HEAD K - MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Column No : 1352

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head K - Ministry of Education (cont.)

Resumption of Debate on Question [7th March, 2006],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan].

Question again proposed.

The Minister for Education (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam): Mr Chairman, Sir, let me first thank Dr Amy Khor, Dr Tan Boon Wan, Mdm Ho Geok Choo, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Mr Ong Ah Heng and Mr Zainudin Nordin for raising questions on what more we can do to engage students who are at risk of dropping out from our schools, what more we can do to get them to stay in school and benefit from the quality education that our schools provide. Dr Lily Neo and Dr Loo Chong Yong had raised similar issues during the Budget debate earlier.

Let me, first, address the scale of the problem.

First, students who drop out during their primary or secondary school years. This number has been coming down. As a percentage of each student cohort, the number of students who drops out without completing a secondary education has, in fact, declined from 3.6% of the cohort in 2003 to 2.6% of the cohort in 2005. But this is still too many - 2.6% of the cohort is about 1,200 students in each cohort - and we want to bring it down.

Another concern for us is the students who do complete their secondary education, but do not progress to a post-secondary education. We do not have a precise handle on the numbers because many of the students who do not enrol in our polytechnics, ITEs or junior colleges, in fact, go on to study in various private institutions, such as NAFA, LaSalle, SHATEC, and so on. And some of them go overseas. They have not dropped out, but are continuing their studies.

Our main focus at the post-secondary level is on encouraging as many of our Normal (Technical) students as possible to go on to the ITE. We are making progress. The percentage of Normal (Technical) students who go on to ITE has been steadily increasing over the years. Last year, 76% of our Normal (Technical) students went on to ITE, up from 63% in 1998. The increase reflects the efforts of both the ITE and our secondary school teachers, who bring their students to the ITE campuses to see what they offer and get a taste of the range of courses they can take at the ITE. I will touch more on this later.

But, again, we want to do more. The number of Normal (Technical) students who choose not to go to the ITE translates to about 3.3% of the overall age cohort, which is about 1,500 students. We will do more to engage this group of students, and encourage them to go on to a post-secondary education. This is the second group we are focusing on, besides the group of students who drop out during their primary and secondary school years. We cannot completely prevent students from dropping out of school. The reasons why they drop out are varied, and the fundamental reasons usually lie outside the school. And, even within the school, there are no quick fixes to this problem.

We are working on several initiatives, beginning from the pre-primary level and extending all the way up to the ITE - initiatives to help students learn better, see the relevance of what they learn, and feel engaged in the school community. It is a challenging and complex task, and we are trying some new approaches. We are also working with MCYS and the various social agencies, so that what we try to do in schools goes hand in hand with efforts to strengthen the family.

Let me, first, focus on a key initiative that Dr Amy Khor, Mr Zainudin Nordin, Dr Ong Seh Hong and others have referred to, which relates to vocational education. In each cohort, there is a small group of students who are unable to cope with the mainstream curriculum. In 2005, there were 1,100 students who failed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE). Of these 1,100, about 130 of them failed the PSLE for the third time.

Currently, many of these students enrol at the two Vocational Training Centres (VTCs) under the Institute of Technical Education (ITE), eg, Geylang Serai VTC and Assumption Vocational Institute. But attrition is high, sometimes because of the lack of home support. 60% of the VTC students drop out. Of the 40% that do complete the programme, less than half made it to ITE.

We spoke to teachers, students and parents, to work out a new pathway that can help these students stay in education and get the best chance to succeed. First, we will open the doors to such students earlier, as Dr Amy Khor has suggested. Currently, the VTCs admit the students only after they have reached 14 years of age, and provide them with a two-year programme - which means that the student would first need to have failed his PSLE three times before he can enter the VTC.

Many of the VTC students and their parents told us that even with the best efforts of their primary schools, it was not helpful for them to keep repeating a PSLE curriculum that they were able to benefit from. There are also limits to what we can do to provide a more customised approach for these students while they remain in primary school, as they are distributed among many schools with no more than five or 10 students per school. So we should try to let them move beyond primary school, instead of waiting for them to take a third try at the PSLE, and move them up to a school where they can be provided with an education that is customised to their needs, and their different learning styles and abilities.

Second, we will take a more holistic approach to engaging these students. They need a programme that not only focuses on building skills, but on nurturing emotional resilience and giving them a sense of belonging to the school. In fact, the students we spoke to - those who had gone through the VTC and succeeded in going onto the ITE - tell us that they find the teachers of the VTC warm and approachable. But they hope for a fuller environment, with a range of CCAs, for instance, a broader range of courses, and a more holistic and school-like environment.

MOE will set up a new school to implement this new and enhanced pathway for students who can benefit from a more customised and practice-based curriculum. The new school, which will be called NorthLight School, will build on the current VTC programme and enhance it. Geylang Serai Vocational Training Centre will become a part of the new school.

NorthLight School will admit students from January 2007. It will allow in students who have attempted the PSLE twice or more (in other words, 13 years old or older). It will thus be able to give them a longer programme - a three-year programme will be offered to students who have failed the PSLE twice and want to enter the school. Parents and students will retain the choice, if they wish, of repeating the PSLE a third time. The school will also be open to students who leave secondary school prematurely. We expect that it will start smallish, about 600 students, including the current Geylang Serai VTC students, and expand up to 1,400 students eventually, which is about the size of a regular school.

Getting the right school leaders and teachers is critical. Their conviction is critical. The MOE Committee that studied how we can enhance the VTC programme visited a number of similar schools abroad. One was the Life Learning Academy in San Francisco. In fact, it is set on an island called Treasure Island. It chooses students who have done very poorly in nearby schools and puts them together in a 'living and learning' community. The principal and teachers were passionate about what they were doing. The principal herself had a rough start in her youth, but turned her life around. She had a personal mission to help youth in trouble make good. One of the Chemistry teachers was an aerospace engineer who left a high-paying job because he wanted to do the same. And they were achieving results. Some of the school's students even made it to the top universities in California.

We have put some effort into choosing the right people for NorthLight. We have chosen as NorthLight's first principal, an experienced MOE school leader with a zeal for helping students in difficulty. She is Mrs Chua Yen Ching, whose work in recent years as principal of Shuqun Secondary School has gained the attention of the school community and the public. Yen Ching has developed fresh approaches to re-define success for her students, and help them gain the confidence to pursue their dreams.

She will be accompanied by many dedicated staff from the present Geylang Serai VTC, and other MOE teachers with a passion for helping this group of students. One of them won the Outstanding Youth in Education Award last year, for the way she has used the arts to reach out to students who feel disengaged from their studies. In fact, she had written a thorough report on how we should make more use of the arts to reach out to students at risk, which she had sent to me before she even knew that we would start a new school of this nature. The school will have a collection of passionate teachers like her.

NorthLight School will aim to prepare as many of its students as possible for further education at ITE or apprenticeship with industry. It will also aim to give them skills and strengths that they can take with them through life. Its new three-year curriculum will have three key aspects: first, to place emphasis on developing emotional resilience and instilling essential life-skills, as Dr Amy Khor had also suggested, such as taking responsibility and managing relationships. These will take up a greater share of curriculum time but within a longer programme of three years. The school will also have a full CCA programme, including sports, games and the arts, so as to develop bonds amongst the students and develop character. The school will have more full-time, inhouse counsellors to advise and guide students facing social and emotional challenges.

Second, the school will adopt a hands-on and experiential approach to learning, suited to students who learn better in non-traditional classroom settings. As Mrs Chua Yen Ching put it to me, she wants NorthLight to be the school where "School Comes Alive" - where students find lessons interesting, and see their relevance to day-to-day life.

Third, there will be a wider range of vocational options to stimulate students' interests and open up their career choices. Each of the options will have a 10-week long industrial attachment.

The school's new approach to learning, especially its attempt to create a living and learning community for students where they apply what they learn in their classes in day-to-day real-world applications, will be of interest to some of our mainstream schools as well. The exchange of experience between NorthLight and the mainstream sector can throw up more ideas on how we can engage all our students and help them stay in school.

Besides the new vocational pathway that Northlight School will provide, MOE is implementing several other targeted initiatives to assist students who are at risk of dropping out. We have mapped out a comprehensive approach, at various stages of the education system.

First, at pre-school. We know the early years in kindergarten are important in nurturing children's confidence and interest in learning. Children who are confident and eager to learn are more likely to take school seriously, and want to stay on in school. We have been helping to level up the quality of teachers in our kindergartens, and MOS Chan Soo Sen will be talking more about our approach. We are also working on some more targeted interventions at the pre-school level.

MOE is working with MCYS and other partners to help encourage every family to put their children in pre-school education. That is the first priority.

Next, we are starting a prototype project with some neighbourhood kindergartens, aimed especially at helping children who do not receive adequate support at home. We are working with 10 neighbourhood kindergartens on what we call Project SEAL (Sustained Early Assistance for Learning). It is a multi-pronged effort and a multi-agency approach that pulls together expertise from several bodies. An important part of this prototype project is to identify young children with learning difficulties early while they are in kindergartens. For example, the Dyslexia Association of Singapore is developing a simple screening tool to help teachers identify children who need special help in language. MOE will then work with the kindergartens to customise the programme to support these children. The National Library Board will loan story books to supplement the kindergartens' reading resources and assist them to set up reading enrichment programmes for the children.

12.15 pm

Next, primary schools, when the children enter Primary 1. We are enhancing the Learning Support Programme. As Mr Ong Ah Heng has pointed out, the Learning Support Programme is a critical piece in our strategy to help students who are not school-ready when they enter primary schools. The Learning Support Programme has helped many students. It is a specialised programme, focusing on basic oral language and reading skills. Each year, about 12%-14% of our Primary 1 pupils with weak basic language and literacy skills are identified for support in the programme. And on average, after one year of intervention, about one-third of the pupils supported by the programme will graduate from the programme and rejoin the regular classes.

We are now piloting an enhanced Learning Support Programme for English in 34 primary schools this year. It will further differentiate the students, because some of them need much more basic support than others. There is a group of students each year, with very weak language skills, who needs more targeted attention. We will put them through a more intensive reading support programme in the first instance. Over the longer term, if we can reach out to such students when they are in kindergartens, we can hopefully reduce the numbers in this group when they enter our primary schools.

Another feature of our enhanced Learning Support Programme is a smaller group size. Pupils are supported in groups of no more than five pupils, as compared to 10 currently. MOE will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot at the end of this year, before fine-tuning and implementing it in all our schools from 2007.

The enhancement of the Learning Support Programme will also be supported by changes in English Language classes for all students in the early primary years. This will help all students, but it is particularly impactful for students from lower-income families - whose main language deficit is English, because it is not the language spoken at home.

We have started a pilot programme, or what we call, SEED - English Language. SEED refers to the whole set of experiments we are taking in the early primary years, so SEED - English Language is an experiment that is taking place for English Language teaching. So this is a pilot programme. We have started in 30 schools this year to provide students with an enhanced curriculum for learning grammar and phonics, to help them learn English with confidence. I would not go into the details, but it involves a very careful and gradual building up of the students' language skills. And it also aims to develop amongst young children a love for reading at a young age, by providing more early exposure to books and engaging them in the conversation on what is being read.

Second, we are also rolling out Learning Support for Mathematics. We want children with a weak start in numbers to be able to catch up and follow the class. This is now being implemented in 50 schools at Primary 1, after it has spent the last four to five years piloting this programme, and it will be in all our schools from 2007. All the schools will be provided with additional teachers to provide support to Primary 1 pupils with a late start in numeracy skills.

We are also investing more to help students with special learning difficulties like dyslexia and ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) in our schools. By 2010, we will have 140 trained Special Needs Officers in our primary schools. We already have 28 of them in our primary schools currently. We are also aiming to train close to 100 officers for secondary schools and they will be concentrated in certain schools - some schools that will pull together resources for dyslexia, others for students who are autistic. These are students who do not have severe difficulties and can be well accommodated with our mainstream system and they can benefit from the mainstream curriculum. These provisions that we are making in the mainstream schools will complement what we are doing to improve quality and facilities in our special schools which cater to children with more significant learning difficulties.

Next, secondary schools. We are strengthening counselling resources in all our schools but with priority being given to the secondary schools because that is where the challenges of growing up are greatest. MOE is on track to providing all secondary schools with one full-time inhouse school counsellor by this year. Primary schools and junior colleges will receive a full-time counsellor by 2008. Many of the counsellors we are recruiting are former teachers or some current teachers who decided to switch to full-time counselling and some former principals. They understand students and they have a heart for them. And we put all of them through a rigorous six-month diploma course at NIE. It is early days, but so far this programme is working quite well.

But the schools are not just reacting to problems, or dealing with problems as and when they arise and calling the counsellor in. They are taking a proactive approach well before the counsellor becomes necessary. It is a holistic approach, getting students to participate in CCAs, camps and other school activities, so that they develop bonds amongst each other and develop confidence in themselves. The schools are helping students find the best in themselves, whether in their studies or in their CCAs and other activities. This proactive approach to developing bonds among students and creating a sense of attachment to the school is being enhanced in all our schools.

Another initiative is the Normal (Technical) course. We are implementing a revised Normal (Technical) curriculum with a more practical orientation, to better engage students in their learning. The curriculum content is being made more meaningful to students by relating what they learn to daily life. There will be greater emphasis on group work and presentations, creativity, hands-on activities and use of IT, and new ways of assessing the Normal (Technical) students, such as evaluating their coursework, either individually or in groups, instead of the traditional pen-and-paper test. We will start rolling out the revised Normal (Technical) curriculum in 2007.

As part of the revised approach to Normal (Technical), we also introduced elective modules last year to create opportunities to broaden the experiences of the students. The students enjoy the elective modules tremendously because of the more practical and hands-on nature of these modules. But they also develop a deeper understanding of the concepts of their learning quite often. One of our principals gave me an example of students who attended an elective module on baking at the Baking Industry Training Centre. They were learning to make swiss rolls. But the four-hour session on swiss rolls also made Mathematics come alive, as the students have to calculate the correct proportion of water, flour, sugar and the other ingredients, in order to bake delicious swiss rolls. The students were so engaged that they asked if the session could be extended to a longer time. And the session also gave ideas to the school teacher who was there, on how to conduct the regular classes for the Normal (Technical) students back in school.

The elective modules are catching on in our schools. More than 40% of schools which offer the Normal (Technical) course are now offering at least one elective module to their students, in a whole range of areas from digital videography to basic mechatronics. They are making schools more interesting and more relevant to life for the students.

The next piece is what we are doing at ITE. We are making ITE a centre of excellence in technical education. All across Asia and, indeed, internationally, ITE's reputation is now up there - it is well-known.

ITE's key improvements are in two areas in recent years: new courses to keep pace with the interest of students and the needs of industry, and closer collaboration with industry to ensure that ITE students find fruitful employment after graduation.

The changes are making an impact. ITE has been attracting more school leavers, year after year, with enrolment of full-time students reaching a high of 23,000 in 2005. As I shared earlier, more and more of our Normal (Technical) students are going on to ITE.

ITE's attrition rate has also been decreasing. In 2005, the proportion of students who left ITE without a qualification was about 12% of ITE's full-time enrolment, compared to 17% just five years ago.

Mr Zainudin Nordin also asked about the relevance of ITE's training to industry. This is something that is foremost in ITE's mind. The market is the best test and the best testimony. According to the ITE graduate employment survey, the last one done in June last year, 89% of ITE graduates found jobs within five months of job search. After 10 years on the job market, ITE graduates had doubled their starting salaries. And more ITE graduates are moving up the educational ladder. Within 10 years from graduation, 10%-12% had acquired degree qualifications and a further 24% had diploma qualifications.

So you can see, we are taking a comprehensive approach in education to address students who are at risk of dropping out at various stages. We are adopting new approaches to help students at risk, from the early years up. We will learn from the experience of these experiments and improve the programmes as we roll them out. I have to repeat that there are no short cuts to reducing drop-out rates. The problems are complex and often rooted in the home.

What we want is to try harder and do better, and we will. We will help ensure that students are better prepared for school, help them to get a good start in their early primary years, remain engaged through secondary school, and after leaving school go on to a first-class education at ITE that prepares them for employment and further education. And we will provide the NorthLight School a new holistic approach to engaging students who need a more active, hands-on and practice-based approach to learning.

Sir, I would like to thank Members once again for their interest and suggestions on this important topic.

The Minister of State for Education (Mr Chan Soo Sen): Sir, Dr Amy Khor raised a number of questions on the Gifted Education Programme (GEP). Allow me to put the GEP into context.

Since 1984, we have established the Gifted Education Programme to cater for the top 1% of our students. The programme provides an enriched curriculum to nurture these intellectually gifted students. It develops their skills in critical and creative thinking, as well as problem solving and allows them to work with specialists through mentorship programmes.

Today, our education system is more diversified. It provides different opportunities for all students to discover and develop their talents. We have schools with different specialisation and niches as well as different programmes to suit different needs.

But GEP remains relevant in this broader context of talent development. The core focus of the programme will remain, that is, to meet the educational needs of intellectually gifted students. Nevertheless, we will build on the strong foundation we have achieved and enhance it further.

Over the years, we have been moving towards greater decentralisation in the shaping of gifted education in schools. The introduction of Integrated Programme (IP) in schools, that are also GEP centres, has allowed these schools to develop their own school-based gifted programmes to stretch their students. The introduction of Specialised Independent Schools also opens up other new branches in gifted education. The NUS High School of Mathematics and Science, for example, offers a whole school approach to developing students with exceptional talents in Mathematics and Science.

At the primary level, we will continue to have special classes to cater to the top 1% of the cohort in nine GEP centres. Because these students are drawn from a large number of schools, it is more practical to gather them in a few primary schools to provide them with customised learning programmes. However, schools will create more opportunities for GEP students to interact with their non-GEP schoolmates, and develop as well-rounded individuals. The interactions should enrich the learning experience for all students involved.

At secondary level, over 90% of GEP students have joined the Integrated Programme in IP schools. With most GEP students in IP schools, we have therefore moved from a centrally-run MOE programme for all GEP students to giving these schools the flexibility to shape their own approaches to gifted education. They will cater to gifted students within the broader context of talent development that the schools have embarked on. This is in line with the mandate of IP schools to develop our top students by providing broader learning opportunities beyond the 'O' level syllabus.

As for GEP students who did not join the IP, they will be nurtured through other types of school-based programmes for higher ability students in non-IP schools.

These enhancements to the Gifted Education Programme aim to make the programme more effective and customised for our intellectually gifted students. Besides the GEP, MOE is also studying ways to identify and develop talents in specialised areas, as well as in non-academic areas, such as sports and arts. There are students with exceptional abilities in just one or two areas but who are not part of the GEP. By providing diverse opportunities in different areas, we hope that more talents can be groomed and that there will be space and opportunities for every talent to develop to the fullest.

12.30 pm

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked about the quality of the pre-school sector. Pre-school education lays the foundation for learning in subsequent years. As pointed out by Mr Yeo, there is a diverse range of pre-school programmes in the market. The diversity provides parents with a wide range of choices. However, this does not mean that MOE takes a hands-off approach towards kindergartens. In the past few years, MOE has put in place various initiatives at key leverage points to raise the overall quality of pre-school education in Singapore.

Firstly, we have defined the desired outcomes of pre-school education in 2000 to provide direction for the sector. These include moral and social outcomes, such as knowing what is right and wrong, being able to relate to others and being curious and able to explore.

Secondly, MOE has formulated and disseminated a kindergarten curriculum framework and teachers' resource package to guide pre-schools to design a curriculum best suited to younger children. To enable kindergartens to examine their own practices in identified areas for improvement, MOE has designed an instrument called Pursuing Excellence at Kindergartens (PEAK) and disseminated it to all kindergartens in 2003 to encourage them to conduct yearly self-appraisals. As at December 2005, 80% of the kindergartens have conducted self-appraisals using PEAK.

Thirdly, MOE has worked on one of the most important factors affecting pre-school education, ie, the quality of teachers. To upgrade the expertise of pre-school practitioners, we have articulated the professional qualifications that kindergarten principals and teachers must have by January 2006 and January 2008 respectively. To help non-profit kindergartens meet these requirements, MOE provides a recurrent grant to incentivise them to upgrade the quality of their staff and education.

Fourthly, we will be working with 10 neighbourhood kindergartens on project SEAL (for Sustained Early Assistance for Learning), which my Minister has just mentioned. Through this project, we hope that children in the kindergartens with learning difficulties can be identified early and given help.

Many of these measures will take time to bear fruit. With these measures, MOE aims to raise the overall quality of pre-school education in Singapore over time.

Mr Yeo also suggested that the Opportunity Fund be extended to pre-schools. The Opportunity Fund for schools aims to level the opportunities for needy students in terms of enrichment activities. At the pre-school level, MCYS provides the Kindergartens Financial Assistance Scheme to subsidise kindergarten fees for needy students. We feel that this is a more targeted approach to help needy children to have access to pre-school education.

Let me thank Mr Chay Wai Chuen, Dr Ong Seh Hong and Mr Ong Ah Heng for their support and interest in the teaching of Mother Tongue languages. I will update Members on the changes made to the learning of Chinese Language. My colleague, Mr Hawazi Daipi, will later elaborate on the implementation of recommendations on the Malay Language and Tamil Language education.

Bilingualism in English and Mother Tongue languages is an asset for Singaporeans. Indeed, bilingualism is the cornerstone of our education system. English is likely to remain the lingua franca of the world for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, learning one's own Mother Tongue helps in building cultural identity and knowing one's roots. It also opens doors to more economic opportunities. In fact, a recent report commissioned by the British Council proclaimed that those who were monolingual in English "'faced a bleak economic future' as multilingual competitors flood into the workforce from all corners of the globe". Therefore, we must maintain our linguistic edge of being a multilingual society.

Sir, in the last two years, the Ministry of Education separately conducted reviews on all of our Mother Tongues, ie, Chinese Language, Malay Language and Tamil Language, in their curriculum as well as pedagogy. The findings and recommendations from the three reviews set the tone and direction for the teaching and learning of the Mother Tongue languages in the next five to 10 years.

Specifically, the Committee on Chinese Language has recommended a curriculum to enthuse all Chinese Language students and develop in them an abiding interest in Chinese Language and culture. This will be achieved through a more customised and flexible modular curriculum at the primary level. Furthermore, greater emphasis will be placed on oral fluency and reading for the majority of students. Other key recommendations include making CL learning interesting, relevant and engaging, aligning examinations with the revised curriculum, providing more opportunities to use and learn Chinese Language in schools and greater community support. With this framework, the case mentioned by Dr Ong Seh Hong yesterday should not arise. I would want to recommend to Dr Ong Seh Hong that he propose to his constituent to provide the feedback to the school. I am sure it will be very, very happy to look at what the children have gone through and see how it can rectify it.

Since the completion of the CL review, two committees have been set up. One of them is the Committee to Promote Chinese Language Learning, which is chaired by me. The Committee is working on five areas, ie, Chinese Language education in pre-schools, reading, writing, engaging the media as well as educational exchange programmes. I want to say that the support from the Chinese community to the review on Chinese Language teaching has been very forthcoming. In fact, the Chinese community has come forward to initiate a Chinese Language and Culture Fund to raise the standard of Chinese in Singapore. It has already raised more than $7 million out of its $10 million target, and the Government has provided a dollar-for-dollar matching grant to bring its total sum to more than $14 million currently.

With all these initiatives, support and resources, we hope to create a greater environment in which Chinese is a living language for our students. I am happy to note that more schools and students are showing enthusiasm for learning Chinese. At present, more than one-quarter of our schools have twinning programmes with schools in China. Schools from primary up to tertiary level have organised many immersion programmes to China for students as well as teachers. These exchanges will allow our students to pick up the language more naturally as well as deepen their appreciation of the Chinese culture and society.

The second committee, which I think is a more important committee, is the Chinese Language Curriculum and Pedagogy Implementation Steering Committee, which is chaired by Mr Wee Heng Tin, former Director-General of Education. Mr Wee's committee coordinates and oversees the implementation of the recommendations from the Chinese Language review. Let me provide Members with an update on the enhancements made to the teaching of Chinese Language so far.

The Ministry of Education is piloting the modular Chinese Language curriculum at Primary 1 and Primary 2 in 25 schools this year. Under this approach, students study a Core Module for 70%-80% of the curriculum. On top of this, they can take a Bridging Module or an Enrichment Module, depending on their ability and interest. If they are relatively weak, they can take the Bridging Module. If they are relatively strong, then they can take the Enrichment Module. This helps ensure a baseline standard without a ceiling effect (�?底�?�?顶), ie, ensure that there is a strong base but we do not impose a ceiling for those who can achieve more. The modular curriculum will be implemented across all primary levels by 2010. Feedback from students, teachers and parents from pilot schools has been positive and encouraging so far.

Dr Ong Seh Hong shared that one of his young constituents encountered a teacher who emphasised rote learning. I want to assure him again that this is precisely the type of teaching approach which we hope to change. Many of the Chinese Language teachers, I spoke to, are passionate about teaching the language and, in fact, many of them have come up with very creative ways of helping their students learn.

Chinese Language teachers in many schools are embarking on pedagogical experimentation to make learning more engaging for their students. At Ahmad Ibrahim Primary School, Chinese Language teachers use a thematic approach on "Chinese Traditional Herbs" to make CL learning come alive. Other examples include the use of comics in Dunman Secondary School, broadcasting programmes in Xin Min Secondary and blog diary in Tanjong Katong Girls' School. The Ministry of Education has organised more than 15 sharing sessions to propagate good practices, and we will continue to do so.

Starting from this year, we will introduce an interim examination format at PSLE and at O-levels. Handheld CL-to-CL electronic dictionaries will be allowed in the CL composition component of national examinations from 2007 as an alternative to the print dictionary.

A new Literature in Chinese syllabus is being offered to O-level students starting this year. The new syllabus has included more works of eminent local writers and contemporary literature, which we believe are closer to students' interests.

In addition, we have set up a fourth Chinese Language Elective Programme Centre in Jurong Junior College and three more Zonal Centres of Excellence to promote best practices in CL learning and teaching to other schools. These additional zonal centres are in Pei Chun Public School, Chung Cheng High School (Main) and CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls' School.

Dr Ong Seh Hong asked whether fewer students were taking Chinese Language as a result of the change in university admission criteria in 2004. I would like to say that, in the same year, MOE also relaxed the criteria for students to take Higher Chinese at secondary level. Since the changes, in fact, more students have opted to take Higher Chinese at O-level and A-level. At the AO-level in the junior college, the number of students taking the subject has remained roughly the same, but what has changed is that fewer students have opted to retake the CL 'AO' examination at JC2. Previously, JC students have been retaking their CL 'AO' examinations to better their scores because it is compulsory to count it for university admission. Since then there is a drop in the candidature for the CL 'AO' examination at JC2, not the number of students taking CL. Therefore, I would say that the situation is promising. There is no decline in number nor interest in the learning of Chinese Language in schools.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen suggested allowing Singaporean students to learn each other's language, with a focus on conversational skills. MOE encourages our schools to offer such lessons to students. We are very encouraged to note that 60 schools have already initiated programmes for students to pick up conversational skills in either Malay Language or Chinese Language. To facilitate them, MOE provides schools with teaching guides and allows schools to tap on existing resource provisions to conduct these programmes.

Non-native students, who are keen and interested to study Malay or Chinese Language to a higher level, can also take these subjects as third languages, which will have a greater emphasis on listening as well as speaking skills.

Having said all this, we need to be realistic. Not all students have the ability to cope with a third language. In fact, it is a very big challenge for most of us to master just two languages. Besides Malay and Chinese Languages, MOE also offers French, German and Japanese as third languages. Mr Chay suggested Spanish could be offered to our students. I would like to say that if there is strong student interest and demand for it to be offered Spanish as a third language, we are open to this proposal provided our resources permit. But the important thing is students' interest.

12.45 pm

Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked whether it might be more cost-effective to refurbish and upgrade school buildings, especially to preserve its sentimental value, rather than just demolish and build new ones elsewhere. Wherever possible, the Ministry of Education does refurbish and upgrade school buildings, instead of demolishing and building new ones. This is for better cost-effectiveness, as well as to preserve the feeling of loyalty from the students to the school. But this is done only when the current site is still suitable, in terms of location, size as well as population catchment.

In fact, in many instances, a school building is vacated due to merger or relocation of schools. This usually reflects the falling demand of school places in that vicinity, because the estate has matured. At the same time, new demand is created in new towns as young couples set up homes and younger families move in. Therefore, we will continue to see the Ministry of Education building new schools in newer estates like Punggol in line with population characteristics. We are, however, looking into merging schools in more mature estates, such as Jurong, precisely to avoid having a school with no students and, therefore, wasting land and physical resources. Vacated school sites are returned to the Singapore Land Authority to put to alternative use, or sometimes, it may be used for holding schools for the Ministry of Education's Programme for Rebuilding and Improving Existing Schools (PRIME).

Dr Tan also commented that some primary school buildings are too large. He specifically mentioned Henry Park Primary School, which is a very popular school with parents. Since PRIME in 1999, almost all our primary schools are built with standard 42 classrooms. In the case of Henry Park Primary School, it was built to be slightly larger to provide it with another six classrooms to run the Gifted Education Programme to cater to the additional Primary 4 to 6 students for the programme. This explains why the school campus is slightly larger.

Dr Tan expressed concern that the larger campus may be too imposing for the young students. We would like to assure him that Primary 1 students are grouped into smaller class size of 30 each and they are buddied with an older primary student who will look after them and bring them around in the first few weeks of school, so that the new students are comfortable with the new environment. As for the ramp in front of Henry Park Primary, which Dr Tan mentioned, it is a traffic safety feature that is put in place because of the larger enrolment in Henry Park. It helps to ease traffic congestion entering the school by separating the buses that go to the ground level and the cars which will go up to the elevated level. Therefore, having that ramp is necessary for the safety of our students.

The Chairman: Mr Chan, you may want to leave some time for the rest of the replies for your Ministry.

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Yes, Sir. Dr Tan Cheng Bock also asked for the Ministry's stand on teachers who give their handphone numbers to students and parents. I want to say that respect for teachers is central to education. Our teachers play an important role in nurturing and developing our young. MOE believes in upholding the standing of teachers so that the role is not compromised.

In the course of their work, teachers may be required to share their personal contact numbers with their colleagues and supervisors so that they remain contactable. This is especially necessary during times of emergency. Teachers are also encouraged to maintain contact with their students and parents, and many of them do, but they are not compelled to disclose their personal contact numbers to their students or parents if they feel uncomfortable in doing so. Teachers will normally, however, provide their students and parents with either their office or staff room numbers.

Schools value good relationship with parents and will work with them in the interest of their children as far as it is possible. The Ministry of Education does not condone harassment of teachers by parents and view any such harassments seriously. In addition, I want to say that anybody found verbally abusing a civil servant could be taken to task in a court of law.

Finally, just a brief response to Mr Ang Mong Seng's point about school bags. I want to say that this has nothing to do with Teach Less, Learn More, but it has something to do with our normal kiasu attitude. When I was a student, I also carried all the books to school when it was not necessary to do so. With proper planning, in fact, students only need to bring whatever that is required to school. In school, there are also places and lockers that they can keep their stuff. So it is not necessary for the students to carry exceptionally heavy school bags to school. Having said that, if parents notice that their children's school bags are still too heavy, maybe they should go through with them and see whatever is necessary or unnecessary for them to bring to school. In fact, to be able to bring the necessary books and leave the unnecessary stuff at home is also a very good habit of housekeeping.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I wonder if the Minister could make a clarification for me. I wonder if the enhanced Learning Support Programme is made available to those PSLE students who have failed three times.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I am sorry that I did not make myself fully clear on this. In fact, students who have failed three times would certainly go into the NorthLight School. In addition, the school will also open its doors to students who have failed twice and who wish to progress on to that school, whereas previously, you need to have failed three times and reached the age of at least 14 years old before you can enter one of the VTCs. So the first group is still a very important target group, ie, those who have failed three times.

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar): Sir, I would like to seek two clarifications on school drop-outs. My first clarification is: may I ask the Minister whether we have school social workers to identify and assist potential school drop-outs? On my second clarification, in view of the important interplay between the community, home and schools, does MOE recognise this challenge and does MOE have any plans or initiatives to address this issue?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: On her first question, the answer is yes. Currently, all schools draw on a network of social workers, both those who are working part-time with the schools as well as those provided through the entire MCYS' network, the Family Service Centres and the various voluntary agencies. And we are taking this a step further. We are going to provide full-time counsellors in each of our secondary schools by the end of this year and even primary schools by 2008 - people who can try to help the teachers to spot problems early and prevent students from coming to a point where they make the wrong decision of dropping out of school. So it is something which we are working on and, in fact, it is a question of recruiting the right people and putting them through a training pipeline before sending them out to the schools. It takes a bit of time but we are getting there.

On her second question, this is a very important focus, particularly for the pre-primary years, but also for the older children. MOE, MCYS and all the community agencies, as well as some specialist agencies, those that specialise in students with specific learning difficulties like the Dyslexia Association, for instance, are working together quite closely. First, to make sure that at the pre-primary level, every family sends their kid to kindergarten. Secondly, to be able to detect students with learning difficulties early and have a multi-pronged approach to helping that child and also, sometimes, having to help the family realise the importance of education and try to provide some support for the kids when they are in education.

So it is a lot of work, a very challenging task, quite complex, no easy fix, but we are trying hard.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister what about the Inter-ministry Committee to relieve the congestion on the road itself. Basically, we still see a lot of congestion in the main road in front of all the schools, even for those which have undergone PRIME as well.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: That is not a topic that pertains to the matter I was talking about. There is progress being made. I do not have the details. The LTA is, in fact, the chief coordinator for this Committee, but I understand that there is progress being made.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh): I just want to make two points, Mr Chairman. I am very happy to hear about the efforts to promote and uplift the quality of teachers in the kindergartens. I would just like to ask where are we now, in terms of achieving the target of the qualifications for all the teachers in the kindergartens, because the deadline, if I recall very well, is 2006. The second question would be: since we are trying to uplift the quality of pre-school education, are there any changes that we are trying to do also at lower primary to ensure that there is an ease of transition from pre-school to the lower primary?

Mr Chan Soo Sen: In fact, if you are talking about the upgrading of the kindergarten teachers, we have achieved good progress. Based on our figures, as of January 2006, 95% of our non-profit, community-based kindergartens have implemented the new curriculum framework. 60% of the principals have obtained the necessary qualifications and 80% of teachers have acquired a certificate or diploma. So we are well on the way to achieve those objectives on time. The best link between the kindergartens as well as the primary schools is the Learning Support Programme (LSP), which my Minister has presented just now on the various enhancement features. With this, I think the linkage should be even smoother.

The Chairman: I will allow three last clarifications before we move on - Mr Yeo, Mr Chiam and Dr Khor. We will start with Mr Yeo.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied): The Minister of State mentioned that already 80% of the schools completed their self-appraisal. What I would like to know is what MOE will do with all these self-appraisals because, if there is no structured plan, all these self-appraisals will just become a paper exercise. For 485 centres in Singapore, how frequent does the Ministry do its monitoring?

1.00 pm

Mr Chan Soo Sen: Sir, self-appraisal means self-appraisal. The schools appraise based on the guidelines, and they learn a lesson from it. The Ministry of Education does not micro-manage the kindergartens. They remain private. We feel that it is good to have a very diversified range of kindergartens in the market. The reason is really one of resources. Mr Yeo is trying to, I think, persuade the Ministry of Education to start implementing official programmes before the age of six, maybe playing a much more active role in K1 and K2, or maybe bringing in pre-primary education. But the point is this. Resources are limited. We would rather concentrate on the age beyond the compulsory education requirement, do a good job out of it and put in a good LSP programme to make sure that all the students are up to speed. Because, if were to keep on moving down the age, resources and commitments are going to be greater and, frankly, the issue is also an iterative one. If we were to go down to five-year olds, then the question would be how about the education programme for those who are three or four years old, and so on. So, I think there is no end to it. Our strategy is to concentrate on those years starting from the year that compulsory education becomes compulsory, and do a good job out of it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am concerned at the high failure rate at the PSLE. I wonder how effective is the enhanced support programme in cutting down the drop-out rate at the PSLE.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I take it that the Member is referring to the Learning Support Programmes in the early primary years. It has been working quite well. It is an intervention which, by international reckoning, has achieved more success than most. 12%-14% of Primary 1 students go through the programme in the first year. About one-third is able to graduate out of the programme and join regular classes after one year. It does not mean that we solve all their problems, but I think we have achieved a lot to correct early deficits. Second year, another portion of them, also at the end of the second year, managed to graduate to regular classes.

It is quite resource-intensive because we have got to train up teachers, especially to deal with the students in these Learning Support Programmes - small classes, different teaching methods. It is not something that you can just scale up at the word "Go". I think we can do more. We can do more in Primary 3, 4 and 5. I do not think we have the resources to continue our Learning Support Programmes for four or five years. It would be more practical to improve what we are doing in Primary 1 and 2, which is what we are doing. We will not be able to reduce the failure rate to zero. In fact, if we reduce the failure rate to zero, it would probably mean that examinations are not doing what they are meant to do. If a student has not mastered the basics, it should be reflected in his grades. What we have got to do is to keep trying to improve our teaching, and where a child is really not able to benefit from a regular academic curriculum, even the EM3 curriculum, find something else that he can do well in, take an interest in, motivate him, that gives him confidence, which is what we are trying to do.

So, we have a whole set of initiatives, starting from pre-primary to early-primary, through primary school upwards, plus having the NorthLight School, that would provide a holistic approach for this group of students who are not suited to a regular academic curriculum. Let us give them time. I can assure him that we are putting a lot more efforts and resources into this, a lot more time and a lot more expertise, quite apart from the financial resources, which is the easier part. I think we will achieve success as we go along.

We are not unique in facing this problem. In fact, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, our problems are not large. We think they are too large for us. We want to do more, 2.6% of kids dropping out is far too large a number, as far as we are concerned. But they are not large by international standard. If you look at the UK drop-out rates, if you take those who drop out all the way through the end of secondary school, they are far higher. And truancy rates are extremely high for those who remain in school. I was just reading a report by the National Drop-out Prevention Centre in the United States, in some US cities, as much as 50% of the pupils are totally disengaged from their studies. I am not saying that that should give us comfort. All I am trying to say is that this is a problem the world over - truancy and dropping-out. Our problems are not large by international standard, but they are too big for us, too big for our comfort and we want to do more, and we will do more.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister on the point that students can be admitted to VTC. Sir, I understand that we should not rush into this. We should take this cautiously. I welcome the changes that will be made with regard to VTC programme, but the Minister noted earlier that students may now be allowed to enter VTC prior to reaching 14 years old, ie, if they fail twice in the PSLE. I would like to ask the Minister if MOE would consider, further down the road, allowing students to be admitted to VTC even before they fail the PSLE twice, because after six years of education, it may be quite clear to the teachers and parents if the student would benefit more from the VTC-type of education experience than in mainstream schools. I am asking the Minister if that would be considered, either they fail once or even not having taken the PSLE, but subject to the teacher's and parent's advice and consent to actually send the student to VTC prior to taking the PSLE.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: We will consider that eventually. First, we have to build up the capacity of NorthLight School, as well as the experience with the new programmes it is adopting. Over time, we will consider whether we want to allow parents to elect to have their children, after they fail the first time, go on to such a school. But we should look at that very carefully. Many students can repeat the PSLE and pass. There is a reasonable number of them that pass on their second attempt and go on to do reasonably well in secondary schools and on to ITE. So we do not want to make a pre-emptory move of shunting them out of the mainstream. Teachers would be able to advise parents on whether the child is suitable to repeat the PSLE. This is something which we will consider in later years. For now, we are taking in a significantly larger group of students by opening the doors of NorthLight School to students who have failed the second time, instead of failed first time. Over time, we will consider whether we can expand it further.

Malay and Tamil Language Promotion

Mr Zainudin Nordin: Sir, recently the Ministry of Education had announced the setting up of the Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee and the Tamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee. It was reported that the aim of both committees is to enthuse students in learning the Malay and Tamil Languages and to develop in them an abiding interest in the respective languages, literature and culture. Quite a mouthful, actually. So, I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on the terms of reference of the two committees. I am assuming, Sir, that in the pursuit of this aim, the committees will work with the Malay and Indian communities, relevant organisations, the media, institutes of higher learning and schools, to organise language, literature and cultural activities. I believe, Sir, through such literature and cultural activities, we can broaden the language environment and learning to encourage students to continue using Malay and Tamil even after they are years out of school.

I am also concerned that these committees may not be effective if they work independently. So, apart from the parties that I have mentioned above, who are the other possible partners and stakeholders that could be roped in for this effort?

Lastly, I would like to know whether this effort could be turned into a movement?

Sex Education

Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin ): Sir, I understand the Ministry of Education has introduced the "Growing Years Series" of sex education for students in the primary, secondary and junior colleges. It is also in the midst of introducing this series to students studying at the tertiary level.

Sir, before the schools introduced such a series, we do not have incidents of students taking their nude photos or sexual activities with their handphones. Now, with the series, we have such events happening. People are now asking whether the Ministry of Education has taught the wrong thing. Will the Minister consider reviewing this programme and also to get proper teachers to teach the lessons, otherwise, our students seem to have been going in another direction. This will be contrary to the original intention of this programme.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Sir, there is a pop song from the 90s that talks about sex. While I will not attempt to elaborate on the song, I think we should talk about this in a tone, it is not a tune our youths might listen to. The truth is, many of our teenagers are having sex. We do not need technology like mobile phones to highlight this. The starting point would be the 2,000-plus teenage pregnancies a year. But, nowadays, it would seem youths are having sex at an earlier age. I believe the call to improve our sexuality education has been made before. But has anything changed? I can cut and paste the reply that was given in Parliament two years ago from MOE's current webpage on sexuality education. Why is that?

After all, this Government tries very hard to be pragmatic. It does not ban prostitution. It legalises it. Does anyone say, therefore, that the Government is anti-marriage? Sir, I think the key message in MOE's sexuality education should be adjusted. I agree we should teach our children to love and respect others as they love and respect themselves. However, to premise our sexuality education on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society is not going to help teens who have had and who are having sex, because it is not relevant to them. This is the premise that presents and promotes abstinence until marriage and, therefore, a premise that excludes those who need help, knowledge and good counsel the most. Above all else, sexuality education must deal with the realities.

I can recognise why pupils are taught to understand and respect the attitudes, values and beliefs regarding sexuality propagated by other communities, but do our communities recognise why sexuality education must be approached, most importantly, from the point of view of the adolescents? It is the best way to connect with him or her. It is the best way to create an environment where a pupil can feel more comfortable confiding in an adult. In other words, it is the best way to help our children to exercise responsibilities and make informed decisions with which they can live. But we should not fool ourselves to think we can make this decision on behalf of our children, which means sexuality education should not come with a moralistic-laden approach.

Recently, a sexuality workshop at a junior college triggered a furore precisely because of this. It is a pity because external organisations and individuals can play a useful role. They can complement teachers by providing an objective third party perspective. However, I would like to ask if MOE has an accreditation scheme for groups which teach sexuality education. In this way, MOE is responsible to ensure that sexuality education is kept objective and schools need not fret about hidden agenda should they outsource such programmes.

Apart from helping teens to protect themselves from sexual abuse, our educators should ask if they have been successful in staying on top of the trend and real-life dilemmas of our teens. I would like to ask for the Minister's assessment on this issue.

Student Well-being

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: Sir, surveys done in both China and US show that about two-thirds of the students have not had enough sleep. The sleeping time of the secondary students has fallen down to below eight hours on average. Did our Ministry conduct a similar survey to find out the situation in Singapore and whether our students have adequate rest? Recently, many members of the public have voiced their concerns, through the media, that students are having longer and longer travelling time to school and most of the students have to report to school as early as 7.10 every morning. May I know whether MOE has any plans to address this concern and would the Ministry consider adjusting the starting time in all schools?

Another issue I wish to raise is whether our students have full freedom to choose their CCA. I understand that some parents have complained that their children were channelled to CCA that they are not interested in. I hope the Ministry could clarify to what extent this is true and what is the Ministry's plan to ensure that all our students can pursue their interest through CCA, and not joining CCA for the sake of having one.

Sir, most of the students, particularly those in secondary and Pre-U, have to take their meals in school canteens. I would like to know whether the Ministry is monitoring the price and quality of the food providers in the school canteens. With more and more schools tendering out their canteen operation, would there be an adverse impact on the quality and price of the food provided for our students in the school? I hope the Ministry would also monitor this.

Many students have also voiced the concern that there is no place for them to play sports game, for example, football, during weekends. I would like to know how many schools have so far opened their school fields to the community to enable our kids to play football during weekends?

Safety of School Children

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would like the Minister to stop the LTA from constructing the bus-stop near the open road in front of Block 120, Potong Pasir, Avenue 1, and instead to get the bus company to use the sheltered bus-bay which has been built by the Potong Pasir Town Council at its own expense.

My plea to the Minister, both privately and now in Parliament, is made entirely for the safety of hundreds of school children who shall be making use of that bus-stop in time to come. The bus-stop currently constructed by the LTA is not safe at all. When used, it shall expose the school children, on a daily basis, to extreme danger. I have no doubt in my mind that if the Minister allows that bus-stop, facing the open road to be used, one of these days, a child shall be knocked down or even killed by on-coming traffic. If the Minister does not want that to happen, then it is best not to use that bus-stop in the open road.

1.15 pm

The Chairman: Sorry, Mr Chiam. Your time is up. Mdm Ho Geok Choo is not here. Mr Ang Mong Seng.

Co-curricular Activities

Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): ( In Mandarin ): Sir, the number of young people joining grassroots organisations in community service is on a declining trend in recent years, resulting in a lack of successors for our community leaders. Singapore has a population of 4 million but only 26,000 people participate in activities of the grassroots organisations, accounting for only 0.65% of the population. Volunteers in our local charitable organisations make up another 15.2%, making a total of 15.85%. This is inferior compared to other countries. In the USA, it is 44%; in the UK, it is 47.5%; in Hong Kong, it is 22%. With an ageing population, we need more young people to participate in community activities.

Recently, in my constituency, there are many students who volunteer to take part in our youth group organisations and help us to organise community activities. I suggest that the Ministry of Education allows the participation in grassroots organisations' activities to be considered as a form of regular co-curricular activity for the schools. This will encourage more young people to take part in community activities. We can then have more volunteers to serve our people and to promote our community activities, enhance our cohesiveness and, together, we can build a warm and harmonious society for our multi-racial and multi-cultural society. This will also help to arrest the declining number of grassroots leaders.

National Education and Racial Integration

* *Mr Ong Ah Heng (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin )

Mr Chairman, the terrorist threat and the uproar in various parts of the world over the publishing of cartoons on Prophet Mohamad serve to remind us of the importance of racial harmony based on mutual respect and understanding. Such a process should start from young when our children begin to attend school.

May I ask the Minister for Education whether there is any holistic programme with concrete plans in our primary and secondary schools and tertiary institutions to enable our students to understand, appreciate and respect the different cultures and religions in our multi-racial society. I think this is very important in such a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. We will be able to respect one another's culture, traditions and customs. This is very important to a multi-racial society like ours. If we cannot start to inculcate in our students from the primary schools on such a concept, it would be very difficult later on to persuade them to come forward and serve the community, even when called upon by Government leaders to do so.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Mr Chairman, schools play an important role in providing students with the education necessary not just for their academic development but also their holistic development as individuals. I thank Members for their interest in ensuring that our schools provide well for our students, not just in "hard" aspects such as academic performance, but also in "softer" aspects and equally important aspects of ensuring that they will grow up to be well adjusted and responsible members of the society. I wish to stress, however, that in these efforts, MOE and the schools must be supported - by parents, the community and the media. MOE is always keen to engage stakeholders in the well being and proper development of our students, but this is the responsibility that lies with all of us.

Let me first thank Mr Zainudin Nordin for his question on the work of the committees that were set up to promote Malay and Tamil languages. The Ministry of Education conducted comprehensive reviews of the teaching and learning of Malay and Tamil last year. The conclusion of both reviews was the articulation of a vision of Malay and Tamil being closely intertwined with the Singapore society in which they are practised. For Malay, the vision is in the development of Arif Budiman, a Malay expression that encapsulates the learned person who contributes to society and nation. For Tamil, the vision is for it to be a living language and a vibrant part of our multi-racial society.

We fully agree with Mr Zainudin that the promotion of Malay and Tamil, therefore, has to be a community effort in partnership with stakeholders. In February 2006, MOE set up the Malay Language Learning and Promotion Committee, chaired by myself, and the Tamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee, chaired by Mr S Iswaran, Deputy Speaker of Parliament. The terms of reference are precisely to collaborate with Malay and Tamil communities to organise activities to promote the teaching and learning of these languages.

The role of these Committees is also to win support from the communities to pursue these goals. The two Committees will therefore work with Malay and Tamil community organisations, institutes of higher learning, the media, parents as well as schools. The mandate will be to collaboratively organise language, literature and cultural activities to expand the space in which Malay and Tamil are used in our daily lives.

The organisation of these activities is aimed at supporting and complementing the present efforts of the Malay and Tamil communities to promote these languages. So the two committees are not to supplement the existing efforts by the communities. We hope that they will provide momentum for language, literary and cultural groups to come together in a sustained and focused effort to promote the living and daily use of Malay and Tamil. If, through these activities, we are able to infuse in Malay and Tamil Singaporeans a sense of excitement about the role of these languages in their daily lives, I am confident that this would be the most successful type of "movement" that Mr Zainudin talked about. Indeed, we need all the collaborative efforts of the whole community to support the use of the Mother tongues.

Sir, on the teaching of the Malay and Tamil languages, Mr Ong Ah Heng sought updates on the review of the teaching and learning of these two Mother tongues. To spearhead these efforts, MOE has set up working committees for the implementation of the new Malay and Tamil Language curriculum and pedagogy. The committees will also implement new initiatives for assessment, examinations and teacher training.

Key initiatives would include opening up more space for classroom discussion, giving greater emphasis to assignments that require deeper thinking, and providing differentiated instruction to cater to students from different backgrounds and of different abilities. There will also be more focus on oral communication skills. Such initiatives will provide a richer classroom experience. MOE will implement the new Malay and Tamil curriculum at Primary 1 to Primary 4, starting from 2008.

Sir, on sexuality education, Mr Ong Ah Heng and Ms Eunice Olsen asked about the effectiveness of the sexuality education programme in our schools. Sexuality matters have become increasingly complicated in a rapidly changing world with evolving mores. We all recognise this. Why adolescents indulge in sexual behaviour that results in teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases is a complex issue. Lack of family support, low self-esteem and lack of understanding about the responsibilities in relationships are among the contributing factors. Many forces, including the influence of the family and media, contribute to shaping the attitudes of teenagers towards sexuality - rightly or wrongly. To tackle these issues, I cannot stress enough the necessity of parents, the community and the media also playing their part to inculcate sound values in our children.

What is MOE's approach to sexuality education? Sir, sexuality education is provided for all students in our schools. The emphasis of the programme is ensuring that students have the knowledge and ability to make responsible, informed choices, a point that Ms Olsen alluded to. It is premised on the importance of the family as the unit of society - an objective, a vision that we still hold to - which is a sensible approach that acknowledges the nature of our society.

Through the formal curriculum as well as the co-curricular programme, the "Growing Years Series", schools provide students with the knowledge that they need to make responsible decisions about relationships. The "Growing Years Series" discusses the consequences of teenage sexual activity, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. As a realistic approach to dealing with these issues, the Science curriculum at secondary school also provides information on contraception as a means of prevention against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and this is taught at Secondary 2 level.

Beyond hard facts, the programme also provides the context in which sexuality matters should be viewed - what it means to be in a relationship; what it means to build a family; what it means to be responsible to your loved ones. In addition, schools provide students with the necessary life-skills to be able to make responsible decisions.

To augment their resources, schools have the autonomy to bring in relevant resources, including the Health Promotion Board or other external agencies. I would like to assure Members that guidelines have been provided to schools to help them screen external agencies. We are a secular nation. MOE ensures that all messages on sexuality matters that are transmitted through our schools are likewise secular and sensitive to our multi-religious make-up.

The "Growing Years Series" is meant for students in primary and secondary schools as well as junior college/pre-university level. Tertiary institutions customise their sexuality education programmes in accordance with the needs of their students. Although parents can opt out of the "Growing Years Series", less than 1% of parents have done so. This suggests that parents and students have found this programme useful.

Moving forward, MOE intends to ensure that the "Growing Years Series" maintains its relevance and is engaging and useful. MOE will encourage schools to adopt an even more customised approach. We recognise that different groups of students might have different needs with regard to sexuality education -this is a point which Ms Olsen talked about. Having smaller group discussions, for instance, will allow teachers to reach out differently to different groups of students, and use different approaches in discussing the same issues.

Currently, sexuality education is taught only by selected and trained teachers. MOE will additionally strengthen their training. We will ensure that such teachers are more regularly updated on matters concerning teenage sexuality. There will be a greater emphasis on how teachers should deliver information and advice on this delicate topic to their young students.

Are schools equipped to educate students on sexuality matters? I would say that MOE ensures that students obtain the best possible foundation from the school environment that allows them to later make informed choices about their relationships. But it is important that parents also play an equally active role in such efforts, reinforcing and customising sexuality education for their children based on their respective family values.

Sir, on student well-being, I would like to address Mr Yeo Guat Kwang's queries. Schools have to decide for themselves the most appropriate starting time. There are many local factors that schools are best placed to balance, such as the scheduling of the curricular and co-curricular time-tables and traffic conditions at different times. Mr Yeo would be pleased to know that with the move towards some single-session schools, some of our schools have implemented later starting times after consultation with stakeholders, although others have also kept to the same starting time after feedback from stakeholders. 46 of our schools also start after 7.45 am now.

MOE has not done any studies on how much sleep students get. I think this is something that generally we all can have more of. However, may I offer two simple pieces of advice. First, to get adequate rest for students, they should go to bed at a reasonable time at night, and this must be supervised by parents. Second, in choosing schools, parents might also wish to consider the distance of the school from their home if this is a serious concern.

On football fields, Mr Yeo asked about the use of school fields during the weekend. Fifty schools allow the public to use their fields during the weekend as part of the Singapore Sports Council's Dual Use Scheme. In addition, another 90 schools have arrangements with community groups such as football clubs, constituency clubs and alumni groups to allow them to use the school fields.

1.30 pm

Members may be pleased to know that every school has a School Tuckshop Committee that is chaired by the Principal, whether the tuckshop operation is tendered out or not. This is a very good thing to see in our schools. I am sure that not all other organisations maintain their canteens so seriously. The School Tuckshop Committee monitors the quality of food in the tuckshop to ensure that it meets the health and nutritional standards of the Health Promotion Board, and that the tuckshop maintains a high standard of hygiene. The Committee also monitors the prices. Annual surveys have shown that prices at school tuckshops remain reasonable. In addition, I would like to clarify that 82% of our schools do not tender out the tuckshop operation.

Mr Chiam See Tong is concerned about a bus bay at Potong Pasir. He asked us to persuade LTA to allow a loading/pick-up bay at Potong Pasir to be used as a bus stop. We agree that the safety of our students is of primary importance, and we take this very seriously. MOE will forward this suggestion to LTA, the competent authority on the siting of bus-stops. In the interim, we will consult LTA should any issue arise for the students of St Andrew's Junior College with this arrangement.

On CCAs, Mr Ang Mong Seng requested MOE to consider letting students serve on grassroots organisations as co-curricular activities, or CCAs. I am pleased to inform Mr Ang that the Ministry allows our students to do so. Students' involvement in community-based activities, including appropriate grassroots activities, is recognised as participation in a CCA if schools approve it. To ensure that students choose such activities with thought, students are required to work out formal proposals with their partner organisations.

We also hope to bring about the concept of service learning in our students. Part of this is through the Community Involvement Programme (CIP), and part of this is through CCAs. In this regard, schools may include as school-based CCA activities with organisations that fulfil this idea of service learning. This could include grassroots organisations.

Mr Yeo also wanted clarification on whether students have full freedom to choose their CCAs. I would like to assure Mr Yeo that this is very much the case. Students are free to indicate and try out the CCAs of their choice. Of course, this is subject to the availability of places in some cases. In other cases, there might be selection involved, for instance, onto the school's competitive basketball or soccer team, and not all students that want to join can get in.

I would like to emphasise that it is very much the wish of MOE for students to pursue their interests through CCAs. On top of the comprehensive range of CCAs already provided in schools, students can also initiate other CCAs that they would like to see. This scheme was started in 2004 and, to-date, has been implemented by at least 88 schools.

On racial integration and understanding, we cannot agree more with Mr Ong Ah Heng on the importance of ensuring that our students understand one another's cultures and religions. Recent world events have given us a sober reminder of the paramount importance that we must place on racial harmony and understanding.

At the same time, MOE is fully aware that true understanding will not take place in a forced and unnatural manner. MOE's approach is to infuse the importance of mutual understanding and respect through the formal and informal curricula, and provide opportunities for students of different races to interact. Additionally, we look for teachable moments in everyday life. Racial harmony and understanding that is sustainable can only take place in this manner.

Hence, we encourage students of different races to work and play together. Schools provide such opportunities through CCAs, CIP, project work, camps and overseas trips. For instance, Jurong JC sent 170 students to the recent Thaipusam Festival to be road marshals. Joint activities between schools also provide a good platform for students of different races to interact.

I am also pleased to inform Members that we are providing more opportunities for students to learn non-native Mother Tongue Languages. Starting from 2007, we will no longer impose the academic eligibility criteria for students to offer the non-native Mother Tongue Languages as a third language. An increasing number of schools have also been conducting conversational non-native Mother Tongue language lessons. While only seven schools offered conversational Malay in 2002, 60 schools do so on a regular basis today. Thirty-seven schools offer conversational Mandarin on a regular basis. I visited Tampines Secondary School last year, where non-Chinese students are taught conversational Mandarin and non-Malay students are taught conversational Malay. Lower secondary students attend one period of such lessons every two weeks. In the classroom of Malay students I saw learning Mandarin, students were alert and very excited about learning new phrases which are very commonly used by their friends. This is something that we can encourage schools to do more. These are excellent opportunities for students to gain access to the cultures of other races, and enlarge our common space.

To take racial harmony to the next level, MOE will encourage a more widespread adoption of these activities, and provide more opportunities for students to get to know one another better. One of our initiatives will be to encourage students to try traditionally ethnic-based activities such as Chinese Orchestra, Malay Dance and Indian Dance. A Malay student in my constituency attending Marsiling Secondary School is playing the erhu and he is now in Marsiling Constituency Orchestra, the only Malay boy among 120 or so Chinese youths who are members of the orchestra. This is something that we should always encourage.

Second, our SAP schools are aware of their responsibility to ensure that their students have the opportunities to interact with students of other races, and already do much in this regard. Since 2004, Hwa Chong Institution (HCI) has had a joint cultural activities programme with Westspring Secondary School (WSS). HCI students meet West Spring Secondary students once a fortnight for six months and have a camp during the June holidays. These students have taught each other activities ranging from Dikir Barat to Wushu . Since 2002, St Nicholas Girls' Primary School has had an annual one-day camp with Malay students from Admiralty Primary School, with the Admiralty students teaching them Malay phrases and dance. Looking ahead, MOE will encourage a more structured and sustained approach, with the SAP schools having at least one partner school with students from a different ethnic group.

Third, MOE will further engage stakeholders, including students, parents, teachers and the community. Schools will identify suitable students and parents to act as Racial Harmony Ambassadors to initiate programmes for their peers and to take joint ownership of this issue. We will also be further deepening school leaders and teachers' understanding of cultural issues and sensitivities. MOE will work with educational and community partners, including the CDCs, to provide training on areas such as multi-cultural studies, facilitating conversations on racial harmony and understanding racial and religious practices and taboos.

In conclusion, MOE takes a multi-pronged approach to promoting racial harmony. However, bringing about racial understanding and harmony is ultimately a nation-wide effort. Schools simply cannot do this on their own. But, as one of the first platforms through which students will have the opportunity to interact with and get to know students of different races, we recognise and acknowledge the key role that our schools must play in this effort.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: I would like to thank the SPS for his comprehensive reply. I like to seek a clarification from him. When I said previously about premising our sexuality education on the importance of family as a basic unit in society, what I was trying to say was that basically we need a more specific and targeted approach because for some of the organisations, when they go and promote Aids, they will preach abstinence, be faithful to your partner and the use of condoms. So I am saying that for sexuality, we should have a very targeted approach because we always have that group of teens who do need the extra counselling and extra help, and whether the teachers can identify them. I agree with him that we need to work closely with the parents and I am wondering whether this is something that is being looked into or implemented.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I thank Ms Olsen for her suggestion. I am pleased to tell Ms Olsen and Members that we are actually doing this in schools. Schools are already engaging a lot of excellent partners to help explain to students the issues of sexuality and the problems arising from relationships. Of course, we tailor different approaches to different groups of students to address their different interest or maturity.

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Just as we have done very well in the area of sexuality education, I am just wondering whether MOE would be stepping up some programme to expose our students in school to the ill effects of casino gambling. This is so important especially when we are already going into this industry. I would like to know whether, to-date, there has been any data on the number of students in school who may have been arrested for gambling and whether there are programmes that are in place to address some of these issues.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I thank Mdm Ho for her contributions. Yes, we do track this issue in schools. But, today, I would like to assure Members that there is no disturbing trend among the students. In 2005, 30 and 65 students were caught gambling in primary and secondary schools respectively. MOE will continue to monitor this issue. We are working very closely with MCYS to ensure that these programmes and training for teachers can be conducted to ensure that we can address this issue, should this become a problem.

University Fees

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Sir, the recent increase in fees announced by the National University of Singapore has caused much unhappiness amongst students. Many students heard about the increases through the media, so it came as a rude shock to them. They are also unhappy with the administration's explanation for the reasons for the increase which at 3% is probably quite small. The increase ranges from $200 to maybe almost $2,000, depending on the course you study. But I can sympathise with the medical student who pointed out in the press that his fees have increased by some $1,320 in the past two years, from $16,200 in 2004 to $17,500 this year. That is a lot of money to students.

One of the issues raised by students was for the need for more transparency and accountability on the part of the university administration. All our universities say they have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure good governance and best practices but this has failed to alleviate the students' grievances. Unfortunately, the NUS increase took place against the background of NUS' 100 years centennial celebrations and the building of a multi-million dollar new University Hall characterised by opulence, thus reinforcing the perception of a NUS that is extravagant in splashing on image building events and posh buildings. Bad timing, bad PR.

Therefore, the reasons for the increase - higher operating costs and the need to upgrade resources, and the assurance that it works hard to keep costs down - sounded hollow to students.

Our universities depend a great deal on donations from the public and very generous philanthropists. NUS alone received some $200 million from donations in the past two years. However, most donors are very specific in how their money should be spent, for example, for scholarships, for research, for a particular facility or building.

1.45 pm

Perhaps, NUS can consider focusing its efforts on raising money that will directly benefit students in the financing of their fees. A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation tells me that NUS can reduce fees by $500 per student for its 20,000-odd students, if NUS just raises $10 million for this general purpose from its donors. Of course, donors prefer to have pet projects and naming rights and when universities get big donations, they always make the headlines. But in fund-raising, universities should try harder to convince donors to give more that would help students alleviate their financial burdens directly. Or it could tweak its budget and cut back on something else like high-profile glamorous projects.

Sir, I am reminded of the time when I was an undergraduate in the then University of Singapore. Dr Toh Chin Chye was then the Vice Chancellor. The Deputy Vice Chancellor was a man called Reginald Quahe. The late Mr Quahe ran the university like a tight ship, and he was really tight-fisted when it came to money matters. I remember that as a student leader, I used to nag him persistently for rain shelters to be built so that we could be protected from the rain from the lecture theatres to the Union House. He refused to give way for years. And his answer was very simple: "Haven't you guys heard of umbrellas?" If you consider the fact that we were not a wealthy country at that time, I think he was right.

NUS could also focus its efforts on raising money for bursaries, as only 500 bursaries were given last year. A total of $1.4 million went to needy students, which is really peanuts, if you consider that only one in 10 needy students who applied got bursaries, which means nine others are left in the lurch. Therefore, increasing the pool of bursary beneficiaries should be an urgent priority for NUS.

Some have advocated that our universities adopt a lock-in scheme whereby fees are fixed for the students during the whole duration of their studies. This is the approach now being taken by SMU. It is probably a sound approach, as students can plan ahead and set aside specific sums of money, rather than face uncertainty during their studies. But fees must be locked in at a low cost, not a high one, otherwise it makes a mockery of the system. Ultimately, the key lies in our universities working harder in cost management and cutting back on lavish expenditures that do not directly benefit students, something which students and parents feel our universities are not doing enough.

Sir, I have just one specific question: I would like to know if NUS intends to renovate the Bukit Timah campus vacated by SMU when it moves there, bearing in mind that SMU has also spent a lot of money renovating it not long ago and, if so, how much will this cost?

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Chairman, Sir, at last year's Budget debate, I raised some concerns about the change in funding model for our universities as they become autonomous and corporatised.

The output funding model, adopted for universities, requires students to bear more of the cost of running the universities. According to the steering committee report released in January 2005, students would be expected to bear more of the operating cost and also part of the infrastructure cost of the universities. It was also recommended that universities be allowed to raise tuition fees every year by not more than 10%. The universities have responded by passing on bigger financial burdens to the students under the new funding model. Just a few months after legislation to corporatise NUS and NTU was passed, students are asked to pay 3% more in fees. And this is just a year after NUS raised fees by 5%. SMU is also raising its fees by $1,000 per year.

Sir, the fact of the matter is that, on the whole, wages in Singapore do not go up by 10% per year, particularly for the lower-income group, where wages have actually been going down. Increases in fees will bring a strain on many families. In response to concerns about affordability, the official counter-argument is that no poor students will be deprived of a tertiary education as there are financial assistance schemes available. I do not know how true this is.

Sir, in terms of bursaries, it was reported in the Straits Times of 15th February 2006 that only 500 out of the 1,300 applicants were successful in receiving bursaries to study at NUS. Does this mean that the universities are not making sufficient funds available for award of bursaries to needy students?

Secondly, while the students can always take loans, the question is: how much debt do we want our students to incur before they start work? Assuming that fees do eventually go up by 10% per year, a four-year undergraduate programme will see a student paying about 33% more in fees compared to his first year. Assuming that his fees are $6,110 in Academic Year 2006, it will go up to $8,132 in his final year in Academic Year 2009. If he borrows the maximum of 90% of the tuition fees under the Tuition Fee Loan Scheme, he would be indebted to the amount of $25,520.86 cents, before he starts work. This is not a small sum for someone just starting to work, and it may take him several years to pay. This will adversely affect his quality of life and ability to support his family. Some, I believe, may not have the confidence to incur such a debt and may choose instead to work rather than go into university.

Sir, education is supposed to be the great leveller, enabling poor Singaporeans to improve their socio-economic status. By reducing Government funding and putting such financial burdens on our students, the Government is discouraging the upward mobility of poor Singaporeans. By so doing, the Government also imposes a heavy financial burden on young graduates whose families are poor and are unable to support them through university education.

Sir, I would like the Minister's view on this, and whether the new policies and funding model are equitable.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: Sir, I think Singaporean youths must be very confused. Two years ago, the Prime Minister called on them to play a part in shaping decisions made in this country. But last month, many youths realised their roles were often marginalised. I am referring to the university fee hikes.

Without disregarding efforts by MCYS to engage the youths, eg, by seeking ideas for *scape, I believe the litmus test to determine if youths are being taken seriously is in matters like tuition fee hikes - matters which affect them directly, in which they have equal stake - matters in daily life and institutional matters.

My point is not to argue that the fee hikes are too much. One cannot make such a judgment without detailed information. But that is why students were similarly in the dark - going by their reactions last month - about the rationale for the increase. At the very least, they were unconvinced of the rationale. Some speculated on reasons other than the ones offered. And should we be surprised when they were informed only after the hike was a fait accompli ?

The issue is whether the process for adjusting university fees should always include student consultation. In considering this, we should not forget how best we want our youths to feel ownership in issues, decisions and institutions that matter to this country. I have read how, in a meeting with the students' union, the NUS President regretted that management was unable to engage students this year because of the looming corporatisation. Personally, I think that, with a more established culture of consultation, students would not have been excluded from what is a very important decision.

Take, for example, the University of British Columbia. It circulates to student societies its proposals to increase tuition fees; holds open forums for students, who are invited via email; and offers access to an interactive website. It projects how much will be raised by fee increases and how these will be allocated by category, such as classroom and laboratory support or teaching assistantships, as well as by department or faculty. As funding allocations sometimes change, it even provides reports on the tuition increase allocation for the previous year. CalState University, Sacramento, goes so far as to mandate a student referendum for fees that affect the whole student body.

How do our universities compare? It should not matter if NUS and NTU have yet to become autonomous. Whether we engage our youth should not depend on certain conditions. On the other hand, whether our universities can become truly world-class institutions may well depend on how they engage their students, not just in tuition fees but even hostel fees. Students will only buy in to a decision when they feel there is accountability. Our universities would do well to remember that students who kick up the most fuss are going to be the ones who want to be involved and who want to serve.

So, I would like to ask the Minister if he could give all our tertiary institutions an encouraging nudge - since I doubt he would give a directive - to foster a spirit of consultation in all matters.

Medical Students' Fees

Dr Tan Sze Wee (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, we know the importance of growing our human capital and to make education more affordable for those from the lower-income families. To make education accessible and affordable for all, the fees for educational courses should not and cannot be priced beyond the reach of the average student.

Sir, may I ask the Minister for Education, with the introduction of new fees for medical students in NUS, can the House be informed how much subsidy does one medical student receive per year during his/her five-year undergraduate programme, and what is the amount received as an average for the five years?

Affordable Post-secondary Education

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): Mr Chairman, Sir, as human capital is our nation's only resource, our Government has spared no efforts to nurture our human capital through investing on education generously. With more than half of our cohort now entering post-secondary education and higher education, it is crucial that we must ensure that school fees in the ITEs, polytechnics and universities always remain affordable to all Singaporeans.

Therefore, it was quite understandable that students in the local universities and polytechnics as well as the ITEs and their parents are concerned with the recent fee hikes. For the university, in particular, this comes on the back of a fee hike just the year before. And what is of particular concern to parents and students is that the university fee hikes came after the universities have become autonomous. Now they wonder if they are at the mercy of university administrators. Unlike countries with many universities, we have only three, and our universities really have a ready captive audience who have not much choices. Our students' alternative is to go to foreign universities, which is a choice not many Singaporeans can afford.

Hence, our university administrators cannot expect our population to simply accept their argument that our universities are world-class or that the students have to pay more as they will earn more when they graduate. I do not think this is a good explanation. The starting salaries for graduates from our local universities do not compare very well with those for graduates from global cities like London, New York and Chicago. In London, the starting salary of a college student is about £21,000, ie, about S$60,000, a year; in New York, it is about US$35,000. And these are not from the top universities, such as Yale, Harvard or Oxbridge, but typical universities.

Sir, I would, therefore, like MOE to tell us how does the Ministry ensure that our post-secondary and higher education will always be affordable to all Singaporeans. How does MOE hold universities accountable for their fee hikes? How does the Ministry ensure that there is greater transparency in these universities when it comes to fee hikes? How does the Ministry ensure that the universities improve their efficiency rather than simply pass on the increases in their costs to the students?

Doctorate Title

Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Chairman, Sir, the topic I would like to talk about is "misuse of title - PhD degree for sale".

On 28th August last year, a Straits Times headline read: "Jakarta's fake-titles scam - 'Alumni' of unlicensed institutions include a former vice president, several former ministers." Lately, the Straits Times reported a CEO of a listed company making a correction to his PhD degree. He said that he did not hold a PhD degree from the University of Southern California, but an Honorary PhD degree from another university known as Southern California University. The former University of Southern California was ranked in the top 30 of the American universities. Later, I tried to search the Internet for Southern California University. "Yahoo.com" search engine could not find this name. I also tried to find out what are the universities in the state of California. I got a complete list of 139 universities in the state of California and, again, the name of this university was not there. So these were what had been reported.

I was told that, a few years ago, there was a guy who brought a basket of PhD degrees for sale in Singapore and the price that he named was not low - S$128,000 per degree - and some people said it was cheap. If you pay $128,000

to an American university, after three years, you may not get a degree. There are people - some of them whom I know - use that title as if they are medical doctors or they have earned a PhD degree.

2.00 pm

The indiscriminate use of "doctor" title could mislead others and as a result, some people might gain personal or even commercial interest. People sometimes, by mistake, thought they really have a genuine PhD degree and commit to do business with them. They may then end up in a very awkward situation.

Years ago, I attended one of the opening ceremonies of a medical centre which was in my constituency. I was introduced to the Chairman of the organisation, Dr X. It came immediately to mind that he was a medical doctor. But only after a few years later, when the organisation seemed to get into trouble where the particulars of that individual was made public, I then realised that he was not a medical doctor but a retired banker.

There are people who have got PhD degrees and serve on a Board or Council or even head certain educational institutions. Potential students look at the school prospectus and see that there are so many "doctors" around. They may come to the conclusion that the organisation is run by academically qualified people. Only when they had paid the money and the "doctors" ran away with their money, they then realised that they had actually been cheated.

I would like to ask the Government, in particular the Ministry of Education, what is its stand on the matter of the use of honorary doctorate titles, especially for those people who obtained them through commercial means.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Mr Chairman, first let me thank Mr Tan Soo Khoon, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Ms Eunice Olsen, Dr Tan Sze Wee, Dr Ong Seh Hong, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay, and Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim who spoke yesterday as well, for their various comments on the universities and the higher education sector.

Let me first address the issue of university fees. The Government's objective is to ensure that our universities, polytechnics and ITE provide Singaporean students with a top-quality education at affordable cost - top quality and affordable. Our aim is not to gear up our institutions to provide a lowest cost education, low-quality education, but to provide an affordable education that is top quality. This is, in fact, what our universities are providing. They are able to do so for three reasons: first, the Government funds them substantially, more than three-quarters of the cost of an undergraduate education; second, they charge realistic fees; and third, they provide substantial financial assistance to needy students. This is what is called "needs-blind admission", ie, you get in as long as you qualify on merit, and the university helps you with your needs and takes care of your cost once you are in. It allows for a top-quality education, affordable to all university students.

This outcome is quite different from what we see in most other developed countries. In the US, UK and Australia, public funding of the universities is much lower than in Singapore. In the US, the top state universities - I am not even talking about the private universities - will get something in the order of 20% of their funding from government. In the UK and Australia, it is 50% or less. But all the universities face the same cost pressures as, globally, the cost of high quality university faculty has gone up, together with the cost of knowledge-based professionals at large. So in the US and Australia, they have raised fees substantially more than Singapore, and to a substantially higher level than Singapore. They try to deliver quality, but they can only do so at a much higher cost to students compared to the situation in Singapore.

In Europe, it is the other way around. The governments prevent universities from raising fees. In fact, the universities charge very low fees. Despite high taxes, the governments are not able to fund the universities adequately to be able to provide a good quality university education. The universities are faced with relentless financial pressures and, particularly, in the last decade, they are close to a breaking point. So they have no choice but to lower quality because the funds are not there. They cannot raise fees, and the only option is to lower quality. They pack in more students per lecturer and hire more part-time lecturers. And because they cannot pay their best lecturers the market rate, they lose them. So, with the exception of a few top European universities, you get a low-cost education, but a low-quality education. I say this not as my own assessment, but the assessment of European university heads and academics. In fact, there are a number of independent analyses pointing to the problems. Everyone knows the problems. I just quote very quickly from an Economist article. This is a very good survey of higher education. I think it was in September last year called "The Brains Business". And I quote:

"The basic problems with the universities are the same across Europe: too much state control and too little freedom to manage their own affairs. Governments have forced universities to educate huge armies of students on the cheap, and have deprived them of the two freedoms that they need to compete in the international marketplace: to select their students and to pay their professors the market rate for the job."

Everyone knows the problems, but they have tied themselves into a political knot that prevents them from solving the problems.

We have avoided this, and we can continue to provide an excellent university education to Singaporeans if we keep up public funding at 75% of costs as we will do, and if our universities charge realistic fees and continue to provide every needy student with financial assistance. I will speak a little more on that later. What we must not do is to give up on quality, give up on getting the best faculty, give up on improving teaching and keeping the laboratories up to date. The universities have to aim to provide the highest quality, while keeping overall costs under control.

Let me say something about quality. We know the latest rankings. NUS and NTU were both ranked within the top 50 universities in the world globally by Times Higher Education Supplement. That is well known. But what is less well known and even more remarkable is that NUS and NTU are providing top-quality education to a sizeable proportion of Singaporeans, a far larger proportion of citizens than what the top universities in other countries provide. We are providing high-quality education to all our university students, not high-quality education for a few. NUS and NTU take in slightly over one-fifth of each Singapore cohort. In comparison, the universities ranked within the top 50 universities, like NUS and NTU, in the same survey provide education for only a very small percentage of each cohort in their countries. In Japan and China, it is well below 1%: China, 0.02%; and Japan, about 0.5% of cohort; in India, the same order of magnitude. In the US, although there are 20 universities in the top 50 rankings, in total, they cater to about 1% of cohort. In Hong Kong, it is 6%, somewhat higher; and in Australia, which is the only country which comes close to Singapore in this regard, the six Australian universities in the top 50 rankings provide for 15% of Australian cohort. So NUS and NTU are quite exceptional and, together with SMU, we are going to provide for 25% of cohort a top quality, affordable education, unparalleled to anywhere else in the world.

There are many other indications on quality but because time is short, I will not go through them. But let me emphasise this - that we all have a stake in ensuring that our universities provide high-quality education and receive international recognition for doing so. The high standing of our universities is in the interest of students, the alumni, donors and all stakeholders of the universities. It is in the interest of Singapore. Students in the alumni would not want to see a decline in the standing of the universities and their alma mater over time. So, it is not in anyone's interest that we skimp on quality.

Let me now go into a few specifics on university fees. First, I think we all agree that fees need to be revised regularly in the universities to allow them to meet their cost increases while improving on the quality of education they provide. There is a certain natural cost increase but there is also some cost increase over time as we aspire to provide better quality. I do not think we disagree with that.

There is no intention on the part of the universities to raise fees by 10% every year once they go autonomous, which incidentally has not started yet - it is only from 1st April that universities go autonomous. I will be very surprised if I or any future Minister for Education will be happy if each year university fees go up by 10%.

What is the record so far? With all the cost pressures that I have been talking about that all top universities face internationally, since the start of this decade, from 2000 until last year, fees in NUS and NTU increased by an average of 1.8% per year. This is, in fact, lower than the average rate for wage increase in Singapore. This year, fees are going up by 3% in NUS and NTU. I do not think we expect wages to go up by less this year. I do not have a forecast, but 3% is not unreasonable.

We will ensure that fees are never beyond the reach of the average Singaporeans, and I do not just mean needy Singaporeans but the average Singaporeans, the middle-class, even those in the upper middle income bracket. It will never be beyond their reach. We will keep tuition fees competitively priced. I do not want to get into details. I answered Mr Steve Chia last week in Parliament. But a quick scan of what is going on in the rest of the world - Australia and UK - shows that fee increases in recent years have been much more substantial. In fact, Australian universities raised fees up to the full limit allowed by the government under their autonomous status, 25% in one year. UK universities are going up by almost three times this year.

Our universities are fully aware and will have to be aware of the need to keep costs down. They have put in place cost control measures. Measures like reducing administrative staff headcount, bulk tendering for goods and services, demand aggregation for electricity, outsourcing of non-core activities and constant leveraging on IT to improve productivity. The University Hall, whatever you might say about it, was funded by philanthropic donations. And I quite agree with Mr Tan Soo Khoon that the universities might want to specifically seek out philanthropic donations for the purpose of financial assistance, which I will come to in a moment.

So we will keep up our hefty subsidies. The universities will continue to exercise control over cost and we will adjust our subsidies over time to keep pace with cost increases that are necessary to deliver quality education. But what we cannot do is to increase the universities' share of the Education budget, ie, increase it beyond what it already is, which is a large share. We fund the universities 1% of GDP. Three universities, 1% of GDP - that is far higher than what almost any other country I can think of funds for their universities. It is one-quarter of the Education budget now. Ten years ago, it was about one-fifth. It has gone up mainly because we succeeded in educating more Singaporeans in our schools such that they are able to go on to universities.

We can justify our significant investment in the universities. We are not apologising for this. I am not saying that 1% of GDP is too much. It is a significant investment because it brings benefits to the wider economy. But we cannot increase the share of the universities in the Education budget, and it will not be equitable to do so. To put it very simply, the average Government funding per year which an university undergraduate receives, if I take last year as an example, was twice that of a polytechnic or an ITE student. And if we consider the fact that we are funding our university students over more years - two years in junior college and four years in university, compared to a polytechnic or an ITE student - then we arrive at an outcome where we are currently funding a university student five times more than we subsidise an ITE student and three times more than we subsidise a polytechnic student. So it will not be fair to take more resources away from schools, polytechnics and ITEs in order to give more to university students, particularly when you take into account also that university students will have higher lifetime earnings compared to other graduates from our system.

2.15 pm

What is important is that we are committed to two key things. First, to continue to enhance the quality of university education; and, second, to ensure that university education is accessible and affordable to all Singaporeans. We have revamped our financial assistance framework. The universities have revamped it and we have also given them a supplement. We are significantly expanding financial assistance provision for our universities. Let me mention three enhancements.

First, starting from this year, the maximum Tuition Fee Loan quantum has been increased from 80% of fees to 90% of fees, to minimise the cash outlay the students need. Needy students can get an additional Study Loan for the remaining 10% of fees and to cover a substantial portion of their living expenses. And all these loan schemes have quite generous terms.

Second, NUS and NTU are setting aside larger amounts of funds for financial assistance and I think Mr Tan Soo Khoon's point is a useful one. They may also want to consider, besides their regular funding resources, to seek out dedicated resources from philanthropic donations to boost the sum up. It is not one in ten who obtained a bursary last year. One in 10 referred to year 2003. In fact, it has been going up year by year. Last year, four out of ten NUS students who applied for bursaries obtained them. But they will take it beyond it, going forward, with the increase in NUS' and NTU's allocation for financial assistance - an increase of two to three times on average, in fact, in the case of NUS it is three-fold. We will be able to cater to more students.

Third, MOE is providing a new Government bursary of $800 per year to help needy students pay for their living expenses. This will apply to students with a per capita household income of about $900 per month, which is roughly equal to the 50th percentile and below of the Singapore population. So all Singaporean students, with a gross monthly per capita household income of up to $900, will be eligible for the new MOE bursary of $800 per year. In lieu of the MOE bursary, students will also be eligible for university bursaries. So, you will have more than four out of ten NUS students qualifying for bursaries because of these increased provisions.

Let me just give you an example, since Mr Low has given us an example. Let us take a needy student, who comes from a four-member family with gross monthly household income of $2,000, taking a four-year undergraduate course. We estimate he would need about $11,000 per year to pay for tuition fees plus full provision for living expenses, if I am not economising too much on the estimates. So tuition fee is about $6,100, maximum expenses about $5,500. He can apply for a Tuition Fee Loan and Study Loan to cover his total cost of fees. He will be able to get a living allowance under the Study Loan of about $3,600. He will be able to obtain a bursary that could come up to about $1,500. That would leave about $400. And the $400 can be easily covered by the work-study programmes that the universities have introduced. It does not mean you work every night. Occasional work, you get paid for it, you can easily cover the $400.

Of course, there are also some students who want to cover part of the fee costs using their parents' CPF accounts but that probably does not refer to the lowest income category, but the middle-income category. For the middle-income students, in fact, for higher income students, they too can go through the university years without any cash outlay for their fees because of the Tuition Loan, plus being able to use their parents' CPF account. But I will focus on the example concerning a low income student to show how, not just his fees, but his living expenses can be covered completely. The loan repayments are not onerous. For the Tuition Fee Loan, it is a minimum amount of $100 per month after he graduates and obtains a job. Study Loan, it is also $100 per month. So if he takes both, that is $200 a month, spread out his Tuition Fee Loan repayment period over twenty years. Study Loan is interest free*. So it is quite generous. It is quite manageable. The main thing is that we have expanded our financial assistance facility. We want more students to qualify, and this is the way forward as we continue to allow the universities to charge realistic fees to meet the cost of providing top quality education.

• It is interest-free only for those with PCI $500 or less.

I am a little short of time but let me say very quickly regarding Prof. Low Seow Chay's comments. I know what he is referring to. First, I think we should distinguish between the reputable universities that do confer honorary degrees, quite rightly, on distinguished individuals who made significant contributions either to a university or to society. Our own universities do so and they have very clear guidelines regarding who they confer such degrees on. There is no proliferation of such degrees from our own universities. What Prof. Low was concerned was about people buying or somehow engaging in some donations, so as to be able to obtain either a Doctorate degree or some other degree. It takes place all over the world. There is a market for it. The Ministry cannot do anything to stop this. It is a global phenomenon and the market can judge. I think Prof. Low judges very well the worth of these degrees. Most people know how to judge these things. I do not encourage the obtaining of degrees by transaction, but I would add that the fact that people are very keen to obtain a degree by donating money to the university is probably also a reflection of our society's reverence for education and educational advancement, probably better than obtaining knighthoods and peerages by donation.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, the Minister has not addressed the point that I raised. I asked a very specific question. Does NUS intend to spend a lot of money to renovate the Bukit Timah Campus that it is moving to?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Some renovations would be required for the Bukit Timah Campus because it is accommodating quite distinct faculties and also research institutions. NUS intends to fund that very largely from its endowment income, rather than from its operating revenues.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. But, Sir, it seems to me that the Minister's reply on affordability depends very much on the Tuition Fee Loan. I wonder whether it is affordability by mortgaging the students' future, by paying so much loan that they have to be indebted after their university education.

Sir, the second clarification is that the Minister said the university should charge "realistic fees". I would like to know what is "realistic fees" and whether that includes expenditure of buying expensive chairs and thereby charging realistic fees.

Third, Sir, the Minister said he will not foresee that the university will increase fees to the full amount by 10%, but I understand the Steering Committee's Report allows the university to increase up to 10% of the fee per year. How sure is the Minister that this will not happen and, if it happens, are they allowed to increase 10% of tuition fee at all?

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Let me start with the last point. The framework for the autonomous universities allows for fee increases of up to 10%, but it does not happen automatically. In fact, the framework states quite clearly that the universities have to first make a submission to the Ministry six months beforehand on what their fee proposals are, and the Ministry will have to look at it to make sure the cost increases are reasonable, apply some standardised benchmarks for cost-increases across the universities, before it gauges whether the universities' proposals are justifiable. So it is not an automatic 10%. In fact, this is a different framework from what exists in some other countries. We do not envisage a situation like what happened in Australia.

On loans, I am not sure what Mr Low is getting at. This is an equation where if you disagree with all the parts you are not going to get the outcome. You cannot disagree with realistic fees being charged with loans being a means of financial assistance and, at the same time, disagree with the Government having to raise taxes in order to fund the universities more, or disagree with the policy that we should keep some fair proportion of subsidy in education between universities, polytechnics, ITEs and schools. What is our strategy? Not to charge fees that are unreachable to Singaporeans? That would be crazy. And it would not be in the interest of our universities to do so because a needs-blind admission must mean not just financial assistance provisions, but fees that are basically within the reach of the middle-class as well.

We have to make sure the university keeps cost in check, that fee increases are within reach, that financial assistance is always there for needy students and even students right up to the median income level. Beyond the median income level, we provide loans as well. The loans are not onerous. As a percentage of the starting pay of a graduate, $100, maximum $200, if he has also taken the Study Loan. Over time, as the university graduate's pay goes up, it is a smaller and smaller fraction of his monthly income. It is the practice all over the world. In fact, the proportion of students who take loans in Singapore is somewhat less than in many other places, especially Australia. So this is a pragmatic way forward to have a top quality and affordable education. Top quality cannot mean 100% Government subsidy because that must mean taking money away from very deserving investments in our school, polytechnic and ITE sectors. Top quality must mean charging realistic fees, but making sure that those who cannot afford it, get assistance. That is how we avoid tying ourselves into a political knot.

Dr Tan Sze Wee: Sir, I would like to have the opportunity to ask the Minister again to provide the answer to my cut, which is what is the level of subsidy that is provided for medical students, and also when the Graduate Medical School starts operating next year, will the same level of subsidy be provided to the students of the Graduate Medical School as well.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I am sorry I missed out Dr Tan's question. Let me very briefly say that the average Ministry of Education subsidy for a medical undergraduate student at NUS is $64,600 per year over the course of his 5-year MBBS. This subsidy is about 3.5 times higher than what an Australian medical student, for instance, would receive at, say, the University of Sydney.

As for the Graduate Medical School, it has not announced the details of its fees and other financial details. They would have to charge higher fees because they are providing for a graduate medical programme and is also aiming at a very small, select group of students who are going to receive a much more costly programme that requires much more substantial investment. They would price their fees realistically. They are not going to price it beyond what the market can bear, but the details would be announced later.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: Sir, I cannot seek a clarification from the Minister because I have no point to clarify at this point in time. I know he is constrained by time. So I would like him to comment on what I said about promoting a culture of student consultation because I do feel that the opinions of the students are a very integral part of our institution.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I think the universities, myself, and everyone would agree that we want to do it better the next time. The universities did consult with their student leaders before the fees were increased. Naturally, there were mixed reactions. Not everyone agreed. Student leaders, in fact, disseminated the information to the student body. The process can be improved. The universities want to, for a start, begin the whole process earlier in future, the whole process of deciding on revised fees earlier to allow more time for consultation and explanation. But I think there are some positive things that came out of this year's exercise. The universities have taken on board some very useful points made by the students, in particular the point that Mr Tan Soo Khoon also referred to, that students want to have some degree of certainty as to the total outlay that they will face over the full course of their university education. SMU has now gone for that practice of telling students exactly how much they pay for the full duration. NUS and NTU think this is a useful and practicable suggestion and are looking into it. So, we are learning from this exercise and we will better on it in future.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I do not disagree with the Minister on the need for quality tertiary education. But my question really is: is there a need to burden our undergraduates with such a heavy debt when they start to work? Why is it not possible for the Government to increase fundings to universities? Of course, the Minister's reply would be where to find the money. May I ask him whether or not the Government should have substantial revenue with betting tax when the IR is operational and whether or not with that additional tax money, the Government would consider increasing the fundings to universities so as to reduce the burden of students sharing the cost?

2.30 pm

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Sir, it is another way of putting the same question. Specific questions on gaming revenue can be addressed to the Minister for Finance when the money finally comes about. But the point is a basic one. Whatever our sources of revenue, we end up with a total revenue cake - 18% of GDP, maybe 19% thereabouts. It has got to be divided up amongst many competing sources - defence, economic infrastructure, the whole health infrastructure, including the higher cost of catering to the aged in future, and educating very well all our students - primary school, secondary school upward to ITE, polytechnic, university. We have to make fairly tough decisions there.

We are funding our university students - per student as well as the universities as a whole far more than other countries. I justify it because it has wide benefits for the economy as we enter into a knowledge-based era. But you cannot increase the share without taking something away from the polytechnic, ITE and secondary school students. And the return on an investment in education in the early years is important even in a knowledge-based economy. We should not shrink from spending more to deliver high quality in our schools, polytechnics and ITEs. Sir, what we are doing is more equitable than what Mr Low is suggesting - more equitable, because we charge realistic fees so that we do not subsidise the middle class or the upper middle class. We provide financial assistance to those who cannot afford it and we make sure that a broad base of students receives a high quality affordable education. I think our priorities are right. They are not just sensible from an economic point of view but they are also pretty sensible from a social and distributional point of view.

The Chairman: Any more clarifications or questions? If none, Dr Amy Khor, would you consider withdrawing your amendment?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, I want to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for their detailed responses. I would also like to thank them for the new initiative to further enhance students' learning experience and to develop the talent and ability of every student.

Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $6,357,008,690 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $609,161,400 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.