FY2004 COS Debate - Reply by Ag Minister for Education on Higher Education

FY2004 Committee of Supply Debate
Reply by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Acting Minister for Education

1. We have a strong and diverse post-secondary sector comprising ITE, polytechnics and universities.

2. Our polytechnics and ITEs are already leading institutions in their class. ITE is restructuring into three regional campuses, with the first regional campus ready in 2005. The establishment of Republic Polytechnic last year will inject greater competition and strengthen the diversity of the polytechnic sector.

3. The university sector is also being restructured, as recommended in the report of Dr Ng Eng Hen's Committee to review the university sector in May last year. We will expand the university sector, through the transformation of National University of Singapore (NUS) into a multi-campus university (MCU) system, the expansion of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) into a comprehensive university, and the continued expansion of Singapore Management University (SMU). In addition, we are opening up to allow a few good quality private universities to set up campuses in Singapore.

4. Our university cohort participation rate has risen from 5% in 1980 to 21% today. We are now targeting for 25% cohort participation in our publicly-funded universities by 2010. Singaporeans can also go to the private universities, on top of the places in public-funded universities provided for 25% of each cohort. In other words, we will provide subsidised university places for one in every four Singaporeans.

5. I agree with Dr Tan Boon Wan, that as we expand our post-secondary sector, and our university sector in particular, we must ensure that the quality of education is not compromised. But more than that, as we approach our targets in enrolment, our focus has to shift. The universities have to shift from a predominant focus on quantity to one of quality, as part of the broader re-orientation we have been taking in the education system as a whole in recent years. The universities have to go beyond producing high averages, to producing diverse talents and high peaks of excellence, as with our schools and JCs. For the universities especially, the playing field is no longer just Singapore or the region. They have to attain standards of excellence that place them in the first league internationally.

6. We have certain advantages. Our universities are able to build on the high standards of science and mathematics education in our schools, which exceed those of most other countries. It gives our universities a starting advantage in science and engineering-related education and research, especially. We have seen increased international collaboration between world-class universities and our local universities in these fields, in the form of research and academic exchange programmes, as well as joint programmes between universities.

7. To make the next leap in quality, our universities need to be dynamic and forward-looking institutions. They have to attract and retain first rate faculty. They have to review their teaching and assessment methods so as to groom graduates with a willingness to think originally. And besides producing graduates of the right quality, the universities have to play a growing role in building Singapore's research capabilities, as Dr Gan See Khem has just spoken on. Our universities will be key players in generating the ferment and advances in research and innovation that will take Singapore up the value chain, and establish us as a leading hub in the knowledge-based world. Meeting these two objectives, of producing thinking and enterprising graduates and developing a vibrant and self-sustaining tradition of research, will be the major challenges for our universities in the coming decade.

8. The university landscape will also become more competitive, as we allow private universities in and restructure the public universities. Globally, our universities also face more competition. Competition will provide the spur for them to achieve the quality they need in their next phase of development.

9. However, competition will have a positive impact only if our universities have the institutional autonomy to respond to the new opportunities and challenges. They must have both the room and the appetite to differentiate themselves, play on their respective strengths, and respond to changes in the demands of the marketplace.

10. Over the next few years, we will re-examine the relationship between Government and the universities to see how we can provide the universities with greater institutional autonomy in future. It will be a broad-ranging review. The issues we have to consider include the scope of autonomy in the universities' sourcing and use of funds, how they charge fees, how they select students, how they obtain research funds on a competitive basis, and how they remain accountable as publicly-funded universities. These areas will build on changes already in place following a review 4 years ago of university governance and funding, which led to NUS and NTU being given a greater degree of autonomy in various operational areas.

11. Greater autonomy must also mean greater accountability on the part of the universities, as Dr Wang and Dr Khor rightly pointed out. As Dr Khor also highlighted, the universities must deliver the best value-for-money from the substantial public funds given to them. Without clear processes for accountability, increased autonomy is unlikely to yield positive results.

12. This is why MOE initiated a Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU) to provide for continuous assessment of the quality of the institutions and their leadership. As part of this framework, we appointed an external review panel last year, chaired by Dr Jennifer Lee. This panel will conduct an independent, external validation of each university's self-assessment once in 3 years. It will report its findings and recommendations to the Minister. Among other things, the panel will identify and highlight the strengths and areas for improvements of the universities. The first validation exercise will be conducted in NUS in the second half of this year.

13. MOE will monitor the universities' follow up on the panel's recommendations. It is also in the interest of the universities themselves to take this external quality assurance process seriously, so as to improve quality and ensure they retain their credibility and public confidence as they move towards autonomy.

14. NUS and NTU have also adjusted their internal governance structures to strengthen their processes of accountability internally, while allowing their faculties greater operating flexibility. Both universities have made comprehensive changes to the structure of their respective Councils, to better allow the Councils to shoulder a greater role in providing strategic directions and guiding the development of their respective universities. For example, both NUS and NTU have each put in place a dedicated Audit Committee and an Establishment Committee at the Council level, to ensure proper financial practices and rigorous academic appointment processes.

15. Greater autonomy will also mean greater responsibilities for the university councils and leadership. We have taken great care in identifying and selecting university Council members. We have been very fortunate to have passionate and capable Council chairmen and members serving on our 3 university Councils. These are individuals who carry heavy responsibilities in their own business lives, but have been willing to give valuable time and energy to the running of the universities.

16. I thank Dr Wang for his suggestion that the GPC members should visit our universities. I am sure the universities themselves will welcome this, as it will allow the GPC to familiarise itself with the challenges they face as well as their achievements to date. We will work with the universities on this.

17. As I mentioned yesterday, the Government has accepted the recommendations by the University Admissions Committee (UAC), chaired by Prof Chong Chi Tat, to allow greater flexibility to universities and their faculties to decide on the admission criteria for their students. I thank Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Mr Zainudin Nordin, Dr Lily Neo, Mrs Fang Ai Lian and several other members including Mdm Halimah Yacob for their support for the changes in admission requirements.

18. The flexibility given to the universities to admit 10% of their respective intakes on independent criteria, and the introduction of faculty scores in addition to common university scores, are important changes for both the universities and the education system as a whole. They represent a shift from a "one-size-fits-all" measure of aptitude and suitability for university education, towards broader and more flexible measures of merit. I spoke yesterday of the rationale for the similar enhancements that we are making in the school system. The changes in admission practices also mark an important step towards the process of granting greater autonomy for our universities with a view to excellence. For NUS and NTU to go forward in a more competitive university environment, it is essential that they be able to select the best students.

19. Mr Iswaran asked for more decentralisation in admission requirements at the universities. This is what the new admission framework allows for. The medical faculty, which he mentioned, is in fact making the most of the room afforded by the new admission process, moving away from a uniform definition of merit towards more variegated requirements.

20. Moving away from a single-size definition of merit will not make the system less meritocratic. Indeed it will ensure that universities take in the students they consider as having the best merits.

21. Let me give the example of MIT. Bob Brown, Provost of MIT, explained to me how their admission system works. Out of its 12,000 applicants each year, 6,000 are shortlisted. There are no national examinations to go by, so MIT looks at school test scores, SAT and other grades to shortlist the 6,000. The next step is to get the 6,000 down to the 1,500 students that MIT will finally make offers to. They do this by looking at the whole range of a student's achievements including both intellectual and other attributes. The university finds out what research or projects the candidate has done. It looks for those with the intellectual spark. I asked Bob Brown why they did not use SAT to distinguish between the 6,000 shortlisted candidates. He said the answer was simple. The difference between a SAT score of 1500 and 1600 is 2 wrong answers. MIT did not believe it should narrow 6,000 candidates down to 1,500 based on whether students had 2 wrong answers. Does the fact that MIT looks at a range of criteria, not as clearly defined as exam or test scores, mean it is less meritocratic? No one thinks so. The admission processes at MIT are not narrowly-defined but, no one disputes that they are meritocratic.

22. The Chinese are going the same way. In China, the top universities have been allowed to take in 5% of their students on their own criteria. The system in China is meritocratic. But they too know that their universities have to be able to take in students who are more than regular. They started this earlier than us.

23. Meritocracy will remain a key principle for the selection of students in our publicly-funded universities. The universities will be accountable to MOE to ensure that meritocracy is preserved in their respective admission decisions. However, I would not preclude MOE from initiating occasional independent audits of the universities' admission systems.

24. Mr Low Thia Kiang raised the issue of MTL requirements. The UAC's reasons for recommending that MTL not be a mandatory components of university admission scores were sound. I have explained yesterday why the Government agreed to the changes and I will not go through that again. I have also explained MOE's approach to ensuring that students take MTL seriously in the school system, and why we needed different strategies at the tertiary level. But in relation to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question, I would emphasis also that it is important for the universities themselves to decide on the admission criteria. If the universities or any of their faculties were to decide that MTL is important for a particular course, they will make it a requirement. Indeed, some faculties at NUS and NTU already do so. We see this in the degree programmes for Communication Studies and Chinese Studies. What the UAC recommended, which we agreed to, is to stop mandating that every student counts his MTL grade as part of his admissions score for every course.

25. I would caution against framing the issue in political terms the way Mr Low has done. Let's be honest about the issues, the challenges facing the universities and what makes educational sense, and do what is best for Singapore. We are not weighing one political constituency against another, as Mr Low seems to think. If we bring politics into this, we become like Taiwan. In Taiwan, they have now prevented children from learning English at the primary 1 level. And there are calls to replace Mandarin with Minnan-hua in schools.

26. Mr Low also asked why General Paper should remain a requirement for university admission. I should first clarify that GP is not an English language paper as such. It seeks to develop students' logical reasoning and analytical skills. It requires students to read more widely and take an active interest in current affairs. These are important attributes for university education. However, it is for our universities to decide if GP should remain relevant in future.

27. This issue of university fees was discussed during the debate on the Government Budget last week. Let me explain from the perspective of the Education budget why we have to address the issue, and not duck it.

28. In the US, UK and Australia, universities are having to raise tuition fees to meet rising costs and declining availability of state or federal government funding. Even with the recent rise in UK fees, Oxford University has announced that it will now take in more foreign students and less UK students, as it loses too much money from teaching local students. In Hong Kong, the government has just cut its funding for the universities by 10%. Fortunately, we are not in dire fiscal straits in Singapore. MOE does not expect to have its budget to be reduced by MOF over the medium or long term. We do not expect to cut what we spend on the universities in absolute terms.

29. But the status quo formula for MOE subsidies will mean that our spending on the universities will continue to increase rapidly in coming years, as more Singaporeans are admitted into the universities, and as the quality of university education goes up. From 1998 to 2002, total expenditure on the universities grew by 41%, mainly because of larger student enrolments. By 2010, when our university cohort participation rate reaches 25%, the university enrolment would have increased by more than 15,000 students. This would require $350m more in recurrent funding alone, an increase of 42%, and not $25m as suggested by Mr Steve Chia. We must not forget that for every one student that the university admits, the government would have to subsidise him for 3-4 years, not just one year.

30. MOE receives a budget of 4% of GDP. Just as Khaw Boon Wan says for Health, I will fight for every additional cent for Education. But I cannot assume that the Government will have additional money to be dispensed. The basic issue MOE faces therefore is how to allocate a budget of 4% of GDP at a time when we are gearing up for more students to go into universities. Do we accept a continued increase in spending to fund students in universities, and a corresponding cut in spending elsewhere - in our schools, ITE and polytechnics? It is neither feasible nor desirable to allow this to happen. Spending on these other sectors in basic, secondary and post-secondary education cannot be reduced in the coming years, as we strive for improvements in quality of education across the entire spectrum of our student population.

31. Our current co-funding formula is for undergraduates to pay 25% of the operating cost of their university education while the Government pays the remaining 75%. University students enjoy a much higher dollar subsidy from Government than other students. Last year, the average subsidy per year which a university undergraduate received was double that of a polytechnic or ITE student; 3.5 times of a secondary school student's; and 5 times of a primary school student's. Add to this the fact that a university student is subsidised for more years of education, compared to our students in polytechnic and ITE. The Government therefore subsidises a university student, over 6 years of post-secondary education including JC, five times more than we subsidise an ITE student over his 2 years of post-secondary education.

32. We should therefore review if undergraduates should bear a higher share of the cost of university education, as Dr Gan See Khem has argued. Our universities students are subsidised much more heavily than other students in the education system. They also earn more than poly and ITE graduates. Compare what each of them earns, with how much they are each subsidized during their education, and it is clearly out of sync. MOE will therefore review the cost-sharing formula and study carefully the proportion to be borne by the undergraduates.

33. We will also study how the universities can best distinguish between the costs of teaching and research programmes. We should decide on a fair share of teaching costs that should be borne by students.

34. In the US, for e.g., universities' activities in teaching and research attract different streams of funding. Teaching is funded primarily by tuition fees and government grants. Research cost such as infrastructure (including depreciation charges), direct and indirect costs are recovered on a project basis from research sponsors.

35. MOE will ensure that no deserving student is denied a university education on grounds of financial difficulties. Admission will be needs-blind. If a student can get in on his merits, we will want to make sure he is not deterred from accepting the place for financial reasons. We will make sure that a poor student is assisted. And we will also want to avoid our middle-class feeling squeezed out. We will study all possible financial schemes to ensure that access to university education is open to all.

36. Loans are something we have to consider seriously. Taking a loan to pay for an undergraduate education is a common phenomenon in countries like Australia and the US. In the US, more than 40% of all full-time undergraduates take up loans to pay for part or all of university education. We will not want loan schemes to be onerous on young graduates. They will not be a burden. They will not deter graduates who marry from wanting to procreate. We can also study the "graduate tax" idea, as mentioned by Mr Iswaran during the Budget debate.

37. As Dr Khor rightly pointed out, part-time work is another way students can help pay for their education. All 3 universities have established schemes for students to work in the schools or offices on campus to earn money to meet their expenses in the university.

38. Philanthropy is another source of income for the universities. In the US, donations from individuals and private organisations have helped many universities build up substantial endowments as a major funding source. Dr Gan addressed this issue. Dr Khor pointed out that it was more difficult to raise funds here. I think she has a point. The culture of philanthropy in Singapore is not as developed as in the US. But it is not negligible. Just last month, NTU received a benefaction of $5 million from Mr Ng Bok Eng. Our universities are seeking to develop this tradition. As Dr Gan said, they will have to do more to engage private donors, especially the alumni who have benefited from their university education and have become successful in life. The Government, on its part, is committed to helping our local universities build up their endowment funds, by matching the donations that the universities receive.

39. Dr Khor asked how we ensure universities correctly anticipate manpower requirements. Our universities are guided each year by a national manpower-planning framework on the number of graduates in the various broad categories. This framework, coordinated by MOM, draws inputs from various ministries and industry. At the same time, universities have developed their own links with industry partners, for instance, through their faculty advisory committees.

40. Moving forward, the universities and indeed students themselves, will need to be alert to developments and long term trends in industry, so as to decide on the breadth and depth of skills that will be in demand. MOM, MOE and the economic agencies and universities, are working towards better sharing of employment trends, information and data so that students are better informed.

41. Prof Ngiam Tee Liang asked what has been done to weed out dubious distance learning programmes so as to protect public interest. I understand that MTI agencies and SPRING are in the process of developing an accreditation framework for private institutions and programmes. A robust framework of quality assessment and recognition for private education run by either an industry body with government support or a government-agency such as SPRING can be helpful in developing Singapore as an education hub. However, it remains good advice for anyone wanting to sign up for a distance learning programme to do his own research on the university and programme before embarking on the course.

42. We are embarking on an exciting phase of development in our university sector. The changes will lead to higher quality in the universities, to the advantage of our students. They will also position our universities in years to come as leaders in the development of intellectual capital, and entrench them as centres of excellence in the region and beyond