Zulkifli bin Baharudin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister spoke about concessions Singapore has made. But it appears like surprises to me. My question is: on the issue of land, bridge, etc, did the Malaysian government inform us earlier that these are to be part of the deal or did these matters surface just during the discussions with the Senior Minister?”
“We need to help companies and workers to cope with this restructuring. The right way to do it is by upgrading industries and training and retraining workers.”
“Sir, I am enlightened to hear the response from the Deputy Prime Minister. But I seem to have gathered some feedback that as and when people say that they have a criminal record, they do not even get an interview.”
“Sir, my wish really is that the Foreign Ministry should make the forging of good relations, understanding of our neighbours, the personal responsibility of every citizen because we have an important role to project our way of life and values to the people in the region.”
“My suggestion is that oversight should be from the inside. Government should encourage self-help groups to appoint more members of other races to their boards of directors and advisors.”
“Sir, I am asking the Minister really in privatising some of these GLCs, for the GLCs to take on a role where they can lead, bring along other SMEs together with them, not just a corporate or business mission, but other objectives as well, the larger objective of bringing along the SMEs as they grow, prosper and develop in the region.”
The complete record
Every one of 331 lines we hold for Zulkifli bin Baharudin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Has the situation deteriorated so much that we should consider implementing a demerit point system? I am sure the Minister of State can provide an explanation as to why such a system should be put in place and how it would operate. And, in particular, I echo the issue that was raised by Mr Zulkifli whether it would have an undesirable effect on the cultural and arts scene in Singapore. The harm that we would want most to avoid is that our most creative artistes go abroad and develop their talents instead of remaining at home. This must not happen, as a result of a scheme that is seen to be too restrictive. I would urge the Minister of State to let Members of this House and the public know what are the principles that will be used to administer this demerit point system. And it is unfortunate that the rules relating to such a scheme are not placed before the House at this time. Sir, I turn now to other issues that arise from the Bill. While matters of substance are very important, matters of procedure may also be important in that a long drawn out procedure to obtain licences may be viewed as unsympathetic to the growth of a vibrant public entertainment scene in Singapore. While the Bill positively aids in promoting public entertainment maybe in the new provision that groups performing under the auspices of certain statutory bodies like the People's Association, National Arts Council, MUIS and the National Library Board can now provide public entertainment without requiring a licence. There are many statutory bodies that are given this exemption. But there may be a case for including other bodies such as the Singapore Academy of Law and Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore. These are not in the list.”
“In substance, both the showing of a film and the staging of a play, for example, are not different. I am puzzled that there is such a distinction made here and that there is no appeal body in this particular piece of legislation. It can also be seen from the factors referred to that there are very broad considerations that involve public morality which probably could be better gauged by a body of individuals culled from various segments of society. I know, for instance, that in the recent controversial play, the permission to stage it was withdrawn after objections from MUIS. Why not have an appellate body comprising representatives from organisations such as MUIS or National Arts Council, who could then recommend to the Minister on a more regulated basis? If we are serious about improving the cultural arts scene in Singapore, we may need more civil society mechanisms to ensure that we are not erring from excessive caution. I would like therefore to urge the Minister of State to consider such a scheme as appropriate for the Public Entertainments Act, as it is for the Films Act. Sir, the Bill also proposes to implement a demerit point system. Such systems are common in Singapore, principally in matters relating to public health and road safety. Again, I should like to ask the Minister of State for clarification, as some of the speakers earlier have done so. What purpose would such a demerit system serve in the area of public entertainment? We can see the need for such a scheme in the areas of public hygiene and road safety, where the public may be subject to daily risks of dirty food or unsafe driving. But in public entertainment, the harm that may result is surely not as direct or severe as to require a demerit point system.”
“In the Films Act, for example, we have an elaborate system of obtaining licences or permits to show films and to have films censored. In the case of public entertainment falling within the Public Entertainments Act, the same concerns arise. What is the proper balance to be struck between allowing our artistic talents to entertain the public and maintaining public decency and order? In the sitting on 17th January this year, the Minister for Information and the Arts gave an answer which is quite relevant in today's debate. The Minister referred to the need for artistes to obtain licence for new art forms, such as forum, theatre and performance arts, where there is no script and encourages participation of the audience. Controversy arose in this case because of some indecent and unconventional behaviour on the part of actors during a performance several years ago. The answer given by the Minister - may I be permitted to summarise - contains four factors that should be taken into account. First, the broad factor of risk to public order and decency; second, the exploitative nature of the art form to educate audiences on volatile issues; third, the propagation of beliefs and messages of deviant groups; and, finally, the use of the art forms as a means of subversion. I refer to these factors because the fundamental issue of substance for having a licensing scheme to regulate public entertainment is striking that proper balance between artistic freeedom and maintenance of public order and decency. The Bill appears to make the Licensing Unit and the Minister in charge, namely, the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible as the guardian of public order and morality, unlike the Films Act, for example, where there is an appeal to a wider body known as the committee of appeal.”
“Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Minister of State will answer Mr Jeyaretnam's points, but I would just like to say one thing. Frankly, I am quite astonished at the suggestion or the legal theory propounded by him that there is a duty on any government to challenge its own Bills on constitutional grounds. I have never heard of such an argument put in any jurisdiction that I know of. Obviously, the simple case is that if a citizen feels aggrieved and he has a locus standi or standing to raise an issue before the courts, he can always go to the courts for a declaration. There is no such thing also as unrestricted constitutional rights to freedom of expression, even in that most democratic of democracies, the United States. Now, Sir, if I may be allowed to speak in relation to the Bill. I support this Bill in so far as it seeks to update the law and especially by removing activities that no longer require licences and by streamlining procedures for issue and renewal of licences. This is an important Bill, coming as it does in the wake of earlier concerns in January this year about the operations of the Licensing Unit and, more recently, of course, about the play Talaq that was not allowed to be staged. Sir, in this debate, I would like to touch on two sets of issues. The first relates to issues of substance, ie, what are the factors to be considered in the granting of licences and whether there will be changes in this regard after the enactment of the Bill. The second relates to the process and procedure of obtaining a licence. In the area of public entertainment, there is always an issue of balancing the objective of encouraging creative and new art forms, and what may be called the maintenance of public decency and order.”
“Thus, if a civil society group decides to hold a talk for an "invitation only" audience, technically, the group will still have to get a public entertainment licence. This is not helpful at all. The creation of a demerit point system is interesting, but totally lacking in detail. Why? What is the rush in pushing this Bill through? Although the Minister has stated that details of the demerit point system will follow, why can we not come up with the scheme before voting on it? I would have thought that the demerit point system should be debated and scrutinised in Parliament. Otherwise, this is very much like having traffic rules and demerit point system, but the driver does not know what are the rules and how the demerit point system works against him. If there are OB markers, as it should be in some cases, why not spell them? Otherwise, the vagueness and the lack of clarity make it confusing for arts groups and civil society. Mr J B Jeyaretnam spoke about the Speakers' Corner. I am extremely disappointed with his attitude. I would have thought that with the establishment of the Speakers' Corner, it is precisely the Opposition groups who will take advantage of this, because they have been clamouring for more space and opportunity to speak to the public at large. And the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam has taken the attitude and the fact that he is not here to listen to the reply from the Minister is something that I find very disturbing myself. The Speakers' Corner is not just a reflection of the society at large but, certainly, the state of the Speakers' Corner is a reflection of the Opposition members themselves and other groups who want to have an additional platform to make their views known. Assoc. Prof.”
“If the licensing officer feels that he must reject the application for one of these reasons, and for those reasons only, he must give reasons. Therefore, amendment should be made to section 13(2) to reflect this default position. Thus, the onus is on the licensing officer to give reasons for his denial of an application. The applicant need not have to ask for the grounds for the decision. Clearly, in the recent Talaq case, the licensing officer has consulted other relevant bodies. But why not embody this process in the Bill to reflect a more participatory and consultative style of government? Why not spell out the bodies or organisations which need to be consulted? Or establish a body which has a representation from a wide cross-section of the society to advise the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit? It will then give some of the bodies a legal status to make its decision and recommendation and possibly avoid the confusion caused by the recent issue. In this instance, the licensing officer has consulted the National Arts Council and other bodies. But who really is making the decision? Is it the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit? Is it the National Arts Council? Or is it the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura? If these groups are to be relied upon to give advice, what and how much weight must be given to their views? Should not the licensing officer consult these bodies first before making a final decision? Thus, the procedures and processes in making this decision must be clearly spelt out. For civil society, Sir, it does not exempt groups organising talks and seminars and the like from applying for a licence unless it is a "members only" meeting.”
“Many outside Singapore interpret the use of the Public Entertainments Act and the Environmental and Public Health Act as a desperate attempt by the Government to use inappropriate legislation against an opposition figure. Clearly, we do not deserve such a reputation but neither do we need to give others an excuse for perceiving us as such. Although Singaporeans are fully aware of his defiant attitude resulting in the charges being made against him, the use of the Public Entertainments Act, for example, has caused some confusion. Therefore, we should take this opportunity to make this Bill purely for public entertainment and not for any other offences. We must separate arts from politics and make a clear distinction between the regulations for entertainers and that of politicians. Even if this amendment is made purely to enhance our image overseas and ensure that people have the right view on this matter, it would be a worthwhile exercise, because what others think of us matters. Let me touch on a number of specific issues. Clearly, section 13 should be read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees citizens the right to free speech, assembly and association. I have very different views from Mr J B Jeyaretnam, because I think the significant point in Article 14(2)(a) empowers Parliament to impose any restriction it considers necessary and expedient to serve the purpose inherent in eight stipulated grounds of derogation. Thus, when someone puts in an application for a licence, the licensing officer is constitutionally required to approve the application unless it falls within one of the eight heads of Article 14(2)(a).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to express my concern about the possible negative impact the proposed amendments will have on arts and civil society. I, like many other Singaporeans, am delighted to have witnessed the growth of arts in Singapore. I must compliment the Government for the vision and effort to nurture the development of arts here. But I feel that it is timely that we have specific legislation that will be able to guide this development. Of course, we also need to ensure that the social norms and the acceptable moral standards of our society are protected and not compromised. Artistes are like scientists - researching, questioning, experimenting and sometimes pushing and testing conventional acceptable norms of the day. Therefore, the Bill must reflect the tolerance for a possible negative outcome of this experiment, but make clear the boundaries within which the arts groups are allowed to operate. I am therefore concerned that instead of taking this opportunity to refine the Bill to be more specific to the arts, we have enlarged it to include perhaps just about anybody else by including meetings under this amendment. I would have preferred that all other matters of public order be included in other legislation, such as the Penal Code, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act and the Societies Act. There are enough legislation to regulate such public meetings. Otherwise, as it stands now, the legislation may be seen as too restrictive for an otherwise very liberal and growing arts scene. By enlarging this Bill, I am afraid that we will not be able to solve the perception problems caused by the charges brought against Chee Soon Juan when he launched his book at Raffles Place sometime ago.”
“The thing to do now is to look forward and to ensure that we set up the system and infrastructure so that the madrasahs will be able to deliver and achieve a balance, as the Member mentioned earlier, between the needs of the economy and the spiritual needs of the community. As to the representation on the Compulsory Education Board, I will leave it to my colleague, RAdm Teo, to answer. As to the comment on AMP's collective leadership issue, I think it is beyond this debate for us to discuss.”
“The most immediate task which they had to do was to decide on the PSLE benchmark which they did. Apart from that, the Committee would also look into the curriculum of the madrasahs, not only of the assisted one, but also of the other five. There are six madrasahs in all. They will also look into the necessary training of the teachers to ensure that they are equipped with the necessary knowledge to teach English, Mathematics and Science properly. The Steering Committee would also look into financial help. This is what the Nominated Member alluded to about the kind of help that could be given to madrasahs. We will be looking into the financial aspect of not only the assisted madrasahs but also the other madrasahs, in other words, all the six madrasahs, to ensure that they will be provided with sufficient funds so that they can carry out a proper system, have enough trained teachers in order to achieve the twin goals of producing religious teachers and also, at the same time, providing themselves with enough basic education to prepare them for the knowledge-based age. As the Member rightly mentioned, we have to provide a proper balance between the economic and the spiritual for the madrasah students. Lastly, the Committee will also look into the management of madrasahs to ensure that they are professionally and properly managed so that they would fit themselves, as it were, into the whole Compulsory Education environment. At this point, I would like to urge the community to look forward, instead of dwelling on the past about the concerns and worries. I think we have gone beyond that.”
“And at two specific meetings with the madrasahs and other stakeholders of madrasah education, Prime Minister reiterated the point, and I would also like, on behalf of the Government to reiterate the point again here, that it was never the intention of Government to close down madrasahs and there was no ploy to close down madrasahs. Based on the input and feedback from the community, the Government has agreed to exempt madrasahs from the Compulsory Education system, provided that they meet certain minimum PSLE benchmarks which they themselves would have set and which they themselves would have to agree to. So far, the madrasahs have agreed to certain benchmarks and that is something that they will adhere to and hopefully that is something which, as time progresses, they will increase; in other words, make the benchmark higher. I empathise with the concern of the community and also agree with the views of Mr Yatiman and Mr Hawazi on the need for the madrasah students not only to acquire religious instructions and education, but also for madrasahs to produce enough religious scholars and religious teachers for the future. But, at the same time, we must also ensure that madrasah students receive at least some basic education to ensure that they will be able to prepare themselves for the coming knowledge-based economy. On this issue, you have heard of Government's intention to assist one particular madrasah by facilitating some funds to be given to it so that it could be assured of having enough good teachers to ensure that the students are being taught well in English, Mathematics and Science. On my part, I had also formed a Madrasah Steering Committee last June and to-date, they have had three meetings.”
“By leaving them on their own, I am afraid the success of the madrasahs' survival might be quite questionable. Finally, I observe a small loophole in the case of home-school. I would like to ask the Minister how that exemption would be exercised because in other countries, in Malaysia, for example, it is very hard for them. You can stop madrasahs but you cannot stop pondok schools, five or six fellows in a small corner being tutored by one person. That could be interpreted as home school as well. In a way, a small madrasah can emerge out of home school, and how that will be seen by the authorities as they seek for exemption. The Minister for Community Development and Sports and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Sir, I thought I would join the debate at this juncture because there have been some issues raised about madrasah education which I think, as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, I ought to address. I would like to thank Messrs Yatiman, Hawazi and Zulkifli for their support of the Bill. The three speakers had alluded to the concerns and sentiments of the Malay-Muslim community about madrarsahs and the fear whether Compulsory Education will really mean the demise of the madrasahs or whether it is one of Government's ploy to close the madrasahs. In actual fact, Government recognises the importance of madrasahs for the Muslims and the importance of religious education for Muslims. Therefore, it was never the intention of Government to close down madrasahs and far from Compulsory Education or legislation being a reason or an excuse to close down madrasahs. The Prime Minister himself had several times assured the community that it was never the Government's intention to close down madrasahs.”
“Although the Prime Minister has given assurance to the Malay-Muslim community, I personally would have preferred a more concrete assurance in the form of legislation, in the sense that this Bill should have been more specific about what it sees as the role of madrasahs, at least to continue to provide education for the future religious leaders. If that can be preserved, I think we are quite happy about it. I am sure some may come up in the subsidiary legislation but I would prefer a bit more concrete assurance from the Minister on how he sees the status of madrasahs today. The other point I would like to make is that there has been a lot of zest and enthusiasm among a lot of people in the community to want to play a part or at least influence the teaching of religion in school. I would like to ask the Minister whether representatives from the community can be put on the Compulsory Education Board because this is where we can see some participation. Like I say, you cannot have collective leadership but you can have very strong participatory involvement in this process. And because the Compulsory Education Board is formed, their involvement in the Board would send a very strong signal. It is one thing to say that we hope the madrasahs would continue to prosper, but it is another thing to do something to ensure that it prospers. The madrasahs need to be a bit more well-funded. The facilities are usually not so good. The teachers are not that well-paid. How more assistance can be directed to ensure their continued survival, maybe not for all, but at least for some selected madrasahs, is something that may be necessary at this stage. The madrasahs must be given the vital ingredients to ensure success.”
“Elected Members and Government must be responsible ultimately for the achievement of its people and population, that is, the education system must produce the desired outcome. NGOs must be responsible to its members. It can only be responsible to its members. It cannot be responsible to the population at large. Therefore, its role must be one to support whatever existing policies it has or if it does not agree with it, to lobby and change and pursue certain decisions that the Government would take. But to call for collective leadership to be equally responsible is not relevant in this case because when you agree with the policies, that is fine, but if you do not agree, like what we have seen in some discussions preceding this, who will be responsible, who will be accountable? At least for the Government, you have a choice. If you do not meet the desired outcome, you can vote them out. But I do not see how you can exercise those rights if this responsibility is given to a group of people to be responsible to take the community forward. This is an issue which has generated a lot of debate recently but I wish to put this issue in perspective. At the end of the day, it is the Government and the Minister, together with the other Elected MPs, who will have to decide. I am sure that they are responsible to ensure the outcome. To have collective leadership, to me, is irrelevant at this stage. I just wish to touch on two other points, and one is about the assurance.”
“Rather, the success of the madrasahs should be seen more beyond the point whether the institution would exist in its artificial sense but whether the future generation of Malay-Muslims will choose madrasahs as a means of education to meet both their religious and secular needs, and whether students that go through the system can become useful citizens of the future, not only for the needs of the community, but the needs of the country at large. That is a challenge for madrasahs to ensure that they continue to produce good students for the community. The other point is that a lot of the members of the community tend to look at the past as a means to try and defend and preserve whatever that is available. I would rather, if we look at our unique Singaporean way, and the way that the Bill has been drafted that we look into the future. If we can find a nice blend to ensure madrasahs continue to exist, it is an unique opportunity in fact for Malay-Muslims in Singapore not only to solve some of the problems that we face, but be an inspiration and guide to other Muslim communities in the region who are also facing similar problems. There are similar madrasahs in the region. This is where we can look forward and they could be quite useful in our contribution to the Malay-Muslim world at large. The other issue that had caused a bit of controversy of late, I must say, has been the issue of what has been termed collective leadership. A lot of community leaders and religious leaders felt that they want to play equal roles with the Government in ensuring that madrasahs continue to survive. I respect their intention and their enthusiasm which is very, very important to ensure that this is achieved. However, we have to be very clear on what we mean by collective leadership.”
“However, the problem seems to be that, in fact, Malay-Muslim religious leaders, and even these Muslim religious leaders - non-Malays, Indians and those of Arabic origin - have taken it upon themselves, when they evangelise, to develop schools. It is then difficult to really separate what is the religious motivation, and that of really providing secular education in this day and age. So I think the problem really is a question of balance and content - how can we continue to make sure that Malay-Muslims of the future and today continue to be inspired to ensure that they acquire the kind of education but making sure the contents in schools and all that could prepare them for the future needs of the economy? In this regard, the Compulsory Education Bill does provide an answer for the future, and I hope the sceptics can see it in this light and give this Bill their full support. The other reaction from within the community is slightly different. A lot of people are concerned that the Bill would inevitably lead to the closure of madrasahs. I think this is where the Prime Minister has given assurance. I am very happy with the assurance that the Prime Minister has given because it has been made quite clear that while madrasahs must continue to exist, at least to provide for the future leadership and its religious leadership for the Malay-Muslim community, it is through madrasahs that we can produce religious leaders for the future. Whether it will continue to produce other scholars outside the religious needs of the community is another question. Here, I would like to respond by saying that no amount of institutional help can assure success in this area.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the wider implication of this Bill to Singaporeans, especially to those outside the Malay-Muslim community. To me, the issue that has generated a lot of strong and emotional response has been the issue on madrasahs, and, for this reason, I wish to touch on a few aspects of this issue. Sir, there have been two types of reaction, both outside and inside the community, and I wish to touch on them. Many people outside the community became very uncomfortable about the the way, the zest, in which Muslims want to preserve madrasahs, and find that perhaps they cannot understand why in this present day and age - it seems very illogical - that Malays want to preserve madrasahs which are not producing the kind of educated students that they hope to achieve. I wish to assure these people that this is far from the truth. Instead, what they should see is that Malay-Muslims in Singapore, in their short history compared to Chinese history, have been able to make economic progress and education as a very important agenda for all of us in Singapore. And, I think, in that sense, we have made tremendous progress. However, we need to realise that when we look back, the Malay culture has provided quite inadequate examples of how education is developed in the community. In fact, if you look back, a typical Malay-Muslim has to dig far deeper into his religious roots, because it was Islam that really promoted education when Islam was first introduced in the region. And because of that, it is clear that, not only to counter some of the social problems that they have, Malay-Muslims need to use religion which has motivated its people to really acquire knowledge not only as a choice but really as an obligation as Malay-Muslims.”
“That is where we need to be more careful and have provisions to avoid such conflicts instituted and not be the subject of abuse. On the whole, Sir, I would like to again reiterate my support for the statement.”
“Another problem you have is that when you provide a range of salaries for certain categories of the same grade in the civil service, the number of people you can compare within that same grade is far too small to provide any meaningful competition as in the case of private sector where there are a lot more competition and similar types of jobs in other companies. Therefore, I think the appointment of search firms may be relevant in this case. I am, however, concerned about one possible unintended consequence of this whole exercise and, that is, whether it will affect the moral authority of civil servants and political office bearers to govern because moral authority is extremely important. I travel in the region almost every week and have discovered the deep and wide respect that this Government enjoys, not only in Singapore but also outside the region and, partially, this has got to do with the fact that previous office holders have demonstrated a level of self-sacrifice when it comes to their own wages and remuneration. I am also aware that we have existing procedures and policies of existing office holders who exercise restraint in making investments or getting themselves involved in other kinds of jobs. I think this is something that we need to make clear and something which we need to guard against to make sure that while we pay top wages to our office holders, they are not seen to also compromise on the other investments. Again, in this particular instance, I think political office bearers are visible, they can be seen, people know what they do, where they go, where they live, what car they drive. But the same cannot be said for civil servants.”
“While the salary review has been very comprehensive and, in my view, quite revolutionary, as it has even made Permanent Secretaries non-permanent, it will be difficult to avoid or eradicate completely, like DPM said, the "hentak kaki" mentality, in a large organisation like the civil service. We need to consider a number of things. While we have a transparent system of paying top wages to attract talents into the civil service, we seem to have less than a transparent system in dealing with non-performers. With a large organisation like the civil service, we can possibly have a free rider situation. We therefore need to be more comprehensive in the scrutiny and management of those who are not performing well. I do not see this as a problem of political office holders as they are more visible but the same cannot be said of civil servants who are generally and sometimes seen to be insulated from blame and problems. Second, there is also the time lag problem which has made it necessary to have salary or wage increase even at a time when private sector salaries are just coming out of a recession. Perhaps, one suggestion is to appoint a group of search firms tasked to recommend salaries consistent with formulas that have been established. This is a practice adopted by many in major MNCs and can similarly be done to determine civil service salaries. Such firms can be more responsive and therefore close the time lag problem. There is another benefit to this, that is, you have a third party telling you what is the going market rate for these professionals which would make it easier to handle this issue, because some feel that even if salaries are pegged at much higher levels today, the overwhelming majority that the PAP has in this House will make this a foregone conclusion.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise to support this statement and wish to compliment DPM for the transparent manner in which this issue was proposed. Inevitably, the transparent manner of discussing this matter will generate discussion and debate. Even in private sector, discussions on salaries and remuneration are usually sensitive and touchy. In a small country, like Singapore, where everybody knows everybody, you cannot avoid this issue being personalised. This, I think, will remain for some time an unavoidable outcome to this issue. Sir, since this was announced yesterday, I asked a number of people whether it is too much to pay the Prime Minister about $1.9 million or $34 million annually for elected Members of this House. Most really do not know how much is enough. But they agree that the Prime Minister, for example, should be paid a very high salary for the job he is doing. In fact, some are puzzled that, despite the increase, the Prime Minister is still ranked 63rd among top salary earners. Many have no qualms to have our Prime Minister being the highest paid among top professionals. This shows that Singaporeans now understand that we need to pay the best to attract the brightest to do what is seen as the most important job in this country. However, Sir, there are problems, especially with benchmarking civil service salaries with the private sector and this can be problematic. It is quite clear that most top jobs in the private sector carry a high level and element of uncertainty in a hire-and-fire environment. For the Minister, some said that at least he gets a five-year contract before his next election, a luxury private sector executives do not enjoy.”
“Mr Ang Mong Seng asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will allow immediate family members of those affected by the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme at Hillview Estate to select their flats from the balance units of the replacement site. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the new replacement flats being built for offer to Hillview lessees affected by the Selective En-Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) are located at Bukit Batok West Avenue 5. After the SERS lessees have selected their flats, the priority is to offer the balance units to eligible flat tenants of the rental block at Block 11 Hillview Avenue which has been earmarked for relocation in tandem with the SERS programme. HDB will look into the allocation of the balance units at Bukit Batok West Avenue 5 after the Hillview SERS lessees and flat tenants have selected their new replacement flats. Notwithstanding the above, there are already several schemes which enable parents and married children to live near each other. For example, SERS lessees may include their parents or their married child in the application for a new replacement flat so that they can stay together in the new flat as an extended family. First-timer flat applicants may also apply to the HDB for the $40,000 CPF Housing Grant Scheme to buy a resale flat to live near their parents or children. AGRI-FOOD AND VETERINARY AUTHORITY (Package offered to civil servants) 19. Mr Seng Han Thong asked the Minister for National Development whether the package to be offered to civil servants crossing over from the Primary Production Department to the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority has been finalised.”
“If negotiations cannot be completed by then, Dr Blanco and I will sign a document listing the areas that our negotiators have agreed on and expressing our common intention to complete negotiations by the middle of next year when a new Mexican administration has been in office for a number of months. If the candidate of the present ruling party wins, there will of course be continuity. I have taken the precaution of sounding out the principal opposition candidate from PAN. He has expressed his full support for the FTA. Elections are due this weekend. The key businessmen and representatives from the business associations we met in Mexico also expressed general support for the FTA. While there were some concerns about the impact of the FTA on specific domestic sectors, these concerns arose from a lack of knowledge about Singapore. Fundamentally, Singapore poses no threat to politically-sensitive sectors in Mexico like steel and textiles. We will negotiate an Investment Guarantee Agreement as part of the FTA to facilitate Singapore investment in Mexico. While our present investment in Mexico, which currently amounts to US$133 million, is small in relation to our investment in Asia, it has grown significantly in recent years. The Mexicans are very keen to have more of our businessmen invest in Mexico to take advantage of NAFTA. Strategically, we see Mexico as our gateway into Latin America and we hope that Singapore can be a gateway for Mexico into Asia. SELECTIVE EN-BLOC REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME AT HILLVIEW ESTATE 18.”
“Question No. 17, Sir. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, in September last year, President Zedillo and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong agreed to explore a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between our two countries. Subsequently, in February this year, the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore and the Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (SECOFI) of Mexico agreed that negotiations would begin in July. There were two main purposes to my recent trip to Mexico. First, to open Singapore's first trade office in Latin America. This is in recognition of the closer trade links between Mexico and Singapore and the potential for greater expansion in the future. Over the last ten years, trade between Singapore and Mexico increased by an average rate of over 30% a year, reaching $2.2 billion last year. In 1998, Mexico exported more electronics products to Singapore than to the rest of East Asia, including China, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan combined. The second purpose of my trip was to deliver a personal letter of invitation from Prime Minister Goh to President Zedillo to visit Singapore in November before he steps down at the end of the year. I also met with my counterpart Minister, Dr Herminio Blanco. Dr Blanco and I agreed that we should try to complete our negotiations for an FTA by November, in time for Prime Minister Goh and President Zedillo to witness its signing when the President is in South East Asia for the APEC Leaders' Meeting. However, we may not be able to complete negotiations within this short time frame.”
“How much of the estate comes from the package as offered to the companies investing? That means, how much of the money has GIC used in this package? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I thought I have already given the number. Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: The entire US$76 million. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Yes, for Astra. CURRENCY SWAPS WITH REGIONAL NEIGHBOURS The following Question stood in the name of Mr Simon S C Tay - 15. To ask the Minister for Finance if he will explain the nature and extent of Singapore's commitment to currency swaps with our regional neighbours, following the "Chiang Mai" initiative among ASEAN plus 3 countries, and the effect, if any, on our reserves.”
“I would just like to ask the Minister whether he could give us the number in the investment made, in the case of acquisition of Astra and the one did by Temasek Holdings. How much of these facilities are used by Temasek Holdings and the other company that is making the investment? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, GIC's investment in Astra was US$76 million for about a 6% stake in the company. As to the investment by Temasek in the oil palm plantations in Indonesia, I do not have the number here.”
“Indonesia is a strategic partner. In view of the low take-up rate, would the Minister think it necessary now to consider reviewing this scheme to improve the take-up rate? And secondly, have there been other requests also because of the low take-up rate by the Indonesian government to come out with new schemes to review or refine existing schemes available? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should rush because private monies are involved here and they have got to make realistic assessments of the situation in Indonesia in all its aspects - economic, political, social. And while the Government can be helpful, the Government should not be pushing such investments. Our role is a catalytic one, but in the end, it is for private investors to make their own decisions.”
“Could the Minister of State tell the House how the Minister would exercise the discretionary powers in deciding which of the organisations are to be declared as political organisations? My second question is: how can the Minister assure this House that such wide discretionary powers are not used solely for partisan political agenda that is to be used against groups whose views differ from that of the Government? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this matter has been debated widely and thoroughly during the Second Reading speech of the Minister in this House. In fact, in his speech he also mentioned the factors that he would consider in deciding whether or not to gazette any civic organisation, ie, the objects and activities of the organisations, its links with foreign organisations and the support it receives from foreign organisations. Sir, clearly this Bill is not a Bill designed to benefit any political party, whether PAP or otherwise. It is a Bill that benefits Singapore and Singaporeans. I think all of us in this House and all Singaporeans will agree that foreigners should not attempt to influence the domestic political process through this means of providing funding to any group in Singapore. MAN SHOT DEAD AT SELETAR CLUB ROAD (Charges against policemen) The following question stood in the name of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam - 12. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs why the two policemen who shot to death the man at Seletar Club Road have not yet been charged in court with murder.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister to clarify and confirm that they have reviewed the activities of all civil societies which are engaged wholly or partially in politics and have justified and assured itself that a gazette under the Political Donations Acts is not necessary? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said, the Government currently has no plans to gazette any civic organisation.”
“And we should be careful not to devise ways which lead to dependency and to moral hazard.”
“So it is far better for us to move upstream, which is higher value added and for which we have a competitive advantage and use these high points to raise the general level of the tent. This is a paradox in economics that, sometimes to have greater growth, we must accept a widening of inequality, because without that higher point for the tent, it is more difficult to raise the whole skirt. From the viewpoint of our economic strategy, we are targeting high value added industries for which we have a clear competitive advantage and rely upon these centres of growth to bring employment and advantage to ordinary Singaporeans. Madam Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Sir, will the Minister consider setting up a crisis credit facility to help the 10% through these difficult times and allow them to pay back on very low interest terms? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, there are many ways that we can use to redistribute income to those who are less well off. The most important thing is to have welfare without welfarism and to achieve redistribution without it somehow disincentivising effort or self-help. If there are projects which are low risk to justify the low interest rates, I think the market will attend to them. As far as the Government is concerned, we provide direct assistance through affordable HDB mortgages, through subsidies on service and conservancy charges, through MediFund, through subsidy of C class wards and polyclinics, through education facilities which are completely affordable all the way up to ITE and junior college. There are many ways to cause a redistribution. We should choose the ways which encourage effort, which increases the productive capacity and capability of those at the bottom.”
“Would the Minister be able to tell us if we minus off the jobless people, what is the true figure for the bottom? In that sense, has the actual figure itself gotten worse? Second, I would like to ask the Minister, if joblessness is the problem, are there ways to relook at policies to keep jobs in Singapore? By this, what I mean is that instead of searching only for higher value high technology investments in Singapore, should we look for reasonable wage companies and industries that will keep the bulk of jobs in Singapore? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first question, in 1999, 75% of the bottom 10% of households did not have a working member. Among the households that had at least one income earner, the average household income was $530 per month. Mr Tay also asked a broader question about our economic strategy, ie, whether we should not deliberately nurture an industry sector to cater to these people. Let us say that we create such a sector. Can we ever bring our costs low enough, say, in disk drives, to compete with Malaysia, the Philippines or China? I think that is an impossible game and a fool's game, because in these countries, there are many more willing to work at even lower wages. So this will result in our economy being constantly pulled down. Our strategy is to move upstream. When we have R&D centres, wafer fabs, pharmaceutical companies and petrochemical works in Singapore, there are people at the top who earn high salaries because their skills are very scarce in the world. But for each of these individuals that we have in our midst, they bring work and opportunities to many other people who service them, who maintain the plants, who do the landscaping, who provide the food, who provide the transportation and personal services.”
“Other than training and education for this group of people who find difficulty in training, would the Minister consider playing a more direct role in getting these Singaporeans obtain jobs in the region where such jobs are more easily available? You cannot train them, you cannot increase their level of education, can you perhaps help them to get jobs elsewhere outside Singapore? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I would not say that they cannot be trained or upgraded. They can be trained and upgraded, but what we can achieve will not be the same as what we can achieve with the young lads or lasses, and teenagers. As to whether we should send our unskilled workers to neighbouring countries to work, I do not think that is right. They enjoy a much higher standard of living in Singapore than what they can ever hope to enjoy, say, in other parts of South East Asia or even beyond. We try to protect the wage levels in Singapore through the workers' levy. Imagine if we had no work permit system in Singapore and no workers' levy, then millions will want to come to Singapore and wages at the bottom will be greatly depressed. This will cause not only social problems but it will also lead to a Singaporean underclass which would be a political problem. So we try to strike a balance between protecting those at the bottom and not allowing this protection to be such a weight on the overall competitiveness of our economy. It is a balance that we have to strike well. As to the Member's proposal to send our unskilled workers overseas, I think many of us would be against that. Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, if I understand the Minister correctly, the statistical $133 figure is caused by a high percentage of jobless people.”
“Sir, can I be allowed to say a little bit more?”
“This Bill requires the organisation to value all donations and gifts only on commercial terms. Again, this provision may be problematic. Depending on how you value some of these contributions, it may exceed the amount required to be reported to the Registrar of Political Donations which is $10,000, and an error may subject a person to prosecution and a fine simply because of his underestimation of the value of the contributions given to the organisation. This will cause some problems for civil societies. We have also seen recently the emergence of the individuals who stand for parliamentary elections. They get help from friends and families who do so in their personal capacities, or maybe as proprietors of their own firms. The interpretation of this Bill will make it problematic for friends and families to get help, except on purely commercial terms. Sir, I have given my qualified support for this Bill but would appeal to the Minister to consider some of the amendments and suggestions that I have made. I hope that the Third Reading of this Bill can be deferred to the next sitting so that some of these inputs from civil societies can be taken into consideration. Sir, we have come so far, I think this is a good Bill and has good intentions. But if we can make some amendments and allow civil societies' inputs to be considered, many of the unnecessary constraints imposed on civil societies can be avoided. I do not think that it is such an urgent matter that we cannot wait for another month or so.”
“Many would err on the side of caution and would be reluctant to support such organisation. (2) The definition of "permissible donors". For a company, the definition of "permissible donor" is such that a donor has to be a Singapore-controlled company which carries out its business wholly or mainly in Singapore. Therefore, it excludes Singapore-controlled companies but whose business activities are wholly or mainly outside Singapore as they are termed "non-permissible donors". This Bill may appear to be out of touch with the regionalisation realities of companies. My question to the Minister is: why can we not separate corporate identity and registration from the geography in which they do their business in? The reality is that there will be some Singapore-controlled companies which derive most of their income from outside Singapore. Why should these companies be excluded or discouraged from contributing to civil societies in Singapore when what we really need is exactly the reverse, that they continue to contribute to the various social causes in Singapore so that they remain rooted to this country? What about donations from a private trust and foundations which are also a main source of income to civil societies? I wish the Minister could clarify on this point. Next, the meaning of "donation". Clause 3(2)(f) prohibits the collection of fees and subscription paid by foreigners to a political association. My question is: why do you have an organisation, say, a think tank formed to discuss regional security issues and have members and experts from around the region? This Bill will then prohibit the organisation from collecting fees and subscription from such members. Next, the value of donation.”
“So I hope the Minister can accept these points, and that amendments and refinements to this Bill can be made so that we can achieve the major intent of this Bill without jeopardising the activities of civil society. There are also other problematic implications which I wish to highlight and seek the clarification and assurance from the Minister: (1) For many of us in civil society, the Internet, globalisation and the maturing civic movement in Singapore have meant greater collaboration and cooperation with civil societies in other parts of the world. In fact, my own experience has shown how surprising foreigners are about the growth of civil society in Singapore over the last few years. However, this growth will be affected because a large part of the activities of civil society are through seminars and conferences overseas. It is common for foreign organisations to contribute towards travel and accommodation expenses when inviting Singapore participants. But this Bill will deem these organisations as non-permissible donors and therefore disallow such contributions. Conferences, seminars and discussions are vital lifeline to civil societies. Presently, many civil societies have difficulties raising funds locally to carry out such projects. I have raised this matter at the last Budget debate and here I am repeating my earlier call for greater Government's support towards civil society. Personally, the Roundtable, for example, has carried out fund raising projects, for example, a childcare centre called Haripasad in Ang Mo Kio. This is a good thing for civil society to be engaged in beyond discussion. But I fear the future of such activities as donors may have their own reservations and interpretations about having their identities recorded.”
“What I attempt to show to the Minister is that we have three different groups with three different types of activities, but, by sheer definition, may all be subject to the provisions of this Bill. Therefore, what constitutes wholly or mainly politics in Singapore is problematic to interpret. The discretionary powers given to the Minister, in my view, may be too wide and will put the Minister in a no-win situation, as it would be convenient for critics to accuse the Minister of wanting to have this provision possibly because its views are inconsistent with the Government. I would like to offer some other suggestions which would perhaps achieve the same purpose of preventing foreign influence and, yet, perhaps remove some of the inconvenience that may hamper the activities of non-partisan civic groups. (1) Organisations registered under the Societies Act and whose activities relate to the politics in Singapore can have, in their constitution, provisions disallowing its members to become members of any political party or engage in any partisan politics, failing which then perhaps such organisations should be deemed to be political organisations under this Bill. (2) We can have provisions where organisations can be deemed to be political organisations where, for example, there is a large membership size although the objective of the society is to be very broad based. Or where there is a large amount of operating expenditure, we can draw a difference between an organisation with a $2,000 bank account and one with $2 million in operating expenditure to fund its activities. (3) Where such organisations have a significant portion of their income deriving from foreign sources, quite logically, they should be gazetted as political organisations and subject to this provision.”
“Jeyaretnam, I have no problems with any of the provisions of the Bill in so far as it applies to political parties, if it is about catching the wolf, although disguised in sheepskin. However, Sir, I have reservation and concern about the implication this Bill would have on civil society. I fear that civil society may become the unfortunate victim of this Bill. Therefore, I would like to raise some of the issues and give feedback received by me from members of civil society to the Minister. I urge the Minister to perhaps consider excluding political association from the provisions of this Bill because it will pose all kinds of problems to civil society, the majority of whom have neither the capacity nor objective to influence either the electoral process or outcome of elections, but will nevertheless be adversely affected by the Bill. Even if we have good reasons to do so, I would urge the Minister to consider amending the definition of "political association" as it is too broad. Because I am persuaded to accept the fact that civil societies and organisations can become disguised fronts of political parties. It would also appear to me that, for example, the Democratic Socialist Club and the Political Science Association of the NUS whose main objective is not to influence party politics, but to provide a platform for intellectual discussion among university students, would be considered a political association. In this regard, I am curious to find out the Minister's definition and how this will apply to the PAP Community Foundation, whose activities are purely educational, but is part of the PAP. Also, personally, for me, how would the Minister regard the Roundtable and whether it would be gazetted as a political organisation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I give my full support to the provisions of the Bill that seek specifically to ban political parties from receiving contribution or donation from foreign sources. Some in Singapore may feel that the Government may be crying wolf because we have not experienced recent incidents of foreign sources attempting to influence the outcome of political elections in Singapore. But I personally think that we should be extremely careful and vigilant because experiences in many countries have shown that once money politics take root in a political system, it would almost be impossible to eradicate. We now have laws limiting the amount of money candidates seeking parliamentary or presidential office can spend during elections. This is a good thing. Our present system of capping political spending has been effective and has made it possible for independent candidates not affiliated to established political parties to seek political office. This is due mainly to the absence of financial barriers to participate in elections. This is one aspect of our political system that must be preserved. Experiences in many other countries have shown that informal financial barriers of entry have corrupted the electoral process. I also support laws imposing stricter and more transparent financial housekeeping rules as they will provide for more accessible means to scrutinise the financial accounts of political parties and support a more objective assessment of any organisation in any investigation process. Therefore, this Bill to check and control the source of income of political parties is timely and appropriate. Unlike Mr J. B.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must compliment the Government for this decision, but I have a couple of questions. First, I am a little bit concerned about the location of Hong Lim Park. I know that historically it may be good, but I would like to ask the Government whether they are prepared to change the location if in future it is found that other locations are more suitable, for example, Bras Basah Park, with its more intellectual atmosphere with the Singapore Management University. Secondly, the Government spoke about enforcement. There is a difference here. If somebody were to speak quite ---”
“And then they can go back to their own respective class where they can have religious or language education. But at the end of the day, we can and we should provide, even at the very young, a very integrated experience, so that our long-term objective of racial integration cannot be hampered by racial or ethnic tendencies.”
“Second, is on syllabus and curriculum, whether the syllabus has the right combination of academic content, play and creative aspects, social skills to build confidence. We can provide a basic core curriculum that must be very important, but I think we can also provide flexibility where schools can be left to choose their own elective subjects. Thirdly, is racial composition. I come back to this point again. I think this is so very important. And the survey shows that parents do not rank mixing with other races as very important, but it is important to Singapore. It is important to us that we cannot leave it completely to free choice. And if it has to be ensured, encouraged or enforced, then we have to do so. So nobody should just set up a school predominantly for a particular ethnic group. On the teaching of second language, this is quite serious sometimes, because what do you do when you have one Indian or Malay student in the school? Do you employ a Malay teacher and say, "Fine, it is going to be expensive to teach you." Or you invest and say, "Fine, this is something you are committed to. Let's find other students." Or send them to some nearby schools without much of a problem, but still assure them that they can get second language education, even in pre-school. I think here I feel a more coordinated effort can better address this. My own vision really, if I could share with this House, is that perhaps with CDCs wanting to take more and more roles, the CDCs could provide the facilities where these various ethnic groups can provide education under one roof. They can go to their ethnic-based schools, but when it comes to common subjects, whether to share computers, playground, music, they can have common experiences.”
“Certainly, we must maintain flexibility and variety that the private market offers. There will always be better and more expensive schools which parents can choose from. But the bottom line must remain that even if parents can afford only the cheapest, they must and can be assured that all schools have the resources and ability to adequately prepare children for primary one education. This is an assurance that we can give to all parents. But to do that, we need to ensure standards. I can think of a few areas where the Ministry can enforce standards to conduct audits and ensure that schools are meeting the requirements. One, for example, is in qualification and competency of teachers. The Ministry can decide what are basic skills that teachers should have, what are the minimum requirements before someone can become a teacher. Sir, I hope I can now address the Minister of State on this matter, as I notice the Minister has left.”
“However, others, especially Malay and Indian parents, quite frequently cite unavailability of Malay and Tamil as second language in some kindergartens as one of the reasons for sending their children to a school run by ethnic and religious based organisations. Whatever the reasons, these are worrying trends because the very success of this may result in, and hopefully not, pre-primary education being delivered predominantly along ethnic and religious lines. I fear that even at the very young and early age, this may result in children having conflicting perceptions of values, cultures and separate groups. Should we not plant a strong foundation of multi-cultural education beginning at pre-school education? And as this would involve parents also, I think a more culturally integrated pre-school programme can help develop better awareness of cultural perceptions, biases, prejudices and stereotypes, even amongst parents. I am therefore asking the Minister to really consider a national standard for pre-primary education. 2.30 pm Sir, while running kindergartens can be left entirely to the private sector, they should not be left entirely to set their own standards and agenda. A recent Straits Times' survey shows that while more than 60% of parents do not want Government to take over pre-school education, amongst Malays and Indians, more preferred that the Government made pre-primary education part of the national education system, as they feel that the Government would be the best placed agency to make this a more level playing field. Otherwise, we will continue with the perception that the better schools charging higher fees provide a better system of education and therefore if you have more money, you can better prepare your children for primary one.”
“Sir, I share some of the views by Mr Iswaran and I would like to think that adopting a more national standard in pre-primary education would be one answer. But I would like to raise two concerns of mine here today. First, as Members have spoken, leaving the current system of pre-primary education entirely to the private sector has brought about some vastly different outcomes and it certainly must be the case as reflected in some surveys and articles in the Straits Times. Because different schools adopt different teaching methods and the philosophy towards learning, have different curriculum and facilities, charge different fees, provide different moral and religious foundation. Some provided more enjoyable learning experience, while others put children through a more rigorous preparation for primary 1 with examinations, homework and tests. Certainly, these different exposures and experiences will produce different outcomes. Yet, they are all expected to go to primary 1 where the students will be introduced to a more standard national education programme and I think more can be done to ensure a smoother and more consistent transition from pre-school to primary 1. Second, and this is my deep concern, I observe a growing trend of religious and ethnic based organisations providing pre-primary education, either as a social service or for commercial purposes. Most parents have legitimate reasons to want to send their children to such schools. They want to give their children a very strong foundation in religious and moral education from the very young.”
“Mr Ibrahim suggested allowing top Malay students to take Chinese. I will think about it and see whether that is possible. Sir, as I said in this House last week, I would provide some flexibility to the schools to decide on how to implement some of these programmes and not mandate them, as some Members have suggested.”
“With regard to Mr Ibrahim Othman's query regarding students who are eligible for the Malay language elective programme, they are either within the top 10% in PSLE, or in the top 11-30% who have done well and have scored either an `A*' in Malay language or a distinction in Higher Malay language, and at least an `A' in English language so that they can cope with the heavier study load. Likewise, those who qualify for the Malay language elective programme at the JC level must have scored at least a B3 in Higher ML or an A2 in ML in their `O' level examinations. Mr Ibrahim has also asked whether the standard for A1 or A* in Malay language in the `O' level examinations and other examinations is set too high. The standards of the papers and the marking are subject to careful control of difficulty level and to ensure consistency in marking. I can confirm that it is not any more difficult for Malay students to score an `A1' or A* in Malay language in the `O' level examinations or any other examinations, than for Chinese students taking CL and Indian students taking TL. Our statistics bear this out. For the EMAS programme, in fact, we are just starting it up in Bukit Panjang and we will see how this develops before we take any further steps. Finally, Mr Tay Beng Chuan and Mdm Claire Chiang have suggested again that MOE conduct non-examination courses in Malay language. My position remains the same. We have heard views of Members that studying two languages already is quite a load. I would let them persuade Mr Inderjit Singh that doing even more than that is good. And we can leave it as an option to those schools who think it is a good idea for the students to do it on an enrichment basis. But I have no intention of making it compulsory.”
“It is not true that there are many students channelled to the Normal stream in secondary schools who are not doing well in their mother tongue, even if they have scored top marks in the other subjects. While there are students who score within the top 30% in English, Mathematics and Science, but bottom 30% in mother tongue language in PSLE, none has been channelled to the Normal stream. Streaming at P4 is based on performance in English, Mathematics and mother tongue, while the PSLE counts performance in 4 subjects, only one of which is the mother tongue language. As you go to secondary school, the mother tongue language is in fact de-weighted because it is only a threshold requirement to get D7 to go on to the next level. We have also introduced the syllabus `B' for students facing exceptional difficulties so that they would continue to learn their mother tongue, get some cultural transmission, and get some foundation so that later on in life, if they do want to pick it up again, they have some foundation. This is not meant for the general students but for students who are facing exceptional difficulties. I would like to thank Mr Iswaran for his comments on the various mother tongue language reviews. In line with the recommendations from these reviews, the Ministry is currently revising the syllabuses, instructional materials, examination formats and so on. Mother tongue language teachers in all schools have been briefed on the changes. Workshops and group discussions will also be organised. We will see how we can continue to include feedback from the community as we implement these programmes.”
“Since its inception in 1999, I am told a total of 155 serving teachers have enrolled. Let me now turn to languages in the school. Why are we retraining English language teachers? It is because we felt that we need to strengthen the teaching of English language in schools and to return to teaching a little more grammar than we were before. We did a re-evaluation as we do from time to time, and we felt this was necessary and so this is one of the things we are doing for English language teachers in school. We must understand that from time to time, teachers need to be retrained. So re-training of the teachers is something which should be expected and normal, and it should be welcomed and not seen as something which is fundamentally wrong with the education system. Obviously, Mr Inderjit Singh, Mr Tay Beng Chuan and Mr Peh Chin Hua do not quite agree on the importance of mother tongue languages in the school. But a bilingual policy is in place and we need to have this bilingual policy for reasons which I have explained earlier. English is a unifying language and is a language for international communication and business. Mother tongue is for values transmission and to have an understanding of our ethnicity and culture so that we have a cultural ballast in this new globalised world. Mr Inderjit Singh feels that there is too much emphasis on mother tongue and streaming and so on. The weighting of the four subjects at the PSLE has been adjusted over time and currently, it strikes a good balance between our various objectives that we have described, and there is no need to change this. We do not intend to do so.”