SINGAPORE EXAMINATIONS AND ASSESSMENT BOARD BILL

Column: 3525

SINGAPORE EXAMINATIONS AND ASSESSMENT BOARD BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

5.45 pm

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

Column: 3525

Introduction

Sir, the Bill before this House seeks to establish a statutory board to be known as the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. The Board will take over the functions of the Examinations Division in the Ministry of Education. It will develop and conduct national examinations, which serve the objectives of our education system and uphold standards in our schools. Over time, it will also look into meeting demands for other assessment services, both in Singapore and abroad. The Board will establish Singapore as a centre of excellence in testing and assessment.

Strategic objectives of the Board

Sir, let me explain the rationale for the formation of the statutory board. We have a robust education system. The quality of education in Singapore is widely recognised and our students rate exceptionally well in most international comparisons. The strength of our education system is underpinned by a quality teaching service, a strong and coherent national curriculum and a rigorous examination system.

The capacity to design and run a rigorous examination system, closely aligned to our curricular objectives and anchored in high standards, is therefore key to maintaining a sound and effective education system in Singapore.

The assessment of students is an integral part of the learning process. How and what we assess reflects our educational objectives. The assessment and examination system therefore cannot be static, and never has been. As our educational objectives evolve to meet the needs of the future, as we develop new emphases in our curriculum and take on new methods of teaching and learning in our schools, we have to evolve our

Column: 3526

assessment methods and review and update the content of our examinations.

Control over the examination system is therefore necessary to ensure that it remains in tandem with changes in the Singapore education system and helps prepare our students well for the future. Today, Singapore exercises some degree of control over the examination system. The PSLE is a Singapore examination, in name and in substance. Both the 'O' and 'A' levels have evolved to cater to our needs, and are no longer tied to equivalent examinations offered in the UK. For the 'A' levels, MOE has now taken responsibility for development of syllabuses and examination formats, setting of standards and awarding of grades - in other words, all key functions except the setting of questions and marking of scripts, which we outsource to the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). We will be doing the same for the GCE 'O' level examinations from year 2006.

The new statutory board structure will serve two strategic objectives. First, it will facilitate our efforts to take greater control over the examination system. Establishing the Examinations Board will enhance our operational capacity and flexibility in running our national examinations system. It will help in developing local examination expertise, and facilitate research and development in assessment. New developments in assessment will be needed to match ongoing changes in curriculum and teaching methods as Singapore continuously improves its education system.

The second objective for establishing the Board is to position it in the long term as a centre for testing and assessment services in the region and beyond. The success of our schools and achievements of our students in areas, such as

Column: 3527

Mathematics and Science, have attracted overseas interest in our education system. This is reflected in the growing number of visitors to MOE, increased collaboration with foreign agencies, and requests for assistance from around the world. This strong international standing of our education system presents us with a unique opportunity. The new Board will have the operational flexibility to meet demands for testing and assessment services beyond our national schools, in Singapore and abroad. It will contribute to Singapore's development as an Education Hub.

Key Provisions of the Bill

Sir, I now move on to the key aspects of the Bill.

The Bill sets out the broad regulatory principles governing the Board. It empowers the Board to operate an examination system to meet national needs, and also to provide assessment services abroad. The Bill also puts in place safeguards to ensure that the integrity and standards of our national examinations are maintained.

Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the membership of the Board. To ensure accountability of the Examinations Board, the Minister for Education will appoint the Chairman and all directors of the Board. This is essential because the national examinations are a key pillar supporting our meritocratic educational system. The integrity of and public confidence in our national examinations are vital. The Ministry will thus retain responsibility for oversight and control of the Board. Through the appointment of Board members, we also ensure that the examination services provided by the Board respond to the evolving needs of the national education system.

Column: 3528

Clause 11 sets out the functions and duties of the Board. The Board will develop and conduct national examinations which support and promote the goals and objectives of Singapore's education system, and will be able to organise and conduct other assessments in Singapore and abroad.

Clauses 16 to18 pertain to appointments of the Chief Executive, and other staff of the Board.

Clauses 19 to 31 are the financial provisions. The main source of funding for the Board will be in the form of subvention from MOE and fees or commissions charged for assessment services provided.

Clauses 32 to 38 provide for the transfer of property, assets, liabilities and employees to the Board. Property, assets and liabilities as may be determined by the Minister for Finance will be transferred from MOE to the Board. Examinations Division staff in MOE will be transferred on terms no less favourable than what they have received before the transfer.

Clauses 39 to 46 are general provisions. Clause 41 provides for the preservation of secrecy.

Conclusion

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have always recognised that our national examinations represent a key anchor in our education system. Establishing the Examinations Board will build up our capacity to design and manage a rigorous and reputable examination system. It will be a flag bearer of our high educational standards and strengthen the international standing of Singapore's education system.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Column: 3529

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since our independence 38 years ago, our nation has consistently focused on education. As a result of this singular focus on developing our human resources, we have acquired a certain reputation for excellence. The quality of our education system is recognised, not just by students from the neighbouring developing countries, but also by academics from the developed countries as well.

Our secondary education system is of the highest quality. Our students are admitted to the best universities and are viewed with the highest regard by professors in these universities.

Sir, on the other hand, some of our children have found our system rather competitive and their parents have lamented why we could not be more like the Western countries. They asked why we could not make learning fun and motivating to the young children.

Sir, our education system cannot just cater to the desire of making learning fun and interesting and stress-free. We must take into consideration the needs of our young people being able to find jobs and to apply themselves in the competitive world. In the UK and Europe, a school of thought in education, known as the Parity of Esteem, has crept into the school system. Basically, what Parity of Esteem means is that one must take into consideration the maintenance of the esteem of the student so that he or she could not be labelled as a failure. Sir, this concept is seductive and is leading to less vigorous academic standards in those countries that embrace it in one way or another. As a result, the UK "O" level and "A" level examinations are no longer what they used to be. Our versions of the "A" and "O" level examinations are different and distinct from them. This, the Minister has already elaborated. In the US, even SAT is being reviewed to

Column: 3530

accommodate more students from disadvantaged families. Singapore cannot go that way. Not if we want to remain economically competitive. Not if we aspire to be the Education Hub of the region.

Sir, furthermore, we have debated vigorously in this House how our education system must change to prepare our children for the knowledge-based economy. Our school curriculum has been changed to put greater emphasis on thinking and communication skills. We seek to promote creativity and independent thinking among our students. The new broad-based curriculum under the JC review, introduced recently, will serve to develop our students more holistically and more adaptive in the knowledge age.

Besides, in this age of conflicts of ideologies where extremists increasingly resort to the use of terrorism on a global scale, it is of paramount importance that our efforts in national education must be sustained. We must teach our children values, attitudes, instincts, skills and knowledge to ensure social cohesion, to accept diversity in cultures and religions, and to resolve differences democratically and peacefully.

Sir, it is time to establish a Singapore brand of our education. It is timely that this Bill is before the House. This Bill seeks to set up our own national examinations at the primary and secondary levels that will support the goals and objectives of the Singapore education system. I support the Bill.

Sir, I have a few questions for the Minister. It seems to me that this Bill is crafted with the premise that the Board focuses only on the Government funded public education system. Would it embrace private education system, such as the commercial schools as well? There are several successful commercial schools

Column: 3531

in Singapore offering post-secondary education courses, including one listed on the Stock Exchange. Would the Minister consider allowing the Board to assess the standards of such schools and, where such schools meet the standards, award a certificate of excellence so that the Singapore brand would begin to gain reputation worldwide?

Furthermore, Sir, we have many commercial enterprises offering tertiary programmes, based on foreign institutions, leading to a degree offered by overseas universities but students attend classes locally. We can find their programmes advertised regularly in the newspapers. In their desire to provide university education for their children, many parents might spend most of their savings to fund their children to attend such programmes. However, Sir, the job market does not value such degrees in a consistent manner. If the proposed Board could provide some certification or a form of certification of such a programme, maybe the parents would have a better way to decide whether to send their children to such schools offered by such private enterprises. Clause 11(2) of the Bill seems to allow the Minister to instruct the Board to provide this particular option.

Sir, once the Board is established and begins to take over control of the Singapore national examinations, how would we ensure that such certificates, as listed in the Schedule, would be recognised overseas? Today, the Singapore version of the "O" level and "A" level examinations allows our students to skip certain first year courses in the US universities and to go straight to the senior level courses. After this, would the Board make the effort to inform such universities overseas about the new Singapore standards so that our students could continue to enjoy such privileges, ie, to gain admission to the best

Column: 3532

universities in the world and continue to enjoy the recognition they do today?

Sir, finally, looking down the road, when the Singapore brand

of examinations becomes successful, it is possible, as the Minister has pointed out, that other school administrations in the neighbouring territories or other countries worldwide might want to offer the Singapore curriculum. I am glad to note that the Minister has envisaged that and mentioned this as the second objective of the Board to conduct examinations overseas and awarding the successful candidates the Singapore certificate. I propose that we consider dropping "Cambridge" from the name of the examinations altogether at an early opportunity. I suggest we consider a tie up with our own university, perhaps the NUS Kent Ridge university, and call the Singapore national certificate the Singapore Kentridge Examinations.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board Bill.

Sir, the goals and objectives of Singapore's education system must prepare our young Singaporeans for varied challenges of the future. So far, the system has served us well. However, past successes provide little guarantee for the future in these uncertain times.

Not too long ago, Sir, we were all too gungho and, dare I say, rushed into adopting an external examination like the SAT. This is all done in the name of different ways of assessing our students. I sure hope that the SAT experiment has taught us something. After all, it really is in our best interest to be more cautious and avoid making mistakes like the SAT examination, if I may be allowed to classify it as such. New educational initiatives need to be embarked upon with care. These decisions have repercussions

Column: 3533

and long-lasting impact on our students, parents and educators who have to continuously grapple with change, not to mention our children, who perhaps receive the brunt of these changes.

Sir, the experience and expertise that MOE has acquired over the years would be a strong foundation for it to be built upon. I believe that it is an opportune time and it is well poised to develop Singapore's very own standards and assessment methods that may be even better suited for the local environment and the world. The Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board's major role is to design and monitor closely national examinations that can realise our educational goals.

The Board would be an important institution to help us face issues in education, such as the democratisation of education through distance learning and the assessment of non-traditional students, internationalisation and multi-culturalism in assessment, new paradigms in quantitative and qualitative assessment, assessment of multi-intelligence, empowering teachers in classroom assessment, large-scale test programme management, the quality assurance and transparency of all steps of the process, and relations between candidates, schools and assessment centres, among others.

Sir, we all know that tests and assessments are powerful policy tools for educational improvement. If developed and used properly, tests can provide useful feedback on teaching and learning. Hence, if not monitored closely, a wrong analysis of examination results may lead to negative consequences for students and educators. We must use examinations and assessments correctly as a tool to measure and realise the students' scholastic potential and to continuously improve our education system, the curriculum and syllabus. Because tests can have such positive or

Column: 3534

negative consequences, it is important to monitor their use in an on-going fashion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a competitive society like we have in Singapore, national examination is highly consequential for students, teachers and schools. More often than not, the results of these examinations are adopted as key performance indicators for evaluation and decisions on individuals. They represent tools used in making admissions, promotions or graduation decisions, and can also be used to evaluate schools and school reforms. I could not agree more with the Minister when he said that the assessment and examination system therefore cannot be static and never has been.

Sir, as educators, policy makers and testing professionals embark on this new millennium, we must prepare for a new century of learning with new technology and face so many changes in the educational and assessment system all over the world. We must tap the knowledge and experience of foreign systems that preceded us. I am not advocating that we blindly copy them. But systems that have worked for nations that share similar educational objectives as ours should be emulated. Thus, the setting up of the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board will further facilitate and improve communication with other international organisations involved in educational assessment, enabling sharing of professional expertise and enhance cooperation with other educational agencies around the world.

As mentioned by many Members, we enjoy an excellent reputation in the international arena. The Board is well poised to exploit the Singapore Brand to further promote our education system and our country as a knowledge and education hub of the region. In this respect, Sir, may I ask the Minister about MOE's plans and strategy on how we can exploit the

Column: 3535

economic potential of our education system, standard and our brand.

In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that with the establishment of this new Board it will result in further refinement and improvement of our education system. Be that as it may, we should continue to further invest in our education system so that we can produce the desired outcomes and ensure that our children enjoy the wonderful gift of education.

Hence, I must register my full support for the Bill as, if all goes well, it will take our education system to another level.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I understand that the intention of establishing an Examination Board is to build up our own capabilities and expertise in educational assessment and examination services. This bodes well for our education system and signals a coming of age of the system. It is also congruent with our efforts to develop ourselves as a regional education hub.

However, instead of setting up a separate statutory board to undertake this task, could not these duties be fulfilled under the current system where it is under a Division of the MOE, especially at a time when the Government is mindful of cutting waste in the public sector so that the public would not be saddled with unnecessary costs?

But that aside, I am pleased that the policy direction is to ensure that school examinations would be better aligned with our national manpower objectives, and we can be leaders instead of followers in introducing new and innovative examination formats and techniques.

With the changes to be made to the upper secondary and Pre-U sectors, the

Column: 3536

introduction of a revised JC curriculum, through-train education and so on to promote independent thinking and creativity, examination formats, tests and assessments must change in tandem. Our students, especially the more able ones, must learn to steer away from mere rote learning and acquire higher order skills. Open-book examinations, project work and presentations could be given even more emphasis. Questions set in examinations should also take on a more "what if" instead of "what is" format. At the same time, the examination formats must take cognisance of the different learning abilities of our students, so that the weaker ones are not unduly stressed by the more extensive assessment methodologies employed.

The Acting Minister for Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, noted in his speech at the recent MOE Workplan Seminar, as well as in this House, that some amount of stress, if well managed, is positive and challenges the students to excel. Indeed, this is absolutely critical, if the standards of the examination systems are to be equal to, if not surpass, the internationally acclaimed standards of the Singapore-Cambridge system that many generations of Singaporean students have grown up with.

But while I agree with this view that there should be some rigour in our education system to allow students to fully develop their potential, we must also leave students time to pursue their interests and passion, discover themselves and their talent outside of the classroom.

As recently as yesterday, one JC student noted in the Straits Times that a typical day in junior college starts at 8.00 am and ends between 3.00 pm and 5.00 pm. Students then go to compulsory co-curricular activities that can last until 8.00 pm. She then asked, "How do you expect students to do anything other than

Column: 3537

what is necessary for them to graduate?" In other words, we should adopt a holistic view of education beyond the confines of the classroom, and our assessment and examination system should likewise reflect this broader emphasis. Examination questions should therefore give more stress on testing the understanding, analytical and thinking skills of the students, rather than the size of their memory banks and the speed of their retrieval. The Acting Minister for Education also noted in the same speech that "Almost all industry leaders feel Singaporeans can do much better in communication and persuasion."

A Straits Times survey of 112 first-year JC students in September 2003 reported the shocking grasp of the English language among JC students. Some of these shortcomings will no doubt be carried forward into their university lives and beyond into their careers, to their own detriment.

Sir, we certainly do not need undergraduates whose standard of spoken and written English mirrors what I once saw written on a T-shirt that says: "I is a university student." Or in an examination script that I actually once marked as a university lecturer that says: "Cabbage in, cabbage out" instead of "Garbage in, garbage out".

Such industry feedback and observations are indeed cause for concern as we aim to be an education hub and a global entrepolis. One of the primary tasks of the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board should be to look into how, together with changes to the syllabus and teaching methodologies, the examination formats and assessment methods can be modified to further test the written and oral skills of our students.

Sir, a final concern I would like to highlight relates to the requirement

Column: 3538

of SAT as one of the university admission criteria. No doubt, this has only been implemented last year, and there is currently a review to determine if the SAT weightage for university admission should be further lowered. There has been much debate and controversy over the requirement of SAT for university admission. According to the College Board of the US, where SAT originated, the SAT is supposed to measure "developed reasoning" which is described as the skills that students develop not only in school but also outside school.

However, the SAT is primarily formulated with the linguistic and mathematical skills of American students and not Singaporean students. Hence, it is unlikely to be an adequate nor even accurate yardstick to gauge our students' abilities. Furthermore, even in America, the SAT has been criticised to be a poor predictor of success of the student in his first year of university; that too much weight has been given to SAT for admissions, which causes students to focus on preparing for the test at the expense of more important academic learning, and that SAT favours students from wealthier families who can afford test-preparation courses. Needless to say, in Singapore, even if the weightage for SAT is reduced to 5%, like for CCA, everyone worth his salt and is a true blue kiasu Singaporean would still go all out to slog and prepare for the test.

A student from one of the top junior colleges whom I recently met told me as a matter of fact that students also try to ace their CCA, as not getting good marks would tarnish their otherwise perfect grades, and they fear that this could in turn jeopardise their chances of getting a scholarship, a place in the unversity and a course of their choice.

Come 2005, the English section of the SAT would be revamped to include a written section. There is concern that

Column: 3539

Singaporeans would be negatively affected as they largely do better in the Mathematics section. Moreover, the usefulness of the SAT would then be even more questionable as it is seen to duplicate the "A" levels.

Since we will have our very own Examinations Board, and given the feedback thus far on the SAT, the Examinations Board could consider if the "A" level examinations format could be further refined to test students' reasoned ability, as defined in the SAT, and to do away with the SAT for university admission altogether, or to come up with its own assessment method, in place of SAT.

I am greatly encouraged by the many

studies that have recently been initiated by the Ministry to further improve the system and allow greater flexibility and innovation so as to better prepare our young for an increasingly challenging future. I hope that the Examinations and Assessment Board will contribute effectively towards this end and be open to feedback and suggestions.

Sir, with this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, like my colleagues before me, I applaud the intent of this Bill, which is to put the Singapore education trademark in the international education front. I would like to thank the Minister for his preamble on this Bill.

Sir, like my hon. colleagues before me, I too have pondered on the rationale and impetus for spinning off another autonomous agency, as if it is fashionable to do so nowadays. It begs the question as to whether indeed an autonomous agency will render a more effective service and outcome than the existing arrangement.

Column: 3540

If we could recall, in 2001, the Health Ministry's existing function of health promotion and healthcare product regulation were hived off to two new statutory boards. This resulted in two new CEO positions and two additional sets of staff, ie, personnel, finance and public affairs, with each handling one-third of the previous workload. That same year, another new statutory board, the Civil Service College, was formed to coordinate training courses for civil servants. Soon after, a Public Relations Academy, headed by a Managing Director who was formerly a Public Affairs Manager at ENV, was set up to provide public relations courses for civil servants.

Sir, I am concerned with duplication of resources. So long as structures and resources deployed are designed in the most efficient manner, I think we have no concerns. It is necessary to ensure that the new statutory board will have enough on its plate to be spun off as an autonomous entity.

Sir, I have some observations to make. First, it is important to note that there is a need to sustain an on-going relationship between the Curriculum Development Division and the Examinations Division. With the separation, how do we establish this relationship of working in tandem to ensure the relevance of the Examinations and Assessment Board, such that the Examinations and Assessment Board does not get out of touch? The Minister has mentioned that the Ministry will have oversight and control of the Board via Board members. The question still remains as to how the process of relevance is to be established. It further begs the question: if the Ministry's oversight involves Board members, who are officials of the MOE, then why is there this need for separation? It raises the value-add question what improvements or cost savings will the new Board bring. Sir, what will be the nature of such a Board?

Column: 3541

Is this a step towards localising the assessment of the GCE 'O' and 'A' levels? And will such a move also lead to the possibility of the local syndicate getting involved eventually?

By taking a step to evolve a process to establish Singapore's own trademark and credentials in testing and assessment for the 'O' and 'A' level examinations is indeed a laudable move. It is a demonstration that we have the competencies and capabilities to be able to validate and certify our very own GCE 'O' and 'A' level examinations. This will afford us the opportunity to spin and nurture a new enterprise in test and assessment services, adding vibrancy and new business and job opportunities to our economy. We can envisage Singapore becoming, first, a regional test and assessement service centre for GCE 'O' and 'A' level examinations and, gradually, finding its place in the international arena. With such possibilities, Singaporeans will be offered further options in their search for jobs and business opportunities.

But, Sir, it is important that we establish a process to localise this separation, and it is important that we work within a timeframe to ensure that, eventually, we set up a system that is robust. The Bill is silent on this.

Sir, we have to take cognisance that it takes time for credibility to be established and it is in our interest that, in evolving our own examination system and process, we do not take an overnight transformation, which we are very well-known for. Although the Minister has mentioned that announcements on the change were made before, in 2002 and 2003, we must continue to be mindful of the need to be linked to a credible body in evolving the process. Just recall the instant trees that we saw overnight along our expressways some years back. We could successfully do this with our expressways for physical and tangible

Column: 3542

infrastructure. However, when it comes to knowledge, skills competencies and expertise, we need to evolve them. Therefore, a weaning process over a time period will definitely land us in better stead, as we will have an opportunity to build our credentials and to put our stamp on the international education scene.

Sir, I would also like to seek further clarifications on the following.

Would the setting up of an autonomous agency lead to a more streamlined MOE plus statutory board? If not, what is the expected increase in costs to the Government and MOE that would be incurred through the creation of the new statutory board? Would there also be an increase in fees and costs for students using the services of the new statutory board? With reference to clause 11(2), what are the types and examples of "assessment" referred to here? How would the players in the private sector be affected, especially if the Board is intending to provide advisory and consultancy services and training as well?

Sir, I am concerned that such intentions by the Board may give the impression that the Government is encroaching into the private sector. The framework on the formation of a statutory board is very business-oriented. For example, it can collect fees, impose fees or commissions for services, create joint ventures and companies. I would like to know whether the Board has already worked out its maiden organisational plan and the budget for its first year.

Sir, despite the Minister's mention of subvention as a form and main source of funding, with reference to clause 21, I would like to seek clarifications on:

(i) What are the other monies that will be transferred to the Board and how will these funds be used?

Column: 3543

(ii) What other grants or subsidies will be given to the Board and how these monies will be used and for what purposes?

Sir, clause 27 provides for the Board to invest monies in funds, securities or investments as may be authorised by the Minister. Sir, I would like to clarify which Minister are we referring to. Is it the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education?

I look forward to the Minister reviewing the inputs I have given and incorporating them where they are appropriate.

On this note, I support the Bill.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Sir, I thank the Members for their very valuable comments, suggestions and support for the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board Bill.

Dr Wang, Mr Zainudin, Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Ho Geok Choo were all of the view that the creation of the Board will support the objectives of the education system to develop thinking skills, better learning processes to encourage creativity and, ultimately, greater excellence in education. This is, in fact, our intention.

In recent years, many improvements have been made in the education system to better equip our children with the skills, values and attitudes to meet the new challenges of the future and to thrive. The national curriculum now puts greater emphasis on thinking and communication skills and on independent learning. The new Board will ensure that our national examinations continue to be strongly aligned with these curricular emphases. We have already made significant changes in the last several

Column: 3544

years - open-book examinations, source-based questions that require students to draw inferences, project work, school-based continuous assessment of the practical and experimental abilities of our 'A' level Science students, and so on.

Mdm Ho asked how the MOE would work with the Board to ensure that it operates in tandem with our educational objectives. Dr Wang Kai Yuen had asked if the international recognition and standards of our national examinations would be maintained with the setting up of the Board. MOE and the Board will have a close working relationship, no weaker than the relationship today between the Examinations Division of the Ministry and its other divisions. MOE will maintain supervisory control over the Examinations Board in the conduct of our national examinations and in the maintenance of examination standards. The Ministry will influence the strategic development of the Board and ensure accountability in two ways.

First, MOE will control the appointment of Board members and MOE will itself be represented on the Board. This will cement the link between the Board and MOE, and ensure the maintenance of standards and quality of examinations.

Second, MOE will set out its requirements on what it wants assessed under the national examinations framework on examination standards and on quality control procedures. The Board's performance will be reviewed annually by the Ministry based on these requirements.

With the establishment of the Examinations Board under MOE's oversight, the national examinations will be of the same high quality, and no less reputable. MOE and the Board will continue to ensure that any changes in our examinations, in both methods and

Column: 3545

content, do not diminish the standing of our national examinations with universities here and abroad, and with employers.

Dr Amy Khor and Mdm Ho questioned whether there was really a need to separate the examinations functions from MOE and put them in a statutory board. It is a valid question. As a statutory board, the Examinations Board will have greater flexibility in developing the local capabilities that are necessary to take greater control of the national examination system and to develop new methods of assessment over time. By operating outside the civil service, the Board would have more flexibility to build up and retain expertise in management. Just to give you an example - scholarships. Scholarships via a Ministry tend to be one-size-fits-all. The scholarships from a Board will be more focused. They will be aimed at its principal mission of building up capabilities and expertise in examinations and assessment.

The Board will have greater discretion in development and deployment of personnel in response to changes in the education landscape. It will also have more flexibility to develop its research capabilities to find new ways of assessing students to match changes in the curriculum and teaching methods. Further, over time, as Dr Wang, Mdm Ho and Mr Zainudin have mentioned, the Board can leverage on the international reputation of our national examinations to provide examination and testing services overseas. It will also have the flexibility to tie up with other reputable bodies to provide assessment services, much easier under a statutory board. It will be well-positioned to be a centre of excellence for testing and assessment in the region and beyond.

Mdm Ho has asked about costs. In fact, both Mdm Ho and Mr Zainudin have commented that the Examinations Board should not create more bureaucracy or

Column: 3546

duplicate MOE resources or functions. MOE will ensure that the Examinations Board runs a tight ship, that it is efficient and prudent in the use of resources. Our examination fees, which reflect the cost structure of conducting examinations, will therefore be kept at a reasonable level.

As suggested by both Dr Wang and Mdm Ho, we are adopting a step-by-step approach to taking greater control over the 'O' and 'A' levels. We will take greater control as we develop our expertise and capabilities, and as we develop credibility in running our own examinations. We do not want to set a time-frame at this time for how and when we will do it, but we should take it in steps.

We will continue to collaborate with UCLES in certain examination functions for some time to come. It is a sensible and efficient arrangement. Some examination functions, such as the setting of questions and the marking of scripts, are outsourced to UCLES because they have the independence, expertise and resources to handle such large-scale assessment.

As for the naming of our 'O' and 'A' level examinations, which Dr Wang Kai Yuen has raised, the Singapore-Cambridge brand has served us well. It is well recognised internationally, especially for our 'A' level students. We do not intend to do away with the Singapore-Cambridge 'A' level branding any time soon.

Dr Khor and Mr Zainudin had asked if the SAT for 'A' level students is still relevant. One of the reasons we introduced the common reasoning test in the university admission system was to serve as a common pivot point for university admission. This is useful because as we introduce greater diversity in the upper secondary and JC landscape, as well as in the tertiary landscape, we can expect increasingly that more

Column: 3547

students will go through different routes before seeking to gain admission to the university. The reasoning test component is a useful common benchmark as we move towards a greater variety of educational pathways to university education. Today, we use the SAT as that common reasoning test. I would not classify the adoption of SAT as a mistake, as Mr Zainudin has, only because the Equality Board in the US has now decided to change some components of the test.

We have to recognise that we are a small country. There will always be merit in leveraging on internationally recognised qualifications and on gaining international currency thereby. We do not do so blindly or rashly. Where there are changes made in these international qualifications or the examinations that underpin them, we will study them. And if they are no longer relevant we will shift. We might not shift to local examinations only, we might shift to other international qualifications. We should keep an open mind on this, but must recognise that we are a small country and there is merit in international currency.

We are aware that there are concerns that changes to the SAT format, such as the proposed introduction of an essay component, may result in an overlap with what our national examinations assess. We are reviewing the system of university admissions. A committee led by Prof. Chong Chee Tuck, Provost of NUS, is consulting widely and looking at how admission should be refined to better meet our education objectives, especially with the new JC curriculum coming into place. The Committee will assess whether SAT continues to be relevant to our needs and, if so, the role it should play. The Committee's recommendations will be made known early next year.

Column: 3548

Dr Wang asked if the Board would accredit the standards of private schools as well as overseas qualifications. The Board's core business will be to develop and provide quality assessment services, principally the national examinations. Candidates in private schools, currently and in the future, will be able to take these national examinations. After the Board has fully developed and consolidated its core functions and services, it may consider providing other assessment services if there is sufficient demand. There are, however, no plans for the Board to accredit private schools or overseas qualifications. I understand though that our economic agencies are looking into some form of accreditation of private schools.

Mdm Ho had also asked if the Board would encroach into the activities of the private sector. The Board will not do what the private sector can do better. It will focus on its principal mission of developing and running the national examinations well. Going forward, the Board will leverage on the reputation of our national examinations to provide assessment services to the region and beyond. The Government will not fund the provision of such assessment services and it will not lead to an increase in costs to be met by fees charged for our national examinations.

I should add that an extension of the Board's activities abroad, if it should happen, is unlikely to be against the interest of Singapore's private sector operators. The private sector has gained much from Singapore's international reputation in providing high quality education. The standing of the new Board and, over time, the wider reputation and currency of the qualification it provides, should be a plus for the private sector, not a minus. It will boost

Column: 3549

Singapore's role as a premier provider of educational services.

Finally, a couple of specifics which Mdm Ho Geok Choo had asked about regarding monies. She had asked about the monies that would be transferred to the Board and also whether the authorisation for investment of monies is by the Minister and, if so, the Minister for Education or the Minister for Finance. The monies that are transferred are really existing funds of the Examinations Division of MOE, which it has used to run the national examinations, and it would serve the same purpose.

The provision for the Board to invest monies, as may be authorised by the Minister, is a standard provision that appears in statutory board Acts. The Minister for Education, in this instance, would authorise the investments. It is not something that I would read very deeply into.

Sir, the establishment of the Examinations Board will strengthen Singapore's education system by enhancing our capabilities and expertise in

Column: 3550

operating a rigorous national examination system. It will fortify the reputation that our examination system has internationally, as one that is sound, effective and forward-looking.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

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