Sir, first of all, I would like to thank Members for the very good suggestions that have been brought up and for their interest in education. I would like to address thinking schools first. Mr Loh Meng See, Mr Peh Chin Hua, Mr Iswaran, Dr Tan Boon Wan, Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr Hawazi Daipi have brought up very good suggestions. Rather than answer to each of them specifically, I think it may be more useful if I say something about how we are going to implement all these programmes in our schools to put them altogether.

Our education system is fundamentally a good one. Our students have done well. Our teachers, schools and educational institutions have done well. The evidence of this can be seen from the achievements of our students in the various examinations, a high percentage of our students who now make it to our institutes of higher learning and high standards in mathematics and science that have been attained by our students and is demonstrated in the 3rd International Mathematics and Science Study. We have done well because of the many changes and the important policies that have been put in place in our education system over the last 5-10 years. We are reaping the fruits of these changes today, as education is a very long-term process. But we can reach higher and we can do better, and the changes that we are putting in place in our education system now are meant to see us through into the next century.

The Ministry of Education has made several announcements in the past half year. These are major programmes and major changes, and I can understand if teachers and parents have a certain amount of anxiety about how all these things are going to come together. I like to take this opportunity to place these various programmes and changes in perspective to show how these major initiatives, these various plans, draw together National Education, information technology, creative thinking, as well as administrative excellence in our schools.

The goal that we are reaching for is thinking schools. This encapsulates our vision for the schools of the 21st century. This is a concept that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke about during the thinking conference in June this year when he put forward his vision for thinking schools and a learning nation.

While the education system has undergone changes in the past and produced commendable results, we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to be geared for continuing change to meet the needs of the 21st century. The world we are living in is changing, and our education system must change to keep pace. The body of human knowledge is growing day by day, and the discovery of new knowledge continues. Our education system has to cope with the explosion of knowledge. And the solution, as has been pointed out by several Members today, does not lie in simply adding more to the curriculum with each passing year. We have to adopt a different strategy to teach our students, our young generation, how to acquire knowledge as more knowledge is discovered in the future.

There are changes in the workplace, in the nature of jobs, in the skills required, and we must continually seek new knowledge and new skills to transition to higher level jobs. There are new techniques and innovations in education. Mr Lim Swee Say has spoken about how computers would be used in schools. If you look back at our schools and see the sort of things that we have been using, we have transitioned from blackboard and chalk to OHPs and transparencies, even educational television.

There is not much difference in the pedagogical style. Basically, the students are there. They are receiving lessons from the teacher. But with information technology, the Internet, there will be a revolution. There can be different ways of interactivity, different ways for students to access knowledge, different ways of combining students together in different classes, different schools, different places in the world, to learn together, to share together. And the changes will not be once off. They will come wave upon wave, as the power of computers and networks continues to increase. And this will have ramifications not only on teaching but perhaps in the structure of our schools in future. We are talking about virtual schools that will take some time to come, but there will certainly be applications for people already in the workforce, for example.

There will be different assessment systems. The scholastic aptitude tests in the United States today are taken by computer, I think, from this year, and this will mean a different way of assessing people, adaptively. Everyone is grappling with this and no one quite knows the answer yet. We also have to feel our way forward.

Our population and our society is changing. There is a new generation, new influences, TV, travel. Their frame of reference and mindset is changing. We need to continue to find new ways of engaging and exciting our young people to discover and learn in schools. And we must also make sure, at the same time, that they remain rooted in Singapore. Our young people need values and a sense of belonging. They need cultural and societal ballast so that they will not capsize or lose their way in this bewildering sea of contesting ideas.

We need to strengthen our cohesion as a people and work together for a better life for all Singaporeans. That is why National Education is such an important element in our thinking schools.

We also need a new focus on creativity and innovation, to be geared to change in our schools. We cannot produce adaptable, innovative and creative students unless we have adaptable, creative and innovative teachers and schools. The pace of change has quickened.

In the past, the way that we have managed change in the Ministry of Education is rather top down. Ideas are tossed up. They are discussed at meetings. We consider them. We think about it, write a few papers, get approved. We pilot it in a few schools first. Try it out for a year or two. We spread it to more. Then we spread it to all the schools. This takes many years for any change to come through our school system.

We must encourage innovation and thinking in the schools, so that many different ideas and approaches can be tried at the same time. And good ideas should be shared and spread between schools and multiplied quickly.

However, we must remember what are the strengths of our education system. We must retain control of a few key areas, and this also has been touched by a number of Members today. We need to maintain our national curriculum and high national standards that we have. This will ensure that the rigour and the discipline in our education system is retained. And that what our students learn meets our educational objectives and standards are maintained. This is very important. Otherwise, at the end of the day, the certificate that our students receive may be wrapped up in a nice red tube, it is meaningless, unless the standards and the quality are maintained. There must be benchmarks which our schools and our students are expected to achieve.

Other countries that do not have such standards are moving towards them. The UK, for example, has reintroduced a national curriculum for most subjects across all levels and instituted national standard tests for pupils at ages 7, 11, 14 and 16. I was in the US recently, and in the US, President Clinton and Secretary Riley, whom I also met there, are pushing hard for national standards. But in the US, it is difficult for them to push this through because the Federal Government has no direct authority over education, and they have to persuade states to come on board to adopt national standards voluntarily.

But these two countries, among others, have studied the results of the 3rd International Mathematics and Science Study and realise that they cannot improve unless they push for high standards. We need to keep these aspects of our education system, the rigour and the discipline in our education system, so that we will always have a system that sets high standards, demands high standards from our schools, our teachers and our students and, consequently, will produce the high standards and the results that we want for our children.

But within these boundaries, I am prepared to consider new ideas, fresh ideas on how to achieve high standards in our education system and to meet our educational objectives. We will not change precipitously, because we have a good education system and I am in no hurry to dismantle it. But we need to encourage ideas and innovations on how to achieve our goals. We will devolve more powers to make decisions, to decide on educational strategies for achieving our educational objectives, to make decisions on the use of resources and on personnel and financial matters. We want to get a better match between the authority to make decisions on the use of resources and the responsibility for achieving educational outcomes, the responsibility for achieving results.

These are the broad challenges that our thinking schools must meet. What is a thinking school? The foremost prerequisite of a thinking school is that it must itself be a learning organisation. A mindset of continual change must pervade each and every member of staff. A culture of continual improvement must permeate the entire school.

The key to any learning organisation is people. As exemplars of the spirit of lifelong learning, every teacher has to be a continual learner himself, seeking constantly to upgrade his instructional competencies. As professional practitioners, every teacher must keep abreast of the latest in educational research, every teacher must innovate and adapt classroom practices and keep up with the advances in his own subject. An attitude of active on-going learning is crucial for every teacher and they are ultimately responsible for motivating and realising their own professional development. This is not change for the sake of change. What teachers must strive for is change that is carefully thought through based on new but sound principles and test them, expand them and improve on them. This is the continuing professional challenge that should keep our teachers excited and motivated about their job for 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 years in their teaching career. He has to go on creating and innovating, modifying and adapting.

I would like to say something here about the role of teachers. I have heard a number of Members here today speak about teachers as facilitators. Yes, teachers are facilitators, but this is a term which is too neutral for my liking. A "facilitator" suggests that he just allows students to learn. Our principals and teachers are the heart and soul of our education system. Principals and teachers make a difference to what our students learn, their motivation level, how they learn. Principals and teachers are meant to have an effect on their students. They cannot merely be neutral facilitators. I think that is much too neutral a term. They provide the motivation, the inspiration, sometimes the extra push to get the students going so that they can achieve something beyond what even the students themselves thought they could achieve. This is the role of teachers and principals, not merely to facilitate the students to do whatever it is that the students want or like to do.

All this sounds like a tall order. Indeed it would be a tall order, if teachers have to work alone. The results of solitary effort will be subject to the limits of one's own creativity. One of the catalysts of creativity is bouncing ideas off one another, allowing other people's ideas to trigger one's own. Therefore, teachers will have to work together. Teachers within their subjects and departments will be encouraged to generate and share ideas about how best to motivate their pupils and deliver difficult concepts and skills. A collective effort of teachers in schools must be harnessed to identify bottlenecks to work flow and hindrances to providing quality education.

The Ministry is committed and will provide every support for teachers and schools. We have a number of programmes to help prepare our teachers for some of these changes that are coming. I agree with Mr Lim that if you just introduce computers in the schools and do not train the teachers properly, nothing will happen, or the wrong things may happen. So a large part of the resources that we are allocating for the IT Master Plan goes into the training of teachers. It is not just the training of teachers to use particular software packages, but the training of teachers to use computers in the teaching environment to teach the subjects that they are teaching.

To help prepare our teachers, our goal is for every teacher to have at least 100 hours of training per year by the year 2000. The Ministry is also committed to providing teachers a more conducive working environment. This will range from things like better staff rooms to better working conditions in general. We want to give them the resources to do their jobs well.

More importantly, the Ministry recognises that the workload of our teachers is very high and we are taking steps to try to ease the workload of our teachers. There is no single magic bullet solution for this. This will come partly through the use of technology, partly through providing a comprehensive range of administrative and other teachers' supports and partly through a review of the curriculum. Most importantly, if we are able to sustain the recruitment of teachers over a number of years, we will be able to post more teachers to schools in the coming years. We recruited 1,900 teachers last year, the best for many years. This year the recruitment rate looks good. We should come close to what we did last year. If we can sustain this over a number of years, we will be better off.

The aim is to give teachers space to reflect and time to think so that they can devote more time and energy to continually strive for professional improvement. Of course, we will recognise teachers for their efforts. We have restructured and improved the terms of service and promotion and advancement prospects. Just to give Members an example. Since February 1995, in four promotion exercises, some 16,000 teachers and principals have been promoted.

A thinking school also provides novel solutions to problems they face over a wide range of issues. Every school is unique in its own way. It has got a slightly different pupil profile, different inclinations and needs, a different school culture, different strengths and weaknesses. So each school, guided by the principal, together with all the teachers will have to tailor their own solutions to school problems and decide on how best to integrate new programmes into the school.

Schools also have to get together to share their experiences and hence this is one of the main motivating factors for introducing the school cluster programme. We will consider whether to put autonomous schools and independent schools into a cluster so that they can share the experiences and the ideas that they have.

We will give these clusters extra resources and greater freedom of action. We will encourage them to work together, share ideas and try things that they could not do previously on their own. In the coming years, as we get more experience with the clusters, we will devolve more authority and freedom of action to them.

The role of the Ministry of Education also has to change. For the Ministry to support thinking schools, the Ministry itself will have to be a learning organisation. At the systems level, the Ministry will do what individual teachers and schools are doing, which is to challenge traditional principles and practices, studying the changing educational needs of the nation, chart general directions for the service and provide guidelines to mould the education system. The Ministry's role is to set the overall policy, set out the educational objectives and standards to be achieved, and provide the schools, the principals and the teachers, with the resources to get the job done. Thinking schools will generate many good ideas. The Ministry will facilitate the sharing of ideas across schools so that the best teaching and school management practices can be shared. We will do things like setting up websites and so on so that teachers can easily talk to each other and share their ideas.

We will also encourage the various professional associations of teachers, for example, the science teachers or the geography teachers, to form stronger associations so that they can get together and share their ideas. We want to tap the creativity and energy of all of our 23,000 education officers to come up with new ideas, to share them, to test them, to devise new programmes and practices, and extend and apply them in all our schools in a continuing process of learning, improvement and change. When this happens, thinking schools will drive our education system in high gear into the 21st century.

As the Prime Minister has said, the future will be one of change, not change to a known fixed state, but change as an ongoing state of things. To prepare for the next generation, education will also have to be in a state of continual improvement. Education must stay ahead of this change. Education will mould the future of our nation. If Singapore is to become a learning nation, we will have to begin in our schools. When our young enter into the workforce and take on responsibilities in society, they will carry with them the values and skills that will enable each one of them to strive for excellence in the way they contribute to the nation. Our thinking schools will lay the foundation for a culture of learning in Singapore society. Then will we be able to have a learning nation.

There are three fundamental issues of particular concern to university education in Singapore today. The first issue affects both NUS and NTU. The second issue concerns tertiary education in general. The third issue affects NUS particularly.

The first issue is our objective to develop NUS and NTU as world-class Universities to spearhead the development of Singapore as the "Boston of the East". The reasons for this objective have already been explained and I will not go through them again. What we have to consider is how to achieve the objective. Both NUS and NTU have come a long way. Both Universities are well-recognised and highly regarded by overseas Universities and employers. NUS and NTU graduates do not find it difficult to get good jobs both in Singapore as well as overseas.

To develop NUS and NTU as world-class universities, we have first to decide what makes a university world-class. There will be many views on this subject. However, most academics and the general public will take the view that, for a university to be world-class, it must have excellence in teaching of undergraduate and graduate students and excellence in research. We then ask ourselves "Is the present structure of NUS and NTU appropriate to enable the Universities to achieve world-class standards in teaching and research?" Because of our colonial heritage, NUS and NTU are structured largely on the British model where subjects are taught in departments, grouped into faculties which undertake the teaching of both undergraduate and graduate students. There are many advantages to this structure. It allows for flexible deployment of staff and strong identification with the department or faculty. The disadvantage is that undergraduate teaching may sometimes not receive sufficient attention as professors and lecturers may tend to gravitate towards research and teaching of graduate students.

Another model which has been adopted by some of the best American universities is to have a formal Undergraduate College which will concentrate on undergraduate studies together with Graduate Schools to teach graduate students. The purpose of the Undergraduate College is to focus identification of each year's class with the university and ensure that teaching of undergraduate students is given the importance it deserves. Of course the dividing line between the Undergraduate College and the Graduate Schools is not a water tight one. Professors teach in both the Undergraduate College and the Graduate Schools. But a formal Undergraduate College can help to ensure that teaching of undergraduate students is not neglected in favour of research and teaching of graduate students. NUS and NTU have been well-served by their present structures and we should not change them unless there are compelling reasons. Further thought is necessary before any decision is taken by the two Universities.

I now come to the question of how to foster excellence in research at NUS and NTU. Here we have a dilemma. One of the fundamental purposes of a University, particularly in a small country like Singapore, must be to train manpower to service the economy and society of the country. This requires the university to educate as large a number of students as possible. But if you want to become a world class University, what you really want to do is work at the cutting edge of knowledge and this generally means that you want to concentrate on a small number of top-quality students and staff and give them the support and opportunities to compete with the best in the world.

The question is how to reconcile these two objectives of a world-class university. In the US, this is done by a division of labour. The US has a large number of Universities. Most of the Universities concentrate on basically producing the manpower which is required for the US economy. A small number of Universities try to be the best in their field and to operate at the leading edge of knowledge. In the case of Singapore, we cannot afford to allow NUS and NTU to concentrate on educating a small number of students because we only have two Universities. So this is the dilemma.

One solution to the dilemma, which has been proposed, is to have a small number of world-class institutes which can be affiliated either to NUS or NTU or to both universities and which can tackle problems of importance to Singapore at a level which can compare with the best in the world. Three areas have been suggested for such world-class institutes. First - advanced engineering because engineering is important to Singapore and we do have many areas of engineering eg. chemical and electronic engineering where we can really do good work. Second - East Asian studies because of the importance of East Asia, particularly China, to this part of the world and we are in an unique position to act as an interface and interpreter of East Asia to the rest of the world and to facilitate East Asian interactions with the West. Third - molecular and cell biology because we already have an Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology which is of world-class standard and the bio-technology industry could be very important for Singapore. As such world-class institutes will need much resources to set up and maintain, we need to be very sure of the areas to be emphasised before adopting this solution.

The second issue which concerns tertiary education in Singapore is essentially student numbers. To put it bluntly, we do not have enough students. This year, NUS and NTU will admit some 9,000 students of which 8000 are Singaporeans and 1000 are foreign students. By the year 2000, MTI has projected that we will need something like 17,000 graduates a year to service our economy. This is almost double what we have today.

How do we get this large number of graduates whom we need to service our economy? First, we must give Singapore students every opportunity to qualify for university studies. With continuing improvements in our schools and with better teaching, out of a cohort of 40,000 to 50,000 students every year, we can raise the number of Singapore students qualifying for university studies to 10,000 or perhaps 11,000 a year.

Next, we must increase the number of tertiary-level institutions in Singapore. If you have an intake of 15,000 students going to University every year and all of them go to NUS and NTU, this means that NUS and NTU will become mega-universities with student population of 30,000 or 40,000 students. I do not think that this is desirable, This is why the development of SIM into a private University concentrating on finance and business courses is very important because this gives another institution which can take in university students and increase the overall enrollment without making NUS and NTU so large that they become unmanageable.

Finally, in addition to getting as many of our own students into NUS and NTU as possible, we have to go out to recruit students from overseas. This has to be done with greater focus and with more resources than we have done so far. We have taken the first step by restructuring the university fee structure so that there is one fee for all courses except for Medicine and Dentistry and foreign students from next year pay only 10% more than local students but we will also need to set up proper admission offices in NUS and NTU which can attract and look after students from Singapore and overseas. There is a market for students just as there is a market for everything else. So if you want to get good students, you got to go out and attract them. We are preparing to do this for example by having a "need blind" policy of admission i.e. to guarantee students both Singaporeans and foreigners if you meet our standards for admission, we will guarantee that you will have sufficient financial aid to defray the cost of your studies in Singapore. This has to be advertised and to be told to students. Otherwise they will not apply on their own. This requires effort on the part of NUS and NTU. It is not easy but it has got to be done.

The third issue which affects NUS particularly is the standing of the Faculty of Arts and Faculty of Science in NUS. Arts and Science are basic disciplines. My worry is that if something is not done, I can see the professional Schools in NUS - Law, Medicine, Engineering, Business overshadowing the Faculties of Arts and Science so eventually you will not get good people teaching Arts and Sciences and you will not get good students taking these disciplines. Singapore will then lack a very valuable resource because first the Faculties of Arts and Science produce the teachers for our schools. Second, they also provide the means by which we can enrich the whole area of university education particularly at the undergraduate level.

For example, we have been thinking on how to introduce National Education at tertiary level. How do you do this in a way which is meaningful, interesting and challenging to university students? You cannot just have one course and have all 8000 first-year students attend the same course and expect them to find the course meaningful. One way of doing it would be to try to emulate what Harvard University has done in its Core Curriculum. In Harvard, every student has to take a minimum of 8 courses in the Core Curriculum out of 32 courses in order to graduate. The 8 courses are chosen from 6 fields which are Foreign Cultures, Historical Studies, Literature and the Arts, Moral Reasoning, Science and Social Analysis. Each field contains a number of courses run by different Professors but these Professors are not graduate students or Assistant Professors. They are the best in the field and the senior faculty make it a point to teach these core courses so each course has only a small number of students. If you take a course in Foreign Culture for example you can take a course run by Ezra Vogel, the author of "Japan as No. One". If you take a course in Science, you can take a course run by a Nobel Prize winner. These eminent faculty make it a point to teach these courses at undergraduate level and this makes the courses meaningful as a student can follow the course which he or she likes and is interested in and the course is conducted at a rigorous level. But to do this you need to have a good Faculty of Arts and a good Faculty of Science. Otherwise you cannot do it.

It took Harvard about 7 years to establish its Core Curriculum and another 4 years to actually implement it. We do not need to go as far as Harvard. One way would be to require all students in NUS and NTU to take a minimum of four courses : one in the history of Singapore out of a menu of courses which may be available. Two - A course in the history or culture of one of our neighbours. Third : a course in human relations because every graduate needs to be able to interact with other people whatever he or she does after graduation. And fourth, a course in expository writing to make sure that every graduate of NUS is able to write grammatically and concisely.

Even with this limited requirement, it is going to be a big task to mount the courses at a level which university students will find interesting and meaningful. You cannot do this with Faculties of Arts and Science which are at the bottom of the totem pole in the university structure. This is the issue which we have to grapple with : how to build up the Faculties of Arts and Science so that they can hold their own against Law, Medicine, Engineering and Business. This requires a great deal of thought. One way perhaps could be to merge the Faculty of Arts with the Faculty of Science to create a large Faculty of Arts and Sciences as in Harvard, which with their combined resources can then hold its own against Medicine, Law, Engineering or Business. This is a major decision but it can provide the impetus to make Arts and Science the central discipline in NUS which should be the case for a general university like NUS.

The above issues are very large questions which have to be thought through. The purpose of my speech this afternoon is not to provide answers to the questions but to inform Members of the issues so that we can have the benefit of your views. An International Academic Advisory Panel, comprising eminent academicians from the United States, Europe and Japan will be meeting in Singapore in the first week of August under the Chairmanship of Dr Yeo Ning Hong to discuss the issues I have outlined. Their recommendations will help us to work out the right approach to tackle these complex issues of university education in Singapore.

BY DR ALINE WONG, SENIOR MINISTER OF STATE (EDUCATION)

1. I agree with Members of the House that we should develop every child to his potential, including disabled children. In fact there are opportunities for disabled children to develop their potential. Those who are able to cope with the rigours of mainstream curriculum can pursue an education in the mainstream schools while those who need specialised assistance can do so in Special Education schools or SPED schools for short. There have been pupils who upon leaving the SPED schools have gone on to continue their education in institutions of higher learning. There are examples of disabled children who have perservered and shown special talents and achievements in various areas.
2. Yes, our children who are disabled deserve an education that will enable them to develop their potential. This must however, be the shared responsibility of the community and the government. There are currently 16 SPED schools run by voluntary organisations, providing education to some 3,400 disabled children. In accordance with the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Disabled, the government has since 1989 increasingly provided financial and other support towards the education of children with disabilities. My Ministry together with NCSS have been providing capitation grant for recurrent expenditure to the SPED schools up to a cap of 4 times the cost of primary education. The government funding on a 50:50 basis with NCSS has increased from $4.44m for FY89 to $14.22m for FY96.
3. Besides the capitation grant, our government also provides capital funding for the construction and renovation of buildings for the SPED schools. The capital funding, which started on a 50:50 basis between government and the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) from 1989 was increased in 1991 to a 80:20 basis with the government providing the major portion. In 1996, the government's share of the funding was further increased to 90:10.
4. To provide better facilities as well as to cater for the demand of places in the SPED schools for children with disabilities, the government has supported the building of purpose-built schools. In-principle approval has to-date been given for 6 purpose-built SPED schools to be built. Two of them are already under construction (Margaret Drive Special School of the Rainbow Centre and the Towner Gardens School of the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled). More are in the pipe-line and Members of the House can be assured that every effort will be made to provide adequate places for children who need special education in SPED schools.
5. In 1996, the Government extended the Edusave Scheme to children in the SPED schools. Eligible pupils get an Edusave Account and receive a yearly contribution from the Edusave Endowment Fund. For 1997, the contribution is $160 per child. In addition, SPED schools also receive an annual Edusave Grant at $50 per pupil (same as mainstream primary schools) to enable them to conduct enrichment programmes and purchase additional equipment and resource materials to enhance the quality of teaching and learning. This is a significant step taken by the Government to recognise that a child in a SPED school is eligible for similar kind of benefits from the Edusave Endowment Fund given to a child in a mainstream school.
6. Mr Speaker, Sir, to enable the SPED schools to do more for the children who are disabled, I am pleased to announce that my Ministry with effect from FY97, will raise its subsidy for special education according to a new formula, subject to the current cap of 4 times primary education. MOE will fund the SPED schools the normal cost of primary education and share the funding of additional costs with NCSS at 50:50. Thus, at a cap of 4 times primary education, MOE will fund up to 1+1.5 times, while NCSS will fund the remaining 1.5 times. With this new funding formula, government's maximum share of the funding is increased by 25% ie. from a 50% share to 62.5%. For FY97, the increase in government's share translates into an additional $700,000 subsidy. MOE's total grant to SPED schools will be $15.5m.
7. Today, our SPED schools provide specially customised educational programmes for the different disability groups of children to meet their individual needs and to enable them to integrate well into society. They are equipped with basic literacy and numeracy and self-help skills to enable them to live independently.
8. Children with disabilities in SPED schools also have the opportunity for vocational training. The Vocational School for the Handicapped (VSH) which is funded fully by the government, provides vocational training leading to the award of the Certificate of Vocational Training (CoVT). Earlier this year, my Ministry approved the set-up of an additional school run by the Association for the Educationally Subnormal Children (AESN) to cater to ESN pupils between ages 16 and 18 in pre-vocational training. The programme helps the pupils to acquire work skills and assist them in securing and retaining a job. Basic pre-vocational training is also provided by the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS) schools for the 16 to 18 year old intellectually disabled pupils. A number of training centres and sheltered workshops are run by various VWOs for pupils who graduate from the other SPED schools. I would therefore like to assure Members that there are provisions for vocational training for our children who are disabled.
9. As for integration in the mainstream schools, I would like to point out that children who are disabled need special attention, and they have the benefit of specialised programmes and assistance at the SPED schools. Thus, integrating a child who is disabled in a mainstream school may not necessarily be beneficial to him. He would have difficulties coping with the pace of learning in the mainstream school where the curriculum is more academic and teachers will not be able to give him close attention as the class size is large.
10. However, children with disabilities who are able to follow the mainstream curriculum do have the opportunity to pursue their education in mainstream schools. There are physically disabled children in mainstream schools which are provided with special facilities for the physically handicapped. There are also sensory impaired pupils (the hearing-impaired and visually-handicapped) in the mainstream schools, many of whom join the mainstream secondary schools after completing their primary education in the SPED schools. These pupils attend regular classes and follow the curriculum of the mainstream schools. Resource teachers are deployed to designated secondary schools to assist them. Plans are in place to provide more resource teachers, equipment and resources to help these children.
11. Starting from last year, MOE has been providing some support to dyslexic children in mainstream schools. We have collaborated with the Dyslexia Association of Singapore (DAS) in giving remediation to these children in the DAS study centres. We have helped DAS set up a learning centre in the eastern zone, and we shall be assisting DAS to expand its Clementi Learning Centre to meet the increased demand in the western zone, as well as help it set up a centre in the northern zone. At the same time, we will be training some teachers to provide help to mildly dyslexic pupils who do not need the specialised remediation in the DAS centres. To assist autistic children studying in our mainstream schools, the Ministry is now working with a voluntary parent group to provide them support along a similar line as DAS.

    Conclusion

12. The provision of special education is a shared responsibility between government and the community. The parents play a role too. Through NCSS and the VWOs, they have contributed much to the education of the disabled. The government will continue to play its part. Together, we can nurture our children with disabilities and help them realise their unique talents.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

Mr Chairman, Sir.

I should first like to thank the four Members who spoke on the issue of Technical Education. Their concerns are, I believe, focused on the first batch of 6,800 students in the Normal Technical stream who will be completing Sec4 N(T) by the end of this year.

I shall return later to address Mr Peh Chin Hua's earlier suggestions for a more flexible education system.

Summary of Questions

Sir, three Members, Mr Loh Meng See, Dr Tan Boon Wan and Mr Hawazi have all each in his own way advocated that these students should be encouraged to go directly to ITE (Institute of Technical Education), so that they can get some skills before going into the job market. They ask, however, whether there are enough places for these students in ITE and how can ITE help those who wish to upgrade themselves even further.

Mr Zainal Abidin's question is very much to the point. He asks: "Going to ITE is all very well, but what are the prospects for ITE graduates?"

Enough Places at ITE

Sir, let me say from the outset that my Ministry agrees with them. The Sec4 Normal Technical students should be encouraged to go directly into ITE. They will get better value out of a 2 year technical education at ITE, because no more than a very few of them, if any, will make it through "O" Levels which is essentially academic in nature. If you think about it, this is not at all surprising. Those who can make it in the academic stream would already have been identified and transferred out to the academic stream during their Sec 1 and Sec 2 years.

Let me also assure the House that ITE has enough enrolment capacity to take them in. ITE has 10 technical institutes with a full time enrolment capacity of 15,000. It can take in 10,000 full time students every year. In 1996, its enrolment is 9,900 students, comprising 8,200 full time students and 1,700 students in apprenticeship programmes. Its continuing education and training systems offers 100,000 training places to about 60,000 workers a year.

Help for going on to Polytechnics

What help is there for those who wish to upgrade themselves beyond ITE? My answer is "Lots of help." Our education system is full of "bridges" and "ladders".

ITE will provide "O" Level English and Mathematics programmes for those NTC-2 (National Technical Certificate Grade 2) students who are interested to pursue these two subjects during their studies in ITE. Each programme comprises 200 training hours over the 2-year period of their NTC-2 course. To enrol for these two "O" Level subjects, the student must have passed in the respective subject at the "N" Level.

There are ample opportunities for an ITE graduate to go on to the polytechnics. The most appropriate courses for Normal stream students are the NTC-2 or the Certificate in Office Skills (COS). Students who pass the NTC-2 with a Certificate of Merit (COM) can be admitted to the polytechnics.

Within ITE itself, NTC-2 or COS students can also upgrade themselves into two broad groups of higher qualifications. These are the Industrial Technician Certificate (ITC) or Certificate in Business Studies (CBS). Those who graduate in the ITC or in the CBS can be admitted to the polytechnics, even without obtaining a Certificate of Merit. In 1996, a total of 446 ITE graduates joined full time courses in the polytechnics. This is an illustration of the bridges and ladders in our education system.

Some of these 446 ITE graduates did so well in their ITE courses that 85 or 19% of them were admitted to the 2nd year of their polytechnic courses. In other words, these ITE graduates are exempted from the 1st year of a normal 3-year polytechnic course.

Prospects for ITE graduates

The prospects for ITE graduates are excellent. There are two reasons for this. The Singapore economy has a high demand for skilled technicians and workers and ITE has ensured that its courses and training remain highly relevant to the needs of industry. For example, ITE launched 3 new courses from this month. These are the NTC-2 courses in Wafer Fabrication and Broadcasting Operations, and a CBS course in Logistics.

But let's get down to the "nitty-gritty" of Mr Zainal Abidin's question. How easily can they find a job and how much do they earn?

The most recent employment survey of ITE graduates was released last month. The survey showed that 97% of those who graduated in 1996 were employed. In fact, 83% received their first job offer within one month and 98% within three months of graduation.

The gross mean salary of ITE graduates was $1,164 per month. Those in engineering and technology courses commanded higher starting salaries than those in the business and other courses:

ITC graduates earned gross mean salaries of $1,331, with ITC Mechatronics Engineering graduates earning starting salary of $1,429.

NTC-2 graduates earned a gross mean salary of $1,239, with those in NTC-2 Electrical Installation and Servicing graduates earning the highest, earning $1,406.

The graduates in Certificate in Business Studies (CBS) and Certificate in Business Skills (COS) earned gross starting salaries of $1,094 and $984 respectively.

These are only the average starting salaries. What about the prospects beyond that? Similar surveys in the past have shown that salaries of ITE graduates doubled after 5 years of employment, with ITC graduates more than doubling. With a slightly lower base, CBS graduates' salary also more than doubled in 5 years.

N(T) Students to join ITE

I want to encourage the 6,800 Normal Technical students and others to join the ITE when they leave school this year. I want to reiterate to them the value of a technical education. I wish to emphasise the importance of technical skilled manpower to our economy. Technical skills are needed at all levels, not just university or polytechnic.

ITE is not the vocational training institutes of yesteryears. Recognising its importance, the government embarked on a programme some 5 years ago to build ITE into a modern and well equipped institute of technical education. The programme involves capital expenditure of more than $350 million. In addition to the new ITE complex at Dover Road, two more new purpose-built complexes at Tampines and Balestier will be ready this year. The rest of the building programme is still ongoing.

Over the next few months, I invite the students, their parents and MPs to come and see for yourselves. I have

placed on your seat, a copy of the booklet titled "I DID IT MY WAY". It records the testimonies of several ITE graduates and tells their success stories. You also have with you a booklet on "ITE COURSES FOR GCE 'N' HOLDERS".

Normal Stream Sec3 to Sec5

Sir, let me now address the points raised by Mr Peh Chin Hua. My Ministry agrees wholeheartedly with Mr Peh that we should provide our students with opportunities to optimise their potentialities. I said at the beginning that our education system is full of bridges and ladders.

Mr Peh offered the suggestion that we abolish the Normal Stream Sec3 to Sec5. I take it he is referring to the Normal Stream Technical. He cannot be advocating that we eliminate the Sec3 to Sec5 of the Normal Stream Academic, because 80% of these students proceed to Sec 5. Moreover, 75% of them obtained 3 or more O Levels, with 40% obtaining 5 or more "O" Levels. This is yet another of the bridges and ladders of our education system. Stopping their normal school education at Sec2 cannot be a very good idea.

Those who are less academically inclined are streamed into Normal Technical after their PSLE exams. There are very good reasons why they should complete a four year secondary school education. The additional 2 years in Sec 3 and Sec 4 will give them their best chance of attaining a minimum numeracy and language competency that is needed for the acquisition of technical or office skill of a reasonable level. Industries and offices are already more technology driven and there will be fewer jobs that will require only the performance of menial tasks. For some of these students, it also provides the foundation for an opportunity to further upgrade themselves later in life. I think we owe it to them to provide that foundation.

Mr Peh suggests that we should have apprentice scheme that can train students after Sec 2. At present ITE already has 1,700 places for apprenticeship schemes with students drawing salaries of $600 to $800 per month. The schemes are not very different from the German system which requires a minimum of 9 years of education before entry. The German student would also be about 16 years old by the time they begin their apprenticeship.

The intake for the apprenticeship scheme at ITE will be increased to 2,600 next year. They are in technical areas as well as Fashion Garment, Hairstyling, Food & Beverage, Health Care, Retailing. The entry requirement is either completion of GCE N Level, or passes of specified grades depending on the course.

For the majority of students in the Normal Stream Technical, they will need all the four years to reach the proficiency level in numeracy and language to cope with the immediate needs of the job, to contribute to productivity in their workplace and to be equipped for further growth.

Eliminating Sec3 and Sec4 is not such a good idea. There will be some students who cannot be persuaded to study beyond Sec2. But these are the exceptions rather than the rule. In 1996, only 305 students or 4.6% of Normal Technical stream left school after Sec2. Even for this small group who leave school after Sec2, there are already three vocational institutes that provide them with training that will lead to NTC-3 certification. These three institutes together have an annual intake of 800.

The range of subjects at the vocational institute level may not be sufficiently broad as to include the arts, dance, drama and music. We can take a look at the present repertoire of subjects, but ultimately we have to be realistic. We should only provide training in the skills and at the level for which there is a demand.

Mr Chairman, Sir. I would like once more to thank the Members who have spoken and shown their concern in the area of technical and vocational education.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

BY MR MOHAMAD MAIDIN PACKER MOHD, PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY (EDUCATION)

1. Teachers in schools can succeed in their mission only with the full support and confidence of parents and the community. Mutual trust and close co-operation between the school and parents are necessary to ensure that children benefit fully from schooling.
2. The Ministry of Education has confidence in the professional competence and judgement of its principals and teachers. The vast majority of teachers are committed, competent and caring professionals who have the interests of their pupils at heart. When in school, the pupils come under the authority of the principal and teachers. Schools expect the support of parents for the good of their children, and parents should accord schools this right. At the same time, schools are open to constructive feedback from parents and the public. However, any feedback or complaints about teachers should be raised with the principal, who is empowered to deal with and resolve such complaints.
3. Parents who are unhappy with teachers should see the principal or vice-principal of the school. The principal is obliged to inform the parents concerned of the outcome of the investigations and any action the school has taken. It has been found that many instances of parents' unhappiness arose out of misunderstandings. These can be easily sorted out by the principal. If parents are not satisfied with the action taken by the school, they may raise the matter with the Ministry. The Ministry will investigate the complaints only after the matter has been first raised with the principal of the school.
4. Complaints against the principal should, as far as possible, be raised with the principal himself. If the complainant deems this inappropriate, he may raise this with the Ministry by writing to the Director-General of Education. The Ministry will acknowledge receipt of the complaint, and keep the complainant informed of any action taken.
5. If investigations either in school or at the Ministry uncover that the complaint is false and malicious, appropriate action will be pursued against the complainant.
6. The Ministry's concern in the entire matter is to ensure that schools are run commensurate with their mission of developing every student not only intellectually, but socially and morally as well.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION