EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column No : 1904

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column No : 1904

Column No : 1904

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE (CORPORATISATION) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam: Next, the issue of graduateoutput targets and manpower planning. This is a fundamental issue. We have this process of determining the number of students to be admitted to our tertiary institutions, polytechnics, ITEs and universities, in different course disciplines. The National Manpower Council which brings together various Ministries and economic agencies sets these targets.

Let me say why this is necessary, particularly as a small country, and why we are not unique in requiring this. We do not have the large market of competition that the United States has, where you have got hundreds of universities. Without clear Government direction, although at the state level, they have got Government involvement.When you look at the United States as a whole, you have got this large competitive marketplace that is able to throw up a range of talents, specialising in different disciplines. But very few countries have that. If you take the United Kingdom, which is a reasonably large society, it has great difficulty now getting enough scientists and engineers. All the more for a small country- Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark-you cannot leave it to chance. Because if you leave it to chance, in a curious way, you end up having fewer choices in life, you end up not having a manufacturing sector, you end up not having enough high-end manufacturing to be able to provide Singaporeans with real options. Everyone would then become a service economy professional. So we have got to ensure that we maintain this breadth of disciplines in order to ensure that we provide choices for the national economy and choices for Singaporeans. And as a small economy andsociety, we have got to go about it with some degree of planning.

Secondly, as a small economy that wants to make an impact in a knowledge economy, we need to have reasonably deep pools of expertise. We cannot be shallow all round. We cannot just leave itto chance and let our brightest minds study any subject they want or provide subsidised places for them to study any subject they want. We have got to try and gear things so that we do develop deep pools of expertise, otherwise,we are not going to make an impact in the knowledge economy.

So how do we balance these two objectives between wanting to have some breadth and wanting to make sure we have got enough depth of capabilities in five or six areas so that we can really make an impact? That is our challenge, and that is a challenge we apply our minds to, both when we think of manpower planning targets as well as research funding targets. But we cannot run away from it as a small economy. So that is my economist answer to Dr Geh Min.

But I quite agree with Dr Geh Min that we should not be too micro or too strict about these targets.In fact, the National Manpower Council has moved towards looking at broader clusters of disciplines rather than very specific disciplines. We cannot predict future demands with precision, or as Dr Lily Neo says, you always have to provide training, not just for jobs that exist and can be identified by industry, but also jobs which have not yet been created.You really want to produce people who would then create their own jobs and create jobs for others. That is a very important point once you are looking beyond five or eight years, that you want to produce people with a set of traits and specialisations, but they are not quite sure what jobs they are going to do or how they are going to create jobs for others. So we take that into consideration and we have got a lot more fuzziness in the system now. In fact,quite apart from the broad targets we are setting, we also allow them to deviate by 10% for eachcluster.That also explains why NUS is expanding its business intake - because it is deviating from the targets, taking advantage of that 10%. It is not doubling its intake by the way,it is making some increase, but it is not a huge increase.

On humanities, NUS and NTU are not losing sight of it. NUS has built up a tradition in its arts and social sciences faculty. NTU is now starting a new school of humanities andsocial sciences and they take this job very seriously. It is ultimately parents and students whodecide what discipline they want to go into. We are not going to stop providingplaces in history, geography, literature, economics, and in the social sciences more broadly. We think it is essential for the national economy.

Secondly, we think it is going to be more important in future than it has been in the past for engineers and scientists to have a decent dose of exposure in the humanities, particularly as we move up the knowledge curve and as they have to deal with a lot more ambiguity in their jobs,not just existing formula and ruleswhich have to be processed as efficientlyas possible. All the top scientists we havetalked to tell usthat it helps in the grooming of scientists to give them an early dose in the humanities. And we take that seriously starting from school. That is why our new 'A' level curriculum from next year will make it mandatory for every student to take a subject other than his main specialisation.It is a case of planning and intervention to ensure that we achieve our objectives.

We are not as badly off as many other Asian countries. India and China, in fact,aremore skewed. On my last visit to India, I was in Chennai. Maybe Tamil Nadu is more skewed than the rest of India. Every top high school I went to was not offering a single humanities subject in their equivalent of 'A' levels. I asked the principals why. The principals are all very educated people. They said they would love to, but every time they start up a class, they have to close it in six months because there were no takers.

So we are not doing too badly.

We have got our Humanities scheme.We have got the University Scholars Programme at NUS that placesemphasis on the humanities. And we will keep pushing along, particularly in ensuring that students get this cross disciplinary education that we think is very important, regardless of whether you are going to become a scientist or a lawyer. But we have to move with society, and the instincts of parents and students that we have to reshape but we cannot force. We make no apologies, of course, about having a fundamental focus on science and engineering for the reasons I gave earlier. They increase Singapore's choices economically and they, ultimately, provide the jobs that Singaporeans need.

Dr Lily Neo also asked about how we make sure that the corporatised universities are going to be transparent in their dealings, management and in their spending. This is something that we address in the Policy Agreement. The universities are expected, under the Policy Agreement, to exercise good corporate governance. This comes not just under the purview of the management but the Board of Trustees.They will have to put in place appropriate and adequate internal controls and procedures to ensure proper use of funds, and they will have to conduct annual financial audits under this enhanced accountability framework. And, where necessary, the Ministry can request for records relating to financial transactions of the university and even to make them public.

Finally, there were a few specific issues which Dr Neo had also asked. She pointed out that the Bill had not addressed issues concerning the universities holding equity in companies doing research, issues of university royalties and fees for commercialisation of research and related issues. These are not matters we address in the Act. These are important operational issues which the Autonomous Universities will have to deal with, and we do not capture these operational issues in the Act. The universities already have technology transfer offices to manage the patenting and commercialisation of their inventions. They tend to follow best practices. They look at how other top universities are doing this in their relationship with research companies, as well as on what rights the individual faculty member has over the patents and so on and so forth.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have addressed most of the main points that have been raised. Let me conclude by saying that we are confidentwe are moving in the right direction. I was quite heartened to hear from Dr Charles Vest who stepped down recently as President of MIT and was recently here as Lee Kuan Yew Distinguished Visitor. He knows our universities well because he was instrumental in the forming of the Singapore-MIT Alliance. His observation at the end of his latest trip, having had intensive discussions with both NUS and NTU, and knowing the Asian and global landscapes well, was that Singapore can create world-class universities in NUS and NTU. He was not addressing his mind to SMU. We are not too small to create world-class universities given the pool of talent we can draw on locally as well as across Asia and internationally.I think that gives us some confidence. Thatheas an independent and very experienced university leaderwas able to tell us that that was his conclusion.

It needs a new culture, particularly a new internal culture within the universities. When you free up the external links, your real intent is to create a new internal culture because it is that internal culture that will make the universities great.

We trust the people we have. We will not cut all strings completely because wehave to retain public trust in the use of substantial public resources in our universities. But we are going to allow these good people to chart the course forward and support them in every way we can in the Ministry.

Sir, I think I have completed my replies to the questions.

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.- [Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam].

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

Column No : 1910