Tony Tan Keng Yam
Singapore
“One of the problems which they have in Britain is that, up to recently, they have no means to stop people coming into Britain and preaching in their mosques messages of hate, jihad and violence. Here, MUIS monitors our mosques very carefully, what is being preached at Friday prayers.”
“Sir, I am not going to enter into a debate about whether the war in Iraq is justified or not. That is another issue. But I would say, Sir, that with all the measures which have been taken over the last three years since 9/11, including the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the arrest of the Al Qaeda leaders, the detention of the JI lea…”
“Sir, we are extending the CCTV coverage in our bus stations, MRT stations and other places in Singapore where people congregate. It is a part of life now. For example, at our MRT stations, all our CCTV cameras are those where the films are recorded and we can analyse them. Surveillance is one of the effective ways of deterring terrorism.”
“The Muslim community in the UK has contributed to the healing process and has worked hard with the other communities to strengthen the moderate voice of Islam.”
“I would say again, Sir, that what we should do is when you see something which is suspicious, if you see a bag which is left unattended, report to some authority. We will look into it. We have to. And I am glad that we are getting more reports today, be vigilant.”
“It could reach here. We have to live with it. We support the war in Iraq. We believe that it is good for us to join the coalition led by the US against terror. The fight against terror is worldwide. We cannot opt out by not taking part. We are in it. We must continue whatever the difficulties.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,158 lines we hold for Tony Tan Keng Yam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 24.
“If there is an environment of politeness and respect in the home, these values are absorbed by children, as if by osmosis. You do not have to teach them consciously. But the values will remain with the children for a long, long time. So it must begin in the home, but it can be consolidated in the schools. Within the school structure, Sir, inculcation of core values is best done during the primary school years. This is because during the primary school years, from ages 6 to 12, these are the years where children's impressions and characters are still being formed and attitudes are being shaped. By the time the child gets to secondary school, it is unlikely that there will be the same impact as in primary school when the lessons can be vividly impressed in his or her mind. Now, Sir, what principles should we follow in the teaching of core values in schools? From the debate last Friday, it is generally agreed that the inculcation of core values cannot be effective if it is confined to a subject that is taught only at specific times and by specific teachers. As noted by the Member for Moulmein and the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, it is the ethos of the school. It is the example of the teachers that play the decisive role in the transmission of core values to pupils in school. A school that is well run and orderly, where there is a proper relationship between the teacher and the pupils, where there is an air of politeness, respect and consideration - I think that that school itself is a better vehicle for the transmission of core values than any formal lessons that we can devise.”
“Our people by being educated in English do not need to read books in translation as is the case in Japan, Taiwan and Indonesia. They are able to read published materials directly from the West and see television programmes directly. And this openness is accentuated by the development of television as the most pervasive medium of communication in the world today. Television, Sir, has made closer the realization of one world where events that take place in one country can be instantaneously transmitted with great emotional impact to citizens in many other countries around the world. Whether it is soap operas, situation comedies or momentous events like the funeral of the Emperor in Japan or the destruction of the space shuttle "Challenger" in America - all these can be immediately perceived by our children in Singapore. And this daily dose of television material from the West must, over time, have a significant impact on our children's attitudes and outlook towards life. This is why we are today talking about why it is necessary to retain our core values in a situation where we have emphasized and encouraged the use of English as a common working languageand exposed our people and our children to the media, particularly television from the West. How do we go about inculcating core values in our children? I think the answer is not with the schools. The answer is with the home. Inculcation of core values must begin with the home. Children absorb core values even before they go to school. They learn them from their parents, grandparents, relatives. When children are young, they are natural imitators. They see what adults do, how adults behave in the home and outside the home, and they follow.”
“The second reason, Sir, is that a knowledge of English made it possible for us to have rapid economic development by rapidly absorbing technology from the West without a need for massive translation facilities which would have been impossible for a small country like Singapore. Indeed, Sir, many companies say that one of the attractions of Singapore as a centre for investments is their ability to start up factories here more quickly than in other countries because of the ability of our people to understand instructions in English, thereby enabling the company to transfer manufacturing processes rapidly to Singapore. The third, and I think in some ways the most important reason, is that without the widespread use of English I do not think that it would have been possible for us to build up the Singapore Armed Forces quickly and so effectively as we have done. We need economic success to give us the means to buy arms and equipment. Then of course the technical manuals and instructions are in English and you cannot build up an armed force quickly if all the manuals and instructions have to be translated into three languages which would have been necessary in a multi-racial society like Singapore if we do not have English as our common working language. Without a strong economy, without a strong SAF, there simply would be no Singapore today as we know it today. Sir, I made these points in order to put the issue in perspective. But like everything else in life, there is a price for success and the price for Singapore is that for educating our people and our children in English as a key to the technological knowledge of the West, we also inadvertently expose them to cultural influences, attitudes and habits of the West.”
“The process went on inexorably so that by the mid-1980s, Chinese, Malay and Tamil medium schools had been phased out and all schools were converted to a national system of education whereby all pupils learn English as their first language and their mother tongue as their second language - CL2, ML2 and TL2. The only exception was in the nine secondary SAP (Special Assistance Plan) schools and the four primary schools which continued to teach CL1 in addition to EL1. I think a question which would be pertinent to ask, Sir, is whether it was right for us to encourage Singaporeans to use English as a common working language and to accommodate the wishes of parents for an English medium education for their children. I am sure there will be many views but in my own view, Sir, I believe that there really was no choice. Without the widespread use of English, we would not today have a thriving, prosperous Singapore. Let me give you my reasons. There are three of them. First, I believe for racial harmony in a multi-racial society like Singapore, you need one common working language which all races understand and can use for communication with one another. Otherwise, misunderstanding and suspicion can easily arise and multi-racial peace and harmony will come under strain. Singapore is perhaps unique among the countries which have gained their independence in adopting a pragmatic policy towards language and emphasizing the importance of English even at the risk of somewhat lowering the importance of the mother tongue. Perhaps this is one of the reasons, Sir, why we have succeeded when so many other developing countries have failed.”
“Sir, the subject of core values and how to inculcate core values in our children was raised by several Members during the debate last Friday and this subject has also been very widely discussed in the press in the last few months. What I would like to do, Sir, this afternoon is two things. First of all, to give a perspective on the subject and, second, to outline a practical measure which the Ministry will be taking with regard to the dissemination of core values in our schools. I believe, Sir, we can understand why, after so many years, the retention of core values has now become an issue by looking at the enrolment figures in our schools over the last 30 years. These figures are given in an Annex which I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute. [Copies of Annexes (Cols. 567 - 570) distributed to hon. Members]. Let me summarize the main points. Annexes - ENROLMENT OF PUPILS IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS BY LANGUAGE MEDIUM, CHOICE OF CL1/CL2 AT PSLE IN 4 PRIMARY SCHOOLS (Cols. 567 - 570) First, prior to 1960, more children were educated in Chinese, Malay or Tamil medium schools than in English schools. In fact, children who were educated in English medium schools were in the minority. But after Independence and with the growing economic success of Singapore the importance of learning English as a subject for economic purposes and as a common working language among the races in Singapore became evident. A good knowledge of English became the passport to a good job and to bright prospects. This was realized by parents and they responded to this trend by enrolling their children in English medium schools in preference to Chinese, Malay and Tamil medium schools.”
“Sir, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is yes.”
“In a nutshell, Sir, the policy of the Government is and will continue to be to make sure that no bright student who has been accepted by NUS or NTI will be preventd from acquiring a university education simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees and we will do what is needed to maintain this policy, including, if necessary, reviewing our loan schemes or providing other forms of financial assistance, such as awarding more scholarships or bursaries if this is shown to be necessary.”
“As to the point brought up by the Member for Leng Kee regarding the timing of the announcement, the fee increases have had to be decided after the Finance Ministry has settled its budget for the year and we have to announce the fees before students apply for the new session. It is only fair. We cannot announce the fees after they have applied and then find that they have to pay new fees. So this is the reason why the new fees have to be announced during this period. To sum up, Sir, university students are educated at very large public expense. They can aspire to highly remunerative jobs and to earn good salaries when they graduate. After receiving the benefit of a university education, it is only right, Sir, that when they are working they should pay back part of the Government's subsidy in order to lessen the burden of financing university education purely through taxpayers' money. After the recent fee increases, the grant by Government will finance about 77% of the operating expenditure of NUS and NTI. As a long-term target, NUS and NTI should work towards steadily reducing the percentage of their operating expenditure which is financed by Government to somewhere between 60% and 70%. But, of course, this cannot be done immediately and it will have to be implemented over a period of time in order not to place an undue burden or hardship on students and their parents. At every stage we must ensure that the fee increases do not have the effect of limiting access to NUS and NTI, particularly for students who are bright but who come from poor homes. These students have as much right to university education as children whose parents are in more comfortable circumstances.”
“I may add that such generous provision of student loans to foreign students is unheard of in other countries. The reason for us being so generous is that we recognize the importance of having foreign students in our universities. They enable our own students to have a broader and richer university education interacting with students from other countries and with different cultures. It is pertinent to note that, even with the increased fees, the fees for non-Singapore students studying at NUS and NTI are between half and one-third of the corresponding fees which a foreign student would have to pay to study at universities in Australia, England, New Zealand or America. As I have just said, Sir, the loan schemes which we have made available for Singapore students, ie, the 50% tuition loan scheme from the Government and the universities' own additional loans, are not confined to Singapore students. The schemes are open to non-Singapore students as well. I hope therefore, that non-Singapore students would not be deterred from applying to study at NUS and NTI. If they are bright enough to be accepted by our universities, we will ensure, as for Singa- pore students, that they will be given sufficient financial assistance to enable them to study here. In this connection, Sir, I want to refer to a point made by the Member for Tampines GRC, Dr Aline Wong, on Monday concerning the $2,000 limit on loans granted by the universities from their own loan funds. Sir, I am happy to inform her that the universities exercise discretion with respect to this $2,000 limit. They will waive the limit where necessary for students in needy circumstances. The Member can set her mind at ease that the limit will not be an obstacle to a student who needs additional funds.”
“Similarly for a student who is taking a laboratory-based discipline like engineering or science and working on the same basis, the number of years which the student will require to repay the loan is just over four years. It is less than five years. For a student who is studying medicine, the period is just over eight years. Since the terms of the student loan allow the student as long as 15 years to repay his loan, one can see that the claim that indebted students will be hard-pressed to repay their debts is not borne out by the facts. Sir, in the university's press statement, it is also stated very clearly that if the Government loan scheme is not sufficient, students can apply to NUS and NTI for additional loans from the universities' own loan funds. For 1988 and 1989 the number of students at NUS and NTI who applied for this additional financial assistance was 300, less than 2% of the student population of 18,600 students. Of those who applied, over 90% were granted additional financial assistance by NUS and NTI. The total amount approved by the universities was $219,000 with the average grant being just under $1,000. These figures show quite clearly that through the Government loan scheme and the universities' own funds, there are more than ample resources to ensure that no student who enrols or who is currently studying at NUS or NTI would be prevented from continuing his education simply because he is unable to find the ready cash to pay his fees. In fact, Sir, to our knowledge, no student has ever left the NUS and NTI on account of financial circumstances. He may leave because of other reasons, but not because he cannot find the means to pay his fees. What I have said, Sir, applies just as much to non-Singapore students as to Singapore students.”
“I would like to inform Members of the number of students who have actually applied for these loans and the amount of the loans. For the academic year 1988/89, 3,174 students from NUS and NTI applied for the Government loan schemes. These students comprise 17% of the total undergraduate student population of 18,600 at NUS and NTI. The total amount that was borrowed was $4.5 million or an average of $1,400 per loan. In this connection, Sir, I just read in today's Straits Times a letter in the Forum page with the rather alarming headline "Indebted graduates will be hard-pressed to repay debts". I had, in fact, asked the NUS and NTI to work out how many years a student would need to repay the student loan from the Government after he or she graduates and Members may find some of these figures to be of interest. Let me take, for example, a Singapore student who is studying a course in Arts or one of the non-laboratory based disciplines. Assuming that the student takes the full 50% tuition loan, ie, $1,300 out of the new fees of $2,600. Then for the three-year general degree course, his total loan will be $3,900. If he gets Honours, that means an additional year, the total loan would be $5,200. Assuming the student passes his examinations and graduates and then joins the Government and he uses, say, 10% of his starting salary to repay the loan. The calculation shows that he will be able to repay the amount of money which he owes to the Government well within four years. This is not taking into account any salary increases which the student may get during the period of the first four or five years of his working life, nor the salary increase which was announced this morning.”
“In other words, last year, on the average, the Government was spending over $13,000 each year to educate a student at the university level as against $2,300 for each student in our schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres, polytechnics and the VITB. Now, Sir, the Government regards education as an investment in people and we have funded education generously. But the disparity between the allocations is such that it must be more equitably distributed among the various educational sectors in Singapore and I think that it is right that we should reduce, as I have said in 1987, the percentage of Government expenditure on education that is allocated to the universities so that we may have more money to spend on upgrading the quality of education in our schools and the other sectors of education in Singapore where the majority of our students and pupils are. This sets out the fundamental principle why it is necessary to raise university fees. I now come to the actual fee increase. In raising university fees, we must always keep one basic principle in mind and, that is, we must make sure that students who come from poor families, whether these are Singaporeans or non-Singaporeans, should not be penalized or prevented from acquiring a university education simply because their parents cannot afford to pay the fees. This is a basic principle which we must follow in all fee increases. But it is because we want to ensure that access to university education is not dependent on the students' financial circumstances that the Government in 1987 earmarked a sum of $100 million to be operated as a revolving fund to finance loans to students and these loans are for a specific purpose of helping NUS and NTI students to meet the cost of their university fees.”
“But if we want NUS and NTI to operate properly, we must give them adequate finance, not too lavishly, but enough for them to run their operations properly as universities, and this means a lot of money $351 million for the financial year 1989/90 for the operating cost alone, ie, the recurrent expenditure without taking into account their development costs. The major part of this expenditure, Sir, must inevitably be financed by a grant from the Government. But the question we should ask ourselves is: should Government finance all, or almost all, of the expenditure of NUS and NTI? In this connection, Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah has referred to some figures which I quoted in 1987. I have updated the figures and I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the table now. These are the figures for the distribution of expenditure among our various educational sectors for the financial year 1988. If Members will study the table, they will see that for FY 88/89 NUS and NTI have a total student population of some 20,600 students - about 18,600 undergraduate students and about 2,000 post-graduate students. These 20,600 students comprise 4% of the total student population of 523,000 students in Singapore. The remaining 503,000 students are in our schools, junior colleges, technical institutions, Pre-U centres and VITB. But in terms of Government expenditure on education, however, this 4% of students studying at the university accounted for 19% of the total recurrent Government expenditure on education in 1988/89. The remaining 81% was spent on educating over 500,000 students in our schools, junior colleges, pre-university centres and other technical institutions.”
“The provision of services such as libraries will decline in quality and the discontent of the staff which is chronically underfunded will continue.' Another article, Sir, from the same Supplement, 21st October 1988, headlined "Faculties' defiance as cuts loom". 'The English Department at Lancaster University in England has accused the University of putting financial constraints over academic quality in its drive to cut cost. The third one, Sir, 12th August 1988, from a different country, Australia. "Australian students to be taxed as from 1989." 'Australia's 400,000 higher education students will pay a tuition tax of A$1,800 for each year of study from the start of 1989.' This is for Australian students. For foreign students who are studying in Australia, as Members will know, they have to pay the full-course fees which is very much higher than the A$1,800. I will not bore Members with these articles but just one more, which I like very much: "Universities declare war on Ontario Budget". I just quote the first paragraph, Sir. 'The Ontario Council of Universities frustrated by what it describes as a decade of chronic underfunding has declared war on the provincial government [that is Ontario] 1989/90 budget.' I think, Sir, these examples will, I hope, suffice to show that the traditional system of funding universities entirely from the Government with students paying only nominal fees cannot continue. In Singapore here, Sir, we have established two tertiary institutions, NUS and NTI. We can be proud of them. They are recognized to be of international standards.”
“However, Sir, today, with the cost of running universities being a major item in the education budgets of most countries, the system of financing university education entirely through grants from the Government is coming under strain. I do not have to point out to Members the financing problems which many universities today in England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are facing. Some universities in those countries have expressed a fear that because of inadequate finance they have to run the risk of lowering the quality of education provided to their students. For example, by not filling up academic posts when these fall vacant or by not upgrading their facilities and equipment even when this is necessary. There is no shortage of reports in the daily press on how the universities in these countries are now today, finding that their grant from the respective Governments to be inadequate to run their universities properly. Let me just quote a few examples which I have taken at random from the Times Higher Education Supplement. The first one, Sir, is from the 17th February 1989, and it is headlined "Principals' gloom and anger over pay". I will just read a few paragraphs. This is a statement by Sir David Smith, the principal of Edinburgh University and he warned: 'The time is fast approaching when it will be impossible to run good universities on the present system of funding (ie through a Government grant). In a bleak address to the University's General Council, Sir David Smith, the principal of Edinburgh University, says that he sees little prospect of improvement in the overwhelming problem of the university's financial position. Student/staff ratios will inevitably rise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, increases in fees are never popular and the increase in fees by NUS and NTI announced last week has predictably drawn a number of comments from Members of Parliament both today and on Monday and also from members of the public, in particular the university students. Most of the comments have focused on the quantum of the increase and the worry that the increased fees will impose hardship on students. I think this is entirely understandable and I sympathize with much of the sentiment. I shall address this matter later on in my statement this afternoon. However, in my view, Sir, the comments have not really addressed the nub of the issue. The increase in fees is not the result of an ad hoc decision by NUS and NTI. the increase in fees is a consequence of a policy decision made by Government. The central issue, Sir, is how should university education be financed? Should it be entirely or almost entirely through a Government grant financed through taxpayers' money, or should it be through a mixture of Government grant, direct fees paid by students, and student loans? Let me give a little background to this issue. In Singapore, as in many other countries in the Commonwealth, including England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand where some of our students go to, the traditional method of financing university education has been through a Government grant, and the fees paid by students are consequently nominal. This system has its obvious attractions, particularly for students. We would have liked to continue this system, and the system was workable so long as the cost of operating universities was not high.”
“When talking about the National Ideology, our aim is to unite, and not to segregate the various races. We want to strengthen, not weaken, our social cohesion. We cannot and should not impose the cultural values of one's race on the other races. When we talk about Confucianism and its values, we do not mean to impose it on the Malays or Indians. The Member for Potong Pasir referred to Prof. Tu Wei Ming's comment about Confucianism being Chinese because of its Chineseness. I do not deny that. There are many Chinese who do not know the Chinese Language. But this is not to say that those Chinese who do not understand Chinese must be bad hats. No, it is not so. There are many of us who do not know their mother tongue because of their past circumstances. During the colonial days, not everybody could attend school. Therefore, many clans, associations, set up schools to enable Chinese children to attend schools to learn Chinese. So those students who attended such schools were able to speak only Chinese. Whereas those who joined the few Government English schools could speak only English. This is not their fault. They are not to blame. It is due to social circumstances then. There is no ulterior motive in our attempt or effort to promote the learning of mother tongue to their children. It is for the good and in the long-term interest of all concerned. So I hope that the Member for Potong Pasir will support this. I am also glad that the NCMP Member has also expressed his appreciation that the PAP recognized the danger to the society of too much Westernization, and I believe he would also agree to this plan for a set of National Ideology.”
“They complemented each other, and helped Singapore achieved independence. Yesterday, the Member for Potong Pasir had handed a bouquet to the leadership of the PAP. I would like to thank him. But I dare say that the the PAP leadership does not consider themselves as being the only ones who deserved this accolade. We are now talking about formulating a National Ideology in the long-term interest of our country. Some may ask why did we not talk about this earlier? Why do we talk about this now? Let me explain. In the past, the situation was different. In those days, we had to look after our stomachs, to fill our stomachs three times a day. Now that our living standard is better, and everybody is able to speak English and we are able to absorb foreign technology and science. Not only this, we are watching foreign movies and TV programmes. So, we can be easily influenced by foreign culture and values. The PAP Government is, as we all know, one that is always on the alert and vigilant over the future, even though we are now having a peaceful time. The leadership is mindful of the need to establish or formulate a National Ideology to ensure the wellbeing of the future development of Singapore. While the people are talking of democracy, rights and freedom, they must also consider the interest of the family, the society and the nation on how to continue enjoying prosperity, peace and a good standard of living. Not all Western social customs and habits are bad. For example, freedom of marriage is, of course, better than the old Oriental precept which prohibits close proximity and mixing between the male and the female. When we talk about freedom of marriage, we should at the same time talk about our duties to the family. The family is the basic unit of the society.”
“It is true tha we have leaders who were educated in the West; but, to say independence of a country depended entirely on them would be too simplistic. In their struggle for independence from colonial rule, many countries had gone through a period of bloody revolution, turmoil and struggle before independence could be achieved. The PAP leadership was able to successfully achieve independence for Singapore without bloodshed was because of the broad support of the masses. After the Second World War, movements for independence had taken place throughout the world, one of which was India, followed by Burma and other South East Asian countries. One after the other had become independent, including Singapore. But before the PAP was established, many Singaporeans who had not been trained in the West or educated in a western school were dissatisfied with the colonial rule under the British. They took part in anti-British activities and independence movements. I entered the Chinese High School in 1950. I was in Junior Middle 1 class. Just a few months after I entered school, the riot police came and encircled the school one day. They arrested scores of students. The society was in a volatile state. The students did not find it at ease to study in school. Although we had English lessons in school, nobody dared speak English. If you speak English, you would be branded a running dog or a breaking wind. That was a time of anti-British sentiments. At that time, there was a group of Western trained scholars and others who had acquired Western thoughts and skills. They understood methods of government administration and political systems. They decided to come forward to lead the broad masses towards independence for Singapore.”
“He considered that it was not necessary for us to formulate a National Ideology because westernization has brought about economic improvement for Singapore resulting in today's sound economic position. Therefore, western ideas such as freedom, democracy and so on have been helpful in this process. Therefore, the absorption of western political system and method of administration and management, western democracy is correct. I agree up to this point. All these have brought about economic prosperity to Singapore and social progress. But this is not westernization, this is modernization. Because, other than these, we are also learning industrial management and on how to increase productivity from the Japanese. This is not westernization. This is modernization. By westernization we mean living in western style and adopting western social habits. But this does not mean that all western cultures and habits are bad. Some are good and some are bad. Even in our oriental cultures and social habits, many are already outdated and not suitable for our present-day society and we should change them. By adverse, undesirable influence of the western culture, we mean their drug taking, and their paying too little attention to family relationships but stressing individualism, their emphasis on personal interest and not paying much importance to social or national interest. Yesterday, the Member for Potong Pasir said that westernization is good and it should be adopted wholesale. I would like to point out that this concept is wrong. In addition, he also said that the independence of Singapore had been brought about by a group of leadership in the PAP who were western educated. This is only partially right. Mass support is necessary in any struggle for independence.”
“We want to learn mother tongue but at the same time to acquire western knowledge, science and technology, management methods, administrative and judicial systems, and so on. The preservation and cultivation of our traditional values is easier done through the learning of mother tongue. But when we talk of raising the standard of mother tongue, there may be some misunderstanding. Therefore, I will avail myself of this opportunity to dispel any misconception and to help explain what the Member for Jalan Besar GRC has said and to expand on it in order to enable people to understand. What we want is to raise the standard of mother tongue by improving the teaching methods and text content. In this way it will be easier to absorb one's culture and values. It is not our intention to raise the standard by adding more words to the set list to be learned. This is the first point. On the formulation of a National Ideology through the learning of the mother tongue, let me say that when we Chinese talk about learning Chinese culture and value concepts through raising the standard of Chinese language, it is not chauvinism. Similarly, when the other races, the Malays or Indians, for example, talk about acquiring or learning their traditional culture and values through raising the standard of their own mother tongue, it is also not chauvinism. It is important that we discuss this matter in a peaceful, calm and dispassionate way with the view of the national interest and benefit in mind so that we will be able to contribute constructively towards the formulation of our National Ideology. When I look at the Member for Potong Pasir here - he has just come in - I remember what he said yesterday. I do not want to be difficult with him. He talked about the westernization of Singapore.”
“Sir, in the teaching of the mother tongue in our schools, as of the other subjects, the key, as I have remarked on a previous occasion in Parliament, must be a proper balance in our school curriculum. We want to provide for the total development of every child not only intellectually but also morally, physically and aesthetically. This is an ambitious objective and difficult to attain but it is vital for Singapore's progress and I am sure, Sir, that parents and Members would not wish us to aim any lower. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to say a few words to this House. For the past few days we have been debating on the President's Address, talking about the formulation of a National Ideology. Today, we are talking about the standard of mother tongue and related matters. We generally agree that the learning of mother tongue will help to enhance our understanding of our own value concept. But to raise the standard of learning of mother tongue does not necessarily mean that we must increase the list of words to be learned. I agree with the Member for Jalan Besar GRC on the points he mentioned earlier. At the moment, we have culled 1,800 words in the list for the primary level. This vocabulary is quite high. To raise the standard of Chinese language does not mean that we have to increase the number of words to this list. To do so would only increase the burden of the children. Today, the children have to learn more than the children in the past. Today, the children learn more subjects in schools, and there is already a greater burden on them. Our policy is right.”
“Beginning in 1990, the Ministry will increase the number of primary schools teaching Chinese as a first language in addition to English. The study of CL1 in these primary schools will enlarge the pool of CL1 pupils and provide the pupils in these schools with a strong foundation in Chinese. It will be useful preparation for those students who would like to carry on to study Chinese at first language level in the nine SAP schools. At the pre-university level, in order to encourage students with a flair for languages to continue to study their mother tongue at a high level, the Ministry proposes to introduce a Language Elective Programme initially for the study of Chinese in selected junior colleges. Features of the Language Elective Programme will include immersion programmes, award of scholarships and links with centres of Chinese Language studies. In this respect, Sir, the Ministry will soon begin discussions with clan associations, private and civic organizations concerning the award of the scholarships and I hope that they will participate in the scheme. Sir, while the proposed arrangements are initially for the study of Chinese, I would like to assure all Members that there will be parity of treatment for those of our pupils who would like to study Malay or Tamil as a first language. The Ministry will ensure that facilities are available for Malay or Tamil if there is demand. Finally, Sir, as regards the suggestions from Members concerning the strengthening of the Chinese and the Malay language departments in the National University of Singapore and the possibility of setting up a Tamil Language Department, if there is demand, I have noted these suggestions and conveyed them to the University for further study.”
“In ensuring that our children have adequate proficiency in the mother tongue, it is important, as the Member for Ayer Rajah has stressed, to make sure that standards are set at an appropriate level so that the children who may not be linguistically talented are not over-burdened and find school a chore or have to spend so much time on studying the mother tongue to the detriment of their other subjects, particularly English, Science and Mathematics. As stated in the Ministry of Education's Addendum to the Presidential Address, a mastery of English, Science and Mathematics represents essential skills which our children must acquire if they are to earn a living in Singapore's modern economy when they grow up. But for children who are linguistically talented and who wish to study their mother tongue at first language level in addition to English, the Ministry will provide the facilities to enable them to do so. At the secondary school level, children who would like to study Chinese at first language level can already do so in the nine SAP schools. Similarly, children can study Malay as a first language in the Ministry of Education Language Centre at Winstedt Road and Tamil as a first language at the Umar Pulavar Tamil Language Centre at Serangoon Road. While there are facilities at secondary school for the study of the mother tongue at first language level, the Ministry will make more provision for the study of the mother tongue at first language level at the primary and the pre-university levels. There are today four primary schools which teach Chinese as a first language, in addition to English, for those children who would like to take CL1 at PSLE.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had originally intended to wait until the Budget Debate in March in order to respond to Members' comments concerning the Ministry of Education. However, as several Members have raised a number of important points concerning our bilingual policy and the teaching of the mother tongue in our schools, I would like to take this opportunity today to outline the Ministry's proposed plan of action relating to this area. More details will be given when we meet again in March. Sir, in addressing this matter, the Member for Ayer Rajah said yesterday that he was guided by two principles, first, that children who are linguistically talented should be given more opportunities to study their mother tongue at a higher level and, second, children who are less able should not be subjected to additional burden. Sir, these principles are sound and the Ministry will take cognizance of them in the formulation of our policies. Children learn best and most effectively when they want to learn and when they are given opportunities to learn rather than when they are forced to learn. The more that we can encourage our pupils in schools to regard the learning of the mother tongue as an opportunity to be welcomed rather than as a hurdle which they have to cross in their progress up the educational ladder, the nearer we will be towards our goal of ensuring adequate proficiency in the mother tongue for our children.”
“Sir, on a government-to-government basis, the Singapore Government has set out its position very clearly and I can do no better, Sir, to quote from the press release issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs last Friday: 'In a written communication, the US government has assured Singapore that there was no plan whatsoever to interfere in the internal affairs of our country. The Singapore Government does not allege that the cultivation and instigation of Francis Seow and Patrick Seong represented official US government policy, or that the improper behaviour of Hendrickson and the others was sanctioned by the US government. In a meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 18th May 1988, the US Ambassador to Singapore stressed the difference between the behaviour of errant diplomats and the US government position. The Singapore Government accepts this explanation and expects the US government to ensure that its officials and diplomats adhere to this hands-off policy.' I think, Sir, this is a very clear statement of the position of the Singapore Government and stated quite correctly. Now, Sir, both Singapore and the United States have stated publicly that both our countries would like to put this incident behind them and continue to build our bilateral relations on the basis of mutual trust and, very important, non-interference in each other's affairs. Sir, it is in this way that we can look forward to building a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship which can bring benefit to both our countries.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to endorse the wise remarks made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I would commend his remarks to the attention of this House. Sir, every nation is different. Every nation has its own political ideology and government and in a world which is steadily growing more interdependent every day no nation, no matter large or small, can exist in isolation. the simple fact of life is that all of us have to live and work with each other while respecting each other's culture, beliefs and values. But no nation, Sir, should seek to compel other nations to accept its own culture, values and beliefs. Singapore and the United States share many common strategic interests, as has been explained by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Over the years, a strong and friendly relationship has been built up on the basis of openness, mutual trust, friendship, respect and cooperation. Above all, Sir, the relationship is founded on the internationally accepted principle of non-interference in each other's affairs. Seen in this light, Sir, Hendrickson's actions are indeed deplorable as they can damage the good relationship between Singapore and the United States. His actions may perhaps be understandable if Singapore and the United States were not friendly countries. But with the good relationship between the two countries, it is surprising that this incident should have come about at all, and I think it is understandable that Singaporeans should be angered and indignant.”
“Since 1986, the Ministry of Education has made available Malay as a third Language programme to the top 10% of PSLE pupils. Under this scheme, non-Malay pupils who did not study Malay at primary school are given the opportunity to study Malay in addition to English and their mother tongue second language. They will sit the ML2 examination at GCE 'O'level. NEWS COVERAGE BY RESTRICTED FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS 4. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the two foreign magazines and foreign newspaper, whose sales in Singapore have been curtailed by the Government, have stopped reporting news about Singapore except for reports of business done at the Singapore Stock Exchange.”
“There is at present no significant shortage of teachers in the Education Service. However more teachers will be required over the next five years, to cater for vacancies arising from retirement and resignation and the various improvements in the Education system such as single-session schools and reduced pupil-teacher ratio. The Ministry has thus planned accordingly to meet this future demand. STUDY OF MALAY IN SCHOOLS 3. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Education whether steps are being taken in schools to encourage the study of the Malay language amongst non-Malay students.”
“We are in the business of trying to find people to come to Singapore and settle here rather than persuade our own people to go abroad and emigrate.”
“I am a great believer in market forces but not at the expense of the careers of young people, and I think they will thank us more if we direct them into courses where their employment prospects are good rather than pretend to be kind now and let them do what they like and let them graduate with degrees for which there are no jobs.”
“But, Sir, there is one point which I think requires a bit of discussion, ie, his suggestion that we should not worry too much about what students study. If they all want to study Medicine, let them study Medicine. If there are 1,000 students each year who want to study Medicine and 200 who want to study Engineering, then we shall rearrange our faculties so that we expand the Medicine faculty and downgrade or shrink the Engineering faculty. I find this argument a bit strange when all parents know, and we all know, that in the years to come, Singapore cannot absorb 1,000 new doctors every year. There are just not enough jobs available.”
“This percentage will increase as a result of rapid expansion of university enrolments since 1981. The intake into the university presently constitutes 12% of the corresponding school cohort as against less than 4% for Hong Kong which has a system of education similar to that of Singapore. Secondly, the statistics on the proportion of workforce with tertiary education in Singapore are not directly comparable with those of Japan and United States because the systems of education are different. In Singapore, applicants for admission into NUS are required to sit the GCE 'A' level examination which is a national examination whereas in Japan and the United States, individual universities set their own standards for admission. Furthermore, in Japan and the United States, a significant number of degree holders are graduates of community and other colleges which are not of university status.' Then, Sir, the Member called for a second university which, as he says, is not a new call, and he has said this before. If I can remind him, he also brought up the matter in the Budget debate in 1985. My reply at that time was this [Hansard, Vol. 45, Col. 1451]: 'The Member for Potong Pasir has suggested, quoting Dr Winsemius, [which he has done today again] that we should have a second university in order to provide more places. Sir, I would like to inform him that we do have a second university, and that is, the Nanyang Technological Institute [whose expansion I have outlined today]. At present, it is affiliated to the NUS but in due course, we hope to develop it into a technical university, which is what Singapore will need in future years.' This is what I replied to him in 1985. I do not think that I need to add any new point.”
“This is because our statistics show that the attrition rate is very high and if you take the number of students who start at the beginning of a part-time course and the number who actually graduate, say, four, five, six years later, the cost per graduating student is, in fact, much higher than for full-time students. So it may not be the most economical means to educate these students on a part-time basis. I do not say, Sir, that we should entirely rule this out completely. There may be a time when this is necessary and certainly at the graduate level, the university runs part-time Masters courses in Engineering, in Business Administration and Medicine and these have proved to be popular and feasible. Where they are feasible, we will of course study these implications. But I do not think that we should lightly go into these part-time studies or part-time degree courses until we have made a thorough analysis and found that economically this would be desirable. Now, I come to the suggestions from the Member for Potong Pasir. In 10 minutes he has covered such a wide field that I do not know whether to agree or disagree with him. On the part about statistics which he has taken, saying that the percentage of graduates in our workforce is not as high as those in the developed countries which I believe is taken from the Economic Committee's Report, I would simply just quote what my Permanent Secretary has written to the press on this subject. I do not think it is necessary to give any new reasons because they are all here. The letter to the press states that: 'The quoted percentage of workforce with tertiary education in Singapore reflects the low output of graduates from the NUS in earlier years.”
“Sir, I would first deal with the point made by the Member for Bukit Timah regarding the desirability of having part-time degrees and continuing education, for example, for polytechnic graduates who might like to take a degree in engineering part-time, and similarly for other students who might like to continue their education on a part-time basis. This is not a new suggestion. It has been made from time to time. We have looked at it seriously. The problem is basically a question of economics. First of all, whether it is economically feasible to have these part-time degrees as against our present system and, secondly, as to whether the NUS or NTI have the capability to mount these part-time degrees. The Member will know that the major part of the running expenses in any educational institution, including the university, is actually expenditure on manpower which accounts for over 80% of the running costs. Whether a student is taught part-time or full-time, if he is to be taught properly, you must have the same number of people. So having a part-time degree does not really save that amount of money. It is not so much the equipment or the plant which actually cost money. The most costly item is actually recruiting the lecturers in order to teach the students and if you have more students, whether these are full-time students or whether they are part-time students, the cost figures do not change. Presumably, we do not want to dilute the quality of education by worsening our staff-student ratio. The other point is that I am not convinced that it is cheaper to educate students part-time than full-time.”
“This has always been our objective. For this purpose, Sir, the NTI Council has set up a Committee, under the Chairmanship of the NTI President, Professor Cham Tao Soon, to look into the further expansion of NTI and what new courses should be introduced. The Committee expects to complete its deliberations and to submit its recommendations to the NTI Council and to the Ministry of Education before the end of this year. Looking further ahead, Sir, once the expansion of NTI has been completed, it is my personal hope that in due course of time, perhaps in the 1990s, we shall see in Singapore another institution at university level teaching subjects which are not taught at present at NUS or at NTI, subjects such as teaching, physical education, and I think very important, the fine arts, music, drama and dance. I think that this would form a complete structure for university education in Singapore. Sir, to sum up, the NUS and the NTI are institutions that Singapore can be proud of. They are regarded by employers and academics as being comparable to the established universities in the developed world. Graduates of NUS and NTI have shown that they can hold their own in the workplace against graduates from other well-known universities. We should not throw away decades of hard work, effort and money by revising policies of admission, instruction or examination which have served us well and which have stood the test of time. Yes, we want more university students. But they must be university students who are of the right calibre, who are properly qualified and who can obtain jobs when they graduate. Sir, this I regard as the responsibility of a responsible government. Much obliged, Sir. [Applause]”
“This year, Sir, more students will be able to meet the NUS's admission standards and therefore qualify for admission. The Government will correspondingly increase the number of university places at NUS and NTI so that all qualified students will be admitted. I can therefore, Sir, give a definite answer to the question from the Member for Boon Lay when he asked whether we can ensure that all qualified students will be admitted to NUS. The answer is yes. Sir, on a broader note, this does not necessarily imply that we should simply expand the NUS indefinitely until it resembles one of the giant mega state universities in America. I think when a university becomes too large, the quality of education falls because it is not possible for lecturers then to give the type of personal attention to the students which is the hallmark of a good university education. And today with NUS having a student population of about 15,000 students (this incudes the post-graduate students), I am of the view that the NUS is in fact reaching the limit of its expansion. And as far as the NUS itself is concerned, I think that it would be preferable to maintain the level of intake at roughly the present level. Sir, I would concur with the point made by the Member for Ayer Rajah that instead of expanding the NUS we should expand the NTI. With a bigger pool of qualified students, the time is in fact opportune for NTI to establish a wider variety of courses to complement the present courses of Accountancy and Engineering which are available at the Institute today. This expansion of NTI will not only enable us to provide more university places for qualified students but it will also pave the way for NTI to develop into a full-fledged technological university by the 1990s.”
“However, any attempt to satisfy private demand without due coordination with social demand, that is, the potential demand for trained manpower to meet the objectives of maximum economic and social development, is an extremely dangerous position. Just because the demand for places in universities far exceeds the number of places available, that does not socially or economically justify an expansion of supply. This is because uncontrolled expansion of higher education without corresponding productive employment opportunities is not only wasteful but can create a more unstable and explosive situation. A paradox which can be seen in some countries is where, in the development process, increased investment and economic growth are often accompanied by increasing unemployment and the under-use of human resources. In order to avoid such a situation, which will be disastrous for a multi-racial Malaysia, the universities have to try to ensure that increase in enrolment is monitored in relation to employability.' Sir, I think there is much in these two quotes which we would do well to bear in mind. It is not only in the developing countries but in many of the developed countries which have over-expanded their university systems that have run into problems of overcrowded universities, dif- ficulty of maintaining standards and considerable unemployment of graduates. Sir, having said all that, I do not want to add by leaving the impression with Members that there are entirely no prospects of our ever being able to get more students to go to university. With the hard work put in by the Ministry of Education over the last eight years, we have improved our schools and junior colleges significantly. Academic standards have gone up. '0' and 'A' level results get better each year.”
“Some academics feel that there are too many graduates being produced; others feel that too many are sent off to second-rate universities abroad and there are those who claim that overall educational standards, especially at tertiary level, are dropping. Thus they call for a more balanced human resource policy. Comment?' The answer from Dr Mahathir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, is as follows: 'This is wisdom from hindsight. Now that they see it they say it's wrong. But at that time they were calling for more universities, they wanted more students sent abroad. So we did. And they couldn't get into all the best universities because there simply weren't enough places. And it's costly so they got into the less known universities. But there're still quite a lot of them who've done quite well after graduation. What do you do? I agree with some of the points. I don't like this stress on academics. It only turns out a lot of critics ... who know how to run things but who've never actually run anything. First I'd like to see hard-working people. I'd like to see more technicians, more skilled workers. But this is not a popular idea, this notion of having a lot of practical people. It's so much easier to be able to say things and not do things. I'm looking for people who can do things.' On a different note, Sir, this is a more academic quote, I quote from the section on Malaysia in the 1986 Commonwealth Universities Handbook from an article written by Professor Sharom Ahmat and he talks about university access in Malaysia here: 'The issue of access to university education is potentially a politically explosive problem. One way of easing the tension is for the government to expand enrolment.”
“The future prosperity of Singapore depends very much on the nation's graduates with technical/business qualifications and, in many respects, the two polytechnics are the best equipped institutions to offer the type of courses a modern technological society demands. Many of the post 0 level students will feel proud when they receive their acceptance into a polytechnic course. They will have chosen well! Signed Peter C.N. Hardstone (Dr)' Sir, I think there is much in this letter which constitutes sound advice which parents and students would do well to consider seriously. Finally, Sir, a word about university education, academic standards and employment of graduates. Students who go to the NUS spend time, effort and money and they should obtain at the end, when they pass their examinations, a degree which is internationally recognized and which bears the stamp of high quality. If we do not maintain rigorous standards of admission, instruction and examination, then the degrees of the NUS and the NTI will become devalued in time. And although, Sir, we may have more university graduates, the degrees which they get will no longer be of much value. Then it will not be long before we face the problem of graduate unemployment which has been a big problem in many developing countries. On this matter, Sir, I believe that it is instructive to note what the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohammad, said recently in reply to a question which was put to him by a magazine called Malaysian Business (1 January 1988). I would like to quote from his reply. The question from the magazine is as follows: 'Unemployment is becoming a serious problem, graduate unemployment a new one.”
“I think, Sir, for many of these students, for example those with more than 15 points for first language and best four other subjects, it would have benefitted them more if they had gone to our polytechnics. Because in the polytechnics they would have acquired skills which would later enable them to find ready employment with good salaries and they would also not have to face the trauma of failure either in their 'A' levels or subsequently when they try to get admission into the NUS. Sir, in this connection, I would like to refer Members to a letter in the Forum Page of the Straits Times on 14th March. I think what the letter says is quite relevant. The letter is headed: "Polytechnic students have chosen well. Too much emphasis on need for an 'A' level education". I would just quote a few paragraphs from this letter. '... an A level education - particularly in the Arts/Social Science and Science streams - remains very academic as A level is an academic qualification par excellence. On the other hand, polytechnic education is practical oriented and the diploma is internationally recognised. All students who now stand on the threshold of a JC [Junior College] or polytechnic entry should consider the latter [ie. the polytechnic] as a very real first option. With the resources that the Government is currently spending on both polytechnics [ie Ngee Ann Polytechnic and the Singapore Polytechnic], they are rapidly enhancing their good reputations as centres of educational excellence in Singapore. Only if a student has very firm career ambitions and only if these necessitate a university degree (e.g. medicine /dentistry), should he/she head in this direction.”
“Such knowledge and understanding will stand our students in good stead when they graduate and then find that their employment will require them having to work with people from other countries. Sir, the fact that we have been able to attract a number of able foreign students to study at NUS and NTI and subsequently to live and work in Singapore is not for the benefit of the foreign students but for the benefit of Singapore. Sir, in 1985 I mentioned that I would regard a reasonable percentage of foreign students in the University to be of the order of 20%. As Members can see from the schedule, in 1986 and 1987 the number of foreign students admitted as a percentage of the total number admitted has, in fact, been much lower. For 1986 the figure was 15%; 1987 even lower, 13%. If this percentage continues to decline, I would regard it as a something to worry about and something which has to be taken up by the Ministry and the University. Now, Sir, I come to the question asked by the Member for Kolam Ayer as to what the Government is doing for the approximately one-third of 'A' level applicants who were not successful in gaining admission to the NUS. Sir, the question is not how can the Government provide places for these students. I think the real question is, should these students aim for university education? Or even a more basic question, should they have gone to junior college in the first place? It is somewhat unfortunate, Sir, that with this stress on gaining university degrees, many students, whose chances of gaining admission to the University are marginal, still go to our junior colleges after their 'O' levels. They pass their 'A' level examinations with poor results, marginal results, and subsequently find themselves unable to get admission to the NUS.”
“Our pool of talent is limited. As I have indicated just now, for certain faculties in the university, for example, in Engineering which has a large intake of over 1,000 students every year, we simply cannot find enough Singapore students who have the academic ability to pass the university's engineering course. That is all there is to it. Unless we want to run into a shortage of trained Engineering personnel in the coming years, then we have to supplement our own manpower resources by admitting qualified students from other countries. These foreign students have to have grades which are significantly better than those for our own Singapore students before we admit them. All foreign students, as Members will know, who graduate from the NUS or NTI have to sign a bond to live and work in Singapore or at least to work for a Singapore company for at least three years after they graduate. Here I would remind Members that we are not the only country trying to attract able people to increase our manpower resources. Other countries, including the developed countries, like Australia and Canada, are doing the same. They are trying to attract able students and we are, in fact, facing fierce competition from the developed countries which are also seeking to enlarge their talent pool. Sir, besides increasing our talent pool, having foreign students in our University also gives our own Singapore students at NUS and NTI the chance to interact with students who have grown up in different societies and with different backgrounds. I think this will help our own students to get a fuller university education, ie, not only getting the required training and getting their degrees but also learning a little more about life in Singapore and in the countries around us.”
“To complete the picture, I will go on to the next group which are the Singaporean applicants other than those who took the 'A' levels one year prior to application. The percentage of those admitted here is much lower, 23% in 1986 and 20% in 1987. The reason is that this second group comprises a very varied group of applicants. For example, among them are national servicemen who actually have already been admitted to the NUS but who are applying to change their courses. Also, from time to time, we have applicants from students who have taken their examinations many years ago or from those who have applied unsuccessfully on earlier occasions. The third group is the applications from non-Singaporean students. Here the percentage, as Members will see, is also quite low, comprising about 27-28% for 1986 and 1987. I think this point was brought up by the Member for Geylang Serai so I will talk a little bit about why we still have to admit foreign students into the NUS. The non-Singapore students who are admitted into the NUS are required to meet much higher standards than those for Singaporean students. This, in my view, is only right so that the numbers will not be large for it is right and proper that the bulk of places in NUS and NTI should be taken up by our own Singaporean students. But, Sir, with all these worries which have been expressed by parents, by students and by backbenchers about admission to the NUS, we may wonder why we continue to admit foreign students and also, as the Member has just asked, whether admission of such foreign students would be at the expense of Singapore students. I have discussed this matter quite fully in the Budget debate in 1985 but to refresh Members' memory, let me repeat the reasons again. We in Singapore are a small country.”
“Before drawing conclusions, I think that it is worthwhile to have a closer look at these statistics and for this purpose I have asked the university to do a more detailed analysis of the admission profile of applicants for these two years 1986 and 1987 which have been highlighted by the Estimates Committee. The details are given in a schedule (Cols. 1131 - 1132) which, with your permission, Sir, I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute. [Copies of schedule distributed to Members.] schedule - NUS/NTI Admission Profile of Applications/Offers of Admission by Citizenship (Cols. 1131 - 1132) If Members will look at the schedule, they will see that the schedule divides the applicants into three categories. The first category, ie, the first two columns, relates to those students who took their 'A' levels one year prior to application to the NUS. The second category, which is the next two columns, relates to all other applicants from Singapore and the last one is applicants from non-Singaporean students. Sir, if Members were to look at the first two columns which relate to applicants from Singapore who took their 'A' levels one year prior to application, they will see that in 1986 out of 7,644 such applicants, 4,907 or approximately 64% were admitted. For 1987, the figures are 8,302 applicants, 5,372 were accepted or 65%. This means that in these two years, roughly about two out of every three Singaporean applicants who took their 'A' levels one year prior to admission were accepted by the NUS. This percentage of two out of three is significantly higher than the 50% of applicants accepted which formed the thrust of the comments from the Estimates Committee. It is worthwhile to bring this point to the notice of Members.”
“On that basis, Sir, Members can imagine the failure rates which will result if the university does not maintain a reasonable level of admission standards or, as has been suggested from time to time, the university simply admits all students who meet the minimum requirements to apply for admission. The NUS admission standards are not designed to keep students out, but to ensure that those students who are admitted into the NUS or the NTI have at least a reasonable probability of being able to pass the examinations and to finish their courses. These standards are not dependent on the level of the 'A' level results every year. In other words, they do not go higher whenever the 'A' level results get better. I can assure the Member for Paya Lebar that this is not the case. If we do not have these reasonable admission standards, then the result is a higher failure rate, more trauma for the students, a waste of time and effort by the lecturers and a great deal of unnecessary expenditure first by the university, the taxpayer and, finally, by the students and the parents themselves. Now, Sir, I come to the next point which is the Report of the Estimates Committee and, in particular, the table showing the number of applications for admission into NUS and the percentage of applicants which were accepted for the years 1982 to 1987. This table shows that for 1986 and 1987 approximately only half the number of applicants were accepted in those two years. I believe this is the point which was highlighted by the Estimates Committee.”
“This is because the manpower projections by the Ministry of Trade and Industry had indicated that we would need at least this number of engineers by the time the 1986 cohort graduates in 1990. But, Sir, the number that the university could actually admit in that year was only 994, a shortfall of 176 students. This means that the university had 176 places available in the Engineering faculty which could not be taken up because there were not sufficient students of the right quality. This number of 994 was only after the university had taken in a number of borderline or marginal students, as was mentioned by the Member for Fengshan, where the faculty had serious doubts as to whether these students had the academic ability to meet the requirements of the NUS or NTI Engineering course. In other words, after giving these marginal or borderline students the benefit of the doubt and letting them in, the university still could not find enough students of the right standard to fill the number of places which the university had available. 1986 was not a rare occurrence. The situation was the same in 1987. The number of places available for Engineering in 1987 was 1,230 and the number of those who could be admitted was 1,150, a shortfall of 80 students. When the faculty in 1986 and 1987 had to admit these borderline students in order to take up the places which were available in Engineering, the faculty did so with reservations because they knew that this would result eventually in higher failure rates. This must be the case and indeed this has turned out to be actually the case. Failure rates in the Engineering first-year examinations are higher than the university's average, and I regret to say it has reached 10% in some years.”
“But, Sir, this arrangement, where the student is given four choices, ensures the maximum opportunity so that every applicant who qualifies for admission will be given a place in a course in the NUS or the NTI, although the course may not be the student's first choice. In this connection, Sir, I welcome the suggestion from the Members for West Coast and Fengshan that we should publicize more the various manpower projections for various jobs so that students and parents can make a more realistic choice and a more informed choice about what careers their children should follow. The third point, Sir, and this is, I think, the most crucial point which we should ask ourselves, is whether the NUS admission standards are unduly high. I think this is a point which has been brought forward by many Members today. Generally, Sir, my view is that I do not think so. The NUS admission standards are set at a level which is comparable to that of the well-established British "red-brick" universities, for example, Birmingham, Bristol or Manchester. The reason why they are set at this level is because, from experience, the lecturers know that if they admit students who cannot meet this level of admission standards, then the students are unlikely to be able to pass their examinations and complete their courses at the NUS or the NTI. I would take, Sir, as a concrete example the case of Engineering, the faculty with the largest intake, simply because engineering graduates, being the most versatile, are the type of professionals who are most needed and would therefore find it easiest to get jobs when they graduate. For 1986, the university had targetted to admit 1,170 students into the Engineering course.”
“The number of places in each course is determined by projected manpower requirements. I think that this is only sensible because it would obviously be foolish for us to produce thousands of, say, Arts and Social Science graduates when all our manpower projections show that it will be engineers whom we will need most and who will find it easiest to get jobs when they graduate. When a student sends in his application, he is considered first for admission to the course of his first choice, and then if he is unsuccessful he will be considered for his other three choices in the order which he himself has indicated. Of course, it is easier for a student to get a place in a course which has a large intake, like Engineering, than it is for a student to get a place in a course where the intake is very small, for example, Medicine. It is important here for the student to be realistic about the chances of his getting into any particular course. If the applicant sends in an application form and says that the only course which he will consider is, for example, Medicine, or Law, then he makes it very difficult because if he does not get his first choice, then he has got no other options because he has not made use of the other three choices which have been made available to him by the University. Similarly, Sir, if a student after passing the 'O' level wants to study Science and applies for a junior college, and then he puts down that he wants to go to Hwa Chong or RJC or NJC and nowhere else, then he is obviously running a very big risk, unless of course he is a very good student and is very confident of his or her own chances.”
“This is in a way not so much different than when a person applies for a job or a scholarship. The minimum requirements are usually set at a fairly low level in order to open the field to as many applicants as possible. But simply meeting the minimum requirements does not mean that the applicant will automatically get the job or the scholarship. It all depends on the competition. Sir, in this matter of minimum requirements, the point is made very clear in the University's Handbook called "Instructions to candidates who are applying for admission". With your permission, Sir, I will just read out the relevant section from this Handbook. It says under section 5, the minimum requirements: 'Satisfying the minimum requirements means only eligibility to apply for admission to the University or to the Nanyang Technological Institute. Selection for admission is based on competition among all eligible candidates for the places available in the Faculty concerned. Selection shall be solely within the discretion of the University or the NTI.' I think, Sir, this is a matter which all applicants are told when they apply to the University and, as it states here quite clearly, the minimum requirements are the requirements to apply for admission, not the requirements to qualify for admission. I thought I should make this point clear because there has been some confusion on this matter. Now, Sir, the second point. The second point which Members should note is that students do not apply for admission to the University. The students apply to be admitted to particular courses in the University, NUS or the NTI. Each applicant for admission is given a choice of four courses for study in his application and he can list them in his order of preference.”