(Paper Cmd. 2 of 1997)
Head L (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [30th July, 1997]. "That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." - [Mr Loh Meng See]. Question again proposed. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minster for Defence (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Sir, thank you, for allowing me to join in this debate. I listened with interest to the speech by Mr Loh Meng See yesterday on university education and I would like to comment on some of the matters which he has raised. Sir, there are three fundamental issues of particular concern to university education in Singapore today. The first issue affects both NUS and NTU. The second issue concerns tertiary education in general and the third issue affects NUS particularly. The first issue, Sir, is our objective to develop NUS and NTU as world-class universities to spearhead the development of Singapore as the "Boston of the East". The reasons for this objective have already been explained and I will not go through them again. What we have to consider is how to achieve this objective. Both NUS and NTU have come a long way. Both universities are well-recognised, highly regarded by overseas universities and employers. NUS and NTU graduates do not find it difficult to get good jobs both in Singapore as well as overseas. To develop NUS and NTU as world-class universities, we have first to decide what makes a university world-class. There will be many views on this subject. However, most academics and the general public will probably take the view that for a university to be world-class, it must have excellence in teaching of both undergraduate and graduate students and excellence in research. Then we ask ourselves: Is the present structure of NUS and NTU appropriate to enable the universities to achieve world-class standards in teaching and research? Because of our colonial heritage, NUS and NTU are structured largely on the British model where subjects are taught in departments, grouped into faculties which undertake the teaching of both undergraduate and graduate students. There are many advantages to this structure. It allows for flexible deployment of staff and strong identification of the students with the department or the faculty. The disadvantage is that undergraduate teaching may sometimes not receive sufficient attention as professors and lecturers may tend to gravitate towards research and teaching of graduate students. Another model which has been adopted by some of the best American universities is to have a formal Undergraduate College which will concentrate on undergraduate studies together with Graduate Schools to teach graduate students. The purpose of the Undergraduate College is to focus identification of each year's class with the university rather than the faculty or the department and ensure that teaching of undergraduate students is given the importance it deserves. Of course, the dividing line between the Undergraduate College and the Graduate Schools is not a water tight one. Professors teach in both the Undergraduate College and the Graduate Schools. But a formal Undergraduate College can help to ensure that teaching of undergraduate students is not neglected in favour of research or teaching of graduate students. Sir, NUS and NTU have been well-served by their present structures. It has brought them recognition and we should not change these structures unless there are compelling reasons. So further thought is necessary before any decision is taken by the two universities. Sir, the next question is how to foster excellence in research at NUS and NTU. Sir, here, we have a dilemma. One of the fundamental purposes of a university, particularly in a small country like Singapore, must be to train manpower to service the economy and society of a country. This requires the university to educate as large a number of students as possible. But if you want to become a world-class university, what you really want to do is work at the cutting edge of knowledge and this generally means that you want to concentrate not on large numbers of students but on a small number of top quality students and staff and give them the support and opportunities to compete with the best in the world. Sir, the question is: how to reconcile these two objectives of a world-class university? In the United States, this is done by a division of labour. The United States has a large number of universities. Most of the universities concentrate on basically producing the manpower which is required for the US economy. A very small number of universities try to be the best in their field and to operate at the leading edge of knowledge and these are usually not large universities. But in the case of Singapore, we cannot afford to allow NUS and NTU to concentrate on educating only a small number of students because we only have two universities here. So this is the dilemma. One solution to the dilemma which has been proposed is NUS and NTU to concentrate on producing the manpower which Singapore needs but to also have a small number of world-class institutes which can be affiliated either to NUS or NTU, or to both universities, and which can tackle problems of importance to Singapore at a level which can compete with the best in the world. Three areas have been suggested for such world-class institutes. First, advanced engineering because engineering is very important to Singapore and we do have in Singapore, some areas of engineering, for example, chemical engineering because of our petrochemical works and electronic engineering when we can really do good work. Secondly, East Asian Studies because of the importance of East Asia, particularly China to this part of the world and to the future stability to the whole region. We are in a unique position to act as an interface and interpreter of East Asia to the rest of the world and to facilitate East Asian interactions with the West. Third, molecular and cell biology because we already have an Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in NUS which is of world-class standard and the bio-technology industry could become very important for Singapore. Such world-class institutes will need a lot of resources to set up and to maintain. So we need to be very sure about the areas to be emphasised before we adopt this solution. Now I come to the second issue, Sir, which concerns tertiary education in Singapore and the issue is student numbers. To put it bluntly, we do not have enough students. This year, NUS and NTU will admit some 9,000 students of which 8,000 students are Singaporeans, 1,000 are foreign students. By the year 2000, that is in three years' time, the Ministry of Trade and Industry has projected that we will need something close to 17,000 graduates a year to service our economy. This is almost double what we can produce today. How do we get this large number of graduates whom we need to service the Singapore economy? First, we must give every Singapore student as much opportunity as possible to qualify for university study. With continuing improvements in our schools and with better teaching, as outlined by the Minister for Education yesterday, from a cohort of 40,000 to 50,000 students every year, we can with a lot of effort raise the number of Singapore students qualifying for university studies from 8,000 today, possibly to 10,000 students, or hopefully, 11,000 students a year by the year 2000-2001. This is the first step. The second step is we must increase the number of tertiary level institutions in Singapore. If you have an intake of 15,000-16000 students going to university every year and all of them go only to NUS and NTU, then this means that NUS and NTU will become mega universities with student populations of 30,000-40,000 each. I do not think this is desirable. This will lower the standards of education in the two universities. So this is why, Sir, the development of the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) into a private university concentrating on finance and business courses is very important and timely because this will give us another tertiary institution which can take in university students and increase the overall enrolment of university students in Singapore without making NUS and NTU so large that they become unmanageable. Finally, Sir, in addition to getting as many of our own students into university as possible, we have to go out to recruit students from overseas. This has to be done with greater focus and with more resources than we have done so far. We have taken the first step by restructuring the university fees structure so that there is one fee for all courses except Medicine and Dentistry and foreign students from next year will pay only 10% more than local students. But this is not enough. We will also need to set up proper admission offices in NUS and NTU which can attract and look after students from Singapore and overseas and they will need accommodation, they will need to be looked after, particularly students who come perhaps from far away regions. Sir, there is a market for students, just as there is a market for everything else. If you want to get good students, you have to go out and attract them. We are preparing to do this. One example is by having a "need blind" policy of admission which means that we guarantee students both Singapore students as well as foreign students that if you meet our standards for admission to university, we will guarantee that you will have sufficient financial aid to defray the cost of your studies in Singapore. The type of financial aid will depend on the needs of the student as well as on his academic achievements. Very good students will get a full scholarship. Students who are not so good but good enough to get into university will be given a package, perhaps of loans or paid work, some scholarship money but enough in order to pay for the course of his or her study in Singapore. Sir, you may imagine that when we do all this, students will flock to Singapore. That is not the case. These initiatives have to be advertised and have to be told to students. Otherwise, they will not apply on their own and this requires effort on the part of NUS and NTU. It is not easy but it has got to be done. 12.45 pm Sir, the third issue which affects NUS particularly is the standing of the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Science in NUS. Arts and Science are basic university disciplines. My worry is that if something is not done, I can see in the next few years the professional schools in NUS - Law, Medicine, Engineering, Business - overshadowing the Faculties of Arts and Science, so that eventually you will not get good people teaching Arts and Sciences, and you will not get good students taking these disciplines. Singapore will then lack a very valuable resource, because, first, the Faculties of Arts and Science in NUS produce the teachers for our schools. Secondly, they also provide the means by which we can enrich the whole area of university education, particularly at the undergraduate level. Sir, let me give you one example. We have been thinking on how to introduce National Education in our schools and also at the tertiary level. How do you teach National Education in a way which is meaningful, interesting and challenging to university students? It is not the same as secondary school students. At university level, you cannot just have one first-year course. Then ask all 7,000-8,000 first-year students to attend the same course in a huge lecture theatre and expect the students to find the course meaningful. It is not possible. It is a big problem. One way of doing it could be to emulate, eg, what Harvard University has done with its core curriculum. In Harvard, every student has to take 32 courses to graduate. Out of the 32 courses, one-quarter or eight of the courses have to be taken from what Harvard calls its core curriculum. The eight courses are chosen from six fields. These are Foreign Cultures, Historical Studies, Literature and the Arts, Moral Reasoning, Science and Social Analysis. Basically, you take one course from each field, and the other two courses vary. You are allowed some flexibility depending on your major, or what Harvard calls the student's concentration. Each of the six fields contains a number of courses run by different Professors, and these Professors are not graduate students or Assistant Professors. They are the best in the field, and the senior faculty makes it a point to teach these core courses. In one field, for example, in Foreign Cultures, you may have a dozen courses. So students can choose. Each course has a small number of students, and they are taught at a very high level. For example, in the Foreign Cultures field, I think Erza Vogel, the author of Japan As Number One, used to teach a course in that field. If you want to learn about Japan, he is an authority. If you want to take a course in science, you can take a course which is run by a Nobel Prize Laureate. These eminent faculties make it a point to teach these courses at undergraduate level, often at first-year level. This makes the courses meaningful. Each student can attend a course which he or she likes and is interested in, and the course is conducted at a rigorous level. But to do this, you need a good Faculty of Arts and a good Faculty of Science. Otherwise you cannot do it. It took Harvard about seven years to establish the core curriculum and another four years to actually implement it fully. We need not go as far as Harvard. One way perhaps would be to require all students in NUS, and possibly NTU, during the course of their 3-4 years in the university, to take a minimum of four courses. One course in the history of Singapore, out of a menu of courses which would be available for students to choose. Second, a course in the history, culture or society of one of our neighbours. Third, a course in human relations, because whatever a graduate does after graduation, he or she needs to be able to interact effectively with other people in order to succeed. Finally, a course in expository writing, report writing, so as to make sure that at least every graduate of NUS is able to write grammatically and concisely. Even with this limited requirement of only four core courses out of the total undergraduate curriculum, it is going to be a big task to mount the courses at a level which university students will find interesting and meaningful. And you cannot do this with Faculties of Arts and Science which are at the bottom of the totem pole in standing and prestige in the university structure. This is the issue which we have to grapple with - how to build up the Faculties of Arts and Science in NUS so that they can hold their own against the professional schools - Law, Medicine, Engineering and Business. It requires a great deal of thought. One way perhaps could be to merge the Faculty of Arts with the Faculty of Science, to create a large Faculty of Arts and Sciences, as in Harvard, which with their combined resources can then hold its own against Medicine, Law, Engineering or Business. This, I know, is a major decision. But it may provide the impetus to make Arts and Science the central disciplines in NUS, which should actually be the case for a general university like NUS. Sir, the issues which I have just outlined, as Members will realise, are very large questions, which have to be thought through. The purpose of my speech this afternoon is not to provide answers to these questions, but to inform Members of the issues so that we can have the benefit of your views. An International Academic Advisory Panel, comprising eminent academicians from the United States, Europe and Japan will be meeting in Singapore next week under the Chairmanship of Dr Yeo Ning Hong to discuss the issues which I have just outlined. Their recommendations will help us to work out the right approach to tackle these difficult and complex issues of university education in Singapore. Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir.