TERTIARY TUITION FEE SUBSIDY (Income ceilings for Malay students)

Mr Imram bin Mohamed asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in view of the rise in the cost of living, whether he will consider raising the income ceilings set for Malay students applying for tertiary tuition fee subsidy, as they had remained unchanged since the scheme was introduced in 1991.

The Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Abdullah Tarmugi): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS) Scheme administered by Mendaki has two very important objectives:-

(1) To enable the better-off Malays to help the less well-off in the community; and

(2) To build a self-reliant community standing tall with the other communities in Singapore.

When the TTFS Scheme was introduced in 1991, we deliberately set the income ceilings higher than were necessary, so that the scheme could phase in gradually as incomes of Malay households rose year by year, and tertiary education became more affordable to Malay families. This has happened.

Mendaki has generous study loans and scholarship schemes to help Malay families who have genuine difficulties paying the partial or full fees. No Malay student admitted to our polytechnics or universities has been deprived of the opportunity to go to these institutions because of this scheme.

Apart from these, the Government also gives out Edusave Merit Bursaries and the Edusave Scholarships in schools, ITEs, polytechnics and universities. These are also open to Malay students. They will alleviate the financial burden of households who also have children in school and other educational institutions.

The money saved from the TTFS Scheme goes to Mendaki, not the Government. It has helped Mendaki to fund programmes to help many more less successful members of the Malay community who are in need of help. These include the Weekend Tuition Scheme and the Learning Support Programme for Normal stream students. The Mendaki Awards are also funded from these savings.

Raising the income ceilings for the TTFS Scheme would mean cutting back on these other activities which have played an important part in raising education standards of the community. This would not benefit the Malay community in the long term. Mendaki therefore has no plans to raise the income ceilings for the TTFS Scheme at the present moment.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman (Thomson GRC): Sir, could the Minister get Mendaki to consider, on a per capita basis, the number of children that is going to university? Would the Minister agree that a family with one child in the university and earning, say, $2,999 a month, is better off when compared to a family whose income is more than $3,000 but has, say, five school-going children? Would the Minister please comment on that?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: On the second question whether a family with an income of $2,000 and one child in university is better off than a family earning above $3,000 but with five school-going children, it really depends on the actual expenditure of the family. A person could be earning thousands of dollars a month but the expenditure may be high. This is also tied up to the Member's first question, ie, whether we do consider the per capita income. The answer is, we do. In other words, we look at each case on its own merits. Those whose income is $2,000 and below will be given full subsidy whereas those whose income is between $2,000 and $3,000 the subsidy will vary up to 70% and this will take into consideration the per capita expenditure of the children.

Encik Ibrahim bin Othman: In that case, could Mendaki consider favourably applicants whose family income is more than $3,000 and who are not qualified for this scheme so that they could be given the subsidy if they have, say, a few children who are in university or school?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, I would not give a definite answer to this simply because we have to look at each individual case closely. For every family the number of children going to various institutions varies and we will have to look at the actual expenditure and burden on the family. But certainly, for each and every case, Mendaki looks carefully at the circumstances of the family.