by MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap
Chairman Sir, In Malay
1. Skim Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid atau Mosques Executive Chairman (MEC) telah dilaksanakan oleh MUIS pada tahun 1999 dengan bertujuan untuk memperbaiki serta memperkukuhkan lagi sistem pentadbiran masjid.
2. Pada permulaan skim ini, pendapatan atau gaji Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid dibiayai sepenuhnya oleh pihak masjid. Namun pada tahun 2010, MUIS melakukan sebuah perubahan dengan mengambil langkah membiayai 20 peratus pendapatan atau gaji Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid dan selainnya, iaitu 80 peratus ditampung oleh pihak masjid.
3. Saya ada 5 soalan mengenai perkara ini:
(i) Berapakah jumlah Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid yang ada sekarang
(ii) Berapa efektifkah skim ini
(iii) Dikatakan atau ada tanggapan bahawa jumlah gaji seorang Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid ialah dalam anggaran 8 ribu dollar sebulan. Mohon Menteri Prof. Yacob dapat menjelaskan hal ini agar dapat mengelak salah tanggapan masyarakat Islam Singapura.
(iv) Apakah yang menyebabkab MUIS merubah kedudukan awal dari langsung tidak menampung gaji Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid kepada membiayai 20 peratus?
(v) Apakah rasional disebalik sistem pembiayaan pendapatan atau gaji para Pengerusi Eksekutif Masjid, dimana MUIS membiayai 20 peratus sementara pihak masjid 80 peratus. Saya berpendapat bahawa MUIS harus membiayai sepenuhnya atas dasar skim ini adalah hak milik dan dimulakan oleh MUIS serta perlantikan juga dilakukan oleh MUIS. Terima kasih.
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
Sir, many I spoke with welcome this amendment because of prior bad experiences with purchases. Like them and Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan, I had at some point in time purchased products that failed to work soon after the purchase was made. Most retailers in Singapore do not have a ‘no-question-asked’ refund policy. This Lemon Law will force retailers to re-think the business model they use to transact with consumers.
The amendment now makes provision that if a product is found defective within six months of delivery, the customer has the right to demand the seller to make repair or replacement within a ‘reasonable time’ and ‘without causing significant inconvenience’ to the consumer. Or the customer can keep the defective product and be given an agreed discount, or return the product for total refund.
There are four areas I wish to highlight as potential concern areas in the execution of the bill, for which I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarifications or assurances:
What constitutes a refund? Like Mr Hri Kumar, I wonder if retailers will attempt to get around compensation issues by offering or contracting in-house vouchers of the same value as the defective product to the customer as compensation. How do we prevent retailers from such attempts to dilute the consumer’s rights?
A retailer may sign a contract with the customer to state that the product is “As-Is” due to special pricing or promotion or due to the nature of that particular product, with no refund or exchange allowed. Section 13 of the existing Act seems clear enough that it bars sellers and buyers from contracting out of a refund for other considerations such as a lower price.
However, many retailers and consumers may not know of this provision. Retailers may attempt creative ways to contract themselves out of the provisions in this Act during the initial implementation stage. A lot of monitoring and education needs to be done.
The Minister of State has spoken about “As-Is” products. What must retailers now have to do to highlight specific defects in specially priced products, and state that clearly in their contracts and advertising?
The amendment covers physical products. I understand a big area of consumer complaint is regarding packages offering services, such as Spa services. I am citing this as an example but I do not wish to generalise that such packages are bad. One may purchase a package only to find that the centre is perpetually overbooked and can hardly use the package. Or if we sign up for some miracle treatment to restore hair only to find that it does not work after 6 months of faithfully trying the services? What recourse avenues are there for consumers have under the current law now? I appreciate that the Ministry will need time to work out this current amendment on dealing with physical products. I trust it will cover services more comprehensively in a future amendment of the Act.
I understand it will be difficult to cover online purchases as online shops will likely be outside of our jurisdiction or we may even be unable to identify or locate some online shops. Nevertheless, online shops registered in Singapore should have to abide by these rules. I like to hear from the Minister of State on his views on online purchases.
I support the Bill as it is a move in the right direction towards the type of shopping experience we get in first world countries. The execution must be managed carefully to ensure that retailers and consumers are adequately educated so that both groups are fully aware of their rights and obligations under this amendment.
We should be mindful that Singapore is a cosmopolitan city, with consumers, retail frontline staff and even retail owners coming from a diversity of international backgrounds. Non-Singaporeans may be used to the retail practices in their native countries. A good engagement programme with different stakeholders in the implementation is critical to its success. Can the Minister of State elaborate on the steps which the ministry will take to educate retailers and consumers in conjunction with the implementation?
We have just finished the Budget debate, which had a lot of focus on SMEs. The bulk of our retailers are SMEs. The larger retailers will have better resources to get themselves acquainted to and cope with the changes. Smaller retailers may find the changes difficult to understand and deal with. Retailers should also be mindful that they need work out their own agreements with product manufacturers to ensure that they are not stuck with an untenable position when servicing the customers. They will need to factor for refunds and exchanges. Retailers may also now turn conservative about carrying lower-priced products that may not be built-to-last, even if there are consumers willing to buy these because these consumers are highly price conscious. This will lead to changes in our retail model over the next few years.
I hope MTI can extend good support to the SME retailers to ease them in the implementation. Engaging in partnership with organisations such as the Singapore Retailers Association will be helpful. I hope too that there will be a balanced approach in the implementation so that we do not unnecessarily put genuinely good but small retailers out of business.
I trust that if we execute this amendment well, there will be a more pleasant and reassuring shopping experience for us all.
by NCMP Gerald Giam
Mr Speaker,
I welcome the amendments to the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act and the Hire Purchase Act to include so-called ‘Lemon Law’ provisions. This is a progressive step to bring Singapore’s consumer protection regime up to speed with other developed countries like Japan, the US, Canada, Australia, and the EU.
If executed well, the Lemon Law could help weed out poor practices by a minority of retailers in Singapore, and reward those with good practices. This could lead to improved customer service and greater customer satisfaction.
In addition, as poor retail practices are weeded out, it will inspire more confidence among both local consumers and the millions of tourists who arrive at our shores each year to shop. They will be more at ease to buy goods here, without worrying about having limited recourse should the goods turn out to be defective. In turn, we could see fewer tourists leaving Singapore with a bad taste in their mouth because of unpleasant shopping experiences.
Sir, I have a few questions about the proposed amendments, as well as some suggestions on how the execution of the Lemon Law could better achieve its objective of protecting consumers.
Section 12C states that the transferee may require the transferor to repair or replace the goods. Can the consumer ask for a replacement without attempting a repair? This could make it much more convenient for the consumer, as he would not need to make multiple trips to the service centre.
The proposed Section 12D(3) states that if the customer rescinds the contract, any reimbursement due to him may be reduced to take into account the use he has had of the goods since they were delivered to him. I note that based on existing common law, the court has sometimes decided not make any deduction for use because of the inconvenience the buyer has already suffered in having to deal with the defective goods .
This being the case, may I ask the Minister of State what will be the basis for calculating this reduction of the quantum of reimbursement? Will the reduction be for only the duration of use until the first repair attempt, or for the entire duration the product has been in the customer’s possession even if it included multiple failed repair attempts in between?
The lemon laws in many states in the US specify that the reduction of reimbursement is for the consumer’s use of the vehicle only until the first repair attempt, because it recognises that the consumer’s continued use of the lemon is not a valuable benefit to him.
I also have concerns about whether a minority of consumers might abuse the Lemon Law to make dishonest claims. This could lead to an increase in retailers’ costs, which could get passed on to other consumers. Does the Ministry intend to introduce any measures, including punitive measures, to discourage frivolous customer claims?
Could the Minister of State also explain what the rationale was for specifying the 6 month period after the purchase of the goods, during which the customer can exercise his rights under this law? Why 6 months and not more or less?
Sir, I now come to the implementation of the Lemon Law. I believe much will need to be done to educate consumers about their rights under the Lemon Law. Without adequate public education, consumers may not reap the full benefits of the amended law.
There could be several situations where consumers’ lack of understanding of their rights may disadvantage them when dealing with savvy retailers.
The first is a situation that may arise when retailers get their customers to sign away their rights through a contract. At the point of the retail transaction, customers often do not have the time to read through the fine print before signing and completing the purchase. Section 13 of the Act states that the provisions of the Act shall prevail notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. However, if the customer were to return to the retailer and request repairs, replacements or a refund, the retailer may simply pull out the contract and turn down the request. If the customer is not aware of his rights under Section 13, he would naturally assume that since he had signed the contract, he has no further recourse.
Secondly, some consumers may have difficulty distinguishing between the manufacturer’s warranty and their rights under the Lemon Law. Many goods sold in Singapore, especially consumer electronic goods, come with a warranty from the manufacturer. The retailer requires the consumer to approach the manufacturer directly to rectify any defects within the warranty period.
However, if the manufacturer does not fulfil its agreements under the warranty, or the warranty is shorter than 6 months, the consumer may not be aware that he still has the right to go to the retailer to request remedies for the defective product.
It is important for consumers to be informed about the avenues available to them if they are unsuccessful in claiming remedies from retailers for defective goods. Since many shoppers in Singapore are tourists, it may be ineffective to run expensive television ad campaigns. Instead, clear signs could be required to be displayed at all retail outlets highlighting a telephone hotline and a website that shoppers can call or visit to learn about their rights as consumers, and the avenues for recourse under the Lemon Law.
The website could include a “frequently asked questions” section to clarify consumers’ and retailers’ rights and responsibilities in plain English, with appropriate translations.
In addition, the relevant authority could require that the hotline be printed on the receipts issued by retailers, for shoppers’ easy reference.
Retailers too, should be educated about their obligations under the amended law. If not, many of them might continue with their old practices and cause much confusion and frustration among consumers.
In conclusion, I believe the amendments tilt the balance more in favour of consumers and this will lead to Singapore becoming a more attractive retail destination. However, the situation should also be closely monitored to ensure that this does not inadvertently lead to higher business costs, which could get passed on to the very consumers that this Bill seeks to protect.
Mr Speaker, with that, I support the Bill.
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
A good early start to education is important to a child’s development. It is especially important for the lower income families to help the child be ready for primary schools. Schemes like the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme or KiFAS, with start-up grants and monthly fee subsidies are helpful to the low income group.
However, after 8 years of KiFAS implementation since January 2004, only one kindergarten group, namely the PAP Community Foundation qualifies as eligible provider despite there being some 260 licensed non-PCF centres in the industry. In contrast, all child care centres licensed by MCYS are eligible centres for the Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare, or CFAC. While I understand the need to ensure quality of education, the bar is set so high that only one organisation in the industry has qualified so far.
There are many established and reputable kindergarten providers in the industry, including the kindergartens that my siblings, my wife and I have attended as children. Many of these kindergartens operate within the community, providing affordable and high quality preschool education but are KiFAS eligible. KiFAS criteria, amongst others include :
1. Have no religious affiliation or relation to racial groups; and
2. Be financially sound with a minimum paid-up capital of $5 million
These two stringent criteria are not required for CFAC and I am not sure why they are needed here. I hope MCYS will review the criteria to ensure greater choice of kindergartens for low income families to send children to, including to private kindergartens.
by MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang
阿裕尼集选区国会议员－刘程强
主席先生，
前总理李光耀去年底捐出1千万元设立“李光耀双语基金”，政府也承诺以一元对一元的方式资助，使基金最终达到一亿元。
双语基金怎么应用，在教育部作出具体宣布之前，我想提出以下两点：
第一、认清双语基金设立的核心目标，避免模糊焦点。
称为“双语基金”，反映的是希望达到的效果。但是基金设立的目的，李前总理自己也说得很清楚，是为了“让幼儿越早学习母语越好”。
所以，基金的焦点应该是“母语学习”，而不是“双语学习”、更不是“英语学习”。
第二、基金如何使用？
动用这笔基金来研发教材或提供培训，是否统一开放给所有学前教育机构申请？而应用由基金所研发的教材又是否需要另外付费？如果个别私立的学前教育中心要自行研发母语教材或培训师资，必须具备哪些条件？
目前，教育部并不把学前教育当成是正规教育体系的一部分，也没有明文规定学前教育的内容。教育部要如何有效地利用这笔基金，协助各个学前教育中心加强母语教学？而最终，基金最大的获益者，是否就是行动党社区基金属下的学前教育中心？
总数一亿元的基金不是个小数目。可见李光耀先生和政府深刻意识到，我国正面临一场严峻的语言危机：我们的社会，正急速从横贯中西、具备优势的双语、多语世界，渐渐变成英语单语社会，如今不得不押下重本力挽狂澜，只是，来不来得及，还是个问号。
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
Our government awards some 1070 undergraduate scholarships each year to foreign students, with an annual value of up to $25,000 dollars each. With up to 4 cohorts of students at any time, this is a large yearly expenditure.
Sir, I am not anti-foreigners. I recognise that talented foreigners can add vibrancy to our institutions. We welcome them in our universities, subject to the quota allocated to foreigners, at their own expenses, just as most Singaporeans study overseas at our own cost.
I am uncomfortable to learn that only 67% of foreign scholars graduate with high honours. Any scholar, local or foreign, should aim to graduate with at least second upper. I am sure PSC set high standards for our local scholars. If we cannot attract enough good foreign scholars, we should immediately cut intake by 33% to admit only those with potential for high honours. If scholars do not maintain the cumulative GPA good enough for 2nd upper during their course, scholarship should be suspended until they do well enough again. I also hope MOE can also explain its criteria for selecting foreign scholars and review this decades-old policy to see how many foreign scholars we actually need, how we can better assimilate them into our society, and how to better engage them after graduation.
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
I state my interest as a service provider to preschool operators. However I do not run kindergartens which are beneficiaries of my proposals.
MOE has earmarked $290 million to be spent on preschools over five years from last year. The objectives are to raise the quality, accessibility and affordability of pre-school education.
The intent is good. This investment should spread evenly to all participants in the industry so that overall quality can increase while keeping school fees affordable.
MOE has scholarship programmes for eligible kindergartens ranging from diploma to Masters. Besides the PAP Community Foundation, how have scholarship places have been used by other kindergartens? MCYS has scholarships available to all child care centres, including private ones. Will MOE extend its scholarship programmes to private operators too? We can attract good educators into the industry through pre-service scholarships. MOE can work out pre-service scholarships that allows scholarship holders to work for any MOE-registered kindergartens for a minimum period after graduation.
When designing industry engagement programmes, I hope MOE can be inclusive of all operators. For example, KiFAS is a good scheme to support low income families. However, after 8 years of implementation, only PCF has qualified as eligible operator. I will speak on this during COS on MCYS.
Singapore has 500 kindergartens. I like MOE to also consider fee subsidy for all kindergartens, like how MCYS subsidises half-day child care for all licensed centres.
By providing better industry-wide support, we can generate a more vibrant preschool scene with more choices, better quality and continued affordable fees for parents.
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
There are some 13,000 school-going children with special needs. The larger portion or 7,600 are in mainstream schools. Therefore, we must pay attention to this group.
MOE has made efforts since 2005. There is room to do more. Although there is now at least one Learning and Behavioural Support Allied Educator or AED in each primary school, AEDs handle many cases and may not give good attention to each case. Some secondary schools have yet to get AEDs.
Before we can train and hire more AEDs, schools can leverage on the parents of students with special needs. Some are stay-at-home mothers or fathers. By being the primary caregivers, they have learnt how to handle their own children. Some have attended courses on how to deal with challenging behaviours. Schools can allow these parents, especially during transition into primary one, to manage their children in class. I noted that some schools do allow, while others do not. I read an email from a parent shadowing her primary 1 child, “I’m having a good time shadowing Joshua. We still have challenges to overcome, but the school, principal, teachers and children, they are the best! Because of that, Joshua is having a very good schooling experience. It helps him a lot!”
Schools can even consider hiring these parents part-time to assist other special needs students. Some have left their jobs. This can be a win-win arrangement.
My next suggestion is to encourage schools to generate innovative ideas of helping special needs students. I know of an aided-school that will partner an external service provider with autism expertises to provide intervention services to special needs students. Such initiatives are now left to schools, and they find their own source of funds. We can establish a Special Needs Innovation Fund which schools can apply to if they have good programmes.
To build an inclusive society, we need promote greater understanding of disability for all students. Schools can strengthen the social emotional learning of every student so that they can accept, learn and work with their special peers. This will help build a generation with a heart for the disabled. The Special Needs Innovation Fund can also be used to fund interaction activities of mainstream students with the Special Needs community.
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
Gifted education programme was implemented in 1984. Primary school GEP starts a child at primary 4 in one of 9 designated schools. Students are identified after nation-wide tests at primary 3.
Centralised secondary school GEP was scrapped in 2008 following low take-up, after the introduction of secondary schools’ IP.
I like MOE to consider scrapping centralised primary school GEP too. Currently, a nation-wide effort is required to identify just 1% of the cohort. With centralised GEP for secondary school scrapped, much resources are now spent on a small group of students in a programme that lasts only three years. Based on figures provided by MOE in a PQ last month, past 10 years’ performance of GEP students did not suggest that centralised GEP had generated better exam results at PSLE and at A levels.
We can continue differentiated learning to develop students with stronger learning abilities. In place of the current GEP, we can implement the following:
Encourage all schools to do their own subject-based accelerated learning.
Giftedness is often specific to subjects, as a child may be strong in one subject but average in others. Schools can have their own methods to identify students who are stronger in specific subjects and run accelerated learning for these students.
Further support can be given through the cluster system. Learning camps, workshops or talks involving special lecturers to challenge higher ability students can be organised by the cluster.
Schools can be supported by the GE Branch with learning resources distributed to them for use, or schools may prepare their own content. Selected teachers in all schools can be trained on how to guide students with stronger learning abilities.
We can spread accelerated learning across many schools. Parents not need transfer their child out to a gifted school at 9 years old. MOE wants to convince parents that every school is a good school. Separating gifted students into special schools undermines this message.
Retaining good students in their current schools provides better integration of children, so that students of all abilities can learn from one another in a natural and authentic environment. I hope MOE can consider this proposal.
by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
We started the Integrated Programme, or IP in 2004 to allow higher ability secondary students to skip the O levels into the A levels or its equivalent.
I wish to propose an alternative IP, from primary 1 to secondary 4.
The current system puts huge pressure on students, parents and teachers in primary schools to prepare for the PSLE. Various members in this House, including myself have spoken on the excessive pressures in our school system. A Straits Times article last month reported more parents taking their primary school kids to see psychologists after doing badly in school tests, some as young as primary 2.
The purpose of PSLE and other major exams appears to be to sort students into different streams and into different schools. Our highly competitive exam-driven system has resulted in high dependency on tuition and drilling for exams, rather than education for the joy of learning.
Sir, I understand this is a difficult and emotive issue, as there are parents who may feel a competitive system is desirable. However, there are parents like myself, who can accept that our children need not fight to be in the best schools. The current system offers us no choice at all because of dreaded conseqeuence of the child doing poorly in a major exam at age 12. Many parents feel their child’s future is determined by the PSLE.
Many private schools globally already through-train students from primary to secondary, including overseas schools based on the Singapore curriculum. Some of these schools have done well in international tests despite not subjecting students to standardised exams at primary 6. Finland switched to such a through-train system nation-wide with encouraging outcomes. Its PISA test scores are comparable to Singapore’s.
I like MOE to consider piloting primary through secondary IP schools, with the same level of funding per student as any government or aided school. With such schools, primary education need not be focused on grinding out results just for PSLE. Schools can then spend more time on values-based education. The post primary section will eventually prepare students for a recognised exam, namely O or A levels or even the International Baccalaureate. By that time, students are more matured and better able to handle stress.
Existing school groups may opt to run such a programme. There are already Aided schools in Singapore with affiliation schemes, where the majority of primary students enter the affiliated secondary school. Some schools have long histories and are trusted education brands. They are potential candidates to kick-start the programme.
MOE has implemented holistic assessments since 2010. The experience of holistic assessment can be incorporated to ensure the rigor in learning throughout the 10 years of studies in such pilot schools.
Sir, I believe we have the calibre of management and teachers in Singapore to achieve this. I hope MOE can do a serious study on making this option available.
