ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2001 TO 31ST MARCH, 2002 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 2001)

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head L -

The Chairman: Head L - Ministry of Education. Amendment No. (1), Dr Wang Kai Yuen.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the education of our children is a subject close to our hearts. Every parent with a child in our school system has suggestions on how to improve it. Some of these ideas sound very logical and it is tempting to tweak the system to incorporate them. For instance, when pupil workload was identified to be an issue, we reduced the course load. Sir, I surmise that step-wise improvements are useful, provided we are already very happy with our existing system. But sometimes it might be better if we perform a total review and, where necessary, implement system-wide changes.

Sir, what we have got today is a very good system, highly productive and efficient. All we have to do is to look at the recent 'A' and 'O' level results, and from that perspective, it is a system any education authority in the world would envy.

Ours is a system designed by systems engineers where pupils are sorted according to their learning abilities. From primary 4 onwards, the school children are graded every two years, and streamed to different ability streams. After 'O' level, they are channelled into different career paths according to their examination results. Some 20% go on to universities, another 40% to the polytechnics and the rest to ITE. It is a traditional system where rote learning and discipline pay great dividends. As a result, we send our children to schools to be educated. They ended up being on a treadmill whose speed is being cranked up one notch every so often, because there is a need to separate the outstanding from the merely good. Stress is high. And our children end up spending most of their time poring over books and pitifully little time in other activities such as sports that school-going children in other countries are engaged in. Many of our children do not enjoy school, even though they score very well in their examinations.

Sir, I think it is worthwhile for us to note that almost every education system in the world requires a 12-year education for the children before they are admitted into the university. This minimum period seems to be a universal norm. Perhaps it has something to do with the maturing process of the human mind. However, because of our singular focus on knowledge acquisition, at every level of our school system, our children out-perform their counterparts in other countries, in particular, some of the western countries. But once our young men and women graduated from a 4-year university degree programme, I surmise that they emerge no better than the graduates from other overseas universities. So, the advantage gained in our school system seems, to me, to be short-term ones. Therefore, my question is: is it necessary to subject our children to study so much, be subject to so much stress prior to entering university when, after graduation, they are almost back to the same level as others from a less stressful education system?

Furthermore, I think it is well-known in the university education circle that no matter how we design the sorting system, be it examinations or otherwise, it is very likely that the same strong students will always emerge at the top. Sir, if that is the case, and if we do not have permanent long-term advantages, the question then is: why do we put our children through a pressure cooker system, so much so that one young girl even took her own life for failing to meet up to her own expectations? I note that Dr Lily Neo has a cut on this subject and I would not go into this further.

For years now, the Government has asserted that the stress in the education system is not there as a result of any Government policy. The Minister has, in fact, responded on many occasions that even if he instructed the schools to ban all homework, it would not have changed the situation at all. The simple reason is that the parents would then step in, take over and hire tutors to ensure that their children stay on top. So, who is responsible for the stress in our education system - the parents or the system itself?

Sir, parents' behaviours are indeed rational and logical. They want the best for their children. They are equipping their children for the best jobs in the job market. I surmise that they are just responding to the way our system selects candidates to fill the best jobs in the job market, in particular, when they first graduate from the university. At that stage, because of our transparency and our emphasis on meritocracy, individuals are chosen by the civil service, the GLCs and statutory boards based almost exclusively on their academic achievements. Furthermore, because we have a scholarship system, these candidates are chosen soon after their 'A' level examination results, when most of them are just 18 years old. For the creme de la creme, good jobs and well-smoothened career paths await the scholastic high achievers. This is epitomised by the public service, which only picks the very best.

In fact, there is no easier way to pick them than to base on scholastic achievement at that time. I believe this is what drives the competitive engine in our education system. Examinations must be designed to separate the few at the apex from the mere outstanding. At the last 'A' level results, the number of students with 4 As, if you look at the report, is in fact very staggering. Since we can no longer separate the cream from the mere outstanding, we introduced the S paper into the examinations. This intensity to get better and better results in the examinations percolates down the whole system, from pre-university all the way to primary school.

Therefore, if we were to address how to improve our approach to education, reducing course load to the students itself is not enough. We will still need to change the culture, starting with changing the selection process for the best jobs in the job market. In this area, the Government will have to take the lead if we are indeed committed to changing the culture. To start with, we should change the way candidates for the best jobs in the civil service are selected. We should de-emphasise scholastic achievements and focus on demonstrated abilities. Perhaps we can learn from the Singapore Armed Forces how they select the officers, where the total capability of the individual is assessed.

Another possibility is for the Administrative Service to rely less on scholars, fresh out of the university, and to tap matured talents from the open job market. If the rest of the GLCs and the statutory boards take the cue, we could be on our way to change the culture. Once that message is made loud and clear, I am sure the behaviour of the parents and students will change accordingly.

Of course, changing the culture of the whole society is not the task of MOE alone, but might require a policy decision by the Cabinet. But change we must in order for Singapore to continue to do well in the knowledge-based economy. Creativity and innovation are key to the wealth creating process in the KBE. And without change, our current education system would be found wanting.

Sir, the Minister has given much thought to this issue. I think the House would benefit from his comments on this topic.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Sir, a common refrain and lament we hear these days are the heavy workload and stress faced by students and teachers. Here, I want to echo the GPC Chairman for Education, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, on the points he made. Thus we hear the chorus of complaints about the misgivings expressed in the school ranking, students being streamed into Gifted and Special Assistance Programme, Express and Normal streams, class size could be smaller and the declining mental health of our children. Sir, I believe the basic concern is really the fear of parents that their child may not be able to cope and do well in school.

Indeed, the pace of change has been frantic. So many things are happening. I fear that our children are spending too much time on the computers, since the time that we introduced IT in schools. There are non-academic subjects and healthy sports and recreational activities which our children should be learning and doing, but are not. There are so many demands, yet the time and resources are limited. We have to take stock of the individual's capacity and capability and help them prioritize accordingly. We have to help our children to organise themselves and manage their time better as we adults do.

Parents should know that their children have at least 40 years of active working life ahead of them. To have a headstart is to lay a strong foundation. It requires patient nurturing. If the children need more time, we ought to give it to them. We may wish to be quick, but we should not be in a hurry, because we understand "make haste, less speed". Even more important is the inculcation of good values and sound principles in our young. Parents themselves must set the right and good example for their children. We seem to be doing things for our young instead of showing them how. 12.45 pm

We have to accept that our children have different gifts and talent endowments. We should not ask the children to do courses and subjects that they are not interested in. That is why we see a growing number of them dropping out of medicine, legal practice and accountancy after graduation. A common reason offered was that they were doing it for their parents. How sad, they should be doing it for themselves and be proud of it. Mind you, we are talking about very noble professions.

The Ministry of Education can actively embark on a comprehensive programme to guide the parents as to how they should educate their children at home. Perhaps in partnership between the teachers and parents, we can achieve better outcome in the progress and overall development of our children.

May I ask the Minister how he proposes to address the common concern of heavy workload and stressful schooling and the consequential effects on our parents, teachers and students?

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, last year, I spoke about the education system that is mainly focused on the efficiency of delivery of subjects and lessons and therefore we have achieved well in terms of measures like scoring straight A's, ranking of schools based on academic excellence and achieving top marks in international Science and Mathematics competition. The issue therefore is whether the efficient education system has allowed us to produce good innovators, entrepreneurs, artists, sportsmen and women of excellence in non-academic areas. The real answer is that we have limited success in these areas. My main question to the Minister is: what has he done in implementing the mass customisation' approach in our education system? Can the Minister give specifics of what he really means by the mass customisation programme and how he plans to implement this in schools? To-date, I am still confused as to what it means and not able to see the concrete examples of implementation. Are our schools set up to allow customisation of education for our children of differing abilities or are we just categorising our children according to academic learning abilities, like we have been doing in the past? How are we ensuring that the system we have in place is able to identify non-academic talents and groom students of such talents to achieve their full potential? Does our school system consider grooming students to achieve excellence in such non-academic areas as important as those who have done well in academic areas? I have to admit that to-date, I have not been able to see any significant impact of the mass customisation plans.

I have spoken about streaming of our children at the Primary 4 level and I would like to touch on this again today. Our children are so stressed these days, as we have heard from our previous two speakers, that I do not think many of them enjoy going to school. How then can we inculcate the value of lifelong learning if they get disillusioned by our education system at such an early age? I have seen in my daughter's school, it was examination period, where a girl was struggling not to go for her test, and her parents were pulling her on one end and the teacher and the principal were all encouraging her to go. It was really a very distracting sight for the children around her too.

If we survey all the education systems around the world, we are the only country in the world that does streaming at such an early age. While the intended outcome is to allow every child to learn at his or her pace, the actual outcome is that we label them and eliminate them or greatly reduce their chances of getting back to the mainstream Express or Normal (Academic) streams. Can the Minister give statistics of how many children streamed to the EM3 stream have made it back to EM1 or EM2 streams in the primary schools? And how many EM3 students, who went to the Normal (Technical) stream, made it back to the Normal (Academic) and Express streams?

Sir, I attended a function recently organised by CDAC, MENDAKI and SINDA. This is called Project Team, and we have heard about it in this House recently. The programme was intended to bring children of various races and streams together in trying to inculcate a sense of community and bond-building among themselves. When I actually asked some of them, many of them right from the beginning when they got together, segregated themselves according to the streams that they came from, and basically treated each other differently. Those from the lower streams seem to be having self-esteem issue and those from the higher streams seem to have a `high-class' feeling issue. If we start to develop this kind of attitude at early ages, we will see real problems when they grow up as adults in the country.

I am also curious to find out what programmes have been put in place to promote creativity and lifelong learning in our schools. Particularly, have there been any changes in the curriculum which develop the creative mind and inculcate the value of lifelong learning? I myself have not seen any evidence of this being done. In fact, we still continue to focus on the academic issues and measures, and therefore there have not been many changes. And I do not think we will see any impact in trying to develop creativity and the issue of lifelong learning among our children.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Sir, lest we get carried away with the notion that our education system is full of warts and problems, I do want to bring the focus back to the point that, overall, we have a good education system. Certainly that is the feedback I get from parents and, in general, observers both within and outside Singapore. I think the fact that we are raising issues that are qualitative in nature suggests that we want to make it even better. It would be a far greater cause of concern for us if we are complaining about the quality of the instruction we get in our schools, or that our students are not measuring up when we compare them with international standards.

Sir, in part, that is due to the various initiatives that the Ministry has undertaken over the last few years, in particular, focusing on the hardware in terms of improving facilities, the systems through school evaluation models and information technology, and so on. Also, it has demonstrated a focus on perhaps the most important element - the teachers, the people who make the system work. In that regard, the terms of employment for teachers are important. Salaries and benefits are an essential part. One does not want to over-emphasise this because I think there is more to a career than just the pay and the benefits, but this is an essential element. And I would be pleased to know from the Minister what initiatives would be taken in that regard.

Perhaps, as importantly, what other initiatives are being undertaken to enhance the work experience of our teachers in the school environment? A common complaint is administrative load, and that leading to stress. Are there other measures we can undertake through employment of additional support staff or in terms of providing them with customised IT solutions which might minimise these forms of burden in the eyes of the teachers so that they can concentrate on what they do best, which is, teach students.

Sir, one feedback that we have obtained from the GPC for Education is that perhaps in our education system, a certain prosaic utilitarian attitude is emerging. Evidence of that would be in the form of the choice of subjects our students seem to be gravitating towards, with a particular emphasis on the Sciences and Mathematics and away from the softer, harder-to-score subjects like the Humanities. We have heard that in some of the top schools, due to emphasis among the students themselves, by choice, there would appear to be a move away from English Literature. If they must do an Arts subject and as required by the schools, they would prefer to do history or geography, because it is easier to score than to do Literature, which generally, it seems, is a harder subject in which to get an `A' or a distinction. This is attributable to many causes - that we over-emphasise Science and Mathematics, that schools are too geared towards achieving quantitative results, because of the ranking system.

But, Sir, whatever the cause, the question really is: is this an example of market failure perhaps in our education system? In this day and age, when we are emphasising a broad-based education where we want to ensure that our students come out with the capability to channel their energy in a broad range of areas of endeavour, because the needs of the environment, the economy, and our society are changing so fast, would it not be important for us to ensure that our students have a broad-based approach in their attitude towards education?

I would like to ask the Minister: is this a cause for concern at this point? Is there a marked trend? If it is, is it a cause for concern? In particular, is this an example of perhaps a market failure where some form of Government intervention might be justified? Just as, for example, one could argue that the choice of mother tongue as an academic subject might not be high on the list of priority for a student because of the difficulty to score points, but the Government has seen fit to emphasise it as an essential part of education process. Could we adopt a similar attitude towards the humanities? If we do adopt such an attitude, how can we structure the system to ensure that this becomes an essential part of the total education experience our students have in schools?

Dr Jennifer Lee (Nominated Member): Sir, our education system continues to be a topic that generates what we should perhaps simply describe as "animated conversation" where anywhere and anytime, you find a gathering of Singaporeans who are parents.

The four Members before me have spoken on various aspects of our education system that cause stress and distress to parents and children. Sir, we have a dilemma. The Ministry's view is that the fundamental problem lies in parents' unrealistic expectations of their children. Parents, on the other hand, are equally convinced that the problem essentially resides in the rigidity of an unforgiving system. When you analyse the stories and experiences recounted, the issues may be grouped largely into three categories.

The first relates to the thorny issue of our values - our practice of reducing everything to economics, of measuring success and the dollars and cents that come with the high-paying jobs that come to those with academic achievements that drive our parents to drive their children.

The second set relates to the many individual anecdotes of teachers who are less sensitive and less nurturing than what would be considered adequate and satisfactory to guide and help our children develop to the best of their abilities.

The third set relates to principals. The Ministry has on occasions before pointed out that it has over the years been responsive in reviewing policies, for example, in reducing curriculum load. Therefore, a number of operational issues, such as, for example, starting times of the school day, principals have been given full autonomy to make decisions. It seems, however, that some principals may be over-zealous in pursuing academic results and rankings on the one hand, or possibly not taking advantage of the autonomy delegated to them on the other. However, when you hear good stories of good schools, invariably, I think, you will find a good principal with initiative, supporting and managing his or her staff well.

Sir, if you look at the problem of values, that is something that the Ministry of Education cannot solve on its own and which takes a long time to evolve and resolve. When you look at the anecdotes that relate to teachers, I really do not know how one can go about ensuring that 25,000 teachers perform consistently up to the standards that we all want for the instruction of our children. So it seems to me that the best bet we may have that would enable a more immediate better management of parents' anxieties and frustrations is to pull out all stops and focus on the identification and accelerated development of good dynamic principles to optimise the management of resources and operation of issues and the insightful implementation of policies at individual school level. I recognise that 300-plus good principals sound a lot more manageable a number than 25,000 good teachers. But it is still a tall order. However, by grouping or clustering schools together and the assignment of particularly strong principals so that they may be well distributed among the clusters could achieve a multiplier effect. 1.00 pm

There is one more thing, Sir, that is needed and that is to be sure that the measures of performance must be clear and consistent with policy directions so that principals are not incentivised to behave in incongruent ways. In other words, for example, the Ministry says that ranking of schools in academic performance is not the be-all and the end-all and other things are important too, then principals' performance, appraisal and progress in their careers should reflect that.

I hope that the Minister will take my observations into consideration as an attempt at a shorter term solution even as we grapple with the longer term and even more difficult to resolve issues and challenges in the education of our children.

Dr Lily Neo (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, the Ministry of Education has been scoring highly in preparing Singaporean children academically and is now endeavouring to further educate and equip them to face the information technology and new economy age. Thus far, MOE has been concentrating more on imparting knowledge to the children.

But, for an ideal education, MOE should treat the education of our children in a more holistic way. The well-being of the children, such as their mental state, their social requirements and their physical needs, should be the concern of all the teachers as well.

Sir, teachers should not just concentrate on teaching them the academic syllabus. They are very much in contact with our children and are ideally suited to take added interest and be concerned with their students in a more holistic way. They should also teach and help them cope with life. I am not, in any way, suggesting that we diminish the responsibilities of parents. I am suggesting that teachers be equipped with skills and encouraged to identify students with difficulties, be it social, mental or even financial, and refer them for assistance.

In 1998, 2,358 new cases of children aged below 18 were registered at the Government psychiatric clinics. As mentioned earlier by Dr Wang Kai Yuen, only recently, a 12-year old student jumped to her death. Sir, could stress, maybe due to the heavy school load or the unrealistic expectations of parents, be the cause? Perhaps, our children should also be taught how to cope with stress from young to attain their maximum potential. The early detection of those children who are vulnerable to stress will save them from poor performance and mental breakdown.

To be effective, schools have no choice but to get involved with some parents. This area must be expanded. Often times, we need to solve problems at the root and sometimes the parents may have to be advised. Sir, it would also be worthwhile for the Ministry of Education and the schools to put in more effort to alleviate the anxiety and better inform the parents on issues, such as streaming, banding, and so on.

A holistic and comprehensive education would be ideal in helping parents with school-going kids balance work and family commitments. We may, perhaps, try matching work hours with school hours. Sir, since we are tending towards single session schools, we can have the children stay back in the school to do "homework" or have "remedials" whilst their parents are still at work. Another way of helping parents, especially those who are working, is to organise the extra curricular pursuits collectively in the schools after classes. This will save parents having to ferry their children to and from different places for these hobbies. I would like again to plead with the Minister for Education on another item. Would he give the directive for our schools to start later so that children do not have to wake up in the wee hours each morning?

Sir, I would urge the Minister for Education to look into the above issues favourably. Sir, can I go on to my next cut on stressful education?

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Lily Neo: Sir, I doubt many will fault our education system in Singapore in terms of first rate facilities and in terms of fantastic academic results. But does such an enviable success status come with a price?

The study by Dr Stella Quah of the National University of Singapore on the "The Singapore Family" revealed that the greatest worry for about 45% of families came from the problems associated with their children's education. Singaporean parents have also frequently mentioned children's education as the contributory factor in opting for smaller families.

Sir, is there any possibility in getting the excellent result without getting "The Singapore Family" so stressed up? If so, what are the steps that must be taken? In this new economy and information technology age, stressful education, be it real or perceived, is a very compelling reason for us to improve the teaching and learning processes of the education here. The past practice of rote learning should be changed towards emphasis on understanding and application of subjects. I agree with my parliamentary colleague, Mr Loh Meng See, that it is time to look into our teaching method and syllabus in our schools. Sir, the syllabus needs to be revamped to make it less demanding so that the teachers can complete it and the students can understand what has been taught. Overloading pupils unnecessarily with homework and tests should be minimised. Worse still, we would be expecting students to master by themselves those topics in certain subjects that cannot be covered in the classes.

Singaporeans, Sir, spend as much as $30 million each year on their children's tuition. This is far too much. Why is there such a need for so much tuition? It will be a good idea if our schools can provide some sort of tutorial classes after normal school hours, not for giving the children extra work but for helping them cope with their homework.

The criteria for the ranking of schools may have to be expanded to lessen the emphasis on academic achievements and grade scores. More weightage should be given for other markers relevant to the present times. Ranking should take attainments in developing the potentials of students in information technology, in sports and in the arts into consideration. Sir, this will ease much of the pressure put upon students, parents as well as teachers.

It is every parent's aspiration to see his or her children attain tertiary education. But not all children have the same capabilities and there are certainly many variants. Having flexibility in varsity-entry criteria will ease the stress from many students and parents. Expansion in this area will be useful. Parents can then settle down and allow their children to develop their own unique potentials though they may not conform to the norm.

Sir, I hope the Ministry of Education will consider the suggestions I have made.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, neighbourhood schools are the main providers of education for our children. While parents are not happy with the standards of these schools, they are horrified of the behaviour of the students. This is generally how the neighbourhood schools are perceived. We need to correct this perception for it has serious repercussion on the community. If a neighbourhood school is perceived as being problematic, good students in the community would not want to go there. Firstly, this will put pressures on the good schools and frustrates successful students and their parents. Secondly, by failing to attract good students, the quality of the student body in the neighbourhood schools will drop.

Sir, we know that a school with a poor image saps the self-esteem and morale of its students. The teachers and principals are probably similarly affected. Low esteem and morale leads to poor behaviour which explains the behavioural problems of these students. The situation is aggravated when the quality of the student body drops. It thus goes into a vicious cycle with the problems worsening with the years. We must break this vicious cycle. Can the Ministry do more for our neighbourhood schools, especially those poorly perceived by the community? Can more resources, such as teachers, be provided? With more teachers, the class size can be smaller so that each student can receive more care and attention and help. This will be particularly helpful with English Language teachers as the standard of the language is generally low in neighbourhood schools.

I urge the Ministry to give more attention to our neighbourhood schools. These are the main providers of education for our young in the community. The well-being of our schools bears upon the quality of our young. As neighbourhood schools are an integral part of the community, I also urge the schools to work with our community leaders. I am sure that our community leaders are eager to help build schools that the community can be proud of.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): Sir, our school system has undergone major changes and restructuring over the past two to three decades. Tremendous improvements have been made and great efforts have been put in by the Ministry to prepare our students in recent years for the challenges of a new knowledge-based economy.

Over the years, the Ministry of Education has devolved greater autonomy to some schools, some pre-selected schools, using basically two schemes. One is the independent schools, and the other is the autonomous schools. These are indeed steps in the right direction. With greater independence, there has been more creativity and motivation among the administration and teaching staff to serve the students better. Each effort has certainly, in my view, helped students perform better in schools and have also nurtured better all-round development in our students.

Sir, as the next step, I wonder if it is the appropriate time to allow private organisations to run some of our schools. I am saying beyond what is practised now, ie, Government-aided schools, allow completely private organisations to run some of our Government schools. In other words, I wonder if it is feasible to privatise some of our schools beyond the concept of independence of our Government-aided schools. While the Ministry should not let go everything, make it laissez-faire, it should set certain preconditions on curriculum, discipline and other basics, and in return for some Government funding. I wonder if it would be interesting to evaluate and perhaps set up a pilot scheme to allow commercial organisations, particularly, educational organisations, either local or foreign, to run some of our schools.

Sir, the concept will not be entirely similar. It is, in some ways, like what the Government has done for our university by setting up a private university, the Singapore Management University. Sir, the Ministry has begun to introduce greater creativity and put less emphasis on content and greater enrichment modules have been added to the school curriculum, allowing the appropriate private operators to run our schools and produce even more outstanding results in this direction. It is certainly worth experimenting this, and I wonder if the Minister can give this suggestion some consideration. 1.15 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, every child in our schools is born differently. Each has his or her own level of intelligence, but our school system assumes that every child has an IQ of 120. This is the level of IQ which every university graduate is supposed to possess, and it imposes a heavy load of school work on them from primary school onwards and, at the same time, stream them at Primary 4, and again at Primary 6. Primary 6 is the level when they sit for their Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).

Not long ago, I read in the papers that parents complained of the difficulty of the Mathematics and English papers. They said that even adults did not know how to do those papers, how then could the children pass their examinations based on those papers? Not only parents have complained. The Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, himself commented that he was shocked to see from Primary 1, the children are learning words which he would not have known until Primary 4 or 5. It was reported in the Straits Times of 22nd January. The Prime Minister asked the Education Minister, "Is the school system too stressful?" My view is that, for children who do not have particularly high IQ, and for children who are late-developers, the answer, of course, is yes.

Our school system, with a heavy curriculum, is too stressful, because there are reports in our local press that our primary school kids are being sent by their parents to psychiatrists for treatment. Parents are worried for their children, because they know that if their children are unable to pass the PSLE, they shall be branded as rejects or failures and streamed to the slow-learner Normal stream. I think the psychological harm done to those children at an early age can have an adverse effect on their self-worth, self-esteem, self-respect and self-confidence. They shall grow up forever feeling that way. It is important that a child has self-confidence, otherwise, it is going to be difficult for him to succeed when he grows up.

I would like to ask the Minister to make our school less stressful by not imposing such a heavy workload on our school children, especially at the primary school level. A committee should be set up to look into how to lessen the heavy curriculum in our schools. It would be a sad day when our children end up as mental patients and who are not able to take charge of their own lives and their own affairs when they grow up. They shall become a liability to the state. Children are our future assets, and we cannot afford to lose any one of them, if we can help it. As it is, our birth rate is already declining.

Mr Iswaran: Sir, over the last two years, the Ministry has conducted a review of the teaching and learning of mother tongue in our schools, in particular, on CL, ML and TL. The outcome of the review was an announcement on various changes to the curriculum and methods of teaching, and that these were to be implemented over the next few years in a gradual manner.

The results of the review were welcomed by many Singaporean parents and students as a way to differentiate the teaching of mother tongue in our schools, according to the abilities and inclinations of our students. I would just like to ask the Minister for an update on the implementation of the recommendations arising from the review, and whether there has been any feedback or reason to further refine the recommendations.

The Chairman: Mr Goh Choon Kang is not here. Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): (In Mandarin): Sir, in order to attain the IT 2000 objectives, the Ministry has required that a certain amount of time be set aside to apply IT in the teaching of the various subjects, including Chinese. Development of software for the teaching of Chinese in Singapore has to start from scratch, as the softwares previously developed in Taiwan and China are not suitable for Singapore because of the low level and narrow syllabus of Chinese in the schools in Singapore. Over the last few years, our Chinese teachers have suffered all kinds of torment. Apart from learning computer and IT knowledge, they have also to spend a lot of time in the development and design of software for the teaching of Chinese in Singapore.

However, I do not know how effective, or whether there is any value-added effect to the teaching of Chinese with these softwares. First of all, the teaching of language is different from the teaching of other subjects because in language, the main emphasis is on listening, speaking, reading and writing, whereas for the other subjects, the emphasis is on the absorption of knowledge.

Secondly, there are many multimedia softwares in the teaching of Chinese. What effects have they on the teaching of Chinese? Would they really arouse the interest of the students in the learning of Chinese? I think it is the way it is taught and the personality of the teachers that make the difference. A resourceful teacher can bring life to the classroom and command the respect and attention of the students. Only then can the students find the learning of the subject interesting. I am not against the use of IT technology for the teaching of Chinese. What I want to know is whether or not this computerisation of Chinese teaching would be worthwhile and whether or not it has added value to the teaching of Chinese in Singapore? Or is all this fuss being kicked up just because the officials concerned are trying to fulfill the objectives set down by the Ministry of Education? I hope that we will review the effects of this IT application in the teaching of Chinese.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to talk about creative learning.

Just now, Mr Chiam lamented on the degree of difficulties in the Mathematics syllabus and that parents are not able to help their children. We have now entered into the 21st century, and we should not remain in the 19th century. There are changes in the high technologies in the 21st century. Our pupils, I think, rank first in the International Mathematics Competition. What is important is that students should understand the subject, not their parents. When I was young, I could not even read ABC. But my two-year grandson is already able to recognise from A to Z. Therefore, we should not put any restrictions on pupils' might.

I would like to talk about the language competence among the "O" level and "A" level students. I have found that their writing ability is far from satisfactory. Therefore, we need to double our efforts in this aspect. If our students have to spend a lot of time on the learning of the language, and yet can only listen and speak in the mother tongue but not able to write it well, I can understand. But when they cannot even write properly in the first language, then something must be seriously wrong somewhere. Recently, I came across many students who could not write a proper letter to apply for a job. This reminds me of the so-called writing ability crisis that took place in the US in the 70s. There were 23 million Americans who were only semi-literate. They could only read simple advertising materials and labels. They were not able to read articles in the newspapers and magazines, and university undergraduates could not even write a proper essay. A highly-qualified manager could not write a proper note. Many Government officers and scientists were therefore asked to attend crash courses in writing. I am talking about the crisis in America because I am worried that the same writing crisis might occur in Singapore.

We are now in a very advanced high-tech society. Watching TV and surfing the Internet have replaced the reading of newspapers, and phone calls and email are gradually replacing letter-writing. Going on to the Internet, we can communicate to someone thousands of miles away at the click of the mouse. Jargons and short forms are used unreservedly over the emails, eg, "by the way" is typed as "BTW", "for your information" is "FYI", etc. What worries me is that if our students are not able to use their pen to write, then their writing ability will drop. You may say that we have essay-writing competitions among the students and their results are good, but this happens only to those who are the cream in the schools, the very top students. Those students who are not so good in the languages will never be selected to take part in such competitions. Therefore, we cannot measure the standard of the writing ability of our students in general by looking just at the results of the essay-writing competitions.

Therefore, I hope that the Ministry could strengthen the teaching of writing through creative education. We should encourage pupils to read and write more, so that they can write presentable minutes and reports. The class should read all sorts of books, and not just the same old textbook, and that we should make it a rule that every student must read certain articles from the Straits Times and the Lianhe Zaobao and to comment on them. These comments or reports would then be marked and assessed by the teachers. Only through this method will the writing ability of our pupils be raised and satisfaction be derived out of writing. I hope the Minister can consider my suggestion.

The Minister for Education (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, in his National Day Rally Speech last year, the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to increase spending on education from 3.6% to perhaps 4.5% of GDP over the next few years, provided of course that the funds are put to good use. This year, the Minister for Finance has indeed increased the Ministry of Education's budget by $480 million, an increase of 8%, and this is higher than this year's expected GDP growth rate of 5%-7%. So we are moving in the right direction.

With these additional resources, the Ministry of Education will be able to implement worthwhile programmes to bring us closer to realising our vision of "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" and making an Ability-Driven Education happen, so that all our people can receive a well-rounded education and are developed to their full potential.

Our priorities this year are in three broad areas. First, our schools; second, post-secondary and continuing education; and, third, the pre-school sector. 1.30 pm

In our schools, we will see through the major programmes initiated in the last few years, such as the Information Technology Masterplan; bringing all our schools up to modern standards through rebuilding and improvements under PRIME; a more well-rounded and creative curriculum; and promoting excellence both in teaching and administration in our schools. But the real focus of my Ministry for schools this year will be teachers - recruiting and developing good teachers and making sure that we have enough of them to do all the good things that we want to do in the coming years. Good teachers are the key to all that we do. They give life and reality to all the good things we want to do in education, and deliver the quality education with a human touch that our children need.

With a strong school system, the other key pieces of the educational process are the pre- and post-school sectors. This year, the Ministry of Education will be putting in place more pieces to strengthen the education system at both ends of the education time continuum. At the front end of the continuum, my colleague, Dr Aline Wong, will say more later today about what steps we will be taking from now on to raise the quality of pre-school education to provide a sound beginning for all our children. At the other end of the education time continuum, Mr Peter Chen will tell you more about expanding opportunities for further education in our post-secondary sector, to provide Singaporeans with opportunities to acquire and update their skills and knowledge for the new economy.

Sir, I hope that as we get down to discuss individual issues in detail, this broad overview of our priorities will help Members place the discussion on education today within the larger context of what we are working to achieve.

In this segment, I will address Members' questions on current initiatives in our school system. Last year, I informed this House that the Ministry of Education aims to move towards ability-driven education to develop and harness the talents of our students. By customising learning to different needs and abilities, we aim for an education system that provides students of all abilities with an education that maximises their potential.

We are not there yet, but we are making progress. Mr Inderjit Singh asked what we are doing with mass customisation. Mass customisation has been a feature of our education system for many years. Our streaming system more closely matches curriculum and the pace and method of learning with the abilities and aptitudes of our children so that each student can proceed at his or her own pace. Mr Chiam was talking about a curriculum which is too heavy and which appears to be catering only to the most able students. I therefore assume that he is a strong supporter of streaming, because streaming addresses precisely this problem, ie, providing a differentiated curriculum for students of different abilities.

As a system, streaming is better than requiring every student to fit into only one prescribed programme of study. Indeed, the more we want education to be customised, what we would end up with are more streams and sub-streams. Through streaming and giving those who need it a lighter curriculum or more time, we have reduced educational wastage and successfully raised the educational attainment of our students. In 1980, before streaming, only 58% of a Primary 1 cohort completed secondary school. By the year 2000, the proportion was 93%. The alternative to streaming is not that everyone will suddenly be able to pass in the top stream or Express stream. The alternative to streaming is that many children will fail and they will drop out of school and they will not be there in any of the other streams. That is the real alternative to streaming. That was where we were in 1980 when only 58% completed secondary school, compared to 93% today.

Mr Inderjit Singh asked how many people actually made the transition from one stream to another. There are some statistics here. In 1999, 382 Secondary 1 Normal (Technical) students transferred from Normal (Technical) to Normal (Academic) stream in Secondary 2, and another 347 Secondary 1 Normal (Academic) students transferred to the secondary Express stream. The system is an open one. We must be realistic and give the students the curriculum and the time to be able to learn.

For instance, 38% of Normal (Academic) stream students who took their "O" level in 1999 entered the polytechnic or pre-university institutions. If they were not given five years, rather than four years, to do their "O" levels, they might not have made it at all. This is the real alternative if we want to do away with streaming. I would ask Members to think about it carefully.

On top of this, for mass customisation, we now also have programmes to cater to students with a range of aptitudes and abilities who need more support. We have the Gifted Education Programme and elective programmes in languages, arts and music. The Ministry of Education is also encouraging autonomous schools to develop niche areas to nurture the talents and abilities of their students. School clusters have set up centres for music, the arts and science to provide enrichment for students with the aptitude and interest. We support the establishment of a sports school under the auspices of the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. But whether or not we would have top sportsmen, as Mr Inderjit Singh hopes and which I hope too, also depends on the talents we have in our talent pool, and also the inclination and desire of students and parents to want to pursue this line.

Dr Lily Neo said that schools should look out for weaker students and those facing problems so that they can be assisted. Other MPs have also spoken about helping kids who are weaker. Not all the programmes in mass customisation have an academic focus, not all are examinable, and not all are for the top kids. Many are simply there to cater to the interests of the students to enrich their experiences. And we have programmes to support students who need more support. Last year, for example, we introduced the "B" syllabus for those who have difficulties coping with the mother tongue languages. And we have the Learning Support Programme, which has been operating for some years now, which is implemented in all our primary schools which help P1 and P2 pupils who are weak in English. There is also the programme to Encourage Achievement and Better Learning (ENABLE) to support students who are not achieving their potential.

The principals and teachers want to do their best for their students, and they run many programmes to help their students, such as remedial classes for academically weaker students, or enrichment programmes and co-curricular activities. The community helps too through programmes organised by the self-help groups. I do not mind parents also helping their children with work, sometimes with tuition too. Of course, they should not go overboard. It is not something which the school can entirely do and it is not something that I can stop if parents want to do more for their children.

Parents play the most important part in partnering schools to support, motivate and encourage their children to do the best that they can, and yet, to know when not to push them too far, or too hard. Parents' expectations and attitudes have a strong bearing on the stress levels experienced by our young and how our young cope with school. I know it is not easy to be a parent, having some experience myself, and all of us want to do the best that we can for our children. Schools too want to do the best that they can for their students.

Parents and schools need to work together to bring out the best from our children, be it streaming, examinations or remedial lessons, or enrichment or CCA, so that programmes, which are designed to provide a range of opportunities and support to various groups of students with different abilities and aptitudes, do not become a source of anxiety for parents and their children. Streaming at Primary 4 is one example. There is no point overloading children with higher mother tongue in EM1 if they do not have the aptitude or are unable to cope. We should remember that the final choice of which stream to place their child in after P4 really lies with the parents. We have many parents who opt to do the more demanding EM1 stream for their children, and very few who opt out of it.

Ultimately, stress comes from a mismatch between expectation and achievement. The education system, and indeed our society and families, can offer so much more to our young people today - not just in school, but piano lessons, extra tuition, holidays abroad, computers - that there is just so much on the plate to choose from and compete for time and attention. But the day and the year have not grown any longer. I suppose that psychiatric care for some children is a manifestation of the increased complexity of life that young people today face. To deal with stress, schools, parents and society need to understand that while we want the best for our children, we, all of us, should not push them beyond their limits. Children are different in their potential and their needs, and we need to encourage and support them to do the best that they are able to do.

To facilitate the partnership between schools, parents and the wider community in nurturing and helping our young to grow, Parent-Teacher Associations or Parent Support Groups have been set up in many schools. These provide parents with an avenue to work with the school for the benefit of their children's education and welfare. Parent-teacher conferences may also be initiated by the parent or the teacher any time during the year to discuss the child's development and performance in school.

To complement the efforts of schools in building home-school links, an advisory committee called COMPASS, comprising representatives from the community and parents, and chaired by myself, was set up two years ago in 1999. The role of COMPASS is to promote and strengthen the collaboration between schools, parents and the community in ensuring the wholesome and total development of our children. We have distributed to Members the COMPASS booklet on home, school and community partnerships which sets out the roles schools, parents and community play in ensuring the well-being of our children.

We will continue to work towards greater collaboration between home and school and encourage more open dialogue to help our children grow, and help schools, parents and students develop healthy and realistic expectations of each other.

Dr Wang has an interesting observation. He suggested that our education system is too demanding because although our children do better in schools in all international comparisons, by the time they graduate from university, they are no different from other overseas graduates. So why study so hard in school?

Dr Wang mixes up two things. International comparisons at the school level, such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study where Singapore Secondary 2 students emerged first in Mathematics and second in Science, look at the performance of the whole population of students at that level. Dr Wang was comparing, anecdotally, I might add, and not based on any studies, between people who graduate from the same tertiary institutions, perhaps the same courses. The people who graduate from the same courses in the same higher education institutions can be expected to do no better nor worse than others who similarly graduate. In fact, our students who study at a wide range of universities do very well in those universities.

So what is the proper comparison to make? If you look at the proportion of our students who make it to the tertiary level, and the types of courses that they study, and compare that against other countries, it is quite clear that our school system gives our students a stronger foundation and a long term advantage over their peers in other countries. I would like to quote from a yet unpublished study by Dr Andy Green from the University of London Institute of Education. He compared the whole education from primary school through to post-graduate education in Singapore and the UK, and the systems are very comparable. It is more difficult to compare the US system because there are differences, levels and types of examinations and so forth. The British system and the Singapore system are very comparable. 1.45 pm

Dr Andy Green concluded that at every level through to basic degrees, we do better than the UK, and I quote:

'Comparable data on rates of qualification in Singapore and England in 1998 show that Singapore has a higher proportion of young people gaining qualification at each level, except post graduate. Singapore has a larger proportion of the cohort entering higher education courses than the UK. In 1998, it can be estimated that over 55% of an age group in Singapore enrol on a higher education course at diploma or first degree level. In the UK, total entrants to higher education in 1998 represented about 36% of the 18-20 year old cohort.'

The statistics show starker differences when we look at the numbers who do Mathematics and Science, in particular, Advanced Mathematics. Some 20% of each cohort in Singapore gained a Mathematics A level, compared with 7% in the UK. This strong grounding in mathematics and science allows our students to pursue more challenging courses than their counterparts in the UK. If we look at the UK and the US, they are lamenting that their own people are not studying engineering. Their engineering schools are filled with foreigners including Singaporeans. In contrast, NUS, NTU and our polytechnics produce large numbers of people trained in engineering and technology. 74% of our polytechnic students and 56% of NUS/NTU students do science and engineering courses. I quote from Dr Green's study again.

'Singapore produces a large number of engineering graduates relative to its population size. 5% of an age group in Singapore graduate from first degree level engineering courses, compared with just over 2% in the UK, [ie, two and a half times on a cohort comparison basis with the UK.] In addition, large numbers graduate from diploma courses in engineering - twice as many as achieve an HDN/HNC* certificate in engineering in the UK (whose population is around 20 times greater).'

Sir, the strong foundation that our Singapore children have acquired from the hard work that they have put in at school carries them through college, and into their careers. Many of their counterparts in the UK and the US would not even be at the start line in college, because not enough of them had that kind of preparation in school. Even in non-engineering and scientific courses, a strong quantitative foundation gives our students an advantage in areas such as accounting, financial engineering, business information processing, and logistics management. Our students gain a long term, perhaps a life-long, advantage over their counterparts in other countries who are not as well prepared. This solid foundation could be even more telling in future, as a good foundation in mathematics and the sciences makes it much more easy for a person to be trained and retrained in continuing education.

Sir, Dr Wang is therefore wrong to conclude that our students do not have to study so hard in school. It is precisely because our students are well prepared in school, both academically and in terms of their values and attitudes to learning, that so many of them do well in higher education. The strong work ethic and values that our children imbibe give them an edge over others, and will help them to succeed in life.

Sir, in the last few years, we have been putting in place programmes and systems so that all our schools are equipped to prepare our children for the future. Enhancements continue to be made to school infrastructure, school management, and curriculum and assessment.

Our $2 billion IT master plan is now into its third and final phase of implementation. All teachers are trained in IT and we are already starting to look at the next step, to look beyond, to see where we want to go.

The $4.5 billion Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME) is in its second phase. By the end of next year, 46% of all schools would have undergone redevelopment under PRIME. These investments make possible effective new combinations of people and technology to raise standards and extend learning opportunities.

In the area of IT, the Ministry of Education develops and provides a wide range of learning resources. Mr Low asked about what we are doing for the Chinese language. The Ministry of Education has produced 14 CD-ROMs, 21 audio CDs and 77 video CDs, to support schools in the use of IT for teaching Chinese language. The Ministry has also developed a website called "Happy Town" to support the learning of Chinese language at the upper primary level. And the Ministry will continue to develop and source for suitable materials to support the use of IT in our schools, not just in Chinese language but in all subject areas.

Sir, Dr Tan Boon Wan asked the Ministry to improve the standing and image of neighbourhood schools. To encourage and nurture more good schools, the Ministry of Education has, over the years, steadily given more autonomy to schools, so that they can be more innovative and responsive to the needs of pupils. In 1994, autonomous schools were introduced. Last year, two more schools - Xinmin and Dunman - have been accorded autonomous status, bringing the total number to 20. The Ministry intends to double the number of autonomous schools to provide pupils and parents a wider range of good schools. We have also fully implemented the School Cluster Scheme, which facilitates the sharing of resources and best practices among schools.

Thanks to these measures, good schools are not limited to brand name schools. We have many good neighbourhood schools that add value to their students, so that they do as well or better than students who had scored better in the PSLE, carry themselves with confidence and are well-rounded individuals. Our neighbourhood schools have been doing well in both academic and non-academic areas. Could I ask for a table to be distributed to hon. Members on value added of some of our schools? [Table distributed to hon. Members.] Of the schools that have received the value-added award for academic performance each year, about 75% are, in fact, neighbourhood schools. That means they do very well for their students. Neighbourhood schools like Rulang Primary and Jurong Primary are known for their IT programmes; Radin Mas Primary for its Digital Art programme; and Greenridge Primary for its band. Five years ago, few would have heard of Xinmin, a neighbourhood school in Upper Serangoon. Today, it is a popular autonomous school known for many innovations and good quality of education. It is also one of our top 50 schools.

In recent years, we have done much to raise public awareness of the positive developments in our neighbourhood schools through both print and broadcast media. One example is the Ministry of Education's television series "Learning Journeys" aired last year. Schools on their own are also encouraged to actively publicise themselves. With a wider range of schools distinguishing themselves in various areas, we hope that discerning parents and students will be able to select schools that best suit their educational needs.

Mr Sinnakaruppan asked whether we could have private schools. Although the Ministry of Education has given schools more autonomy and flexibility, the Government has no plans to privatise existing national schools. Already, about one quarter of all our schools are Government-aided or independent. The guiding principles for education in Singapore reflect the fundamental organising principles of Singaporean society, such as equal opportunity and meritocracy. Our schools provide a common educational experience to build national identity and social cohesion. Any child regardless of his socio-economic background can be admitted to any secondary school based solely on merit, and he need not worry about the fees. Allowing schools to go private will introduce the potential for creating a division within our school system where admission is based on ability to pay rather than merit. And this has potentially divisive effects on our society, which I would be reluctant to embark upon any time soon or in a hurry.

Aside from good school management and infrastructure, our students are receiving a holistic education through a well-rounded curriculum that is regularly reviewed and updated. I informed this House two years ago that we are reducing content by 30% and we have done so. Changes to the university admission system in the year 2003, which will include bonus points for CCA, and this will reinforce the importance of other measures of ability. Furthermore, this year, we will be introducing Edusave Awards for Sports, the Arts, community service and uniformed groups.

While we continue to introduce changes that focus on the holistic development of our young people, bilingualism will remain a cornerstone of our education system. Our young need to learn English to prepare them for the globalised, knowledge-based world. But, while the majority of our students are competent users of English, I cannot but agree with Mr Peh that we should strive for a better standard, and we are doing so. Since last year, the Ministry has introduced revised English language syllabuses which give renewed attention to grammar to help our students become more effective users of the language. Many schools have reading and public speaking programmes to promote confidence and better usage of the language.

Sir, I will deal with the mother tongue language issues later in the session if I have the time. I would just like to conclude here by saying that our education system provides opportunities for educational advancement to all students according to their aptitudes and abilities. The changes in our school system, the programmes and structures move us closer to providing an ability-based education system. Students in our national schools can benefit from a high quality of education, so that the vast majority of our people can stay on the correct side of the global knowledge divide.

I am also glad that several Members have raised the subject of teachers. This is perhaps the most critical element in a good education system, and I will speak on this a little later today, because I see that several Members will also want to speak on this subject, and I will come back again when I have heard their suggestions and views.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I have your permission to seek clarification from the Minister?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, we have used a lot of money on IT for schools. I have asked in my speech whether or not the Ministry of Education has made an assessment in terms of application of IT in teaching. In particular, I would like to know how the application of IT has enhanced and added value to the quality of teaching. Secondly, how does the application of IT in teaching of language help students learn the language? Was there any study done as to how application of IT in the teaching of language can achieve a specific teaching objective? 2.00 pm

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the use of IT in education is a relatively new area and there are not very many definitive studies that have been done on the effects of the use of IT in education. But we do know that, for example, if you go to a language laboratory and you use headphones and listen to tapes, and if you watch Chinese movies, it is likely that you will gain some benefit. And if you get the vocabulary, it is more interesting and you will be learning something, and it probably helps to improve your language ability.

This is what we are also trying with the use of IT for mother tongue learning. I believe that the students who are using it will probably find it more interesting. They have a wider range of resources available. And if they can read books which are animated, I think it is all very useful. Even looking up the dictionary is a pleasure today compared to looking up a dictionary which is non-IT.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Thank you, Sir, for permitting me to seek clarification from the Minister. When I say that we do not have any long-term advantage, that a university degree holder, say, from a USA university, with a Bachelor of Science, and another student graduating from a Singapore university in the same area and domain, they probably have the same content and knowledge at that level. That is what I meant when I say an individual from the Singapore system, after he graduated from a four-year degree programme, compared to, say, a US graduate in the same discipline, the amount of knowledge that they have is probably the same. In that sense, we do not have a long-term advantage.

Furthermore, I do not think the Minister has addressed my point that we actually learn a lot in our education system, but in terms of utilisation and creativity, we are no better off than a graduate from, say, a USA university. This is an area that Mr Inderjit Singh has in fact mentioned earlier.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I would like to address Dr Wang's points on two levels. One at the individual level; and the other at the society level.

At the individual level, I have already put up the statistics to show that many more of our students get to the start line. When they get to the finishing line at the university and they take a course in Science or Engineering in the United States, or they take Science or Engineering in NUS or NTU, they may be comparable. But a very much higher proportion of our students get to the start line and actually get through, 21/2 times more than in the United Kingdom. So at the individual level, our students have 21/2 times more opportunity to get through the system and come out with a Science or Engineering degree than a student in the UK, because of the strong preparation that they have in school.

At the society or country level, you can see that a number of these countries are lamenting the shortage of engineers and scientists to support the economy. We have a shortage too, but for different reasons - we do not have enough people. But a large proportion of our students are going through such programmes and they are getting the benefit of these programmes. So at the society level, on the whole people level, we are also doing better and not just at the individual level. I am glad also that Dr Wang feels that our universities do produce graduates which are comparable with the best in the world.

As regards his second question on whether or not we have moved away from a purely content-based curriculum to one which encourages creativity, I mentioned that we have cut back our curriculum by some 30% basically to provide more time and opportunity for students to do things which are more creative. The graded project work which students now have to do, which teachers have to supervise, is one such example. I am sure that many of our students have been very busy over this vacation doing some project work or other. So this is one example of some of the changes that are taking place in our education system.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I would like to clarify one point on the streaming issue.

My point was: do we really have to stream our children at such an early age at Primary 4? We can still achieve the same desired objective of having our children go into ITE or polytechnics at secondary school level if we use the PSLE results to do the streaming by having various grades for them to go into various streams. Streaming at Primary 4 level creates unnecessary stress at such an early age, and this will basically develop an attitude among children where they will not enjoy going to school.

The other issue the Minister mentioned was that parents have a choice on streaming at EM1, EM2 or EM3 level. In practice, schools really do not allow much choice to parents. Parents are told that this is where they have to go on the ground. While the desired objective is to let our children learn at their own pace, in implementation, I think teachers dread taking an EM3 student, when they should actually enjoy taking this EM3 student and make him or her into an EM1 student through the process. But, I think, in implementation, we are spending a lot of time grooming our EM1 children to be among the best and maybe not putting enough effort to improve those who are in the lower streams.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I wish Mr Inderjit Singh were right, that every EM3 student could be converted into an EM1 student. I wish that he was right. I wish that he was right that just by putting in effort, we could do that also. I have the same desires as he has. His heart is in the right place. But we have to face the reality - children are different. We have to give them a curriculum which they can cope with. The reason that we have an EM3 stream is because some of the children are unable to cope with Mathematics, Science and language, which are going on both in the EM1 and EM2 streams. If they are not able to cope and they are overloaded, they end up not learning anything in Primary 4, 5 and 6, because the load is just too heavy, and they have to take a reduced curriculum. They face the same examination paper, and they are totally disheartened because they can make no headway with that.

Is that being fairer to them than providing them with a curriculum which they can handle, which they can do reasonably well in, and progress on to secondary schools? In secondary schools, if they do well, as I have indicated just now with the figures, they can move on. If they do well in ITE, they can move on too to the polytechnic. If they do well in the polytechnic, they can move on to the university. The doors are not closed. I am not saying that it is easy, but the doors are not closed.

Mr Inderjit Singh has to ask himself whether he really feels that it is fairer to the students if we push them through a uniform programme which they are unable to cope with or we try and tailor programmes which the children are able to cope with.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I agree with that. But my point is that we tailor it at a later stage. I think tailoring it at Primary 4 probably is just too early. We can at a later stage judge them according to their abilities, according to how well they do in their examinations at PSLE before we stream.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, again, I wish Mr Inderjit Singh was right. But that is not our experience operating the education system.

Mr Loh Meng See: Sir, thank you for allowing me now to speak on the teaching profession.

Sir, teachers have a daunting task to handle. It is not easy these days having to deal with a class of children who are getting more difficult to control and discipline, let alone other administrative duties. Should we not have a two-teacher position in certain difficult classes to make the work of our teachers more manageable and productive?

Teachers are professionals. We should accord the respect and status to the teachers in our society. Our teachers are well trained and fully competent to teach our children. I just wonder whether our parents show the same support for the teachers who are helping their children in school. Sometimes we hear of parents who think that they know better than the teachers and interfere with the teacher's relationship with their children in school.

Besides academic qualifications, teachers require special attributes. They must love children. It is a vocation. In the teacher's hands lie the future of a country, a generation of leaders to be educated and nurtured, and a successful individual who makes the work of the teacher worthwhile and rewarding.

But, Sir, to attract individuals to take up the teaching profession is in itself a long process. For a start, it would be sad if the vast majority of children of teachers become averse to teaching and not follow the footsteps of their parents. Students should be inspired, when young, to become teachers. They should be given encouragement to become one. Teaching is the sharing of knowledge. In school, our children should be encouraged to share their knowledge and teach their weaker classmates. We should actively inculcate this attitude of sharing and for the better students to help their weaker classmates in understanding the lessons. Individuals must have the sense of mission in wanting to teach, otherwise they would not persevere and not last very long in the teaching profession. I therefore salute those teachers who have stayed until their retirement and for some who continue even after retirement in different capacities.

May I ask the Minister whether the Ministry is recruiting the right people to become teachers? I wonder whether the Ministry has, over the years, varied the selection criteria for those who applied to become teachers. Is it time for a review? We need to give every support to our teachers, to encourage them to continue in their service for as long as possible and make valuable contribution to our young for the future of our nation.

I wish to ask the Minister the state of the teaching service. Is he happy with the number of teachers who have been recruited? How could we improve and strengthen the overall experience and competency level of our teachers? How do we encourage as many of them to develop teaching as a long term career?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, let me quote the British Teachers' Union leader when he talked about the shortage of teachers in UK recently: "The British government before the last election made a famous war cry, Education, education, education.' But they should have been thinking: Teachers, teachers, teachers'." And I would also like to quote Kevin Spacey, actor of a teacher in the movie "Pay It Forward", a very inspirational movie about the interaction between teachers and students: "It is important that someone suggests a way of opening up your mind. Great teaching is an incredible art. It is not easy at all."

Sir, the men and women, who teach our children, hold the key to opening up the mind of children. The speakers before me have already touched on this point. On their shoulders are placed a heavy responsibility of transmitting knowledge and inculcating values, and only the committed and dedicated will take this on as a lifelong vocation. Like many countries with a vibrant economy, it is very difficult to find qualified young Singaporeans to choose teaching as their lifelong career. MOE currently looks for future teachers among the top 30% of each cohort. This effectively limits the pool of candidates for the teacher training to the university. Given the pool of other sectors of the economy, we are just recruiting enough new teachers to fill the vacancy resulting from retirement and attrition.

Mr Iswaran has already spoken on the need to address the issue of making teaching an interesting career from two aspects, namely, compensation and benefits, and also equally important, the continuing development of teachers during their career lifetime. On this topic, since the Minister has already mentioned that in this year's Budget, it has been given a higher budget allocation, would he review how the Ministry can make teaching a more challenging and interesting career? 2.15 pm

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Marine Parade): (In Mandarin): Sir, according to the figures released by the Ministry of Education, during the last five years, that is, from 1995 to the year 2000, approximately 80 Chinese teachers from the primary and secondary schools and junior colleges had resigned. It was just about 2.4% of the total number of Chinese teachers, and the number is negligible.

However, at the same time, about 230 Chinese teachers retired from the service. In other words, every year we need to recruit 300 Chinese teachers. I do not know how many Chinese teachers are being nurtured by the NIE each year. But from the fact that the MOE had been recruiting Chinese teachers from China every year for the past three years, it is quite obvious that the local supply is inadequate.

In 1998, we engaged 33, and another 62 in 1999. During the first 10 months of last year, 81 came. Appropriately, importing foreign talent is a good thing. But it must be based on some good plan to attract and recruit, and not as a stop-gap measure. Otherwise, it will lead to many sequelae.

I was told that there is yet another batch of Chinese teachers coming from China. It is quite obvious that we are getting more and more Chinese teachers from China. It is good that we recruit talented Chinese teachers from China. However, we should treat them well, with proper respect and welfare.

Teachers are unlike the other professions. In the Tang Dynasty, there was a great scholar, Han Yu, who said: "A teacher is one who preaches the doctrine, imparts knowledge and clears your doubts." In other words, teachers are a special breed of people who could teach us and would leave a very long lasting impression on their students. It may be difficult for teachers, who are engaged on short-term contracts and who come and go, to take on this heavy responsibility.

We need to have a very complete solution to resolve this problem of shortage in Chinese teachers. This solution would include expanding the talent pool of Chinese scholars; review the workload of the Chinese teachers and improve their career prospects. As for the foreign teachers, we should also have some long-term arrangements to enable them to gradually adapt to the local situation and cultivate in them the necessary sense of belonging. We could let them integrate into our society and develop a sense of belonging here.

The expansion of talent pool of Chinese scholars would involve the issue of eligibility of students to study "Higher Chinese". According to the feedback from some parents and secondary school teachers, if a student does not score an A* in Chinese or a Distinction in Higher Chinese at the PSLE, he would not be allowed to take Higher Chinese in the secondary school. He would also need to score an "A" in English in the PSLE before he is allowed to do Higher Chinese in the secondary school.

From this, we can see that the Ministry of Education has imposed a lot of restrictions on the student's intention to do Higher Chinese. MOE's intention is that the student must manage his English and other subjects well. This is beyond reproach. However, by so doing, it is certainly going to deprive some students of the opportunity to study Higher Chinese, and is tantamount to reducing the source of Chinese talents who can be groomed.

I feel that such a restriction imposed on the student's eligibility to do Higher Chinese needs to be reviewed. Faced with the withering number of Chinese talents, including Chinese teachers, and coupled with the picking up of the economy of our Asian neighbour, China, we should promptly change this practice, and actively nurture a batch of new Chinese talents as successors to satisfy the needs of the international situation in the future.

As such, I feel that the present stringent requirements should at least be relaxed to allow more students to have a chance of studying Higher Chinese in the secondary schools.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Sir, I am encouraged by the Minister's assurance that securing quality teaching resources is one of his top priorities. In this context, my speech is in part a tribute to the teachers whose passion and dedication have motivated me a great deal when I was at school, but largely a call to the Minister to provide complementary avenues to help teachers cope with increasing demands and stress in their jobs.

Many, including teachers themselves, have observed that, over time, teaching has shifted from a calling to just another job. Coupled with the variety of alternative job opportunities, which frequently pay better for supposedly less stress, and the increasing demands that parents and community at large have on our teachers, there are not as many takers as we would like to have.

Sir, teachers who have been teaching for a long time usually find their passion fading with all the new challenges, such as IT training or frequent changes to curriculum. Many regret the lack of opportunity or the inability to inculcate values in students. The role of the teachers has also evolved into more of a facilitator than an instructor per se. Also the perception that many of the older ones can retire whenever they would like to does not make for good morale. Sir, these teachers have been pillars and have painstakingly instilled values alongside lessons. It would be a shame to have to lose their passion because they feel overwhelmed, or even defeated.

On the other hand, the more tech-savvy younger teachers frequently find coping with parents, defiant students, the administrative load or even a promotion difficult to bear. They, too, find their flames waning early into their teaching career.

Sir, whilst I understand that the school and even cluster leadership is well-placed to counsel teachers who may feel a little overwhelmed, I would like to ask the Minister to consider setting up an avenue outside of this formal structure to complement this support. For example, a pool of experienced teachers or principals at headquarters itself can be made available to guide and mentor young teachers on handling stress and the more experienced on coping with changes. Other possibilities can include peer-support groups for teachers to share common problems and solutions, all done in such a way as not to undermine the leadership in schools.

Sir, it would be a sad day if we lose teachers with passion to stress and the inability to cope.

Mr Thomas Thomas (Nominated Member): Sir, as a member of COMPASS as well as a parent, I have the opportunity to visit many schools and have also seen teachers who teach my children. I must say that I have been very impressed with the commitment and dedication of our teachers. The recent salary revision to teachers was a right step in trying to remunerate them fairly. However, even with salary revisions, I see that the Ministry has not been able to meet recruitment targets.

In 1999, the shortfall in teaching was about 6,300 teachers. Last year, the shortfall, according to the Budget, is about 4,600 teachers. Although there is an improvement, there is still a shortfall. The shortfall seems to be aggravated by two other factors. One is that a lot of experienced teachers seem to be retiring in the next few years. Another one is that the teaching service does not seem to be able to get enough males to join the teaching service. When you go round, you see more females. The question is: are there adequate male role models in the teaching service and what is its impact on our children?

When I spoke to the teachers, I asked them, "Well, the teaching profession is well paid, why aren't people joining in?" The feedback I got is, "The workload is heavy, the stress is high." Then I told them, "But I thought the teaching service has now got administrators, operation managers in schools to help you cope with this workload." I was told that these are just layers in the hierarchy which actually generate even more work. So I do not know whether it is true.

The other point is I also notice that, in this year's budget, the manpower numbers for the teaching service have been reduced by 500 places for the next financial year. Why is the number in the teaching service reduced, ie, why do we need less teachers? And what steps are we taking to recruit more teachers to meet the shortfall? In addition to improving pay, developing teachers through education, etc, what are we doing to enhance the working conditions of teachers? The next point is that some time ago, there was an announcement about getting people who are already working and have made career changes into the teaching profession. What progress have we made in getting people from other professions to move into the teaching service?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Cheng San): (In Mandarin): Sir, I do not agree with Mr Low Thia Khiang's objection to the use of IT in teaching. No doubt, the high-tech method cannot replace the conventional method in the teaching of our students, but it does help to raise the standard of teaching. Our Chinese teachers in Singapore have, over the past few years, developed some fantastic softwares for the teaching of Chinese, based on our Singapore context, and the results are very remarkable indeed. Maybe Mr Low is not aware of these softwares, some of which are multimedia software. These softwares have raised the interest of the pupils in the learning of the language. I recommend that Mr Low pay a visit to some of the schools, eg, Raffles Girls' School, to observe how these softwares are being used in the teaching of Chinese.

In the field of education, the Ministry of Education has made great efforts in the past few years and has achieved remarkable results. This is particularly in the provision of school buildings and the various educational facilities. The achievement is clearly there for all to see. While the Government has invested a lot in infrastructure, ie, the hardware part of it, we must also strengthen our software aspect, ie, the upgrading of our teachers and do our best to ensure that we have enough teachers in Singapore, especially language teachers. It is only with enough language teachers that we will be able to effectively implement our bilingual policy.

Sir, the median age of our teachers in the various stages of education is an important data that we should take notice. This data will help us to plan our need for teachers, so that they may not be a phenomenon of "the new crop still in the blade and the old ones all consumed". I remember that five years ago, the median age of our Chinese teachers in the primary schools was 47 years old. In other words, many Chinese teachers in the primary schools were older than 47 years old. I would like to know what is the median age of the primary school Chinese teachers now. I would also like to know whether there is any plan on the part of MOE to make sure that we have enough Chinese teachers in the various stages of our education system to take on the important responsibility of teaching the mother tongue language. I know that apart from actively cultivating some Singaporeans to become Chinese teachers, MOE is also importing Chinese teachers from other countries to help alleviate the problem of shortages in the supply of local Chinese teachers. As mentioned by Mr Goh Choon Kang just now, we have imported a lot of Chinese teachers from China. I would like to know how many foreign Chinese teachers are there now in Singapore. 2.30 pm

Sir, there is a necessity for us to attract more Singaporeans to become Chinese teachers, to retain all the existing teachers and to help them to upgrade their professional level. We should take some measures to reduce the administrative burden of the teachers so that they can concentrate on teaching. I am very glad that the Ministry of Education had introduced the Mother Tongue Language Teachers' Award last year. I would like to ask the Minister how many teachers have benefited from this Mother Tongue Language Teachers' Award and whether there are any incentives by the Ministry of Education to encourage our mother tongue teachers to further their studies and upgrade their professional level. At the same time, we should also encourage them to be released from their heavy teaching commitments at an appropriate time to go for further studies on a full-time basis to "charge up their batteries".

At present, the Singapore Chinese Teachers Union (SCTU) is the only trade union representing all the Chinese teachers. I hope that the Ministry of Education will enhance its links with the SCTU and to improve the welfare of the teachers through a tripartite effort to nurture more high quality professionals in the teaching of Chinese.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the issue of class size is one of efficient or quality teaching. Can a teacher give more efficient teaching if the class size is large, say, 50 pupils, or when a class size is small, say, 20 pupils? I think most people would agree that when a class is smaller in size, more efficient or effective teaching can be carried out. The reason is simple. For a smaller class size, the teacher can give more personal attention to the slower learners, and it is also easier to control the class to get the pupils to pay attention to the teacher when he is teaching. There is also less stress on the teachers. Feedback, from readers in the Forum page of the Straits Times recently, favours smaller classes.

Mr Peh Chin Hua cited problems of the inability of pupils, after passing out from secondary schools, to write even a proper essay or an application letter and, in the case of Dr Lily Neo, she says that there is too much tuition. These problems, I believe, arise because our teachers cannot give effective teaching.

Our class size is too large. The issue of a smaller class size is not a new one. I have brought this topic up in almost every Budget, in the Committee of Supply. Most of our schools now have a class size of about 40 pupils. I had been a school teacher myself, Sir, and I can tell you that it is difficult to teach a class of 40 pupils. I have suggested, and I would suggest again, that we reduce our class size to a compromise number of 30 pupils. I say "compromise" because 30 to a class is still too large. The ideal, of course, is a class size as small as possible. The ideal, of course, is 1:1, but that is too idealistic. I would suggest, if it is possible, to bring down our class size to about 30 at the moment, as a compromise. But, the class size, as I was saying, we should get it down to as small as possible, say, 10-15 per class. However, from the point of view of our country's resources, it may be difficult to get a class down to 10 or 15 pupils. I think it is a luxury at the moment, if we did that. I would say that we can make a great improvement from a class of 40 to a class of 30, and it would be a great leap forward for our education system if we achieve that.

I have heard that when we reduce the class size, there is a problem of shortage of teachers. I would say that we need not all at once convert our school system suddenly from 40 to 30 in a class. The 1/4 reduction shall, of course, need 25% more teachers. I have been informed that, currently, our teaching strength is about 23,000, which would mean that if we reduce our class size by 1/4, we would require about 5,700 more teachers, which is really a very big number. To solve the teacher shortage, I would say that we slowly reduce the class size and build more schools at the same time, say, over a period of 10 years building programme. Sir, I am not advocating that we make a sudden or overnight change. As long as there is a commitment for change, I am very happy.

Another problem cited, Sir, is that when we recruit more teachers, the standard of the teachers will drop. This problem can be solved by good teacher training programmes, together with good pay and incentives to recruit good people to the teaching profession. Of course, the quality of the teachers recruited must be good. But I think also that the love for teaching is equally important.

I hope this year the Minister shall be more amenable to my suggestion. Perhaps he may even do an experiment and try two schools first to see whether it is successful with a smaller class size.

Mr Iswaran: Sir, my question to the Minister is: how much of a difference can a smaller class size make to the quality of education our children receive? It is not a matter of whether a smaller class size makes a difference - because, I think, as Mr Chiam has said, and I think that is a fairly simplistic argument to say, a smaller class size will, of its own accord, make a difference - the question is, in the scheme of things relative to the other factors, how much of a difference can it make? Intuitively, parents would argue that a smaller class size is desirable. But when it comes to the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars, clearly we have to go beyond intuition.

Sir, MOE has said that class size is one of a slew of factors that impact on the quality of education. Others cited include motivation of pupils, teaching strategies, design of curriculum and the like. The question then is one of an allocative decision. The Government has stated its commitment, and I think the Minister has stated this again today, that it is prepared to spend a considerably larger amount of money on education. Where should the next hundred million dollars in education go when we are talking about the school system and the education within a school system? Should it go towards more IT? Should it go towards more teaching strategy development and curriculum development? Should it go towards reducing class size? That is where I think the relative importance of these factors becomes relevant.

The Ministry has cited the fact that, if we try and lower class size abruptly, the quality of our teachers will fall, and that will have an adverse effect. Nobody will quarrel with that argument, and nobody is asking for an immediate or precipitous change. But the question is: is there a long-term target that the Ministry is working towards in reducing the size of our classes? The problem of quality of teachers will have a gradual correction of its own accord. As the Minister himself has said, each cohort is attaining higher levels of education. So, presumably, we can gradually increase the pool we recruit from within Singapore to augment our teaching resources. The other avenue, of course, is tapping of foreign pool as well, for certain content areas.

Sir, the introduction could also be phased in. If we do not want a wholesale introduction of a smaller class size, we could perhaps target it at specific areas, whether it is at, say, early primary or even the primary level as a whole, in order to ease transition into the school system, and in order to enhance the early primary education experience, and we can also target it at perhaps certain pedagogic groups, where highly interactive learning, with the teacher actively involved with the students, is necessary and desirable.

I think the establishment of a clear policy direction on where the class size should be is an important signal to the principals down the line, because the Ministry has devolved considerable flexibility and responsibility to principals on how they manage at the micro level the relative sizes of their classes, and some have channelled more resources towards slow learners and so on. But, unless the macro picture is clearly defined, I think there would not be enough resources for flexibility at the micro level. So I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on the Ministry's position on this matter.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, let me now deal with teachers, an issue that my Ministry will be focusing on in the school sector this coming year. Teachers lie at the heart of all that we do in education, and we need good teachers, and enough of them, to do all the things that we want to do in education.

Let me give a rough picture of where the teaching force is today. We have about 25,000 teachers, but it is a teaching force which is roughly an M-shape by age. We have many teachers who are in their 50s and older, who joined the teaching service and took us through the trials and tribulations of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, and produced the good education system that we have today. So they really were the ones who carried the load over the last three decades of nation-building. But many of them are coming to retirement age. I will lose 3,500 of them over the next five years. 3,500 is enough to wipe out all the teachers in 10 of our constituencies completely. It is about something like 50 schools' worth of teachers.

Fortunately, we have been able to recruit new teachers, particularly over the last 4-5 years, because of the new teachers' schemes that have been put in place by my predecessor, Mr Lee Yock Suan. And, in the last few years, we have been able to recruit some 5,000 to 6,000 teachers. So it is an M-shape.

Two years ago, the median age of teachers was 43. That means, if you open the staff room and you look inside, the median age of the teachers is 43 years old. Today, if you open a staff room and you look inside, the median age of teachers is 38. In five years' time, when you do that again, the median age of the teachers will be 33. There is a very big shift going on in the teaching service. We have to manage this change. We see it now differentially in our schools. In some of the schools that you go to, half the teachers have less than five years of service, some higher than that - 60%-70%. If you went to the same school 6 or 7 years ago, you would probably find that 70%-80% of the teachers had been there for 15, 20 or 30 years. This is the kind of change that is going on today in the system. So, it is quite critical for us to be able to make sure that we can recruit and retain enough teachers, so that many more of them will stay with us and become the new bedrock upon which the education system is built, just like our loyal and dedicated teachers who are in their 50s and over, who will be retiring over the next five to 10 years.

But before I do that, let me first discuss the issue of pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes which has come up regularly. I can almost predict what Mr Chiam will say. First of all, pupil-teacher ratio and class sizes are not the same thing. Class size is a specific arrangement for putting a certain number of students in a specific way in a class, whereas pupil-teacher ratio is an indication of the teaching resources that we have available, say, for a particular school, in relation to the number of students there.

Shrinking class sizes has an intuitive appeal. Fewer students mean more attention for each child. Proponents say that it will raise the quality of education, improve pupils' performance, and reduce teacher workloads. And the Ministry of Education is in fact open to all ideas that can improve the quality of education that our students receive and improve the working conditions for teachers, including changing class sizes and seeing what other methods that we can use to deal with some of the problems that teachers face in class, with either large marking loads or students who may need extra attention and so on.

However, we are also mindful that the quality of education is not determined by just a single factor. It is in fact multi-factorial. The factors which influence the quality of education are not limited to class size, but also include curriculum, how it is delivered, school organisation and tone. And whether or not the students behave themselves in a school or in a class has a lot of impact on whether or not we can teach in a large class or teach in a small class. If we have 10 students who are disruptive all the time, we are not going to be able to get any teaching done. But if we have 40 students who are on-task and eager to learn, we can get quite a lot of teaching done. That makes a fundamental difference. Of course, home support and, finally and most importantly, teacher quality. These factors also interact with one another. Good teachers are the key to everything that we do because education is a completely human enterprise. It is about people for people, and it happens through people. When you put the teacher in a classroom, she performs, and how she interacts with students determines whether education actually takes place or not. 2.45 pm

While we lay out the systems and infrastructure necessary for an ability-based education, we need good people to deliver this education. Ideally, we would have small classes, every one of which would be taught by good teachers. Unfortunately, the proportion of good teachers in the Education Service and class size is probably inversely related, especially when we look at the issue from the scale of the entire education system, and not just one class or one school.

Every country faces this problem. In the US and UK, where class sizes are small, the big outcry is over teacher quality. In September 1998, the then US Education Secretary, Richard Riley, pointed out that the US faced a shortage of high-quality teachers, with shortages developing in specific fields of expertise, like Mathematics, Science, special education and bilingual education. He lamented:

"Too many school districts are sacrificing quality for quantity to meet the immediate demand of putting a warm body in front of a classroom. This is a mistake. Even now, too many school districts are issuing emergency licences."

Emergency licences are issued to teachers who are not fully qualified to teach. School systems that have sought to radically reduce class size have found that it has come at the expense of teacher quality because it forces schools to hire under qualified teachers, or teachers whom they would not otherwise have hired.

A January 2001 Education Week article says, and I quote:

"California learnt their lesson first-hand when the state undertook its own class size reduction initiative beginning in 1996. In the first year of implementation, more than a fifth of the new teachers hired in that state have only emergency credentials. Hit hardest were schools serving poor and minority students, and in the hunt for new space, administrators found themselves carving classrooms out of broom closets and erecting portable classrooms on top of playgrounds." There is a real trade-off between quality and quantity, and the empirical evidence on the benefits of focusing on cutting class sizes is inconclusive, because there are so many factors at work.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 1998, cited a wide ranging survey of the research that has been done on class sizes. This is the conclusion and I quote:

"277 studies have been done on the effects of class size. 15% have found statistically significant benefits in smaller classes, while 13% found that on average, students in smaller classes perform worse on tests."

Doubling the number of teachers or increasing them by one-third or one-quarter, to halve our class sizes, is not the same thing as doubling the number of computers to half the pupil-computer ratio, or even doubling the amount of space provided in our schools. Incidentally, we are doing both of these. With computers, you just put in an order. They will arrive next week. And most importantly, each computer that comes is of the same quality, or perhaps, even more powerful than the older models that are currently in service. They might be even cheaper than the current models. If you order a lot of computers, you get a bulk discount.

Can we do that with teachers? Where do I order them from? Please tell me. Would we enjoy a bulk discount if we hire more teachers, and will they be as good as or better than the ones currently in service? If we lower our standards and increase our intakes, they certainly will not be, either in terms of ability to teach or motivation or aptitude. The truth is, it is not easy to find good teachers to do all the things that we want to do. This is a challenge that is not unique to Singapore. The choice is not between 40 students taught by a good teacher and two classes of 20, each taught by a good teacher, but a class of 20 taught by a good teacher, and the other class of 20 taught by a teacher who is perhaps not fit to teach by today's standard.

Let me explain the approach that we are taking to build up our teaching force. We recruit as many teachers as we can who meet our standards and we have not limited the number of teachers that we can recruit. Indeed, the 4,000-odd vacancies that Mr Thomas has pointed out pertain mainly to the provision for the recruitment of trainee teachers as they undergo training at the National Institute of Education and float posts to hold those on no-pay leave, study leave, professional development leave, scholarships, training awards, and so on. We have quite a lot of slack in the number of teachers that we can recruit and if we are able to find the teachers, to recruit as many as we want.

While we have been expanding our teaching force, we do so with an eye to quality. This means that it will not translate into dramatically smaller class sizes across the board any time soon. It is also because of the changing demographics of our whole teaching force. We have been able to expand the size of our teaching force, especially in the last four years. But because student enrolments in our schools have also been rising, the growth of our teaching service has largely gone into catering to this increased enrolment. Nevertheless, in spite of that, there has, in fact, been some improvement of pupil-teacher ratios. I would ask the Clerk to distribute some data. [Handout distributed to hon. Members.] At the primary level, over the last ten years, enrolment has increased by 19% since 1990 or by some 50,000 students. This means something like another 2,000 teachers are required to cater to them. But in spite of needing an additional 2,000 teachers, we have been able to do a little better than that. Our pupil-teacher ratio in the primary schools has improved slightly from 25.8% to 24.9%. At the secondary level, enrolment rose by 10% in the last 10 years. The pupil-teacher ratio improved from 21.7% to 18.6%. This means that in every school, there are now more teachers per student to share the teaching duties, compared to, say, five years ago.

We expect that student enrolments in our secondary schools will continue to rise by nearly 20% again in the coming four years. But because our target is to recruit our teachers from the top third of each cohort, there is a limit to how far we can reduce pupil-teacher ratios without compromising on quality. There is also a reality check needed to ascertain what proportion of the pool of potential candidates who have the aptitude and interest and how many we can realistically attract to be teachers. We do, in fact, recruit teachers from a wide range of sources and backgrounds, including non-university graduates, polytechnic graduates and also people in their mid-career. Not all teachers we recruit are fresh graduates. Even so, we are currently already recruiting one out of every eight university graduates, which is a very high level. Honestly, I am not confident that we can do very much more than recruiting one out of every eight graduates.

Mr Iswaran is right that the key is how best do we use the teaching resources that we have. How do we allocate them to get the most effect and the best education that we can get for our children? Given these constraints, the Ministry's position on deploying our teachers is to do so where the additional teachers can contribute most towards the learning of students. One good example is the Learning Support Programme (LSP) under which P1 and P2 students with difficulties in basic literacy are taught in small group sizes of between 8-10 students. The LSP supports 20% of P1 pupils and 10% of P2 pupils and the results have been quite impressive. Over a 10-month period, P1 LSP pupils increase their reading age by 26 months, thus narrowing their reading age deficit by 16 months. The classes are conducted by 214 teachers, whom we call Learning Support Coordinators, and each of our primary schools has at least one LSC. This year, 10 primary schools will get one additional teacher each to implement a similar programme for Mathematics on a pilot basis.

If we spread these teachers out thinly to help reduce class sizes across the board, the impact would be negligible. You will not feel it at all. But by putting the teacher resources in areas that count, we are able to make a big impact on the students. It is more effective to identify the learning needs of the students and to design programmes that have high impact on a significant number of students and use the teacher resources that way, which may include smaller classes for specific subjects for specific periods than to try to reduce class sizes across the board. In this way, we have been able to cater to the learning needs of students who deserve more attention, either because they are weaker as in the Learning Support Programme, or because they have special abilities as in the Gifted Education Programme.

If we are able to get more teachers and increase the teaching force, we will continue to look at how best we can deploy these teachers, what programmes are available and how we can improve the learning outcomes for our students. Schools are also given the flexibility to vary their class sizes. Some schools have bigger classes. They have a good teacher who can deliver a lecture well to 80 students. Some schools decide that they want to split their classes for their weaker students into 20 each. Some have found that it has been useful, some have found that it has no effect.

Class sizes in the Normal and Express streams generally range from about 30-40 students. In fact, parents want to place their children in the most popular schools even though their classes are filled to the brim. As MPs, you would have heard that parents always come and make suggestions that, "It cannot make that much difference if you squeeze in one more chair and desk there for my son or my daughter." We have heard that many times. If class size is indeed the sole or the major determinant of quality, parents would choose schools that are less heavily subscribed as they are most likely to have vacancies and, therefore, smaller classes. But they do not. While I started out by saying that smaller class sizes have an intuitive appeal, all parents intuitively know and understand that there is more to quality than class size, and it is indeed a multi-factorial issue.

Mr Goh Choon Kang and Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked about foreign Chinese language teachers in our education system. I will address one or two of the issues, but not the whole range. To help foreign teachers adapt to our system, they participate in induction programmes conducted by the Ministry before they are deployed to teach. They receive further support and guidance in their schools and clusters. So far, our foreign teachers, including Chinese teachers, have generally performed well and have adapted to our system. There are a few who do not demonstrate good performance or good work and they will not have their contracts renewed.

Several Members have also asked about employing foreign teachers. We are recruiting good quality teachers from overseas. We now have about 400 of them. They are very useful in specific areas but there is a limit to how many we can deploy in our system. There are two constraints. First, good teachers are in acute shortage all over the world. If we want to go to UK to recruit teachers, we must remember that they just came over last year to recruit our teachers. I am not sure how much headway we can make with that. The second reason is that foreign teachers may not be as sensitised to our norms and values, such as multi-racialism, and this is why most of our foreign teachers are in the secondary schools and not in the primary schools because primary school students are very impressionable at a young age, and it is important that we give them good guidance and values.

The bottomline is that we want more good teachers and we want a good balance between quality and quantity. The correct focus is, therefore, on building up our teaching force, while maintaining teacher quality. Our main efforts will, therefore, be directed towards recruiting our fair share of talent and retaining outstanding and experienced teachers. The measures include giving teachers better support and recognition. 3.00 pm

Mr Thomas asked about what we have done on teacher workload and administrative support. More administrative support will indeed be provided to teachers. Last year, I announced that we will provide one more extra administrative post for every school. Providing one more post to every school will incur a budget of $20 million a year. And indeed this increases to three the number of administrative posts in schools, compared to none just five years ago. So we will move forward and see how far we can go. But there is also a limit to how many people we can recruit because, as everyone knows, there are also not enough people doing this kind of administrative work in Singapore. But we have also given schools the flexibility and autonomy to buy support services to assist teachers in administrative duties, by using this money. So the post can be commuted to money, and the schools can also use their operating funds. Some schools have already done so. Instead of employing one person for the whole year, they can employ four people for three months during the peak periods, if the schools feel that is what they need. Schools can also use this fund to engage people with specialised skills, such as music instructors to help with CCA. The Ministry of Education monitors the usage of such funds and will increase the quantum, if necessary.

We will also be providing principals, HODs and teachers with IT support to do their work better. One example is the integrated IT support system for schools, what we call in shorthand "school cockpit", which is being developed at a cost of $35 million. This is basically something which is built around teachers and enables teachers and school leaders to have all the necessary information, data, statistics, functions and so on that they need to manage the pupils and to work better.

We are also giving beginning teachers more support. Being a teacher is intellectually stimulating but it also requires hard work, and beginning teachers cannot be expected to just go into a school at the deep end and start working. So they are mentored and we also provide 80% of the standard workload only for beginning teachers.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua talked about giving counselling and support to older teachers, apart from beginning teachers. In fact, we do have a counselling centre in the teachers network, which is outside of the hierarchy of clusters and principals. So teachers can avail themselves of that. I think it is a good idea and we will see what we can do to improve counselling and so on for our teachers to help them.

The main initiative that we will be implementing for teachers this year is reshaping the teaching career, so that it can better meet the Ministry of Education's organisational needs and the aspirations and talents of our teaching posts. We want to create a culture of professional excellence which will attract and retain the best teachers and a profession which nurtures the individual and motivates all to achieve superior performance. We began our pay and career review for teachers in September last year. The initial broad recommendations include setting up the teacher and specialists' career tracks, in addition to the current managerial track to HODs and principals, so that MOE can build up a top notch team of professional teachers, capable leaders and dedicated specialists. Part of the current review also examines how to restructure the pay system, but it will look beyond just the tangible rewards.

Recognition for teachers will be reshaped within a total framework that includes elements such as learning and developmental opportunities. For instance, the Ministry will spend more than $1 million a year to fully sponsor teachers for the National Institute of Education's advanced diploma and advanced post-graduate diploma programmes. I will not announce details of the review today. The review is expected to be completed soon, and I expect to be able to announce the details within the next two months. With these changes, we would have put in place a strong framework for the Education Service to continue to attract, reward and develop those with a passion and aptitude required to be teachers, and this will help us to have good teachers and enough of them to do all the good things that we want to do in education for our students.

The Chairman: I would like to inform Members that "guillotine" time on this amendment is 4.10 pm. So hon. Members, who wish to speak on this amendment, should bear this in mind and reflect on their speeches again during the tea break. I propose to take the tea break 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 3.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.05 pm until 3.25 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.25 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head L (cont.) -

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, may I be allowed to make one clarification?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Sir, I hope the Minister can respond to the point on relaxing the requirement to study Higher Chinese.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, in fact, we have really relaxed the requirements for Higher Chinese quite considerably over the last few years. Originally, Higher Chinese could only be studied by those in the top 10%. I believe it was in 1994 when we opened it up and allowed the top 20%, from 10% to 20%. And last year, we opened it up further to allow those from 21st to 30th percentile. Actually, one-third or 30% of the students now are able to do Higher Chinese, or higher mother tongue now, which is really a much broader band. So it is three times the potential pool than it used to be. I hope that answers, to some extent, Mr Goh's desire for more students to be able to do Higher Chinese. But we still have a requirement for the students to be good in the languages, because we want to make sure that in the course of doing Higher Chinese, they do not overload themselves, and find that they are unable to cope with either the languages or with the other subjects.

Mr Iswaran: May I also seek a clarification from the Minister on the implementation of the recommendations from the review of the mother tongue teaching? I raised it during my speech.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, mother tongue teaching was reviewed over the last two years, and we are now implementing the recommendations. For Tamil language, the revision of the syllabuses has been completed and will be phased in from 2002 together with new instructional materials and revisions to the examination format. We are also investing $2 million in the Umar Pulavar Tamil Language Centre, and the upgraded centre will be ready this year. And we have also done similar things for Malay language, with the new elective programmes and the honours programme for Malay language and literature. And similar things for Chinese language including another SAP school, another language elective centre in Nanyang Junior College and one or two other things.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Sir, Parliament last year passed the Compulsory Education Bill which makes primary level education mandatory up to PSLE. The matter came to a conclusion with the exemption of three categories, namely, madrasah students, children attending designated private schools and children who are tutored at home by their parents. Although my focus for this cut is on compulsory education (CE) for children with special needs, I would appreciate it if the Minister could also provide an update on new developments concerning compulsory education and madrasahs. Specifically, I would like to ask whether the Ministry is convinced that the madrasahs are in a position to cope with the minimum requirements of PSLE.

Turning to children with special needs, I recall the GPC Chairman, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, raised this issue during the compulsory education debate last year. The concern for this category of children still looms when our GPC met with the resource panel members recently. There is a strong feeling that such children should be integrated into our national school system as opposed to leaving them entirely to voluntary welfare organisations to worry about the plight of these children. The idea is to cultivate awareness and compassion within the wider school system for our not-so-lucky children who are born with disabilities from a young age. Without some form of legislation, the education of such children depends very much on the VWOs running the special schools. In many cases, places in such schools are limited and a long waiting list builds up, resulting in some children not being able to attend school. This imposes a burden on the families and subsequently on the special needs children themselves when they become adults without any education.

In addition, Sir, the current approach of delegating the educational responsibility of special needs children to VWOs without the Ministry of Education's supervision or direct intervention may not be in the spirit of providing for the rights of every child, as embodied in the United Nations' Charter of which Singapore is a signatory.

Understandably, although the number of such children is not very many, the special requirements and infrastructure needed to cater to special needs children are varied and, in some cases, may be complex. I would like to propose that the Ministry of Education conduct a detailed study of the varied needs of such children and thoroughly assess the situation. The findings of the study should be made public and, if necessary, the current policy reviewed on the outcome of the study.

I am also encouraged to note that the Minister for Education earlier remarked that the focus of his Ministry this year will be on teachers. I hope he does not forget also teachers who are dealing with special needs children. In the meantime, the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Community Development and Sports should also monitor the schools run by VWOs catering to special needs children closely and allocate additional resources to them as required.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Government has decided to implement compulsory education. I would like to know the following:

(1) What is the framework set up to monitor parents who fail to register or send their children to school, after registering their children?

(2) Under what circumstances will the parents be charged in court for failing to send their children to school?

(3) I would like to know what help the Ministry would provide for parents who fail to send their children to school because they are having difficulty in coping with family, financial, emotional or psychological problems. Is there an action plan worked out by the Ministry to coordinate other key social service agencies for the purpose of implementing compulsory education?

(4) A lot has been reported on this. I understand that some quarters of the Malay community are still not comfortable with the implementation of compulsory education. They are concerned about how the implementation would affect the long-term existence of madrasahs and whether, with the new requirement, it might also dilute the religious character and objective of setting up madrasahs. Would the Minister tell us what he thinks the issues are and how he proposes to resolve the issues in a satisfactory way to allay the concerns of the Malay community?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, MOE is conducting a pilot programme on pre-school education. In today's Singapore, every child enrolled in Primary 1 would have taken at least two years of kindergarten. But not every child has the same two years of experience. It ranges from private individual attention programmes to the more egalitarian PCF kindergartens. It all depends on the wherewithal of their parents. Some parents even send their children to two kindergartens in one day. The first one to Montessori for individual attention and the second one to PCF for the discipline that they will face when they enrol in Primary 1. It is a fact that some children start Primary 1 much better prepared than the others. The Minister in his reply earlier has also addressed this matter when he talked about the Learning Support Programme. So it is debatable whether such headstart that the children enjoy has any long term impact. But I think the confidence gained by some of these children with the headstart could mean an insurmountable gap for their classmates to catch up.

Sir, we pride ourselves in providing an equal opportunity primary school education to our children so that all children, rich or poor, would be treated the same. However, it is clear that with widening income gap, our children are not starting from the same starting line when they begin the formal education in school. I think it is time now for the Ministry to provide subventions to certified kindergartens so that more qualified teachers could be hired for these kindergartens.

Mr Iswaran: Sir, parents need help to navigate through a wide range of options available at the pre-school level. Variety occurs in many ways - number of hours taught, type of curriculum, pedagogic method used, teacher-pupil ratio, relative emphasis on language, second language, and the like. That being the case, I think it is vitally important that the Ministry of Education as the recipient of the products of the pre-primary system helps parents understand the requirements and what they ought to be looking for at the pre-school level, to ensure that their children go through an effective but not stressful pre-primary education. At the same time, I think the pre-primary education institutions themselves will benefit immensely from assistance from the Ministry of Education in structuring a curriculum that will lead logically and naturally into what is taught at Primary 1.

Last year, the Minister announced that there would be certain longitudinal studies done to understand better the value and the impact of pre-school education on children. I would like to know, first, what is the status of this longitudinal study; and secondly, in the interim, while we wait for the outcome of the study, what is being done to address some of the needs I have just outlined.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Dr Aline K. Wong): Sir, I would like to address some of the questions.

First, on pre-school education (PSE). Last year, I shared with Members of this House MOE's philosophy and approach to reviewing the pre-school education in Singapore. Our intention is to improve the quality of pre-school education by focusing on certain areas where MOE can have high leverage while retaining its provision in the hands of the private and people sectors. MOE would improve the pre-school curriculum, raise teachers' qualifications, set higher teacher training standards and more stringent regulations. We had also announced that we would do a pilot research project in order to guide our policy decisions. So it is timely that Mr Iswaran has asked for an update on this review.

Sir, since the announcement that I made last year, several key pieces of the review have been put in place. For example, we have delineated the Desired Outcomes of pre-school education which focus on values, attitudes and skills rather than specific academic competencies. We have already disseminated this set of Desired Outcomes widely to the service providers, and have also devised a set of curriculum guidelines based on the Desired Outcomes. These Desired Outcomes serve as a timely reminder to educators and parents of the importance of taking a longer term view to learning. Over-emphasising academic achievements and preparation for P1 may yield immediate academic gains in a child, but they may be at the expense of his motivation and love for learning in the long term.

In December last year, my Ministry and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports jointly introduced a new framework for PSE teacher-training and accreditation. This framework provides a common training path for professionals in both kindergartens and childcare centres and allows for the upgrading of existing training programmes. This will help to enhance the standards of teacher-training and increase the attractiveness of the entire pre-school sector. Under this framework, all pre-school supervisors will be required to be trained to diploma level in four to five years' time. During this transition period, MOE and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports will facilitate as many existing supervisors as possible to attain the required diploma qualifications. As for accreditation, since the announcement of our accreditation framework, we have started to process the applications of PSE training providers. They have submitted their curriculum, etc, for us to accredit their training programmes.

This year, we have started a pilot research programme, in collaboration with the National Institute of Education, to study the long-term cognitive and non-cognitive benefits of pre-school education. Establishing the long-term value of PSE will allow us to make judicious investments in the pre-school sector.

About 2,000 K1 children from 46 selected pre-school centres are now involved in this study. We have designed a new PSE curriculum with the Desired Outcomes in mind, and this new curriculum will be child-centred, developmentally appropriate and tailored to help children acquire the critical foundations of learning. Teachers who are participating in this programme have been trained to use these new materials.

The first set of preliminary findings from this research programme is expected to be ready by the end of this year or in about a year's time. These findings will guide MOE in our policy planning and help us determine what would be the optimal investment in the pre-school sector. As Mr Iswaran asked, while we are waiting for the results of this pilot research programme, we have been disseminating the Desired Outcomes of PSE, designing the new curriculum, piloting the curriculum and training teachers for the pilot programme. We are also accrediting the training programmes which have been submitted by various training agencies.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen spoke on the need to provide pre-school centres, especially those that serve the majority of our population who are by no means rich, with more support to employ better qualified teachers. Besides improving the quality of the teachers, kindergartens would also need to upgrade their curriculum and facilities in order to raise the quality of education. We are aware that managing this upgrading process can be a very challenging task, especially for kindergartens that are not-for-profit. MOE is therefore looking into how we can provide the not-for-profit kindergartens with resources to help them manage this upgrading process smoothly and bring quality pre-school education to more children.

Sir, at the end of the day, our effectiveness in improving pre-school education hinges on how successful we are in moving away from the current predominantly academic focus towards a more balanced and all-round development of the child. To achieve this shift, the support of both parents and pre-school educators is critical.

Now, let me move on to the questions on compulsory education.

Both Mr Ahmad Magad and Mr Low Thia Khiang have asked about the progress made so far in the implementation of compulsory education. Mr Low, in particular, asked what is the kind of framework that we put in place in order to implement the Compulsory Education Act. As Members are aware, compulsory education will be introduced from the year 2003 for the age cohort entering Primary 1. We are in the process of putting in place the necessary mechanisms to support this introduction. For instance, work is currently underway to establish the CE Board and gazette the subsidiary legislation by mid-2002. Under the CE Board, counselling and mediation procedures would be put in place to ensure that the legal enforcement of CE would be taken only as a last resort. 3.45 pm

Mr Low asked under what circumstances would parents be brought to court. In deliberating on the introduction of the CE Bill, we provided for legal sanctions against those parents who are recalcitrant and do not bring their kids to school, but legal sanctions would be resorted to only as a last resort. There would be a process of counselling, and assistance would be given to families particularly those encountering financial problems, relationship problems, and so forth, so that they can send their children to school.

In this context, the role of the CE Board would be to review cases of non-compliance referred to it by the counselling officers and, where necessary, refer the cases to the Director-General of Education, who can then raise a complaint to the Subordinate Courts for legal action as a last resort. So between now and the implementation of CE in the year 2003, we are putting in place these various mechanisms and we will be gazetting the subsidiary legislation by the middle of next year.

Both Mr Ahmad Magad and Mr Low also asked about the response or what actions have the Malay community made in order to adjust to the CE arrangements. Sir, in making its recommendations, the Committee on Compulsory Education had solicited feedback and views from the different groups and communities who would be affected by CE, and this included the Muslim community. Specific recommendations, such as the PSLE benchmark that the madrasahs need to meet, were based on proposals put up by MUIS, in consultation with the madrasahs.

As Members may recall, this benchmark has been pegged at the average PSLE aggregate score of EM1 and EM2 Malay pupils in the six lowest-performing national schools. We believe that the madrasahs are working towards meeting and surpassing this PSLE benchmark. After all, they have almost up to eight years from now till the first cohort of the P1 entrants progresses to the PSLE level. Or, up to six years after CE is introduced in 2003. I believe they are already beginning to prepare for this requirement.

As far as the exemption of special needs children from the framework of CE is concerned, Mr Ahmad Magad raised a couple of questions. Sir, exempting these children from CE is a decision we have taken after very careful consideration. Currently, we have a multi-tier system to cater to the special needs children, as Mr Ahmad Magad is aware. For children with mild disabilities, they will continue to be admitted into our national schools. In fact, we have them in both the primary schools and secondary schools. We provide them with additional support services as well as assisted devices to help them cope with integration and to study the mainstream curriculum.

For children with moderate to severe disabilities, it would be prudent to let their parents decide on the type of education and care that would best meet these children's needs. In some cases, the disability of these children may be so severe or rare that homes or medical institutions would offer them better support and care. For the greatest majority of children with special needs, they are already enrolled in Special Schools where they receive intensive attention from specially trained teachers, with the support of specialised equipment and the services of therapists. It is better for them to attend these schools where they receive an education catered to their individual needs.

I understand the good intention and concern of those who call for CE to include children with special needs. Under the "many helping hands" approach, MOE will continue to work with the voluntary welfare organisations, the community and parents to provide for the needs of children with disabilities. Where necessary, more can be and will be done. Caring for these children does not mean that we must extend CE to them, or bring them under the framework of CE. In fact, in doing so, it may not be in the best interest to them.

If you would recall, we have defined "CE" as education within our national schools which teach the mainstream curriculum. Even with CE, the parents bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the child attends school. Hence, the law provides for penalties for recalcitrant parents who fail to do so. In extreme cases, the parents may even be sentenced to jail. For parents who are already burdened with taking care of the child with disabilities, I am sure the Member would not like to have them come under the law in such a manner.

The exemption of children with special needs from compulsory education is not a violation of our commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although Article 28.1(a) of the Convention requires States to provide free and compulsory primary education to all children, Singapore had entered a reservation to this Article in our accession to the Convention. Singapore is therefore not obliged to comply with this Article of the Convention. Nevertheless, I emphasise that we have been taking care of the needs of the special education children.

Mr Ahmad Magad also asked that MOE should conduct a study of the needs of the children and, based on this study, review the provisions for them. MOE is in fact constantly reviewing the needs of these children. However, their needs are very diverse and complex. A general study would not help in targeting assistance to where the needs are. Instead, MOE has adopted a more targetted approach for children with specific types of disabilities. For example, we collaborate with the Dyslexia Association of Singapore and the Autism Resource Centre to study the needs of these groups of children and to cater to them. We are also collaborating with a new society called SPARK to examine how we can help children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder to see how we can cater to these groups of children also.

Let me emphasise that our awareness of these conditions - autism, dyselxia, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder - has only grown substantially in recent years. Expertise and resources to deal with these learning disabilities are still lacking, not just in Singapore, but the world over.

As for funding for special education children, let me inform the Member that, indeed, MOE has increased the funding over the years. For FY1999, we devoted $18 million to special education. This is a capitation grant for recurrent expenditure. We increased that to $24 million in FY2000 and we are proposing a $27 million expenditure in the next financial year. MOE has committed itself to provide up to a cap of 2.5 times the cost of providing primary school education for special needs children.

The Chairman: Dr Wong, "guillotine" time is 4.10 pm. We still have quite a lot of speakers.

Dr Aline Wong: Can I just take one more second on the waiting list because Mr Ahmad Magad mentioned that the waiting list is long? There are 18 SPED schools now which cater to about 4,000 children. Of the 18 SPED schools, eight have waiting lists. Six of these eight SPED schools have an average waiting list of five children and they would be admitting these children by June this year. For the remaining two schools, which have significantly longer waiting lists, we are working with them to increase the number of sessions so that they can admit these children early. And for children with autism, these schools are also doing some parent education to help the parents cope with the needs of their children at home before they are admitted.

The Chairman: Dr Wang Kai Yuen is not speaking. Dr Tan Boon Wan.

Dr Tan Boon Wan: Sir, before I go into this cut, I wish to declare that I teach at the National University of Singapore.

I am glad to note the support that the Government has given to our universities. University places have been increased. Over the years, our universities have contributed to the development of the country, successfully meeting the high level manpower needs of the nation. Recently, however, the tempo of change has speeded up. The pace can be described as fast and furious, the change radical. The impact would be long term with changes to the culture of the institution. The resultant and intended consequences of the changes may not necessarily match. The implementation of the changes can significantly influence the result. It may be helpful for the Ministry to watch the changes and the impact and advise the universities, where appropriate and necessary.

Sir, more of our young seek a university education. Among them are graduates from our polytechnics. Although university places have increased, they are not able to meet the growing demand. If they cannot get into local universities, parents are prepared and will continue at great sacrifices to send their children to overseas universities. Today, many of our young are studying overseas and the number is set to increase. Upon graduation, most will return home.

I therefore welcome the move by the Government to set up a fourth university. Some concerns have been expressed on the quality of this university. These concerns can be met, if the establishment of the institution is premised on our needs for its graduates, and the students are being able to undertake a university education. The university can set appropriate entry criteria to make sure that only qualified students are admitted. Next, it must ensure that the content and quality of instruction and the output criteria befit a university degree. If this is done, we can be confident of the quality of its graduates and that its degrees will be recognised and accepted. It does not have to be exactly like NUS, NTU or SMU. It will find its niche. It will not be worse than the education that the students will receive overseas. An education in the fourth university will be less demanding and the parents will continue to enjoy the company of their children and the latter, the guidance of their parents.

Sir, I support the proposal to set up a fourth university.

Mr Loh Meng See: Sir, I will just keep it short. There is a trend of professionals leaving the profession. It appears that they have made a mistake in the course of study, or they do not like the course of study. I am just wondering whether the university and the manpower planners are able to manage and respond to this new attitude and thinking of our young with regard to the course of study and the kind of work they want to do. There are talks about professional courses being a postgraduate qualification. We want a more broadened first-degree course, maybe a postgraduate qualification for professional courses.

There is also this interview selection process for law and medicine. I wonder whether the selection process can give cognisance to the kind of mix and diversity that we want the young undergraduates to go into these professions, and also whether we can open up the professional qualifications through part-time studies for working adults because they do not seem to provide the opportunity for mobility for people who have completed university education.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, Dr Tan Boon Wan has mentioned the changes that are taking place in our universities. Yes, they are progressing, and we will advise the universities, where appropriate and necessary.

Let me now deal with some other specific issues. Mr Loh Meng See has asked about the professional qualifications. I do not have the figures as to what percentage of students who have successfully graduated from these programmes, decide to take up other professions later on. I certainly will take into account the suggestion that he has and pass it on to the universities in the selection of students. As you know, in selection for medical students, there is an interview and, during that interview, they will try to ascertain the aptitude, the perseverance and the real interest of the students to take medicine.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad: Sir, in response to the Government's repeated call for life-long learning, many mid-career executives and workers are enrolling themselves into part-time and distance learning in undergraduate and postgraduate overseas programmes, to upgrade themselves. As a result, there appears to be a sprouting of course providers, from universities and institutions of various countries, to offer their programmes in Singapore to take advantage of the favourable situation.

While qualification acquisition and personal upgrading are healthy and should be encouraged, the concern lies in the quality of some of the degree programmes being offered. There appears to be an increasing number of degree courses being offered by non-accredited institutions, which are just out there to make money. Competition for student enrolment is aggressive. Apart from cheaper course fees, some offer a multitude of exemptions and shorter time for programme completion to woo students. Unwary people who enrol with such institutions may have to find out the hard way when the qualifications they acquire are not recognised by prospective employers or the Government. Discontentment may set in when these people are not able to obtain good jobs in spite of having responded to the Government's call and, more so, after having invested large sums of money and personal time on such programmes.

While I understand the complexity of monitoring or supervising standards of such programmes, my concern is for this to become a potential social and political issue in the future. I would like to propose that the Minister consider:

1. regulating the admission of degree programmes into Singapore and, wherever possible, ensure that a certain academic standard is satisfied before they are allowed in; and

2. having periodic public education programmes, to increase the awareness of being selective in the enrolment of external degrees and distance learning programmes and impress upon them particularly the importance of accreditation of the universities offering such programmes in Singapore.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: (In Mandarin): Sir, the Ministry of Community Development and Sports, together with the People's Association, has been encouraging the elderly people in Singapore to carry on learning with the slogan "Making a spurt again at 60". I think this is a good campaign.

At first, I did not know that there was an Executive MBA course conducted in Chinese by the Business School of NUS. By chance, a friend introduced it to me and I enrolled myself in the course. At that time, I thought I was just embracing the attitude of life-long learning and I hoped to set an example to the younger generation to cultivate the spirit of life-long learning. I was also hoping that I could pick up some business management knowledge in a more systematic manner from the university. To my surprise, after embarking on this course, I discovered that I have not only learnt a lot of new western and oriental business management knowledge but have also got acquainted with a lot of friends who are senior executives in the Asia Pacific region. They come from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. We have therefore established a valuable regional business network which is of great help to me to explore the Asia-Pacific market.

I think we should expand this course so that there would be more students coming from the Asia Pacific region to Singapore. I understand that the Business School of the NUS is now ranked first or second in the Asia Pacific region. I think, if more of such courses are conducted, a lot of top executives in the Asia Pacific region would be attracted to come here to study, they will have better understanding of Singapore, and thereby building up better relationship with Singapore. This will be of great advantage to us.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, with your indulgence, I will respond to Mr Ahmad Magad and Mr Peh, and perhaps ask Mr Peter Chen to respond to Dr Tan on the Fourth University when I have finished.

Sir, it is neither practical nor feasible for MOE to regulate or restrict the wide variety of external degree programmes that students in Singapore may wish to subscribe to. MOE is also not in a position to accredit their standards. These courses can take many forms. They might even be conducted by correspondence or over the Internet. The more practical approach is for these programmes and their quality to be subject to the test of the market. The employer is really in the best position to determine which courses and qualifications are most relevant to his needs, and how much value and recognition to give to a person's qualifications. At the same time, prospective students enrolling in these degree programmes should conduct their own careful and thorough evaluation, just like they would for any other investment. And, over time, students and parents would learn that not all degrees are the same, and employers would choose to recognise different degrees and qualifications in different ways.

As for Mr Peh's suggestion, I will ask the universities to take that up.

The Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Peter Chen): Sir, I would like, first of all, to thank the many MPs and members of the public who have come out loudly in support of the proposal to start a degree programme which is industry and practice-oriented, often now referred to as the "Fourth University".

Points have been made concerning the quality of the degree, especially on the recognition of the graduates who come out from such a university, or who undertake such a programme. Some Members have asked whom the university is targeting to recruit, if such a university were started. The answer must be students who are more at home in the practice-oriented culture than otherwise. They are likely to be the hands-on type, probably with a polytechnic diploma in a relevant field, an "A" level qualification, or someone who has considerable work experience in an appropriate field. The most important quality that the person must have is the capacity to be able to benefit from a degree-level education. He could be a full-time or part-time student. If anything, for what we have in mind, a part-time programme lends itself rather well to an industry and practice-oriented university where real-life problems, from the student's workplace, become a learning experience.

Concern has also been expressed as to the quality of the degree, and how the public will view such a degree. I think the concern is understandable. Many of us will recall similar concerns when NTU came into being as a second university. In Singapore, the authority to award degrees is a jealously-guarded, almost sacred privilege, and I want to assure the House that a degree programme, or the fourth university, will have rigorous admission standards and criteria appropriate for an industry and practice-oriented degree. It must have the support and acceptance of industry. It will be a degree, as Dr Tan Boon Wan has said, different from an NUS or NTU degree, but it must be a degree of quality.

These are some of the issues the committee (chaired by me) that has been asked to look into the set up of the degree programme, will consider carefully. We will study models in the US, UK and Germany for relevant lessons, and we will make our recommendations in the second half of the year.

There have also been some calls for continuing education and training, especially that we may make the best use of our educational institutions, that we should align the existing facilities there, to enable them to play their role in the provision of continuing education and training. I would like to assure the House that those plans are in hand, and both the ITE and the polytechnics will be expanding their capacity, from the point of view of the provision of continuing education and training opportunities for Singaporeans.

The Chairman: Mr Loh. There is not much time left, and it is the same point.

Mr Loh Meng See: The Minister has spoken, so I will not speak on it.

The Chairman: We have reached the "guillotine" time for this amendment. Dr Wang, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, I wish to express my thanks to the three Ministers who have spoken, even though, in the case of the Minister, I found some of his responses rather assertive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Ong Ah Heng.

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): Sir, I beg to move,

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

(In Mandarin): Sir, since independence, our Government has done a remarkable job in raising the standard of living of most Singaporeans. We have been the envy of many other countries. However, we have paid a high price for our prosperity and economic success. If you observe carefully, many Singaporean married couples today have to work and more often than not, both the husband and wife have to work to sustain their living needs. Of course, some choose to work because they want to be financially independent. While most choose to work because they have little choice as they need to maintain and sustain their high standard of living, many also want to provide their children with the best possible facilities and benefits. As a result, many parents have very little time because they usually leave their home early and come home late. Worse still, some even spend their weekend working instead of spending quality time with their children, not to mention fruitful communications with them. As such, over time, children would become detached and bear little feeling of closeness to their parents. Many would not even want to share with their parents when they have personal problems. It would have a very serious impact on our social life if this trend is not addressed.

Sir, in recent times, we notice that a growing number of children are being looked after by domestic maids. This is not completely bad, but it does have undesirable effects on these school-going children. As most schools are still run on a half-day basis, these children will go home either to face the four walls of the house or the maid. We cannot expect the maid to perform the role of the mother in nurturing the children and supervising them in their studies. As a result, these children have so much time at their disposal that they end up loitering at shopping centres, video arcades or even lazing around the neighbourhood and get mixed up with some bad hats and become juvenile delinquents. This will eventually lead to more social problems.

The Government has started experimenting with single session schools. But I understand that such single session schools are mainly independent schools. In most of these independent schools, the children usually come from families with better educated parents who are professionals themselves. More often than not, these parents know how to nurture and educate their children.

My concern is more on the neighbourhood schools. I would like to urge the Government to introduce and expand the single session schools to as many of these neighbourhood schools as possible. They are schools with children from the lower-income families. Usually, the parents have low education and probably have to spend the whole day working, and have very little time or no time to spare. Even if they would like to teach their children, very often they are limited by their low education and knowledge, and they are unable to be of any help to the children. So the introduction of single session schools will keep the children occupied with useful and beneficial school activities instead of indulging in unlawful activities. 4.15 pm

Schools can also use the time available to inculcate the virtues of moral uprightness, respect for the elders, etc. Of course, I understand that we are short of teachers, but I think we can recruit more teachers so that we can help these students with their studies and their work by giving them remedial classes, etc. But I still hope that the Ministry can step up efforts in recruiting and training of teachers. The schools can also look into the possibility of recruiting part-time tutors to provide proper guidance and conduct useful activities for these children. We know that if we do not invest in our young now, it will eventually lead to more serious problems later on. Of course, I am not saying that the parents should push their responsibility to the schools in the education of their children, but I know that the schools can play an important and critical role in educating the children.

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Bukit Gombak): (In Mandarin): Sir, in order to attend the graduation ceremony of my daughter, I visited London last year, and I took the opportunity to study how they rank their schools in England. Over there, the ranking of primary and secondary schools is only used for internal reference by the Ministry of Education to find ways and means to encourage the schools to raise their standards. They do not announce the ranking openly to the parents. Only the university rankings are made public.

But in Singapore, ever since we implemented ranking of schools, it has caused some very intense competition among the schools. All the schools wish to be ranked in the higher echelon and, therefore, many of these schools engage good principals and teachers and take in only good students. So, the good schools are always good and those teachers who were sent to the top 50 schools are very happy and excited. However, those who were sent to those schools which are not listed among the top 50 will be disappointed and demoralised.

Therefore, I feel that the Ministry of Education should review this ranking of schools, and let the schools be treated equally as institutions which impart knowledge to the students and nurture their moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetic qualities. But, most importantly, the school ranking should be used only for the internal reference in the Ministry of Education as an assessment of the performances of the various schools.

If this ranking system should be retained, I think MOE should consider the method of banding. Perhaps, we could rank all the schools into three bands. First of all, set up standard criteria for the banding, taking into consideration the academic results, co-curricular activities, general moral standard of the students in the various schools. We can rank them as distinction, merit, pass, etc. Those schools which attain distinction grades in all the various aspects will be classified as band "A". Those with merit grades, will be classified as band "B", while those which score only a pass, will be classified as band "C" .

For those schools which are in band "C" we should give them more resources and other facilities to help them improve their performances. If the teachers and students can cooperate and uplift the school from band "C" to band "B", I think we should give some commendation to the teachers and principals. This will stimulate the teachers in the band "C" schools to improve the overall standard of the school. I hope that all the primary and secondary schools can eventually reach an equally high standard. I feel such banding system is better than the present ranking system.

This is like the "Cleanest Hawker Centre in Singapore" competition. Last year, we only picked the top three "Cleanest Hawker Centres in Singapore". As a result, many stallholders told me that they did not stand a chance at all, and they simply dropped out of the race. Last year, I picked the top 10 "Cleanest Hawker Centres in Singapore" and many of these hawkers were very positive in participating in this competition. When the team of judges went to inspect these hawker centres, they found that the general standard had gone up.

Another example is our town council. In the earlier days, the Ministry of National Development ranked all the town councils from 1 to 16. But we found that the top ones were always at the top and there was only a difference of 0.1 or 0.2 marks separating them. Those who were ranked lower down were demoralised and they felt that they had done their best but they were still ranked at the bottom. They just could not be bothered with it anymore. Finally, MND decided to band them into bands "A", "B" and "C". As a result, this year when we conducted a survey among our residents, we found that all the town councils had improved in their performance over the year. This shows that this banding system for the ranking of our schools can be feasible and would encourage all the schools to participate actively in this competition by improving themselves.

The Chairman: The "guillotine" time for this amendment is 4.50 pm.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I will be very brief although this can be a very long subject to talk about.

Sir, we have always used the word "tolerance" when we discuss race relations. But tolerance implies acceptance without questioning why. We should go beyond tolerance. Multi-racialism must never be taken for granted. We must work hard at it through actions and deeds. To do this, we must have an appreciation and understanding of the lifestyles, customs and habits of each different race. We have taken steps to ensure a good multi-racial mix at our HDB estates, by fixing the percentage of each racial group in an estate. Then, when we noticed, after the 1984 general elections, that people were voting along racial lines, we took immediate steps to prevent the possibility of having no minority representation in this House. Can you imagine this House of MPs of Chinese origin, and yet we tell the world that we are a multi-racial country? Thus, we introduced the GRC concept, where a member from the minority race is essential in a slate of candidates to be elected. And because of the rising religious fervour around the region and the world, we acted fast by introducing the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to preserve the right to practise without fear or favour. This will allow our multi-religious groups to conduct the practice of their faith in a free and fair way, as our racial groups practise different religions.

These are positive actions that the Government took because we wanted to avoid racial conflict. Our historical past has examples of what can happen if there is a breakdown in racial harmony. These are actions taken after the events came to light. Therefore, the best place that we can start our multi-racial culture is our schools. Young children of different races play and fight together, without a care of each other's race or language. Being innocent and fresh-faced, they enjoy the warmth and company of each other without prejudice. Thus, from young, we must avoid segregation of pupils for administrative convenience. We must, for example, encourage non-Chinese pupils to join China tours instead of taking only Chinese students. Basketball should not be a sport only for Chinese students. Teachers must have a high level of awareness on this subject. It must be internalised in them so that they can handle sensitive situations by not offering hamburgers to Malay students, or beef to Hindu students. Also, schools, such as Special Assistance Schools and madrasah schools, should develop their own programmes to allow students to understand the way of life of other races.

Thus, fundamental to just tolerance is this need to teach our students each other's culture and social behaviour. When our children from young are constantly doing and experiencing multi-racial social norms, it will not just be blind acceptance of racial tolerance. Multi-racialism must be based on a strong foundation of understanding, knowledge, action and deeds in schools that will carry them into their workplace and HDB estates.

Thus, I hope that the Ministry will encourage schools of their very important role of promoting multi-racialism in Singapore.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: We have not been able to answer all the points that Members have raised today. If Members do wish to pursue these matters with my Ministry, I will be happy to receive their letters or queries and we will try to respond to them, including those cuts that we were not able to take today under the main Head.

I would also like to express my deep respect for Dr Wang. I would particularly like to thank him for all his suggestions and comments today. The reason that I have responded to him so fully is because I take his views very seriously, and I know that many people take his views very seriously and give them a lot of weight. So, I felt it was important for me to respond to his comments as completely as I could today, just to make sure that there is a clear understanding on the issues.

I would like to inform Mr Ong Ah Heng that, with the exception of two secondary schools, whose transition to the single session system is tied to the completion of the new buildings, all the other 160 secondary schools and three full schools are now operating single session. There are 48 primary schools operating single session, but most of them are new schools, and yet to achieve full enrolment. When they do, they probably have to operate on double sessions. Either that or they are schools in mature estates facing falling enrolment, or they are primary sections of full schools.

The single-session programme is a significant step forward for secondary schools and it has allowed schools to benefit from greater flexibility in the use of curriculum time and resources. Our schools can now introduce a wider range of enrichment programmes to cater to students of different abilities and family backgrounds. The Ministry of Education will consider whether to have single session primary schools when PRIME is closer to completion.

Sir, education is a partnership among schools, parents and the community. No matter how good a job our schools, our principals and our teachers do, they cannot and should not replace the love, concern and support of the home.

Let me turn now to school ranking. One of the objectives of school ranking is to provide schools with a yardstick to improve their performance. This is not unique to Singapore. I am a little surprised that Mr Ang says that UK does not reveal their ranking data. As far as I know, they actually do and also in quite considerable detail. In Singapore, our ranking is really very mild and gentle. We have something like 350 schools, 200 primary and 150 secondary. We do not rank the primary schools. Of the 150 or so secondary schools, we rank 50 of them. In many places, including UK, and in many states in the United States, they rank them from top to bottom. In some states in the United States, the avowed aim of putting the schools at the bottom is to name and to shame them into doing something about it.

I can quite honestly say that in Singapore, I am not ashamed of any of the schools that I have. In our system, a good education takes place in all of them. In our system, we find it necessary and useful to just rank the top 50. In a sense, there is a band of the top 50 schools for Express stream and the top 40 schools for Normal stream. I have distributed the data earlier on. In fact, my Ministry's focus in the ranking exercise is not on the absolute ranking of the schools, but the value-added ranking, because if the best students go to a particular school, I do expect that that school would turn up on the top with an absolute ranking. What I am more interested, and what parents should be interested in, should be the value-added ranking, which is to say, if a particular school has a student population of this characteristic and this school is able to get more out of these students than would have been normally expected, then there is something special about this school. I would ask parents, Members of this House and members of the public to focus on the value-addedness of the ranking exercise rather the usual focus on the absolute ranking.

4.30 pm

Mr Ang has suggested that instead of ranking, we should use banding instead. To introduce a more well-rounded and complete framework for assessment, we introduced the school excellence model in 1999 that allows schools to assess themselves on how well they have achieved, both academic and non-academic outcomes. In addition, the school excellence model appraises management processes as well, since good processes will ensure sustained results. Mr Ang may be happy to know that banding of schools is practised under the school excellence model. Depending on how the school assesses itself, to appraise itself in one of five bands available, and with the first year's assessment as a base, the school will then chart its own progress, self-improvement strategies and track its improvements up the band or to the next higher band over time. The school excellence model will also include other things which are non-academic in nature, including how they perform in other areas.

May I come now to multi-racialism in schools? I completely endorse what Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said. There are many principals and teachers in this House today as well, and I urge them to take that message away with them.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (In Mandarin): Sir, with our public transport system still in need of further improvement, the school bus is still a very important service to our school children. But now, in our housing estates, multi-storey car parks are replacing the parking lots on the surface. Many school bus drivers have complained to me that they were finding it increasingly difficult to find places for their school buses at night. Even the schools do not allow them to park the school buses overnight in the school compound. Can the Minister please help?

Mr Thomas Thomas: Sir, I just want to bring up one aspect of polytechnic education, and this is in regard to bringing in of foreign students into polytechnics in Singapore. I would like to request the Minister to review the current process, because part of it is done by direct recruitment, which I think is the best and preferred way. In some countries, they use intermediaries or agents to bring in the students. When doing this, I would ask the polytechnics to ensure that there is no profiteering in the process. Even if there is no choice and they have to use an agent, we could work out a scheme on the scope of work, what they are supposed to do, how much they are to charge for their services and things like that. Because they not only make money by bringing in the students, but once the students are here, they charge for settling in cost, housing, etc, and for some of these charges, eg, for housing, the margins are more than reasonable.

The other possibility is for the polytechnics to do this service themselves. Maybe the Minister could do a review of this matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.35 pm

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad: Sir, student care centres (SCCs) are primarily operated by voluntary welfare organisations and non-profit organisations with funding from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. Some, I understand, are also operated privately. Some feedback I received from parents suggests that there is a commitment by the operators of these centres to synchronise their programmes with the school curriculum. On the other hand, I also received feedback from operators indicating that the programme could be more effective and beneficial for the children at the centres if neighbourhood schools where they operate could directly cooperate with them. They will be in a better position to tailor programmes specific to the needs of the children if the respective school teachers could directly interface with the SCC operators. Based on this valuable feedback from the operators themselves, I would like to suggest that a more coordinated approach be considered by the Ministry, as we extend this programme to more neighbourhoods. This could be linked directly with an individual or, for that matter, a cluster of schools in the neighbourhood where they intend to locate. Programmes developed by these centres could then be tailored such that they are correlated with the individual's co-curriculum. Such an approach will not only benefit the students but also the SCCs and the participating schools, as it adds greater value for all the three parties involved.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Sir, thank you for allowing me to reply to two questions. Firstly, on the question of parking of school buses raised by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang. Strictly speaking, providing parking facilities for school buses is a matter that does not come under the purview of the Ministry of Education. However, we understand and we are sympathetic with the problems faced by many bus drivers to find a place to park their buses. In fact, since 1983, the MOE has allowed overnight parking for school buses in our schools mainly to help solve the problem of off-street parking faced by them.

The position remains the same today. School bus operators who wish to park their buses in any school overnight may apply directly to the school concerned. I hope they will communicate with the school and find a way to get a place to park their vehicles. Today, about a third of our schools are being used by school bus operators to park their buses overnight. That is the situation today.

Sir, Mr Ahmad Magad made some suggestions concerning the student care centres. Again, the activities and programmes of the student care centres are matters that do not come under the purview of the Ministry of Education. However, we understand the concerns raised by Mr Ahmad Magad as to how they could maximise their programmes to benefit the school children in the areas where the SCCs operate. One way for the SCCs to design their programmes to meet the needs of the children attending the centres, and if the children come from a few schools around the centres, I suggest the operators engage the schools directly, talk to them and see how they can coordinate their programmes to benefit the students. I am sure many of the schools would be happy to do this. Today, in fact, various voluntary welfare organisations have been discussing with schools. They started it in the past and they have devised some programmes which are more suited to the children who attend the SCCs. And I hope these people who raised the matter with Mr Ahmad Magad could start a dialogue with the schools and come up with some programmes together.

Mr Peter Chen: Sir, Mr Thomas Thomas has said that the polytechnics, in particular, should not use private agents. Yes, I agree with him. They should not, and they do not use private agents.

I think the point made here is really not private agents, but the concern is that some students may be taken advantage of by certain individuals, and it goes beyond just recruitment. Mr Thomas also referred to what they might charge for bringing them in and so on. I think it is extremely difficult for the polytechnics really to police this. It may well be a case for CASE really. It could well be that. But beyond making very clear to all potential students that the polytechnics do not use any agents or do not take account of any lobbying by anybody for admission, and admission is based strictly on merit, there is not much that we can do beyond that. However, if Mr Thomas has some suggestions, we will be very glad to see how publicity in this matter may be followed up.

Mr Thomas Thomas: Sir, as a clarification, if the foreign students are already here and they have problems, would there be some sort of apparatus or mechanism to address some of these problems and grievances? And would the polytechnics help the students to resolve these problems?

Mr Peter Chen: Sir, every polytechnic indeed has got personnel who will help students and deal with student affairs. If these problems are brought up to the polytechnics, the students will definitely receive help and advice. But at the end of the day, it may well be something that they have to be careful about, and the remedy may have to be sought outside the polytechnic system, eg, CASE.

Mr Ong Ah Heng: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (3), Mr Inderjit Singh is not here. Mr Heng Chiang Meng, please move the amendment.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 2100.

Sir, when primary schools are situated in an HDB estate, the population density of the estate normally means that ballotting for Primary 1 places will take place under Phase 2C. This situation is made worse if the school happens to be a better known and popular school, when the estate is relatively new with many young parents having children of Primary 1 school-going age.

Sir, this was the case last year in my ward when Rosythe School was relocated to Serangoon North Avenue 4. Many parents in the immediate neighbourhood, some of whom living just a stone's throw away from the school, were extremely disappointed when their children could not be accepted into the school, even though they live well within the one kilometre radius. These unsuccessful children were then subsequently given places in other schools, many of which are some distance away from their homes.

On the other hand, depending on the luck of the draw, children living, say, one kilometre away may be successful. The result is that there will be many children travelling by buses every school day to their respective schools. Surely this defeats the purpose of having neighbourhood schools which, presumably, are to have pupils living close to the schools, so that travelling time for the pupils would be minimised.

Sir, we have had this system for sometime now. While it has worked quite well in the past, I believe it needs fine-tuning now to satisfy the needs of a new breed of parents who are now very much more involved in their children's education, especially at Primary 1 level. I would therefore like to suggest to the Minister to review and fine-tune the system. For example, one way could be to rank the distance of each household from the school, and the ranking to be used to allocate the available places based on the household nearest to the school having the pole position. In this example, though within the one kilometre radius, those nearer to the school will have greater priority than those further away. This method, I am sure, will ensure the children could go to schools situated next door to their homes. I am also very sure that the Ministry could come up with many other ideas. The point is that the current system needs refining and perhaps it is time to do such refinements now.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: (In Mandarin): Sir, we agree that the school holidays are very important to our teachers. During the holidays, they can do some reading up to enrich themselves and, most importantly, they can drop everything from their heavy school commitments, and relax. I do not want to see more and more of our teachers going to Woodbridge Hospital.

But nowadays I discover that many of the teachers have to participate in many of the school activities, and this is becoming an increasing trend, particularly HODs who have to go to school every day during the school holidays. I hope MOE will review this matter and make sure that our teachers will have enough time to rest or to recharge themselves. 4.45 pm

Mr Thomas Thomas: Sir, this point that I am raising on private tuition has been covered by the Minister earlier. But I just want to add on to the points and say that in the normal course of teaching, it should be sufficient for most students to learn everything they need to learn in a classroom and then maybe with a little bit of remedial teaching. But if our students have to have classroom teaching, remedial teaching, private tuition, in order to cope, then some fundamental questions need to be asked. Are we teaching the right way or is there something about the delivery of knowledge that needs to be relooked? Tuition also adds on to the stress of students, because I have come across children who say that they are very busy. I asked them why, and they said they have got mother's homework to do, school homework to do and tutor's homework to do. So they seem to be always laden with work, work, work. It may be a good way of starting off for their working life by being hardworking, but I think we should also allow our children to enjoy the fullness of childhood.

The other point I want to make is that many of the less well-off parents, who may not be able to afford private tutors, may be at a disadvantage. So we should try to have an education system in which school teaching and remedial classes should be sufficient for all students.

Dr Aline Wong: Sir, on priority of allocation of Primary 1 places, MOE provides sufficient primary school places to accommodate all children. No child is deprived of a school place and the majority of parents are able to enrol their children in schools near their homes. While there are sufficient vacancies for all, my Ministry cannot accommodate all requests for any particular schools as vacancies in each school are limited. The existing guidelines have become an accepted means for parents to enrol their children into the limited vacancies in popular schools. Normally, parents are able to secure places in primary schools without balloting. But for those schools where the number of registrants exceeds the available places, there has to be an allocation system that takes into account a number of different, often contending factors.

Under the current P1 Registration System, children who stay nearer to the school do get priority over those who stay farther away. Should the demand for the school exceed the number of vacancies in any phase of registration, balloting will be conducted. Priority will be given first to those children living within one kilometre of the school, then to those children living within two kilometres of the school, and finally to all the other children more than two kilometres away from the school.

What Mr Heng is suggesting is a further or finer division of priority, so that some children get places at the expense of others who might get places under the present system. There is no perfect system, Sir, that can satisfy everyone. Mr Heng's model of replacing balloting with registration by proximity also has its drawbacks. For example, with such a system, we may have to admit a child who stays 100 metres away from a school but reject one who stays 101 metres away, for both of whom the school in question is the nearest. Is such a rejection more acceptable to parents than for them to fail in securing a ballot? I do not think so. What about for children who stay at equal distance away from the school, say, in the same HDB block? How do we differentiate who from that block should get admitted? For such cases, we still have to resort to balloting.

The current system attempts to strike a balance between various important considerations for P1 registration, from recognising the importance of placing siblings in the same school, to distance from home, to relationship with the school. MOE is prepared to consider another model of P1 registration if there is a better model. However, till that better model is found, MOE has no plans to change the current established P1 registration guidelines. Nevertheless, I thank the Member for speaking about this subject and putting forth his suggestions.

As for school holidays, an issue raised by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, our principals are mindful of the fact that teachers need regular breaks in order to recharge themselves for the new term or academic year. They do ensure that all their teachers get some time off during the school vacation. Such time-off can take place any time during the year's school holidays, depending on the school's schedule and the teachers' duties. All our teachers should have more than two weeks' continuous break, usually during the December school vacation. The scheduling of teachers' involvement in activities and programmes during school vacation is generally worked out by the school, and sometimes by the individual teachers.

The intensity and range of activities and duties vary from school to school, and from teacher to teacher. The principal has an overview of this in his school and will work as much as possible to balance the load on the teachers. Teachers can be involved in professional development and student activities, in the areas of remedial enrichment and CCA during the school holidays. Our principals are aware that they have to organise school activities during the holidays such that teachers have a significant period where they can take time off for a short break, and spend time with their family. Our principals are already doing so.

On the issue of tuition, which Mr Thomas briefly touched on, it is one of those phenomena or intractable problems that societies such as Japan and other East Asian societies, including China, Hong Kong and Taiwan face, where parents place a high premium on their children's academic success. Demand for tuition in Singapore is actually driven by a number of factors. Among them, the aspiration of parents for their children is a main factor. Where the child's mastery of certain subjects is weak, I agree with my Minister that tuition and remedial classes indeed can help the child. Remedial lessons can help. In the past, educated parents would often coach their own kids after school or supervise their children in doing homework. Nowadays, with many working couples, many parents find it difficult to have the time to do so for their children. There are also some parents who feel they have lost touch with the school curriculum or are outdated in what they knew from their old school days. These parents would also hire tutors to help their kids with their homework. I think that in itself should not pose much of a problem, although ideally the parents should still take interest and continue to guide their children in their home study.

However, there are also parents who hire tutors in order that their kids can improve their grades from, say, 90% to 95%, to 98%, or to obtain advance coaching ahead of the class, whether it is by a couple of advance lessons or sometimes even by coaching ahead of the next academic year. Besides overloading the child, this practice can actually cause the child to lose interest in school and attentiveness in class. The long-term effects on the child can be quite harmful. I think giving too much tuition to children when they are already tired from school is going to add to the stress level for the kids, and even for the parents who often have to cart their children back and forth from one tuition session to another.

Tuition takes time away from the child's rest and recreational needs and eats into the time that the child has for reflection and for doing creative things by himself. It may reduce the child's sense of self-discipline because it is best that he takes personal responsibility for completing his own homework. Worse still, it can kill the child's interest in school. Too much tuition would turn the child off. As parents, we should be mindful of the impact of our expectations on children's learning and stress levels, and be careful not to overburden them.

Our schools currently provide adequate time and attention to students to learn their academic subjects fully. Teachers regularly give remedial classes to those who need help with their school work. At the primary level, the learning support programme gives additional support to those identified to be weak in English and Mathematics. The ENABLE (Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning) programme gives additional support to those who are not achieving their potential. Our curriculum has given more emphasis to critical and creative thinking skills. At the same time, we have reinforced the importance of co-curricular activities to enhance core skills and values among our students.

Our schools therefore offer a holistic and broad-based development of a child. Tuition cannot and should not substitute for the education that a child receives at school. There will always be parents who wish to supplement this with tuition. This is a choice for parents to make and, I hope, to make judiciously.

Sir, thank you very much for so much time for me to talk about tuition. I never expected this.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, may I seek some clarifications.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: I would like to remind the Senior Minister of State that in the example she quoted about someone living 100 metres may get a place, and someone living 101 metres may not be able to get a place, at least in that situation anyone living 101 metres or more away will not be able to get a place too. May I ask her whether this is fairer than the current system where someone next door may not be able to get a place, whereas someone living one kilometre away can still get a place, depending on the luck of the draw?

Dr Aline Wong: I think he did not hear what I say. For both of these families, someone who lives within one kilometre or next door and someone who lives right on the border of this one kilometre, or of any delineation you choose to draw, my point is that for both of them, this is their nearest school. So is it fairer for the allocation of school to be decided by a balloting which is transparent, which everybody watches, which everybody knows about the probability of success, than to draw a ranking system according to distance?

The Chairman: Mr Heng, can you withdraw your amendment?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, "guillotine" time is 5.13 pm, I believe.

Sir, although it is true that it is all within the one-kilometre radius and it might be nearest to the school for both pupils, surely if you are talking about distance, someone living next door should have a better priority than someone living one kilometre away. In any case, both are equally in the same situation by being nearest to the school, whichever school it may be, but at least the one next door is nearer than the other who is one kilometre away.

Dr Aline Wong: Sir, I am sure the Member in his meet-the-people sessions has also encountered cases where some families pleaded for priority to be admitted on grounds of, say, the child's sickness, or that the mother is working and is unable to bring the child to school, or that the grandparent cannot manage to take care of so many grandchildren. So these families are also in need of a priority of allocation. I think whatever system we adopt, we have to draw a line somewhere. And when we draw a line, there are always people on the border. Balloting so far has been accepted by the parents as a very established procedure. So until we can find a better system, we will stick to this one.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I find it difficult to understand why the Senior Minister of State should bring in other people's arguments, like people being sick, one parent looking after so many children. We are talking about distances away from the school. Let us not bring in other factors. But, in any case, her mind is already made up. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $4,890,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,390,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head M - 5.00 pm

The Chairman: Head M - Ministry of the Environment. Amendment No. (1), Prof. Low.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, I beg to move,

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

Sir, the topic I would like to talk about is sustainable environment. Sir, there are many different environmental rankings for Singapore. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd ranked Singapore, among other ASEAN countries, to be the best of the three out of the five environmental factors under their consideration. The Greening Industry Network Index (GIN-DEX), with Thailand and US collaborations, tried to link economics and environmental development with the consideration of energy used and pollution control. Singapore is ranked No. 8 out of the 36 countries under their ranking. They also plan to use Singapore as a model to show others how one could deal with their environmental pollution while developing their economy.

Singapore is also rated to be one of the 15 top most liveable cities in the world. I would like to ask why the Environmental Task Force of the Global Leaders of Tomorrow rated us so low in its Environmental Sustainable Index (ESI). Is the way in computing the index not adequate enough to reflect our environmental friendliness?

Sir, sustainable environment is an issue where not many people can understand its implication. In the modern world we live in, we consume a large quantity of fossil fuel and raw materials, like iron, copper and aluminum. Even the environmental friendly three-way catalytic convertors that reduce vehicle pollution, the materials, like rhodium and palladium, that are used are not sustainable. In other words, once they are consumed, they are almost gone forever.

The environment is not sustainable as far as the resources, that I have cited, are concerned. Therefore, when we talk about sustainable environment, besides encouraging the use of renewal energy sources, we are trying to conserve the resources and sustain them for as long as possible. The concept is therefore not to prevent consumption, but to minimise the consumption with efficient use. The way in which we should approach the sustainable environment issue is to do it in the most feasible way of reduction, recycling and reuse of resources. In the energy issue, we should aim towards the best conversion of the efficiency from fossil fuel to electricity and to make the best efforts in the conservation of energy at home, offices and road transportation.

Sir, we have heard that our Government has introduced many of the recycled programmes for wood, paper, aluminum cans and glass bottles. However, we did not see many of these products sold in the local market using the recycled materials. Where have these recycled materials gone? Is the effort taken by the Government in the promotion of recycling not enough for us to see the resultant impact of the recycling movement?

Sir, what measures have we taken to promote environmental sustainability on reusing, recycling and reducing? What is our policy in environmental sustainability in road transportation, power generation, energy conservation for homes, offices, factory buildings and even for the random demolition of relatively new buildings?

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Sir, like my GPC Chairman, I am quite surprised to come across this study by the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environmental Task Force on the 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index which rated Singapore as one of the 10 worst performers in the world. In fact, it ranked Singapore 9 out of 10 worst, below countries like Bangladesh, Nigeria and Vietnam. Although in the detailed report, Singapore was ranked half way through the bottom half of the 122 countries assessed, it is still well below countries like Sri Lanka, Russia, Fiji and Ghana. As environmental quality is one of the major factors that our investors consider before they commit their investments in Singapore, such an international study may harm our effort in attracting international investors. The study did answer why Singapore scored so low and insisted that the index indicated in the report was accurate. Of course, the correctness of the indexing methodology used by the task force is debatable. Nevertheless, an international report like this can do Singapore's image, as an environmental friendly nation, a great discredit.

Although many other studies, like my GPC Chairman said, have ranked Singapore very high, we still need to clarify such a well published study. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether they have made any detailed study on the report to find out the actual cause for them to rate Singapore so low and to come out with an explanation so as to put our views across to counter this seemingly incorrect assessment. It is thus important that this is done through international media so as to affirm our commitment to upkeep our high environmental standards.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, both my GPC Chairman and Deputy Chairman have already spoken on the Global Leaders of Tomorrow Environmental Task Force report called the 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index. What is interesting is that the study used 22 indicators covering issues, such as environmental systems, stress reduction, human vulnerability reduction, social and institutional capacity and global stewardship in environmental management protection and participation to arrive at the index.

Sir, as Mr Chen has said, 122 countries were indexed on a scale of 0:100 with Finland scoring the highest with an index of 80.5, and Kuwait with the lowest with an index of 24.7. Singapore was ranked 65 to an index of 46.8, behind some Asian neighbours, such as Japan and Malaysia. I use this because, at about the same time, there was another report on the quality of the environment by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Limited. This report covered only Asian countries and Singapore scored ahead of the other countries, like Japan and Malaysia, as having the best environment in Asia, as I have just mentioned earlier.

But why the difference? The answer apparently lies in the objectives of the two studies. The first report was to measure the ability of a country to sustain its environment as it develops further into the future. The second was to measure the quality of a country's environment, as it is now, at the prevailing time. So in other words, I take it that, while the quality of our environment is high now, very good, the question remains that: can we sustain it and continue to keep the quality high in the future as more demands, such as population growth and economic development, are made on it? The answer appears to be negative going by the World Economic Forum Report.

Sir, this is nothing new. There are many disadvantages we have in this area, such as small land mass, lack of forest and rural areas, high population density, or relatively large industrial base, and the like, work against us in sustaining a good environment. Yet despite these factors, as shown by the PERC report, we are able to maintain a good environment now, through the many initiatives that we have taken, such as tree planting, garden city concept, cleaning of our waterways, especially the Singapore River, and also all the other anti-pollution regulations.

Sir, so far, these and many other programmes of the Ministry have served us well. However, I would like to take the World Economic Forum Report as an early warning signal, a wake-up call, so to say. The question we should be asking ourselves is: are we still doing enough? Are our current philosophy of what we are doing and the policies correct, not only for the short or immediate term, but also in the long term? Do we need to take stock of what we are doing now and examine them in the light of environmental sustainability in the longer term? Perhaps, the Acting Minister will enligthen us on these concerns.

In doing so, I also have a suggestion for him. It is recognised that we human are the people who pollute our environment and, therefore, for long-term sustainability to work, there must be plans to make us pollute less. So far, most of the policies to make us pollute less are based on punishment. I put it forward that they have not been very effective. Just look at our anti-littering laws and our anti-littering campaigns. After so many years, it is still not effective. Just take a look at the place after a major event, litter is all over the place. I dare say that Singapore is kept litter-free by the street cleaners, and not because there are no litter bugs.

So the real long-term solution is to inculcate good environmental behaviour as part of our habits. For such behaviour to be habit-forming, we must start ingraining such behaviour into our children from a very young age by mothers at home to be reinforced in kindergartens and schools by teachers. Sir, I suggest that we start with the mothers. I can assure the Acting Minister that he will succeed in influencing latter generations to be environmental caring as many of our social and behavioral values are imparted from our mothers.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, over the last 35 years, Singapore has successfully coped with the challenges of industrialisation and urbanisation and, at the same time, provided a healthy environment for Singaporeans. Today, Singapore is renowned as a Garden City with a well-designed land-use plan and a comprehensive and sophisticated environmental infrastructure.

In May 1992, the Environment Ministry prepared "The Singapore Green Plan - Towards a Model Green City" to adopt a fresh approach towards environmental management. The Green Plan aims to address global environmental concerns, such as global warming, protection of the ozone layer, preservation of biodiversity and endangered species and prevention of pollution of the seas. The Green Plan also identified strategic directions with Action Programmes and targets for specific areas and sectors. In this regard, I hope the Environment Minister can update the House on the targets achieved so far, and future environmental management efforts.

Sir, I have the following clarifications to make:

(a) What is the progress made in "The Singapore Green Plan"?

(b) Has the Ministry managed to build environmental consciousness among Singaporeans? What are the key benchmarks and indicators?

(c) How many firms have developed corporate responsibility towards environmental management? What are the successful programmes or initiatives implemented?

(d) Is there any review to improve the environmental audit in Singapore? Has such audit increased business cost? 5.15 pm

Mr Simon S. C. Tay (Nominated Member): Sir, I rise to speak on the review of the Green Plan and the Rio+10 process. If I may, though, can my first point be to confess that I was identified by the World Economic Forum as a Global Leader of Tomorrow. I am a member of the task force that produced the environmental sustainability index that other Members have referred to. I joined this task force late and I, too, was surprised at its conclusions. I have given my inputs to the committee by email but I have been unable to attend their meetings and full deliberations because of other commitments, including the sitting of this House.

Sir, in that sense, I start off by saying I believe that Singapore has a generally good record in environmental protection. This is especially in the case of pollution control, the so-called "brown" issues, which explains the PERC report Mr Heng Chiang Meng referred to. In nature conservation, though, on the "green" issues, some believe there are shortcomings, and many of these result from the intensity of population and land use in Singapore which are inescapable, given our size. In this sense, my own belief is that some environmental studies will always rank us lower than we think, because of this question of sustainability, the peculiar circumstances of Singapore and its geography, and of population density.

But, Sir, let me come to my second point. This is that we have to look forward to opportunities to engage the international community, to explain to them our strong points and, also, to accept their criticism of some of our shortcomings, and learn to improve. That is why I bring up the review of the Green Plan and the Rio+10 process because, in the coming year, 2002, there will be an international review of the 1992 Earth Summit that was held in Rio. The new meeting will be held in South Africa. Singapore has agreed to a Green Plan and is now coming up to a review of that Plan, and I would like to ask the Acting Minister what is the progress of that review.

My third point is that I hope that, against this background, in undertaking this review, the Government would be open and self-critical. There are some suggestions in the

1992 Green Plan that have not been fully taken up, and they deserve to be considered anew. There are also areas we can improve upon. In some cases, technologies, like power generation, waste treatment, and alternative energy sources like solar power, have improved considerably in the last 10 years, and we have to ask if we are making full optimal use of these improvements.

My next point is that, in coming up to this review and a review of our national Green Plan, I would ask the Ministry to make a concerted effort to engage civic groups and experts in the process. Many have already served in drawing up our draft recommendations, but more can be involved when the plans are openly reviewed, if indeed they will be openly reviewed. Consultation and participation are good ways not only to get citizen feedback, they also help them to understand the constraints and concerns the Government feels.

My last point, Sir, is that I would ask Singapore to participate early and strongly in the global review of the Rio+10 process. We are a small island and vulnerable to changes in the environment of our neighbours, or the world as a whole. We should, therefore, pay attention not just to our environmental record here in Singapore, but the world's, and play our part as a steward of the common environmental heritage of the world. This should involve not just our Government agencies or civic groups and experts. Rather, we should use this opportunity to reach out to the international community. A national committee can be formed for this purpose, and it could serve to communicate and cooperate with other countries on these areas of common concern. I would like to ask the Minister if he would seize these opportunities to reach out to explain to the international community, and fully participate in the efforts to make the world a better place.

The Acting Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Swee Say): Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Members for addressing the issues of environmental sustainability and the Singapore Green Plan. In my response, I will touch on the broader aspect of sustainability. I will not go into the details in some specific areas, so as not to pre-empt Members who will be speaking on these specific areas in the remaining cuts.

Sir, Prof. Low Seow Chay, Mr Kenneth Chen and Mr Heng Chiang Meng mentioned the ranking in the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI). As Mr Heng has said, Singapore is a city-state, a country with a small land area, a city that is densely populated, and we live in a highly urbanised environment. We see busy traffic every day. We also have industries which are highly competitive and export-oriented, accounting for more than 20% of our GDP. Some people, who are not familiar with developments in Singapore, expect Singapore to face problems of polluted air, water and land. At the same time, they expect Singapore to face a serious threat, of living near the threshold of environmental disaster. Indeed, this is the assessment of the ESI, ranking Singapore as the 9th worst in the world, in terms of the danger of living near the threshold of environmental disaster, as mentioned by Mr Kenneth Chen.

Sir, the reality is that today, in Singapore, we still enjoy clean air, water and living environment. With 100% modern sanitation for every household, refuse collected and disposed of daily, the incidence of food-borne, water-borne and vector-borne disease is low. We are able to stay away from the threshold of environmental disaster because, all these years, we have been able to harness technology creatively and effectively. At the same time, we have applied our minds innovatively to protect our living environment with a great sense of commitment, responsibility and social discipline. Take the last 10 years, for example. As Dr Teo Ho Pin has mentioned, we published the Singapore Green Plan (SGP), and this is our blueprint for a "model green city". Dr Teo asked for the progress of the SGP. Six working committees were formed to implement six areas of action. They formulated 133 action programmes, which were published in November 1993, and they have been implemented over the last 8-9 years.

Sir, due to time constraints, I will not go into the details of all aspects of progress. I will just highlight some of them as an illustration of the kind of progress we have made. For example, in the area of environmental education, we started a Council for the Environment for Tertiary Institutions. There are now Environmental Clubs and environmental educational advisors in schools, and the media continue to give publicity and coverage to issues relating to the environment. Last year, the Clean and Green Week received the support of 28 private sector organisations, 71 GROs, 14 NGOs and more than 125,000 Singaporeans took part in the various activities. In the area of environmental technology, in fact, Singapore has played host to many regional forums, workshops, and exhibitions on environmental technology. We send and receive many trade missions. At the same time, we have set up the Environmental Technology Institute (ETI) at the NTU, to support and help start-up ET companies. In the area of resource conservation, we introduced the accelerated depreciation scheme for energy-efficient technology. We promoted recyling of wastes. At the same time, our power plant implemented the combined cycle technology.

In the area of environmental audit, mentioned by Dr Teo Ho Pin, I am pleased to say that, of the 930 companies which have a potential to pollute the environment, in fact, 230 of them have gained the certification of ISO 14001. This is up from 14 before 1992. So we see a marked increase in the number of companies putting in place the environmental technology management system. In the area of clean technology, we saw the additional supply of natural gas into Singapore; the introduction of unleaded petrol for all vehicles since July 1998; the introduction of lower sulphur diesel of 0.05% by weight in March 1999; and the tightening of emission standards for industries and vehicles.

In the area of nature conservation mentioned by Mr Simon Tay, I believe the Minister for National Development has mentioned in the Committee of Supply that MND is now studying the recommendations supported by the focus group. I think he also said that nature sites will be preserved for as long as they are not needed for development.

In the area of noise control, in fact, ENV has introduced new regulations to control noise from industrial premises. At the same time, we have implemented a network of 21 stations to monitor ambient noise in Singapore.

Sir, on the whole, we have made good progress in the last 10 years, but we will not stop there. Next year, we will be publishing the SGP for the next 10 years. Mr Simon Tay asked whether we will continue to involve the civic organisations and so on. I assure him that in the review of the SGP, we will invite the private and public sectors, and NGOs, to be jointly involved in the review of the SGP. Our aim is to get it ready in time for release at the Rio+10, so that, as Mr Simon Tay has mentioned, we can keep the international community up-to-date on what we have done in Singapore. At the same time, to share with them our plan and vision for the next 10 years and beyond.

Mr Simon Tay also suggested that Singapore should participate actively in the Rio+10 Summit, and that a national committee should be formed, to make sure that we will come up with an appropriate response to capitalise on the Rio+10 Summit as an opportunity. Sir, I fully agree with Mr Simon Tay. In fact, we did participate very actively in the 1992 Rio Summit, and we intend to continue to be very active in Rio+10. Just like what we did for the Rio Summit, we intend to set up an Inter-Ministerial committee to prepare for Rio+10. At the same time, we will involve the private and public sectors and the NGOs in the whole process, so that by the time of the Rio+10 meeting in South Africa, we will be able to present a concerted response from Singapore.

Sir, Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Mr Kenneth Chen asked what are ENV's views on the various rankings, and whether we have sought clarification from the World Economic Forum. As mentioned by some Members, if we were to look at the issue of sustainability from a natural endowment point of view, obviously, Singapore would be ranked lowly because we are a small country with no natural endowment. We have conveyed to ESI of the World Economic Forum that the sustainability of any environment goes far beyond natural endowment. We conveyed to them that with creativity, commitment and the use of technology, we can push back the threshold of environmental disaster, as in the case of Singapore. ESI, in response, recognised our performance up to now. In their reply, they said that in terms of environmental regulation and management, they rank Singapore as the 5th best in the world. In the area of global cooperation, activeness in participation in global movements and so on, they rank us among the top 25% in the world. In the area of environmental health, they rank us as amongst the top 33%. In the first final report published early this year, they have reviewed the position of Singapore. Instead of No. 9 from the bottom, they have moved us up to 65th position, somewhere in the middle. Obviously, this is not good enough. We will continue to work on our strategy for sustainability, and continue to explain to the global community, including ESI, so that they can understand better what we have done and what we will continue to do.

Looking ahead, our challenge in environmental management is to protect and enhance our living environment, not by slowing down economic growth to reduce energy and resource consumption. If we do that, we may well be living in a cleaner environment, but we will all be poorer off. Rather, we are going to do it by maximising efficiency and minimising wastage, as commented by some Members. This is to ensure that our continued economic growth and improvement in standard of living are not achieved at the expense of the environment. Our twin objectives, basically, are to continue to enhance performance in the short term and, at the same time, strengthen the sustainability for the long term.

Prof. Low Seow Chay and Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked what our strategies for sustainability are, and whether we are doing enough, have we taken stock and what more will be done. Sir, I am pleased to report to the House that we have reviewed our current strategies. We have also met with many of our partners in the past few months, including the GPC members who are here today, the Environmental Management Association of Singapore (EMAS), professional associations such as SIA and IES, staff unions, the Singapore Confederation of Industries, the Association of Lorry Owners, Bus Owners and Travel Agents, the recyclers, the Pest Control Association of Singapore, the Singapore Sanitary and Plumbing Association, as well as the GMs of the Town Councils. After taking into account their feedback and suggestions, we have updated the overall framework for performance and sustainability.

I have asked the Clerk to distribute a table. I am not sure whether you have it. If not, I will make sure you have it after this. I will highlight some of the key features in this particular table. Sir, the environment is a closed loop. What goes up must come down, and what goes in must come out. In the new economy, we talk about end-to-end. In the case of environment management, we have decided to go one step further. We are not just talking about end-to-end, but also tying the two ends together, what we call "closing the environmental loop". Let me highlight some of the concepts in the tying of this environmental loop. Take, for example, clean air. We recognise that more energy will be consumed by factories, offices and households. At the same time, we recognise that there will be more vehicles on the road. For sustainability, we can close the energy loop, and this means that we will continue to tighten control on emission but, at the same time, we also switch faster to cleaner energy and step up energy conservation, a point made by Prof. Low Seow Chay. 5.30 pm

Our long-term target, over the next 10 years at least, is to ensure that the air quality in Singapore will continue to stay within the US EPA and the World Health Organisation's clean air standards.

In the area of clean land, based on current trend, we need to build a new incineration plant every five years. Every 30 years, we need to find a place the size of Sentosa Island for landfill. To achieve sustainability, we have decided to close the solid waste loop. This means that we will ensure the proper collection and disposal of waste but, at the same time, we will pursue the 4Rs more pro-actively, as recommended by Prof. Low Seow Chay. These 4Rs are reuse, reduce, recycle and recover. We will also give higher priority to the development of the recycling industry. Our aim is to make Singapore a centre of excellence in 4Rs in the Asia Pacific. Right now, 40% of the solid waste generated in Singapore every day is being recycled. Over the next 10 years, our target is to increase it to 50%.

On clean water, today we supply about 300 mgd of clean water for a population of about four million. In the future, we will need to supply more clean water to meet the need of a growing population and a growing economy. To enhance sustainability in the supply of clean water, we will continue to tap on existing sources of supply, such as rainfall collection, water from Malaysia and, at the same time, look for new supplies, for example, from Indonesia, through desalination and so on. We will also pursue the core concept of closing the water loop. This means that we will reclaim used water to produce high grade clean water, known as the Newater. This is why we have decided to merge the Water Department, the Drainage Department and the Sewerage Department to form the new PUB. This is, of course, subject to legislative approval by this House tomorrow. Our target over the next 10 years is to increase the rate of recycling of used water from the present 5% to 20% through the use of Newater.

In the area of safe food, we are seeing the re-emergence of diseases that could affect food supply, for example, Nipah virus, mad cow disease, foot and mouth disease. At the same time, the world is also facing new uncertainty brought about by advances in life sciences, for example, genetically modified food. To ensure food safety, we need to monitor and manage the entire food value chain. This means having to monitor development in external farms and controlling imports when necessary. At the same time, we have to ensure proper processing, handling, storage, distribution and consumption of these foods in Singapore. We also need to forge closer collaboration between ENV and AVA and relevant agencies. At the same time, closer collaboration between Singapore and the various regional and international agencies. Our target, over the next 10 years, is to avoid any massive food-borne disease outbreaks in Singapore.

In the area of infectious diseases, we see recent emergence of infectious diseases in other parts of the world, for example, Avian flu, Hantavirus and so on. We also see the re-emergence of diseases such as malaria, dengue and Legionnaires' disease. Coupled with the greater cross border movement of people for employment, holidays, business, etc, we have come to the conclusion that we could only keep the risk of infectious diseases low in Singapore, firstly, by upgrading our local capabilities to deal with these diseases and, secondly, to strengthen regional cooperation as well as to forge closer international collaboration because diseases know no national boundary.

Sir, today, we are the World Health Organisation's Collaborating Centre for Environmental Epidemiology in the Western Pacific region. We are also recognised as a leading country in vector control by the World Health Organisation. Our target over the next 10 years is to become a leading research and management centre for communicable disease in the Asia-Pacific.

On living environment, we have kept Singapore clean and green by spending a lot of money and employing a lot of cleaners and, at the same time, issuing a lot of fines, as mentioned by one of the Members. Looking ahead towards sustainability, I agree fully with the Member that we should strive to become a country where every citizen and resident will play his or her part to care for, and to take pride in, our living environment. We will step up public education to instill civic-mindedness in our people. We will encourage the active citizenry and strengthen the 3P partnership - the people, public and private sector partnership, including mothers, as suggested by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, so as to make "keeping Singapore clean and green" our daily habit, our daily desire and our way of life. Our target, over the next 10 years, is that we want to be a clean, green and fine city, but not a city of fines.

To achieve these outcomes in environmental sustainability, ENV will reinvent itself. We will build on our current strength and, at the same time, strive to do even better by being more innovative, more responsive and better in learning in a fast changing world. Our intention is to restructure ENV into a Ministry with a very lean headquarters, with possibly three statutory boards. These are, firstly, the new PUB, which is effectively the national water authority to take charge of clean water. The second statutory board will be the Environmental Health Agency to take charge of safe food, vector control and public health relating to infectious diseases. And thirdly, the Environmental Protection Agency which will take charge of clean air and clean land. This will not happen overnight. Our aim is to achieve this over the next 18-24 months.

Sir, what I have outlined this evening is a broad framework, aimed at enhancing our performance in environmental protection in the short term and, at the same time, sustaining our environment to support the long-term development of our economy and society. This is version 1.0. This is not cast in concrete. We will continue the process of consultation with the 3P sectors. We believe that by putting our heads together and working together, we can not only protect our environment for today, make it better for tomorrow, but also sustain it for generations to come.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Sir, point of clarification. I commend the Ministry for encouraging the schools to form environment clubs. I understand that in many of these schools, the environment club comprises very small groups of about 30-50 students. I wonder whether the Ministry can provide more support to help the schools to outreach to more pupils to develop this passion to protect the environment.

Mr Lim Swee Say: I thank Dr Teo Ho Pin for his very good suggestion. My Ministry will see what we can do by working closely with the Ministry of Education on this.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, the next topic I would like to talk about is Newater. Years ago, I spoke about the possibility of recycling some of our domestic used water for reuse and suggested that the domestic sewers be separated from the industrial sewers for the purpose of water recycling without industrial contamination.

Lately, Members of Parliament were invited by the Ministry of the Environment to visit the Newater plant which recycles water for reuse. We all note with surprise that a modernised water factory, producing huge volumes of crystal clear water has already materialised. We were told that large quantities of water were piped into the golf courses for watering of the grass and whatever excess from the plant is thrown into the sea. What a waste!

I would like to ask what is the cost and quality of Newater. Is it safe for drinking? What infrastructure do we need to deliver Newater to the end user? Sir, the idea of using micro-filtration and low pressure reverse osmosis for brackish water was heard of many years ago. Is the technology used for the Newater plant considered to be a technological breakthrough? If so, what is it? As we know that the membrane technology evolves very rapidly in the past few years, if we invest heavily in this way in producing water, how could we be sure that our water plant could be evolutionary? What is the strategy adopted to keep in pace with water technology development which is evolving so rapidly?

Singapore is importing water from our neighbours. This Newater initiative offers us a means to reduce our water dependency on outside supply. Theoretically, if the price is right, we should produce as much water as we need. What is the long-term objective, in terms of product quantity and the applications of Newater? The low pressure reverse osmosis for brackish water depends on the type of membranes chosen and the system design. We are able to obtain even higher quality of water than the PUB water that we consume now. There should be no doubt at all that one day, Newater will be served as potable water. I would like to ask, in case of a water shortage emergency, could Newater be consumed as normal drinking water? Are there plans to educate the public to accept Newater as an alternative to potable water? Newater is produced through a high pressure process, and energy is needed. The cost of producing Newater will be higher than that of the conventional filtration of raw clean water. If we are able to secure sufficient raw water supplies, it does not sound very sensible, from the economic point of view, to put our Newater plant running at full load. If we could purchase cheaper water elsewhere in sufficient quantities, accept the lower cost in future, how do we deal with the excess Newater plant capacity that we are going to build?

The low pressure reverse osmosis for Newater operates at pressure of one-tenth of that of the sea water reverse osmosis. In other words, the desalination of sea water will be many times higher in cost as compared with the reverse osmosis for the Newater plant. If Newater is a viable alternative water source, what is the role of the more costly sea water desalination? Are we planning to shelve the desalination plan which has been under review for quite a while?

Mr Ang Mong Seng: (In Mandarin): Sir, water is precious. We should educate and inculcate in our people the message of saving every drop of water and not wasting water. This is because the bulk of water we use in our daily lives is dependent on the supply from our neighbouring country. In 2060, when our water agreement with Malaysia expires, we may face some problems. Although there are still some 60 years to go, we cannot wait until then before we take any action. We must be fully prepared.

Our Government has started the ball rolling. We embarked on an experimental project on desalination and we also commenced to recycle our waste water. I am very glad the Ministry of the Environment has finally announced that our Newater project is a success. The birth of Newater is exciting and this technological breakthrough is indeed an honour to Singapore. This may well be the solution and new hope to our water supply problem, and may reduce our dependence on our neighbouring countries for the supply.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the difference between the Newater and the desalinated water in terms of the cost of processing. Secondly, the Ministry of the Environment said that there is a possibility that Newater could be potable. Has there been any evidence, so far, that this Newater could be used for drinking and whether any experiment has been conducted in, say, the zoo or the bird park? With the advance in technology, will the Ministry of the Environment consider Prof. Low Seow Chay's suggestion that this Newater be bottled and sold to enhance the confidence of the people?

The Chairman: For the information of Members, the person chairing the proceedings in the Committee is addressed as Chairman, and not as Deputy Chairman.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I did address you as Chairman. I only once, earlier on, addressed you as Deputy Speaker. Most of the comments I am going to say have been covered by the two earlier speakers. I just want to add that I understand that Newater is biologically very clean. However, Newater from the present pilot project is currently for non-potable uses, such as watering and for other industrial use. It is a pity, though I must say that I do understand why people are psychologically apprehensive of drinking what was previously water used for flushing toilets. Perhaps in this respect, the Acting Minister and maybe other Government leaders should take active steps in persuading Singaporeans to overcome this psychological barrier.

An hon. Member: Maybe to drink it first! 5.45 pm

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: They take the lead to drink it first. Would you? I think we should not wait until an emergency situation arises, then we persuade others. Since it is quite clear that this is one of the steps we have to take to diversify our sources of water supply, perhaps education, including taking the first step, in drinking Newater should start now.

Sir, as was mentioned earlier, another source of potable water is from desalination. The Government, I understand, is in the midst of planning for a pilot project plant to produce desalinated water. May I know when the project will be on stream, ie, producing water ready for potable use?

I was told by some friends, who have had experience drinking desalinated water in the Middle East, that the taste will not be to the liking of Singaporeans, to say the least. As I have not drunk desalinated water, I do not know what it tastes like. I would like to know whether our water experts have tasted water from desalinated plants. And if the comments of my friends are true, what accounts for the unpalatable taste?

Sir, may I also ask the Acting Minister how would the desalinated water or Newater be piped for potable use, if it comes to that point, especially for Newater? Will it be piped directly to the homes from the plants, or will it be mixed with our traditional sources of potable water? Surely if people are apprehensive of drinking Newater, if they can be mixed with our traditional sources of water in the reservoirs, perhaps this will overcome some of the psychological barrier.

Sir, the next point I would like to ask is what about the other sources of water, such as water from other Malaysian states and Indonesia. We heard some time ago about these plans, but since then we have heard nothing much about them. Could the Acting Minister tell us the current status?

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: Sir, at the present moment, we are relying quite heavily on water supply from Malaysia, as the Singapore land mass is small and catchment of rainwater is limited to a few existing reservoirs. As our population grows and our industries expand, our demand for water will keep on increasing.

Sir, I understand the Ministry of the Environment has embarked on a few initiatives to increase our water supply, namely, the integration of the Sewerage Department and Drainage Department with the Water Department, deep tunnel sewerage systems, water recycling, industrial water, Newater and the desalination of sea water. With today's technology, reclaiming waste water has become a very viable alternative source of water supply. The setting up of our Newater plant has proved that waste water can be recyled to produce clean water to the quality even higher than that of the present PUB standard. With the completion of deep tunnel sewerage system, the quantity of waste water collection can be increased tremendously and therefore our recycled water can be increased correspondingly.

Only today it was reported that the cost of desalination is about one-third of what it was 10 years ago, and it is still falling. With the setting up of our first desalination plant to desalinate sea water into usable water, it is hoped that our reliance on foreign water source would be greatly reduced, as we face constant threat of supply being cut off by our neighbour. I would like to ask the Minister to update us on the current as well as the medium term of water supply situation when all our initiatives for increasing our water supply are realised.

Sir, despite all these additional sources of water supply, I think we should not ignore the importance of limiting water wastage. Recently, there seems to be a let up on the effort made to press home the importance of the save water message to the public. As the demand and supply of water is interlinked, and while we can ensure more water supply in the future, it is equally important to limit the demand as much as we can now. I would suggest that the Ministry not to relent on reminding the general public the importance of limiting wastage of water. Otherwise, the pressure of ever increasing the demand can never be reduced.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, I thank Members for speaking on this subject of Newater. I would like to organise my response in a certain sequence. Firstly, I would like to address what is Newater, because Prof. Low Seow Chay asked whether is this a technological breakthrough, is it something new. Let me put it this way. Right now, we consume about 300 million gallons of water every day. And we treat every single drop of this water, because what goes in must come out. We consume about 300 million gallons every day and output is also 300 million gallons every day, and we treat every single drop of this used water. Today, only 5% of this used water is recycled as industrial water. The other 95% is discharged into the sea. But with the advances in the membrane technology, we are saying that instead of discharging it into the sea, why not reclaim the water, because we can now do so very cost effectively.

Sir, how do we do it? Basically, through three stages. The first step is to take the water through what we call a process of micro filtration. In so doing, we remove the very small solids down to the size of 0.2 micron. This will filter out, for example, bacteria. After the first stage of micro filtration, we move on to the second stage known as reverse osmosis. This is to remove the remaining viruses. These are the smallest living organisms, down to the size of 1,000th of a micron. After that, we put the water through ultraviolet, as a safeguard, to sterilise the water. And the output is high grade water which we call Newater.

The second aspect is the cost of this Newater resulting from technology breakthrough. Prof. Low Seow Chay, Mr Heng Chiang Meng and Mr Ang Mong Seng asked about the cost. Let me clarify. The membrane technology is not new. It has been around for a long, long time. In fact, this membrane technology has been used in the USA, Australia, UK and France to reclaim water for years. So we are not the first in the world. But what is new is that today, this membrane is thinner and more durable. In the past, the membrane needed to be replaced every three years. Now, we need to do so only once every five years. Because the membrane is thinner, we are able to push through water through the membrane, the process of reverse osmosis, at a much reduced water pressure. This reduction in water pressure is about 50%, because of the thinness of the membrane. As a result, the energy requirement has come down. The cost of Newater is therefore much cheaper now. And because of this, it has now become a viable source of clean water supply.

Sir, the cost of Newater compared to desalination is very much lower. Why, you may ask? After all, they use the same membrane for desalination and Newater. Why then is it cheaper to produce Newater? This is because used water has a lower total dissolved solid compared to sea water. Sea water has much higher salt content. So to push the sea water through the membrane, you will need to apply much higher pressure, and pressure comes from energy. That is why desalinated water is much more expensive, compared to Newater. But on the whole, we can expect the cost of desalination and Newater to continue to decline, as membrane technology continues to improve.

Sir, let me move on to the third aspect of the question raised by the Members, which is, where are we today. Prof. Low Seow Chay and Mr Ang Mong Seng asked about the quality, whether it is safe to drink and whether we have conducted tests. Mr Ang Mong Seng suggested why don't we bottle this Newater and sell it as mineral water. Today, we have a demonstration plant producing 10 thousand cubic metres of Newater every day. This is equivalent to 2.2 million gallons of water per day. This plant was commissioned in May 2000.

Prof. Low Seow Chay wondered why do we supply this water to golf courses and throw it away into the sea. The purpose of this demonstration plant is for us to convince ourselves that the process does work, and that the quality of the water does meet with our expectations. And I am happy to say that we have conducted tests covering the physical, chemical and micro biological analysis. So far, the test results show that the standard is well within drinking water standard set by the WHO, the USEPA and the EU. In short, the water indeed is safe for human consumption.

Why then are we not drinking it today? Sir, if we were to look at the overall water supply situation, I wish to make the point that in the foreseeable future, there is no need for us to talk about convincing members of the public to consume the Newater. Why? Because, at this moment, there is a growing industry known as the wafer fabrication industry. Over the next 10 years or so, our aim is to have 25 wafer fabrication plants in Singapore. And together, they require about 55 million gallons per day (mgd) of ultra clean water. This 55 mgd is equivalent to 15% of our daily consumption of water. Therefore, our point here is this: Even though the Newater is ultra clean water, there is no need, at this moment, to think about human consumption, because there is a ready market which is willing to pay good money for this Newater. I think it makes a lot of sense, from the standpoint of matching supply and demand for us to take the wafer fab industry that requires high grade water as the immediate priority for the consumption of Newater. Indeed this is what we are doing. We aim to achieve a 15% consumption of Newater by the year 2010, about 55 mgd. This will be supplied to wafer fab plants.

What then is our immediate plan? Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked how we intend to pipe it to the homes. Sir, as I have mentioned, there is no need to pipe Newater to the homes because, in the foreseeable future, we are talking about supplying this water to the wafer fab plants. It makes a lot of sense to supply Newater to wafer fab plants because these 25 wafer fab plants are not scattered all over Singapore. They are located centrally at three wafer fab parks, at Woodlands, Tampines and Pasir Ris, and they are high consumption customers. As a result, we will be able to supply this Newater to these 25 wafer fab plants in the three wafer fab parks in a highly cost effective manner. In fact, our assessment is that we will be able to supply this Newater to them even cheaper than what they are paying today for potable water. In a way, this is a win-win situation, because we are now able to make full use of the Newater and, at the same time, the industry will be able to achieve some kind of cost savings through the use of Newater.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked when are we going to build these new plants. Sir, we are now in the process of building two Newater plants, each with a 5 mgd capacity. They will be located at Bedok and Kranji Sewage Treatment Works. The tender for consultants has been called this month. The tender for the supplying of pipeline will be called later this year. Our target is to commission both plants by the end of next year. 6.00 pm

Sir, some Members also asked about our long-term plans, in terms of quantity and application, whether we will now have a situation of having excess Newater, whether we still need to have desalination, whether we still need to buy water from Malaysia, and so on. Let me put this discussion in proper perspective.

Newater is to reclaim used water. The technology of Newater cannot create water but it can reclaim water. Therefore, for the system to work, you look at the water system in Singapore as a whole system. If there is no water input into the system, Newater cannot work because there will be no water to reclaim. In other words, we need to continue to inject water into the water system either through collection of rainfall or taking water from Malaysia or through desalination, so that water reclamation can continue to work. What we are saying is that over a longer period, with a bigger population, we may not be able to secure enough water supply on a perpetual basis. What this means is that by investing in Newater technology, we are now applying a multiplier factor into the system. Take, for example, if we are able to reclaim 20% of the water used in our water system, we will be able to enhance the capacity of clean water by 25%. If we are able to increase this reclaimed rate to 40%, we will be able to enhance the capacity by 67%. What this means is that every drop of water we collect from rainfall, import from Malaysia, maybe from Indonesia or through desalination, we will be able to use a drop of water more than once. In that way, we make sure that Singapore in the long term, not just the next 20, 50 years, but maybe the next 500, 1,000 years, will continue to be able to maximise every single drop of water coming into the water system to make sure that we will always have enough water for the economy, the society and the population.

Mr Kenneth Chen asked what if Malaysia were to cut off water supply. Sir, I do not think this would happen because there is a water agreement honoured by both sides for many years. Water supply beyond 2061, in fact, is now being discussed, as you have heard from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. So let me emphasise again that the whole purpose of Newater is to add to the security of water supply in Singapore, but it is not our intention to be self-sufficient as far as the water supply is concerned.

Prof. Low also asked how do we intend to keep pace with the technology. What we are doing basically is to continue to work closely with the suppliers and the other users, bearing in mind that we are not the only user in the world of the membrane technology. We will continue to keep in touch with them and share experience regarding the use of the technology. Whenever there is a promising solution, our intention is to conduct a pilot project, just like the way we have done so with Newater. In this way, hopefully, we will be able to continue to keep ourselves up to date.

Prof. Low also asked whether we have any plan to educate the public. Mr Kenneth Chen also emphasised the need to continue to promote the message of water conservation. Yes, I agree with both of them. In fact, we intend to set up the Newater Visitors Centre at Bedok centre - this would be ready by March next year - so that members of the public, grassroots members, students, and so on, can be brought to the plant, so that at least they get to know more about the quality of water and the technology that we are deploying.

Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed most, if not all, of the concerns raised by Members.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, on global warming, carbon dioxide is one of the most significant greenhouse gases that causes global warming due to the amount of its emission. The under-developed and the developing countries pointed fingers to the developed countries for causing global warming and asked the developed countries to pay for the clean-up and subsequent cost of the control of future greenhouse gas emission. Singapore is not one of the signatories of the World Climate Conference and is also not classified as a developed country. We still have the responsibility to satisfy our conscience as a responsible world citizen. There are many things we could do as a responsible world citizen regarding the greenhouse gas emission.

I would like to ask the Minister about the measures we are taking to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

All carbons containing fuel generate greenhouse gases after combustion. Do we have plans to encourage the use of alternate fuel with lower carbon contents? It is possible to replace heavy diesel by light diesel, gasoline by methanol or ethanol, normal liquid fuel by LPG and natural gas. The recent private attempt of testing the idea of replacing diesel engines in buses by compressed natural gas is a viable project towards the reduction of greenhouse gas. The Government should take action in helping and encouraging this kind of project. We should also try to revise some of our rules and regulations to make sure that we do not obstruct greenhouse gas-friendly projects by the supply of greenhouse gas-friendly fuel, vehicles or equipment.

Improvement of energy conversion efficiency will also allow the reduction of greenhouse gases from every unit of energy which is generated. We should try to encourage the replacement of certain prime mover engines, power generators which have poorer overall energy efficiency. Purely from the energy efficiency point of view, say, for example, a diesel car will be more efficient than a gasoline-driven car, though it may create some unwanted pollutive problems. An electric vehicle will be more efficient than a gasoline vehicle because the power generation plant that supplies energy to the electric vehicle is more efficient than a gasoline engine running on the road. Should the Government lay the groundwork, like rules and regulations, for the people to try out the various energy efficient vehicles or cars on the roads? For example, should we have rules and regulations or incentives for the people who try out electric vehicles, newer type of prime movers for vehicles, like the CNG vehicle which has not been tried out in Singapore (but it is an old technology favourable to the environment), fuel-cell powered vehicles which are going to be launched, cylinder or gasoline injection vehicles which are already in the market?

So for all these vehicles, if we have some sort of rules and regulations or incentives to encourage the promotion of their use, certainly we are working towards the improvement in our effort towards the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Incineration of solid waste may be a better alternative than landfills because we are a land scarce nation. However, the incineration of solid waste leads to the emission of greenhouse gases and without very well utilisation of the heat generated because of the composition of the wet garbage and the combustion process. We should adopt strategies like waste minimisation so as to allow a higher percentage of wastes to be recovered and change the people's habits of generating wet garbage. One of the ways of reducing garbage generation is to charge garbage for collection by weight. I heard that the Ministry has some proposals sometime ago. But did the Ministry seriously consider charging collection of garbage by weight?

We can also educate the people on the use of things like biodegradable products, for example, biodegradable bags, instead of using all the PVC products. The recent call by the NGOs to use less PVC carrying bags for shopping is one of the programmes which is worth supporting. Is the Government planning to carry out an education programme in schools, in conjunction with the Ministry of Education, to educate the people on waste minimisation?

Using polyfoam disposable cutlery in canteens and hawker centres is one of the greenhouse gas-unfriendly policies. On the one hand, we had launched it many years ago to reduce dependence on foreign workers, and also it may be more hygienic in food handling; on the other hand, the disposable cutlery will be eventually incinerated which could lead to the emission of greenhouse gases. If we still have a choice, we should consider abandoning the idea of using disposable cutlery for the sake of reducing greenhouse gases.

Mr Ong Kian Min: Sir, in an effort to initiate a green revolution of Singapore roads, the Government is offering OMV rebates and road tax incentives to encourage car owners to go green. This kind of encouragement would help to bring about greater conservation of natural resources and result in a better living environment for all of us. I would like to urge the Ministry of the Environment to go a step further to consider tax rebates and financial incentives to encourage the use of environmentally-friendly technologies for the production of electricity, whether on a wide scale by power stations or locally by some producers of electricity.

We are in the tropics with abundant sunshine. Solar cell panels are one obvious example that deserves more of our attention. We have heard earlier in the debate that such technology is costly. But with greater usage, according to some industry sources, the capital cost and maintenance of the hardware and equipment can be reduced substantially. With the proper amount of incentives, I believe more people will use solar cell panels to supplement electricity consumption. This will in turn encourage more people to do research to develop better and more affordable equipment. This may even lead to technological breakthroughs, just as reported in the Straits Times today on the low radiation mobile phones developed by a Government-funded research body here.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I rise to ask the Ministry on our efforts to address future Indonesian fires and haze pollution. I want to make some suggestions on what we might do.

Sir, you would remember that in 1997 and 1998, Singapore and the region experienced a very dense and prolonged haze pollution, resulting from fires mostly in Indonesia. What is of more concern for the present and future is that some scientists predict that we will experience another dry spell, another El Nino, in 2001 or perhaps 2002. I think it is therefore timely to ask the Ministry what steps have been taken since 1997 and 1998, and whether what has been done is enough to prevent another terrible time of smoke and fire where we can hardly see the sun.

Indonesia has agreed to many action plans to address the issue. But it is not clear to me whether these actions have actually been taken or whether they just remain as plans. Action plans are often more plans than actions. Recent reports are that Indonesian laws are now placing a burden on landowners to quell fires. This is hoped to help prove that they started the fire. But will the Minister give his opinion on the chances of successful implementation of these plans? I ask because there are a few reports of successful prosecutions of fire-starters and the companies they work for. I also ask because I realise the many problems the Indonesians today face in their country, and that they may lack attention and resources to deal with the problems.

Sir, I have three suggestions on what we might do to help Indonesia.

First, I know that we presently offer satellite images. I wish us to go beyond this. I wish us to encourage Indonesia to do more. First, by working with provincial and local authorities. Recently, Indonesia has passed wide-reaching laws to devolve more authority in many matters from Jakarta to the provinces. These provinces, however may lack the capacity and attention to problems such as the environment and fires. I would ask the Ministry to look towards working more with them, especially provinces in Riau and Sumatra, which are so near us.

Secondly, I would ask, now that Indonesia has passed laws for the prevention of fires, whether we could consider making these laws enforceable in our courts. Many Indonesian companies trade through Singapore or have assets and offices here. Many Indonesian businessmen pass through our airport. It is therefore not impossible that some of the guilty parties come to or through Singapore. If we can therefore identify and prosecute them, we would help supplement the efforts of the Indonesian government against these law breakers.

Finally, Sir, I would encourage a prudential approach to lending and trading from Singapore. We are a financial hub and a trading centre for many of the industries involved, including oil palm and timber. It is the commercial undertakings that use fire to clear land because it is cheaper. Would the Ministry advise Singapore-based lenders and traders to make due enquiries of their Indonesian clients and partners? Where they demonstrably do not cause fires, we should prefer these Indonesian clients. Where they have, on the reverse, broken laws against the use of fire, is it not incumbent on our lenders and Singapore business community not to be complicit in these crimes and observe Indonesian law?

I make these suggestions because it is not just Singapore that suffers, but the first victims are indeed Indonesians who live much nearer and amidst the fire and smoke. I would therefore ask the Ministry concerned how we can proactively try to avoid the next El Nino occurrence by addressing these fundamental commercial causes. 6.15 pm

Mr Ang Mong Seng: (In Mandarin): Sir, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is tasked with the checking of vehicles which emit black exhaust smoke, and the offenders will be detected by some special gadget used by the LTA and booked for the offence.

To stop an offender and fine him on the spot is the most convincing way of establishing the fact that an offence has been committed. However, this would cause a delay in the transporting of goods by the vehicle involved, and may possibly cause a traffic jam.

This rule against emission of black smoke by vehicles is enforced by the Environment Ministry officials. A new method is now being used. A latest high-tech camera is now used to detect the smoke emitted from the moving vehicles on the road. If the smoke emitted is in excess of what is permitted under the law, the vehicle owner will be booked. How accurate can the camera be in determining whether an offence has been committed? Can the photographs taken by this camera be admissible as evidence in court?

Some drivers told me that the Environment Ministry officials would normally hide themselves near a slope, and take photographs of these vehicles when they are ascending the slope. When a heavy vehicle, such as a fully-loaded lorry, goes up the slope, it is natural for the driver to step harder on the accelerator, resulting in more black smoke being emitted from the exhaust pipe. Will the Ministry allow these drivers who have been booked to go to the office of the Environment Ministry to view these photographs, free of charge (I emphasise: free of charge), to satisfy themselves that they had indeed committed the offence?

What about those foreign vehicles? Many drivers told me that the Ministry officials only booked local vehicles, but no enforcement action is taken against heavy vehicles coming from other countries. Is it true that foreign vehicles are not dealt with for such similar offences? If so, why?

Mr Lim Swee Say: Sir, as I mentioned earlier, the air quality in Singapore is good. We monitor very closely a few key pollutants. These are sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, ozone and the particulate matter, both, what we call, PM 10 and PM 2.5, depending on the size of the particulates.

Sir, all these air pollutants are well within international limit for clean air determined by the US EPA and the World Health Organisation. My Ministry will continue to monitor the quality of the air to make sure that it will continue to stay within this limit. But having said that, there are two air pollutants which my Ministry is paying extra attention because the level of pollution is on the rise and we could reach the limit in the near future. These are SO2 and particulate matter. Basically, the three sources of pollution are - vehicles, industries and power generation.

Sir, several Members have touched on the issue of vehicular pollution. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked when are we going to do more to put in place rules and regulations so that we can try out more energy efficient vehicles, such as the CNG and the fuel cell vehicles. Mr Ang Mong Seng asked about enforcement operations, appeal procedures, and so on, and also enforcement on foreign vehicles, mainly Malaysian vehicles. Sir, vehicular pollution accounts for 50% of the particulate matters. 50% of all the dark smoke, and so on, comes from the vehicle. Our top priority is to reduce the emission of particulate matter, generated mostly by diesel vehicles - buses, taxis, lorries, and so on.

We deploy a set of strategies to contain such emissions. Firstly, we impose very stringent emission standards. For example, we have upgraded the emission standards for SO2, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and the unburnt hydrocarbon regularly. On 1st January this year, we introduced the Euro II emission standards to make sure that, over time, it will get better. The second strategy we have deployed so far is the introduction of low sulphur diesel to reduce both the SO2 emission and the particulate emission. Since March 1999, which is about two years ago, sulphur in diesel has been reduced to 0.05%, in terms of weight, and over time, we may even look at the ultra-low sulphur diesel which will be as low as 0.01%, when the need arises.

Sir, our third strategy is very much the point brought up by Mr Ang Mong Seng, ie, enforcement against smoky vehicles. There is no point having very stringent standards if we do not enforce these standards. As mentioned by Mr Ang Mong Seng, in the past, enforcement on the spot did create some problems for other motor vehicles. So in August 1999, my Ministry decided to make use of digital video cameras. We sited these cameras in certain locations. Each time, if we see a vehicle emitting black smoke which is highly visible, we would take a recording. The recording is then transmitted back to the Ministry headquarters where some of my senior officials will sit in front of the PC and look at the recording. They will then make a determination on whether that particular offender ought to be let off, or given a warning letter, or indeed given a fine.

Mr Ang Mong Seng asked, firstly, whether these photos are reliable. Sir, these are not photos. These are real video, moving pictures. So you can see a vehicle moving on the road and you see all the black smoke coming out. So the reliability is not an issue because what you see is what actually happened on the ground.

Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether this evidence is admissible in court. Sir, I do not know. So far, in fact, no offender, having seen the video, has decided to contest us. Because when they see the video, they will see all the black smoke coming out, and they put up their hand and say, "Yes, I admit I ought to be fined." So far, we do not have a single case in which somebody, after looking at the video, still maintains that he or she is innocent.

Mr Ang Mong Seng asked whether we locate those video cameras at up slope. Sir, I can assure him that this is not the case. Because if you were to look at the video, you can see very clearly whether the car is moving horizontally or moving uphill. I can assure him that there is not a single case of offence involving a vehicle moving up slope. I am very sure about this because my officials gave me their assurance on this. In fact, when I looked at some of the videos myself, I was convinced that the emission was really bad. It was certainly more than 50-70 HSU because the black smoke was so clearly visible.

Mr Ang Mong Seng made a very good point. He asked whether we will allow free inspection of these videos. I am happy to say, yes. Indeed, this is the practice. When an offender receives a notice of offence from us, he is welcome to come to ENV to have a cup of coffee, look at the video and convince himself whether he wants to contest the case.

Sir, Mr Ang Mong Seng also asked whether our enforcement action is applicable to foreign vehicles. By that, I presume he is referring to Malaysian vehicles. Let me share with Members of the House on what we have done, as far as Malaysian vehicles are concerned. Malaysian vehicles with black smoke emission exceeding 70 HSU (Hartridge Smoke Unit) - I am told it is the measurement of smoke - are turned back to Malaysia. We do not even want to fine them and allow them to pollute our air. We tell them, "Your case is so bad. Please make a U-turn and go back." For those between 50 and

70 HSU, yes, it is an offence but not too excessive. We will give them a compounded fine on the spot because, after that, we would not know where to find them. For the first offence, they are fined $150; second offence is $300 and subsequent offence is $500. Many of them do take corrective action after the first offence because it is not cheap to pay $300 and $500 for emission of black smoke.

Is the enforcement action effective? I think so, because the number of bookings has been on the rise. For Singapore vehicles, five years ago, in 1996, we booked 6,900 cases and, last year, it had gone up to 16,000. In the case of Malaysian vehicles, we see the same increase from 3,500, five years ago, to 9,100 last year. So you can see that we are serious about enforcement, and as a result of this enforcement action taken by my Ministry, the percentage of smoky vehicles, as a percentage of the total population, has come down. We conduct random survey. We station officers at certain locations and they count the number of vehicles going past and the number of vehicles emitting black smoke and they compute the percentage of smoky vehicles.

In 1996, among the Singapore vehicles, 4% were smoky vehicles. Last year, it dropped to 1.1%. So we are seeing a significant drop of 4% to 1.1%. In the case of Malaysian vehicles, the decline is even more dramatic, from 16.2%, five years ago, to 3.9% last year, which means that many vehicles, both Singaporean vehicles and Malaysian vehicles, are getting the message that we are indeed serious with our enforcement action and that more vehicles are now not committing this offence of emitting black smoke.

Sir, the tightening of the emission standards and enforcement will go some way in helping to ensure that vehicular pollution will not get worse or get out of control. But we think at the same time, we ought to look for a more sustainable solution, which is the conversion to green vehicle. This is the point brought up by Prof. Low Seow Chay as well as a few other Members. Prof. Low asked what plans do we have to speed up the deployment of CNG and whether we have any incentive schemes in place to encourage company owners, and so on, to replace their inefficient vehicles with vehicles which are more energy efficient.

Sir, my Ministry has looked at the five types of green vehicles. These are electric vehicles, liquid petroleum gas, fuel cell vehicle, hybrid vehicles and natural gas. Our assessment, at this moment, not cast in concrete because, over time, things will change - is that the mass deployment of electric vehicles, at least in the short term, may be limited by the recharging mechanism. This is because they need to be charged overnight at a recharging facility. I think it will take some time before we can have such a network implemented. So the role of the electric vehicle may be hampered by this lack of infrastructure. 6.30 pm

As far as LPG vehicles are concerned, my Ministry, in fact, has decided not to promote LPG, because of the risk of fire and explosion. So we are not going to promote LPG, unless there is a breakthrough in the technology.

The third area mentioned by Prof Low is the fuel cell vehicle. I agree with him that the fuel cell vehicle holds great promise. In fact, of the five types of vehicle, the fuel cell vehicle is the cleanest, from the environmental standpoint. But because the technology is still at a developmental stage, what we intend to do is to continue to monitor the development and, at the right time, to conduct pilot projects and bring them into Singapore.

The remaining two are the hybrid vehicles and the natural gas vehicles. At least in the near term, these two types of green vehicle are most relevant, in the context of Singapore. So far, we have introduced incentive schemes for electric and hybrid vehicles, and we will see how it goes. At the same time, my Ministry is now paying a lot of attention to compact natural gas (CNG) vehicle. We place CNG vehicles high on our priority list because, firstly, these natural gas vehicles emit almost no particulate matter (PM), no SO2, very little carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. From the greenhouse point of view, they emit 20%-30% less CO2, compared to the conventional petrol or diesel vehicle. In other words, a natural gas vehicle is cleaner than a hybrid vehicle. It is more implementable, compared to the electric vehicle. At the same time, it is safer than an LPG vehicle.

Therefore, we feel that it makes a lot of sense for us to promote natural gas vehicles in a more concerted manner. This is the reason why my Ministry is now working with SBS, SembCorp Gas, Volvo and Delgro, to try out 30 natural gas buses in Jurong by next year. Our aim is to learn from this pilot implementation and, from there, we can then look into the action plan, to extend the use of CNG vehicles to other diesel vehicles, not just buses, but also taxis, tour buses, maybe lorries, pick-up trucks and so on. In the longer term, we believe that, even for the petrol-driven passenger vehicles, CNG is also a very relevant and promising technology.

Let me next move on to industries, because they are also a major source of air pollutants. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked about incineration, and whether we could do more to promote waste minimisation, in order to reduce the need for incineration. Sir, I will address that later on when we discuss the issue of solid waste disposal. But, as far as industries are concerned, our assessment is that industries today account for about 40% of SO2 and 20% of particulate matter. In other words, since SO2 and particulate matter are at the top of our list of priorities, we should do something too and, therefore, in the case of industries, our priority is to continue to reduce SO2 and particulate matter emission.

Our strategy basically is, firstly, to continue to promote cleaner fuels for steam and heat generation, eg, low sulphur fuel oil and natural gas, and this will happen more and more, now that we have additional natural gas supply coming to Singapore. Secondly, we are also promoting the use of cleaner technologies to reduce the level of emission, eg, sulphur recovery, so that instead of disposing the sulphur into the air, we can actually recover the sulphur itself for other applications, or bag filters for particulate matter removal. Thirdly, we will continue to tighten the emission standards under the Environmental Pollution Control (Air Impurities) Regulations for particulate matters, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides.

Sir, the third source of air pollutants is power generation. It accounts for 60% of SO2 and 30% of particulate matters. So our priority again is to reduce both and, in this area, basically our strategy is to encourage and facilitate the use of cleaner fuel, which is basically natural gas and, at the same time, encourage the use of cleaner technology. For example, many of our power plants are now using the combined cycle power generation process. We are also working on the flue gas desulphurisation. As far as power generation is concerned, we will continue to tighten emission standards, so that companies will speed up the adoption of clean energy.

Let me move on to global warming, ie, carbon dioxide emission. Prof. Low Seow Chay asked whether any action has been taken to reduce emission, and Mr Ong Kian Min also asked whether there is any incentive for environmental-friendly energy, eg, solar energy. Sir, carbon dioxide emission comes mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. At this moment, our guesstimate is that power generation accounts for 50% of the CO2 emission in Singapore, industries 35%, and vehicles 13%. Given that we are a city-state and highly industrialised, we admit that, in terms of CO2 emission per capita, we are on the high side, and that it will continue to increase as our economy continues to grow, etc. While we cannot do much to try to reduce CO2 per capita, there is a lot that we can do, in terms of reducing CO2 per-million-dollar GDP. This means that, as we grow our GDP, we can find a more efficient way of reducing CO2 emission, basically through efficiency and energy use.

In this regard, I am happy to inform the House that, starting from 1st April 2001, the Ministry of the Environment will take over the chairmanship of the Inter-Agency Committee on Energy Efficiency (IACEE). Right now, the IACEE is chaired by the Ministry of National Development. Minister Mah Bow Tan, a few weeks ago, suggested to me that ENV take over the chairmanship so that we could close this energy loop, and I agreed fully with him. We are going to continue to push for energy efficiency and conservation and, at the same time, we are going to expand the scope of the Committee to include the use of cleaner energy.

Sir, Mr Ong Kian Min suggested that we should introduce more incentives to encourage companies and organisations to adopt cleaner energy, like solar, for example. We do administer an incentive programme in ENV known as the Accelerated Depreciation Scheme for capital expenditure for energy-efficient and energy-saving equipment to be depreciated in one year, instead of the normal 3-year period. So far, 21 applications have been approved. But, having said that, I can assure the House that, under the IACEE, we will continue to examine what new incentives and additional programmes we should undertake, in order to speed up this conversion to cleaner energy, as well as to improve energy efficiency and conservation.

Finally, let me move on to the issue of smoke haze. Sir, I thank Simon Tay for bringing this up, because it is an important issue. All of us remember that in 1997, we went through a bad spell of the regional haze. In the last few years, the weather has turned wetter and, as a result, we did not encounter any serious problem with the regional haze. That is the good news. The bad news is that the global climate is changing again and, according to the experts, there is a 30% chance that, this year, we may see the return of El Nino. What this means is that there is a chance that we may see the return of the smoke haze.

What have we been doing in the last few years? We have been keeping in close touch with our Indonesian counterparts, to help them in whatever way we can. For example, in the last 2-3 years, we have helped the Indonesian government and some of their regional authorities, to implement the PSI system. They now have a system to measure PSI, and are able to monitor the seriousness of the haze situation. As Mr Simon Tay mentioned, we have also shared with them satellite images. In fact, these satellite images are accurate up to 20 metres, ie, we are able to pinpoint the location of the fire, of the torchhead, all the way down to the nearest 20 metres. So, it is very easy now to be on the ground, to locate where the fire is. At the same time, we have provided manpower training to many of the Indonesian officials, because we have a training centre at ENV and, over the last few years, we have continued to take in trainees from Indonesia. Over the last six months, I have met with Dr Sony Keraf, the Indonesian Minister for the Environment, twice - once in Singapore, and once in Sabah, during the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on the Environment. On both occasions, the regional smoke haze was the No. 1 topic of our discussion. I think Dr Keraf is fully aware of our concern over the situation, and has assured us that he would do whatever he can to try to address the situation.

As Mr Simon Tay has mentioned, the Indonesian government has recently decided to delegate more of the responsibility and authority to the provincial governments. In fact, just about a few weeks ago, I was in Pekan Baru and met with the Governor of Riau, Pak Saleh, and we discussed various issues, including the supply of water from Riau province and so on. One of the issues discussed was collaboration in environmental management. Pak Saleh Djasit made a request for us to, firstly, help them to enhance their technical expertise in pollution management and control, both air and river pollution. He has also asked us to continue to provide information exchange, so that they can be kept up to date with whatever is happening. He has also asked that we continue to supply them with satellite images so that they will continue to know exactly where the fires are. At the same time, they have also asked us to continue to provide manpower training and this, basically, will be more at the provincial level. We have responded positively to his requests. A technical team from ENV will be in Pekan Baru in May to work out the entire package of technical collaboration between Singapore and the Riau province. We hope that, by continuing to work closely with the Indonesian government in Jakarta, and with the provincial government in Pekan Baru, hopefully, we will be able to do a better job together this time round, should we, indeed, see the return of El Nino.

Mr Simon Tay also asked whether we could enforce Indonesian laws on the prevention of fire in Singapore courts. Sir, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that between nations, we have to respect the national sovereignty of our neighbours. Therefore, it is not appropriate to talk about enforcing Indonesian law in Singapore for offences which take place in Indonesia. But what we will continue to do will be, as I mentioned earlier, to work very closely with the Indonesian government, as well as with the provincial government.

Mr Simon Tay also asked whether we could do something to advise Singapore-based lenders and traders to take a prudential approach towards their Indonesian clients and partners. Sir, this is a very difficult area for the Government to intervene. As Mr Simon Tay mentioned, these are really financial and commercial actions taken by commercial entities. What we hope is that these Singapore-based lenders and traders, being responsible corporate citizens, will not associate themselves with illegal practices that are detrimental to the regional environment.

Sir, with that, I believe I have addressed most of the issues brought up by Members.

The Chairman: It is almost 6.45 pm. We will stop here.

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

Mr Lim Swee Say: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2001/2002, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.