1ST APRIL, 2002 TO 31ST MARCH, 2003

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head K - (cont.)

Mr Iswaran: Sir, the recent announcement by NUS that it would open perhaps one or maybe two campuses in Singapore, in addition to its existing Kent Ridge Campus, has raised several questions which I would like to bring up today for some elaboration by the Minister.

First question is: what is the preferred model for our university education system going forward, as we try to enhance the capacity of the system to meet our goal of allowing more Singaporeans to participate in tertiary education? Is it a model where we are going to have many universities, such as the addition of a fourth university, maybe a fifth, or one where we are going to have fewer universities, such as the existing three, but then mushrooming multiple campuses?

The reason I ask this is because previously, when we had discussion on the fourth university, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan had made the point that Singapore should move away from the model of one university suits all, and we should instead be encouraging the development of diversity in our university system, so that there is diversity in terms of curriculum, criteria for enrolment and generally in terms of the cultural lifestyles of these universities. So, I would like some clarification on that as to how we will proceed as the University system develops.

A related question then is that for a university like NUS, which already has a capacity of about 15,000-16,000 students, if I am not mistaken, is developing more campuses a desirable way to go forward? Or would it have an adverse impact on its standing as a premier research academic institution in Singapore?

The final question is that of the fourth university which had been announced as something that was under quite intense study. I want to know whether as a result of this announcement by NUS, that plan has now been set back or it is proceeding apace.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, the idea of a fourth university was first mooted by the International Academic Advisory Panel in January 2001. The IAP had felt then that there was room for greater diversity in university education, with a number of institutions each having its own niche and areas of specialisation. The Panel thus supported the establishment of a fourth university which will be built upon the role of the polytechnics. Many Singaporeans, including polytechnic graduates, will then have a shot at university education. Currently, a significant seven out of 10 polytechnic graduates go on to pursue degrees, many of them overseas. This is a leakage that the local universities can plug.

In February 2002, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan had noted in his speech at the Graduation Ceremony of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business that the Committee to Review Upgrading Opportunities at Degree Level had submitted a report to MOE recommending the establishment of a fourth university. DPM Tony Tan had then said that a fundamental review of the structure of the University had to be undertaken before a decision on the proposed structure could be finalised.

More recently, like many of my parliamentary colleagues alluded to, it was reported in the press (Straits Times, 30th April 2002) that NUS will be setting up two new campuses by 2010, in response to the growing demand for university education in Singapore. One of the two new campuses would take 3,000 undergraduates into practice-based engineering programmes.

It was reported that the potential target students for this campus were polytechnic graduates who now go overseas to upgrade their qualifications.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister in the context of the NUS' plans to go multi-campus, if there has been a change of heart regarding the establishment of a fourth university and, if so, the rationale for the change.

Sir, I fully support the Government's aim to increase Singaporeans' access to university education so that one in four Singaporeans in each year's cohort, instead of the current one in five, will have the opportunity to attend university in Singapore by 2010. This is timely and indeed crucial in view of the demands for a better educated workforce. It is also in line with our rallying cry to allow every Singaporean a chance to maximise his potential.

With both NUS' multi-campus plan and the establishment of a fourth university, both would also help to achieve the Government's objective of increasing the university cohort participation rate. But I feel that the fourth university route would contribute more definitively to the development of a vibrant university sector.

The proposed fourth university, as recommended by the Committee to Review Upgrading Opportunities at Degree Level, is to have a practical bent with industry links. It is to be a major provider of continuing education and training and is to cater to both part-time and full-time learning as well as adult education. The Committee had felt then that with a fourth university, the higher education sector would be more equipped to cater to the varying needs of both industry and individuals.

Sir, I fully concur with these observations. I feel that the introduction of a fourth university would better enrich our university education ecosystem. The fourth university with its own mission, structure and niche will inject diversity into our university education landscape and more competition amongst the universities. 4.00 pm

A fourth university with the specific mission to focus on practice-oriented programmes and caters to the continuing professional development needs of working adults up to degree level would help fill the gap that currently exists in our university system, ie, giving a second chance to those who do not make it to the local university system the first time round. I feel that a fourth university that is given such a clear mandate would be better able to tailor its programme and admission criteria to meet the needs of this group than an NUS that tries to be all things to all men with a diverse range of objectives and goals that may be incongruent with each other.

Additionally, I feel that a fourth university will be unencumbered by any baggage which the existing university may carry. For instance, currently, only the top polytechnic graduates in each cohort are able to gain admission into NUS, or NTU, in view of the keen competition for a limited number of places.

The Chairman: Dr Khor, could you please wind up your speech?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Yes. So these applicants are required not only to have good academic results in the polytechnic but also at "O" level and it clearly does not give late bloomers a second chance.

I therefore strongly urge the Ministry to study the merits of establishing a fourth university to meet Singaporeans' increasing demand for university education and to give that second chance in life that they are searching for in the new social compact.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, there was a recent newspaper article in the Straits Times "NTU Grads: Is there a difference?" dated 8th April which reported that there is a difference between NUS and NTU graduates. According to the report, local companies surveyed found that NUS graduates write and speak better, but NTU graduates are more creative. Are these true or are they just perceptions? The more critical question is whether it is writing, speaking skills or creativity, have our universities sufficiently prepared our graduates for the new economy?

Other than students, I share the concern of the other Members, with the transformation of the university, what has the impact been on the academic staff? Has the rapid changes in the universities, particularly the NUS, affected the staff morale? This is a critical issue because the morale of the staff may affect the

A third issue I want to raise here, which is my main concern, is the role of the Chinese Studies Department of the NUS, guo da zhong wen xi. Here, in Singapore, the Chinese Studies Department plays a key role in nurturing Chinese language teachers and journalists. Would the Ministry want the NUS Chinese Studies Department to continue this traditional role in future?

The new broad-based education system to be implemented in the NUS emphasises an all-rounded general education, that means, undergraduates are encouraged to study a broad range of subjects and would learn about each subject in lesser depth. In this case, my worry is that undergraduates in the Department of Chinese Studies would study only a single Chinese major plus other non-Chinese subjects. This is a big change as students of the department today are used to studying double majors, namely, Chinese Language (Hanyu) and Chinese Studies (Hanxue), which would give them a reasonably all-rounded exposure to Chinese language, culture, history and philosophy. Many people worry that, with such a big shift, graduates of the future would be sufficiently less proficient in Chinese to be Chinese language teachers and journalists.

One practical suggestion is that there should be a scheme for undergraduates who intend to be Chinese Language professionals, such as teachers and journalists, etc, to be exempted from this generalist approach and opt for the present system. They should be allowed to study double majors, ie, Chinese Language and Chinese Studies (Hanyu and Hanxue) like the previous batches. At the same time, the Chinese Studies Department should continue to offer courses to others who would like to study it as a single subject.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Sir, the House was recently told about the high amount of subsidy the Government provides for tertiary education. This is rightly so knowing how important our human resources are. We need to do all we can to ensure that those deserving of tertiary education be given all the support necessary.

On this note, Sir, the Malay community also deeply appreciates the tertiary fee subsidy given to the Malays who qualify for university and polytechnic education. Those who are better off give up that subsidy for the benefit of the needy and those who are more deserving. But those who receive the Malay TFF subsidy will be required to give back to the community by doing social service. This is the point which I would like to raise about tertiary students as a whole.

Sir, because of the large subsidy given by the Government for tertiary education, our graduates should be taught to pay back to society in one way or another. Will MOE consider programmes to encourage and facilitate that? At the North East CDC, for example, we encourage tertiary student recipients of our programmes, for example, the BUST subsidy programme to help in the community work. They help in our IT programmes.

Another point I would like to raise is how MOE could keep in touch with students who study overseas. MOE should work with the Singapore International Foundation and Contact Singapore for that purpose. Sir, the Government has recently decided to remove the tax rebate for Singapore students studying overseas. I think it is a pity as it could serve as an indirect bond for them. I would like the Government to please reconsider withdrawing that rebate. The British Commissioner is here, he knows that we have a few thousand students studying in UK, a few more thousands in the US and a few more thousands in Australia. But I think only about 5,000 benefit from that tax rebate.

It is not easy for parents to send their children to study overseas. Some go because they could not get a place in Singapore, others for courses not available here. In any case, they are enhancing their worth and, thus, their future contribution to Government having to spend more on subsidies for MOE. I was at the memorial service at Ann Arbor where an undergraduate, the late Miss Amanda Yeo, who was studying at the Michigan University died at a road accident. She was the only girl of the family. I met her family at the church service in Ann Arbor and I could feel the anguish and the tragedy felt by the family.

Parents whose children study overseas face all kinds of anxiety and uncertainty. They deserve understanding. I must declare my interest. I am also a recipient and beneficiary of that. But on a larger picture, beyond the financial consideration, beyond the tax rebate, we need to find ways to bond overseas students to Singapore. I think MOE can help.

Finally, can MOE update the House on its thinking about the honours course for Malay studies at the NUS?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Sir, it was only about three years ago that the Ministry announced that the US-based Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) would be used as an additional assessment test for university entrance. Presumably, once accepted, this would become a substitute for the "A" level examination.

Sir, there are problems with this approach. At this point in time, the inclusion of SAT simply meant that our JC students have to prepare for two university entrance examinations in their final year of studies. Interestingly enough, none other than the respected UC President, Richard Atkinson, has lambasted the SAT 1 test as being unsuitable as a university admission assessment test. As a result, the US College Board announced in March this year that it is planning to revise its SAT 1 to better service its objectives. For a test that the Americans themselves have declared as not very suitable, we have to ask ourselves what is the value of us switching to SAT. Of course, I am aware that there is another part of SAT, known as SAT II, that is more vigorous.

Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry has declared its intention of taking greater control of the "A" level examinations in year 2002. It also floated the idea of setting up our very own Examinations Authority. It states that from year 2003 onwards, university admission will take into account other measures, in addition to the "A" levels. I would like to find out from the Ministry whether this announcement meant that we have second thoughts about SAT.

At this stage of development, Sir, I think we do not have to depend any longer on the "O" level and "A" level examinations. As an independent nation with outstanding scholastic track record, a well-funded R&D sector and an aspiration to become an education hub for the Asia-Pacific region, I strongly support the proposal to establish our own Examinations Authority. However, we should be always aware of the penchant of Singaporeans to crank up standards year after year. In establishing our own Examinatiions Authority, we should focus on developing a well educated individual with high academic achievement, strong cultural ballast and sound character. We should avoid falling into the trap of ever increasing content to stress the students to the limit. Sir, would the Minister share with this House on his thinking on the Examinations Authority?

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): (In Mandarin): Sir, as we embark on the new high-tech knowledge-based economy in Singapore, we require not only many graduates from tertiary institutions, we also need highly-skilled technical officers so that all these technologies could be applied smoothly in Singapore.

ITE had, during our early days of nation building, played a major role in producing our skilled workforce. A great number of technicians were cultivated for our industries, particularly the building industry. Now, with our economy restructuring, we need a different type of skills for our workers and it is quite different from those that we trained in the old days. Very often, during my meet-the-people sessions, I would meet residents who complained to me that their children were sent to ITE and they were not comfortable about it. They wanted their children to go to the mainstream schools. To them, those who were sent to ITE were those who could not make the grade to the mainstream schools. Given a choice, they would want their children to go to the mainstream schools, so that they could do their "O" level, "A" level and then go to the university. Because in the minds of the parents, going to the university is a sign and a promise of a good future.

Sometimes, when parents have overly high expectations for their children, it could result in the students being pressurised, and when they are sent to ITE, they will be very demoralised, and lose their self-respect. Many of them believe that graduating from ITE may not land them a job. I am very glad to hear from the Minister, just now, that the prospects of ITE graduates were not too bad after all. We have read newspaper reports of some ITE graduates who have gained admission to the polytechnic, and from there to the university where they obtained their bachelor or even masters degrees. Some went on to become successful entreprenuers. It shows that our ITEs are also capable of producing successful and useful citizens for Singapore. 4.15 pm

I feel that the problem lies with the fact that many parents do not understand what prospects their children have when they go to ITE. So I feel that the Ministry of Education should give ITE a make-over. Like the Remaking of Singapore, we should also have a Remaking of ITE. We should establish its brand.

Sir, I observe that students of ITE are still required to wear uniforms, like the school children from the junior schools, while the polytechnic and university undergraduates are not required to wear any uniform. This makes the ITE students feel inferior. Why can we not allow the ITE students to do away with their uniforms like the university undergraduates?

Secondly, if we want to instill more confidence in their parents, we should enhance the status of ITE. Our universities have linked up with other renowned foreign universities to become sister universities. Why can we not encourage ITE to tie up with some of the well-known colleges overseas to enhance its reputation? Here I am not saying that the moon overseas is brighter than the one in Singapore. But I am saying that the Singapore moon is just as round as the moon in the other countries.

In this respect, I hope, Sir, that the Ministry of Education would make efforts to "remake ITE" while remaking Singapore, so that the students of ITE will be proud of themselves. As a matter of fact, many parents felt ashamed when their children were sent to ITE. When asked by their friends where their children were studying, they would reply shamefully, "Oh, some neighbourhood school. I do not know its name." Why is it that we make these parents harbour such inferiority complex? Why can we not do something about it? Raise the status of ITE, tell the parents that the moon in Singapore is just as round as in the other countries, that our ITE in Singapore is just as good as the technical colleges overseas. I know the Minister for Education is very modest, but I think sometimes he can afford to be more arrogant.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Sir, I am not sure if we should thank Mr Jack Neo for thrusting ITE into the limelight with the film I Not Stupid because "it not good"!

Sir, ITE plays a crucial role in providing the much-needed skills training, as well as continuous training. One good thing about the recession is that it reminds us that skills training is an integral part of our economic survival. As Singapore restructures our economy, there is an even greater need to increase the pool of skilled workers. Those who do not possess relevant skills will find it increasingly difficult to keep their jobs or find new jobs in time to come. The ITE produces more than 10,000 graduates a year, and many of them have done well. In fact, more than 1,400 of them thereafter. This shows that ITE indeed is not the end.

However, I feel compelled to remind ourselves that the success and the contribution of ITE should not be measured only by the number of graduates who proceeded to polytechnics or universities. We need to redefine success and, to do so, we must first recognise that ITE provides a wide scope of curriculum, ranging from cutting-edge information technology to biomedical technology. ITE graduates are professionals in their respective fields, and they can excel and make positive, even critical, contributions to the economy and the society, even if they do not proceed to the polytechnics or universities eventually. Without them, we will not be able to attract good investments to Singapore.

The Minister said earlier that even in the year 2001, when the recession was at its worst, 88% of the ITE graduates were able to secure a full-time job within three months and their average salary ranged between $1,100 and $1,400, not bad in a recession year. We have also heard stories about ITE graduates being successful in business. ITE has, undoubtedly, done a good job. Its graduates are well regarded by their employers. Unfortunately, Sir, the image of ITE has been somewhat less than what it deserves, partly due to its association with its predecessor, the VITB, and partly due to the show I Not Stupid.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider putting in more resources into ITE to further expand and upgrade its programmes, as well as to have a proactive programme to improve its profile and image. I note that the recurrent budget for ITE has been reduced by 2.6% while the recurrent budget for the overall Ministry of Education has increased by 1.5%. I hope that we are not sending the wrong message. However, I note that the capital expenditure budget for the ITE has increased substantially.

I hope that the Minister would also consider encouraging the ITE to have academic exchange programmes with reputable similar nature. This will undoubtedly inject greater professionalism into ITE. It will also help raise the international standing of ITE and boost its image. Then, we can change the image of ITE and it is no longer the end but to change it to the Institute of Technical Excellence.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): (In Malay): Sir, the Institute of Technical Education in our country has played an important role and will continue to play an important role in training our technicians and engineers for the future, our industry and the new economy. In our effort to remake Singapore, we should study skills upgrading programmes, retraining and lifelong learning for our workforce. The ITE and polytechnics will play an increasingly important role in this matter. The main challenge for the ITE and polytechnics is to attract and encourage our workers to return to school or the classroom.

Sir, we often hear stories of outstanding ITE and polytechnic graduates who become successful entrepreneurs and businessmen. They bring pride to the ITE and polytechnics, and I feel more will achieve success. They make a name for themselves, thus bringing prestige to the institutions of ITE and the polytechnics through their success. Through their success, we will better appreciate the good efforts of these institutions that have prepared and equipped them for the employment market and the industrial world which are very challenging and competitive.

Sir, ITE is one of the pillars of our education system. Both the ITE and polytechnic system emphasise excellence in technical education. Year after year, these institutions have undergone numerous renewals. Therefore, job opportunities for ITE and polytechnic graduates are good, and Singapore offers many opportunities for those who undergo technical education. We will see more new jobs and new potential in the knowledge-based economy. ITE and polytechnic graduates will find that they have a place for themselves

Sir, there are many areas in which the ITE and polytechnics can explore. The services industry has a large potential for them. Our nation is expanding the information technology, life sciences and chemical industries. These are areas which need a skilled workforce, and the ITE and the polytechnics could think of ways to support these thriving industries. Like other educational institutions, ITE and the polytechnics should encourage creativity and innovation. Their students should be given the freedom to explore and go deeper into their studies. Practical skills and certain skills are important, but they cannot ensure our survival. We should nurture our students with an entrepreneurial spirit and a "dare to fail" attitude so that they would work harder and face new challenges with success.

The quality of technical education is high, and we are respected in many countries in the world. There are many examples where ITE graduates are successful in continuing their education to the university and polytechnic. This shows that the ITE has built a strong foundation and should be seen as a good beginning for our students. Technical training and the ability to "adapt oneself" for the ITE and polytechnic graduates are seen as two positive traits to nurture those who are technopreneurs. But ITE and the polytechnics can do more by offering additional business modules and giving support to the potential graduates through an incubation system and network of graduates. Technical education in our country has come a long way and will continue to expand. With new changes in the structure of ITE and polytechnics and also continuous upgrading of the staff and their facilities, these institutions will continue to excel. Our polytechnics have trained many people in this region. They appreciate our assistance and have praised the quality of the courses that we offer. Our neighbours in ASEAN have also benefitted. From one angle, we grapple with the effort to continue improving our products and services, but here we already have a good product, ie, the quality of our education and training. Outsiders see these as our brand name, but we have not reaped its full benefits. Why do we not market our educational services industry more aggressively? Sir, I propose that our main institutions can lead in this effort. We should not have the old thinking, ie, "Why should we help others to catch up or compete with us?" This is wrong because, if we do not improve on whatever we have, others will take over our place. Let us increase our effort to market our courses and services. Singapore can become the leading education centre in this region. I believe we can expand our services beyond the borders of Singapore.

RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, we have a strong and diverse post-secondary sector that caters to different types of students. Our ITE, polytechnics and universities offer Singaporeans access to an array of academic and technical options in further education.

Sir, I would like to thank Mr Ong, Mr Gan and Mr Zainudin for the encouragement that they have given to ITE. We will continue to try and market ITE as well as we can. In fact, I would invite all Members of this House to come along, and I hope that they will come, including Mr Inderjit Singh, to see for themselves how well the students are doing.

ITE has come a long way. It is now a confident, increasingly well-regarded post-secondary educational institution. The real success of ITE is not measured in terms of how many students have been able to go to polytechnic or how many students have gone on to university from ITE, although we celebrate the success of these students. The real success of ITE has been the fact that it has successfully raised the prospects and maximised the potential of young Singaporeans who, in other education systems all over the world, would have been left behind. The fact that youth unemployment in Singapore is not a problem, even in the middle of the recession, is evidence of the success of ITE.

We have a robust polytechnic sector which provides vital technical and supervisory manpower, and many of our entrepreneurs and business leaders today come from the polytechnics. We have three good universities, each with their different and distinct focus and character. Different types of institutions, each with different missions and different emphasis, together, they provide a range of options to meet the needs of both the economy and individuals.

Moving forward, we intend to expand opportunities and introduce greater diversity in the further education sector. We need to increase capacity so that all those able to benefit from further education can have access to our technical institutes, polytechnics and universities. We have significantly expanded opportunities across all types of post-secondary and tertiary education. Twenty years ago, less than three out of 10 pupils made it to post-secondary education. Ten years ago, it had grown to nearly six out of 10. Today, more than eight out of 10 do so. At the degree level, the Ministry is considering further expansion of the university sector. Our university cohort participation rate has quadrupled from 5% in 1980 to 21% today. With the sounder foundation that our students now receive in school, the university cohort participation rate can be raised from the current 21% to 25%, and we are now working to make this possible.

Greater capacity is also necessary to provide for the larger cohorts of students feeding through to the post-secondary sector. As Members know, 1988 was a dragon year, with a bumper crop of 53,000 babies. In the 10 years following that, the number of babies born averaged 49,000, about 20% higher than the decade before 1988. These children started to come into the school system in 1995. In 2005, the dragon babies will be ready to enter ITE, the polytechnics and pre-university. We have anticipated this, and we will have sufficient places for them. 4.30 pm

To achieve greater diversity and expand opportunities in the sector, the Ministry is currently restructuring ITE, building a fifth polytechnic and reviewing the university sector.

ITE will regroup its current 10 campuses into three Regional Campuses (RCs) over the next 15 years. The larger campuses will allow each campus to offer a full range of courses and provide the opportunities for cross-disciplinary training.

$700 million will be spent to build a fifth polytechnic which will open its door in 2003. The Republic Polytechnic will not only increase capacity, it will inject greater diversity into this important sector of our education system, and help to further raise standards all round.

An Inter-ministerial Committee, chaired by Dr Ng, is currently reviewing the university sector. He will update Members on this later.

Let me now deal with specific issues on our public universities brought up by Dr Wang and Mr Yeo. I would first like to thank Mr Yeo for pointing out that NUS and NTU have achieved a degree of international standing for themselves. Both NUS and NTU aim for excellence in education, research and contribution to the community.

Mr Yeo expressed concern on the impact of curricular broadening on the Department of Chinese Studies. I have been told by NUS that the emphasis on broad-based education does not preclude students from gaining a rigorous grounding in Chinese Literature, Chinese Language, history or philosophy. Students can still opt to read modules in both Chinese Studies and Chinese Language.

Ultimately, a university will only flourish if they have capable and committed staff of high quality. Both NUS and NTU have put in place a market-driven performance-based renumeration system that gives them more flexibility to reward excellence and to attract and retain talent. Dr Wang and Mr Yeo have expressed some concern about the impact of these changes on staff. Sir, both universities are going through a period of transition from basically teaching-based institutions to institutions that place emphasis on both teaching and research. Some staff may adapt faster than others. However, I am confident that these changes are necessary for the success of the universities in the long-term. Dr Wang said that the staff attrition rate of NUS is high. Last year, 5.9% of NUS' faculty members or 116 left the university. This is not unreasonable, especially compared to the attrition rates of reputable universities worldwide, where the attrition rate of 10%, 12% or 15% is not uncommon. NUS has been able to successfully recruit new faculty members. Last year, NUS recruited 194 new faculty members. Too high a turnover rate, of course, is undesirable. But a certain level of turnover is healthy, if any organisation is to renew and regenerate itself. This turnover of faculty in NUS creates opportunities for intellectual renewal and ensures high academic standards, which is key to NUS' goal of being world-class.

Our educational institutions must recruit the people strictly based on merit, and if Dr Wang has any evidence that this has not been so in any of our institutions, I would urge him to immediately make this known to my Ministry.

Dr Wang spoke about universities switching to SAT. I would like to clarify that my Ministry has never said that SAT will replace the "A" levels. SAT I is only one component of the University Admission System and serves as a reasoning test that complements a content-based "A" level examinations. Having a basket of admission requirements provides for a more holistic measure of an applicant's ability.

SAT II tests that Dr Wang mentioned are tests that measure specific content-based knowledge and would duplicate the function already served by the "A" levels. Hence, MOE has no intention to introduce SAT II. We will study what changes the College Board intends to make to SAT I, and see if it continues to be a test that suits our purpose. The establishment of an examination board does not reflect any second thoughts about SAT I.

The intention of establishing an examination board is to build up our own capability and expertise in educational assessment and examination services. As Dr Wang pointed out, it will support our efforts to develop Singapore as an educational hub. The examination board will conduct the national examinations based on the Ministry's prescribed syllabuses and curriculum framework, and the Ministry would ensure that the examinations accurately assess pupils' achievement validly and reliably and are closely aligned to curricular objectives.

Sir, examinations, testing and assessments are an integral part of the education process. They should not be seen as something separate. They provide feedback and ensure that standards are maintained. Examinations only become dysfunctional if they are not aligned with the objectives of education. If they measure things which are not really what your objectives are in education, it thereby leads students down a path which is not what you really want them to do. To reflect our focus on creativity and thinking, we have been modifying our examination formats to include open book examinations, source-based questions where students are required to draw inferences, project work, and school-based continuous assessment of the practical and experimental capability of our "A" level Science students. These are quite different from the traditional examinations and tests which students have taken in the past. Of course, they are more challenging for both the students and teachers to prepare for. Such assessments are more aligned with our educational goals.

With our own examination board, we will be more able to ensure that examinations are well-aligned with our objectives, and that we can introduce innovations, such as IT-based assessments, without having to wait till others are ready.

I will now ask Dr Ng to respond to the other points that Members have raised.

The Minister of State for Education (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Chairman, the Minister has sketched an overview of our post-secondary education sector. I would like to address specific queries from some Members. Let me touch on ITE and the polytechnic first.

The Ministry wholeheartedly agrees with Mr Ong, Mr Gan and Mr Zainudin Nordin that the polytechnic and ITE sectors are important pillars of our education system. I would like to assure Members that the Government will continue to invest in technical education. For FY2002, the Government has budgeted $1.2 billion which translates to an increase of about 25% over FY2001's provision.

The proposed FY2002 budget may give some Members, including Mr Gan, the impression that the Government is spending less. This is because in FY2001, the operating budget included a one-off payment for the outstanding GST on the polytechnics and ITE for prior years. Excluding this item, Government's spending for the technical education sector is actually significantly higher for FY2002. A fifth polytechnic will be developed and we will be spending more than $350 million in developmental costs to build ITE's first Regional Campus at Simei. The construction of the first Regional Campus will begin in the second half of this year.

I am happy to note that Mr Ong Ah Heng and Mr Gan Kim Yong agree with the Ministry that ITE is an excellent institution. They feel that the ITE has been wrongly maligned and asked if we can do more to improve the public perception of ITE. I agree that ITE has been unfairly misrepresented. MOE is extremely proud of what ITE has accomplished. We consistently "show off" ITE to overseas guests who go away with great admiration and commend us for doing it right. What they mean is that we have resisted, in the words of Dr Amy Khor, trying to be "all things to all men". We have focused on substance, rather than form. We have done this because we assess correctly the abilities of that sector of the students, given them relevant value-added education and thereby help them find jobs and retain their dignity. Mr Ong Ah Heng can tell the parent, who was worried about her child who went to ITE, that not only is the moon very round, it is like a moon cake, you can taste the substance, with the yolk. The Minister has already reported that 88% of our ITE graduates find employment within three months of graduation. This is not not bad. This is very good. Hong Kong recently reported an unemployment rate of 14% for those aged 25 years and below, first time entering the job market. Many of these students went through the education system, but failed in so many subjects that they achieve neither substance nor form.

Why do we get international praise for ITE whilst some locals perceive ITE negatively? Singaporeans will have to examine themselves to determine if they are making the correct value judgement. We will be proud, as my Minister says, to take them on a tour around ITE to help them make up their minds. But my ITE board, principals, teachers and students know full well my highest regard for them and their institution. More importantly, the teachers are proud to teach in ITE - they have a very low turnover rate. If the institution is bad, explain to me why the turnover rate is only 4%? They are proud despite the derision from some Singaporeans, many of whom have never visited ITE. These Singaporeans, by their unfair remarks, diminish the good work of committed teachers and the significant achievements of students in ITE.

Thankfully, the majority of the public is more discerning and this has been helped by ITE's outreach programme. ITE indeed reaches out to 14,000 students in the Normal Stream and 1,800 parents annually. Special outreach programmes are also conducted for existing secondary school teachers and principals and the graduating trainee teachers at NIE, as they are significant groups of people who can advise students on their post-secondary educational choices.

I am pleased to report that ITE's image has improved significantly in recent years. In an ITE public perception survey conducted in 1997, many Singaporeans felt that "ITE was good but not for me". However, in the 2000 survey, many people are now accepting that ITE does indeed provide an alternative and viable educational pathway which meets their career and academic aspirations. What is more encouraging is that 37% of respondents put ITE as one of their top three choices for post-secondary education.

Let me now turn to the polytechnic sector. Mr Zainudin Nordin has asked if we should leverage on our reputation and strength to market services and products in quality technical education. Our institutions have already done that to a limited extent. I must, however, emphasise that marketing service overseas is not the primary mission of our polytechnics and ITE. Our polytechnics and ITE should continue to focus on providing accessible and quality technical education to Singaporeans.

Sir, let me now speak about the university sector. I thank Dr Wang, Mr Iswaran and Dr Amy Khor for their interest in the Government's approach to expanding the capacity of the university sector. Both at the Inter-Ministry Committee and the ERC, we are fundamentally reviewing what roles the universities need to perform to continue to play an integral part in supporting our economic initiatives. This would be an opportune time to surface strategic issues regarding university education in Singapore.

For brevity, I will simplify things by stating that the universities play three roles for Singaporeans. Firstly, they fulfil aspirations for those who want degrees. Secondly, they train and produce graduates to support our industries. Thirdly, they are incubators and "hatching grounds" for ideas that will lead and shape industry. We would have started on a very wrong footing if we approached the review mainly to fulfill aspirations - as Dr Amy Khor suggested, to give some people a second chance - of just deciding how to create an additional 3,000 more university places each year to accommodate 25% of our cohort of students. Governments in some European countries funded the expansion of their universities to cater to an ever-increasing pressure to allow more and more citizens to enter universities - and with diminishing returns. The idea is noble, well-intentioned but illusory: whoever seeks to be educated in whatever course shall be admitted. If the citizen is enriched through education, even if he does not have the academic ability required, then society is still enhanced. What happens? 30-50% of the first year cohort drop out; professors and lecturers become disheartened and demoralised. Standards drop, and the diminishing cycle perpetuates. Consider this. Despite 50% of the cohort in some European countries attending university, Europe is short of engineers (as told to me by Spanish, Danish industrialists and the UK Sterling Group of Professors)! So, too the United States. Let me quote to you what the Dean of Engineering at Tuft's University at Boston testified at the Capitol Hill last week. He said, "We have a severe shortage of engineers. We import engineers from abroad and a lot of our new technologies that we rely on for security reasons are developed abroad. And I don't think that's a safe path". Despite a dramatic increase in the country's demand for engineers, interest in the field has dropped significantly at colleges and universities nationwide. So this leading academician is now asking for more funds to reverse this trend. Even if he gets it, it will take some years for them to catch up. 4.45 pm

Singapore has been more prudent and only funded students of sufficient calibre to enter our public universities and, more so, in particular disciplines of engineering and sciences that would help our overall economy. That policy of producing graduates relevant to industry enabled us to ride on globalisation and manufacturing in the last two decades and the economy thrived. This policy will continue but will not be enough to secure our future prosperity as we move up the value chain in a knowledge-intensive economy.

China has a birth cohort of 24 million per year. Currently, they produce 1.6 million graduates, and that number will grow. In comparison, Singapore produces 10,000 graduates each year from our public universities. We cannot compete on size or the average of our graduates alone. The "peaks", in other words, the highs that our universities and their graduates attain, must be our differentiating factor. Our universities must now move further up the value chain and have people who can create new knowledge and innovate. They must be able to effectively transfer this new knowledge into the business and industry, so that wealth creation will ensue. This is not something that we want but need to have for our economy to grow.

The precious material in a knowledge-based economy is brain power, and investments will flow to wherever there is a concentration of this. The Research Triangle Park in the state of North Carolina, where Deputy Prime Minister Tan and I visited recently, clearly exemplifies that universities can create wealth for the country. The state of North Carolina has about eight million people. Forty years ago, its per capita income was the second lowest in the USA, only above the state of Mississippi. They were very much dependent on tobacco, textiles and agricultural industries with diminishing profits.

The leaders from business, academia and industry, with the help from legislators, decided to start a research park based on their three leading universities - the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the North Carolina State University at Raleigh and the private Duke University. Today, the Research Triangle Park has achieved the wealth creation effect. Gross revenue generated last year was US$6.5 billion and the park provides work for 44,000 residents. The average incomes of the state have risen to be equivalent to the average income earned in the USA, and workers within the park earn 120% of the median income of workers within the USA. The average salary is about US$55,000 a year.

This story of brains attracting investments is repeated across the USA and, indeed, much of the world, eg, the Oresund Region based in Sweden and Denmark. Some are planned more than others, but the elements of success are the same. Multi-national industrial corporations are moving away from their central laboratories to congregations of brains to mine for ideas. This creates wealth and it is a virtuous cycle.

There are cogent lessons to be learnt. The first is that our universities must become engines of growth for our economy, not only just produce graduates to support the economy. All our public universities must find their niche in creating wealth. How can we help them do this? We can do so by matching capabilities with resources; allowing students and, indeed, faculties to move at the desired pace. We must create a robust eco-system incorporating our public universities, ie, NUS, NTU and SMU, research institutions and even private universities. We must allow each university and, indeed, each faculty or discipline within that university, to differentiate itself and find its niche in this economic imperative.

25% of our students will go to university by 2010. They will have differing capabilities and strengths. I agree absolutely with Dr Amy Khor that the university cannot try to be 'all things to all men'. Our universities must respond to that diversity, take ownership of their students, faculty and institutions, and understand their mission accordingly. Not all can or will want to do research. Some would prefer to be more industrially-oriented. So it is not only about setting up a fourth or even a fifth university, as Dr Amy Khor and Mr Iswaran enquired, but about establishing a university system that can fulfill our desired goals.

We have not come to a conclusion, but the multi-campus model for NUS appears attractive for a number of reasons. By introducing a multi-campus structure, we can build on the strengths of our existing universities and still promote diversity. We can allow each campus to develop strengths in different disciplines. For example, the University of North Carolina (UNC) system is a state university comprising 16 campuses. The UNC at Chapel Hill is a centre of excellence in liberal arts and professional disciplines, while the North Carolina State University has a strong engineering school, with an emphasis on industrial engagement and entrepreneurship.

Within the scenario of a multi-campus NUS, we can imagine the campus at Kent Ridge focusing more on R&D, together with research institutions in engineering, medicine and the sciences. NUS at Outram could house a graduate medical school and expand into biomedical sciences and nursing. NUS (X) would excel in industrially-oriented engineering and info-communications technology. We could also create a creative cluster within NUS (X) by incorporating the Arts Faculty, Architecture and a School of Design, Media and Visual Arts. Mr Iswaran asked if multi-campuses would drag down the flagship campus. It did not in the UNC system. We do not think it would in ours.

Whatever the form, the over-arching mission for universities to bring wealth to Singapore will remain the raison d'etre. My committee will need to study all the options of expansion carefully and examine which will create a university sector that is best for Singapore. We target to complete our study by the end of 2002.

On a final note, I could not agree more with Mr Zainul Abidin when he says that we must inculcate a sense of bonding and social responsibility in our graduates from ITE, the polytechnics and the universities. We have chosen to invest heavily in their education for a brighter future. It is up to each of them to determine how he or she repays that debt to society.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: On a point of clarification, Sir. In my speech, when I was referring to people, I was referring to those who deserve a second chance at being admitted to university, those from the polytechnics, for instance, who have been admitted to overseas universities and who have done well.

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, we are aware that we are all born unequal. Some are quick, some are naturally intelligent, but some are born inherently with learning disabilities. In view of these realities, I am proud and glad to know that MOE has started, for several years now, a special scheme called the Learning Support Programme (LSP) to assist students with innate learning problems. I was told that the LSP programme covers only two subjects, ie, Mathematics and English.

On this matter, I have several questions for the Minister. Could the Minister give the House an update on the progress of the programme and its effectiveness since its inception? Secondly, can the Minister also give the House an insight on the plans and future development of this programme? Thirdly, are there other similar programmes that are being considered to assist our students who are hindered in their learning due to one reason or another?

[Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair]

4.54 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Madam, the Learning Support Programme provides useful guidance to help students facing learning difficulties in schools. This problem arises partly due to the different qualities of pre-school programmes in Singapore.

I would like to seek the following clarifications from the Minister. How many students are undergoing the Learning Support Programme, and what is the success rate? What are the plans of the Ministry to extend this programme to all schools and at all levels? What are the resources specially set aside to conduct this programme?

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Madam, I read with interest recently that the old boys of Raffles Institution are going to invest more than a million dollars in the school's rugby programme. They want to recapture RI's past glory as the leading rugby school in Singapore. In recent years, RI is not the school we used to fear in the 1970s, when I was a school boy, and they have since lost the crown to ACS, which has not only consistently won the school's championship for all divisions, but has moved on to international competitions and won those competitions as well.

Madam, I am not raising this because as an ex-ACS boy I am afraid that we will lose the crown to RI, although I do not think it is likely, not in the next few years at least. I feel that this report touches on an even deeper issue on hand, ie, how much money should we allow schools to invest for the sake of medals and glory? Should there be a limit?

The school's sports scene, I believe, is premised on the principle of bringing out the best endeavours of our school boys and girls through amateur sports. It is founded on the spirit competition that seeks to rely as much as possible on their own ability and resources in order to achieve sporting glory. This spirit of self-reliance is important in that it helps to build and bring out the character and determination of the sportsmen and sportswomen through hard work and training. This spirit is in keeping with the ideals of education, of which sports is a necessary part. With limited resources in our schools, we have a level playing field. Hard work and training will allow every school to stand a chance of attaining national glory through sporting achievement.

Madam, enlisting outside help for massive resources may lead to adverse consequences. First, not every school in Singapore has a rich alumni to generously fund such programmes. If such funding was allowed, it would rob the incentive of the other schools, which are not so generously endowed, to compete or participate in competition where they know the playing field is not level.

Secondly, if we allow generous funding for selected sports, it would be possible for the schools to bring in top-grade sportsmen or foreign talent, and leverage on these sportsmen to win national glory. A friend of mine once remarked to me that with that level of funding, there is no need for the boys to train hard. All they need to do, for example, is to bring the top Fijian or New Zealand boys team to play for them. If that were so, would our boys and girls find the incentive to want to train hard for competition?

Madam, sports in school have the objective of instilling character and discipline in our children. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry would consider regulating the extent to which external funding may be provided for sports in schools.

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Madam, we all agree and know that many parents are very concerned about their children's future. Speaking as a parent myself, we worry whether our children can cope with the extremely competitive education system.

Yes, we parents are more concerned than our children. We are so afraid of our children not having the best and, whenever possible, many would try their best to assist their children. This feeling is so strong that even in the choice of the co-curricular activity or the CCA choice, we would like to tell our kids what they should choose. I believe this is one area where we should let our children decide and choose for themselves. This choice should be based on their personal interest and talent. And this is one area outside of the academic field that I feel we can choose to groom them.

Madam, we want the education system to prepare the future generations for the rapid changes and to produce nimble, creative and innovative minds. This should not only be done in classrooms. We must use the CCA and exploit its potential to educate our students on the other aspects of life. CCA should not be seen as a chore or burden to schools, parents and staff but, rather, as an important extension to education.

Through CCA, we can inculcate important values on discipline, leadership, social interaction, sports and healthy lifestyle. We should invest in CCA and improve the programmes.

In conclusion, Madam, as we grow as a young nation and further improve our education system, we should strive to have a more holistic approach towards education. Academic excellence should not be the only thrust of education. A child should be nurtured on values, such as national education, community spirit, social services, voluntarism and sports. This will nurture a well-rounded individual with strong community ties. Ultimately, our education system should aim to develop citizens who are able to put Singapore and community before self. And I believe the co-curricular activity is an important aspect of such a system.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad: Madam, with the pressure of living mounting in every facet of life, including in our schools, it is important for us to continually build confidence and self-esteem, particularly in our young. The Prime Minister is sensing the erosion of Singaporeans' confidence as a result of the economic downturn and has, in fact, asked us, his fellow MPs, to lift the spirit and inject a greater degree of confidence in our people.

Madam, while he is seeing this in an economic context, similar confidence building should also be done in our schools. I officiated at a school ceremony in my constituency recently where the National Youth Achievement Award (NYAA) scheme has been used to maximum advantage to inculcate excellence and develop its students to their full potential. 5.00 pm

Of over 300 students who participated in the scheme, 99% of them received at least a Bronze Award. This is no small feat considering the amount of time and effort the school has to put in to make sure that all the students go through the rigour of the entire course. The students I met appeared to be very confident of themselves and are highly motivated. I would like to suggest that MOE adopt a strategy to require all schools to send a certain minimum number of their students to participate in the NYAA Scheme so that these students could be role models for the rest of their school counterparts.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Mdm Chairman, we have always taken pride in our academic achievements. Our children have in general performed much better than students in many other countries, even some of the developed countries. The Education Ministry must be given credit for doing a great job, especially so in view of Singapore's small population base.

However, education is not just about academic achievements. Academic development is only one component of a person's development. We must aim to provide a holistic education for our children which aims to strike a balance among academic, physical, emotional, mental and social developments. In particular, I think there may be a need for us to re-look at our curriculum to strengthen our efforts in character building.

Three specific aspects need to be emphasised: moral values, social responsibility and capacity for failure.

Moral values: it is most crucial to teach our children the sense of right and wrong. If we fail in this, the society will degenerate into lawlessness. Our basis for justice and equality will disintegrate, and our academic achievement will mean nothing in the end.

Social responsibility: we must inculcate in our youths that they have a responsibility towards the society that they live in. They are not just individuals striving for their own success at the expense of others. Instead, they need to recognise the needs of the society and see themselves as part of the solution.

Capacity for failure: our own failures as well as those of others. We must learn to be tolerant of failures. We can then be willing to take risks and venture out. This is the beginning of nurturing entrepreneurs.

Madam Chairman, character building is a difficult subject to teach, as it is a rather abstract concept. It cannot be taught through classroom lessons. It has to be nurtured through life experiences.

I think, in this regard, the community involvement programme (CIP) is an excellent initiative in building up the character of our students by involving them in community projects. However, the current programme has its limitations. For example, the requisite hours of CIP is only six hours a year. Hardly anything can be done in six hours. Some schools end up visiting old folk homes, much to the annoyance of the homes. But do not get me wrong. This is still good effort. However, I think the impact is somewhat unlikely to be lasting.

Perhaps the Ministry could consider providing some guidelines on the CIP programme, without stifling creativity. I would also like to suggest to the Minister that we should encourage schools to partner maybe selected voluntary welfare organisations in designing and implementing CIP programmes. This way, it will inject greater professionalism in the CIP programmes while at the same time reduce the load of the teachers. Students may also find real life programmes more enriching and more meaningful. They may even grow up later on to become volunteers. For example, I know that NJC runs a partnership programme with the private hospitals to allow its students to be attached to the hospitals as assistants during their holidays.

Madam, character building is the key to building a progressive, committed and caring people. This is the cornerstone of our nation building. There is a Chinese saying, "Shi nian shu mu, ba nian shu ren", which means that it takes 10 years to grow a tree but it takes 100 years to grow a man. I would like to urge the Minister to review the curriculum programmes of our schools and our kindergartens to ensure sufficient attention is given to character building. We must start early, as early as pre-schools, as character building is a lifelong process.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mdm Chairman, I recently talked to an overseas scholar who told me that he never really understood what "brilliant" meant until he went to MIT in Boston. He went on to explain, "Brilliance is the ability to think on your feet and deliver a very confident and eloquent argument when called upon." According to him, there are many brilliant students in these prestigious universities who are highly eloquent and very confident in their presentation.

Madam, I do not have the privilege of an overseas education but I do agree with this understanding. To be considered brilliant, one of the key ingredients is the ability to think on our feet, stand and deliver - with the confidence and eloquence.

Confidence and eloquence are something that can be built and trained. Although not every child will grow up to score 100 marks for eloquence, or become super-confident, they should at least score an A or a B+ with more training and more practice.

Sadly speaking, I do not see this being emphasised in our schools. The current education system expects our children to sit quietly and listen to the teachers in a class setting. When children make any noise, they are told to keep quiet and shut up, or stand up and get out. These acts are not helpful in the building of confidence and speaking skills. They will all learn to keep their mouths tightly shut like the fishes in Jack Neo's movie, "I Not Stupid". This will be at society's loss.

Madam, I hope the Education Minister can see this point of view and look into implementing greater emphasis to help build the confidence of our children and students in public speaking, encouraging them to speak up and build up their eloquence. Together with the current curriculum and emphasis on knowledge and skills, we will have developed a new generation of future leaders for Singapore - brilliant and talented.

Mr Ong Ah Heng: (In Mandarin): Madam, the number of juvenile delinquency cases has dropped from 3,400 in 1999 to 2,500 in 2001. The number of cases involving students also dropped from 2,200 in 1999 to 1,500 in 2001. In Singapore's context, these figures are still high.

My main concern is about the problem faced by students in the neighbourhood schools. I notice that many of these students have been recruited by street gangs to be their members. The street gangs make use of them to sell pirated CDs in the neighbourhood. I am worried about their future. I often wonder what else can these young and innocent students do?

Street gang members who come from low-income families probably were forced by circumstances to join the gangs. Perhaps, they wanted more income. It may well be that they are under the illusion that these street gangs can offer them more protection and care than what their families could give them! Their parents have to work the whole day, and probably even at night, to make ends meet. They are unable to monitor the activities of their children.

As for those coming from middle and upper-income families they probably join them because they want the company of these "friends". Perhaps they are the neglected ones. Although their parents can offer them material comfort, they lack the concern, guidance and support of their parents. Very often, the gang leaders are normally those who have the most pocket money to spend.

We must consider ourselves lucky that in Singapore, possession and carrying of guns and other dangerous weapons are prohibited. Otherwise, incidents like the shooting in the school campuses in the United States may well happen in Singapore too.

The Chairman: Mr Ong, can you please ask your questions? You have half a minute more.

Mr Ong Ah Heng: (In Mandarin) Because of this concern, I hope that the Ministry of Education and the schools will think of some ways to save these wayward students. No doubt, it is the responsibility of parents to see to it that their children are well-behaved. But, more often than not, the parents are too busy working to earn their livelihood. The schools can help by paying more attention to the conduct of their students. Give them more healthy and wholesome extra-curricular activities, and teach them how to behave, so that they can become good citizens.

We know that the birth rate is low in Singapore. Even the Prime Minister is worried about this trend. With the families having just a couple of children each, the parents should be more focused in bringing up their children. If the children are not properly brought up, they may turn wayward, and their future will be very bleak indeed!

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Madam, we all are well aware of the problem of teen-gangs in Singapore and our schools. In one of my recent block visits, I spoke to a gentleman who was very concerned for his nephew whom he said was involved with teen-gangs. He was upset and said that more should be done and could be done between schools and the police to reduce the problem.

He said that schools could work closely with the police to eradicate this menace. He is upset and understandably so, because he has a nephew that he loves who is involved with these gangs and his life and future could be affected by their unruly and illegal activities. I am sure that there are more parents out there who are faced with similar problems. We have also read and seen reports on how bold these gangs have become. And if we do not address this early, they will become bolder and more daring.

In this respect, may I ask the Minister the following questions:

(1) What are the steps that have been taken to curb these teen-gang problems?

(2) Are enough resources in place to assist students to quit the teen-gangs?

(3) What are the common traits, if any, among the students that are involved in gangs?

(4) Is there a task force at national level to tackle this issue?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Mr Zainudin and Dr Teo Ho Pin spoke about the Learning Support Programme (LSP). Both Mr Zainudin and Dr Teo asked if LSP could be extended to Primary 3 and beyond. Mr Zainudin asked whether the LSP would be expanded to include more subjects.

The Learning Support Programme is an early intervention language and literacy programme, first introduced in primary schools in 1992, to provide additional support to students in Primary 1 and Primary 2 who are educationally `at-risk' of failing in school. Each year, about 10% to 15% of Primary 1 and Primary 2 students are supported in the Learning Support Programme.

The LSP is implemented in all primary schools. The schools are provided with an additional teacher and this allows students in the LSP to be taught in small groups of eight to 12. Where the school cohort is large or has a high proportion of `at-risk' students, a second additional teacher has been provided. A purpose-built classroom for LSP has also been factored into all new schools and those undergoing PRIME.

On average, Learning Support Programme students start school at P1 with limited reading skills, equivalent to children of less than five years of age. In 2001, after 10 months of intervention in LSP, the average reading age of LSP students increased to seven years of age. They were therefore almost on par with the rest of the Primary 1 cohort in terms of their reading skills. Improvements in reading carry over to the classroom, and increase the students' ability to learn new materials. This is reflected in the improvement in pass rates of students in the LSP. For example, in 2001, less than half (45%) of Primary 1 LSP students passed English at SA1 (or mid-year examination). By the second semestral examination at the end of the year, the pass rate was 65%.

At the end of Primary 1, 60% of the LSP students are discharged from the programme. The remaining students continue to receive support in Primary 2. These are typically students who have failed the semestral examination at the end of Primary 1, or whose reading ages are still below their chronological age. Given another year of support in Primary 2, the majority of these students will successfully bridge the gap with their peers, in terms of literacy and language skills. 5.15 pm

The LSP is now in its 11th year of implementation. Over the years, the programme has developed and improved such that we are currently obtaining results that are close to optimal levels. MOE allocates resources according to what will work effectively in meeting the different needs of our students. Instead of extending the LSP to Primary 3, we will focus our resources on introducing an LSP for Mathematics, as this has been identified as an area of need by schools.

LSP for Mathematics is currently implemented in 50 schools for this year on a pilot basis. These schools are provided with an additional teacher to implement the programme. A two-year study is underway to determine the optimal level of implementation for LSP for Mathematics. If proven successful, the programme will be rolled out to all schools in phases.

Sir, other than the LSP, we have another programme to help students at lower primary level who have problems with their work. We call it the Encouraging Achievement and Better Learning programme (ENABLE). Started in 1989, the ENABLE programme is a focused diagnostic remedial programme that caters to the underachievers in Primary 1 to Primary 3 with at least average ability. Each school has an ENABLE coordinator and teachers trained to provide systematic remediation for identified underachieving pupils. Trained teachers provide remediation in English and/or Mathematics with an emphasis on diagnostic teaching to underachievers twice a week after curriculum time. Approximately 13% to 17% of P1 to P3 students are in the ENABLE programme.

On co-curricular activities, Mr Zainudin asked about plans to enhance the CCA programme. He also spoke of parents' concerns about the children spending too much time on CCA. Mr Zainudin urged that parents let the children decide on the CCA that the children would like to participate in. I think we should leave it to parents to decide with their children what best suits the children. I do not think MOE would want to meddle in what parents and students should best decide for themselves.

Mr Gan Kim Yong spoke of the importance of character building and national education. Schools place great importance on character development and national education. We actively promote character development through the Civic and Moral Education programme, CCA programme and the pastoral care programme. The CCA programme forms an integral component of our education system. Sports is one major component of the school's CCA programme. The other areas include the uniformed groups, music and dance, and various clubs and societies. CCA engages students in a meaningful way, provide opportunities for character and leadership development, and promote the acquisition and application of social and cooperative skills.

On Mr Gan's remark that schools should partner with community development, I think I fully agree with him. In fact, schools are already partnering with community organisations in implementing the Community Improvement Programme (CIP). I think we can encourage more schools to do that so that not only would their partners benefit, but our students too would benefit from learning in providing service.

To encourage innovation, independent schools have been given the autonomy to decide on the niche it wants to develop in. I would like to inform Mr Sin Boon Ann that MOE funds Independent Schools on the same per capita basis as Government secondary schools. MOE has no objection if independent schools can acquire additional funding, whether through sponsorship or fund raising activities, to put in place various schemes in order to provide a well-rounded education for their students. MOE will not disallow ACS for building its own swimming pool, even though it may give ACS an unfair advantage over other schools in swimming. So we are even-handed.

I would like to thank Mr Gan for highlighting the importance of character building. As I mentioned earlier, we have also developed and implemented the National Education programme since 1997. National Education, which places a premium on responsible citizenship, has been integrated into the different subjects and incorporated in many school activities. Besides these, each student is required to perform a minimum of six hours of community service under the Community Involvement Programme and go on a Learning Journey each per year. Through the CIP, we help to instil in our students a conscience to give back to society and develop them into socially responsible adults. Through Learning Journeys, we hope our students will be able to complement their learning in the classroom of what makes Singapore tick, and foster bonding among themselves as they observe and learn about Singapore's vulnerabilities.

In fact, because of the vast range of co-curricular activities in schools, MOE developed the Character Development Programme in 2001 to guide schools in providing for a balanced programme for each student in three domains: (1) leadership, (2) citizenship, and (3) personal and social development. Activities in the leadership domain are designed to provide opportunities for students to lead as they serve, and to serve as they lead. Under the citizenship domain, activities are organised to help students acquire values, such as loyalty and commitment to nation. In the social and personal domain, students are exposed to activities that heighten their awareness of oneself and their relationship with others.

On the average, students attend CCAs once a week with some doing it twice a week. Generally, students find CCAs manageable, fun and enjoyable, and therefore do not consider it as a burden, or source of stress. In many instances, the interest acquired through participation in a particular CCA becomes a life-long pursuit and the friendships formed lasting ones.

While the academic development of children is important, parents should not overlook the fact that purposeful participation in CCAs provides a good balance to academic pursuits in schools. It also provides our students with a well-balanced life and holistic education. Parents and schools should help children manage their time well, so that they can cope with both school work and CCAs. So we will not meddle but we hope parents will be able to advise their children.

Mr Ahmad Magad would be pleased to note that MOE recognises students' involvement in the National Youth Achievement Award (NYAA) scheme as part of their CCA and awards them CCA points. Since the NYAA's inception in 1992 and up to January this year, 34,000 youths have been registered in the scheme and, of this, 90% are secondary school students. To date, 10,000 students from 171 secondary schools, junior colleges and centralised institutes have received the various NYAA awards. This is a strong indication that students in our secondary schools are actively involved in the NYAA scheme. In fact, the scheme has been so successful and well received by secondary schools that it will now be extended to 10 primary schools on a pilot basis.

Mr Steve Chia spoke about the need for students to develop confidence and eloquence. The building of confidence and eloquence requires a combination of verbal competence, critical thinking, emotional control and opportunity for practice. The development of verbal competence is provided for in the academic curriculum, which emphasises crititical thinking and the acquisition of language and communication skills. Schools provide students with life skills lessons to equip students with tools for personal and interpersonal effectiveness. Schools also provide opportunities for students to develop self-confidence through co-curricular activities.

Madam, on school discipline, Mr Zainudin and Mr Ong Ah Heng raised some concerns regarding school discipline and gangsterism. I would like to assure Mr Zainudin and Mr Ong that the overall state of discipline in our schools is good. Serious cases of breach of discipline are infrequent and gangsterism is not a problem in school. The Ministry of Home Affairs' statistics indicate that the number of students aged 12 to 19 years who are dealt with for involvement in gang-related activities is low. There were 142 in 1999, 154 in year 2000, and 139 in year 2001. So I am not sure what is the source of information that Mr Ong had given the House earlier. These form less than 0.06% of the students within this age range. Girls account for a small proportion of the cases of gangsterism.

Notwithstanding, schools are mindful of the need to be vigilant against the development of gangsterism among students. Schools have formal structures to actively deal with discipline problems. When students are identified as being involved in gang-related activities, schools take steps to counsel them.

Since 1997, MOE has been collaborating with the Police to set up as one of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Youth Crime initiatives, the Honorary Voluntary Special Constabulary Scheme (Hon VSC Scheme). More than 200 Discipline Masters, Operations Managers and teachers have since been trained and appointed as Honorary VSC officers in schools. This serves as an extension of police presence to keep youth-gang influence away from our schools.

Schools cannot be solely responsible for the discipline of our young. Parents, schools and the community have a shared responsibility in ensuring the proper behaviour of our children. Schools work closely with parents to involve them in educating their children and to provide the necessary home support to sustain the changes in behaviour. MOE will continue to work with other Ministries and agencies and community to coordinate and develop initiatives to arrest disciplinary problems and further improve school discipline.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Madam, the Compulsory Education Act has two specific objectives. The first is to provide our children with a common core of knowledge, and the second is to ensure that they share a common experience. Seen in this light, the Act is therefore an important piece of social legislation. Its key objective is to change behaviour and mindset towards education so that education is given the top priority which it deserves.

The introduction of this Act is timely, as the number of children who fails to register for Primary 1 has been rising steadily. According to a newspaper report, 1,677 children did not register for Primary 1 in 1997. It went up to 1,708 in 1998 and, in 1999, it was 1,921, which is about 3% of the cohort. In 2000 and 2001, it was estimated that about 2,000 children a year did not make it to school. However, in my view, legislating a problem alone will not make the problem go away. I am quite sure that even when the MOE starts enforcing the Act next year, there will continue to be parents who will not register their children for Primary 1.

In addition to legislation, we need to identify what are the underlying causes which prevent parents from sending their children to school and address them. I am aware the reasons could include children who are sent to madrasahs, or are overseas, or are being taught at home. Other than this group, other children could be kept away from school because of their parents' ignorance, poor priority accorded to education and, perhaps a major concern, financial difficulties. I would like to ask the Minister what measures have been put in place to identify and reach out to such children who are at risk, to render assistance to their families and to regularly monitor them so that once they are attracted to school, they will not drop out of it.

On the second point, under this Act also, all students of madrasahs are required to sit for the PSLE examination in the year 2011. Madrasahs suffer from a constraint of manpower and other resources compared to the national schools and they will face difficulties in meeting the requirements of the Compulsory Education Act, if nothing is done to assist them. In this respect, may I ask the Ministry what assistance is being rendered to madrasahs to help them prepare their students to sit for the PSLE examinations in 2001?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Madam Chairman, the Ministry's continued effort to provide education for children with special disabilities, together with the VWOs, and NCSS is indeed commendable. Despite these improvements made and resources committed to special education, there remain some areas of concern, especially to parents of children with special needs. I would like to highlight two of these concerns. 5.30 pm

My first concern refers to the high staff turnover and low morale of special school teachers. I understand that special schools are plagued by high staff turnover and often low morale among the teachers due to less attractive terms and conditions of employment and poorer career advancement prospects compared to teachers in the mainstream school. This is an anomaly because it is, without doubt, more difficult and challenging to teach children with special needs than it is to teach mainstream pupils. It requires special training, a different set of skills, and a love that transcends physical handicap. Those who continue in this calling despite such odds, exhibit a spirit of noble self-sacrifice, and their life should not be made harder by poor rewards and lack of recognition. They should not be made to feel that teaching in special education schools belong to the realm of social welfare and it is not a legitimate profession and, therefore, can be paid a lower salary.

My second concern refers to integration into mainstream schools. Madam, children with special needs should be integrated into mainstream schools where possible, as this would help in the intellectual and social development of high-functioning special-needs children. Other children in the school can also benefit enormously by interacting with the special-needs children and learn that they have a responsibility towards these less fortunate kids.

Madam, in this respect, I am pleased to note that the Ministry currently has six designated mainstream secondary schools that admit the hearing-impaired and visually-handicapped children. I would like to urge the Minister to consider extending this programme to mainstream primary schools. Designated primary schools in each region of Singapore could be equipped to cater to children with special needs who have been assessed to be capable of integrating into mainstream schools. This could take place, say, at the upper primary level, from Primary 4. I understand that the Canossian School for the Hearing Impaired already offers such opportunities. However, there is a need for more of such schools, to allow as many children as possible who are capable of integrating into the mainstream to enrol and benefit from the system. Early intervention has been found by experts to be of great importance in the successful rehabilitation of children with special needs. Hence, we should provide such facilities at primary schools that can maximise the chance of successful rehabilitation of these children.

Madam, I feel that it is now time for us to work harder on building our social capital and accord every child, including those with special needs, a chance to develop their potential to the fullest. I, therefore, urge the Minister to consider the issues I have raised to further improve our special education system.

The Chairman: Dr Khor, would you like to continue with the next cut?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Madam, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: OK. Mr Gan Kim Yong.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Madam, there have been recent studies pointing to the value of pre-school education. These studies suggest that much of a child's capacity to learn self-confidence, self-respect, his ability to communicate and his attitude towards learning are determined during the first six years of a child's life, before the start of formal education. There have been some suggestions in the past that the benefits of pre-school education may not be lasting. However, long-term studies have now been done, and these studies show that children who have had pre-school education tend to do better later in life, even as late as age 27, at which the study was done. These are in terms of social responsibility, educational performance and economic achievement. By that, it means how much they earn. Obviously, these studies have their limitations, but the results warrant a serious review of our policy towards pre-school education.

Madam, the Ministry of Education spends $16,600 per university student at the top of the scale, and $3,200 per primary school student at the other end. I am not questioning the basis of this ratio. However, I am rather sad that we spend little or almost nothing at all on pre-school education. A total of 98,000 children are attending kindergartens today. A significant number of our children either do not go to kindergartens or they drop out after a short while. Based on my discussions with some self-help groups, most of these tend to be the lower income families who could not afford the unsubsidised fees. As these children move on to primary level, they would find it difficult to compete with those who have had pre-school education. Yet, the same families would again find it difficult to provide added help, such as tuition classes, to help them catch up. It is, therefore, a double jeopardy for these families. Pre-school education cannot equalise every child, but it certainly can at least narrow the gap.

I would like to urge the Government to consider providing more resources to pre-school education. I would like to suggest that at least the following areas should be looked into. Firstly, providing funding for selected non-profit kindergartens; secondly, provide guidelines on basic curriculum; and, thirdly, specify minimum qualifications of teachers.

For funding, the Government should not subsidise kindergartens which are profit-oriented, but should consider helping those which are being run purely as social service to the community.

The Chairman: Mr Gan, you will have to wrap up your speech.

Mr Gan Kim Yong: Madam, other than providing funding, we believe that the Government should also provide guidelines on basic curriculum that are broad enough to leave room for creative teaching. There is also a critical need to upgrade the quality of our kindergarten teachers, not just providing the funding, but also to provide the teaching facilities.

Madam, we have gone a long way in our formal education. Many of us are proud of our achievements. It is time we looked at pre-school education in a more intensive and focused manner so that it becomes an integral part of our total education policy. It will then make our education policy complete.

Mr Zainudin Nordin: At the risk of sounding like a spoilt recorder, I would like to propose to the Ministry of Education to seriously consider bringing the early childhood education into the formal education system. Put it directly under the purview of MOE. This portion of our education system has mostly been left to community organisations and the private sector. We know that the Ministry of Education has some initiatives and programmes in this area. Are these enough? Can we do more?

I honestly believe we can and we should do more in the area of pre-school education. As the pressure for economic excellence continues, we will see more dual-income earning families. Parents need support to cope with the growing trends and phenomena.

There are many developed countries that have incorporated pre-school education into primary education. There must be many reasons that compelled them to do so. As we progress and more of our female citizens go out to join the workforce, we will encounter more demands for a better and structured pre-school system existing under mainstream education.

The passing of the compulsory education law is a landmark decision and, I believe, the next significant decision, and a more important one, is to incorporate the foundation years into mainstream education provided by MOE.

Madam, we must provide our children the equal opportunity to education at the earliest age possible. Many experts have deliberated on the importance of the foundation years, and many have agreed. There are many parents in this House and, if we, as parents, sincerely believe otherwise, we would not have sent our kids to nurseries and kindergartens. Instead, we are sending them to the best possible nursery and kindergartens. Why is that so? Does it mean that pre-school is not important? On the contrary, we know deep down in our hearts that it is important. If so, I still could not understand why the Ministry of Education, which is supposed to be the protector and torch-bearer of education in this country, takes a laissez faire attitude towards pre-school education when it can play a more decisive role.

The more senior Members of this House would probably be able to recall that in 1979, the pre-primary system was implemented in some schools. The purpose was for bilingual education, ie, to give students equal exposure to both Mandarin and English. It was a worthwhile exercise and the Ministry of Education then had the motivation, the vision and boldness to see it implemented.

The Chairman: Mr Zainudin, can you please ask your questions?

Mr Zainudin Nordin: It was discontinued in 1989. Now, in the year 2002, we should ask ourselves: are the reasons more compelling? The answer is yes.

Mr Iswaran: Madam, for the pre-school system, the terrain is characterised by a bewildering array of choice by any parameter. If we look at fees, we have a few tens of dollars of monthly fees to over a thousand dollars. If we look at pedagogic methods, we have the whole range - from Montessori to all forms of experimental and the very traditional classroom-based methods. If we look at it from the angle of the sort of emphasis it has on language and so on, again, there are some that are specialist or known for their English, and others for their Mandarin and so on. This is a diversity that ought to be celebrated and welcomed, if it were underpinned by a few key parameters and considerations, and I would like to outline them.

The first is quality assurance. We can have diversity in teaching methods, classroom style and so on but, at the end of the day, parents want to be assured that a core curriculum that is necessary in preparing the child for Primary 1 is being delivered. And this is one area in which MOE could make a difference. The Ministry has said that it does not want to get involved in pre-school education. But it can play the role of a quality assurer or, at least, a quality prescriber.

The second is in the area of teacher training. Several colleagues have mentioned this. I just want to stress the point that we need to professionalise pre-school teaching, and that means training is essential and the Ministry must play a catalytic role in this regard, because the output of the PSE system is the input of the primary school system.

Finally, on the issue of access, it would be desirable for us to create a situation where every child would be able to get access to at least two years of pre-school education. Cost is an inhibitor and there are other factors as well.

Two years ago, Dr Aline Wong told this House - she was then the Senior Minister of State for Education - that MOE was embarking on a pilot research programme to establish the long-term cognitive and non-cognitive benefits of pre-school education so that the Ministry can assess what level of Government investment is justifiable in pre-school education. The longitudinal study was expected to take seven years, but Dr Wong did give the assurance that after two to three years, if the preliminary result of the study were convincing, the Ministry would act. I would like to know what is the status of this study and what actions the Ministry is contemplating.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Madam, I have only one question for the Minister, and that is about the innovative kindergarten in Denmark. I read in the papers that a team from the Ministry of Education has visited Denmark and that they have also seen the innovative kindergartens there. I believe the members of that team have found that Denmark's innovative kindergartens have some relevance to Singapore at this point of time.

Denmark, although a very small country with only five million people, slightly more than Singapore, has produced 11 Nobel Prize winners. That speaks a lot for the education system in Denmark. I think it is good for us to study the education system there. I certainly would like to know whether the Minister shall be introducing some of the important features of the innovative kindergartens that the Singapore team saw in Denmark. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Madam, I will answer the questions that have been raised on pre-school education. Mr Zainudin has asked about the Ministry's policy towards the pre-school sector, and whether the Ministry should not in fact take responsibility for the pre-school sector, as it does for schools. Mr Gan Kim Yong spoke of the benefits of pre-school education, and asked that the Government provide funding and curriculum guidelines for pre-school education. Mr Iswaran spoke about the ways in which we could raise quality, curriculum standards and teacher training. He also asked about the progress of the Pre-school Steering Committee. And I will come to Mr Chiam's point later on. 5.45 pm

Let me start by saying that the Ministry does not view pre-school education as providing children with a simplified primary school curriculum in preparation for formal education at Primary 1. Pre-school education should aim to meet the distinct development needs of the child in his early years. It should aim to help the child develop socially, emotionally, physically, and not just provide literacy and numeracy skills to prepare the child for Primary 1.

MOE has no intention of taking over the provision of pre-school education. Various community and private organisations are providing a range of pre-school education programmes to cater to different needs. It is important to preserve this diversity for the very reason that there is no single model for developing children at an early age. I agree fully with Mr Iswaran's comments in this regard - diversity is important, especially at the pre-school stage. Parents should have a choice of pre-school models to select from, according to their preferences and their children's needs.

Instead of becoming a provider of pre-school education, MOE is therefore putting resources into areas which would have the greatest leverage on the quality of pre-school education. The Pre-School Steering Committee, which was chaired by Dr Aline Wong, and which I now chair, is an on-going Committee. It has implemented a number of initiatives which are focused on key areas of leverage. These include drawing up a set of Desired Outcomes of Pre-School Education, developing a curriculum framework, setting standards for teachers and accrediting teacher-training programmes.

MOE is also putting in place a licensing scheme to regulate kindergartens and to help ensure that standards are maintained. However, MOE has to regulate with a light touch. We can set the requirements for teacher qualifications, we can encourage kindergartens to develop coherent curricula and we can help them to achieve good standards in delivery of that curricula, but we cannot intrude to the extent that we effectively run the kindergartens. This licensing scheme is being developed. It will be introduced soon. It is essentially modelled on the scheme that MCDS has for child care centres.

The best way to leverage up the quality of pre-school education is by better training of principals and teachers, and by attracting and retaining well-qualified personnel. That is why the Government has provided, beginning from this year, annual recurrent grants to eligible kindergartens so that they can structure attractive pay schemes to incentivise training and to attract better qualified personnel. Most pre-school education providers are on track in meeting the targets that have been set for training of principals and teachers. The Joint MOE-MCDS Pre-school Qualification Accreditation Committee, which was set up last year, has to date accredited 33 courses from 15 training agencies, including the National Institute of Education, Ngee Ann Polytechnic and other private training organisations.

Mr Iswaran asked about the pilot study that was mentioned a while ago as part of the work of the Steering Committee. First, let me say that international studies on the benefits of pre-school education are varied. That is why we are embarking on a pilot study of our own, in the first instance to test the effectiveness of the new curriculum design and teaching methodologies that are being put in place. And in the longer term, to look at the benefits of improved pre-school education - the benefits in terms of cognitive development, social skills and so on. The initial two-year phase of this longitudinal study was implemented last year, and would be completed at the end of this year. The results will be made known at the beginning of next year.

Mr Iswaran had also asked if there will be a skills benchmark of sorts for different subjects that are taught at pre-schools for students who are entering Primary 1. MOE has considered this earlier and decided that the pre-school curriculum framework will not benchmark skills for different subjects in relation to the Primary 1 syllabus. The framework instead emphasises the holistic development of children - their social skills, values, communicative and motor skills, self-concept and confidence, and of course, cognitive skills.

MOE is encouraging kindergartens to move away from the current pre-dominantly academic focus towards a more balanced curriculum aimed at the all-round development of the child. There are two reasons for this. The first is that cognitive development of a child in these early years proceeds hand in hand with the development of these other basic skills, including social and communicative skills that enable a child to listen with understanding, to express himself, to be curious, and to explore. A second reason relates to what Mr Gan Kim Yong mentioned, which is the importance of character development, and the fact that the building of the character has to begin in the early years. The new curriculum framework will be disseminated at the end of this year.

Mr Chiam had commented on the need for kindergartens to be more innovative and interesting and referred to the Danish experience. One objective of developing the pre-school curriculum framework is to help kindergartens in planning and implementing more innovative programmes. Currently, there is a range of approaches adopted in the kindergartens. Some of them are quite innovative. Some kindergartens emphasise child-directed learning. Others have adopted approaches such as project work, real life situations, field trips, interest corners, dramatisation and role-playing, and fun-filled language activities. More kindergartens are also involving parents in learning activities during curriculum time. The Danish experience is interesting and so are the experiences of some other countries which we intend to study. There is something to be learned. The Danish experience is, in fact, one which focused, at an initial stage, principally on the training of teachers. This is what we are seeking to do now. This is the first and most important step in leveraging up the quality of pre-school education. We will continue to study these overseas experiences and learn what we can from their strengths, as well as their weaknesses, as we go along.

On compulsory education, Mdm Halimah raised the issue of parents who may not register their children for primary school, even though compulsory education will be coming into effect next year. Compulsory education will be implemented from next year. Registration for Primary 1 in national primary schools will take place in July and August this year. There will be media announcements and publicity on the exercise. Parents will be reminded that compulsory education will be implemented from 2003, what this means and how this can help their child. The extent of non-registration for Primary 1 for 2003 will only be known in September this year.

MOE does try to visit all cases of non-registration where they are contactable. We will be deploying people after this year's exercise to visit homes to counsel families to register their children for school. If they have financial problems, we will get the community to help them and advise them that the school can help them after they have registered. Financial difficulties are not a reason for a child not attending school. They can be attended to.

Mdm Halimah also asked about the preparedness of the madrasahs for compulsory education. The Acting Minister for Community Development and Sports and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Assoc. Prof. Yaacob Ibrahim, will be addressing this issue during MCDS' debate in the Committee of Supply.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me respond to Dr Amy Khor's question on children with special education needs (SPED). First, let me thank her for her encouragement and positive remarks.

She has asked regarding the possibility of integrating special schools with normal schools. We have, already in place, a multi-tier system to provide for the education of special needs children. Those who are able to follow the mainstream curriculum study in the mainstream schools. In certain designated schools, special facilities and additional resources are provided to help them in their learning. For example, we have about 502 pupils with hearing impairment and 61 with visual impairment in our mainstream schools. Other children who need specialised programmes and paramedical support are better served in the 19 special education schools. The key word is capability. If they can cope with the mainstream curriculum, we will expand the capacity required.

Since 1999, MOE has increased its provision of facilities and resources for disabled children, both in the mainstream and SPED schools. These include one mainstream school per cluster to be fitted with full facilities for the physically handicapped, learning equipment for the mainstream schools with hearing impaired and visually handicapped pupils, computer-related facilities for the SPED schools for sensory-impaired children and purchase of IT-related facilities and maintenance of equipment for other SPED schools.

NCSS has also put into place a structured socialisation programme to help mainstream schools and SPED school pupils integrate. The programme is working well and has proven to be effective.

As regards her comment that there is low morale and high staff turnover in these schools, first of all, these staff are under NCSS, they are not under MOE. Part of the problem is that these VWOs are disparate, many of them individually do not have the economies of scale to provide a structured career programme. We will continue to work with NCSS to try to address this problem. We will continue to look after the education of children with special needs.

The Chairman: In the interest of time, I will allow one clarification. Dr Khor.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Thank you, Madam. Just one clarification. That refers to integration of schools into mainstream schools. My understanding is, currently, it is only for designated secondary schools. What about primary schools? Are there designated primary schools for integration?

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Part of the problem is a practical one. If you are talking about putting a primary school child, with special education needs, with one in the mainstream, I think a period of time is required to assess the capability of bringing up the capability of the child with special needs. It is only after a few years that one can assess whether that child with special needs can integrate in the mainstream curriculum.

The Chairman: Dr Wang, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Madam, I thank the Minister, the two Ministers of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for their well-reasoned replies. Judging by the answers, some of what I thought were mere boulders turned out to be the outcroppings of a mountain range. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2). Mr Yeo Guat Kwang.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Mdm Chairman, I beg to move,

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

Madam, on 26th April this year, the TIMES Higher Education Supplement, a UK publication, ran a report "A Hard Sell For Easy Money". According to the report, the root of the problem of commercial schools here is that Singapore's three universities provide places for no more than 15% of 18-year olds. The alternative of going overseas to be educated is expensive. The remaining option is thus to enrol at a commercial school offering an overseas degree backed by overseas institutions. The writer said, "All you need to open up a school in Singapore is approval from the Ministry of Education (although you can call yourself a "consultant" and get away without registering)." It seems so easy like "bo jeng hu" .

I would like to ask what is the Ministry's criterion in approving the registration of commercial schools. Are these schools monitored after registration? Does the Ministry monitor the number of students taking lessons in these commercial schools?

Madam, another issue I wish to raise is that there have been many suggestions that Singapore universities can collaborate with Chinese universities to provide joint degree or Chinese MBA programmes. These suggestions are sound, as it will not only help establish networking, it can also potentially help more Singaporeans understand China better and strengthen our ability to ride on the China growth train. However, I was told that the NUS has decided not to continue its Chinese MBA programme. I would like to ask whether the Ministry will review this. 6.00 pm

Dr Ong Seh Hong: In the interest of time, Madam, I will just go straight to the questions. May I urge that the Ministry accredit and regulate all the external degree courses offered in Singapore, to protect the interest of Singaporeans, as well as those foreigners who come here to study. This is also to protect the image of Singapore as an education hub.

Secondly, I would also like to urge that the Ministry and the Public Service Commission (PSC) make public a list of universities, which they deem as reputable, when considering an application for a public service job. This would also help Singaporeans to make informed choices when selecting self-improvement courses.

The Chairman: Dr Chong is not here.

Dr Ng Eng Hen: Let me thank the Members for their comments. In my answer regarding the university sector, I spoke that many proceeded in terms of fulfilling aspirations. We have kept that to a minimum in our public universities by maintaining high standards. Therefore, the private commercial schools have now responded to their need. Do we want to keep an arm's length from it? We would like to tell the public that they would very much have to investigate the schools for themselves. We do not want to enter into the fray to decide which schools can. It is not exactly a bo jeng hu situation, as Mr Yeo Guat Kwang suggests. We do have criteria in registering commercial schools. For registration, we require private schools to demonstrate that they have adequate space and facilities to conduct their courses. They are also required to report to MOE any changes to the composition of their management committee, as well as appointment and termination of teachers. For external degree programmes, the degrees need to be granted by a bona fide overseas university, and should have minimum disparity with what is offered by the same on campus in terms of academic programmes. However, we do not accredit nor accord recognition to these external degree programmes, as it may take many forms, covering different disciplines, and can even be delivered by correspondence, or over the Internet.

A more practical approach for such programmes is to subject themselves to the test of the market.

Mr Yeo also asked about the NUS Chinese MBA programme. NUS is doing exactly what he has suggested. They are collaborating with the Bei Tah University. Students would spend one year in Bei Tah, and one year in NUS, taking a total of 22 modules in both English and Chinese. In addition, the programme includes Student Exchange Programmes with some Chinese universities, such as the Xin Hua, Fu Tan, and Xian Jiau Dong University. There are plans to expand this list of universities to include Nanjing and Jongshan universities.

The Chairman: Mr Yeo, would you like to withdraw your amendment?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Mdm Chairman, I beg to move,

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

(In Mandarin): The Ministry of Education has a long-standing policy where stalls in school canteens are allocated to needy Singaporeans so that they can earn a decent living. This is a good policy that kills two birds with one stone as it serves to provide good and affordable food to the school children and, at the same time, help the poor and needy. However, this kind of arrangement seems to have stopped. Has the Ministry changed its policy? If so, why? As it is today, we are seeing more and more schools shifting to the tender system, and the successful bidders then subcontract the canteen stalls out to third party stallholders. The stalls are no longer being allocated to the poor and needy.

With a large number of schools coming under the Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME) and the merger of schools, I am concerned about the plight of affected stallholders. What assistance does the Ministry extend to them? What arrangements have been made for those who have been dropped?

Many parents have also an additional worry as school canteens are increasingly being run by contractors, or when new technology such as smart cards are introduced, would the level of food prices be maintained or increased? Does the Ministry monitor the prices regularly and try to prevent the prices from being inflated?

Mr Ong Ah Heng: (In Mandarin): Mdm Chairman, I am raising the same issue. Many a time when I met my residents, I received complaints that when the schools are upgraded, the prices of food at the canteen are also upgraded. A plate of chicken rice which used to be sold for 50 cents is now being sold at $1, a 100% increase! Last night, I met a resident who is a hawker at the Ahmad Ibrahim School. He told me that the school would be upgraded next month, and an open tender will be called for the operation of the school canteen. With these canteens being operated on an open tender system, soon we will have "Million Dollar Canteens" just like the "Million Dollar Coffeeshop" that we are having now.

That being the case, how are the students going to afford the food at the "Million Dollar Canteen"? If you are outside, you can say, "Well, the food here is too expensive, I do not want to buy from here as I can get my food elsewhere." But, if you are in a school, you cannot go outside to buy your food. If you do not buy from the school canteen, you will just starve to death. So, if a plate of chicken rice is now being sold at $1 or $2 and even a glass of soft-drink will cost 60 cents, I believe children from the lower income group will not be able to afford it. If the poor family has three children studying in school, then the burden will be very heavy for the parents. I hope that the Minister for Education would reconsider this matter.

We should have control over the prices. The canteen should be let out to the operators at a nominal price. We should look after the children so that they have healthy food to eat. As such, the school canteen should be charged just a nominal rent, and not an open tender price. There must also be stipulations on how much they can charge for each food item.

I am the Adviser to the National Transport Workers' Union. We have some food kiosks at the bus terminals to serve our bus drivers. There, they charge 25 cents for a cup of coffee, and nothing more. A plate of fried noodle is $1, and that is it. Of course, the food kiosk operators are charged very nominal rents to operate at the bus terminus. We should look after the interest of the lower income people. We must review this open tender system for school canteens.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Madam, the school tuckshops exist primarily to serve the needs of students. Hence, the cornerstone of MOE's tuckshop policy is the welfare and interest of the students.

Schools are committed to ensure that tuckshop stallholders are able to provide not only good services, but also cater to the nutritional needs of students and that the food sold in the tuckshop is wholesome, and at reasonable prices.

The primary consideration for the selection of stallholders is, therefore, the ability and suitability of the applicants.

The single tender system introduced in 1987 provides an alternative for the provision of tuckshop services to schools. In line with MOE's policy of giving principals more autonomy in the administration of their schools, the existing practice is that new schools, or schools to be relocated to new buildings, can opt for the single tender system, as long as students get good value for their money.

Today, a total of 16 Government schools, or 6% of the total number of 253 Government schools, have opted for this system. The number is quite small. The majority of the existing Government schools are still on the individual stallholders' system. Under the single tender system, schools call a tender to invite a single operator to manage all the foodstalls in the tuckshop at controlled prices. The bidding rental ranges from $320-$2,000 per month at Government schools. Irrespective of whichever tuckshop systems, schools are required to evaluate the food prices and quality proposed by the contractor or stallholder before they are awarded the right to run the stalls. The single operator also would need to seek approval from schools to sublet the stalls. Schools would need to ensure that this approach would not increase food pricing.

On food prices, one perception of the single tender system is that it may result in higher food prices. Indeed, Mr Ong and Mr Yeo have raised this concern, and I am sure a lot of Members here are concerned about that possibility. A survey conducted in September 1998 showed that the average price of food and drink items sold in school tuckshop under the single tender system and those under the individual stallholder system, was of little difference. Feedback received from schools under the single tender system in February 2000 also showed that food quality and prices were maintained at reasonable level.

Madam, it will take me probably until 7.00 pm if I were to read out the details of the difference in prices between those at single stall and individual stallholder system. But, let me just give some examples. Under the single tender system (STS), at primary school level for cooked food, the average price is 88 cents, whereas under the individual stallholder system is 81 cents. So the difference is only 7 cents. For hot drinks, 44 cents at single tender system and 49 cents at normal stall. Cold drinks, 60 cents at single tender stall and 61 cents at individual stall. So on the average, the price is about 64 cents at the single tender system stall and 63 cents at the normal school stall. So the price difference is really marginal.

Each school has a school tuckshop committee to manage its tuckshop. This committee is chaired by the Principal, and comprises representatives of the school staff. This committee monitors the food quality and prices in the tuckshop regularly to ensure compliance, and for consistency of the service quality.

The Ministry has reduced the tuckshop fees for the individual stallholder system in January 2002. Under the new scheme, individual stallholders pay only a nominal rental ranging from $5-$15 per month, depending on the pupil enrolment in the school. The previous rates ranged from $50-$60, in return stallholders are to pay utilities charges directly to Power Supply. Under PRIME, about 90 schools would be merged or relocated. Schools which are affected by merger would have to go through a re-selection process of stallholders since the number of stalls available, after merger, will be reduced. The relocating schools can either retain their existing individual tuckshop stallholders, opt for the re-selection process or for the single tender system. Existing stallholders who are affected by merger or relocation of schools would be automatically shortlisted for interview, if they apply for a tuckshop stall, either in the current school, or in the new school. Their past experience will be give due consideration during the selection process.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Is it not expensive to pay for an average of 60 cents for a cold drink, and if I heard it correctly, the Parliamentary Secretary said the survey was conducted in September 1998? Is there any survey conducted recently? Whichever system the school adopts, how are we going to ensure that they really charge reasonable pricing?

Mr Ong Ah Heng: I do not quite agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I will give him the name of the school that has increased the cost of a plate of chicken rice from 50 cents to $1 tomorrow. What the Parliamentary Secretary said about the increase being in terms of cents, I do not think is concrete proof. I am not convinced. Sometimes maybe the feedback ---

The Chairman: Mr Ong, do you want the Parliamentary Secretary to give you a reply?

Mr Ong Ah Heng: According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the single tenderer has to get permission from the principal in order to sublet. The principal has no choice but to approve, because if I were a Chinese, and I want to sell Muslim food, the principal cannot say, "I do not allow you to sublet." He has to allow him to sublet because, even if he knows how to cook Muslim food, MUIS would not agree. So the question here is when a single tenderer sublets to an individual tenderer, what is the price? How many percent do they add on to the sub-rental? So, in order to pay the sub-rental, he has to sell the food at a higher price.

The Chairman: Mr Ong, do you want the Parliamentary Secretary to give you a reply?

Mr Ong Ah Heng: I want him to reply whether the Ministry has a close supervision on that.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: I explained earlier that the school, through the canteen committee, does supervise the price. The single tender operator cannot determine the price or the rental fee for the individual stall as he likes. He has to get the approval of the principal and the canteen committee. If Mr Ong Ah Heng has --- 6.15 pm

The Chairman: Order. It is 6.15 pm. Mr Yeo, can you please withdraw your amendment?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Mdm Chairman, I will file another question to get a full answer from the Ministry. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $4,896,474,400 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $1,895,299,100 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head L -

The Chairman: Head L - Ministry of the Environment. Dr Teo.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Madam, I beg to move,

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

The Green Plan 2012 is the environmental master plan for the next 10 years for Singapore. It sets out key strategic directions in balancing sustainable development and having a quality living environment in Singapore. As Singapore restructures its economy, the composition of its industries may change drastically from one of manufacturing-based to healthcare and life sciences. This poses new challenges to our environmental management efforts.

Besides adopting the existing principle of planning, monitoring and enforcement, I would like to propose that the Environment Ministry conduct environmental impact analysis for projects with high impact on the environment.

Madam, I wish to seek the following clarifications from the Minister:

(1) What are the key performance indicators for Green Plan 2012?

(2) What are the key strategies to promote sustainable

development?

(3) What are the key plans to manage solid waste in

land scarce Singapore?

(4) How can the Ministry promote the development of environmental conscience among Singaporeans?

Mr Iswaran: The Singapore Green Plan 2012 in a way encapsulates certain balances that have to be made in the context of the dilemma of development. As Singapore is scaling up the economic ladder, there is growing international expectation that we will do our part in not just setting a good example in environment management but also promulgating and propagating it. At the same time, Singaporeans' own expectation of environmental issues and our compliance to them is rising. And, yet, we have to assess the economic impact of onerous environmental standards, especially in this economic environment which is very competitive and cost pressures are great.

I see the Green Plan 2012 as an effort to address this challenge to meet Singaporeans' aspirations, to live up to our responsibilities within the international community and, at the same time, trying to balance our economic and social interests. I do have, however, some specific questions and proposals which I would like the Minister to respond to.

The first is that the plan outlines some very specific targets that are to be attained over a 10-year period. This pertains to recycling rate where the target is an overall 60%, that is, where 67% of land is to be water catchment and 60% of electricity generated is to be from natural gas. I would like to ask how realistic are these targets, given our city state environment. How do they compare with developed countries and are we over-stretching or keeping pace?

Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister what is the potential impact of such targets, and the Green Plan in general, on businesses. I am particularly concerned about small businesses, and whether compliance to some of the new initiatives that are being considered by the Ministry of the Environment might have an adverse effect on business cost, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Thirdly, the Green Plan envisages the people, private and public sector involvement in the realisation of its vision. I would like to ask the Minister how the Ministry of the Environment proposes to educate and enthuse Singaporeans around the goal of the Green Plan. Singaporeans have been somewhat apathetic to various efforts like recyling and other environment-friendly measures. How can we ignite their enthusiasm and get it going, so that the intention becomes action?

Finally, in the Green Plan, I have not come across any specific proposal to promote Singapore as a venue for the environment business. There are many initiatives today around the world, through technology and other measures, to come out with environmental-friendly solutions to conventional problems. The question is whether Singapore can position itself well in that spectrum. I would like to ask the Minister what plans his Ministry has in that regard.

The Minister for the Environment (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Chairman, Singapore today is clean and green. However, if we look into the future, with a growing population and expanding economy, we are going to see more people on the street, more cars on the road, more air-conditioners at homes, and at the same time we are going to see ourselves consuming more energy, maybe producing more wastes. It is therefore important that we do not take for granted that the clean and green environment in Singapore will last forever.

Mdm Chairman, just about 18 months ago, the World Economic Forum commissioned a study to look into the environmental sustainability of various countries in the world. This study came out with a ranking of the various countries along the line of an ESI (Environmental Sustainability Index). 122 countries were covered by this study. When the report came out, we found ourselves being ranked tenth. Not tenth from the top, but tenth from the bottom, meaning that the study concluded that Singapore is among the worst 10 countries in the world, in terms of our ability to stay away from environmental disaster.

The conclusion of this study is that Singapore, sooner rather than later, is going to face with a serious problem with the environment. The ENV was taken by surprise. We studied the report carefully. We disagreed with the findings of the report. So we approached the research group and explained to them that the sustainability of environment went beyond just natural endowment. Because, at the end of the day, there are still these things known as technology, innovation, discipline and determination. Our point to them was that Singapore because of our ability to make use of technology, our ability to come up with new ideas all the time, our willingness to be disciplined, and our determination to ensure that the clean and green environment of Singapore can be sustained over the long term, we have made Singapore what it is today.

After some exchanges, the study team was half convinced. Two months later, when they released the formal report at the World Economic Forum, we looked at the top of the report, we were not there; we looked at the bottom 10, we were no longer there. In fact, we came in 65th, in the middle of the table of 122 countries. So it shows that the study team was half convinced by our argument. One year later, in January this year, the same study team produced a second annual report on ESI ranking again. This time round, the report was released in New York city, because the World Economic Forum was held in New York City. When the report was out, we looked at the bottom 10. No, we were not there. We looked at the top 10. We were not there. We looked at the middle 10. Again, we were not there. So we thought, what happened to Singapore? We went through the whole list. In fact, Singapore "disappeared" from the list. What happened was the study team, after one year of analysis, of looking at the model, came to the conclusion that Singapore is in a very unique situation. Because there is no way they could explain the performance of Singapore - based on the model they come up with, they decided to call Singapore "an outlier". But there are two types of outlier - the positive type and the negative type. Fortunately, in our case, they have decided that we were a positive outlier. Meaning that, based on their model, we should be living closer to environment disaster. They do not know why Singapore is different from that particular model.

Madam, I relate this particular episode to convey the point that environmental sustainability is something not to be taken for granted. Singapore is clean and green today not because we have all the natural endowment to make us clean and green, but because we, as Singaporeans, as Government, as one people, work together all these years to ensure that we are clean, we are green. We created this environment. Our challenge is to continue with this determination, this creativity, this innovation, to ensure that we can sustain our clean and green environment for a long time to come.

In that regard, I fully agree with Dr Teo Ho Pin on his point that we need to balance sustainable development with quality living environment. This is exactly the vision we have in the SGP 2012. Our vision for the SGP 2012 is to go beyond clean and green, to strive towards environmental sustainability. In other words, we are not talking about improving our environmental performance in the short term. Rather, we are talking about how we can sustain our environment for the long term. This change in mindset is very important because the only way we can sustain our environment is to harness the full commitment, the participation of the 3P sectors - the people sector, the private sector and the public sector - on an on-going basis.

Mr Iswaran asked whether the targets we set under the SGP 2012 are realistic and whether we have taken into consideration the cost to the industry. This is a very important point. I want to assure Mr Iswaran that the whole review exercise of the SGP 2012 is spearheaded by three focus groups, with 51 members coming from the 3P sectors. The 3P partners together identified the challenges, formulated the strategies and, together, they set the targets. These targets are not set by the ENV alone. Rather, they are set by the 3P partners collectively. Therefore, Mr Iswaran can be rest assured that, with the private sector being an integral part of the exercise, the targets we set under the SGP 2012 are realistic and pragmatic. Further, after the targets were set, we put all the information on the Internet for the public to give their feedback over a 3-month period. The feedback period is over. We are now reviewing the draft, based on the feedback we received from members of the public. With the involvement of the 3P sectors, we now have a shared vision in the SGP 2012. We now have joint ownership of the SGP 2012.

Dr Teo Ho Pin asked what are the key performance indicators we have under the SGP 2012. Mdm Chairman, the first key thrust of the SGP 2012 is to ensure the innovative and efficient use of scarce resources to ensure that we would be able to achieve environmental sustainability. When we talk about innovative use, we are not talking about innovation for the sake of innovation. We are talking about innovation with a specific purpose in mind. And this specific purpose in mind is to ensure that we would be able to sustain environmental performance over the long term. At the same time, be able to reinvent the environmental industry in Singapore. There are various key targets set regarding the innovative and efficient use of scarce resources. Let me start with solid waste. 6.30 pm

The overall recycling rate of solid waste in Singapore reached 44% last year, after stabilising at 40% since 1996. Our aim under the SGP 2010 is to increase this recycling rate to 60% by year 2012. At the same time, we aim to double the life-span of Pulau Semakau from the 25-30 years today to at least 50 years. Mr Iswaran asked how does this target compare to the developed countries. The target of 60% is comparable to the best practices in the world. Take, for example, the Netherlands, the Number 1 country in recycling today. They have the highest recycling rate in the world today, and it is about 65%. In other words, if we are able to achieve 60%, it will put us at least above average by global standing. We are also going beyond the 60% recycling rate. We are going to adopt the best practice of Netherlands and strive towards zero landfill. This means as we promote recycling, we hope the day will come when we do not need to landfill any refuse or waste.

Sir, the second target we have set is regarding our water supply. Our target for the next 10 years is to diversify and increase water supply in Singapore, so that we can become more self-sufficient. Today, we depend entirely on the conventional sources of supply, meaning local catchment water as well as the river water imported from Malaysia. Over the next 10 years, our target is to develop non-conventional sources of supply, namely, desalination and water reclamation, so that these non-conventional sources of supply will complement and supplement the conventional sources of supply to account for about 25% of our water demand by the year 2012.

Sir, the third target we have set is regarding the air quality in Singapore. Over the next 10 years, we aim to keep the ambient air quality in Singapore to within the standards set by the World Health Organisation and the USEPA, and to be comparable with the best cities in the world. In the past 5-10 years, if we look at our PSI performance, the PSI is in the "good" range for about 60-80% of the year, except during those periods when we were affected by the regional haze. Our aim for the next 10 years is to maintain this level of 60-80% in the "good" range and, if possible, to strive for 85%, with the remaining 15% in the moderate range. What this means is that we need to make more use of clean energy, strive for greater energy efficiency and, at the same time, to adopt best practices in pollution control.

More importantly, all these strategies must cut across all sectors of the economy and society, from industry to power generation, to vehicular emission, to the commercial sector and to the public consumers. Lastly, we recognise that air pollution knows no boundary. Therefore, we will continue to strengthen our regional effort to prevent the return of the regional haze.

Sir, the fourth target we set is relating to public health. Singapore is located in a region where tropical diseases are endemic. We aim to ensure the low incidence rate of food borne, water borne, vector borne and indoor air borne diseases. We have to strengthen our surveillance system, invest in applied research, collaborate with public health institutions and work in partnership with the community. Our aim over the next 10 years is to transform Singapore into a leading regional centre in the research and control of communicable diseases that are transmitted by food, water, vector or indoor air.

Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Iswaran asked whether ENV could do more to promote environmental awareness among Singaporeans, in particular, the younger Singaporeans. This is indeed the second key thrust of the SGP 2012, which is to promote the active participation of all to sustain quality living environment in Singapore. In this regard, we are going to promote 3P participation in all our major environmental initiatives. We are also going to step up efforts to increase public awareness, public education, and to strengthen joint ownership in the 3P sector.

ENV is going to put our money where our mouth is. In this regard, I am pleased to share with you that ENV has decided to set up a 3P Partnership Fund. We have decided to set aside $750,000 for collaboration with the 3P partners, and this money will come from our existing budget. In other words, instead of spending the money conducting our own programmes, we have decided to set aside some of our existing resources to undertake programmes jointly with the 3P sector, and get it done through the 3P sector. We hope that, through such initiatives, we will be able to promote joint ownership in recycling and in various key environmental programmes. In this regard, we welcome any ideas and any proposals from our 3P partners.

Mr Iswaran also asked what are the initiatives in SGP 2012 to promote environmental related industry. He asked whether we have any intention to turn Singapore into a centre of environment technology and to come out with environmental friendly solutions. This is a very good point because we look at the environmental industry as an integral part of the 3P partnership. As we promote 3P partnership, as we engage the people sector in our various programmes, it is very important that we make sure the environmental industry is able to offer the effective solutions to solve our environmental challenges.

Sir, the ENV has embarked on an exercise, for more than six months now, to re-invent the environmental industry. We are now working towards upgrading the capabilities in our environmental industry, so that the industry will make more use of technology. The jobs should be redefined, the skills of the workers should be redeveloped so that, over time, we will be able to professionalise the industry and enhance the image of the industry. The ENV is now working very closely with the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore, which is the industry body. At the same time, we are drawing on the support of the various public sector organisations. For example, the JTC is working with us to create an eco-recycling park, with 19 hectares of land in Tuas. Our intention is to turn the eco-recycling park into a showcase of the environmental industry of the future, where the deployment of technology, the redefinition of jobs, the redefinition of skills would be done in a concerted manner. We will also involve the unions to ensure that Singaporean workers will be able to benefit from this re-invention of the environmental industry. At the end of the day, we believe that only by having a capable industry, an active people and a responsive Government, can we have a strong 3P partnership in Singapore.

The third key thrust of SGP 2012 is to do our part for the global community. We will continue to play a pro-active role in the regional effort to stamp out transboundary pollution threats, such as the regional haze. At the same time, we are committed to fulfill our obligations to various international agreements that we are party to. More importantly, we are going to do more for the international community by supporting capacity building efforts. Many of the developing countries are now pursuing the ideal of sustainable development. However, capacity building is a key challenge faced by many of these developing countries.

Sir, ENV will continue to provide training to these developing countries, including the ASEAN neighbours and the small island developing states. We intend to step up our training efforts and offer training not just in the technical area, but also in environmental management.

In conclusion, the SGP 2012 will be formally launched in August. It will be presented in World Summit for Sustainable Development in September. SGP 2012 is jointly formulated by the 3P partners, and it will require the joint efforts of the 3P partners for us to turn our vision of going beyond clean and green towards sustainability into reality. I am confident that, as long as 3P partners work together, we will be able to go beyond clean and green, and put Singapore firmly on a path towards environmental sustainability.

Dr Teo Ho Pin: Madam, I am indeed glad to learn from the Environment Minister that Singapore has been tested positive for the environment sustainability index. Let us now discuss how can we sustain the water supply in Singapore.

The recent press reports regarding the water agreement between Singapore and Malaysia have raised much concern among Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans now recognise that water is a strategic resource, and would like the Government to explore ways to make Singapore self-sufficient in water.

There are a number of ways Singapore can be self-sufficient in our water needs. Essentially, three key strategies can be adopted, namely, (1) increase sources of water supply; (2) conserve water consumption; and (3) recycle used water. For example, we can reclaim land to form water catchment, explore underground water or desalinate seawater. At the same time, we should embark on a nation-wide campaign to conserve water. Today, we are still using potable drinking water for washing our corridors and watering plants. Finally, we can explore innovative techniques of water recycling used in many other countries.

Madam, I wish to ask the Minister the following questions: (1) What is the long-term plan to increase water self-sufficiency in Singapore? Is it possible for Singapore to be completely self-sufficient in water one day? (2) Is water recycling applicable in Singapore? What is the cost of recycled water? (3) What are the plans to further encourage water conservation among businesses and consumers? 6.45 pm

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Madam, as we move towards less dependency on water supply from Malaysia, we have to look for a diversity of water supply sources. At present, half of our water supply depends on our rainfall catchment, the other half from the two water agreements with Malaysia. The NEWater project is promising and could be one of the important sources of water supply upon the expiry of the first water agreement with Malaysia. The first, and it could be the last, seawater desalination plant will be on stream by the year 2005, supplying one-seventh of Singapore's water needs.

In the long term, the water agreement with Malaysia is highly uncertain. We may disagree with the terms due to the price, or the quality of the water, because there is a growing trend of water pollution. We must take this time available now to find viable alternatives if we fail to extend the water agreement in the future. What we need to do is to explore reliable fresh water sources in the region, like Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and Kalimantan, which are actually not very far away from Singapore. The common thought of lay persons on the high transportation cost of water from these countries is misleading. When we compare the transportation cost with the price of water from brackish water (RO) and seawater desalination, it is very affordable and very cheap. Just take an official quotation of US$20,000 to charter an oil tanker of 200,000 tonnes from Australia to Singapore, it works out to less than US10 cents per cubic metre. Therefore, this is a viable way of transporting water from a nearby country in the region to Singapore if the raw water price charged is reasonable. I would like to urge the Ministry not to abandon the concept of exploring the shipping of fresh water from the region. It could be one of the very viable means of fresh water supply in the future, at least in case of an emergency. Five-six tankers will be sufficient to supply Singapore with one day's water needs. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider this particular idea of shipping water from the nearby countries to Singapore, as one of the alternatives for fresh water supply.

NEWater is one of the very promising areas. Technically, NEWater is much cleaner than normal water. If we take the Chua Chu Kang Water Treatment Plant, the water quality contains about 350 parts per million in terms of the total dissolved salt, whereas the NEWater only contains less than 50 parts per million. This is why the NEWater is a very attractive water to the wafer fab industry, because it costs them much less to convert it into ultra-pure water. The question now is: how do we market the NEWater? Are we going to charge a cheap price and make it look like poor quality water, or should we market it as a branded product and only people who need high quality water will be allowed to purchase this water at a high price? If we are able to market the NEWater in this particular manner, we could tell the people that it is high quality water, and there is no reason why people would think that it is dirty and refuse to consume it. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any plan to promote the use of NEWater in the near future.

Sir, when we are talking about a potential ---

The Chairman: Prof. Low, can you please wrap up your speech?

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Yes. I would also like to ask the Minister whether we have any plans to capture storm water, which is a potential source of fresh water supply. This is important if we have a shortage of water in future, and if the agreement is not renewed with Malaysia.

Mr Othman Haron Eusofe: Mdm Chairman, I will be very brief.

I would like to ask the Minister what plans his Ministry has to commence the supply of NEWater for domestic use. In some countries - I am told Orange County in California, USA - water produced or reclaimed, using the same technique used in our NEWater plant, is supplied for domestic consumption. I understand that the quality of our NEWater is safe and is very good. So, I want to ask the Minister whether he has plans to take on this potential supply of NEWater, which is a more reliable source of water supply, to fulfill our water requirements. If so, when can this happen?

The Chairman: Dr Khor is not in the House. Dr Michael Lim is also not around. Mr Iswaran is not speaking. Mr Ahmad Magad.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad: Madam, my topic is also on NEWater. First, I would like to acknowledge that the Minister for the Environment had spoken at length last year in this House about the potential use of NEWater, and that priority of its use will be for the wafer fab industry, which demands ultra-pure and very clean water. However, in the light of the changed situation, where the Prime Minister has said in Parliament recently that we are gradually moving away from and decreasing our dependence on Malaysia for the supply of water, I would like to know from the Minister what is his Ministry's revised plan in domesticating the use of NEWater.

Specifically, is the NEWater Visitor Centre at Bedok ready and open to members of the public? Beyond its use in industry, I think there is a need to accelerate public education on domesticating the use of NEWater for the home environment, particularly if it is meant for drinking. For the many of us who have visited the plant, we are convinced that NEWater is clean and suitable for consumption. But members of the public need to understand what we are doing to purify recycled water, and the resultant quality from this process, so that they too can feel comfortable of its cleanliness and suitability for human consumption, if we have to move in this direction sooner rather than later. Perhaps laying down a time-table for the domestic use of NEWater would be useful, so that we can adopt a phased approach of its application for both industry, as well as for domestic consumption.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Madam, it is getting late, and I will try to be brief.

Earlier on, Mr Steve Chia spoke about the need to create brilliance in our kids in school, and then Mr Chiam spoke about Sweden and Nobel prize winners, but I am afraid I will be talking about bottom-lines.

Government's plan to dig deep for our bottom-line sewerage needs says a lot about our Government's foresight. They not only think far, but also deep. As the saying goes, "we leave no stone, or is it earth, unturned." For land-scarce Singapore, we have understood the need to go skywards. We know why we need to reach for the sky, while our feet must firmly be on the ground, and now even going underground. We are also going seawards, with reclamation, but that is another story.

This new area of sewerage development is all the more critical, as we are now turning to NEWater, as mentioned by a few Members earlier on, as an alternative source of water. So these deep tunnel sewerage projects are going to be very important for our NEWater project too. We are not only land-scarce but water-scarce, and thus Singaporeans must be made conscious of the importance of the deep tunnel projects. Can the Minister share with us Environment Ministry's plans to inform the public about the importance of the projects? Nevertheless, these projects, deep they may be, are not cheap. Can the Minister explain what are the cost implications for our water and utilities charges in the long term? Also, will the Minister look into other needs which could be synergised with the building of the deep tunnels? It is well known in Singapore that one digging always follows another when it comes to utilities work, leaving the roads messy and traffic inconvenienced. So with the deep tunnels, the opportunity comes once, and thus must be used for other needs, eg, if there are other needs to be met in terms of electricity or other utilities. Madam, the deep tunnel sewerage project is innovative, and I hope the Minister will not be cursive and shallow in his answer to my questions.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Madam, I am speaking on the recycling of waste.

People may be aware of the fire outbreaks at companies collecting wood wastes. These cases happened in Lim Chu Kang, and also the recent case in Tuas. It took a few days for the Fire Department to put out the fire.

The collection of wood wastes without the need to recycle is a very lucrative business. For every ton of wood wastes, they charge more than $40. Some waste collectors dig a big hole in the ground and they try to bury as much waste as possible in a limited collector's site. Some of them also pile up all the wood wastes to the height of a mountain. Today, after the fire in Lim Chu Kang, the black hill is still standing high and is an eyesore object. This reminds people of the misuse of the waste collection for recycling. Such potential fire hazards due to wood waste stockpiles still exist in Lim Chu Kang, Sungei Kadut Industrial Estate, and also in Tuas.

I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a plan to ensure that the recycling company is genuinely carrying out recycle work. If their products do not have a market, or the market is smaller than what they can recycle, they should be honest and stop collecting the wastes. They should let the incinerator take over the wastes, instead of piling them up, and waiting for a time when the fire would solve their problem. It will endanger the lives of the people and also endanger the properties near the stockpile area. It will also cause air and water pollution, if such uncontrolled fire incidents take place.

The Ministry should look into the matter and see whether the recycling companies are genuine, and whether their stockpiles are beyond the capacity of what they can recycle. The Minister should also take tough punitive actions against anyone who does not comply with the original conditions for the setting up of a wood recycling company.

Mr Ang Mong Seng: (In Mandarin): Just now the Minister mentioned that we have been progressing well in the recycling of waste materials, but this is only for paper and plastics.

Singapore is a garden city. Over the years, many, many trees have been planted all over the island. A lot has been done to keep these trees in good shape and good health. The National Parks Board carries out maintenance work on these trees, by pruning them every now and then. In the process, a lot of branches are being cut off everyday. Can the Minister enlighten us as to whether these cut branches can be recycled? If so, have they been recycled? I understand that a certain company has been recycling the husks of durian to produce flower pots.

For recycling to be successful in Singapore, we need the support of the grassroots organisations and the people, and we should step up the education campaign in recycling.

The Government has also promised some rebates on our garbage disposal fees, if a certain percentage of our wastes could be recycled. With the advancement in technology, I would imagine that more of our waste materials could be recycled, and hence our garbage disposal fees could be lowered. But instead we find that the fees are increased. Can the Minister tell us how much more we must do in recycling in order to claim the said rebates?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Madam, in the midst of the current economic downturn, another increase that would add to the cost of living has been announced. The Ministry of the Environment announced the increase in the fees for refuse disposal. The increase was passed on to households, shopkeepers, shopowners, market and stallholders immediately by the waste collection company. The Ministry, in its announcement, also stated that by raising the refuse disposal fees to the actual cost recovery level, will encourage recycling, something which is very funny to me. I would like to know:

(1) Whether it is the Ministry's intention to eventually pass on the full cost of refuse disposal fees to the households. If so, will the increases ultimately add burden to the average household?

(2) What efforts has the Ministry made to encourage recycling, in the context of keeping waste collection company's fees down? They did not pass the cost to consumers.

(3) I understand the Minister said that the target for recycling is 60%. Is this 60% going to be achieved by his Ministry's increase in refuse disposal fees? That was what he said in the statement.

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Recently, the refuse disposal fee was increased by about 15% for private housing. So, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First of all, why is there a need to increase the refuse disposal fee by 15%? Is it not better to increase the fee when the economy improves in future? The other question is whether the refuse collector is over-charging. Because the increase in incinerator fees may not necessarily be transferred to the increase in fees for refuse collection. So, could the Minister respond to my question, whether the refuse collector is actually over-charging?

The Chairman: Prof Low, do you want to move on to your next cut?

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, there is no time. I will wait for tomorrow.

The Chairman: Order. It is 7.00 pm.

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

Mr Lim Swee Say: Madam, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2002/2003 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: So be it.