MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1991 TO 31ST MARCH, 1992

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U (cont.) -

Resumption of Debate on Question [13th March, 1991],

"That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UI 5200 of the Development Estimates." - [Dr Koh Lip Lin].

Question again proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I have an amendment to Head U, item (7), and I would like to claim my right to speak on this amendment.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, if I recall, yesterday you passed your chance.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I passed the chance yesterday. But I want to speak today.

The Chairman: In view of the fact that you have passed your chance, it is the Minister's turn now to reply. If there is still time after his reply, you can make your speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But the "guillotine" time is at 1.10 pm, Sir.

The Chairman: Why do you not wait till the Minister has finished and see if there is still time? You had your chance yesterday, but you passed it.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Sir, before we adjourned yesterday there were three main topics that were raised by Members. The first one was on the tendering system for shops. The second one had to do with the upgrading of HDB flats, and the third one, the problems arising from the new booking system. Since the booking system has given rise to quite a lot of wrong impressions and complaints from the public, I would like to give a reply to this last item first.

Sir, when we started on the booking system in July 1989, we had 45,000 applicants on the waiting list and these had to be cleared first. While we were clearing these applicants on the waiting list, the HDB was of course receiving new applications. The booking system has now reached a stage where we have cleared the 45,000 applicants that were on the waiting list in July 1989. Many of the problems that were mentioned by Mr Chng Hee Kok were problems relating to the transitional phase of the booking system.

The experience during this transitional phase has shown that the booking system has been successful in one very important respect in that it has identified real demand from those who require flats and has filtered out those who are not in pressing need for housing. Of the initial 45,000 applicants, 11,800 or 26% withdrew their applications when the booking system was introduced. A further 10,200 or 23% switched to the walk-in selection scheme or bought HDB resale flats on the open market. Only 23,000 applicants or 51% of the total 45,000 eventually made booking for HDB flats. The acceptance rate for those allocated flats has also improved from 60% under the previous waiting list system to between 80-90% under the booking system. So the booking system has been very, very effective in weeding out those who are not in pressing need for housing.

During these 18 months of transitional phase from July 1989, HDB received a total of almost 50,000 fresh applications. Some of these were repeat applications. As a result of the high withdrawal rate amongst applicants on the old waiting list, HDB was able to offer about 10,400 flats during the transitional phase to some of the fresh applicants. These successful applicants have already been invited to book flats. As the new applicants were only balloted for flats not taken up by applicants on the previous waiting list, their chances of booking a flat were correspondingly lower. We had to give priority to those who were on the waiting list in July 1989. However, if we had continued with the old waiting list system, these fresh applicants would probably not have been allocated any flat yet, because they would have come after the 45,000 that were already on the waiting list in July 1989 and they would have been delayed by choosy applicants registered ahead of them who are not in urgent need of a flat.

The problem that Mr Chng brought up, and which has also been expressed in letters to the press of applicants having to wait for a long time before being informed of the outcome of their application, was really due to this transitional phase and was also only confined to those who applied for flats in a few new towns.

As I mentioned earlier, during the transitional phase, priority had to be accorded to clearing applicants on the old waiting list. The new applicants, ie, those who applied after July 1989, were processed for each new town in turn. The length of time that new applicants had to wait before being informed of the outcome of their applications depended on the schedule for the various new towns. For example, those who submitted applications during the transitional phase for Bishan and Geylang New Town were informed by May 1990 of the outcome. On the other hand, those who applied for flats in Chua Chu Kang, Pasir Ris, Jurong West and Tampines were processed only in January 1991, and applicants were informed of the outcome in February. This was because the flats were completed later and the old applicants had to be cleared first. I would like to emphasize again that this was a transitional problem and that this would not recur.

In the first quarter of 1991, we have entered the mature phase of the booking system. In this mature phase, HDB will announce, at the start of each quarter, the building programme for that quarter, and invite applications for these flats. Applications submitted will be balloted by the second month of that quarter, and successful applicants will be invited to book their flats by the third month. Hence, applicants will only need to wait two months before being informed of the outcome of their application.

Fears were also expressed that many people may be balloted a number of times before they would succeed or maybe if a person is a real Jonah he would never get a flat for a long long time. Because of this, some Members have suggested that HDB should keep track of the number of times an applicant has been unsuccessful in booking exercises and accord some priority to those who have been unsuccessful a number of times. This I think would not be very prudent. Those who are not in urgent need would then be tempted to apply for a flat early so as to obtain some sort of priority to book a flat at a later date when they are in real need for housing. The number of applications for flats might then be grossly inflated and HDB will find it difficult to assess the genuine demand and we will be back with the problems that we had under the old waiting list system.

The preferred solution and, in fact, the solution that we intend to adopt, is to build more flats, increase the supply of flats. One of the key advantages of the booking system is that it enables HDB to assess and respond quickly to changes in demand levels. Applications received during the transitional phase indicated a high demand for flats in Jurong West, Pasir Ris, Chua Chu Kang and Tampines. HDB has released 4,000 flats in these four estates for booking in the first quarter of 1991. Unfortunately, this is well below the number of applications. But in the next three quarters, from April 1991 to December 1991, HDB will increase the supply of flats, from the original programme of about 10,600 to more than 18,000. We are accelerating the building programme. In particular, for the next quarter from April to June, some 7,000 units will be offered for booking. This is nearly double the amount that we had actually planned for the second quarter. HDB will closely monitor demand patterns and adjust supply accordingly. The majority of applicants should be able to move into their flats within three years of first application.

If the problem persists of some people applying many times and not being successful, we can at that stage think of how we can resolve it. But for the moment, I would like to leave the system as it is and try and solve the problem of applicants not being successful in many ballots by increasing the supply as much as possible.

The other problem that was raised was the change in the applicant's income levels during the period of waiting or when he is unsuccessful in one ballot and then has to apply again. The Member mentioned that under the old system once a person has applied, his income level is fixed and he can wait for five years but any increase in income would not affect his application. The present ceiling on household income for the purchase of HDB flats is $5,000 per month for nuclear families and $8,000 per month for extended families. This was set in 1989. The Labour Force Survey shows that 91% of the households in Singapore have a total income of less than $5,000 and will thus be eligible for HDB flats. Only 4% of the households have total incomes in the range of $4,000 to $5,000 and these are the people who are likely to exceed the $5,000 during any waiting period. So the number of applicants likely to breach the income ceiling between successive booking exercises is relatively small. We will be reviewing the income ceiling periodically and we will monitor the situation and, if necessary, the income ceiling will be revised.

Nevertheless, because of the problems arising from the transitional stage and for the immediate future, HDB has implemented a number of measures to help applicants whose income is close to the ceiling. First of all, HDB exercises flexibility in accepting applications whose household incomes exceed the ceiling marginally. In other words, we do not apply the $5,000 ceiling very strictly. Marginal increases of income beyond $5,000, will still be accepted. With effect from the second quarter of 1991, an applicant who is unsuccessful in a particular booking exercise will be allowed to re-apply for subsequent booking exercises, based on his income assessed at the time of first application, until he is successful in the ballot for a flat. So we are in fact "freezing" his income. An applicant who is successful in a ballot and is invited to book a flat, but who chooses not to select a flat for whatever reason, will then have to re-apply, and his income will not be frozen any more. His income will be re-assessed as though it was his first application. This is the best way to ensure that demand for flats is not inflated by those who are not in any real need for housing.

This arrangement, which I have outlined of "freezing" household incomes for unsuccessful applicants, will only apply to applications for new towns where land is available for flat development. For this year's building programme, this would comprise developments in Pasir Ris, Tampines, Chua Chu Kang, Woodlands and Jurong West New Towns. The arrangement will not apply to applications for flats in isolated re-development projects in older estates. Members will remember that we are demolishing one-room flats for re-development. There will be about 2,000 flats in development areas in the course of the year. For those who apply for this type of flats, we cannot freeze and hold their income because the application for this type of flats is very high, many times the number that we can build. But for those who apply for the new towns that I have mentioned, we will "freeze" the income.

Again, in order to overcome some of the transitional problems, we have implemented a number of measures for the convenience of applicants who are unsuccessful in the ballot. HDB has provided all unsuccessful applicants with an option form with a list of flats available for booking in various new towns in the next quarter's booking exercise. If these applicants wish to re-apply, they need not call personally at the HDB office to submit a fresh application and they need not submit $10 administrative fee, which Mr Chng also mentioned was not fair. They only need to indicate their choice of new town and flat type on the option forms and return them by post to HDB before the stipulated date and they will be considered as new applications.

We have instituted these measures to overcome the problems in the transitional phase. And I hope that they will meet the problems that some of the applicants have faced.

Now I come to the other questions raised. Dr Koh Lip Lin raised the question of tenders for shops. Sir, the rent and purchase price of HDB shops are determined by market forces through the open competitive tender system. HDB does not try to maximize the rental or the sale price by holding back supply. The release of shops is tied to the completion of flats. Dr Koh Lip Lin mentioned in particular shops in Yishun that were completed and not sold, and he was told that they were not released because of some conversion and he did not understand why new shops were being converted. The answer is very simple. The shops were not being converted. But the flats above the shops, which were 3-room flats, were being converted. These shops were on the ground floor of blocks, which were 3-room flats, and because of the change in demand and since there was no demand for 3-room flats, we have to convert these 3-room flats. During the period of conversion, in order to avoid all the inconvenience of conversion and carrying on trade at the same time, HDB did not rent out these shops. Otherwise, shops are rented out as soon as the flats are completed.

He also mentioned about lack of electricity supply in these shops. HDB of course cannot anticipate the electricity demand of every successful tenant or purchaser of shop. They try to work on the average. According to the figures that I have from HDB, 90% of the requests for additional supply can be met from the spare capacity already available which HDB has laid to these shops.

Another 6% of cases involved modification of works which can be completed within six weeks. But there is a small percentage of about 3% which involves the upgrading of the PUB station before the supply can be met, and this could take as long as three to four months. A very small per cent of 1% might require major changes to the PUB sub-station and this can take as long as nine to 18 months. I think it will be very wasteful for HDB to lay supply on the basis that demand will be the type of demand required by that 1%. So 90% has been satisfied by HDB's projections of demand for electricity, and the others will take a slightly longer time.

As regards the tender system, I am afraid we have not been able to come up with a system that is better than the tender system in determining what is the market price. If Members have some other better system which can be applied impartially and objectively and still reflect market demand, I will be more than glad to hear of such proposals. But we do recognise that some people may bid very high rentals because they are not quite familiar with the demands in the trade.

To minimize the chances of unrealistically high rentals or purchase prices, HDB has in fact implemented various safeguards such as allowing tenderers to make two tender bids. Under the two tender bids system, if both bids submitted by one tenderer are higher than any other bid, he will be awarded the tender at the lower of his two bids. In other words, if somebody bids for $10,000 and $6,000, and the next highest bid is $4,000, then that person will be offered that shop at $6,000, and not at $10,000. So every tenderer is allowed, whether for rental or purchase, to make two bids.

Secondly, we also have a limit on the increase of rent that HDB imposes on expiry of tenancy. The tenancy period is left entirely to the tenant. It can be one, two or three years. And if a tenant chooses to sign a one-year tenancy agreement, then the revision of rent at the end of the one-year tenancy agreement would not exceed 10%. If he signs a two-year tenancy agreement, it will not exceed 20%. And if he signs a three-year tenancy agreement, it will not exceed 30%. There is a limit on the increase, and this limit will apply for a period of two tenancy agreements. So if somebody signs a three-year tenancy agreement, then there will be limits on the increase of rentals when the tenancy agreement expires for a total of six years. We leave it entirely to the tenant to read the market and decide what kind of tenancy period he wants to enter into. I think these are the only kinds of safeguards that we can introduce at the present moment.

Just to mention an example. In spite of the increases, the HDB's rentals do not come anywhere near what the market is prepared to pay for current new shops. In the case of Yishun New Town, the revised rent paid by shop tenants averages about $29 per square metre per month. This is after the revision which could be a 10%, 20% or 30% increase depending on the type of tenancy. This is well below the assessed market rental based on the latest tender in Yishun which is $49 per square metre per month. So we are talking of a very big difference. And because we let out these tenancies earlier, these tenants continue to enjoy relatively low rentals.

Now I come to the problems of the upgrading exercise that Mr Chin Harn Tong raised. He asked for the reasons for the delay. Yes, we did have dialogue sessions late last year, and we thought that the feedback that we gathered would enable us to come up with the final plans by February this year. But the feedback did show quite a lot of things that we had not anticipated. And as a result of that, we have to make adjustments to the upgrading package. These changes to the package would increase the average cost per flat from our projected $30,000 to $38,000. We are in the course of finalizing the package and when we have got the package ready and the latest estimates of costs, we will then call the Chairman and members of the Working Committee and inform them of the outcome. We will also of course inform grassroots leaders.

Mr Chin also mentioned about some blocks which are very close to each other and in the extensions of balconies or bathrooms this will cause the flats to be even closer to each other. The vast majority of HDB flats have enough space between blocks for us to do the kind of changes we are thinking of, which is, additional bathrooms and balconies. But there are some flats in the older neighbourhoods where the present space between blocks is very little. In such cases, the kind of changes or upgrading that we can introduce will have to be quite different. We probably cannot introduce balconies or bathrooms. So we have to make some changes or adopt a slightly different approach for flats in such older blocks.

Dr Low Seow Chay raised the problem of resettlement. All Members are aware that we do give resettlement priority, and HDB reserves 12% of new developments for resettlement cases. Problems arise when resettlement cases demand flats in particular and very popular areas, and we are not able to meet that. As a whole, we are able to meet the demand for resettlement cases. In fact, as of January 1991, 85% of resettlement cases were already allocated flats. Those who insist on flats in very popular areas and where we require their land immediately for public purpose, we have no other option but to move them into rental flats temporarily until the flats in the new town are available. But for the vast majority, we are able to meet the demand.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, yesterday I raised with the Minister another issue on the designation of trades for HDB shops, on whether it is possible to make the shopping areas more complete by designating certain shops for essential trades like medical clinics. I also did mention barber and hairdressing shops.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I think Members who have been here longer would know that we in fact had a system previously where HDB used to designate the number of clinics, number of barber shops, number of hairdressers and provision shops in each town, and successful tenderers had to continue with that trade whether or not they were successful in the trade. Because of many requests, we decided that we should do away with the system, and we tender out the shops and allow the successful tenderer to choose whatever trade that he wants to follow. Of course, he has to comply with planning and environmental requirements when he changes trade. I think that is the best system. So far, for the particular example that the Member has mentioned, in fact, all new towns have dental and medical clinics. They have been successful in obtaining shops. Since we allow successful tenderers to change trades, they can adapt themselves to changes in market demand. If they have chosen to do a particular trade and they find that that is not successful, they can always change to another trade. But, of course, the person who intended to open a provision shop cannot become a medical doctor. 1.00 pm

In order to accommodate such requirements, the HDB is now considering allowing tenants to sublet or assign their premises as long as they are paying market rates. So a successful tenderer, if he is paying the market rate, can assign or sublet; he can divide the shop into two, half of it can be a barber shop and the other half can be something else, if he wants to. This is being finalised and as soon as it is ready, I will make an announcement.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, you have very little time left, so I suggest you make your point.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged, Sir. Sir, I would like to touch on this tender system again which the Minister has answered just now. The high cost of renting and the sale of purchase flats were first highlighted by the hon. Member for Nee Soon South yesterday. Of course this system is good for the HDB because there is a shortage of shops and there is a great demand for them. When there is a tender, the prices will skyrocket. The Minister himself has pointed out the vast difference between the prices of the old system of renting out and the present tender system. There is almost a difference of $20 per square metre. We have also heard of absolute prices of $3 million sale of shops and $3,000 rentals and I myself have similar experience at Potong Pasir.

I was astounded to learn that one coffeeshop was tendered out at $36,000 per month rental. And I was just wondering how such high rentals can survive in the market. How can the tenant do such a great amount of business to make a profit? And sure enough, three months later, he had to give the shop back to the HDB and this was not that long ago.

The Minister has said that there were safeguards. I wonder whether the safeguards really have been implemented or not. The important question is: why does the HDB accept such high tender price? I think it is in a way irresponsible on the part of the HDB. Surely, after 30 years of experience in the real estate business, it must know that such high tender price is not sustainable.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, could I ask you to state your point because we still have one more amendment under this Head and the guillotine time is at 1.10 pm? Could you make your point so that the Minister can give his reply?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, the important point for the Minister to look into is whether the HDB has lost its aim of providing social needs at affordable prices. It would appear that the HDB has gone overboard. It has forgotten that it is a public body and that it is not a private company, all out to make profit. As has been pointed out, with all these high rentals and purchase price, the residents at HDB flats will have to pay a higher cost of living, if the HDB continues to maintain this tender system.

I would ask the Minister whether or not he will balance the social needs and the probability of the HDB bringing down the shop rentals and purchase prices to a reasonable amount. The Minister has asked for suggestions. I would say that although there is an actual shortage of shops, the prices could be pegged to a reasonable market price. The HDB can never lose money.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, we are running out of time on this amendment. I have given you too much time already. I think I will ask the Minister to give his reply. We have to move on to the next amendment. Mr Dhanabalan.

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, actually no new points have been made. First of all, there is a wrong impression that there is an old and new tender system. There is only one tender system. What I said was that the tenders two years ago were much lower than what they are today. But it does not mean that tenders keep going up all the time. In fact, HDB's experience shows that if the economy grows slowly, the tenders come down. In the second quarter of 1990 to January 1991, there was in fact a decrease of 12% in the tender prices. So the tenders do, in fact, reflect the market price, and it is absurd to suggest that the HDB should not accept the higher tenders.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (8), Dr Koh.

Dr Koh Lam Son (Telok Blangah): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 3400 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I wish to bring two problems to the attention of the Ministry faced by the Town Councils in carrying out its bread-and-butter duties. First, I would like to point out that it appears there is an overlap of functions between the Town Councils and the HDB and this has caused a little confusion among the residents as to which functions the Town Councils have taken over and which functions are still run by HDB. Presently, Town Councils are taking a public relations drive to explain to the residents what its duties are and where the HDB comes into play. And I would like to seek more cooperation from HDB to help the Town Councils in this job.

The second issue which I would like to raise is regarding the Community Improvement Project Committee (CIPC) fund. I would like to request the Ministry to increase the fund which, at the moment, stands at $10 million. I think this is not adequate for the Town Councils to carry out the interim upgrading programme. I hope that the Ministry will consider this and I would also like to request that the list of projects eligible for qualification for the CIPC fund should be extended to include other items such as the upgrading of lift lobbies, which many MPs will agree, is a very common request by residents, and also the inclusion of other common places, corridors, and even the facade of blocks.

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Peter Sung): Mr Chairman, Sir, before Town Councils take over the management of estates, there is widespread publicity, so that citizens and residents would know about the roles of the Town Councils. Also, Town Councils have their own newsletters and, I think, through this process, the knowledge would be spread. However, HDB and Town Council officers coordinate with one another and they continue to do so. When HDB officers visit the estates or the flats, queries that are addressed to the HDB officers will be noted and these will be passed on to Town Councils. We should encourage HDB Branch officers and Town Council officers to coordinate with one another.

On CIPC funding, I would like to inform the House that for year 1990, there were sufficient funds. In 1990, there were 230 projects which were funded by CIPC. The total amount spent was $7 million out of the $10 million budget. If there is a need for more funds, HDB or MND will find the money. We will try to get more funds from the Ministry of Finance.

We will encourage residents, through their CCCs and their Town Councils, to contribute to and participate in the upgrading and beautification of their estates.

As to the types of projects that would be funded by CIPC, we can consider improving or increasing the list when worthy projects are put forward.

Dr Koh Lam Son: I wish to withdraw the amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $333,579,010 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,777,190,700 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head L -

The Chairman: Head L - Ministry of Education. Amendment No. (1), 180 minutes, Dr Ong Chit Chung.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, first I want to declare my interest as an academic staff. The GPC on Education welcomes the Government's commitment to raise the percentage of GDP devoted to Education from 4% to 5%. I think this is worthy of support by all of us. In my opinion, no expenditure on education is ever too large because it is an investment in our children and in Singapore's future.

However, I wish to ask the Minister for his preliminary evaluation of the Preparatory Year programme, whether the children who enter Primary 1 after their Preparatory Year would be able to do so with greater confidence and competency in languages, as it was set out to be, and whether we have invested rightly in this programme.

The Ministry has also announced that 10 to 20 primary schools will also introduce an alternative Preparatory Year programme, which will offer mother tongue to Malay and Indian children. This move is most welcome. Though the numbers of Malay and Indian children involved may be relatively small, I would like to appeal to the Ministry to help ensure that at least some cluster of schools in the major geographical areas throughout the island will run this alternative Preparatory Year programme for these children.

Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address, the Minister declared that "eventually all 5-year olds will attend Preparatory Year Programme". This underlines that the Preparatory Year is wholesome, entirely desirable, essential and not to be missed. Yet in the same breath, the Ministry pronounced that the Preparatory Year is not part of formal schooling and should, in the long-run, be the responsibilities of the parents and the private sector. Why, Sir, this seemingly arbitrary ruling? Should not this essential Preparatory Year be included as part of formal schooling?

In view of our multi-racial heritage and the need to give our children a good grounding in their mother tongue and English, the inclusion of the Preparatory Year and the consequent extension of formal schooling by one more year is justifiable. The Ministry must also bear in mind that it is extremely difficult, indeed an uphill task, for the private sector kindergartens and education centres to come anywhere near the standards set by our schools, or to match the Ministry in terms of facilities, playgrounds, teacher recruitment and expertise. If the Ministry expects this gap to be filled by the private sector, may I ask what assistance would the Ministry give? Will there be capital grants for the upgrading of facilities? Will there be help in training and curriculum development? And most important of all, will the fees charged by these private kindergartens and education centres be affordable so that the majority of our population will benefit from this essential programme?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Sir, I welcome the introduction of the Preparatory Year programme for children aged five years by the Ministry of Education. Before I proceed further, I wish to declare my interest in that I am the Chairman of the PAP Community Foundation Kindergartens Committee.

Sir, the Ministry of Education has taken on a big challenge in accepting the Preparatory Year programme as part of its responsibilities. I can understand the logic in extending the formal education programme for another year to allow for language acquisition. The standard of the Ministry's Preparatory Year programme is indeed very high. The teachers involved have gone through an orientation course. Let us remind ourselves that these are fully-trained teachers, now handling what is traditionally known as kindergarten classes. The curriculum developed by the CDIS is of a very high quality. The facilities and the amenities provided are also of very high standard. Each class is provided with a complete set of teaching aids and audio-visual equipment including VCRs, TVs and overhead projectors. Very few kindergartens in the private sector can match this programme; not even the "up-market" private kindergartens. The mission of the PAP Community Foundation Kindergartens is to provide good quality kindergarten education at an affordable cost, at neighbourhood level. We have improved our standards in an upgrading exercise over 1986-1988 and will be embarking on another exercise over the next three years. The Community Foundation will play its part in helping to better prepare our younger ones for Primary 1. 1.15 pm

Sir, I believe that I speak not only for the Foundation but for all private kindergartens when I ask the Ministry to assist the private kindergartens to upgrade. The Minister has already announced that private kindergartens have an important role to play and that the Ministry will be glad to assist. The specific requests that I would like to make are:

First, sharing of kindergarten materials. Sir, the Ministry has spent much time and money and is the only body that has the expertise to develop this curriculum and indeed they have come up with a good curriculum. The sharing of this curriculum with the private sector will indeed be a big step towards helping the private sector to upgrade.

Secondly, assistance in teacher training. There is a pressing need for more places in the Institute of Education's programme to help the private sector upgrade. With the mobility of many of the teachers who leave kindergarten teaching as a career, there is a need to constantly train new teachers to ensure that we have properly qualified teachers.

Thirdly, in the realm of capital grant for physical upgrading and the acquisition of teaching aids and audio-visual aids, a one-time grant to assist upgrading, I think, is proper.

Finally, Sir, the bottom line is always the question of affordability. We can run very good classes, but will the cost be affordable to the majority? Perhaps the Ministry can consider a subsidy programme comparable to the MCD's child care programme. As the child care programme has the societal aspect, so also has the kindergarten or pre-school education. The challenge to the private sector is not only to upgrade but to upgrade and yet keep cost affordable. For this, we need Government's help.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, the primary Day School programme is not only educationally sound and enriching, it also meets the social needs of our society, especially in homes where both parents are working and young children are left unsupervised for the greater part of the day. This programme is therefore particularly helpful to those from the lower income group. It demonstrates that this Government cares for them. I therefore hope that the Day School will give more time and also for the children to have longer breaks in between. Children in this age group, I think, need more time to play, to develop and to enjoy schooling. Otherwise all work and no play will make Jack a very dull boy.

I remember that while I was in England on research, my two sons attended British Day School and they thoroughly enjoyed the schooling there. It was an enriching experience for them. I am sure our Day School will do even better. My only regret is that it took so many years to come up with this programme and we have to make do for the time being with a limited pilot project. It is too long, too few, but better late than never.

I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that teachers are adequately compensated for the extra duties and they are not over taxed, and that airconditioned staff lounges are made available for the teachers to rest. May I also ask whether most parents would be able to pay the extra fees, particularly those from the target lower income group. I also hope that schools in this pilot project will reflect a cross-section of our society. They should not be just schools with well endowed parents from one locality, for example, Holland Road or Bukit Timah district.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I welcome the proposal by the Ministry of Education to set up a pilot Day School programme in some primary schools. Presently, most of the students from the well to do families have private tutors to give them tuition after school. Some attend lessons in piano, ballet, violin, swimming, arts, etc. On the other hand, pupils from the poorer families are denied these opportunities. The Day School programme would help to correct this deviation. It will also ensure fair competition among pupils by allowing everyone to start at the same starting point, regardless of their family background. This proposal is warmly welcomed and supported by the parents.

Under the Day School programme, pupils will be able to learn and study under the supervision and care of the teachers in the school. Between 3.30 pm and 6.00 pm, they could stay behind in school to do their homework, to participate in recreational activities or opt from some extramural classes. This will certainly be better than having them left at home without guidance when faced with difficulties and having no tutors or brothers and sisters to help them.

Besides the implementation of the Day School programme would provide the children with the opportunity to interact with their classmates and teachers and promote better understanding and enhances the relationship among pupils and teachers. Moreover, for women who are working, they would feel more at ease, now that their children would not be left at home unattended. I would raise both my hands in full support of this policy and I hope that more schools would be encouraged to participate in this scheme.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Day School programme meets both a social need and an educational need.

Social need

With more and more couples entering the workforce, having a Day School is a relief to the young parents. This is much more desirable than leaving the child with a foreign maid or to the TV set. Furthermore, we have read of tragedies to young children left unattended at home.

Educational need

The opportunity to give the child a more relaxing and enriched school day is welcomed. No more haste of getting up at 6.00 am and the cramming of lessons. The schools will be able to plan a more broad-based curriculum. The children will be able to spend more time with their peers and there will bemore time for students and teachers to interact.

One of the nightmares of parents and students today is that of tuition classes, tuition of English, Mathematics, Chinese, mother tongue. Even at kindergarten level, it is not uncommon. Hopefully, with Day Schools there will be sufficient time to cope with academic work and enrichment classes within the curriculum time of 8.30 am to 3.30 pm.

Another aim of the Day School must be to provide a choice of extracurricular activities to children so that parents need not have to arrange for swimming lessons, music classes, etc, outside the school. The Day School would have served a pressing social and educational need if parents are saved the problem of shuttling their children from one activity to another.

Sir, at this point let me voice some concerns. Firstly, food. The quality of food served in schools now becomes very critical, as the child will be having more than one meal including lunch in school. A well-balanced and nutritious diet at reasonable cost is important. Will the present-day concept of the school tuckshop be sufficient? Perhaps the Ministry of the Environment, with its vast experience in managing food establishments, should assist and advise schools. The livelihood of tuckshop vendors must be considered. We should help them to reorganise to meet their new challenge. Water coolers should be provided for children, as we know that living on flavoured drinks alone will lead to obesity and tooth decay.

Secondly, changing and bathing facilities. With the whole Day School programme, children must be provided with proper bathing facilities. Our children's hygiene should not be neglected.

Thirdly, transportation. Many of the Scheme B buses now send children to school early in the morning and office workers to their workplace later. With schools starting at 8.30 am, new transport arrangements need to be made.

Fourthly, pleasant learning environment. Mr Speaker, Sir, to optimise the learning day, especially when the school may stretch up to 6.30 pm for some, we should now consider airconditioned classrooms. In this hot and humid environment, after spending millions on the Day School programme, should we not consider airconditioning to allow for better concentration? Let us not be hypocritical about this. Adults work in airconditioned environment. University lecture halls are airconditioned. This House is nice and cool. Why? To provide a more conducive work environment. So why not for students and teachers?

Finally, Sir, the success of the Day School programme lies with one key factor, the teachers. Let us not neglect their needs - proper offices, staff rooms, teachers' lounge for rest and recreation, bathing facilities, etc. In a Day School concept, the needs of the school would be more like that of an army camp rather than a school. Teachers' mess like officers' mess, lockers for personal effects, bathing and changing facilities, etc, will be required. Let us not be afraid that we be accused of spoiling them, as in the teachers' hands lie the future of our children.

Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin: Mr Chairman, I have three cuts under this Head. May I seek your indulgence and speak on the three cuts at one go?

The Chairman: You have to speak on the topic of Day School.

Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin: Yes, Sir.

Sir, with regard to the Day School system, I hope that the Day School will eventually cover all schools and involve students and their parents. However, parents who may be involved in the pilot project in these few selected schools may be concerned particularly over the question of the school fees that will be charged. Higher school fees mean higher cost of living and higher cost of living means a greater responsibility, a heavier burden and more resources to be expended. This concern could be alleviated if the Ministry of Education or the schools concerned are able to provide programmes justifying the amount of fees paid by parents.

I realise that the revamping of the school system would mean higher MOE allocations to the selected schools. And, to meet the demands of the programmes run by these Day Schools, more financial provisions, expertise and administrative framework will have to be allocated from time to time. Of course, the MOE would not be able to absorb all these cost increases, and eventually part of it would have to be borne by parents. This means monthly fees going up as the costs of running these programmes rise. I would like to ask the Minister what measures the MOE is considering to control the increase in fees to ensure that they do not become a stumbling block to these schools' programmes. Rising fees could also force parents, having no other recourse, to resort to their Edusave accounts in order to defray this cost, leading to a very narrow application of the Edusave scheme, that is, solely for the payment of school fees.

The Day School system is also viewed by some people as an effort to alleviate the problem faced by parents in looking after their children outside curriculum hours. The alleviation of this problem, however, leads to another problem, that of parents having a reduced role in bringing up their children, since part of the time spent by children outside curriculum hours will now become the responsibility of the school. In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister what his Ministry is doing to make available programmes specifically designed to increase parental involvement in schools, not just in the children's programme but directly with the school.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Seet Ai Mee): Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to inform the House that currently the Preparatory Year programme in English and Chinese is conducted in 10 primary Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools. In 1992, there will be five additional primary SAP schools, making a total of 15 primary Special Assistance Plan schools.

The Ministry of Education will also, in 1992, introduce the parallel Preparatory Year programme in 15-20 primary schools, where all three mother tongues, Malay, Tamil and Chinese, will be taught. This is following from the feedback and requests from Malay and Tamil MPs and after discussion with them.

Dr Ong Chit Chung has asked about the Ministry of Education's philosophy that Preparatory Year programme be the responsibility of parents and the private sector. It is not just the Ministry of Education of Singapore's philosophy. It is worldwide. The Government takes responsibility for the education of children during the school-going years. The years before have always been the direct responsibility of parents.

The Member for Fengshan has appealed for Government assistance in helping private kindergartens upgrade. Government can assist in infrastructural and developmental costs. The criteria for this assistance have yet to be worked out. Operating and recurrent costs, however, will have to be met through fees.

He has also asked about the sharing of kindergarten materials. The materials and programmes which have been piloted in our Preparatory Year will be made available to all private kindergartens for pre-school programmes at reasonable cost, ie, excluding developmental cost, but the kindergartens will have to pay for the printing cost.

As for the training of kindergarten teachers, I have invited Dr Arthur Beng and another representative from the PAP Kindergarten Foundation, to be part of a committee to look into the short-term solution to the training of teachers of pre-school programmes. It will also look into the long-term provision. This is timely, as in July 1992, the National Institute of Education will be formed, and it is good that we should at this time consider the direction training of pre-school teachers should take.

Sir, I thank Members who have spoken on the Day School programme for their support of the scheme.

With reference to Dr Ong Chit Chung's and the Member for Fengshan's questions, allow me to first give you details of our pilot primary Day School programme. The Ministry will pilot the Day School programme in a few schools first. This is to allow us time to work out the facilities and staffing required as well as to improve on the implementation of the programme. Three schools which are already functioning as single-session schools will begin the Day School programme in January 1992. They are Pei Hwa Primary School, Rosyth Primary School and St. Michael's Primary School. Two other schools, namely, Henry Park Primary School and Nanyang Primary School, will join the programme in June 1992, after renovation works on their extensions are completed. A few other schools will join the programme later.

We are piloting the Day School programme in stages because we want to lay a good groundwork and see to its smooth implementation. We will be making adjustments to the programme as we go along, in terms of staffing, facilities and structure of the Day School programmes. For example, the lunch and the after-school care programmes are new to us. We need to address the issues of logistics and criteria. Let me assure Dr Arthur Beng that the Ministry of Education is as concerned as he is about the nutritious quality and hygienic conditions of preparation for lunch. We are now having active discussions between my Ministry officials and food caterers. At the school end, principals are liaising with their tuckshop vendors for the provision of small snacks for the recess breaks. As official announce- ment of the Day School programme was made only on Tuesday, 26th February 1991, in this House, the Ministry of Education could not liaise with caterers or food vendors until after the announcement. Hence, details of lunch to be provided will only be available later.

In the setting up of this programme, we need the support of teachers and parents involved in the programme. Feedback from them will also help us tune the programme to meet the specific needs of our children.

In answer to Dr Beng's queries regarding facilities, yes, shower facilities and air-conditioning to teachers' lounges will be provided in the Day Schools. His suggestion of water coolers is a good one, and one that we will certainly look into. However, air-conditioning of all classrooms is another problem. Currently, it is not under consideration.

We are also aware of the problems of bus operators who, besides ferrying children to and from school, provide transport for office and factory workers. The principals of our pilot schools will be meeting with these bus operators and asking them how they can accommodate these changes. As these schools are starting at 8.30 am, hence neighbourhood children can leave home in the brightness of day, hence walk-to-school schemes can be promoted for neighbourhood children.

As I have informed this House on 26th February, the 3.30 pm to 6.00 pm programme is an after-school care programme organised for the convenience of parents on a full paying basis. If parents opt for group activity programmes, like supervised home work, remedial lessons, enrichment programmes, and group teaching of music, or group sports and games like Tae-kwan-do, the cost will be lower. If, however, they opt for piano lessons with an instructor and a student ratio of one is to one, the cost incurred will definitely be much higher. I would like to tell the Member for Fengshan also that we are sending out a questionnaire to all parents under the programme to see what they would like to have under this programme so that the principals in the pilot schools can start making arrangements and tailoring the programme according to the requests.

Encik Abdul Nasser, Member for Hong Kah GRC, has expressed concern about the fees. The Government is funding all developmental and infrastructural costs. The increase in miscellaneous fees, an increase of $20 over the existing fees of $5 per month, is to meet the additional operation costs from the longer operational hours and extra programmes and additional staff. The principle that Government is adopting is that Government will pay the cost of educating a child under current normal provision, and that costs over and above this provision will have to be borne by parents whose children are benefitting from the additional services and the programmes provided.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, the recent changes in education are, by and large, very well received by both parents and educators alike. I do not know whether it is due to in-born humility or by tactical design, the Ministry chose to label this report as "Improving Primary School Education" and dubbed its efforts as "fine-tuning".

But these are indeed extensive and major improvements of the whole education system, from primary to university admission, and years from now, I can say, it will be seen as a major watershed, no less in impact than the Goh Keng Swee Education Report of 1978. We must therefore give credit where credit is due, and commend the group of educators headed by the Director of Education, Mr John Yip, for a job well done. I am particularly glad that the professionals are involved in playing the leading role in all these changes.

It is particularly encouraging that these changes are tailored or customized, so to speak, to help the 20% of our children who are less academically inclined, many of whom come from the lower income groups. It allows them to develop at their own pace and the doors to the polytechnics and the universities are not closed to them, especially for those who are late developers.

Sir, this gives the children a measure of self-worth and confidence, a ray of hope and the promise of advancement in the future. This is as it should be, for we have reached a stage in our national development where we should value the contribution of each and every Singaporean, whatever their station of life they may be in.

But it is one thing to design the system and another to operate it. I notice that many teachers and parents are still not clear about these changes. I hope the Ministry will do more to spread the message at the grassroots level in schools, and actively involve the teachers and parents in this exercise.

I would also like to ask if the Minister will reassure parents that the changes would not diminish the importance of the mother tongue, and that bilingualism and the Asian cultural values are still the cornerstone of our education system.

The Normal (Technical) Stream is a particularly attractive and innovative course with subjects like computer application. Would the Ministry ensure that sufficient places would be made available, lest parents and students are disappointed when the time comes for them to apply.

Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, under the new education system, every child will have an opportunity to receive 10 years of basic education. This has a very positive effect in enhancing the quality of education. I would like to deal with the problem of the promotion of primary school children to secondary school, in particular the technical stream students. They take up about 15% to 20% of the student population. According to the Ministry's Education Improvement Report, these children are termed as "academically less inclined". So a special syllabus has to be arranged for them. Also, priority will be given to their learning of English and Mathematics. Mother tongue will be taught only at "oral proficiency" level. They do not have to learn writing and reading in their mother tongue. Sir, this kind of curricula in fact start from Primary 5. I have some views to make on this kind of arrangement.

Sir, looking from the experience of the past few years, there is one thing which is very clear, and that is that those children who are sent to the Normal class in a secondary school are usually found to be weakest in English, but not the mother tongue. According to the 'O' level results of last year, the 'N5' students have 32% passes in English language, but the passes in their mother tongue exceeded 80%. So I believe those students who will be sent to the normal technical stream will perform in a similar manner in examination, that is to say, they would have poor results in English but good or at least passable results in their mother tongue.

So in these circumstances, Sir, these students will be forced to learn a subject in which they are weak, but they will not be given sufficient opportunity to learn a subject in which they are strong. They will be only required to learn up to oral proficiency. This will have very adverse effect on their education. All the time we have been emphasising on the importance of maintaining our cultural roots and heritage. We have this group of 15%-20% students whose learning of their mother tongue is pegged at only the oral proficiency level without the ability to write and read. So in such a situation how do we expect these students to understand their cultural heritage?

Sir, I believe in considering the future of this lot of 15%-20% students, the Ministry of Education is certain that they will become our technical people of the future who are going to contribute to the economic development of our country. That being the case, their work attitude and the way they interact with others is also very important. If their work attitude is negative and sluggish, and they are unable to live harmoniously with others, then their productivity will certainly be adversely affected, and the economy of the country will also directly suffer because of that. So how to ensure that this group of 15%-20% students will maintain their own traditional cultural heritage so that they will have the right attitudes to life and the right values, is something we should not overlook and neglect.

Sir, the effect of education cannot be seen within a short time. For the effect to really take place, it will be many, many years later. Perhaps at that time it will be too late to remedy this effect. As such, we must be prepared for any eventuality. Plan ahead well in advance, to ensure that our education system will achieve its historical mission of carrying forward the cause and forging ahead into the future.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Sir, the twin pillars of our education system ever since the PAP Government assumed power have been, first, to ensure our economic well-being and progress through the teaching of English, Mathematics and Science and, secondly, to strengthen our moral and cultural ballast through the teaching of the mother tongue. The fact that we have achieved so much as a nation politically, economically and socially is due in no small measure to our strict adherence to these two fundamental educational objectives.

Throughout the years, despite the many changes that have been made to the education system, these two fundamental objectives have remained constant.

In the latest overall review of the education system, the Education Minister has reiterated his Ministry's commitment to these two fundamental objectives. I commend the Education Minister for this. For any shift from these fundamental objectives will be a disaster to Singapore and Singaporeans economically, particularly when our only means of livelihood and improving our economic well-being lies in the skills of our people to compete on the global market for trade and foreign investments, on which our economy is heavily dependent. We succeed because of the keenness of our competitive edge. Soon this competitive edge has to be further sharpened as our neighbours and the rest of our region become poised to enter the next phase of their economic development. While these two fundamental objectives continue to make our education system an effective whetstone for our competitiveness, there is no denying that there still remain certain inadequacies in our primary school system, for example, the denial of secondary education to the monolingual cohort and the early streaming at Primary 3. 1.45 pm

I therefore welcome the move to give all primary school pupils the opportunity to continue to complete four years of secondary education in a stream suited to their individual ability. Ten years of general education will better prepare the academically less inclined young Singaporeans, both physically and mentally, to enter the VITB. They will be more mature and better equipped for the training they will receive.

With the upgrading of its courses and entry requirements, VITB's image will be enhanced and the stigma associated with premature school leavers and dropouts will be removed. This, together with the introduction of the Normal (Technical) Stream in our secondary schools will give our students a positive attitude towards technical education and vocational training.

I am particularly encouraged by the move to provide those who are less academically inclined with a programme that concentrates on the learning of English, Mathematics and Computer Applications and that excludes the cramming of other subjects. This move recognises that we must provide future workers with meaningful basic skills which will stand them in good stead in an increasingly high-tech world.

I see the changes as a bold initiative to help weaker pupils make the grade and to give them the opportunity to acquire useful and relevant skills so that they too can play an instrumental role in our society.

Another change which is significant is the shifting of the streaming year from Primay 3 to Primary 4. There is no denying that the streaming is and will always be a contentious issue. It is nonetheless gratifying to note that more maturational time will now be given to each child before his or her placement is determined. I am sure parents will welcome this move.

In making these changes, the Ministry of Education has maintained rightly that the element of parental choice will remain and be respected. This is important.

While the proposed educational changes are welcomed, I must, however, point out that these changes alone will not by themselves bring about the desired effect of improving the quality of education. What is also important is the morale of the teaching profession which, to some extent, is dependent on their conditions of work. I have raised two matters regarding the air-conditioning of staff rooms and additional non-teaching staff. I will bring these matters up when the amendments come up for debate.

Let me just end by making a brief comment about the Day School pilot project.

There are several highly commendable features in the proposed Day School pilot project. What is necessary is for the Ministry of Education to present these as an attractive package deal to both parents and teachers.

It is heartening to note that the Ministry met the principals and teachers in the pilot schools to give them more information and win their support for the project. If it is well-managed and properly run, the Day School programme will undoubtedly benefit the children. We must carefully monitor and nurture the scheme to ensure that this is so. The Day School programme must bring about a qualitative improvement in primary school education. The key factor in this regard would be the principals of the schools involved. They must not overdo things, as this would over-burden both children and teachers.

I would like to further propose that the Ministry should also meet the parents of the children in the pilot schools, so that they too can have a proper understanding of what the scheme can and should achieve.

For one thing it must be clear to the parents that the Day School is not just another name for a day care centre. Neither does the Day School scheme diminish parental role and responsibility in the moral upbringing of their children.

Children can and will do just so much during school hours. There is a limit to what they can absorb within that time. Their parents must continue to supervise and encourage them in their work at home and complement the work done in the school.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I just want to touch on one point, and that is the postponement of the third year of primary school common examination to the fourth year.

This has been very much highlighted by the Government and was said to be an improvement. But, Sir, I do not think that it would help those that are slow developers. As far as that group of children is concerned, if they cannot pass the common examination in the first year of schooling, they probably will not do so in the fourth year or the next year after. It is well known amongst educationists that the development of the cognitive abilities of the average child does not markedly develop at ages nine and 10 years old. For the average children, they begin to do so only after 11 years old. So if you postpone it by one year, it will not make any difference to this particular group of slow developers. As far as we can see, this is the so-called major change in delaying this common examination by one year. And to me, this is not based on educational considerations but on political ones.

It is well known that in the early years before the Goh Keng Swee Report was implemented, which introduced the common examination at the third year of primary school, the rate of attrition of the PSLE examination was very high, something like 45% to 48%. It was a source of embarrassment to the Government. To solve that problem, it is not to weed out the so-called weaker students but rather to improve the quality of our school system such as having a low pupil-teacher ratio, which I have advocated for many years.

I welcome the single session school. This is an improvement on our education system. We want more effective teaching. We want our teachers better trained and better motivated, and then perhaps we can really tackle the problem at its source. Educationally, I would say forcing our school children to sit for a common examination at an early age is not sound and I would in fact advocate that even the common examination in the fourth year be scrapped. There are other bad effects. A child at an early age is a very sensitive person. Once he is branded as a failure at age nine or 10, it is very difficult for him to rehabilitate himself. So I would suggest that instead of taking the easy way out, the Minister should look into the source of the problem.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC): Sir, I strongly support the move by the Ministry of Education to improve the primary and secondary education system from 1992. This fine-tuning process is timely as we are geared towards challenges in the next century and we need to cut down educational wastage to the minimum.

The main reasons for supporting this proposal are, firstly, it helps weaker pupils to study according to their own abilities. Secondly, it allows for late developers to move into the mainstream of the system. Thirdly, it prepares pupils to do higher academic studies and also technical training and, most importantly, it allows every child a chance to undergo at least 10 years of education.

Sir, the new system allows for lateral transfers of pupils. I wish to ask how lateral transfers are to be carried out between streams in the primary and secondary schools. At what level of achievement would a pupil need to attain in order to move, say, from a normal (technical) stream to normal (academic), and then to express stream in the secondary school, or from the EL1 and mother tongue (oral) stream to EL1 and mother tongue (second language), and then to EL1 and mother tongue (L1) stream in the primary school?

The Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE) will be changed to a placement test. Pupils will be placed into the various streams in the secondary schools. I wish to ask whether pupils who do not do well in the modified PSLE be allowed to retake the examinations in the following year. If a pupil is streamed to the secondary normal (technical) course and his parents want the child to repeat, would the Ministry give him the choice to do so? And will the Ministry of Education allow an additional year of study at the orientation stage in the primary school level? I hope in the process of having lateral transfers, the Ministry of Education will be flexible enough to allow pupils to repeat.

Sir, it is also noted that under the present system, 85% of 3,700 pupils who complete eight years of primary education join the VITB. However, sad to say that only 55% of them are able to acquire at least an NTC 3. That means, more than half of the 3,700 pupils do not have any vocational qualifications at all even after more than eight or nine years of study. I hope with these proposed changes to the system, we can prevent such a large number of pupils leaving school prematurely. They would, hopefully, be allowed to proceed to the normal (technical) stream in secondary schools where they get another four years of education.

I wish to add a note of caution to the Ministry of Education about this group of pupils. There would be some who will drop out along the way and the same problem of leaving school prematurely will prevail. I wish to suggest to the Ministry of Education to consider having a special vocational training like an apprenticeship scheme for pupils who do not wish to continue their studies in the normal (technical) stream. I think the Ministry of Education can work out this apprenticeship scheme with some big companies. 2.00 pm

Sir, the emphasis on quality education is a very wise move. As our human resource is a valuable asset, we must ensure that every child gets a good education.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I am happy to note that the Ministry of Education has accepted the recommendations by the Review Committee on improving primary and secondary schools.

I support, in principle, the future changes to our education system. We should not allow primary education to determine the future of our children. I feel that the only area of this improvement that needs attention is that we should not force the 15% to 20% less academically inclined children to learn English as first language. As Mr Chin Harn Tong has said, most of these pupils come from the lower-income groups. Their language ability has been constrained by the mother tongue background in their families and therefore they are not able to master English, but they are able to learn their mother tongue well. They are afraid of learning English and they prefer to learn their mother tongue. So if you use English as the first language, then they may give up the idea of schooling altogether. And this is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Review Committee, ie, to give 10 years of education to these children.

We know that for some students the language proficiency may not be very good, even if they are academically inclined. And for those less academically inclined, then it would be worse. So if you make it compulsory for these students to learn English as the first language, it would not be in their interest because they would then drop out from schools and become problem children and problem youth in our society.

I also feel that to allow these children to learn their mother tongue only at the oral proficiency level will make it impossible for them to master either English or their mother tongue. So this will not be in keeping with what the Minister for Education has said in emphasising the importance of mother tongue. He said: "We do not wish to be a pseudo-Western society. We should not allow the use of English to override the importance of keeping our link to our cultural heritage." So I would like to recommend that the Government should change their policy to ensure that these children take English and Chinese both at second language level. Because learning English at second language level will lessen the pressure on them. It will also ensure that these students do not drop out because of the inability to adjust to the new system. And it will also ensure that it is easier for them to switch stream if they wish and are able to. It will also ensure that the parents will not have the thinking that the sincerity of the Ministry of Education is not genuine.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two suggestions to make. According to the Report, a new Normal (Technical) Course within the 4-5 year secondary Normal Course will be introduced to give the 15% to 20% least academically inclined pupils more educational options. What I say now is slightly different from what Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Peh Chin Hua have said.

Those who are able can do an additional year for 'O' level examination. This means that the 15% to 20% students will have to take the 'N' and 'O' level examinations (that is, two examinations), whereas the others will be able to take the 'O' level examination (that is, only one examination) without going through the 'N' level course. This was the practice before the new proposed changes. If this is correct, and basically there is no change, then this seems to be an unnecessary burden on the 15% to 20% of the students and might even prevent them from sitting for their 'O' level examinations later on. I understand, Sir, that 'O' level passes are the basic criteria for many private courses like those of the LCCI (London Chamber of Commerce and Industry). Therefore, in order not to disadvantage any student, all students should be given the opportunity to sit for the 'O' level examination.

The 'N' level examination, in other words, Sir, should be scrapped. If 'N' level examination is to allow students who have academic difficulties to have lower-recognised qualifications, then a grading system of 'O' level examination may well serve the same purpose. This would allow all students to take the 'O' level examination together. I hope the Minister will look into this and see if this could be carried out.

The second suggestion I want to make concerns bilingualism and the mother tongue, already touched on by Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Peh Chin Hua.

Of late, PAP Ministers have frequently emphasized the importance of the mother tongue. However, in spite of that, it would appear that the proposed changes in the education system will still not really give adequate importance to the study of the mother tongue after all. There is, to my thinking, an over-emphasis on the working language (that is, English) in the Report. 33% of curriculum time is to be devoted to the working language (English). English is also used for the teaching of Mathematics (20%), Science and other subjects (20%). English, thus, takes up 73% of the curriculum time as against 27% being devoted to the mother tongue for the inculcation of core values, the same as before the proposed changes. If it is intended that students be truly proficient and have a good foundation in the mother tongue, many people believe, and I agree with them, that this 27% curriculum time devoted to the mother tongue is insufficient. It has to be remembered, Sir, that after 30 years of PAP education, many students speak not the mother tongue at home, but English and dialects, or a mixture of them all, especially to the older folks.

If the curriculum time devoted to the mother tongue remains the same at 27%, as in the now-to-be-discarded old-fashioned education policy, then students will still have the same old difficulties of acquiring a good foundation in the mother tongue. Only 10% of students learn both English and the mother tongue at the first language level. 50% will learn English as the first language and the mother tongue as the second language, as in the past. This would result in a bilingualism that is slanted much in favour of English as against the mother tongue. Students would be able to speak the mother tongue, but may have difficulty in reading, and probably greater difficulty in writing, the mother tongue. This, in fact, is what PAP bilingualism hitherto really is. I believe we should avoid falling into the old slanted bilingualism rut.

In order to ensure that students be truly proficient in the mother tongue, both in speaking and in writing, clearly more curriculum time should be devoted to learning the mother tongue. Has the Minister plans to do that? Or would the Committee consider using the mother tongue, not merely for learning Asian values and morals, but also other subjects taught in the school as well? This would mean, of course, increasing the curriculum time for the mother tongue from the proposed 27% to, say, 40%.

English would still be the dominant language with at least, say, 60% curriculum time (though some educationists, who have been called from overseas to come to Singapore to give lectures, have advocated that in order to have a good foundation in the mother tongue, primary schools should be taught, if not all, then most of the time, in the mother tongue).

The Government has often emphasised the need for a strong foundation of English in order to plug into the world of science and technology. But experience has taught us that countries which have only limited curriculum time for learning English, for example, Japan, do not trail behind, and can even do much better in science and technology than, countries that devote all curriculum time to learning the English language as, for example, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Language is therefore not the main and deciding factor in learning technology. Singapore is, of course, a multi-racial, multi-religious nation. We are having English as our common working language. But in order to improve our foundation of the mother tongue, would the Minister review the conclusions of the Report and adopt appropriate changes where necessary?

The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Sir, let me first thank all Members who have spoken concerning the recent proposed changes to our educational policies and for their valuable comments and views.

As I have stressed many times in this House and as we all know education is of fundamental importance to Singapore and to Singaporeans. This is why, Sir, the Government has put such a high priority on the need to provide high quality education for our children.

Sir, the restructuring of our education system really began in 1979 with the publication of the Report on the Ministry of Education by Dr Goh Keng Swee. Since then, Sir, we have significantly upgraded and expanded secondary, post-secondary and tertiary education. And at the Schools Council meeting last Saturday, the Ministry made public the proposed measures to improve primary school education and to upgrade vocational and technical training in our institutions.

Sir, I thank all Members for their support for the proposed measures. When these measures have been implemented, Sir, I am satisfied that we would have addressed the major deficiencies in our education system. There should, therefore, not be a need to make further radical changes in educational policies in the coming years. What would be needed is to focus on particular problems or issues that would inevitably arise from time to time. Where possible, Sir, we should try out new educational policies or practices through pilot projects, for example, the Primary Day School programme which will be tried out next year. These pilot projects will help us identify difficulties or problems that will arise in the course of implementation. When the pilot project has been proved to be successful, the new policies or practices can then be implemented in more schools, so that eventually the benefits can be enjoyed by all children in Singapore. In this way, Sir, we will be able to implement necessary changes to educational policies with a minimum of disturbance and anxiety to parents and students.

Now, Sir, let me deal with some of the specific points which have been brought up this afternoon. The first concerns the importance of the mother tongue, a point brought up by the Members for Bukit Batok, Aljunied GRC, Jalan Besar GRC and the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee Siew-Choh.

The Report has stressed right from the very beginning that bilingualism is and will continue to remain the cornerstone of our education system. I do not think there should be any doubt that this policy will be changed. The issue of the teaching and learning of Chinese in our schools is a very important one. 2.15 pm

Last year, the Ministry of Education invited four scholars from Taiwan to come to Singapore to study the teaching and learning of Chinese in our schools and to make recommendations as to how this can be improved. These four scholars have made their recommendations and these are now being studied by the Ministry of Education. I am happy to inform Members today that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, has kindly agreed to chair a committee to advise the Ministry on the implementation of these recommendations. Under his guidance, Sir, I am confident that we will be able to improve the teaching of Chinese in our schools and to make the learning of Chinese less irksome and more interesting for our pupils.

Regarding the specific suggestion from the Member for Jalan Besar GRC that for those pupils who are weak in English and proficient in their mother tongue they should be allowed at Primary 5 and 6 to offer mother tongue as the first language and English as the second language, as stated in the Report, this will be provided by the Ministry of Education if there is demand. So if there are parents who would like to send their children to a stream whereby they learn English as a second language and mother tongue as the first language, the Ministry will make this possible. The only point I would make is that I would advise parents to think very carefully about the long-term prospects for their children before they put their children into this particular stream. It is something which they will have to consider very carefully. But the basic principle which we have followed in the Report is that at the end of the day after the school principals and teachers have given their advice, it is up to the parents to make the final decision, because the education of children is ultimately that of the parents. So they must make the final choice, but think very carefully.

The Member for Moulmein has brought up the point about the importance of teachers and the morale of teachers being fundamental to the success of the proposed measure. Sir, I fully agree with him. At the end of the day, it is the teachers in the classrooms who will decide whether any particular education innovation or change will be successful. That is why I am happy that these latest changes have been done in full consultation with principals and teachers and many of their recommendations and suggestions have been taken into account. Also at the last Schools Council meeting last Saturday, I was gratified to see that the proposed changes have the support and backing of principals. I think this augurs well for the success of the proposed changes.

On the point brought up by the Member for Bedok GRC concerning flexibility, yes, this would be possible within the new system. What we have tried to design is to make the system flexible or permeable, as is stated in the German Ministry of Education, ie, the system should not be a rigid one whereby if students go into one stream, then they would be in that stream for the rest of their school career. We all know that children grow at different rates. Their intellectual abilities will develop in different ways. And if a child's ability changes, then there is provision to allow the child to transfer from one stream to another stream, or for the child to repeat a year, if necessary. What we want to do is to give maximum opportunity for every child to develop his or her potential and I am confident that the new system now is sufficiently flexible to make this possible.

Finally, a few words concerning streaming at Primary 4, as brought up by the Member for Potong Pasir, and the division of curriculum time between English and the mother tongue, as brought up by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. Sir, one of the fundamental aspects which we must realise in educating children is that the capacity of children is limited. If a child is bright, there is no problem. He can learn English, Chinese, a third language, mathematics or science. There is an unlimited amount that you can teach a child and which the child can absorb. Even if the child is above average, there is a lot that you can do. The problem and the most difficult part of education, as I pointed out when I spoke at the Schools Council meeting last Saturday, is what happens when you have to deal with children whose capacity is limited. And I think there is no point in trying to get around this difficult aspect. This is a matter of trying to find or work out a system which will enable the child to cope with subjects that he or she can master.

Should we abolish streaming until the child is in Primary 5 or Primary 6? Or should we have streaming at Primary 3 or Primary 4? You have to compromise. If you delay streaming until the child is 12 or 13 years old, and the child is not capable, he will be so far behind all his other school mates that it will be very difficult for him to try and catch up. If you stream too early, then you may not allow the child to get into the proper stream. So there is this compromise which you have to make. Early streaming means you can put the child into the right stream as early as possible. Late streaming means that you give the child maximum opportunity to identify his or her level of capability.

Which is the right age? In such matters, my instinct is that this is not going to be solved through discussion or one man's opinion against another man's opinion. What we should do is to look at systems which have operated this system of streaming for many, many years. Over a long period of time, they would have settled at an age which would be about right, not too early and not too late.

As part of the recommendations, the team headed by the Director of Education studied the German system very intensively and there they have settled for streaming at the end of Primary 4, at the age of 10 plus. This is sufficient time for the principal and teachers to get a good knowledge of the child and what level of difficulty the child can manage and yet not too late that it is not possible for the schools to take remedial action whenever necessary. I think in matters like this, the best test is the test of time. The Germans, I presume, by trial and error over many years, have settled at Primary 4. Until the Ministry has got better evidence that this is the wrong age, I believe that the study done by the review committee has been very thorough and I think that Primary 4 would be the correct age to put children into the correct streams, in the orientation stage in Primary 5 and in Primary 6.

Sir, the final point is regarding division of curriculum time between English and the mother tongue. Again, this is a matter of compromise. There is a certain number of hours that a child can concentrate on during any particular day. A child's attention span is limited, particularly in the earlier years of school. If you give more time for your mother tongue, there must be less time for English. If you give more time for English, there must be less time for the study of the mother tongue. It is a difficult dilemma, particularly in a situation like Singapore where our working language, English, is not our mother tongue. And for any child to get on in the world in Singapore, particularly with an open economy like ours, a good knowledge of English is essential.

Again, as I have stressed many times, in addition to English, you must also make time for mathematics and also for the other subjects like music, social studies and so on in order to give the child a broad education. In our case, because our working language is not our mother tongue, it is necessary for us to give at the very least the same amount of time to our working language that German and Japanese children give to the study of their working languages which in their case would be their mother tongues, German in the case of German children and Japanese in the case of Japanese children. In Germany and in Japan, the amount of curriculum time given to the study of their working language, which is their mother tongue, is 31%. Here, in the case where our working language is not our mother tongue, I think that 33% is not too much. If you give 33% time for the study of the working language, 20% of curriculum time for the study of mathematics which is the time given for the study of mathematics in German schools and in Japanese schools, then you are only left with 47% of time. The present amount of time given for the study of the mother tongue including moral education is 27%. If we increase that, then we have got to cut down on the amount of time available for other subjects. So in the end, I think that the division of time proposed in the Report is one which is most appropriate for our unique circumstances in Singapore.

Just one last point, Sir. Dr Lee has brought up the point that the study of English is not necessarily the only language which is useful for the acquisition of technology. He has brought up the case that in Japan, the Japanese do not study English and they also can master technology. If we were Japanese and we use Japanese as our working language, I think I would agree with him. But we are not Japanese. We are Chinese, Indians and Malays. We happen to use English as our working language and I think that the correlation between the situation in Japan and our own circumstances in Singapore is, if I may say so, rather tenuous.

My colleague, Dr Tay, will elaborate on some of the other points.

The Chairman: Order. I will take the suspension now.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at ten minutes to Three o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.29 pm to 2.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.50 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, the recent changes in the education scene must lead inevitably to a revamp of VITB. Though it served us well in the past, the VITB needs a new image and a hard-sell programme. It should also attract more female students into its ranks.

Though Shakespeare may ask, "What's in a name", a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, I think it is time for VITB to have a new name to reflect its new status as a post-secondary educational institution.

The emphasis should not be just on training, but it should include all round educational development and character development. A new approach and a new strategy would be in order.

I would like to ask the Minister what are the plans for VITB in the near future?

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to study the possibility of setting up an evening university so that our workers would be able to study and work at the same time to obtain a university degree. This evening university should, for a start, conduct practical courses such as business administration, accountancy, engineering, law and computer sciences. Subsequently, if the response is good, they can conduct academic courses too. This would be helpful in cultivating more experts to benefit our economic development. Setting up a night university will also expedite our aspiration of being a brain centre. At the same time, we will be able to turn out experts who are now lacking in certain sectors and ensure that the development of these sectors is not hampered by the lack of talents.

On the other hand, by establishing an evening university, our limited resources can be put to maximum use. The facilities of our NUS and NTI can be used at night. The use of these facilities will help in establishing the evening university. At the same time, we could benefit those who are working but who have aspirations to improve themselves.

The large enterprises of the future will require more specialised experts to manage the larger and sophisticated business activities. In any event, the establishment of an evening university will help the middle management personnel to be promoted to senior management personnel, and the senior managers to be promoted to super grade management personnel. Only then can our economic development transcend our limited land and space. I believe this must be the future direction and goal of our educational development. The mere establishment of extra-mural courses or short courses is inadequate. I hope the Ministry of Education will seriously consider this possibility.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, during the Budget debate last year, I brought up the question of the need for a third university in Singapore. I pointed out that the Dainton's Report on Education had already indicated a need for that. The simple reason is that with rising expectations of a rising population, more and more of our students are seeking university education every year.

The Report disclosed that the number of students leaving Singapore for higher education overseas was already more than 9,000. By now, the number must have further increased. The Minister probably knows the actual number.

The number of students admitted to the institutions of higher learning in Singapore has also increased every year. In 1988 it was 47,000. In 1990, it was 50,756, according to the latest Year Book of Statistics.

With the implementation of the proposed changes in the education system, more and more students may be expected to qualify for university education, and already Government has announced that more places in the university will be provided for polytechnic students.

In the past, the PAP policy was to reduce the number of students seeking university education. Hence, the Goh Keng Swee Education Report with the introduction of streaming, and the scrapping of Nanyang University and its merging with the then University of Singapore to form a single National University of Singapore. Now the Nanyang University is being resuscitated, although in a different form, and a new system of education is to be introduced. It is clear therefore that still more students will seek university education in the coming years.

Government has frequently stated that Singapore's only natural resource is its people. The Minister has also said that "Government will continue to invest in our people". Despite such PAP protestations, we are spending far too little on education. We lag far behind Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the US and Hong Kong, in the provision of higher education for our people. Mr Peh Chin Hua has spoken of a night university. But if Singapore is really serious about its Vision 1999 and the Next Lap, then steps must be taken now, to prepare without dalay for a third university in Singapore. We have more than adequate funds for that. So I would like the Minister to inform the House its position on the matter.

Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin: Sir, in regard to the third university, I welcome the Minister's plans to introduce the second University. Now that it has been established, I would like to ask whether the Minister will consider expediting plans for the establishment of a third University as it would provide greater opportunities for citizens wishing to further their studies, particularly in disciplines not offered by the National University of Singapore or the Nanyang Technological University. Until such time, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister would consider allowing NUS or NTU to look into the possibility of providing correspondence or part-time degree courses for those who cannot afford the time but want to equip themselves with a higher tertiary education.

In this regard, the University could certainly utilise the Teleview system to conduct the courses offered at degree level. In this way, we will be focusing our minds at opening educational opportunities not only for students who are still in school, but also those who have long left the classroom. Furthermore, Sir, there is some concern among parents and students as to the possibility of fee increases in both the universities and polytechnics. May I seek the Minister's assurance that should fees be increased, it would be kept as low as practicable.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Tay Eng Soon): Sir, three of the speakers brought up the subject of the third university and I will leave that to my Minister to reply. But I want to address the point brought up by Dr Ong Chit Chung regarding the VITB, and the point brought up earlier by Encik Ibrahim Othman, also on VITB and the problem of premature school leavers who, despite the new system, may leave school before 10 years of schooling, and what would happen to them.

Sir, the point made by Dr Ong Chit Chung is well taken. The VITB is on the point of becoming a new institution. It will become a post-secondary institution catering for school leavers who have finished at least 10 years of schooling and would have reached the 'N' level or the 'O' level. That alone, I think, would change the image of VITB from one where it was receiving primary school leavers and those who left school before they finish secondary school, and therefore regarded by society as "dropouts", to one which is catering for students who have successfully completed 10 years of schooling and who have good general education and are in a position to go further into skills training. The proof of the pudding, of course, will be in the eating. It will depend on how the new graduates of VITB in the future who have 10 years of schooling and who have skills training perform when they go out into the working place.

I feel confident that they will have good job opportunities and good careers judging by the ones who have finished secondary school today who have gone on to the VITB and then gone on into jobs. These graduates who comprise about half of present VITB output command good salaries and have good careers when they go out. They are in high demand by employers who want skilled workers, preferably those with some secondary education. 3.00 pm

Furthermore, we know that in future they will be able to go on to the polytechnics if they have done well at the VITB, and even beyond that, to the universities, so that the VITB in future will be seen as one of the routes which enables the young person to go as far as his ability would take him, and it will be firmly in people's mind that this is a viable route for school leavers who may not take a very academic route but who may prefer a technical vocational route.

As for the change of name, I think this would help to improve the image of VITB, if it should change its name, since its function is changing. The Board is actively looking into a new name to replace the name "VITB". But, meanwhile, the vocational institutes will be changed to become technical institutes as they will be offering higher level of skills courses, and appropriately should be named as technical institutes. At the same time, there will be the institutes of commerce or commercial institutes. So the VITB will really have two branches - one offering technical courses, and the other, offering commercial courses.

There are of course details of what the restructuring will mean. I just want to let the Member know what some of these will be. The intention will be to develop every technical institute or commercial institute into a total training environment, one in which a trainee or a student will have an all-round experience. Not only will he be receiving skills training, he will also be developing himself because there will be opportunity for him to develop his interest in extracurricular activities and to acquire responsibility and self-confidence. So it will be a new environment which will cater for these post-secondary school leavers. Secondly, there will be new courses as VITB explores new areas where training is needed, particularly in the service sectors. Thirdly, there will be an upgrading of training institutions as well as new institutions which will be purpose-built for this restructured VITB.

Altogether, there will be seven new institutions or renovated institutions. By 1994 three new institutions - a commercial institute at Bishan, a new technical institute at Ayer Rajah, and a new technical institute at Yishun - should be ready. And beyond that, there will be new institutions which we will look at, at Bukit Batok New Town, at Tampines, and two existing institutions, the Singapore Vocational Institute and the Singapore Technical Institute, will be refurbished, renovated and upgraded.

I would like to turn now to the problem of premature school leavers (those who may not finish 10 years of schooling and leave school). Mr Ibrahim Othman suggested that somehow they should be taken in perhaps by VITB or some other organisation to be given further education and training. And he suggested that perhaps the apprenticeship scheme could be extended to them. We will certainly look into this. But let me say that the apprenticeship scheme is based on employers' response and interest, because the people who are providing the apprenticeship places are companies. Employers have been saying to the VITB that for skilled workers, especially in high-tech areas, their preference is for those who have not only got skills but who have also completed secondary education. In other words, they are saying that if a person has only primary education or has left school prematurely, he is of less use to them, and their preference is not to hire him. So if the apprenticeship scheme is to be extended to premature school leavers, then we will have to discuss with employers to see how many are interested to offer apprenticeships to such school leavers and take it from there. The second point is that the person has to be 16 years old before he starts apprenticeship training. So any person who leaves school at 13 or 14 will have to wait.

My advice to the young people in schools and their parents is to stay on in school as long as possible and to work hard and get through the primary school and secondary school, now that it is possible for them to go right through to the end of secondary school. If they are tempted to leave early for whatever reason, they should resist that, because the opportunity for skills training for such people will become less in future and because employers prefer those with secondary education.

Given that kind of future situation and the encouragement, I hope most parents will encourage their children to stay on in school and take advantage of this 10-year programme.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): Sir, can I be allowed to seek clarification from the Senior Minister of State for Education on whether there is special training for older workers?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: The Member's question is whether there is any special provision for older workers. By that I take it to mean workers who are at age 40, 45 and above who for one reason or another may have missed educational opportunities in the past.

I am glad to inform Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon that discussion is going on at the moment between VITB and the NTUC to see whether or not a special scheme, perhaps a one-time scheme, could be provided for workers who are 40-plus and above today to enable them to come in for skills training. The condition would be that the educational requirement will be relaxed; in other words, taking into account that they did not have opportunity in the past. But they may have to go through some kind of assessment tests to see which courses they can fit into. But let me emphasise that this is really a special scheme for the older workers. The younger workers today would have had the advantage of education and schooling, and they will not be in need of the scheme, so that when they become 40-plus themselves, they would have had enough education to carry on into any courses that may be offered.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Point of clarification, Sir. Both the Minister of State and the Minister himself have not said anything about the scrapping of the 'N' level examination which I suggested. Would they say a few words on that?

Dr Tay Eng Soon: The 'N' level examination, which was started in early 1980s, has worked out well. 'N' level certificates are accepted and even required by institutions such as the VITB and others for purposes of entry into courses. So it is not by any means useless or a worthless certificate. A person who is preparing for 'N' level examination in school is also preparing for the '0' levels. There is no loss or duplication. If he does well in his 'N' level, he will go on, and the chances are that he will get the corresponding '0' levels when he takes them after one more year. So it is preparatory to '0' levels and it has value by itself. So there is no disadvantage suffered by any of the children who take 'N' level before they take the '0' levels.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Chairman, a few words concerning the point on a third university brought up by a few Members who have spoken just now.

Sir, the development of tertiary education in Singapore will be guided by three basic principles. Firstly, academic standards must be maintained. Secondly, the expansion of tertiary education must be in line with the economic and the social needs of Singapore. For example, we do not wish to produce graduates who will be unemployed. And thirdly, any expansion of NUS or NTI or establishment of new universities must increase the educational opportunities and options that are available to Singaporeans.

Sir, the Ministry of Education looks ahead in its educational planning. We have a broad planning horizon of 10 years, that is, we try to anticipate what would be the needs of Singapore and of our children in 10 years' time and plan accordingly. Detailed plans are made for the next three or four years but the basic concept plan has a 10-year cycle.

We may need a third university or a fourth polytechnic by possibly the later part of this decade. The Ministry has started thinking about these needs. When the need arises for a third university or for a fourth polytechnic, the plans will be ready. In the meantime, Sir, we should concentrate on the development of the Nanyang Technological University and the Temasek Polytechnic as well asthe further upgrading and expansion of the National University of Singapore, the Singapore Polytechnic and the Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

Sir, two points were brought up by the Member for Hong Kah GRC. First of all, part-time degree courses. The experience of the University with regard to the provision of part-time degree courses has not been encouraging, as I have stated in this House from time to time. In terms of the cost required to produce graduates through a part-time course, because many will enrol but very few would actually finish the course, it actually costs more to educate a person in a part-time course in terms of graduation than it is to put a student through a full-time course. Nevertheless, the provision of part-time courses is always under review by the two universities.

As for fee increases, Sir, the schools and universities are people-intensive institutions and with rising wage cost, fee increases are inevitable. The Government has always endeavoured to make these fee increases as small as possible. I am sure we will continue with this policy. 3.15 pm

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, independent schools have been in existence for sometime now. I would like to ask if the independent schools are fulfilling their missions, and whether any students from the lower-income groups are turned away due to financial constraints.

I would also like to ask if any other schools have plans or have applied to go independent in the near future.

Sir, while we upgrade and support the independent schools and the SAP schools, we must not forget the other schools. For want of a better word, I would call them neighbourhood schools, which draw upon students from a certain geographical area and represent a cross-section of our population. May I ask if the Ministry has an on-going scheme to upgrade and improve the quality of such schools.

Encik Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin: ( In Malay): A pre-school programme incorporating the teaching of the mother tongue, either Malay, Mandarin or Tamil, is to be introduced as a parallel scheme of the pre-school programme conducted at Special Assistance Programme (SAP) schools. This plan is welcomed by the public and reflects MOE's sensitivity in ensuring that five-year-old children are provided with a better structured and better administered education scheme.

In this regard, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister whether the introduction of this pre-school scheme means that MOE is closing the door on the teaching of Malay and Tamil at ML1 and TL1 level in SAP schools. I feel we need to foster a pool of students who are fully competent not only in English but also in their mother tongues, to fill jobs in radio and television, in mass communication, to become writers and activists in ethnic arts and culture and to conduct relations with countries using these languages.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, Edusave is a novel and pioneering scheme. I believe it is the first of its kind in the world. We should thank the Government for this initiative and kindness.

I would ask if the Government would go a step further and include handicapped children in this scheme, as has been raised many times in the public. It is true that they receive more funding through other channels, but this gesture on the part of Government would touch their hearts. It would be an encouragement to them to know that they are included just like any other children and that they are in the mainstream of society. So I would like to ask if the Government would reconsider its position on this matter.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Sir, I agree with the Chairman of the GPC on Education that Edusave is a novel scheme.

Sir, in my discussions with members of my grassroots organisations on the scheme, they have made some sug- gestions which I would like to submit for the Ministry's consideration. Firstly, to ensure that the Edusave fund can be effectively used to benefit the students, the schools and teachers must help to provide some guidance or advisory service to both parents and students on how they should use their funds. I think this is particularly important since Edusave is a new scheme.

Another point which was made was that parents should be allowed to contribute to their children's Edusave fund. And in order to encourage them to make this contribution, they should be allowed to make the contributions from their CPF. Alternatively, such contributions made by parents could be allowed to enjoy some tax exemption.

Finally, Sir, there is also the fear expressed by my community leaders that, with the implementation of the Edusave scheme, school fees or miscellaneous fees which are charged by the schools may be increased and they fear that this may impose a burden on the poorer students. Perhaps, the Ministry can look into this.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, I have not thought of speaking on this amendment originally, but I see that the Prime Minister is here, and as my few comments deal mainly with what he said not so very long ago, perhaps he may wish to say something in reply to what I have to say now.

The Edusave scheme, Sir, could be said to be a gift of the nation to 400,000 students. The total sum for each student could reach a maximum of $5,000 over a period of 10 years. But as many people have already said before me, including Dr Ong and Mr Othman, it is just not fair and right that handicapped students are excluded from the scheme. After all, they are all also students and they deserve all the extra help that can be given to them. Neither is it fair and right to limit this Edusave scheme to only three children in a family, as has already been touched on by Dr John Chen, especially when the Government is presently promoting a population policy of three and more children per family.

Government claims that the scheme would help equalise opportunities for every generation. By no mean stretch of the imagination, Sir, could a fair-minded person come to such a conclusion. A maximum of $500 per year per student would not be able to do that.

Students who come from poor families are disadvantaged in too many ways, as against students who come from well-to-do families. This can be easily seen from the fact that in comparison with those from well-off families, only a small number of those from poorer families do well academically and in business. But, of course, a gift of a possible maximum of $500 every year is a great help. And the Prime Minister has said that the scheme should also benefit the nation, not just the individual. Very good, Sir. But this contradicts with what the Government intends to carry out in the scheme since basically only individuals benefit.

If the scheme is intended to benefit the nation, then the funds from the billion dollar investment should instead be spent on upgrading of all schools and improving education in general - more schools, better trained teachers, better teacher-student ratio, better equipment, and so on. That would certainly benefit the nation as a whole and also all individual students at the same time.

I believe that there is some confused thinking on the part of the PAP Government on the Edusave scheme. The reason is not far to seek. This is because the PAP has the next election in mind and the scheme is, in fact, a PAP gimmick intended to buy votes. Mr Chiam has already touched on that. (They are trying to infect me with laughter). In an attempt to rationalise the scheme, the PAP has, however, become entangled in a sea of self-contradictions, which it will have great difficulties in explaining away. So I hope the Prime Minister will try and say something in reply.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I wish to speak about parents' involvement in education. Education is everyone's business, not least of all that of the parents. I think that parents should play a larger role in education. Parents' choices should be sought and respected. Parent-teacher associations should be formed in more schools and more parents should be invited to sit on the board of management or the School Advisory Committees (SACs). They should be invited to meet the teachers more often and to contribute not only in terms of funds but also in terms of time and energy in school projects.

Teachers should, on their part, not consider this as an intrusion into their domain but as positive development and a partnership in education.

Sir, can I go on to the next item?

The Chairman: All right.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Teachers are, in my opinion, the unsung heros of our times. Without teachers, we would not have made it. Surely then we should do more to honour our own teachers and to uphold the teaching profession. Perhaps Teachers' Day should be celebrated island-wide in pomp and circumstance, with rallies, parades and dinners in honour of our teachers. All children should be encouraged to bring token gifts of flowers and cards to their teachers.

In last year's budget debate, I raised the issue of air-conditioning the staff lounges and the provision of fax machines for the comfort and convenience of our teachers. May I ask about the progress in this matter?

Teachers can also, on their part, be active in upgrading their expertise through their professional and specialized bodies. More than a job, Sir, it is a calling and a mission and indeed we should always honour them as our teachers.

Dr Tay Eng Soon: Mr Chairman, the Members spoke on three topics: one was independent schools, the other was the Preparatory Year programme and the study of ML1 and TL1, and the third was on Edusave. I will try to tackle them in that order.

Dr Ong asked what is the progress made in the independent schools, how are they getting on, anything that can be brought up concerning the development of the independent schools. Sir, I propose to arrange a visit for Dr Ong and the members of the GPC on Education and their resource persons and bring them to one or two independent schools that they would like to name. And I will also bring the press and television along so that they can see what the schools are doing. I think that would be a good opportunity for the GPC Chairman and his team to find out about independent schools at close range.

His next question was whether the independent schools, enrolment or intake has been affected by the fees. I am happy to tell him that the fees have had minimal effect on the enrolment and intake into the independent schools. For example, there were 3,606 applicants for Secondary One intake this year into the six independent schools, and the independent schools were able to offer only 1,793 places, that is, for every place there were two applicants. And interestingly, of the six independent schools, the two independent schools that have the highest application rate for the places they offered were also the two schools that have the highest fees, namely, Raffles Institution and Anglo-Chinese School. In the case of RI, there were four applicants for every place offered by RI; in the case of ACS, there were 2.1 applicants for every place offered by the school. So parents have recognised that the quality of education is good and fees have become a secondary consideration. But that is not to say that there are no students who have difficulty with fees because of their home background.

In this respect, the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) which has been put in place by the Government has helped a lot of these children. Out of the total enrolment of the six independent schools, that is, 6,744 students, 1,259 or 19% have applied for and obtained financial assistance from the Government through the FAS scheme. But the schools themselves have raised their own funds and provided additional financial support for those students who do not qualify under the Financial Assistance Scheme. Therefore, we can truly say that no child today who qualifies for a place in the independent schools will be denied a place because of his financial needs or background. Every means will be found to help such children to get into an independent school, if they are able to find a place in these schools.

He asked whether there are any other independent schools in the pipeline and whether other schools have applied to the Ministry to seek conversion to independent schools. I can tell him that there are several applications that are being processed but I am not free at the moment to tell him which schools have made these applications.

I agree with Dr Ong when he said that we should never neglect the state schools or the aided schools that are fully dependent on the Government. Yes, we will never neglect them and we will do whatever we can to always provide for these schools to upgrade them, to improve their facilities, to improve the teachers that they receive, because the vast majority of our children go through these schools and they deserve the best that we can afford.

To give you an example of the commitment of the Government to the state schools, all the secondary schools will become single-session schools by the end of this decade. In fact, by 1995, 50% of the secondary schools will become single-session schools and this means building some 16 new secondary schools with the latest standards, which are much more generous than the ones of the previous generation of schools, and rebuilding and upgrading 37 existing schools to these new standards. This is going to cost the Government something like $800 million. And there is more work to be done to the others schools as we come to them phase by phase. So I want to assure the Member and parents that the state schools and aided schools will never be neglected by the Government. 3.30 pm

Mr Nasser Kamaruddin raised the question about offering of ML1 and TL1 to the preparatory year classes, because CL1 is already being offered to the preparatory year classes. Let me make a general point here. At the preparatory year level which is for five year olds, and even at Primary 1, 2, 3 and 4, there is precious little difference between the so-called CL1 and CL2 or ML1 and ML2 and so on. They are very similar. In fact, language learning is at its basic level. What is important is that the child learns the basic language skills, listening, speaking, reading, writing, and learns to use the language in a whole range of circumstances. So at these levels, we should not try to differentiate between so-called first language levels and second language levels. We should concentrate our efforts on helping these young children to get a good grounding in their mother tongue in the case of these languages, and in English in the case of the working language. That must be the priority and we should not let ourselves be distracted by so-called differences between levels 1 and 2.

But when a child reaches Primary 5 after the streaming exercise in Primary 4, then I think the child should be ready to go into mother tongue at first language level if he has the aptitude for it, or to remain at mother tongue at second language level if he wants to continue as normal, or into mother tongue at the oral proficiency level if he has great difficulty with the working language, English, and in that way, allowing himself to have more time for the study of English and without losing mother tongue at the oral/spoken level.

Therefore, at Primary 5 and Primary 6, the orientation period, the Ministry is going to give parents and children a free choice into which of the three language streams they wish to go into. For those who choose to do mother tongue at first language level, they should be amongst the top 10% in terms of academic results, because we all know that it is not easy for a child to master two languages at that level unless he has the academic ability and mental equipment to deal with these languages. So for Malay at first language level, Tamil at first language level and Chinese at first language level, the decision to take that should be deferred until the child has finished Primary 4. And depending on his performance and his aptitude, the choice can then be made. So I give the Member the assurance that the opportunity is there for such bright children.

Finally, on Edusave, several Members have spoken about extending Edusave to handicapped children. This subject is being considered at the moment. It is by no means concluded. Further discussions are going on. So I cannot give you a definite reply at the moment, but the subject is actively being discussed.

I want to let Members know that handicapped children who go to the special schools today enjoy more grants and assistance than any other group of children in Singapore. For example, a child going to a special school, whether it is for the blind, the deaf, the physically handicapped or mentally impaired, will be given a grant up to twice what is given to a child in primary school. Today a child in primary school gets a direct grant from the Government of the order of $2,000 plus per annum. That is what it costs. A child in one of these special schools can get up to $4,000, and in addition to that, such a child will also receive from the Community Chest of Singapore, ie, from the people of Singapore through charitable means, up to $3,000 per annum. So potentially $7,000 per annum per child is available for children who are handicapped. So they are indeed well provided but, as I said, the Edusave scheme is not a large amount of money compared with what I have just mentioned, and whether it should be extended to handicapped children is a subject under active discussion at the moment.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh questioned whether the Government is sincere in its desire to equalise opportunities for all Singaporeans, especially for those who come from poor backgrounds or disadvantaged backgrounds. Allow me to tell Dr Lee that the Government has consistently put in place programmes and efforts to equalise opportunities, especially for young children. Just leave the Edusave scheme aside for a moment. What is the amount that the State or the Government spends on general education for primary school kids or secondary school kids, and what is the amount of subsidy that is given? It is an enormous amount. The amount that is paid by parents in the form of school fees or even miscellaneous fees is less than a few per cent of the actual amount spent per child by the Government. If that is not equalisation of opportunities, I do not know what is equalisation of opportunities. It is very clear that a very high amount of subsidy is given to all children regardless of their background to help them through basic education in school, now to secondary school for all, so that they can then go on into life to do the things that they want to do or can do.

Edusave is another one of these efforts to give something to all children regardless of their background, to add a little bit more to what is already a very large subsidy to help them in their schooling. So I do not think we need to defend too much the efforts to equalise the opportunities. They are there and I am sure in future if other opportunities arise, they would be examined to see whether more could not be done.

As for the fourth child, ie, beyond the third child, the parent of the fourth child can put money into the Edusave scheme, top it up to the same extent as for the other three children and that would be tax exempt. That is consistent with the Government's policy of encouraging people to have three children and to have more if they can afford it.

I think Mr Othman Haron Eusofe suggested that perhaps the CPF should be allowed for this topping up process or even to top up the Edusave scheme beyond what is going to be provided. I think this will have to be looked at very carefully, because what he is really asking is that CPF should now be used for primary and secondary education. And that is now going into a new use of the CPF, yet another extension of the use of the CPF. This will have to be looked at very carefully by the Ministry in charge of the CPF, ie, the Ministry of Labour.

Dr Seet Ai Mee: Sir, I wish to respond to Dr Ong Chit Chung's two questions on parents' involvement in education and on teaching as a profession.

The Ministry agrees completely with the Chairman of the GPC on Education that parents play a crucial role in the education of their children. Schools, principals and teachers are all the time appealing for parental support, even in simple acts like showing interest in the children's homework, school work, supervising their homework and participation in ECA, also attendance at sports and speech days.

On their part, schools have welcomed parental involvement by inviting parents to orientation programmes for new pupils and other major school functions. Some schools set aside a Parents' Day when parents can meet teachers, while others call parents back to school to discuss their children's progress, maybe once a year, sometimes twice a year, after the school examinations. We shall follow up on Dr Ong's suggestion of having more PTAs in our schools.

There is a common saying that the mother is the child's first teacher and her lap is his first classroom. Education of children begins at the home with parents and should be a continued responsibility of parents throughout the child's educational years. Parents' participation in their children's education process is welcomed. And the support of their children's school in the form of giving of their time, their talents and/or financial support is encouraged.

Dr Ong's concern for teachers' professionalism and commitment is appreciated. It is not possible to talk about commitment without professional development and vice versa. The Ministry of Education has always been concerned with the enhancement of the professionalism of teachers. In the last year, we have achieved this by, firstly, upgrading the pre-service training from 1990 for both graduate and non-graduate teacher trainees, with the introduction of the post-graduate Diploma in Education and the Diploma in Education programmes respectively. Furthermore, this year, a 4-year degree programme will be introduced at the Nanyang Technological University for primary school teaching. Secondly, there is provision of systematic and structured in-service training programmes for teachers to update them on new teaching methodologies and also on pertinent developments in the field of education. Thirdly, there are now more organised school-based workshops and seminars which meet the professional needs of teachers within the school.

We have many very committed teachers today. Their commitment can be seen through their untiring efforts to teach well by providing good and interesting lessons and ECAs. Remedial classes are given when needed and enrichment classes where beneficial.

With the formation of the Education Service Commission, there is also a better planned career development pathway for education officers. And the professional development of the committed with potential will be enhanced. Furthermore, we train school administrators in management skills through 6 to 9 months' full-time in-service courses, namely, the Further Professional Diploma or the Further Professional Certificate in Education and/or Diploma in Education (Administration) courses. By providing this professional development, our staff are motivated and their commitment at the individual schools can then be enhanced. 3.45 pm

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I wish to thank the Ministers for their replies and the comments of all our Members of this House and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. 2, Mr Peh is not moving. Amendment No. 3, Dr Ong.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 1500 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, we are all for the bilingual policy, the learning of the mother tongue and the inculcation of the Asian values.

I would therefore like to ask and to appeal to the Ministry of Education to redouble its efforts to make the learning and teaching of CL1 and CL2 an enjoyable experience. No efforts should be spared to make our children know that the learning of Mandarin can be fun and can be an enriching experience. In this connection, I welcome the announcement by the Minister that the Ministry has consulted a number of overseas experts and that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, is heading a Committee to look into these recommendations. I think these are indeed very good developments for our children. I hope these recommendations will be acted upon and all will find learning to be fun and we will progress from there.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Sir, in response to Dr Ong Chit Chung's remark, he has rightly stated that my Minister has this afternoon mentioned the special Committee headed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, as well as experts from abroad. I need only to add that the second language syllabuses which are currently under revision will advocate teaching approaches which are more pupil-oriented. A greater variety will be introduced into the classroom activities and teacher/pupil interaction will be increased. At the beginning level, activities such as story telling and the sharing of information about themselves will provide increased opportunities for pupils to listen to and use the language orally.

This early mastery of the oral skills in the target group will help to sustain their interest in learning the language. Pupils will be exposed to a variety of good writing in the school at the second language as well as an adequate supply of interesting supplementary reading materials. Project work involving students in group discussion and meaningful writing activities would also be encouraged.

Sir, teacher development programmes will be mounted to help teachers implement these measures effectively and to teach with greater flexibility and creativity.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LD 1500 of the Main Estimates.

Earlier, I stated that the morale of the teachers is dependent on their conditions of work. Last year, I raised the problem of the teachers with regard to the non-professional duties that they had to shoulder, and I asked the Ministry to look into the question of providing additional non-teaching staff. The reply to my request was that the Ministry was looking into the matter.

On the other matter about air-conditioning of the staff room, I also raised whether the Ministry would air-condition the staff room. The reply was also that the Ministry was looking into the matter. I just want to know whether the matter has been looked into and whether there is any positive result from their looking into these matters that I raised last year.

The Chairman: Mr Davinder Singh is not here. Mr Tang.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng): The question of employing non-teaching staff for schools was raised by the Member for Moulmein last year, and my reply was that the Ministry had requested the Management Services Department to look into this.

I would like to report to the House that the Management Services Department has completed its report, which is now with the Ministry of Finance. My Ministry is awaiting for its response.

On the other point raised by the Member, my Ministry has allowed schools to air-condition their facilities using the funds raised by the School Advisory Committees. Since 1985, 214 schools have already air-conditioned facilities such as the staff room, library, AVA room, music room, etc. using their SAC funds.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Sir, it looks like next year I have to raise the matter again to ask for the outcome of the Finance Ministry's decision on the matter. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (5). I believe this has been looked into and you will not be moving.

The sum of $,1,917,290,400 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $520,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head M -

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, one of the major campaigns launched by the Ministry of the Environment last year was the Clean and Green Week. The programme was aimed at promoting public awareness in the protection of the environment and care for the nature. The GPC for the Environment fully supports the Ministry's efforts to create greater awareness among our population of their role in preventing environmental pollution and preserving a pleasant living environment. We notice that a good cross-section of our population were involved in the campaign. They included the schools, grassroots organisations, business community and the mass media. I would like to ask the Minister for his assessment of the effectiveness of the campaign, whether the campaign has achieved its objectives and whether our people are more aware of what they are supposed to do to protect the environment.

I believe many people still associate the Clean and Green Week with merely keeping Singapore clean, but it actually goes beyond that. There is a host of environmental matters which one must address, such as conservation of resources, waste recycling, depletion of the ozone layer and global warming, etc. I believe that during the Clean and Green Week the Ministry of the Environment had tried to introduce all these concepts and concerns to our people, but I do not know how much of these ideas have sunk in. So perhaps in the subsequent years the Ministry should take a more focused approach. For instance, they can just focus on one or two issues, like waste recycling, so that our people would have a more in-depth knowledge of the subject matter. So I would like the Minister's comment on this. 3.55 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair]

Encik Ibrahim Othman: Sir, I congratulate the Ministry of the Environment on the success of the Clean and Green Week last year. Many public and private grassroots organisations and individuals participated in a variety of activities. I am made to understand that many people are aware of the Clean and Green Week which is primarily concerning the keeping of the environment clean. I think this is a good sign and we should keep up the momentum to drive the message to our people to maintain a clean and green environment.

However, I hope the Ministry of the Environment could organise more activities outside the Clean and Green Week. There are many other occasions in a year where we can stress on the importance of our environment. I am told that there are organisations planning activities to commemorate Earth Day in April, and also World Environment Day in June. I wish to ask the Minister what kind of assistance is the Environment Ministry giving to these organisations organising the above activities.

Mr Chin Harn Tong: Sir, the Clean and Green Week (CGW) was held in November 1990, and it was successful to some extent in making the public aware of the need to keep the environment clean and of the issues concerning environmental protection. However, spontaneous recall by the public of CGW activities and events was low, according to the post-CGW survey conducted shortly after the CGW ended. Further, while many understood they should keep the environment clean, only a few of the respondents remembered the larger message of the CGW, ie, environmental protection. Many people in fact perceived the CGW to be the usual Keep Singapore Clean and Tree Planting campaigns.

Sir, amongst other things, the low impact of the CGW message could be due to the many activities crammed into CGW. There were nine diverse activities during the Week such as the Waste Recycling project, the Adopt-a-beach-and-park programme, the launching of the book on Singapore River and Kallang Basin, the Care for the Environment Exhibition, the Care for Nature Programme, and so on. This would have resulted in dispersing the public's interest over a wide area so that they only had a general impression of another Government campaign soon to be forgotten after it was over.

Sir, I suggest that in future there should be less cramming of activities in the CGW. Instead, there should be a theme for each year and the activities during the CGW should be concentrated on getting the public to understand and remember that theme. Further, to sustain public interest, there should be on-going activities on the same theme spread out throughout the year to reinforce that theme. In this way, it may be possible to bring about a change in people's attitude so as to result in their active participation in protecting the environment.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Sir, the inauguration of the Clean and Green Week in 1990, incorporating the keeping our environment clean with the Tree Planting Day, is indeed a timely and practical move. Since the launching of the Tree Planting Day in 1963, thousands of trees have been planted all over Singapore. Today, the ratio of trees to population in Singapore is 1:4, quite a feat for a modern city state, earning us the accolade of a Clean and Green City internationally. Singapore has become so well known for its greenery that the two off-shore islands in my constituency are attracting elephants from Johor. I hope that they will stop there and not decide to come over to the mainland, nor do I want to see more fearsome animals following the example of the elephants. 4.00 pm

Mr Chairman, Sir, maybe it is now more important for us to focus our attention on the proper maintenance of the trees and the protection of the environment. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of National Development could work closely in this respect. Instead of planting more trees, causing overcrowding in some places, we should upgrade the quality of the trees, replacing those which do not grow well in our climate with those which are more hardy and shady, and at the same time making a greater effort to keep our environment clean. However, there may be a case for more trees to be planted along highways and MRT lines, which have been built too close to residential areas, like HDB estates, to reduce the noise levels in the areas. Many affected residents have complained of noise pollution. Noise absorbing walls may not be a solution, for they will certainly look unsightly, not mentioning the high cost of constructing them. May I therefore call upon the relevant authorities to look into my suggestion.

Sir, protecting our environment is, of course, much more than just looking after the trees and keeping our surrounding litter-free, which somehow, unfortunately, many Singaporeans think is the case. This misconception is hardly surprising. For not much publicity or education has been given to discussing problems of protecting the ozone layer, preventing global warming or caring for nature, for example. In fact, Singapore acceded to the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer and the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer only in 1989. Therefore, much sustained effort will be needed in this respect before the general public can be expected to have a proper understanding of the issue. Annual campaigns are useful but far from being adequate. On-going education is needed. And for long term effect, the best place to begin with is the school. School children should be taught from young to realise that man can co-exist with nature while maintaining an affluent society. The conservation of nature and the protection of the environment should have a place in the school curriculum.

Sir, talking about the 'clean' part of the "Clean and Green" Singapore, it is sad to say that after all these years of anti-littering campaigns, our beaches, parks, streets, open spaces, cinemas, HDB void decks are still badly littered. Singapore is clean not so much because Singaporeans do not litter; it is clean mainly because we have more than 60 mechanical sweepers which sweep our streets daily, and over 2,000 diligent workers who work 365 days a year to keep Singapore clean. Since the problem of littering has yet to be eradicated, our war against the litter bugs cannot be relaxed. Up to now, it seems many people do not litter because they fear of fines. This attitude, or national character, if you like, is very negative indeed. We have to continue to find ways to instil in every Singaporean that littering is wrong, is anti-social, is self-degrading and shameful. It is a small but important step towards the goal of making every Singaporean regard Singapore as he would regard his home.

The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Chairman, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Goh Chee Wee and Members of his GPC for the Environment for their support, cooperation and suggestions made to my Ministry in the course of our work during financial year 90.

Now let me deal with the points raised by hon. Members.

Sir, Mr Goh Chee Wee specially wants to know whether my Ministry has assessed the effectiveness of the Clean and Green Week (CGW) held in November last year. The answer is yes, Sir, we assessed the effectiveness of the CGW 90. According to results of a post-campaign survey conducted by an independent agency, the level of awareness of the campaign was very high indeed. The campaign itself generated a lot of interest and enthusiasm amongst the public. The survey also disclosed that the majority of those interviewed agreed that it was important to protect the environment and recognised that protecting the environment should be everyone's responsibility, and not something to be left to the Government alone to do. Sir, I am very pleased to say that Singaporeans, by and large, are pro-environment.

Mr Goh also wants to know whether my Ministry has plans for future educational campaigns to promote environmental consciousness and, indeed, Mr Teo Chong Tee firmly believes that on-going education to complement annual campaigns is needed before Singaporeans can be expected to have proper understanding of environmental issues.

Sir, my Ministry will continue to educate the public and instil in every Singaporean a national commitment to protect and preserve the environment. My Ministry will work very closely with schools to reach out to the students and with grassroots organisations to reach out to the general community. As in last year's CGW, Sir, we will seek a strong commitment and participation of the business community, the mass media, and private sector groups to help promote environmental responsibility across our society.

Sir, Encik Ibrahim Othman wants to know whether my Ministry would organise activities between annual CGWs to sustain interest. One of the objectives of the CGW campaign is to serve as a catalyst to spur on interest and enthusiasm of the general public and, in particular, our students and youths, in promoting a sense of environmental consciousness and responsibility.

Following the successful launching of the first CGW last year, my Ministry set up a CGW Promotional Committee to assist members of the public, schools, organisations, to plan and organise talks, seminars and exhibitions in promoting a clean and green environment. Sir, for the information of this House, the CGW Promotional Committee has to-date received 145 requests from schools and other organisations for assistance in organising environment related projects. 380 schools have also appointed teachers known as Environment Education Advisors (EEAs) to liaise with my Ministry on environment related matters. These EEAs will coordinate and promote environmental consciousness in their respective schools.

Sir, the National Council on the Environment (NCE) was also formed with its Board of Directors comprising CEOs and senior managers of major corporations, as well as Members of Parliament and senior officials of my Ministry. In fact, Encik Ibrahim himself, together with Mr Chng Hee Kok, Member for Tiong Bahru GRC, are on the NCE. The NCE will also actively pursue the promotion of environmental awareness through the business community and other channels.

Sir, I am very pleased with the good response from our younger generation. They have sincerely demonstrated that they care for the environment and want to play a role as well. My Ministry will soon be planning the 1991 CGW and we will certainly take cognizance of Mr Goh's as well as Mr Chin Harn Tong's suggestion of concentrating on one or two issues to achieve sharper focus. My Ministry hopes to see even greater involvement of the various sectors of the population in this year's CGW activities.

Sir, Mr Teo Chong Tee in his speech has touched on subjects like maintenance of trees, planting of trees along highways and MRT lines as noise-reduction barriers, and even the invasion of his offshore islands by elephants. I certainly will pass on his suggestions to my colleague, the Minister for National Development.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, let me next talk on the subject of waste recycling.

Sir, I believe that much can be done in the area of recycling so as to reduce wastage and conserve our valuable resources. The modern age is characterised by a "throw-away" mentality. We throw away many things, even though they can be re-used or recycled. A good example is the disposable crockery which are discarded after they are used. Another example is the plastic container and other packaging materials which are thrown away instead of being re-used or recycled. Even in the offices, there are a lot of wastages. Just look at the amount of paper wastes which are churned out in all the offices in Singapore. I wonder how many people have the habit of writing on both sides of the paper today and I wonder how many people use the other side of the computer form as writing paper.

Years ago, I remember that the Government directed the various Ministries to re-use envelopes for sending mail. So the envelope was used again and again. I think the Government was then embarking on an austerity drive. But as the Government becomes richer, this practice has stopped. So perhaps it is time to re-start the practice again.

Sir, at homes there are a number of things which we can do to encourage recycling. Instead of throwing everything down the chute or garbage bins, the residents can be asked to segregate the wastes into paper, plastic and other wastes. The waste paper, for instance, can be collected and sent to the paper mills for recycling. The same can be done in offices and in the factories.

Last year, the Ministry of the Environment did a pilot project to encourage the residents in the housing estates to sort out the refuse and discard them in separate refuse bins. I wonder how successful the pilot project has been and whether the project will be extended to other housing estates. I would also like to know whether the Ministry of the Environment has any plans to launch a nation-wide campaign to promote recycling in offices, in the factories and at homes. 4.15 pm

Encik Ibrahim Othman: Mr Chairman, one important pilot project launched during the Clean and Green Week is for the segregation and recovery of waste paper, plastics and batteries. The project ended in February 1991 and it seems to be very successful. It will have an effect on our long-term strategy on solid waste management. I wish to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of the Environment intends to encourage private condominiums and town councils to introduce waste recycling system for their own estates and what kind of assistance will the Ministry provide.

Sir, Germany has passed the Environment Ministry's Regulation on the recycling of used packaging. The new legislation means that by January 1993, 50% of all packaging regardless of composition will have to be recycled. Later on, by July 1995, 80% of plastics, glass and paper and 90% of all other materials will have to be recycled. In Japan, MITI has issued guidelines on recycling of resources and reduction of waste. It sets targets for reducing the number of batteries and general waste and for recycling paper products, aluminium cans, and glass. I wish to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of the Environment has any intention to introduce legislation to cover issues such as refillable or recyclable packaging, returnable deposits for containers and the use of recycled materials. For a start, Sir, perhaps the Ministry could encourage the wide use of recycled paper, especially office stationeries, greeting cards, exercise books, and others. We can even get our Government Ministries and statutory boards to lead the way.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: Sir, we all know that one way of conserving nature and helping to slow down the depletion of the ozone layer is to recycle waste. Papers, plastics, metals and glass, for example, can all be quite easily recycled. What is needed is to encourage local entrepreneurs to be involved in the process, with the Government taking the lead. Government departments and statutory boards can, for example, start by using recycled stationery. Big supermarket chains, like the NTUC, can also help by using recycled PVC bags and by not over packaging their commodities.

Ultimately, however, we must find ways and means to drive home to every Singaporean the serious consequences the human race will face if materials like papers, plastics, metals, etc, are gobbled up in large quantities without them being recycled. Sir, people can be constantly reminded of some of the simple but shocking facts which I would like to quote from a Newsweek magazine of 21st May 1991. I quote:

"It takes 20 trees to keep one baby in disposable diapers for two years.

If a picnicker throws away an aluminium can, it will still be littering the earth up to 500 years later.

Polystyrene foam is completely non-biodegradable. A used foam coffee cup might still be sitting on the earth's surface 500 years from now.

Packaging accounts for one-third of all city wastes by weight and as much as 50% by volume." Such simple facts when drummed into the heads of our young children will most probably remain with them for life and make them environment conscious and nature lovers.

Mr Chairman, Sir, not so long ago, hawkers at food centres were advised to use disposable crockery and cutlery, causing much unhappiness among many of them. Of course, this was done for hygiene sake. Although their use has not been made mandatory, many hawkers are still using them because these hawkers do not want to incur the displeasure of hawker inspectors. In view of our emphasis on 'Green Life', shall we now advise hawkers not to use disposable crockery and cutlery, including disposable chopsticks?

Mr Chairman, Sir, would the Minister also enlighten the House as to whether there is any plan to encourage HDB flat dwellers to separate their domestic refuse and deposit it in separate refuse receptacles, which can be placed at the void decks. Wastepapers, plastics and metal cans which will not give out foul smell or attract ants or other insects can be deposited in such 'recycling receptacles'. Residents Committees' help can be enlisted to encourage people to take recyclable waste to the 'recycling receptacles' at the void decks instead of throwing it down the rubbish chutes.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, the three-month pilot project on waste recycling, carried out in a Town Council housing estate, a private condominium and a housing estate with landed properties, was well supported by the residents in general.

For the information of this House, Sir, a total of about 18 tonnes of wastepaper, 2 tonnes of waste plastics and 4,200 spent batteries were collected and sold for about $3,500. In the case of Telok Blangah, a constituency under the Redhill Town Council where the pilot project was held, the MP, Dr Koh Lam Son, has decided to award bursaries of $400 each to three needy students in his constituency and donating the balance of the money he raised to charity.

Sir, my Ministry will, in the years ahead, actively promote waste recycling in homes, offices and industries. Sir, waste recycling is a sound environmental policy. The more we reuse and recycle, the less we need to get from our earth's resources. Waste recycling also means waste minimization. The more we recycle, the less we need to dispose and our dumping grounds will have a longer lease of life and demand on our incineration capacity will also decrease.

Sir, today there are 11 condominiums practising waste recycling and besides Redhill Town Council, which is continuing from the pilot project, two other Town Councils, namely, Cheng San and Jurong East Town Councils, have shown interest and are working very closely with my Ministry to start waste recycling in their estates. And many schools and offices have also started recycling waste paper. Sir, my Ministry will set up a Waste Recycling Unit to coordinate and promote waste recycling in all sectors of our community. This Unit will also study and propose incentives and legislation to encourage waste recycling.

Sir, Mr Teo Chong Tee has correctly pointed out that since we are into waste recycling, should we now advise hawkers not to use disposable crockery and cutlery including disposable chopsticks. Sir, first of all, the introduction of disposable crockery in hawker centres was primarily for the sake of hygiene, as pointed out by Mr Teo. Because of the manner in which food is served and the fact that many of these hawker centres do not have facilities for central collection and washing, the use of disposable crockery circumvents the problem of the slow clearing of soiled crockery from tables and improperly washed crockery. Sir, eating establishments with facilities for central collection and central washing would certainly be encouraged not to use disposable crockery.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: Mr Chairman, Sir, let me turn to the subject of CFC consumption. Singapore has signed the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Under the Protocol, Singapore is obliged to reduce in stages the consumption of CFCs. I would like to ask the Minister of our progress in reducing the consumption of CFCs and whether we are able to comply with the schedule specified under the Protocol. I would also like to know how is our industry coping with the reduced supply of CFCs.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, the House may recall that Singapore acceded to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the 1985 Vienna Convention on the protection of the ozone layer in January 1989. To implement the Montreal Protocol and the Geneva Convention, the Trade Development Board (TDB) has, since October 1989, introduced a Tender and Quota System to control the consumption of the controlled CFCs in Singapore. Under this system, all industrial end users and distributors who have registered themselves with the TDB will be eligible for quota allocation. 50% of the quota quantity will be allocated by public tender, and the remaining 50% will be allocated to those who have tendered, based on their pro-rated consumption in the previous year. This scheme ensures that the current users will have some CFCs to continue their operation. Our consumption of the controlled CFCs in 1986 was about 4,000 tonnes. By 1990, the consumption has been reduced to about 3,500 tonnes or about 86% of our 1986 level of consumption. The Montreal Protocol requires us to freeze in 1989 our consumption at 1986 level and to hold it at that level till December 1994. So you can see, Sir, that we are very much ahead of the schedule set by the Montreal Protocol.

In our effort to cut down the use of controlled CFCs, my Ministry has, with effect from 5th February this year, imposed a ban on the import and manufacture of non-pharmaceutical aerosols containing the controlled CFCs and also polystyrene sheets and products made using the controlled CFCs. We are working in consultation with industries to phase out the use of the controlled CFCs by the year 2000 in accordance with the Montreal Protocol.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

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