to apply for funding directly from NAC, or it could be more structured such that applications would be processed through SOTA. Madam, my suggestions are prompted by the powerful impression I got after visiting SOTA. I am confident that the school will succeed in producing highly talented and motivated Singaporeans, in fact, leaders who can make a difference in our desire for Singapore to become a "Renaissance City" in the true sense of the word. Supporting local writers”
“But is not society the loser if we are not able to adequately tap on these highly trained and, I believe, willing arts talents to give back at least part of what they have gained in their six years in SOTA? It would amount, if you do not, to talent drain, as suggested by NMP Audrey Wong. SOTA's Vision statement captures this: "Shaping and Impacting society through education in the arts". Individually and collectively, the SOTA graduates can, indeed, shape and impact society. But this may not happen naturally. We would need to find ways to help harvest this value. From experience, we know that we need to do this soon after they graduate, before they get steeped in their academic or professional pursuits. I have two suggestions. First, building an engaged alumni early. In no time, the SOTA alumni will grow into the thousands. It would be useful for SOTA to commit resources now to build alumni commitment through creative and emotive engagement of graduates. Setting up a dedicated alumni affairs office today and rolling out schemes to entice the alumni to stay connected and give back to their alma mater are possible first steps. The universities will tell you that the sooner you do this the easier it is to achieve desired outcomes. Second, MICA or NAC could create a programme to encourage and incentivise SOTA alumni to stay active in the local arts scene. This could be in the form of a dedicated NAC programme that seed-funds highly innovative and specialised arts projects initiated and led by SOTA graduates. Due consideration ought to be given to how the projects enrich the arts scene in Singapore and foster participation, especially from students and the general populace.”
“Madam, the School of the Arts is an excellent initiative of MICA. It has created the opportunity for our young to discover their talent in the arts, deepen their interest and hone their skills. More importantly, SOTA stands as a solid symbol of how far we have come as a society – ready to proactively invest in nurturing confident, well-rounded young people better prepared for the challenges ahead. It sends the right signal that we are serious about creating alternate pathways to success and accomplishment. I applaud the Government for this. Last month, when I attended SOTA's annual open house, I was highly impressed by the commitment and professionalism of the faculty and staff clearly inspired by the principal, Mrs Rebecca Chew, whose passion and energy is infectious. The students displayed an exceptional level of inner confidence. The SOTA students typically go through a six-year academic programme leading to an IB Diploma. Through the six years, students get specialised training in a chosen field of the arts – be it dance, music, theatre or the visual arts – and also gain exposure in the other arts discipline. What many parents like about SOTA is that it is not a preparatory school for a professional career in the arts. Although a number of students in each cohort choose to become professionals in the arts sector, the bulk of the students move on to the university to pursue degrees in conventional disciplines, such as law, humanities, architecture or even medicine. Year after year, SOTA will be producing energetic, inspired young people highly trained in the arts. To talk in terms of returns-on-investment would be in poor taste.”
“I know there are male Singaporeans who were not called up for NS but are willing to serve and, similarly, females who are prepared to do NS. It would be a meaningful gesture if MINDEF could provide the opportunity for such Singaporeans, in a formal manner, to volunteer to do NS. The numbers may not be large, but I am confident we have a critical mass of Singaporeans who will step forward. It would send a potent signal. Finally, there should be a greater sharing of powerful NS stories that epitomise the human spirit. Within the SAF, there should be more opportunities for sharing of experiences – formally and informally. Psychological adaptation Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef: Mr Chairman, every now and then we hear of cases of National Service personnel having issues related to mental health and psychological issues, different forms of stresses and, in some cases, few, not many, related to crime as well. As we know, some of these people already have a previous position to these conditions and may have been diagnosed even before entry into National Service. The training and conditions during National Service can no doubt bring on some of the symptoms. How are psychological issues being handled in the SAF? What forms of counselling are being offered? For cases where we do know of their previous position, how are they managed whilst in National Service? In the operations and exercises carried out by the SAF, are there routine pre- and post-event counselling and debrief to address psychological stresses? I am sure that the Ministry will agree with me that the maintenance of psychological wellness and well-being of our National Servicemen is one of the crucial areas we need to give focus to. 5.45 pm Training safety”
“And after all these years, National Service is seen by many, even today, as just a fulfilment of one's "legal liability". This is unfortunate. At a factual level this may be true but, at an emotional and fundamental level, NS has to be more than just a "legal liability". And I do believe that there is a significant number of Singaporeans for whom NS has come to mean more than just a legal liability – just that their voices are often drowned in the din of cynicism. I meet committed NSmen regularly – they are from all walks of life, holding a range of NS appointments. I have given the matter much thought, and am convinced that one reason why many male Singaporeans and their parents still view NS as something to grit your teeth and bear with is that it is overwhelmingly positioned as a "legal liability". If this is what you hear most of the time when referring to NS, the image of "liability" would naturally override other perspectives. It is important to give greater voice to the emotive aspect of National Service which, in my view, provides a more authentic perspective. To facilitate this, I have three suggestions which I hope MINDEF would consider: Firstly, to consciously reduce the usage of the administrative term "legal liability" which encourages a focus on the start and end date, which is not what NS is, in essence. The term "NS commitment" should be used more often, instead of "NS liability". What I am suggesting is not just a play on words. It goes beyond that, as the term "NS commitment" more accurately captures what NS is about – an emotional commitment which does not have a run-out date Secondly, to balance the notion of NS as an act of "conscription" with the idea of Singaporeans stepping forward to serve willingly.”
“Sir, as I was drafting this speech, I recall a five-day army battalion mission exercise in a rough terrain overseas. It was physically demanding even for the fittest of soldiers, with sweltering heat and humidity. I remember how parched my Muslim soldiers were as it was Ramadan and they were not able to consume water. Looking at their condition, I gave them the option of not continuing with the exercise. They insisted on continuing because, otherwise, they said their "buddies" would have to bear their load. In response, many of the other soldiers decided to go without water to keep their Muslim "buddies" company. We proceeded this way, with my officers and I keeping a lookout for heat exhaustion. Mr Chairman, these were not specially picked soldiers. They are ordinary Singaporeans you find in our heartlands, displaying extraordinary strength of character as NSmen. The motivation was commitment to each other as comrades. This basic human instinct translates naturally to professionalism and a commitment to serve. It is experiences such as these that instilled in many NSmen, especially key appointment holders, an enduring sense of commitment to the nation. Many of these NSmen have ceased to see National Service in terms of a "legal liability" they are required to fulfil. This is why it irks me when I come across young Singaporeans or their parents who seek ways to evade National Service (NS), or worse, when highly qualified people mock those who show a measure of commitment to NS. More than anything else, it is a grave insult to the thousands of NSmen who gave their best, and many who continue to do so. Forty-four years have passed since the first batch of National Servicemen was enlisted.”
“This appears to be borne out by a recent survey conducted by AWARE that involved 1,001 working parents – where 57% of the respondents said they welcome the option of transferring parenting leave from mother to father. Ninety-one per cent supported the idea of making paternity leave compulsory. The AWARE report also stated that "studies have shown a direct correlation in developed nations between the level of gender equality in a society and its TFR. When women have to bear the bulk of childcare responsibilities, they are less inclined to have children...". For these reasons, I urge the Government to give due consideration to AWARE's recommendations: two, in particular – to make paid paternity leave of two weeks mandatory, with the cost shared between the employer and the state; and, more importantly, to allow one month in the four months of paid maternity leave to be used as "parenting leave" to be taken by either parent. It is evident that we are dealing with a very difficult challenge, essentially because it is a very private matter which has to be tackled at a national level. We need to keep trying and tweaking the good measures already in place to ensure we create a "family-friendly environment", provide concrete relief for parents and would-be parents, especially in terms of childcare assistance and financial support. Just as important is to send the right signals to working mothers and married women, in particular, that society appreciates and supports their concern that they should not be carrying the load of having and raising children on their own. This is not a silver bullet solution to the problem, but I am confident it will make a difference. Population growth”
“Therefore, any serious effort to encourage young couples to tie the knot needs to factor in concerns that the HDB flat, which sadly appears to be a pre-requisite to marriage, is not perceived as beyond their reach. Secondly, the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy should come up with more concrete measures that provide sufficient assurance to young couples contemplating having a child. We have been promoting the concept of working from home for a decade now – yet this does not seem to have caught on with most Singapore companies, including Government offices. It has to be a mindset issue because, with the sophistication of technology today, there is little reason for employers not to allow young parents who need to work from home to look after their children to do so. After all, for many western MNCs based here, for them, this is an established practice. The Government could consider providing some form of cash incentive for technology investment, to nudge companies towards this end. My third suggestion pertains to giving couples greater leeway in deciding on how they utilise the 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. As an increasing number of women today are holding key appointments in the workplace, couples may want the option of the mother taking the first part of the leave, while the father takes the remaining part to look after the newborn. This will not only give couples the flexibility they increasingly need but also send an important signal to the young working mothers or mothers-to-be which they desire to hear – that they are not going to have to carry the load all by themselves, and end up losing out in career.”
“Sir, procreation, or the lack of it, must remain one of the most pressing challenges faced by our country as Singaporeans become more educated and affluent. The Government has given the matter due attention over the decades, by coming up with a slew of measures, ranging from the creation of the Social Development Unit (SDU) in 1984, to measures to create a "pro-family environment", to even a campaign called "Romancing Singapore". Yet, despite these efforts, the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) did not seem to have moved up the scale. In fact, the TFR for 2010 hit an all time low of 1.16, compared to the replacement rate of 2.1. We seem to have hit a stone wall. It is certainly not for want of trying. Yet, the problem is important enough for us to keep trying – tweaking the measures and introducing new ones until the penny drops. What we do every year counts. Findings from studies, surveys as well as anecdotal evidence seem to point to a lack of time, money and energy and what is seen as an environment that is not supportive enough for the mothers, in particular, as the key inhibiting factors. This is consistent with the findings of an extensive study conducting by MCDS in 2004, where 10,000 persons were polled. The correlation between early marriage and procreation has been established by several studies. I am happy to note that MCYS is continuing to encourage Singaporeans to marry, and marry early. However, I suspect that these measures may be hindered by what appears to be a larger consideration for young couples contemplating marriage – the price of HDB flats. As long as these couples perceive the cost of purchasing an HDB flat as being prohibitive, there is a high chance that marriage will be put on hold.”
“Worse, there could be a transfer of cost, resulting in a further rise in inflation. As such, it would be useful if the Government could consider a six-month delay in implementing the foreign worker levy whilst sticking to the end date. This will be a big help to companies that are most affected, especially in the services and construction sectors. It will give them more time to react and put in place alternative arrangements without unduly suffering the effects of higher costs. The Government has already made it clear that the levies will be increased significantly. This in itself will get companies to get cracking with necessary changes. Most of the companies that I have already spoken to identify with the national goals and are willing to do their part. Let us give them a lifeline to stay afloat to be a part of the collective drive to change the way we work and grow. A more calibrated approach by the Government is likely to yield better outcomes for companies, the Government and the public. On that note, Madam, I support the Budget. 4.47 pm”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me end by making a few suggestions for the Government’s consideration. First, to continually review the PIC scheme, NPF and other Government schemes so that they remain relevant to the needs of smaller enterprises in the services sector. It would be useful if the schemes can include less tangible innovations. Further, what companies can claim under the training track could be widened beyond the existing WSQ and ITE programmes, so that more customised packages can be designed to meet the needs of companies that are less process-driven, and where behavioural, attitudinal, analytical and creative thinking imperatives have a greater bearing on productivity. Second, enable a more cashflow-sensitive process for SMEs to benefit from the various schemes. Currently, many Government schemes, for example, the Enterprise Development Fund, to the best of my understanding, work on a reimbursement basis which puts added stress on companies that operate on tight cashflow. This could change. And finally, to delay the implementation of the increase in foreign worker levy to allow companies to better adjust and cope. The local labour force is almost at full employment. As such, the Government should take into consideration the specific circumstances of the different sectors before effecting the levy increase across the board. For the construction industry, for example, given the high reliance on low-skilled workers, it may be extremely difficult for companies to immediately increase efficiency without incurring significant cost increase. The result could be increased cost without being able to benefit from increased quality, which could force many companies to go on a downward spiral or even go bust.”
“From what I understand and hear from businesses, especially in the services sector, these schemes appear to be tailored more to suit the needs of companies that can restructure through automation, leveraging on technology and R&D, and whose processes can be restructured more easily. Take the example of a small SME in the knowledge-driven sector, which is typically talent intensive. Small practices that offer quality legal, training and consultancy services would be examples of such companies. For these businesses, there is limited scope for R&D, investment in design, acquisition and registration of Intellectual Property (IP), automation or business process re-engineering. Where they need assistance in is in IT, computerisation of search and cataloguing functions, and training and exposure for staff in high-end skills such as process-driven creative thinking and streamlined analysis which will result in productivity and innovation. Currently, such companies find it hard to qualify for the various Government schemes. I believe there are many SMEs who fit the bill – profitable enterprises wishing to improve in productivity and innovation but who feel left out. In this regard, I am heartened by Deputy Prime Minister Teo's assurance just a while ago that the Government, especially through SPRING Singapore, has specific schemes targeted at SMEs and also in the sectors that I highlighted. He highlighted examples of innovation vouchers, the innovation and technology programmes, both of which are driven by SPRING Singapore. It would be useful if these schemes could be publicised even more because, speaking to many SMEs, I do not believe that they are aware of some of these schemes.”
“So even a small increase in labour cost is likely to have a significant effect on the cashflow and the profit margins disproportionately. For the services and construction sectors, the average total increase in foreign worker levy – at $280 and $330 respectively – is higher than that for the manufacturing sector at $160. Yes, it is some relief that the increase will be spread over a three-year period, but the increase is significant and will have a drastic effect on the cashflow and profit margins of the companies. To offset this increase in labour cost, companies will be forced to consider alternatives, which indeed is the aim. However, for many companies in the services sector, the scope for automation or process innovation is limited. The F&B sector is a classic example where this substitution can be challenging. Already, we have reports of F&B chains and restaurants stating that they would have no choice by to pass on the costs to consumers. For the construction sector, on the other hand, a key challenge likely to be faced by companies, in the interim at least, will be in finding locals willing to do the work. It is true that our construction sector has a lot of catching up to do in terms of innovation and process improvement but even with the best of effort, it will take a year or so before the desired transformation can take place effectively. In the meantime, it looks like they would have little choice but to hire foreign workers at a higher levy and suffer the effects of higher business cost which, in all likelihood, will be passed on, leading to inflation. Mdm Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me now touch briefly on the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme, the National Productivity Fund (NPF) and other Government schemes.”
“I would like to focus on the impact on the Smaller- and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). SMEs in Singapore and, in particular, the "micro" and "small" companies face various business challenges. Two of the key challenges they face, especially in today’s inflationary environment, are as follows: First, manpower issues – SMEs and particularly the "micro" SMEs have difficulty hiring and retaining talent. Singaporeans, especially fresh graduates, continue to gravitate towards the "safe havens" of large MNCs because of perceived better job security, career prospects, comfortable work environment and growth opportunities. As such, SMEs, especially the smaller ones in less "sexy" sectors, are continuing to have to pay a premium to compensate for what they are perceived to be lacking in. The second challenge is cashflow. The adage "cash is king" is a bane for many of the smaller SMEs who, because of growing inflation, continue to struggle to make ends meet, month on month. For these companies, any further increase in business costs could have a debilitating effect. It is relevant, therefore, for us to consider the impact this Budget would have on SMEs. Specifically, I would like to focus on the impact of the proposed increase in foreign worker levy on SMEs in the services and construction sectors. While we recognise the need to reduce the dependence on foreign workers, the increase in levy at such short notice represents an immediate and significant challenge for SMEs in these two sectors. First, there will be an impact on cashflow. For these two labour-intensive sectors, labour cost comprises a significant proportion of total cost.”
“And overall, households will gain from a wealth effect through Government transfers. However, these may not be enough in the final analysis to provide prompt relief, especially given the expected trajectory of inflation. A key approach adopted by the Government to tackle the long-term effects of imported inflation is to systematically raise real income through enhancing economic growth by upping productivity. The aim is to increase real income by an ambitious 30% over the next 10 years. It is difficult to argue with the logic of this approach, especially as a long-term solution for an enduring problem. But it is highly unlikely that in the immediate future we will see a spike in productivity enough that will result in real income rising to help us deal with the effects of growing inflation. As we are embarking on much needed long-term solutions to find a new equilibrium, we would need to widen and strengthen the economic and social safety net in the form of more direct financial assistance and subsidies for households in the interim. At a systemic level, some form of monetary policy adjustment, at least as an interim measure, may be necessary, even though it would have an impact on our export-driven businesses. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would now like to talk about the impact on our SMEs resulting from measures announced to change the way we grow our economy. No one can disagree with the logic: to survive, Singapore needs to raise productivity significantly, which will in turn increase real incomes of Singaporeans and systematically reduce our reliance on foreign workers. And, yes, we have no choice but to start initiating the changes now. The issue is not with the principle of the matter but, it would appear, the modalities.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I join the other Members who spoke before me in applauding the Government for a sophisticated Budget that addresses the needs of segments of the population that are most in need of assistance. At the same time, it is a Budget that is prudent and goes beyond technical solutions and focuses on providing stability, prosperity and greater equity in the long term. My speech will focus on managing the stress and fall out in the short term as we change the way we grow and further enhance productivity. But, first, I would like to talk briefly about the growing concerns about inflation and rising Consumer Price Index that will have an across-the-board effect. Inflation in January hit a 25-month high at 5.5% – much higher than the 4.65% that analysts predicted. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) also rose at a seasonally adjusted 1.3% in January from a month earlier. Economists expect inflation to further peak at 6% in the months ahead. The price of essentials, such as food, has gone up by a significant 0.9%. With the continuing crisis in the Middle East, we must expect petrol and energy prices to keep rising. The Finance Minister did highlight that "imported inflation" will remain a key long term economic and social threat to Singapore. Precisely because it is imported and there is little we can do to prevent it, we need to ensure that we monitor the effects of growing inflation carefully and evaluate whether measures taken by the Government are providing sufficient relief as intended. In terms of direct help to offset the effects of inflation and increase in CPI, the Workfare Special Bonus will come in handy to help the lower-income households. Middle-income households especially stand to gain from the higher CPF contribution and marginal tax savings.”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response as well as the assurance he has provided. I am just wondering if the Government would be able to give further assurance to the ground, and in particular netizens, some of whom were concerned that this particular act of gazetting the TOC is politically motivated. It appears from what the Minister has highlighted that that is not the motivation. But could we have an assurance from the Government, please?”
“Sir, I see the value of ethnic category-based results to ethnic self-help groups, for example. Could the Ministry consider at the mass media level when the information is released to the general public – in other words, the announcement to the public – that it is presented as a whole instead of being divided along ethnic lines? I am concerned about students, in particular ethnic communities, who may not have fared as well. Can I have a response from the Government, please?”
“I do not disagree with the Member's arguments but I am also suggesting that there are counter-arguments which also have been raised before, one of which is that if you do not set some form of a minimum wage, companies could be incentivised to exploit workers. It is possible. That is also an argument that is valid. So, it is not a question of a zero sum. If one argument is valid, the others are not valid. What I am saying is, you need to weigh the pros and cons of both and see which one applies better for us and it is a judgment call in the end. That is all I am saying. I am not saying that just because of what the Member has highlighted – and I agree that it is valid – it does not mean that the contrary argument is not valid. It is one of those situations. I am sure we can agree that it is a subjective issue. You need to weigh the pros and cons because you do not have a silver bullet solution to this, which is also similar arguments that have been highlighted by various economists who studied it, many of whom are highly accomplished. Some of them are highlighting the pros of it, some of them are strongly defending that this is the best approach. Others are saying, "no, the downside is too heavy a price". I am not saying that this is the right approach. I am saying that this is something we need to debate further before we make a decision. 2.44 pm”
“I brought up the minimum wage scheme as a proposal that I feel requires further debate, whether within Cabinet or outside. I am urging that before we push it aside or say that it may not be effective in our society – there are valid reasons for that argument as well – I am urging that we look at it once more, review it once more perhaps in this House before we say it does not work for our society. That is all I am saying.”
“The true success and quality of a nation is measured not so much by how many PhDs it has or how strong the GDP growth is but, in my view, how we take care of the poorest and less fortunate amongst us. Mr Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the motion.”
“And the system should be streamlined so that prompt processing is a norm regardless of which agency you go to. Secondly, the Government should seriously consider upping the social welfare assistance quantum which all social workers I spoke to agree is not sufficient. Thirdly, and most importantly, given the cost of living, it is important that Government reviews the household income pre-requisite for social assistance and what is defined as "low wage". The current figure of $1,500 a month is I feel unrealistic and I suspect too many legitimate cases are falling through the cracks. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by highlighting what Prime Minister Lee stated in a recent article he contributed to Bloomberg, I quote: "The only reliable strategy for improving the lives of citizens is for countries to upgrade the skills of their people and the capabilities of their economies." This makes absolute sense. But we must also recognise that this is indeed a long-term strategy. Meanwhile, the low-skilled, low-wage workers and others at the bottom of our socio-economic strata will have to confront the harsh realities that are staring them in the face everyday. They need help – more direct and immediate forms of assistance. For this, we need to ensure that this group in our society gets the attention and the interest of the Government and the rest of society. Prime Minister Lee stated in the last paragraph of the same article, and I quote: “The State needs to tilt the playing field in favour of the less successful, and those having difficulties keeping up.” I am heartened by our Prime Minister's concern and commitment. It should certainly set the tone.”
“Finally, I would urge the Government to recognise that while skills upgrading, job placement measures, rental and utilities rebates and so on do help, many in the lower income bracket are struggling with pressing here-and-now problems that are really quite insurmountable. This is not something that they are imagining. It is real. For such individuals, direct welfare assistance is absolutely necessary for survival. Providing direct welfare grants to those in dire need will not necessarily result in Singapore becoming a welfare state. Today, the pre-requisites for qualifying for welfare assistance are very stringent – gross household income of $1,500, among other factors. This needs to be reviewed because a typical four-member household with a gross income of even $2,000 or $2,500 a month today would find it hard to cope, especially with the rising cost of living and high inflation rate. Similarly, the $360 per month Public Assistance allowance rate is hardly enough for a household with low gross income or no income. Yes, there are various MCYS schemes that will assist the household to offset their specific expenses, such as utility and rent. There are many who applied for such assistance and whom I have spoken to say it often takes a long time – some say several months – for their applications to be processed. I am not sure how pervasive this problem is but this has to be looked into because it can be very frustrating and painful as their needs are immediate and pressing. Some social workers I spoke to also share the same concerns. So, I urge the Government to find ways to shorten the processing time needed for applications for financial assistance.”
“The second area that needs to be addressed is the effect of depressed wages for low-skilled workers as a result of foreign workers who are willing to work for low wages. While we can cite anecdotal evidence of Singaporean workers being choosy and spoilt, which I am sure is true, it is important for us to recognise that when the pay is too low it really does not make financial or practical sense to take the job especially when you factor transportation, accommodation and subsistence costs for the worker and his dependants. The foreign worker, on the other hand, does not have these additional costs, at least in Singapore, and so can accept the low-wage. The reality, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that employers will continue to seek ways to lower their factor cost, which includes manpower cost. So, this matter naturally cannot be left to the market to sort out. The Government has to step in more proactively to correct the downward wage trend. As Mrs Josephine Teo said, employers need to move from cheap-sourcing to best-sourcing. I completely agree with this. While I agree that a minimum wage policy has its setbacks and, if not managed well, could even adversely affect local workers, I urge the Government to carefully and with an open mind examine its merits as part of the overall solution. After all, several developed countries have minimum wage policies and seem to be quite pleased with the outcome. In yesterday's Business Times, there was an article that states that "companies are split in the middle on whether minimum wage help low-wage workers". This was based on a survey by remuneration data specialists and the Human Resources Institute of Singapore.”
“It is imperative that we continue to address the various needs of the worker and his family that would provide much needed solace, a sense of control over his life, and confidence in his ability to fulfil his responsibilities. Without this, it would be difficult for the worker to perform at the workplace and be motivated enough to reap the benefits of the various training programmes he attends. Currently, there are already a number of schemes that provide such assistance. Here are some suggestions to enhance the support in a holistic manner. Rising healthcare cost is one area of great concern for those in the lower income bracket. The Government could consider higher subsidies for outpatient care and medication, in particular. For hospitalisation: the concept of portable insurance schemes should be seriously explored. This would go some way in giving comfort especially in an environment where job security would be low. I understand that this idea of portable insurance schemes was mooted a few years back. Perhaps the House could be updated on the progress of this. For subsistence, the Government could consider a ration-card system where qualifying households are automatically given vouchers for household essentials for a six-month period, instead of the current ad hoc arrangement. For utilities, low-wage households that meet consumption reduction targets could be given an additional special discount. Transportation is another cost item that adds up. It would be most helpful if, on a six-monthly basis, low-wage workers could be given passes that allow them to have discounted fares when taking public transport.”
“If this is not mitigated, the result would be that this group of Singaporeans would feel increasingly marginalised, would not be psychologically geared up to respond adequately to the calls for productivity growth and innovation, and would end up with very little savings to sustain them for retirement and the health issues that they are likely to face at that point. They will be caught in a downward spiral that will adversely affect their families, especially in providing quality education for their children which in turn could result in reduced inter-generational social mobility, and this group would certainly feel increasingly disillusioned, leading to an erosion of rootedness. It is therefore important that we recognise that if we fail to adequately address the pressing concerns of this group, the casualty is not just the worker or the individual struggling to make ends meet but those who are dependent on him, and over time it is bound to affect our social compact. The Government, together with the union movement and the CDCs and ethnic self-help groups, has been doing much in the area of training, skills upgrading and job placement of low-skilled and low-wage workers. The schemes include Workfare, Work Support Scheme, CCC Comcare Fund, Comcare Transitions Scheme as well as the Inclusive Growth Programme, as highlighted by Mrs Josephine Teo earlier. While these have been very helpful for this group of workers, clearly we can do more, hence the motion. First, we should enhance the holistic approach adopted by the Government, and quite successfully.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion, essentially because it seeks to address one of the most pressing challenges we have been facing and will continue to face. The reality is that even as we are recovering from the recession, the cost of living is going up and inflation was 3.8% in November and is expected to hit 4.5% or more in December last year. The increase in real income of low-skilled and low-wage workers has not been significant over the past decade. According to Singstat, between 1995 and 2007, the top 10% of households in Singapore experienced a whopping 110.8% increase in real income, while for the lowest 10%, the increase was 7.7%. Low-skilled and low-wage workers are not the only ones who need special attention as we strive to ensure that, as the motion reads, "all Singaporeans may share the fruits of our prosperity". If the goal is to be a truly inclusive society, then we cannot ignore the needs of those who are not employable because of physical or mental handicap, as well as the elderly and others who are struggling to survive not for want of effort. It is important that we include this group as we explore ways to address the needs of low-skilled and low-wage workers. I would imagine that their concerns and issues are similar. As we punch ahead moving up the value chain in a knowledge-based economy – which is necessary, I agree, to survive in an increasingly competitive environment – we should expect that the number of workers displaced or struggling to catch up would increase.”
“I feel that some of the areas I suggested like improving the quality of kindergarten education, reducing the price variance and making sure that our children, who for whatever reason are not able to go to kindergarten or pre-school, are given the opportunity. These are things that I feel are still within our means as a society, not just the Government, and we should continue to strive for it. Quality and access are important factors. Third, the final point is about us as a society consciously going back to basics. We need to do this especially because everything seems to be in a state of flux around is. We need to step back, pause and ask some fundamental, possibly inconvenient, questions. Yes, education or schooling is to prepare ourselves with the skills and qualifications to get jobs – better jobs – and this, in turn, helps to keep the economy ticking. But is this all there is to education? In our society, education has always served us well as a social leveller and this, in turn, continues to have a significant impact on self-worth of individuals, how communities are perceived and how unified we are as a people. Through my original motion, I was not asking for the Government to make kindergarten education compulsory per se or introduce a core curriculum at kindergarten. These were just suggestions. The aim is to address the issues and concerns in an effective, holistic way, create awareness of the importance of pre-school education, deepen commitment, to continue our focus on this area, to continue to improve pre-school education and ensure that it is more a level playing field. With access and quality, I feel I have achieved much of what I intended. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, once again, my appreciation to you and the House for allowing this debate.”
“I think we need to continue to strive to achieve that goal, even though it may be difficult, but every child here in this group does matter. I hope that we will not waver from this commitment that the Government has demonstrated in ensuring accessibility and affordability. In what is definitely becoming an increasingly important stage in the development of a human being. Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by summing up three key points. First, enough studies have shown that the exposure a child gets – academic or otherwise – especially between the ages of three and seven, is crucial and has a strong bearing on his performance in school and in life. The impact of this is stronger by the year given the pace that which things are developing, not just in Singapore but globally. So, early intervention in education, academically, socially and all aspects is key. Countries, especially countries like Singapore, where the human resource is a critical resource, if we do not pay enough attention and continue to pay enough attention in this area, I am afraid we will pay a price. Second, there is no silver bullet solution. There is no easy simple solution. Given the number of moving parts that are interconnected in this issue, every action will have some kind of reaction or trade-off, but inaction is not an option. We have to constantly seek ways to improve the areas where there are problems. There are many factors in the equation that are beyond our control, eg, the pace of schooling, aspirations, and so on. And we cannot turn the clock back. We have to focus on the variables where we have some measure of control over, not just in execution but in outcome.”
“Significant jumps in grants and subsidies to improve quality and access, and that MOE is working with MCYS and grassroots stakeholders to reach out to the many less well-off families, and a more holistic approach in education to focus on the child's talent as a whole to enhance it and not just on academic performance. All this is very heartening. It appears that many of the concerns I have raised have been or are being addressed. This is what I am seeking. I am not seeking to doggedly to push a line of argument. Let me assure the House that my interest and the interests, as it appear, of the rest of the Members as well as the Government are not disaligned. And so I do not have a problem at all with the amendment to my original motion. It focuses on the core interests of continuing to be committed to improving quality, affordability and access. The only concern that still remains unaddressed for me is what happens to the children who do not attend kindergarten because their parents are not aware of or simply not inclined to send them? I appreciate the assurance given by Minster of State Masagos that the number of such children has come down from 350 to 100-odd this year. But for me, 100 is still too many. Whether kindergarten education is made compulsory or not, what is critical is that we need to ask ourselves how are we able to help ensure that no child be denied the opportunity to attend kindergarten because they cannot afford it or that their parents do not take the initiative. If we are talking about just over 100-odd children out of a cohort of 40,000, bringing it down to zero from 100-odd over the next few years with an all-hands-on-deck approach, I do not think it is impossible.”
“I was not advocating standardisation, I was highlighting the need for us to have some form of core curriculum that will imbibe literacy and basic numeracy skills in the children without taking away the fun and play element in pre-school education. I did not suggest that we should stress subject-based curriculum in pre-schooling. I do not want play-based pre-school education to change. I think it will be a disaster if that happens. All I am asking for is that children who go to Primary 1 have the basic literacy and numeracy skills. They are already being taught in pre-schools while adopting play-based approach. That is all I am asking for. So, the point I am making is not to transform the way in which we teach children or the way in which kindergartens or pre-schools conduct themselves. No. I think what is being done, the approach is correct. All I am saying is that when children go to Primary 1, there appears to be a strong expectation of some measure of reading and numeracy skills. So, in keeping with the current approach adopted by the kindergartens and pre-schools, we just need to ensure that the children are ready for this when they go to Primary 1. That is all I am trying to highlight. I am also delighted to hear that the MOE has done and is continuing to address some of the issues that I did raise – the review, for example. That efforts are being taken to raise the quality and standards, especially through the accreditation standards like SPARK. Core curriculum is already being introduced and updated two years ago, I am informed.”
“It is very heartwarming to hear all these schemes, some of which were highlighted in earlier sessions in this House but it is wonderful to hear them being reiterated. As a parent, it is delightful. She mentioned 200 new childcare centres in five years – that is the target – and we have been making very good progress so far. And the highly impressive upping of subsidies and ensuring quality. I am deeply appreciative of all the efforts made by the Government, MOE, MCYS and acknowledge this in my speech by highlighting that subsidies are almost 100% in many instances, and that non-affordability is no more a valid reason for parents not sending their children to kindergarten. I did highlight this. So I did acknowledge that MCYS and other Government agencies have been doing a lot on this front. My suggestion was for MOE and MCYS to better and more proactively publicise the many schemes and subsides already available. So, instead of just waiting for them to call, why do we not reach out a lot more? Because the truth is many of the parents I have spoken to were not aware of many of these schemes. I think it is a pity if we already have these schemes available that the people who these schemes are intended for are not aware of. That was my suggestion. Let me now go on to respond to the statements made by Minister of State, Mr Masagos. The Minister of State highlighted that a review was indeed conducted in the year 2008, and that it addressed two key concerns – universal access and raising overall quality – and this is very heartening. I agree with the cautionary voices highlighted that we should not be over standardising and structuring pre-school education. And just to clarify, that was not what I intended. That was not what I was advocating.”
“It is precisely for this reason that change takes time especially in something as complex as education that we need to move in tandem. As we improve our primary school education, which is being done, we should also start fine-tuning the pipeline to primary school which is kindergarten. The idea is to make the transition from kindergarten to primary school as seamless and as less stressful and as equitable as possible, and that is really my point. Like Assoc. Prof. Straughan and many other parents, I, too, want our children to enjoy their pre-school years and focus on play. But as a child plays, he can also learn to read and write and which, I believe, is what kindergarten education is about. It is not about rote, it is not about forcing this information down, but through the approach of play imbibing in them literacy skills. Next, Mr Michael Palmer – I agree that dysfunctional families have a wide range of issues to deal with, not just education for their children. I did not, for one moment, suggest that making kindergarten education compulsory would serve as a silver bullet to solve all these problems that families face – it is not intended to. Instead, I saw it as one part of the total solution, at least the education part of the children would be taken care of. And together with MCYS and other agencies and self-help groups, there could be a lot more interaction with the families to solve the other aspects of their problems. That is what I meant. Let me now quickly move on to the contributions made by the two Ministers of State. I thank the Minister of State, Mrs Yu-Fu Yee Shoon, for taking time to highlight the various schemes.”
“It serves and strengthens the leverage when we are persuading the parents who are unwilling to send their children to kindergarten. This is my own perspective on that matter. Next, Mdm Ho Geok Choo. I am happy that we are generally in agreement although the Member has intimated otherwise. And while I may not necessarily use the analogy of ang ku kueh to celebrate the various wondrous styles and approaches by kindergartens, I agree with her that we should not go for a one-size-fits-all approach. So, I do not quite understand why the hon. Member suggested that I did. On various occasions, I have emphasised that I am not at all advocating standardisation and that, in fact, I am against it. All I asked for was for MOE introducing a core curriculum of sorts for kindergartens to follow and Minister of State Masagos already acknowledged that this is already being done. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Straughan, whilst supporting the principle of equal opportunities and therefore implicitly agreeing that education should remain a social leveller, expressed a few reservations. Assoc. Prof. Straughan highlighted a 2007 study by Magnuson that showed that pre-school related gap in academic skills is quickly eliminated in primary schools through small classrooms and high levels of reading instruction. So, where are these small classes in our primary schools today? Is 30 or 40 per class considered a small class? Even if MOE is working towards this, and I am sure it is, and other improvements in primary education as recommended in the PERI Report, when will they materialise? In the meantime, what happens to the 400 or 350 children each year – and now it has come down to 100 over children – who go to Primary 1 without being able to read or count? That is my concern.”
“My sincere appreciation also to the other Members who rose to share their perspectives on the subject even though we may not agree on various points. Their contributions have resulted in a richer and more meaningful debate which I believe gives us a more balanced perspective. Allow me now to briefly respond to the key points raised by the various Members. Mrs Josephine Teo highlighted the Prime Minister's 2008 National Day Rally Speech where he talked a lot about the importance of being committed to further investment in the quality of pre-school education. She also highlighted that even though it may not be a formal review as such but there would be some form of review of pre-school education in Singapore, and that the focus should now be more on implementation instead of going on with another review as such. And these actions should be a lot more immediate and I completely agree with her. For example, how MOE can ensure a baseline standard requirement while allowing character and style of kindergartens to continue. I am delighted that the Member supports in principle the need for MOE to continue to find ways to improve quality, affordability and access. And while I appreciate the sentiment behind her point that we should not unduly adopt a legalistic approach in pre-school education by making it compulsory, I am not quite sure how it would hurt in this instance. After all, the vast majority of more than 98% of pre-school going children already attend kindergarten. Therefore, legislating does not necessarily mean that we have got to be draconian like jailing the irresponsible parent. Often, such legislation serves as a deterrent more than anything else.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you and the House for giving me the opportunity to table this motion which I am aware has meant an additional day of sitting. I would like to assure Members that I had given the matter due consideration before tabling it as a substantive motion. My key reasons are that, first, I am convinced that this is an important enough subject that affects a large proportion of our population and therefore would and should be of concern to legislators. I am glad that there has been no lack of interesting ideas, no lack of confidence-inspiring comments from both sides that is very worthy of this House. And I would like to thank all the Members and the Ministers of State for updating us on the details of some of the schemes that are currently being done. Second, it is not just about education or early intervention per se, but what we are talking about today clearly has far reaching implications on fundamentals that form the basis of us as a society. We are talking about meritocracy, equal opportunities, aspirations, rights and responsibilities. Third, it is an important enough subject therefore where the debate in this Chamber would spur debate, discussion, introspection among Singaporeans out there to not only think deeper about education and what it means to them and their children but also about the kind of society we want that we would be proud to be a part of and that we would like to bring up our children in. I would like to thank my fellow NMP Ms Audrey Wong for stepping forward to second the motion and for presenting her thoughts on the subject in what I saw as a cogent, lucid and honest manner.”
“This faith in a system that is fair and equitable while rewarding hard work and talent has resulted in the high level of trust that we have come to enjoy in our society. Not only has it contributed to economic growth, but also to social harmony. We cannot put a price on it, neither should we take it for granted. Given how important it is for parents that their children have a decent crack at success and the good life, education as the means to that end is critical. It can be a lightning rod for dissonance and tension if parents feel that the system is unfair and biased in favour of the more privileged. Increasingly, the burgeoning middle class is likely to feel less privileged and frustrated if they feel their children do not have the same opportunities as the well-off or that they will not be commencing the race at the same start line. By tweaking the pre-school education system at the right points, I am confident that we will be able to better align meritocracy and equal opportunity. We will never be able to perfect the alignment, but the effort will be a testimony that economic success has not forced us to suspend the very values we have been taught to believe in, as a people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.49 pm”
“No child should be denied the right to education because his parents cannot afford it, or because they are not interested. Meritocracy and equal opportunity – which are at the core of our collective consciousness as a society – have served us well. The rapid progress we have made over the years can be attributed to a large extent to our Government’s unstinting commitment to these two principles. Today, with growing income and class disparity – as an unintended but natural consequence of economic growth and affluence – it is even more important that equal opportunity is given as much importance as meritocracy, as they do not necessary complement each other like they used to, up until the early 1980s. Michael Young, the well-known British historian who coined the term "meritocracy" in 1958, has written quite extensively on the pitfalls of societies focusing primarily and narrowly on meritocracy. He said that, "ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education ... with an amazing battery of certificates and degrees at its disposal, education has put its seal of approval on a minority, and its seal of disapproval on the many who fail to shine from the time they are relegated to the bottom streams at the age of seven or before". Over the years, we have painstakingly nurtured a social compact that is the envy of many. This compact is predicated on the intrinsic faith the people have that each one of us matters, regardless of race, language, religion or which socio-economic class we belong to.”
“In many ways, the spirit of making pre-school education compulsory is similar to the amendments that were proposed in the Maintenance of Parents Act, which is targeted at the relatively very small proportion of children who refuse to provide financial support for their parents who need that support. It is inconsequential to the vast majority of parents and their children. In signing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we have recognised the rights of the child as a vulnerable member of society. As such, under Article 18, governments are required to "... render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities ….". Where the parent is unable to fulfil his responsibility and role to the child, the State must step in. In fact, MOE itself has on various occasions affirmed the vital importance of pre-school education. Mr Masagos stated that "MOE acknowledges that pre-school is especially important for children from lower-income families as it gives them a good head start. They tend to lack home support. But pre-school will develop important areas in them – areas like communication, motor and social skills." Sir, in conclusion, let me, first, reiterate two key points I have highlighted in my speech as fundamental to ensuring that our education system remains faithful to its goal of serving as a social leveller. First, we need to ensure that quality is constant and consistent and does not vary significantly based on how much more you are willing to or able to pay. In other words, regardless of where you send your child, you should be assured of a minimal standard of education that prepares him for the next level. Second, there should be universal access to this quality education.”
“I share this concern and, for the record, am against any step that will unduly increase the stress on our children. But let us take a step back and ask ourselves if this is a likely outcome just because we make pre-school education compulsory. Highly unlikely, I would say, for the simple reason that it is not going to make a material difference to the level of stress for children because more than 95% in each cohort is already attending pre-school or kindergarten! If at all there is any added stress, it would be felt by the 350 children a year who are currently not attending kindergarten. But even for the parents of these children, if effort is made to assure them that if they cannot afford to pay the fees, help is available that can offset almost 100% of the fees, I am sure they will be quite happy to send their children to kindergarten. Similarly, if effort is made to show parents that kindergarten education helps their children acquire important social skills that make them more confident, most parents would be enthusiastic. The truth is that most parents do care for their children and want the best for them. Legislation is necessary to ensure that parents can no longer act in an irresponsible manner. Today, with the light-touch approach, if a parent refuses to send his child to kindergarten despite efforts by MOE officers to persuade him, there is effectively nothing that can be done to "rescue" the vulnerable child. But, with legislation, the irresponsible parent is required to send his child to kindergarten or face consequences.”
“In 2000, the Committee on Compulsory Primary Education recommended compulsory education at the primary and secondary levels despite the fact that only 3% of the cohort was not enrolled in national primary schools at the time of the review. Every Singaporean matters and every Singaporean child must attend school in order to get the same head start in life, to develop his or her potential. This was what former Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong said when he stressed why we need to make primary school compulsory. Ten years on, today, the starting point for getting that "same head start in life", as highlighted by Senior Minister Goh, has shifted from Primary 1 to kindergarten today. This is a reality we fail to recognise to our peril. One of the reasons cited by MOE in explaining why it did not find it necessary to make kindergarten education compulsory was that it could force "school-readiness" at too early an age, hence, over-emphasising the academic and classroom environments too early in life. I am happy, especially as a parent, that the Government is concerned about this and that we should avoid subjecting pre-schoolers to undue stress. However, the reality is that there is already a significant amount of stress built into the system, which starts from Primary 1, and it rises on a fairly steep curve year on year. What this means is that if we do not want children to go through stress during pre-school, we are merely deferring the stress, which is likely to hit the child harder when he starts primary school education without kindergarten exposure. Related to this is a concern that other parents I spoke to expressed – if we make kindergarten compulsory, it is going to take away the joy of pre-school education for our children.”
“This takes me to my third suggestion – carefully studying the need to make kindergarten education universal or, to put it more directly, compulsory. In 2008, 870 children did not attend pre-school. In the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, then Senior Parliamentary Secretary Masagos Zulkifli estimated that around 350 children in this year’s Primary 1 cohort had not attended kindergarten. When asked why kindergarten education is not made universal, this House was told that the Government saw greater value in persuasion instead of legislation, and that it was effective as the vast majority of parents were responsive. While I am sure this light-touch approach is fairly successful, and I am sure MOE puts in the effort to reach out to parents, the fact remains that 350 seven-year-olds have not benefited from it this year. These children have started primary school at a disadvantage. Each one of them has the right to aspirations like the others – to do well in school and in life. Why should they be denied that right for reasons that they are not responsible for? Why should a child be placed in this unfair position if, eg, his parents simply did not see kindergarten education as important enough? Why should children be made to pay a price – and possibly a heavy price that could set them back for life – for their parents’ irresponsibility? Yes, 350 is not a large number – but we are not dealing with mere digits here, are we? The State has the responsibility and the duty to protect the rights and interests of each of these children – they are vulnerable, especially if they come from families that are disadvantaged or unenlightened.”
“Currently, many middle-class parents desire to send their children to some kindergartens because of the curriculum or pedagogy, but they cannot afford to because of the extremely steep fees. By stipulating the maximum fees, we are not only providing more options for parents but it will also help make it a more level playing field, which over time will have a positive effect on reducing the disparity in the quality of outcomes in the various kindergartens. Pricing is an important instrument in democratising opportunities. Similarly, the modalities for kindergarten subsidies should be more transparent with greater effort by the Government in ensuring that parents are aware of them early enough so that they are in a position to make important decisions in an informed manner. Almost all the parents with pre-school aged children I spoke to – especially from the middle and lower-income segment – were either not aware of Government subsidies or did not know how to access them. This creates unnecessary anxiety for parents, especially when, today, as assured by the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, in this House, no child would be denied a kindergarten education because his parents cannot afford it. The current Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KiFAS) helps to pay up to 98% of kindergarten fees, up to a cap of $98. On top of that are start-up grants for registration fees, uniforms and other miscellaneous costs. These are very useful for parents to know, but many of them are absolutely not aware of them. There should be a greater effort in proactively publicising the subsidies and other assistance schemes available for kindergarten education.”
“Introducing a mandatory core curriculum with easy to measure KPIs would not only help to improve the overall continuity between kindergarten and primary school education, it will also reduce the disparity in the level of preparedness of Primary 1 children regardless of whether they attend a $1,000 a month or $100 a month kindergarten. My second suggestion is to consider a review of the fee structure and publicity of the range of subsidies that are available today. This is to ensure that the steep variance in fees does not result in excessive disparity in the quality of kindergarten education offered by the various operators. While generally we should let market forces decide on fees, when it comes to services which we consider essential, such as utilities and transport, the Government, I feel, does provide and enforce guidelines. Even for schools that come under the purview of the MOE, there are clear guidelines on fees. Since it is evident that kindergarten education too is an essential service, and it comes under the MOE’s oversight, why can there not be guidelines on fees that can be charged, regardless of whether it is a privately-run kindergarten or that is eligible for Government subsidies? So as not to be unduly imposing on operators for whom bottom-line considerations are important and, rightly so, they can be given a broad enough range where the maximum fees chargeable per month are stipulated. Currently, the range is very large – between $100 a month and more than $1,000 a month! A narrower range of fees pegged to a lower maximum fee chargeable would give a lot more options for the largest segment in our society – the middle class, where aspirations are probably the highest.”
“MOE has already started taking steps to raise the standards of pre-school sector by setting guidelines to improve teacher-child ratio, the quality of teachers as well as the quality of the curriculum. This year, the minimum qualification for pre-school teachers was raised. Also, there is now a voluntary quality assurance standard and accreditation framework, called the Quality Rating Scale that pre-schools are encouraged to use to maintain the standards of their facilities. This pre-school accreditation framework was officially launched yesterday. However, in my view, such measures do not go far enough in achieving the desired outcome of ensuring that our children are adequately prepared for Primary 1. Because this is a voluntary framework, it still gives pre-school centres latitude in deciding whether they want to impose these standards or not. And I fear that financial bottom-line considerations are likely to be a disincentive. Also, currently, there is insufficient regulation to ensure a more consolidated approach to teacher training and pedagogic programming. Experts in pre-school education whom I spoke to assert that some enforcement in these areas is essential to ensure much needed consistency in the quality of pre-school education offered by the many operators on the ground. It would be useful for the MOE to consider stipulating a core curriculum for all kindergartens. If this constitutes no more than 50% of the overall curriculum, operators would still have enough flexibility in curriculum, methodology and style in keeping with their brand proposition.”
“But they have the right to have these concerns, especially given the rigorous curriculum in primary school – where even educated parents are finding it a challenge to coach their children. If we can help give the assurance to parents that regardless of which kindergarten they send their children to, they can expect a minimum standard that is sufficient for the children to cope in primary school. I am certain that this will help alleviate much of the anxiety and stress felt by parents. Currently, the responsibility for pre-school education is shared between the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS). While MOE oversees kindergarten education and MCYS takes charge of play-schools and nurseries, there is no clear lead agency in pre-school education as a whole. Since pre-school education is now a critical preparatory phase for primary school education, it makes greater sense for MOE to be the lead agency to ensure greater continuity and congruity in the early education of a child. This would make for easier coordination of policies as well as the setting and monitoring of standards. A key concern that some educationalists and parents I spoke to is that MOE would end up over-regulating what ought to still remain an essentially fun and exciting few years of pre-school education. I am confident that MOE is able to draw the line between setting broad policies and curriculum guidelines, without micro-managing. This is what the Ministry has been doing, and quite effectively with the schools, especially in the past few years.”