NANYANG UNIVERSITY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.24 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The amendments to the Nanyang University Ordinance, 1959, which this Bill seeks to introduce, were initiated by the Nanyang University Council. These amendments have been the subject of deliberations and consultation among Council members, officials of my Ministry, and the law officers of the Republic since June 1964, when the Special Liaison Committee of the Singapore Government and representatives of Nanyang University reached agreement on the reorganisation of Nanyang University.

The House will recall that the Special Liaison Committee's agreement contained, among others, the following clauses. I quote:

"(1) Nanyang University should be reorganised at an early date. The details of reorganisation to be left to the future Nanyang University Council using the Nanyang University Review Committee Report and the Nanyang University Ordinance as the basis for formulating measures for reorganisation.

(2) After reorganisation, the Singapore Government will treat Nanyang University on the same basis as the University of Singapore so as to effect a reduction in student fees and increase in staff emoluments and further improvements in equipment and facilities.

(3) After reorganisation Nanyang University must become a purely academic institution and should not be manipulated or influenced by any political or subversive activities."

The agreement also provided for a new Nanyang University Council of 28 members, comprising 12 representatives, one each from the then 12 Malaysian States, six Government representatives, three of whom would be reserved for other State Governments of Malaysia, three representatives of the Senate, including the Vice-Chancellor, two representatives of the Guild of Graduates and five community leaders. However, before this part of the agreement could be implemented, Singapore was evicted from Malaysia.

Consequent upon separation and the emergence of Singapore as an independent and sovereign Republic, it is only logical that Nanyang University, which has been financed largely by grants from the Singapore Government since 1964, should be controlled by Singapore members in respect of its policy and management.

[Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair]

7.28 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): During the past 2½ years, the Singapore Government has contributed $6,701,000 to Nanyang University, consisting of - Recurrent Expenditure $2,081,000 Upward revision of Staff 1,000,000 salaries Bursaries 1,250,000 Tution Fee Subsidy 370,000 New Library Building 1,000,000 Scientific equipment and 1,000,000 library books --------- Total 6,701,000 =========

This is only the beginning. As reorganisation gathers momentum, the Singapore Government's financial commitment towards the University will increase. Even now the cost of maintaining a Nanyang student is about $2,000 a year. Malaysian students who pay $720 a year in fee without any assistance from the Malaysian Government are being subsidised by the Government and people of Singapore at the rate of about $1,300 per student per year. At the same time, contributions from the private sector in support of Nanyang University have dwindled to negligible sums. In point of fact, the total amount of private donations collected since the establishment of Nanyang University is considerably less than what the public has been led to believe. According to figures published in the Nanyang University Tenth Anniversary Souvenir, the amount collected from 1963 to 1965 was only $12,070,000. This was the sum collected in dribs and drabs over a period of 13 years as compared with the $6.7 million which the Singapore Government has spent on the University during the last two and a half years. It is also significant that of the $12 million raised from the private sector, Singapore, exclusive of Government grants, accounted for 80 per cent of this $12 million, while others, including all the constituent States of Malaysia, accounted for only 20 per cent. In the circumstances, it is only right and proper that Singapore citizens should have the final say on how Nanyang University should be run. However, if, as reported in today's Eastern Sun, certain Malaysian parents of the expelled students believe that Singapore citizens who are paying for practically the whole cost of running Nanyang University should not have a dominant say in its affairs, then they can always set up their own university or persuade their own Government to set up a Chinese University in Malaysia, and the Singapore Government will undertake to refund every cent that the Malaysians have donated towards the establishment of Nanyang University.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 7 of the Bill before the House provides for a 21-member Council consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, 2 members elected from the Senate, 2 members from the Guild of Graduates, 3 members elected by members of the University from amongst themselves, 7 members appointed by the Council from persons prominent in the field of education, culture, industry or commerce, and 6 members appointed by the Government of whom 3 may be persons resident outside Singapore. In making possible participation of persons resident outside Singapore in the governing body of Nanyang, the present University Council and the Government are mindful of the support Malaysians have given to the University in the past and the sincere desire to preserve the sentimental link between Nanyang University and the Malaysian people who, we hope, will continue to support the University financially or otherwise.

In order to provide for continuity in policy making, this Bill also seeks to extend the term of office of Council members from two to four years.

The other amendments proposed in this Bill are of a minor character. Provision is made for the appointment of a Deputy Vice-Chancellor to assist the Vice-Chancellor in carrying out his onerous duties. Such an appointment has been found to be essential in most universities in the world. At the same time, the designations of some existing posts in the University as laid down in the Ordinance are to be changed to conform to designations currently used in the University.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

7.36 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: As such, the office of the President as provided for in the Ordinance is to be changed to that of Vice-Chancellor, which has been the designation used since 1960. Similarly, the designations of Secretary and Treasurer are to be changed to Registrar and Bursar respectively.

Finally, the existing Ordinance has two separate sections to provide similar powers to the University Council. Section 29 provides for rules to be made by the Council and section 32 provides for statutes to be made. In order to avoid duplication without curtailing the powers of the Council, this Bill seeks to enlarge the powers of the Council to make rules and remove its power to make statutes. This is accomplished by conferring on the Council the power to make additional rules governing the powers and duties of the officers of the University; the composition, powers, duties and procedure of the Senate and the Guild of Graduates, and the discipline and welfare of students. With this new provision all the matters at present dealt with by statutes will be adequately covered by rules, and section 32 providing for the Council to make statutes may therefore be repealed.

With these improvements in the Nanyang University Ordinance, there is reason to believe that continued support for the University will be forthcoming not only from Singapore but also from Malaysia. Of the 1,678 students at present in Nanyang University, 840 or 50 per cent are from Malaysia. As I have said earlier, the Singapore Government has been subsidising each and every one of these students at the rate of $1,300 a year, and the cost will increase as reorganisation proceeds apace. Clearly the Government and the people of Singapore should not be expected to bear this burden indefinitely without assistance. On our part, Singapore will continue to welcome students from Malaysia provided they are here to seek knowledge, to acquire an education and to make use of our facilities; which are lacking in their own country. If, instead of doing this, as so many have done in the past, they become stooges of Communist front organisations and engage in subversive activities, then Singapore will have no alternative but to send them home. However, we are hopeful that the unhappy events of the past will not recur and that a new breed of students from Malaysia will join their brethren in Singapore at Nanyang solely for the pursuit of knowledge so that under the guidance of the new policy makers, the administrators and the teachers, the University will develop into a true centre of learning not only in Singapore but in the whole of South-East Asia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of amending the Nanyang University Ordinance, I, as a graduate of Nanyang University, am particularly concerned with this Bill and I feel that it is necessary to speak my mind on it. In the first place, I wish to say in all earnestness that I support the amendments to the existing Nanyang University Ordinance, which is an Ordinance drafted and passed into law by the Lim Yew Hock regime before the P.A.P. came to power. This Ordinance came into operation on 27th May, 1959. Several years have elapsed and Nanyang University has developed. During this time we have discovered that the Ordinance has not been able to withstand the test of time. There are certain unsatisfactory features in it. For example, section 9 provides for a Register of members being kept by the Secretary. But in the subsection there is a provision regarding the withdrawal of membership and the letter of withdrawal is to be addressed to the Registrar instead of the Secretary of the University Council. All this is very confusing, and in implementing the Ordinance, we find many defects in it. So this is not ideal legislation. The existing Ordinance is unable to keep pace with the progress of Nanyang University and, even from the legislative point of view, it is far from closely knit. This was drafted some ten years ago, and even at that time it was found to be defective. And at the present moment, it is even more defective. I shall, therefore, support the amendments to the existing Ordinance. They must be made to meet the progressive requirements of Nanyang University. Otherwise, the Ordinance will be inadequate.

For example, talking about the Constitution of the University, this is a statutory corporation. So its membership has statutory force, and this is the basis on which we must work. At the time when Nanyang University was first established, the sponsors, perhaps because of their desire to have more donations from people in all walks of life, welcomed all persons to be members of the University. But after several years of development, in so far as the members of the University are concerned, they must have a new attitude and a new outlook. It is not just a matter of accepting donations from the people. It is also a matter of administrative control and certain adjustments should be made to meet Nanyang University's developing requirements.

From the existing Ordinance of Nanyang University, we can see that there are several grades of membership of Nanyang University. If a person donates $1,000, he can become a patron for life. If he pays up to $10,000, he can become a life member. All these provisions are very defective, because there are no detailed provisions of a comprehensive nature to keep pace with the development of the University.

The grant given by the Government of Singapore to Nanyang University amounts to millions of dollars. As the Minister has already indicated, the question definitely arises as to whether the Government has become a permanent patron of Nanyang University. So even in law itself, there is a problem. According to, I think, Rule 13 of the Second Schedule to the Ordinance, when a patron is required to vote, he can have one vote. In the general meeting, the Government is also entitled to one vote in its capacity as a member. Perhaps we can try to solve this problem through legislative procedure or by adding certain provisions to the existing Ordinance. But this is not mentioned in the present amendment Bill.

Another point is that under the existing Ordinance of Nanyang University, so long as a person donates $1,000, he can become a member, but there is no restriction on the membership, be he a resident, a criminal or a winner of a four-digit lottery! This is a situation which demands our attention, because if some people who are believers in Communism are rich enough to become members of Nanyang University, then they can organise themselves. They can have 2,000 persons paying $1,000 each, and they can then control the University under the existing Ordinance. This is a big loophole which can be exploited. We must therefore take steps to attend to this matter.

Furthermore, members of the Nanyang University are not confined to Singapore alone. Some are in Hongkong, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. According to the Singapore Republic Independence Constitution, there is a provision concerning membership in statutory corporations. Any person or group of persons who want to become members of any statutory body, or any corporation of a statutory nature, must have their names approved by the President and gazetted. So I do not know whether some Malaysians, who are members of Nanyang University under the existing Ordinance, are still considered members. I would like clarification on this point.

There is one question regarding the election of three members to the University Council at the general meeting. We all know that the members of Nanyang University are many in number. So any general meeting will be something like a mass rally. Some of the members are spread out over various places and it is difficult to hold a general meeting. Experience in the past few years has shown that a general meeting of Nanyang University is convened on the basis of a State representatives' general meeting. So if you consider this in the light of the provisions of the Singapore Independence Ordinance, you will realise that some of the members who are representatives will lose their membership, unless the President of Singapore has gazetted their names as members of a statutory body. Under these circumstances, how can we convene a general meeting? Does it mean that members in different places can elect representatives from among themselves and then attend the general meeting of representatives? Or shall we do something else? So this is a legislative detail which must be attended to, otherwise there will be a lot of trouble and difficulties. I wish that the Minister for Education can clarify the true position.

On another point, Nanyang University, ever since its inception, has had a lot of problems over the appointment of -

7.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker: In view of the time and as there are many Members who would like to speak, it is obvious that it will not be possible to have a full debate today. The Minister for Law and National Development may wish to move adjournment of the debate in order to be able to move certain motions before the Moment of Interruption.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has moved that the debate be now adjourned under Standing Order 24 (1) . This is not any curtailment of discussion but is, as I have said earlier, merely to enable the Minister to move two motions before the Moment of Interruption.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong, resumption of debate, on what date?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: 12th December.

Mr Speaker: The debate on the Second Reading of this Bill will resume on 12th December.