NANYANG UNIVERSITY BILL

Debate resumed.

3.30 p.m.

Mr Goh Tong Liang (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have heard more than we had expected to hear and I would not like to tire you and the Members down in this Assembly. So I will add just a little to what has been said, and that is, I would plead to the Government to look after the Nanyang University as a second son just as well as it has been looking after its elder son, the University of Malaya.

3.31 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I should not like to be the only silent Member in the House when there is unanimous support given to the Nanyang University Bill, support which I myself would give.

I have recently been reading an article by Professor Lewis, who is an economic expert on the developed and under-developed territories, and he, after examining various types of investment, felt that perhaps the highest priority of all was for education, since it is the educated who in the end could carry out the planning and management which will be necessary for a detailed investment of all kinds. For that reason, I believe that it is right in Singapore that we should have been pouring money into the building of primary and secondary schools and that we should have two universities on our tiny island, because from that high rate of investment in education, we can hope to reap a high rate of economic benefit if all goes well. Without that high rate of investment - the basic investment - we should have much less prospect of mastering the problems which undoubtedly face us.

The hon. Member for Serangoon referred to the great importance of Nanyang University being independent, free from outside control and running itself. I am not going to discuss that in detail, but I would say that I most fully agree with that principle with regard to universities. There are always difficulties, because a university in the world today, certainly in Singapore, has not got a free endowment in its own hands. It has to go to one financial source or another for support, and the English have a proverb - he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is a problem which will always recur in all matters affecting universities. It is a problem which must be in the minds of the Assembly and the Select Committee of this Assembly.

One hon. Member - I have forgotten who - referred to the hope that the Government would support Nanyang University and he hoped that the Federation Government would do something. Sir, this House is almost unanimously a Socialist House and I would myself draw no more than a practical distinction between private finance and public finance. They are all parts of the total national wealth and where the details of control lie, it is an accident of history and a subject for discussion. But the fact is that investment in education, whether it is private investment or public investment, is a national investment and it must be considered in the light of the national interests.

Now we have heard a statement from the Minister for Education about the leakages in examination questions. Nobody supposes that leakages in examination questions were because students had a curiosity about them, or because they had a passionate desire to score extra marks because their fathers would he happy to see them get more marks. The simple and sole reason why examination question leakages are liable to occur is because the competition to get up to the highest possible point of the education ladder is so very great and so very urgent, and it is such a disaster to fail and to be thrown off the ladder at whatever point it is - Form IV or Form VI - because the fruits are at the top of the ladder. If you do not get to the top, the fewer fruits you will get.

You have heard references in speeches this afternoon to the fact that from our universities we draw the managerial cadres who go into commerce and go into the Government, and go into all the controlling activities in Singapore and the Federation - positions of importance, which people must have skills for, skills which can only be acquired by what we call higher education. That is true. It does present us with a danger which the Socialists must bear in mind. The danger is the creation of a new managerial class subsidised from public funds. The cost of educating a student at a university, as it falls on the public purse, comes to a few thousand dollars a year - up to $6,000 or $8,000 a year - and over a series of years. At the end of it all, the student goes out with his diploma in his hand and his degree, and if he likes to, he can sit back and sell coloured water at a dispensary and charge $10 for it. He can have a very big car and a nice house and several wives and have a very happy life to himself. All this has been achieved by a certain amount of hard work by himself, but essentially because he has been carried by the sweat and suffering of the poor and the taxation which they carry has lifted him up and given him the opportunity of making a very good thing for himself. That is always the danger which we must bear in mind, and perhaps one way in which it can be reduced is to have a very ample supply of those who have been through higher education.

My hon. friend and colleague, the Financial Secretary, has pointed to some of the cost factors with regard to our educational problems in his Budget speech, and those are going to pose us very serious problems in the future. We must accept the fact that investment in education is vital to the wealth, prosperity and happiness of this country, but we must also do all that we possibly can to ensure that investment is wise and fruitful investment and that it will serve the needs and provide benefits for all the people and not for any section of the people or for the creation of any new class.

3.39 p.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to notice that practically every Member of this House is supporting the Bill. I only hope that they are all sincere in what they have expressed just now. What worries me is this, Sir: I have noticed in the past, especially when elections are coming, that they have expressed their views just for the mere sake of vote-catching. In my honest opinion, the contribution that the Government has made this year to Nanyang University is inadequate, and I hope that if the Government finds that the University requires more help, it will give it. I feel it should treat Nanyang University on the same terms as it has been treating the University of Malaya.

3.41 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, this morning when the Minister for Education was about to move the Second Reading of the Bill, there was complete silence in this House until the Member for Changi jumped up and so drew your attention. Arising out of that, it has sparked off a debate in which, as the Member for Cairnhill has just said, almost every Member of this House has taken part. Sir, this morning I thought the Bill was going to have unanimous support without a thorough debate - hence the silence that prevailed just when the Minister was about to move the Second Reading. But as the Minister for Communications and Works has said, it appears that everyone has to express his views and not just give silent support to the Bill. I for one would not like to be accused of being a silent supporter. So I would like to express my support for this Bill. I welcome it and at the same time I would like to congratulate the Government for bringing up this Bill.

So much has been said on the Bill that I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on it very much, especially on the merits of Nanyang University and the question of the national language.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar this afternoon expressed his fear in regard to the position in which the students of Nanyang University will find themselves when they pass out. I agree with him on that point. We cannot provide employment for everyone of them. The Member for Tanjong Pagar also expressed the view that we should not just look at the issue from a Singapore outlook. It should be from a Malayan outlook.

On the question of educational qualifications, I was told that a Commission has been set up to look into the possibility of recognising Nanyang University degrees. What I am thinking of is this: if Singapore is prepared to recognise the University's degrees, is the Federation of Malaya prepared to do the same? We are separated from the Federation of Malaya and the Federation is an independent country. It does not recognise any of the laws we make; neither do we recognise any of the laws it makes; but at times we do follow the laws that it makes, or at least the Government is prepared to draft a Bill to follow suit. Now if it is the case that 60 per cent of the students in Nanyang University are from the Federation, can we provide employment for them in Singapore? If not, they will then have to go back to the Federation, and if Nanyang University degrees are not recognised there, then how can they seek employment in their own country? I think the most important issue that we should look into is whether Nanyang University degrees will be recognised by the Federation of Malaya and internationally.

3.44 p.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but seeing that practically everyone in this House has spoken on the Bill, I would like to chip in with a few words. This is not for the purpose of vote-catching, Sir. As a Member of the Government, Sir, it follows that this Bill has my support; but my real purpose in standing up is to set at rest one criticism which has been expressed on the floor of the House, and that is that the amount which has been granted by the Government to Nanyang University is not enough. I just want to clarify that this amount is exactly what they have asked for.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Chew Swee Kee rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Chew, in reply?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think one hon. Member hit the nail on the head when he said that we had heard more than we had expected. At the same time, it is also distressing to note that some Members spoke without finding out more about the facts of the case, or they spoke in ignorance, or they spoke with an eye to the votes that will float about in March or April; especially the Member for Tiong Bahru who asked why was not equal treatment given? Why was that amount given to Nanyang University? I have said to this House, and I have said publicly - I suppose the hon. Member does not read the papers carefully - that the amount given to Nanyang University - some $450,000 - is the very amount, to the exact dollar, that the University has asked for. We could have given more, but we would have been accused of playing politics. So if that is not equal treatment, I do not know what is.

The Member for Tiong Bahru also asked why the Nanyang University Students Union had been left out of the Bill, and said that this was discrimination against a Chinese university. May I tell him for his own benefit that the Nanyang University Bill was not drafted by the Government? It was drafted by the legal advisers of the sponsors of the University. I think now he will change his opinion and say that there is discrimination by the sponsors against Chinese education. I wish Members would come to this House and speak at least some truth, instead of making false accusations against the Government as to what is contained in the Bill. Do something that is constructive, for the sake of Singapore at least.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was wondering whether the word "truth" in that context is a parliamentary word. The opposite of that is "lie", I suppose? I suggest that the Minister withdraw that word

Mr Chew Swee Kee: As you please, Sir, I withdraw that word. There was mention by I think the Member for Changi and the Member for Paya Lebar that, thanks to the small men, Nanyang University has come into existence, and the help which they have given is a symbol of their support for Chinese culture. For that reason, Sir, Government has given bursaries to the extent of $400,000 to the children of those people - Singapore citizens - who cannot afford a higher education.

The recognition of Nanyang University degrees will come when the Commission, which will be set up in early February and which has been referred to in my speech earlier this morning -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Chew Swee Kee resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Will the Minister inform us whether any attempt has been made to ask the Federation Government to associate itself with this Commission?

Mr Chew Swee Kee: I will come to that after I have finished my explanation of the Commission. As I have said, the Commission will be set up in February next year and the question of recognition of Nanyang University degrees will be decided then. I have not officially approached the Federation Government on this question, as it is quite clear from the Federation's point of view at this juncture that they would not like to be drawn into this question.

Those are the points which I feel need answering. I welcome the support that has been given by all Members of this House to the Bill.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. [Mr Chew Swee Kee].