SINGAPORE POLYTECHNIC (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.31 a.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance was an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the Singapore Polytechnic and for matters connected therewith. When that Ordinance was drafted, the authorities in Singapore knew little of the workings of such institutions and naturally sought experience from other territories where the experience of those territories themselves were setting up establishments of the same kind and therefore had little to offer. But conditions elsewhere were not the same as those in Singapore nor was it possible to foresee at that time the changes which only experience of working under the terms of the Ordinance would show to be necessary. The present Ordinance sufficed only to establish the Board of Governors to enable them and the Board to plan the buildings and to recruit key members of the staff but it has become increasingly apparent that amendments are necessary if the Board is to continue to work efficiently.

The amendments which this Bill seeks to make are listed very clearly and simply in the Explanatory Note and I think it is unnecessary for me to dwell in detail upon them. I would merely mention that the work of the Board is at present handicapped because all decisions had to be taken at full meetings of the Board. It is important especially that provision should be made for the constitution of sub-committees to which certain powers of the Board could be delegated. This provision is made in clause 3 of the Bill which by an amendment to section 5 of the original Ordinance gives the Board the power to make the necessary by-laws. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question proposed.

10.33 a.m.

Mr John Ede (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only one point I wish to make regarding this Bill. At first sight, it would appear to be a matter of detail but if we take similar provisions in the Education Bill into account, it is clearly a matter of Government policy. I refer to the provisions to revoke appointments in paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 2. Paragraph (e) reads:

"The Chairman and other members appointed by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section shall, unless the Minister shall otherwise direct, hold office for a period of four years and shall be re-eligible for reappointment:

Provided that the Minister may at any time revoke such appointment."

There is a similar provision under paragraph (f) for persons or bodies appointing members to the Board.

Sir, we can see no good reason why appointments once made for a period of four years should be subject to revocation at any time. Once an appointment is made, the person so appointed, should feel that he can settle down and do the job of work for which he has been appointed. It is a system on which we work in this House. However much Members on this side may regret that the present Government can remain in office for four years, the Government is entitled to that period and we feel that the same sense of stability should be given to members of the Board. I am aware that the Explanatory Note 2 (b) states:

"Amendments to section 4 provide, for appointing bodies to have the power to revoke the appointments of members of the Board who have not satisfactorily represented their interests."

Now, whether or not my hon. Friend the Minister for Education in the last two years has satisfactorily represented the interests of his electorate is a matter of opinion but he is entitled to sit in this House for better or for worse for a further period of two years. I see no reason why the Chairman of the Board should not be equally immune from summary dismissal. The proviso implies that if the Chairman does not toe the Minister's line, he could be sacked and it also implies that the Minister has poor confidence in his own selection. Furthermore, if there were a general election and a change of government, the Chairman could be dismissed and replaced by some favourite of the new Minister. The same argument applies to the appointments made by the various bodies and conditions would arise which could seriously affect the smooth running of the Polytechnic and an educational institution should be outside the play of politics.

Sir, these are dangerous provisos. If it is felt that there is an argument against appointments for four years, then let us reduce them to, say, three years but do not let us run the risk of making these appointments open to the abuse of whims, factions and patronage.

10.37 a.m.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Sir, to me, this Singapore Polytechnic has been a long time a-borning and all I want is to see that it gets on with the job. I must confess I had not studied with the care indicated by the Member for Tanglin although I did notice - I noticed with some surprise - similar provisions in the Education Bill. I would like to say, Sir, that the objections taken by the Member for Tanglin have very considerable validity and I would draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the principal Ordinance (the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance, Chapter 204), section 4 (3) of which reads:

"The Chairman and other members appointed under subsection (2) of this section shall unless the Governor shall otherwise direct hold office for a period of four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment:

Provided that the persons first appointed under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2) of this section shall hold office for a period of two years."

There is no provision whatsoever in section 4 of a power to dismiss. I think the Member for Tanglin says rightly when he says that this is a new policy - a policy of dictatorial power being sought by the Ministry of Education which is particularly blatant in the Education Bill. I cannot see the necessity for this excessive executive authority and, before I concede it, despite my anxiety that the Polytechnic should get on with the job, I would ask the Minster to satisfy this House that this provision is, in fact, essential for the efficient working of the organization.

Mr Chew Swee Kee rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: In reply, Sir. I am gratified that the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall) and the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) have pointed out this provision in the Ordinance. When the Polytechnic Board of Governors and other similar bodies held meetings, it was usually found that some of the members did not attend such meetings and I may draw the attention of Members to other legislation where the same provision is also provided, that is, the appointments of certain members may be revoked at any time; but I would assure the House that it is not intended to appoint members because they have patronage or that the members appointed to such statutory bodies should be favourites or friends of Ministers.

I pointed out in my speech earlier that because of the handicap now in the Ordinance the Board found that they could not carry on with their work efficiently and amendments therefore are introduced to implement the work to the satisfaction of not the Ministry but of the public whose anxiety is expressed here and elsewhere that we should get on with the Polytechnic and that we should have the buildings and recruit the staff; and in order to have them we must have these amendments to the Bill so that the sub-committees appointed by the Polytechnic Board of Governors could carry out the executive functions. It is, in fact, essential.

Mr Marshall: On a point of information, Sir. Is the Minister aware of the provisions of clause 2 (8) of his Bill which states that a person absent for three consecutive meetings shall forthwith cease to a member? Consequently, the reason he gave has no validity.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: There are other reasons also.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.