Hansard, 1957-04-24

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (3) (i) of section 47 of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from meetings of the Assembly: Inche Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat - three weeks from 7th March, 1957; Mr Chew Swee Kee - three weeks from 7th March, 1957; Mr Lim Choon Mong - from 7th March to 13th April, 1957; Mr William Tan - from 9th April to 26th April, 1957.

Mr Stanley Toft Stewart, Chief Secretary (Acting), took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance.

I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor dated 20th February, 1957, informing me that His Excellency has, in accordance with the provisions of Section 62 (2) of the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1955, assented to the following Bills: (i) Light Dues Bill; (ii) Census (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Civil Law (Amendment) Bill.

I have to inform Honourable Members that I received a report dated 4th April, 1957, from the Honourable Mr Justice Tan Ah Tah informing me that the Honourable Mr Oon Khye Kiang, Acting Financial Secretary, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance before him on 4th April, 1957.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he is aware that some private employment exchanges in Singapore are exploiting employment seekers, and what does he propose to do about such concerns.

Sir, I am aware of one recent case in which four aggrieved employment seekers made a report to the police which led to the arrest and conviction of a man who had been operating a private employment agency. I have good reason to believe that although some private employment agencies are long established, there are others which exist only to exploit employment seekers. I am looking into the possibility of introducing new legislation under which private employment agencies can be effectively regulated. However, most of the bogus agencies which exploit the unemployed are mushroom growths, here today and gone tomorrow. The remedy in such cases is not new legislation but for the intended victims to make early reports to the police so that prompt action can be taken against them under the existing law.

asked the Minister for Labour and Welfare whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 1956.

Sir, the implementation of the Ordinance is dependent on the recruitment of the necessary staff, particularly of a Director of Legal Aid. Applications for various posts in Superscale Grade F of the legal service closed on 4th March and candidates have been interviewed by the Public Service Commission. It is expected that it will be possible to appoint one of the selected candidates to the post of Director of Legal Aid by the end of this month. As soon as this appointment has been made, implementation of the Ordinance will follow step by step.

How many steps and how long for this measure which had the unanimous support of this House and which is a year old?

As many steps as are necessary to implement this Ordinance in order to enable the smooth running of a law which was passed a year ago.

Do I understand that the Minister does not know how many steps are necessary and has not provided for the period during which it will be necessary for it to be brought to full implementation?

I am aware of the many steps required, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the Singapore Government has been consulted by, and/or has made representations to, the British Government with reference to the latter Government's intention to carry out nuclear explosions based on Christmas Island.

The answer is no, Sir. The Member for Cairnhill will be aware that there are two Christmas Islands and that the tests are to be based on the one in the Pacific which is 6,600 miles from Singapore, and this is further from Singapore than the North Pole is. Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill is feeling a bit anxious because the Christmas Island in question is nearer to the Marshall Islands in the Pacific.

The Member for Cairnhill is not aware, Sir, that distance has any particular effect in respect of the very grave disturbance to the human person by these explosions, and I would like to understand from the Chief Secretary whether he considers the 6,600 miles to be such adequate protection that there is to be no representation on behalf of the human beings who comprise this island's population? No answer -

Order. That last remark must be withdrawn.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that no answer is sometimes a very eloquent reply; but if you rule that it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Did I understand the Member for Cairnhill to use the word "elephantine"?

"Eloquent reply", Sir.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will appoint an inter-departmental Committee with a view to making available opportunities for employment in the Public Service of graduates of Chinese Middle Schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. The Government have already decided to accept a Pass in the Government examinations for Chinese Senior Middle School third-year students as equivalent to the Cambridge School Certificate for the purpose of entering the civil service. There is therefore no need to appoint an Inter-departmental Committee.

Sir, is the Chief Secretary informing this House that, in fact, there is no need to investigate the posts available for this particular type of candidate?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 30th March Government issued a statement listing many of the posts which are eligible now for Chinese Middle School third-year students. Additions to the posts are being investigated and consultations are still going on with other departments.

That is not what I mean, Sir. We know that there has been this White Paper, but what I am suggesting is that if there is an Inter-departmental Committee with this particular aim in view - for the purposes of investigating what posts are available or can be made available - then we can proceed at a greater pace. Sir, and with more precision in respect of the enrolment of these new applicants.

Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill ought to lead up to a supplementary question.

The question is this: Would the Chief Secretary not agree that an Inter-departmental Committee would be of considerable assistance in this aim?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think it would be essential to have an Inter-departmental Committee.

asked the Financial Secretary what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to amend the Income Tax Ordinance with a view to granting personal relief to an income-taxpayer who supports his parents, brothers, sisters or relatives.

Sir, a proposal of this nature requires consideration on a pan-Malayan basis. This is one of the many questions that are constantly engaging my attention. I am sure the hon. Member will not wish me to anticipate any statement that I might wish to make at a future date.

Why not?

Have there been any consultations with the Malayan Government so far on this question?

I have nothing further to add, Sir.

asked the Minister for Education what research, if any, his Ministry has made into the question of employment opportunities for graduates of Chinese Middle Schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Education has carried out a survey of a good cross-sectional view of the Singapore commercial and industrial communities to determine: (1) Methods of recruitment and standards required of recruits; (2) Appraisement and criticisms of the products of the Singapore education system in relation to the commercial and industrial needs of the community; and (3) Suggestions for adjustments or improvement.

Can this House expect, Sir, a White Paper on the results of these researches, or at least publicity given to them?

I can assure this House that publicity will be given to it, but not a White Paper, Sir.

asked the Minister for Health what decision he has reached on the petition of Class "B" dentists about the use of patent medicine.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have received no petition from Class "B" dentists about the use of patent medicines. There are, in fact, no such dentists as Class "B". Neither is there any restriction against the use of patent medicines outside the Poisons Ordinance. I had however received a petition from the Singapore Chinese Dentists Association asking that Division II dentists be allowed to use certain anti-biotics, sulfonilamides, penicillin cones and analgesics. A reply was sent to them on 10th September, 1956, stating that Government regretted that it did not propose to legislate for the withdrawal of the amended rules. The hon. Member may perhaps have in mind a petition addressed to the Chief Minister with a copy to me. I should like to make it clear that the Poisons Rules are specific in denying all Division II dentists the use of certain poisons that include anti-biotics, sulfonilamides, penicillin cones and analgesics. There is no restriction against the use of patent medicines.

Was there a copy of the petition, sent by the Singapore Chinese Dentists Association addressed to the Chief Minister, sent to the Minister for Health?

A petition from the Singapore Chinese Dentists Association was sent to me and there was another petition sent to the Chief Minister with a copy addressed to me.

Mr Speaker, Sir, has the Minister taken any action on the petition which was referred to as having been addressed to the Chief Minister dated 4th March, 1957?

I think I have given an answer to that.

asked the Minister for Health whether he will make a statement as regards the possible effect on the health of the people of Singapore and their food supply of the proposed nuclear tests by the British Government based on Christmas Island.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that what the hon. Member intends to ask is in reference to the proposed nuclear tests based on Christmas island by the British Government - an island which, as has already been pointed out, is 6,600 miles away and farther from Singapore than is the North Pole. I might add that there are several countries such as Australia, New Zealand. Hawaii, the Philippines and even the Californian coast of the United States of America which are far nearer to the centre of these experimental tests than is Singapore, and apparently no anxiety for the welfare of their peoples has yet been expressed by them. Russia has been exploding atom and hydrogen bombs at distances nearer to Singapore than is Christmas Island in the Pacific, and this question might well be addressed to them. As regards the danger of possible effect on the health of the people of Singapore and their food supply, I can do no better than quote the reply given by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons who would naturally have the advice of experts competent in these matters before he made the statement which I now quote from Hansard, 7th of June, 1956. The Prime Minister said: "These [tests] will take place during the first half of 1957 in a remote part of the Pacific Ocean. The explosions will take place far from any inhabited islands and the tests will be so arranged as to avoid danger to persons or property. The tests will be high air bursts which will not involve heavy fallout. All safety precautions will be taken in the light of our knowledge and of experience gained from the tests of other countries." On 1st April, 1957, the Prime Minister stated: "So far as our own tests are concerned, I have been asked to say that there will be no perceptible radiation outside the test area. This is my answer. I am satisfied that from the medical and biological point of view that the radiation effects of this explosion will be insignificant." And on 2nd April, 1957, the Prime Minister said: "Provided that the nuclear explosion takes place in areas remote from populated territories and an adequate danger area is declared for the period of the tests, any localised deposit of radio-active matter so diffused by the normal dispersal action of currents and winds as well as by the natural decay of the bulk of radio-activity emanating from the explosion, any possible danger to human health is negligible. Radio-active contamination of fish, marine plants and sea-weed can occur, only in the immediate vicinity of the explosion. The chances of any contamination going outside the danger area or continuing after the termination of the danger period is negligible in the case of tests conducted by the United Kingdom. There should be no contamination of fish from the high air bursts proposed for our forthcoming tests."

The Minister has just come back from Japan, Sir. Is he aware of the deep anxiety of the millions of Japanese people in respect of these nuclear tests? Furthermore, Sir, I asked what effect on the food supply of Singapore will these tests have? Do we get fish from that area?

I am quite aware of the anxiety of the Japanese in connection with these nuclear tests.

And they are fools!

As regards the food supply, I have given the only answer that is possible in the circumstances.

On a point of information, Sir. May I ask the Minister for Health what qualifications the Prime Minister of Great Britain has to make these weighty statements?

He is our boss.

Order.

As I said, Mr Speaker, I am confident that the Prime Minister was sufficiently briefed by men more competent to deal with the subject.

Is the Minister for Health in the confidence of the Prime Minister of Great Britain as to who his advisers are?

What is the population of this island, and is it coloured or white?

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will inform this House of the basis of priority in dealing with applications to the Singapore Telephone Board for the installation of telephones.

The Member for Queenstown is doubtless aware that because the Singapore Telephone Board is a statutory corporation having full responsibility for its own process of internal administration, it is not in this connection answerable to the Minister. I have however drawn the attention of the Board to this question. If the hon. Member will ask the Chairman of the Board, I am sure he will get the information he requires.

asked the Minister for Commerce and Industry whether he will present to the House a White Paper on the Milk Plant offer by Australia to Singapore under the Colombo Plan.

No, Sir. I do not consider the publication of a White Paper will serve any useful purpose since I have already issued a Press statement setting out the reasons why the Government has had to refuse the kind offer of the Australian Government.

Is the Minister aware, Sir, that the people are deeply angered by his taking the food out of the mouths of babies and putting it into the mouths of pigs, and why cannot this House be entrusted with an examination in detail of the accounts which he says render the acceptance of the gift uneconomical?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware that the people are deeply angered by my taking the food out of their mouths. I have not received any petition signed by the people of Singapore. If the Member for Cairnhill can claim to represent some people of Singapore, we on this side of the House can claim to represent probably 14 or 15 times more. As I have already stated, Sir, I have in a Press statement given all the reasons why we have had to refuse this offer by the Australian Government. A White Paper would only serve to bring to light the haste in which the offer was accepted in the first instance without proper reference to experts and to finding out the implications and financial involvement that would be brought about.

Is the Minister aware that the people of Singapore are greatly relieved that Australian dried milk producers are not going to make money out of Singapore by selling dried milk to that milk plant?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that the people of Singapore are greatly relieved because they are not going to be burdened with a $2 million recurrent expenditure a year. I am however not aware of the reasons given by the hon. Member.

is the Minister aware, Sir, or will he inform the House whether it is true that a commercial concern retailing milk in Singapore has been fighting the acceptance of this gift? And will he tell us why, since this gift was accepted under the Colombo Plan and a statement made in respect thereof in this Assembly, he is ashamed to produce a White Paper for the scrutiny of this House?

Sir, I am not ashamed to produce a White Paper. I do not consider it necessary to produce a White Paper. When the offer was accepted, the hon. Member, who was then the Minister for Commerce and Industry and the Chief Minister, did not put up a White Paper to this House at that time. This is a gift. The acceptance of the gift does not warrant the publication of a White Paper, and the refusal also does not, in my opinion, warrant the publication of a White Paper. As to the first part of his question - that a commercial firm has been fighting for us not to accept this gift - I am not aware of that fact, and I deny that there has been any pressure brought to bear on Government by any commercial firm or private enterprise to reject this offer. The offer has been refused purely on financial grounds. I do not consider that it is fair, when we have such heavy and urgent demands on our finances, to commit public revenue to the extent of a couple of million dollars per year on a project which I think will not have much demand. The milk which this scheme will turn out will not find much demand in Singapore. 10.23 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to announce that the Government has decided to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of corruption with some such terms of references: To inquire into allegations, however made, imputing corruption to Members of the Legislative Assembly or of the public service, or to members or employees of the City Council or other statutory bodies in Singapore. To examine the justification for such allegations, and to report on the foregoing matters, and to make recommendations. The Commission will be headed by a Judge, Sir, with two leading members of the public. Their appointment will be made as soon as the persons approached have accepted our invitation to serve on the Commission.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it proper to anticipate a debate on a motion before the House today by making this statement, although I must say that I am very gratified that the Government has seen fit to accept the motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Changi?

The statement by the Chief Minister is perfectly in order. He has made his statement and it is up to the hon. Member to pursue his own course of action when the relevant item arises.

"to confer upon certain officers of Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland in the Colony of Singapore reciprocal privileges and immunities", presented by the Chief Secretary (Mr S. T. Stewart); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Divorce Ordinance (Chapter 40 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Attorney-General (Mr C. H. Butterfield); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend and re-enact the law relating to the regulation and improvement of the pineapple industry", presented by the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Ordinance (Chapter 150 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 227 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Malayan Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Ordinance (Chapter 78 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Chief Secretary; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Military Forces Ordinance (Chapter 89 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Chief Secretary; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

"to amend the Malayan Auxiliary Air Force Ordinance (Chapter 77 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Chief Secretary; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Wednesday, 22nd May, 1957, and to be printed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move a motion under Standing Order 9 (2) which relates to the order of business, and my motion is that the motion for the Second Reading of the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill should be taken out of its order and taken after the motion for the Second Reading of the Education Bill. I move, Sir, That proceedings on item 2 of the Orders of the Day be taken after proceedings on item 4.

Sir, I second it. Question proposed.

Very interesting, Sir! No doubt, he will find us very indulgent if he would take us into his trust and tell us the top secret: Why? Are we not entitled at least to know why the Orders of the Day are being changed? Is it such a very grave State secret?

Perhaps I should have said a little more, Sir. The purpose of this motion is to enable the Assistant Minister in charge of this Bill to have a little more time to prepare one or two further amendments which he wishes to move at the Committee stage. It is for his convenience, Sir, and I hope that Members of the Assembly generally will be glad to support this motion.

He did not do his homework in time!

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That proceedings on item 2 of the Orders of the Day be taken after proceedings on item 4.

Order for Second Reading read. 10.31 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance was an Ordinance to provide for the establishment of the Singapore Polytechnic and for matters connected therewith. When that Ordinance was drafted, the authorities in Singapore knew little of the workings of such institutions and naturally sought experience from other territories where the experience of those territories themselves were setting up establishments of the same kind and therefore had little to offer. But conditions elsewhere were not the same as those in Singapore nor was it possible to foresee at that time the changes which only experience of working under the terms of the Ordinance would show to be necessary. The present Ordinance sufficed only to establish the Board of Governors to enable them and the Board to plan the buildings and to recruit key members of the staff but it has become increasingly apparent that amendments are necessary if the Board is to continue to work efficiently. The amendments which this Bill seeks to make are listed very clearly and simply in the Explanatory Note and I think it is unnecessary for me to dwell in detail upon them. I would merely mention that the work of the Board is at present handicapped because all decisions had to be taken at full meetings of the Board. It is important especially that provision should be made for the constitution of sub-committees to which certain powers of the Board could be delegated. This provision is made in clause 3 of the Bill which by an amendment to section 5 of the original Ordinance gives the Board the power to make the necessary by-laws. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question proposed. 10.33 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only one point I wish to make regarding this Bill. At first sight, it would appear to be a matter of detail but if we take similar provisions in the Education Bill into account, it is clearly a matter of Government policy. I refer to the provisions to revoke appointments in paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 2. Paragraph (e) reads: "The Chairman and other members appointed by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section shall, unless the Minister shall otherwise direct, hold office for a period of four years and shall be re-eligible for reappointment: Provided that the Minister may at any time revoke such appointment." There is a similar provision under paragraph (f) for persons or bodies appointing members to the Board. Sir, we can see no good reason why appointments once made for a period of four years should be subject to revocation at any time. Once an appointment is made, the person so appointed, should feel that he can settle down and do the job of work for which he has been appointed. It is a system on which we work in this House. However much Members on this side may regret that the present Government can remain in office for four years, the Government is entitled to that period and we feel that the same sense of stability should be given to members of the Board. I am aware that the Explanatory Note 2 (b) states: "Amendments to section 4 provide, for appointing bodies to have the power to revoke the appointments of members of the Board who have not satisfactorily represented their interests." Now, whether or not my hon. Friend the Minister for Education in the last two years has satisfactorily represented the interests of his electorate is a matter of opinion but he is entitled to sit in this House for better or for worse for a further period of two years. I see no reason why the Chairman of the Board should not be equally immune from summary dismissal. The proviso implies that if the Chairman does not toe the Minister's line, he could be sacked and it also implies that the Minister has poor confidence in his own selection. Furthermore, if there were a general election and a change of government, the Chairman could be dismissed and replaced by some favourite of the new Minister. The same argument applies to the appointments made by the various bodies and conditions would arise which could seriously affect the smooth running of the Polytechnic and an educational institution should be outside the play of politics. Sir, these are dangerous provisos. If it is felt that there is an argument against appointments for four years, then let us reduce them to, say, three years but do not let us run the risk of making these appointments open to the abuse of whims, factions and patronage. 10.37 a.m.

If it please you, Sir, to me, this Singapore Polytechnic has been a long time a-borning and all I want is to see that it gets on with the job. I must confess I had not studied with the care indicated by the Member for Tanglin although I did notice - I noticed with some surprise - similar provisions in the Education Bill. I would like to say, Sir, that the objections taken by the Member for Tanglin have very considerable validity and I would draw the attention of the House to the provisions of the principal Ordinance (the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance, Chapter 204), section 4 (3) of which reads: "The Chairman and other members appointed under subsection (2) of this section shall unless the Governor shall otherwise direct hold office for a period of four years and shall be eligible for re-appointment: Provided that the persons first appointed under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (2) of this section shall hold office for a period of two years." There is no provision whatsoever in section 4 of a power to dismiss. I think the Member for Tanglin says rightly when he says that this is a new policy - a policy of dictatorial power being sought by the Ministry of Education which is particularly blatant in the Education Bill. I cannot see the necessity for this excessive executive authority and, before I concede it, despite my anxiety that the Polytechnic should get on with the job, I would ask the Minster to satisfy this House that this provision is, in fact, essential for the efficient working of the organization. Mr Chew Swee Kee rose -

In reply?

In reply, Sir. I am gratified that the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall) and the Member for Tanglin (Mr Ede) have pointed out this provision in the Ordinance. When the Polytechnic Board of Governors and other similar bodies held meetings, it was usually found that some of the members did not attend such meetings and I may draw the attention of Members to other legislation where the same provision is also provided, that is, the appointments of certain members may be revoked at any time; but I would assure the House that it is not intended to appoint members because they have patronage or that the members appointed to such statutory bodies should be favourites or friends of Ministers. I pointed out in my speech earlier that because of the handicap now in the Ordinance the Board found that they could not carry on with their work efficiently and amendments therefore are introduced to implement the work to the satisfaction of not the Ministry but of the public whose anxiety is expressed here and elsewhere that we should get on with the Polytechnic and that we should have the buildings and recruit the staff; and in order to have them we must have these amendments to the Bill so that the sub-committees appointed by the Polytechnic Board of Governors could carry out the executive functions. It is, in fact, essential.

On a point of information, Sir. Is the Minister aware of the provisions of clause 2 (8) of his Bill which states that a person absent for three consecutive meetings shall forthwith cease to a member? Consequently, the reason he gave has no validity.

There are other reasons also.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill considered in Committee.

10.44 a.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2-

Under paragraph (a) , the Minister is asking for the deletion of the words "Governor after consultation with the Council of Ministers" and the substitution therefor of the words "by the Minister with the prior approval of the Governor in Council". If he will look at the original section 4, he will find that subsection (2) reads: "The Board shall be composed of a Chairman to be appointed by the Governor after consultation with the Council of Ministers...". The Minister is seeking to delete merely the words "Governor after consultation with the Council of Ministers" and to insert words including "by the" whereby we will have two sets of the words "by the".

Yes. 10.45 a.m.

Would the Minister like to move an amendment to leave out the words "by the" in line 14 of the Bill?

Yes. I move, At page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "by the". Amendment handed in.

I understood the Member for Tanglin wished to move an amendment. Is that amendment to a clause on page 1?

On page 2. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, At page 2, lines 22 and 23, to leave out all the words after the word "re-appointment'.

Will the hon. Member put that down in writing? Amendment handed in.

Yes, the amendment is in order.

Mr Chairman, Sir, all I wish to say is that subsections (8) and (9) seem to cover quite adequately what is required. I have already made the point that I do think it is dangerous to include these provisos of revocation of appointments at any time. There is adequate coverage, as the Member for Cairnhill has pointed out, under subsection (8) .

Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not think that the point which the Member for Tanglin makes carries very great weight unless he seeks to apply it overall to all existing legislation or statutory boards. I am not familiar with the terms of all the relevant Ordinances but in the Telephone Board Ordinance, you will find a similar provision which he should also seek to remove if he wishes to press this point.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I wish to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Minister for Communications said just now. In the Seamen's Registry Board Bill, which is coming up very shortly - today or tomorrow - to this House, clause 3 (6) reads: "The Chairman and members of the Board shall hold office for a period of two years, unless earlier removed by the Minister, but shall be eligible for re-appointment." Now, it is a common practice in most legislation that you have this discretionary power given to the Minister and there are reasons - reasons which are broader than what was stated by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education: not only a member may not attend meetings and thereby fail to discharge his duties, but there are other reasons, it may be found that a person who is appointed is not a suitable person for that body or that there may be reasons for which the Minister thinks that he should be removed: there may be allegations against him which the Minister may think are right that he is favouring one side or showing partiality or something like that. I think that this discretionary power should be given to the Minister. I do not think any Minister in his senses would ever take advantage of such a clause to manoeuvre persons who are his friends or are favourable towards him into such bodies and it has certainly not been the case with this Government in the past.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I am astonished at the poverty of the reasons - I would prefer to say "excuses" if I may be permitted - given to support this effort to give dictatorial powers to the executive. First, we are told that it is in other Ordinances, although I have pointed out that in the parent Ordinance produced by colonial officials passed in 1954 there is no such dictatorial power to dismiss given. It is suggested that it is in a Bill before the House - the Seamen's Registry Board Bill. That does not give it validity, Sir. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Minister for Education gave a reason which sounded very good - that some members do not attend meetings - and consequently the Minister should have a right to dismiss them because they do not do their work, completely forgetting that in clause 2 (8) of his own Bill, he says: "Any member absenting himself from four consecutive meetings of the Board without having obtained leave of absence from the Chairman shall be considered as having resigned from the Board." Consequently, there is absolutely no validity in that reason given by the Minister and it is unfortunate that the Minister in charge of the Bill, who is supposed to know its provisions and to understand what it is sought to do, should be so inadequate in his presentation and put before the House a reason that does not exist on the face of the Bill which he himself moves. Sir, the Minister for Commerce and Industry says, "The executive powers of the Government are never abused." All power corrupts, Sir, and the more absolute the power, the more absolute the corruption. I intend tomorrow to bring to the attention of this House the abuse of the powers of banishment for which the executive has been responsible. I intend, God willing, at the next sitting of this Assembly to draw the attention of this House to the abuse of the discretion given under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - abuse by the Ministry of the Chief Secretary. Sir, Government being formed of human beings who are weak will always abuse latitude unnecessarily given. There has not been given one single reason why these provisos give an absolute power to the Minister to dismiss persons whom he himself appoints, and why he should have these powers except as suggested by the Member for Tanglin that if a member does not toe the line, then out he goes. I for one, Sir, entirely support the amendment of the Member for Tanglin and strenuously object to these dictatorial powers - if I may use the word so popular in this House, the "undemocratic" powers.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague. I believe that when a person is appointed to an office, he should be there to voice his opinion irrespective of what the man who appoints should think about him. The Minister has put forward the idea that the appointee is a human being and therefore is subject to human frailties but I suggest that the Minister is also as human. All Ministers are human beings and are as human and if one human being can commit one error, I suggest, Sir, that all human beings including the Minister who makes the appointments can also have such human faults. I would like, Sir, to point out that Assemblymen elected by the people to this Assembly are here to stay for their term of office and they may not be removed even if the voters feel that they are not performing their jobs. It is up to the Assemblymen to resign and contest a by-election but that is within their power. Here, Sir, is an appointment to a less important job. All the same, it is important and I think the man appointed should be given facilities to express his decided opinion and not the opinion of the people who appointed him. When I look at this Bill and the Education Bill, I come across this power again given to the Minister. This power is unnecessary. This power is undemocratic and this power should be removed for the better running of all institutions. Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill gave us a burning, heartfelt, emotional speech on this intolerable injustice, this dictatorial abuse of power which he foresaw will inevitably follow from this proviso which has, of course, been in many Ordinances for a very long time.

What Ordinance?

I mentioned the Telephone Board Ordinance, Mr Chairman. The hon. Member will no doubt find the other ones by a simple search. I would point out to him that he has not so far drawn attention to any case in which existing powers have been abused. It has not occurred in the past and it is a presumption that it may not occur in the future. I would just point out also that his earlier speech and the very competent speech of the Member for Tanglin do indicate that abuse of powers will not be easy, because we have these burning and heartfelt emotions which rise up to make clear to the public whatever the individual Member feels is wrong; and if this power which is desirable in itself were to be abused, the remedy is simple. The Member can, of course, draw attention to it and seek to have the matter dealt with by the Assembly. 11.00 a.m.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think my Friend the Hon. Minister for Transport errs when he says that it is an easy matter to draw the attention of this House to an abuse of power. Now, Sir, in my own mind, I am satisfied that there has been an abuse of power in rejecting the milk plant which is required for feeding our large adolescent and infant population. But I cannot compel the Minister to disclose the facts - the Minister who was Assistant Minister for Commerce at the time that the milk plant was accepted and who now turns round and says that it was accepted in haste and that it was a thoroughly bad act. Did the Assistant Minister himself at that time suggest any such thing? Sir, I think this is an abuse of power, but how do you prove it? How do you bring to the attention of the House private acts of abuse of power on the part of a Minister in the privacy of his own office if the Minister says, "I will sack you, Mr X, from the Polytechnic"? He may sack him because he does not like the fact that he wears a red necktie or does not wear any necktie at all, or because he is a friend of David Marshall. He sacks him. How do we question him? He says, "I did it within my discretion. I am not prepared to answer the whys and the wherefores." He can stand - and quite rightly stand - on the legalities. But why does he need these powers, Sir? It is in the Singapore Telephone Board Bill! Sir, the fact that one evil exists does not mean that we must perpetuate it. It seems to me that now it has been pointed out to the Government that what they are seeking for the Minister for Education are in fact dictatorial powers, they should, with dignity, withdraw and bow to the pressure of this House, in the same way as the Chief Minister has bowed to our demand for an investigation into corruption.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill waxes eloquent over the milk plant and says that the rejection of the offer is an abuse of power on the part of the Minister. Sir, the remedy is simple; he can bring a motion to this House demanding that Government put up a White Paper; and if he succeeds in getting his motion through, he shall have a White Paper. This is the working of the democratic system which I am sure he does not object to; or would he like to have a Communist system here and he could have his views imposed on the representatives of the people (there would probably be none)? But, Sir, he did become irrelevant in the debate when he referred to the milk plant and if I have your permission. Sir, I would like to answer him; he mentioned that I was the Assistant Minister at that time.

Order. When the Member for Cairnhill mentioned the milk plant, I take it he was mentioning it in passing. I cannot have a debate on the milk plant at this stage. The Minister, of course, can also mention the milk plant in passing.

Sir, would it not be considered an abuse of power to accept something and commit the public revenue to the tune of a great amount of money-

Prove it!

-without going into the pros and cons of the matter and getting technical advice? The hon. Member forgets that not only was he the Minister for Commerce at that time - he was also the Chief Minister. And he also forgets that his was a different sort of personality, that there was a different sort of system in his Government compared with what it is now, and that he also was accustomed to taking decisions hastily. In fact, this decision was so taken and I would not have liked to bring it up if he had not insisted that I issue a White Paper.

Mr Chairman, I must confess when I raised this question that I did not expect to have such a doughty champion on my side as my hon. Friend the Member for Cairnhill. My own anxiety in this matter does derive largely from the Explanatory Note number 2 (b) which reads: "Amendments to section 4 provide-

I think, Sir, my Friend the Member for Tanglin should be conscious that the Explanatory Note in no way limits the wording of the clause, that the wording is an absolute, unfettered and unchallengeable discretion.

I do not want, Sir, to prolong the debate on this particular point, but there is a point which I think may usefully be made. In dealing with the proposed proviso which is unacceptable to the Member for Tanglin, I would say this, that I am sure all Members of this House will recognise the possibility of a person being appointed to the Board who may, for reasons it is impossible to specify precisely in the Bill, turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable. The words proposed in this proviso are to give the Minister powers to get rid of him (putting it bluntly) and I think Members must assume that the Minister will use powers of that kind with a full sense of responsibility. I would suggest to the Member for Tanglin that, as I have said, since there is a possibility that the person may turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable, it may very well be in the public interest that he should be removed from the Board. At the same time, it is quite impossible to anticipate, and to specify, in a Bill the precise reasons or the set of circumstances which may arise which will justify such a course. I would ask him to consider very carefully that aspect of the problem, and I am sure he will see - I hope he will see - the force of the point I am trying to put.

The Attorney-General is too modest, Sir. He has provided in the Education Bill for the removal of school-teachers, in a large and very detailed section - when he goes bankrupt, when he is imprisoned, when he is this and when he is that - which can be copied bodily into this Bill if he so desires. But if he wants absolute discretion, Sir, why have any law at all? Why not say, "This Assembly hereby surrenders its rights, powers and privileges to the Minister for Education in respect of all educational matters"? I mean to say that if we like to have a little Mussolini, Sir, let us be clean about it and create a Mussolini, but do not let us go through these procedures and say, "Ah, but this is a little privilege, and it is going to be exercised with responsibility." Surely, Ministers always exercise all their powers with responsibility? No doubt the Attorney-General has never heard of any executive abuse of power, but I say, Sir, that this House knows full well that it does exist currently.

Sir, the terms "Mussolini", "human beings" and "abuse of power" are very popular besides the word "undemocratic". Human beings - yes, we are all human beings, but some human beings may be stable one day and unstable the very next minute; some human beings may be sane today and become insane the next moment. And talking of dictatorship. I think we have had dictatorship some 18 months ago. But this proviso, as I pointed out-

I object, Sir, and I ask that that remark be withdrawn from a person who worked under the alleged dictatorship without a bleat. Either he explains it, or apologises and withdraws it. Shame!

Order. All I heard the Hon. the Minister for Education say was that there was a dictatorship 18 months ago, but he did not enlarge on it and I am not officially aware that there has ever been a dictator - it might have been a figure of speech and unless the Minister uses an offensive remark with reference to a particular Member of the Assembly, I cannot act.

Sir, I have not imputed any improper motive to any Member at all in this Assembly, and therefore I do not apologise for the statement. I have pointed out, as I have done in my reply just now, that such a proviso is necessary if we want a Polytechnic.

Sir, I have heard with great interest the remarks by the Hon. the Attorney-General. I do not think that that will apply in this case at all. After all, the person who is going to be put in the office will be appointed by the Minister after very careful selection; and if after all this careful selection, he turns out to be one who is unsuitable, are we then to give the power to the Minister to remove him? Basing on these lines of argument, which I made before, Sir, suppose we have some Ministers elected into this Assembly and are later found to be unsuitable, we cannot remove them in this instance; we will not be able to remove them until the next elections. This position should also apply to people who are appointed to all boards; I think unsuitability at one moment and suitability at another, applies to all people handling all affairs. I do not think, Sir, that the argument is valid. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. 11.15 a.m. The House divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 15; Abstentions, 2; Absent, 6. Ayes Noes Ede, John. Braga, A. J. Goh Tong Liang. Butterfield, C. H. Jumabhoy, R. Chew Swee Kee. Lazarous, A. R. Jumabhoy, J. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim, R. C. H. Lim Choon Mong. Lim Yew Hock. Lim Koon Teck. Mak Pak Shee. Marshall, D. S. Mohd. Sidik bin Sutherland, G. A. P. Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Ong Piah Teng. Abstentions Oon Khye Kiang. Lee Choon Eng. Stewart, S. T. Seah Peng Chuan. Tan Theng Chiang. Thomas, Francis. Absent Wong Foo Nam. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Kuan Yew. Lim Chin Siong. Tan, William. Amendment accordingly negatived.

On a point of order, Sir, may I enquire whether it is proper for Members of the Assembly to be absent from voting when a division is called, particularly when a whole Party is absent?

It is not a point of order.

I have an amendment, Mr Chairman, Sir, to move in respect of clause 2 (f) . Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order. Will the hon. Member please proceed?

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not think that this Assembly should be silent at the startling fact disclosed by the voting just now - that the Hon. Mr Sutherland supported the efforts of Members of this House to resist the grant of dictatorial powers to the Executive.

Order. I do not think it is proper for any hon. Member to comment on how any other hon. Member voted. Please proceed with your amendment, Mr Marshall.

Is it proper, Sir, to comment on the absence of a whole Party at one time allegedly dedicated to democracy and today so lukewarm that it prefers to be absent?

Order. It is always proper for any hon. Member to comment on the attitude of any particular Party represented in this House, but nothing more. Please move your amendment, Mr Marshall.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, I move an amendment to delete the words "Provided that the person or body appointing such member may at any time revoke such appointment." I draw attention, Sir, to the very wide interests represented in voting in the affirmative on the previous motion, and I ask the Government to reconsider its attitude in the light of these views; those minority views have validity. I repeat, Sir, that the views which the Government have here today in respect of what they might consider a minor matter, but which is a matter of important principle, should be given grave consideration, and I ask that they do not use the Whip, and permit these deletions to go through. I say that the power to dismiss given by these clauses in fact gives such complete authority to the Minister that it makes stooges of his nominees. I therefore move, In page 2, lines 32, 33 and 34, to leave out the words "Provided that the person or body appointing such member may at any time revoke such appointment". Amendment negatived.

I have an amendment, Sir, to move in respect of clause 2 (i) . Amendment handed in. Clause 2, Mr Chairman, provides that the Chairman may, at his discretion, grant leave of absence to any member of the Board. That is a minor matter in this case, but again, it gives quite unnecessary discretion. The Chairman is a human being and if he is opposed to a member of the Board, (as he often will be), he will quite naturally, in the course of human nature, take excessive dislike, or could take dislike, to a member of the Board; and by refusing leave at a time when a member acutely needs it, he could force him into the position of not attending four meetings and thereby being automatically removed. I say, Sir, this discretion is utterly unnecessary. Why in his discretion? I would suggest that the power be left to the Board to grant leave to any member of the Board, and I move, Sir, In page 2, line 43, to leave out the words "Chairman may at his discretion" and insert "Board may". The clause will then read: "The Board may grant leave of absence to any member of the Board."

Mr Chairman, Sir, I think the amendment is very reasonable. In the course of my public work in many institutions and bodies, it is always the Committees or the boards which decide and not the Chairmen. The Chairman decides on procedural points and I think it is better to leave this discretion to the Board and not to the Chairman alone.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I rise to speak on this minor point, but the actual point I want to make is that I am unhappy to witness in this debate such unfriendly, undemocratic and even uncomplimentary remarks. Many Members in this Committee have in their speeches mentioned little Mussolinis and human beings-

Order. I must say that the hon. Member is completely irrelevant. We are now dealing with an amendment to leave out the words "Chairman may at his discretion". The attitude adopted by Members is not really the concern of the hon. Member.

Mr Chairman, I thank you for your guidance. What I mean to say is that we should not have the habit of bringing in a personal grudge or Party feeling into a debate on such an important issue. I must confess that the whole time I have been unhappy about debating these minor things and hearing so many unfriendly and unpleasant things. I hope the Member for Cairnhill, with all respect due from the people of Singapore, who also remember-

Order. I must remind the hon. Member that we cannot have a lecture on behaviour in this Assembly when we are dealing with an amendment on a Bill.

So, Sir, in order to prove that I want a frank and truly sincere working committee, I think I will support this amendment.

I think the amendment is reasonable, Sir, and I am prepared to accept it.

My only comment, Sir, is that there are other legislative measures in which similar powers are given to the Minister and even to the Governor; and perhaps the honourable champion of democracy would like to run through them in time to come and bring up his proposals before this House. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I have a consequential amendment to move following on this in respect of clause 2 (i) , new subsection (8) . Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

If it please you, Mr Chairman, Sir, the House will appreciate that, in view of the acceptance of the previous amendment, the new subsection (8) is no longer appropriate since it says: "Any member absenting himself from four consecutive meetings of the Board without having obtained leave of absence from the Chairman.". It should either be "from the Board" or the words "from the Chairman" should be deleted, and just say ", without having obtained leave of absence". Perhaps if you will permit me, Sir, I would like to move, instead, In page 3, line 4, to leave out the word "Chairman" and there to insert "Board". Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Committee stage read. 11.37 a.m. Bill considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir, I have to move, "That the Bill be reported to the Assembly."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir, I second it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 11.40 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is a natural consequence of the Government's acceptance of the recommendations made by the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education for the improvement of the education legislation. The Bill provides within one Ordinance not only for the registration of schools, managers, teachers previously included in the Registration of Schools Ordinance, 1950, but also for the constitution of the Education Finance Board and the Education Advisory Council to replace the old Education Finance Board and the old Education Committee set up under the present Education Ordinance, 1948. It also provides for the constitution of an Appeals Board to hear appeals against certain decisions made by the Director and for the extension of the provisions of the Bill to all types of schools. At the same time, opportunity has been taken to introduce a number of changes. Some, for instance, provide for a more realistic approach to the problem of registering teachers, managers and others, and there are also other in-corporations in the Bill which seek to strengthen it where experience has shown it to be weak. These changes are outlined briefly in the Explanatory Note which accompanies the Bill. There are a great number of these changes. Most of them are of minor importance and I do not propose to dwell on them in detail. I should like to speak on the general principles of which the Bill is an expression and to deal with some of the misunderstandings which comment in the Press on the Bill has shown to exist about the purpose of the Bill as a whole, and especially about the more important changes. The All-Party Committee of this Assembly, hon. Members will recollect, was appointed in 1955 to enquire into the causes of the disturbances in certain Chinese schools. That Committee became aware at a very early stage of its enquiry that there was a strong feeling in Chinese education circles that the Registration of Schools Ordinance, 1950, was directed solely against the Chinese schools, managers and teachers. Though there was no justification for this suspicion, it was possible to find a cause for this misunderstanding. For certain perfectly sound reasons, the provisions of that Ordinance did not apply to Government schools, that is, to schools completely run by Government, controlled by Government, and staffed entirely by principals and teachers bound by regulations which controlled their activities, in fact, much more closely than the Registration of Schools Ordinance or any regulations made under it. But at the same time, there were then no Government Chinese schools, and though Malay schools were Government schools, it came to be assumed in Chinese education circles that the terms "English schools" and "Government schools" were synonymous, and that all English schools were exempted from the provisions or that Ordinance. It was to remove these possible doubts and suspicions that the All-Party Committee recommended that a new Ordinance, if Government were to introduce one, should apply to all schools. Now this Bill provides for the change. All schools - Government schools or aided schools or private schools - whatever the medium of instruction, must conform to the conditions laid down in the Bill and in any regulation made under it. Similarly all teachers must be either registered under the Bill or given authority or permission to teach. So far as the Bill is concerned then, it does not matter in the slightest whether a school is a Chinese school, a Malay school, a Tamil school, or an English school, whether it teaches in the medium of Kuo-yu, Malay, Tamil or English, or whether the school is bilingual or trilingual; the provisions of this Bill must apply to all schools, it discriminates against no one. It is strictly non-communal and I can assure hon. Members that it will be administered quite impartially. The law must be strict, but the application can be generous and lenient. Sir, I may say here that in drawing up this Bill we have kept continuously in mind the interests of one particular section of the community, and that is the children. The aim throughout has been, so far as possible, to see that they are given an education in conformity with the Government's education policy to fit them to become responsible citizens of the territory under the care of teachers with good education, professional training and personal integrity, and in premises which conform to the highest standards the community can reasonably afford. I am aware that there has been criticism by managers and teachers of those clauses of the Bill which refer to them. I have been told - "That the Ordinance shows no respect to the enthusiastic members of the public who have made great contributions to the culture and education of this country." Another comment says: "It contains unreasonable and stringent provisions which reduce the teaching profession to a slavish service and show no respect whatever to teachers who are assuming heavy responsibilities...".

On a point of order, Sir. Should the Minister not indicate to the Assembly the sources from which he is reading?

I was not aware that the Minister was reading.

Sir, I was only quoting.

It is strictly not a point of order. Of course, it is the practice that a Member ought first to disclose the source of any quotation.

These quotations can be found in the newspapers and if the Member for Cairnhill has followed these papers or the Chinese Press, he will have been aware of these criticisms. I have also personally received memoranda from educational bodies in Singapore. These are some of the quotations which I am reading. Yet another quotation says: "The Ordinance completely impairs the teachers' self-respect and prestige and makes them lose all sense of security and confidence in themselves." These are surely ill-considered criticisms by a body of responsible men. I am very well aware of, and have frequently paid tribute to, the splendid and disinterested work which so many members of the Chinese community have done for Chinese schools and Chinese education. I am equally aware of and I now pay tribute to the excellent work which so many teachers have done for many years under very difficult conditions in these schools; but I think hon. Members will agree with me that an Education Bill is not the place to express such appreciation, though I am glad to say, as I said just now, I will avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to them, and I do so here. We all know that there have been some - and I am glad to say that there are only a very few - managers whose interest in the pupils has been purely selfish and who have taken advantage of the intense enthusiasm of so many parents to give their children a better education than they themselves had, to abuse their position sometimes. Some of the schools have been set up in very unhygienic premises. They packed more and more children into classrooms already grossly overcrowded, and some school children were taught by under-qualified, untrained, overworked and under-paid teachers, and for all this, excessive sums in fees have been extorted from the children. Is it therefore wrong of me to ask for powers to control the activities of managers such as these unscrupulous ones? Is it not reasonable for me to expect not opposition but support for measures which are designed to ensure that only honest and responsible people should be allowed to become or to remain managers or teachers? Let there be no misunderstanding. Most teachers and managers are responsible - I said so just now - but they occupy positions of such responsibility that not most but all - each and every one of them - must and should pass the test. That is my justification for enforcing strict conditions before registering managers and teachers. If anyone thinks that these regulations and conditions are not necessary, let him think of the children who have suffered because conditions in the past were not strict enough or were not enforced nearly strict enough. Undoubtedly some of the criticisms which come from managers and teachers arise from their misunderstanding of the powers and functions of the Director. They have assumed that the Director can act arbitrarily according to his particular whims and fancies, and therefore they naturally fear for their security. But the Director of Education is a Government servant who is required always to act in the public interests. He must administer the Department in accordance with the policy laid down by the Minister, and you may be sure that any decision he takes will be made only after due consideration of all the available evidence and after discussion with all officers of the Department. That does not mean, of course, that he does not make mistakes, so there is a, provision in the Ordinance for persons aggrieved by his decision to appeal to the newly constituted Appeals Board or to the Minister. It was one of the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education that such an Appeals Board should be set up. The Board is to be a small one with six members and a Chairman, none of whom will be officials. Educational interests will be strongly represented with four of the six members, including two teachers. Very careful consideration and thought were given to the question whether the proceedings of the Board should be open to the public or not. The decision that they should not be open to the public has been criticised as contrary to normal democratic principles and practice, which requires that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done. In theory, that criticism may be valid, but the decisions which the Board will have to take are not concerned with rightful or wrongful convictions of offences against the Criminal Code. It will be for them to decide, for instance, whether or not the Director was right in deciding that a school in some way failed to comply with or satisfied the conditions which the Department requires or that the manager or teacher for one reason or another is not a suitable person to have charge of the education of children. In my view, the Board will be the better able to arrive at a just decision if it can consider the appeals in an atmosphere free from the impact of political and emotional propaganda. The members of the Board will, in fact, have a difficult enough task if the proceedings are not public. Experience has shown that the task becomes impossible if the meetings are allowed to be used as occasions for political or communal propaganda. The Board will not in any sense be an official one. It is only right to leave them to hear appeals in peace and at the same time to avoid giving any further embarrassment to persons whose appeals may be unsuccessful. The Bill also provides for appeals against certain decisions of the Director to be heard not by the Appeals Board but by the Minister. These are appeals against decisions which involve considerations of public security. It is the view of the Government that, while it is proper to delegate power to the Director to deal with questions of purely educational content, it is not proper to delegate that power where the public security is concerned. The Minister's power is after all the Government's power. It has been said that it is undemocratic that the Minister should hear such appeals, but I say that it is democratic that the Minister should be responsible for such matters and that he himself is responsible to this Assembly. One of the other important changes recommended by the All-Party Committee was that both the old Ordinances -the Registration of Schools Ordinance and the Education Ordinance - should be embodied into one Ordinance. This has now been done. The Bill not only provides for the registration of schools, managers and teachers but also the setting up of an Educational Finance Board and an Educational Advisory Council (the latter was recommended by the All-Party Committee). The new Educational Finance Board is in most respects very like the old one, but there is one important difference. The new Board will be advisory only. It will make recommendations to the Minister about the money needed for education and will also advise him on the administration of this money when it is provided, but it will not have the authority to decide what money is to be spent or how it is to be spent. That responsibility must be the Minister's who, in turn, as I say, is responsible to this Assembly. This will involve a change in the annual Estimates. The Estimates now appearing under the Head Education and the Appendix under the Head Education - Finance Board - will in future be incorporated into the ordinary departmental Estimates. It has been suggested that the Finance Board should contain representatives of all the four main communities. I do not think it is necessary. There is already too much talk of communal interests. It will be the responsibility of the Minister, and in the last resort of this Assembly, to see that all are given a fair deal; and in any case it is most churlish, in my opinion, to suggest that we cannot find four men of sufficient standing, integrity and authority, who are sufficiently free from communal prejudice, to recommend a just allocation of the funds available for education. The Advisory Council replaces the old Education Committee. It is a much larger body than the Education Finance Board and therefore here it is easier to arrange for the different communities and educational interests to be fairly represented. Here it has also been criticised because its membership is not wholly drawn from educational circles; but again in my opinion that criticism is ill-considered. It is not only teachers or managers and the like who are concerned with educational problems. Education touches every one of us. We need on this Advisory Council not only educationists but also men of authority and wide experience who can look at education from the outside; otherwise there is that danger that education for education's sake will become too ingrown and that in our concern about the means, we shall lose sight of the ends. So provision has been made in the Bill that the Council should have a strong leavening of members with no specific educational qualifications or interests. I hope the Council will be an extremely valuable means of keeping in touch with the views of the public and the community at large, whether on matters referred to it by the Ministry or matters which the Council itself might bring up to the notice of the Ministry. Sir, I have touched on the most important features of the Bill, and I hope I have removed some of the causes of the misunderstandings. Before I move, Sir, may I emphasise once more what I have said at the beginning: Firstly, that this Bill is strictly non-communal and that it is quite untrue to say that it discriminates against any particular group or schools or community or teachers; and Secondly, that the over-riding purpose of this Bill is to protect the interests of the children without whom there would be no necessity for providing schools or teachers or managers or any need for this Bill at all. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 12 noon.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who is not affected by communal matters, I would like to say that, having studied this Bill over two evenings, I am satisfied that the Minister does in fact speak the truth when he says that it is an attempt at non-communal unification of our educational system. There is much that is good in this Bill but a study of its provisions indicates that the emphasis is not so much on unification and on policy, but the emphasis is on the establishment of a "Dictator of Education" - and this I intend to prove. Sir, the Minister has said that the Bill purports to incorporate the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Education appointed by this Assembly, of which the Minister himself was the Chairman; and now that I am no longer a dictator of the Government or even a Member of his Party, let me say, Sir, what I have always said, that the All-Party Committee-

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it in order for a Member of this Assembly who has now openly renounced his Party, which is the governing Party, to remain on the Government Benches?

It is not strictly a point of order. As hon. Members do know, there are no seats reserved in this Assembly except possibly the front row of the Government Benches. When hon. Members take seats on the Government Benches, it is proper for other Members to assume that they are supporters of the Government in the sense that they are amenable to the Government Whip. But as I say, the choice is left entirely to the hon. Member himself, and if he chooses to take a seat on one of the Government Back Benches, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

I think perhaps the hon. Member is anxious to come here but he cannot accept my chastising presence. Sir, let me say this for myself - I have stood, and I stand and will continue to stand for the aims and principles of the Labour Front promulgated to the electorate and in so far as this Government -

Order. I do not think we should pursue the subject any further. I have ruled.

If it please you, Mr Speaker. I was on the subject of complimenting the Minister for Education on what I have considered and consider to be a first-class job - that is the Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education. That Report was followed by a White Paper on education for which the Minister was responsible - under my dictatorship - providing for equal respect for all languages and cultures, and I would like to say again, though I am not a Member of his Party and have no axe to grind, that it was an enunciation, a magnificent enunciation, of a courage, of decency, of foresight. It was a truly good policy and although members of the Chinese community and organisations indiscriminately "gave us hell" - if I may use that expression in this House; if I may not, I withdraw it -

Order. I think the word "hell" has in fact been over-ruled in the past.

Although members of the Chinese community did attack us, and attacked us without cause and violently, yet I think they now recognise that they were very wrong in attacking that White Paper which was a thing of decency. I think they recognise that that White Paper put forth principles which they desire themselves to see put into concrete form in legislation. They are ready, they are anxious for legislation which embodies the principles of that White Paper, and some of those principles are in fact embodied in this Bill. But there is so much not in the White Paper but in this Bill that it destroys the value of the Bill, Sir, and the theme of this my speech is not so much to attack the Bill as to hope that Government, after considering the views expressed in this House, will take time to reconsider before seeking to force through this measure. Sir, I have known the Minister for Education for some time and I trust he will take it as a compliment if I say this - that probably he is not fully aware of what this Education Bill contains, because to me, Sir, this Bill is drafted, or seems to be drafted, on the assumption that this Assembly consists of blind chickens, that we can neither read nor understand legal English. Sir, the Straits Times has depicted me as a hen addling the Easter egg, but at least it never depicted me blind. It gave me open eyes, and open eyes I have. Of all the Bills or Ordinances I have ever seen, this Bill, Sir, is unique in my experience, absolutely unique, in the breadth and the extent of the dictatorial powers which it gives to one man. If there were a museum of colonial exhibits, I would put this Bill Exhibit A, Sir, Exhibit A. Educational matters, Sir, are not specifically my line. I have never sought to interfere, particularly the administration of the Ministry, despite the bitter words of the Minister, but I thought it my duty the last two evenings to look at this Bill, and I am going to submit to this House that there are defects of a grave character which require very earnest consideration and which require that the Government should withdraw it for some time despite the urgency in order to reconsider its position. Sir, I was, am, and will be, as a representative of the people, anxious to receive representations from associations which seek to make their points of view heard. I have not been approached by anybody until this morning - by one at 9.30, by another at 9.

50. At 9.30 a.m. I received a memorandum from the English Teachers of Chinese Schools' Union, and frankly, on a cursory reading, there seems to be some sense in many of their objections. I have also received a memorandum from the Singapore Chinese Schools Committee Teachers Association in the Chinese language. It looks very imposing, Sir, and very impressive but it is not followed by any translation and I am unhappy at being unable to know how I can be of assistance after reading it. But placed in the position of not being able to study the representations received, I can only indicate to this House the defects which exist in my view after a study of this Bill. I should like to take the Educational Advisory Council appointed by clause 5. You will see from there, Sir, that there is an extraordinary preponderance of official appointments. There is the Director of Education, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, the Medical Officer in charge of schools, the Director of Social Welfare, ten persons appointed by the Minister at his discretion - ten.

Clause 8.

Clauses 5 (2) and 8 (2) (f). Clause 5 (2) provides for four and clause 8 (2) (f) provides for six. If it please you, Mr Speaker, I would like to explain it to the Minister in very simple language. Clause 5 appoints the Finance Board. Clause 8 says the whole Finance Board comes into the Educational Advisory Council. So the four people he appoints under clause 5 of the Finance Board become an additional four to the people he appoints to the Educational Advisory Council. If that is too difficult, the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong. Let me go back, Sir. I think four plus six makes ten. So under clauses 5 (2) and 8 (2) (f), the Minister appoints ten persons at his discretion. A total of 14 appointed by the Minister - four officials and ten nominated by him. As against that, Sir, there are eight persons nominated by educational bodies, the educational bodies themselves being institutions approved by the Minister. Sir, it is a heavy preponderance of officials and members appointed by Government, and it is to be noted that here, as in the Polytechnic Bill, these persons appointed by the Minister can be removed at his pleasure. Now, Sir, we leave for a moment the Educational Advisory Council and come to the Schools Appeals Board. It is rather important to look at these things, to notice the preponderance of persons who are officially persona grata. The Chairman under clause 12 is appointed by the Minister. There are two registered teachers appointed by the Minister. There are two other persons - not teachers, brokers, merchants, Income Tax employees, what you will - appointed by the Minister. So you have got five persons - five - appointed at the discretion of the Minister; and there are two persons nominated by educational bodies who are approved by the Minister. But at least they are nominated by outsiders. So you have got - and keep this in mind when we come to consider the powers - an official preponderance of five to two on the Schools Appeals Board. Now, Sir, what are the powers of the Schools Appeals Board? Let us look at clause 14 which reads: "It shall be the duty of the Appeals Board to hear and decide all appeals from the decisions-" Now whether "decisions" include orders is rather an interesting point. I continue, Sir: "-of the Director other than those expressly excepted under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 48 of this Ordinance:". Now let us go chasing round, if you do not mind - I know it is a bore to follow paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section 48: nobody ever bothered - but let us chase round and find out what this "expressly excepted" means. Let us turn to clause 48. Sub-clause (2) (a) of clause 48 says: "in cases where the refusal is under paragraphs (o), (p) and (q) of section 24, paragraph (f) of section 25, paragraph (i) of section 33, paragraph (g) of section 34, or paragraph (g) of section 38...". Of course, we could not say all that in the first one. In fact, in clause 14 it looks very simple except with the one exception, but now we find that there are in fact seven exceptions. Seven exceptions where the Schools Appeals Board has no power to hear appeals, and where the appeals are only to the Minister. Sir, during the period when I was dictator, according to my friends and former colleagues who at the time enjoyed their posts without demur, I learned one thing if I learned nothing at all, and that is, a Minister is not in fact organised to hear appeals, to be able to gather facts and to sit in judgment quietly in order to do justice on a difficult matter. He just is not organised. Your Ministers - pity them! - have (if they work and most of them work) a great deal to do. Their time is cut up into little bits of appointments and little bits of other things. They just are not organised and can never be organised into a true Court of Appeal which can quietly and calmly and impartially examine appeals from decisions of their own Ministry. For let us recognise this - that if you do not co-operate with your Permanent Secretary, you come in for an awfully difficult time. I remember-

Order. I was not aware that I had a Permanent Secretary.

I beg your pardon, Sir. Indeed I was suggesting you. I apologise. Sir, let me quote a story of Churchill who, after a stormy interview with his Permanent Secretary to the Treasury when he was in the Treasury, turned round to him and said, "You might as well treat me as an equal." And that is too true. A Minister can, a Minister sometimes even does go against the advice of his officials in the Ministry, but let us recognise the fact that it makes life impossible if you are going to question every single act of your permanent officials. You have got to work with the tools you have. So a Minister cannot approach an appeal from his Dictator of Education impartially. He cannot. This power of appeal in respect of these seven clauses to the Minister is purely nominal. Now what are these seven classes? The Minister spoke of the danger to security. Let us look at these seven classes which are known as paragraphs (o) , (p) and (q) of section 24, paragraph (f) of section 25, paragraph (i) of section 33, paragraph (g) of section 34, and paragraph (g) of section 38-

It might be appropriate to suspend?

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The sitting is suspended. I will take the Chair again at half-past two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." 2.31 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the adjournment, we were discussing the seven doors of destruction let in by clause 14 of this dictator of education Bill. These seven doors, Sir, are where the dictator of education has his big guns to enforce his absolute will on all educationalists subject only to an appeal to his boss the Minister. Now, Sir, I have pointed out that where there is no Appeals Board at all, an appeal to the Minister is better than nothing though in truth and in fact it usually is a pure formality but here there is an Appeals Board. There is an Appeals Board of seven, five of whom are specifically picked and chosen by the Minister himself: five to two preponderance of those who are persona grata to the Minister. Why then, Sir, can this Appeals Board not be trusted with the matters coming under the seven classes exempted under the provisions of clauses 14 and 48? Let us look at them, Sir. I will take them in order. It says that clause 24 (o), (p) and (q) is not subject to appeal to the Appeals Board. Now clause 24 on page 11 of the Bill reads: "The Director may refuse to register a school if it shall appear... (o) the proposed school is likely to be used for a purpose detrimental to the interests of the Colony or of the public;". I do not know whether "interests of the Colony" are identical with the fact of being a colony or the Colonial Office's interests but let us assume for a moment that the words are legitimately used as interests of this territory and the people therein. Notice how extremely wide that wording is, Sir: if it appears to the Director that the proposed school is likely to be used for a purpose detrimental to the interests of the Colony or of the public. You could not possibly find wider words. Look at the next one: "(p) the proposed school is likely to be used for the purpose of instruction detrimental to the interests of the public or of the pupils;". I do not know what difference there is. Then: "(q) the proposed school is likely to he used as a meeting place of an unlawful society;". Then we go to clause 25, Sir. Clause 25 (f) says: "The Director may cancel the registration of any school-

Order. I think I must remind the hon. Member that he must address his remarks to the Chair.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall not take up more of your time. Let us take class three. I do want to satisfy you. Sir, that, in fact, these discretionary clauses are complete and absolute discretion and though there is supposed to be an appeal, in fact, there can be no appeal from the exercise of a discretion. Class three where the phrase "in his opinion" is used. Let us take any one. Let us take clause 34 (g) which reads: "The Director may cancel the registration of any manager-

In favour of what?

In favour of the Government. Let us say that you go along and appeal. All the Appeals Board can say is, "Look, we are sorry. The Director may cancel the registration of a manager, not if the manager is a person who ought not, in the interests of the Colony, to be a manager, but the manager is a person who 'in the opinion of the Director' is not a person who ought to be and the Director tells us that in his opinion he ought not to be a manager." We cannot legally overrule him because it is a matter for the opinion of the Director. I want you to see another one, clause 39 (b). This is rather neat: "The Director may cancel the registration of a teacher-

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a great deal of good in this Bill. It has followed more or less the All-Party recommendation to bring all schools under a single control so that every school will receive equal treatment. In the past, teachers have been differentiated: Government teachers, aided school teachers as well as private school teachers; one type of teachers receiving a great deal of benefit, whereas the other classes are left out in the cold. This Bill is trying to remove the caste system: the high caste of the Government school teachers, the middle caste of the aided school teachers and the low caste of the private school and vernacular school teachers. However, I think it has not gone far enough. In this Bill, you will find that preferential treatment is still given to Government school teachers and although you have a very large number of aided schools because the private or partly-aided Chinese schools will come under this system, yet no teacher can ever hope to be promoted to Inspector of Schools. Under clause 51, the Governor may appoint any officer of the Department of Education to be an Inspector of Schools. This leaves all the other teachers out completely, whether they are good, whether they are able or whether, shall we say, they have qualifications far above those of Government schools. Every teacher in this country is trying to serve Singapore in his own way. Every teacher is performing the same duty in one school or in another. They should receive equal encouragement and equal treatment. In this Bill also I find, and I must say that I have to agree with the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall), that a great deal of power has been given to the Director of Education. This, I think, is a wrong administrative act and I hope that Government will take into consideration ways and means of removing such discontent. One way, I think, that will best remove such suspicion, as the Minister for Education has said that there is suspicion and criticism of this Bill by many people outside this Assembly, would be to commit this Bill to Select Committee after the Second Reading and I propose moving that after the Second Reading. If it is agreed to, this Bill may yet turn out to be a good Bill after it has received the opinion of many people outside this Assembly who are more qualified to help us shape this Bill. There are a great number of points in this Bill that seem to be vague and seem to need revision. I will just point out a few of these. At page 2, clause 3, you will find that the Minister may exempt from registration a school that is purely religious in character. I will not grumble about that: but if the institution is one for higher education, we would like to know what higher education means. We need a definition on that. I think in the Federation they define that and we should also define what higher education is otherwise it will be left to the opinion of the Director or the Minister. The Education Finance Board will have four persons to be appointed by the Minister. The Finance Board is one of the most important Boards in this system. To leave it to the discretion of the Minister alone and to allow him to appoint a person or to sack him afterwards would not be democratic. I remember that we also have such Boards in other Bills. I refer you to the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Ordinance. We appoint these people by statute and allow institutions to nominate their representatives. Here, members of the Finance Board should be people who are connected with education or know something about education. It would be absolutely useless to appoint a person who is not at all connected with education; perhaps when you are discussing the necessity of introducing special types of apparatus or special lessons that need extra provisions, he will be out of his depth. Sir, we have many institutions that are good enough to come within this definition and if this Bill goes into Select Committee, we could think of how to appoint such people to this Board, not by the whims and fancies of Ministers or Directors but by statute. Under this provision, as the Bill now stands, anyone who is appointed by the Minister owes him allegiance and will probably have to toe his line. It will be very difficult for him to be nonpolitical. If you look at his duty, you will find that it is even more important that he should be independent. Let us look at the Advisory Council under clause 8 (6). Here you find that some institutions may appoint their representatives but they have the right to revoke such nominations. Added to it again, the Minister can also dismiss the person concerned. The arguments for that have been put forward to you, Sir, during the debate on the Polytechnic Bill and I think those stand for this provision too. The Appeals Board under clauses 15 and 16 is given some sort of a power equivalent to that of the Police and the Court but I wonder whether decisions by the Appeals Board can be contested in the High Court because sometimes it may be a very important thing, like the cancellation of a school, and if we have our democratic system, the High Court should be the highest organ for arbitration. Would it mean then that such an appeal cannot go to the High Court and that this Bill will give police as well as judicial powers to the Advisory Council whose members are merely nominated by the Minister? For registration under clause 23 (1) (b), the Director can give conditions for the registration of schools. It is very vague and should be made clearer. Under clause 23 (2), the powers given would be very wide indeed and the Director in every case can use a great deal of discretion. Clause 24 (a) reads: "The Director may refuse to register a school if it shall appear to him that-

We again stated that all schools and all languages should be equal. It will therefore be unreasonable to ask a vernacular school to reply or to appeal to the Director or the Appeals Board in English when what they know is only Chinese, Tamil or Malay. To make this clause more palatable and acceptable to everybody concerned, I think that Chinese schools should be allowed to appeal in Chinese, Tamil schools in Tamil and Malay schools in Malay; English schools will, of course, use English. Sir, I find that this whole Bill, although it is an effort to correlate every type of education into one (which is a good thing), is very bad when put in its present form, it is bad from the administrative point of view. It will cause a great deal of heartburn. Instead of allaying suspicion, instead of getting the co-operation of a great many more people and bringing them to our side, we will probably find that if this Bill is not further considered, it will create just the reverse result. I hope that Government will take this into consideration and agree to the Bill being considered by a Select Committee. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was told that the future of Singapore was being decided this morning by the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance, and that I have missed an interesting discussion on this and other aspects of the future development of Singapore. However, being much more mundane in my approach, I choose to imagine that the future of Singapore will be decided more by the educational policy of successive Singapore Governments than by any other single matter. The education policy which the British Administration pursued in the past is the reason for the confusion, the conflicts and contradictions with which our multi-lingual, multi-cultural society is confronted today. In their desire to exploit the natural resources of this country, they kept expenses and expenditure down to the barest minimum. Large undigested cultural and linguistic groups were left to care for themselves. The Chinese community demonstrated to the British that they could care for themselves. Now any government which comes into power must take account of the pride of all the management committees, and of the Chinese population as a whole, in having had the drive and the stamina to keep their cultural and linguistic world alive in spite of government indifference - colonial government indifference - towards them. But any government which wishes to mould a Malayan nation must sooner or later come to grips with the problem of moulding the minds of future generations of Singaporeans and Malayans. Sir, the question is one of principle: Is the Government to decide the educational policy, or is it not? It is clear from the report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese education that the right of an elected government to decide educational policy cannot be fettered. A government must have the right to implement its educational policy or perish. However, I do not agree with the technique the Labour Front Government has chosen to stockade and barricade itself behind the Education Finance Board, the Educational Advisory Council and the Schools Appeals Board. A decision must either, be a quasi-judicial decision or an administrative decision. Democracy means that a people have the right to vote for a government which will have the right to implement a programme which it has put before the electorate from whom it has received a mandate. This is the first major premise. But the technique of fencing a government behind three statutory bodies, in which the government has the power to nominate the majority - the overwhelming majority - is not one which is likely to endear itself to the electorate, The Education Finance Board, according to clause 5 (2), is to consist of six people - two officials and four persons nominated by the Minister. All six are therefore to be the government's men. The Educational Advisory Council, under clause 8 (2), is to consist of 22 members. Of these, 14 will be government men, and eight will be non-government men but who must nevertheless have received the approval, the clearance, of the government. The Schools Appeals Boards, under clause 12 (2), is to consist of seven members. Of these, five are to be government men, and two are to be non-government men but they also are to be first approved by the government. Surely the Minister for Education cannot expect educational institutions in this Colony to sit back and see him stockade himself behind these statutory tribunals so that if anything should happen, he can take an administrative act and then bolster such action by the support of the alleged quasi-judicial decision of one of these statutory tribunals. For these tribunals, being filled with government men, will in fact be government decisions. The question of how far these councils - the Advisory, Finance and Schools Appeals Boards - are to act as quasi-judicial or purely advisory tribunals, must be decided on principle. My proposal is that if the Minister wishes to have the last word in every administrative act, then he should have the courage to let the Educational Advisory Council have a majority of unofficial or non-government members, so that if he chooses to go against the advice of the Council (which he should be entitled to do), he should be prepared to face criticism from educational institutions and public opinion, because he cannot bulldoze an educational policy which is being resisted by the majority of our population. As far as I can gather, the criticisms against this Bill are on the administrative provisions in clauses 5, 8 and 12 relating to the Education Finance Board, the Educational Advisory Council and the Schools Appeals Board; on the registration of schools and the cancellation of registrations in clauses 24 and 25; and on the registration and cancellation of certificates for teachers in clauses 38 and 39. Whilst the Government should have an unfettered right in administrative decisions, questions as to the registration of schools and the cancellation of registrations, and to the registration and cancellation of teachers, peculiarly lend themselves to consideration by a quasi-judicial tribunal. The Minister will be well advised to rid himself of this very grave responsibility of having to take away the right of a school to exist, or the right of a teacher to continue to teach. He should give this responsibility to an independent tribunal, to make the decision on certain given principles laid down beforehand, whether a school is to continue to be allowed to exist, or a teacher should be allowed to continue teaching or should cease to be a teacher. Briefly, therefore, I can sum up my Party's views on this Bill as follows: Questions as to the registration and cancellation of schools and teachers should be sent to a quasi-judicial tribunal so that the Minister will not have the power to make or the odium of having made a party political decision against either schools or teachers. As to the Education Finance Board, the Educational Advisory Council and the Schools Appeals Board, decisions, except those on the registration and cancellation of schools and teachers, must be executive ones because they are decisions on educational policy. Any government which has not got the courage to state its policy for the education of the future generation, but goes beating about the bush hoping to get support from all directions and finally winding up with support from none, will not only perish, but will make the whole of Singapore perish with it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be seconding a motion by the Member for Serangoon to send this Bill to a Select Committee. It is in the interests not only of the Government and of the Parties in this Assembly, but of the whole of Singapore, that this question of education should be fully debated and settled in a thorough manner. 3.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I would like to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Serangoon that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee for further discussion. We just heard the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar on the importance of education. Allow me to add further comments. We have made known to the people that our political struggle at this stage only aims at self-government, and that independence is still far away. Why? This question has haunted me for a long time. At this stage, we are not ready for independence, but what can we do to realise it? We have no guns and, even if we have, there are so few hands to hold them. However, one most effective weapon we can hold is the pen. If the people of Singapore are more capable of holding the pen than the gun, the prospects of our national struggle will be brighter. Our people should be equipped with effective pens, and it is the duty of the Minister for Education to do so, to provide us with an effective educational policy. When I came in just now, an hon. Member asked for my opinion on this Bill. I said I was not very happy about it. Indeed, I have not been happy since last April when the Minister rushed through the White Paper. I have had no confidence in the Government's educational policy since then because the White Paper, which outlined the background of our whole educational system, was so badly done, created so many suspicions and even tried to run down a certain educational system. I believe the present Bill has been drafted by the author of that White Paper, or that he has at least been closely connected with drawing up the Bill. My opposition to the White Paper was that it did not take into consideration the vital political advancement and changes in this country. Multi-lingualism, for example, has been accepted by this country, yet our educational system, to judge from the White Paper and the present Bill, would raise doubts in the many educational bodies, whether Government is following the lines recommended by the All-Party Committee as it professes to do. Section (v) in the All-Party Committee's report says that the greatest hope for multi-racial Singapore will be to ensure that the younger generation grow up under the best conditions of intermingling; and that everything should be done to break down mutual exclusiveness between the two streams of education, that is, English and vernacular. As a member of the All-Party Committee seeking to build a true Malayan nation and a unified education system, I wonder how much proof Government can give to the people that it has implemented the recommendations of the Committee, recommendations made a year ago. Perhaps someone will say to me. "You are a Chinese and therefore you are bound not to be impartial on education; you are bound to be fighting only for Chinese education." Sir, I take this opportunity to make it clear that this is not true. I fight for justice, for the true welfare of the people. If we accept the principle of multi-lingualism in this country, how can we try to restrict the free growth of educational systems other than the English? The Bill is supposed to further the unification of educational systems in Singapore, yet it contains so many restrictions and regulations against this objective, as the Member for Cairnhill has so clearly pointed out. Sir, no doubt, at this stage, the Chinese schools have become a problem child of this country. A top-ranking officer told me not long ago that he was not worried even about gangsterism but that he was concerned about Chinese school students. From such an attitude, we can perhaps gauge the true spirit which has guided the drafting of the Bill. Sir, my support for the Government in the riots last October is clear; I am also aware of certain subversive activities in schools. But Sir, still I cannot understand why Government is trying to introduce these regulations and restrictions on the free growth of other educational systems, especially the Chinese. Long before Government considered a bilingual system, it was already being followed in Chinese schools but never in English schools, even now, two years after an elected government came into power. How many English school students are there who can read and write Chinese? But there are many Chinese school students who can read and write English even up to Cambridge School Certificate standard. Sir, if the Government believes that our entrepot trade will always boom and bring us rich revenue, and we are going to control and provide sufficiently for all educational institutions for the people of Singapore, then I have no objection at all to this Bill. But if the Government should one day find that its resources are dried up, when the price of rubber drops to 50 cents per pound and our trade shrinks, and under the Bill, management committees must register and their existence be at the discretion of Mr McLellan, who may say, "No"...

I cannot find the name of Mr McLellan in the Bill; it is "the Director of Education".

I am sorry, Sir, it so happens that my good friend, Mr McLellan, is the Director of Education. The provisions of the Bill on the registration of management committees of schools alone worry me a great deal. Why cannot we truly follow the lines of the report of the All-Party Committee the Chairman of which was the Hon. the Minister for Education himself? Can we ignore its attempt, its spirit, to provide beneficial educational institutions for our people? This Bill will only end further voluntary contributions to promoting education, and the people will not easily forget it. Government has proudly proclaimed that Malay education has always been looked after properly and is provided for by Government, yet how many Malay schools have been provided? And what have the Malay schools produced in raising Malay cultural standards today? Sir, the suspicions of, I may say, the majority of the people, still exist. I do not like the word "dictator" applied to those in power, but I do think that the discretionary, extraordinary powers provided by the Bill for the Director of Education are really unsound. I hope the Hon. the Minister for Education can clear my doubts. There are many more like me outside this Assembly who would like to know the answers to my two questions: (1) Do you sincerely believe every word of the All-Party Committee's Report on Education? (2) Can you convince the people-

Order. The hon. Member should refer to the Minister for Education.

I am sorry, Sir. The second question is whether the Hon. the Minister for Education can assure us that he has not the slightest intention to restrict the free growth of other educational systems? The questions I ask may look odd and quite silly, but this is a transitional period and it happens that the present Director of Education is an expatriate; and, with due respect to the Hon. the Minister for Education, the people are not convinced that the Director of Education is not his back-seat driver, especially as this Bill will empower the Director of Education to cancel the registration of any school manager. Cannot we add a proviso that he can do so only "after consultation with the Permanent Secretary"? If this can be added to all the clauses so bitterly criticised by the Member for Cairnhill, all the trouble and time will be saved. Sir, I beg to support the proposal by the Member for Serangoon that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that my Director of Education should have been brought in and called a dictator of education and other names which I think do not befit him. The public do not understand the intricate government machinery. The registration of schools and teachers is essentially an executive function and must be performed by an executive officer, in this case the Director of Education. But administratively, the Director of Education receives his instructions from me or the Permanent Secretary, and I can assure the House that, where the Director of Education is given discretionary powers under this Bill, he will not exercise those powers without the authority of the Permanent Secretary (who is my chief adviser), or myself. I will see to it that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, administrative action will be taken to provide this safeguard in my Ministry.

Thank you.

The Member for Cairnhill has placed a lot of emphasis on clause 24 (o), (p), (q), clause 33 (i) and so forth, and he says that in clause 22 there can be no appeal where an application for registration has been refused. I would like to refer him to clause 56 where it is stated that any person wishing to appeal against any decision - any decision - of the Director, can do so; and of course it prescribes the form in which the appeal is to be made to either the Appeals Board or to the Minister. Under clause 48, the provisions under which the public or the aggrieved parties must appeal to the Minister involve questions of public security. If I remember rightly, the Member for Cairnhill supported the subversion clause imposed on us by the Colonial Secretary in our recent Constitutional Talks; he said that the Government must have the courage to face the public and prevent subversive elements from contesting elections. Now, this is a matter which will come under clause 48; this is a matter dealing with subversive elements, and...

It does not say so.

Of course it does say so. The Member for Serangoon referred to clause 51 under which, he says, the Government appoints by name an officer of the Department of Education to be inspector of schools, and that that will preclude members of other schools from becoming inspectors. That is, of course, not true. It only means notifying in the Gazette the names of officers of the Department of Education; the appointment or enrolment of inspectors is entirely an administrative action. If the Government appoints teachers from other schools to be officers of the Department, they automatically become officers of that Department, and they are of course entitled to be appointed as inspectors of schools. Sir, this Bill is a very important one and, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar rightly said, the country must be given an educational policy and the Government must be unfettered in its implementation. It is my intention to accept the proposal put forward by the Opposition Parties that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee. The Member for Serangoon also says that the implementation of certain clauses in the Bill will be subject to the whims and fancies of Ministers. Well, I think Ministers do not exist on whims and fancies, and certainly no Minister will ever exercise any discretion because he has certain whims and fancies. I think I have replied to all the important points raised, and as this Bill is going to Select Committee, I propose to cut short my reply.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. COMMITTAL TO SELECT COMMITTEE

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

May I suggest to the hon. Member that no limit be placed to the number of Members? I do that because of the difficulty experienced in getting a quorum in certain Select Committees.

Sir, I am obliged for your suggestion. I move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Order for Second Reading read.

It is almost one minute to the moment of interruption. Sir, may I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at 3.59 p.m.

Wednesday, 24th April, 1957

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that persons residing in one area have changed their addresses, without actually removing from their existing residences, in order to enable them to vote in another electoral division; and what steps he has taken or will take to prevent such a practice.

The Chief Secretary is not aware that there is any such practice as is alleged in the Question. Under the present system of maintaining the electoral registers, changes of address which have been notified by electors to the National Registration Office and duly recorded on their Identity Cards are immediately notified to the Registrar of Statistics in his capacity as Registration Officer under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Cap. 53) for amendment of the electoral registers affected. There is no enquiry into the truth of statements regarding changes of address which are made to the National Registration Office, and it would be administratively impossible to institute such enquiries as a matter of routine. The Member for Tiong Bahru should, however, be aware that there are provisions under two Ordinances designed to penalise the making of false statements as to residence. They are in sections 17 and 21 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Cap. 53), which deal with claims and objections at the revision of the electoral registers, and in Regulation 16 of the Regulations made in accordance with section 4 of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, 1955. Any practice of the kind described in the Question could be adequately dealt with by the application of these provisions.

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether he is aware that the construction of a 100 feet wide road from West Coast Road to Jurong Road has started at the junction of the former with Chua Keh Hai Road, and if he will state-

I am aware that a main road with a reserve 100-foot wide has been planned linking West Coast Road to Jurong Road, and that construction has commenced over the first 400 yards of the reserve of a 22-foot wide carriageway from the junction of West Coast Road and Chua Keh Hai Road. (a) On the 28th January, representatives of the Public Works Department and the Land Office visited the area to make arrangements for the clearing of the land required for the first 400 yards of the proposed new road. They visited every householder whose lot was affected, explained the scheme to him and asked him whether he had any objection to trees being moved off the road line. Every owner was told that formal notices had not yet been served but that this would be done and that all property affected was being noted and proper compensation would be paid. The owners were assured that there was no intention to clear the whole 100-foot reserve but only the width necessary for the road pavement and drains and none of them raised any objection. The scheme was also discussed with the local Chinese headman and the headmaster of the local Chinese School. On 5th February, the owner of an attap house at the junction of West Coast Road/Chua Keh Hai Road began dismantling her house and the bulldozer then started clearing trees. On the 12th February, a deputation of 3 farmers were brought by a City Councillor to the P.W.D. and were given details of further clearance along the road line. At about the same time the Rural Board Member for Pasir Panjang discussed this road scheme with the Land Office and expressed his satisfaction with the proposed arrangements. Formal notices were served on 19th February, 1957 in respect of the first 400 yards of the road from West Coast Road. Warning notices have also now been served on owners of land within the balance area of the road reserve to Jurong Road. (b) The number of improvements affected by the first 400 yards of the road are:- 1 House 1 Bathroom 2 Earth Wells 1 Pig run 1 Pig sty 4 Rambutan trees 3 Star Fruit trees 2 Banana trees 3 Jambu Ayer trees 7 Coconut trees 3 Guava trees 1 Sugar-cane 2 Kuini trees 2 Chempedak trees 2 Jack fruit trees 2 Beetlenut trees 2 Bamboo trees 1 Chiku tree 1 Durian tree Compensation for these improvements have all been agreed and payments made. The P.W.D. is now engaged in setting out the working boundaries over the balance of the 100-foot road reserve, and when this is completed, a census of all houses, fruit trees and other assets within these working boundaries will be made, owners notified and payments agreed or effected before any further clearance is carried out. (c) A 100-foot width is a standard planning requirement for main roads and has the same effect as a building line preventing further development within the reserve which may be wasted if the road has later to be widened. It does not mean that a 100-foot wide strip is to be cleared of all assets immediately in order to construct a 22-foot carriageway. The intention is to take only so much of the land at present as is necessary for the 22-foot carriageway, side tables and drains.

asked the Minister for Communications and Works whether he will cause announcements over the public-address system at the Singapore Airport to be made also in Mandarin.

Since 23rd February, 1957, announcements have been made in Malay of all arrivals at and departures from the Singapore Airport of aircraft operated by Malayan Airways Limited. With one exception (which was the case of a German transit passenger) no evidence has been adduced to shew that passengers have either missed their plane or have embarked on the wrong plane by reason of their inability to understand announcements in the languages at present employed. It is not therefore proposed at present to make announcements in Mandarin.

Mr W. A. C. Goode, pursuant to his reply to the following question for oral answer asked on 13th February, 1957 (Official Report, 13th February, 1957, Volume 2, No. 19, Column 1393): Mr David Marshall asked the Chief Secretary whether he will make available to the English-reading public of Singapore by public subscription the Information Services' Daily Digest of Non-English Press, supplied the following answer on 5th March, 1957:- I promised in the Legislative Assembly in February to let you have a proper answer to your question on making available to the public the Daily Digest produced by the Information Services. I am sorry that I have not succeeded in sending this letter within the fortnight I promised. As you probably know, the main purpose of the Digest is to keep Government Departments and Ministries informed of views, news and comment about Government policies as reported in the vernacular newspapers. We have been able to provide copies in addition to diplomatic representatives and a number of business firms, who pay a subscription. I regret, however, that it would not be possible to increase the number of copies produced daily so as to make it available to the general public on application. You will, I hope, appreciate that there is a limit to the number of copies which can be produced on a duplicating machine in the time available each evening.