Extract of COS debate on MEWR – Hawker Centres
Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I have a question on the operating model of the hawker centres. Earlier, the Minister said that he intends to accept all of the Panel’s proposals, so I would like to ask regarding the model of letting the social enterprises run the operations. Will the Ministry be keeping a very close watch on the rents and the way the operations will be run? I consider the provision of hawker centres to be essential social goods, to make food prices affordable to everybody. I am concerned that sometimes when we let market forces take over the provision of social goods, we can end up with rising cost, just like we saw industrial spaces going to REITS and then prices have been creeping up. So, is there some assurance that there will be very close monitoring on the way this is run, especially when more and more hawker centres are being run by social enterprises?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: First, I better clarify that I did not say that I would accept all the recommendations of the Panel. I was referring to the Drainage Panel. The Hawker Centre Panel has not submitted their final recommendations yet, so I do not want to jump the gun. But let me tell you basically how I see this.
First, I have to persuade all of you to accept that hawker centres are social infrastructures. Therefore, as the ultimate landlord, we are not trying to maximise rentals from it.
I am keen to accept the recommendation for social enterprise because, if you remember, when I first announced that we would reverse this policy, I said that I wanted the manager to be a not-for-profit model. Basically, you still need to be viable and to make ends meet. But you are not out there as a real estate player and you are not engaging in arbitrage. And what starts off as a hawking business becomes a real estate business. All this is very easy to express but I am not going to underestimate the difficulty of making it work in practice.
In the context of Singapore, the most successful co-operative is FairPrice. I give all due respect to Mr Seah Kian Peng. It is a social enterprise, it has fulfilled a social mission of ensuring commodities and essential food are priced reasonably and provides competition. What I am hoping to do by changing this hawker centre policy is, number one, increase the supply of places. That should have some effect on prices, both in terms of rental as well as the prices charged by hawkers. But having said that, I do not believe that simply lowering rentals by itself will necessarily lead to lower prices charged by hawkers. At the end of the day, they are people making a living. They will also try to charge what the market will bear.
So I just want the Member to understand – let us not be overly simplistic in the way we implement this, and also to be very careful that we do not get unintended consequences. For now, if we can get a cooperative to run it, and the cooperative knows that what we are after is cheap, good and clean food, and that the people who are working there are Singaporeans, locals – better still if they are people within the community, they are there to make a living for themselves and they are preparing cooked fresh food, good enough for their own families and friends to eat – I think that will be an achievement. That already makes us unique, because when we first created hawker centres, it was just a hygiene measure – clear mobile hawkers on the streets. But this has taken on a life of its own, it has become a unique icon of Singapore life. So I give the Member the assurance that we will certainly be watching it very, very closely, and to watch the evolution of these new generation hawker centres, that it does not deviate from the original objective. Does the Member have a specific suggestion in mind?
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: No, I do not have a specific suggestion. I thank the Minister for the answers. It is easier to control when we have one or two hawker centres being run by a particular social enterprise. But I imagine a day when maybe we have half or even more of our hawker centres being run by social enterprises, and then they become a very sizeable market force. So, would we want to start thinking right now how do we set the KPIs to ensure that the outcomes will always be affordable food, whether it is done through fixing the rent that they can charge to the hawkers or through other means? I think we should think seriously about this rather than leave it to market forces.
Extract of COS debate on MOE – Gifted education and Pri to Sec integrated programme
Extract from Singapore Parliament publication on Committee of Supply debate on MOE (8 March 2012). I had spoken on 5 separate issues in the MOE debate but with the limited time left for further questions, I had decided to seek clarification only on the following two issues. I subsequently spoke with Ms Sim Ann during tea break time on what I meant when I proposed the Special Needs Innovation Fund (see item 3), which I had intended to be a special fund rather than for schools to use a generic fund like the Schools Innovation Fund. I had based on my proposal on the LEAD ICT fund model which MOE had set up for all schools to apply to which can only be used to drive innovative / niche ICT programmes. A similar fund can be established to support special needs intervention activities in mainstream schools or to fund innovation programmes to get mainstream students to interact more with the special needs people within and around them.
Integrated programme
Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): We started the Integrated Programme (IP) in 2004 to allow higher ability secondary school students to skip the “O” levels into the “A” levels or its equivalent. I wish to propose an alternative IP, from primary one to secondary four. The current system puts huge pressure on students, parents and teachers in primary schools to prepare for the PSLE. Various Members in this House, including myself, had spoken on the excessive pressures in our school system. A Straits Times article last month reported more parents taking their primary school kids to see psychologists after doing badly in school tests, some as young as Primary 2. The purpose of PSLE and other major exams appears to be to sort students into different streams and into different schools. Our highly competitive examination-driven system has resulted in high dependency on tuition and drilling for exams rather than education for the joy of learning.
Sir, I understand this is a difficult and emotive issue as there are parents who may feel a competitive system is desirable. However, there are parents, like myself, who can accept that our children need not fight to be in the best schools. The current system offers us no choice at all because of the dreaded consequence of the child doing badly in a major examination at aged 12. Many parents feel their child’s future is determined by the PSLE. Many private schools globally already through-train students from primary to secondary, including overseas schools based on the Singapore curriculum. Some of these schools have done well in international tests despite not subjecting students to standardised examinations at Primary 6. Finland switched to such a through-train system nationwide with encouraging outcomes. Its PISA test scores are comparable to Singapore’s.
I would like MOE to consider piloting primary through secondary IP schools with the same level of funding per student as any Government or aided school. With such schools, primary education need not be focused on grinding out results just for PSLE and schools can spend more time on values-based education. The post-primary section will eventually prepare students for a recognised examination, namely “O” levels, “A” levels or even the International Baccalaureate. By that time, students are more mature and better able to handle stress. Existing school groups may opt to run such a programme. There are already aided schools in Singapore with affiliation schemes where the majority of primary students enter the affiliated secondary schools. Such schools have long histories and are trusted education brands. They are potential candidates to kick-start the programme. MOE has implemented holistic assessments since 2010. The experience of holistic assessments can be incorporated to ensure the rigour in learning throughout the years of studies in such pilot schools.
Sir, I believe we have the calibre of management and teachers in Singapore to achieve this. I hope MOE can do a serious study on making this option available.
Gifted Education Programme
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Before I talk about gifted education, I must say I support Mr Laurence Lien’s call as well. (remark: NMP Laurence Lien had also made a similar call for independent primary schools that do not require students to take the PSLE. He spoke right after I delivered the above speech.)
The Gifted Education Programme (GEP) was implemented in 1984. Primary school GEP starts the child at Primary 4 in one of nine designated schools. Schools are identified after a nationwide test at Primary 3. Centralised secondary school GEP was scrapped in 2008 following the low take-up rate after the introduction of secondary school IP.
I would like MOE to consider scrapping centralised primary school GEP, too. Currently, a nationwide effort is required to identify just 1% of the cohort. With centralised GEP for secondary schools already scrapped, much resources are now spent on a small group of students in the programme that lasts only three years. Based on the figures provided by MOE in a Parliamentary Question (PQ) last month, the past 10 years’ performance of GEP students did not suggest that centralised GEP had generated better examination results at PSLE and at “A” levels. We can continue differentiated learning to develop students with stronger learning abilities. In place of the current GEP, we can implement the following:
(1) Encourage all schools to do their own subject-based accelerated learning. Giftedness is often specific to subjects as the child may be strong in one subject but average in others. Schools can have their own methods to identify students who are stronger in specific subjects and run accelerated learning for these students.
(2) Further support can be given through the cluster system. Learning camps, workshops or talks involving special lecturers to challenge higher-ability students can be organised by the cluster.
(3) Schools can be supported by the GE branch with learning resources distributed to them for use or schools may prepare their own contents. Selected teachers in all schools can be trained on how to guide students with stronger learning abilities.
We can spread accelerated learning across many more schools. Parents need not transfer their child out to a gifted school at nine years old. MOE wants to convince parents that every school is a good school. Separating gifted students into special schools undermines this message. Retaining good students in their current schools provide better integration of children so that children of all abilities can learn from one another in a natural and authentic environment. I hope MOE will consider this request.
The Minister for Education (Mr Heng Swee Keat):
… (other replies) …
Members have, in this debate, made interesting suggestions for more pathways and options. Mr Baey Yam Keng, Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Mr Laurence Lien have suggested more options. Mr Yee suggested having an integrated programme starting from Primary 1. My concern would be that far from removing pressure at Primary 6, you will now transfer the pressure to Primary 1. South Korea have abolished national examinations at the equivalent of Primary 6 but that has not taken away the pressure. Mr Laurence Lien and Mr Yee Jenn Jong spoke about Finland – 40% of the students move on to vocational track at Grade 9, equivalent to ITE.
While Mr Laurence Lien, Mr Baey Yam Keng and Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked for diversity, Ms Denise Phua was concerned about segregation and how that might have unintended consequences. So did Dr Intan Azura, who raised concerns about segregation. I agree with Mr Teo Ser Luck who said that we should not be apologetic about neighbourhood schools. The truth is our schools are geographically sited in our neighbourhood, so naturally they draw students who are living in the neighbourhood. So we have to ensure good schools in every neighbourhood and not use the term “neighbourhood school” as an apology. So we must collectively change perception and change mindsets as Mr Edwin Tong mentioned.
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Thank you, Chairman. I have two sets of questions for two of the cuts. The first is regarding the primary to secondary integrated programme pilot. The Minister said that “we will be transferring the pressure to Primary 1” – does the Minister not agree that when that happens, it means that this pilot is very successful and it is time to actually open more of such pilots, just as we have done so when we did the secondary to college integrated programme. Minister also said that in Finland, 40% of the students go to vocational stream at Grade 9. I am not sure why this was raised as a problem by the Minister. Is it because the Minister thinks that going to the vocational stream is actually under achieving?
In speaking with Finns, I actually found that parents and students, they choose the vocational track by choice because in Finland, the salary differential between the vocational stream and professional stream is not as great as in Singapore. So, the higher percentage may not mean that they are under performing. Is the Minister open to dialogue with schools and parents to see if they actually want such a track because when I did my survey, I found that there is significant number of educators and parents who are interested and I heard that – perhaps Minister can confirm that — one aided school even approached the Ministry for discussion on this several years back.
The second is related to the GEP cut. Minister questioned my use of the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) and GCE “A” level scores as a means of assessing the performance of GEP students. I would like to ask the Minister, are these not the same data the Ministry of Education largely relies on currently to channel our students into different academic streams and into schools and also in the Award of Scholarships? Does the Minister not agree that parents today perceive, the nine GEP schools as being “the” good schools as evident by the rush for places in these schools?
On the point that we need critical mass to put them into the centralised nine GP schools, I want to clarify specifically that I am not asking for GEP or accelerated learning per se to be abolished but I am asking for centralised GEP to be scraped, and in place of it, being disseminated to different schools. Does the Minister think that we can actually make use of our cluster school system to achieve that critical mass?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: I thank Mr Yee for his follow-up questions. First, on your point about your proposal for an integrated Primary 1 to Secondary 4 programmes, I have made two points. First, that you will be transferring the pressure to Primary 1. Second, you mentioned my point about Finland, that at the end of Grade 9, 40% are on the vocational path. I want to use that to illustrate a very basic point which is that in our system, we have many pathways and many options. This has been enhanced over the years and the results have been very good across the entire system. In the last few years, MOE had done major review of primary and secondary education. In fact, Senior Minister of State Ms Grace Fu who is here led the review on the primary education. That is after very extensive consultations with educators, specialists, parents and the broader community.
As a result of the review, you will find that in all primary schools now, we are implementing a very wide range of very important and interesting programmes. I mentioned about PAL, the Programme for Active Learning, I mentioned about the learning support in order to raise numeracy and literacy. With the additional bilingualism effort at pre-school, we will continue to enhance that. Schools are given a lot more resources to level up. I also announced earlier that we have now five major measures to level up the lower and middle income families. And I have also announced significant changes to Edusave.
So, across the entire system, changes are being made. All these are part and parcel of our entire effort to provide opportunities for all Singaporean students and at the same time, these are in line with our shift towards holistic education and values-driven education.
Now, it is very important for us to look at how we design our system in a way that maximises the opportunities for every child. At this point, with so many initiatives, we must focus on good implementation. I have also mentioned how in our system, that over 93% of our students are moving on to post secondary education. In my second set of remarks, I also mentioned how vocational pathways and technical pathways are very important. In fact, I deeply believe, as Mr Zainudin Nordin has mentioned, that the ITE and Polytechnics are crown jewels of our system. We have a system that works very well and a system that has served all Singaporean students very well.
Now, on the Member’s question on GEP, he asked whether that is the way that MOE assesses the success of GEP. The answer is “No”. In fact, it has to be a holistic assessment —
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: That is not my question. My question was: is this the way that MOE currently relies on to channel students to different academic streams, schools and in the Award of Scholarships, that is, by relying on PSLE, GCE “A” level grades and so on?
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Well, a large part of it, “yes”, in the form of examinations results at PSLE. But we must also recognise the changes which have been made over the years. Schools now have Direct School Admission (DSA), in order to recognise a wider range of talent; in order for us to develop a whole slew of different skills and aptitudes and talents. That is how we have been doing it. Admission into schools like SOTA, for instance, requires students to show the aptitude and interest in the arts, similarly admission through sports. So, if you look at the entire system, we have created many, many more options, pathways and opportunities for our students. We have to recognise all these very important changes which have taken place and I think we have to go out and communicate better with our parents on all these changes.
Extract of COS debate on MCYS – Preschool support for lower income families
The following is extract from the Singapore parliament publications (9 March 2012) pertaining to the debate after my ‘Cut’ on MCYS. My motivation for this Cut is that while child care and kindergarten sectors each have a generous financial scheme to help the lower income families get their children to study in preschool, the child care scheme allows all operators to be eligible while the kindergaren scheme has qualifying criteria that has allowed only PCF to qualify thus far, despite there being many other kindergarten operators in the industry. I feel the scheme should be inclusive of all operators, just like in the child care scheme, so as to give families the choice of where they wish to send their children to.
My Cut:
Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member): A good early start to education is important to a child’s development. It is especially important for the lower income families to help the child be ready for primary school. Schemes like the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme (KFAS) with start-up grants and monthly fee subsidies are helpful to the low income group. However, after eight years of KiFAS’ implementation since January 2004, only one kindergarten group, namely the PAP Community Foundation qualifies as the eligible provider despite there being some 260 non-PCF kindergartens.
In contrast, all childcare centres licensed by MCYS are eligible centres for the Centre based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC). While understanding the need to ensure quality of education, the bar is set so high that only organisation in the industry has qualified so far.
There are many established and reputable kindergarten providers in the industry including the kindergartens that my siblings, my wife and I attended as children. Many of these kindergartens operate within the community providing affordable and high quality pre-school education but are not KiFAS eligible. KiFAS eligible criteria amongst other include
one: have no religious affiliation or relation to racial group; and
two: be financially sound with a minimum paid-up capital of $5 million.
These two stringent criteria are not required for CFAC and I am not sure why they are required here. I hope MCYS will review the eligibility criteria to ensure greater choice of kindergartens for low income families to send children to, including to private kindergartens.
The Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Chan Chun Sing): …. (other replies) …
Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked for a review of the kindergarten assistance criteria so that more operators can become eligible centres. Today, eligible children can receive such subsidies at 240 MOE-registered kindergartens that meet the criteria, such as being non-profit and secular, and are in a good financial position to provide quality pre-school education. I understand and I share Mr Yee Jenn Jong’s concern to better help our people access more affordable childcare and kindergarten. But let me explain how we try to do this on two levels. On one level we try to lower the fees that are charged across the board by helping the kindergartens and the child care to make sure that their costs are contained. On the other hand, CFAC is really a scheme targeted at the people at the lower end of the financial spectrum. It is centred on the family circumstances rather than centred on the operators themselves. So it is a family and children specific scheme and not so much to help bring down the costs for the high-end operators.
MCYS will continue to conduct regular reviews of our pre-school schemes to improve accessibility and affordability. To ensure that the lower income households with more dependants receive adequate assistance for their children, we will introduce a parallel per capita income criterion for our assistance schemes in child care, kindergarten and student care. From April, children from large families will qualify for child care and kindergarten assistance if their per capita income is less than $875. The same will apply for student care assistance from July. About 5,000 children will benefit from these enhancements.
… (other replies) …
Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am glad the Acting Minister emphasised inclusiveness as MCYS’ theme. I have two questions relating to his reply on my cut. He mentioned that there are 240 centres that are KiFAS-approved. I like to know whether there are any non-PCF centres included in the list. The second question is that he said that KiFAS is targeted at lower income families. It is a child and family specific scheme and not centre-specific. I understand so is CFAC which is for childcare and we have KiFAS which is for kindergarten. But I understand CFAC is inclusive; all operators included, including private centres are eligible. But KiFAS is exclusive; so far only to one organisation. So I am sorry I do not understand the Acting Minister’s explanation and I do not understand the reasons behind KiFAS’ very onerous criteria.
I Wish My Children SUCCESS! – A poem by an anonymous mother
I received this email from a mother who prefers to remain anonymous. The poem was a response to 2 forum articles in The Straits Times, Sat 17 (“Pace of paper chase too stressful for pupils” and “Something’s wrong if children don’t have time to read“). She is tired of the paper chase too!
GE + 1: Has Anything Really Changed: Political Forum at NUS
I took part in a political forum at NUS on 19 March 2012. The topic is:
GE + 1: Has Anything Really Changed
The 2011 General Elections have often been described as “watershed”. Political observers have suggested that a “new normal” has emerged in Singapore politics, with a more politically aware citizenry and greater opposition party presence in Parliament. But as the dust settles from the whirlwind of the elections, and we can see the state of the Singapore polity more clearly one year after the elections, the question is has anything really changed? Has party political strategy become different? Have government policies shifted or do only have the appearance of a shift?The panel discussion, with representatives from the major political parties, an NMP and a member of academia will unpack the realities of this “new normal”.
My Opening Comments:
(note: The actual delivered speech differ as I spoke mostly off-the-cuff, but with the same points)
The question posed today is whether the political situation has changed a year after GE2011.
I will describe the political transition with a glass of water (hold cup with some water). This glass was initially quite empty, though there are some water in it. A good amount of water has recently been added, but from time to time, some water may be evaporated or consumed, but more can be added again (pour some more water in and sip).
Political change here is a continuum. We did not get a major revolutionary change that brings us from an empty state to a full state due to the last general election, and I don’t think it is reasonable to have such a drastic change too. However changes had surely taken place in a few ways:
- There were 6 elected MPs from opposition, up from 2 previously. Of course we are now awaiting the calling of by-election for Hougang; soon, I hope. Coupled with 3 NCMPs, there are now more opposition voices in parliament. The increased number of seats also mean more constituency and town council work that the WP is now doing. Winning the Aljunied GRC was a major breakthrough for the opposition.
- We see more vocal voices by Singaporeans through the ever growing presence of online media.
- PE2011 saw the unprecedented challenge by three others on the favoured candidate of the establishment, something that may happen again in future. The willingness to challenge the incumbent has increased.
- We saw an unprecedented reshuffle of cabinet positions and the dropping of many ministers.
- Budget 2012 presented some surprises in the huge focus on social programmes as opposed to the heavy emphasis on economic growth in previous budgets.
I see political change here as a gradual but positive move towards one where there will be increasingly more credible alternatives to the ruling party. Some breakthroughs were achieved in GE2011 but more can still happen. The glass still has a lot more capacity to fill. As a business person, I always believe monopoly of anything is bad for the general public. There has to be some level of competition to force the level of the incumbent’s game to go up.
Other Comments Made:
The 1.5 hour discussions had various questions that ranged from the role of social media, whether we will have 2-party/multi-party system in future, response of PAP to GE results (if PAP was turning populist), analysis of GE results, etc.
Suggestions for our mainstream education system by a Singaporean student
The following is contributed by an undergraduate reader of my blog. He prefers to remain anonymous for this post.
————————————————————————
I am currently a final year undergraduate student in one of the local Singapore universities. I have a typical sandwiched class education profile, completing my non-tertiary education in neighbourhood schools. Just before I enter the workforce, I have some suggestions for improving our education system, mainly to enhance the quality of the neighbourhood schools, which form the bulk of the education system
Firstly, during my exchange studies in Europe, I found out that most European students are able to speak 3 or 4 languages. The native language, English, and one other language, usually an european language although Mandarin is becoming more popular. This has put the students in Singapore at an disadvantage among the global stage, especially when the government encourages the young workers to venture overseas in securing new opportunities for Singapore.
We could introduce basic third languages as an elective at 15,16 years old level, with the option of taking A1 level examinations at the end of the electives. Two hourly lessons/week, over 40 weeks will give an total study time of 80 hours. A1 level requires 90-100 hours of contact time. Hence, a two year elective should give the students more than enough time. During the course of study, they will be able to understand and converse in simple terms, as well as introducing the cultures of the native country. This will expose the students to the language for a start and encourage them to continue learning them at higher level, in poly, jc, or University after graduation. At the same time, capable students could even stretch their ability and interest, by completing the A2 level certification at O level, which would give them the necessary skills to communicate on a personal interest level.
With a ready pool of workers who are able to converse in other languages will attract more MNCs to set up offices in Singapore. In addition, Singapore companies are able to send Singaporeans to manage overseas market if Singaporeans are able to converse with the local market.
My ‘cut’ in MCYS Committee of Supply debate – Pre-school support for low income families
A good early start to education is important to a child’s development. It is especially important for the lower income families to help the child be ready for primary schools.
Schemes like the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme or KiFAS, with start-up grants and monthly fee subsidies are helpful to the low income group.
However, after 8 years of KiFAS implementation since January 2004, only one kindergarten group, namely the PAP Community Foundation qualifies as eligible provider despite there being some 260 other centres in the industry. In contrast, all child care centres licensed by MCYS are eligible centres for the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare, or CFAC. While I understand the need to ensure quality of education, the bar is set so high that only one organisation in the industry has qualified.
There are many established and reputable kindergarten providers in the industry, including the kindergartens that my siblings, my wife and I have attended as children. Many of these kindergartens operate within the community, providing affordable and high quality preschool education but are KiFAS eligible. KiFAS criteria, amongst others include :
1. Have no religious affiliation or relation to racial groups; and
2. Be financially sound with a minimum paid-up capital of $5 million
These two stringent criteria are not required for CFAC and I am not sure why they are needed here. I hope MCYS will review the criteria to ensure greater choice of kindergartens for low income families to send children to, including to private kindergartens.
Speech on Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Amendment) Bill – 9 March 2012
Sir, many I spoke with welcome this amendment because of prior bad experiences with purchases. Like them and Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan, I had at some point in time purchased products that failed to work soon after the purchase was made. Most retailers in Singapore do not have a ‘no-question-asked’ refund policy. This Lemon Law will force retailers to re-think the business model they use to transact with consumers.
The amendment now makes provision that if a product is found defective within six months of delivery, the customer has the right to demand the seller to make repair or replacement within a ‘reasonable time’ and ‘without causing significant inconvenience’ to the consumer. Or the customer can keep the defective product and be given an agreed discount, or return the product for total refund.
There are four areas I wish to highlight as potential concern areas in the execution of the bill, for which I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarifications or assurances:
- What constitutes a refund? Like Mr Hri Kumar, I wonder if retailers will attempt to get around compensation issues by offering or contracting in-house vouchers of the same value as the defective product to the customer as compensation. How do we prevent retailers from such attempts to dilute the consumer’s rights?
- A retailer may sign a contract with the customer to state that the product is “As-Is” due to special pricing or promotion or due to the nature of that particular product, with no refund or exchange allowed. Section 13 of the existing Act seems clear enough that it bars sellers and buyers from contracting out of a refund for other considerations such as a lower price.
However, many retailers and consumers may not know of this provision. Retailers may attempt creative ways to contract themselves out of the provisions in this Act during the initial implementation stage. A lot of monitoring and education needs to be done.
The Minister of State has spoken about “As-Is” products. What must retailers now have to do to highlight specific defects in specially priced products, and state that clearly in their contracts and advertising?
- The amendment covers physical products. I understand a big area of consumer complaint is regarding packages offering services, such as Spa services. I am citing this as an example but I do not wish to generalise that such packages are bad. One may purchase a package only to find that the centre is perpetually overbooked and can hardly use the package. Or if we sign up for some miracle treatment to restore hair only to find that it does not work after 6 months of faithfully trying the services? What recourse avenues are there for consumers have under the current law now? I appreciate that the Ministry will need time to work out this current amendment on dealing with physical products. I trust it will cover services more comprehensively in a future amendment of the Act.
- I understand it will be difficult to cover online purchases as online shops will likely be outside of our jurisdiction or we may even be unable to identify or locate some online shops. Nevertheless, online shops registered in Singapore should have to abide by these rules. I like to hear from the Minister of State on his views on online purchases.
I support the Bill as it is a move in the right direction towards the type of shopping experience we get in first world countries. The execution must be managed carefully to ensure that retailers and consumers are adequately educated so that both groups are fully aware of their rights and obligations under this amendment.
We should be mindful that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city, with consumers, retail frontline staff and even retail owners coming from a diversity of international backgrounds. Non-Singaporeans may be used to the retail practices in their native countries. A good engagement programme with different stakeholders in the implementation is critical to its success. Can the Minister of State elaborate on the steps which the ministry will take to educate retailers and consumers in conjunction with the implementation?
We have just finished the Budget debate, which had a lot of focus on SMEs. The bulk of our retailers are SMEs. The larger retailers will have better resources to get themselves acquainted to and cope with the changes. Smaller retailers may find the changes difficult to understand and deal with. Retailers should also be mindful that they need work out their own agreements with product manufacturers to ensure that they are not stuck with an untenable position when servicing the customers. They will need to factor for refunds and exchanges. Retailers may also now turn conservative about carrying lower-priced products that may not be built-to-last, even if there are consumers willing to buy these because these consumers are highly price conscious. This will lead to changes in our retail model over the next few years.
I hope MTI can extend good support to the SME retailers to ease them in the implementation. Engaging in partnership with organisations such as the Singapore Retailers Association will be helpful. I hope too that there will be a balanced approach in the implementation so that we do not unnecessarily put genuinely good but small retailers out of business.
I trust that if we execute this amendment well, there will be a more pleasant and reassuring shopping experience for us all.
My ‘cuts’ on MOE (8 March 2012)
-
Encourage all schools to do their own subject-based accelerated learning.
-
Further support can be given through the cluster system. Learning camps, workshops or talks involving special lecturers to challenge higher ability students can be organised by the cluster.
-
Schools can be supported by the GE Branch with learning resources distributed to them for use, or schools may prepare their own content. Selected teachers in all schools can be trained on how to guide students with stronger learning abilities.
‘Cut’s presented on Committee of Supply for Ministry of Trade & Industry (2 March 2012)
A ‘cut’ is a short speech parliamentarians present at the Committee of Supply debate for a ministry. ‘Cut’s must be filed in advance for ministers to gather information for the answers. The following two ‘cut’s were presented by me today. This was followed by additional questions at the end of Ministers’ answers. I will insert their reply and my additional questions when parliament publishes the proceedings.
Tourism Development Fund
-
How were the original funds used and why are additional funds needed, given that the $2 billion was to last until 2015?
-
What projects will be funded by this additional amount, and how are these projects different from those unveiled in 2005?
-
Is STB on track to achieve the 2015 targets? What new outcomes and targets can we expect with this new funding, beyond the original targets
-
How much of current tourism receipts is contributed by gaming revenue; and should gaming revenue even count towards the target of $30b in tourism receipts, unless it is MTI and STB’s role to grow gaming revenues?
