Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Singapore
“EDB conducts regular reviews to GIP to ensure its effectiveness in attracting only top-tier business leaders who are interested to drive the growth of their businesses and investments from Singapore.”
“MAS may vary the size of the additional capital requirement imposed on the bank and take other regulatory actions depending on the outcome of ongoing reviews. MAS requires all retail banks in Singapore to ensure that their mission critical systems supporting digital banking are resilient.”
“This question will be answered in the reply to Dr Tan Wu Meng's Parliamentary Question filed for tomorrow's Sitting. [Please refer to "Probe into Recent Disruptions of DBS' Digital Bank and Physical ATM Services and Preventive Measures Implemented", Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol 95, Issue 107, Written Answers to Questions for Oral Ans…”
“Borrowing from the banks is one of the ways in which MAS carries out MMOs to soak up such excess liquidity. Like other central banks, MAS does this daily through an auction system, enabling MAS to withdraw liquidity through the Primary Dealers that submit the most competitive prices.”
“To mitigate consumer over-indebtedness, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) requires financial institutions (FIs) to implement a range of safeguards when extending mortgage loans and unsecured credit.”
“The Monetary Authority of Singapore imposes on external asset managers the same stringent regulatory standards for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism that it imposes on banks.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,416 lines we hold for Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 43 of 49.
“They will have to take on added responsibilities. Beyond the responsibilities of running and operating the business, they will have to take on the responsibilities of being a trustee. It means that they have to appoint a board of directors with suitable qualifications. Some members of the board will typically be people with the requisite expertise in performing the duties of trustees. They can also appoint agents and advisers to help them fulfill their obligations as trustees, but the obligation remains with the trustee-manager as a single entity. Compliance cost will be there, I agree, and it flows from two facts. First, there is an inherent conflict of interest that the trustee- manager faces between the duties that it owes to its shareholders - usually theshareholders ofthe sponsoring entity that sets up the trustee-manager - and the duties that it owes to unitholders who invest in the business trust. There is an inherent potential for conflict of interest. A second reason why we had to place all these additional requirements on the trustee-manager and its directors is the fact that unitholders in the business trusts do not have quite the same powers that shareholders in a company do. In particular, unitholders cannot vote out directors, cannot vote on the appointment of directors of the board. So it does mean that we had to mitigate this lack of control with a range of other measures, to place other responsibilities on the trustee-manager and its directors that ensure that they will put priority on the interests of unitholders wherever there is a conflict of interest between the unitholders and shareholders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mr Ong Kian Min, Mr Andy Gan and Mrs Fang Ai Lian for their very useful comments and their support for the Business Trusts Bill, both for the flexibility that it offers to businesses in providing anew business structure that they can employ and also because it potentially adds depth and sophistication to our capital markets. Mr Ong Kian Min highlighted a very important feature -I should say the key feature of the Business Trusts Bill -which is the fact that the business trust has to be run by a single responsible entity - the trustee-manager - who will have the dual responsibility of safeguarding the interests of unitholders as well as managing the business of the business trust. This combined role is something which we thought about very hard and it featured in the consultations that MAS had with the public. Over the year, both interested playersand a range of professionalsgave their comments on this.We considered them very carefully, andhave decided to stick with this single responsible entity model. The reasons are quite important. In Australia, they initially had the bifurcated model wherethey had a separate independent trustee anda manager of the business enterprise of the business trust. And there were a few cases that had to go to court where the court found difficulty in apportioning liability between trustee and the manager. We are quite clear in our mind. We want to ensure that the fiduciary responsibility towards unitholders is clearly placed on a single entity - the trustee-manager. Mr Ong is right that, typically, it will be a situation where the people who are managing the operations of the business that is being divested will end up being the people who are running the trustee-manager.”
“I thank Mr Iswaran for his question. First, we have some advantage in engaging India because the English language is the medium of instruction in our schools. In India, the English language has been the language of government and a good part of business since colonial days, andnow, more than ever, it is the language of the professions,government andhigher education. But there is more we can do. We are encouraging, first, our schools and universities to link up with institutions in India, so that beyond the language we really get to know the Indians,understand the landscape and be more familiar with contemporary India. Second, through our syllabus, we are doing a fair bit. India features quite regularly in our syllabus - history, social studies and so on - even starting from the primary level. Members, I am sure, would recall the history syllabus which taught us all about the Indus Valley civilisation. It is still there, but we have extended it to a lot more recent Indian history as well.The mother tongue languages that we teach in Singapore, Tamil and for the non-Tamil Indian students their own mother tongues, would also play an important role.But I would reiterate that our strength in the English language is a major advantage that we have in engaging India. REGULATION OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS 10. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Education in view of the mounting complaints against private schools whether his Ministry will consider regulating such schools to ensure better standards as well as fair treatment of the students.”
“Our students are exposed to the study of our region at many levels, starting with a general awareness and knowledge in primary schools and up to specialised, scholarly study of Southeast Asia at the tertiary level. We also have good programmes in place to groom a Malay bilingual elite, and we will deepen the cultural and contemporary knowledge content of these programmes where there is demand.”
“The LEP (Malay) students receive MOE scholarships and go on immersion programmes in Malaysia. MOE will continue to encourage eligible students to take these special programmes and electives, and deepen the content of the programmes if there is a demand for this. Non-Malay students can offer Malay as a third language. Some schools also offer conversational Malay classes to their students as an enrichment option, either during formal curriculum time or after school hours. We encourage schools to do so. Our universities also run undergraduate programmes focusing on Southeast Asia. NUS offers a Southeast Asian Studies programme for undergraduates which has close to 40 modules covering socio-political and cultural issues in the region. Students involved also do a language module in Bahasa Indonesia, Vietnamese orThai. Finally, we continue to develop scholarship and specialist research on Southeast Asia. The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies(ISEAS) regularly hosts well-known scholars on regional issues fromSingapore and overseas. It is generally recognised as one of the leading centres on Southeast Asian Studies. ISEAS has awarded over 50 graduate scholarships to Singaporeans, and held many public seminars and talks on regional affairs. In addition to ISEAS, the Asia Research Institute at NUS is undertaking as one of its areas of focus, research on Southeast Asia, including topics such as interactions between Southeast Asia and China. At NTU, the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS) also has electives and programmes for post-graduate students focusing on Southeast Asia. As the Memberhad pointed out, Singapore is at the heart of Southeast Asia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore ispart of Southeast Asia and ourfuture will always be interwoven with that of the region. It is therefore important for us to develop an understanding of the region, and nurture Singaporeans who feel confident and assured in operating in the region. There are several dimensions to this effort in education. First, there is significant emphasis on Southeast Asiain our school curriculum. Southeast Asia is studied in subjects such as Social Studies at both the primary and secondary levels, and History and Geography at the secondary and pre-university levels. In History, for example, students develop an understanding of the key historical developments that shaped Southeast Asia,like colonialism, nationalism and independence. All students are also engaged in National Education (NE), an integral part of which is an awareness of Singapore'sposition in the region and how developments in our neighbouring countries can affect us. These efforts build an appreciation of the diversity of the region and an understanding ofthe challenges and issues that the countries in the region face. It is also important to develop a group of students who have a strong grasp of the Malay language. We encourage students who take Malay as their Mother Tongue languageto study Higher Malay if they have the ability to do so.We are also nurturing a Malay bilingual elite through the Elective Programme in Malay Language for Secondary Schools (EMAS) and Language Elective Programme (Malay) at the junior collegelevel. This year, there are 473 students in EMAS (from Secondary 1 to 4) and 30 students in the LEP (Malay) (from JC1 to JC2). These students offer Higher Malay as well as learn about Southeast Asian culture and society in their curriculum.”
“The introduction of smaller class size at Primary One and Primary Two, and the partial single session has no impact on the Primary One registration process or eligibility criteria for priority registration. Schools will continue to be given the flexibility to customise their syllabus to cater to their pupils' needs. MOE is working with primary schools to share strategies that support meaningful and appropriate learning for lower primary pupils, taking advantage of smaller class size. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND DEPENDANTS' PROTECTION SCHEME 10. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) what will happen to the net assets of the CPF Dependants' Protection Scheme when the scheme is privatised; and (b) will the privatised insurer, in order to maximise profits, be allowed to (i) raise premiums; (ii) lower payouts; and/or (iii) examine claims more aggressively for pre-existing conditions to avoid payouts.”
“In 2005, all 132 Government schools will reduce their Primary One class size from the current 40 to 30. This reduced class size will extend to Primary Two in 2006. Forty-four out of the forty-six Government-aided schools have also decided to reduce class size. The last two schools are undergoing PRIME and have decided to defer the implementation. Concurrently, schools will move towards partial single session, where the Primary Three to Primary Six classes will be in one session and the Primary One and Primary Two classes will be in the other session. Together with the reduced class size, the implementation of partial single session will mean some reduction in Primary One places in certain primary schools. Schools located in areas of high demand will phase in their implementation of partial single session to ensure that there will be sufficient school places for all eligible P1 students in each planning area and across the entire primary school system. In 2005, about two-thirds (65%) of all our primary schools will be able to implement partial single session or full single session. The other one third will introduce partial single session over the next 10 years. It is appropriate to let the Management Boards of the Government-aided schools make the decision on whether their schools should implement smaller class sizes, taking into account the impact on their intake and the needs of their respective communities. MOE will provide them with the teacher resources similar to the Government schools. If they choose not to implement smaller classes, they can deploy these teachers in other ways to add education value for their students.”
“Our sports instructors receive some basic training on how to advise students on avoidance of sports injuries. That is why they warm up and do all kinds of exercises before they start anything strenuous. The schools also have basic provisions for first aid. When something serious happens, of course, we will send them to the hospital very quickly. It is not a huge problem right now. It is not something that is holding us back from our effort to push forward in sports. It is something we will keep in mind to make sure the schools are well-prepared for eventualities. SECURITY AT MRT STATIONS (Cost) 3. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Transport if he will state who will bear the cost of the increased security now that security guards are deployed at MRT stations.”
“On Mdm Cynthia Phua's first question, "demolition" is not a word customarily used by Education Ministers. We encourage, we enthuse and we provide opportunities. I think that is what schools are trying to do. The schools might have been overly selective in the past, partly because of resources, and because they have focused on excellence. We would like to encourage participation but I would like to leave it to each school to decide what they can do within their resources. The spirit is there. The schools are keen to encourage participation and we have given them some incentives to do so now. On Mdm Phua's second question on community CCAs, I do not have the details here but all of us can tell from what we see around us in our constituencies and CDCs, that there is already a fair bit happening. Some of them are the initiatives of the CDCs or the constituency grassroots, but a lot of it is coming from the schools themselves. There are service learning clubs and other initiatives in the school. By getting the school students more involved in the community, quite apart from the existing welfare-related activities that have existed for some time, they would be getting more engaged in something productive and constructive in the community. It is working well. I do not think it needs very hard pushing because the schools and the community organisations are enthusiastic.”
“Our sense is that there is no trade-off in introducing a new Uniformed Group. We are not going to be drawing students away from existing uniformed groups. In some schools, it is a matter of leadership resources. By creating this new group, we are able to tap on new leadership resources, including the MHA organisations. I think it provides something different from what the existing uniformed groups provide. The National Civil Defence Cadet Corps will gear students in exercises on emergencies and such activities. There will be some overlap in activities with existing uniformed groups but it will provide for broader variety of options. There are also some students who do not find the existing uniformed groups to be their cup of tea but would like something like the new Uniformed Group. We have done a survey and found some interest. The schools that have responded positively to this are keen to start it up, not so as to decant students away from existing uniformed groups but as a way of increasing overall participation. So let us try it out. We are starting out with eight schools. I think it will work well and we will take it further from there.”
“The new Uniformed Group will be jointly run by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and will be piloted in eight secondary schools. We have revised the ranking system for schools to give greater recognition to schools that put effort into developing their students holistically. It will take into account the breadth of student participation in activities which promote physical health. We have also tweaked our CCA grading system for students to introduce greater flexibility, and to encourage students to take a sport on a non-competitive basis as a second CCA. It also gives added recognition to students who represent Combined Schools or Singapore in sports, who have to spend long hours in training. With these strategies in place, all secondary school students will have the opportunity to be involved in sports and other rugged activities, at either the recreational or competitive level. We hope to see a progressive increase in student participation in sports at all levels, but we are not setting hard targets that have to be achieved. I should add that none of our initiatives mandate participation in sports. We will encourage, we will provide greater opportunities for students to engage in sports and other rugged activities but we will not make it obligatory for them to do so.”
“The scheme provides these students with additional opportunities to develop leadership abilities as well. From next year, workshops in schools will be conducted for student leaders in badminton, table tennis, tennis, volleyball and floorball. Over time and with experience, we hope to widen this programme to more sports and games, depending on demand. Schools can also tap on adult volunteers, especially parents. MOE has also recently extended the current Volunteer Adult Leaders (VAL) scheme for Uniformed Groups to all CCAs. This allows schools to tap on the enthusiasm of parent volunteers with relevant sports skills. At the zonal level, we have formed Sports Development Committees this year to promote sports among students who do not have the opportunity to represent their school in the sport. This has taken off well, and the various zones will be organising games competitions and carnivals this year for about 15,000 students in primary and secondary schools. We will continue to collaborate with our partners such as the Singapore Sports Council, and the various National Sports Associations and the Uniformed Groups Councils to further extend our activities. In fact, schools are already tapping into the Singapore Sports Council's "Learn-To-Play" sports@basic programme with the aim of allowing more pupils to take part in the recreational sports. Uniformed Groups (UGs) are another important activity which can foster ruggedness in our students. Some schools had given us feedback that having more options for UGs will help in expanding student participation. We will be starting a new Uniformed Group, the National Civil Defence Cadet Corps, as a new CCA next year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, currently, about 35% of primary school students and 38% of secondary school and junior college students take sports as their Core CCA. For the uniformed groups, currently about 6% of primary school students and 37% of secondary school students have uniformed groups as their Core CCA. We are creating more opportunities for broad-based participation in sports at the school and zone levels, so as to reverse the trend of declining participation over the years. A good number of schools have stepped up efforts to engage the majority of their students in sports. We are encouraging this amongst more schools. At the school level, we will leverage on the House System to allow more students wishing to participate in games at a recreational level. With the assistance of student sports leaders, we expect that at least 70% of secondary school and JC students will have the opportunity to be involved in at least two sports events per year organised by the Houses. It is not the exact number that matters but the fact that the schools are taking this seriously, such as through the House System, and feel that there is opportunity to create a lot more interest and participation among the students. We are also encouraging schools to use PE lessons to teach a variety of sports and games skills. We launched a Student Sports Coaching Course and a Student Sports Official Course earlier this year. This year we hope to train 100 student sports coaches and officials in each of four games, namely, basketball, netball, soccer and touch rugby. They will assist their teachers by coaching their peers in school in basic sports skills, or help officiate in intra-house sports competitions.”
“This is one of the features that we are studying very carefully as part of the new scheme to develop an elite group of students who are strong not just in their command of the language but also in their depth of knowledge of Chinese culture and society. It is one of the features that we are looking at and we will announce the details later. SPORTS AND UNIFORMED GROUPS IN SCHOOLS (Participation) 2. Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan asked the Acting Minister for Education with the recent plan to get more students involved in sports and uniformed groups, revising the co-curricular activities (CCA) points and introducing a ninth uniformed group (a) what is the existing percentage of students participating in sports and uniformed groups in primary and secondary schools; (b) what other steps are being planned to ensure that more students can participate in sports or uniformed groups; and (c) has his Ministry set targets to increase participation.”
“I share Mdm Ho's sense of what our objective should be. The aim is not to lower interest or standards but to raise interest. What we have been doing so far is not to make Chinese easy. What we have been doing is to allow for a differentiated approach, recognising that students come from different home language backgrounds and have different linguistic intelligences and abilities. So we have a more variegated curriculum in place now. The upshot of the changes that we have recently introduced is that they have allowed a larger number of students to now take Higher Chinese. There is also a small number taking CL 'B' and we should allow them to do so and not hold them back from doing so. Those who have real difficulty and despite great effort are unable to cope with the regular syllabus should be allowed to go further using CL 'B' rather than be turned off. But the main change that we have introduced in the last several months is to open the doors wider to students to do Higher Chinese, and it is working. Many more students are now taking Higher Chinese compared to before. I think we can be quite encouraged by the response from our students and parents to the changes. It is clear that they take the language seriously. They are encouraging their students to go far and we should continue to push this along by reforming our curriculum, teaching methods, assessment system, so as to ensure that it is not just a matter of passing examinations and meeting entry requirements but of enjoying the language, taking a real interest in it and wanting to use it after they leave school. Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah): Sir, can I ask the Minister whether MOE will consider issuing special scholarships for students who want to study Chinese Language in China?”
“We should be able to announce the details within the next three months.”
“However, they have yet to develop the capabilities to do adult-to-adult liver transplants, as these require more demanding expertise. The NUH team expects to be able to do adult-to-adult liver transplants by next year. Fortunately, we do have such capabilities in Singapore's private sector. Arising out of the recent case of a liver failure patient, my Ministry has made an arrangement with the private hospital's transplant team, whereby such a surgery, if and when needed by a subsidised patient, can be outsourced to them, with the subsidised patients paying the same rate as if the surgery is carried out in NUH. This is an excellent example of public-private sector cooperation, with patients' benefits in mind.”
“We have a centre which we call "iCARE Lodge". It is a counselling centre specifically for teachers located at Grange Road. Schools refer teachers who are under stress for a variety of reasons to the counselling centre. It has a full-time counsellor and it is working quite well. We go out of our way to help teachers who have been abused. The numbers may be small, but each and every case is serious as far as we are concerned, and we go out of our way to help them. LIVER TRANSPLANT SURGEONS (Shortage) 17. Dr Lily Neo asked the Acting Minister for Health (a) why is there a shortage of liver transplant surgeons in our hospitals; and (b) whether this will jeopardise the 24 cases of patients presently waiting for liver transplants. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Actually, there is no shortage of liver transplant surgeons in Singapore. But there is a shortage of donated liver. As a result, the number of liver transplantation done on Singaporean patients is small, about 15 a year. Recently, this House amended the Human Organ Transplant Act. With the amendments, we can expect some increase in organ transplantation, including liver. Currently, there are 24 Singaporean patients on the liver transplant waiting list. Hopefully, some or all of them will soon benefit from the amended Transplant Act. Liver transplant is a highly specialised procedure and, given the small number of surgeries, we have so far concentrated our public sector resources in the National University Hospital (NUH). The NUH liver transplant team, with four liver transplant surgeons, has been doing liver transplantation for 14 years now. It specialises in cadaveric and living donor adult-to-child liver transplantation. These operations make up the bulk of liver transplant operations.”
“We have not dismissed any of them. They are given written warnings, usually by the school. I am not aware of those who had been given written warnings resigning.”
“For cases of teachers being abused by students, I do not have a full list of the details of the abuses here. But what matters is that we take action in each and every case. We take very serious action on the students, because this is something which we have zero tolerance for, ie, any abuse of the teacher. That is what matters. Of course, we also take care to ensure that the teacher himself or herself is counselled, is able to remain in good spirits and remain motivated in the profession. We have not had serious difficulties so far in this. On the question of teachers abusing students, the Member referred to -”
“The Ministry of Education and schools view any abuse of teachers very seriously. Respect for teachers is central to the education that we provide. In the last two years, ie, 2002 and 2003, there were a total of 14 reported cases of teachers being physically abused by students. Schools have in all these instances taken disciplinary actions against the pupils, including corporal punishment and suspension. Ms Braema Mathi has also asked about cases of teachers being abused by parents. Such cases are very rare. Cases of teachers abusing their students, which she has asked about, have also been infrequent. In the last two years, ie, 2002 and 2003, we have handled a total of 29 cases where teachers were found to have inflicted corporal punishment on their students, outside of what MOE and the school's own guidelines permit. In all these 29 cases, the teachers were issued written warnings, usually by the school itself. None of the teachers were dismissed from the teaching service. The Ministry is committed to high standards of discipline in our schools. We will support measures taken by schools within our guidelines to uphold these standards, and are confident of their ability to do so. Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): Going back to the cases of disciplinary problems, could I ask the Minister what kind of abuses did the students heap on the teachers? For the teachers who were not dismissed, were there any resignations among them?”
“Dr Warren Lee had asked about trends in discipline and truancy in our schools. The state of discipline in schools has been stable over the last four years. From the records maintained by schools, disciplinary offences have shown a downward trend in primary schools and remained stable in secondary schools. The most common problems reported in primary schools have been students coming late to school or not doing assignments, which together account for over half of all the primary school offences. In secondary schools, latecoming, truancy and improper attire or grooming account for over two-thirds of the offences. The number of serious offences in schools has remained small and relatively stable over the last four years. A further indication of this is in the number of students arrested by the Police for various serious offences. The number has ranged between 0.3% and 0.5% of the student population aged under 19, including not just students in schools but also those in the ITEs, polytechnics and the private schools, over the last seven years. Most of these arrests were for theft, ie, either simple theft or shop theft. There have been more boys than girls involved in disciplinary cases. Girls account for 19% of offences in primary schools and 34% of offences in secondary schools. The proportion of girls is much lower for serious offences, at about 11% in both primary and secondary schools. The lower proportion of girls is also evident in arrests by the Police. Girls have comprised a declining proportion of students arrested over the last few years. In 2003, they comprised 27% of students arrested. About three quarters of these girls were arrested for shop theft. Ms Braema Mathi asked about abusive students.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 15 and 16 together, please?”
“3 2002 11,037 8,262 74.9 61 0.6 96 0.9 2,618 23.7 2003 11,419 8,545 74.8 48 0.4 157 1.4 2,669 23.4 1 Students satisfying this criterion are not allowed to repeat the A-level course in school. 2 Full-time, first degree courses only. 3 Includes SMU from 2000. 4 The NUS and NTU threshold requirements for applicants with A-level qualifications are: (i). Obtained passes in at least two 'A'-level subjects; (ii). Offered GP at the same sitting; and (iii). Met the mother tongue requirements for admission. 5 Other qualifications include the International Baccalaureate Diploma, Malaysian STPM, India Standard 12 and other foreign qualifications. APPENDICES”
“An average of 11,900 school candidates (Junior Colleges (JC) and Centralised Institutes (CI)) took the GCE 'A' level examinations annually over the past five years (1999-2003). An average of 88% of the students obtained at least two 'A'- and two 'AO'-level passes (including GP)1 each year. There has been a steady increase in this percentage over the years. See Tables 1 and 2 below for details. Table 1. Performance of JC candidates in the 1999-2003 GCE 'A' level examinations Year No. Sat At least two 'A' and two 'AO' level passes (including GP) Without at least two 'A' and two 'AO' level passes (including GP) No. % No. % 1999 11,355 9,890 87.1 1,465 12.9 2000 11,903 10,255 86.2 1,648 13.8 2001 11,202 9,909 88.5 1,293 11.5 2002 11,389 10,218 89.7 1,171 10.3 2003 12,156 11,038 90.8 1,118 9.2 Table 2. Performance of CI candidates in the 1999-2003 GCE 'A' level Examinations Year No. Sat At least two 'A' and two 'AO' level passes (including GP) Without at least two 'A' and two 'AO' level passes (including GP) No. % No. % 1999 246 142 57.7 104 42.3 2000 289 163 56.4 126 43.6 2001 373 244 65.4 129 34.6 2002 280 175 62.5 105 37.5 2003 223 154 69.1 69 30.9 An average of 11,100 students entered local universities to full-time, first degree courses annually in 1999-2003. See Table 3 for details. Besides going to local universities, a significant number of A-level graduates also pursue their studies in overseas universities each year. Table 3. Annual intake to local universities2 in 1999-2003 Year Intake3 With 'A' level qualification4 With polytechnic or other qualifications5 From JC From CI Private Candidates No. % No. % No. % No. % 1999 10,617 7,611 71.7 105 1.0 210 2.0 2,691 25.3 2000 11,232 8,085 72.0 67 0.6 129 1.1 2,951 26.3 2001 11,144 8,383 75.2 53 0.5 113 1.0 2,595 23.”
“The Deans and Heads of Department will work out appropriate programmes to help the staff improve. The Dean will sit in and observe the lectures, provide feedback and some form of professional counselling. It is a one to one exercise - Dean or Head of Department with the faculty member concerned - and is tailored to meet the needs of the staff in question. At the broader level, teaching is one of the areas that we are going to cover under the Quality Assurance Framework for universities that I spoke about earlier this morning. The university teaching quality will be evaluated through a process of institutional self-assessment followed by external validation.”
“Sir, on Mr Wee Siew Kim's three questions. First, the latest students' satisfaction survey showed that students are generally satisfied with their lecturers and tutors in both universities, ie, NUS and NTU. At least four in every five students had indicated that they were satisfied with the quality of teaching and learning. Second, training for university lecturers. The university lecturers are not required to undergo pedagogical training before they take on their roles or before they are engaged by the universities. But they do receive training continuously to upgrade and keep abreast of best practices and advances in teaching methods. These training programmes are organised by the universities throughout the year. They include training for staff who recently join, such as how to manage tutorials, how to manage lectures, as well as continuous training for all their staff who want to hone their content and teaching skills. I asked for some data. Over half of the academic staff at each of the universities goes through training each year. Third, the question of foreign lecturers. I would say it is not a question of foreign lecturers, but lecturers in general. Whether foreign or local, lecturers who are not performing need guidance, and help, and if they are unable to improve, we have to do something about them. We have the mechanism in place to monitor and ensure the quality of instruction. Besides the students' survey which I just mentioned, peer reviews are also used to evaluate teaching. In addition, our universities have performance systems in place to appraise and reward academic staff, and this is, of course, still evolving. Faculty members with below average performance are closely monitored.”
“And increasingly, especially with the new JC curriculum that will come in in the year 2006, we will place more focus on thinking skills and a multi-disciplinary curriculum framework that will prepare our students well for university education in the future. Those who prefer a more practice oriented tertiary education can go to the polytechnics. But I do not see a compelling reason to reduce options for 'O' level students, to reduce the JC option or the 'A' level option and to increase the polytechnic option. Let us maintain a diversity of pathways. The polytechnics are essentially world-class. They are best in class for that kind of education. They offer a very broad range of disciplines - 118 disciplines in all - engineering, IT, sciences, business, built environment and so on. We, basically, did right to retain and build up the polytechnics instead of converting them to universities. Every time I meet senior British or Australian academics, they tell me privately what damage has been wrought by the conversion of polytechnics into universities or quasi-universities in their countries. And they lost a valuable tradition - the technical and practice oriented tertiary tradition. So we have done well to retain it. I think Dr Tan has quite eloquently described the benefits of that tradition. We will continue to ensure that the polytechnic sector remains strong, vibrant and relevant to the needs of industry, and relevant to the needs of that group of students.”
“Sir, this is on the 3-year 'A' level course which we conduct in our centralised institutes. This is the group of students who fall between two stools. They cannot get into our polytechnics because the courses they want to get into are very competitive, particularly Business Studies and the like. They cannot get into our junior colleges because we have got entry requirements to ensure that if you go for a 2-year 'A' level course, you got to have a good chance of succeeding within that period and going on to a university. Two years ago, we thought quite hard about whether we should phase out the centralised institutes. We did not think it was advisable. It is better that we consolidate the centralised institutes and try to achieve as high a quality as possible for this group of pupils. So we have decided to merge the two centralised institutes. They will be getting a new facility. They have got good principals and teachers and we will provide them a JC education over three years. It is realistic and we think we can improve their pass rates and enable a fair number of them to go on to further education. I would not want to channel more students into our polytechnics at the expense of our junior colleges. We take 25% of cohort into our junior colleges, and I think that is about right. We have to preserve differentiated pathways to tertiary education to cater to the different aptitudes, different learning styles, different interests of our students. Those who are more academically inclined will prefer going through the JC route. The JCs offer a rigorous academic programme that equips students well for university education. They develop core skills like thinking and communication skills.”
“In addition, MOE attracts bright foreign students to our mainstream schools through scholarship schemes, such as the ASEAN Scholarship. We also take in many more foreign students who come on their own means. As Mr Gan has said, these students add diversity to our national schools in a way that benefits all our students. Primary One Registration Mr Andy Gan proposed a review of priority admission to primary schools. MOE provides sufficient primary school places to accommodate all children. The majority of parents are also able to enrol their children in schools near their home. While there are sufficient vacancies for all, MOE cannot accommodate all requests for any particular school, as vacancies for each school are limited. Under the current Primary 1 registration system, there is a well-accepted, carefully calibrated system of priority allocation of school places. There is no system that can satisfy all the considerations that we would like to see in Primary 1 admission. The current system attempts to strike a balance between various important considerations, from recognising the importance of placing siblings together in the same school, to distance from home, to the parents' relationship with the school. Unless there is a clearly superior model for Primary 1 registration, I would prefer that we not change the current Primary 1 registration guidelines.”
“Sir, Mr Gan Kim Yong asked about progress made in promoting Singapore as an Education Hub. Education was, indeed, one of the key industries identified by the ERC in 2002 as being potential growth industries for Singapore in the future. The Economic Development Board has been tasked to grow Singapore as an Education Hub, and MOE plays a supportive, facilitative role in developing Singapore in this direction. We do not take the lead because our decisions on which institutions to open, particularly for schools and the university sector, will have to be driven by educational objectives, not a desire to grow the industry as such. Our opening up of the education sector to new types of schools, new institutions and to foreign students is aimed at grooming our local students for a more global environment, and aimed at bringing in foreign students who will add to the vibrancy of our institutions, create friendships and bonds with our local students and perhaps, eventually, assimilate within Singapore society. Over the last few years, top international universities have established a presence in Singapore to offer postgraduate education. These include INSEAD, Chicago Graduate School of Business, MIT, Technical University of Munich, Stanford and, most recently, Duke. At the undergraduate level, MOE is open to having one or two high quality private universities in Singapore. We will also allow two or three privately-funded secondary schools or junior colleges to be set up in Singapore. These schools will add diversity and choice to our education landscape. They will be allowed to enrol up to 50% foreign students. MOE is currently reviewing the applications that we received at the end of last year, and we will make an announcement on the first set of schools by April.”
“Are there students who are keen to take GP in Chinese, and will the universities, based on their assessment of the type of graduates they want to produce, say that this is a useful subject that they want to take into account? So, I will keep this as an issue, amongst many others, that we have to keep looking at from time to time. I mentioned yesterday, for instance, the possibility of a new elective in the JC curriculum on China studies. That will also be something we have to study carefully. We have to make sure that there is a demand for that subject and the universities will have to decide whether they recognise it. My sense is that they probably will, for all the reasons that the Members have talked about. Knowledge of contemporary China is going to be a very useful piece of the package. Do students need language skills? Absolutely. I think I elaborated on this yesterday, not just in general, but specifically with regard to our mother tongue languages. I have elaborated on how critical it is for Singapore to ensure that the mother tongue languages do not get eroded and that students, especially through our school system, 10-12 years of education, have enough incentive to motivate themselves to take the mother tongue seriously. Pre-school Education”
“I am sorry if I did not answer the question on transparency adequately. Let me first say that it will be quite essential for NUS and NTU to ensure transparency in the criteria that they will employ, both for the universities as a whole as well as individual faculties. These criteria have to be made quite transparent. The processes which they will take to select students will also be processes that have to be subjected to internal accountability and occasional external audit. That is what we will do. They will not be transparent on the question of why student A got in and student B did not get in. The system cannot tell our students exactly why they did or did not get in. The best universities in the world tell their applicants, "You give me all the information about yourself and I will decide." And they have been able to maintain public confidence and credibility because they have made good decisions over time. So, transparency in criteria and processes will be there. But we have to get used to the fact that if we move away from a single definition merit system towards a broader definition merit system, students will sometimes have to ask themselves, "Well, I am not quite sure why I got in, or why I didn't get in." That is the norm in all good universities internationally. On GP in Chinese, this is an educational issue. I would not view it as a political issue. The universities will have to decide for themselves whether they think that is a valuable subject and whether, in fact, selecting students on that basis will be relevant to certain faculties or departments. And I can imagine that there will be some departments that might be interested in it. But we have to make sure that there is demand for such a subject.”
“Sir, I understand that the MTI agencies and SPRING, in particular, are in the process of developing an accreditation framework for private institutions and programmes, be it in tertiary or other types of educational programmes. A robust framework of quality assessment and recognition for private education run either by an industry body with Government support, or a Government agency, such as SPRING, can be helpful in developing Singapore as an education hub. However, it remains good advice for anyone wanting to sign up for a distance learning programme to do his own research on the university and the programme before embarking on the course.”
“The changes will lead to higher quality in the universities to the advantage of our students. They will also position our universities in the years to come as leaders in the development of intellectual capital, and entrench them as centres of excellence in the region and beyond.”
“Dr Khor pointed out that it would be more difficult to raise funds here, and Dr Gan See Khem also addressed this issue. There is a point there. The culture of philanthropy in Singapore is not as developed as in the US. But it is not negligible. Just last month, NTU received a benefaction of $5 million from Mr Ng Bok Eng. Our universities are seeking to develop this tradition. They will have to do more to engage private donors, as Dr Gan See Khem has pointed out, especially the alumni who have benefited from their university education and have become successful in life. The Government, on its part, is committed to helping our local universities build up their endowment funds, by matching their donations which universities received. 2.00 pm Dr Khor asked how do we ensure the universities correctly anticipate manpower requirements. Our universities are guided each year by a national manpower-planning framework on the number of graduates required in various broad categories. This framework, which is coordinated by the Ministry of Manpower, draws inputs from various Ministries and industries. At the same time, the universities themselves have developed their own links with industry partners, for instance, through the faculty advisory committees. Moving forward, the universities, and indeed students themselves, will need to be alert to developments and long-term trends in industries, so as to decide on the breadth and depth of skills that will be in demand. MOM, MOE and the economic agencies and the universities are working towards better sharing of employment trends, information and data so that students are better informed. Sir, we are embarking on an exciting phase of development in our university sector.”
“Taking a loan to pay for an undergraduate education is a common phenomenon in countries like Australia and the US. In the US, almost half of their full-time undergraduates take up loans to pay for part or all of university education. We will not want loan schemes to be onerous on young graduates. They will not be a burden. They will not deter graduates who marry from wanting to procreate. We can also study the "graduate tax" idea, which was mentioned by Mr Iswaran during the Budget debate, and I believe by Dr Amy Khor. There are many variants of this internationally. There are some schemes in Australia and the UK, for instance, which are essentially loan schemes which are operating through the tax system. We will study all the possibilities carefully. As Dr Khor has rightly pointed out, part-time work is another way students can help pay for at least part of their education. All three universities have established schemes for students to work in the schools or offices on campus to earn money to meet their expenses in the university. For example, NTU has a scheme where students are recruited as student assistants, and paid to carry out routine duties, while SMU has a work-study grant scheme. But we can do more in this area. Part-time work is far more common amongst university students abroad, both within and outside the campuses, than in Singapore. In fact, I myself earned a handsome stipend washing dishes in a restaurant when I was doing my undergraduate education in the UK. Endowments and Donations Philanthropy is another source of income for the universities. In the US, donations from individuals and private organisations have helped many universities build up substantial endowments as a major funding source.”
“MOE will therefore review the cost sharing formula in the universities, and study carefully the proportion to be borne by the undergraduates. We will also see how the universities can best distinguish between the costs of teaching and research programmes. We should decide on a fair share of the teaching costs that should be borne by students. In the US, for example, universities' activities in teaching and research attract different streams of funding. Teaching is funded primarily by tuition fees and government grants. Research costs, such as infrastructure including depreciation charges, direct and indirect costs, are recovered on a project basis from research sponsors. Mr Gan Kim Yong suggested raising taxes to subsidise university education. This is a MOF matter. But I am not sure that doing so will be equitable, because not all taxpayers are graduates, and there is no reason why all taxpayers should subsidise graduates. Financial Assistance MOE will ensure that no deserving student is denied a university education on grounds of financial difficulties. Admission will be needs-blind. If a student can get in on his merits, we will want to make sure he is not deterred from accepting the place for financial reasons. We are well aware of the median salary in Singapore. We are well aware of the needs of poor students, and we want to make sure that they get financial assistance in the form of bursaries and also other means. We are also aware of the needs of the middle class, and we want to ensure that the middle class does not feel squeezed out of a university education. So, we will study all possible financial schemes to ensure that access to university education is open to all. We have to consider seriously the matter of loans.”
“Last year, the average subsidy per year which a university undergraduate received was double that of a polytechnic or ITE student; 3½ times that of a secondary school student, and five times that of a primary school student. Add to this is the fact that a university student is subsidised for more years of education, from the time he enters Primary 1, compared to students in our polytechnics and ITEs. Take, for instance, the cost of providing students with post-secondary education from after the secondary stage. So, for a university student, it is JC plus university education. For an ITE student, it is two years of ITE education. For a polytechnic student, it is three years of polytechnic education. The Government, on present subsidy rates, subsidises a university student over six years of post-secondary education, five times more than an ITE student who receives two years of an ITE subsidy. We should therefore review if undergraduates should pay a higher share of the cost of university education, as Dr Gan See Khem has argued. They are subsidised much more heavily than other students in the education system. They also stand to benefit the most by commanding a higher salary when they join the workforce, and that remains true, even accepting Mr Gan Kim Yong's point that they add value to the economy. But if we compare what a university student earns over his lifetime compared to what a polytechnic or ITE student earns, and if we compare what subsidies we are providing them, we have to come away with the feeling that there is some disjunct. We have to review this. As we open our universities for more Singaporeans to go through university education, the total share of the education budget will go up, crowding out our spending on other students in the system.”
“From 1998 to 2002, total expenditure on the universities grew by 41%, mainly because of larger student enrolments. By 2010, when our university cohort participation rate reaches 25%, the university enrolment would have increased by more than 15,000 students. This would require $350 million more in recurrent funding alone - not including the development cost - an increase of 42%, and not $25 million as suggested by Mr Steve Chia. We must not forget that for every one student that the university admits, the Government would have to subsidise him for three to four years, not just one year. MOE receives a budget of 4% of GDP. Just as Mr Khaw Boon Wan says for Health, I will fight for every additional cent for Education. But I cannot assume that the Government will have additional money to be dispensed. The basic issue that MOE faces therefore is how to allocate a budget of 4% of GDP at a time when we are opening up university places for more students. Do we accept a continued increase in the share of the education budget going to university education, and a corresponding cut in the share of spending elsewhere - in our schools, ITEs and polytechnics? It is neither feasible nor desirable to allow this to happen. Spending on these other sectors in basic, secondary and post-secondary education cannot be reduced in the coming years, as we strive for improvements in the quality of education across the entire spectrum of our student population. Our current co-funding formula is for undergraduates to pay 25% of the operating cost of their university education while the Government pays the remaining 75%. Only 25% of recurrent cost is borne by the undergraduates. University students enjoy a much higher dollar subsidy from Government than other students.”
“These remain important attributes for university education. And it is for NUS and NTU, or the other universities, to decide if GP would remain relevant in future. University Funding Members have raised concerns and views over the question of university fees, particularly the potential increase in university fees over the long term. This issue was discussed during the debate on the Government Budget last week. Let me explain from the perspective of the Education budget why we have to address this issue, and not duck it. In the US, UK and Australia, universities are having to raise tuition fees to meet rising costs and declining availability of state and federal government funding. Even after the debate recently in the UK, some of their top universities are already saying that the increase in fees, that was finally allowed for in Parliament, is not going to be sufficient for them to continue status quo with regard to which students they take in. Oxford University has announced that it is going to take in more foreign students now, and less UK students, because it loses too much money educating each British student. Hong Kong has just cut its university budget by 10%, again because they face a tightly constrained government budget situation. Fortunately, we are not in dire fiscal straits in Singapore. MOE does not expect to have its budget to be reduced by MOF over the medium or long term. And we do not expect to cut what we spend on the universities today in absolute terms. But the status quo formula for MOE subsidies for university education will mean that university spending will continue to increase rapidly in coming years, as more Singaporeans are admitted into our universities, and as the quality of university education goes up.”
“And we have ensured that students who have done well in mother tongue will not lose out because they can continue to count it in their scores. Mr Low also raised a broader issue of whether the Government is doing this for political reasons, as he put it, because we do not want to pay the political cost of defending Chinese education. I am sorry if I misheard some of the words, but that is the way I got it. I had explained yesterday that we have to do what is best for Singapore, and ensure that what we do in education is based on sound educational precepts. We are not going to start deciding on educational policies - mother tongue or anything else - on the basis of weighing one political constituency and another. We only have to look at what is happening in Taiwan to know how dangerous that road is, and how dangerous it is to even get into this debate. In Taiwan, they have now decided that English cannot be taught in kindergarten. Of course, the parents want it. But it is a political decision - no English any more in the kindergarten. And you know the debate that is taking place on minan hua. Let us not get into having to defend and take positions based on expediency. Let us be honest about our problems, honest about the challenges the universities face, honest about what the majority of Singaporeans need if they move into the tertiary level and face choices within Singapore and globally of which university to go to. Mr Low also asked why General Paper (GP) should remain a requirement for university admission. General Paper is not an English language paper as such - I should clarify that for a start. It seeks to develop students' logical reasoning and analytical skills. It requires students to read more widely and take an active interest in current affairs.”
“I have also explained that students continue to have a choice of submitting their mother tongue score. If they have done well in mother tongue as an AO level subject, they can include it so as to boost their scores. If they have done well in Mother Tongue or Higher Mother Tongue as a full "A" level subject, they can also include it as one of their three "A" level subjects in their scores. 1.45 pm Mr Low Thia Khiang raised some broader issues, some of which I have touched on yesterday, and I do not want to go over the same ground again. I have explained how we need a balance of strategies for mother tongue learning, and this balance has to be different for the school system compared to the tertiary system. I would not repeat those points. But it is entirely for the universities or faculties within the universities to decide if they think the mother tongue is important. The autonomy has been provided. Faculties' own scores are there. If there is any faculty that wants a particular department to assign importance to mother tongue, they will and, indeed, some faculties are going to do so, eg, Communication Studies at NTU; obviously, Chinese Studies. It has to be based on sound education precepts and on wanting to make sure you are taking in the best students for that course. That process is also in place within the 10% autonomy that we provide the university, as a whole, to select its own students. It is for them to decide whether to take into consideration a student who is outstanding in mother tongue. That is the direction we have to move in. We have fundamentally decided not to mandate that NUS and NTU include the mother tongue as part of a fixed criteria, but to provide them the choice to do so where it is relevant.”
“I asked Bob Brown why they did not look at the differentiation in SAT scores, for instance, to bring the numbers down from 6,000 to 1,000. He gave me a simple answer. He said that the difference between a SAT score of 1,500 and 1,600 is only two wrong answers. That is why they do not use SAT score to bring it down from 6,000 to 1,500 students. Because two wrong answers is not the way in which we identify the best student. I agree that as we liberalise, it will be a more complex environment for students to navigate, but it is an environment for the better. I wish to assure all Members who have spoken on this topic that meritocracy will remain a key principle for the selection of students in our publicly-funded universities. The Chinese are moving the same way incidentally. The top Chinese universities have, in fact, earlier than us, opened up to 5% of their students being taken in on independent criteria. The Chinese have a thoroughly meritocratic system, with national examinations at all levels, transparent and meritocratic. But they decided earlier than us that their top universities have to start taking students who are more than regular. The universities will be accountable to the Ministry in ensuring that meritocracy is preserved in their respective admission processes. However, I would not preclude MOE initiating occasional independent audits of the universities' admission systems. I had explained at some length yesterday the reasons why the Government accepted the recommendations of the University Admissions Committee to modify the Mother Tongue Language (MTL) requirements in the universities, essentially to do away with mandating that every student has to count his mother tongue score as part of his university admission score.”
“Let me give you an example of why a move away from a single definition of merit towards more variegated definitions is not a move away from merit, but a move towards merit. It is not a move that lessens the meritocratic nature of the system, but a move that reinforces the meritocratic nature of the system. I will give you the example of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston, which has a very strong reputation. Bob Brown, the Provost of MIT, was explaining their admission system to me. They get 12,000 applications each year - all very good students. Their first step is to shortlist from 12,000 down to 6,000. So they look at school examination results, because they do not have national examinations in the States. They look at their school test scores, they look at their advance placement tests, they look at the SAT I tests, and sometimes SAT II. They look at all the observable grades, the sort of thing that we have been doing. That brings it down from 12,000 to 6,000. Then they have to take it from 6,000 down to 1,500. They do not look at the grades anymore. They look at the whole range of other achievements of a student, not just non-academic achievements, but even intellectual achievements, in other words not just climbing a mountain or canoeing. They read carefully the testimonials of the principals. They find out what the student has done that is more than regular. What research and special projects he has done. Whether he shows the intellectual spark that they want in the school. It is a rigorous process, not precise but rigorous; not single-definition, but meritocratic. That is how one university does it and there are many others that follow an essentially similar process.”
“The flexibility given to the universities to admit 10% of their respective intakes on independent criteria, and the introduction of faculty scores in addition to the common university scores, are important changes for both the universities and the education system as a whole. They represent a shift from a "one-size-fits-all" measure of aptitude and suitability for university education, towards broader and more flexible measures on merit. I spoke yesterday of the rationale for the similar enhancements that we are making in the school system. The changes in admission practices also mark, as I just mentioned, an important step in the longer term process of creating greater autonomy, greater room for universities to do what is best to develop excellence. For NUS and NTU to go forward in a more competitive university environment locally, regionally and globally, it is essential that they be able to select the best students. Mr Iswaran is quite right that the decision-making on university admissions has to be decentralised. This is, in fact, what the UAC's recommendations have allowed for. He mentioned medicine. In fact, the medical faculty is a good example of a faculty that is making the most of the extra room that is now provided for faculty decision-making in the new admission process. The way we are moving is the way in which the best universities internationally select their students. And it would mean moving away from a single definition of merit towards more variegated definitions of merit. It would lead to an initial uneasiness because not everyone is going to know on exactly what basis they are getting into the university, but it is a move that we have to take and which students will realise is in their best interest.”
“For example, both NUS and NTU have put in place a dedicated Audit Committee and an Establishment Committee at the Council level, to ensure proper financial practices and rigorous academic appointment processes. Greater autonomy will also mean greater responsibilities for the university councils and leadership themselves. We have taken great care in identifying and selecting university Council members. We have been very fortunate to have passionate and capable Council chairmen and members serving on our three university Councils. These are individuals who carry heavy responsibilities in their own business lives, but have been willing to give valuable time and energy to the running of the universities. I thank Dr Wang for his suggestion that GPC Members should visit our universities. I am sure the universities themselves will welcome this, as it allows the GPC to familiarise itself with the challenges they face as well as their achievements to-date. We will work with the universities to organise this. University Admission As I mentioned yesterday, the Government has accepted the recommendations of the University Admissions Committee (UAC), chaired by Prof. Chong Chi Tat, to allow greater flexibility for the universities and their faculties to decide on admission criteria for their students. The UAC's recommendations represent the first major step in the direction of autonomy in admissions. I thank Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Mr Zainudin Nordin, Dr Lily Neo, Mrs Fang Ai Lian and several others, including Mdm Halimah, who have supported the changes in admission requirements.”
“As Dr Khor also highlighted, the universities must deliver the best value-for-money from the substantial public funds given to them. Without clear processes for accountability, increased autonomy is unlikely to yield positive results. This is why MOE initiated a Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU) to provide for continuous assessment of the quality of the institutions and their leadership. As part of this framework, we appointed an external review panel last year, chaired by Dr Jennifer Lee. This panel will conduct an independent, external validation of each university's self-assessment once in three years. It will report its findings and recommendations to the Minister. Amongst other things, the panel will identify and highlight the strengths and areas for improvements of the universities. The first validation exercise will be conducted in NUS in the second half of this year. MOE will monitor the universities' follow-up on the panel's recommendations. It is also in the interest of the universities themselves to take this external quality assurance process seriously, so as to improve quality and ensure they retain their credibility and public confidence as they move towards autonomy. NUS and NTU have also adjusted their internal governance structures to strengthen their processes of accountability internally, as they give faculties more room and more operating flexibility. Both universities have made comprehensive changes to the structure of their respective Councils, to better allow the Councils to shoulder a greater role in providing strategic directions and guiding the development of their respective universities.”
“Meeting these two objectives - of producing thinking and enterprising graduates and developing a vibrant and self-sustaining tradition of research - will be the major challenges for our universities in the decade ahead. The university landscape itself will become more competitive, as we allow private universities in and as we restructure our publicly-funded universities. Globally, our universities also face more competition, including more competition for the Singapore students. Competition will provide the spur for them to achieve the quality they need in the next phase of development. However, competition will have a positive impact only if our universities have the institutional autonomy to respond to the new opportunities and challenges. They must have both the room and the appetite to differentiate themselves, play on their respective strengths, and respond to changes in the demands of the marketplace. Over the next few years, we will re-examine the relationship between Government and the universities to see how we can provide the universities with greater institutional autonomy in future. It will be a broad-ranging review. The issues we have to consider include the scope of autonomy and the universities' sourcing and use of funds, how they charge fees, how they select students, how they compete for research funds on a competitive basis, and how they remain accountable as publicly-funded universities. These areas will build on changes already in place following a review four years ago of university governance and funding which led to NUS and NTU being given a greater degree of autonomy in various operational areas. Greater autonomy must also mean greater accountability on the part of the universities, as Dr Wang and Dr Amy Khor have rightly pointed out.”