MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1988 TO 31ST MARCH, 1989

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day].

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [21st March, 1988],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Tan Cheng Bock.]

Question again proposed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, at the adjournment yesterday, the Minister of State said that the items I brought up were actually very old issues and that he had given answers before in this House. Mere assurances will not help. We will come back to this House to ask you the same questions all over again until we get some results. These issues were brought to the attention of my GPC by teachers, and therefore I think they are quite important issues to the teachers. The Minister should not just say that they cannot fulfil this obligation because of financial constraints. Please do something.

I shall now move on to the amendment that I have made. I just want to ask the Minister about this gifted programme. I believe that you have moved one full cycle already. The Ministry must be quite well-versed with the running of the gifted programme now and they must have encountered certain difficulties. What I want to find out from the Minister is whether this programme has been effective in bringing out the best in the students. Did any student, for example, drop out from the programme? If so, why, and for what reasons? How did they fare in the PSLE and 'O' level examinations? Can the course material and the methodology that you use to train these students be applied to the other students not in the gifted course?

The Chairman: Dr Tan, would you like to move on to your next matter - vocational and industrial training?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: No, I will not do that.

The Chairman: You do not wish to speak on it?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I am not speaking on it.

The Chairman: Encik Sidek is not here. Encik Zulkifli is also not here. Mr Chiam See Tong.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am much obliged to you, Sir. I shall be speaking on the subject of compulsory education for the first eight years of school.

Sir, this is not a new subject. My Party has brought up this issue before. One of the glaring points which is missing in the Goh Keng Swee Report published in 1978 is that there is nothing mentioned about compulsory education in our primary and secondary schools. That Report concentrated more on the problems of the high attrition rate of our school children, especially at the PSLE examinations, and the language problem of the pupils. In that Report, Singapore's education system was compared to four other countries, namely, Japan, France, Taiwan and the UK. As mentioned yesterday, Singapore seems to come out the worst of the five countries taken, including Singapore.

One glaring point in the comparison is that of the other four countries taken, each of their education systems includes compulsory education. In the case of Japan, a child by law has to attend school for nine years. In the case of France it is also nine years; Taiwan is nine years and UK is 11 years. This is a very important issue and I am surprised that the Government has never really come out and discuss it in the open, as far as I know.

Why does my Party suggest eight years and not nine years? The reason we are thinking of is because of the economic factors. We would say that eight years is within our reach at the present economic development level of ingapore. Why eight years? Because for the first six years in school, the child has not really fully developed. Educationists will tell you that there is such a thing as slow learners or late developers. By the time the child reaches 13 and 14 years, there is a better chance to know whether the child is fully developed. If you have only six years of compulsory education and the child is only allowed to attend school six years, we cannot really tell for sure whether the child has developed to his full potential or develop to an extent where we can gauge the progress of the child.

It can also be seen that all the other countries taken, they have better results in their secondary and pre-university classes. You will see that in the case of Japan, if we take a cohort of 100, in the secondary schools they have got 100 students still intact. In the case of France, it is 84, Taiwan 92 and UK is 100. Probably this is because of compulsory education. When it comes to the Pre-U level, Singapore's cohort of 100 has dropped to 14. In the case of Japan, 93; France 34, Taiwan 52, and UK 19. The attrition rate of Singapore is very high - from 100 to 14. Of course, the best results are obtained in Japan - from 100 to 93. There is a strong argument for compulsory education.

From the educational point of view, really, a child from 6 to 14 years of age has to be in school. His only place in those years must be in school and nowhere else. It would be wrong to take a child out to work or be left running in the streets. These are his formative years and they are most important years. The learning capacity of the child is greatest during that period of time. I have never heard of any well-known persons who have succeeded in life and who have not gone through school during that period. Sometimes when we read the life history of authors or writers who have written good books, we find that they have attended school for up to 15 years. They leave school at 15 years of age and not earlier. I have not heard of any famous persons who has not attended school during those years.

It is important for our children to get basic grounding in the core subjects during those years. I believe there should be no problem for Singapore in regard to supervision if we have a law to make it compulsory for all parents to send their children to school from age 6 to 14. I think it is time we revamped our education system and if we really want to put our teeth into the problem and not find easy solutions, like streaming our children which is really not a way out. In fact, it aggravates the situation. Politically, of course, it will look good for the Government. At the third year of schooling you have already creamed off the so-called slow learners or those who have not shown good results and then those who apparently have passed their Primary 3 examinations and advanced on, naturally you will get better results at PSLE and in the 'O' level results. At the last 'O' level results we have seen, I think, 84-85% of our students who sat obtained three 'O' levels and above. But we must remember that these are the balance of pupils who have advanced to that stage. Many of them who have not passed their Primary 3 examinations have already been taken off. In fact, for those who have not been given the chance to advance up to age 14, we are not doing them justice.

I would urge the Government to look into this question of compulsory education because we are now supposedly to be a developed country but our education system, without a compulsory education, is really still colonial in nature. If we really want to get into the advanced country's level of development, let us have compulsory education in our schools.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, according to the Central Registry of Disabled People, in October 1987 there were 3,796 disabled children below the age of 18. This group constituted 31% of the total disabled people. Taken together with those who did not register, we can estimate that there are about 4,000 disabled children below 18 years old in Singapore today.

All children in Singapore, whether normal, gifted or disabled, are entitled to receive education provided by the Government. No child, whatever his or her disability, should be deprived of every opportunity and equal access to achieve the highest level of education possible.

Today, the education of the disabled children is provided by seven voluntary welfare organizations. They face an uphill task but they have not shirked their responsibility. Their performance has been admirable. But, however much they try to do, they cannot take the place of the Ministry of Education. Why? Firstly, the voluntary organizations, by their very nature, are voluntary. They have limited financial, manpower and physical resources. Secondly, they are welfare organizations. Their priority is to provide social counselling and guidance, placement in employment, accommodation and transportation, and other services. And thirdly, they are uncertain about the assistance given by the Ministry. For example, in 1978, the Ministry's paper on the Provision of Special Education - this was way back in 1978 - recommended that all teachers in special schools should be provided by the Ministry. But in 1985 there were only 72 Ministry teachers out of a total of 198 teachers in these schools. Even this number, the Ministry was gradually reducing with relief teachers.

In general, the welfare organizations are very dissatisfied with the Ministry's policy towards the education of the disabled children. The Ministry's policy seems to be that the voluntary organizations provide the special education and the Ministry will assist. It should be the other way round. The Ministry should provide the special education and the voluntary organizations will assist.

Over the years, the unsatisfactory state of special education for the disabled has also been commented upon by the official committees set up by the Ministry as well as the Ministry of Community Development. For example, in May 1985 the Sub-committee on Special Education chaired by a Deputy Director of Education, and in March 1987 the Committee on Special Education chaired by the Member for Bo Wen, both concluded that the Ministry of Education must assume its responsibility to provide special education for the disabled. The arguments put forward by members of these committees include the following:

Firstly, education for the disabled children should be part of the education system, not the welfare system. Secondly, the disabled students should be integrated with the normal children, ie, taught in different classes but in the same school. And thirdly, the Ministry's goal should be to prepare the disabled child to take his or her rightful place in society and even to be self-supporting.

Sir, every child should have a place in our educational system. But in November 1987, only 2,070 out of the estimated 4,000 disabled children were in special schools. In 1978 a paper, which I referred to just now, stated that the Ministry should provide all teachers in special schools. But in 1987, only about one-third of the teachers in special schools were MOE teachers. What should be done to solve these and other problems?

Sir, it has been proposed that a Board of Special Education under the Ministry of Education be set up. I support wholeheartedly this proposal. The establishment of this Board should go a long way to achieve the following:

(1) Sufficient finance, manpower and physical resources for the education of the disabled;

(2) Adequate provision of specialist teachers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists and other professional people;

(3) Adequate provision of proper facilities, including special teaching aids and equipment;

(4) Integration of the disabled student into the normal school system; and

(5) Efficient coordination of the activities of the Government and voluntary agencies involved in special education.

Sir, education for the disabled has long been neglected. It is time now for the Ministry to establish the Board of Special Education. This, in my view, is the only rational way to provide for the special education so desperately needed by our disabled children in Singapore.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would like now to dwell on excellence in education. This term is a very catchy term, and it is also a convenient term for the Government when it comes to election time. I think everybody believes in the excellence of education. We would, I am sure all Opposition, would support the Government's policy of trying to attain excellence in education. But just to say it is not enough. I hope the Government can be sincere in carrying out its policy of achieving excellence in education.

What does excellence in education really mean? I suppose it means many things to many people. But I say that excellence in education would be the achievement of the end-product of our schools and higher institutions of learning. We have to have the ideal situation of a student who has completed his or her education - the end-product - what sort of a citizen we would like to have? Let us all work our full resources to produce, as many as possible, that kind of a citizen. If we can achieve, of course in totality, then we would have complete excellence. But we would try, of course, to get as many of our students to end up the type of citizens we want.

It has been said many a time that we want well-rounded, developed students. I think in Singapore's context of nation building, we should get students who are not only loyal to their country but also loyal to their fellow citizens, loyal to their employers, loyal to their friends. This ideal of loyalty is very important. We have heard of job-hopping and other problems. Perhaps this question of loyalty has not really been cultivated in our workforce or our students.

What else do we want? He want citizens who are self-confident, must be physically fit, good citizens. And I think, more importantly, our citizens must be taught to think independently, to work independently, show initiative and not wait to be given a job or expecting something to be done for them. I think we also want citizens who have courage. And in a fast moving society in this 20th century, especially the coming 21st century, a very important aspect is to train our citizens to adapt to change. This is a very important aspect of education. We do not want our students to serve a fixed system because in a fast, technological, age, because of technological changes, attitude changes, value changes, and also social changes, it is important to get our students to adapt to change.

Now in Singapore we appear to stress more on materialism, and with this also goes elitism. I think we should not stress so much on the material benefits of education. In its place, I would recommend that our students be taught to lead a simple life. I think this is really an important aspect of nation building. This is the sort of lifestyle we should teach our students.

If we look at the concrete situation in Singapore, what is our situation with regard to education today? First of all, we note that there are something like 53% of our workforce who have no secondary education. Something must be done about this. I know it is a massive problem, but I think the Government should really take concrete steps and not just to get the political party to arrange classes, make a lot of noise, a lot of show, and the problem really is not tackled truthfully.

I think the question of streaming must be looked into once more. I know the Government has changed or adapted its policy to give the parents a choice of allowing the pupil to go into the express stream or the vocational stream. But the structure of streaming is till intact in our schools, and I would like the Government to really look into it and to change it, and perhaps have compulsory education, as I have just spoken earlier on. Our results, although highlighted in the papers, are still, I think, not good enough compared to the other four countries that I have named earlier on. Again, this has to be looked into.

Of course, on the practical aspects of teaching, I think our classes are still too large. Much talk has been heard of the Government trying to reduce classes but certainly we want to know the progress - whether something really substantial has been done in regard to reducing our classes from 42 or 43 down to, say, 30 pupils. Because it is really impossible to teach a class of 40, 41 or 42. I am speaking from experience.

As regards university places, I would urge the Government certainly not only to give places to those who qualify, but also, I believe, at this stage of our development there is room for a second university. Why is there a need for a second university? Because this goes hand-in-hand with the long-term education of an individual. Education must be a life-time process. Those who have missed the chance earlier must be given a chance to advance themselves or even to develop their brains.

I think education must also have its ancilliary support, like libraries. If anyone of you visited London, you would see that there is a library within walking distance of any part of London. I hope one day we can also have library facilities like that in Singapore, within walking distance of any HDB or housing estate. I think this ancilliary support of library services is very important.

Sir, of course, excellence in education would also mean that not only the child is socially adaptable but is also culturally developed. I think he must be taught to love sports and culture. The material aspect of taking up sports to improve one's health is not a good way of going about encouraging sports. You go for sports because you love to play the game. That should be the emphasis, and do not tell our pupils, "You take up badminton or swimming, and you can live to 100." I think that is a materialistic way of encouraging sports.

The Chairman: Order. Your time is up. Dr Arthur Beng.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fenghsan): Thank you, Sir. I rise in my capacity as Chairman of the National Cadet Corps (NCC) Council to express the gratitude of the Council to the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Defence for their continuing financial and moral support to the NCC.

Sir, the Corps was set up by an Act of Parliament in 1972. It started in the early days of Independence as a broad-based organization. At its peak in 1981, there were 20,000 students in the Corps. In 1982, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education, Dr Goh Keng Swee, called for a review of the activities of the Corps. It was decided that the Corps would concentrate on quality training. Subsequently, the membership was trimmed, and today we have a corps of just slightly over 10,000 students. Through the years, with the support of both the Ministry of Education and Mindef, the activities were widened. They now include affiliations with SAF land units, the Navy and our Air Force. Airborne courses including parachuting and scuba diving were introduced.

This year, the first NCC '(SEA)' Girls Unit was formed. And I am told that despite the initial teething problems, the unit is doing well and morale is high.

Sir, the NCC must now see its relevance in the context of the total development of the student and as a part of Total Defence. Thus, there is a review as to whether we can increase the enrolment and especially to recruit more girls into the Corps. Why girls? This is because these girls who are our women of the future will have no chance to have hands-on experience of the SAF. Through their exposure to the SAF in the NCC, they will in future be able to give their boyfriends and husbands moral support in their reservist duties. As mothers, they will encourage their sons to serve well and strive for excellence in their national service duties. This is part of Social Defence.

As I mentioned earlier, Sir, the NCC fully appreciates the help given to it by both the Ministry of Education and Mindef. However, both MOE and Mindef have other priorities to attend to, and rightly so. To be able to expand our membership and increase the quality and quantity of our activities, we need more financial support. The NCC Council has deliberated on this. We feel that to meet these objectives, the Council and students should learn to be self-sufficient if they want the "extras". However, I am advised that the Council cannot on its own raise funds or seek sponsors for its activities, except for the welfare fund. May I respectfully request the Minister to look into this matter.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Sir, I would like first to reply to the points brought up by the Member for Ayer Rajah and the Member for Serangoon Gardens and then I would like to just touch very briefly on the points brought up by the Member for Potong Pasir.

Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah made a plea that we should look into the matters that he brought up yesterday, the feedback he has obtained from teachers and principals. We will certainly do this. I would like to say that, in fact, the same appeals have also come in the dialogues that we have had between the Ministry officials and principals and teachers. That is what I meant when I said that they are not new issues.

Many of them are not so easy to solve because money is involved when we employ people. Having more staff means changing norms. Others are easier to solve, such as posting of teachers. Where individual problems are brought up to the GPC, I would appreciate it if the Chairman of the GPC will bring them up directly with us so that we can solve them on a case by case basis.

Sir, he mentioned the gifted education programme and asked whether it was effective, whether the Ministry is happy with it. I am able to say that the Ministry is happy with the programme. Our reason for saying this is that not only have we had four years now running the programme and had a chance to monitor it and to check it out very thoroughly, but we have also, from time to time, brought in consultants. In fact, the latest consultant from the United States came at the end of last year to have a good look at the programme. This consultant independently looked at the programme, gave us a report that she was satisfied that the programme is comparable with the good quality programmes that she knows of in the United States. She has also pointed out areas for improvement, methodology and so on. This is something which we will certainly take into account as we continue to improve the programme for this group of intellectually gifted children.

He asked if this programme could be extended to others. Sir, the programme that we are running for the gifted education group of students is essentially an enrichment programme. What does this mean? This means that we give the children a lot more material, projects, and extend them beyond the school syllabus. We enrich them on topics which go beyond the school syllabus and school curriculum. The reason we are able to do this is that they are able to take it. In fact, they thrive on it. So they are given research assignments where they have to go to libraries to look up topics way beyond what is covered in mathematics or physics or literature, the normal subjects in school. And they do this without any negative effects on their normal school curriculum which they have to cover anyway.

When the question of extension to other students outside the programme arises, I think the question ought to be asked: is it possible for normal students or average students to work way beyond the syllabus that they have to cover? As the Member knows full well, one of the problems that many teachers encounter in schools is to cover the existing syllabus. Because effort is needed, children take time to master the existing syllabus. So before we think of applying what has been learnt in the gifted programme, particularly in enrichment way beyond the syllabus, to average students, I think we must be very careful about the work load, not to overload them and to stress them.

But that is not to say that in the normal classes in schools there are no enrichment programmes. Indeed, there are enrichment programmes. For example, many schools today take advantage of the enrichment programmes offered by the Science Centre. The Science Centre for 1988 has 135 different enrichment courses available to schools to pick and choose all kinds of topics. Many schools take advantage of this and bring the children to the Science Centre for these programmes. So there is opportunity for enrichment but not of a high content level as we would expect in the gifted programme. I would ask the Member to consider this point.

I would now like to turn my attention to the points raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens concerning the teaching of disabled children in Singapore. Sir, he made a remark which I am afraid I cannot accept, which is that the education of the disabled in Singapore is a neglected field. It is not a neglected field. I would just cite one or two examples of this.

I was privileged last year to be invited to the opening of the ESN School at Anthony Road which is near to the Newton MRT station. They had just renovated the place and it is one of their main centres. I was very pleased to see the quality of programmes that they were running in this ESN School. The teachers I spoke to were well trained, well motivated. The facilities that they had put together in this school were some of the best that I have ever seen. I mean they are better than kindergartens or even our primary school facilities. They had a lot of audio visual aids as well as equipment. And all this is possible with very close cooperation between the Ministry of Education, the Government and the Association of the ESN. They, of course, have raised money from their well wishers. We have also funded them in many ways.

The Government funds the education of the disabled in Singapore in four ways. First, we provide buildings at nominal cost. I think it is a dollar a year rental or something, very nominal. And we renovate these buildings for them to a standard that they want.

Secondly, we provide teachers. These are teachers seconded from the Education Service to serve in these special schools according to a formula or schedule which we have agreed with all the special schools, namely, for every 25 children we provide one teacher. And as their enrolments increases, we will continue to provide teachers to meet that norm. Where we cannot provide teachers because we ourselves are short of teachers, we give them the leeway to recruit relief teachers or others who are quite suitable for teaching in the special schools and their salaries are paid by the Government as relief teachers.

The third way in which we help the education of the disabled is teacher training. The Member knows that there is a programme in the Institute of Education which takes in people who want to specialize in the teaching of the disabled, whether it is the blind, the deaf, the ESN or the mentally retarded. And they do a Certificate in Special Education. This programme has been running since 1983-84.

Finally, of course, we provide funds, funding for the teachers, funding for some of the facilities that they have. So I think in all ways, except for taking full responsibility and running these schools, we fund them. The responsibility for running the schools is vested with these charitable organizations which have complete freedom and say over what they want to do in these schools. They can set the curriculum. They can decide whom they want to employ. They are independent schools.

If we were to take the Member's suggestion that they should come under the Government ambit and become Government schools, then I think bureaucratic norms will be applied. Freedom to employ will be affected. Freedom to set the curriculum even will be affected. This is a trade-off. The Member should ask himself whether this is a trade-off that is worth having. Right now, they are fully independent schools with quite complete freedom to do whatever they want. And at the same time, they draw upon the Government for funding as well as for professional advice, which is made freely available to them. We invite experts from Australia and elsewhere to come and run special courses here at our expense for the teachers in these special courses.

Sir, he has raised a few other points which I may take up only very briefly now. As the Member knows, there is an advisory committee which has been set up together with the other five advisory committees to look into various aspects. One of them is on the disabled. And this committee will be chaired by my Minister for Education. I think at that committee, many of the points that the Member has raised concerning the running of these schools, whether they can be integrated with normal schools and so on can be discussed at great length.

Finally, I would like to deal with one or two points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. The Member spoke at great length and with great enthusiasm about compulsory education. I can see that he is a great admirer and believer in compulsory education. He cited countries like Japan, Britain and so on which have compulsory education by law. He obviously believes that by the passing of a law, the quality of education will improve overnight and there will be tremendous progress made, meaning that fewer people will drop out from schools and everything will be as the Australians say "hunky dory".

Sir, if it were as simple as that and it is on his party platform, on his manifesto, to bring in compulsory education ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: We can have a full debate on this.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: You have had your 10 minutes. I am just trying to fill in with the few minutes I have. If it were as simple as passing a law to achieve excellence in education, then why would this Government be so foolish as not to have a law here and simply sign the law and pass it and you have excellence in education overnight? Because it is not so simple. It takes tremendous programmes to bring about good education.

Let me just take one example. Britain has had compulsory education for years, probably the first country in the world to have compulsory education. It still has it, 10 years of compulsory education. Today, in Singapore where we do not have compulsory education, our 'O' level results, man for man, are better than the British. You reflect upon that. They are worried about their 'O' level results, their 'A' level results, to the extent that there is a great move in Britain now to change their examination system, the supervision of their schools, their curriculum. And that is compulsory education. We never had compulsory education and today I can say that our students do better in the 'O' level results, cohort for cohort, compared with the British.

He has also touched upon dropouts and streaming. I know he always comes back to this point because he is no admirer of our policies. But let me just say this about streaming. We have this since 1980-81. Let me just give you one example. Last year, the number of students who left primary school was about 2,000. Just over 2,000 students left primary schools. They became dropouts. And they left not necessarily because they failed exams. They left for a variety of reasons, including emigrating, leaving Singapore with their parents for whatever reasons. But just over 2,000 left the system from primary schools. Before we introduced streaming in the 1970s, 12,000 left school prematurely from primary schools every year. That is a six times reduction in the dropout rate. To reduce it to human terms, that is a saving of 10,000 pupils. That is one-quarter of our cohort from becoming dropouts every year.

It has taken us quite a number of years to bring this about patiently with a lot of effort in the schools to reduce the dropout rate. Streaming is the central part of it that has made this possible because students can be catered for according to their ability and given the time to complete their course. So before we write off streaming and say, "Streaming is bad", just think of the cost we had to pay before we had streaming and think of the benefits that we have gained after so many years of hard work to bring this about.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to address the point raised by the Member for Fengshan regarding the NCC. He asked for extra means to raise funds for the NCC. I think that the proposal can be supported by my Ministry. And if the NCC were to put up concrete proposals, my Ministry will be happy to discuss the proposals with the NCC.

I would like to take up further the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He raised basically two issues. One is the issue elaborated by my Minister of State, ie, compulsory education. The second issue is excellence in education. As explained by my Minister of State, if excellence in education can be achieved by simply making it compulsory for students to go to our schools, then I think we would have already done it a long time ago. Today practically all children come to register for Pre-primary 1. This shows that even without compulsory education we are able to get almost all pupils to attend school.

If the Member is serious about compulsory education, there must be a department specially set up for the purpose of monitoring and enforcement. You must have officers to go round and check who is not in our education system. I think this is a waste of public funds. The money can be better used to improve the quality of education.

I think the Member for Potong Pasir has rightly pointed out that we should not have a fixed system. We must have a flexibile system which we already have. We have a flexible system, which caters for students of different abilities. If he takes a deeper look into our system, he will be able to understand that, in fact, our system provides an opportunity for our pupils to have at least 10 years of education. For example, if a Primary 6 school leaver, can pass the PSLE examination, he will proceed to another four years of secondary education. Those who cannot pass or are overaged, can be admitted to the vocational institutes for education and training. Let me elaborate on this point.

For the Normal course or Extended course students, if they fail the PSLE they can proceed to the VITB. In fact, they are automatically registered with VITB for the Basic Skills Training course for one year, followed by another year the National Trade Certificate-3 course. For those students who are from the Monolingual stream, they can go to the VITB for a one year Pre-Vocational Training course. Likewise, they can also proceed to the one-year Basic Skills Training course and maybe another year of National Trade Certificate-3 course. So, all in all, they would have at least about 8 to 11 years of education, which is more than what the Member for Potong Pasir was asking for.

I think we must stress that our system is a flexible one as it caters to the different abilities of our students. Anyway, when we discuss the issues of excellence in education, it is better for us to bear in mind the views expressed by our professionals. Just now my Minister of State said that the performance of our students at 'O' and 'A' levels is much better than the students in the UK. I can quote you one statement made by the 12 principals who were led by my Minister in their visit to UK and US schools. In their Report, they said that the examiners in the Cambridge Examinations Syndicate said that it was a delight to mark the examination scripts of our candidates because they could anticipate high standards of work. Over the years, our students' performance at 'O' and 'A' levels, in fact, has been very encouraging. I think last year there was a 6% and 3% improvement made in our 'O' and 'A' levels examinations respectively. What is more encouraging is that those highflyers who are normally found in traditionally good schools are now also produced by ordinary schools, the new town schools, eg, the Ang Mo Kio Secondary School. The other encouraging development is that Normal course students also made impressive improvements. I think this brings hope to our education system. This brings hope to our pupils and this brings hope to their parents. It shows that our effort in improving the quality of education across the board in all streams and at all levels has begun to bear fruit. This is very encouraging.

Just now, I said that if we want to discuss what is excellence in education we must take the views of the professionals into consideration. In their Report after they had visited the US and UK schools, they put up recommendations to improve our education system. If the Ministry is just paying lip service to what we believe in, we could have just sat on the report or thrown it into the dustbin or just let memory fade away. On the contrary, my Ministry and the principals and teachers, I would say, did not waste any time in following up the recommendations. In less than a year we have seen three independent schools set up. This has allowed them to operate with greater autonomy and I am sure that their experiences will contribute to the quality of education. In their Report, the principals also pointed out that in our system there is a lack of pastoral care and career guidance. We have now in less than a year a total of 17 schools implementing a pilot project on pastoral care and career guidance.

The Report also emphasised the importance of effective and committed teachers. We have recently initiated a new promotional exercise to project a high profile of a teacher with a view to recruiting more high calibre personnel to become teachers.

There are two other factors which were cited by the principals. They think that these two factors are the ingredients of a good school. They are, smaller class size and a favourable teacher-pupil ratio and single session. The smaller class size, will remain our long term objective. However, this cannot happen overnight. It is because we need time to recruit more teachers. We also need time to build more schools and more classrooms. Single session is a matter that has been taken up by my Ministry with the Ministry of Finance.

Even with all these constraints we still strive very hard to achieve the objective of excellence in education.

First, the bottom-up approach. Although the Member for Ayer Rajah mentioned that there are problems here and there, I think we cannot expect to achieve a perfect result in a short period of time. This is a totally new approach. For so many years the system in Singapore has been a centrally controlled one, and now we want to encourage principals and teachers to take their initiative to come out with better programmes. Sir, we have a number of good programmes at the moment. For example, the Music Elective programme, the Arts Elective programme, the CORT Thinking programme and the Foreign Language programmes. These are the programmes which are meant to bring out the best in our students.

On top of that, we have professional development courses meant for our principals and teachers. They can see the prospect of career development. They can strive harder for the benefit of our students. The Member for Potong Pasir also mentioned that the objective of our education should be one by which we can produce a well-balanced or well-rounded person. I think this is the objective we have been pursuing.

The Chairman: Order. Your time is up, Mr Tang.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I be allowed to clarify?

The Chairman: We are running out of time already, Mr Chiam. Dr Tan, do you want to withdraw your amendment? No speeches, please.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: No speeches. Okay, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I would like to inform Members that we are no longer running ahead of schedule, and from now on I would have to be very strict about the times being allocated for each discussion.

The Chairman: Amendments (2) and (3). Encik Yatiman and Encik Othman are not here. Amendment (4), Mr Chandra Das.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 1000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister the unhappiness of many parents and children regarding the conduct of the PSLE examinations last year, in particular, the paper set for Mathematics. Sir, complaints were heard from all quarters about the high standard of the paper. Complaints were not only from parents and pupils but, more importantly, complaints also came from teachers.

Sir, during a recent visit of the Government Parliamentary Committee on Education headed by the Member for Ayer Rajah to the Ministry of Education, some time was spent on this issue, and over the television I heard the Chairman of the GPC, the Member for Ayer Rajah, saying he was satisfied with the explanation given by the Ministry. I must say, Sir, that I am not in the least satisfied with this explanation. I am also at a loss to understand how the Chairman of GPC (Education) was so easily convinced. Maybe he forgot his role. Maybe he thought he went there as Chairman of the Feedback Unit but nevertheless there has been a lot of unhappiness and I thought it is only fair if I reflect the views of many parents and teachers.

Sir, the PSLE is set for all students in Singapore. Hence it must cater for the majority of the student population. The Minister and his officials must accept that the ability of the children in the gifted programme must definitely be different from those in the non-gifted programme. Yet, Sir, the same paper is set for all children. Either the paper is a give-away for the children in the gifted programme or it must penalize the children in the non-gifted programme. Maybe the Ministry has a good explanation for this.

Sir, higher standard papers would cater well for the better, but not the majority, of the average children. Officials say that the papers have to be tough because children have become examination-wise. What is wrong? It is the system that has made the children examination-wise and to overcome a problem in the system a difficult paper is set, which invariably penalizes the average and the below-average children. Sir, what are the consequences of setting a higher standard paper for the average and below-average students in any case? Maybe most of the officials in the Ministry and the Ministers were not average or below-average students. Therefore, they may not understand. The average and below-average students, when confronted with difficult problems, will panic in the examination hall. When panic sets in, one can imagine the rest. It is very easy to panic in such a situation and do badly not only in that particular paper but all subsequent papers largely because morale becomes low and, more importantly, confidence is shattered. I am informed, Sir, that last year's Mathematics paper for PSLE had such an effect on many students.

Sir, to overcome this problem, may I make a plea to the Minister and his officials about improving the present system. By all means, test the cream of our students to their limits but do not subject the same rigorous tests to the average and below-average students. One solution could be that separate papers could be set for children in the gifted programme. If, for some reason or other, this is not feasible, then some options could be introduced in the existing papers - Mathematics, Science or English. What can be done is for each candidate to, say, answer a minimum of five questions and a maximum of eight questions in the second part of the paper. The average and below-average students can attempt the five questions and the gifted and better-endowed children can answer anywhere from five to eight questions. This, I think, will be a fairer system to all and it will cater for the special ability of those in the gifted programme and at the same time this, I believe, will not unduly penalize the average and below-average students.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, the Minister for Finance has announced that it will reduce the budget for education by 4.4% this year. Sir, I do not support this budget cut. Other than the building of schools, there are also many other areas of education that require attention. I propose that the Ministry of Education set up an Early Childhood Education Institute in Singapore.

Statistics show that 98% of our children attend kindergarten, pre-primary or child care classes before going to primary school. Further, the Ministry of Community Development has projected that there will be a need for 21,644 child care places in Singapore by the 1990s. Hence, it is expected that a total number of 4,000 trained personnel will be required. To be prepared for the future, we will need to train 650 child care personnel a year. This umber does not include the required personnel in the kindergartens.

There is very little formal training on early childhood education available in Singapore. Only the Institute of Education and one or two child care organizations conduct some training. The Institute of Education conducts a 120-hour basic child care course as well as a 150-hour intermediate course. This is most commendable. It is, however, insufficient.

In Singapore today, anyone who needs a higher level of early childhood education has to go overseas for training. Because of the limited training available, we are short of trained personnel. This leads to job frustration and contribute to high staff turnover. Therefore, I feel strongly that we need to have an Early Childhood Education Institute to provide more extensive training, curriculum development and research for early childhood education in Singapore. The Institute can be established to support children and family services through pre-service and in-service training to train kindergarten teachers, child care administrators, supervisors, teachers, assistant teachers and teacher aides; set up an Idea and Research Unit in this Early Childhood Education Institute for the sharing and disseminating of new ideas and non-formal learning.

The Institute can also include a well-developed library and act as a resource centre. Developed countries such as USA, France, West Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom, Israel, etc, have very comprehensive formal early childhood education programmes. Even in Asian countries, such as Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, comprehensive training for all levels of early childhood education is available. Please refer to the information that I have distributed as a basis for comparison.

Let me quote an example. In Japan, with a population of 47 times that of Singapore, there are 300 Nursery Teachers Training Colleges and two years to four years full-time and part-time courses available in universities and colleges. Comparing ourselves with Japan, I think we deserve to have at least one early childhood education institute.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Hear, hear!

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon: Since about 100% of the children go to kindergarten, pre-primary and child are classes before going to primary school, we therefore should provide them with proper training and development. I feel that strong emphasis should be placed on the early development of a child on qualities such as character building, moral education, healthy body, etc, can be cultivated at an early stage. This is crucial in terms of an early build-up and moulding of a healthy and stable foundation to prepare the child for the future.

Physical training and military training are important enough to have the institute. I do not understand why early childhood education is not accorded the same status. I urge the Minister for Education to look into the proposal seriously and also for the Minister for Finance to reconsider his decision to reduce the budget for education.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Sir, I understand that the Ministry of Education is currently undertaking a pilot project called Cognitive Research Trust Thinking Programme or, in short, CORT. This project involving 15 top schools is aimed at giving the students certain thinking tools which the students can use to improve their thinking habits. In short, it is a project aimed at injecting creativity in their thinking process. It encourages the students to engage themselves in both what is called vertical thinking and lateral thinking. I understand lateral thinking is a concept developed by a certain Dr De Bono.

Sir, my interest in raising this amendment is (1) why is this pilot project restricted only to the better students in the top schools and not extended to the average and weaker students? (2) has the Ministry done an evaluation so far? If there is, what are the findings? (3) based on these findings, what is the future direction of this programme? and (4) if this scheme shows positive results, will it be included in the teacher training programme?

The Chairman: Encik Wan Hussin, would you like to continue with your next subject - review of Islamic Religious Knowledge?

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Do I have 10 minutes?

The Chairman: You have used up two minutes already.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Sir, since this is a new topic, may I be permitted to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): Sir, the Ministry of Education's efforts in introducing moral education in schools deserve commendation. Life in this modern age is full of challenges and negative influences that can undermine the character of a person and run havoc in the family. What I would like to put across is the issue of relating or adapting the course content of Islamic Religious Knowledge as taught in the schools with the social conditions and climate of this modern era. Permit me to elaborate.

The basic question that we should ask ourselves once again is why do we have moral education or Islamic Religious Knowledge. The answer is: because we want to promote the morals and good conduct of our younger generation in the face of undesirable elements that are eroding and destroying the morality of our youngsters. Returning to the basic question, could the teaching of Islamic Religious Knowledge be conducted in a lively and refreshing manner in such a way as to convince our students that the principles and practice of Islam can better ensure public peace and well-being and protect the society from the ills of modern living. Examples of these ills now prevalent within our society are: promiscuity among young people, corruption, wide- spread incidence of divorce, increasing abortions and drug-taking.

What I would like to see is the teachers being able to apply the content of Islamic Religious Knowledge and to relate them to current or contemporary issues to bring out the relevance of its teachings in this modern time. Students need to be encouraged to think along Islamic principles, to realise that although each individual is free to do anything he likes the risks will involve not just himself but also his family, his society and his country. One very clear example is drug taking. It involves all parties even if only one person is doing in the family.

I urge the Minister to convey this need to the teachers concerned. If the existing course content of Islamic Religious Knowledge is inadequate to meet the needs that I enumerated earlier, steps should be taken to review it. What is important is that the teaching of Islamic Religious Knowledge must be functional, meaningful and relevant, not frigid, flat and indifferent. That is my wish.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah): Sir, during a recent speech in launching the drug control programme, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs spoke on the reasons for the upward trend of Malay drug addicts. One of the reasons is the apparent weakening of the cohesiveness of Malay families. Supervision by parents of their children, especially their teenage children, is lax. But a prominent feature among the Malay heroin addicts, as revealed by a survey conducted by the CNB in October and November last year, is their lack of strong moral values. This is because their early childhood Islamic teaching which mainly concentrated on the basic tenets of Islam and Koran recitation were not followed by any further developments in their moral and religious upbringing in later years.

In view of the above reasons, I wish to ask the Minister for Education whether he would consider introducing the teaching of Islamic Religious Knowledge to Malay Muslim children from Secondary 1 instead of Secondary 3 and Secondary 4 as at present.

Sir, our secondary school children now receive a common moral education programme in Secondary 1 and Secondary 2. We can continue this common moral education programme for all. However, as an addition, I hope the Ministry will agree to give Islamic Religious Knowlege instruction to Malay Muslim students over and above this common moral education programme. The school may use either one period from the Second Language lessons or, perhaps, have it outside the common time-table.

I view Islamic Religious Knowledge in secondary schools as part of preventive education to check the problem of heroin abuse among Malays.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, the various Members have raised quite a wide range of issues. I would like to take the point raised by the Member for Chong Boon first.

Sir, he has raised a point of concern among parents - that the PSLE examination last year, particularly the Mathematics paper, was unduly difficult. He has gone on to draw from that the conclusion that the paper was difficult because the gifted education pupils, about 100 of them, were doing the PSLE last year for the first time and that is why the paper has been made difficult in ordr to cater for their needs. He has linked the PSLE Mathematics paper with the gifted education group of students. Sir, I want to dispel this and say categorically that this is totally untrue. There is no connection at all.

Mr Chandra Das: Were they separated?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: If that were true, then the Science paper would have also been difficult, the English Paper would also have been difficult because the gifted education pupils do all four of the PSLE papers. In fact, they do a fifth paper, Social Studies. So to link the two, I would say it is totally unfounded. There is no basis at all.

Mr Chandra Das: That is the Ministry's view.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: It is not the Ministry's view. As I said, if it were true, then the Science paper would have manifested the difficult questions, and so would the English paper. It was one question in the PSLE Mathematics paper which I think drew the attention of the Member, and perhaps even other Members in this House. I recall, Sir, that they were discussing this question and, in fact, some Members could not do it, including the Member for Chong Boon. But let me hasten to add that I followed up the point raised by Members to me privately and asked the examiners of our PSLE to find out how the students did in it. Many students got it right.

Let me explain a little what the examination system is, particularly the PSLE examination system. Because I do not want anyone to have any doubts about how the examinations are set, the trouble to which the examiners go about the business of setting the examinations year after year. We have a lot of experience in this examination which has been with us for more than 20 years.

All PSLE questions are set by a panel of examiners. The panel of examiners comprise specialists in the subject, experienced principals and teachers. They set a lot of questions and they know the standards to which the examination is addressed. The questions are set within the table of specifications which define the syllabus all the way up to PSLE. So there are no surprises in the sense that everything is based fully upon what is expected in the syllabus at PSLE. When all these questions have been set and verified and checked by moderators, the questions are then taken over by a very small group of two or three people. They will select from that whole list of questions the final questions which will go before the PSLE examination. You will appreciate, Sir, that it has to be a very small number for security reasons. It should not be widely known which questions have been chosen for that year's PSLE. But experienced people are involved in setting the questions. There are moderators who moderate what have been set as questions and finally they are selected by a small committee for the final paper. And all this is in accordance with the table of specificatons or specifications of what type of questions, which are made widely known to all the schools conducting the PSLE.

Sir, what the Member is raising is whether in the PSLE examination there should be room for a variety of questions. I agree with him that there should be a variety of questions. As a matter of fact, all PSLE question papers have several parts. In the case of Mathematics, there are three parts to that paper. Part 1 is very basic computation. If you can add, multiply, subtract and divide, you can get your questions right in Part 1. Part 2 is a little bit more complicated, requiring a little bit more knowledge of manipulation of mathematical operations. Part 3 contains what we call problem sums. Problem sums are problems which test the ability of a student to apply the principles and the basic knowledge he has learned to problem situations; for example, if two apples cost $5, how much will 10 apples cost, and so on. That is a problem sum.

Sir, in an examination it is deliberately created so that there are different levels of difficulty making different tests on the student's ability. I am sure the Member would agree with me that the last thing we want is a stereotype examination where every question is more or less the same type as the one asked the previous year, and you can spot all the questions. If we have such an examination, what would be the consequences? Plenty of rote learning and memorizing. The very thing that educators, university academics, even Members of this House, have decried from time to time. We do not want too much rote learning, we do not want memorizing. But if we go for a stereotyped examination, that is what you get. And so what happens? We must have problem sums that test application, ability to apply the knowledge the child has acquired. And I think this, the Member will agree, is very desirable from the educational point of view.

Sir, I want to turn quickly now to the other questions raised by the Member for Kampong Ubi and the Member for Tanah Merah on Islamic Religious Knowledge. The first point raised by the Member for Kampong Ubi. I would like to inform him that the syllabus for the Islamic Religious Knowlege for '0' levels has undergone a revision. When the programme started in 1984 for extension to all schools, there was a Committee comprising members from the MUIS, including the Mufti, chaired by Prof Syed Hussein Alatas, and also specialist members from MOE. This Committee worked out the revised syllabus for IRK in 1984. Since then, there has been another revision and the revision was started in 1986, and the new syllabus or modified syllabus will be implemented for the '0' levels 1988 this year.

Sir, let me tell him what changes have taken place. In the revision the Committee comprising MUIS members and MOE members fully recognized the need to make some modifications to bring the syllabus in line with modern social needs, in particular, of the Malay community. They have therefore structured the new syllabus into three sections instead of two. The first section deals with three different topics - the foundations of Islam, devotional practices and the individual and the family (teachings concerning the individual and the family). Then a new section 2, Sir, will deal with social and ethical teachings and on the issues that were mentioned by the Member for Kampong Ubi - problems of drug addiction, of divorce, family life, and so on, social and ethical teachings. This is a new section which has been given more prominence. Section 3 will deal with Islamic history and schools of thought and prominent personalities which is more on historical review.

Sir, one important change which has taken place is that instead of devoting about 40% of the syllabus (which was the old syllabus on historical aspects), the historical content has now been dropped to 29%. So the greater part of the syllabus is on modern topics, and social and ethical teachings.

The Member asked whether we could inform the teachers of IRK to pay more attention to this, particularly to improve the ways they are teaching this important subject to Muslim students. We will convey this back to the specialist inspectors and to the teachers. They will run workshops because when a new syllabus comes into place, teacher workshops have to be organized. I think that is the right place where the whole issue of better teaching can be brought about.

I turn now to the point raised by the Member for Tanah Merah concerning drug problems and whether we can bring forward the IRK to Secondary 1 and 2. Sir, first of all, let me just talk about this problem of drug addiction in the light of the information that was released by the Minister for the Environment recently where Malay youths have shown the highest increase in drug addiction. First of all, I just want to point out that the main risk group which has been identified by the Ministry for Home Affairs are youths or young people in the age group 20 to 30. They are not school-going children. They are aged 20 to 30. They comprise two-thirds or 63% of all these cases. Those below 20, of school-going age, 8.7%; so it is a minority. This group from 20 to 30 years are people who dropped out from school six to 16 years ago. In fact, they were people who left school before the new education system with streaming came into place. So we have to bear that in mind. With the present children in school going through primary, even monolingual, going on to VITB for training and so on, they are in a training institution for up to 10 years. They would have acquired skills, they would have had more education than the high risk group that I spoke about. So I think this augurs well for the future that these people will be less likely to turn to drugs for various reasons.

Sir, the Member has also pointed out that there is perhaps a need to increase moral education to help Muslim pupils. I have a great respect for the importance of religious faith in matters of this kind. But I just want to point out that many Chinese youths are not particularly religious and yet not many of them turn to drugs.

Sir, the underlying reason for drug addiction is much more complex. Two common factors that run through all drug addicts, whether they be Chinese, Malays or Indians or others, are No.1, lack of family supervision and family control. This has come out clearly in the study from Ministry of Home Affairs. It is that one factor which causes young people to go astray because their parents have no control over them or are not even interested in controlling them. The second common factor is unemployment. Many of the drug addicts, half of them, have no jobs. They are unable to hold down jobs, they have no skills. That is the old group that went through the system without skills training. I have said earlier that many of them today now go to skills training at least before they finally go into the workplace. I think that would help the problem.

The Chairman: Time allotted for this debate has ended.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I do not agree with the answers given by the Minister, but I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2 o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in the Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5), Dr Vasoo.

Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the pre-primary classes programme was established about 10 years ago. The programme is very popular and many parents are enrolling their children on to the programme. There are more children enrolled than places available. It therefore suggests that the programme is receiving very good support from parents who want to have an early head start for their children in terms of this programme.

Sir, the pre-primary classes provide children with better opportunities to start off in terms of building better relationship amongst themselves. It helps them to be better adjusted and be better prepared for school in their later years. There has been very little evaluation or assessment of this programme. I am wondering whether the Ministry has, in fact, over the years monitored the impact of such a programme in terms of the development of these children who have gone through this programme.

A programme such as this, if expanded, is likely to help solve some of the needs of our working mothers who may want to seek part-time jobs. And upon expansion of this programme to various schools, it will also assist in providing a head start for children from lower income families. Because I feel that if they have an earlier head start in terms of enrolment in the programme, it can help them to better develop and achieve their potential.

Sir, the enrolment in primary schools is declining. In 1976, the enrolment of primary school children was 316,000 and in 1986 the enrolment was around 268,000. It suggests therefore that there is a decline in the enrolment in primary schools. The implication is that there will be more resources available in the various neighbourhoods of the housing estates. Manpower will be available because more schools will have to close owing to the falling enrolment. With such a decline, I am wondering whether resources such as these would be redeployed for implementing more pre-primary classes by the Ministry of Education.

Research also shows that children who start off early, particularly those in the pre-primary classes, have shown that they are better adjusted, they are better able to achieve their potential, and they do perform better in terms of managing their own relationships as well as their relationship with others. On the whole, studies have shown that in terms of achievement they tend to perform better. In the light of this, it would be feasible for the Ministry of Education to see whether there is a case for expansion of more pre-primary classes.

Encik Ibrahim Othman: Sir, in the quest for excellence in education, I hope the Ministry of Education will pay special attention to pupils who are less academically inclined. I am referring to the Monolingual pupils and those in the Extended course in the primary schools who failed their PSLE. Normally, these children are channelled or automatically registered with the VITB where they will do their pre-vocational training, basic skills training and the NTC 3.

Recently, in an interview with Berita Minggu, Dr Tay Eng Soon, the Hon. Minister of State for Education, spoke about this matter. There were some figures mentioned in this interview with regards to the Monolingual pupils. Of the total Primary 8 Monolingual pupils, only 80% of them go on to VITB. By the time they go to the second year in the VITB to do their basic skills training, it is 69%. When they reach the third year where they get an NTC 3, it is only 54%. I wish to ask the Minister what about the pupils from the Extended stream who failed the PSLE and are normally channelled to the VITB? What is their attrition rate like? How does it compare with the attrition rate of the Primary 8 Monolingual pupils? In the first year, about 20% do not go to the VITB. In the second year it is 10% and then 15% in the third year. As I have said just now, this leaves 54% of them with an NTC 3 after three years with the VITB.

I wish to ask the Minister whether it is possible to make it compulsory for all these pupils to be in VITB. Make it compulsory for them to attend relevant vocational courses until they receive at least an NTC 3 qualification or equivalent. I think if we have this compulsory attendance for this group of pupils, it will prevent our young children in the age group of, say, 15-17 years, especially those who failed their PSLE, from going onto the streets and getting involved in anti-social activities.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will address the question raised by the Member for Tanah Merah and let my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, to deal with the question raised by the Member for Bo Wen.

Sir, the question raised by the Member for Tanah Merah concerns pupils who leave our primary school system after completion of the Monolingual course as well as those who finish the Extended course and are unsuccessful in going on to secondary schools because they have failed their PSLE. These two groups of pupils are today channelled automatically to the VITB under what is known as the automatic registration system. This is to say that at the end of the year when the results are known, the students will not only get the results slip advising them of the results but, at the same time, on the same slip, they will be advised that they are registered with certain vocational institutes near their homes. So they know that they are not simply leaving school to do nothing but they have a place reserved for them at a vocational institute. And they are advised to report to that vocational institute by a certain date to complete the registration and to resume their studies at the vocational institute.

This policy has been in place for a number of years and the purpose of the policy is to make sure that such primary school leavers will progress automatically to skill and vocational training with the minimum of disruption or the minimum of effort on their part to seek out a vocational institute and to register themselves. They are automatically registered. As a result of this policy, large numbers of such primary school leavers do indeed register and carry on with their studies at the vocational institutes. At the vocational institutes, not only are they studying skills, they are also continuing with their studies in English, in Mathematics, in attitudinal development. They enjoy ECA and all the other activities which normal schools provide. So it is an all-round education with a strong vocational and skill content.

The numbers that have been registering and continuing with their education at VITB are quite large. As mentioned by the Member for Tanah Merah, 80% of them do indeed register. This is also true of the ones from the Extended courses. About 80% register with the VITB.

It is interesting also to analyze and put these 80% into two groups, males and females. Sir, the registration for male primary school leavers is higher than 80%. In fact, it is nearer to 90%. But for the female primary school leavers, the percentage is lower. It is about 60%. The average is 80%. When counselling such people, we have discovered that the reason why males prefer to register and females less so is that the parents see that the male students need a skill because they have to go on to get a job and eventually become breadwinners. As for the girls, their parents are less interested in pushing them on to skills training.

Sir, this is an area which we are now looking into with active programmes. We hope that by January 1989 we will have a new programme in place with courses and content which will be attractive to female primary school leavers so that they can continue with vocational education in the VITB. After all, Sir, they are only 14(r) or 15 years when they leave school. They still have another two or three years in which they can increase their education. And it will be a pity to just leave them out of the programme because parents do not see much point in it. So by providing a more attractive programme, we believe that parents will then want their daughters to join this programme which gives them more education to prepare themselves either for work later on or even to become mothers themselves.

Sir, the Member has raised a question, why is it that only 80% come in and what happened to the other 20%. Further, he has also pointed out quite pertinently that after the first year, not all 80% go on to the second year and certainly not all of them go on to the third year, which is what we would like. Our intention is that they should spend at least three years in VITB so that by the time they leave they will be 17(r) years or so. And in the case of the boys, they will be almost ready for national service and they would have received a further three years of education before they go into national service and then go on into the work place.

I agree with the Member that we should not accept this loss either at the registration or in a subsequent promotion from one level to the next. This is an area again which has been studied by the VITB and certain steps will be implemented in January 1989 to reduce the loss rate. The loss is due to the fact that many of those who leave or who do not join the course either go on to getting a job because their parents who may be hawkers may want them to help in the hawker stall and so they have no strong desire for their children to continue with their education. It is a short-sighted view but you can understand their preference to do that. Others join the course but within one or two years in the VITB, for some reason they lose interest and want to go out and get a job. That is the kind of problem that we are faced with.

We are now thinking of taking steps such as compulsory counselling, not only of the would-be dropout or a student who wants to leave the course but of their parents as well because we believe that the parents have a big say at this stage in the decision made by the child. So we will introduce compulsory counselling of parents and their son or daughter who is thinking of leaving the course. Other measures include close monitoring, working in smaller groups so that there is better rapport between trainer and the trainees. We hope this will help to reduce the loss and increase interest in the trainees. Whether we should have a legislation to compel every one of them to stay for a minimum of three years in VITB, is an option which we do not close. We may have to introduce it if we have to in the future. But for the time being we want to give them every opportunity to decide. We persuade, we counsel, we create conditions attractive for them to want to stay in VITB for their training. If we can succeed in doing that, it is much better because you can take a horse to water but you cannot compel it to drink. If you compel people to do skills training when their heart is not there and the conditions are not right, I do not think it will necessarily get the results you want.

One final point, Sir, just to inform the Member and other Members. A lot of effort is now being spent by VITB officers on visiting schools every year. For example, in 1987, VITB officers visited 159 primary schools, about the time of August/September. Their purpose is to go to every class in these schools where there are pupils in their Monolingual course who are about to finish and those who are in the extended course who are also about to finish. They brief the pupils with their teachers. They give them audio-visual presentations of the courses in VITB. They try to interest them in what is going on. In 1987 they briefed 10,000 pupils. This is an on-going programme every year. This has helped in making VITB courses better known to the pupils and their teachers and helping them to decide to go and to stay in a course when they eventually join the VITB. I may report that some of the briefings are so successful that some of the students tell their teachers they want to go to VITB immediately without finishing their Monolingual course or their Extended course. Of course, the teachers counsel them to stay on to finish it before they finally go. But that is an indication of the kind of briefing that is being carried out.

The Chairman: Mr Tang. We do not have much time left on this amendment.

Mr Tang Guan Seng: Sir, on the point raised by the Member for Bo Wen on pre-primary education, the pre-primary programme is currently conducted in 39 primary schools catering to some 4,500 5-year olds. The rest of our 5-year olds are catered for by private kindergartens. The Ministry has not made any firm decision on the future direction of the pre-primary programme. In terms of facilitating language learning, a Ministry study showed that the pre-primary programme did not provide this significantly better than the private kindergartens. An extension of the pre-primary programme will mean the lowering of school-entering age to 5. The Ministry will need to consider the implications of the lowering of school-entering age as well as the cost involved in providing children with an extra year of schooling. It is not correct to say that there is a significant decrease in the number of Primary 1 students. Therefore, we have no extra resources for this purpose. The question of the future direction of the pre-primary programme will be settled by next year after we have considered all the implications.

Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to answer the point raised by the Member for Yuhua, which is also in connection with this pre-primary education. The Member for Yuhua raised the need for an Early Childhood Education Institute. I agree with the Member that kindergarten teachers and child care personnel must have proper training. In fact, the need for trained personnel in our kindergartens and child care centres is being met. This is achieved through the courses run by the Department of Early Childhood Education of the Institute of Education. For the past threeyears, that is, from 1985 to 1986, the Institute has trained a total of 932 participants in the various courses for kindergarten teachers and child care personnel. Based on the enrolment for 1987, which was the highest in the last three years, for the courses for kindergarten teachers and child care personnel and IE's existing resources, the Institute is be able to train about 440 participants per year, with an increase of up to, say, 10%. The Ministry will consider expanding the enrolment capacity if the need can be established. Therefore, there is no necessity to set up an Early Childhood Education Institute.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 2000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I would like to put the problems of the disabled children in perspective. This morning the Member of Parliament for Serangoon Gardens has expressed the issues and problems faced by disabled children. I share his sentiments. I think the problem does exist. I have been working with these people and I do understand their needs and their problems. I share the sentiments of these children who themselves receive some support from the Ministry. This support more often than not is inadequate to help them develop their potential to the fullest.

Sir, the problems of the disabled children are real. Their problems have existed. They still exist and will continue to exist unless the Ministry with its coordinated efforts can pool resources together with the voluntary sector to see how best the educational needs of these children could be met.

Sir, support has been made available. I agree. Support in terms of schools, this is available. But the schools are all old schools. They are schools that are not useable and are inadequate in terms of facilities. More often, many of these schools will subsequently be acquired, after much effort has been put into reconstructing and renovating them. Yes, they have teachers. Many of these teachers are trained in special education. But the status of these teachers is low. Morale is low. Yes, I say that they have funds, financial supports and grants. But these grants are often not insufficient to meet the need to expand and improve the facilities and training for these children.

Sir, I assert these children deserve no less facilities than those provided for our normal school children. I should think that they should not be made an exception. These children are our children and they should be accorded parity of treatment by providing them adequate facilities and provisions. To deny them facilities and access to appropriate provision is indeed stifling them to achieve their potential.

Sir, we have an education system but there is no booster for special education and unless there is a booster provided, I do not see how disabled children can make progress and develop to be well-meaning people and to be integrated in our community.

The Chairman: Dr Vasoo, you have to allow time for the reply. We are running out of time.

Dr Vasoo: The current educational facilities provided for the disabled by the Ministry are not up to standard. They are inadequate and these are not similar facilities provided for normal children. Disabled children do not have the parity of treatment in terms of facilities. So I hope that the Ministry will be able to provide them with better school and other supporting facilities when schools are assigned.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: I think the point made by the Member for Bo Wen really centres on what is adequate because he keeps bringing out "this is not adequate", "school buildings are inadequate" and so on. Sir, our emotions all reach out to the disabled. It is quite natural that many of us, backbenchers and others, feel for them and our emotions reach out to them and we want to do something for them. I think this is only right in a civilized caring society.

But when it comes to a question of what is adequate and what is not adequate, I think this is an area where not even two experts will agree. Certainly we should look into the adequacy of accommodation (meaning the school), the facilities, the qualification of teachers, whatever provisions. Sir, these are matters which have to be settled almost on a school-by-school basis. What is adequate for a school catering for the ESN may be quite different from what is adequate for a school catering to the blind or the deaf. It all also comes down to how many dollars we can spend per pupil per year. We know what we are spending per pupil per year in our normal schools, normal primary schools. When you compare that with what you spend per pupil per year in a special school, it is clear that there are differences. Should we spend twice as much? Should we spend ten times as much or even 50 times as much? Remember that there is a pie and there is a number of groups to share it. If you spend a lot more on one group, it must come from some other group. So we are talking of a balance here, Sir. There are no ideal and perfect solutions to this problem.

I think this subject can best be discussed by the advisory committee on the disabled when it begins to meet, because then one can get down to details and one can debate what is adequate, what is just adequate, what is more than adequate.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (7), Encik Yatiman is not here. Amendment No. (8)(a), Mr Chandra Das and Encik Yatiman are not here. Amendment No. (8)(b), Encik Abbas.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LF 3000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, physical education is an essential and integral part of the all-round education of a child. Besides physical and skills development, activities such as team games are conducive to character moulding and the inculcation of desirable personal and social attitudes. They provide good opportunities for peer group interaction among students within the school and with those from other schools. Games and sports can also help to develop inter-racial harmony right from the young students.

I am glad that the Ministry of Education is aware of this important aspect of education and has established the College of Physical Education in 1984 aiming at providing qualified physical education teachers to implement the schools' physical education programme more effectively.

If you want to have excellence in sports in the year 1990, a start has got to be made from the schools and we must have qualified physical education teachers to start the programme. I would like to know the progress of this College of Physical Education. How long will it take for the Ministry of Education to provide all schools in Singapore, especially the secondary schools, with the required qualified physical education teachers?

In the meantime, are there sufficient in-service courses being organized to ensure that an adequate number of teachers are able to take physical education in the schools? Next, of the number of PE teachers graduated so far, how many have signed on to remain in the education service? Some of them, I understand, are now working in private health clubs where there are better incentives available for them. What steps has the Ministry taken to prevent trainees of the College of Physical Education from opting out of the teaching service after graduation, thus wasting public funds which are used to sponsor their studies in the PE College?

The last question is: are PE teachers who are sent to schools and junior colleges fully utilized to teach wholly physical education, the subject area which they are specifically trained for? Or are they also being asked to teach other subjects as well?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I would like to thank the Member for Pasir Panjang who brings up this subject each year to remind us that we should not neglect physical education in our schools. I wholly endorse his view on this and it is for that reason that the Ministry of Education started the College of Physical Education a few years back and a new campus is under construction now at Bukit Timah for this college.

The College, as Members will notice, is presently an open ground with a lot of earth being filled. The reason for all that is because the land there is rather water-logged and swampy and so they have to do a lot of earthworks. But I am told by the IE that this new campus should be ready by 1990. The new building will be there. Until then, the College is making use of existing premises in the IE and therefore can only take in between 60 and 70 per batch of recruits for training. When the new campus is ready, the enrolment will increase to 100.

Sir, two batches have now completed their Diploma in Physical Education and have been posted to schools. Depending on the size of the school and junior college, the number of qualified PE teachers posted to schools or junior college can vary between five and seven. On that basis, we calculate that we will require about 850 trained PE teachers for all our secondary schools and junior colleges. Presently, just over 300 PE teachers in our secondary schools and junior colleges are existing teachers. They have gone through conversion courses or upgrading courses to take on PE as one of their main teaching areas. That will help us reduce the total number we have trained. But I estimate that we will require between six and seven years before we can fill all the secondary schools and junior colleges with trained PE teachers.

But even now, from the monitoring of schools and junior colleges which have the benefit of trained teachers, the programmes that are in these places have shown a marked improvement. There is much more enthusiasm among the students to do physical education courses in their schools or junior colleges. This augurs well for the development of the programme in the future.

Sir, the Member asked whether there were any of the trained teachers who have left the College without becoming teachers. The answer is yes. This is a very small number. If I recall correctly, perhaps two or three have left without staying on to become teachers. That was in the first batch. Subsequently, we have put a bond on all teachers, including PE teachers who are undergoing training, to serve the Education Service for a minimum of three years. The reason for the bond is that all of them receive a bursary. They are being paid, in other words, to become trainees in either the PE College or in the IE itself. Therefore, it is only right that some obligation rest upon them to teach for at least three years before they contemplate leaving.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LI 3000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies established in 1968 will be approaching its 20th anniversary this year. I would like to commend the Institute for having made itself as an institute of international standing. As its main thrust of activity is on Southeast Asia, it has, I am told, placed into firm position three Southeast Asian projects. One is the ASEAN Economic Research Unit; (2) the Social Issues in Southeast Asia; and (3) the Regional Strategic Studies Programme. One other programme that is to be expanded, I am told, is the Southeast Asian Cultural Programme.

Sir, of its varied programmes, I would like to mention one other activity of relevance not only to scholars and academics but I think also of relevance to Members of Parliament. This is its occasional seminars. Looking through the topics of these occasional seminars, they are certainly of direct interest to members of my GPC on Defence and Foreign Affairs. Just to cite a few examples, in the 1986-87 Annual Report, in these occasional seminars, amongst other things, are: (1) The Tunku in Retirement: An Exploration of the Political Role of Tunku Abdul Rahman since 1970; (2) Chinese Foreign Policy in the 1980s; (3) The ASEAN States' Defence Policies, 1975-81; (4) New Trends in Australian Defence Policy.

Sir, in this respect, may I request, through the Minister, that the Institute keep Members of the GPC on Defence and Foreign Affairs posted on future seminars of this nature and invitations be extended to them including, of course, its resource panel members.

The second point is with regard to Government's grants to this Institute. I am of the opinion that after nearly two decades of its existence, the Institute has rightfully earned its national standing. Many distinguished scholars have spent their fellowship in this Institute. In its 1986-87 Annual Report again, it is stated that, and I quote:

'...the Institute is now at an exciting juncture of possibilities in terms of the quality of its intellectual life and output. These can only be realized through the provision of adequate resources and competitive conditions of service.'

Perhaps the Ministry would look into the possibility of increasing its grants to this Institute, grants which have not seen any significant increase for many years.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I thank the Member for Kampong Ubi for raising two matters concerning the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. I have noted what he has mentioned and I will convey his remarks, first, to the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies concerning the occasional seminars they run and they should inform the GPC members and their resource people.

The second point about the grant to the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, the Ministry of Education will discuss this with the Finance Ministry. For this year, it has already been discussed and settled. It will have to be for the next year.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Sir, I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LL 3000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, we are all aware that VITB plays an important role in providing relevant skills in vocational and technical training to our workers. In view of the changing needs and demands of new technology, I would like to know what new courses are available to our workers, besides the already existing courses such as BEST (Basic Education for Skills Training) and MOST (Modular Skills Training). Are there special courses available for those workers who have a low educational level?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Sir, I thank the Member for Pasir Panjang for raising this question about training for people in the workforce. Today, we have in place a network of courses available for adults, working people, spread all over Singapore. These courses are the WISE programme, BEST programme, the MOST programme and the COSEC programme, courses which have rather attractive acronyms and are easy to remember. When these courses were developed, several considerations were very carefully thought-out taking into account the psychology of workers and their needs. For example, all these courses are part-time courses. Therefore, people do not have to give up their job and income to attend the courses. They are convenient.

Secondly, they are made affordable with the help of the Skills Development Fund so that the fees for attending these courses are within the reach of every worker. Thirdly, most of these courses are available at the workplace so that the worker does not have to go home, take a shower and then come out again after dinner to attend the course. They are right there at the workplace and they are therefore convenient and within reach. If they are not at the workplace they will be at centres in the constituency which is within easy reach of the worker. A lot of care has gone into not only the development of the courses in terms of the curriculum but also in the infrastructure and availability and the convenience.

The result of this is that these courses are very popularly received by workers. Let me just give you some figures. The BEST programme which has been in place the longest, since 1983, today has had 100,000 workers who have been through that course, whether one module or more modules. The target has still not been reached because the estimate is that about 225,000 workers would need this course. So we are barely half-way there. But we are pressing on.

The WISE programme which enables workers to go beyond primary education right up to the 'N' level in English and Mathematics started only last year. The pilot programme started last year. The intake in March this year is on a full scale. The target intake was 7,000. The response has been overwhelming - 8,400 people registered for this course. That is a good sign, and this is a new programme which has plenty of development ahead.

The MOST (Modular Skills Training) Course which started two years ago on a national scale has enjoyed increasing enrolment at each of its intake every six months. The January 1988 intake is 5,500 into a whole range of skill modules. Compare that with January 1987, a year before, - 4,000. There has been an increase of 40%.

Finally, the COSEC programme which is a series of generic skills not peculiar to any one particular skill but useful for general workers, which is run by the National Productivity Board, has also enjoyed support, particularly from employer groups who use this for their in-house training.

Sir, the question raised by the Member is: how do we extend this further to workers, particularly to those who are older and perhaps more in need of updating or upgrading themselves? The present profile of workers who take advantage of these courses is as follows.

The biggest group of workers who are taking advantage of all these courses are those in the age group 21 to 30. They comprise 60% of all the participants. The next biggest group are those from 31 to 40. They comprise 25%. So 85% of the participants are between 21 and 40 years of age. Those who are 40 years plus, they comprise between 2-14%. It is quite low. This is a voluntary scheme. I think a lot of effort has been made to publicize it. The NTUC has done a great deal, together with the PAP education centres, to publicize these courses to workers and members of the public. I think no effort has been spared.

Why is it we cannot reach the older workers? I think it is quite complex because older people have perhaps more family commitments, perhaps they are more set in their ways and therefore more difficult to persuade to come out to do something, perhaps they feel they have more face to lose if they attend a course with younger people. I think we recognize all these psychological, social factors. Nonetheless, we should make the effort and I would urge the NTUC, the branches of the Union, to do whatever they can to publicize it amongst their members and get groups of them to come in.

The call that the Member made concerning changes that are going on in our economy is a real one. Skills get out of date and we have to re-skill people, give them new skills. Let me just give you a very concrete illustration of this. Over the past five years, VITB which constantly reviews its courses had to introduce 33 new skill courses. But in the same five years they had to delete 45 out-of-date skill courses. That is the rate at which changes are taking place. And I think our workers must know this. They have to re-skill themselves again and again in the course of their working life.

Encik Abbas Abu Amin: Sir, I am more than satisfied with the Minister's elaborate reply and I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,389,159,200 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $228,193,900 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

2.50 pm

Head M -

The Chairman: Head M, Ministry of the Environment. 41 minutes.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, since FY83, there have been significant changes in the budget allocation to the different programmes of the Ministry of the Environment. In 1983, the sewerage programme accounted for 43% of the Ministry's total expenditure, while Drainage accounted for only 13%. For FY 88, it is estimated that Drainage's share will go up to 41%, whereas Sewerage will go down to 28%. These shifts are easily understandable in view of the completion of major sewerage schemes and sewage treatment works, while the implementation of major drainage schemes has started since FY85.

But what I find somewhat puzzling is the pattern of recurrent expenditure. The relative allocation to the different programmes has remained unchanged over the last five years. The picture presented by the Chart on page 349 of this Budget document shows a very static picture indeed. Maybe the Minister can help to explain this pattern. Normally, the pattern of budget allocation reflects the direction of a Ministry's work. In fact, budget allocations are instruments for promoting a Ministry's work in certain directions. I am particularly interested in the direction in which the Environmental Health Programme is going to take in the future.

Sir, it is well known that a rising standard of living will bring an increasing volume of domestic refuse, and also a growing economy will result in increasing volumes of industrial and trade wastes. Apart from volume, it is also a question of the composition of the wastes. Last year, my GPC member, the Member for Boon Teck, raised the question of the composition and the content of the refuse. He asked whether the Ministry had done studies on the changing composition of the refuse content, identify the sources of variation and make projections into the future, to see if our existing dumping ground facilities and incineration plants would be able to carry the increasing load. We know that a third incineration plant is being built at Senoko, and the dumping ground at Lorong Halus is being extended. With these projects, it is said that incineration capacity will be increased to some 80-85% of refuse disposal, with the rest, the 15%, for disposal by dumping and that these developments will carry us right up to year 2000. But the year 2000 is not too far away, we need to look at requirements beyond the end of the century. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what future plans does his Ministry have with regard to waste management beyond the year 2000.

And if I may offer a couple of observations here. We are a small country. So we may not have much choice as to where these future developments might be located. But it is important, even so, for us to look at the environmental impact of these future developments precisely because we are a small country. And secondly, if in future some offshore island has to be used for the purpose, then it could be expected that operational cost of hauling the refuse to these future developments might be raised. Therefore, I would urge the Ministry to carry out cost-effectiveness studies before they commit any expenditure which would be huge to the development of these future capacities.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Sir, before I deal with our long-term waste management capacity which the hon. Member for Changkat and concurrently the Chairman of GPC for the Environment has touched on, let me reply to her query as to why the pattern of recurrent expenditure of my Ministry over the last five years has not shown any noticeable change among the different programmes.

Sir, this is because my Ministry's directions over the last five years and more have been consistent and clear, namely, we lay emphasis on the crucial areas of environmental control in a highly urbanized country. And these areas are: environmental public health; the provision of sewerage, drainage and solid waste disposal facilities; food control; vector control and epidemiological services. This emphasis, Sir, has given us the highest standard of environmental public health in this region in spite of the density of our population. And this emphasis, I must say, will probably remain with us for the foreseeable future.

Now I move on to our long-term waste management capacity. Sir, in view of Singapore's limitation in land, we are developing our incineration capacity to dispose of all incinerable refuse. The total quantity of refuse generated daily in Singapore today is about 5,000 tonnes and this figure is expected to increase to about 7,000 tonnes per day in the year 2010, and to 7,500 tonnes per day by the year 2030. And as we all know, Sir, 85% of the total refuse generated is incinerable while the remaining 15% is non-incinerable.

My Ministry today operates two incineration plants, one at Ulu Pandan and the other at Tuas, with a combined incineration capacity of 3,200 tonnes per day. But hitherto, Sir, we are only able to incinerate about 70% of the total daily incinerable refuse generated and because of that, as the hon. Member for Changkat has mentioned, we are now planning to build a third incineration plant at Senoko with a capacity of 2,400 tonnes per day. This plant is expected to be operational by the year 1991 or 1992 at the latest. With three incineration plants, we should be able to incinerate all incinerable refuse up to the year 1999. Thereafter, a fourth incineration plant will become necessary to incinerate all incinerable refuse up to the year 2030.

To dispose of non-incinerable refuse, Sir, we need dumping grounds, and for this purpose my Ministry is currently maintaining two dumping grounds - one in Lim Chu Kang, the other at Lorong Halus. In fact, as again the Member for Changkat has mentioned, the Ministry is already developing another dumping ground of about 63 hectares next to the existing one at Lorong Halus. These dumping grounds should be able to meet our needs up to the year 1997. Beyond 1997, it may be necessary for us to dispose of non-incinerable refuse on one of the offshore islands because by that time there will be no more suitable land on mainland Singapore for this purpose. In fact, an area west of Pulau Semakau has already been safeguarded for this purpose.

Sir, the non-incinerable wastes are largely inert material and, as such, they do not cause much organic pollution. I would like to assure the Member for Changkat that my Ministry will take all possible measures to ensure that pollutants from the materials dumped on the offshore dumping ground do not cause any pollution at all.

With regard to cost-effectiveness of the method proposed, my Ministry will certainly look into it before we implement.

Dr Aline Wong: Sir, the Environmental Public Health Act was passed in July last year. It provides for the licensing of private waste collectors. I would like to urge the Minister that his Ministry draw up a set of guidelines or regulations for implementation as soon as possible.

As far as the toxic industrial wastes are concerned, I understand that a comprehensive set of guidelines has already been drafted, and feedback from trade and industry organizations being gathered. The GPC welcome this consultative approach adopted by the Ministry. By its very nature, toxic wastes have to be handled very carefully and special types of equipment are required, and licensed operators need to abide by a very strict safety code. But in my view, it may not be possible to expect all of the existing collectors to upgrade their physical equipment overnight in order to meet the high standards set by the Ministry. Therefore, may I suggest that a reasonable time-frame be set so as to enable them to comply with the standards eventually?

As far as the removal of non-toxic wastes is concerned, I think the same kind of approach can also be adopted. The majority of the private collectors, I understand, are small-scale contractors using open lorries. According to an estimate by the Environmental Management Association of Singapore, out of an approximate total of 400 private vehicles involved in waste handling, only about 15% are specialized refuse vehicles. Even though the kinds of waste carried by the open lorries comprise mainly dry and inorganic waste, it is still possible for such methods of conveying waste to cause hazards to environmental health, such as through spilling of dust, littering the roads and, of course, the possibility of illegal dumping. Therefore, in drawing up the regulations for the licensing of these private waste collectors, I believe some norms on the types of vehicles and methods used should be set. Under the Environmental Public Health Act, if these operators have infringed on the law their licences could also be revoked. But since licences are a matter of means of livelihood, I think it is only fair if the Ministry comes up with a clear set of norms and requirements, as well as clearly indicate the conditions under which licences may be withdrawn, be understood by all the people involved.

When the new licensing scheme is implemented, I think all the existing operators should be registered at the beginning, so as not to affect their present means of livelihood. However, as time goes on, they should be encouraged to upgrade through mechanization and greater efficiency. Perhaps the Minister may even wish to consider providing some form of financial assistance such as low-interest loans to the small- and medium-sized operators to help them upgrade.

Sir, since the licensing of private waste collectors means the recognition of such operators as commercial concerns, it is only fair that they pay the appropriate disposal fees. In the past, the Ministry's practice has been to exempt payment of the fees for loads under 1 tonne, so as to encourage the proper disposal of refuse by small contractors or private households. It was felt that if such small loads were not exempted, then there might be even more instances of illegal dumping. But with the licensing of private collectors, I strongly feel that they should all be charged, irrespective of small or big loads. On the other hand, I would urge the Minister not to forget about the private households. I would like to ask him what kind of alternatives are there for private households if they want to dispose of unwanted bulky items and do not want to engage the contractors who will, after all, pass the cost of dumping fees on to them.

The past method of exempting small loads from payment has given rise to an anomalous situation. When I read the FY 86 annual report for the Ministry, I was so surprised to find that as much as 70% of the total number of trips made annually to the disposal facilities involve loads of less than 1 tonne. In other words, all of these trips, totalling a quarter of a million times a year, were free of charge. In my view, it is not possible that all these trips were made by private households. The greatest majority of them must have been made by commercial operators who have been profiting from the Ministry's generosity. In fact, I was told that private collectors have been breaking down their loads either at the point of collection or near the dumping grounds in order to benefit from the fee exemption. May I ask if the Ministry has been keeping tab of the situation, such as carrying out spot checks on the situation?

Another consequence of this fee exemption is that small lorries cause long queues and traffic congestion at dumping grounds. If the queues at the dumping grounds are indeed long, maybe one way to solve the situation is to encourage the operators to use the Kim Chuan Transfer Station. If so, would the Minister be prepared to waive the haulage fee charged presently at the Transfer Station? If not, may we hear his reason for charging this fee at all?

The Chairman: Dr Wong, do you want to continue with your next subject?

Dr Aline Wong: No, I am not speaking on the next subject.

The Chairman: Good. Dr Mattar.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Sir, the Member for Changkat has raised a number of issues under this subject "Licensing and Upgrading of Private Waste Disposal Contractors".

Sir, on the subject of waste collectors, my Ministry is presently preparing regulations to license all private waste collectors. These collectors will be licensed to carry different types of waste according to the type of vehicle they possess. But, of course, the requirements imposed on vehicles and equipment used to handle toxic waste will have to be very, very stringent. I am happy to report, Sir, that some of these contractors or waste collectors already have vehicles and equipment that meet our stringent requirements. But for those who do not, sufficient time will be given to them to upgrade.

On the question of providing financial assistance to contractors wanting to upgrade, I am afraid my Ministry does not have a finance scheme to assist waste collectors in the purchase of specialized refuse vehicles. But I believe the Small Enterprises Bureau of the EDB which operates the Small Industries Finance Scheme (SIFS) offers soft loans to small- and medium-sized local enterprises to upgrade or expand their operations. Perhaps private waste collectors wanting to upgrade may want to consider approaching the EDB for soft loans under the SIFS to purchase specialized refuse vehicles.

Next, the Member also wants all licensed waste collectors to be liable to disposal fees irrespective of tonnage. Maybe I should first explain my Ministry's policy on refuse disposal fee. Under the present policy, as quite accurately described by the hon. Member just now, all refuse loads below one tonne are not charged the disposal fee. The objective of this policy is really to encourage members of the public with small quantities of bulky refuse, eg, unwanted furniture, household appliances, renovation debris, to bring them to either the dumping grounds or the incineration plants for disposal. So in order to encourage them to do so, the Government saw it fit not to impose any disposal fee for loads under one tonne.

To charge a disposal fee for small quantities of refuse will, I am afraid, bring us back to the days of higher incidence of illegal dumping. In fact, this was the very reason that prompted my Ministry to come out with such a policy. It is estimated that a tonne of illegally-dumped refuse would cost about $200 to clear. My Ministry is also concerned about other adverse consequences illegal dumps can cause, such as the pollution of our water resources and other public health hazards.

Sir, the policing of illegal dumping is an onerous task and I must admit that my Ministry just does not have the manpower to execute effective enforcement. The Ministry has amended the laws to raise the fines and also to provide other penalties such as the seizure of vehicles used in illegal dumping activities. But notwithstanding these measures and because of the lack of manpower, as I have said just now, the Ministry considers preventive measures to be a prudent approach.

The policy on refuse disposal fee is therefore not based on revenue considerations alone but also on our concern for public health and environmental protection.

Next, the Member has asked me to provide alternatives for members of the public to dispose of their bulky waste. For those living in HDB estates, they can easily bring down their bulky waste to the bin compounds for eventual disposal by the HDB refuse removal contractors. But for those living in private housing estates where such bin compounds are usually not available, they can opt for one of two ways: either engage a private waste collector to do the job for them or simply call the Ministry of the Environment's bulky refuse removal service. They can easily contact the Ministry directly or any one of the seven environmental health offices nearest their homes.

With regard to the long queues at dumping grounds, Sir, I must say that I cannot agree with the Member here. Spot checks have shown that there are no such long queues. The average queuing time at the weighbridges during peak hours of operation is only 6-7 minutes. And it is also not true to say that small vehicles carrying more than one tonne of refuse are off-loading the refuse to other vehicles just before the weighbridge. If they off-load before leaving wherever they come from, I do not know. But to say that they are off-loading the refuse to other vehicles just before the weighbridge, I do not think this is quite correct. There are no such activities seen at or near the weighbridges or elsewhere nearby.

On the Kim Chuan Transfer Station, the Member feels that the station should be open free to all private waste collectors. In other words, without charging a haulage fee. The haulage fee charged at the Kim Chuan Transfer Station is really to enable Government to recover cost of transporting refuse to the Tuas Incineration Plant for disposal. A private waste contractor who brings waste to the Transfer Station saves the long trip of hauling it himself to the incineration plant. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that he should pay a fee for leaving refuse at the Kim Chuan Transfer Station.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, I would like to raise an issue on the hawker licensing policy. Currently, hawker licenses are being issued by the Ministry of the Environment, and the HDB, on the strength of these licences, allocates stalls to the various licence holders. I would like to confine my remarks purely to the hawker centres with particular reference to cooked food stalls. These stalls once allocated to the licence holders are not transferable. They are only given to the holder and in some cases the holder of the licence is allowed or permitted by the HDB to employ helpers. This is the present situation.

Sir, there are many hawker centres in Singapore and I am a little concerned about the utilization of these hawker centres. In fact, the hawker centre in my constituency is grossly under-utilized in the sense that by 1.30 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon, all the hawkers close their shops and the place is totally empty. To my mind, the resources of the centre itself are totally under-utilized and it is a waste of resources.

On the other hand, we have many people on the waiting list wanting hawker stalls. I think all MPs here will agree that the request for cooked food stalls is an unending one in our regular Meet-the-People sessions. Sir, I am wondering whether the Ministry of the Environment might consider allowing the current holders of hawker licences, particularly cooked food stalls, to sublet their stalls for the time or period of the day they are not operating their stalls. Controls could be imposed. I think at the moment they are not allowed to sublet or transfer. All I am suggesting is that maybe, for the period they are not utilizing the stalls, they could sublet, maybe on a private basis, to people on the waiting list or based on other approved criteria. In this case, we can tackle two problems. One, we can have less people on the waiting list and yet at the same time I think the hawker centres could be better utilized.

Dr Koh Lam Son: I would like to raise three issues under this amendment. First is on the wet market system. I understand that the Ministry is planning to phase out the wet markets. There are now altogether 130 wet markets and 35 are already affected by redevelopment and will not be replaced. The Ministry foresees that the wet market system will be replaced by the supermarkets and specialty shops.

Sir, I am not against the phasing out of the wet markets. But I believe that this should be carried out gradually and determined by market forces. It is true that more Singaporeans today are going to the supermarkets but it is also true that just as many are still frequenting the wet markets where the prices are generally lower and the variety of market produce greater. Sir, as long as there is a demand for wet markets, there is really no reason to phase them out. Also, we must not forget the human factor involved in the phasing out of wet markets. Most of the stallholders are from the lower income group and many of them are in the older age group. So to them loss of their business may mean a permanent loss of a job. So in this respect I would like to ask the Minister what criteria does the Ministry adopt for closing down a wet market and what will happen to the existing stallholders?

Sir, the real problem of our wet market is one of poor hygiene and water pollution. Lack of space and unhygienic handling of market produce by the stallholders lead to the messy state that we find in our wet markets.

I would like to propose a simple interim solution to this problem. First of all, if we could construct a common area within the market itself, design and build this area for the sole purpose of preparing and sorting out the market produce. This is where all the dirty work will be carried out and this is to be shared by all the stallholders in the market, and they will be made responsible for keeping that area clean. The stalls are then used mainly for the display of the market produce and at the stall the minimum amount of preparatory work should be carried out. Of course, at the same time we should educate the stallholders on proper housekeeping and the handling of market produce. If necessary, a demerit point system similar to the one applied to the hawker stalls can be implemented. In this way, I believe we can keep our wet markets cleaner and more pleasant for people to shop.

The second issue that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister is the plight of the cooked food stallholders in the HDB housing estate coffee shops. I think these stallholders are a forgotten lot. While the stallholders in the hawker centres enjoy subsidies, the stallholders in the coffee shops are paying high rentals and they are not charging more for their food. A wan t'an mee seller in a coffee shop is definitely in no shape to compete with his counterpart in a hawker centre nearby and the handicap is quite obvious. Is the Government one-sided or keeping an eye closed about this haunting predicament faced by small-time stallholders other than those in the hawker centres?

The third issue I want to raise is in regard to hawker assistants. In the granting of a hawker licence, the Ministry requires the applicant to be at the age of 40 and above. However, no requirement of a minimum age is imposed for the employment of helpers. One must appreciate that each time a hawker sets up his business, especially a cooked food stall, he ropes around a few helpers. And if you wonder why Singaporeans are not taking up unpopular jobs and leaving them to the foreigners, you do a head count of the number of hawker helpers and I am sure you will come out with an impressive number. So should not age limit be a factor in granting permits to hawkers wanting to get helpers?

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): According to the 1986 Annual Report of the Ministry of the Environment as at 31st December 1986, there were 25,449 hawkers, of which 6,479 came under the Ministry of the Environment and 17,514 came under the HDB. There must be good reasons for two Government organizations taking charge of two large groups of hawkers. However, for better management and planning, would it not be more efficient for the two groups of hawkers to come under one management authority?

Under present conditions, it is difficult to understand the Government's policy regarding the long-term future of our hawkers. For example, is there a plan to phase out the slaughter of chickens in wet markets? The Ministry of the Environment tried to forbid the slaughter of chickens at the Cuppage Market. Fortunately, the Minister for the Environment was able to reverse this decision when I appealed to him on behalf of the hawkers. I must thank the Minister for this kind gesture but I am sure it is not the end of MOE's attempt to phase out chicken slaughtering in MOE markets.

As there are also many chicken stalls in HDB markets, I hope officials from both MOE and HDB can get together to work out plans before stopping the slaughter of chickens in any other markets. Of course, hawkers in wet markets will be happier if the Minister will give the House the assurance that there will be no changes to the present mode of sales of chickens in all the wet markets.

Another point which I would like to enquire of the Minister is the extent of cooperation between officials of his Ministry and the HDB. For example, according to the 1986 Annual Report, the MOE Hawkers Department received 5,723 applications for hawker licences in 1986 and only 949 cases were successful. Did the MOE refer the unsuccessful cases to HDB in case they have available stalls? What about empty stalls in MOE markets? Of the 412 stalls in Cuppage Centre, for example, 148 stalls are still vacant even though the market was opened more than four years ago. I fail to understand why 148 stalls remain vacant at the Cuppage Centre when 4,774 applicants failed to get a hawker licence in 1986. Even if none of these applicants are happy with Cuppage Centre, perhaps MOE can approach the HDB if they have suitable applicants. MOE can also consider privatizing some of the hawker centres. Start with Cuppage Centre, for example. If MOE cannot find suitable hawkers, why not lease the empty stalls to private entrepreneurs? MOE can experiment with a two-tier licence system. Existing hawkers paying the normal fees and a new licence fee based on market forces for the private entrepreneurs and of course subject to market conditions. I hope the Minister can find a solution to fill up the empty stalls at Cuppage Centre and perhaps also at other MOE hawker centres in other constituencies.

As a final solution, they can perhaps discuss with the HDB to form a single management body that can work out a long term plan for all the hawkers in Singapore.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng): The points raised by the Member for Chong Boon regarding under-utilization of hawker stalls and the point raised by the Member for Cairnhill regarding the high percentage of vacant stalls in the Cuppage Road Market, both have a common origin. The root of these problems lies in the ever-fast, rapidly improving social and economic conditions in Singapore. That is why we have these problems.

In the 1950's and 1960's, if Members can recall, there were thousands of street hawkers lining all our streets, our backlanes and they were all over the place. They were in every nook and cranny. In fact, they were causing a great nuisance, traffic jams, pollution control problems and as a group they were a public health threat. So in 1969 the Government had to act - to house all of them in what is called "modern hawker centres". So they all were housed in modern hawker centres with clean water, with gas and with electricity. What happens today? The business of the street hawkers in these hawker centres flourished. They have grown and they have developed. And the stalls have become smaller in relation to the brisk business they have, causing congestion and if we are not careful, it will become a public health threat. That is the reason why we cannot, or at least at this point of time, immediately agree with the Member for Chong Boon to allow two persons to share a stall because it would only aggravate the congestion problem. If we are not careful, it will become a public health threat. However, in the future when there are town councils, then I think the town councils can spend their time looking for all kinds of ways to overcome the problem. And if they can overcome the problem, they have suggestions, then I think my Ministry would look at the Member for Chong Boon's suggestion favourably. We can work together, make arrangements and work out the conditions. But as of now, sorry. But if the Member comes out with an answer tomorrow, maybe we can consider.

Sir, the Member for Telok Blangah raised the question of wet markets being phased out indiscriminately by the Ministry of the Environment. This also has something to do with the resiting of street hawkers from the early days. Today it is the problem of ageing of these hawkers. These hawkers were once strong, healthy people. They were prepared to get up early in the morning, dash to the auction market, bid for market produce and then return to the market to await the throngs of housewives that come to the market. There are very few of them left today. Modern day Singaporeans, the younger ones, with their education are not prepared to do business in market produce. They would prefer to take up a job where the knowledge they gain from their education would be more relevant. So empty stalls pile and the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Telok Blangah have accurately observed that there are vacant market stalls all over Singapore. We will have to monitor the situation. If it gets bad, then appropriate action will have to be taken.

It is not that the Ministry goes round indiscriminately demolishing wet markets. We agree with the Member for Telok Blangah that there is still a place for the wet market in Singapore. While there is a demand, we will do all we can within our means to upgrade these markets but until the day comes when they have to close because of no takers, then we cannot just leave them there doing nothing.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, particularly his offer if town councils want to pursue this policy, he will consider. But before I speak for the town council, I really could not follow his earlier answer where he said that there would be congestion and therefore you cannot sublet. The problem today is that far too many people are requesting for hawker licences. So where is the question of congestion? On markets, some of them are empty in the afternoon and some may be empty in the morning. It is the slack period. So you could use this slack period and make some other people on the waiting list happy. But as far as the town council is concerned, I will take the Senior Parliamentary Secretary quite seriously and discuss it with my town council. Maybe before the week is cut, he will get a proposal from us.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I think it is getting a little bit too much. The Government - those people over the other side - give us long, lengthy answers but never address all the issues brought up by the Backbenchers. I have listened to the Backbenchers and two important concepts were raised and here we get replies going round and round and finally we get nowhere.

Two important concepts were raised by the Members of this House. One was raised by the Member for Telok Blangah, about wet markets. He introduced the idea of allowing a small area to be used under the present concept of a dry market. There are certain areas that are usually wet, in the sense that the stallholders are selling fish or maybe slaughtering chicken. What he wants is whether you can have a little area whereby you can allow such a trade to continue, introduce all your environmental controls and there you can still have your wet market and a dry market mixed into one. You all did not answer that.

The next point. The Member for Cairnhill raised another important issue of a single management for the control of markets presently under HDB and Environment. We have two bodies doing the same thing. Why cannot we merge them into one? We get no answer. All we get was, "Well, you all know."

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Sir, I could not believe my ears when I heard the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say that there are no young people willing to become hawkers. There is a rule, is there not, which says that nobody under the age of 40, unless that person is handicapped, can become a hawker?

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Sir, with regard to the proposal by the Member for Telok Blangah, I think I have given my reply this morning to his Question for Oral Answer in connection with the problem of maintenance of the cleanliness of the cleaned rivers. I have mentioned this morning that a Committee has been formed to look into how the remaining sources of pollution can be prevented, and the Committee is also studying if proper areas in wet markets can be provided for the loading and unloading of produce from vehicles. What he has suggested will be looked into by the Committee chaired by Environment for the purposes of looking into the maintenance of the cleanliness of the cleaned rivers.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, I do not think I should let the Member for Whampoa go so easily and also the Member for Ayer Rajah who claims to be the champion of MPs. May I just take the points raised by the other Members. It is just that I thought silence means consent. I did not know it irritated or it touched a few raw nerves.

First, the Member for Whampoa. I did not say that young people are not willing to become hawkers. They are not willing to take up market produce stalls. I think there is a lot of difference between becoming a hawker and taking up a market produce stall. I would, in fact, offer that to the Member for Whampoa and let him choose. Which do you want? To be a hawker or to take up a market produce stall?

The reason why I did not reply to the Member for Cairnhill is that there is a little bit of misunderstanding of the figures in the Annual Report, and I thought I would discuss with him quietly outside. However, since he did not press for an answer, I would not give an answer.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Sir, I have also raised two other issues which he has not answered. I raised the issue of hawker assistants and asked whether he would impose a minimum age on them and also the issue of the plight of stallholders in HDB coffeeshops.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, on hawker assistants, it all depends on market forces. If the hawker stallholder offers to pay more to a person who is willing to take up the job of hawker assistant, then of course he will take on the job. I cannot force him not to work as a hawker assistant.

The other point is about coffeeshops. It is also very straightforward. Where coffeeshops are concerned, it is again a question of market forces. If a hawker is willing to pay that much rent to the owner of a coffeeshop, then so be it. You cannot go and regulate the rates and say who can pay and who cannot pay what rent. It must depend on market forces.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, I would rather the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give the reply here than have another meeting outside.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, the Member in his speech said that 949 people qualified for hardship criteria.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: Sir, I do not think that is the issue. The issue is why are there two big organizations controlling hawkers in Singapore.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: I will come to it. He said that 949 cases were successful in getting hawker stalls and 4,774 applicants failed to get hawker licences in 1986. The 949 sucessful cases were the people who satisfied hardship criteria. The other 4,774 failed the hardship criteria and therefore we do not consider them any more.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong: But you have over 140 stalls empty at Cuppage Centre for more than four years!

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, again, I had not replied out of courtesy. I will just read a report which I have here.

'There are 148 vacant market produce stalls in Cuppage Road Market. Most of the vacant market produce stalls were frozen since July 1981 as there was then a proposal to convert these vacant stalls into cooked food stalls. The proposal was approved at an estimated cost of $266,000. However, the cooked food stallholders in Cuppage Road objected to the proposal because they were concerned with competition from these additional stalls if they were built. And through their MP, Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, they appealed to the Ministry to drop the project. They also appealed through another Minister who had a ministerial walk there, and the whole project was dropped.'

That is the reason why there are vacant stalls in the Cuppage Road market.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Sir, before we are guillotined under this cut, I would like to assure Members of this House that my Ministry does not intend to go about closing down wet markets unless a market has a very high vacancy position and the viability of the market is in doubt. But my Ministry will not be building any more wet markets and neither will HDB in their new or redeveloped housing estates.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I still have not got the answer. Why is it there are two managements running these markets? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. Why is it so?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, there are no two managements, as the Member for Ayer Rajah sees it. Actually all hawker policies come under the ambit of the Ministry of the Environment. We approve all applications for licences and after they are approved we send the applications to HDB, should they indicate they want markets under the HDB.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Sir, may I seek a point of clarification. I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the issue that I have raised. I am concerned about the employment of young people as hawker assistants because of a wastage of manpower to the nation and also because of the difficulty of older workers getting jobs. My question to the Minister of State was whether one could use age as a factor in the employment of hawker assistants so that only older people will be employed as hawker assistants. That is the point that I am making.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, I regard employment at hawker stalls as employment, and as long as the stall-holder is willing to pay that kind of salary to the assistant, so be it.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Sir, does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not feel concerned about the wastage to the nation of these young people working at hawker stalls because, I think, they must have numbered by the thousands.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Sir, I cannot say I am concerned because these people know what work they can do. If they are willing to work as hawker assistants and not as a welder, so be it.

Dr Aline Wong: Sir, if it were not because there are quite a number of speakers asking for cuts, I would have liked to join my colleague, especially the Member for Ayer Rajah, to press home this point: why are there two separate authorities actually running the control over hawkers? Members of this House may rest assured that the GPC is going to take this matter up with the Ministry further in the year to come. In view of our strong interest in hawker matters, because you see the whole House jumps up whenever hawkers become a subject of discussion, I think there is a need for the Ministry to look into it and I would like to urge the Minister to think about the long-term hawker policy again.

With this, may I withdraw my amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Due to oversight, I think we have exceeded the time allotted for this amendment. So we will have to hurry up with the next one. Dr Ho.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Boon Teck): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, each month there are reports of cases of food poisoning and in certain months the number of cases is quite high. Let me highlight some months. In March last year there were 26 cases of food poisoning from four restaurants. In April 1987, there were 31 cases caused by food stalls. In November, there were 39 cases from one restaurant. In December, guests from two wedding receptions held at a restaurant complained of food poisoning. I was told about 300 people were affected and I understand eventually the restaurant had to pay for the medical bills.

Sir, most of the food poisoning is due to cross-contamination between raw and cooked food during storage, poor personal hygiene, prolonged storage of cooked food at ambient temperature and food samples found to be bacteriologically unsatisfactory. This means that food poisoning can be prevented if those preparing the food take a little bit more care. Sir, I can understand why in a hawker centre food stall or a coffee shop food stall the limited space available for the preparation of food may at times give rise to cross-contamination of food. I feel that restaurants, for the higher prices they charge for food, should be more careful in the food preparation.

I would like to ask the Minister if the present system of supervision of food control is adequate. Are the present guidelines sufficient? What else can the Ministry do to bring down the level of food poisoning cases? Will the Ministry publish the names of eating establishments convicted of food poisoning so as to alert the public? Is the point demerit system introduced last year for hawker centres also applicable to restaurants and food stalls in coffee shops?

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Sir, more and more Singaporeans are eating out at restaurants and food centres these days. It has indeed become the lifestyle of many of us. Therefore, I urge the Ministry of the Environment to ensure that food served in restaurants and food centres are of good quality, wholesome and safe for consumption.

What I am concerned about is that every now and then I read in the newspapers of cases of food poisoning and of restaurateurs being prosecuted and fined for not adhering to proper food hygiene standards when preparing food. These are known cases. There must be many more food poisoning cases which are not reported every year. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Minister could enlighten us whether the incidents of food poisoning are on the rise every year, especially during the Chinese New Year period when many Singaporeans, in their belief that, for good luck, they ought to eat raw fish or Yu-sheng as they call it in Chinese. As most of us in this House also believe it, we too eat raw fish for good luck. However, Yu-sheng, or the raw fish dish, is not the only dish that can cause food poisoning if it is not well prepared. Improper practices of general food hygiene by food handlers are also factors that could contribute to food poisoning.

I would like to find out from the Hon. Minister whether there are written guidelines given to those people who deal in cooked food. If there are, they must be simple enough for food handlers to understand. For example, what is the minimum degree of refrigeration necessary for proper storage of food, like meat and sea food, to ensure freshness; whether harmful food additives are randomly used in food preparation; and on crockery, whether the chipped or cracked crockery, which is likely to collect bacteria or other harmful organisms, is still being used. Sir, these are some of the examples.

Another matter I want to raise is on enforcement by Health Inspectors. Often, enforcement officers call at the food establishments or food centres to make their inspection. Normally if they do discover anything that is not in compliance with standards of proper hygiene, they will issue the operator with a summons to appear in court. Granted, Sir, these officers have a duty to do; but what I am appealing to the Hon. Minister is that they should refrain from issuing summonses so freely and inconsiderately. If the food operators are not complying to the rules correctly, it is the enforcement officer's duty to correct them and to guide them accordingly, but not to punish them in the first instance. This should be part of an educating process for restaurateurs and all those who have dealings in cooked food business. If the enforcement officers can help to educate the food operators on the proper ways of food preparation as well as maintaining cleanliness at the workplace, such as the kitchen and the wash area, instead of issuing them with summonses, it will go a long way to ensure that we continue to maintain a high standard of food preparation and food serving in all eating establishments in Singapore.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to talk about the problem of display in the restaurants and coffeeshops in HDB estates. We all know that the eating houses under the HDB have to pay a rental of about $10,000 or even more per month. In fact, they have been paying very high rental and this is not lessexpensive than those eating houses in the private estates. Since the operators of these eating houses dare to pay so much for the eating houses, they should know how to operate their business. But what surprises me most is that the Ministry of the Environment has put them under very strict control, say, on the display of the stalls, how to place the tables and chairs in the coffeeshops, the number of stalls allowed, the number of tables and chairs allowed and the spacing, etc. In other words, all these matters are strictly controlled by the Ministry.

Sir, I do not know of any country in the world other than Singapore which has imposed such restrictions as the display of tables and chairs in eating houses. Maybe the Minister would enlighten us with some examples in other countries, if there are any. Of course, we know that the Ministry should control them on matters of hygiene and safety. But as regards the other minor matters of the display of tables and chairs, it should be left to the eating house operators to do their best and up to their business ingenuity. Since they have paid so much rent, they should have their ways to attract customers. They feel that if there are too few stalls, they may not be able to attract customers and get good business. And if they put too many tables and chairs, it may cause inconvenience to the customers or cause a congestion. They know how to make adjustments, if necessary. I feel that they should be given a free hand to make this judgment, as they only would know what is the most appropriate arrangement. So I feel that the Government is exercising control too strictly. We should give them more liberty to make their own arrangement. I hope that the Minister would review the policy on this matter and consider carefully suitable measures to rectify the situation.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): Sir, we passed legislation in this House last year to impose heavier fines on litterbugs. Enforcing this legislation is indeed an expensive and labour-intensive process. In fact, most law-abiding Singaporeans throw litter for the sake of convenience when nobody is around, as the Minister for the Environment has rightly pointed out in the House yesterday. This is found not just in public places such as roads, parks, bus stops, etc but very commonly in HDB estates where it is always convenient to throw litter down a high-rise flat without being caught.

Sir, whilst the "stick" approach has been effective in solving our littering problem all these years, we should also perhaps consider the "carrot" approach to solve our littering problem, especially in HDB estates. In implementing the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme in HDB estates, we put up a big signboard, a big plate at the lift landing to tell visitors that 90% of residents in that block have participated in the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. The objective of having this signboard is, of course, to deter robbers, thieves and would-be intruders. Sir, I think this scheme has worked quite successfully. The same principle could be applied to solving the littering problem in HDB estates. If residents in a block cooperate not to litter, then the cleanliness of a certain block deserves special attention. If the cleanliness of a certain block reaches a certain level which could be determined by a set of criteria set by the HDB, the grassroot organizations and the Ministry of the Environment, I think that block deserves special mention. Perhaps a similar signboard, a plate depicting cleanliness in that block, could be placed at the lift landing.

Sir, the presence of such a plate tells a lot about the public-spiritedness of residents in those blocks. It creates a good impression to visitors. It creates a sense of pride, a sense of belonging among residents in that block. It further promotes neighbourliness and, what is more, it actually enhances the resale value of flats in that block. This incentive may force residents to exercise even greater self-discipline and cooperation to keep their flats clean. This scheme, if successful, could be extended to food centres and so on.

Sir, I would like the Minister's comments on whether he thinks the "carrot" approach is as necessary as the stick approach in solving our littering problem. I would also like the Minister's comments and views on the abovementioned proposed scheme to try to resolve the littering problem in HDB estates.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, many of the less popular markets still have vacant stalls not taken up by applicants. I am not referring to the one at Cuppage Centre. I would like to find out from the Hon. Minister whether the exercise carried out by the Hawkers Department some years ago to convert the vacant market stalls into cooked food stalls in some of these markets is still going on. If so, how many conversions have been completed and whether they have been allocated.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: I just take the one that I can answer briefly first. The Member for Boon Teck asked whether we are satisfied with the checking system. Yes, we are indeed satisfied. And just to give the Member an idea, I give some figures of food poisoning cases as compared with other countries. The number of cases per million population: Singapore 236.2; USA, 275.8; UK, 278.4; Japan 364.5. This means that we have less food poisoning cases than many of the even developed countries. Does the PDMS apply also to food establishments? The answer is yes. It applies to all food establishments, small or big, including restaurants in hotels.

The Member for Changi wants to know whether food operators are aware of requirements for food handling. The answer is yes, they know. We have a continuous education programme going on. At the same time, we issue guidelines and pamphlets to such food establishments. Also, once in a while we require them to attend talks and slide shows. And during those talks and slide shows, we again explain to them the requirements of proper food handling and, of course, in the constituencies once in a while we have exhibitions, mini exhibitions and mini campaigns. By the time we do all this, I think most food handlers should know the requirements of proper food handling. If they do not, then of course it is like bringing the horse to the water but you cannot force it to drink.

The Chairman: Moment of Interruption.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1988/89, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.