Hansard, 1956-04-12

Mr Alfred Arthur Williams, Chief Secretary (Acting), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have to inform the Assembly that I granted permission to be absent from the Assembly to the following Members: Mr William Tan - for 8 weeks from 7th April, 1956. Mr Wong Foo Nam - for 8 weeks from 7th April, 1956. Mr R. Jumabhoy - for 5 weeks from 7th April, 1956. Mr Lee Choon Eng - for 6 days from 12th April, 1956. Mr M. P. D. Nair - for one week from 13th April, 1956. Mr Lim Cher Kheng - for 2 months from 14th April, 1956. Mr Lim Choon Mong - for 48 days from 14th April, 1956. Mr Lim Koon Teck - for 17 weeks from 14th April, 1956. Mr Seah Peng Chuan - for 47 days from 15th April, 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, That the proceedings on the motion in the name of the Minister for Education set down for today, the 12th of April, 1956, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7. Sir, in view of the impending departure of the Merdeka Mission to London, I am sure hon. Members would like to have this adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister for Education concluded today.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the motion in the name of the Minister for Education set down for today, the 12th of April, 1956, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 7.

Sir, I move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 6th June, 1956.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Wednesday, 6th June, 1956.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question - [5th April]: That this House approves the adoption of the Education Policy outlined in the White Paper on Education Policy as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1956. - (The Minister for Education.) Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is much to commend in the broad principles laid down in the White Paper: for example, that all schools should receive equal treatment and that all regulations should apply equally to all schools which are financed or aided by Government; that teachers with the same or equivalent qualifications and experience should be paid the same salary; and that every parent should have the right of choice regarding the first and second languages which his children should learn. These principles will be acceptable to the majority. But when we begin to examine the White Paper to see how some of these principles are to be carried out in practice, we find that the Government skates somewhat uncomfortably over the problem. This White Paper, in fact, is the work of politicians rather than of educationists. The main problem, of course, is that of language. The All-Party Committee plunged into trouble when they recommended in Section I: "That at least two of the following languages, English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil should be the media of instruction in their respective schools." If you are to take that statement literally, it would mean that students should be taught all the subjects in the curriculum in one language and then all over again in the second language. That, I presume, is not what the Committee meant, but that is what they said, and they then tried to extricate themselves from the difficulty by recommending bilingual teachers so that instruction in certain subjects could be switched from one language to another, the students having equal facility in the two languages concerned, presumably, in the main, English and Mandarin. The White Paper skates over the impracticability of this politicians' solution to all our ills, merely stating that there must be a primary followed by a secondary language of the parents' choice, and that students must be able to leave the primary school with a competent knowledge of one language and a fair working knowledge in the second language. The implication is that if you Malayanise the textbooks and prune the syllabuses of all non-essentials, whatever that may mean, this can be accomplished. But what happens after that? Are two languages to be taught almost side by side in the secondary schools, technical schools and so on? The White Paper, for very good reasons, remains silent on this point. Sir, let us get down to what can and what cannot be done in our schools - educationally, I mean, and not politically. Firstly, it may be possible, up to a certain point, to give instruction in two languages in the primary stage, but the shortened hours of work, due to the doubling of morning and afternoon schools, is a terrible handicap. But when you reach the secondary stage, there can only be one medium of instruction if the most important part of a student's life is going to be properly utilised in turning him from a comparatively ignorant lad of 12 or thereabouts into a maturing young man of 16 to 17. There is so much to be crammed into those four years that there must already have been planted in him one language in which he thinks and writes and speaks without hesitation; and this language must be the one through which he will imbibe all that he must learn in his secondary school life. By all means let him have a second language, learn it properly as a subject and pass examinations in it, but it is out of the question to allow it to be used as a second medium of instruction at this stage of his education. It just will not work and the Government, I feel, has not adequately faced up to this fact. This brings mc to the question of the Malayanisation of textbooks. The Government has accepted the recommendation of the All-Party Committee lock, stock and barrel, but there can be no question that syllabuses and textbooks must be Malayanised as quickly as possible. Here again, we get into considerable trouble and it is not at all clear whether the All-Party Committee accepts or rejects the recommendations of the Chinese educational authorities in paragraph 55 of their report, although these get to the core of the whole matter. It reads as follows: "They (that is, the representatives of Chinese educational bodies) make one reservation, however, in that in Chinese Literature as a subject, they advocate no serious deletions as the Chinese classics are in most cases, if not in fact, in all, crystallisations of Chinese culture, and if these are banned Chinese culture will suffer. They claim that these classics also offer the very much needed balance in Malayan Chinese education, which must retain in it anything that encouraged moral values and concepts, and strive to produce an all-round citizen. To cut out Confucius or Mencius from Chinese Literature is as unthinkable as to omit Shakespeare or Milton from a study of English Literature." While it is not clear whether the All-Party Committee, as I say, accepts or rejects this point of view, the Government seems to ignore this point altogether. But let us remember now that, with the possible exception of Malay, all the other three languages have been nurtured and developed in the countries of their origin. Consequently, the classics and all other good standard textbooks in these languages must naturally be imbued with the history and the splendour and the innate qualities of those countries. How then can the Committee Malayanise such textbooks? No one in his sane moments will suggest that there are persons in Malaya capable of producing Malayanised textbooks in the three languages comparable to the thoughts and the beauty and the grandeur of Confucius or Mencius, Shakespeare or Milton. There have been no great Malayan philosophers and no great Malayan poets to make this possible. Even my hon. Friend, Mr R. C. H. Lim, would not aspire that high! Now the very fact that Government has as its policy that there should be equal respect for the four principal cultures of Singapore is an admission that Malayanisation of textbooks is an impossibility. What we presume the Government means, and what the All-Party Committee ought to mean, is that for many years to come all that we can hope for is to produce Malayanised textbooks in three languages for the lowest classes, perhaps for the primary schools. The Pan-Malayan Text-Book Committee, to which the White Paper refers in paragraph 19, was intended surely only to produce textbooks for the primary classes. I fully agree that simple readers for young students should have a Malayan background. I agree that our children should learn about tembusus rather than oaks, but I will not support the view that Keats' Ode to a Nightingale should be Malayanised just because there are no nightingales in this country. Malayanise your teachers by all means, so that they can interpret the wide world in a Malayan way, for it is the teaching that matters far more than the textbooks. If, as the All-Party Committee stated, language teaching should be of the best possible standards, then we must perforce teach through the media of the classics from the countries whence the languages originated. Both the Government and the Committee have tried to duck this simple fact, and the more one tries to ignore it, the more the educational system of this country will tie itself in knots. I admit freely that it is a dilemma. I am second to none in my belief that the people of this country can only come together as Malayans by sharing each other's languages and cultures, but it must be recognised that equal facility in three languages, or even two languages, does not come at the primary or secondary stage of education, with which we are most concerned in this debate. We must accept the fact that we must aim at the mastery of one language which the parent chooses, and a sufficient grounding in the second language for it to be easily studied and mastered at the university or later stage, while a third language - alas, I think - must be left as an optional extra curricular activity for which facilities will have to be made available. Before I leave this aspect of the White Paper, may I have your permission, Sir, to read a short paragraph from a recent article on the problems of education facing the Central Advisory Council for Education in Britain, where there is, of course, only one language as the medium of instruction: "Undoubtedly, however, the real centre of difficulty and dispute lies in the curriculum of the Sixth Forms of Grammar schools. The trouble is well-known. Universities find many of their scientific entrants narrow in mind and unable to write or even speak plain English. The Arts specialists, on the other hand, may be able to write a properly argued and punctuated essay (though this cannot be taken for granted), but he is totally ignorant of science and of the changed view of the world that is brought about. They are, furthermore, products almost exclusively limited to England and Wales in the modern world. No other system of education anywhere permits too early this sharp and harmful division between the Arts and the Sciences. The dangers of over-specialisation might seem so obvious that its removal would be simple. Unhappily, a radical attack on it would shake higher education to its foundations. It would certainly mean lower standards of attainment in the main subjects in university entrance and open scholarships. It might end by adding a year to university courses. The tangle largely defeated a Committee of Vice-Chancellors and school heads which reported last summer." If that, Sir, is the problem in England where only one language is concerned, how much more intricate is our problem here. In this country we are crying out for our local sons and daughters with qualifications for all kinds of technical and administrative posts. Are we going to get them if we make them over-concentrate on languages and limit their outlook by giving them Malayanised textbooks, and are we not therefore indulging in contradictions? I must now turn more briefly to other aspects of the White Paper. I welcome the introduction of Civics as an essential subject, but I would prefer to call it Citizenship which, I think, conveys better the spirit of what is intended. Civics implies abstract book knowledge, while Citizenship suggests the living world around us, an object of wonder to both teacher and taught. Because the teacher should teach, not as one conveying truths which are absolute but as one imparting information which may be questioned. Small children are by nature inquisitive and sceptical. The effect of much teaching is too often to overlay these original impulses and to convert the inquisitive questioning child into the passive recipient of information. This is particularly unfortunate if citizens are to be educated. After all, had we all been brought up never to believe what the newspapers say, much less politicians, the world would be a happier place. And so let us talk of Citizenship, not Civics, and let us make certain that our teachers are good citizens too, in the sense that they are still ready to learn as well as to teach. I welcome also paragraph 24 of the White Paper which refers to competition in sports between different schools, but this should be expanded to include Art and Music. In this connection, I think that the House would be interested to know that, by arrangement with the Singapore Musical Society, two celebrated international artists - a violinist and a pianist - are giving a concert tomorrow in the hall of the Chinese High School, thanks to the enthusiasm of the Principal of that school. So far as I know, this is the first time that such an event is taking place, and it is a happy indication that the Chinese High School is not exclusively concerned with Chinese culture. It is admittedly an experiment, but I believe it to be an important one, and the Principal is confident that a large number of his students will attend the concert, sandwiched as it is between the morning and afternoon classes. While on this subject, I would like the Minister to know that this interest in Western music - and there is an interest - among the Chinese schools is not being sufficiently encouraged by the Ministry of Education. The Singapore Musical Society, of which I happen to be Chairman, holds regular concerts for schools when celebrated musicians visit us. Notices are sent out regularly by the Ministry to Government schools and English aided schools, but not always Chinese schools. This is one instance of how a great gulf can be fixed between Chinese schools and Government schools, and I would ask the Minister to make sure that there is no discrimination in the field of music in future. There are two or three other matters on which I must touch briefly. Firstly, I deplore the fact that the Government has no adequate plans for those students to remain in school who failed to qualify for secondary education. Are we to push out on to the streets at least half of our rapidly increasing 14-year olds at an age when jobs are almost impossible to obtain? Of such are Communists and gangsters made. That the Government does not seem to be willing to tackle this matter seriously can be seen from paragraph 40, where it is stated of last year's students: "Of the 45 per cent who failed to find places in Government secondary schools, those under 14« were allowed to remain in their primary schools, and instruction is being provided in evening classes for those of the remainder who are interested." This implies that the Government is not sufficiently interested in seeing that this class of students is properly catered for and this is a deplorable confession. Half of the 14 to 15 year olds are to be abandoned to their devices unless they happen to be interested in evening classes. This will not do. The Minister must know perfectly well that students who have left school at the end of the primary school stage are virtually unemployable, and that they must be given courses of instruction to equip them to become junior clerks or apprentices in industry or fit for the national defence forces. If Government is not interested in these young people at this very formative age, it will be failing in its duty. This is the most lamentable gap in the whole White Paper and we shall not be satisfied unless a solution is found to a very serious problem. Secondly, the next paragraph, No. 41, refers to the need to retain those teachers, now in the service, to cope with the expanding secondary education in 1960, but this principle, Sir, should be extended to all types of schools. It seems to me pure folly to retire teachers at the age of 55 when the crying need is for more and more teachers. At a time when the average age of teachers in the school is dropping considerably, a levelling of the experience of the older men would have a beneficial and steadying influence. At my own school I well remember that house-masters had to retire at the age of 60 and teachers at the age of 55, which meant that house-masters at the age of 60 could revert to teaching for another five years as very valued and experienced men. I see no reason why the same sort of thing could not happen here - set the age limit of principals at 60, but allow teachers to go on to the age of 65; principals to be re-engaged on a supernumerary basis as teachers for five years, thus stepping aside for the younger men to do the more strenuous administrative work. Many teachers retiring at the age of 55 today turn to other forms of employment in order to supplement their small pensions. Most of them would be much happier and much more useful continuing to teach the young, but in positions of less responsibility. I hope that the Minister will consider this suggestion in all seriousness. I must also issue a word of warning regarding condition (vi) of paragraph 26 which the school must fulfil in order to qualify for Government aid: "The general education policy of the school must not in any way conflict with the education policy laid down by the Government." As it stands, this clause means, or I hope it means, not that there should be 100 per cent uniformity in schools but that there should be uniformity in essentials and diversity in non-essentials. The danger can be that the State-controlled institutions will have their own initiative reduced by conforming to one rigid model which is not in the true interests of education. There cannot be, particularly in a multi-racial country, one perfect model system or one perfect model method for all schools. In other words, while the idea that all regulations should apply to all schools is good in principle, there must be freedom for the principal of a school or a committee of management to evolve its own methods and make its own experiment in the educational field. We do not want the dull dead hand of the State to kill initiative and enterprise among teachers, for that is the very thing which education must encourage and develop. To put it another way, we ought to create great headmasters and great principals and not great registrars. These are the main points on which I want to touch regarding the contents of the White Paper. I must now refer to two significant omissions. We read nothing in the White Paper and we have heard nothing in the Minister's speech which would indicate, on the one hand, what the new education plan is going to cost, and, on the other hand, in what stages and over how long a period of years it is proposed to implement it. It is all very well to get the scheme on paper and be as proud of it as my hon. Friend the Chief Minister says he is, but he will be the first to acknowledge that the more important thing is to indicate to the House when and how the Government proposes to implement it. It is on this very point that we have our doubts, because Government performances in the field of education have not been on a par with their promises.

When?

In the often quoted pamphlet -

When?

Order.

In the often quoted pamphlet of the Labour Front, it was stated that the policy was "free compulsory schooling for all children, - "

For four years.

" - in English or vernacular schools, for the first six years as a matter of first priority." As my hon. Friend interrupts, that was understandably to be a policy for four years, and the policy of the first year, as given in the Governor's speech, was a six-year course of free primary education for all children. Now, not the slightest attempt has been made to implement this policy. For several months I have pressed the Government to disclose its plans to build more cheaply constructed schools which alone could make this policy effective. Only a week ago I got this answer from the Minister - "All new plans need time to work out" - and the statement that sites have been found for school buildings - only sites. If this is all that the Government can show for their first year in office, is it surprising that we have misgivings as to how soon and how vigorously the implementation of the White Paper is going to be tackled? I hope that we shall hear of a definite time-table of action from the Minister when he winds up this debate and a definite statement of the financial implications. Despite our misgivings, it is not our purpose to oppose the motion that is before us today but to support it, for, as I have said, the broad principles laid down are generally satisfactory; but we shall have reason to oppose the Education Bill when it is introduced later on in this House if the points I have raised have not been taken into consideration. In conclusion, therefore, this White Paper is a step forward towards an improved educational system for this country. I have indicated some of the weaknesses which do not, however, spoil the broad pattern of what has been conceived. But let me say this. One of the main problems and fears has been how to fit the Chinese schools into this pattern. But I am inclined to believe that, whatever objections remain in the minds of Chinese educationists, once they are brought under one system, these will evaporate in an independent Singapore, because, in an independent Singapore, it stands to reason that all schools - whether Chinese, Malay, Tamil or English - will and must be of equal status and equal importance. There will be no longer any room for the feeling that Chinese or Malay or Tamil schools are being ignored, for how could they be ignored in an independent Singapore and by a freely elected government? The teaching profession is the most hard-working and self-sacrificing profession of all, often misunderstood and almost always under-paid; but let us not suppose that because so often under-paid, such teachers are necessarily poor in quality, as the White Paper rather unfairly seems to suggest. There are many teachers - and it applies everywhere, not only to Singapore - who work for the sheer love of teaching. All the more power to them! I feel confident that in the Singapore of the future the teachers will continue to be true to their great traditions and that they will rise to their very noble responsibilities of producing loyal young citizens in their thousands who are able and willing to maintain and protect their nation's independence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would have been optimistic for anybody to expect that there will be no criticism on a vital matter like the education policy of the Government of Singapore. Indeed, it would have been optimistic for us to have expected that even the All-Party Report on Chinese Education would have met with approval from all sections of the community. This is a thorny subject. I have used the word "primordial" once and it brought a rebuke from the hon. Mr Sutherland, but that was, perhaps, because he does not understand these things. Talk of policy in education and you touch upon the very heartstrings of the three main cultural groups in Malaya. You bring forth all the inherent conflicts, the urge for supremacy and dominance of each culture and each group. There are four topics in the All-Party Report on Chinese Education which we knew would arouse the fiercest controversy. They were: first, those statutes empowering the Government to cancel the registration of schools and to close them down; second, grants-in-aid, with conditions; third, Malayanisation of textbooks; and, fourth, languages to be taught other than the mother tongue. Sir, for the last 50 years the Chinese schools have grown progressively more and more suspicious and more and more hostile of the Government. It is important to remember that, as far as they are concerned, they do not see any difference between a colonial Government and one under the Rendel Constitution. It may be an unfair thing to those legal experts who can point out the differences between what the colonial Government was and what it is now. Nevertheless, as far as Chinese educational authorities, the school committees, the Chambers of Commerce, the clan associations are concerned, there has been no real or significant change. It is unrealistic on our part to hope that they would accept these Ordinances when they are administered by representatives of a new Rendel government when they had resisted them when they were administered by colonial officials. The only conclusion that the All-Party Committee came to is that it is impossible to allow a state of affairs where a government, soon to be a completely elected one, is not in complete control of the educational system. So we recommended that all those statutes, which were at the time they were drafted designed to meet problems in the Chinese schools and were drafted specially to apply to them, should be amended. Sir, we have to accept the fact that for the time being there will be resistance from certain communal quarters to Government control over management and registration of schools. At the same time even they will not ultimately be able to resist the proposition that there must be one authority in a country, and that authority is the government of that country through its popularly elected representatives. The second matter which I expected would raise new controversy was grants-in-aid. Here again I think the biggest stroke of bad statesmanship, if statesmanship was what it was intended to be, was the offer of $12 millions to Chinese schools at the height of the anti-national service campaign. Sir, I do not know who advised His Excellency the Governor in those days. I understand that there was an Executive Council which included elected Members like the then hon. Mr C. C. Tan and his friends. They did not understand what was happening in Malaya, and not understanding it, they were unable to find the right solution. To offer a bribe of $12 millions to school committees and school teachers to place the whole school administrative machinery under Government control was the stupidest thing that they could have done. It completely soured the whole outlook of the Chinese schools, the management committees, the clan associations, the Parent-Teachers Association and the whole host of other interested and active bodies. Here again, it is unrealistic of us to expect that resistance, which has been built up over the years through genuine frustrations and grievances, would be washed away just because there are now nine popularly elected Ministers, I beg your pardon, five popularly elected Members, and one nominated Member and three officials.

Six.

Six? I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. I cannot catch up with the number of Ministers and Junior Ministers in this House!

You want to wake up!

The only proposition one can honestly support is that if a government is to expend public money on any educational system it must have some say on how that educational system is going to be run. However, I do see that there may be objections to certain conditions in the White Paper. I feel that the fourth condition in paragraph 26: "No principal or teacher shall be appointed or dismissed without the approval of the Registrar;" has got all the inherent dangers of brainwashing and thought control through the teaching staff. Sir, we must understand the attitude with which this problem will be approached by the communities which are not adequately represented in this House. If we do not take the trouble to understand it, then we are likely to make as much a mess of it as the former hon. Member Mr C. C. Tan. We support the principle that no government can give away $12 millions or $50 millions to private groups of persons to run private institutions. But we do appreciate that, in the situation as it exists in Singapore, taking into account the historical background of the schools, there should be discussions and negotiations over these conditions. There should be fair and just conditions to ensure that the government has an effective say in the education policy. But they should not be conditions which would make for tyranny in the hands of either the Registrar or the Permanent Secretary in the Education Ministry. It is only on account of this that we thought there was some reason for the request for a postponement of the debate on this motion. But the Chief Minister has stated that he suspects that there are other motives behind the request for the postponement and he has insisted that the debate goes on today. The next thorny subject is Malayanisation. Sir, this has got nothing to do with expatriates, getting rid of them, giving them a handsome bonus and pushing them off in the first ship. We do not propose to score out any Nightingales, nor do we wish to cut out the wise sayings of Confucius and Mencius. When we in the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education recommended that there should be Malayanisation of textbooks, our idea was simple. The whole political emphasis - and education is the only means by which you can do it - must be on the reorientation of one's heart, one's loyalties to this new Malaya. We expected a great deal of opposition to this because it would straightaway rouse the bogey of culture being endangered. There was a good reason for that bogey in the old days when the Governor thought that he knew what was good for the people of Singapore. Sir, we can fairly put it this way. Nothing that anybody can do in or outside Malaya will alter the fact that there will be two dominant languages and cultures in Malaya. These are the facts in our population figures. The Malay language and the Malay culture will irresistibly become the predominant language and the predominant culture. The Chinese language and the Chinese culture, particularly in view of the tremendous renascence that it has undergone in China, will occupy a very important place in Malaya. Perhaps it is because my hon. Friend the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) is not as acutely conscious of these facts, as an Asian is, that his excellent speech on the technique of education was somewhat lacking in its grasp of the more deep-seated problems that we face. Sir, the Chinese culture as it will be in the Malaya of 200 years from now is not likely to be what Chinese culture will be 200 years from now in China. That is inevitable. We need not score out Confucius and Mencius. Nobody denies that it was the British who first colonised America, and that they speak the English language. But he would be a bold man indeed to say that in America they have the same identical language and the same identi- cal culture. In fact, you cannot think of a more supreme insult to an Englishman than to mistake him for an American!

No!

Indeed this one culture and one language spread over five continents - New Zealand, Australia, South Africa - has gone through mutations. Basically it is the same language and the same Anglo-Saxon culture. But the number of not so pleasant things that I have heard Englishmen in Singapore say, after a trip to Australia, about things other than Australian beer, gives me some appreciation of the differences which language and culture undergo after separation in space and time. I am sure the Frenchmen in Canada whose ancestors first travelled from Paris are quite different people from their first cousins who are still in Paris. That does not mean that their culture has been destroyed or that they have been de-culturalised. Culture is a dynamic and organic process. There is a great difference between allowing a culture to develop on its own under different geographic and economic circumstances and having a culture desiccated and infusing into it something completely alien. And this is where the White Paper fails. In our Report we just touched upon the problem, because we felt that we should cross our bridges when we came to them. But this White Paper, on the question of languages other than the mother tongue, fails lamentably. In our All-Party Committee we groped, but groped consciously, for some solution which would be acceptable all-round. There are certain things which politicians - indeed, any man who seeks the support of all sections of the community - must say without putting them in a form which would be misunderstood by communities other than his own. If you were to ask an outsider, "What would you do with a country like Malaya (and I am still talking in terms of Malaya and not Singapore) what are you going to do with the language, with the culture and with the administration of this country?", the only logical answer he would give, if he were a logical person, is that ultimately there will be one dominant language and one dominant culture. Then you have the Legislature, the Administration, the Courts, the schools all speaking, teaching, writing, and thinking one language. Then you will have a unifying force which binds the people together. Nobody would dispute that as a broad proposition. But when one gropes, however consciously, for the language, one comes up against all the primordial prejudices of the other groups. So we in the All-Party Chinese Education Committee suggested bilingualism in the primary stage and trilingualism in the secondary stage, because it was one way of bringing about the pre-eminence ultimately of one language. There would have been a minority report, Sir, which the Hon. the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing and myself would have signed if we did not feel that bilingualism and trilingualism would, in fact, produce one common language in the process. Whatever your language in the primary stage, if you have to opt for one more - and you have to opt for one more later - you are bound to include Malay. By the very nature of its construction, it is easy to learn and to speak. It is widely spoken and used and is the most acceptable as the lingua franca. Sir, the White Paper on Education Policy is, however, a completely different document. The Minister was ill-advised to table this White Paper in the form it is. He will remember the meticulous and assiduous care with which we struck out all the English emphasis in the All-Party Education Report. There are certain things which are going on in Malaya which those who run Government departments and educated in English are sometimes aware of. Instead of making the emphasis on an Asian language, the White Paper has made the emphasis on the English language. Sir, there is a revolution not only in Malaya. There is a revolution in the whole of Asia. In every country that has attained independence after fighting a colonial power, the language of that colonial power has not been acceptable. The Burmese pushed out the English language from their Courts even before they got their textbooks translated into Burmese. The Indians have stipulated that in 20 years they will all speak Hindi. I think it is in everybody's mind that the Chief Minister's friend, Sir John Kotelawala, got on to the Singhalese language band-wagon a little bit too late. Certain things are just not acceptable. Sir, every time I speak the English language there is a deep sense - I would not say of humiliation - but definitely of inadequacy that I have not the same facility and control over my own language. That is something you must understand, or you will not understand what is happening in Asia. Sir, in the whole of this Report, we get the same silly nonsense - "that parents wish to have their children educated in English; the Government are therefore concentrating on building English schools and on recruiting and training teachers for them." Then they go on to say, now it will not be bilingualism and trilingualism. It says that not only can you not choose any language. They indicate what language you will have to choose. "Pupils attending Chinese and Tamil schools will in general be taught English as their second language because it is the most widely used of all languages - the language of diplomacy, of world trade, of technical and higher education."

Read on, please.

Then it says: "There may, however, be some parents who would prefer their children to learn Malay, instead of English, and the Government will seek to provide the necessary facilities."

Exactly!

It shows that the group of people who deliberated on this did not understand what was happening. Sir, I will not believe that we can solve this language problem here in Singapore alone. If we had to solve the language problem in Singapore alone. I think the solution will be somewhat different from that which would be arrived at if you solved it on a Pan-Malayan basis. And I still wish to talk on a Pan-Malayan basis because the other alternative is uncomfortable. We left the question of national and official languages untouched in our All-Party Report, because they were big subjects which could not be solved by Singapore alone. They can only be resolved at a later stage when Singapore has merged with the Federation, and no politician, either in Singapore or in the Federation, can make any difference to the geographical, economic and ethnic factors which militate towards a merger.

Militate?

Sir, two significant advances have been made since the publication of the All-Party Report on Chinese Education. The first is the fact that the Singapore Chinese Middle School Students Union has accepted the principle of Malayanisation of textbooks. The second is the fact that that same Union has also accepted Malay as the national language. They are deep and significant advances. I do not say, of course, that there will be no trouble over Malayanisation. It depends upon who Malayanise what textbooks. But with the acceptance of the principle that the thought content, the substance of instruction should be centred in Malaya, I say that we have a chance, through the education system over the next 15 or 20 years, to produce a generation which is completely Malayan. I do not believe that just because the Chinese Middle School Students Union has accepted Malay as the national language, that therefore all the Chinese in Malaya will accept Malay as the national language. But it is an indication of trends. It is an indication that groups other than Malays have recognised the need for one pre-eminent language, and they have indicated that that pre-eminent language should be Malay. For a government which looks forward into the future, to produce a White Paper with the whole emphasis based on English is a matter for regret. It shows a lack of foresight and a lack of grasp of the vital issues involved in education. It is a damning indictment of the old colonial governments of Singapore that, after more than a hundred years of colonialism, with special emphasis on the Malays, the indigenous people, you have a situation in Singapore where there are no Malay secondary schools. On this, the White Paper says with considerable pride, not in an apologetic vein: "As yet all Malay schools are primary schools, though secondary classes in Malay, two for boys and one for girls, were opened for the first time this year with a view to the early establishment of a Malay secondary school. Previously there had been no direct access to secondary education for the child from the Malay primary school; but the bright child had been encouraged to transfer after his fourth year to an English primary school where intensive instruction in English was provided in Malay 'special classes'. In this way he could earn promotion to an English secondary school. A change in Malay education policy in 1952 which replaced Malay by English as the medium of instruction from Standard IV upwards gave to every child in the Malay primary school the opportunity to qualify for admission to an English secondary school through the Secondary School Entrance Examination." Then they go on to say that they intend to provide facilities for secondary education in Malay with the greatest possible speed, but that the obstacle is a shortage of teachers. The Vice-President of the Pan-Malayan Students Union, who is a Malay, has suggested that if it is only a question of shortage of teachers, "Well, let us get them from anywhere in the world. There are a lot that we could get from Indonesia."

You cannot. They are very short themselves.

Sir, I am not an expert on this matter -

We were there.

Order.

I hope that we will get a full and exhaustive explanation of the reason why the Government have said that they propose to proceed with the English emphasis in education. Sir, the White Paper is disappointing in this respect, but in so far as the White Paper carries out the recommendations of the All-Party Report, we support it. But we oppose - and I think it is fitting that someone who is English-educated should oppose it - the emphasis on English education. May I put it, without apologies, in a very personal way? Sir, we all like to live our lives again through our children. We know we should do what is best for them. But unconsciously we do for them what we wish our parents had done for us. When I was born, the British Navy ruled the waves. My grandfather, who was a chin-chew on a steamship line between Indonesia and Singapore, had the greatest respect for the British Navy. He made a great deal of money because, he said, there was no piracy in Malayan waters. He lived, Sir, until he saw the Prince of Wales sunk by Japanese aeroplanes. Imagine it, Sir, aeroplanes made in Japan sank the Prince of Wales! He died shortly afterwards. I am sure that the sinking of the Prince of Wales had nothing to do with his death, but I think an age had passed with him. I, Sir, was sent to an English school to equip me to go to an English university in order that I could then be an educated man - the equal of any Englishman - the model of perfection! Sir, I do not know how far they have succeeded in that. I grew up, and finally graduated. At the end of it, I felt - and it was long before I entered politics, in fact it is one of the reasons why I am here - that the whole set of values was wrong, fundamentally and radically wrong. When I read Nehru - and I read a lot of Nehru - I understood him when he said, "I cry when I think that I cannot speak my own mother tongue as well as I can speak the English language." I am a less emotional man, Sir, I do not usually cry, or tear my hair, or tear paper, or tear my shirt off, but that does not mean that I feel any the less strongly about it. My son, Sir, is not going to an English school. He will not be a model Englishman. I hope, of course, that he will know enough English to converse with his father on matters other than the weather! I hope also that in time to come I will know enough Mandarin and enough Malay to converse with him on the problems of humidity and heat control in the tropics! But whatever the difficulties in family relationship, he is going to be part of Asia, part of Malaya. Sir, the Member for Tanglin talked of the technical details of English education, of difficulties of multi-languages. Whatever the difficulties, these are the innate forces that nothing can stop, and it would be foolish to ignore it. The person who wrote this Report does not understand those problems. He thought that in five years or in ten years even if people talk Mandarin, Tamil and Malay in the Legislature, the world will go on more or less the same. There will be the English schools which will be producing all the civil servants, all the administrators and all the professional men - the accountants, the lawyers, and the engineers. That, Sir, is not what is going to happen, not from the point of vantage that I look upon the problem. If you have these languages recognised, if you have an education system producing men speaking Mandarin and Malay, can you imagine the Government Land Office writing to its tenants in English asking them to quit? I will not say that the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education evaded the issue, because that would not have been an honourable thing to do. We faced it, but we felt that first you must settle the question of the language. Which is to be the predominant language? Will there be one or more languages? I myself am of the opinion that there cannot be only one because you cannot push out the Chinese language. When you have settled that, then you shape your whole educational machinery for that purpose, to produce that result. There is no escaping this. An age is passing in Malaya, an age in which the English and the English educated ruled the roost. It is passing slowly. Probably the rate at which it is passing will increase as time goes on. It might suddenly accelerate after April. I think it would be prudent - certainly it would be wise - if one were not only to try and meet these forces but to try and shape and influence their ultimate direction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to associate myself wholeheartedly with the Hon. the Minister for Education. There is need to integrate Malay education in a general education system so that not only will the special features of Malay culture and traditions be preserved, but the economic future of the Malays will be made brighter by giving equal or even special educational opportunities to the Malay pupils to go to secondary schools. At present, very few are enabled to profit by secondary education. Malay parents, in general, find themselves unable to afford the cost of education beyond primary standards in a Malay school. Certain bright pupils are selected arid are transferred to an English school there to continue their education in English. I feel that the system of equal treatment as now enunciated in the White Paper will mean a radical change in approach. We should, in our Malay schools, agree to bilingual education in Malay and English and continue these schools on to the secondary stage, also in Malay and English, maintaining the educational standards that will give the Malay child the same chance of attractive employment and the same opportunities for admission to institutions of higher education as the children of other races. I welcome the reference in the White Paper to the need for raising the standard of teaching of Malay and Tamil. In a bilingual school, where Malay is one of the media, there can be no doubt that the standard in the Malay language reached would be at a very much higher level than that of the present School Certificate paper; and there can be little doubt that arrangements can be made by which both an alternative language paper of a higher level as well as a new paper in Malay Literature can be provided. The Malay-English media bilingual school will, it is believed, enable its pupils to reach an equally high standard in both languages and will not be the old English school likely draped with a little Malay. How far can Malay pupils under these circumstances, Sir, accept the further burden of learning a third language - Mandarin or Tamil - is rather problematic. In principle, I think it is a goal worth striving for, but I should hate to commit myself to a course of action where the Malay intellectuals will find themselves unable to support just at present. Hence my reservations on this point. It will depend largely on how far and how expeditiously we can marshall our resources of teaching talent; first, to cope with the accelerated improvement of Malay education up to the equivalent of the School Certificate stage, and then to accept the implications of utilising as much as possible the bilingual medium - English-Malay - in all stages of Malay education. If only conversational Mandarin or Tamil were to be introduced in the next few years and no scripts are taught, it is possible that the additional load could be borne by Malay schools. I should not like to commit myself on this point, but I think I may say, without contradiction, that the Malays wish to play their full and proper part in the noble task of building a nation and will not lag behind other communities. If the Malay-English bilingual school is to be conducted at the same level as the present English school, its teachers must have an academic preparation and a professional training as sound as that of the teacher in the English school. The academic and professional training will be provided by the bilingual school itself once it has gained momentum. The professional training will be given by the Teachers' Training College in the same way and at the same level as for the teachers in the present English schools. I have, however, an assurance to give to Malay teachers. As the Hon. the Minister for Education has stated with reference to Chinese schools, the education policy outlined in the White Paper will not result in the retrenchment of any teacher but may well mean enhanced prospects for many. The serious study of Malay in the bilingual school, other than the Malay-English school - will require the services of a number of Malay language teachers. Much must depend on the assessment of academic standards which will be necessary. Fair treatment, however, has been promised, even to those teachers who, in academic attainments, may not have reached as high a standard as we would have liked. As long as they are playing adequately their part in educating the youths of Singapore, they will certainly not be overlooked. I would like to emphasise that the past and present economic plight of many Malays is due to the fact that they have been educated only in Malay and have acquired no knowledge or an inadequate knowledge of the world language of commerce. It is this that has denied them both well-paid employment in commercial concerns and access to institutions of higher learning. It is this that must be remedied. I am convinced that the White Paper opens the door for opportunities to the Malays as to all other races, while the fullest consideration will continue to be given to whatever representations the Malay Education Council may see fit to make from time to time. I have no hesitation at this stage in endorsing the principles enumerated in the White Paper in so far as they affect Malay education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at last we have a chance to debate the education policy of the Government which is laid down in the White Paper. Obviously this White Paper has long been awaited by the public, especially by the Chinese community. Before I get on any further, I wish to make my stand clear. Although I was one of the signatories to the All-Party Report on Chinese Education - and most of the recommendations in this White Paper are based on the Report - I remember, when I accepted the appointment to sit on the All-Party Committee, that I reserved the right to air freely my views and my Party's views in future regarding the education policy. It is with the deepest regret that I say that I cannot agree with this White Paper, although it includes many good points from the Report. The reasons why I cannot support the White Paper fall into two parts. Firstly, this White Paper fails to convince us that it is a long-term education policy for this country. It tries to avoid the most important problem - the question of a lingua franca for this country. Many a time during the All-Party sittings we tried our very best to avoid it because we were limited by the terms of reference. We tried very hard to get on with our investigations into the problem of Chinese education only without touching on the question of a lingua franca. We cannot find any mention of a lingua franca in this White Paper. Why? The writer of this White Paper seems to have forgotten that not very long ago this House passed a motion to have multilingualism in this Assembly, and now we find the emphasis placed on English education. The writer cannot produce any solid assurance regarding, the promotion of a local language, which the Minister for Education promised me. If we look at Malay education, which is dealt with in this White Paper, we find that the Government has been trying very hard, ever since it got into office, to promote secondary education in Malay, but that the difficulty has been to engage sufficient teachers with a sound academic background. In the White Paper the Government says that it "hopes to extend the present Training College to include a Malay section to supplement the small quota of teachers who undergo training at the Sultan Idris Training College at Tanjong Malim and the Malacca Women's Training Centre." It tells us very clearly that we have to depend on the Government of the Federation of Malaya to train Malay teachers for us, as we cannot find our own Government showing determination in this matter, though they have very good comments to make on the Ten-Year Plan. The second part of the White Paper has been badly mishandled by the writer who, I suppose, does not understand the people's feelings in this country when he touches on the historical background of education in this White Paper. All I can say is that he is a good defender of the old Colonel Blimp's education policy. Look at what he says: Sir Stamford Raffles founded Raffles Institution where multilingual education was introduced, but, "unfortunately, however, a local inertia led to the early abandonment of all languages except English...". Sir, although the present Government has indicated that it will introduce bilingual education for all races and that their cultures should be respected, who can assure us that 5 years, 10 years or 20 years hence the same sentence would not reappear in another White Paper: "...a local inertia led to the early abandonment of all languages except English..." The writer further says that most of the parents wish their children to be sent to English schools. About two or three months ago, Sir, after the All-Party Committee started its investigation into Chinese education, I remember the Ministry of Education caused a questionnaire to be sent to all parents of children studying in English schools only, and the majority of the returns indicated that the parents wished their children to receive an English education. Do you think the sending of this questionnaire only to English schools is fair? Do you think it is democratic? Do you think this survey was sincerely carried out? Why could not the survey be conducted among all schools - English, Malay, Tamil and Chinese - asking the parents what type of education they preferred their children to have? But the survey was carried out among the English schools only. Now the writer of the White Paper comes and tells us that many parents in Singapore wish their children to have an English education. Look at this. The White Paper says that "their great virtue (the English schools) is that they have brought together children of all races and creeds and made them Malayans." It is believed that most of the English school children have a true Malayan outlook. I do not know how they classify Malayans. Listen to this: "John, what make is your watch?" "Oh, it is made 'at home'." They call London-made 'home-made'. Then this: "John, where are you going to spend your leave?" John replies, "I am going to spend my leave 'at home'." 'At home' means the United Kingdom.

Nonsense!

Sure it is.

Order.

And this talk of Malayan loyalty. It is only trying to cover the old Colonel Blimp tactics. Now this writer, writing on English education, goes all out to defend it. He has this to say of the Chinese school committees: "Aid was accepted only when standards of accommodation and teaching had fallen to a very low level and without any sense of obligation." In other words, he is defending the full aid system which has generally been refused by the Chinese schools, though certain schools that have received full aid have come under criticism from him. Take the Catholic High School. I can challenge anyone who says that it is not a model school in Singapore, even the Minister for Education. Here is a school which receives full aid and yet the writer of the White Paper criticises it. "Aid was accepted only when standards of accommodation and teaching had fallen to a very low level and without any sense of obligation." Is it fair?

No!

Thank you! Now I come to the criticism of the Chinese school teachers in the White Paper. There it says that: "Most of the teachers were recruited in the days when salaries were insufficient to attract good men, or having attracted them, to earn their wholehearted loyalty. The teacher is still too often paid at piece-work rates, so that his duty to the school begins when he enters the classroom and ends when he leaves it." The writer's intention is to show how irresponsible and how selfish the Chinese school teachers are. Sir, I quote a practical example now. The Rendel Constitution is said to be undemocratic and inadequate to attract good men to stand for election. If that is so, are all the hon. Members now in this House good men? Are they "honourable" men? The White Paper points out that the Chinese teachers receive poor pay, and yet sees fit to draw attention to their poor standard of teaching and their lack of responsibility. I should like to give hon. Members another practical example. We know that Bedok Village recently suffered a flood. In this village there lives a man by the name of Choo Keng Guan who is the Principal of Poh Sin Hwa School. Mr Choo receives a salary of about $290 a month. With the rapid expansion of this school, it was found that there were not enough desks for the students. Because of the flood, the school management committee had no money to buy desks for the students. This principal, from his own savings, bought them and supplied them to the school - on loan, of course. He is also at present supporting two of his former students who are furthering their studies at a Chinese Middle school in Singapore. Is this the type of teacher that the writer describes in the White Paper? Do you think that we think this Mr Choo is wonderful? That this story is new to us? No, not to the Chinese community! There are hundreds of Mr Choo's! Mr Choo embodies what we Chinese call the scholastic spirit - Tsu chi. It is this spirit that keeps Chinese culture alive, no matter where it goes. We must realise the fact that Chinese education flourishes today not only because it is fully supported by the big Chinese merchants, but also because of this type of noble people who possess the scholastic spirit. So I think the implication as contained in the White Paper that we have no good Chinese teachers is an insult to all the Chinese school teachers. As the Hon. the Chief Minister was once a lawyer, I wish him to recall from his memory whether he knew of any case where a Chinese school principal had ever appeared in Court charged with misappropriation of public funds. The Chief Minister indicated dissent.

The Chief Minister indicated no, and yet we recently have the case of one English school principal who was charged in a criminal Court for misappropriation of public funds. Therefore I wish the writer would understand the scholastic spirit that is imbued in the Chinese educationists. They do not teach for money. The writer tries to give us the so-called historical background of Chinese education and criticises the Chinese school community teachers. I now come to the Chinese school students. We know this White Paper stems from the All-Party Committee Report which also deals with the Chinese school students - a problem with which we are all greatly concerned. Yet we can find no solution to this problem in the White Paper, only comment. The White Paper just tells us that the students "have participated in anti-Government activities which have caused genuine concern not only to Government but to all sections of the community."

It is true.

It is not wholly true.

No?

Why is not the problem faced and a solution to it found? Why have the Chinese school students created trouble? Why cannot we face facts? In every new-born country, especially as we have not achieved our Merdeka yet, a students' political movement cannot be avoided. It must exist, and the problem is not peculiar to Singapore alone. It is not true to say that those students who take part in politics are Communists.

It is not stated.

It is not only among the Chinese school students that there are subversive elements. I understand that even among the undergraduates of the University of Malaya there are also subversive elements. So it is up to the Government to clean out the 'bad hats' from among the student body. The statement should not be applied to Chinese school students only. If the Minister for Education would like to consider it, I think the solution to this problem would be for the Government to change their attitude towards the students from now on. They should recognise that the Chinese school students possess these valuable attributes which are - their righteousness, their passionate nationalism and their mutual-assistance spirit which we, on the All-Party Committee, found very much lacking in English schools. The Government must realise that they cannot suppress the Chinese school students. They must guide them into the proper channels. They cannot insist on saying, "Oh, Chinese school students are Communists. They are dangerous - "

Who said that?

" - subversive elements."

We did not say that.

The Government should not allow comments of this nature to influence them. They cannot treat the Chinese school students as prodigal sons. If they bear this in mind, then they can clear the so-called underground element. But they must beware of one important thing - the open political manoeuvrers among the Chinese school students. I am sorry the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) is not here.

He has made his speech!

He is the adviser to the Chinese Middle School Students Union. I now wish to say that he has honoured the All-Party Com- mittee Report on Chinese Education by affixing his signature to it. At page 27 of the Report we find this: "It is recommended that students should not participate in active party politics or actively participate in trade and industrial disputes." I wish the Member for Tanjong Pagar would go back and advise the Chinese school students to beware of political manoeuvrers. Beware of someone who always styles himself as the national champion in the fight against colonialism. Colonialism, however, is a fast dying tiger. The students cannot be fooled by such people. There is no need for such propaganda by these professional politicians. We are well aware that, to start any political campaigns, certain politicians must make sure that they have the support of many Chinese school students. I wish the Member for Tanjong Pagar would advise these students when such campaigns are sponsored.

He is not here!

I hope the Minister for Education can see fit to accept a few of my suggestions which I make here. (1) To call on all Parties to sign a joint statement endorsing all the recommendations I have just made and also declaring that no students should take part in active party politics or industrial disputes. (2) That Government should clearly set out a national education policy which should also include the question of a lingua franca. (3) To set up a uniform examination standard. This will ensure that all students in Singapore, no matter whether they are in English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil schools, will have to pass an examination standard recognised by Government and employers. A rigid standard is to be set in respect of both the mother tongue and the compulsory second language. For instance, in an English school, where a person has to secure a Senior Cambridge Certificate which will be recognised by all employers, including the Government, he must in addition possess at least a vernacular education standard equivalent to Std. VII. And vice versa, a Senior Middle School student must possess an English education standard or a Malay education standard equivalent to Std. VII too, to make sure that the bilingual education policy is sincerely carried out and not made a mockery of. (4) To establish immediately a training school to train Malay secondary school teachers. (5) To re-engage all retired Malay teachers in order to cope with the rapid expansion of Malay education. In some cases I have found that Malay teachers have retired at the age of only 50. (6) In view of the suspicion that exists among the Chinese schools, more especially as the White Paper has been produced in such a way, I am sure we cannot expect the Chinese schools to believe in the sincerity of the Government by accepting full grants-in-aid. To allay such suspicions, therefore, the Government should show that they are true to their word by giving equal treatment to all schools. Partial aid, especially to the Chinese middle schools where the teachers are so badly paid, should also be considered. (7) The retirement age for teachers should be raised from 60 to 65 years. This will help to cope with the expansion of the Chinese educational programme. We do not want to start a new school and then find that we have not enough teachers. The position now is that we let a lot of teachers still able to teach retire at too early an age. (8) To start immediately a survey of the true wishes of the parents as regards the type of language education they prefer their children to receive. This survey must be carried out not among English schools only, but among all schools. (9) To Malayanise immediately the Ministry of Education. I would say that top priority should be given to this. I am not blaming the Minister for Education for this White Paper. It was not prepared by him.

He takes the responsibility for it.

But I can more or less give him an excuse!

I do not want any!

Then (10) I wish the Government would respect the importance of the private school system and allow it to remain in Singapore. The position is the same everywhere. (11) I wish the Government's attitude towards the Chinese school students would improve and that they would try to understand them more. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, although this White Paper is based on the recommendations of the All-Party Report, it is not the work of our local people and, consequently, has been wrongly prepared and therefore cannot be acceptable to us, especially that part which deals with the historical background of Chinese education. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister for Education be kind enough to adjourn the debate now so as to redraft especially the historical background, otherwise the White Paper will be, as the Chinese proverb says, just like "Old wine in new bottles".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the nine men who sat on the All-Party Committee were honest, true and sincere men discussing in all seriousness the problem of education that faced Singapore. The Member for Changi has thought fit to remind the Member for Tanjong Pagar that this All-Party Committee agreed that our students should not take part in politics or in trade union disputes. Perhaps he himself has forgotten that, between pages 42 and 43 of the Report, there is a chart which this All-Party Committee recommends to the Government. In this chart, it is recommended that for the first six years between the ages of six to eleven or twelve in all schools, in addition to the vernacular language, English should be taught. We had recommended this in all sincerity because we believed English would be useful to our children. But here in this Assembly, we find very severe criticism against the Ministry of Education for giving certain emphasis on English being taught in schools as a language. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar referred to the $12 millions offered to the Chinese schools by the colonial Government perhaps assisted by Messrs. C. C. Tan & Co. Ltd., which was not accepted by the Chinese schools. The Chinese schools had refused to accept because, at that time, prior to April, 1955, they had every reason to be suspicious of any such offer from the colonial Government and their suspicions were not unfounded. The colonial Government had for many decades not only neglected but ignored Chinese education to such an extent that all the Chinese schools were not able to have enough money to pay adequate salaries to teachers and to have adequately equipped classrooms or buildings, and some Chinese schools had even no playgrounds. As we know, youth has any amount of energy and the playgrounds are the places where such energies are let out. We have found, at the various sittings of the All-Party Committee, that the lack of playgrounds for the Chinese schools has been such a tremendous handicap that it is now absolutely necessary that Government should, wherever possible, offer them playgrounds or the facilities of using playgrounds which are at the disposal of other organisations. Today, the position is different from that prior to April, 1955. Today, as the Minister for Education has informed me, he regards himself as the father of all students - the Chinese school students, the English school students, the Malay and the Tamil school students - and his duty is to defend them and not to persecute them. During the colonial Government's regime, I had the privilege on many occasions to defend the Chinese schools. Every year, a certain number of Chinese schools were threatened to be closed down. They were asked to show cause why they should not be closed down because one or two of the students did not behave according to the liking of the colonial Government. I am very glad to be able to say that, on all these occasions, we succeeded in showing cause and the schools were not closed down. But the attitude of persecuting school children and not defending them when charges were preferred against them had caused deep suspicion especially amongst the boys and girls of the Chinese schools. Now, the attitude of the Government is changed, so we can look to the future with confidence and convince the boys and girls, the teachers and the management committees of the Chinese schools of our sincerity in helping them to bring up their standard to that of the English schools. On one occasion, while aids were offered to some of the Chinese schools, they were refused to certain village schools because the Education Department thought that they were not up to standard. Today, I am sure the Minister for Education has reversed the position. Those schools that are not up to a certain standard will be given priority. They will be given more aid than those schools which have reached a certain high standard. I hope it will not be long before Government can also say to the Nanyang University, "We will come and assist you. You and the Government will co-operate so that we can together provide a higher means of education for the boys and girls of the Chinese schools."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in considering the postponement sought by the Opposition, I must confess to considerable surprise at the paucity of opposition displayed today. There has been considerable verbiage but absolute bankruptcy of ideas. The very able Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede), with his delightful facility for setting up bogeys and knocking them down, did seem to suggest as though he was getting somewhere, but it was more like the activity of a squirrel in a cage. Sir, he pleaded that we should recognise the fact that you cannot have tuition in more than one language. If he had read the Report adequately, Sir, he would have realised that that is, in fact, what we seek - tuition in one language and the other languages to be special subjects. So you will be taught in your mother tongue both in the primary and in the secondary school, and the languages of choice in the primary and secondary schools will be taught as separate subjects. There was a further complaint from him that we had not dealt with various minor points of procedure. The purpose of a White Paper, Sir, is to give a broad outline of policy and not to indicate detailed procedure. Then we had the suggestion that we might find a little difficulty in producing a Malayan nightingale to satisfy a Malayan Keats. Sir, I think it is certainly understood by me - I do not quite know which paragraph to refer to but it is inherent in all the recommendations both of the Report and the White Paper policy - that, though the whole structure is Malayan, literature is part of the culture associated with the language and literature will not and cannot be Malayanised and there is no suggestion whatsoever of Malayanising the literature aspect of the teachings in the different languages. So those who study English will still have their Keats and those who study Mandarin will still have the analects of Confucius. Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, in what I may call, if I am permitted, one of the more constructive speeches, to which I have listened, emanating from him in this Assembly, did draw attention to the suspicion and hostility of the Chinese community towards the Government. That we recognise, Sir. That is the heritage which we have, but we have been in office for more than a year and I think we have given sufficient evidence of our goodwill and our sincerity in seeking to deal justly with all races. This White Paper, in fact, is part of our three-pronged attack on this problem and it seeks to lay the foundation for all time in Singapore of equal justice for all races. The hon. Member went on to weep for the misfortune of having been educated in the English language, which he handles so well. Sir, one can but regret the unhappy fact that such ability, in fact, such brilliance, should be associated with such a lack of appreciation and under- standing of the basic facts, as indicated by that lament of the Member for Tanjong Pagar who, having made his speech, did not pause to listen in this House to any replies. That is the attitude we have always had from him - that he knows everything and can be guided in nothing. Sir, the question of the English language is closely tied up with the traditional fate of Singapore as a market place of the world. We are a place of trade and commerce and, to that extent, we must recognise that the English language, as an international language, is of the greatest importance to the people of this country. Sir, it is not only a question of folly, but it is falling below the standards of human dignity to permit one's sense of inferiority and antagonism towards the dominant race to get to the point of hating them, Sir, to the point of wanting no part of their culture and their language which could be helpful to us in our daily life. There is a saying that some people cut off their noses to spite their faces and, Sir, when the Member for Tanjong Pagar was speaking, that is the vision I had. Here is a man who hates so bitterly, because of some imagined or genuine sense of humiliation as a result of what he had undergone in the past, that he wants none of anything associated with any version, even though it might be of considerable benefit to the people of the country. We on the Government side recognise that not only the Chinese people but the people of Singapore are a practical and a reasonable people. The hates of the supersensitive intellectuals, unalloyed by the broad-based decencies of human commonsense, do not control the feelings and the actions of the general public of Singapore. We have given them under paragraph 14 of the White Paper the option of taking as a second language either English or Malay, recognising that many of them would seek to have English because, as a practical people, conscious of the difficulties of employment that are going to have accumulative effect in the future, they would wish their children to have qualifications which would give them the maximum possible opening in commercial and professional fields. But I would like you to recognise, Sir, that we do not suggest and, in fact, have never suggested that the Malay language should take an inferior place to the English language, and that, in fact, as soon as we can we shall provide the facilities where parents may require Malay as a second language, and, in any event, we make it a compulsory language in the secondary schools. Sir, much has been said about the White Paper. Let me say in fairness to our civil servants - that not only do I and my colleagues take full responsibility for what is in this Paper, but we did, Sir, carefully go through it and carefully satisfy ourselves that it was accurate in fact and that it did represent our policy. This is the first opportunity I have to seek to correct an impression that the Paper was written by some Machiavellian expatriate officials and has been surreptitiously introduced without the knowledge of the Government. It is no question of gallantry in protecting them, Sir, that I say this, but because I believe that we should always face the honest truth, and if there is any genuine criticism in respect of this Paper, do not blame the expatriate officials. We are here to face it because we are, in fact, the persons responsible. Sir, on the suggestion that we have given undue prominence to the English language - the suggestion which made the Member for Tanjong Pagar weep and which he opposed - I would draw attention to the Report signed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar in which he recommends that the English language shall be the compulsory language in all primary schools as the second language. I think my friend and colleague the Minister for Education will draw attention to the exact paragraphs. Now, we come, Sir, to a gentleman I regret to see absent whom I have at all times found the most delightful of speakers. I refer to the Member for Changi. I must confess that I enjoy watching his courageous struggle with the English language as though it were a giant slithery eel but he succeeds, and succeeds amazingly well, Sir, in putting across not only what he means but his own sincerity, which I believe. To that extent, Sir, I listen with perhaps not only more indulgence but with more consideration to what the Member for Changi says than - if the others will forgive me - to what many of the others do say who consider themselves professional opponents. Sir, the Member for Changi had some complaints to make, the most important of which is that Government seems to have given no attention to the question of a lingua franca. Government recognises this, Sir, that you cannot impose a culture from on top. It must well up. It is dangerous to seek to impose Malay just as dangerous as it is to seek to impose English. We are not going to make the mistake of forcing the feet of our population into preconceived shoes. Where it is not necessary, we will allow time to evolve a solution and, in this case, giving parallel opportunities and facilities to all four cultures, we hope - as was indeed indicated by the Member for Tanjong Pagar - that, in course of time, the recognition that one of the languages is, in fact, the logical lingua franca will be generally accepted and, when accepted, will then become law; but there is no sense in making it part of this education policy and seeking to impose it upon a people some of whom are not yet ready for it. Then, Sir, the Member for Changi complained that we said that Sir Stamford Raffles introduced multilingualism but that due to the apathy of the local people only English was persisted in. Sir, one of the favourite features of my reading is a fascinating feature that you find regularly in the Sunday Times, and it is called "Historical Corner by Donald Davies". Last Sunday it was even more rewarding than usual. I am referring here to an account of what Abdullah the Malay chronicler said about the foundation of Raffles Institution: "The first meeting to discuss the foundation of the college, according to a pamphlet printed at the Mission Press at Malacca, took place in Raffles' new house on Fort Canning Hill on April 1, 1823, when Raffles himself read a long and eloquent minute. ... addressing the Sultan, he said, '0 Sultan, Temenggong, and all ye gentlemen here gathered together, I have a desire to give effect to, to wit an undertaking of the greatest utility to this and to future generations; for today we live that we may die, and then pass away. Now if we can show good deeds we are named as good hereafter; and if bad, so accordingly. Now, while we have the opportunity, let us make a good name for future generations. Now, what I desire to do is to erect an edifice in which all races can be taught, each in their own language, and by their own schoolmasters, in all knowledge which pertains to true intelligence, such as may be imparted to each and every one. . . But my greatest anxiety is to advance the Malays, by easy degrees, in their own language - otherwise, let each race have its assigned place, and all this without expense, but let the teaching be gratuitous; the country will increase in population in time, so if there be such an institute, its fame will spread to all races." There was this great-hearted gentleman anticipating our White Paper by 133 years. There was, Sir, the cornerstone of a Singapore that could have been the lighthouse of the world if it had been pursued in, for he asked for multilingualism in schools and for equal respect for all cultures. Sir, when I read this, I was proud to know that I was in such company and that this Government was, in its way, when fumbling towards an honest and just solution to our problems, achieving a solution that another honest and just man had thought of more than a century before. I do recognise this though, Sir, that there is in Singapore a small group of people who are aliens and who have no intention of being anything else. They see with alarm the possibility of the integration of races and communities in Singapore into a Malayan nation and it is their technique to confuse the people and give no credit to anything worthwhile in the hope that, through confusion, they can create the chaos through which their alien ways will achieve control. Sir, we on the Government Bench feel like a craftsman who has fashioned a beautiful jade bracelet for a member of the family. That jade bracelet is not intended for pigs' trotters. This White Paper is intended for Malayans, those who are true Malayans, and to those who are aliens and who do not intend to be other than aliens, we say, "You can keep your schools, but stop messing our marble floors." I say this today, Sir, more in sorrow than in anger to see this agitation, this smokescreen seeking to confuse the decency and the generosity of the education programme outlined by this Paper; but I say to these people that the day may soon come when Singapore, knowing her enemies, will show more anger than sorrow and when that day comes, Sir, this Government will not be slow to move. Mr Chew Swee Kee rose -

Mr Minister, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to hide under the colonial cloak of Colonel Blimp when the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng) levelled criticism against me by saying that the White Paper on Education Policy was written by some expatriate officer and has been presented without the Government Benches first having had a look at it. I must say that I take full responsibility for it and I will not blame anyone for the inadequacy of this White Paper. The Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) said that the Ministry of Education had not been co-operative in the field of music. There has been no discrimination whatsoever. Rather, the underlying suspicion on the part of Chinese educationists in the past, that Western culture is being forced on them, has deterred somewhat the Ministry's desire actively to introduce Western culture into the schools; but, of late, we have, in fact, promoted extra-curricular activities and extra-mural activities, including art and music, in all the schools, irrespective of whether they are English, Chinese or Malay schools. Then also the White Paper has been attacked for laying emphasis on English. I rather think that the word "English" should be changed to "reality". It is emphasis on reality. Recently, I caused to be surveyed the requirements and needs of the employer in employing youths who graduate from our schools. I will read extracts of letters from the Chambers of Commerce, but not the European Chamber of Commerce which I will leave out: "In Malaya, Chinese firms conduct business among themselves chiefly in Chinese. In dealing with European, English and American firms, both locally and abroad, English is used as the medium of communication. In dealing with neighbouring countries and countries in Asia in general, English is also the medium of communication, but very often Chinese is also used. In view of this, it would appear to this Chamber that only those who know either Chinese or English or who are proficient both in English and Chinese would have good prospects in Chinese firms." This is an extract of a letter from another Chamber of Commerce: "As English is the commercial language and as it is sure to continue to be the commercial language even in the foreseeable future, this Chamber feels that it would be preferable to have English as the medium of education, with Malay as the secondary language. Those who go through a scheme of education with Malay as the medium of education and English only as a subject might find it difficult to get employed in the average and high income groups, and also it would be difficult for them to rise up in position. For the lower paid post, it might be all right to have Malay as a medium of education, but, generally speaking, it would be worth while to have only English as a medium of education. As regards those who have their secondary education through the medium of Chinese with English only as a subject, such candidates might have good prospects only in Chinese firms, as it will be understood that English, for the purpose of correspondence and attention to daily routine, and knowledge of Malay for contacting local business interests, will be a sound background to employment in commercial firms." Now, that is what the employers want. They want the Government to educate the youths in such a way as to enable them to seek employment in the firms or have an education that the firms would want them to have. The Hon. the Chief Minister has drawn attention to the All-Party Committee Report on Chinese Education. I wish to draw hon. Members' attention also to the chart facing page 43 of the Report. This will allay any fear that the Government wish to do away with vernacular languages. In the first year, in the English stream, you have the vernacular language taught, and from the second year onwards, "Vernacular and English", and then to "English and the mother tongue or second compulsory language chosen by parents". That chart shows very clearly that we cannot ignore the fact that English is the language of commerce, industry and diplomacy, and those hon. Members who spoke against the White Paper, such as the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) and the Member for Changi (Mr Lim Cher Kheng), have affixed their signatures to the Report. As regards the regulations which Government will want to see complied with, I wish to draw hon. Members' attention to the remark made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar as regards paragraph 26 (iv) of the White Paper where it says: "No principal or teacher shall be appointed or dismissed without the approval of the Registrar." The Registrar's powers are not dictatorial because, at the end of this paragraph, it says: "Appeals against decisions of the Registrar may be made to the Director and against decisions of the Director to the Minister . . .". As I said at a previous sitting, this clause is only to safeguard the principal and teacher themselves against any management committees who, for reasons only known to themselves, seek to appoint or dismiss any principal or teacher as they like. No government of any country in the world will support education and spend large sums of money on it without wanting some measure of control and without regularising the standards laid down as the educational policy of the government in power. The Member for Changi referred to a recent survey made by the Ministry of Education as regards the choice of language in schools. It was unfair of him to criticise that that survey was conducted only in English schools. It was also conducted in Malay and Tamil schools and the majority of the returns indicated that they wanted English as the medium of instruction. The hon. Member also mentioned that the criticism of the White Paper on the Chinese schools having accepted aid because their standards of teaching or their standards of accommodation have fallen is actually somewhat academic. That criticism was levelled at the past system which gives the background to the Chinese school system, which is, of course, not true today and there is no intention whatsoever to include the Catholic High School in that sphere. The hon. Member also said that Government is criticising Chinese education and has not tried to evolve a method by which to eradicate such inequalities. I refer him to the last sentence of paragraph 4 (c) of the White Paper which reads: "A basic condition for improvement in Chinese education is a re-orientation of the students' attitude to a realisation that the schools provide the means of fulfilling their love of education and their loyalty to this country." That is exactly what the present Government is doing. There has been representation that Malay teachers could be obtained from Indonesia. I say this, with the knowledge that I have, that we cannot get them. Indonesia herself is running short of teachers. We do not want Malay teachers for primary schools but teachers for secondary schools, and Indonesia cannot provide them even if she wishes to.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House approves the adoption of the Education Policy outlined in the White Paper on Education Policy as contained in Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 15 of 1956.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do formally move, That this Assembly do now stand adjourned.

I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now stand adjourned. Adjourned accordingly at 12.26 p.m.