NGEE ANN COLLEGE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.20 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."

Ngee Ann College was established in April 1963 and is registered under the Education Ordinance as a private institution and financed and administered by Ngee Ann Kongsi. When it was first established, Government was given to understand that the Kongsi had ample funds to finance the project and that Government financial assistance would not be necessary then and in the future. On that understanding, Government had given its blessing to the establishment of the college as a private institution and subsequently approved the plans for permanent buildings to be erected in Clementi Road. Therefore, insofar as Government is concerned, the financial aid given to the College has been confined, since its inception, to the award of bursaries which amounted to $82,000 in 1966.

In the beginning, the College was sited at the Tank Road premises which belong to the Teochew Association. Later 40 acres of the Kongsi land at Clementi Road were used for building the Technology Department of the College and the Kongsi has promised that the rent collected from the College will be returned to the College as a grant. Ngee Ann Kongsi, however, had difficulties in providing funds for the construction of the new buildings at Clementi Road. Furthermore, there was no assurance of a regular income to meet annual recurrent expenditure. In fact, this situation is still prevailing. There were also doubts as to how the College could best serve the needs of our community. Therefore, in mid 1964 Professor Lucian Pye, a political economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Mr Arthur Singer of the Carnegie Corporation in the United States were invited by the Kongsi to survey the College and make recommendations as to its future development and expansion. The Pye/ Singer Report recommended that the position of the College in the educational structure of the Republic needed to be redefined and that Ngee Ann College should develop into a community college to train technicians needed for our industrialisation programme.

In February 1966, the Kongsi decided to set up a Committee of Review, headed by Professor Thong Saw Pak, with the following terms of reference:

`To review the organisation of the Ngee Ann College with special reference to the courses of study at present available at the College and, in the light of the findings and the needs of our country, to recommend to the Ngee Ann Kongsi in what way this institution of higher learning should be developed, and how the organisation and courses of study should be improved in order to bring about such development.'

The Thong Saw Pak Committee submitted its report to the Kongsi in July 1966. This report was released by the Kongsi in September of the same year. The Committee recommends that the College should be reorganised into a community college administered by a 17-man council with representatives from the Kongsi, the Ministry of Education, the Economic Development Board and prominent citizens from a broad area of community life in Singapore. The Committee consider that the College may eventually attain its objective of university status. This cannot, however, be accomplished overnight. There must be an interim period during which difficulties can be ironed out. The Committee recommends that during this interim period - the length of which cannot be specified, because there are too many variables - the College be reorganised into a community college with courses leading only to diplomas. The existing courses can continue until all students have completed their courses, i.e., till 1970, but no new students are to be admitted to them. Since the College has so committed itself, the Committee recommends that degrees be awarded to all the present students, including those admitted in 1966, for passing the final examinations for which external examiners are to be appointed, who will advise the College in adopting a realistic standard. At some later date, as soon as the College has become well established as a community college, a separate assessment of the situation should be undertaken by the College authorities and, depending on the future needs of the Republic, the College can then proceed with the final part of its development programme of providing degree courses in Engineering, Commerce and Technology. Meanwhile, for the community college the Committee lists an extensive coverage of courses which can be offered of immediate importance to building trades, electricity, radio and T.V. technology, metal work, woodwork, ceramics, commercial and industrial arts, industrial laboratory techniques and shipyard trades.

The students became concerned about their future. A boycott of classes was mounted in June 1965 over the delay of the Kongsi in completing the buildings at the Clementi Road site. Another boycott of classes directed against the Thong Saw Pak Report took place in October 1966. This boycott was exploited by the pro-Communist elements and the Barisan Sosialis. The scope of the agitation was expanded and middle school students, Nanyang University, University of Singapore and Polytechnic undergraduates became involved in it, culminating in security action being taken against them.

Members will recall how the Ngee Ann students rioted in front of the City Hall on 4th November, 1966, and when the police finally moved into the Ngee Ann College premises at Tank Road in the early morning of 19th November, 1966, they were met with stiff resistance and finally 66 Nanyang University expelled students and 65 Ngee Ann students were flushed out of the building where they had barricaded themselves.

Since then, events have taken a turn for the better. At an extraordinary general meeting of the Kongsi held on 18th February, 1967, the Thong Saw Pak Report was accepted by the Kongsi in tow, with the exception that the present premises of the College at Tank Road could not be turned over to the College because the ownership is vested in the Teochew Association and not the Kongsi. This means that Ngee Ann College will be reorganised in accordance with the Thong Saw Pak Report and the Kongsi will, in future, turn over to the College half of its annual income. The Kongsi has also decided that, pending reorganisation of the College, no new students will be enrolled this year.

This Bill is introduced consequent upon the acceptance of the Thong Saw Pak Report by the Kongsi as a first step towards the implementation of the Report so as to enable the College to enjoy the status of a corporation with its constitution embodied in the Ordinance. The Bill has the full agreement of the Kongsi. The enactment of the Bill would confirm the establishment of Ngee Ann College as a permanent institution. It would assist in enlisting financial support from foundations, institutions and philanthropists.

Clause 5 of the Bill provides for a Council and a Senate.

Clause 6 provides that the Council shall be the supreme governing and executive body of the College, whilst clause 13 delegates responsibility for the promotion of instruction and research, the conducting of examinations for its students and the award of certificates, diplomas and other academic qualifications to the Senate.

The composition of the 17-man Council is set out in clause 7. Three members of the Council will be appointed by the Committee of Management of Ngee Ann Kongsi from amongst members of the Kongsi which will be providing the main financial support for the establishment and maintenance of the College, whilst an equal number will be appointed by the Minister for Education under clause 7 (c) . Adequate representation from commercial and industrial interests has also been provided. Clause 7 (d) allows for representation from the Senate and full-time staff of the College.

All these provisions have been made to ensure that the College contributes to the intellectual, cultural, commercial and industrial welfare of Singapore. Emphasis has, however, been made on the development of studies in the sciences, technology and commerce, as other educational fields are at present well provided for by our two Universities and the future of our economy will depend to a large extent on our industrial and commercial activities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this is a hybrid Bill, it will at the end of the Second Reading be referred to a Select Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.35 p.m.

Mr Ang Nam Piau (Thomson): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a former student of Ngee Ann College, I would like to say a few words today on behalf of Ngee Ann College. The House is now discussing the Ngee Ann College Bill. This Bill is intended to turn Ngee Ann College, a private institution which has been in existence for only four years, into a corporation with a permanent status. Sir, when we review the situation we know that, since the inception of Ngee Ann College, certain directors of Ngee Ann Kongsi have said that Ngee Ann College would develop from a small college into a big university. I would like to ask those directors what is the situation now and whether Ngee Ann College is now already a university, or whether they will act according to the former plans and turn Ngee Ann College from a small college into a community college?

The Thong Saw Pak Review Committee was appointed on the 16th of April, 1966. Let us look at the Nanyang Siang Pau report on this occasion. Professor Thong Saw Pak was reported to have said that the Ngee Ann College students would be issued certificates. From the following year the College would be turned from a private institution into a public community college. Thirdly, Ngee Ann College would continue to develop to enable it to become a body which would have the status of a university to meet the requirements of Singapore. At the same time, Professor Thong also pointed out that the interests of the students of Ngee Ann College would be taken care of and that they should not agitate or do anything detrimental to their own interests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that students should not take part in any undesirable activities. However, they should not be made use of by a handful of anti-national elements. There are several ways whereby the interests of the Ngee Ann College students can be taken care of. Firstly, the College authorities should have close contact with the students. Students of any college or school, if their performance or behaviour is good, should be respected or be duly rewarded by the Government and members of the public. If their behaviour is not good, of course, they will earn the disrespect of the public. Then what will happen to the other students who are in the same college or school? That is the present situation of Ngee Ann College.

Secondly, concerning the development of Ngee Ann College, the Review Committee said that in 1964 Mr Singer from the Carnegie Corporation and Professor Lucian Pye of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had been invited by Ngee Ann College to study and review the position concerning Ngee Ann College. In their recommendations, they suggested that Ngee Ann College should become a community college, namely, a junior college. Here it clearly tells us that a community college is a junior college. On the 6th of April last year, a statement was published saying that from the following year Ngee Ann College would be reorganised into a public college and not a junior college. Is there no contradiction between these two statements?

Thirdly, Ngee Ann College at its inception was intended to be on par with any ordinary university. The only difference is that in an ordinary university there are several faculties. But Ngee Ann College has available only a few courses. If it can increase the number of its courses, would it not he able to turn itself into a university? And when the time comes, a scholars' committee can be appointed to make suggestions on how to turn Ngee Ann College into a university or an organisation on par with a university. Sir, if you are a student of Ngee Ann College, would you be satisfied with this sort of suggestion?

Further, the Thong Saw Pak Report has, after long consideration, quoted what has been expressed by the Pye/ Singer Report concerning Singapore's higher education. Some degrees are conferred by American universities or colleges which are not famous. Would you agree to this? Is it true that some of our educationists here have only degrees issued by certain not very famous American colleges or universities? This argument is not quite correct or proper in the context.

Sir, let me turn to the 1965 Ngee Ann College Souvenir. Let us look at it. We can see that wrong things have been said about the professors and teachers of Ngee Ann College. I would like more or less to enumerate the qualifications and experiences of the teachers of Ngee Ann College. Dr Wen got his doctorate from Germany and was the Dean of a Taiwan University, Science Faculty. Dr Lee got his doctorate from Paris and was a Professor in a Taiwan University.

Let us look at the 218th issue of Free World. Here it mentions that the Committee reviewing the qualifications of the teachers had, as one of its members, one Dr Hu-hse. He is one of the most famous scholars of China. Dr Yang Sang Chew - he has been brought up in Singapore and is also a citizen of Singapore. He had a doctorate in Mathematics from Brantridge University. And Dr Shueng Su-loon came from an American university - Cornell University. From these enumerated facts regarding their qualifications and experiences, we know that the teachers of Ngee Ann College are not teachers without qualifications, as alleged in the Pye/ Singer Report. There are also other people with quite high qualifications. Professor Kuan was in the Massachusetts College of Technology, and many such teachers have been teaching in other universities. The present teacher of Geography in Ngee Ann College was a teacher of Geography in Nanyang University and a Faculty Head. Professor Chen also taught in a Taiwan University. Furthermore, Ngee Ann College has other teachers who have a string of degrees and titles after their names. Can you say that when these teachers with high qualifications come to teach in Ngee Ann College, their values depreciate all of a sudden? We can be proud of the fact that, although Ngee Ann College is a new College, it has obtained the services of so many scholars of repute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Chinese Press of 8th May, there was a news item about a campaign to conduct teaching in the mother tongue. It also went on to say that Ngee Ann College has a very short history and that some of the graduates of a recent batch have gone to New Zealand and other countries for further education. Can these concrete facts be denied?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support this Bill and I believe that it will be very helpful to Ngee Ann College in its future administration and development. I would like to express the hope that the Ngee Ann College students will face facts and not involve themselves in political intrigues and go out with others shouting empty political slogans. They must understand the present practical realities of this country and go along the right path. Furthermore, if there is mutual co-operation among Ngee Ann Kongsi - the sponsors of Ngee Ann College - the Government and members of the public, Ngee Ann College can be turned into a centre of learning from where talented and useful citizens of this country can emerge.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that education in Singapore has been making great progress in keeping with the political situation. This progress has been revolutionary in nature and we must trace its development. Such a development should be in keeping with our situation and time. Ever since Singapore became a sovereign independent State, tremendous advance has been made in various fields and this has instilled a spirit of optimism in the people and augurs well for our future. Education plays a very important role in national development. The trend and development of education is a matter of great concern to the people of Singapore. Everyone must sit up and take notice of this fact. On 22nd November, 1965, at the Asian Educational Conference in Bangkok, the Minister for Education spoke on the Five-Year Education Plan of Singapore and emphasised the following points:

(1) to improve the quality of education;

(2) to expand secondary education and tertiary education; and

(3) to set up various kinds of special institutes and colleges in order to cope with the needs of an industrialised society.

He also said that we should expand our existing facilities to improve the standard of education and, in general, foster the growth of a multi-racial society through education. From all this, it is obvious that before this Bill was tabled, the educational content of Ngee Ann College had not kept pace with the post-independent era of Singapore.

Let us look at the various courses in Ngee Ann College. There are seven courses: (1) Chinese language; (2) Malay language; (3) Domestic Science; (4) Business Administration; (5) Accountancy; (6) Applied Chemistry; and (7) Telecommunications. This is mentioned in the first chapter of the Thong Saw Pak Report. We must admit that the setting up of such courses is not in keeping with our need for a proper division of labour and is a waste of our human and material resources. These courses have not only been duplicated in Nanyang University but also in the Polytechnic. In other words, all these courses, with the exception of Domestic Science, have also been set up in Nanyang University and the Polytechnic. Such duplication of courses is not in keeping with the spirit of making use of what we have learnt and has not taken account of our needs. What special talents do we need in our society? Ngee Ann College should set up courses such as Arts and those courses connected with Arts. Everyone is aware of the fact that any university or college is an institute for the training of talents. We must set up courses which are needed by society. Our next generation must learn to make full use of their talents. If higher education is not concerned with the employment opportunities of students, and if students are mass produced, the graduates of institutes will not be able to find employment. They and their parents will inevitably be disappointed. Therefore, I suggest that the courses which are taught in other universities and colleges should not be duplicated in Ngee Ann College.

For example, Ngee Ann College can train people on the physical side of education. This is a very important need of our society. Our past education policy has not paid much attention to the need of physical education. As Singapore is now an independent nation, we must have a rugged and brave generation. Therefore, we must train our teachers to teach our next generation to be rugged and brave. Teachers from abroad are not suitable to train our younger generation, as they can only train people to be courageous but lacking in patriotism. Let us look at the countries around us in South-east Asia. For example, Cambodia, Thailand and Formosa have an institute for physical education. But in our own country, where the Government is stressing the need for physical education, we do not have a college for physical education. This is a matter for regret. Everybody cannot deny that as an independent nation, we must stress the importance of national survival. Emphasis should not be put on the survival of a particular college, and this should be our assessment of values.

We should train our younger generation to be brave, strong, and determined citizens, and to become members of a closely-knit society. We should strengthen our younger generation so that they will be energetic, of upright character, and strong in body and mind, to enable them to play their role in nation-building. Therefore, university undergrads or college students should be people who are strong in body and mind, who are determined, and who are full of vitality, energy and stamina. Apart from this, it is also important that they should also be equipped with knowledge and discipline. They should be patriotic and loyal to their country, dedicated, and be willing or prepared to sacrifice themselves in the interests of the country.

On the other hand, we must also pay attention to the academic side of a college or university. The Principal of Ngee Ann College is to be appointed by the Council according to this Bill, and there will be a Senate formed by the academic staff who will supervise its academic affairs. I suggest that the composition of the Senate should also include at least one or two scholars of high international standing to carry out joint research into measures to strengthen the discipline and to raise the academic standard of the college.

Briefly, university education is the acme of our national education. It not only produces specialists but it is also a matter of prestige for a country to have a university. Whether a university is properly run or not will affect other levels of education, for example, secondary and primary education. It will also affect the international image of the country.

What I would like to point out is that every year every student is entitled to a bursary of $120 from Ngee Ann College, compared with $2,000 for the Polytechnic students. We know that Ngee Ann College cannot truly be a college. What it should do is to build itself up gradually by setting up courses which are needed by our society, and eventually grow into a full-fledged college. As a matter of fact, every college, apart from its general courses, should concentrate on one or two important courses in order to cope with the needs of our society, such as training university talent to promote the development of our country and to make a greater contribution towards the advancement of our society.

4.08 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ngee Ann College Bill is now introduced into this House. According to the Minister for Education, this is done at the request of Ngee Ann College. On this, I feel that the Committee of Management of Ngee Ann Kongsi are very, very realistic in their approach.

[Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair]

4.09 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): This also shows that the authorities of Ngee Ann College are confident about their College. Thus the future of the Ngee Ann College students will be ensured. We know that the College was set up in 1963. The term is a four-year course. The first batch of students will graduate this year.

Sir, it is not easy for higher institutions like Ngee Ann College to be successful. I know that the Ngee Ann College Development Committee has produced a report. According to this report on Ngee Ann College, there should be certain prerequisites if it is to develop. For instance, there should be ample financial resources and facilities and a large team of teachers with good qualifications. On the other hand, the report says that it is also necessary for the College to recruit students of an equal standard of education. At the moment, the students of Ngee Ann College have different levels or standards of education. The report also holds the view that the present situation in Ngee Ann College is causing concern because of lack of financial resources, poor facilities, and shortage of teaching staff. Therefore, the report holds the view that in order to turn the College into a university where it can confer degrees, it is necessary for it to consider its problems further.

Sir, the Ngee Ann College Bill, as we all know, is based on the Thong Saw Pak Report. The report has gone into a detailed discussion of the role of Ngee Ann College and the courses to be provided, it has also gone into the details of higher education that we need, and it suggests that Ngee Ann College should not set up courses in those fields already provided by other higher institutions of learning. On the other hand, the report says that Ngee Ann College should specialise in technology and commerce in order to keep up with the needs of industrialisation in our country. Therefore, it suggests three points in the recruitment of new students. Firstly, specialised training should include engineering and commerce reaching a degree standard. Secondly, large-scale comprehensive training to enable the students to be prepared to meet the changes in commerce and industry. Thirdly, to recruit apprentices for newly-established industries and firms. On this it suggests that there should be prior consultation with the Economic Development Board.

Sir, I am of the view that these suggestions are very practical and useful because we are developing the College and the talent produced by our higher institutions of learning should be in keeping with the needs of our society. If the higher institutions of our country do not plan well for their development but engage themselves in producing a body of graduates who are not useful in the development of our country, then a social problem will be created for our country to meet.

Sir, this Bill also provides for the setting up of a Council whose members will include the Principal and Deans of Faculties, three representatives of Ngee Ann Kongsi, three members appointed by the Minister for Education, one representative of the Economic Development Board, and some others. But the Bill does not provide for student representation on this Council. Is it because the Ngee Ann College students had staged a boycott of classes in the past, and therefore cannot have the right to be represented on the Council? This is quite contrary to what is provided for in the Nanyang University Council where there is student representation. So I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the matter to this House.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.14 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): Sir, although Ngee Ann College has only a short history of four years, there have been many incidents connected with it. For instance, in October last year, there was a boycott by its students. We know that this boycott was agitated by elements with ulterior motives. It did not have the support of the general mass of the people.

Sir, I hope that when this Bill is passed and enforced, it will be able to help Ngee Ann College to develop properly on correct lines and to help our country to produce talent.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision to set up Ngee Ann College as a community college was taken by Ngee Ann Kongsi itself, and this Bill is introduced at the request of the Kongsi. Actually I am a bit puzzled because the Member for Thomson, whilst supporting the introduction of this Bill, spoke against the concept of a community college. The Bill provides specifically for the setting up of a community college. I do not see how he can speak against the setting up of a community college and yet support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going into the merits and demerits of the academic staff appointed by Ngee Ann College and whether the existing Ngee Ann College has the facilities, the staff and the financial support to enable it to be run as a university. I think all this has been thoroughly gone into by the Thong Saw Pak Committee. Most of the comments raised by the Member for Thomson should, I think, have been directed to Ngee Ann Kongsi anyway.

The Member for Paya Lebar raised the question of the setting up of a Department of Physical Education for Ngee Ann College. This is very much in the mind of the Ministry of Education. We are, in fact, in the process of planning the setting up of such a department at the Teachers' Training College. As I have said earlier, this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. I think there will be ample opportunity for Members who are interested in this particular piece of legislation to voice their opinions in Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 64, I beg to move,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.