NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.08 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The future of Nanyang University has been for many years a matter of concern to Government and all those connected with the University. However, it was not until March this year that the discussions on the future of Nanyang University became a subject of public debate. The correspondence between the Prime Minister and members of the Nanyang University Council have already been published in the Press. Little will be achieved by going over the arguments again. It suffices for us to note that the Nanyang University Council, after considering the matter deeply, unanimously agreed that the future for Nanyang University (NU) lay in a merger with the University of Singapore (SU) to form the National University of Singapore (NUS). This proposal has the support of all the Nanyang University Members of Parliament.

The Bill before the House seeks to give effect to the merger and to formally establish the National University of Singapore by legislation. The long title to the Bill which reads "An Act to give effect to the merger of the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University by the establishment and incorporation of the National University of Singapore and for matters connected therewith." emphasizes the fact that the National University of Singapore is in effect a merger of the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University. As suggested by the Nanyang University Council the full name of the NUS, provided in clause 3(2) of the Bill, will be the National University of Singapore (incorporating the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University) and the NUS may use its full name for such purposes as it thinks fit. This will give recognition to the fact that the National University of Singapore is not an entirely new institution but has its origin in the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University.

The Bill is patterned along the lines of the University of Singapore Act but many drafting changes have been made and amendments and additions have been incorporated to bring the legislation up-to-date, I shall deal briefly with the significant provisions of the Bill.

Clause 3 of the Bill formally establishes and incorporates the National University of Singapore. The functions of the University are specified in clause 5. These functions are common to most universities.

Clause 6 provides that the University will be governed by the provisions of the University Constitution set out in the First Schedule. As in the case of the present Constitution of the University of Singapore, the Minister is empowered, on the advice of the Council, to amend the University Constitution by order published in the Gazette. This flexibility is necessary as occasion may well arise in future when the University Constitution has to be amended.

Clauses 8 and 9 relating to accounts and the audit of accounts of the University are standard provisions. Clauses 12 and 13 which deal with the grant and acquisition of land for the purposes of the University and the application of the Societies Act to student bodies of the University are based on the existing provisions of the University of Singapore Act.

Turning to the transitional provisions, hon. Members will note that clause 18, which repeals the University of Singapore Act and the Nanyang University Act, also contains transitional provisions to enable both these Universities, notwithstanding their dissolution, to confer degrees and diplomas on their graduates later this year as well as on higher degree candidates who have submitted their theses on or before 30th June 1980.

Clause 15 read in conjunction with the Third Schedule deals with the transfer to the University of property and staff of the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University. All property, assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University will be transferred to the National University of Singapore. All members of the teaching staff of the two existing Universities will become members of the teaching staff of the National University of Singapore. The deployment of all other persons employed by both existing Universities will be determined by the Minister.

Clause 16 provides for all contracts, agreements, bequests, wills, trusts and other instruments referring to the University of Singapore or the Nanyang University to have effect as if the reference were to the National University of Singapore.

In addition to these transitional provisions, clause 17 will also empower the Minister to make rules to provide for the removal of any difficulty which may arise by reason of the establishment of the National University of Singapore and the dissolution of the two existing Universities, and generally for the purpose of effecting the transition from the two existing Universities to the National University of Singapore. It is intended that rules will be made to provide for the initial appointments of the ViceChancellor, Deans of Faculties, heads of insti- tutions and members of the first Council of the University.

The National University of Singapore will be the apex of the education system in Singapore. It is appropriate that the head of the NUS should be the highest personage in the Republic. The University Constitution therefore provides for the President to be the Chancellor of the University. The University Constitution provides that the Council will consist of 18 members. One-third of the members will be appointed from the staff of the University. These comprise the Vice-Chancellor and five members of the Senate. Two-thirds of the Council members will be appointed from outside the University. These comprise four persons to be appointed by the Chancellor, four persons to be appointed by the Government, and four persons to be appointed by the Council from the Register of Graduates.

The National University of Singapore Students' Union (NUSSU) will be established. In the interim period, until the NUSSU begins to function, a pro-tem committee comprising officials from the existing University of Singapore Students' Union and the Nanyang University Students' Union has been formed to look after the activities of students. The National University of Singapore will not have a body similar to the Court of the University of Singapore, as such a body does not serve any useful function. The Court of the University of Singapore merely receives copies of statutes as well as the annual reports and audited annual accounts of SU and may pass such resolutions as the Court thinks fit on those documents. It does not play any meaningful role in the functioning of SU.

The NUS will not have a Guild of Graduates. The experience of both the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University is that their Guilds of Graduates, unlike their alumni or Graduate Associations where membership is voluntary, have not been an effective instrument for the maintenance of links with their graduates. The mandatory meetings of Guild members are poorly attended. The number who turned up at the last meeting of the University of Singapore Guild of Graduates was 58 out of a total membership of 22,129. As for Nanyang University, the number who turned up at the last meeting of the Nanyang University Guild of Graduates was 64 out of a total membership of 11,085. If we exclude staff members who were persuaded by the respective administrations to attend the meetings, it would have been difficult to gather sufficient number of members to constitute a quorum.

Instead of a guild, the National University of Singapore will have a Register of Graduates incorporating the members of the Nanyang University Guild of Graduates, the members of the University of Singapore Guild of Graduates and the National University of Singapore graduates as three separate parts of the Register.

The Bill also provides for the National University of Singapore to maintain a register of members of the Nanyang University who are on the register of subscribers of NU.

Mr Speaker, Sir, University education in Singapore has come a long way since the King Edward VII College of Medicine was founded in 1905. In 1929 Raffles College was established and the two Colleges were merged to form the University of Malaya in 1949, Nanyang University admitted its first students in 1956 and the Singapore Campus of the University of Malaya became the University of Singapore in 1962. Two years ago, the Joint Campus was set up in an attempt to work out a viable future for the Nanyang University. The formation of the National University of Singapore is, therefore, the culmination of 75 years of development of University education in Singapore.

Operationally, the National University of Singapore has been a fact since July 7th this year when the first students were enroled. Dean-designates and head-designates of the University have been appointed so that they can commence the planning and teaching on the various courses without delay. The staff, both academic and non-academic, of the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University have been integrated. There have, of course, been some minor inconveniences of adjustments, as there must be in a merger of two established institutions, each with a long history. However, I am happy to inform the House that no major problems have arisen from the merger and the staff and students of the two institutions have worked together smoothly.

The National University of Singapore is a significant institution, with 705 academic staff members and 9,000 students distributed over eight Faculties - Arts and Social Science, Science, Medicine, Dentistry, Law, Accountancy and Business Administration, Architecture and Building and Engineering. Its task will be the education and training of the brightest and most talented of our population. It will seek to nurture and preserve the best traditions of Nanyang University and the University of Singapore. It will maintain high standards in teaching and research, and it will have the full support of Government. It will extend a warm welcome to students from Malaysia and other South-East Asian countries. In time, it will grow into a significant centre of learning and become an institution which Singaporeans can be proud of.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed. 3.22 p.m.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): The intention of creating a world class university out of the National University of Singapore, incorporating the University of Singapore and the Nanyang University, is indeed a praiseworthy one. However, it is appropriate at this juncture to remind ourselves and fellow Singaporeans that Singapore has completely no natural resources except manpower resource, and for this reason the National University of Singapore must be geared towards the training of manpower needs to meet Singapore's economic restructuring. However, the doubt expressed by some University of Singapore students on the worth of the National University of Singapore degree is indeed a natural one and is to be expected. However, I believe that this doubt will eventually be dispelled in due course as, hon. Members will recall, with the case of the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines when MSA was split into MAS and SIA. There were doubts whether SIA could make the grade, and indeed today SIA is well-known all over the world for its efficiency and reliability. This is due to a great part on good leadership, team spirit and staff loyalty. Similarly, with Singapore's top leadership and some fine brains behind the setting up of the NUS, I firmly believe that the NUS will make the grade and become one of the world's finest universities.

At this juncture, Sir, I wish to raise a few points for consideration. Facilities for research and facilities for teaching must be made readily available to the University staff and University students. I note in clause 7 of the proposed Bill that the Hon. Minister for Finance is empowered to make grants-in-aid to the University and that monies received by the University can be used for the University for all or any of the purposes of the University. At this point, I would say that it looks fine on paper. How much the University gets for research is another matter. Here, I would like to express my doubts on the civil service, at least in my experience with the civil service where there are lots of bureaucratic arrangements so much so that I feel compelled by my conscience to humbly suggest to the Hon. Minister for Finance to be more open-handed in giving grants-in-aid to the University. At the same time I would also like to advise the University administration not to be too tight-fisted with the monies they receive; and at the same time not to delay purchases of equipment so much so that by the time they are purchased, they become out of date.

In my limited experience with graduates from local universities, I have oft-times come across complaints from those who have done a basic degree, say, in Science. They say that they have not been given sufficient experience and that they have not been given the opportunity to handle equipment that are so necessary to put students into the swing of being able to apply modern analytical techniques in their future work. A more sympathetic approach would ensure students are given opportunity to handle equipment which will assist in their understanding of whatever subject taught.

A point just crosses my mind, and here I would like to refer to the allocation of funds to the different departments in the University. There must be no pet department. I hope the University administration will bear in mind that they must allocate funds equally to all departments concerned. This will ensure good quality graduates from all our departments. If funds are insufficient, then it is up to the University administration to admit that there are insufficient funds and make a justification for the request.

Over the past few months, Mr Speaker, Sir, there must have been discussions on the quality of some of our local graduates. True, it is indeed important to produce graduates that can measure up to the expectations of a society that is fast advancing. It is heartening to note that the Vice-Chancellor of the University himself is also the Hon. Minister of Education. With one capable man in two very important positions, he is the only man who can design the type and quality of graduates that we will produce in future right from the very start, hopefully. We must continually remind ourselves that it is very important that kindergarten education and primary education do play a part in nurturing sound habits, especially in building up the moral fibre of our future citizens. We must be able to inculcate in our students good attitudes, like taking an interest and pride in whatever they do, for example, by encouraging more student-teacher rapport or by encouraging more project work in schools rather than the all-examination system.

Furthermore, the educators must make it their business to stimulate in our students a yearning for intellectual development which means moving away from teaching methods that kill creativity, whether in the schools or in the universities. Without a proper foundation, we will just be producing graduates below our expectations - graduates with little or no imagination and commitment applied to their work. Besides, no matter how many expatriates we bring in to raise the standard of teaching in our University or to expose students to the varied approaches and cross-fertilization of ideas, we will not be able to succeed if the students we channel into the University are not properly prepared to receive University education.

On the other hand, if we assume that our students are properly prepared to receive University education, from the Pre-University centres and from the junior colleges, then no matter how fine our students are, the quality of the students or the quality of the graduates will only be as good as the quality of the staff that are in the University. So the idea of employing expatriate lecturers to supplement and to improve the quality of teaching at the University is a good one.

I would, however, like to touch on a few rather sensitive areas regarding the employment of expatriate staff. Having myself studied in a foreign country and having worked for 15 years with expatriates, I believe I should be able to raise a few points either for consideration or of interest. Allow me to start off by saying that there are good and bad expatriate staff, just as we have good and bad local staff. To my mind, the chances are that it will be easier to employ an expatriate staff from a less advanced country than an expatriate gaff from a more advanced country. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the attraction of expatriate staff from the less advanced countries. As for the more advanced countries, I leave it to the Hon. Minister to work out the break-even point where an expatriate from an advanced country would consider the remuneration offered large enough to pack up and come over. To my mind, we may find that we have to pay substantially more than the world market price to attract the real good ones. This is what I mean by break-even point.

Suppose we limit our discussions to attracting lecturers from, let us say, Great Britain. Then my obvious question would be, "What is the calibre of the lecturer who would decide to come to Singapore?" What is bugging my mind is that the really good ones who are currently doing research with access to all the advanced facilities that are available in his university may not be prepared to pack up and come. Unless the National University of Singapore can provide the same facilities and the same research environment, i.e. the facilities plus cross-fertilization of ideas, plus students, etc.. then we might not be able to attract the real good ones. But perhaps the younger lecturers or the not-so-good ones might probably decide to come to Singapore for a stint to see what the East is like. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing, but our students may not be able to derive greater benefit than if they had been exposed to more experienced and better lecturers.

It therefore behoves the board of selectors or whoever are doing the interviews, to be able to devise a selection system where they can reliably separate the sheep from the goat, knowing that the cultural confidence that some foreigners have over members of the selection board may probably influence their selection. This confidence does not necessarily reflect ability.

If the remuneration and the research environment are good, then we would have created an environment for competition where we will probably be in a position to select the better people. Again this would come back to our financiers. I hope we will not commit the same crime or the same sin with regard to financing the useful projects.

As a point of caution, Sir, may I suggest that the quantum to attract an expatriate must be clearly indicated in the expatriate allowance, meaning that expatriate or local, both will be on a common salary scale, but the expatriate would have more salary because of his expatriate allowance. I presume, therefore, that if an expatriate decides to take up Singapore citizenship, then he would lose his expatriate allowance. The reason why I say this is that I feel that local and expatriate lecturers must be made equally happy. In our pursuit to attract good expatriate lecturers we must ensure that the welfare and happiness of our local lecturers are catered for.

Obviously, one of the results of a relatively large expatriate population in the University would be an inflow of ideas of foreign origin. Some will be good whilst others will not be good for our society. There is, therefore, a compelling necessity to monitor our moral education programme taught in schools very carefully because there may be some teachers who still do not take it seriously. Our students must be properly prepared to distinguish the good from the bad and, therefore, able to reject ideas which may be detrimental to our society. Again, the Hon. Minister of Education is just the right man for the job.

Before I take leave, Sir, can I just say a few words on staff assessment? Local or expatriate staff, I believe that both types of lecturers must be assessed in some way. Can we not allow our students to assess lecturers by having them answer questionnaires, either during the University semester or two or three years after University, or a combination of both, so that we will know what is expected from lecturers and how lecturers can assist their students.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister mentioned that this merger of the two universities into the NUS has the support of the Nanyang University MPs. Presumably, Sir, there must have been consultations between him and the MPs concerned. However, I do not recall any such consultations between him and the University of Singapore MPs. In case he is getting nervous in his seat on my taking the Floor, let me hasten to assure him of my unsolicited support towards making the NUS truly a centre of excellence.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it difficult to argue with the points made by the Member for Mountbatten, particularly the point concerning the necessity for the Ministry of Finance to be more liberal in the provision of funds for the University in particular and for education in general. Let me assure him that he has my full-hearted support on that proposal and I am sure the Ministry of Finance officials have noted his point.

As regards the recruitment of expatriate staff, let me put the problem in perspective. The NUS now has an academic staff complement of 705. By the mid-1980s we hope to have a student population of 15,000. The student-staff ratio today, with 9,000 students and a staff of 705, is almost 13, 1:12.76 to be exact. If we wish to have a reasonable staff-student ratio of 1:8, we will require 1,875 staff. This means that over the next five, six or seven years, we would need to recruit 1,170 staff members. It is not easy to produce staff members in such numbers if we confine ourselves to Singaporeans. For those who have taken four years to finish the first degree, they will need perhaps another four or five years before they acquire their Ph.D. and after that they have to serve national service and have a few years of teaching experience before they become effective lecturers. There is, therefore, no choice except to recruit from the world market if the NUS is to get the complement of staff which we wish to have.

As regards assessment of staff, this is already an on-going procedure within the University. The Member for Mountbatten has made the suggestion that students should be allowed to assess staff members. I believe this has been tried out in some universities overseas and the consequence, I am told, is that the staff member who is most generous with his grades gets the highest votes. I have mentioned elsewhere that the assessment of staff is always a contentious problem. We will look into the matter, but I am afraid I cannot promise miracles or quick results in this issue.

The Member for Whampoa has raised the matter about the support of the Nanyang University MPs. I myself did not have any direct consultation with the NU MPs before the decision by the NU Council. However, the letter from the Prime Minister to the NU Council stated quite clearly that the proposal to merge the two universities had the support of the NU MPs. As regards the University of Singapore MPs, I think that today is the appropriate time for them to voice their views.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and possed.