EDUCATION ENDOWMENT SCHEME BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill seeks to establish an Education Endowment Scheme through the setting up of an Edusave Endowment Fund. The Prime Minister first announced this Edusave scheme in December 1990.

The Edusave scheme will be launched in January next year with an initial capital sum of $1,000 million or $1 billion. The fund will be built up over the years from the Government's annual budgetary surplus to a target sum of $5,000 million or $5 billion. This is a massive sum by any standard and will be achieved only if Singaporeans continue to work together and there is sound economic growth. In comparison, it cost the Government about as much to build the MRT.

Income generated by the Edusave Endowment Fund will benefit younger Singaporeans who are still in school as well as future generations to come. They will receive Edusave contributions paid into their individual Edusave accounts which can be used for educational purposes or be saved up. They will also benefit from educational programmes funded by Edusave and they can compete for Edusave scholarships.

Unlike many countries which are in financial difficulties, Singaporeans are indeed fortunate if we can continue to enjoy healthy economic growth and generate enough surplus over the years to put aside $5 billion for further investment in education. The total impact of the Edusave scheme will be large when measured in terms of the sum total of benefits to be enjoyed over the years by many generations of Singaporeans. This investment in education is over and above the 4% of our GDP which the Government currently spends yearly on education.

In designing the Edusave scheme, the Government has applied the following principles:

Firstly, Edusave is an investment in our people. It is not a welfare scheme. For the needy, there are various bursary and other financial assistance schemes.

Secondly, Edusave should encourage Singaporeans to work hard, to be productive, to save and to excel. The build-up of the Edusave Endowment Fund will depend on economic growth generated by Singaporeans' collective efforts. There will be Edusave scholarships for all secondary schools to encourage their pupils to excel in their studies.

Thirdly, to benefit Singaporeans who have contributed to Singapore's prosperity, earnings from the Edusave Endowment Fund will be distributed to the Edusave accounts of all eligible pupils. Those pupils and their parents who do not need the money can donate it to the pupils' schools.

Fourthly, parents should continue to be responsible for financing part of their children's education, at least to the extent of the standard school and miscellaneous fees. These fees cannot be paid from Edusave.

A main objective of the Edusave scheme is to enhance the quality of education in our schools. Therefore, the eligible programmes will be school-based and the eligible pupils will be those studying full-time at our schools. Our schools will have the flexibility to introduce enhancement programmes to meet their pupils' needs, making use of the annual grants from Edusave or paid for from the pupils' Edusave accounts.

Our education system provides 10 years of schooling before pupils join the job market or proceed to post-secondary education or training. It is therefore equitable to set the age limit at 6 to 16 years, so that all eligible pupils will receive 10 years of Edusave benefits.

In keeping with our population policy of "Have 3 or more if you can afford it", the Edusave scheme will be limited to three children per mother. Parents who can afford more than three children should provide for the additional children themselves. We do not want to unwittingly encourage those parents who cannot support a big family to have more children. Edusave is not a population incentive scheme to encourage parents to have more children.

I will now briefly highlight the key aspects of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 provide for the establishment of the Edusave Endowment Fund with capital money provided by Parliament. The capital money can only be used for investment in accordance with the Financial Procedure Act.

Clause 6 sets out the purposes for which the income of the Edusave Fund may be expended. These include the provision of grants to schools to enable them to enhance the quality of teaching, provision of scholarships to deserving pupils and distribution of contributions to all eligible pupils.

Clause 7 authorises the CPF Board to administer the Edusave Pupils Fund and to maintain an Edusave account for every eligible pupil who then becomes a member of the Edusave Pupils Fund.

Clause 10 provides for an Advisory Council to be set up to advise the Minister on the application of the income of the Edusave Endowment Fund.

The conditions for withdrawal of money from the Edusave Pupils Fund are spelt out in clause 12. Members may use their Edusave money to pay for expenses connected with any school-based extra-curricular activity or enhancement programme, to pay for school or miscellaneous fees above the basic amount or for such other purposes as may be prescribed.

Clause 13 enables the member or his parent, as the case may be, to donate money in the member's Edusave account to his school. It also empowers the CPF Board to transfer the Edusave funds of any member who has attained 21 years of age into his CPF account. However, he may apply to retain the money in his Edusave account to pay for further education or training.

My Ministry is drawing up guidelines on the withdrawal and application of funds in pupils' Edusave accounts for educational purposes. I intend to keep the Edusave scheme as simple as possible to reduce administrative cost but with adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the future progress and prosperity of Singapore depends on the education and training of our people. The Edusave scheme is a concrete step to further improve the quality of our education. The aim is to maximise and equalise opportunities for Singaporeans to improve themselves. With Edusave funds to assist them, more Singaporeans will have similar opportunities to enhance their education. They will all have a better start in life. How well they succeed will depend on their own abilities and effort.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

The establishment of the Edusave scheme is not a welfare project. It is a scheme which will benefit the present students and the younger generation of Singaporeans. This will enhance the quality of education in our schools which, in turn, will train and nurture the younger generation to become useful citizens. Therefore, the setting up of the Edusave fund is a bold and massive investment by the Government in the field of education. To a certain extent, it will give our parents and students the opportunity to choose the learning programmes they prefer. Pupils from less-to-do families will no longer be shut off from the learning of piano, ballet, swimming or other interesting subjects. I am particularly glad that under the scheme, pupils from well-to-do families are allowed to donate their entitlement in the fund to the school, so that more pupils from poor families may benefit.

Edusave scheme aims to maximise the use of human resources and it acts as a long-term investment to train the right person for the right job. I hope that the Government will publicise extensively and make the necessary explanations regarding the utilisation of the fund. This will help to avoid the Edusave scheme from being misinterpreted as a welfare project.

The Edusave scheme should be confined to the enhancement programmes which are educational in nature and which will benefit the students, such as piano lessons, ballet, Chinese instrumental music, oriental dances, Malay language, Japanese language, swimming, or the provision of educational facilities like purchasing more library books, teaching aids, or computers to improve the educational standard of the pupils.

I believe that remedial and tutorial classes should continue for those who are weak, but they should not be included as part of the Edusave scheme. Similarly, courses organised by private schools should not be included in the Edusave scheme. This will prevent the private schools from raising their fees and thereby resulting in the misuse of Edusave fund.

Furthermore, Edusave fund should not be used for purchase of air-conditioners, sofa, tables and chairs for the teachers and staff, as these are irrelevant to the enhancement of educational quality.

I hope that the proposed Advisory Council would furnish all the schools, parents and students with effective guidelines to prevent any misuse of the fund.

In view of the aforesaid, I suggest that the penalty for anyone who misused the fund should be increased to a fine of not more than $5,000 or ten times the amount which was misused, in order to have any deterrent effect. In addition, in times of economic difficulties, this project should be suspended immediately so that this meaningful educational endowment scheme will not become an additional financial burden to the nation, in a time of crisis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Education Endowment Scheme Bill.

The Edusave Endowment Fund is recognition of the fact that education is an investment in our people, our greatest asset. By setting aside funds every year, specifically for education, the Government will provide for the educational needs of the people in the long term. Funding for education need not be dependent on the vagaries of the Budget which must be tailored to the economic performance of Singapore in each particular year. As the Minister for Education has pointed out, the Endowment Fund can be built up in good years from the fruits of the economic growth generated by the collective efforts of all Singaporeans.

In lean years, when high standards of educational attainment and training are crucial to our survival and well-being, the Fund can continue to be used to finance quality education programmes.

The main objective of the Fund, therefore, is to enhance and enrich the quality of education in our schools. The availability of financing by grants from the Endowment Fund or the use of the pupils' Edusave would permit schools to introduce enhancement programmes to meet their pupils' needs and interests. The schools are the best institutions to determine and run suitable programmes and the use of the Fund should be limited to school-based programmes. One worthy exception could be community-based education programmes that complement the efforts of the schools and which cater to the specific needs of each community.

The usage of the Edusave Endowment Fund is governed by clause 6 of the Bill. This clause 6, as worded, is very wide indeed. The Fund can only be used for programmes to complement the basic education presently provided. The Ministry of Education must resist the temptation to use the Endowment Fund to fund its normal budgetary requirements.

The Advisory Council to be established under clause 10 will play an important role in ensuring this. The composition of this Council is very important. Parents must be adequately represented as the best means to ensure effective and efficient use of the Fund is to give parents the final say, both as taxpayers as well as people, who could make the right decision for their children.

The Edusave Endowment Fund will be used to fund scholarships for our brighter students, for grants to schools and to fund the Edusave accounts of individual pupils. The most important of these would be the grants to schools. Whilst scholarships will help and reward the brighter pupils, the grants to schools will ensure that the Fund is spent equitably and benefits the entire student population. Individual schools would be able to use the grants to fund a wide range of activities. Neighbourhood schools would be able to develop unique programmes and carve themselves a niche in a particular area of academic or extra-curricular activity. They can also use the funds made available to them to improve their infrastructure. The School Advisory Committees can play an important role in advising the principals and in raising funds to supplement the Endowment Fund grants. This would help avoid the danger that the grants are spent on a minority of students or on white elephant projects. The Ministry can give broad guidelines but must ensure that these are not too stifling. The grants will enable neighbourhood schools to attain some of the flexibility that our independent schools now possess.

The Minister has not mentioned whether primary schools will be given the grants at this stage. The Fund is intended to enrich the education provided to our children. It is important to start such enrichment programmes at a young age. For example, the aesthetic appreciation for the arts is best instilled at a young age. The Ministry should consider extending the grants to primary schools at this stage or as soon as is possible.

The creation of the Edusave Pupils Fund recognises that although there is a good quality uniform education system for all, the Government is willing to give parents choices in enrichment programmes. Edusave Pupils Fund is particularly beneficial to the less well-off Singaporeans who have the greatest need for Government assistance as well as the well-to-do who already sent their children for such activities at their own expense. However, the usage of the Edusave Pupils Fund must be controlled as parents must still be responsible for the basic costs of education such as school and miscellaneous fees.

Edusave is not a welfare scheme and there are various bursaries and other financial means for those who face difficulties in meeting these basic fees. It would be useful for the Ministry to indicate the type of programmes that can make use of Edusave Fund so as to avoid any misunderstanding that may arise from false expectations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Edusave accounts will also not be opened for children who are the fourth child and so on. Although the Government's intention is to discourage poorer families from having more than three children, I feel that this would deprive poorer families that have more than three children presently, and it is these children that need the assistance most. Depriving them of the opportunities that Edusave can provide will shut the door to enrichment programmes that they can benefit from and which would help them climb higher in the socio-economic ladder. The Ministry can perhaps consider implementing the three-child cap per family for children born after the policy is implemented.

Our education system provides for 10 years of schooling before students join the job market or proceed to post-secondary education or training. The Edusave balances of Singaporeans between the ages of 16 and 21 years can be used for vocational and technical training and for young workers to upgrade their skills. Clause 13 of the Bill provides that the unused Edusave balance in each pupil's account would be transferred to his CPF ordinary account. The drawback of this provision is that it is possible that some parents may not bother to ensure that their children actually use the funds and enjoy the benefits of this scheme. Edusave is not intended to be a hand-out, but it is intended to give a boost to the education of our children. Parents must therefore be informed and educated on the uses of Edusave. The schools will play an important role in ensuring this.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Education Endowment Scheme Bill underscores the importance that the Government places on the education of its citizens. It is also heartening to note that we have moved beyond the provision of basic education and can now look forward to a more flexible and innovative approach. This is an important step in our climb towards achieving our vision of a 1984 Swiss standard of living in 1999.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the General Election held last August, the Government made several promises. Amongst them were the Edusave scheme and the Open University. The voters were impressed. Singaporeans all know the importance of education to advance themselves in life. They must have believed the Government's promise, or else the PAP surely would have lost more than four seats when the Election results were announced. What happened after the Election? The people waited. There was only silence in relation to the Edusave Scheme and the Open University. Instead the people heard of massive increases in medical and hospital charges and other increases consequent to Government policies. Then came the announcement. The Government decided not to carry on with the Open University, as promised. The Open University was to be handed over to the private sector to start up and manage.

What about the Edusave scheme? Here again, the Government has deviated from the election promise. The scheme spelt out in the Education Endowment Scheme Bill, that is before us, is different from what was told to the voters in August 1991. It was announced then that for the whole of a child's school life, the sum of $100 was to be credited to his Edusave account per year, purportedly to pay for the child's school fees and whatever his basic educational needs. Even at that time, the feedback from the public was that the sum of $100 per year was paltry, taking into account that private tutors were already charging $100 per subject per month.

What do we have in the Bill that is before us? The total income from the Endowment Fund is not to be credited to the school children but only part of it. The rest goes to the Government and Government-aided schools as provision for grants and scholarships. On this point of scholarships, I would like to ask the Minister whether, from now on, the scholarship awards payable to the President's and Merit Scholars shall be taken out of the income of the Edusave Endowment Fund.

With the income of the Endowment Fund to be divided between so many contesting groups, I would like the Minister to clarify (1) how will the grants be allotted to the schools, especially between the independent and Government schools, and how much; (2) will there be a separate scholarship scheme; and (3) whatever amount is left over, how will they pay to each pupil per year. Will it be less than the sum of $100 touted at the last General Election? Perhaps, the Minister could clarify.

Another disturbing proposal of the Bill is that the withdrawals from the pupil's Edusave account can only be used to pay for extra-curricular activities or for enhancement programmes. This proposal for the payment of only ECA and enhancement programmes is very disturbing. I believe that it will be very restrictive. It will not really benefit the pupils. I do not know whether the Minister has any special reason. If he has, he should tell us because, as I see it, the use of Edusave fund for the payment of only ECA and enhancement programmes would attract adverse educational consequences.

The payment out of Edusave for ECA and enhancement programmes would, to me, mean two things. First, the teachers are going to be expected to be paid when they conduct ECA classes and, second, the schools shall be charging for ECA. When I was a teacher in the 60s, ECA programmes were all free of charge, whether it be sports, games, or non-athletic programmes, like folk-dancing, photography or even in the uniformed groups. I hope that with the implementation of this Edusave programme whereby Edusave can only be used for ECA, all this will not be charged.

I believe that to give additional monetary incentives to teachers to conduct ECA is wrong. When the teachers are properly motivated, they can, of course, give of their best without monetary incentives. More importantly, when the teachers unselfishly spend long hours after school hours to teach and impart skills, the pupils can learn valuable lessons from the dedication, selflessness and commitment of their teachers. But, with this Bill, I am afraid that it will do away with all that. Some principals are going to be thrown overboard and, in their place, short- sighted mercenary incentives are to take its place. If what I say is true, ie, the Edusave money can only be used for ECA, and at the moment ECA are free of charge, but if the Government is going to charge for ECA, then what the Government is giving out with one hand will be collected back with the other.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Government to set aside part of its budget surplus to invest in education and to set up the Edusave Fund for the benefit of our students, instead of carrying on using the surplus fund to generate more and more funds to continue to build up a reserve which is already strong, is indeed a wise move. In my view, a good Government should not only be good in generating wealth, but should also be good in making use of the wealth it has generated. Spend on the people what you have taken from the people. Therefore, in principle, I support the Government's move to invest in education.

However, with regard to the particulars and standard of the Edusave scheme announced by the Ministry of Education, so far, I have the following queries:

First, the Ministry announced that those who are among the top 25% in the PSLE and who have applied for enrolment in the independent schools will be awarded, at one go, a scholarship for four years. Is the Ministry of Education of the view that these students who did well in their PSLE will necessarily do well in their entire four years' studies in the secondary schools? Or is this meant to be just a one-time incentive only, and its effect will last as long as four years? On the other hand, those students who go to Government-aided or Government schools will have to be re-assessed every year and be among the top 10% in their respective schools to be entitled to this scholarship award. Is the Ministry of Education holding the view that good students who go to independent schools will necessarily maintain their good performance every year, but the good students who go to the Government- aided or Government schools will not necessarily maintain their good results every year, and they will have to be re-assessed every year to qualify for the scholarship award?

Secondly, the Government announced that with effect from next year, it will set aside $12 million per year for the Edusave Endowment Fund Scholarship. Of the $12 million, $6 million will be given to scholarships for the independent schools and the other $6 million for scholarships in the Government-aided and Government schools. On the surface, this appears to be a fair distribution. However, there are only six independent schools in Singapore while there are 132 Government-aided and Government schools. On the average, every independent school will get $1 million while the other Government-aided and Government schools will get less than $50,000 each. So, is this a fair allocation?

Thirdly, for the independent schools, each scholarship award can be worth as much as $2,400 per year. Yet in the Government-aided and Government schools, each scholarship award is worth only $300 to $500 per year. So if the scholarship scheme is aimed at encouraging the better students, irrespective of their family background, to carry on working hard, then so long as their results are good, these good students should be awarded equally. However, under the present scholarship scheme, those who are among the top 25% in the PSLE results, but who choose to go to the Government-aided or Government secondary schools, will be awarded only $300 to $500 per year. Even then, they will have to remain among the top 10% of their respective schools each year to be entitled to these awards.

In contrast, if the student chooses to go to an independent school, he can be awarded, at one go, a four-year scholarship of $2,400 per year, totalling $9,600. So, there is a world of difference in terms of awards for students who go to independent schools and for those who go to non-independent schools, although they may attain equally good results in the same PSLE. Then, is this scholarship really a scheme to encourage students to work hard in order to achieve good results, as announced by the Prime Minister, or is it meant to encourage students with better results to seek enrolment in the independent schools? If the Government's reason is that the fees in the independent schools are higher, therefore the scholarship award should also be higher, then the wise parents and the brighter students, in consideration of the economic benefits, will naturally opt for the independent schools because the students will not only enjoy better school facilities and better care there, they will also enjoy a scholarship award of $9,600, whereas a student who opts to enrol in a Government-aided or Government school will get only $300 to $500 per year.

Therefore, is it not apparent that the establishment of this scholarship scheme will serve to encourage those who are among the top 25% of the students at the PSLE to go to the independent schools? In the long run, will it not end up with the independent schools being labelled as first-class schools, and the Government-aided and Government schools be deemed to be second-class or even, third-class schools?

Dr Tay Eng Soon, the Senior Minister of State for Education, said in Parliament this year that attempts were being made to enable neighbourhood schools to attract good students as well. Yet, in the present situation, how are the neighbourhood schools ever going to attract students with good PSLE results to be enrolled there, so that these neighbourhood schools would have a chance to rise head and shoulders above others! My worry is that under this scholarship scheme, the ordinary schools will never have a chance to stand up.

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, Sir, this scholarship scheme awards only those among the top 25% of the students in the independent schools and the top 10% of the students in the Government-aided and Government schools. What about those whose results fall short of the best but are better than the rest, and are good enough to be admitted to the independent schools, as well as those who choose to go to the Government-aided or Government schools and whose results are above average? Should they not be given some form of incentive to encourage them to work their way up? Will the Ministry of Education consider setting aside some money from the Edusave Fund to award some sort of "Diligence Prize" to these students whose results are above average? By so doing, those students whose results are not so good will be encouraged to work harder to catch up with those in the middle, thereby generally boosting the morale of our students, and in the process attain the target of enhancing our national educational level. Finally, Mr Speaker, I hope that the Ministry of Education would announce the details of this Edusave Scheme as soon as possible. For example, how much will every student be entitled to every year from the Edusave Fund? In the long-run, will the Government consider increasing the quantum of the Edusave Fund and the scholarship annually, so that all our students will benefit? As we all know, the Government's theory is to keep on increasing the charges for every service it provides, including school fees, and the fees for participating in activities and programmes which are capable of enriching the physical and mental well-being of the students.

Mr Umar Abdul Hamid (Ang Mo Kio GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The Education Endowment Scheme through which the Edusave Pupils Fund will also be launched next January will bear an initial capital of $1 billion. The Fund will build up until it is capable of reaching an impressive sum of $5 billion. This is an enormous fund that can only be successfully raised if the people are committed to progress and productivity.

Income that is derived from this Fund is meant for the benefit of the pupils in primary and secondary schools, especially for the needy. This move is most welcome. It only goes to prove the continuous existence of a government that strives for the promotion of its most valuable asset, its people.

The scheme is primarily an investment for which everyone stands to gain. An introductory allocation of $50 per pupil is not a small amount to those that await for such assistance. In addition, if this amount is saved throughout the years, it will amount to a big sum by virtue of the income derived from its use.

The scheme also allows our pupils to participate in more enrichment programmes without the monetary factor as a demotivational element. If I may suggest at this juncture, for the Malay pupils who are in need of further guidance in Mathematics they should be given the leeway to use the Fund in a manner that helps them to overcome the problem. It may come in the form of subsidizing tuition fees after school hours where tutors could be employed.

It is still a matter of fact that there are still a disturbing percentage of Malay pupils who could not afford to pay for home tuitions that are run by concerned organisations even though the rates offered conform to market rates. In the face of a meritocratic system where competition runs high in every aspect of life, these pupils might be left lagging behind. I have been made to understand that there are still problems of pupils who are so lacking in means that they could hardly afford a second school shirt. There are also cases made known to me of pupils who would go on for months without the required textbooks and materials, simply because there is not enough money to go around and the family income marginally over-qualifies for the school's bursary limits. These pupils normally come from families that are constantly bogged down with problems. It will be a plus point if this scheme allows a certain degree of flexibility to accommodate such circumstances that I have cited.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed, may I have some clarification from the Ministry of Education over these doubts of mine?

Firstly, it is with regard to clause 6 (1)(a) of the Bill. Will the Ministry kindly elaborate on how the distribution of grants to schools is going to be carried out? Is it based on the school's performance or is it simply given to a school according to its pupil population? Is it both or neither of them?

This happens to be a crucial factor for it leads to the objective of this proposed scheme. It may not necessarily be true all the time that schools with the highest enrolment produce the best standard or the best pupils or vice-versa. If the grant is to be allocated according to the number of pupils, then I believe the objective of this scheme will be best met via the enhancement of the quality of teaching and its materials. Whereas if it is to be given to the school based on its rank or its performance, there might exist a subtle tendency for the school administration to use the grant in improving the school's features rather than the development of the individual pupils.

In the light of providing constructive ideas, may I propose, firstly, that parents and pupils, especially the Malay parents and pupils upon reaching their capacity to withdraw from the scheme, that a small percentage of perhaps 5% to 10% be given to further the cause of community development. The scheme allows parents of pupils below 21 years or the students reaching 21 years themselves to withdraw the balance standing to their credit. The amount donated to certain bodies that cater for educational development may be used to create a larger pool of money to be used as bursaries or financial assistance. These two requirements have increased tremendously as society realises the growing importance of education. This suggestion, if taken up, could lead to two further achievements. One, a society that is conscious of the need to care and share upon a windfall or a gain. And, secondly, it will enlighten the hopes of many who would, under the present pool of resources, have to compete fiercely for only a small amount. The 5% or 10%, taken accumulatively, will represent a huge and influential figure to help expedite the academic achievement of those who are deserving.

My second suggestion is to encourage parents to be more involved in the shaping of the school's curriculum. This fund has its primary focus on the school's enrichment programmes which encompass the school's extra-curricular activities. Though I am particularly pleased to note the increasing number of parents who are very concerned with their pupils' academic performance, relatively, there are only a handful of parents who get themselves acquainted with the school's non-classroom programmes. These programmes bear a heavy influence on the moulding of a pupil's overall development and are to be treated with equal importance. With more parents' participation, the choice made by the pupils in schools on the programmes and activities that they should be involved with would be made with more precision and wisdom with a view to optimizing the scheme.

Thirdly, may I propose that the Fund be used to start certain ECAs that are only evidenced in secondary schools. Perhaps it may be worth considering the introduction of Language Societies and outdoor clubs, like an Adventure Club, in the primary schools. The cost may now be offset by the implementation of this Bill. It may consequently help cultivate interest in organisational work, community service and healthy living in the early days of a pupil. For the Malay pupils, early involvement in such activities would help solve the problems of lack of participation of Malay pupils in association work and voluntarism in secondary school and the days after.

It is acknowledged that this scheme is an investment rather than a welfare programme bred by the Government. As such, it does not include the provision of financial assistance and bursaries. In my opinion, as long as the use of the fund could be justified as being proximate to the main objectives of this scheme, then some flexibility should be given. In the field of promoting education, the difference between an investment and welfare assistance can be on a very thin and grey line. When this scheme goes into practice, there may arise some confusion and complications as a result of this. It is pointless to provide enrichment programmes to a pupil who can hardly grasp the basic concept of education itself. We must constantly be aware that while the emphasis would rest on the upper rung, those in the lower rung must not be neglected in terms of attention and importance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, may I be enlightened on the mode of the implementation of this scheme? Who would administer the accounts of the pupils? Will it be on the shoulders of the teachers who, at present, are so much occupied with classroom management and more? Or will it be the responsibility of the school administration which is equally occupied with running an increasingly complex institution? Or are there some other devices planned by the Ministry?

This proposed scheme, viewed on a whole and analyzed objectively, is like an insurance scheme to insure the country and its people for a better future. Nevertheless, the scheme requires further discussion so as to produce a viable scheme and to guarantee its success. I fully believe that this scheme will help to foster a closer and healthier relationship between the parents, the schools and the Ministry. And in such a relationship, none other than the students themselves would stand to benefit and be assured of an easier pursuit towards excellence.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to rise in support of the Bill. I see that the Bill provides the enhancement of educational potential of all our children in Singapore.

The argument by the Member for Hougang that there is a disparity in terms of allocation of resources between ordinary schools and independent schools does not hold, because one has to examine whether the schooling children are discriminated based on their income backgrounds. I think that children of working class backgrounds do get access to the system, both the ordinary secondary schools and independent schools.

On the scholarship scheme that is being accorded to independent school children, one has to ask whether children of working class backgrounds do have access to such a scholarship. The scholarship is applicable to children of working class backgrounds as well as other children of better-off backgrounds. Therefore, I see that there is basically no discrimination because access is based on performance and results. And children of all backgrounds have access to this scholarship, be they in independent schools or non-independent schools.

What I would like to say is that, in response to this enhancement of children's education, I hope that we do not forget that there are children who are less endowed. There are children who are in special education and they are our children. I hope that this Education Endowment Scheme could be extended to children who are in our special schools, particularly the disabled children who are now studying in these various special schools. What I would like to ask the Minister is whether the benefits will be extended to this category of children. I feel that they should not be discriminated because they are still our children who are studying in special schools and, to all extent, equal treatment will have to be extended to them. I hope the Minister will be able to look into this matter.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, in August 1991, as the Member for Potong Pasir had mentioned, the PAP contested the General Elections by proposing Edusave as a plan to raise the educational standards of Singaporeans and to enhance our education system.

Mr Speaker, Edusave is one of many programmes that the PAP Government had proposed in past elections. And as far as I can remember, PAP is the only party to have contested the elections on a platform of plans and programmes meant to uplift the people and improve the economy. I cannot remember any other party having done the same. And it came as no surprise that today we heard the representatives of SDP and the Worker's Party opposing this programme.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can I have a point of clarification?

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way, Mr Maidin?

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way, Mr Chiam. Please continue.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, what is going to happen now is, and history will record it, that between August 1991 and January 1993, within a period of less than 16 months, a plan that was presented as part of an election campaign is to become a reality. Mr Speaker, we are going to witness how efficient the Government is, how it can implement such a programme within such a short time.

This is something the PAP Government has always been doing and I guess this is making the Members for Potong Pasir and Hougang uneasy. And so, Mr Speaker, they tried to criticise and somehow weaken such a good proposal. But I am saddened and rather concerned because their criticisms are directed at not just a programme of the PAP Government but at something meant for the good of the people of Singapore. I am perplexed because both the Members who have risen earlier have always claimed to be leaders who entered the political arena to improve the lives of Singaporeans and to contribute to their well-being.

Mr Speaker, for me in particular, there are two important points about this proposal. Overall, we will be bringing improvements to the education system, to the benefit of Singaporeans. We will be giving everyone the opportunity to enjoy a variety of educational programmes, not all of which are available in every school previously. In this way, children from the less well-to-do families will be able to benefit from such programmes too. The financial boost provided by the Government through this scheme will enable them to grow up in a more comprehensive education system and help make their education more rounded.

Mr Speaker, I am confident that further enhancements to our education system will be possible in future with the provisions under this Bill, and I am sure the Ministry will endeavour to make such improvements from time to time.

Before I conclude, may I say that when I was a student years back, I too was a member of a photography club in my school. As far as I can remember, the services provided by the school were not free, contrary to what was said. At the same time, coming as I did from a poor family, I did not have the opportunity to benefit from something like the Edusave scheme, because no such scheme existed then. But, in future, maybe from next year onwards, students who come from poor families, who want to take advantage of programmes like the photography club, will be able to do so, because this scheme will be there to help them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What do you wish to clarify?

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I ask Mr Maidin whether it is true or not that on 21st August 1991, the PAP had already formed the Government and there was no need for the Opposition to give its alternative programme.

The other point is this. Is it also not true that the PAP in August last year did not say that the Edusave scheme would only confine itself to providing for extra-curricular activities and enhancement programmes? Is it also not true that the PAP has gone back on its word in regard to the setting up of an Open University?

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in fact new in politics. But as far as I know, if a party has no plans, then it is difficult to call itself a political party. Maybe it should call itself a Saturday night party. You do not have a plan and you could enjoy yourself. At the same time, Sir, in my view, it is not fair to say that because the PAP has been in power, all other Opposition parties need not worry about plans. I think that is a less responsible way of approaching politics in Singapore.

As to the Member's other question, I think the Minister for Education is more familiar with this subject, Sir.

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, from the first time the idea was mooted till now, I think there is some deviation. The original intention was to give $100 to each student. Now it has been shifted to a more scholarly kind of endowment to reward those who can study. The worry here is, like the Medisave scheme, whether a sudden surge in a certain demand will cause a surge in the cost and price that the schools will have to pay. It looks like schools will be the ones to dictate what the students would get. Probably a good compromise will be to also allow a small portion of the money, maybe a quarter, to go to each individual student so that he could also make a decision with the parents to use the money. If for anything, he could accumulate the money for further studies in the later stage of life.

Strictly, on the scholarly endowment, it may not be very palatable in the sense that the Education Ministry has been trying very hard through the many systems and schemes, different kinds of schools and giving more budget to the schools to enhance their own programmes. That part of it is beautiful and that should continue. But I think Edusave should be given more to the students themselves, an investment that the Government is willing to put in the students, rather than on the mechanism of education as a total picture.

On the budget side, if 4% is not enough, maybe a little bit more in the good years should go straight to helping the schools to provide more incentives for running better ECA programmes. But my personal feeling is that disappointment will come when the original intention was to give $100 to each student and then allow him to see where he would like to improve on. Otherwise, if schools run strictly on all ECA programmes, such as ballet and music, do we have the facilities to provide for them? There will be a sudden surge in all these costs.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank all those Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. If I am correct, I think Mr Low also supports the Bill, although he has some queries about certain aspects, especially about the scholarship scheme. Mr Chiam did not say whether he supports the Bill, but he seems a little bit confused about certain aspects of the scheme. Maybe after clarification, he might also support the scheme.

I think it is hard to quarrel with the scheme because, basically, the Government's intention is to put aside some surplus money for educational purposes to benefit many generations of students. So this basic concept of putting aside, initially $1 billion, and building up to $5 billion for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, is something we cannot quarrel with. But, as expected, there will be some disagreement over how to use the money and whether it should be used this way or that way, and who should qualify. I think that is to be expected. Even within a family when they have a budget to renovate the house, everybody should be happy but they will be quarrelling about how to renovate the house. So I think the same problems will apply here. But the basic concept is a sound one and I am sure Members will support it.

First, I would like to deal with the points made by Mr Chiam that the Government has not kept its election promise. That is entirely untrue. In fact, within a short spell of two years, my Ministry has worked extra hard to put the scheme into place. The scheme is basically the same as before. There has been no change, except for the fact that now the Prime Minister has decided to introduce the element of competition. Instead of giving a straight handout from the income of the fund to every pupil, there will now be scholarship schemes, not only for independent schools but also for all schools. So if the child is not so bright and he goes to a neighbourhood school of a lower standard, where the children are not so bright, the top students will also get scholarships. So there will be encouragement of this competition at all levels, and not only in the independent schools.

Unfortunately, the independent schools are more expensive because they are experimenting with smaller class size, new programmes and so on. So the basic principle of the independent schools is that the State pays for the basic amount, as in all schools, and the parents pay for the extra. This extra does cost money. That is why some independent schools, like RI and ACS, are charging $200 per month in school fees. The other range will be $75 in some of the independent girl schools. So the complaint came about: "Okay, well and good, you have these independent schools trying to innovate, but because of the high fees, you are preventing some parents from sending their children to these schools". Therefore, the Government felt that it should provide scholarship schemes to enable bright children to compete for places in those schools. Through this scholarship scheme, the children will now be able to enrol in all these independent schools, depending on their own choice, so long as they are able to compete and win places in those schools.

Because the school fees are higher in the independent schools, therefore, we have to provide scholarships to cater for the additional fees. Therefore, the quantum has to be bigger. It has to be for the full four years; otherwise if a poor student comes in and then after one year he has no scholarship, he may have to leave. That is the reason why the scholarships for independent schools are based on the PSLE results and valid for the full four years. But, in addition, there will be scholarships for the other students who did not make it in the PSLE. So long as they come within the top 5% of the students in the school results of those independent schools, they will also qualify for scholarships on a year-by-year basis, if they have not already got the scholarship at the PSLE entry point. I think that covers mainly the points raised by Mr Low. The intention is not just to focus attention on the top 25% who enrol in independent schools.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I clarify with the Minister, Sir.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I think he can clarify later, because we are running short of time. It is rather late anyway.

I was saying that the intention is, in fact, to try and let the schools innovate so that they will improve on the quality. In addition to independent schools, we are now contemplating to set up some autonomous schools where the fees will be kept lower so that bright children can not only apply for the independent schools, but also to other good schools. You may have noticed from the ranking of schools that, in fact, the independent schools are not all top schools.

Mr Chia and Mr Chiam said we made some changes to the Edusave scheme. That is true. Firstly, we introduce scholarships to enhance the competitive element. Secondly, we allow block grants to schools. There, we have not really departed from the principle. The point is that the money from the pupils is sometimes best channelled en bloc to the schools as they are best able to know what scheme to meet the needs of the students. You can either do it on an individual basis, every pupil applying on his own, which is quite costly administratively. Or else, we do it en bloc. So the idea is for the benefit of all the pupils in the schools, we will yearly channel a sum of money to the schools. The sum will average $100,000 per secondary school. But the quantum per school would depend on the enrolment. So they will get the same quantum per capita. This is the point Mr Umar raised.

We estimate that with all these schemes, for the first year of operation, the sum that will go to the individual pupil's account will be in the region of about $50 per year. This is somewhat lower than the original $100. But the sum will be increased over the years, as we put in more money into the fund so that eventually when we reach the $5 billion target and if you assume 5% interest earnings per year, then the sum could well approach $500 per child per year. Over a 10-year period, that is not an insignificant sum of $5,000 per pupil.

The intention is for this sum to be used for the benefit of the pupils to enhance their education. It is not for the schools to start raising fees and so on, so that what we give out with one hand we take back with the other hand. That is not the intention. The Government is not short of money for education. We are spending 4%. If need be, we will spend more money. But there is this extra sum of money that can be used for enhancement programmes so that the schools can design programmes to meet the needs of the pupils, and the parents can have a choice. Through the pupils' fund, they will have a say whether the fund would be used for a particular activity. They themselves will have to approve that activity. So there is a choice there.

My own approach to this is a cautious one. On the one hand, we want to improve the education of our children. So we want to have worthwhile programmes, we want to have value for money. We do not just want to spend the money on any spurious programme. That is why we insist that the programme must be school-based and school-controlled. Otherwise the private sector could come out with all kinds of schemes and very soon the money will be gone.

I would rather that we keep the money in an account and use it carefully, and if there is no good scheme, maybe eventually the money could be transferred to CPF as a saving or for other uses, or it could be used later on to pay for university fees. So I would rather take a conservative approach and keep the money there and use it when necessary. The intention is not to benefit the teachers through higher pay and so on. That is not the intention. The intention is for the schools to come out with programmes where they can enhance the learning of the children. They might, for example, hire additional specialists for music, they might bring their children to excursions to see various museums and pay for their museum admission charges and so on. The money should not be used to build facilities or for school building projects. It should not be used, for example, to pay the existing teachers, who are already paid. The intention is for additional programmes, additional improvements, on a flexible basis, on a school-by-school, and with parental choice, basis.

Just briefly on the Open University. The Government has not abandoned the plan to implement the Open University. It has merely decided on changing the vehicle for implementation. The Government is fully behind the Open University programme. It is in fact providing a big sum of $38 million to start off the programme. This is a point that has to be corrected.

I will just briefly touch on some of the points raised by the other Members. Mr Peh asked that we control the scheme so that it will not be abused. I agree with him fully, and I have explained this point. He asked whether we should have higher fines than those stipulated in the Act. I do not think so at this point. But if need be, we can always raise them later.

Mr Sinnakaruppan asked whether we are considering grants for primary schools. The answer is not yet. But we will observe how the scheme works for secondary schools and, depending on the availability of funds, we will consider primary schools at the next stage. But I take his point that we should try and do this as soon as possible. He asked why we limit this to three children. I have already explained. It has to be consistent with the population policy. The sum of money may be insignificant to rich parents, but to poor parents it may be attractive, and we do not want to give them the wrong signal. So, unfortunately, we do have to draw a line somewhere, and that is at the third child. In fact, for procreation, there are already various tax incentives to encourage those who can afford to have more children. Those who cannot afford, they really should confine themselves to three or less children.

Mr Umar asked for the basis of grant to schools. It is on a per capita basis. I think that is fair because the money is basically to benefit the children and we are really taking part of the money from the Edusave pupils accounts, grouping it together, and giving it to the schools. So the bigger the enrolment, the more the money.

He asked whether some of the contributions could be donated to community organisations after the member has reached 21 years of age. My answer is that there is no plan for that. I think the community-based organisations already have sufficient funds at their disposal through the CPF scheme where they check-off from the salaries of the workers who do not object to doing it or who have not opted out. So with that and the dollar-for-dollar matching from Government, I think there is enough money. Really, the Edusave scheme is for the benefit of the pupils. If they do not require the money, they should really donate to schools and benefit the other students.

Administratively, I would like to keep this scheme as simple as possible. Because one of the drawbacks is that if you have parental choice, and the sum is initially not big, it could become very expensive to administer. So we should try and control it. One way, for example, would be to allow the Edusave funds to be used to pay for the second tier miscellaneous fees. The Edusave fund cannot be used for the basic school fees and miscellaneous fees which come to about $12 per month. But some schools are allowed to increase and have decided to increase their miscellaneous fees by 30%, which is another $2 per month. This money can be used for that purpose. It can also be used to pay the school fees of independent schools above the basic level of $12 per month.

Dr Vasoo made the point that there is free competition to enter the schools. The point is valid. He asked whether we would allow this to be given to special education schools. Unfortunately, the answer has to be no, because the scheme is meant to improve our education in schools, meaning Government schools, Government-aided schools and independent schools. For the special education schools, we have a separate scheme where the Ministry does provide grants up to twice the per capita cost of primary schools. If there is need for more money, we can consider it. But I think we should treat it separately from the Edusave scheme. I am in full agreement with him that we do the best we can for these children. But I think Edusave is somewhat different. We are trying to invest and improve on the quality of our schools. So we have to draw a line at our schools and not include other schools.

I think I have covered most of the points. If I have missed anything out, please let me know.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify. Under clause 6(1)(c), "for the provision of contributions to the Edusave Pupils Fund", will contributions be made now to each pupil or a pupil can only get contributions through the provision of scholarships under clause 6(1)(b)? Because you have defrayment of payment out of the student's account through extra-curricular activity. Where does the money come from if there is no payment out under clause 6(1)(d)?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: For the first year of operation next year, Parliament has already made special provision. Because there is no Edusave money yet, there is no earning of income. There is a special vote already approved by Parliament in the budget amounting to $40 million which will be the initial income, as it were, for the Fund over and above the $1 billion. So the initial sum of money going to the Edusave Fund from January next year will be the $1 billion capital plus $40 million, which is deemed to be income for the Fund, and that Fund will be used in the following ways. To provide for grants to the secondary schools, this will amount to about $13 million, because there are about 130 secondary schools, and on average, it is $100,000 per school. Then there will be another roughly $1.4 million for the Edusave scholarships for independent schools. In fact, the number is probably smaller because the fees are less than the amount used for this estimation. The Edusave scholarships for secondary schools will get another $1.6 million.

Out of the $40 million, you deduct the $13 million, and you deduct $3 million for scholarships, there is still quite a lot of money left. Of course, you have to pay for the initial computerisation and administrative costs. But we estimate that in year one alone, we will be able to contribute to each pupil's account somewhere in the region of about $40 to $50. This is less than the original $100 because of the new schemes that I have mentioned. But the intention is that once we reach $5 billion, then the sum in the pupils' accounts will be much larger.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. Does the Minister agree that, from the criteria of award for scholarships, it appears that the award is not based on effort and result of the PSLE, but rather on the choice of students who want to be admitted to independent schools or other schools, because of the difference in amount of the scholarships?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: That is not quite true. The children will have to submit their choice before the PSLE. So those who opt for the independent schools, of course, will be considered. But, in addition, the top students will again be given an option after the results are out, whether they want to opt for any particular independent school. We then rank all the applicants, those who applied before as well as those who qualify based on their results, by order of merit, and the top 25% will be given scholarships, and they can choose whatever school they want to go - RI, ACS, or any other school.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. If that is the system, does the Minister agree that the top 25% of the students will opt for independent schools rather than other schools?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: I think it is not always true. It is true that most of the top students do tend to opt for certain schools. But there are other students who prefer, for example, Christian schools for various reasons. SJI is one example. They also have this feeder school arrangement. But the main point is that there is this free competition to enter into the top schools. The independent schools are among the best schools in Singapore. So there is free competition by all, regardless of family background, based on their PSLE results, to get scholarships to go into those schools. And I suspect most of the bright students will tend to orientate towards certain schools. There will not be an even spread of scholars across all the independent schools. In addition, there will be other schemes. There will be the scholarship scheme for all the other secondary schools. And we are also thinking of having autonomous schools to rival the independent schools, but charging lower fees.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: My question is whether the top 25% of PSLE students would be encouraged, because of the scheme, to opt for independent schools.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: It is the top 25% of those who apply for independent schools, not the top 25% of all the PSLE students. The good schools tend to attract better students. As you can see from the ranking of schools, there is already, with or without a scholarship, a certain orientation towards certain schools. But the school results are not everything. Parents and children do choose schools for various reasons, maybe old boys' links, maybe because they prefer the flavour of the school. So it is not a clear-cut orientation. The parents should really choose the schools that fit their children. If you look at the ranking of schools, you will find that the good schools are those that take in children with good results. The schools that have really done a lot for their pupils are those that add value, ie, they take in average children and produce good results. So we should judge schools not purely from the academic results, which depend to a great extent on what they take in, but also on the all-round development of their pupils.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir. Would the Minister say how much it will allocate to individual Edusave account holders?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained this. First year, we expect maybe $40 to $50 per account. This depends on detailed calculations. And later on, it depends on how much we can put aside, and if Parliament approves the amount. And eventually when it is $5 billion, at 5% interest per year, that is $250 million. After you minus the amounts for various scholarship and grant schemes, which are not very much relatively, most of the balance will go into the pupils' accounts. If it is $250 million divided by 400,000 qualifying pupils, it is about $500-$600 per pupil.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.