Coconuts may be hurled by hon. Members intoxicated with success today, but let them beware lest those same coconuts turn into boomerangs in the years to come. But let us get back to an examination of some of Government's proposals. My first wish is to give consideration to the proposals on education, and I must state with regret that the nebulous nature of the proposals gives us some misgivings. In the Labour Front pamphlet to which so much reference has been made, we read the following two sentences: "The Labour Front's Policy on education is free compulsory schooling for all children, in English or vernacular schools, for the first six years as a matter of first priority. Thereafter scholarships or grants may be provided in deserving cases." That is all. The only merit in the Government's new proposals is that three sentences have taken the place of two, but nevertheless they do not make us 50 per cent the wiser and certainly have neither the sweep nor the comprehension of the Progressive Party proposals in our programme. I wish to examine it sentence by sentence. The first states that "the policy of the Government is to aim at equal treatment for all schools and all teachers in those schools". As the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) has already said, obviously we require clarification of this statement before we can accept it as more than justifying its high-sounding phrase. Does it mean that the Government will give equal grants-in-aid to all the schools, which we will welcome, or that it will bear equal expenditure per pupil in all schools? Does it mean that there would be equal salary scales and allowances to married teachers as to single, women teachers as to men, English teachers in Chinese, Tamil and Malay schools as in Government English schools? No doubt the Minister for Education will enlighten us on his plans before the end of this debate. But I would like to bring to his attention one of the many inequalities which undoubtedly exist. I refer to the disparity between the special allowances granted to married and to single lady teachers. It is the present practice for principals and specialists, that is teachers, teaching special subjects, to receive special allowances; but whereas unmarried women get the full allowance, married women get only half the allowance. I can see no valid reason why, for example, a principal who is married and having the responsibility of running a girls' school should receive half the allowance payable to an unmarried principal. I hope that the Minister for Education will look into this matter at an early date, for if it is the type of inequality which the Government has in mind to remove, it will have our whole-hearted support. I now go on to the second sentence: "The foundation stone of the policy will be a six-year course of free primary education for all children." The Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) has already remarked that the phrase "compulsory schooling for all children" which appears in the Labour Front's platform has been conveniently dropped. The elementary principle that you cannot have compulsory education unless there are enough schools for all children of school age, appears to have been learnt very quickly after the elections, and surely there is a difference between education for all children and compulsory education. The former implies education for all children who wish to avail themselves of going to school. The latter implies legislation compelling parents to send their children to school. And so this statement fails disappointingly short of the Progressive Party programme by failing to state that education will start from the age of six. It has been a matter of regret that the age of admission to primary schools in the previous Government has been tending to change from six years to seven years, and indeed it is a fact that even children of seven years have been unable to gain admission. One would have hoped that one of the earliest acts of the present Government would be to give an assurance that they will take early steps to banish this tendency, and I hope that the Minister for Education will give us an assurance. Apart from technical education, which I will deal with in a moment, the Government statement, as did its election programme, now falls into ominous silence. One of the biggest problems is how to bridge the gap between the age of 12 at the end of the primary stage and the age of 14, the earliest age at which young persons are allowed to work under the Labour Ordinance as it stands today and I hope as it will be proposed in future. Education clearly must not stop at the six-year course unless a student is found to be absolutely unfit to continue his studies. The Progressive Party policy is quite definite on this point. The poor bright boys must have the benefit of secondary education for two years, or two years trade and junior technical education free. This takes us on to secondary education as a whole, which the Government statement fails to mention at all. We agree that primary education is the foundation, but it is like putting your essential piling in below ground. You get nothing to show for your money till the real structure above ground, from the age of 12, starts appearing. If we are to continue to provide the country with local men and women who can take control of the higher grades not only of the public service but also of all the other spheres of life in the country, then secondary education must not be neglected in the way in which the Government intends to do, as shown in the statement of policy. Indeed, the policy of the previous Government was to build one secondary for every five or six primary schools, and this still stands, unfortunately, today. Does the Government think this is enough, or will it improve the ratio as it must if it is to turn out a sufficient number of well-educated young men and women fit to serve their country, and if it is to find sufficient competent teachers to man the schools, one of the greatest problems of all? I pass now to the final sentence of the Government statement: "Technical education. . . will be expanded as rapidly as possible and the question of apprenticeship and training of industrial workers and clerks will be studied at an early date." Apprenticeship and training of industrial workers is of course of paramount importance and is already being tackled. The first task is to attract young people into trades, and surely a Labour Government worthy of the name should be best fitted for this. The test is close at hand. I would draw attention to the fact that during the current week enrolment in the evening classes in 16 subjects has started in the Junior Technical School, which starts its school year next week. Can we be sure that all these 16 classes will be filled up? If they are, then a big hurdle has been cleared and all we have to do is to double, triple and quadruple these as soon as possible. If not, what steps will the Minister take in this important matter? But while technical training at this level is essential for economic development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Serangoon has himself said, we would have expected the Government statement to make at least a passing reference to new schemes for the training of professional men to take the place of the technical experts who, under the new policy, will no longer be recruited from overseas. There is a wide gap between the declared policy of stopping overseas recruitment and the practical aspects of it. I am not suggesting that the policy is a wrong one but it is common sense, having stated a policy, to suggest remedies for the problems arising from it. Leaving aside today university education which is not, after all, under the direct control of the Government, I can only sum up by saying that the Government statement is extremely disappointing and certainly not very ambitious and does not appear to have taken into consideration the careful balancing required between the different stages of education if the greatest good of the greatest number of students is to be brought about. The present is an indication that the Government will devote its main attention to 100 per cent attendance at primary schools only. Such a bottom-heavy policy, if I may be allowed the expression, would be disastrous, would be deeply resented by the people, and would be strongly opposed by the Progressive Party. Large reserves of money have been built up in the last few years for expansion of education which the new Government is very fortunate indeed to have inherited. It is our duty, as Members of the Opposition, not only to see that it is not squandered but that it is wisely spent to benefit all stages of education. Sir, I now turn to an examination of the Government proposals regarding the medical services which are also treated in three short sentences. There is nothing new in the plan for expansion of medical services in the rural areas and the establishment of district hospitals and clinics. Nobody can quarrel with that, but what I find disturbing is that the Government appears - I may be wrong - to be modifying and reducing the Medical Plan already approved and in part implemented, and has not gone as far as the Progressive Party programme. The plan of the previous Government was to provide ten cottage or district hospitals, five on the outskirts of the urban area and five in the rural area, one of each being under contemplation in 1955, perhaps still under contemplation, and we presume that the present Government has taken over the scheme lock, stock and barrel. But what we look for in vain is any indication that there will be a policy of real decentralisation of the medical services, although this was categorically promised in the Labour Front's Four-year Programme. Everybody knows that too much has been concentrated in the General Hospital area. That is why the Progressive Party, unlike the present Government, has advocated the building at once of one district General Hospital with as many divisions for diagnosis and treatment as exist in the General Hospital, and that this hospital should be situated somewhere in the Katong-Geylang area where there is concentrated the largest suburban population. Apart from the medical facilities it would offer to the people, it would give a chance to our young local doctors to climb the tree more quickly to specialist posts and provide the necessary encouragement to the much needed recruitment of more of such doctors to Government service. We would like to see an immediate step taken to put a stop to any further expansion of the medical services in the General Hospital area except what is absolutely essential so that a very early start can be made in decentralisation. We therefore view the Government statement with misgivings, as unrealistic and falling short of their promises. Turning now to the setting up of a Medical Advisory Council, while this may be an admirable move in theory, we hope that in practice it will not mean more talk, more memoranda and less action on the main principles of development of the medical services. We hope indeed that it will put first things first, and the consideration of the National Health Service Scheme second. This scheme is also vague, and I had hopes that the Minister for Health, who has already spoken, would have elaborated on this point. Is the National Health Service to be contributory - that is, will people pay for it out of their weekly or monthly salaries? If so, is Government under-estimating public resistance in such matters? If not, then it is no different from the present system and is merely a piece of Labour Front bluff. The present medical services are free today, right up to and including operations by the leading specialists, to those who cannot afford to pay. If it is intended to draft all private practitioners into a state service, then the first task of the Government is to tackle the main problem of which no mention has been made, that is, for the provision of more doctors. I believe that I am correct in saying that there are at present only 450 doctors in Singapore, 55 per cent of whom are in Government service and 45 per cent in private practice, representing roughly one for 2,667 persons, as against one for 1,100 in the United Kingdom. At this moment there are many vacancies unfilled in the Government medical services. Whether the number is about 30 or very much more, I must confess I am not certain. The average total output of the Faculty of Medicine is about 60 per year, of which one would expect two-thirds to go to the Federation and the balance of 20 to Singapore, though I believe the ratio is rather more in favour of Singapore. I would further emphasise two points. The present Government's intention is to stop expatriate recruitment. It puts an end to help from overseas, which means that we shall have to fall back on our own limited resources, while the proposed union with the Federation will presumably make matters worse, as across the Causeway there is one doctor to every 9,000 of the population. The fact is that we shall need to do an immense drive to find sufficient doctors to man the new district hospitals to maintain even the present ratio of one to 2,667 of a rapidly increasing population. The National Health Service Scheme seems to us an empty catch phrase, either for something which we have already expanded or are in agreement to expand, or, if the people have to contribute towards it, for a new form of taxation which will be highly unpopular. We hope therefore that the Government will be able to give us a more reassuring picture of its intentions than we have been able to gather from its statement of policy. I shall not dwell long, Sir, on the subject of public transport, which has already been dealt with by the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew), and I hope he will not be horrified to learn that I am in agreement with what he said. At least we have - [Interruption.] I must, however, correct him on one point. Last year the City Council - Progressives and all - unanimously recommended the setting up of a public transport board to run the transport services, in other words, to nationalise transport, and it was the professional administrators who turned this down. We therefore also want to know - and the Minister for Communications and Works was not very enlightening in his reply - what are to be the functions of the proposed transport authority. Is it merely to take over those duties performed by the City Council, which is the present transport authority? If so, then it is a change only in form and not in substance, for it will mean that the Singapore Traction Company and all the other private enterprises now given monopolies to run a very essential service will continue to enjoy their monopolies, at least until "the time is ripe", whenever that may be. A very surprising policy for a Socialist Government to adopt, and all the more surprising when the policy of nationalisation was an election pledge. The question is therefore a simple one. Is the Government going to implement its election pledge or is it not? If it is not, then the public of Singapore is going to have transport run by private companies for another seven years, from roughly the end of this year until 1962. Sir, the next matter on which I wish to touch is the Banishment Ordinance. If there is to be an examination of the Emergency Regulations, it is quite clear that a similar examination of the Banishment Ordinance is in order, and we welcome it. In this connection I would draw the attention of the Chief Minister - or should it be the Chief Secretary? - to one point. At the moment, persons born in Singapore, Malacca or Penang cannot be banished, while persons born in other parts of the Federation, although they may be resident in Singapore, and indeed on the electoral register, can be banished. This seems to me illogical at any time, but even more so today when the Government is contemplating early union with the Federation. I seek an assurance that, as the Banishment Ordinance is to be reviewed, all cases of persons due to be banished shall be stayed forthwith and reviewed individually. It would clearly be unjust to banish a man now for reasons which may be revoked in a month or two. I hope that the Government will give this assurance before the close of this debate. One more matter and I have done. I wish to refer to what I consider another serious omission in the Government statement, namely the action proposed to be taken to put an end as far as possible to serious flooding. I have no doubt that other hon. Members are interested in this matter, but none more than I myself as Member for the constituency of Tanglin. Hon. Members may have different opinions as to whether the floods are the more serious in the Bedok, Geylang Serai, Whampoa, or Bukit Timah area, but I must bring to the attention of Government that the present extensive building programme development in the Bukit Timah area is producing conditions whereby after any very severe storm of no more than one hour's duration, the Bukit Timah canal is liable to overflow its banks to produce hardship, suffering and considerable inconvenience. That is a very serious position. However, I am glad to say that from my own observations and from what I learn from the villagers themselves, the new Ulu Pandan pilot scheme, which strangely enough lies for the most part within the Tanglin constituency, seems to be a success. The pilot canal is taking water away in a westerly direction towards the Ulu Pandan River and has put an end to serious flooding in the immediate area. The way therefore seems to be clear to tackle the major scheme - admittedly a gigantic one - of taking the waters of the Bukit Timah-Alexandra area away to the sea and away from the city. I hope that the Government will not fail to tackle this problem as urgently and energetically as they have undertaken to tackle other problems.