Hansard, 1960-12-13

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - from 20th December, 1960, to 31st March, 1961. Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar) - from 20th December, 1960, to 31st March, 1961. 2.31 p.m.

"to amend the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 16 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 29th December, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Private Lotteries Ordinance (Chapter 167 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 29th December, 1960, and to be printed.

"to amend the Rubber Estates Assessment Ordinance (Chapter 168 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Thursday, 29th December, 1960, and to be printed.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]. Resumption of Debate on Question (12th December, 1960), "That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 7."-(Inche Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib and Mrs Seow Peck Leng). 2.34 p.m. MAIN ESTIMATES 1961 (Contd.) Head 47 - Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all yesterday the Opposition was giving every possible reason why they boycotted the National Day and National Loyalty Week rallies, except the right one. They know what the real reason was, and I think they know that I know what the real reason was. But unless it is their desire to prolong the debate on the subject, I will just confine myself to clarifying one or two points raised yesterday. One accusation was that the National Day rally was a P.A.P. show. Sir, if by that is meant that the P.A.P. as a Party was very prominent in the celebrations, let me just give an indication of some of the items that were scheduled to take place during National Day. First, I think we started off with the National Day rally which did not take place, and the Member for the Southern Islands flattered the Government by blaming it for not arranging the weather. We shall try to do better next time. But that was the only occasion on which P.A.P. members, as members of a political Party, would have participated. And out of the 20,000 people who would have participated in the rally, something like 3,500 would have been P.A.P. members. Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination could that rally be described as a P.A.P. show. That was followed immediately by the Prime Minister's reception to political, civic, trade union and cultural representatives. Surely, Sir, that could not be described as a P.A.P. show. Then there was the National Economic Development Fair sponsored by the Government, the Trades Union Congress, and the Chambers of Commerce. Was that a P.A.P. show? Then there were three open-air concerts. At none of these was the P.A.P. represented, nor did the P.A.P. as a political Party take an active part. Then there was an Art exhibition; again organised not by the P.A.P. but by local artists. Then there was a fun-fair at the Raffles Institution, organised by the T.U.C. and not by the P.A.P. There were a number of sports events, again organised by sports organisations. There was a mass tatoo organised by schools. So, Sir, this allegation that the National Day celebrations were a P.A.P. show has no shred of truth to it. As I have said, the only occasion was when during National Loyalty Week P.A.P. members participated in the mass rally, there were something like 30 to 40 different groups. The other contention by the Member for the Southern Islands was that the Opposition was not consulted. What he really meant was not that the Opposition was not consulted but that something like 40 representatives who were there did not take the advice of representatives of the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. Their advice was that no political Party should display flags or banners. That was the point of view put forward, and everyone else except the representatives of these two political Parties saw no objection. The S.P.A., U.M.N.O. representatives, walked out of the meeting. In fact, we did not know that they walked out of the meeting. All we saw were three people quietly walking out, and then on the following day there was a news report claiming that the members concerned had staged a walkout. We were not interested in making a political issue out of National Day celebrations. So, just as on the first occasion during National Loyalty Week when they themselves announced in the newspapers that they had staged a boycott, all that the Government did was to express regret that they were not able to participate, and we would not make an issue out of it. On the second occasion - that was last year - they issued a statement to the Press saying that this was a P.A.P. show; the Minister was unreasonable; they were not consulted; they were presented with a set schedule, and they were asked to accept or not to accept it. That is not quite true, because the discussion at the first meeting - there were about 40 other organisations there - started from April and went on till the end of May. Many suggestions were put forward by the other organisations. Some were accepted by the Government, and some were scrapped. But the S.P.A. representatives and the U.M.N.O. representatives decided to pull out and to make an issue out of the whole thing. Again we refused to be drawn into making an issue out of it. All that we did was to have the Parliamentary Secretary issue a statement, again expressing regret that the two political Parties could not participate in these celebrations. Sir, the main contention is not that political Parties should not participate in National Day celebrations - that they concede - but what they say is that if political Parties participate, they should conceal their identity. They say you must not display a flag or a banner. In fact, yesterday the Member for Farrer Park said that if a political Party displayed its flag or banner, the Head of State would be put in the invidious position of having to salute a Party flag. Sir, I am quite sure the Member for Farrer Park put that forward purely as an argument. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara did not salute the P.A.P. flag any more than he saluted the flags that were carried by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Dance Hostesses Association and the Singapore Trishaw Riders Association. He did salute them, but he was not saluting their flags! He was acknowledging the respect that was being accorded to him as the Head of State on that day by various sections of the population. So the Opposition concede, in fact, that every other organisation can display their flag, can show their identity. But for some obscure reason, they say that if political Parties display their identities, they are going to create an impression among the people that they are putting forward, on the day of national unity, symbols which emphasise differences. If that is so, Sir, the others also emphasised differences - the Chambers of Commerce showed there were three Chambers of Commerce in this country. The schools went one by one, showing the different schools - Malay schools, Chinese schools, English schools. Could we not apply the same argument and say that on that day the schools which used to be under the care of the Member for Tanglin should have got mixed up with Chung Cheng High School or some other school? 2.45 p.m. What, I think, they really object to is not that the political Parties should not display symbols. We are not ashamed, Sir, of our Party symbol, or of the hundreds of thousands of people who have helped the Party to realise its ideals and who are responsible for our being here. We are not, ashamed of all these people. Therefore, we were not going to insult them on that day by saying, "You can participate in this rally only on condition that you disguise yourself as sheep or goats." We said, "No. You are P.A.P. members and you should be proud of the fact." I think what the Opposition really wanted was to have an anonymous body of political organisations so that P.A.P. members might be mistaken for S.P.A., and U.M.N.O. members, which is not fair to the P.A.P. members. And U.M.N.O. and S.P.A. members might be mistaken for P.A.P. members, which again, I say, is not fair to their supporters who obviously believe in the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. Therefore, Sir, all these arguments do not count for anything. The real reason, as I have said, is that all they wanted was one anonymous group of political parties so that they could probably claim that there were fewer P.A.P. members than there really were; and, secondly, I think, all the protests may be part of the general strategy of the Opposition parties to show that things are getting from bad to worse and that the Government has achieved nothing. A National Day celebration as everybody acknowledges has had some impact, and to that extent, they have been trying to pour cold water on an occasion which at least we have hoped would be free of political controversy and political party squabbles. But, unfortunately, they have seen fit to bring that occasion into disrepute by alleging, quite falsely, that it is a P.A.P. show, that it is organised by P.A.P. members, and that it is an occasion to put forward P.A.P propaganda. As I have said, out of all the celebrations, the only occasion when the P.A.P. got some prominence was when it marched as one of the 20,000 people who marched past the Head of State.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture has just explained at great length the details concerning the National Day celebrations in Singapore. We do not question the detailed aspect of the celebrations. What we are questioning here is the principle or the manner in which the Government had organised such a National Day celebration. We are of the opinion that the organisation did not aim at the ideals which were intended originally. If we were to comment item by item on the programme during the National Day celebrations, it would take us a long time to do it. But I would like to quote an instance where the people in the celebrations were forced to participate. They did not participate of their own free will but because of forced circumstances. They had no alternative but to participate, because of their position, their livelihood, and their circumstances. Pressure was put upon them by the Government, and they were thus obliged to take part in the celebrations. Mr Speaker, for instance, the Chambers of Commerce. National Day could be considered to be a day of pride for the State of Singapore. As regards the response given by the businessmen, we observed that only a few of the commercial buildings put up bunting in the real sense of the word. We saw the bunting put up by the Government. It costs $42,000, and was spoilt by the rain on that day. If on that day we were able to get a response from every section of the community and each and every citizen did his bit to make the celebrations a success, it was because they were forced to participate; there was no expression of sincerity in them. There is also another point. This concerns the residents of the Southern Islands who were requested to participate in the sea sports during the National Day celebrations. They were forced to participate in the kolek race, and they were housed at the Telok Ayer basin. They were given accommodation and food and so on. These islanders were dissatisfied with the facilities accorded to them, because, apart from the fact that they had to leave their homes for two or three days - at least they had to leave their kampongs for two days - they had to row their koleks to Singapore and return empty-handed. Normally, if they were required to participate in an important event on an auspicious occasion such as this, they would be given allowances, and transport facilities would be provided for them to arrive at Singapore, and they would not be asked to row their own boats from the islands to Singapore. This was a mistake which I could quote on how the organisers organised according to their whims, without caring to hear the views of the other sections. The meetings organised to run the National Day celebrations were ready-made, and the committee members were given all the resolutions to adopt, and there was no chance for them to put up their views. What we submit is that all sections should organise such a celebration so that we could really participate in it, as was organised by the previous Government. That is, it should be by way of forming a sub-committee comprising representatives from all political Parties in Singapore, and not like the organisation conducted or run by the Government.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Member for the Southern Islands to the residents of the Southern Islands who participated in the National Day celebrations. As far as I know, the islanders were provided with more than what they normally received. It is a fact that the people of the Southern Islands had participated in the kolek race, for instance, like the ones held at Ayer Gumuroh and Siglap. They voluntarily came without their having to be provided with food and so on. It has become a custom to them. Not only in Singapore but also, to the best of my knowledge, quite recently when celebrating the birthday of the Sultan of Johore, the residents of the Southern Islands left their homes for a week or so and went to take part in the kolek race. However, in last year's National Day celebrations, we invited them to take part in the kolek race and they willingly agreed to participate. We gave them lodgings, accommodation, apart from the prizes awarded to the winners. I am quite sure that the islanders were not forced to take part. On the contrary, they gave of their best during the National Day celebrations, a thing which has become part and parcel of their everyday lives. For instance, during the New Year's kolek race, we see the islanders taking part. I can say that I am very close with the islanders there, and so far I have not received any complaints from them about their participation in last year's National Day celebrations.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am obliged to seek clarification on this subject from the Minister for Culture. Because U.M.N.O. has been repeatedly mentioned, I would like to stress U.M.N.O.'s attitude. We agreed, in principle, to celebrate National Day, but what we could not accept were the things that were done and which had been explained by the Member for the Southern Islands and to which objection was taken. Mr Speaker, I am one of the representatives from U.M.N.O. We received an invitation from the Ministry of Culture. It is imperative that I receive further clarification, because I know that when we were invited by the Ministry of Culture, we replied and accepted the invitation. 3.00 p.m. However, we were present at the meeting. But, again I shall require a further explanation from the Minister for Culture, because it appears that at that particular meeting which was fixed by the Ministry of Culture, no mention whatsoever was made in the agenda regarding the matters to be raised for further discussion and reconsideration by our side. But since the Minister for Culture has accused us of this and that, I would like to ask him if that is the manner in which a meeting, especially of political parties, should be conducted. I feel that that is nothing short of steamrollering the issue. If everything is to be forced on us, U.M.N.O., so that we will have no opportunity to submit our views, then I think no useful purpose can be served by throwing allegations at us. There is another point, Mr Speaker, which I would like to explain to this House. I wish to congratulate and pay my tribute to the Prime Minister of this State. I knew how difficult it was when we tried to draw up a national flag. Meeting after meeting was held, but he was prepared to reconsider and accept our views and findings. Why is it that the Minister for Culture could not adopt the same attitude? I therefore require an explanation from the Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we, the Opposition Parties on this side of the House, still believe that political parties as such should not participate in National Day celebrations. My suggestion yesterday evening was merely a concession to the P.A.P. Government, that if they felt it was vital that political parties should participate, then we would concede the point to them; but we asked them to concede a point to us, that the flags be dispensed with. So far as we are concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, this occasion is as important as the national flag. The Member for Kampong Kembangan has said what, in fact, did take place when the State was considering the question of a national flag. On that occasion, Mr Speaker, the political parties concerned were invited. There was a vast difference between the nature of the first flag which was presented at that meeting and the flag that we have today as the flag of the State of Singapore. A big difference, which on the first occasion seemed to us to be unbridgeable. But after three or four days of coming and going, likely breakdowns, almost certain breakdowns, we eventually got a solution. The reason, Mr Speaker, was that both sides wanted a solution; and thank God, a solution was found. Because if the Government had gone ahead as they had originally intended, we would not have had a national flag and the flag would have become a political issue. If the Government had not been able to seek the agreement of the political parties on this side, Mr Speaker, Sir, our intention was to make this a political issue in the forthcoming elections. But I am sure the Government is glad, and we also are glad, that that is not a political issue today. All of us are 100 per cent behind the flag. It is our flag. It is not the Government's flag, the P.A.P.'s flag the U.M.N.O.'s flag, or the S.P.A.'s flag, but the people of Singapore's flag. If that is the correct attitude to adopt on a national matter such as this, why is the Minister for Culture being so adamant about the National Day celebration? We think the National Day celebration is just as important as the national flag. They go hand in hand, and yet the Minister for Culture does not want to move an inch. Why?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 21. Sub-head 21 is "Contribution to the Maintenance of Caldecott Hill Estate". Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the figure does not appear in the 1960 Estimates. It appears to be a new item of expenditure which is being incurred by the Government. Could we have an explanation why this was found to be necessary?

Yes, Sir. Caldecott Hill Estate is a private residential estate belonging to the Estate of the late Mr Mistri. Radio Singapore is sited on land in this estate purchased from the Estate of Mr Mistri. By virtue of an indenture of conveyance dated 25th June, 1960, the Government is liable to contribute to the maintenance of the estate roads, site cables and septic tank. There was no provision in the 1960 Estimates, because there was then some discussion as to whether the indenture of conveyance might not be abrogated. However, agreement was reached with the Trustees of the Estate that the Government pays one-third contribution towards the maintenance of the estate. $808,000 is the estimated amount based on what it has cost in the past The total expenditure from 1st January, 1953, to 30th September, 1959, was about $53,000. So the average for one year is about $8,000.

In view of that explanation, Sir, may I be given leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 25*. *The same amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah. Sir, the vote asked for is just a token vote of $10. We would, therefore, like the Minister to give us more details of what this service means and what the total cost would be.

Sir, first, I must apologise for a printing mistake. It should read "medium" and not "short wave" service. Suara Singapura is a new medium wave service. It is intended that it should be more national in character, in the sense that all announcements will be in the national language, though the programme content will be from the four cultural streams. In fact, practically all the non-Malay announcers and programme staff of Radio Singapore have already undergone a course in simple Malay announcements. It is hoped that the service would come into operation sometime in the middle of 1961. Although the planning has already gone ahead, it is not yet known for certain what would be the exact amount, and therefore a token vote of $10 has been entered for 1961.

Sir, would the Minister give us just an indication of what the amount would be? Is it $100,000, $10,000 or $200,000? We just want a rough indication.

Sir, I am not quite sure, because all we know is that we will be getting back the three short-wave transmitters from the Federation at the end of this year. But I am afraid I have no indication from my staff as to exactly how much it would cost. But what it will amount to is that we will have to buy a new medium-wave transmitter and, if I understand correctly, it costs something like $70,000 or $80,000. But I am not sure.

Sir, leaving aside the merits of instituting such a service, I am sure if the Minister thinks it is good for Singapore, we will accept that. But I think, from the financial point of view, the House must be told what he expects to be the capital expenditure on this and what he thinks are going to be the annually recurrent charges. Merely putting down a sum there as capital cost is not sufficient. I think the Minister for Finance will support me in this: that we must also know what the annually recurrent charges are going to be. Sometimes in approving a vote, the more important things to consider are the annually recurrent charges rather than the capital expenditure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, among the many virtues of my colleague, the Minister for Culture, a grasp of financial matters is not outstanding. I, however, feel that the Member for Farrer Park is trying to take advantage of this particular weakness of my colleague and that he was really talking with his tongue in his cheek. The thing is this: if indeed we had all the plans worked out, they would then have been entered there in complete detail. But, of course, it is because it takes some time to work out the details of the staffing, programme activities and so forth, that we have just entered a token vote. No doubt in course of time, this Assembly will be fully informed of what it is proposed to do with this section.

Sir, may I have the assurance of the Hon. the Minister for Finance that before expenditure is in fact incurred, the Assembly will be consulted?

Even if we are not consulted, he will spend it!

I said the Assembly would be informed, Sir.

Sir, the point remains that before the Assembly passes this $10 token vote, it is imperative that it knows what the total capital expenditure is going to be and what the annually recurrent charges are likely to be. But if the Minister feels that he is not in a position to give these estimates at the moment, I think, in fairness to the Assembly, he should concede the point that before these expenditures are incurred, the Assembly will be consulted. 3.15 p.m. We do not know unless the details are given as to whether the project is a laudable one or not. We are not in a position even to dispute it in principle, unless we really know what it intends to do, whom it intends to reach, and what the programmes are likely to be; whether it is going to be cultural, national or political from a party point of view, because there is a growing fear in Singapore that the radio is being used not for the State but for the Party in power.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the hon. Member is fully aware that when additional sums are required to be spent under this Head and it is not possible to find a saving within that Head - and, in this instance, the expenditure is likely to be fairly substantial - Supplementary Estimates will be submitted to this Assembly. The Member for Farrer Park is fully aware of that.

Sir, in view of the difficulty of the Minister to reply in detail, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 37. Sub-head 37 reads "Salaries of Radio Orchestra", and the current vote is $166,800. The Minister intends to run this orchestra in the next year for $75,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are orchestras and orchestras. You could have an orchestra of three, five or eight, or you could have an orchestra of more. You could also have a symphony orchestra. Each of these orchestras costs different amounts, depending on the number of persons in the orchestra. But when an institution such as Radio Singapore has an orchestra, I take it that it must be an orchestra which comes very near - but not quite - to the symphony class which could render pieces in various ranges of music. The vote is being reduced by more than half the present vote. Judging from that, it would appear that the number in the orchestra is going to be reduced by more than half. So the question arises: is that orchestra on reduced personnel worth maintaining?

Sir, I am glad to know that the Member for Farrer Park is as bad as myself in reading the Estimates! But if he will look at them, he will see an entry of $75,000 for 1961 as against a provision of $166,800 for 1960. That can give a wrong picture of what is happening in Radio Singapore. The current sum of $166,800 covers not only the salaries of members of the radio orchestra but also the fees paid to augmentees who are employed from time to time to complete the instruments required for certain types of music to be played by the Radio Orchestra, it also covers fees paid for music arrangements and orchestrations. The splitting of the sum of $166,800 into $75,000 for the salaries of the Radio Orchestra and $72,000 as fees for augmentees, arrangements and orchestrations which appear under sub-head 30 of the Estimates, is really a move to make the administration of this vote simpler and more clear-cut. There is no move to weaken the Radio Orchestra which has been built over the years, and I am very glad, Sir, to note that the Member for Farrer Park - at least in this instance - is so interested in culture as to listen to the Radio Orchestra, to express concern that his Sunday and Friday music might be of a lower tone as a result of reducing the number in the Orchestra. In fact, the Orchestra remains the same in number, but we just split the amount to help disburse the funds more efficiently.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister for Culture. If he will bear with me patiently as the evening progresses, he will know for certain how interested I am in culture, particularly his Ministry. May I have leave to withdraw? I merely raised this question, Sir, because there was a fear-

Order. If the hon. Member is asking for leave to withdraw, he must stop at that.

May I put it this way then? I merely raised this question because there was a fear that the claims of the Orchestra in Singapore might be overlooked as a result of various other pressing claims; but as the Minister has now assured us that it is his intention to keep it up to the standard that he thinks it should be kept up, I beg leave to withdraw.

Of course, I have remarked before that if an hon. Member wishes to withdraw, he just begs leave to withdraw and does not preface that request by a speech. That might, of course, put the Minister to some embarrassment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 59. Sir, may I ask the Minister for Culture what is intended to acquire as specimens for the Museum? An hon. Member: Rock `n roll music!

I can assure the Member for Farrer Park that any museum specimens that we intend to bring to our new museum would not come from the other side of the House! I understand that in the past a sum of only $750 was allocated to enable the museum staff to collect zoological, anthropological and ethnological specimens. Most of these specimens are collected by the staff and very rarely purchased. But some types of specimens, like silverware, pottery, iron materials, cloth, fabric, have to be purchased, and I understand that with the growing interest in culture and so on, the prices of these things have gone up. People seem to value these very old things and therefore we require more money to purchase them unless, of course, we can induce benefactors to contribute items of museum interest as an act of civic gesture gratis to the museum. But pending that, we feel that we need additional money to buy more new specimens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister in his opening remarks assured this side of the House that we will not become museum specimens.

Order. I only heard the Minister saying that he does not think the specimens would come from the other side. It may be from the hon. Member's collection of museum specimens.

The Minister assured us that the specimens would not come from this side, and I think the basis for his assurance is that the specimens may come from the other side!

That is quite possible!

Sir, I think the Members on the other side do not come under the category of "museum specimens". Perhaps "historical relics" might be more appropriate!

Sir, may I bring this down to a more serious level? The present Government - as indeed any government - should be interested in art, culture, and so on, and if the Government really means what it says, that it is interested in fostering local art and local artists, I think there should be more money allocated for this purpose by the Government. In Raffles Museum, there is a pottery section and there are various other art sections. I think Singapore is well placed to collect these things, because this is the focal point for distribution to various parts of South-East Asia and there are a number of useful works of art which I think the museum might purchase. The Government could focus attention on these various aspects of art, and I think the sum of $1,750 is not enough even to purchase three or four pieces of any value at all. So I would ask the Government that in future they might give this particular aspect of Raffles Museum more consideration in the way of financial allotments.

When I visit the museums of other countries, I find that I always have to pay an entrance fee, but in the case of the Raffles Museum everyone can go there gratis. So if the Member for Farrer Park thinks that we should spend more money purchasing collections of art work, perhaps when the time comes and we have to levy an entrance fee he would support such a measure.

I do not think that would be a matter for budgetary approval. It is a matter for a purely internal Government arrangement. I do not think that matter will come up before the Assembly. But I do seriously submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government has a national art gallery, I am sure many people would be quite willing to pay an entrance fee just to view works of art. Sir, I do not want to be accused of prefacing my remarks by asking for leave to withdraw, but-

I do not know whether the Minister wishes to say anything further. If he does not, then, of course, the hon. Member can ask for leave.

Sir, I would just like to assure the hon. Member that if he is not confusing art galleries with museum specimens, then we hope at some future date to consider the possibility of setting up a national art gallery. But I understand that this money is for the purpose of merely purchasing very old things like pottery, iron materials, cloth, and so on. As I said earlier, we are hoping that we may induce benefactors to assist us in this matter.

In view of what has been said, may I have leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 89. Sub-head 89 reads "Land Rovers, four. $32,700. Subject to Treasury sanction". This merely takes it out of Assembly control and vests it in the control of the Treasury. May we know, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the necessity for the purchase of these four Land Rovers, because I believe their purchase is related to a number of sub-heads which precede and succeed this sub-head?

Again, I can assure the hon. Member that these Land Rovers are not for the purpose of ensuring a quick get-away for anybody from this island. I understand that these four Land Rovers are needed to expand the present Field Section of the Publicity Division so that it would be possible to cover more places both in the city and in the rural areas at any time. At the moment, we have six, such units and increases for staff have already been made in sub-head 1, items (62), (63) and (64), and these four new Land Rovers are to ensure that the additional work by the Field Section of the Publicity Division can be more effectively discharged. 3.30 p.m.

Sir, do I understand the Minister to say that the addition of these four Land Rovers, making ten separate units, should be capable of working the whole Island?

Yes, Sir, that is correct.

May I beg leave to withdraw, Sir? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 96. Sir, there appears a vote for next year. In the meantime, commercial services have already been introduced by Radio Singapore. Could the Minister inform the House whether commercial services at present being run by Radio Singapore are a success, from a financial point of view, and whether he thinks they are equally successful from a cultural point of view?

As to the first question, whether financially it is a success, yes, Sir, definitely it is. The commercial services had, up to 31st October, 1960, contracts up to a figure of $1.3 million, and this, I think, is not a bad showing for commercial services. As regards whether it is culturally a success or not, that is an issue on which I am prepared to join forces with the Member for Farrer Park. But I cannot do so until he indicates in what direction our arguments should proceed.

Sir, in regard to this commercial broadcasting, I remember, when the Government came into power, they described rock `n roll as yellow culture. But now, because there is money to be made, rock `n roll is no longer yellow culture. It is being played over Radio Singapore. So it boils down to this: if there is money, everything is all right. If there is money, go ahead with gambling. And if there is no money, it is yellow culture!

Sir, I do tune in to Radio Singapore now and then, but I cannot at any time say that I have listened to rock `n roll. There is a large difference between rock `n roll and jazz. Perhaps the Member for Cairnhill could give us a demonstration of what rock `n roll is like!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that there is a lot of rocking and rolling in so far as money can be made by the Government. If the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister would only listen more attentively to Government's commercial broadcasting, he would be able to hear this rock `n roll music that is going on. I think, Sir, the dignity of this House does not permit me to do any rock `n roll, but if the Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister will go with me outside, I will show it to him!

We have not got television here!

Sir, I do not think I can allow the Member for Cairnhill to get away with it.

With rock 'n roll?

He is a man who is very rapidly acquiring the unfortunate habits of the Member for Hong Lim. He knows pretty well, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Members of the Government Benches do not spend a lot of time listening in to Radio Singapore during its less serious moments. And, therefore, he hopes to get away with this reckless allegation that rock `n roll is being transmitted through Radio Singapore. I too listen in at breakfast time when less serious music is being played, and I cannot remember any occasion whatsoever of any performance by a rock `n roll orchestra.

Sir, the answer is very simple. It is in the hand of the Government. Ask Radio Singapore whether rock `n roll music has been played or not!

Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill should listen in more to Radio Singapore because then he would be able to distinguish cha-cha-cha from rock `n roll, tango, or rhumba. In fact, I am afraid, Sir, that he is just repeating what he read from a letter in the Straits Times. When that letter appeared, I did ring up Radio Singapore and ask whether by some unfortunate accident - they had a programme, I understand, where the "jockey" (so-called) would just snatch any record from the rack-rock `n roll music did get in. They assured me that no rock `n roll music is on the racks. I think there is a difference between rock `n roll, as defined by musicians, and rock `n roll, as defined by the Member for Cairnhill for the purposes of this debate.

Sir, might I come back to my point: whether the Minister finds commercial services equally profitable from a cultural point of view? The Minister rather tries to deflect it by saying he wants me to say what I think of the whole situation. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not for me to say. The Government are embarked on a cultural programme. They want to give culture in Singapore a particular direction. They want to give it a particular content. What is in the mind of the Minister and what direction he wishes to give, only he himself can say. But we are very interested in the content and the direction. Perhaps he could tell us. Take us into his confidence!

Sir, I am always prepared to take the Member for Farrer Park wholly under my wing, but as far as commercial radio is concerned, it is true that the programme is of a more popular variety because it is commercial. And that is one of the reasons why we are starting Suara Singapura, which we discussed earlier, to preserve a balance between serious and popular entertainment, which is not necessarily the kind of entertainment that the Member for Cairnhill is thinking of, but good, clean, healthy popular entertainment. To balance that, we have decided to launch Suara Singapura which will give more substantial programmes for those like the Member for Cairnhill who would like to listen to symphony orchestras.

Sir, I do wish the Minister would take this a little bit more seriously, because I can assure him that parents outside are seriously interested in this topic. This is not a game of shuttle where we pass the shuttle from this side to that side, and from that side back to this side. And if the Minister went into the matter, he would find that most of the programmes that are being played are in these commercial services, and the children insist on listening to them. The question I am now asking the Minister is this: is he satisfied, from his own cultural point of view, or from the point of view which he thinks the children should be exposed to, if he wishes to expose them to certain types of culture, Is this the type of culture that he wishes the Ministry of Education schoolchildren to be exposed to - using his own phrase?

No, Sir, I was not trying to treat this matter in the lighthearted manner that the Member for Farrer Park thinks I am doing. It is a bit difficult to just launch off on a long dissertation about the kind of programmes that are put over the commercial services unless he specifies what programme. Does he mean children's programmes, or does he mean programmes in general? By and large, we are quite satisfied that the programmes are such as would be enjoyed by children, not necessarily by me or by Members of the Opposite Benches, but these are children's programmes which are popular in many other parts of the world. The few that I have listened to are not necessarily offensive or degrading, but naturally I would like children's programmes or any other programme to progressively increase their cultural standard. It is a bit difficult to specify, apart from saying generally, "Ah, yes, I think the programmes are very good." Unless you specify some particular programmes as models to be followed or to be shunned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure my colleague the Member for Farrer Park does not mean children's programmes alone. The Hon. the Minister for Culture must realise that children do not listen to children's programmes alone. The radio is at their disposal, and they tune in at any time they like. The Minister for Education is not here. If he is here, I am sure he will agree with me that education for children today does not mean learning to read and write in school alone. It means everything they hear. The environment is so important - everything they hear, everything they see. The radio is a means of entertainment that penetrates the home willy-nilly the parents' wishes. So it is up to the Government to see that what penetrates the home is good, not only for the adults but also that it is not detrimental to the children. That is what I am sure the Member for Farrer Park means: whether the Minister for Culture is satisfied that the programmes carried by the Commercial services are such a type that will not be detrimental to children should they tune in, although they are not meant for children.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Opposition are not satisfied with the standards of the programmes over Radio Singapore, surely they can point out which programmes are inadequate and for what reason. All these vague insinuations that the programme is not satisfactory, or that it is exercising a harmful influence on children - all these generalities will get us nowhere at all. 3.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the comments of the Minister, in all seriousness, I wish to bring the attention of the Government to some of the programmes I happened to listen to. For instance, one day, when I was trying to tune in to some classical music, I heard this sort of recital. "I married a widow. The widow has a daughter. The daughter married my father. My father and my wife's daughter gave birth to a daughter. So my wife's daughter"-

You have got it all wrong!

- "Gave birth to a daughter who becomes my mother." This is the sort of programme one sometimes gets from the radio. The other type of programme, Mr Speaker, Sir, is what one gets, for instance, on a Sunday night when you like to tune in to some good music or some good talks. You tune in to the radio, and try to find where you can get something you like. Then you hear the trotting of the horses, "Trot, trot, trot, trot, trot". Then we have all the Yankee talking which is not very good for the school children. In the daytime there are programmes specially for children which appear in the papers with headings like "Tarzan", "Flash Gordon" and others. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only commenting on the English programmes. In general, the Chinese programmes are reasonably good. I think action must be taken by the Government, since the Ministers are so busy, to keep a closer surveillance on the programmes produced by Radio Singapore.

Sir, I fear the Member for Hong Lim listened to that rather complicated song with one ear glued to the radio and probably with the other can glued to somewhere else. I think that is the well-known and very popular song called, "I am my own grand-pa" or "grand-ma". I see nothing offensive about it. In fact, it is a very enjoyable song, and I would not mind joining the Member for Hong Lim in a short chorus after the proceedings are over in this Assembly! As for the other observation about the trotting of horses, sounding like Yankee trotting, I thought the trotting of horses anywhere sounds like trotting of horses. I cannot distinguish between a Yankee horse and a Malayan horse or an Indian horse. As regards "Tarzan", I think there is nothing offensive about "Tarzan". In fact, even Ministers and intellectuals like it. In fact, not so long ago, I read an article in the New Statesman analysing the social and political significance of "Tarzan". The New Statesman, the Member for Hong Lim will admit, is not a colonial paper; nor is it run by Thomson or Blades. The paper was quite satisfied that "Tarzan" is a very healthy form of comic entertainment, unlike the more obnoxious type of comics which I am quite sure the Minister for Home Affairs has effectively dealt with. But if some of them have escaped his notice, that cannot be helped. But I cannot see what is offensive about either "Tarzan" or "Flash Gordon". In fact, there is no "Flash Gordon" over Radio Singapore as far as I know. There is certainly a "Tarzan" programme, but not "Flash Gordon". So I assume that the Member for Hong Lim has been tuning on to the short-wave and listening to programmes from that terrible country, the Yankee country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point I would like to make is this. You will recollect that soon after the Minister took over Radio Singapore, there definitely came over the programmes a certain definite change. I personally welcomed that change. Many people might disagree with me, but I personally welcomed that change. The programmes were good. A lot of nonsense was cut out from Radio Singapore and the programmes were good. Then the Government began to think of commercial radio or commercial programmes. And then, lo and behold, Mr Speaker, Sir, suddenly there was a drop, a drop even below the level Radio Singapore had reached before the Minister took over. What I find difficult to reconcile is this. If the programmes originally put up by Radio Singapore at the time when the Minister took over were not of a type which he would allow through his radio, how does he now reconcile programmes reaching the whole of Singapore at a level much lower than what it was when he took over? But if he says that the introduction of dollars and cents into this business has made all the difference to his Government, I accept the situation.

Sir, I disagree with the Member for Farrer Park that the programmes have declined since the introduction of the commercial service. I think Radio Singapore has even prevailed upon the Member for Farrer Park to take part in some of the programmes, and I am quite sure that thereby - at least I for one would like to think so - the standard of the programme has not necessarily deteriorated. All that he said was that, as a result of introducing a commercial service, we have more popular programmes. I have said that too. The total amount devoted to serious programme is about an hour and a half every day out of a broadcasting time of about seven or eight hours. The rest are devoted to the very popular, the medium popular, and the highbrow popular type of music. To offset that and to ensure that we get a more serious type of music and a more serious type of programme, we are introducing "Suara Singapura" where you will probably get the kind of programme that an intellectual of the calibre of the Member for Farrer Park would be interested in listening to. So there has been no general decline in the standard of programmes unless you say that popular entertainment is a lower standard, with which I do not agree. But if you mean that we are not having more symphony music, that is true, because once we have ensured that we are going on to the commercial service, unfortunately not many commercial firms are prepared to sponsor a symphony orchestra or symphony music. But for the coming year a number of commercial firms have agreed to sponsor Malay music and Chinese music of a more serious kind as an experiment. I am quite sure that even in the commercial service an experiment of this kind would help to raise the cultural standards and the cultural tastes of listeners to Radio Singapore.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $100*. *The same amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock. Sir, there are one or two topics which I wish to touch on, particularly the first topic, which is Radio Singapore - Radio Singapore, and what service it is providing Singapore with today. Besides providing Singapore with a commercial service, which brings in great profit to itself, it also provides Singapore with a news service, which is one of its more important functions. It reports Assembly debates and other matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am particularly interested today in the reports which Radio Singapore put up about Assembly debates. Under normal conditions, when the Assembly meets, the time is Government time, and the Opposition is there merely to see if it can get in a word if it can. But on the Budget, Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the time is Opposition time. If the Opposition does not choose to query an item, that item lapses merely because the Government accepts it all. Over the last three or four days, the manner in which Radio Singapore has been reporting Assembly debates, Mr Speaker, Sir, to put it mildly, is absolutely deplorable. All it does is to put out the Ministers' replies. The questions put, the manner in which a question is put, the further questions put on the Ministers' statements, are not reported at all. The impression Radio Singapore gives is that Government has answered every question satisfactorily. But from the Opposition's point of view, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not so. There are numbers of questions which go unanswered by the Ministers. And yet this aspect of the situation is not brought out in the Radio Singapore reports. I do not know why that should be so. When the P.A.P. came into power, the position was not bad at all. Both the Opposition and the Government got a fair amount of time on Radio Singapore. But as time marches on, the Opposition gets less and less time on Radio Singapore. Even the Opposition Members' names are not mentioned. Why is it? Are we on the Opposition lepers? Are not our names worth mentioning if we raise a matter in which the public is interested, particularly in a Budget debate? Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not asking for publicity. But we are asking that Radio Singapore gives a correct picture to the public outside of what takes place in this Chamber. That is its duty, and that is why the public is voting it these sums of money in order that it might bring to the public a fair and impartial picture of what goes on inside here. But if you go home and listen to the 9.30 p.m. news, what do you get? "The Minister said this. The Minister said that", and nobody else said anything. Everything is hunky-dory with the Government. God is in His heaven, and everything is all right with the world. Radio Singapore is sitting tight and pretty and nobody bothers it. Its little world is preserved. Its little world is protected. If that is the protection and if that is the preservation that Radio Singapore has, might I tell it that it is not performing its public function, and the sooner it is detached from Government and made into a corporation the better it will be, and the better it will serve the purpose for which it has been created. The other point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Press. The Press is just as bad as Radio Singapore. If you take up the Straits Times of today and read it, it does not give you a picture of what goes on inside this Chamber. We have all read it. Nobody knows what is going on inside here if one relies on the Press or the radio. Could these be accidents? Have the great institution of the Straits Times and the equally great institution of Radio Singapore fallen into line simultaneously-

On a point of order.

Point of order?

On a point of order. I am quite sure Members of this House will realise that the Straits Times does not appear as an item under this head of the Ministry of Culture, and I do not see what bearing or what reference the Straits Times has in this debate.

I think the point is well taken. I was just wondering whether there is any allegation that there is Ministerial responsibility for what appears in the Press reports on Assembly debates, if that is so, then, of course, there is some bearing on the debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understood it, the Minister for Culture did indicate to this House that he had called up representatives of the Press to his office, and had discussions with them on Assembly debates and reports. I am just wondering, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether in these instances he has called the representatives of the Press into his office and in a very, very friendly manner, as a P.A.P. Minister can do over a nice cup of steaming coffee or tea, told them, "Well, what are you going to say about today's debate?" Mr Speaker, Sir, I have seen the Parliamentary Secretary in this Assembly nodding to members of Radio Singapore, and the members of Radio Singapore responding to that nod and going out of the public gallery. I have seen that with my own eyes. Why? 4.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish first to speak on the question of running the radio and television. In my opinion, there are two types of radio in the world - one is run by the State and the other is run by partisan groups like the Pathet Lao in Laos or the army in Thailand, which has its own separate radio. The navy, the police, and other partisan groups too have their own radios. The other type of radio is run by the State. In a democratic State like ours the radio and all the other media of information must give some consideration to political views different from those of the persons in control of the State organs. The reports on the Assembly debates are much to be deplored. For instance, last night, after the 7 o'clock news, there was a report on the Assembly debates which was written by a reporter of Radio Singapore, who announced himself as Mr Vas. There is much left to be desired in that particular report of the proceedings. Mr Speaker, Sir, in certain countries, say, like Australia, the proceedings of Parliament are broadcast over the radio, and that is what the Government is now scared of. If we have proceedings broadcast over the radio, there is no necessity for a report from Radio Singapore or from the Ministry of Culture to make a summary in his own words about what he called the "proceedings". Mr Speaker, Sir, the best alternative, of course, is to broadcast the proceedings of this Assembly. The second alternative, which should go hand in hand with the first, is to remind the Government of what the P.A.P. has declared, i.e. to make the radio a statutory corporation. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I remind this House of a speech made by the Prime Minister in Hansard, Vol. 2, col.62 -

What is the date?

5th September, 1956. In a speech on the Government's policy, the Prime Minister in 1956 said: `Can there be any doubt at all that Radio Malaya should be divorced from the Government and run as a public corporation? Is there any real doubt that if we wanted to introduced television, and if the committee sitting on it should want to recommend it, it should be done by a public corporation?'. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier in February 1956, in Volume 1 of the Hansard, at the end of column 1548, the Prime Minister in those days moved a motion- Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. May I ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, who was the gentleman that was Prime Minister of Singapore in 1956?

That is not a point of order. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister in those days moved an amendment to a motion to introduce commercial television. The amended motion reads as follows: `"That this House approves in principle the introduction of television in Singapore and recommends that a Commission be appointed to explore the possibilities of setting up a public corporation to operate it."'

Order. The difficulty of the Chair is, of course, to draw a line somewhere. At the moment, we are debating Radio Singapore and there is, I think, an amendment which will be moved later on under Development Estimates, Head D47 at page 524 on the question of television. So perhaps we had better try and confine ourselves at the moment to Radio Singapore and leave out television.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only touching on television in passing. What we are discussing today is the policy of the Government on the media of information. First of all, these media of information should be run by public corporations. Secondly, the debates on the proceedings of this Assembly should be reported in a more impartial manner by the reporters, who we know have to take orders from the Government. I sympathise with them in this respect, disseminating the news and views of other Members of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other point I wish to raise is this: that during the early days of June this year, Radio Singapore broadcast not only Government news, but statements issued in the name of the Central Committee of the People's Action Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other matter which I want to raise under this Head is the question of discrimination in the treatment of the Press. We know that discrimination-

Order. The point has already been raised as to whether or not a criticism of the Press as a criticism can properly be made in Committee of Supply proceedings, and I have ruled that if there is to be a direct criticism of the Press as such, then, of course, the matter is completely irrelevant to the matters we are debating in the Committee of Supply. But if there is an allegation that the Minister for Culture controls the Press, then, of course, the debate can proceed on those lines, and on those lines only.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only dealing with the relationship between the Ministry of Culture and the Press. As I have said just now, there is discrimination in the treatment of the Press. As there has been discrimination in the treatment between European business and local business, between expatriate civil servants, whose pay is not cut at all, and the local civil servants, so there is also discrimination in the treatment of the Press. From what I know, during the past 18 months the Straits Times has never been hauled up by the Government except in the case of a local reporter of the Sunday Mail, a subsidiary of the Straits Times. But most of the other local newspapers, particularly the Chinese vernacular Press, are living in jitters. Editors have been hauled up, sub-editors questioned and reporters threatened. All the promises which this Government made before or during the election about the British-owned Press have now vanished into thin air. For instance, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Straits Times of 16th April, 1959, the Secretary General of the P.A.P. said: `... it was an open secret the Straits Times editorial staff was "scooting" to Kuala Lumpur on May 18. All those who followed the paper's view should "scoot along with them,". It was no use, he continued, for Cynicus to say regularly "We Malayans" when he knew very well that "those blooming scoundrels in the Straits Times" were the people who would run away. "The people who write that are the people who would run away. It is an open secret that the Straits Times editorial staff are scooting off to Kuala Lumpur on May 18."'. These charges were repeated by other Ministers present. Here are the speeches made by Mr S. Rajaratnam, a former member of the staff of the Straits Times and the Singapore Standard. He said-

What is the paper?

Sorry. It is the Straits Times of 23rd April, 1959. It reads: `Addressing a lunchtime rally attended by several thousand people at the Fullerton building car park, Mr S. Rajaratnam, a former member of the staff of the Straits Times and of the Singapore Standard, said that since the last P.A.P. rally two Singapore newspapers had become very interested in the freedom of the Press.'. `Another speaker, Mr K. M. Byrne, said that he was sure the British Press would change their line against the P.A.P. after the elections on May 30.'. Mr Speaker, Sir, did it change its attitude towards the present P.A.P.? It is not because the attitude of the Straits Times has changed, but because the policy of the P.A.P. has vitally departed from what they had promised the people. This is what the present Minister for Culture said in a report in the Singapore Standard, dated 30th April, 1959, about the Straits Times: `After a reference to a Straits Times editorial on the freedom of the Press, Mr Rajaratnam said: "This sounded very nice but one thing the Straits Times failed to answer is, freedom for whom? "Freedom of the Press is the freedom of the people of Singapore. Very nice. But what exactly does this mean? Does freedom for the Straits Times mean freedom for the people, for the million and a half people of Singapore? "Put very bluntly, it means freedom of expression only for the people who control and run the Straits Times."'. And he knows who run the Straits Times! He said: `"This is because the paper is completely in the hands of those who own what are called the management shares." "Who are the people who own the management shares? I hope the Straits Times will correct me tomorrow if I am wrong. The four directors are Messrs. R. C. Kendall, M. M. Pierce, K. A. Seth and A. C. Simmons."'. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a handbook here of European companies in Malaya which shows that these four persons who more or less control $65,000 only of the $8 million capital control the Straits Times, because they are the only persons who have the right to vote and decide policies. What does support of the Straits Times mean? The Minister for Culture in those days said: `"Against this background it is easy to understand why, in the last general election, the Straits Times boosted the Progressive Party, the party which unashamedly pleaded the cause of colonialism and denounced socialism. "Naturally, the Progressive Party lost the election. Before merdeka in the Federation, the Straits Times boosted Dato Onn and sneered at the Alliance. Naturally, Dato Onn came a cropper. "After the Labour Front victory in Singapore, the Straits Times dropped the Progressives and built up David Marshall into a heroic personality. "Marshall, too, went the way of Dato Onn. "After Marshall, the Straits Times turned to build up Tun Lim Yew Hock into a sort of poor man's Messiah. "An attempt was made to build up the SPA into something bigger than what it really was. Naturally, the SPA too collapsed."'. Mr Speaker, Sir, -

Order. I have reminded the hon. Member for Hong Lim that if he is to read extracts, they must be short ones. If the extracts are long, I think that all he can do is to paraphrase them. I do not think the time of the Assembly should be wasted on lengthy quotations. They should be short extracts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Straits Times is now supporting the policies of this Government, and from the logic of what has been said just now, this Government is also coming a cropper.

It might support you, you know.

I will ban the paper if I am on that side. Mr Speaker, Sir, the present leaders of the Government only dare to ban small mosquito Press like the Saturday Post. 4.15 p.m. Other papers which have no big political backing and European capital like the China Press in Kuala Lumpur are not allowed to come in because this Government can only survive if European capital controls, supports and backs it. Everybody knows that it is the banks, like the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, and foreign capital like the Cold Storage which control the Straits Times through their agents. Since this Government cannot carry on without the support of European capital, it must, like its predecessors, fall back on a colonial paper like the Straits Times. I believe that there are attempts by some local people to obtain a licence to start an English paper. I understand that the Government insisted on having a whole list of the staff from the Chief Editor down to the peon to see whether there are any subversive elements amongst them. Mr Speaker, Sir, unless we allow a local businessman to start a paper in English which is capable of fighting the Straits Times (with Government support), then there is no way to eradicate the vermin in our society. Sir, I ask the Government to remember all its election promises. It can carry out its promises by a very constructive proposal, that is, encourage a local paper organisation to print a paper in the English language and, when once it is given a start, ban the Straits Times since it has scooted across the Causeway, as other newspapers in English have been banned by this Government.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, next year the Ministry of Culture will spend money to the tune of 57,036,290, not taking into account its development programme. Let us give the Minister for Culture - if I am permitted to say at this juncture - time to follow the footsteps of the Prime Minister to enable him to answer questions asked of him in the national language (Malay). I feel that this is appropriate and right to the point. If it is the Government policy for the Minister for Culture to encourage the development of the national language, I earnestly hope to hear him speak in the national language at all times, and not only on Radio Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has a Minister for Culture to look after the cultural affairs of Singapore. We know that the Ministry is concerned with evolving a Malayan nation on a basis that has been agreed upon. We can accept the P.A.P.'s concept of a Malayan culture, but my colleagues on this side of the House and I have full hopes that culture as based on Malay culture can be accepted. Mr Speaker, Sir, I need a positive, clear and sincere reply from the Minister for Culture in this Assembly, and not outside this Assembly, as to whether the Government is prepared to accept this. If the Government is not prepared to do so, I suppose it cannot be helped. It is left to the P.A.P. to pass judgment on this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the Ministry of Culture has set aside a sum of money for expenditure on Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan and that its head is to come from our neighbour, Indonesia. What I would like to know further from the Minister for Culture is this. What are the plans that have been formulated by the head of the Dewan, and is it possible that he will be able to discharge his obligations with only one stenographer? Perhaps in its long-term planning, the Government has a prospective successor to take over. Could the Minister tell us who will be the prospective head of the Institute, as this is an important post? Mr Speaker, Sir, in connection with Radio Singapore (Malay section), I would like clarification as to whether it is the policy of the Government to give part-time employment to people who already have permanent jobs. If that is the policy of the Government, what is the reason for it? In addition to that, I am also told that the part-time employees are relatives of the staff currently employed in Radio Singapore (Malay section). Is this really happening? Why are employment opportunities closed to other better able persons who are unemployed? There is another point, Mr Speaker, Sir. Quite often I hear the news items from Radio Singapore (Malay Section), and I am afraid that its standard will deteriorate because it could be said that the Malay announcers read the news items like school-children.

Order. We are now on an all-embracing amendment, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $100." When an amendment of that nature is moved, the debate must centre around general policies in connection with the Ministry as a whole. I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan was in order up to the time when he touched on part-time employment, but when he touched on part-time employment and when he gave details as to who were, in fact, employed, then I think he was inclined to swing a bit far away from the motion. The topic he is touching on now appears to me to be a matter of detail. If it is a matter of detail, then, of course, he is too late. If he had wished to raise detailed points, he ought to have given notice of amendments pinpointing specific items in the Estimates. At the moment, I think we ought to confine ourselves to general principles.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarification from the Minister for Culture himself particularly on the question of the basis of Malay culture, whether it is to be accepted as the basis of our national culture. I hope this question will not be answered by the Back-Benchers who I consider to be ikan belis (small fry).

It seems to me that perhaps it is time for the Chair to try and channel the debate to a specific subject because, as far as I can make out, there are four subjects which have been touched upon. One is Radio Singapore, one is Press relations, one is the basis of culture being Malay, and the fourth is a point on Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan. Perhaps if we now concentrate on the first topic, that is, Radio Singapore, and deal with that aspect of the debate, it might be convenient for Members. Shall we then dispose of Radio Singapore? 4.30 p.m.

Sir, Radio Singapore or any other radio is always an object of displeasure for the Opposition, and always an object of approval for the Government. It happens in every country. I am quite sure, Sir, that if by some misfortune we should be in the Opposition, we would be saying precisely the same things that Members of the Opposition have said. But, firstly, I suggest that reports of proceedings which last from 2.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. cannot be summarised into a ten-minute bulletin without a great deal being left out; and, secondly, that the assessment of news varies with individual reporters in any organisation - three reporters often cover the same item - giving different emphasis to different speakers and different speeches. In fact, this point is strengthened by the allegation made by the Member for Farrer Park that not only has Radio Singapore overlooked some of the weighty pronouncements he has made but the Press too has done the same thing.

4.32 p.m. Sir, the Minister for Culture and his officials could not, when the debate is finished, go to the respective newspaper offices and say to the editors, "Go and take a blue pencil and cross out the pronouncements that have been made by the Opposition Members." For example, yesterday most of the officials, the Ministers and so on, were at the Airport to see somebody off. So to suggest that any reporting done by these newspapers yesterday is due to any instruction from the Minister or from the Ministry of Culture is both unfounded and false. Except, as I have said before, where there is a big issue, we have not summoned editors, as the Member for Farrer Park has said. We have invited editors and reporters to come and discuss certain issues, certain topics which we would like to be emphasised. But apart from that, if a newspaper decides tomorrow to black-out a speech by a Minister or by the Opposition, there is nothing we can do about it. So the Opposition has been trying, right from the start, to create this rift, to conjure up this picture which they had painted before the elections: that here are people who would line up the Press and give them instructions and tell them, "Today this is what you are going to report; this is what you should do, and this is what you should not do." But if what they are complaining about, as far as the Press is concerned, is that at some certain time they feel that their words are not being given the weight that they should be given, that is a matter for them, and not for the Government, to take up with the Press. And as for reporting over Radio Singapore, I am prepared to put every Member of the Opposition to a test. I can invite them today, after this debate, to come to the office where the reporters will be writing up the speeches that are being made here and ask them, "Would you mind giving me a 10-minute summary" - which is about four pages of what might amount to 30 or 40 pages of a full news report - "to go over the air by half-past nine?", i.e., it must be ready by 9 o'clock p.m. I am quite prepared to put every Member of the Opposition to a test, and I am quite sure, Sir, that each one will give a different version which will not have the approval of other Members on the Opposition side. So this type of argument that they are not given fair play, that their speeches are not given sufficient weight, is one which will be repeated. I have been a newspaper man for 15 years, and I know every time newspapers come out with a report, people always ring up and say. "You know, the criticism which I have spent three weeks composing has been blacked out." Or, "I have made a very pertinent case against my opponent which should have squashed him, but you have left it out. I made a long and involved argument but you just missed out one crucial link which makes the whole argument sound foolish." That sort of observation is always made and I am afraid that Members of the Opposition should resign themselves to that fact. The Opposition should not indulge in this campaign that they have been conducting for the last 18 months to present the Ministry of Culture, its officials, its Minister, and its Parliamentary Secretary as having a torture room to which they bring the editors and reporters, and there twist their arms, slap them and say, "Now, you have been bad boys. Go back and write as we say." If they want to put forward that kind of suggestion, the first people to laugh at it would be the reporters and the editors themselves. In fact, the Member for Hong Lim, also a champion of the freedom of the Press, ended up by saying that what we should do is to ban the Straits Times. He is still a champion of the freedom of the Press. He is trying a different line, with different arms. The Opposition has been trying very hard to present a picture showing us torturing and twisting of the arms of editors; whereas the Member for Hong Lim decides that he will play the game that he has been trying to play for the last few days. He appears as the champion of the Chinese Press. He says that we are discriminating against the Chinese Press, so at the same time

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the nationalist Press.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim defines a "nationalist paper" simply as any paper which would refrain from publishing things which might embarrass him, or publish things which might be of value to him. All I can say is that, as far as we are concerned, if the Press is working against the interests of this country, then, regardless of whether it is Chinese, Indian, Malay or English-speaking, we will proceed against it. It is no use talking in one breath about the freedom of Speech, and then in the next breadth asking lo ban a paper because you do not like it. He therefore takes this line: he has decided - this is not a strategy unknown to us - that he had better cultivate one particular section and he now appears as the champion of the Chinese Press. Then he goes on to say that we are bad because English papers - he did not say so but he implied it - go scot free. That is not true. We will ban any newspaper which is thought to be yellow - the Weekender, published by the Straits Times, a lot of Chinese mosquito papers, Malay mosquito papers, journals. Then, to reinforce his point - as usual, he has no regard for facts - he said that we had banned the Saturday Post. We had never banned the Saturday Post. He said that we had banned the China Press. We had never banned this paper. We had never stopped the China Press from coming here. But he has to appear as the champion of the Chinese Press. Then, after a long defence of the Press, he ends up by suggesting that the Government should ban the Straits Times. Why? Can he give any reason? Unless he says that we should ban a paper which openly and straightforwardly works against the national interest

On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

No, Sir.

The Minister does not give way.

The Member for Hong Lim is not interested in clarification. He is going to say something in this privileged Chamber which he hopes will be printed tomorrow in the newspapers.

I just want to make some quotes, that is all.

Order. I think the Member for Hong Lim must remember that he can start speaking only when I have called him to speak, but he cannot just get up and make a speech. He must remember that. Mr Rajaratnam.

Sir, this is a free debate and he can chip in any time later on. I do not see why he should get up now to clarify things.

He will have plenty of clarifications coming in!

I think all this is getting a bit tiresome. One Member is trying to pose as the champion of the Chinese Press. The others are trying to build a myth as champions of the Press in general, that we have such a vast organisation which every day instructs the papers that the Member for Farrer Park gets only three lines, the Member for Cairnhill, being the leader of the Party, gets four lines, the Member for Hong Lim gets only two lines. Such an implication is not true. All they have got to do is to find out from the Pressmen and editors themselves. We are quite open and clear about what we do. I have called up editors and discussed things with them. In fact, to be quite frank with you, I have indicated to one newspaper that when the subject of education comes up, to beware of the Member for Hong Lim because I am quite convinced that he is going to exploit that from a more or less communal angle, but if the newspaper thinks that that sort of thing is worth publishing, it is up to it. It is up to the papers. If they decide to give the Member for Hong Lim full play, they can do so. To that extent, I think we are quite justified in doing it, because in the past I know various politicians who were Members of the Government and who had approached me and said, "Well, you know, you have been attacking us. This is our point of view. What do you think about it?" And if I decided it was a good point of view, I acceded to their request. If not, I would just carry on. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as far as the newspapers are concerned, I do not think any valid fact has been brought forward to substantiate the myth that the Government controls the Press. 4.45 p.m. Secondly, as regards the suggestion by the Member for Hong Lim that the only way to ensure a freer expression of speech over the radio is to broadcast the proceedings of this Assembly. I do not know whether any of you have read the newspapers today. The last thing that the Government would want to do is, first, to make this Assembly an occasion for broadcasting things which might land Radio Singapore in extensive libel suits, unless, of course, at the same time, we take care to pass laws to indemnify Radio Singapore against possible action. Secondly, I do not think it would serve the purpose. Though it is done in Australia, many other countries have turned it down on the ground that, far from this becoming a debating Chamber, it becomes a tub-thumping arena for an electioneering campaign and for saying downright lies, it is very interesting that the Member for Hong Lim has got interested in this-

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.

On a point of order. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Deputy speaker, the word "lie", I believe, is unparliamentary, and I think

Order. When the Minister said "down-right lies", I think he did not say it in connection with any particular Member of this House, and, therefore, I consider he is in order.

A sensitive bloke he is in this Assembly!

Order.

The third point which was brought up was about the Dewan Bahasa, and the question was asked, what are our plans regarding the Dewan? As a matter of fact, Professor Muljana has been here for just over a month. He has completed his plans, because we did not want to devise our own plans. We suggested that he put forward his plans and, in fact, he completed his report only a few days ago. But I have had no time to read it. He has just one stenographer - this is purely for the purpose of getting the Dewan started. But there will be a larger complement of staff. Therefore, the third question as to who would be his successor, that, of course, is not for me to say, because I am sure that if I did so, that would start another debate from the other side of the House. We hope that we will be able to train somebody who will succeed him when his term is up. The fourth point brought up by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is whether the Government accepts Malay culture as the basis for Malayan culture. It is not a new argument. This argument has been going on for some time, and I would not like to repeat in detail the series of arguments that have been going on for the last two or three months. The Government's position is this. We do not know what is meant when you say Malay culture should be the basis for Malayan culture. I have asked representatives who came to see me, "Does it mean that the Government should accept Malay culture as the basis for Malayan culture?" An essential of culture is religion. And it will be taken to mean as such by other communities. If tomorrow the Government boldly comes out and says, "Yes, we accept Malay culture as the basis for Malayan culture", there will be a lot of misunderstanding. The first question that people will ask is: Does that mean that Islam, which is the basis of Malay culture, must become part of Malayan culture, and that those who do not profess Islam must remain outside the pale of Malayan culture? That is a question to which we must get a definite reply, that is, either you say, "No, that is not what we mean when we say that Malay culture should be the basis for Malayan culture." Or again, culture includes customs; the costumes that you wear, your marriage ceremonies. So will Malay costumes, the Malay marriage ceremony, Malay beliefs, Malay habits, the kind of food they eat - does it mean, when you say Malay culture should be the basis for Malayan culture, that the Government should not recognise anything except these things? Or do you exclude all these from your definition of "Malayan culture"? I read an editorial in the Utusan Melayu which dealt with this point. In fact, I met a Malay delegation which came to see me. The only sound basis which would not create a misunderstanding, because the Government is not prepared, in a multi-racial society, to announce a slogan which is going to create misunderstanding and confusion, is this. We said that the only sensible thing we can do is to accept one thing as a basis for Malayan culture, and that is the Malay language, which has already been so accepted. Language is an essential part of culture. In fact, the Utusan Melayu, in a very interesting editorial, eventually came to the same conclusion - that all that you can press for is to ask the Government to declare that the Malay language be the basis for Malayan culture. If that is the case, we are quite prepared to accept that. But to go beyond that, to make a vague statement that Malay culture should be the basis for Malayan culture and leave it at that, would be dangerous, because it would cause a reaction on the part of the other communities who will say that this Government is going to force Islam on them, and force customs and habits which belong to a different community on them. But if what is really meant is that the Government should recognise the Malay language as the basis for a Malayan culture, there is some sense to it, and this can be accepted by the other communities without any fear or confusion. But beyond that, I do not think the Government is quite prepared to go because we feel that this might result in a grave and serious misunderstanding which might have other consequences.

Mr Kandasamy, may I just remind the House of the Standard of the 30th April, 1959, with the heading: `PAP guns turn on the Straits Times Paper accused: You have misled english-educated Rajaratnam leads the attack again' That is the heading. And in the contents, the Minister for Culture gave the reason why the Straits Times should be banned in those days: `"The Straits Times is heavily committed to defending forces and interests which are part of the colonial structure which is visibly disintegrating before our eyes."'. Earlier he said: `"Freedom of the Press is the freedom of the people of Singapore. Very nice. But what exactly does this mean? Does freedom for the Straits Times mean freedom for the people, for the million and a half people of Singapore? Put very bluntly, it means freedom of expression only for the people who control and run the Straits Times."'. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these same people now control and run the Government. To my knowledge, the Straits Times has never been called up in the past twenty months. But everytime the Chinese Press and other vernacular Press have been hauled up. I understood, that is to say, in one of the Chinese papers dated 21st October this year - the Nanyang Siang Pau with the heading: `Prime Minister condemns Ong Eng Guan. The story behind this, I believe, is very interesting. After the debate the Press were told that the heading should be, `Prime Minister scolds Ong Eng Guan'. When he went to the papers, the editor did not think that this was good for the prestige of the Prime Minister. He changed the word "scolds" to "condemns". Then what happened? They were given a reprimand. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to this Government, there are two types of Press. To us there are two types of Press. We support the Press which supports the nationalist movement. They support the Press which supports the colonial movement. So the Press which supports the nationalist movement, we say freedom of speech. To them there is no freedom of speech. To the Press which supports the colonial movement, we say no freedom of speech. To them there is complete freedom of speech. That is the difference, Mr Deputy Speaker.

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise one or two further points in order to clarify my doubts with regard to the replies given by the Minister for Culture. Apart from his explanation, could he say whether the memorandum submitted by the Permanent Malay Literary Congress to the Minister for Culture sets out in detail the meaning or the conception of Malay culture as the basis of Malayan culture, and how the conceptions could be implemented by the Government? Apart from that, Mr Deputy Speaker, another question from me which the Minister for culture has not replied to is this. On principle, is it the policy of the Minister for Culture - on the whole, all his departments - to recruit part-time employees and the employees who are recruited have in one way or another relations in Radio Singapore? Is this the policy of the Government?

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was impressed by the Member for Kampong Kembangan who referred to the Back-benchers as "small fry". Admittedly we are small fry. But all the same, we represent the poor masses whose number is large. It is better to be like that than be like a big fish, which eats up anything that comes across its way. Mr Deputy Speaker, the characteristic of a big fish is like that of an opportunist. It will swallow anything that comes across its mouth as long as it benefits its own ends. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to touch on matters relating to culture which have been repeatedly mentioned by the Member for Kampong Kembangan, as though he is the sole champion of Malay culture in Singapore. I have had occasion to meet a number of responsible people in the Permanent Malay Literary Congress, including its leader. They have expressed their regrets that these cultural matters have been brought in the Assembly by political opportunists.

Order. I think it is time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The Assembly shall resume again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Resumption of Debate on Question, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $100."

5.31 p.m. Question again proposed.

I would suggest, subject to what hon. Members have to say, that the debate now proceed on the question of Malayan culture. Let us complete Malayan culture and then go back to the other topics if it is convenient to hon. Members. We can then come back to Radio Singapore and Press relations and Dewan Bahasa. Mr Rajah?

Is it a question of great difficulty?

No, it is not. The suggestion I am making is, of course, in order to try to channel the debate on specific subjects and clear those hurdles as we get to them. We will come back to the other points later. So shall we then complete the debate on Malayan culture? Hon. Members indicated assent.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, to continue with my speech, I would like to stress in this Assembly that it is possible that after making my speech, I would be accused of being insincere to the Malay people or to the Muslim religion. I wish this matter to be treated calmly. It is possible too that I might be accused of being a political adventurer. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of Malay culture as the basis of Malayan culture, this is a matter that has long been debated and discussed by experts, whether they be in the Federation of Malaya or in Singapore. Misunderstanding arose. As a result of the misunderstanding, I have had occasion to meet a number of experts, including the head of the Permanent Malay Literary Congress, who told me that he regretted the attitude of certain circles who sought to drag this question of culture through political channels, thereby giving rise to the unhappy consequences that we see today. He and other people in the Permanent Malay Literary Congress are of the opinion that they are the people who are well qualified to deal with this matter, and they have done so through a memorandum which they have submitted to the Minister for Culture in Singapore. The memorandum, I believe, is now receiving careful attention. The Malay cultural experts in Singapore have stressed to me that these matters should rightly be taken up by cultural experts who are really and thoroughly expert in this particular matter, because it is only the cultured people who really know the value of culture and who really do know anything at all about culture. As regards the remarks that Members on the Back benches are but small fry, I would like to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these so-called small fry have never given official replies to the question of culture. What has taken place is that I had spoken on the matter when the Permanent Language and Literary Congress in Singapore was welcoming the arrival of Prof. Slamet Muljana, who is the present head of Dewan Bahasa of Singapore. I said then that, to the best of my knowledge, Government had never refused nor accepted the concept of Malay culture being the basis of a Malayan culture. But the very next day, the newspapers reported to the effect that the Singapore Government had never accepted the concept of Malay culture being the basis of Malayan culture, and my name was quoted in respect of that report. I took the step to write to the papers concerned to clarify the position. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress with all sincerity, that those of us, who are taking up this matter for the purpose of evolving a peaceful society in the interest of our people should not utter anything in our speeches that would give rise to disharmony in matters concerning the various ideologies of the people in Singapore. I am no expert on cultural matters myself. Therefore, I feel it is only proper that the concept of Malay culture being the basis of a Malayan culture should be left to those who know it to deal with it. A memorandum on this concept has been submitted to the Minister for Culture by a body that represents all the organisations which are really interested in this matter of culture. They and they alone are the people who should be dealing with this matter. This has not been taken into consideration by the people whose actions have been merely to cause feelings of disunity. I say it is only the experts alone who really know the true worth of the matter and who can distinguish between precious stones and imitation stones. This is all I have to say in order to bring about better unity and better racial feeling.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in debating the amendment to the Head on the Ministry of Culture, I would like to express my views concerning the part played by the Ministry-

Order. I am not quite certain whether the Member for the Southern Islands is touching on Malayan culture.

Yes.

It is Malayan culture, and Malayan culture alone. 5.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Actually, Mr Speaker, it is my purpose to speak on the subject of bringing about a Malayan culture. The task of evolving it is a difficult one. The Ministry of Culture was formed at the time when this Government took the reins of office. It was expected then that the Minister for Culture had a definite concept or had ideas which were acceptable for them to be carried out. Now the Government has been in power for well over a year, but what we find today is that the efforts of the Ministry of Culture are still vague. A big amount of money is to be allocated to the Ministry for plans which are, of course, very useful to the country, but money is badly needed for the welfare of the people. If such a big amount of money is spent without bringing about beneficial results to the country, then I say that is wrong. Culture is something that should encompass all races in this country. It is a matter that cannot be formulated by any particular individual or by any particular group of people. It cannot be forced upon the people by anybody or by any organisation. It is something that is alive, and it grows by itself only. What we can do is to prevent what is bad from evolving so that it does not become part and parcel of the people living in this country. If this is the only plan to be carried out by the Ministry, then I feel that it is not right that we spend a sum to the tune of over $7 million in order to stamp out what is called yellow culture, about which the Government keeps on crowing. If so much money is to be spent for the purpose of wiping out yellow culture, then I feel that it is money not wisely spent. If we compare the work done by the Ministry of Culture with that of other Ministries, we see that very little work of a cultural nature has been done. There are many things that we are short of. We still need more staff in the Ministry of Education. In view of the shortage of staff in the Ministry of Education, I feel that that sum of over $7 million to be spent by the Ministry of Culture, which has no specific plans to achieve its purpose, is money which could be put to better use by the Ministry of Education. Culture should have its basis in education. Education will enable the people to improve their standard of living and economic conditions. It is difficult really to bring about the evolution of a Malayan culture by the wish of the Government. If I am not wrong, I have read in the papers that it is not possible to bring about Malayan culture to people who are now beyond help, but that the process of evolving it will begin with our children. Therefore, it is my opinion that the money to be allocated to the Ministry of Culture could more properly be allocated to the Ministry of Education. If I am not wrong in my analysis, there are about 600 Division I officers in the Headquarters Division of the Ministry of Culture. Money is very much more needed in the Ministry of Education. There are teachers attached to the Ministry of Education, and these are the people who are really suited for the purpose of giving proper education to the children. The matter that I raise is in the interest of the country. In other words, we should not aim at something that we hope to bring about by force. That is highly unsatisfactory. I do not wish to go into details about the mistakes that have been made. The Members of the Government have no proper culture themselves. Formerly, we saw the Members on the Government side-

Order. The Member for the Southern Islands is now embarking on personalities, and I have been trying to stop that from the very beginning of this debate in the Committee of Supply. There should be no personalities. Further, as the opportunity has presented itself, it appears to me that perhaps the hon. Member is going away from the issue that has been raised, that is, whether Malayan culture should be based on Malay culture. I have mentioned that, as the time is getting short - there are three topics that will have to be discussed, and this Head 47 will have to be disposed of by 6.35 p.m. I just mention that in passing.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention to touch on personalities. I only want to express my views in a sincere manner. If what I said was wrong, then I readily withdraw. But we must first ourselves practise what we wish to carry out so that the people will not be hoodwinked. That is all I wish to say on this matter.

On Malayan culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have spent quite some time on this topic, but I feel that some of the points brought forward by the Government do not really answer the points raised by the Opposition. Sir, I believe that I was the first Member in this Assembly who brought up the question of Malayan culture based on Malay culture. The question I posed then was whether the proposed Malayan culture envisaged by the Government could be based upon Malay culture. Eighteen months have passed, Sir, and yet we have not had a definite reply from the Minister himself. Sir, I am not an expert on Malay culture. I know a few Malay songs, and probably know how to dance the rong-geng and say my prayers five times a day; but I cannot accept the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development when he said that we in this Assembly should not take part in the debate on this issue because we are not experts on Malay culture. Sir, I think the stand taken by the Parliamentary Secretary is completely wrong. We are being asked to vote a sum of over $7 million for the running of the Ministry of Culture, and it is our duty and our responsibility as Members of this Assembly to debate the issue and to get proper answers from the Minister concerned. Sir, culture is a very wide thing. In fact, I do not think that there is any expert amongst the Malay community today in Singapore or even in Malaya who can claim that he is an expert on Malay culture. I would rather suggest, Sir, to the Government that instead of forcing the people of Singapore to accept what I would call a "synthetic" Malayan culture, it would be better that they let the people themselves decide and let the people themselves in their actions and in their way of life evolve a culture which would be acceptable to all parties concerned.

The Minister might wish to say a few words in reply and then we can pass on to another topic. If there is sufficient time, we will come back to Malay culture.

Sir, much time has been spent on this subject. A great deal has been said by both sides of the House as to what is the correct attitude to Malay culture. Certain Members of the Opposition want a straightforward declaration by the Government that it is prepared to adopt Malay culture as the basis for a Malayan culture. The Government stand is that we are not saying yes or no, because we do not know what the term means. We are not sure about the definition of Malay culture, because if once the Government makes a policy, it must carry it out in some way and it must do something to follow it up. The only thing we can say is that we accept Malay as the national language and that we are implementing it. People have been taking contradictory attitudes. On the one hand, the Government is told not to force culture. On the other hand, the demand is made, "Let the Government declare that Malay culture is the basis for Malayan culture." There is a contradiction. We say that culture is something about which Government cannot declare, "This is a Malay culture and that is Malayan culture." Culture is something which the people decide for themselves. All that the Government can do to promote Malayan culture is to create a Malayan consciousness and a Malayan loyalty. Anything that hinders that objective, like the development of racialism, communal outlook, exploitation of communal feelings, can be minimised or stopped by the Government. To that extent, the Government is carrying out a policy to prevent the kind of thing that is happening in Ceylon. I would request all Members of this House - not only from this side but also from the other side of the House - to read a book titled "Emergency, 1958 - The Story of the Ceylon Race Riots". 6.00 p.m. Sir, I think that is one of the most terrible books I have read. It is written by a journalist and he says, in developing his argument, that before the riots came people said things were very nice. The Tamils and Singhalese were getting on well together; everything was harmonious, the people said it could not happen in Ceylon. "That is what we all thought" - I am just quoting, Sir. "After all, we have lived together, Singhalese and Tamils, for so long, sharing our profits and losses." Then he goes on to explain how they fought together to achieve self-government. Yet ten years after that, something went wrong and they had the most terrible episode in Ceylonese history, when Singhalese and Tamils, who were far more akin to one another than the races here, indulged in the most brutal bestialities that can ever be conceived. In fact, he ends up by saying that he wished that not only the Government but also the people had foreseen all this and had done something to prevent its coming about. All that the Government is doing is that though it cannot determine what the future will be, it will at least do what is humanly possible to avert certain foreseen dangers. Some people say that we may not succeed in creating a Malayan culture. For us Malayan culture is anything which would prevent antagonism and conflict between the races. If we can prevent that, then we will have justified our existence. If we fail, then when people turn round and say, "Why did not somebody do anything about it?", at least we can say, "We did our best, and we tried to avert it." So that, in essence, is our attitude towards Malayan culture. So as regards the demand to declare what is Malayan culture, our stand is, we do not know what it means and we Will not embark on making a slogan which might be misunderstood outside and spark off what has happened in Ceylon. In Ceylon during the election one group suddenly decided casually to raise a slogan - they did not know what it meant at that time - and this started the events that ended in the Emergency in 1958. At least, we hope that this Government and the Opposition could at least prevent an emergency here.

Sir, in talking about Radio Singapore and the Press generally and what directions he gave to them, the Minister said, "Yes, of course. If they work against the interests of the country, then I will call them up and tell them what the interests of the country are, and they should toe the line in so far as the interests of the country are concerned." Mr Speaker, Sir, therein lies the difficulty, and because there are these possible difficulties - honest difficulties - sometimes one gets into a difficult situation and does something which normally should not be done in a democratic State. Now, how does one work against the interests of a country? My conception of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a democratic country, is this - I take it that all this is against the background of a democratic government - one talks about working against the interests of the country when one indulges in treason against the State, that is, trying to destroy the State in one way or the other, or sedition against the Government, or trying to upset the Government, or trying to create in a country like Singapore communal troubles or religious troubles. These, as I understand them, are some things which are against the interests of the country. The test, Mr Speaker, Sir, is: does the Government think they are against the interests of the country? And does the Opposition also think they are against the interests of the country? On these matters, Sir, both the Government and the Opposition are agreed there must be no sedition; there must be no treason; there must be no incitement to communal troubles; there must be no incitement to religious troubles. Therefore, we get to the situation where all sections of the public are agreed that those are matters which are against the interests of the country. In a democratic State where we believe in the party system of democracy, each Party has a particular line of policy which it offers to the country at elections, and if that policy is acceptable, it is returned. In the case of the People's Action Party, they were returned on a programme with a 53 per cent vote; 47 per cent went against them. They were returned on certain policies - 53 per cent of the voters voted for them on those policies, and 47 per cent against. If on those policy issues there is a divergence of opinion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am suggesting to the Minister for Culture that that is not working against the interests of the country. Definitely not. Certainly it might be working against the interests of the Party in power. The Opposition's quarrel is on these matters: that the Minister is interfering with Radio Singapore and the freedom of the Press merely in the interests of his own Party. He does not wish his Government to be shown up in a bad light. It is not undemocratic in a democratic State for the Government to be shown up in a bad light. The truth of the matter is this - the P.A.P. Government is oversensitive; it does not like its policies to be shown up in a bad light; and anybody who dares to do that is rapped over the knuckles in no uncertain manner. Mr Speaker, Sir, if it goes to press, one can say it is not a matter for the Assembly to discuss in detail. But when it comes to Radio Singapore, which is being kept alive out of public funds, then it certainly becomes the business of this Assembly to see that its policy is the proper policy. I ask the Minister this in all sincerity: if Radio Singapore, in doing an honest job, holds up a particular Minister in a light which the Minister does not like, or holds up the Government in a light which the Government does not like, what action will the Minister take? Will the Minister take severe action against the Head of Radio Singapore for holding the Government up to contempt, to ridicule? Unless the P.A.P. is prepared to accept the situation, I am suggesting to them, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they are not a democratic government.

It appears to me that possibly the two topics could be taken together - Radio Singapore and Press relations.

Concerning the two objections that the Member for Farrer Park has raised to substantiate his point that there is interference with the Press. First, I think he is being completely inaccurate when he says that newspapers are called up and rapped across the knuckles, and so on. I have been a newspaperman, and I wish the Member has read some of the memoirs of journalists about what happened in Britain during the war. Churchill held press conferences from time to time, even after the war; interviews by Press Relations Officers, whose function it is to put newspapermen in contact with statesmen, and politicians, so that the latter can put over their views to try to persuade the Press to accept or understand the Government's points of view. As regards Radio Singapore, it is true that Radio Singapore will not be allowed to carry on an attack against Ministers. Similarly, it would not be allowed to carry on an attack against the Member for Farrer Park or the Member for Cairnhill. We will be just as strict about it. In fact, can he point out one instance, since the P.A.P. took over, when Radio Singapore had - we could have done it if we had wanted to - attacked any Member of the Opposition? It must have been in the presentation of news because, as you will have seen, Sir, in the days when we had two newspapers here, the same news was presented, but because it had been condensed obviously one paper tended to place emphasis - though factually correct - which displeased one side, whereas the Straits Times presented the same news in a way which flattered the same side. So, therefore, this vague suggestion that the Government is using knuckle-dusters to get the Press to blackout the speeches or the activities of the Opposition is not true. But we certainly mean it when we say that the Government has a right to approach newsmen-I do not mean Communist newspapermen, but I do mean both foreign and local correspondents - have a chit chat with them and say, "Your comments on this were quite wrong. In fact, this is what I think it should be." They may accept it; they may reject it. But certainly, Sir, democratic freedom does not mean that the Government must keep quiet and must not make its views known to newspapermen or people who work in the radio. In the case of the radio, it is a Government department. But certainly it is not suggested that the Minister for Culture should instruct Radio Singapore, for example, to carry on attacks on the speeches of the Minister for Culture made today, any more than I would instruct Radio Singapore to broadcast a commentary attacking the Member for Farrer Park.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding this question of the freedom of the Press, as I have said in this Assembly, there has been no open intimidation by the Government. If it is open intimidation, one can easily pinpoint it. What is more sinister is suggestive intimidation. Sir, the Minister wants some illustrations. Take, for instance, the reporters who have Press cards to attend this Assembly sitting. It has been said outside that if one does not please the Government, if one displeases the Government in the presentation of the news, Press cards are withdrawn.

Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill is trespassing on the preserves of the Speaker, because Press Admission Orders are issued by the Speaker, and cancelled only by the Speaker.

I understand that point, Sir, but the things that are said are like that.

Who says?

It has also happened that Press cards to the Department of Information have been withdrawn. And it has been done to reporters who were not so friendly towards, well, who had displeased the Government. Surely, Sir, we on the Opposition have taken the trouble to ask reporters, "What is wrong with your paper?" "Tch! I say you don't know, man. Tch! Least said soonest mended. I don't want to get into trouble with this Government." That is what is going on! It may not be true, but the fact that Government has at times taken action which is not democratic gives everyone a feeling of fear. It may be unjustified. "Don't play the fool. This Government, tch, watch out! Least said soonest mended."

Sir, I just want to answer the point raised by the Minister for Culture. He has said that no government can stand aside and see that its policies are not given proper presentation. I entirely agree with him, Mr Speaker. But if they think that a newspaper has got hold of the wrong end of the stick, then they are entitled to call the paper up, have a talk with them, and say, "This is the policy. I think you misunderstood it." But the democratic test, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this: after having done that, if the Press still continues not to support the Minister and attacks him on his policy - that is the real testing time - what would the Minister do in such a situation? If he keeps quiet and says, "Well, I will defend your right to criticise me," then he is a democratic Minister. But if he feels hurt, goes into a huff, calls the Press up, and then gives it what he thinks it deserves, then he is not doing the right thing. That is what we are complaining about. Mr Speaker, Sir. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as has been mentioned before, the phrase "against the interest of the State" is quite a loose phrase. For instance, an anti-P.A.P. report can easily be stretched to mean anti-Government, because the P.A.P. happens to be in the Government; and, of course, anti-Government reports can be said to be against the interest of the State, Talking about knuckle-dusters, slapping, arm-twisting, and all that - you do not need all that, Sir, to exert control. I think the Minister for Education especially will bear me out when I say that the modern method of teaching and educating people is not by arm-twisting. Teachers control their classes without having to twist the children's arms. Is it necessary to summon the pressmen before each publication? It is also not necessary to limit the space or time of the reports. Just now the Minister himself admitted calling the pressmen one day and, let us say, paved the way in establishing the atmosphere and the tune in which his report should be made. Sir, a seemingly innocent and harmless but a well calculated tip from the Minister to the Press is quite different and is not comparable with a protest, no matter how vigorous, from the Opposition or the members of the public. I do not think I need go into details about this because it is too obvious and too apparent. It would be an insult, Sir, to the intelligence and the capability of the members of the Press to say that they need detailed suggestions and instructions in each instance. Surely they are capable of carrying out an overall and general instruction on principles that hold good at all times and in all matters. But a seemingly friendly and harmless but well calculated tip from the Minister is sufficient to make the Press understand that they should take heed, or else- These efforts to wipe out Opposition views is clearly seen not only in the Press and radio but also in the bulletins that Government issue at public expense. In other democratic countries, bulletins issued by Government at public expense give both the views of the Government and the Opposition. For instance, here is one from America, when Mr Nixon was in the Government, in which both Mr Kennedy's and Mr Nixon's views are given. While talking about Government bulletins, I wonder if the Hon. the Minister for Culture could tell us whether there is any significance in putting a big chop on a picture showing the Prime Minister shaking hands with Mr Lim Chin Siong. I ask this. Sir, in view of all that has been said in this House by the Member for Cairnhill about the gentleman concerned.

I did not intend to enter into this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, but it strikes me that the whole level of the discussion emanating from the Opposition is so puerile that-

Order. I do not know why at this late hour the Minister for Finance is starting to embark on unparliamentary words. Let us try and keep this debate in as adult a manner as we can.

The impression that I intended to convey, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the argument used by the Opposition would disgrace even any debate conducted by the Fifth Form in our local schools. They tried to put out the idea that the Ministry of Culture is exercising some form of subtle control over the Press. All Governments in any democratic country have relations with the Press, and it is their right to see that their views are fairly represented. Where there has been misreporting, it is right for the Government to make representation to the papers concerned. That right they have conceded, but in no instance have they brought any evidence to show that we have done more than this. In the one case where a Member from the Opposition tried to give some evidence, he was caught on the wrong foot immediately by you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The test of whether the Press is free is a simple one. Has this Government closed down any newspaper in Singapore on the ground that it had criticised Government policy? Can the Opposition name one such instance? So it is obvious that what the Opposition are really worried is that, by and large, the P.A.P. Government has had a good Press. And may I suggest. Mr Speaker, Sir, that the reason could possibly be that we have governed well. The Opposition have also expressed dissatisfaction that their views have not been given sufficient publicity in the Press. Again the explanation could well be that if they had talked more sense, the Press might have printed a lot more than they had done of what the Opposition had said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this particular question of Press freedom, I got the impression that the Opposition were just like blind men who were groping in a dark room for a hen which was not there. So we have this impression of their going through the motion of suggesting that there is something there when it is not there. In fact, the Minister for Finance asked what papers had been closed down. We have closed down a few papers - the Week-Ender, a few mosquito papers. In what way have we tried to intimidate the Press? The Member for Mountbatten talked vaguely of intimidation and so on. She got worked up, If she is really trying to win the favour of the pressmen, she is going about it in the wrong way. I know pressmen. One thing they resent is being told that they are stooges of somebody else. If this is what the Members have been indulging in, I am very sorry if tomorrow they get a poorer showing in the newspapers than what they have got in the past, because, as a newspaperman myself, I know there are ways of winning over newspaper people, and the best way is not to suggest that they are stooges, which is what has been happening here for the last one hour. I am not supposed to look up there, Sir, I am looking at the Opposition! Perhaps I can give a word of advice. If the Opposition want to get a better press, let them say some bright things. Let them say some intelligent things. I am quite sure it would be very difficult even for the Minister for Culture to prevent the Press, which is a competitive one, from publishing it. They have to sell their newspapers. If there is something worth-while, they will publish it. If hon. Members feel that they have been at a disadvantage for the last eighteen months, I do not mind giving them a few hints in private on how to win and influence newspapermen without twisting their arms and without having to insult them. The second thing is this, Sir. The Government has certainly to intervene in certain cases (which I think the Member for Farrer Park has outlined) when they affect the basic structure of our society. If we all accept the democratic system, to that extent, we have the right, in the present situation, to intervene to see that that basic structure which we all accept is not destroyed. If somebody says that it is a transgression - in theory yes, it is a transgression of absolute freedom. If a newspaper indulges in tactics which might incite communal hatred or race riots, we will intervene. In fact, during the last one year, we have had occasion to ring up the Press and ask for their co-operation to keep certain unpleasant stories out of the Press. In fact, we know that a failure to do that-not by the past Government, but some years ago - resulted in the loss of many lives. When you talk of national interest, it is not the interest of the P.A.P. Government because we can, whether we are or are not the Government, get much more space than the Opposition can ever get. But it is not to defend the P.A.P. But when we think that the interest of the country as a whole is involved, then, to that extent, we are quite prepared to modify the absolute freedom, which nobody accepts, not even in Britain. To that extent, Sir, we concede that we do interfere with the Press. But where it means interference with the Press to blackout the Opposition. I think that is false, because a good newspaper man works on a very simple principle-print all the news that is fit to print.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may go back again to Radio Singapore. Although we have been discussing for quite some time certain aspects of Radio Singapore, we have not really touched upon one side of its functions, that is, the Malay programmes. I would suggest to the Minister concerned to listen more carefully to the programmes that are emanating from the Malay section of Radio Singapore. For one thing, the jokes which come out from the Malay section of Radio Singapore are very filthy. Another thing is about certain lectures which are broadcast by the Malay section of Radio Singapore. There was one the other day on family planning. I heard it, and my children heard it. Some of the words used by the Malay section of Radio Singapore, again if I may say so, are filthy. One of the expressions used was "ayer mani", that is, semen. So my little child, who is only four years old, came up to me and asked me what it was. I think this sort of thing should not be broadcast over Radio Singapore, particularly when the radio is available to our little children. I would suggest to the Minister to look more carefully into the Malay programmes of Radio Singapore. The other point I would like to touch upon is freedom of the Press. We have been wasting quite some time on this subject. Not only today but probably at every sitting of this Assembly, this subject has been touched upon. We say that the Press is not free. The Government says that the Press is free. So I think that the test of the whole matter is for the newspapers concerned to say whether they are free or not. I would, therefore, suggest, Sir, to all the Press in Singapore to issue a statement tomorrow and say whether they are free or not. If they will not say anything, that means that they are not free. 6.30 p.m.

Sir, we have only a few minutes left. The Opposition is not accusing the Government of open intimidation. We do not say that we want the Government to tell the Press to give us more publicity, because we do not require that. But then the Government says that we are saying that the reporters are stooges of the Government. We did not say so. We are saying that there has been suggestive intimidation. Well, the Government says one thing and we say another; so the best people to know whether there has been or has not been freedom of the Press is the public, and we leave it to the public.

There is one point perhaps the Minister might want to answer. It is the first point raised by the Member for Geylang Serai.

Yes, Mr Speaker. I do not know about the dirty jokes. It is unfortunate that it should have been mentioned here, because we want to increase the audience. But as regards this particular instance, I am not competent to say whether if you are having family planning lectures, then these lectures - they are not specifically directed at children but at adults. I think the best thing would be for adults to ensure that if they do not want children to listen to this programme, then send them to the pictures or something. As regards the final point which was repeated, I say that it works this way. If there is freedom of the Press, then I suggest quoting the Member for Geylang Serai that if the Press says nothing about it, he should be satisfied.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $7,036,290 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 49 -

Amendment (1)* in the name of the Member for Mountbatten is the item on Personal Secretary (Political), which has been dealt with. It is not being moved, I take it. *Amendment (1) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1. The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib:- +That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 4.

Amendment (2)+ is on page 390, sub-head 4 - Cost of Students attending Muslim College, Klang. Inche Ahmad Jabri.

I am not moving.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 41. "Special Services Agency - $85,620". Could the Minister inform the House what it is intended to use this vote on?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an item of expenditure in connection with the suppression of corruption in the Government service. We all know that corruption has been a scourge in Asian countries. In moving an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance earlier this year, I emphasised the determination of the Government in respect of this problem. This item provided for in the Budget will be used towards the suppression of corruption. It will be used mainly in the collection of information relating to corruption.

Sir, I understand the Minister to mean that this will be payment in respect of the collection of information which will lead to the suppression of corruption. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,467,770 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 50 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (102) of sub-head 1. On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir, "Civil Defence Commissioner - $10", I see that in a previous Head most of the staff come under the Work Brigade. Is it the intention of the Government to abolish this department, or what is the intention? As far as we have been able to gather, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Work Brigade is going to continue throughout the life-time of this present Government. Is it the intention of this Government to keep this token vote going for the next three years or so?

When the Government decided in the early part of the year to establish the Work Brigade for the specific purpose of construction of certain projects and also, to a certain extent, to alleviate the unemployment problem of Singapore, the Government had to consider the problem of setting up the Work Brigade as soon as possible. To form this Work Brigade speedily and without any inordinate expense, it was necessary to divert the energies of a certain existing organisation from its current task so that the proper personnel could be diverted towards the organisation and administration of the Brigade. This token vote of $10 merely shows that although the Singapore Government is not making use of the Civil Defence Department at the present moment, it is still keeping the department available so that if it should prove necessary for Government to make use of the Civil Defence Department in an emergency, then the vote will be available.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this department is a highly trained department, as I understand it. It is a highly specialised department and, after having had all this special training, it is now being used in running some might say a slave camp, but the Government says a labour camp. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that all this trained personnel is being wasted on the Work Brigade, the personnel for whom could quite easily be recruited from outside. All that is required is a sergeant major with a stentorian voice. I am sure the P.A.P. could quite easily find those people without much difficulty. To use these highly trained officers to do that, I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a waste of public funds. That is the first point. The second point is that, while they are doing that job, they are losing the practice which they should be continuously receiving in respect of a highly important civic service.

On the contrary, Sir, it is because the Civil Defence Department personnel are highly trained personnel that they have been diverted to help the Work Brigade in the training and the handling of men and materials. This job really needs somebody trained in the way that they have been trained. If the Government had to get new people in order to handle the Work Brigade, then extra expenditure would have been involved. On top of that, at the present moment, there is no visible need for a Civil Defence Department working towards specific objectives in civil defence. It is only killing two birds with one stone that the Government has diverted the trained personnel of the Civil Defence Corps to the Work Brigade.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $8,363,710 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 53 -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 53 be reduced by $100. Sir, there is a category of people in Singapore who are citizens and yet, for the purposes of the Immigration and Passports Department, are not considered as citizens. I refer, Sir, to the vast number of middle-age people who, although born in Singapore, are unable to produce their birth certificates. Their age group falls in the over 40's, that is to say, born before 1920. They have, of course, their identity cards issued to them 12 years ago, in 1948, indicating that they were born in Singapore. At the time of the issue of their identity cards, there was no inkling of Singapore citizenship. Now, Sir, because they were born in Singapore they did not apply for Singapore citizenship, since by the operation of law, they are automatically recognised as citizens, and by the same process their names were automatically also included in the electoral register. During the last elections they exercised their right to vote. And yet, Sir, when it comes to the issue of passports, they are asked to produce their birth certificates. 6.45 p.m. I understand this requirement is not only confined to the Passport Office, but in some instances, also to the Social Welfare Department when public assistance is sought; and in a few rare cases, the Education Department where some principals insist on the production of the birth certificates of parents to determine their citizenship before free education can be given to their children. The production of identity cards is not enough, although these were issued way back in 1948. In other words, Sir, these unfortunate people are citizens for the purposes of election, because they can and have voted, and yet are not citizens when it comes to demanding their other rights as citizens. If Government is going to take that line, then I think a dangerous situation would arise. If they are not citizens, then they should not vote; but since they have voted, what would be the position of the Members of this Assembly, they having been elected by an electorate which included people who are not citizens? My estimates, Sir, is that there are between 50,000 and 60,000 people in this category. I wonder, Sir, if the Minister could give an assurance that ho would look into this inconsistent application of the law. I think the anomaly can be rectified administratively, and I do not think there is any necessity to amend the law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this problem, in fact, has been occupying the minds of the Government for some time. The Member for Geylang Serai must be aware; that, at the time when the identity cards were issued (in 1948), it was done in a very haphazard manner and no investigation whatsoever was made to ascertain whether the applicant for an identity card was born in Singapore or elsewhere, with the result that a large number of identity card holders who were not born in Singapore were shown as born in Singapore on their identity cards. With the introduction of the automatic registration of electors, the names of these identity card holders who were not born in Singapore were also entered in the electoral register for the purposes of election. I do not think we can accept this position. A wrong should not be perpetuated. In fact, the Government is now looking into this question in relation to the issue of new plastic identity cards in the coming year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these people with identity cards, although they do not have birth certificates to prove their birth, could have registered as citizens of Singapore if they had been told to do so. The fact that it was mentioned that it was not necessary for people who claimed birth in Singapore to be registered made it unnecessary for them to go through the process of registration. If people who were not born in Singapore, say in 1958, could become citizens of Singapore by the mere process of signing their names and taking an oath of loyalty, then surely these people with identity cards are qualified to be citizens too. If they had been told at that time, then they would have become citizens by registration instead of citizens by birth. To say that they have no birth certificates to prove their birth, and therefore they are not citizens and that they have to go through the process of registration again is to declare that they are not citizens of Singapore as yet. If the Government were to take that line, it would mean that these 50,000 to 60,000 people had voted against the law and that they should not have been put on the electoral roll. Who knows whether these 50,000 to 60,000 people might have put the P.A.P. into power?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Cairnhill should, bear the responsibility for all this confusion, because the citizenship laws came into being in his time. It was his Government that advised those who were born in Singapore not to apply for citizenship. I remember that the law had to be amended subsequently to make provision for those who were born in Singapore but could not produce evidence of their birth in Singapore. In fact, at the moment, as a practice, we always advise those who have no evidence of birth whatsoever to apply for Singapore citizenship before they apply for Singapore passports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the only advice the Minister can give, I think it will not be enough, because it will only affect those people who apply for passports. But what about those people who are not applying for passports? Sir, during the colonial days - long before the days of the previous Government - it was easy to obtain a passport if a man said he was born in Singapore but he could not produce a birth certificate. All he needed to do was to get an elderly gentleman or a lady older than he was to go to the Supreme Court to take out a statutory declaration saying that that person was born in Singapore. That statutory declaration was accepted by the Passport Office. Could the Minister assure the House that a similar process will be accepted in respect of these people not only for the issue of passports but also for other requirements - for other requirements of Government departments?

Just now the Member for Geylang Serai said "there is a large number of people who were born in Singapore" - he called them Singapore citizens - "who are unable to produce their birth certificates". It is very simple: if they want to produce proof that they were really born in Singapore, there are many ways of doing so. For example, if they are Christians, they can produce their baptism certificates. Or they could produce the birth certificates of their brothers and sisters who were born round about the time they were born, to prove that their parents were then in Singapore. Or they could have their school leaving certificates to prove that they were in school in Singapore. Or they could have travel documents to prove that their parents came here not long before they were born. All these documents could be produced if these people want to prove that they were barn in Singapore. If they cannot produce them, then it will be very difficult to prove their birth in Singapore. As regards the statutory declarations of the past being accepted, we know so many things did happen in the past; but, Sir, it is not the business of a good government to accept things which are not good.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in other words, the Government will not accept any statutory declaration. In that event, Sir, I think we should amend the law relating to statutory declarations and do away with them completely. As regards the other point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, that if one does not have a birth certificate he can produce his baptism certificate, that is all well and good if he is a Christian. But what about those who are non-Christians? Not all Chinese are Christians and, of course, all Malays are not Christians. What about them? Now, I will give you an instance, Sir, I was born in 1917. I have a birth certificate, but my brother who was born later than I was (in 1920) has no birth certificate. We have searched for it all over the place. We have searched the Registry of Births and Deaths and we cannot trace it. There are other cases. Some of my constituents have come to me. We know that they were born here. There are elderly people who were born here. But the only evidence that they can produce are not the birth certificates of their brothers and sisters, because they themselves have no birth certificates. The only evidence they can produce is a statutory declaration by an elderly gentleman, probably the brother, or the uncle, or the auntie of the person concerned. Now if the Government is not going to accept statutory declarations, then I have nothing more to say.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the citizenship law was promulgated by the last Government during a time when it was very busy - in a haphazard way. The Lim Yew Hock Government passed the citizenship law so that they could get 300,000 more votes for their election.

Order. It seems to me that that is completely irrelevant. An issue has just been raised as to whether or not Government will accept statutory declarations. That is all. Let us stop the irrelevancies.

(In Mandarin): Just now, the Member for Cairnhill said that if a person has an identity card showing that he was born in Singapore, then he could apply for Singapore citizenship. I remember when the citizenship law was put into operation, I applied for Singapore citizenship, and I had to go for registration. Many people registered themselves without saying whether they had any birth certificate. They were told that they need not have to apply. I have two letters from the Assistant Minister concerned relating to this matter. At that time, a person born in Singapore was shown as such on his identity card, although he did not have any birth certificate. But today if he wants to apply for Singapore citizenship, he is allowed to do so. But if he applies for a passport and he is not recognised as a Singapore citizen, then the fault should lie with the Lim Yew Hock Government. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Government has missed the most important point in this debate. If these people had applied for citizenship at that time, they would have been granted citizenship without even the production of a birth certificate - at the time when there was this mass application. But because they had identity cards to show the place of birth as Singapore, they did not apply; they claimed citizenship by birth. And now because the Government insists that before a passport could be issued, the man must produce his birth certificate. But, Sir, in the case of citizens of Singapore who were not born in Singapore, what they have to produce is just a citizenship certificate; it is a simple matter. So why should we make it difficult for people who were born in Singapore but could not produce birth certificates? Could not the identity card that they hold, saying that they were born in Singapore, be accepted as a fact? Even if it could not be accepted as a fact, it could be accepted as a substitute for an application for registration as a Citizen in 1958. There is a residential qualification in the identity card - 1948. There is sufficient residential qualification there. So why not grant them the passport when applied for? After all, there are not so many citizens who will want passports to travel about; the number is limited.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the answer to the Member for Cairnhill is very simple. If, as he said, the applicant has a Singapore identity card showing birth in Singapore and had the residential qualification, the simplest thing for him to do is to apply for citizenship, and then produce the certificate of citizenship to the Passport Office and he will get a Singapore passport. In fact, we have advised those who claim to be born in Singapore but who have no evidence to prove their birth, to apply for citizenship. The statutory declaration by itself cannot be accepted as proof of the man's birth in Singapore. He should produce supporting evidence of the kind mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary just now.

Sir, I think there is a very big difference between citizenship by birth and citizenship by registration. There can be deprivation of citizenship by registration, but there can be no deprivation of citizenship by birth, unless, of course, the man has done an act which is disloyal to the country.

I think that is really the crux of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there are two types of citizen under our laws - citizen by birth and citizen by registration. If he is a citizen by birth, then he has the absolute right to stay on in Singapore. No Minister using his discretion can deprive him of his citizenship. As for myself, I was born in the Federation and I had to apply for citizenship. I am a registered citizen, and if the Minister did not `like my face or if I spoke too much and out of turn, and not in the national interest, he could deprive me of my citizenship. But had I been born in Singapore, Mr Speaker, I could talk as much as I like and the Minister would not be able to do anything about it. That is the point of difference. Therefore, if a man was born in Singapore but unfortunately, because he cannot produce his birth certificate, the Minister is asking him to forego his inalienable rights in order to suit a certain practice in his Immigration Department. The point at issue really is - and I am suggesting it to the Minister - is this man trying to get an advantage for himself which he should not get? The facts of the situation in such cases are that he is not, because when the identity card was issued to him in 1948, nobody at that time had the foresight to see that citizenship was going to come to Singapore. He told the truth. In 99 cases out of 100, Mr Speaker, I am suggesting to the Minister that the people told the truth. Now, in one odd case, maybe he told an untruth, by mistake or deliberately. But even in that deliberate case, he could have - there was no point in his lying - gone and said, "I was not born in Singapore. I have the necessary residential qualifications", and they would have given him a certificate of registration as a citizen. That was the position in those days. Even there, the reason for lying disappears. So the Immigration Department says, "Right. Prove your birth. Produce your birth certificate, and then we will give you a passport. If you cannot produce your birth certificate, then you go and become a citizen." Well, he becomes a registered citizen; he is not a natural-born Singapore citizen. He is a registered citizen. His rights are altered. I do not see why the person who has an inherent inalienable right to citizenship, which gives him complete rights as a citizen and not a 99 per cent right as a Singapore citizen where the Minister could revoke his citizenship, should sell his birthright because it suits the convenience of Ministry officials.

The real crux of the problem which they have all the time been harping on is proof of identity, proof of citizenship, and proof of birth in Singapore. If a person can prove that he was born in Singapore, there need be no talk of citizenship. If he wants to talk of citizenship by registration, then, of course, he has to prove also that he has the qualifications in order that he can register.

Sir, there is another point. Is the Government going to demand production of a birth certificate before a man can even vote? If such a birth certificate is not to be demanded, then the Government is going to accept that the man who produces an identity card at the time of polling is a Singapore citizen. If you accept that, then they therefore say, "We do not accept it for another particular purpose. But for the purpose of voting, yes, you can vote." Unless, of course, the Government, in order to be consistent, says, "Next time bring your birth certificate with you to the polling booth. Otherwise you will have no vote." You either take one line or the other.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the whole question boils down to how does one prove or how can one believe that a person who claims to be born in Singapore was really born in Singapore. Members of this House will remember that there is provision in the citizenship laws that if a person's birth in Singapore is accepted, he will be registered as a Singapore citizen under that relevant section, and his citizenship cannot be revoked.

I think the real difficulty in this matter lies simply in the fact that the Ministry officials in connection with the issue of passports are somewhat lazy - I mean that in all seriousness - and are not going out of their way to help the citizens of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, normally when a person swears a statutory declaration, this is the form the statutory declaration will take: "I was present when this person was born. I saw his birth. He has lived in that house ... "-that is the form of the statutory declaration. Any other declaration is not worth the paper on which it is sworn. Now, if two persons swear a declaration, then it is prima facie evidence that that is correct. Naturally the Ministry officials must investigate. But this is where the difficulty occurs, Mr Speaker - they do not. They just say, "We will not accept any statutory declaration like that." That is not right. After all, when a person uses the due processes of the law, one must assume that he is being honest. One must not assume that he is dishonest. That is what Ministry officials are assuming! Everybody who makes a statutory declaration is a dishonest chap. There is a premium on dishonesty in Singapore, it seems! Why must the Ministry officials assume that? That statutory declaration is made. Naturally they need not give in to the declaration like that, Mr Speaker. I think they are in duty bound on the production of such a statutory declaration on oath to cause investigations to be made. And if, on investigation, they find that the declaration is right, then let the passport be issued. If, on investigation, they find that the declaration is incorrect or a falsehood, then the law must take its course. And the person who makes the false declaration will be prosecuted.

That is what the Member for Farrer Park has asked for. When a person swears a statutory declaration, that is only in support of other evidence which that person must produce. For example, he must also produce pictures of the family, all other documentary evidence that he can bring forth.

May I get this assurance from the Minister? Supposing in the event that we are informed by the Hon. the Minister for Home Affairs that in such a case, the Ministry's advice is, "All right. Go and get yourself registered as a citizen." Now what would be acceptable to the Ministry to make him into a Singapore citizen? I suppose residence. In that case, proof of birth is not necessary. But what we are telling the Minister is: why should you make a man, who honestly has not got a birth certificate but was born in Singapore, as a second-class citizen?

There is no second-class citizen!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister was not here when I made the point that if a person is a registered citizen, then that registration is liable to cancellation by the Minister. That is the point I was making. But if he was born in Singapore, as the Prime Minister was born, then nobody can-

I have a birth certificate!

- then nobody can cancel his citizenship. But I, born in the Federation, am liable to instant cancellation as a citizen if I cause displeasure to the Minister - on public grounds, of course! But that is the point we are making: why should this man, whom nobody can put out of Singapore, place himself in the position of being put out of Singapore by a difficult Minister?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said earlier, there is provision in the citizenship laws whereby if the person's claim of birth in Singapore is accepted, he will be asked to register under a certain section of the citizenship laws, and his citizenship cannot be revoked.

Sir, I am obliged to the Member for Farrer Park for elucidating for me what has proceeded before. But surely he must know that if .a person claims he is born in Singapore, and, apart from swearing a statutory declaration, has sufficient evidence of surrounding circumstances to justify it, and if anybody ever gets him out of Singapore, the Member for Farrer Park knows exactly what can issue - habeas corpus, declaration of rights, and all the rest of it. Why should the State initiate proceedings when they are not necessary? The citizen, if he firmly believes in the truth of his stand, has the whole panoply of the law and the facilities and services of people like the Member for Farrer Park. They would be willing to fight for his rights.

It is quite simple, Sir,If a person is willing to stand up to the Minister for Home Affairs in a situation such as that, where the declaration can be produced on those grounds and where the Minister's officials have not made the declaration, the Minister will have a hard time in court to justify his stand. But there is only one in a thousand who will do that, and the numbers are getting even less from day to day.

You are losing business!

I have no objection to losing this business at this point, for I can well shake a leg and say, "Ta'jadi! Ta'laku!"

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $960,080 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. 7.15 p.m. Head 54 -

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 54 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, with regard to Head 54 - Police. I would like to get complete clarification from the Minister concerned, because this matter has been discussed on a number of occasions in the past. After a lapse of 18 months, the time has come for me to enquire what is the present position of the police force as a whole. According to the Police Report for 1959 - I do not know the position for 1960 - the members of the Police Force consist of the following: Malays 22 per cent; Chinese section 19 per cent, and some others. During the past few days, the Prime Minister had said that there are proposals to give an opportunity to the Malays in the police force, one of which is a cadet scheme. I should like to be told the percentage of the personnel mentioned. Mr Speaker, compared with the figures I have just quoted, according to the report, of the regular officers, only 8 per cent comprises the Malay community, and 44 per cent consists of Chinese, while 48 per cent comprises others. As regards the regular officers - the higher echelons - a specific qualification is required. But what I am sorry to note is the position with regard to the regular inspectors. In Singapore the Malay community represents 11 per cent; the Chinese represent 50 per cent - almost half - and the others represent 39 per cent. Mr Speaker, in order to have a balance in the administration of the police force, I wholly support the principle that new recruits should be engaged from non-Malays, especially the Chinese, because in Singapore the majority consists of the Chinese population. But, Mr Speaker, I would like to explain that the proposal as mentioned by the Prime Minister has not been implemented in full. I fear that the reason for this is the lack of encouragement to people who should deserve to hold such posts. The police, as an instrument of the State, has to maintain security not only against Communist subversion but also against gangsterism and other crimes. So I submit, in my opinion, that there are members of the police force who are dissatisfied with the question of promotion. This will no doubt result in the lack of confidence in the police force as a whole, and they will not be able to discharge their duties, because there is no understanding between one another, and the efficiency of the services will be reduced somewhat. I would like a reply from the Minister concerned on the several points I have put forward just now. Apart from that, I would also like to get clarification from the Minister concerned whether or not Darjah VII qualification is accepted for the police recruits this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem posed by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not new. Nor is this problem caused by the present Government. We inherited a police force with all its problems already in existence. The higher proportion of gazetted officers were non-Malays and the greater proportion of the rank and file were Malays. But surely the Member for Kampong Kembangan should realise that this was the result caused by the system of education in the past where the Malays, as a whole, had not been given the opportunity to obtain higher education. What the Prime Minister mentioned a few days ago was the implementation of the Commissioner cadet scheme, whereby annually a number of suitable candidates from the rank and file are selected for training to prepare them for the School Certificate examination, which is the minimum qualification required for appointment as inspectors. They are given not more than five years to prepare for the School Certificate examination, and if they pass, they will be considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector. This scheme has been carried on during the present Government. In 1959, five Commissioner cadets were selected and sent for study. In fact, in 1959, we decided that in future this Commissioner cadet scheme should only be confined to Malays. As for the qualification for entry into the police force, I wish to remind the Member for Kampong Kembangan that the qualification for entry into the police force was fixed in 1951. If the Member for Kampong Kembangan thinks that this qualification is too high, then I might inform him that during the last Government, when his colleague was a member of the Cabinet, he had not done anything to change the qualification. We have, in fact, considered this problem of entry qualification into the police force for Malays early this year. A decision has been made to change the qualification from two years in the Sultan Idris Training College to Form 3 Malay, to be in line with the English qualification. This will be implemented in the coming year. We have also under consideration at the same time the introduction of a Force Entrance examination for those Malay candidates who have no opportunity to study in Form 3 Malay class. The Member for Kampong Kembangan must be aware that until the standard of education of the Malays has been raised to the required standard, the proportion of Malay gazetted officers, cannot increase to an appreciable extent. What we can do is to offer those who are already in the force scholarships under the Commissioner cadet scheme to advance themselves, so that they could obtain higher qualification for promotion to inspector rank. 7.30 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am not surprised or shocked by the reply given by the Minister for Home Affairs. What I was directing at was that it is a fact that the Member for Geylang Serai was in the past Government. Whether he discharged his duties or not that was his responsibility. But today it is my duty to point out that at that time, the police was under the charge of the Chief Secretary. This post was held by an expatriate officer. However, Mr Speaker, at the moment, I wish to explain that the police is now under the control of an elected people's representative, it is the Minister who runs the police force. Why is it that only five officers are required annually for the Commissioner cadet scheme? Cannot the number be increased twofold or three-fold? The vote could be increased if the Minister thinks fit, so that such opportunities could be afforded to serving officers who have no opportunity to gain promotion to the rank of Inspector. 7.32 p.m.

Mr Kandasamy, I am very sorry to hear it explained that the qualifications of the Malay members in the police force are low. But when the People's Action Party Government were returned in the elections, they declared that Malay was to be the national language. Are there no other means whereby the Malay language could be accepted as a qualification for those who had no opportunity during the colonial regime to gain promotion? As I have said earlier, the Minister was elected by the people. He himself came from the people. We should explore all avenues to increase the number of officers for the Commissioner cadet scheme. I am quite sure that this is not beyond the means of the Minister. The expenditure involved is not great, and it will receive the support of all parties concerned.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, I have been trying to show to the Member for Kampong Kembangan just now the difference between the present Government and the past colonial Government. The colonial Government had in the past completely ignored the interests of the Malays. They had never paid any attention to Malay education or to improving their status. The present Government has set up, for the first time, a Malay secondary school, so that in time to come those who graduate from this school will be able to compete equally with those who pass the School Certificate Examination or the Senior Middle III Chinese Examination. We have offered free education to all Malays in the secondary school and the University. These are the concrete steps that the present Government has taken towards raising the general level of education of the Malays. In addition to this, in so far as the police force is concerned, we have this Commissioner cadet scheme the purpose of which is to increase the number of Malay officers in the force eligible for promotion to the Inspectorate. It is not a question why the number of Commissioner cadets cannot be increased from 5 to 10. In fact, we can send about 10 officers annually for training, and the fact that only five were sent in 1959 was because we could not find suitable candidates. The Member for Kampong Kembangan must realise that not everybody can study, or has the aptitude to study, especially those who have already reached the age of 40 and above. I can assure the Member for Kampong Kembangan that all promising Malay officers will be given a chance to proceed in their studies.

(In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, The sum of $23,517,450 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 56 - The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Mrs Seow Peck Leng:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1.

Tun Lim. I think we have finished with item (3) of sub-head 1?

Yes, the principle has been debated.

The Member is not moving?

The principle has been debated. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr A. P. Rajah:- That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (5) of sub-head 1.

Mr Rajah?

I am not moving, Mr Kandasamy.

Mr Kandasamy. I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (15) of sub-head 1. Sir, could the Minister for Education please clarify the main duties of these 61 Inspectors of Schools; the number of vacant posts still unfilled; and, lastly, the number of heads of schools and teachers who have been asked to act in these posts?

Mr Kandasamy, in reply to the Member for Tanglin on the duties of inspectors, it is well known that the primary function of Inspectors of Schools would be to call at schools regularly, to advise on their organisation and management, to see that they are properly administered, that teachers give adequate instruction; in fact, a rather multifarious set of duties. Unfortunately, it has been assumed that the Inspectors act as watchdogs of the Ministry. I think it is a most unfortunate impression which I have tried my best to correct, because the function of the Inspectors should be that of giving advice and assistance not only to the principals of schools but to teachers who may have problems which they face in a particular set of conditions. Perhaps teachers in a particular school have not yet solved the problems which have already been successfully resolved elsewhere. As regards the number of vacancies, it will be necessary to go back to the previous Budget in which a request for 20 additional posts were called for, because it was felt that with the tremendous expansion in schools, adequate inspection had not been carried out by the officers of the Ministry. As it always takes some time to get people appointed, we had to adopt the device of seconding senior principals of schools to the Ministry to officiate and assist the Inspectors of Schools, to attend to complaints and so on. In March this year, a circular was issued inviting applications from all senior teachers and principals for appointment as substantive holders of the post. It has taken some time to process these applications. I understand the applications were forwarded to the Public Service Commission in June and July this year. It depends on when the Public Service Commission would be able to interview and to make the necessary appointments. I am afraid I did not get the third question raised by the Member for Tanglin. I would appreciate it if he would repeat it again. 7.45 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the third question is this. What is the number of heads of schools and teachers who have been asked to act in these posts?

I think the answer to that would be under 20.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad indeed to hear from the Minister that the role of Inspectors of Schools should be a constructive one. When they visit the schools, their main purpose should be to give the maximum assistance to them and to the principals. Unfortunately, Sir, in the implementation of that fine policy, I regret to say that mistakes have been made and they have created a very unhappy impression in the minds of heads of schools and teachers. I think if the Minister, after having stated what the duties of Inspectors of Schools should be, could brief the Inspectorate again, it would go a long way to improve the morale of heads of schools and teachers and restore good relations. One of the functions which the Minister has just referred to in passing, but which I understand has become the main function, is the investigation of complaints sent in by writers of anonymous letters. I understand, Sir, that these complaints have to be investigated within 48 hours from the moment they are handed over to the Inspectors of Schools. Sir, these anonymous letters belong to the category of what might be called "yellow culture", and if they are not put into the wastepaper basket, then they should really be sent to the Minister for Home Affairs for investigation; but for action to be taken on the complaint of the writer of an anonymous letter who may have malicious motives, I think that creates a bad impression among heads of schools and teachers. In one instance, an Inspector came along and said, "I am sorry. I have been sent here to investigate an allegation made in a letter sent anonymously to the Ministry." The principal naturally said, "If it is an anonymous letter, why should you be bothered to come here? That letter should be put in the wastepaper basket or it should be forwarded to the head of the school for his investigation." But for an Inspector to come along and investigate straightaway, the assumption is that the head and teachers of the school are guilty, and he therefore comes in the role of an Inspector from the C.I.D. to investigate. I am sorry to say that that was not an isolated case. In fact, I understand that a great deal of the time of the Inspectors of Schools is spent in going round from school to school to investigate complaints sent in by anonymous writers. Sir, if this practice is encouraged, there will be no end of anonymous letters, and instead of the Inspectors of Schools spending their time to assist schools to attain a higher standard of efficiency, they will be doing this nasty work which I am sure they themselves do not enjoy doing. Therefore, Sir, I am quite happy that the Minister has made a statement here to clear the air, because I was most unhappy when I heard these complaints. These complaints were not founded on fact. I checked on them. I hope, Sir, there will be a new beginning. In fact, I was surprised when I compared the approach of some Inspectors of Schools with that of some Inspectors of Police. The latter adopted a very constructive approach. They would come along to the heads of schools and say, "We believe that you have some problem of secret society gangsters trying to gain influence over some of your students and we want to be of help. Whenever you are in trouble, please give us a ring." That sort of approach will help to build up morale. I hope, Sir, that it be made known from now onwards that if complaints are made by anonymous writers, they will be sent to the Minister for Home Affairs to be treated as "yellow culture" for investigation or thrown into the wastepaper basket. Sir, if the complaints are justified and if the heads of schools are reliable people, the complainants can go straight to the heads of schools. I am sure that the heads of schools will respect the trust that the parents have in them and will treat the matter as highly confidential. It grieved my heart to notice that investigations were carried out by Inspectors of Schools based on allegations sent in by anonymous writers. Sir, I am afraid that the attitude taken by the Ministry of Education has also impaired relations between the Ministry and the schools. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of what is happening, as these things naturally do not easily reach his ears. The heads of schools are treated as if their time is not precious. Sir, many of them are highly paid and instead of their wasting time going to the Ministry just to take delivery of some documents, or some cheques of small denominations, I think this work could be assigned to the school clerk. Time and again, letters are sent from the Ministry addressed to heads of aided and Government schools with the words "Please call, and take delivery of ...". One head said, "I am no longer the head of the school; I am a peon." Sir, in my case, I took the risk - knowing that the Minister would understand - of refusing to go. I simply sent a letter saying, "I hereby authorise so and so to take delivery." Because my time could be better spent in the office on other important matters than to go and queue up to take delivery of something which could be undertaken by my chief clerk. I took the risk, Sir. Of course, according to Government procedure, they could still insist and say, "We want the principal to attend because the instruction is to him." But I know the Minister has got more common sense than to misunderstand my action. Sir, another circular went round with this instruction, "No principal of a school [that means including Raffles Institution] should leave the premises without permission from one of four people in the Ministry. But any teacher can leave the school premises with the permission of the head." Sir, just think, if a principal is treated like that, it means that he is no longer a dependable man. If he is a trusted man, surely when he leaves the school premises, he must be on school duty. But he has to ask for permission. He is then no longer a trusted head. He is even put in a position inferior to that of a school teacher, because the latter can just ask for permission from his head, but the head must ask for permission from one of four Ministry officials. Sir, another thing is this. Maybe this has not reached the ears of the Minister. According to some instructions given, no teacher and no head of a school can leave the State of Singapore without the permission of the Ministry. So whenever a teacher wants to leave Singapore, we have to send a letter requesting permission. In the past, the head could give permission to the teacher because he would know whether he would need to have him on a certain day. So one teacher said, "I want to visit Johore with a friend-

(In Malay): On a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I am not mistaken, we are now on item (15). I cannot see how the Member for Tanglin can bring in a matter concerning heads and teachers of schools.

It is not a point of order. Mr Thio.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I therefore wrote to the Ministry. Naturally that letter would go to the Inspectorate [Interruption]. I should ask for clarification because I would not take the responsibility of telling the teacher why he could not go out of Singapore to Johore Bahru without written permission. Because if I were to give that permission, that would be ultra vires. I had no power to do that since there had been a previous circular saying that permission must be obtained. Sir, that request for clarification was sent in seven months ago and no reply has been received. The teacher concerned came to me and I said, "To be on the safe side, you had better apply to me in writing and I will forward it to the Ministry." Sir, these are pettifogging details which are very unfortunate, but they add to the accumulative effect giving the impression that heads and teachers of schools are no longer trusted people and are assumed to be potentially guilty persons who must therefore be treated as such and who must be given very detailed instructions which they must observe. Sir, two weeks ago, a seven-or nine-page circular went round followed by another one containing a few pages on tuckshop management. It was dated 28th November, 1960, when the schools were already closed. Principals of both Government and aided schools were asked to take steps so that the regulations would become effective from 1st January, 1961. Sir, after working a six-day week, are not heads and teachers of schools entitled to a vacation? I am afraid, Sir, I am not enjoying a vacation because practically every day I am on duty. But most people would expect a vacation. And yet here come& along a circular expecting orders to be carried out during the holidays. That is one point. Another point is this. Column : 575

Order. And it being 8 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main Estimates, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Mr S. Rajaratnam]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.