I've wanted to blog about the Population White Paper for a week now. But I have very complicated feelings about it, and couldn't figure out exactly what I would say. Until I read Hri Kumar's suggestion about a National Defence Duty on foreigners and PRs (with the catchy tagline of "we do duty, they pay a duty"). Things clicked immediately (more on the White Paper on a later post).
Hri Kumar's suggestion makes perfect sense -- if you see the world through the lens of rational economic theory and you think of people as homo economicus. Male Singaporeans suffer a disadvantage because of NS, so let's apply a tax to make male PRs/foreigners equally disadvantaged. Perfect economic sense, and true to the PAP's technocratic bent.
Except that the world is about much more than economics, and people are homo sapiens not homo economicus. We've traditionally talked about NS as a noble sacrifice, a ritual that turned boys into men. More recently, we've seen it also as a great social leveller that helps Singaporeans from different socio-economic classes mix and understand each other in a way that schools no longer allow (I totally agree, but have to wonder about female Singaporeans then).
And now an MP wants to put a price on it. It makes cold hard rational sense, but humans are warm-blooded; we become cold and hard only after we die.
This proposal encapsulates why the PAP as a whole is struggling so much today. It has become too transactional in its philosophy, the dollars and cents have become too entrenched and central in its thinking. Again, it all makes rational economic sense -- but we are real human beings, not abstract economic units.
This transactional worldview also explains why, despite the PAP's best efforts to "sharpen the differences" between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, Singaporeans remain so unhappy and unappreciated. That is because these efforts would work, only for Singaporeans who truly love schadenfraude.
If I am unhappy because I think I am being badly treated, would I really feel better just because the Government treats someone else equally badly? I mean, relatively speaking the other person may no longer be better off than me, but it does not improve my own position in any way. Imposing the National Defence Duty makes foreigners and PRs worse-off, but do not directly improve the lot of Singaporean males (at least not by much, and certainly not in any meaningful way), and most importantly does nothing to address their main concerns, in particular the complaint that employers discriminate against Singaporean males because of their NS liabilities.
In the same vein, charging PRs and foreigners more for public education and public health services (and even, bafflingly enough, horseriding fees at the Turf Club -- an American told me about this) has not made Singaporeans feel better, and not surprisingly, because it's not like they are paying less. Seeing my fellow inhabitant of Singapore suffer as much as I do does not make me suffer any less.
In economic terms, these policies can make sense. The National Defence Duty seeks to quantify the opportunity cost of having to serve Full-Time National Service, and then impose it on those who do not have to serve. Heck, the formula can probably even be tweaked to include some proxy measure of the opportunity and other costs of NS liability. Similarly, differentiated fees for Singaporeans vs PRs/foreigners means that Singaporeans are better-off than PRs/foreigners, even though Singaporeans are actually not better-off at all.
But in all these cases, the Singaporean's life does not become better in a meaningful way. This is the flaw of the PAP's transactional worldview -- it is a view of the economic world, and not of the real world.
Instead, if we want to make up for the cost and burden of defending the country, we should give those who have served NS even more benefits than they receive today. More, much more than the tax relief and the SAFRA membership. This is not to compensate them for what they have given up for NS, which is frankly something that can never really be done, but to do what we can, as a country, to recognise their contributions and express our appreciation.
For example, we can waive polyclinic consultation fees and public hospital C-class bed charges (or apply an equivalent discount for those who opt for more expensive classes), in full for everybody who has completed Full-Time NS and the 13-year NS cycle, and at 25% or some other percentage for those who completed Full-Time NS but did not have NS liability. And yes, that's for life.
And/or do the same for public school fees and miscellaneous fees. And/or public transport charges when they become senior citizens. And/or discount other medical charges in public hospitals. And/or give them priority queues in public government agencies.
The possibilities are nearly endless. Yes, these measures can be costly and/or inefficient. But the goal here is not to be economically efficient or precise, but to express our true gratitude to those who have given up part of their lives to serve and defend Singapore and Singaporeans. And honestly, we spent over S$12 billion on defence in 2012; anything we do will almost certainly be less than a drop in that ocean of money.
Similarly, sharpening the differences between Singaporeans and PRs/foreigners should be done not be making things more expensive for PRs/foreigners, but by giving some positive benefit to the Singaporeans. Instead of increasing the school fees and polyclinic charges for PRs/foreigners, why not reduce them for Singaporeans. It may cost more to the Government, but it will also be much, much more likely to achieve the desired results of making Singaporeans feel cherished.
Showing posts with label National Service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Service. Show all posts
Friday, 15 February 2013
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
OPQ 21 October 2008: Recent Deaths of National Servicemen
I filed this OPQ in light of the recent death of a NSF PTE Foo Wei Rong, the third serviceman (and I stand corrected by the Minister, PTE Foo is the second NSF, 2LT Lam having been a regular) to die in training this year. There were no surprises in the answer given by the Minister (and in fact I quite expected it), but what I really wanted to do was to ask about the outcome of the 2 earlier deaths.
It will be cold comfort to the families, but I suspect that it would have been reassuring to parents to find out the causes of those two deaths, that they ultimately resulted from circumstances and factors that were not systemic or attributable to any inadequacy in the medical examinations undertaken by the SAF (and in particular, the SAF's continued decision not to conduct stress ECGs as a standard test). This is a clear instance where greater transparency and forthrightness by MINDEF would have been beneficial for all, and it should not have required a PQ to extract this information.
14. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Defence in view of the three deaths of National Servicemen during training this year, whether the Ministry intends to implement any additional measures to prevent such deaths.
The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Siew Kum Hong asked, in view of the death of three servicemen during training this year, whether the Ministry intends to implement any additional measures to prevent such deaths. At the outset, perhaps I should clarify that Mr Siew asked about three national servicemen. In fact, out of three servicemen, two of them were national servicemen and one was a regular serviceman.
Let me recap the steps that have been taken. Immediately after the deaths of REC Andrew Cheah (a full-time national serviceman) and 2LT Clifton Lam (a regular serviceman) on 10th and 11th June this year, the SAF took a 3-day time-out to review its training safety systems. The review established that the systems are good and sound. As for the recent death of PTE Foo (a full-time national serviceman) on 30th September this year, a Committee of Inquiry has been convened and investigations are ongoing.
I want to assure Mr Siew and Members of this House that the safety and well-being of our servicemen is taken very seriously. At the last parliamentary session, I explained to the House in some detail our medical screening processes. These medical screening processes are in line with good international clinical practice and are continually reviewed by independent panels of medical consultants and specialists, and where there are improvements that can be made, we will do so.
Safety of our servicemen doing training is also taken very seriously. Training is progressive and graduated. Over and beyond having sound training systems, there is command emphasis to ensure that our soldiers are well prepared for training and strenuous exercises. For example, the training schedule is designed so that before any strenuous activity, servicemen do get sufficient rest and follow a proper hydration regime. An attending medic will be on-site during the conduct of the strenuous activity to deliver prompt medical care. In the event of a medical emergency, there are proper and established procedures to deliver prompt and appropriate medical attention to the serviceman.
Apart from this, commanders look out for servicemen who show signs that they are not feeling well. Such servicemen would be excused from training to seek medical attention. Servicemen are also reminded to tell their commanders should they feel unwell during or after any training activity. This is important as it is sometimes not easy or possible to know if someone is not feeling well unless the soldier himself tells his commander.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that the well-being of our soldiers is always a priority in the SAF. We have to train our soldiers hard so that they have the ability to fight, and to defend Singapore should the need arise, and it will help to ensure success on the battle-field and that they return home safely after that. So the SAF provides tough and realistic training to our soldiers but the SAF also maintains high safety standards to ensure that safety is not compromised.
I think both Mr Siew and I know that, despite our best efforts to reduce risk in training, it is not possible to guarantee that there will never be injury or death arising from it. Nevertheless, I can assure this House that the SAF will continue to do its best to look after our servicemen and servicewomen in terms of medical screening, proper training systems, training safety procedures and medical coverage during training activities. They are, after all, our sons and our daughters and every life is precious to us.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his response and assurances to this House.
I only have one supplementary question, which is to ask the Minister what is the status of the inquiries by MINDEF into the deaths of the late 2LT Clifton Lam and the late REC Andrew Cheah, and, given the public interest, will the results be made public.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of 2LT Clifton Lam, the Higher Board of Inquiry convened by MNIDEF has been completed and the cause of 2LT Lam's death is heat stroke.
For all training activities, trainees are constantly reminded to hydrate themselves. There are water breaks and water parades when trainees drink water. In the event when there is an exercise where the trainee is required to take responsibility for himself, such as the training that 2LT Lam was undergoing, which was a three-day jungle confidence course, they were given safety briefings and, in this case, he was provided with four litres of water and purification tablets to purify stream or river water for drinking.
The HBOI, unfortunately, established that 2LT Lam may not have hydrated himself adequately during this period of training. The HOBI looked into the SAF's safety systems and was satisfied that these were in place and that there was no safety breach, neither was there foul play or negligence on the part of any personnel.
In the case of REC Andrew Cheah, the Committee of Inquiry investigation has been completed. Based on the autopsy report, the cause of REC Cheah's death is acute pneumonitis. I should point out that in neither case was the cause of death linked to medical screening as such. So the case of REC Cheah's death was determined by the autopsy report as acute pneumonitis. This is an acute infection causing extensive inflammation of the lungs. The typical symptoms are cough, phlegm, fever, pain in the chest, body aches and difficulty in breathing.
However, it is possible, the doctors tell us, for a person to suffer from lung infection and yet not develop cough or fever, and this was indeed the case of REC Cheah. The infection must have been abrupt and caused his condition to deteriorate rapidly.
REC Cheah told his section mates before the two-kilometre walk that he felt a little breathless; and during the walk, his instructor who was walking with REC Cheah, observed that he looked tired and was breathing hard. However, he had no other observable symptoms such as cough or fever. In these circumstances, it was difficult for his instructors or platoon mates, or indeed for REC Cheah himself, to have known that the breathlessness was caused by acute pneumonitis and not simply fatigue.
The instructor had asked REC Cheah whether he was not feeling well, REC Cheah replied that he was just tired. Hence, the instructor allowed REC Cheah to continue with the walk around the stadium in Pulau Tekong camp and did not pull him out as REC Cheah was able to converse with him, answer his questions with clarity in speech and in thought.
The COI concluded that the instructor's decision to let REC Cheah continue with the walk was not unreasonable. The COI concluded that there was no safety breach and neither was there foul play or negligence on the part of any personnel.
It will be cold comfort to the families, but I suspect that it would have been reassuring to parents to find out the causes of those two deaths, that they ultimately resulted from circumstances and factors that were not systemic or attributable to any inadequacy in the medical examinations undertaken by the SAF (and in particular, the SAF's continued decision not to conduct stress ECGs as a standard test). This is a clear instance where greater transparency and forthrightness by MINDEF would have been beneficial for all, and it should not have required a PQ to extract this information.
RECENT DEATHS OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN
(Additional preventive measures)
(Additional preventive measures)
14. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Defence in view of the three deaths of National Servicemen during training this year, whether the Ministry intends to implement any additional measures to prevent such deaths.
The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Siew Kum Hong asked, in view of the death of three servicemen during training this year, whether the Ministry intends to implement any additional measures to prevent such deaths. At the outset, perhaps I should clarify that Mr Siew asked about three national servicemen. In fact, out of three servicemen, two of them were national servicemen and one was a regular serviceman.
Let me recap the steps that have been taken. Immediately after the deaths of REC Andrew Cheah (a full-time national serviceman) and 2LT Clifton Lam (a regular serviceman) on 10th and 11th June this year, the SAF took a 3-day time-out to review its training safety systems. The review established that the systems are good and sound. As for the recent death of PTE Foo (a full-time national serviceman) on 30th September this year, a Committee of Inquiry has been convened and investigations are ongoing.
I want to assure Mr Siew and Members of this House that the safety and well-being of our servicemen is taken very seriously. At the last parliamentary session, I explained to the House in some detail our medical screening processes. These medical screening processes are in line with good international clinical practice and are continually reviewed by independent panels of medical consultants and specialists, and where there are improvements that can be made, we will do so.
Safety of our servicemen doing training is also taken very seriously. Training is progressive and graduated. Over and beyond having sound training systems, there is command emphasis to ensure that our soldiers are well prepared for training and strenuous exercises. For example, the training schedule is designed so that before any strenuous activity, servicemen do get sufficient rest and follow a proper hydration regime. An attending medic will be on-site during the conduct of the strenuous activity to deliver prompt medical care. In the event of a medical emergency, there are proper and established procedures to deliver prompt and appropriate medical attention to the serviceman.
Apart from this, commanders look out for servicemen who show signs that they are not feeling well. Such servicemen would be excused from training to seek medical attention. Servicemen are also reminded to tell their commanders should they feel unwell during or after any training activity. This is important as it is sometimes not easy or possible to know if someone is not feeling well unless the soldier himself tells his commander.
Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that the well-being of our soldiers is always a priority in the SAF. We have to train our soldiers hard so that they have the ability to fight, and to defend Singapore should the need arise, and it will help to ensure success on the battle-field and that they return home safely after that. So the SAF provides tough and realistic training to our soldiers but the SAF also maintains high safety standards to ensure that safety is not compromised.
I think both Mr Siew and I know that, despite our best efforts to reduce risk in training, it is not possible to guarantee that there will never be injury or death arising from it. Nevertheless, I can assure this House that the SAF will continue to do its best to look after our servicemen and servicewomen in terms of medical screening, proper training systems, training safety procedures and medical coverage during training activities. They are, after all, our sons and our daughters and every life is precious to us.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his response and assurances to this House.
I only have one supplementary question, which is to ask the Minister what is the status of the inquiries by MINDEF into the deaths of the late 2LT Clifton Lam and the late REC Andrew Cheah, and, given the public interest, will the results be made public.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, in the case of 2LT Clifton Lam, the Higher Board of Inquiry convened by MNIDEF has been completed and the cause of 2LT Lam's death is heat stroke.
For all training activities, trainees are constantly reminded to hydrate themselves. There are water breaks and water parades when trainees drink water. In the event when there is an exercise where the trainee is required to take responsibility for himself, such as the training that 2LT Lam was undergoing, which was a three-day jungle confidence course, they were given safety briefings and, in this case, he was provided with four litres of water and purification tablets to purify stream or river water for drinking.
The HBOI, unfortunately, established that 2LT Lam may not have hydrated himself adequately during this period of training. The HOBI looked into the SAF's safety systems and was satisfied that these were in place and that there was no safety breach, neither was there foul play or negligence on the part of any personnel.
In the case of REC Andrew Cheah, the Committee of Inquiry investigation has been completed. Based on the autopsy report, the cause of REC Cheah's death is acute pneumonitis. I should point out that in neither case was the cause of death linked to medical screening as such. So the case of REC Cheah's death was determined by the autopsy report as acute pneumonitis. This is an acute infection causing extensive inflammation of the lungs. The typical symptoms are cough, phlegm, fever, pain in the chest, body aches and difficulty in breathing.
However, it is possible, the doctors tell us, for a person to suffer from lung infection and yet not develop cough or fever, and this was indeed the case of REC Cheah. The infection must have been abrupt and caused his condition to deteriorate rapidly.
REC Cheah told his section mates before the two-kilometre walk that he felt a little breathless; and during the walk, his instructor who was walking with REC Cheah, observed that he looked tired and was breathing hard. However, he had no other observable symptoms such as cough or fever. In these circumstances, it was difficult for his instructors or platoon mates, or indeed for REC Cheah himself, to have known that the breathlessness was caused by acute pneumonitis and not simply fatigue.
The instructor had asked REC Cheah whether he was not feeling well, REC Cheah replied that he was just tired. Hence, the instructor allowed REC Cheah to continue with the walk around the stadium in Pulau Tekong camp and did not pull him out as REC Cheah was able to converse with him, answer his questions with clarity in speech and in thought.
The COI concluded that the instructor's decision to let REC Cheah continue with the walk was not unreasonable. The COI concluded that there was no safety breach and neither was there foul play or negligence on the part of any personnel.
Friday, 15 August 2008
Need to refine deferment policy?
I wrote this for TODAY upon their suggestion. I suppose it was logical for me to do this, since I had written about Melvyn Tan a while back.
It seems to me that NS as an institution is being increasingly questioned by Singaporeans. I see that as a positive thing, in that it demonstrates a more questioning and thinking citizenry, that is not prepared to simply take the Government's statements at face value.
As I write below, I firmly believe in the need for NS -- but I also believe it can be tweaked, and more importantly, it needs to be refined and updated to maintain its relevance and legitiacy in the minds of Singaporeans. Otherwise, resentment against NS will simply grow, and that will ultimately undermine its legitimacy as an institution. And there can be no sacred cows in this process.
I had originally included an additional point, that it is actually more disruptive to an enlistee's NS experience, to allow him to disrupt NS to go for university studies (as many Government scholars do), than to have the enlistee enter NS later. If the Government is prepared to allow that, then it seems inequitable to me to prevent young men who have already started their undergraduate studies from completing those studies before starting NS, and especially so if they are overseas. They should still be young enough when they get their degree. Unfortunately, this point was cut by the editor for space reasons.
Need to refine deferment policy?
Increasing number of young Singaporean males are growing up and studying overseas
Tuesday • August 12, 2008
SIEW KUM HONG
THREE years after pianist Melvyn Tan was fined $3,000 for not fulfilling his National Service (NS) obligations, the issue of National Service defaulters is in the spotlight again.
This time, two young men were convicted for staying outside Singapore without an exit permit.
Mr Shantakumar Bannirchelvam, 19, was initially placed on six months’ probation and ordered to do 40 hours of community service. Upon appeal by the prosecution, he was fined $1,500. Judge of AppealV K Rajah noted the need for a fine “as a matter of policy and precedent”.
On the other hand, Mr Amit Rahul Shah, 23, was jailed for three months. It is not clear why he received such a severe sentence, considering the benchmark of a $3,000 fine. Perhaps it was because he had not applied for a deferment, unlike Mr Shantakumar.
What is clear is that both men had voluntarily returned to Singapore to serve NS, with full knowledge of the charges they would face. In other words, they were essentially punished for not doing NS at the appointed time, and not for evading NS completely.
In response to a recent question in Parliament, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated the policy of calling up NS-liable males when they turn 18, and the key principles of maintaining universality and equity in granting deferment from full-time NS to pre-enlistees still pursuing their studies.
In the Ministry of Defence’s view, all should be given the opportunity to attain their ‘A’ Levels, International Baccalaureate, polytechnic diploma or equivalent qualifications before enlistment, but not higher educational qualifications such as university degrees.
But is this policy outdated, in a globalised world with a growing Singaporean diaspora?
As more Singaporeans and their families settle down in other countries, whether due to overseas postings or otherwise, an increasing number of young Singaporean males will be growing up and studying overseas. It would be unrealistic to expect the educational systems in those countries, or their educational paths, to accommodate our enlistment policy.
Let me be clear: I am a strong advocate of the central role of NS in the Singapore psyche.
In 2006, I wrote a piece in Today criticising the portrayal in some quarters of Mr Tan as a “lost son of Singapore”. I firmly believe in the desirability of having all fit Singaporean men perform NS, and punishing those who do not.
NS is a compulsory obligation, and we must ensure its continued legitimacy amongst Singaporeans. Even as I agree with Mindef on the principles of universality and equity, I wonder whether its deferment policy can be refined such that it remains relevant in a globalised world, without undermining those key principles.
Failure to do so may result in Singaporean males resenting the institution of NS, which could then undermine its legitimacy.
Of Scholars and NS timing
If we were to ask Singaporean men what the true sacrifice of NS is, how would they answer? I dare say it would be the two years of full-time NS and the subsequent reservist obligations.
I also dare say the timing of those two years — whether they are served before or after one’s undergraduate studies — would be far less important.
As it is, the Government itself allows some scholars to disrupt full-time NS to go for undergraduate studies. It seems arbitrary to say that scholars should be allowed to disrupt their NS, but non-scholars already in undergraduate studies should not be allowed to defer their enlistment.
Yesterday, for example, it was reported that Mindef rejected a Singapore Institute of Management student’s appeal to defer his enlistment for three months to sit for his first-year exams first.
I believe we should distinguish between those who are unable to return at 18 years because of certain commitments or opportunities but do so upon the conclusion of those commitments or opportunities — such as Mr Shantakumar — and those who never return and do not evince any desire to complete their NS obligations, such as Mr Tan.
If a Singaporean male had gone overseas as a child — for instance, before he turned 15 — and upon turning 18 is undertaking or about to commence undergraduate studies, perhaps we should allow him to defer enlistment until he completes those undergraduate (but not postgraduate) studies, so long as he undertakes to return to Singapore and enlist at that time. We can also require a guarantor if needed.
This would strike an appropriate balance between maintaining the universality and equity of NS, by having all Singaporean males complete full-time NS by their early 20s, and allowing Singaporeans who grow up overseas to pursue their goals without undue disruption.
And I think most, if not all, Singaporeans would be perfectly fine with this.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
It seems to me that NS as an institution is being increasingly questioned by Singaporeans. I see that as a positive thing, in that it demonstrates a more questioning and thinking citizenry, that is not prepared to simply take the Government's statements at face value.
As I write below, I firmly believe in the need for NS -- but I also believe it can be tweaked, and more importantly, it needs to be refined and updated to maintain its relevance and legitiacy in the minds of Singaporeans. Otherwise, resentment against NS will simply grow, and that will ultimately undermine its legitimacy as an institution. And there can be no sacred cows in this process.
I had originally included an additional point, that it is actually more disruptive to an enlistee's NS experience, to allow him to disrupt NS to go for university studies (as many Government scholars do), than to have the enlistee enter NS later. If the Government is prepared to allow that, then it seems inequitable to me to prevent young men who have already started their undergraduate studies from completing those studies before starting NS, and especially so if they are overseas. They should still be young enough when they get their degree. Unfortunately, this point was cut by the editor for space reasons.
Need to refine deferment policy?
Increasing number of young Singaporean males are growing up and studying overseas
Tuesday • August 12, 2008
SIEW KUM HONG
THREE years after pianist Melvyn Tan was fined $3,000 for not fulfilling his National Service (NS) obligations, the issue of National Service defaulters is in the spotlight again.
This time, two young men were convicted for staying outside Singapore without an exit permit.
Mr Shantakumar Bannirchelvam, 19, was initially placed on six months’ probation and ordered to do 40 hours of community service. Upon appeal by the prosecution, he was fined $1,500. Judge of AppealV K Rajah noted the need for a fine “as a matter of policy and precedent”.
On the other hand, Mr Amit Rahul Shah, 23, was jailed for three months. It is not clear why he received such a severe sentence, considering the benchmark of a $3,000 fine. Perhaps it was because he had not applied for a deferment, unlike Mr Shantakumar.
What is clear is that both men had voluntarily returned to Singapore to serve NS, with full knowledge of the charges they would face. In other words, they were essentially punished for not doing NS at the appointed time, and not for evading NS completely.
In response to a recent question in Parliament, Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated the policy of calling up NS-liable males when they turn 18, and the key principles of maintaining universality and equity in granting deferment from full-time NS to pre-enlistees still pursuing their studies.
In the Ministry of Defence’s view, all should be given the opportunity to attain their ‘A’ Levels, International Baccalaureate, polytechnic diploma or equivalent qualifications before enlistment, but not higher educational qualifications such as university degrees.
But is this policy outdated, in a globalised world with a growing Singaporean diaspora?
As more Singaporeans and their families settle down in other countries, whether due to overseas postings or otherwise, an increasing number of young Singaporean males will be growing up and studying overseas. It would be unrealistic to expect the educational systems in those countries, or their educational paths, to accommodate our enlistment policy.
Let me be clear: I am a strong advocate of the central role of NS in the Singapore psyche.
In 2006, I wrote a piece in Today criticising the portrayal in some quarters of Mr Tan as a “lost son of Singapore”. I firmly believe in the desirability of having all fit Singaporean men perform NS, and punishing those who do not.
NS is a compulsory obligation, and we must ensure its continued legitimacy amongst Singaporeans. Even as I agree with Mindef on the principles of universality and equity, I wonder whether its deferment policy can be refined such that it remains relevant in a globalised world, without undermining those key principles.
Failure to do so may result in Singaporean males resenting the institution of NS, which could then undermine its legitimacy.
Of Scholars and NS timing
If we were to ask Singaporean men what the true sacrifice of NS is, how would they answer? I dare say it would be the two years of full-time NS and the subsequent reservist obligations.
I also dare say the timing of those two years — whether they are served before or after one’s undergraduate studies — would be far less important.
As it is, the Government itself allows some scholars to disrupt full-time NS to go for undergraduate studies. It seems arbitrary to say that scholars should be allowed to disrupt their NS, but non-scholars already in undergraduate studies should not be allowed to defer their enlistment.
Yesterday, for example, it was reported that Mindef rejected a Singapore Institute of Management student’s appeal to defer his enlistment for three months to sit for his first-year exams first.
I believe we should distinguish between those who are unable to return at 18 years because of certain commitments or opportunities but do so upon the conclusion of those commitments or opportunities — such as Mr Shantakumar — and those who never return and do not evince any desire to complete their NS obligations, such as Mr Tan.
If a Singaporean male had gone overseas as a child — for instance, before he turned 15 — and upon turning 18 is undertaking or about to commence undergraduate studies, perhaps we should allow him to defer enlistment until he completes those undergraduate (but not postgraduate) studies, so long as he undertakes to return to Singapore and enlist at that time. We can also require a guarantor if needed.
This would strike an appropriate balance between maintaining the universality and equity of NS, by having all Singaporean males complete full-time NS by their early 20s, and allowing Singaporeans who grow up overseas to pursue their goals without undue disruption.
And I think most, if not all, Singaporeans would be perfectly fine with this.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Where do we go from here?
This article, as well as the reply from MHA, appeared in TODAY quite some time back. Sze Yong had helped prepare it for posting here, but I've only just gotten around to publishing it. It should be read in light of my speech on security lapses and my OPQ on the sudden deaths of NSmen.
Where do we go from here?
Weekend • June 21, 2008
news@newstoday.com.sg
LAST Sunday night, Channel NewsAsia launched a fortnightly news show called Talking Point. The producers were kind enough to invite me to be a guest.
The show discussed last week’s incidents at two key Government ministries: The tragic deaths of two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen during training and the escape of two men from the Subordinate Courts lock-up for a short while before being caught. We focused on three aspects: the flow of information, reactions of Singaporeans and complacency.
The police released the news of the escape nearly 12 hours after the incident. But the information in a press statement, released just past midnight, was very detailed. It went into some length about what really happened in the holding cell on June 11.
As for the reactions of the public, there was general agreement that there was great concern, mainly because the escape had happened barely four months after Mas Selamat’s break-out from the Internal Security Department detention centre at Whitley Road.
On the part of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), it had reacted quickly by not just telling Singaporeans about the deaths, but also acting swiftly in calling for an unprecedented three-day suspension of all training activities.
Still, it was the issue of complacency that occupied much attention during the show. Simply put, the question was: Had the Mas Selamat lesson been absorbed across the Home Team? In particular, has the rank-and-file on the ground sufficiently internalised the importance of their work?
A series of human errors was blamed for Mas Selamat’s escape. The latest case has also been blamed on human error, and Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Singaporeans last Saturday that the risk of human risk cannot be completely eliminated.
But that is precisely why well-designed systems are so crucial: they should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. The Subordinate Courts’ security system was audited in March and April. There will be another review to minimise the level of human error, and to strategically reconsider the flow of accused persons through the building.
This, then, raises the question of whether the earlier review had covered those aspects.
Ever since 911, Singaporeans have been reminded to be ever-vigilant; that we need to win every battle but the terrorists only need to win once. I believe that, if (touch wood) there is ever a successful terror attack due to human error, Singaporeans will wonder what is happening to our systems and our guardians of security.
When Parliament debated the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Mas Selamat’s escape, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng rightly pointed out that “it would be stretching the argument too far” to say that “the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent”.
But clearly, complacency existed at Whitley Road, as well as in the Subordinate Courts, at least up until last Wednesday.
In Mas Selamat’s case, the Government’s approach to accountability for errors was to discipline those who were personally responsible, as well as those with direct management over, or statutory responsibility for, the area in question. What the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to ask itself is, moving forward, whether this approach is sufficient to prevent another disaster.
In the same week, two SAF Servicemen died in as many days, while undergoing training. The SAF then suspended physical and endurance training across the military for three days. This suspension ended on Saturday, with the SAF determining that proper procedures are in place and being followed.
Some would wonder about the need for the unprecedented suspension. Was it an attempt to reassure Singaporeans that MINDEF takes these deaths very seriously? Was it to avoid the unthinkable tragedy of yet another training death?
Since the incident, some doctors in private practice have proposed more comprehensive screening of enlistees for heart conditions. A cardiologist has estimated that it would cost about $3 million to screen 10,000 recruits using treadmill tests and echocardiograms, or $5.7 million a year assuming an annual cohort of 19,000 recruits.
Other doctors have rejected such a step as unnecessary, citing high cost and the impossibility of completely eliminating such deaths. In other words, it is not cost-effective. Implicit in such a view is the belief that human life can be adequately quantified in monetary terms.
Sudden cardiac deaths are not new to the SAF, and yet no additional tests were introduced besides resting ECGs for all pre-enlistees in 2000. At the very minimum, MINDEF should conduct a trial project to ascertain whether the additional tests are indeed effective in detecting conditions that existing tests do not. If so, then there is a very valid question as to whether we should introduce the additional testing.
National Service is compulsory. It seems to me that if we as a society demand that all male Singaporeans perform NS, then the least we can do is to ensure that they are thoroughly screened for such potential heart conditions that are known to result in death, regardless of cost.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel,commenting in his personal capacity. He expresses his condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
The best of systems are not immune to human failures
Friday • June 27, 2008
Letter from TOH YONG CHUAN
Director (Corporate Relations)
Ministry of Home Affairs
I REFER to the commentary “Where do we go from here?” (June 21) by Mr Siew Kum Hong.
The incident at the Subordinate Court happened, as Mr Siew rightly pointed out, due to “human error”. Investigation of the incident indicated that the systems and established procedures were sound. But a few of the frontline officers concerned did not observe the procedures.
The security systems and procedures at the Subordinate Court were reviewed, tested and where applicable, upgraded. However, ultimately there is no human operator system that is not susceptible to human failure. This and the fact that the failures were individual human lapses do not diminish the seriousness of its occurrence and its consequences. However, it is misconceived to generalise that these human failures are reflective of systemic failure when the findings of the investigation, which explored this direction as well, do not support such a conclusion.
Mr Siew asserts that well-designed systems should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. Indeed, sound systems lower the risk of failure and all security planners should pursue this end as far as is practicable.
However, all systems are inherently dated insofar as they are based on what its planner or designer knows at that point in time. And all systems have to be operated by individuals, who will have to be empowered to exercise judgment in some situations. Ironically, systems which minimise human judgment and discretion may appear hyper-efficient. But in fact, they face the serious risk of being blind-sided by a changing complex reality.
The ability of an operational system to adjust and overcome glitches and surprises beyond its designed parameters resides ultimately in the human operator. The key is to empower our officers and entrust them to do the right thing at the right time. This comes with some risk of occasional poor judgment. To mitigate this risk and the consequence of error, a key factor we seek to develop is the team’s ability to recover and respond when a lapse occurs.
In the incident at the Subordinate Court, the contingency response was swift and the recovery operations executed professionally. The two offenders were quickly detected and apprehended. The people and the recovery processes worked well.
It is noteworthy, that while SC/Cpl Donnie Lim should not have opened the cell door when giving water to the persons in custody, he also responded professionally and with personal courage. Notwithstanding the pain and injury of the assault he suffered, he picked himself up quickly, ran after the two escapees at the risk of further assault and raised the alert quickly.
The fact is that the human being remains both our weakest and strongest link in the frontline of any security system.
We must always guard against complacency even though we know there will never be zero failure on a permanent basis. To the best of our knowledge, no country or organisation has succeeded in achieving zero failure. Occasional individual lapses and failures will happen from time to time. The key is whether we will learn from such mistakes when they occur and evaluate if they are symptomatic of any deeper problem. We believe we will.
To generalise that the entire Home Team, which consists of many departments with different operational functions, is malfunctioning because of these incidents of specific individual failures does injustice to the commitment and effort of the thousands of regulars, NSmen and volunteers of the Home Team, in keeping Singapore safe and secure.
The low crime, drug abuse and recidivism rates that Singapore enjoy, are among the lowest in the world in comparison with similar foreign jurisdictions with their proportionately larger staffing ratios. This is not the product of work by thousands of men and women officers who are “switched off” or complacent.
Where do we go from here?
Weekend • June 21, 2008
news@newstoday.com.sg
LAST Sunday night, Channel NewsAsia launched a fortnightly news show called Talking Point. The producers were kind enough to invite me to be a guest.
The show discussed last week’s incidents at two key Government ministries: The tragic deaths of two Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) servicemen during training and the escape of two men from the Subordinate Courts lock-up for a short while before being caught. We focused on three aspects: the flow of information, reactions of Singaporeans and complacency.
The police released the news of the escape nearly 12 hours after the incident. But the information in a press statement, released just past midnight, was very detailed. It went into some length about what really happened in the holding cell on June 11.
As for the reactions of the public, there was general agreement that there was great concern, mainly because the escape had happened barely four months after Mas Selamat’s break-out from the Internal Security Department detention centre at Whitley Road.
On the part of the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), it had reacted quickly by not just telling Singaporeans about the deaths, but also acting swiftly in calling for an unprecedented three-day suspension of all training activities.
Still, it was the issue of complacency that occupied much attention during the show. Simply put, the question was: Had the Mas Selamat lesson been absorbed across the Home Team? In particular, has the rank-and-file on the ground sufficiently internalised the importance of their work?
A series of human errors was blamed for Mas Selamat’s escape. The latest case has also been blamed on human error, and Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Singaporeans last Saturday that the risk of human risk cannot be completely eliminated.
But that is precisely why well-designed systems are so crucial: they should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. The Subordinate Courts’ security system was audited in March and April. There will be another review to minimise the level of human error, and to strategically reconsider the flow of accused persons through the building.
This, then, raises the question of whether the earlier review had covered those aspects.
Ever since 911, Singaporeans have been reminded to be ever-vigilant; that we need to win every battle but the terrorists only need to win once. I believe that, if (touch wood) there is ever a successful terror attack due to human error, Singaporeans will wonder what is happening to our systems and our guardians of security.
When Parliament debated the findings of the Committee of Inquiry on Mas Selamat’s escape, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng rightly pointed out that “it would be stretching the argument too far” to say that “the whole Ministry and all the Home Team departments are complacent”.
But clearly, complacency existed at Whitley Road, as well as in the Subordinate Courts, at least up until last Wednesday.
In Mas Selamat’s case, the Government’s approach to accountability for errors was to discipline those who were personally responsible, as well as those with direct management over, or statutory responsibility for, the area in question. What the Ministry of Home Affairs needs to ask itself is, moving forward, whether this approach is sufficient to prevent another disaster.
In the same week, two SAF Servicemen died in as many days, while undergoing training. The SAF then suspended physical and endurance training across the military for three days. This suspension ended on Saturday, with the SAF determining that proper procedures are in place and being followed.
Some would wonder about the need for the unprecedented suspension. Was it an attempt to reassure Singaporeans that MINDEF takes these deaths very seriously? Was it to avoid the unthinkable tragedy of yet another training death?
Since the incident, some doctors in private practice have proposed more comprehensive screening of enlistees for heart conditions. A cardiologist has estimated that it would cost about $3 million to screen 10,000 recruits using treadmill tests and echocardiograms, or $5.7 million a year assuming an annual cohort of 19,000 recruits.
Other doctors have rejected such a step as unnecessary, citing high cost and the impossibility of completely eliminating such deaths. In other words, it is not cost-effective. Implicit in such a view is the belief that human life can be adequately quantified in monetary terms.
Sudden cardiac deaths are not new to the SAF, and yet no additional tests were introduced besides resting ECGs for all pre-enlistees in 2000. At the very minimum, MINDEF should conduct a trial project to ascertain whether the additional tests are indeed effective in detecting conditions that existing tests do not. If so, then there is a very valid question as to whether we should introduce the additional testing.
National Service is compulsory. It seems to me that if we as a society demand that all male Singaporeans perform NS, then the least we can do is to ensure that they are thoroughly screened for such potential heart conditions that are known to result in death, regardless of cost.
The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel,commenting in his personal capacity. He expresses his condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
The best of systems are not immune to human failures
Friday • June 27, 2008
Letter from TOH YONG CHUAN
Director (Corporate Relations)
Ministry of Home Affairs
I REFER to the commentary “Where do we go from here?” (June 21) by Mr Siew Kum Hong.
The incident at the Subordinate Court happened, as Mr Siew rightly pointed out, due to “human error”. Investigation of the incident indicated that the systems and established procedures were sound. But a few of the frontline officers concerned did not observe the procedures.
The security systems and procedures at the Subordinate Court were reviewed, tested and where applicable, upgraded. However, ultimately there is no human operator system that is not susceptible to human failure. This and the fact that the failures were individual human lapses do not diminish the seriousness of its occurrence and its consequences. However, it is misconceived to generalise that these human failures are reflective of systemic failure when the findings of the investigation, which explored this direction as well, do not support such a conclusion.
Mr Siew asserts that well-designed systems should mitigate, or even prevent, human risk, if possible. Indeed, sound systems lower the risk of failure and all security planners should pursue this end as far as is practicable.
However, all systems are inherently dated insofar as they are based on what its planner or designer knows at that point in time. And all systems have to be operated by individuals, who will have to be empowered to exercise judgment in some situations. Ironically, systems which minimise human judgment and discretion may appear hyper-efficient. But in fact, they face the serious risk of being blind-sided by a changing complex reality.
The ability of an operational system to adjust and overcome glitches and surprises beyond its designed parameters resides ultimately in the human operator. The key is to empower our officers and entrust them to do the right thing at the right time. This comes with some risk of occasional poor judgment. To mitigate this risk and the consequence of error, a key factor we seek to develop is the team’s ability to recover and respond when a lapse occurs.
In the incident at the Subordinate Court, the contingency response was swift and the recovery operations executed professionally. The two offenders were quickly detected and apprehended. The people and the recovery processes worked well.
It is noteworthy, that while SC/Cpl Donnie Lim should not have opened the cell door when giving water to the persons in custody, he also responded professionally and with personal courage. Notwithstanding the pain and injury of the assault he suffered, he picked himself up quickly, ran after the two escapees at the risk of further assault and raised the alert quickly.
The fact is that the human being remains both our weakest and strongest link in the frontline of any security system.
We must always guard against complacency even though we know there will never be zero failure on a permanent basis. To the best of our knowledge, no country or organisation has succeeded in achieving zero failure. Occasional individual lapses and failures will happen from time to time. The key is whether we will learn from such mistakes when they occur and evaluate if they are symptomatic of any deeper problem. We believe we will.
To generalise that the entire Home Team, which consists of many departments with different operational functions, is malfunctioning because of these incidents of specific individual failures does injustice to the commitment and effort of the thousands of regulars, NSmen and volunteers of the Home Team, in keeping Singapore safe and secure.
The low crime, drug abuse and recidivism rates that Singapore enjoy, are among the lowest in the world in comparison with similar foreign jurisdictions with their proportionately larger staffing ratios. This is not the product of work by thousands of men and women officers who are “switched off” or complacent.
OPQ 21 July 2008: Sudden Deaths of National Servicemen
I filed this question primarily because of a burning sense of inequity, at how NS is compulsory for all, and yet certain tests that are acknowledged as being "useful" are essentially the reserve of the privileged few only. I know full well that when I was at the age of enlisting for NS, my family would not have been able to afford these "useful" tests for me.
While it does seem that the SAF's tests are at least adequate for testing NS enlistees on a mass scale, and certainly the numbers appear to bear out its approach which is comforting, it remains a little difficult to shake off this sense of inequity. This is especially so if doctors are sending their own children for these additional tests. The Italian study I referred to also suggests that medical opinion may evolve further on this issue.
16. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the outcome of his Ministry's investigations into the sudden deaths of Recruit Andrew Cheah Wei Siong and Second Lieutenant Clifton Lam Jia Hao; and (b) whether the investigations indicate the need for any consequential action to be taken by the SAF, such as more stringent or different pre-enlistment medical screening.
17. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many cases of sudden cardiac deaths have occurred in the Singapore Armed Forces since 1965; (b) of these, how many have occurred amongst Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and how many may have potentially been detected through the use of exercise ECGs or echocardiograms; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to introduce additional screening for NSFs such as exercise ECGs or echocardiograms.
The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Question Nos 16 and 17 by Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Siew Kum Hong are closely related, may I have your permission to address them together?
Mr Speaker: Yes.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and the late REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
MINDEF treats every death of a serviceman with utmost seriousness. For each case, we conduct a thorough investigation to determine the cause and also to enable us to take all necessary preventive measures in the future. MINDEF has convened two separate inquiries to investigate the deaths of the two servicemen. As the investigation process has yet to be completed, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their outcomes at this point in time.
Ms Indranee Rajah asked about the need for any consequential actions to be adopted by the SAF. Sir, the SAF did not wait for the outcome of the investigations but, in fact, took immediate action by imposing a three-day time-out for all physical and endurance training to review their systems, processes and procedures. The review provided an opportunity for units to confirm that the systems are good and sound, and that proper processes and procedures are in place and are being followed. The time-out allowed both commanders and soldiers themselves to refocus on safety.
Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Siew Kum Hong asked about medical screening in the SAF. I should first say that it would be premature to draw conclusions about whether medical conditions that might have been detected in pre-enlistment medical screening were factors in the incidents, as the investigation process has not yet been concluded. Nevertheless, since there has been quite a lot of interest in the medical screening processes of the SAF, let me take the opportunity to describe these processes.
The SAF carries out medical screening of our servicemen carefully. Medical screening takes place at several key junctures: before enlistment, before attending specialised courses, before strenuous training or deployment and, periodically, after the age of 25.
The screening is comprehensive. There are 14 medical speciality areas, including eyesight, hearing, cardiovascular, muscular-skeletal conditions. Let me take the screening for cardiac conditions as an example. A 12-lead resting electrocardiogram (ECG) screening is conducted for all pre-enlistees, and the SAF has 28 different protocols to address the different cardiac conditions based on these ECG findings. If abnormalities are found, the pre-enlistees will be sent for additional testing, which may include the stress ECG test or the 2D echo-cardiogram and referral to a cardiologist.
The 12-lead resting ECG screening was introduced in November 2000 on the recommendation by the SAF's panel of medical experts. The panel of medical experts concluded that the findings of a study published in 1998 on the screening of competitive athletes in Italy were appropriate for the SAF and ought to be adopted by the SAF. The comprehensive study showed that resting ECG was a reliable tool for screening for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM), which is one of the more common causes of sudden cardiac death among young adults. HCM is a disease of the heart muscle in which a portion of the muscle is thickened.
Sir, the introduction of this 12-lead resting ECG screening is an example of how the SAF keeps up with the best and most appropriate screening practices. The SAF is guided by an independent panel consisting of top medical consultants and specialists in Singapore that sits regularly to review the entire medical screening regime. In a recent review concluded last September, the SAF medical screening protocols were found to be comprehensive, robust and in line with good clinical practice. In fact, the SAF's routine screening for heart disease in pre-enlistees is equivalent to the standards recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and International Olympic Committee, and higher than the standards recommended by the American Heart Association. The SAF's screening protocols are also more comprehensive than those used by many other established armed forces.
Mr Siew Kum Hong asked for figures on sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) in the SAF since 1965, and how many of these were Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs). Sir, I am unable to give the figures since 1965, but I am able to provide the figures from 1995. Specific data on SCD for the years before 1995 was not systematically collected, as SCD itself, in young adults then, was not a well understood phenomenon in the medical community. The figures for 1995 to 2008 show that there were a total of 23 SCD cases in the SAF. Seven of them were of Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), three of which occurred during training.
Mr Siew also asked whether any of these could have been detected by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms, and whether the SAF was going to introduce additional screening such as these. Of the seven NSFs who died from SCD both during training and not during training, six were due to conditions that were most unlikely to be picked up by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms. This is what the doctors have told me. The remaining one had a condition that could have been detected by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms. This death occurred in 1999, a year before the SAF began conducting ECG screening for pre-enlistees. His condition could have been picked up by the 12-lead resting ECG that was introduced in 2000, and this pick-up would have led to him being referred to a cardiologist and subjected to an exercise ECG or echocardiogram.
Sir, MINDEF will continue to review our medical screening procedures, and amend the protocols or adopt new procedures should the SAF's panel of medical experts advise that it is appropriate to do so.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, which I think would have given Singaporeans some comfort. Nevertheless, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, the Minister has said separately that additional screening in the form of the exercise ECGs or echocardiograms is "helpful". If that is the case, then why is this "helpful" screening not made available to NSFs who serve the nation by performing National Service and so the nation should serve them by taking all the measures that are helpful, instead of leaving it only for those who can afford to pay for these additional testing.
My second question, Sir, is that the Minister has said that MINDEF has a panel of leading doctors who say that the existing tests are sufficient but a cardiologist in private practice has publicly stated that many of his colleagues who agree with this publicly, nevertheless, send their own children for additional screening. Can the Minister then confirm whether this panel of leading doctors send their own children who are required to serve NS for additional tests?
My third question, Sir, is that a recently published study by the Institute of Sports Medicine in Florence, Italy, tested over 30,000 people including 23,500 men, using both resting ECG and exercise ECG. The resting ECG test found a previously undetected heart anomaly in 1.2 % of those screened. This rose to 4.9% for the exercise ECG. In light of this study, does the Ministry still stand by its decision not to introduce additional screening for NSFs?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I think that if the individuals or parents want to go for additional medical screening and tests, that is entirely their right to do so and they may do so if they wish to. But whether they do so or not, I think that they and their parents should be assured that when they come for National Service at the pre-enlistment stage, the SAF will give them a comprehensive medical screening whether they have gone for one themselves or not. So that is our commitment, and that is important. The medical screening protocols are audited and recommended by the SAF medical panel of specialists. There are about 50 of them covering 14 medical specialities and areas. I can only go by what they recommend to us and if there are doctors, individuals who feel that there are practices supported by good evidence and research which will be helpful for SAF servicemen, we will be happy to receive such research reports and reviews supported by good evidence. The medical panel will be happy to consider them and if they are appropriate for application in the SAF, we will be happy to do so. I would invite Mr Siew or doctors in public or private practice or individuals who have such information, who feel that it is relevant to us, to please do so and send it to us. But I do assure the public and parents that the SAF medical panel itself does comprehensive literature searches, they are experts in their field, and they do look out for the best practices available. The example I gave was that of a study that was concluded in 1998. The panel looked at it very quickly after the study was completed, found that it was a study which was useful and valid to us, and we brought it into effect by the year 2000. And we will be happy to receive any other studies or information which the panel may, by some chance, have missed.
While it does seem that the SAF's tests are at least adequate for testing NS enlistees on a mass scale, and certainly the numbers appear to bear out its approach which is comforting, it remains a little difficult to shake off this sense of inequity. This is especially so if doctors are sending their own children for these additional tests. The Italian study I referred to also suggests that medical opinion may evolve further on this issue.
SUDDEN DEATHS OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN
(Outcome of investigations)
(Outcome of investigations)
16. Ms Indranee Rajah asked the Minister for Defence (a) what is the outcome of his Ministry's investigations into the sudden deaths of Recruit Andrew Cheah Wei Siong and Second Lieutenant Clifton Lam Jia Hao; and (b) whether the investigations indicate the need for any consequential action to be taken by the SAF, such as more stringent or different pre-enlistment medical screening.
17. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Defence (a) how many cases of sudden cardiac deaths have occurred in the Singapore Armed Forces since 1965; (b) of these, how many have occurred amongst Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and how many may have potentially been detected through the use of exercise ECGs or echocardiograms; and (c) whether the Ministry intends to introduce additional screening for NSFs such as exercise ECGs or echocardiograms.
The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Question Nos 16 and 17 by Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Siew Kum Hong are closely related, may I have your permission to address them together?
Mr Speaker: Yes.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the late 2LT Clifton Lam Jia Hao and the late REC Andrew Cheah Wei Siong.
MINDEF treats every death of a serviceman with utmost seriousness. For each case, we conduct a thorough investigation to determine the cause and also to enable us to take all necessary preventive measures in the future. MINDEF has convened two separate inquiries to investigate the deaths of the two servicemen. As the investigation process has yet to be completed, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their outcomes at this point in time.
Ms Indranee Rajah asked about the need for any consequential actions to be adopted by the SAF. Sir, the SAF did not wait for the outcome of the investigations but, in fact, took immediate action by imposing a three-day time-out for all physical and endurance training to review their systems, processes and procedures. The review provided an opportunity for units to confirm that the systems are good and sound, and that proper processes and procedures are in place and are being followed. The time-out allowed both commanders and soldiers themselves to refocus on safety.
Ms Indranee Rajah and Mr Siew Kum Hong asked about medical screening in the SAF. I should first say that it would be premature to draw conclusions about whether medical conditions that might have been detected in pre-enlistment medical screening were factors in the incidents, as the investigation process has not yet been concluded. Nevertheless, since there has been quite a lot of interest in the medical screening processes of the SAF, let me take the opportunity to describe these processes.
The SAF carries out medical screening of our servicemen carefully. Medical screening takes place at several key junctures: before enlistment, before attending specialised courses, before strenuous training or deployment and, periodically, after the age of 25.
The screening is comprehensive. There are 14 medical speciality areas, including eyesight, hearing, cardiovascular, muscular-skeletal conditions. Let me take the screening for cardiac conditions as an example. A 12-lead resting electrocardiogram (ECG) screening is conducted for all pre-enlistees, and the SAF has 28 different protocols to address the different cardiac conditions based on these ECG findings. If abnormalities are found, the pre-enlistees will be sent for additional testing, which may include the stress ECG test or the 2D echo-cardiogram and referral to a cardiologist.
The 12-lead resting ECG screening was introduced in November 2000 on the recommendation by the SAF's panel of medical experts. The panel of medical experts concluded that the findings of a study published in 1998 on the screening of competitive athletes in Italy were appropriate for the SAF and ought to be adopted by the SAF. The comprehensive study showed that resting ECG was a reliable tool for screening for Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM), which is one of the more common causes of sudden cardiac death among young adults. HCM is a disease of the heart muscle in which a portion of the muscle is thickened.
Sir, the introduction of this 12-lead resting ECG screening is an example of how the SAF keeps up with the best and most appropriate screening practices. The SAF is guided by an independent panel consisting of top medical consultants and specialists in Singapore that sits regularly to review the entire medical screening regime. In a recent review concluded last September, the SAF medical screening protocols were found to be comprehensive, robust and in line with good clinical practice. In fact, the SAF's routine screening for heart disease in pre-enlistees is equivalent to the standards recommended by the European Society of Cardiology and International Olympic Committee, and higher than the standards recommended by the American Heart Association. The SAF's screening protocols are also more comprehensive than those used by many other established armed forces.
Mr Siew Kum Hong asked for figures on sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) in the SAF since 1965, and how many of these were Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs). Sir, I am unable to give the figures since 1965, but I am able to provide the figures from 1995. Specific data on SCD for the years before 1995 was not systematically collected, as SCD itself, in young adults then, was not a well understood phenomenon in the medical community. The figures for 1995 to 2008 show that there were a total of 23 SCD cases in the SAF. Seven of them were of Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), three of which occurred during training.
Mr Siew also asked whether any of these could have been detected by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms, and whether the SAF was going to introduce additional screening such as these. Of the seven NSFs who died from SCD both during training and not during training, six were due to conditions that were most unlikely to be picked up by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms. This is what the doctors have told me. The remaining one had a condition that could have been detected by exercise ECGs or echocardiograms. This death occurred in 1999, a year before the SAF began conducting ECG screening for pre-enlistees. His condition could have been picked up by the 12-lead resting ECG that was introduced in 2000, and this pick-up would have led to him being referred to a cardiologist and subjected to an exercise ECG or echocardiogram.
Sir, MINDEF will continue to review our medical screening procedures, and amend the protocols or adopt new procedures should the SAF's panel of medical experts advise that it is appropriate to do so.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, which I think would have given Singaporeans some comfort. Nevertheless, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister.
Firstly, the Minister has said separately that additional screening in the form of the exercise ECGs or echocardiograms is "helpful". If that is the case, then why is this "helpful" screening not made available to NSFs who serve the nation by performing National Service and so the nation should serve them by taking all the measures that are helpful, instead of leaving it only for those who can afford to pay for these additional testing.
My second question, Sir, is that the Minister has said that MINDEF has a panel of leading doctors who say that the existing tests are sufficient but a cardiologist in private practice has publicly stated that many of his colleagues who agree with this publicly, nevertheless, send their own children for additional screening. Can the Minister then confirm whether this panel of leading doctors send their own children who are required to serve NS for additional tests?
My third question, Sir, is that a recently published study by the Institute of Sports Medicine in Florence, Italy, tested over 30,000 people including 23,500 men, using both resting ECG and exercise ECG. The resting ECG test found a previously undetected heart anomaly in 1.2 % of those screened. This rose to 4.9% for the exercise ECG. In light of this study, does the Ministry still stand by its decision not to introduce additional screening for NSFs?
Mr Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I think that if the individuals or parents want to go for additional medical screening and tests, that is entirely their right to do so and they may do so if they wish to. But whether they do so or not, I think that they and their parents should be assured that when they come for National Service at the pre-enlistment stage, the SAF will give them a comprehensive medical screening whether they have gone for one themselves or not. So that is our commitment, and that is important. The medical screening protocols are audited and recommended by the SAF medical panel of specialists. There are about 50 of them covering 14 medical specialities and areas. I can only go by what they recommend to us and if there are doctors, individuals who feel that there are practices supported by good evidence and research which will be helpful for SAF servicemen, we will be happy to receive such research reports and reviews supported by good evidence. The medical panel will be happy to consider them and if they are appropriate for application in the SAF, we will be happy to do so. I would invite Mr Siew or doctors in public or private practice or individuals who have such information, who feel that it is relevant to us, to please do so and send it to us. But I do assure the public and parents that the SAF medical panel itself does comprehensive literature searches, they are experts in their field, and they do look out for the best practices available. The example I gave was that of a study that was concluded in 1998. The panel looked at it very quickly after the study was completed, found that it was a study which was useful and valid to us, and we brought it into effect by the year 2000. And we will be happy to receive any other studies or information which the panel may, by some chance, have missed.
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
OPQ 16 July 2007: Compensation for dead or injured NSmen
This was another question where I keenly felt the inability to ask supplementary questions.
In June, Mindef wrote to the papers in response to public interest on the compensation that Mindef pays to NSmen, after the tragic incident in Taiwan. I would not be terribly surprised if Mindef was also aware of the posting on Edmund Ng's blog, which had generated much controversy online. I had intended to file an OPQ on this topic after reading Edmund Ng's blog, and did so despite Mindef's statement because I felt it was inadequate.
Unfortunately, the Minister's response basically restates Mindef's letter to the press. I would have asked the Minister these supplementary questions:
(1) Why, in the first place, does Mindef peg the amount of compensation payable so strictly to the Workmen's Compensation Act as the reference benchmark? I agree that it is helpful as an objective baseline, and I also acknowledge that Mindef pays discretionary sums over and above the workmen's comp amount. However, in an accident where workmen's comp is available, a victim retains the option of suing in civil courts for a higher sum if they feel that they have a good case. The Minister's response mentions discretionary amounts that are calculated based on "principles consistent with those used in civil courts" -- but these remain discretionary.
(2) For permanent disability cases, the Minister's answer mentions 2 components over and above the workmen's comp amount, a "lump sum constant attention award" and a "monthly disability assistance". I would have asked what these amounts are like, in light of the allegations contained in Edmund Ng's blog.
(3) It is positive that SAF has provided a group insurance scheme, which presumably covers claims for death/injuries resulting from training, exercises or military operations (excluding wartime). (The scheme's value would be diminished if it does not provide such coverage.) But the rates ($1.60 per month per $10,000 of coverage) might be too steep for low-ranking NSFs, whose allowances are in the hundreds, to obtain significant coverage. Given that NS is compulsory, it seems to me fairer if Mindef were to foot the bill for some level of group insurance for NSFs, say disability insurance for unmarried NSFs and life insurance added for married NSFs, for corporals and below for coverage of $100,000 or more. So I would have asked if this was possible.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for Defence (a) what is the rationale for pegging the compensation for dead or injured NSmen to the Workmen’s Compensation Act; (b) what are the quanta of monthly payments to NSmen who are disabled or paralysed in the course of duty; (c) whether the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Group Insurance Scheme covers death or injuries in the course of duty; and (d) whether the SAF will consider paying for group life and/or disability insurance for non-commissioned full-time NSmen.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I thank Mr Siew Kum Hong for his questions on compensation as it allows MINDEF to clarify our compensation framework.
MINDEF applies similar principles and practices used by the civil courts or the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA) to determine compensation for deaths and injuries due to service.
Based on these principles, MINDEF's compensation framework for death consists of up to three components. The first and base component is the lump sum compensation equivalent to sums prescribed under the Ministry of Manpower's Workmen's Compensation Act. It ensures that full-time national servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen receive amounts that are no worse off than that claimed under the WCA. Above this, more compensation is payable through two other components.
The second component is a lump sum death gratuity. For NSFs and NSmen, MINDEF treats them like regulars and gives a minimum of one year's basic pay for a regular of the same rank.
The third component is provided when there may have been negligence on the part of the organization, or where the serviceman has rendered service beyond the call of duty. This is based again on principles consistent with those used in civil courts. The quantum is generally derived taking into consideration, amongst other factors, what the serviceman would have contributed to his dependants from his potential earnings.
For permanent disability arising from service, MINDEF's compensation framework consists of up to four components. Again, the first and base component is a lump sum disability compensation according to the guidelines provided under the WCA. Above this, the second component pays a lump sum constant attention award, if the serviceman requires constant care as a result of his disability. The third component is a monthly disability assistance, which varies from person to person according to his circumstances, to defray expenses. The fourth component is an additional lump sum compensation provided when there may have been negligence on the part of the organization, or where the serviceman has rendered service beyond the call of duty.
In addition, MINDEF also provides fully subsidised medical benefits at all government/restructured hospitals or clinics, and the medical supplies needed for service injuries, for as long as the serviceman requires it.
Because the base component in our compensation framework uses the Workmen's Compensation Act as the reference, compensation amounts for deaths, injuries and disability due to service would provide amounts not less than those prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in most cases more than this amount. For the additional lump sum compensation, MINDEF uses the principles applied by civil courts to determine compensation amounts. This is a fair system based on prevailing practices and awards.
Today, MINDEF also has an Awards Appeal Tribunal to consider appeals from servicemen or their dependants on compensation. To provide greater assurance to our servicemen and their families that compensation is fair, and applied according to the principles I have described, MINDEF intends to replace the Tribunal with a new Compensation Board that will be chaired by a non-MINDEF officer. The details are being worked out.
Mr Siew also asked about insurance in the SAF. Insurance is a question of whether the organization wants to pass on the potential liability of paying compensation to an insurance company to carry. MINDEF does not buy insurance for its servicemen because MINDEF itself takes on the liability of paying compensation its servicemen for deaths and injuries arising from service through MINDEF's compensation framework. As explained earlier, this framework applies similar principles and practices used by the civil courts or the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA) to determine compensation for deaths and injuries due to service. However, servicemen may purchase additional insurance coverage if they wish to. This is similar to employees who would choose to buy additional insurance for personal protection even though they are covered under the WCA or have recourse to civil courts to claim damages. The SAF has the SAF Group Insurance Scheme, which provides- coverage for death and permanent disability from $50,000 to a maximum of $400,000. This covers servicemen both during the course of duty and when the serviceman is off duty. The premiums are affordable and MINDEF will continue to look for more competitive premiums for the coverage, and encourage our servicemen to take this up. For example, servicemen can currently insure themselves for $100,000 with a monthly premium of $16. NSmen can also take up this insurance even after their active service. As needs would vary among individuals, we leave it to the servicemen to determine what level of additional insurance coverage they would want to purchase.
In June, Mindef wrote to the papers in response to public interest on the compensation that Mindef pays to NSmen, after the tragic incident in Taiwan. I would not be terribly surprised if Mindef was also aware of the posting on Edmund Ng's blog, which had generated much controversy online. I had intended to file an OPQ on this topic after reading Edmund Ng's blog, and did so despite Mindef's statement because I felt it was inadequate.
Unfortunately, the Minister's response basically restates Mindef's letter to the press. I would have asked the Minister these supplementary questions:
(1) Why, in the first place, does Mindef peg the amount of compensation payable so strictly to the Workmen's Compensation Act as the reference benchmark? I agree that it is helpful as an objective baseline, and I also acknowledge that Mindef pays discretionary sums over and above the workmen's comp amount. However, in an accident where workmen's comp is available, a victim retains the option of suing in civil courts for a higher sum if they feel that they have a good case. The Minister's response mentions discretionary amounts that are calculated based on "principles consistent with those used in civil courts" -- but these remain discretionary.
(2) For permanent disability cases, the Minister's answer mentions 2 components over and above the workmen's comp amount, a "lump sum constant attention award" and a "monthly disability assistance". I would have asked what these amounts are like, in light of the allegations contained in Edmund Ng's blog.
(3) It is positive that SAF has provided a group insurance scheme, which presumably covers claims for death/injuries resulting from training, exercises or military operations (excluding wartime). (The scheme's value would be diminished if it does not provide such coverage.) But the rates ($1.60 per month per $10,000 of coverage) might be too steep for low-ranking NSFs, whose allowances are in the hundreds, to obtain significant coverage. Given that NS is compulsory, it seems to me fairer if Mindef were to foot the bill for some level of group insurance for NSFs, say disability insurance for unmarried NSFs and life insurance added for married NSFs, for corporals and below for coverage of $100,000 or more. So I would have asked if this was possible.
OPQ
COMPENSATION FOR DEAD OR INJURED NSMEN
Mr Siew Kum Hong: To ask the Minister for Defence (a) what is the rationale for pegging the compensation for dead or injured NSmen to the Workmen’s Compensation Act; (b) what are the quanta of monthly payments to NSmen who are disabled or paralysed in the course of duty; (c) whether the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Group Insurance Scheme covers death or injuries in the course of duty; and (d) whether the SAF will consider paying for group life and/or disability insurance for non-commissioned full-time NSmen.
Mr Teo Chee Hean: I thank Mr Siew Kum Hong for his questions on compensation as it allows MINDEF to clarify our compensation framework.
MINDEF applies similar principles and practices used by the civil courts or the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA) to determine compensation for deaths and injuries due to service.
Based on these principles, MINDEF's compensation framework for death consists of up to three components. The first and base component is the lump sum compensation equivalent to sums prescribed under the Ministry of Manpower's Workmen's Compensation Act. It ensures that full-time national servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen receive amounts that are no worse off than that claimed under the WCA. Above this, more compensation is payable through two other components.
The second component is a lump sum death gratuity. For NSFs and NSmen, MINDEF treats them like regulars and gives a minimum of one year's basic pay for a regular of the same rank.
The third component is provided when there may have been negligence on the part of the organization, or where the serviceman has rendered service beyond the call of duty. This is based again on principles consistent with those used in civil courts. The quantum is generally derived taking into consideration, amongst other factors, what the serviceman would have contributed to his dependants from his potential earnings.
For permanent disability arising from service, MINDEF's compensation framework consists of up to four components. Again, the first and base component is a lump sum disability compensation according to the guidelines provided under the WCA. Above this, the second component pays a lump sum constant attention award, if the serviceman requires constant care as a result of his disability. The third component is a monthly disability assistance, which varies from person to person according to his circumstances, to defray expenses. The fourth component is an additional lump sum compensation provided when there may have been negligence on the part of the organization, or where the serviceman has rendered service beyond the call of duty.
In addition, MINDEF also provides fully subsidised medical benefits at all government/restructured hospitals or clinics, and the medical supplies needed for service injuries, for as long as the serviceman requires it.
Because the base component in our compensation framework uses the Workmen's Compensation Act as the reference, compensation amounts for deaths, injuries and disability due to service would provide amounts not less than those prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and in most cases more than this amount. For the additional lump sum compensation, MINDEF uses the principles applied by civil courts to determine compensation amounts. This is a fair system based on prevailing practices and awards.
Today, MINDEF also has an Awards Appeal Tribunal to consider appeals from servicemen or their dependants on compensation. To provide greater assurance to our servicemen and their families that compensation is fair, and applied according to the principles I have described, MINDEF intends to replace the Tribunal with a new Compensation Board that will be chaired by a non-MINDEF officer. The details are being worked out.
Mr Siew also asked about insurance in the SAF. Insurance is a question of whether the organization wants to pass on the potential liability of paying compensation to an insurance company to carry. MINDEF does not buy insurance for its servicemen because MINDEF itself takes on the liability of paying compensation its servicemen for deaths and injuries arising from service through MINDEF's compensation framework. As explained earlier, this framework applies similar principles and practices used by the civil courts or the Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA) to determine compensation for deaths and injuries due to service. However, servicemen may purchase additional insurance coverage if they wish to. This is similar to employees who would choose to buy additional insurance for personal protection even though they are covered under the WCA or have recourse to civil courts to claim damages. The SAF has the SAF Group Insurance Scheme, which provides- coverage for death and permanent disability from $50,000 to a maximum of $400,000. This covers servicemen both during the course of duty and when the serviceman is off duty. The premiums are affordable and MINDEF will continue to look for more competitive premiums for the coverage, and encourage our servicemen to take this up. For example, servicemen can currently insure themselves for $100,000 with a monthly premium of $16. NSmen can also take up this insurance even after their active service. As needs would vary among individuals, we leave it to the servicemen to determine what level of additional insurance coverage they would want to purchase.
Friday, 6 April 2007
Budget 2007 Debates: Ministry of Defence, 5 March 2007 and Ministry of Education, 7 March 2007
In an earlier post, I talked about these two speeches I made during the Budget. These are the official transcripts of the speeches, responses given, and clarificatory question asked (for Mindef).
Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, all NSmen face reservist liability. I understand that PES-C NSmen, including clerks, are subject to NS call-ups as well. I was told of a case where a company was deciding whether to locate an investment in Singapore. But they could go ahead in Singapore only if a PES-C NSmen could get a deferment from his ICT. He was crucial to the project, if it was to happen in Singapore. But his ICT clashed with an important deadline. Despite repeated request, he was not granted a deferment. He went for his ICT and his company located the project in China.
Sir, I can understand the rationale if this NSmen was a key appointment holder and essential to the ICT. But he was not. I would like to ask the Ministry what is the value of calling PES-C NSmen for reservist training and whether more flexibility can be introduced in considering deferment for NSmen who are not key appointment holders and, especially, if they are clerks? Is there sufficient consideration given to the actual benefit derived from calling up an NSmen compared to the potential opportunity cost to his employer and his career?
Sir, there is a wider dimension to this. Many NSmen seem to believe that NS liability has adversely affected their career prospects. There is also some anecdotal evidence about employers discriminating against Singaporean males to do their NS liability and in favour of foreign talent. I hope that the Ministry will also state its position on this issue and explain what measures are in place to address such discrimination.
The Second Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Siew has asked how we can actively engage employers, and we do, so that they can better understand the needs for NS and see how we can better address their concerns. For example, MINDEF organises employer visits where employers can witness what their NSmen do during in-camp training. I was in one such visit where an employer says, "Thank you very much. I thought my employees were having a good time during their ICTs. But I realise they are really doing serious training, and that helps." This has helped employers appreciate the role of their employees and how they have a role as citizen-soldiers. And, indeed, quite a few employers have also told us that the certificate of service for full-time NS is really useful to them when they want to employ prospective job candidates. They look for it because, if this person can succeed as a commander, they think he can add to their organisation. They look more favourably on a candidate if he has been a commander, because it reflects capable leadership and initiative.
Mr Siew has also asked us about our policy on PES-C clerks' or reservists' duties. Let me first state that, through National Service, every serviceman is responsible for and expected to contribute to the defence of Singapore, the principle of universality I articulated earlier. The 3G SAF, as with all modern armies, requires servicemen of different vocations and specialisations to work together to fight as a cohesive unit. Therefore, we need frontline soldiers who need the critical combat support and combat service support sustainment to achieve their victories. Our NSF and NSmen are assigned to duties according to their Physical Employment Standard (PES). But let me remind Members and the public that a lower PES grading cannot and does not mean that less is required of that soldier. The responsibilities they are asked to shoulder in their vocations depend on their aptitude, motivation and demonstrated leadership qualities.
Service-fit servicemen or those graded PES-C, as alluded to by Mr Siew, therefore, can and do play important roles. We do deploy them on a diverse range of vocations, including doctors, technicians, signal operators, medics, drivers and clerks. Each one of them, in their own significant way, is a vital link in the defence of our nation. To enable our servicemen to carry out their duties, we need to call them back for annual in-camp training to refresh their skills and ensure that they are always operationally-ready. Otherwise, they will put the safety of their own lives and the lives of their comrades at risk. For these reasons, it would not be possible to exempt every PES-C NSman who is assigned to be a clerk. We do need them to carry out their duties in their units, and it would erode the cohesiveness of units if we were to disrupt them. Also, it is not equitable to exempt all PES-C clerks from in-camp training.
In summary, Mr Chairman, Sir, the training of our soldiers and units is of paramount importance to the operational readiness of the SAF, and a capable SAF is vital to the security of Singapore.
Mr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Second Minister for this thorough responses to my questions. However, I am not sure that he addressed the specific issue of employers favouring foreign talent over Singaporean males due to NS liability. So I would like to clarify if the Ministry is aware of this perceived bias, whether it has investigated its existence and what measures are in place to address any such bias?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, first let me thank Mr Siew for bringing them up. As he said, these are anecdotal incidents. We have various committees. We have the ACCORD and we interact with employer organisations and we have awards for employers. Perhaps we should invite Members of the House to attend these to give a sense of how we engage the employers community.
By and large, our feedback from them is that there is no, if you like, systemic discrimination against NSmen; in fact, the reverse is true. Many of them had fed back that they actually value, as I said, the Certificate of Performance. They want to know how Singaporeans have performed in NS. We have one story where the employer said he had so many applications, he wanted to shortlist them, so he said, "OK. Show me those who have done well in NS and I will just concentrate and start there." But if there are specific instances that Members know, then, of course, please forward them to us and we can look at them.
In terms of his question about calling up NSmen and losing out business opportunities, I admit there might be many instances where Singaporeans have to sacrifice, whether it is opportunity loss because of specific instances. We will try to reduce them because we give advance notice for deferment. But I accept that out there, in terms of our NSmen, there could be opportunities missed. That is why we choose other ways to recognise, through RECORD, through our NS bonuses, and this year in the GST offset credits. It is a very small token never commensurate with the sacrifices that our NSmen have to make but, nonetheless, there are certain ways that we can show that we appreciate their efforts and sacrifice.
Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, the enhanced performance management system, or EPMS, is MOE's method for assessing teacher's performance. It has been a subject of repeated criticism by present and former teachers and blamed for many teacher resignations. But MOE has consistently endorsed it.
These are some of the criticisms. Firstly, some see it as simply an administrative chore to get out of the way as quickly as possible. Secondly, there is no transparency in the rankings as teachers are not told what they have been ranked, and teachers have to guesstimate their rankings based on their performance bonuses, if any. Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, it does not adequately recognise good classroom teachers. In fact, teachers believe that the way to a good EPMS evaluation is to simply cite a long list of projects and then play them up as much as possible. Actual merit does not seem particularly relevant.
Sir, the teachers themselves said it better than I can. From a friend, "How I have seen it used is, either not at all, people ignore it, see it as a nuisance thing to be filled up and done with, or by superiors as a way of forcing more work out of people. So, what did you do this past half a year? If you do not tell me the next five minutes, you are going to get a "C" grade." From Wong Siong Yan, in a letter to the Today newspaper last March, "Supervisors usually rely on work review discussions, during which teachers are encouraged to showcase what they have. Those who can produce photographs, video clips and reflective journals often steal the show. Good but modest teachers who do not blow their own trumpets get sidelined." Finally, retired teacher, Ho Kong Loon, who had won an MOE Caring Teacher Award in 2000, wrote in the Today newspaper last October, that EPMS currently marginalises outstanding classroom teaching and that many good classroom teachers get poor EPMS gradings.
Sir, I think the amount of unhappiness with and criticisms of EPMS shows that there is a problem, and we need to remember that a lot of the criticisms have come from ex-teachers who are far more likely to give honest feedback than serving teachers. So I would like to ask how does the Ministry explain the discrepancy between its official stand on EPMS and teachers' perception of it. And in the light of these criticisms, does the Ministry have objective evidence that EPMS does work? Also, given the view that more projects equal a better EPMS ranking, teachers are compelled to pile on extra duties, that means, long hours in school. A teacher in the morning session will have classes from 7.30 am until 12.30 pm or 1.00 pm. This is followed by CCAs, projects, workshops, meetings and other commitments that can last till 5.00 pm or later. So when does the teacher do things, like marking and lesson preparation? At night? Sir, that is not tenable. I would therefore also like to ask the Minister what institutionalised measures and safeguards are in place to ensure that teachers are not overtaxed so that they are able to devote sufficient time to their students and through lessons and teaching while not burning out. If there are no such measures and safeguards, will the Ministry consider doing so?
Sir, Minister Tharman emphasised last week in the Budget debate that education is the starting point in ensuring equality of opportunity in Singapore. But for education to remain the great leveller that it has been, we need a strong and healthy teaching profession. We need to resolve these problems with EPMS so that we will have one.
RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Let me thank Mr Siew and, earlier, Mr Alvin Yeo, for their comments and questions about teachers.
Teachers are critical and special in our system: critical because they have the important responsibility of nurturing our young with the skills and attitudes that they will need to face the future with confidence; special because their role is not just about imparting knowledge but also about engaging hearts and minds - encouraging every student on, and helping them find their unique strengths and talents.
Over the past five years, we have grown the strength of our teaching force from 25,000 in 2002 to about 28,000 today. We have maintained the high standards that we expect of new entrants and we have also been able to retain good teachers. This is despite the competition from other attractive sectors in a robust economy. The major improvements in the “Grow” Package for teachers have also helped to keep the teaching profession an attractive one. The overall attrition rate due to retirement and resignation has remained steady at a low rate of about 2.4% over the years, and we intend to watch this very carefully.
Before I address Mr Siew's points on the EPMS, let me talk about managing the workload for teachers. To achieve a high quality holistic education for our students, we expect our teachers to play many different roles: mentors, facilitators, coaches and counsellors. As professionals, they want to excel, give of their best and make a difference in the lives of their students. Many take it upon themselves to upgrade their skills and knowledge by tapping on the wide range of training courses available. We recognise the demands and challenges of being teachers and are keenly aware of their workload. Let me share with you three areas in which we are working on to give them greater support.
Firstly, we are recruiting and deploying more teachers to schools. With the additional teachers recruited over the past five years, we have, on average, been able to give each school an additional five teachers. By about 2010, provided we can sustain our pace of recruitment and keep attrition low, we target to deploy another five teachers to each school.
These additional teachers have resulted in a significant improvement in the pupil to teacher (PTR) ratio over the past few years. The pupil to teacher ratio for primary schools was reduced from 24 in 2004 to 22 in 2006 and for secondary schools from 19 to 18 over the same period. By 2010, our target is to reduce PTR further to below 20 for the primary schools. I note Mr Alvin Yeo's earlier comment about reducing class sizes. But we think it is best for schools to decide how to use these additional teachers - sometimes a smaller class for a particular subject or assignment or give teachers more time to meet the other needs of their students.
To prescribe smaller class sizes for all schools across all levels, we will have to trade off quality for quantity, lowering the high standards that we expect of our teachers. Alternatively, it is to assign more classroom periods to each teacher. So recruiting new teachers of lower quality or assigning more classroom periods to each teacher, I think neither is a desirable outcome.
Beyond the allocation of additional teachers, schools can also leverage on the Adjunct Teaching (AJT) scheme, introduced in 2004, to appoint trained teachers who had left service. The adjunct teachers can support schools when their teachers go on the Part-Time Teaching Scheme, or pursue professional development opportunities. On average, each school managed to engage about four to five adjunct teachers last year.
With these additional teachers, schools have greater flexibility in terms of staff deployment. Many have introduced new programmes, or allowed greater diversity in the school curriculum to better respond to their students’ learning needs. At Guangyang Primary School, they have creatively tapped on their adjunct teachers to conduct differentiated teaching. During these lessons in Mathematics, Mother Tongue and English, small groups of students who are weaker in these subjects are taught separately by the adjunct teachers, giving them the special and dedicated attention that they need. The teachers focus on using strategies and activities that best suit the needs of these students. Such flexibility and enhanced learning have been made possible because of the availability of additional teacher resources that have been judiciously used to meet specific needs.
To further support teachers and meet the needs of the students, we have deployed para-educators like the Co-Curricular Programme Executives (CCPEs), the Full-Time School Counsellors (FTSCs) and Special Needs Officers (SNOs). These para-educators have enabled teachers to concentrate more on lesson preparation and classroom teaching duties.
Secondly, MOE has also provided schools with more financial resources to purchase manpower or other services to take over some of the duties previously done by teachers, for example, in running CCAs, training the school choir, and so on, where an external agency may be better equipped with the skill set to do so. This has helped to further ease teachers’ workload. The manpower grant had been increased over the years. For a primary school with 1,500 pupils, it has increased from about $50,000 in 2004 to $126,000 today, a 160% increase. Likewise, the grant disbursed to a secondary school with the same number of pupils has increased from $115,500 in 2004 to about $150,000 today.
Thirdly, within the school itself, there are systems in place to support teachers. To ease the transition of the beginning teachers to the demands of the job, they are given 80% of the standard teaching load. They are also mentored by Senior Teachers to help them better manage their workload and meet the challenges of the profession. By leveraging on IT, teachers are able to access databases of lesson materials and customise them to meet their students’ needs. Schools are also creating more opportunities for teachers to collaborate and plan together. By 2010, each teacher will have one hour of ‘timetabled time’ per week for this particular purpose.
We will endeavour to refine the ways where we can better support our teachers as they continue the important mission to nurture and develop our students.
Mr Siew Kum Hong also raised the issue of teacher appraisal. In particular, he asked about the value of the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS). In any organisation, there is a need for an appraisal and performance management system to help the organisation identify its talent, develop its people and reward their performance. The teaching profession is no exception. We need an appraisal process that is consistent, transparent and trusted. In this way, teachers who have done well are fully recognised and rewarded while others who need to improve on their performance are coached by their supervisors.
The EPMS is a new system fully implemented in 2005, and it was in response to feedback from the ground and designed with their inputs. We believe it is an improvement to the previous system. And I will talk more about this later. As professionals, our teachers have no issue with being held to high standards of performance; indeed, they expect it of themselves. Their request was for the appraisal process to provide a clearer idea of what competencies they were expected to show, and what areas they had to focus on to improve further. They wanted a more explicit discussion of their performance in specific areas, and clear identification of their training and development path.
The EPMS was developed after extensive consultation with education officers at all levels, phasing gradually from 2003 - first to the school leaders, then to Heads of Departments and other key appointment holders, and finally, school wide, to all teachers in 2005.
We believe the EPMS allows a holistic assessment on our educators’ performance based on competencies, and follows a more structured process to help them identify areas for further development and improvement. The system spells out the knowledge and skills required as well as the professional characteristics and behaviour patterns appropriate for each of the three different career tracks, namely, Teaching, Senior Specialist and Leadership. Let me say that there is no disadvantage in any of our teachers pursuing one of these tracks. They are not discriminated against in any way in the performance appraisal process. With this differentiation, teachers have the greater clarity of the expectations and behaviour that are essential for success in each particular field of excellence.
No assessment system is perfect, not least because there will always be some degree of subjectivity involved. Neither is the EPMS perfect nor has it been implemented evenly across all schools. We are committed to making it work even better. We are putting new teachers through EPMS workshops to help them better use and understand the tool, and we are putting also the new evaluators through the new supervisors through the system so that they can better understand their responsibilities in assessing teachers under their charge.
The Ministry will continue to take in feedback and suggestions from our teachers and school leaders on how to improve the system. For example, we have refined the EPMS work review form to include a training and development section that will encourage a more in-depth discussion of the officers’ career aspirations and developmental needs.
Mr Siew has given anecdotal evidence and extrapolated that to show that our teachers are very unhappy with EPMS. I am not sure that that is true nor does it do credit to the system and to the assessment appraisal process that we have today. Feedback from teachers that we have gathered shows that they recognise the benefits of the EPMS. Those who have been in service longer and were able to make a comparison between the past and present system, feel that the EPMS is a better tool compared to that used earlier. While it might still seem to some an additional administrative procedure to fill up the form, teachers acknowledged that the system has provided them with greater clarity in terms of expectations and how they can further develop themselves professionally. That is what the system was designed to achieve.
Mr Siew talked about teachers being given additional recognition if they were to work on projects, have more attractive means of delivering their lessons. I would say that finding ways to further and better engage the students is important. If you have two classroom teachers, one merely teaching from the textbook and the other finding new ways through projects and engaging methods to bring the lessons to life and engage the students, I think I would have to give a greater recognition to the latter. Let me say that EPMS attempts to capture the key essence of teaching in its many facets and challenges but, at the end of it all, it requires astute and perceptive school leaders to recognise and reward the many intangible but important aspects of teaching. They include care, concern and counsel that teachers give to their students, the values teachers impart through their interactions and through effective role modelling; and the encouragement and inspiration to students so that they will further believe in themselves and pursue their dreams. And this is what we are trying to ensure our school leaders take into account when they assess holistically the performance of the teachers.
But beyond formal recognition and reward, what motivates a teacher must be a calling, a deep sense of mission to shape young lives, knowing that what they do is a noble endeavour and a sacred responsibility. The gestation period is long and the results of their labour may not be immediately apparent. But it is the joy of seeing students do well in school and in life, sometimes seemingly against all odds, that have been and will be their best reward and lasting legacy. The recognition and appreciation by students, parents and the community are also an important morale booster for our teachers. I am happy that their dedication and commitment have not gone unnoticed. The public in 2004 ranked the teaching profession first in importance, ahead of doctors and lawyers in a public perception survey. Let us all continue to give teachers the support they need and deserve on their meaningful and important mission.
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
National Service
Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, all NSmen face reservist liability. I understand that PES-C NSmen, including clerks, are subject to NS call-ups as well. I was told of a case where a company was deciding whether to locate an investment in Singapore. But they could go ahead in Singapore only if a PES-C NSmen could get a deferment from his ICT. He was crucial to the project, if it was to happen in Singapore. But his ICT clashed with an important deadline. Despite repeated request, he was not granted a deferment. He went for his ICT and his company located the project in China.
Sir, I can understand the rationale if this NSmen was a key appointment holder and essential to the ICT. But he was not. I would like to ask the Ministry what is the value of calling PES-C NSmen for reservist training and whether more flexibility can be introduced in considering deferment for NSmen who are not key appointment holders and, especially, if they are clerks? Is there sufficient consideration given to the actual benefit derived from calling up an NSmen compared to the potential opportunity cost to his employer and his career?
Sir, there is a wider dimension to this. Many NSmen seem to believe that NS liability has adversely affected their career prospects. There is also some anecdotal evidence about employers discriminating against Singaporean males to do their NS liability and in favour of foreign talent. I hope that the Ministry will also state its position on this issue and explain what measures are in place to address such discrimination.
The Second Minister for Defence (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Mr Siew has asked how we can actively engage employers, and we do, so that they can better understand the needs for NS and see how we can better address their concerns. For example, MINDEF organises employer visits where employers can witness what their NSmen do during in-camp training. I was in one such visit where an employer says, "Thank you very much. I thought my employees were having a good time during their ICTs. But I realise they are really doing serious training, and that helps." This has helped employers appreciate the role of their employees and how they have a role as citizen-soldiers. And, indeed, quite a few employers have also told us that the certificate of service for full-time NS is really useful to them when they want to employ prospective job candidates. They look for it because, if this person can succeed as a commander, they think he can add to their organisation. They look more favourably on a candidate if he has been a commander, because it reflects capable leadership and initiative.
Mr Siew has also asked us about our policy on PES-C clerks' or reservists' duties. Let me first state that, through National Service, every serviceman is responsible for and expected to contribute to the defence of Singapore, the principle of universality I articulated earlier. The 3G SAF, as with all modern armies, requires servicemen of different vocations and specialisations to work together to fight as a cohesive unit. Therefore, we need frontline soldiers who need the critical combat support and combat service support sustainment to achieve their victories. Our NSF and NSmen are assigned to duties according to their Physical Employment Standard (PES). But let me remind Members and the public that a lower PES grading cannot and does not mean that less is required of that soldier. The responsibilities they are asked to shoulder in their vocations depend on their aptitude, motivation and demonstrated leadership qualities.
Service-fit servicemen or those graded PES-C, as alluded to by Mr Siew, therefore, can and do play important roles. We do deploy them on a diverse range of vocations, including doctors, technicians, signal operators, medics, drivers and clerks. Each one of them, in their own significant way, is a vital link in the defence of our nation. To enable our servicemen to carry out their duties, we need to call them back for annual in-camp training to refresh their skills and ensure that they are always operationally-ready. Otherwise, they will put the safety of their own lives and the lives of their comrades at risk. For these reasons, it would not be possible to exempt every PES-C NSman who is assigned to be a clerk. We do need them to carry out their duties in their units, and it would erode the cohesiveness of units if we were to disrupt them. Also, it is not equitable to exempt all PES-C clerks from in-camp training.
In summary, Mr Chairman, Sir, the training of our soldiers and units is of paramount importance to the operational readiness of the SAF, and a capable SAF is vital to the security of Singapore.
Clarification
Mr Siew Kum Hong: Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the Second Minister for this thorough responses to my questions. However, I am not sure that he addressed the specific issue of employers favouring foreign talent over Singaporean males due to NS liability. So I would like to clarify if the Ministry is aware of this perceived bias, whether it has investigated its existence and what measures are in place to address any such bias?
Dr Ng Eng Hen: Sir, first let me thank Mr Siew for bringing them up. As he said, these are anecdotal incidents. We have various committees. We have the ACCORD and we interact with employer organisations and we have awards for employers. Perhaps we should invite Members of the House to attend these to give a sense of how we engage the employers community.
By and large, our feedback from them is that there is no, if you like, systemic discrimination against NSmen; in fact, the reverse is true. Many of them had fed back that they actually value, as I said, the Certificate of Performance. They want to know how Singaporeans have performed in NS. We have one story where the employer said he had so many applications, he wanted to shortlist them, so he said, "OK. Show me those who have done well in NS and I will just concentrate and start there." But if there are specific instances that Members know, then, of course, please forward them to us and we can look at them.
In terms of his question about calling up NSmen and losing out business opportunities, I admit there might be many instances where Singaporeans have to sacrifice, whether it is opportunity loss because of specific instances. We will try to reduce them because we give advance notice for deferment. But I accept that out there, in terms of our NSmen, there could be opportunities missed. That is why we choose other ways to recognise, through RECORD, through our NS bonuses, and this year in the GST offset credits. It is a very small token never commensurate with the sacrifices that our NSmen have to make but, nonetheless, there are certain ways that we can show that we appreciate their efforts and sacrifice.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
Enhanced Performance Management System
Teachers
Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Chairman, Sir, the enhanced performance management system, or EPMS, is MOE's method for assessing teacher's performance. It has been a subject of repeated criticism by present and former teachers and blamed for many teacher resignations. But MOE has consistently endorsed it.
These are some of the criticisms. Firstly, some see it as simply an administrative chore to get out of the way as quickly as possible. Secondly, there is no transparency in the rankings as teachers are not told what they have been ranked, and teachers have to guesstimate their rankings based on their performance bonuses, if any. Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, it does not adequately recognise good classroom teachers. In fact, teachers believe that the way to a good EPMS evaluation is to simply cite a long list of projects and then play them up as much as possible. Actual merit does not seem particularly relevant.
Sir, the teachers themselves said it better than I can. From a friend, "How I have seen it used is, either not at all, people ignore it, see it as a nuisance thing to be filled up and done with, or by superiors as a way of forcing more work out of people. So, what did you do this past half a year? If you do not tell me the next five minutes, you are going to get a "C" grade." From Wong Siong Yan, in a letter to the Today newspaper last March, "Supervisors usually rely on work review discussions, during which teachers are encouraged to showcase what they have. Those who can produce photographs, video clips and reflective journals often steal the show. Good but modest teachers who do not blow their own trumpets get sidelined." Finally, retired teacher, Ho Kong Loon, who had won an MOE Caring Teacher Award in 2000, wrote in the Today newspaper last October, that EPMS currently marginalises outstanding classroom teaching and that many good classroom teachers get poor EPMS gradings.
Sir, I think the amount of unhappiness with and criticisms of EPMS shows that there is a problem, and we need to remember that a lot of the criticisms have come from ex-teachers who are far more likely to give honest feedback than serving teachers. So I would like to ask how does the Ministry explain the discrepancy between its official stand on EPMS and teachers' perception of it. And in the light of these criticisms, does the Ministry have objective evidence that EPMS does work? Also, given the view that more projects equal a better EPMS ranking, teachers are compelled to pile on extra duties, that means, long hours in school. A teacher in the morning session will have classes from 7.30 am until 12.30 pm or 1.00 pm. This is followed by CCAs, projects, workshops, meetings and other commitments that can last till 5.00 pm or later. So when does the teacher do things, like marking and lesson preparation? At night? Sir, that is not tenable. I would therefore also like to ask the Minister what institutionalised measures and safeguards are in place to ensure that teachers are not overtaxed so that they are able to devote sufficient time to their students and through lessons and teaching while not burning out. If there are no such measures and safeguards, will the Ministry consider doing so?
Sir, Minister Tharman emphasised last week in the Budget debate that education is the starting point in ensuring equality of opportunity in Singapore. But for education to remain the great leveller that it has been, we need a strong and healthy teaching profession. We need to resolve these problems with EPMS so that we will have one.
RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew: Let me thank Mr Siew and, earlier, Mr Alvin Yeo, for their comments and questions about teachers.
Teachers are critical and special in our system: critical because they have the important responsibility of nurturing our young with the skills and attitudes that they will need to face the future with confidence; special because their role is not just about imparting knowledge but also about engaging hearts and minds - encouraging every student on, and helping them find their unique strengths and talents.
Over the past five years, we have grown the strength of our teaching force from 25,000 in 2002 to about 28,000 today. We have maintained the high standards that we expect of new entrants and we have also been able to retain good teachers. This is despite the competition from other attractive sectors in a robust economy. The major improvements in the “Grow” Package for teachers have also helped to keep the teaching profession an attractive one. The overall attrition rate due to retirement and resignation has remained steady at a low rate of about 2.4% over the years, and we intend to watch this very carefully.
Before I address Mr Siew's points on the EPMS, let me talk about managing the workload for teachers. To achieve a high quality holistic education for our students, we expect our teachers to play many different roles: mentors, facilitators, coaches and counsellors. As professionals, they want to excel, give of their best and make a difference in the lives of their students. Many take it upon themselves to upgrade their skills and knowledge by tapping on the wide range of training courses available. We recognise the demands and challenges of being teachers and are keenly aware of their workload. Let me share with you three areas in which we are working on to give them greater support.
Firstly, we are recruiting and deploying more teachers to schools. With the additional teachers recruited over the past five years, we have, on average, been able to give each school an additional five teachers. By about 2010, provided we can sustain our pace of recruitment and keep attrition low, we target to deploy another five teachers to each school.
These additional teachers have resulted in a significant improvement in the pupil to teacher (PTR) ratio over the past few years. The pupil to teacher ratio for primary schools was reduced from 24 in 2004 to 22 in 2006 and for secondary schools from 19 to 18 over the same period. By 2010, our target is to reduce PTR further to below 20 for the primary schools. I note Mr Alvin Yeo's earlier comment about reducing class sizes. But we think it is best for schools to decide how to use these additional teachers - sometimes a smaller class for a particular subject or assignment or give teachers more time to meet the other needs of their students.
To prescribe smaller class sizes for all schools across all levels, we will have to trade off quality for quantity, lowering the high standards that we expect of our teachers. Alternatively, it is to assign more classroom periods to each teacher. So recruiting new teachers of lower quality or assigning more classroom periods to each teacher, I think neither is a desirable outcome.
Beyond the allocation of additional teachers, schools can also leverage on the Adjunct Teaching (AJT) scheme, introduced in 2004, to appoint trained teachers who had left service. The adjunct teachers can support schools when their teachers go on the Part-Time Teaching Scheme, or pursue professional development opportunities. On average, each school managed to engage about four to five adjunct teachers last year.
With these additional teachers, schools have greater flexibility in terms of staff deployment. Many have introduced new programmes, or allowed greater diversity in the school curriculum to better respond to their students’ learning needs. At Guangyang Primary School, they have creatively tapped on their adjunct teachers to conduct differentiated teaching. During these lessons in Mathematics, Mother Tongue and English, small groups of students who are weaker in these subjects are taught separately by the adjunct teachers, giving them the special and dedicated attention that they need. The teachers focus on using strategies and activities that best suit the needs of these students. Such flexibility and enhanced learning have been made possible because of the availability of additional teacher resources that have been judiciously used to meet specific needs.
To further support teachers and meet the needs of the students, we have deployed para-educators like the Co-Curricular Programme Executives (CCPEs), the Full-Time School Counsellors (FTSCs) and Special Needs Officers (SNOs). These para-educators have enabled teachers to concentrate more on lesson preparation and classroom teaching duties.
Secondly, MOE has also provided schools with more financial resources to purchase manpower or other services to take over some of the duties previously done by teachers, for example, in running CCAs, training the school choir, and so on, where an external agency may be better equipped with the skill set to do so. This has helped to further ease teachers’ workload. The manpower grant had been increased over the years. For a primary school with 1,500 pupils, it has increased from about $50,000 in 2004 to $126,000 today, a 160% increase. Likewise, the grant disbursed to a secondary school with the same number of pupils has increased from $115,500 in 2004 to about $150,000 today.
Thirdly, within the school itself, there are systems in place to support teachers. To ease the transition of the beginning teachers to the demands of the job, they are given 80% of the standard teaching load. They are also mentored by Senior Teachers to help them better manage their workload and meet the challenges of the profession. By leveraging on IT, teachers are able to access databases of lesson materials and customise them to meet their students’ needs. Schools are also creating more opportunities for teachers to collaborate and plan together. By 2010, each teacher will have one hour of ‘timetabled time’ per week for this particular purpose.
We will endeavour to refine the ways where we can better support our teachers as they continue the important mission to nurture and develop our students.
Mr Siew Kum Hong also raised the issue of teacher appraisal. In particular, he asked about the value of the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS). In any organisation, there is a need for an appraisal and performance management system to help the organisation identify its talent, develop its people and reward their performance. The teaching profession is no exception. We need an appraisal process that is consistent, transparent and trusted. In this way, teachers who have done well are fully recognised and rewarded while others who need to improve on their performance are coached by their supervisors.
The EPMS is a new system fully implemented in 2005, and it was in response to feedback from the ground and designed with their inputs. We believe it is an improvement to the previous system. And I will talk more about this later. As professionals, our teachers have no issue with being held to high standards of performance; indeed, they expect it of themselves. Their request was for the appraisal process to provide a clearer idea of what competencies they were expected to show, and what areas they had to focus on to improve further. They wanted a more explicit discussion of their performance in specific areas, and clear identification of their training and development path.
The EPMS was developed after extensive consultation with education officers at all levels, phasing gradually from 2003 - first to the school leaders, then to Heads of Departments and other key appointment holders, and finally, school wide, to all teachers in 2005.
We believe the EPMS allows a holistic assessment on our educators’ performance based on competencies, and follows a more structured process to help them identify areas for further development and improvement. The system spells out the knowledge and skills required as well as the professional characteristics and behaviour patterns appropriate for each of the three different career tracks, namely, Teaching, Senior Specialist and Leadership. Let me say that there is no disadvantage in any of our teachers pursuing one of these tracks. They are not discriminated against in any way in the performance appraisal process. With this differentiation, teachers have the greater clarity of the expectations and behaviour that are essential for success in each particular field of excellence.
No assessment system is perfect, not least because there will always be some degree of subjectivity involved. Neither is the EPMS perfect nor has it been implemented evenly across all schools. We are committed to making it work even better. We are putting new teachers through EPMS workshops to help them better use and understand the tool, and we are putting also the new evaluators through the new supervisors through the system so that they can better understand their responsibilities in assessing teachers under their charge.
The Ministry will continue to take in feedback and suggestions from our teachers and school leaders on how to improve the system. For example, we have refined the EPMS work review form to include a training and development section that will encourage a more in-depth discussion of the officers’ career aspirations and developmental needs.
Mr Siew has given anecdotal evidence and extrapolated that to show that our teachers are very unhappy with EPMS. I am not sure that that is true nor does it do credit to the system and to the assessment appraisal process that we have today. Feedback from teachers that we have gathered shows that they recognise the benefits of the EPMS. Those who have been in service longer and were able to make a comparison between the past and present system, feel that the EPMS is a better tool compared to that used earlier. While it might still seem to some an additional administrative procedure to fill up the form, teachers acknowledged that the system has provided them with greater clarity in terms of expectations and how they can further develop themselves professionally. That is what the system was designed to achieve.
Mr Siew talked about teachers being given additional recognition if they were to work on projects, have more attractive means of delivering their lessons. I would say that finding ways to further and better engage the students is important. If you have two classroom teachers, one merely teaching from the textbook and the other finding new ways through projects and engaging methods to bring the lessons to life and engage the students, I think I would have to give a greater recognition to the latter. Let me say that EPMS attempts to capture the key essence of teaching in its many facets and challenges but, at the end of it all, it requires astute and perceptive school leaders to recognise and reward the many intangible but important aspects of teaching. They include care, concern and counsel that teachers give to their students, the values teachers impart through their interactions and through effective role modelling; and the encouragement and inspiration to students so that they will further believe in themselves and pursue their dreams. And this is what we are trying to ensure our school leaders take into account when they assess holistically the performance of the teachers.
But beyond formal recognition and reward, what motivates a teacher must be a calling, a deep sense of mission to shape young lives, knowing that what they do is a noble endeavour and a sacred responsibility. The gestation period is long and the results of their labour may not be immediately apparent. But it is the joy of seeing students do well in school and in life, sometimes seemingly against all odds, that have been and will be their best reward and lasting legacy. The recognition and appreciation by students, parents and the community are also an important morale booster for our teachers. I am happy that their dedication and commitment have not gone unnoticed. The public in 2004 ranked the teaching profession first in importance, ahead of doctors and lawyers in a public perception survey. Let us all continue to give teachers the support they need and deserve on their meaningful and important mission.
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Of Soldiers and Teachers
I've not been posting much because I've not had much time for this blog.
My company's financial year ends on 31 March, and so March is typically a horrendously busy period. I won't know, because this is the first year-end I'm experiencing, but if the quarter-end in December was anything to go by, March will be horrible. As it is, the current workload is already pretty bad and it is only the 1st week of the month.
The ongoing Committee of Supply debates have compounded that. In fact, my work has been piling up a bit because I've been taking time out to go to Parliament. So between work, being at Parliament and preparing my speeches, I really don't have too much time left.
I intend to post all my questions and the responses by the various office-holders once the Hansard is published. That will take awhile, because there is a timelag between a sitting and the publication of the Hansard record for that.
But in the meantime, I feel that I should specifically mention 2 speeches that I made yesterday and today, because I would like to ask reservists and teachers to stand up for what they have been saying.
Reservists
I had filed a cut on Mindef, and had originally wanted to talk about reservists and Mindef's policy on deferments for non-Key Appointment Holders including PES C clerks. But in light of the comments made about NS liability handicapping Singaporean males' careers, I worked this issue into my cut yesterday, and asked about Mindef's position on the perceived bias against Singaporean males and measures in place to address it.
Second Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen responded to my question. In a nutshell, the main points are:
It is not enough or convincing for me to simply speak up. If this is important to you, please speak up off-line as well. The corollary to the Government's light-touch approach to the Internet is that it also dismisses Internet chatter. So posting on your blog or in forums or on this blog isn't really going to do anything to advance your case, and to show that this is in fact a real and important issue.
Teachers
Today saw the debate on MOE. I made a speech about EPMS, or Enhanced Performance Management System, which is the method used to assess the performance of teachers. I got a pretty strong, point-by-point response by Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew. It feels to me like I might have touched a nerve. So be it, it comes with the territory.
But what frustrated me was that the MOS seems to have misunderstood one of the key points I was making. Based on what people have told me, and what I have read in the newspapers and on teachers' blogs, one of the main complaints about EPMS is that a good classroom teacher who does nothing more will get a C grading, and it takes substantial amounts of work on non-academic, non-teaching related projects to get an A or B grade. And I tried to make that point.
It seems that I might have failed to make it clearly, because the MOS, in response to this point, stated that between a teacher who has put in effort to come up with innovative lessons, and a teacher who simply teaches off the textbook, the former will be rewarded and that that must be the case.
You know what? I absolutely agree with that. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make, and that is not the point that teachers make. And honestly, MOE does know about this complaint, because it has been regularly raised in the media. And in my speech, I specifically referred to retired teacher Ho Kong Loon, who had written in TODAY last year that EPMS marginalises outstanding classroom teaching and that many good classroom teachers get poor EPMS gradings.
I absolutely wanted to make and would have made a clarification on this, and ask the MOS to respond accordingly. But I simply had to rush back to the office after my speech to clear some matters, and I could not spare the time to wait for the chance to ask a clarification. And so that mischaracterisation of my argument, which to me is pretty fundamental, went unchallenged.
The Straits Times might be running a story on this tomorrow, since they asked for a copy of my speech. Just as I have asked NSmen to raise their issue in the offline world, I also now ask teachers and ex-teachers who do not agree with EPMS to write in to the papers, to the MOS and/or to MOE to make this point clear.
Doing so will also address a comment made by the MOS that I had raised a lot of anecdotal evidence, but MOE's own feedback and surveys show that most teachers support and are satisfied with EPMS (no figures were given though). So if you think EPMS is flawed, then let them know and let them know why you think so.
My company's financial year ends on 31 March, and so March is typically a horrendously busy period. I won't know, because this is the first year-end I'm experiencing, but if the quarter-end in December was anything to go by, March will be horrible. As it is, the current workload is already pretty bad and it is only the 1st week of the month.
The ongoing Committee of Supply debates have compounded that. In fact, my work has been piling up a bit because I've been taking time out to go to Parliament. So between work, being at Parliament and preparing my speeches, I really don't have too much time left.
I intend to post all my questions and the responses by the various office-holders once the Hansard is published. That will take awhile, because there is a timelag between a sitting and the publication of the Hansard record for that.
But in the meantime, I feel that I should specifically mention 2 speeches that I made yesterday and today, because I would like to ask reservists and teachers to stand up for what they have been saying.
Reservists
I had filed a cut on Mindef, and had originally wanted to talk about reservists and Mindef's policy on deferments for non-Key Appointment Holders including PES C clerks. But in light of the comments made about NS liability handicapping Singaporean males' careers, I worked this issue into my cut yesterday, and asked about Mindef's position on the perceived bias against Singaporean males and measures in place to address it.
Second Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen responded to my question. In a nutshell, the main points are:
- he noted that the perceived bias was based on anecdotal evidence
- he said that many employers had told him they specifically seek out NS officers and appointment holders, because this indicates that they have leadership capability
- Mindef invites people to give feedback on any specific cases of discrimination
- an employer isn't going to tell Mindef, let alone the Second Minister himself, that it discriminates against Singaporean males in hiring practices
- there was nothing said about non-officers and non-KAHs
- the "anecdotal evidence" argument is very easy to raise in response to issues raised based on Internet posts, and very difficult to debunk convincingly
- the "anecdotal evidence" argument is also not quite fair. I would actually characterise anecdotal evidence as being analogous to a canary in a mine -- when there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, then there must be something there. No smoke without fire, etc.
It is not enough or convincing for me to simply speak up. If this is important to you, please speak up off-line as well. The corollary to the Government's light-touch approach to the Internet is that it also dismisses Internet chatter. So posting on your blog or in forums or on this blog isn't really going to do anything to advance your case, and to show that this is in fact a real and important issue.
Teachers
Today saw the debate on MOE. I made a speech about EPMS, or Enhanced Performance Management System, which is the method used to assess the performance of teachers. I got a pretty strong, point-by-point response by Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew. It feels to me like I might have touched a nerve. So be it, it comes with the territory.
But what frustrated me was that the MOS seems to have misunderstood one of the key points I was making. Based on what people have told me, and what I have read in the newspapers and on teachers' blogs, one of the main complaints about EPMS is that a good classroom teacher who does nothing more will get a C grading, and it takes substantial amounts of work on non-academic, non-teaching related projects to get an A or B grade. And I tried to make that point.
It seems that I might have failed to make it clearly, because the MOS, in response to this point, stated that between a teacher who has put in effort to come up with innovative lessons, and a teacher who simply teaches off the textbook, the former will be rewarded and that that must be the case.
You know what? I absolutely agree with that. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make, and that is not the point that teachers make. And honestly, MOE does know about this complaint, because it has been regularly raised in the media. And in my speech, I specifically referred to retired teacher Ho Kong Loon, who had written in TODAY last year that EPMS marginalises outstanding classroom teaching and that many good classroom teachers get poor EPMS gradings.
I absolutely wanted to make and would have made a clarification on this, and ask the MOS to respond accordingly. But I simply had to rush back to the office after my speech to clear some matters, and I could not spare the time to wait for the chance to ask a clarification. And so that mischaracterisation of my argument, which to me is pretty fundamental, went unchallenged.
The Straits Times might be running a story on this tomorrow, since they asked for a copy of my speech. Just as I have asked NSmen to raise their issue in the offline world, I also now ask teachers and ex-teachers who do not agree with EPMS to write in to the papers, to the MOS and/or to MOE to make this point clear.
Doing so will also address a comment made by the MOS that I had raised a lot of anecdotal evidence, but MOE's own feedback and surveys show that most teachers support and are satisfied with EPMS (no figures were given though). So if you think EPMS is flawed, then let them know and let them know why you think so.
Sunday, 4 March 2007
Discrimination against Singaporean males revisited
I posted previously about this subject. There have been some comments about it. Let me clarify my views.
I'm not saying that such discrimination does not exist, or that I don't understand the motivation for it. Like I've said before, I used to be in a position to make hiring decisions and the thought certainly crossed my mind. (Together with the thoughts that women may take maternity leave and foreigners won't cost me employer's contribution.)
That's simply economic rationality.
But I said that an "enlightened" employer would understand the constraints that Singapore men and women face, constraints imposed by the system, and go beyond such considerations to focus only on what should be the sole consideration: a person's ability to do the job well. And that's what I strove to be enlightened.
After all, if an employer wants to make hiring decisions on the basis of such considerations, where would he/she draw the line? Not hire women because of potential maternity leave (and remember, the Government will reimburse employers for NS call-ups, but employers are not reimbursed for the first 2 months of maternity leave for the first 2 children)? Not hire Singaporeans or PRs to the maximum extent possible (which could well mean not at all for professional positions), because of the savings from not having to pay employers' CPF contributions?
Heck, not allow people to take extended vacations because of the disruption? I certainly would not take a job if the employer tells me that the company policy prohibits extended leave due to the disruption caused, would you?
Every employer needs to be prepared for an employee, however key or specialised his or her role, being unavailable for an extended period, for whatever reason. Let's not forget that the period of NS liability is predictable far in advance, and is shorter than maternity leave.
I disagree with those who would describe as "enlightened" employers who focus only on the bottom-line and decide against hiring Singaporean males solely on the basis of NS liability. That is an economically rational employer, which is not necessarily the same (and certainly isn't to me) as being enlightened.
Yes, we live in the real world, and this NS discrimination issue is a problem, as is evident from various people's comments both on this blog and elsewhere. Obviously we cannot expect all employers to be enlightened. If I didn't think that this issue is a real problem, I would not be considering raising it in Parliament.
But my reference to an "enlightened" employer was a normative concept (what employers should be like), and not a positive concept (what employers are really like). So I hope this post clarifies my views.
And finally, re Mr Wang's comment about how my private practice experience is irrelevant: my reference to private practice was to the practice of reducing billable targets to account for time spent out of the office due to NS liability. It was not a generic reference to the prevalence or otherwise of discrimination against NSmen. Furthermore, I was not asked that question when I was interviewed for my current in-house position which could be filled by a non-Singaporean lawyer as well, and my predecessor did have NS liability. So I'm not sure that the fact that the legal profession is protected really has that much to do with anything.
I'm not saying that such discrimination does not exist, or that I don't understand the motivation for it. Like I've said before, I used to be in a position to make hiring decisions and the thought certainly crossed my mind. (Together with the thoughts that women may take maternity leave and foreigners won't cost me employer's contribution.)
That's simply economic rationality.
But I said that an "enlightened" employer would understand the constraints that Singapore men and women face, constraints imposed by the system, and go beyond such considerations to focus only on what should be the sole consideration: a person's ability to do the job well. And that's what I strove to be enlightened.
After all, if an employer wants to make hiring decisions on the basis of such considerations, where would he/she draw the line? Not hire women because of potential maternity leave (and remember, the Government will reimburse employers for NS call-ups, but employers are not reimbursed for the first 2 months of maternity leave for the first 2 children)? Not hire Singaporeans or PRs to the maximum extent possible (which could well mean not at all for professional positions), because of the savings from not having to pay employers' CPF contributions?
Heck, not allow people to take extended vacations because of the disruption? I certainly would not take a job if the employer tells me that the company policy prohibits extended leave due to the disruption caused, would you?
Every employer needs to be prepared for an employee, however key or specialised his or her role, being unavailable for an extended period, for whatever reason. Let's not forget that the period of NS liability is predictable far in advance, and is shorter than maternity leave.
I disagree with those who would describe as "enlightened" employers who focus only on the bottom-line and decide against hiring Singaporean males solely on the basis of NS liability. That is an economically rational employer, which is not necessarily the same (and certainly isn't to me) as being enlightened.
Yes, we live in the real world, and this NS discrimination issue is a problem, as is evident from various people's comments both on this blog and elsewhere. Obviously we cannot expect all employers to be enlightened. If I didn't think that this issue is a real problem, I would not be considering raising it in Parliament.
But my reference to an "enlightened" employer was a normative concept (what employers should be like), and not a positive concept (what employers are really like). So I hope this post clarifies my views.
And finally, re Mr Wang's comment about how my private practice experience is irrelevant: my reference to private practice was to the practice of reducing billable targets to account for time spent out of the office due to NS liability. It was not a generic reference to the prevalence or otherwise of discrimination against NSmen. Furthermore, I was not asked that question when I was interviewed for my current in-house position which could be filled by a non-Singaporean lawyer as well, and my predecessor did have NS liability. So I'm not sure that the fact that the legal profession is protected really has that much to do with anything.
Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Discrimination against Singaporean males
I got this in my mailbox from a reader. I am also aware of the HWZ thread about a Taiwanese executive telling a Singaporean at a job interview, that he wouldn't hire Singaporean males because of the NS liability.
It's something I had considered raising as one of my "cuts" for the Committee of Supply debates, but decided against because I simply ran out of time. And this e-mail came after the deadline for filing "cuts" closed. I will think about filing a PQ on this issue.
Having said that, I disagree with this e-mail. It equates an enlightened employer with one who will "threat [sic] everybody the same and give equal opportunity to the best talents".
But to me, an enlightened employer is one who will recognise that NS is an obligation imposed on all Singaporean males, and that an employer located in Singapore should support that. This is especially so when the decision-maker is Singaporean himself.
It is a short-sighted, dollars-and-cents kind of guy who just looks at numbers, who would give a job to a foreigner simply because he does not have NS liability and is cheaper since employers' CPF contribution is not payable. And what is particularly disappointing is that Kevin, after having been at the receiving end of discrimination due to NS, turns around and discriminates against locals due to CPF.
As for the comment on IBM's treatment of Singaporean males, I think that particular practice was not enlightened. When I was in private practice, I had billing targets as well. But when people went on reservist, they had their billing targets adjusted for the duration of the reservist training. So if Kevin's story is true, then the fact that IBM did not do so, and then essentially held the billable hours clocked against the Singaporean males, makes IBM an unenlightened MNC in that respect.
I disagree with your views about NS call-up. I was with IBM (prettyenlighten MNC) some years ago. As consultant, part of our performance indicator was the "Billable hours" we clocked.
120 hrs lost a year (ICT) shows up clearly on graphs & charts, especially when 60% of the group were non-Singaporean. We were band in the lower percentile and not only loose out in increment, bonuses, but also in promotion opportunities.
In order to minmise that, some of us choose to take long overseas projects to stay ahead of competition and avoided ICT (not always successful).
Now that I'm making hiring decision, I realised it's cheaper to hire Indian consultants even when they are asking for the same pay as Singaporeans just because of the employer CPF contribution. I'm referring to pretty entry level job, when a locals fresh grad is asking for the same salary as an imported Indians with a 3-4 yrs of experienec, a MBA or Master in IT and no ICT liability.
Why should any truely enlighten employer give chance to locals when they can get better employees at the same price. Shouldn 't an enlighten individual threat everybody the same and give equal opportunity to the best talents?
Deprived of the experience, the locals fresh grads will loose out in the long run (not talking about the top 25% of each class who should not have problem landing on good jobs). When these imported talents decides to return home or find better opportunities in US, the cumulated knowledge goes with them and Singapore loose out. It's a lost-lost to both Singapore companies as well as citizens.
Think about it. Most of our Ministers are too short-term minded. You cannot govern just looking and numbers.
[name removed at writer's request]
It's something I had considered raising as one of my "cuts" for the Committee of Supply debates, but decided against because I simply ran out of time. And this e-mail came after the deadline for filing "cuts" closed. I will think about filing a PQ on this issue.
Having said that, I disagree with this e-mail. It equates an enlightened employer with one who will "threat [sic] everybody the same and give equal opportunity to the best talents".
But to me, an enlightened employer is one who will recognise that NS is an obligation imposed on all Singaporean males, and that an employer located in Singapore should support that. This is especially so when the decision-maker is Singaporean himself.
It is a short-sighted, dollars-and-cents kind of guy who just looks at numbers, who would give a job to a foreigner simply because he does not have NS liability and is cheaper since employers' CPF contribution is not payable. And what is particularly disappointing is that Kevin, after having been at the receiving end of discrimination due to NS, turns around and discriminates against locals due to CPF.
As for the comment on IBM's treatment of Singaporean males, I think that particular practice was not enlightened. When I was in private practice, I had billing targets as well. But when people went on reservist, they had their billing targets adjusted for the duration of the reservist training. So if Kevin's story is true, then the fact that IBM did not do so, and then essentially held the billable hours clocked against the Singaporean males, makes IBM an unenlightened MNC in that respect.
I disagree with your views about NS call-up. I was with IBM (prettyenlighten MNC) some years ago. As consultant, part of our performance indicator was the "Billable hours" we clocked.
120 hrs lost a year (ICT) shows up clearly on graphs & charts, especially when 60% of the group were non-Singaporean. We were band in the lower percentile and not only loose out in increment, bonuses, but also in promotion opportunities.
In order to minmise that, some of us choose to take long overseas projects to stay ahead of competition and avoided ICT (not always successful).
Now that I'm making hiring decision, I realised it's cheaper to hire Indian consultants even when they are asking for the same pay as Singaporeans just because of the employer CPF contribution. I'm referring to pretty entry level job, when a locals fresh grad is asking for the same salary as an imported Indians with a 3-4 yrs of experienec, a MBA or Master in IT and no ICT liability.
Why should any truely enlighten employer give chance to locals when they can get better employees at the same price. Shouldn 't an enlighten individual threat everybody the same and give equal opportunity to the best talents?
Deprived of the experience, the locals fresh grads will loose out in the long run (not talking about the top 25% of each class who should not have problem landing on good jobs). When these imported talents decides to return home or find better opportunities in US, the cumulated knowledge goes with them and Singapore loose out. It's a lost-lost to both Singapore companies as well as citizens.
Think about it. Most of our Ministers are too short-term minded. You cannot govern just looking and numbers.
[name removed at writer's request]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)