Hansard, 1960-12-14

2.30 p.m.

"to provide for the grant of leases in respect of agricultural land and for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Chan Sun Wing); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting in January 1961, and to be printed.

"to amend the Control of Rent Ordinance (Chapter 242 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr Chan Sun Wing); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting in January 1961, and to be printed. 2.33 p.m.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. Resumption of debate on Question (13th December, 1960), "That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (15) of sub-head 1."-[Mr Thio Chan Bee].

2.34 p.m. MAIN ESTIMATES, 1961 (Cont.) Head 56 - Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday just before the House adjourned, we were discussing the duties of Inspectors of Schools. The Minister, in his reply, stated that the primary role of Inspectors of Schools was to inspect schools in order to advise and assist them. I was very glad to be able to agree wholeheartedly with him on that. Unfortunately, Sir, in the carrying out of the policy and in the working out of the details, things have gone amiss. I drew his attention to one main function that has been added on, that is, to investigate into complaints sent in by writers of anonymous letters. I felt, Sir, that the procedure was wrong, that the anonymous letters should have been put into the wastepaper basket or sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for further investigation. Or if any action was needed, such letters should have been sent to the heads of schools in order not to give the impression that the Ministry assumes, on the basis of these complaints, that the heads and the teachers have to prove their innocence. Sir, just after the school closed for the vacation, a 13-page circular was sent out-

Thirteen - or was it 20?

The first circular was 13 pages. There was an additional second circular. Principals of all Government and aided schools were asked to attend to the list of instructions so that they could become effective from 1st January, 1961. Sir, perhaps the people in the Ministry do not realise that even heads of schools are human beings, and if it is a school vacation after a six-day week, surely they are entitled to some vacation, although we all know that in most cases, heads of schools do not have much rest even during vacation, because they have to clear up arrears of work and prepare for the coming term. Sir, this circular illustrates the widening gulf that is now taking place, separating the Ministry officials from the principals and the teachers in the various schools. Certain relationships are developing which are not desirable. Those in the Ministry somehow act as if they belong to the ruling class, and those in the schools feel that they belong to the subject working class. I would like to read out a few extracts to illustrate my point. `School Tuck-shop Committee Every Government and aided school which has a tuck-shop shall set up a school tuck-shop committee comprising the following:- Principal of school, Chairman; a representative of the teachers of the school; a representative of the hawkers of the school; an Inspector of Schools from the Ministry of Education; a representative of students for a secondary or a full school; and a representative of either old boys or parents or pupils for a primary school. The School Tuck-shop Committee shall meet at least twice a year. Other meetings should however be held as and where necessary.'

Order. I am just wondering whether this is not a matter of general policy of the Ministry which ought to be debated when we come to the last amendment. So far the item pinpointed is the item in connection with Inspectors of Schools, and they, I take it, perform duties laid down by the Ministry. If it is part of their duty merely to send a notice of this nature to headmasters, then I suppose they are just carrying out the policy of the Ministry. So that perhaps we are getting away from the motion before the House, and that is, an amendment in connection with Inspectors of Schools only.

Sir, my point here is that if Inspectors of Schools have to be involved in these duties, they will not be able to carry out their duties as Inspectors of Schools. It is not in connection with their duties as Inspectors of Schools in this particular case-

Order. In that event, I suppose the hon. Member has made his point. But if he goes into detail about what a headmaster has to do about tuckshops, then I think perhaps he is going a little further and dealing with the policy of the Ministry in connection with tuckshops.

Sir, I would like to prove here that in the procedure adopted by Inspectors of Schools towards teachers and principals, their approach is wrong. It is pertinent to the duties of Inspectors of Schools, not the policy of the Ministry, I think, Sir.

Order. Is the Member then alleging that the contents of that circular in regard to tuckshops were prepared by the Inspectors of Schools, as part of their duties, and that the contents of the circular have not had the general approval of the Ministry, and, therefore, do not represent the policy of the Ministry? Is that the allegation?

I do not think that the Minister is aware that the approach and all the instructions are going against the Ministerial policy, and that if they were carried out, then the Inspectors of Schools could not carry out their proper duties as Inspectors of Schools if they become inspectors of tuckshops.

Order. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assist us on this point; whether the contents of this circular about tuckshops represent Ministerial policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the alleged circular, I am glad the Member for Tanglin has since corrected his statement. I think last evening he said it was a 20-page circular. This afternoon he has corrected his statement and said that it was a 13-page circular. This circular was issued with my approval. In fact, soon after we came into office, it was important-

Order. That is exactly what I wish to know. I think it is now quite clear that that is the general policy of the Government in the Ministry of Education. Therefore, I think, in fairness to the other Members who have in fact given notice of amendments, this matter of the tuckshop ought to be discussed when we come to the final amendment. It is, of course, a question of time available, and I am trying to be fair to the other Members who have given notices of amendments.

Sir, then I will proceed to the other answers given by the Minister. He says applicants for the 20 posts are available but it takes time to get them approved. We have noticed that there seems to be more red-tape developing in the Ministry, and it is more difficult to get approval for appointments of teachers and clerks than previously. I do not know where the fault is, because the Minister himself now complains that he is facing the same difficulty -that there is difficulty in getting approval of appointments to the posts of Inspectors of Schools. 2.45 p.m. Sir, therefore, he had to resort to the appointment of heads of schools as acting Inspectors of Schools. Sir, the result of that has been that heads of schools have been pulled out of their schools to perform duties in the Ministry as Inspectors of Schools, to the neglect of their own duties in the schools. No doubt, senior assistants were appointed in the schools to carry out the functions of the heads, but since the senior assistants are not given any responsibility allowance, one cannot expect them to carry out all their responsibilities fully, because if anything goes wrong they have to take the blame. So usually when it comes to important issues, they will wait for the head, who is now working in the Ministry, to come along and carry the baby himself. Also, Sir, in the matter of pay, if a major in an army is asked to do the duty of a colonel, he is given an acting allowance. But if he is made to do that duty for months, Sir, surely something must be done to speed up things and reduce the red tape in the Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, arising out of what the Minister said yesterday, if I understood him aright, he said that applications to fill up the vacancies in these posts were sent to the P.S.C. in June and July this year. If that is correct, it is now nearly six months since the applications were sent. It disclosed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in so far as staffing is concerned in the Education Ministry.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Tanglin said something regarding the matter of principals. We know that the Member for Tanglin has always been a principal. What he has said is for the benefit of principals. He does not pay attention to and has no regard for the interests of the parents, students and-

I do not know how those preliminary remarks have any relevance at all to the question raised by the Member for Tanglin. Let us come to the point of Inspectors of Schools.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as regards the Inspectors of Schools, we know that in the past, the relevant department was in the hands of the old officials. It was not taken proper care of by the Government. After our new Government came into office, we have had to make some adjustments. We had to transfer some people to the Inspectorate. When these Inspectors go out to inspect the schools, of course, this will directly affect the interests of the principals. Those principals who in the past had been irresponsible and corrupted, of course, would not like this. They wanted to carry on their old attitude under the old Government. Of course, we do not say that all the principals are like this. There are also many responsible principals. When our school inspectors go to visit the schools, they gather many valuable views from the parents and the students. Since the Government took office, we have established a Complaints Branch, and under its direction we have dealt with many cases of complaints. Some of the complaints were signed and some were not. Of those that were unsigned, we cannot, of course, say that they had all been fabricated. Of these unsigned complaints, at least more than 50 per cent of them were true. Because it was a rule that when there were complaints the complainants must go through the principals, it was therefore difficult for them to go direct to the Ministry of Education to make their complaints. We handed these over to the Inspectors to investigate. It is but right and proper because the job of the Inspectors is to investigate the relevant matters and to see that the schools are properly carried on. I have some examples here. Last year, there were three primary school principals who pocketed money from the sale of books and building funds. They were properly dealt with after being called up by the Inspectors. Another primary school principal had, under the old Government, fabricated a diploma to the effect that he was a University graduate. So after due investigation, he was also properly dealt with. Another example was of a primary school principal who signed the form of a teacher saying that this particular teacher was properly qualified, when it was not so. This case was investigated by an Inspector and the teacher was also properly dealt with. Another case was this. A middle school principal appointed his own relative to an important post in his school and also to control the management of the school. Without these investigations by Inspectors, how could we have found out all these anomalies in the schools? The Member for Tanglin must know that we must accept the criticisms of parents, students and the public. If the principals have done no wrong, then, of course, they will not incur any criticism from anybody. We know of a Chinese saying which says, "True gold will not dread fire." So if principals carry out their functions properly, they will have no fear at all. I am only mentioning a few examples here. I believe most principals are very responsible people and are seriously carrying out their jobs. I think only a few of them have had complaints made against them by the people because they had already been corrupted under the old Government. But then the Government in those days had not carried out their responsibility of investigating all these cases. Since the new Government took office, it has started on a new line. Of course, there are many people who do not feel satisfied. I think all the Inspectors have properly carried out their responsibilities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education seems to have misunderstood my argument in that he thought that I was firstly criticizing the appointments of Inspectors of Schools. Sir, I have said that I agree completely with the Minister regarding the primary role of Inspectors of Schools. But what the Parliamentary Secretary has said has now confirmed that although the Minister considers the primary role of Inspectors of Schools is to inspect and advise and assist, it has now become their primary role to inspect and seek evidence to incriminate and to punish. Sir, rarely have I heard of Inspectors of Schools nowadays coming with this question, "Have you got any complaints? Is there anything where we can help?" Sir, that is the primary role of Inspectors of Schools, or should be. I hope you will pardon me, Sir, for having to explain in answer to what I have been accused of, that I have always been a principal. Sir, for nearly 31 years I was a teacher. I began my teaching profession as a teacher in a primary school.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Tanglin inquired as to the duties of Inspectors of Schools in the Ministry of Education, I did say that the primary function of Inspectors would be to advise on organisation and administration of schools; to ensure that syllabuses are being complied with, also, of course, when it comes to a teacher crossing the bar, they will drop in to see whether he should be recommended to cross the bar, and so forth. But I did add that there were other multifarious duties, not, of course, being able to anticipate what the Member for Tanglin would want to proceed thereafter. But the multifarious duties would include investigation where complaints have been lodged. Unfortunately, the Member for Tanglin keeps insisting as if the only function of the Ministry of Education or even the Inspectorate is just in pursuance of complaints. It is part and parcel of a change of government that there would be a reorganisation, not only in the Ministry of Education, but in other Ministries. Therefore, letters of complaints are addressed to the Ministry, and sometimes personally to the Minister himself. Well, anyone who has not done any wrong should not be afraid of any complaint, whether it is anonymous or a signed letter of complaint, because it can be safely assumed that if action is to be taken, the party who is aggrieved would be given a chance to say something for himself, and I can put it to the Member for Tanglin, Sir, to provide any evidence that harsh treatment had been meted out to any particular teacher or principal. In fact, I can truthfully say, Sir, that after investigations have been made, I do not remember a single instance in which I have rejected the professional advice that has been offered by the Inspectors of Schools themselves.

3.00 p.m. If it is a complaint of a nature which affects a principal of a school, I invite him to have a chat to discuss the mater. At first, some principals took it as if it was going to be a black mark against them, and they hurriedly tendered their resignations. I think the Member for Tanglin will be able to find out that some of them have since regretted their move or have withdrawn their resignations. Because all that was required was to say to them, "Look here, there is now a complete change in government. It is the people's Government." The Minister is not sitting in an office segregated from the people. He is an Assemblyman who has to face the public at least once a week when he goes down to his constituency - like last night I did not come back to my home till midnight in order to meet the people in my constituency to try and solve their problems as an Assemblyman. We listen to their problems and try to do what we can, not just on educational matters but on matters embracing citizenship and on other matters which for some reason or other they feel they have to see their Assemblyman. Of course, we get verbal complaints, "So and so is a wicked man. So and so is a wicked teacher." But I am never prepared to work on verbal complaints. If they have a complaint, they are expected to put it down in writing. These complaints can be put into two categories. When complaints are received by me, I send them to the Chief Inspector of Schools with this comment, "Please investigate, or please deal." Sir, I must say that the Member for Tanglin has been somewhat erratic in trying to infer as if the Inspectors of Schools in the Ministry of Education are such wicked people. After all, most of them, including those who have been seconded to the Ministry, have been teachers themselves with as many years of experience as the Member for Tanglin. They have also been principals. I am confident that when these officials proceed with the investigations they know exactly how to talk to the principal or to the teacher, and how to conduct the investigations to the best of their ability. Therefore, I must say that if the Member for Tanglin is able to give me evidence and tell me exactly which particular official has been lacking in courtesy or in finesse, I will be the first to take it up with the official concerned, not to punish him but to advise him that times have changed and that they have got to go to the schools to find out for themselves whether the complaints stated are true and, if so, what they can suggest should be done in the circumstances. Last evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Tanglin suggested that he heard it said that complaints had to be investigated within 48 hours. I must say that this statement is completely untrue. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, has already explained how, as a result of complaints, we have been able to follow up to put right serious discrepancies: for example, unauthorised collections, false certificates, and so forth. Some complaints were in respect of reports that principals or teachers were doing additional work, perhaps as pianists in night clubs. Now there is a ruling in the Ministry that the principals or teachers concerned could apply for permission to undertake additional employment not exceeding six hours per week, and the Ministry of Education very rarely turn down such applications. But if the teachers concerned, knowing of the existence of such a circular, do not ask for permission, then I think they are not being fair. If a teacher, who should be conscientious and fair to his students, accepts employment as a pianist in a night club, he has got to be told, "Are you going to be fair to the children at school?" If he thinks that he is a very good pianist in a night club, then perhaps he should be a full-time performer and withdraw from the teaching service. There are other teachers who give private tuition on the sly. Here again, we do not object to a teacher wanting to give private tuition within limits, but his first duty is to the school and to the Ministry which give him a good living wage. Of course, we also have complaints about the immoral conduct of certain teachers which extends even to the islands. It is not for me to investigate into the private life of an individual teacher, but it interests me, as a Minister, if his moral conduct affects his teaching or if he is guilty of such conduct as to be a danger to the morals of young children. Only then should an investigation be carried out and adequate justice meted out. As a result of the courses which were conducted in the Political Study Centre for principals of schools and in my discussions with them, I was a little surprised that principals were not quite aware of their rights and responsibilities. In fact, some principals appear' not to have any sense of discretion. That was a very unfortunate impression I gained and, therefore, I decided that our Inspectors should get to know more about the principals of schools. So during the third term of this year, that is to say, during the last few months, I gave instructions that Inspectors of Schools should meet principals in their various groups once a term. This has already taken place, not due to the Member for Tanglin taking up the case on behalf of the principals, but because this is a matter which has already exercised the minds of the Inspectorate. I read the minutes of these meetings and I think the tone has considerably improved vis-a-vis the principals and the inspectors. Talking on this subject of principals, you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Tanglin asserted that he very bravely defied certain requests of the Ministry to call there to collect documents and cheques. This is exactly a case where if a principal of a school is that fearful he should not be a principal. After all, a principal is paid a charge and responsibility allowance. Far from the principal becoming a peon and a messenger boy collecting documents and cheques from the Ministry, what does the Member for Tanglin expect the Ministry to do? Does he expect the Ministry to write to the messenger boy of the Anglo-Chinese School - for example - to come to collect certificates, cheques, and so forth? Naturally, the letter must be addressed from either the Director of Education or the Accountant of the Ministry to the principal, who is the officer responsible for the administration of his school, and it is up to him to decide. If it were a case of, say, examinations where secrecy is important, then the principal himself should call at the Ministry for the question papers to be taken by him personally - that is, if the memorandum does suggest that the principal should personally call at the Ministry. But if stereotyped letters are sent to him saying, "Please call at the Finance Section with this chit to collect a cheque in respect of this or that", or, "Would you please call at the Establishment Section when you next visit the Ministry?" - mind the word "please"; we are being very courteous - or, "Whenever you call at this Ministry, would you please see the Office Superintendent and collect certificates, etc.?", therefore whether he is to be a peon or a principal depends upon himself. So the Member for Tanglin has not been a very brave man when he said that he defied the Ministry of Education circular and sent somebody else, because most principals have done that. The Member for Tanglin brought up the subject of asking for permission to leave the State. Surely, that is normal procedure.

Johore Bahru.

I myself go to Johore Bahru for satay. I do not ask permission for that. Surely this is a question of discretion on the part of an individual. It is not a question of principle. If a person chooses to be so literal about a circular or an instruction, I am sorry for him. Coming to the question of the bulky circular for tuckshops - 20 pages reduced to 13 pages within 24 hours - this is another case where Members of the Opposition always overstate their case and then decide to check up and get cold feet, resulting in the circular shrinking to 13 pages. This circular is actually six pages of contents and six pages of appendices. This is actually a consolidation of previous circulars. It is not something entirely new which is being sprung on principals. All that it tries to effect are standard rates of tuckshop fees which, on the whole, have been reduced after the experience of one year based on profit and not on arbitrary charges. The number of stall-holders allowed in each tuckshop is clearly defined. Also limitation in the range of food to be sold by a stall-holder and a specimen application form. I am, however, a little disappointed in the Member for Tanglin when he suggested, "Are not principals expected to have their holidays?" Of course! I am one of those who believe in compulsory leave, and I think it is good for any individual in service to have his leave - of course, at the right time. The circular that went round to principals of schools was dated 6th December, 1960. Everybody knows that the next school year begins on 3rd January, 1961. Well, we would like to see that all tuckshops and stall-holders get things started properly for the full year. So a circular went out suggesting that principals of English schools should meet on the 12th December - that is, more or less a week later - those of Chinese schools on the 14th (that is, today) and those of Malay schools on the 16th, to explain, if necessary, anything in the circular which may not be quite clear. As explained earlier, the circulars have to be addressed to principals and there is this sentence which says, "Please send your senior assistant to the meeting if you are unable to attend." Surely somebody responsible must turn up to be able to interpret the instructions, to ask questions, and be assured about the contents of the circular. 3.15 p.m. As regards the acting allowances for officers seconded to the Ministry, it is true that in the past there had been considerable frustration because officers who were performing the duties of officers with higher responsibilities were known as officiating and not acting. I think that has been put right. We have recommended that all officers who were seconded or have been acting in certain capacities would draw acting allowances. Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill suggested that because the names of principals or senior teachers who have applied for appointments as Inspectors were sent to the Public Service Commission in June and July, therefore, the position in the Ministry is unsatisfactory. It is not exactly unsatisfactory. The staffing position remains like this: they are already doing the job in an acting capacity as seconded members of the staff. Whether they will be permanent holders would depend upon the decision of the Public Service Commission.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I am afraid the Minister has got me wrong. I did not say that it was unsatisfactory - the fact that these people kept on acting. I said that the applications were sent in June and July, and surely some decision should have been made by the Public Service Commission after a lapse of six months. If no decision had been made, the position therefore must be unsatisfactory vis-a-vis the Public Service Commission.

Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are not talking about the Public Service Commission. We are talking about the Ministry of Education.

Sir, would the Minister not consider it unsatisfactory that applications were sent in June or July and that nothing definite has been done about it? Is this not making things difficult for his Ministry? Fortunately for him, he has people acting. If he had nobody acting, and suppose he wanted new teachers - and it would take six months for the Public Service Commission to recommend appointments for the thousands of teachers who have to come into the service next year - would that not be unsatisfactory to the Department?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not here to defend the Public Service Commission. It may happen that the particulars that have been forwarded to the Public Service Commission have been vetted, and they have had to be pushed back for further queries, and that is where the ding-dong takes some time. That is as far as I can really say.

Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I am glad to hear the Hon, the Minister for Education say that principals are expected to exercise discretion, because this is something that has not been made clear in the past. It all depends on how far the principal is allowed to exercise discretion. I remember being told by a very senior officer in the Department, who is still there, that when circulars are sent round, every principal or person concerned must first put them into practice. Whether he or she objects to them or thinks that they are wrong, they must be put into practice first, and then the complaint or argument about it could be made to the Ministry. And probably there was some sense in the argument when he said, "Can you imagine. Mrs Seow, if a circular goes out and the Ministry is not able to say that that circular will be implemented by everyone? That the Ministry has to guess how many principals might think it is good or how many principals might think it is bad and should not be implemented? It has been shown to me, and insistence has been made, that the circulars must be implemented first. Then any complaints or opinions as to the circulars not being workable should come later." Therefore, I would be grateful to the Minister if he could make it very clear whether that is not so or whether principals can exercise discretion. Even on little things like this: sometime ago a principal sent a circular round the school saying, "Please send your record books to the office." Unfortunately it happened to be a European principal.

When was that?

Sometime ago, but it just - [Interruption].

Order.

- it just shows that this exercising of discretion can go a little bit too far. And when the principal said, "Please send", some teachers, for reasons best known to themselves, brought their books to the office, either to explain something to the principal or because the teachers were free. Then another circular went round, "Teachers in this school do not understand English. Please note the word `send' and not `bring'." Sir, things like that do happen. And the principals are worried as to how and when they should exercise discretion. There are some people who insist on things, which go to show that when they exercise their discretion, they are being told off. Another thing I would like to touch on is when the Minister said that if a principal is not guilty he should not be worried about complaints, not even from anonymous letters, not even being investigated into. I would like to point out, Sir, that a person does worry - just like the Hon. the Prime Minister when he felt that the Member for Hong Lim has not made true accusations or statements about him, he was very worried; so worried that he went outside and challenged him. You do feel worried because, when a statement is made against your character, even if you succeed in proving it in court that it is not true, a smear has already been made, and to some people it sticks in their minds. So that is why we feel that complaints should not be taken up unless the Minister feels that there is some truth and that they should be taken up. I myself have received complaints - after I had stopped teaching and not when I was teaching - complaints about the immoral conduct of teachers in all sorts of schools, not only the school in which I used to teach. These were anonymous and typewritten so that it could not be established who sent them. I just threw them into the wastepaper basket. At first I thought this was a Ministry of Education affair and should be sent there, but, on second thoughts, I thought that, if a man is not brave enough to put down his signature and tries to hide his identity by even typing out his letter, it is not worthwhile and so I threw the complaints into the wastepaper basket. If the Minister is going to accept complaints like that in anonymous letters, then I must say that he is going to encourage scoundrels or people who try to have their own back by writing to him.

3.23 p.m. And he is going to be swamped with such letters if he gives this encouragement and takes up such anonymous letters. However, I am very glad that the Minister did give us an assurance that he would not take up verbal complaints. I feel that if he does not accept verbal complaints, then much less should he accept complaints when he does not know where they come from. From the way the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary spoke about Inspectors of Schools, I gather that they have a high opinion of Inspectors of Schools, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. I do not think the Member for Tanglin intended to say that Inspectors of Schools are not efficient and are not doing their duty. If the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary admit that the Inspectors are so efficient, I wonder why there is a number of principals who have been seconded to the Ministry and who have been working there, I think, immediately after the P.A.P. came into power. I am not in a position to say exactly when, but it is soon after the P.A.P. took office. I went to the Department and met some principals. I found that they had been seconded and were acting in the capacity of Inspectors of Schools. Although the Minister said that they would be paid an acting allowance, would they be paid retrospectively from the time they were seconded? If not, I was wondering whether it is fair to them, since it has been admitted that they are efficient and that they have done a good job, to penalise them because they have not been put before the P.S.C., or because the Government have not decided to give them the allowance for their work. As for the tuckshop, Sir,-

Order. I think "tuck-shops" have been postponed to amendment (18)*. *Amendment (18) reads as follows: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $100. An hon. Member: Tucked away!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I note with regret that replies are often turned into accusations. Sir, I never inferred at all that Inspectors of Schools were wicked fellows. I never said that. And I am sorry if that was the belief of the Government side. What I felt was that their primary role, as stated by the Minister, was not being carried out. And if he assures me now that it will be carried out, I will only be too glad to withdraw this amendment. Then on the question of complaints, I was not against complaints. But I am against complaints sent in by anonymous writers, and action being taken on the strength of anonymous letters. Sir, I am against that.

I think I have to reply to the Member for Mountbatten first - this question of discretion on the part of individuals, more so principals of schools. It is not really difficult to draw a line for some people who accept powers and act responsibly and know when to exercise discretion; others just have to take an order before they move. My opinion, which I have expressed to officials in my Ministry, is that what I would like to see is the spirit, and not the letter of the law or the circular, to be adopted by themselves and also principals of schools. I do not think it is possible to draw very neatly a line indicating just what a principal may or may not do. Then the Member for Mountbatten proceeded to say that during the period of the previous government, she was told by a very important official of the Ministry, who is still an important official, that certain things had to be done as stated in the circular. I have already indicated my views, and this particular official, who may have carried out the policy of the last government in that spirit, would not, I think, find it very convenient under my direction at the moment. Sir, should there be any instances of such rigid interpretation, then I will not be behind it. She followed on by trying to give an example of an expatriate principal of a school. I can assure the Member for Mountbatten that it could not have happened under the present Government, because there is no expatriate who is a principal of a school in Singapore today. So if these are all frustrations and irritations of the past, I am not answerable for the activities of the last government, but I shall be fully responsible for what has taken place since June 1959. She further enquired whether officers who have been seconded to the Ministry would be in receipt of acting pay from the time of their appointment. I have already indicated that it would be effective from 1st January, 1960, because - this is still 1960 - we do not go backwards to 1959.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (16) of sub-head 1. Sir, may we know the respective duties of these Staff Officers, and who amongst them is responsible for drafting staffing formulas for the final approval of the Minister?

Mr Speaker, there is in existence a Commission of Inquiry to look into the expenditure of Government. I think the questions which the Member for Tanglin has put forward would have been very suitable questions for that Commission of Inquiry. I will, however, endeavour to answer to the best of my ability. As the name implies, a Staff Officer is one who is responsible for the appointment, distribution and transfer of the staff. We have, as everybody knows, something like 11,000 teachers and, say. 2,000 to 3,000 other staff - perhaps one of the largest Ministries in the State. As regards the staffing formula, there is actually really nothing new about it. This is the formula which existed in the past, except that there was a slight amendment to it recently. This is, Mr Speaker, Sir, one of detail which I am attempting to answer as best I can. In the past, when the staffing quota was mentioned, and before the Ministry of Education decided to emphasise the study of languages, language teachers were excluded from the staffing quota. Whereas in the case of the Chinese schools, they were included. So in order to bring about integration and a single system of education, and in trying to bring about a common formula, it would appear that difficulties have arisen. On the other hand, I wish to say that the circular that went out was discussed by the officials in the Ministry, and ultimately came up to me for approval.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the staffing formulas applied by the staff officers, Sir, as explained by the Minister, were agreed to inside the Ministry between the Minister and his officials. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that when this question was taken up by a professional body like the Head Teachers' Conference, which was made up of heads of Government and aided English schools, it was pointed out that these formulas were not workable. At least one of them was riot workable, and because of continued frustration, we regret to say that the Head Teachers' Conference decided to close down. Sir, I am not sure whether this is the proper time to debate this matter of staffing formulas, or whether you would rather wish that I wait until I come to the general Head.

I can only say that if it is a matter of Government policy, I think we ought to wait until we come to amendment (18) on the Supplementary Order Paper. If it is to pin-point something which is connected directly with the staff officers, then, of course, the hon. Member may carry on. But if it is a matter of policy, it is convenient to wait.

Mr Speaker, sometimes there are borderline cases. So I will try to touch on those that are nearer the right side, as it were. Sir, in the implementation of policy, of course, if the staff officers are not made aware of the policy, they would naturally take the wrong action. I wonder whether the staff officers have been fully briefed and in detail by the Minister regarding the policy of the Ministry so that they will not fall into error, not because they are against the Government policy but because of ignorance of the finer details.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no question that the officers in my Ministry are not aware of Government policy. It is not possible for the Minister to be interested in the details when it comes to the execution of policy. The Minister has a monthly meeting, at which about 14 senior officials meet - Grade G and above - and we discuss problems that arise from the respective sections. They, in turn, hold monthly meetings with their staff, the minutes of which I regularly read. I think it has taken sometime for the Ministry to perform this difficult task of reorganisation. I am, in fact, very pleased that in the Ministry the administration have pulled their weight despite the volume of work that they have had to cope with, and the considerable changes that have been brought about within the last one and a half years. I think all of us now are able to sit back a little to consolidate all the reorganisation and changes which have taken place. The Member for Tanglin mentioned the views of the Head Teachers' Conference comprising, I presume, teachers of the English-aided school stream-

Government and aided.

Government and aided. But he also explained that that particular body had since closed down. It comes to me as a disappointment that they are so easily frustrated that they could not exist long enough to put forward their views so that we could resuscitate this organisation in order that they can give the benefit of their views for the future.

Perhaps it would be more convenient to deal with the whole problem of this staffing formula at this stage. It is only a question of convenience.

Is that possible, Sir?

If it is convenient, perhaps we can deal with this matter of staffing formula. I have been trying to save time for Members who come after. That is all there is to it. Perhaps it is convenient. Shall we deal with it?

Sir, the staffing formulas are very vital in maintaining efficiency in our schools, and in the primary schools today we find that there is a gradual loss of efficiency because the staffing formula being implemented is not workable. The formula is now as follows. For every ten classes, there can be only one relief teacher. Now if there were twelve classes, 12 x 11/10; and there is a fraction, the fraction is cancelled, and there is still only one relief teacher. Then, of course, comes the Principal. There is one teacher per class up to about 14 classes, plus one relief teacher and the head or the senior assistant. Sir, in the past, extra language teachers were regarded as outside the quota. But now extra language teachers are included as within the quota. So primary schools have to organise themselves into one teacher per class in the English medium, if teaching is in English, plus the relief teacher - he is an additional language medium teacher - and then the Head. At the moment, if one teacher is absent because of sickness, then the extra language teacher, say, in the Chinese medium, if he or she is in an English-medium school, has to substitute for the absent teacher - maybe a teacher of the English language - and he or she must go round class by class, and usually he or she knows only how to teach in Chinese or in Malay. So that means that for most of the period, there is no lesson because of language difficulty. And if one teacher is on maternity leave, the situation becomes more difficult, and the poor Head must not only teach but sometimes he has to combine classes. Parents have complained to the Head, saying that certain classes were not manned. But what could the Head do when the staffing formula is so tight that when one teacher is absent, things become disorganised? I feel strongly that if the efficiency in the primary schools has to be maintained, then the staffing formula must be revised until it becomes workable. I am glad of the assurance given by the Minister that he would welcome the resuscitation of the Head Teachers' Conference, because he now values opinions expressed by such a body. I was against the closure of the Head Teachers' Conference, but the fact that they did close down shows how frustrated they must have felt at that time. Sir, in the application of the staffing formula - the manning of schools - sometimes the poor Staff Officers get rather confused, maybe because of some other directives, and in their hurry to get teachers for Government schools, they forget to implement the first aim of Government - equality of treatment of all streams of education and of all schools. I believe, Sir, that that is a cardinal point in their policy. And I agree wholeheartedly, because I have been fighting for this for many years. But what do you find, Sir? A young would be teacher applied for a job, and naturally he would apply to as many schools as possible. There are several teachers that I know of. But we will just take one case. This teacher applied to the Government and to an aided school. The Government machinery takes a long time to operate, and by the time the Government decided to interview this particular applicant, she had already been employed and was teaching in an aided school for some time. She was told that unless she resigned from the aided school and joined a Government school, she would not be given an opportunity in the next batch to go in for teacher training. In other words, she would be put far behind. Sir, this is not equality of treatment. Naturally the teacher was in tears. I could not believe it. I spoke to the Permanent Secretary and he assured me that it could not happen. Then I was shown a letter to this particular applicant: `With reference to your letter of [such and such a date] and my reply of [of such and such a date] to your Principal, I am to inform you that your application is hereby cancelled, as you have declined the offer of appointment as a teacher in training in the English-language medium. 2. I am to remind you that this Ministry cannot guarantee your admission to the Teachers' Training College in 1961, and in future any correspondence from you pertaining to this appointment and admission to the Teachers' Training College will not be entertained.' 3.45 p.m. Naturally, Sir, the poor girl was in tears. I assured her that this could not be because this went against the cardinal point in the policy, i.e. equal treatment in all streams and for all schools. How could there be discrimination against teachers in aided schools? Then, Sir, a Ministry official approached aided-school heads asking for vacant classrooms so that they could use them for their students. I am glad to say, Sir, that aided-school principals, after consulting their Boards, agreed to help. But they wanted this point to be clarified. Would they be assisted in getting teachers for the classes? Would Government allow teachers from Government schools to be transferred: specially to man these classes in the aided schools? Of course, one official said it was not in his section, so he could not give any guarantee. Sir, we thought it was reasonable, and all of us applied. Then we were given an indication that something had gone wrong. These teachers going to an aided school must resign. Well, it was all right. But the important point was - would they draw their last drawn salary? Would they continue to be on the old salary scheme? That, the Staff Officer said, he could not say. Sir, if he knew that this policy must be implemented, surely it was quite easy. Because when the Government wanted a trained sportsman, a star athlete, from one aided school, the poor aided school head would not stand in the way of that man's transfer. The man was, transferred on the same terms and on the same salary scheme. When they wanted a, science specialist, the man was also transferred or released on that basis. But when it came to Government teachers who wanted to come to the aided school system, the Staff Officer had no clear indication. It has come to a stage where aided schools are feeling that this is a one-way traffic. Teachers from aided to Government schools? "Welcome, you can have everything." Teachers from Government to aided schools? "No we have certain Conditions." Sir, I have not yet received any definite reply. Before the reply comes, I hope the Minister will look into it and ensure that there is equal treatment of teachers in the different scales-aided schools and Government schools. We only want that, Sir. Then we come to the staffing of graduate teachers. There is a great shortage of graduate teachers, we know that, Sir. Hitherto, at least until the new Government came into power, the ruling was that Government bursaries were for students in all schools - Government and aided. It was based on this fact - that the children of the people are being educated in Government schools as well as in aided schools. The people of Singapore contributed money, through taxes, to the revenue of the country. Therefore, the bursaries, although called Government bursaries, were meant for students from schools of any category. When they graduated, the understanding was, and they were told, that they could choose to serve their five-year bond in any school - either Government or aided. That was the understanding, Sir. We assumed that the policy of equality of treatment would be implemented. Naturally, Sir, when we expanded our secondary classes, we were quite willing. We had their applications. They came willingly because some of them wanted to teach in their old schools and some because of religious connections. This was what I got from one of the applicants: `Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter of the third instant with application forms enclosed. I received a reply from the Ministry only three days ago telling me that I cannot be posted to ... (name of an aided school)... as I asked for, as I would be properly posted to a Government school. Needless to say, I am quite disappointed as I had hoped to be allowed to choose the school I would like to teach in.'. Sir, if there is equality of treatment for all schools and freedom of choice, surely, this should not be taking place in the Staff Section of the Ministry. Perhaps, Sir, they were not quite aware of it, and I do hope the Minister will make it clear that aided schools are really trying their best to co-operate with the Government. Since they are short of staff in their new classes, there should be no difficulty put in their way. Their transfers could be allowed; or if not allowed, at least, they could be allowed to resign and rejoin on the old salary scheme and on the old salary. Graduate teachers should be allowed to have their choice and serve their period of bond either in Government or aided schools. Then, Sir, people will believe that there is really equality of treatment in all streams of education and in all schools in Singapore.

3.50 p.m. Sir, in closing, I would say this. That this principle was applied wrongly by one Director of Education in colonial days. I am glad to say that it was in the presence of myself that the Governor told that Director of Education that it was wrong for him to say that Government schools were his schools and aided Chinese and aided English schools were not his schools. He was told roundly that they were all his schools and that the students were all his children. There should be no partiality. I hope, Sir, this is going to be the policy in this country, and I would welcome from the Government side an assurance that this will be carried out.

(In Mandarin): Mr Kandasamy, Sir, we know that everytime the Member for Tanglin says something, he says it for his own personal benefit. If it is not for his own personal benefit, then his standpoint will be based on one side of the facts only. About the teachers' quota, that is, the 1.1 quota, I wish to say that this was carried out under the Lim Yew Hock Government. We have been carrying this out. Why did the Member for Tanglin not say this? We know that this 1.1 system has been adopted for a long time. We did not include the second language teachers in schools only after the 1.1 system was adopted. The so-called second language teacher was not included in this quota'. But the Chinese schools did not do this. Why did the old Government not reform this? Since the Member for Tanglin was speaking for the English schools, why did he not point out this difference? We know that the Chinese schools have been carrying on as they are at present because of the Government's policy in giving preference and privileges to the English schools. They did not include second language teachers in their `teachers' quota, whereas the Chinese schools did include language teachers in their quota. Why did he not point this out? When we want to carry out equal treatment for English schools and Chinese schools, we do not include second language teachers in the quota. It is because it affects the Member's personal benefit that he raised this point. Now mentioning-

Order. I think it is out of order to make reference to, a Member's personal benefit. Will the Member withdraw that remark?

(In Mandarin): Mr Kandasamy, Sir, if you deem this to be undesirable, then I will withdraw.

Will the hon. Member please withdraw?

(In Mandarin): I will now withdraw my remark. Talking about teachers in aided schools joining Government schools, it is because of the good conditions of service in Government schools that they voluntarily join the Government schools. In the aided school regulations, if a teacher has given his notice a month earlier, he can resign from the school. I can point out one instance where one teacher voluntarily resigned from an aided school and joined a Government school. Talking about bursaries, we know that if a student receives money from the Government for further studies, he must serve the Government for five years after finishing his studies. This is right and proper. To serve the Government is to serve the people. If he serves the Government, that means he serves the people. This is right. 3.55 p.m.

Sir, I can now understand some of the problems that the Ministry of Education is faced with. One of its problems is the Parliamentary Secretary who does not seem to understand educational matters. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be very offended with the Member for Tanglin, because all his efforts were on behalf of the English schools and he had done nothing for the Chinese schools. The Parliamentary Secretary is very angry. Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he had done for the Tamil schools or the Malay schools?

I should like, Mr Speaker, first to disabuse the mind of the Member for Farrer Park that my Parliamentary Secretary is a problem. He is one of my greatest assets.

That is what you think!

What my Parliamentary Secretary said about the Member for Tanglin was this - that, unfortunately, everytime the Member for Tanglin says a thing, it is only from the English stream, and it is only one half of the educational-

So what?

-problems of Singapore.

So what?

So what? It is that the formula which was acceptable for the Chinese stream is not acceptable to the English stream-

Of course!

Simply that. Therefore, if it could be applied to one section, why keep on saying that it cannot be applied to another? It is in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution that we have to put our heads together. As regards the staffing formula, as I have said, Mr Speaker, it is a very professional question. However, we have since decided that for next year, if there is a fraction of .6, then the school will be entitled to one additional teacher. They could not really have .6 of a teacher for a particular school. I am sorry for the case mentioned by the Member for Tanglin, about the poor girl teacher who cried. Why could that not have been put to me in my official capacity? I would like to take the matter up if he would be good enough to let me have particulars of the case. Speaking off-hand, I think it is most harsh indeed for the official to write in that manner, and it will not receive my blessing. The next question was in respect of the movement of teachers from aided schools to Government schools. I think, in this respect, it is again from the English stream where the majority of the teachers are in Government schools. I think they always feel that if there are any promotions or any movement, they would like to restrict it to those within the service. I personally feel that I would prefer everything to be thrown wide open. There should be fair competition. Why I say this is because I have to think of the Chinese stream where the majority of the teachers are in the aided schools, and if we want to get the best material, then we must open the gates wide to get the cream from the Chinese aided schools. So our reasons are different. 4.00 p.m. Lastly, in the award of bursaries to students to universities, if the Member for Tanglin has followed closely the statement issued by the Ministry, we do say that we bind bursary holders for Government or quasi-Government service. So there is no distinction really. We feel that a graduate in receipt of public funds to enable him to complete his studies should be prepared to render service to the State, be it in a Government Ministry or in a Government aided school. There is therefore no question of reserving all bursary holders for service in Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to express my thanks to the Minister for giving an assurance that he is going to attend to the case that I have just brought up. In fact, there is another case - the case of a trainee teacher who was told that he would not be allowed any facilities. The Minister has also given his assurance that Government bursary holders would have the option of service in either Government or aided schools. Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary unfortunately - I notice it every time I speak - takes the line that I represent only the English schools. Sir, my record of service during the British Military Administration period can testify that when I was responsible, I was fair to all the schools of all streams. An attempt was made by my subordinate officers to confine the issue of chocolate rations to only Government schools, but I insisted that they should be distributed to all schools - English, Chinese and Malay media. I believe there was only one Tamil school, and I am sure that it also got the rations. So it is wrong to say that I do not speak for the Chinese schools. When I spoke on the staffing formula, it applied to all schools. It is wrong for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the Chinese schools are quite satisfied, for in today's Free Press appears this heading, "Chinese primary school hours should be cut, Minister told". The report reads: `The request was made in a memorandum submitted by the conference [Singapore Chinese Schools Conference which comprises in its membership heads and teachers of Chinese schools] ... sought: Additional teachers for large schools;'. "Additional teachers". This shows that the formula is not satisfactory: `Transport allowances for teachers living far from their schools.' In fact, Sir, what they are asking for is that the formula is such that the load falling on the individual teacher in the Chinese schools is heavier, than he should really bear. Sir, another thing is that blame was put on the Lim Yew Hock Government. Let us compare the formula of the Lim Yew Hock Government with the formula that is implemented now. The then primary school formula stated that a student teacher was regarded as being half a point. That is to say, two student teachers were equal to one qualified teacher, so that for 11 trained teachers in those days we could have 22 student teachers for ten classes. But today the student teacher is regarded as being equivalent to the trained teacher. How can we then say that the Lim Yew Hock Government formula was the same? In those days, the additional language teacher was outside the formula. Now, it is inside the formula, I should say that the staffing formula under the Lim Yew Hock Government was more generous.

We come back again to the question of outlook: this question of student teachers again - in the past during the Lim Yew Hock Government, a Chinese stream trainee teacher was one unit; English stream, half a unit. Again in order to bring about a single integrated system of education, difficulties arise. These are the problems which the Ministry of Education faces. All I can say is this. Let us try to approach it with an element of goodwill and understanding - a little of give and take. If in the past the English stream had been fortunate in that the formulae had been to their advantage, and in trying to bring about a single system they have to strain a little bit, now we do not ask that they should sacrifice themselves, but we are trying to bring about something which will be the same for all the four streams.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I quite appreciate the fact that the Minister is facing difficulties in trying to bring about a single system. I am glad to hear that the Minister is prepared to disabuse any abuse that is brought to his notice about his department, but I am really surprised that the arguments put forward by the Member for Tanglin, which were on a matter of policy and principle, should be termed by the Parliamentary Secretary as "personal benefits". I would like to add two points to what has already been said by the Member for Tanglin. In primary schools, as the children in Primary I to Primary II are very small, it is the sensible inclination of the principals to make the sessions not more than 30 minutes. Then from Primary III, IV and upwards, it is the inclination to make it 40 minutes. And as it goes up, 45 minutes. Therefore, the timetables of the three different sections of the school do not coincide with one another. They do not start and finish at the same time. So when the language teacher has to go from class to class, there is usually a space of 15 minutes in between that is void. That is one difficulty where a class goes without a teacher during the 15 minutes in between the sessions. Another thing is this. A class that is put under the charge of a vernacular language teacher has anything from 9, 10 to 16 teachers taking that class, because while the vernacular teacher goes round to the different classes taking the vernacular language, the teachers from those classes have to come round to teach that class. So if a school has 16 classes and this vernacular language teacher goes round to those 16 classes and the 16 teachers come round to that class to teach, you can imagine the plight of that class. The children are at a loss as to who is their teacher, and if the teaching is not correlated, they are at sea as to what they are learning and what they are not learning.

I hate to enter into a debate where experts are taking part in it. But looking at it from outside, perhaps the problem as it strikes an outsider might interest the Minister for Education. Sir, we have been talking about staffing formulae. It would appear that in the English stream the staffing formula is not - at least this side of the House thinks - conducive to efficiency and good teaching, and therefore we might not produce the men we think we should produce. If the Chinese stream thinks that its staffing formula should be different, it should be different. Maybe their teaching problems are entirely different to the English teaching problems. So the Minister said that his problem is to apply one formula to all the four streams. Sir, could I suggest to him that perhaps the problems in each stream are such that different formulae should be applied?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the discussion on the staffing formulae, I think the case of the school children has been lost sight of. It has happened in many schools and in many class-rooms. It has happened to my own daughter. Because of the shortage of teachers as a result of the formulae that are being implemented by the Education Department now, children are asked to go home and stay away for two or three days as a teacher is sick. When I asked my daughter, "What has gone wrong?", she said, "There is no teacher. So it is better for us not to go to the school. We can stay at home and have some fun. Why should we go to school, daddy?" Let us tackle this problem from the point of view of the school children. It has happened. I am sure it cannot be denied that, because of the absence of a teacher on sick leave and because of a shortage of relief teachers, many classes in schools have been left without teachers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Mountbatten has raised professional questions which I think really should be better dealt with by a conference of teachers and head teachers, and not by ex-principals and the Minister for Education, although ultimately the general policy would be within my purview. There is great danger in the suggestion put forward by the Member for Farrer Park that the different streams would require different formulae. I think one should think in terms of the long-term aim, which is a single integrated system of education. There are initial difficulties which will take time to solve and, as I have said, there should be some give and take on all sides. Therefore, I feel that in, implementing any formulae in the scheme of things we should attempt gradually to bring them together rather than permit different formulae to apply, because a start must be made at some time. It is expected that there will be difficulties at the beginning, but they an be overcome and we hope that, with good grace from all sides, we will be able to achieve our end. The Member for Cairnhill said certain classes have had to be dismissed. Well, it happens in any school anywhere. It is an isolated instance. One swallow does not make a summer.

Surely the Minister should not brush it off so conveniently. There are many classes in many schools today which are left unattended because of the absence of teachers and the shortage of relief teachers. For him to say, "Well, it has happened elsewhere", I do not think this has happened here before, because there were enough relief teachers to take over. But now if a teacher is absent and there is no relief teacher, the children are deprived of their education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister that they realise and appreciate the difficulties-

Order. Does the Member wish to beg leave to withdraw?

That is the point, Sir.

Perhaps the hon. Member could just delay begging leave to withdraw. I understand that the Member for Mountbatten wishes to join in the fray.

Sir, the Minister said just now that I raised questions of a professional nature. That is the advantage of having a person with professional experience, and I am using it to show him that the 1.1 formula is not satisfactory. I am appealing to him to change that formula so that the school children do not have to suffer. According to the Member for Cairnhill, the principals have even had to go to the extent of dismissing their schools because of the shortage of teachers. I was only trying to prove to the Minister how the shortage is brought about. In addition, I mentioned the daily difficulties experienced in schools. I hope he will take heed of what he called "professional experience" and try to formulate a staffing situation that will not meet with those difficulties. 4.15 p.m.

Does the Minister wish to answer that?

Sir, I hope I have not given an impression to the Member for Mountbatten that I accept her professional advice. All I said is these are professional intricacies which should be thrashed out by my officials, because, after all, they provide professional advice and I either accept or reject or amend it. I want, however, to explain away what the Member for Cairnhill attempted to put in - as if things are chaotic in schools because certain classes have been dismissed. We have to look on Education in general, not on one or two classrooms or one or two schools. Never have there been so many pupils who have been given the opportunity to be placed in schools. Thousands are in Post Primary Classes, and there is a fantastic increase in places in secondary schools. That with the teacher/pupil ratio of 1 to 33 or 1 to 34. If one were to listen to the Members from the Opposition, one would think that there were no schools and there were no buildings at all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am always co-operative. In view of the assurance given by the Minister that there will be equality of treatment for trainee teachers and bursary holders in all respects, and, in a spirit of give and take, because we want to see to the welfare of our students and schools, for the good of this country, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (37) of sub-head 1. With your permission, Sir, I would like to group together items (37), (38)*, (39)+ and (40)++, and move them together. The amendments in respect of items (38), (39) and (40) read as follows: *That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (38) of sub-head 1. The amendments in respect of items (38), (39) and (40) read as follows: +That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (39) of sub-head 1. The amendments in respect of items (38), (39) and (40) read as follows: ++That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (40) of sub-head 1.

Is it convenient? Mr Yong Nyuk Lin indicated assent.

It is convenient. Mr Thio.

Sir, in the Estimates there are three posts that are regarded as superscale posts - principal, Raffles Institution, $1,520 per month; principal of Victoria School, same salary, and principal of Raffles Girls' School, at a slightly lower salary. Sir, these are superscale posts and they are all pensionable in the Government school system. Sir, I have been asked by people from the Chinese medium schools as to why there are no such posts in the aided school system. In view of the declaration that there should be equality of treatment, then, Sir, it is only logical that they expect similar superscale posts in the Chinese-medium aided school system and in the English-medium aided school system. In the case of the aided English schools, there are no such superscale posts. But what happens is this: if the holder of the principalship of a very big school is an Honours graduate, then together with the allowance, his total salary is the same as that of the Principal of Raffles Institution. But if he is not an Honours graduate, then he gets less. In the case of the principalship of Raffles Institution, regardless of whether he is an Honours graduate or otherwise, he gets straightaway that full salary. The question, Sir, is this: would Government consider having in the aided school media the same sort of superscale posts in order that there might be a true implementation of the policy of equal treatment in all schools? Sir, in the Chinese school system, we know that there are at least three big schools, maybe more, where the heads should be on this scale. I would not mention the names, Sir, but we all know that there are at least three or four big schools which deserve to be in the same category as these three big English schools. Then, Sir, in the case of principals of secondary schools, there are certain allowances, and they are all pensionable. In the case of the Chinese schools, the allowances are not pensionable, and - this is another thing, Sir - they find that when it comes to contributing to the Central Provident Fund, they are limited to a maximum of $25 p.m. only. Sir, they ask for equality, and I feel it is only right that they should get it in view of the declared policy that there should be equality in all streams.

The Question is, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (37) of sub-head 1." The debate may range over the next three amendments, items (38), (39) and (40) - Principal, Raffles Institution; Principal, Victoria School; Principal, Raffles Girls' School; and Principals of Secondary Schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the principle raised by the Member for Tanglin is purely one of being in the Government service and in the aided school. This perennial question is really difficult to equate. For example, a teacher or principal in the Government Service is subject to General Orders. He is not permitted to take part in political activities, like the Member for Tanglin or any hon. Member of the Assembly; whereas a Government officer would have to resign first before contesting the elections, in the aided schools a particular teacher or principal could hazard an election and, if returned, become a Member of the Assembly. Another difference is that a Government officer will receive a pension after a long period of service in the Ministry. But for the aided school teacher or principal, he contributes to the Provident Fund and, at the time of retirement, collects the whole sum back from the Provident Fund if he reaches the age of 55. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a little difficult to try and say that both are equal. It is difficult to equate two separate things. We try to bring about equality as close as possible in the circumstances. The three posts mentioned by the Member for Tanglin - Principal of Raffles Institution, Principal of Victoria School, and Principal of Raffles Girls' School - are known as Superscale appointments. For those who have what are known as Grade G appointments, the salary scales are $1,520 for males and $1,260 for females. This is actually a relic of the past. We in the Ministry of education have not endeavoured to monkey around with the salary scales because we could discuss them for 10 or 20 years and there would still be bad blood. But I can say this: in the past the Principal of Raffles Institution was a Grade F post with a substantive salary of $1,620. I brought this down to G level because I do feel that this post need not be at such a high rung in the service of the Ministry. Principals of aided schools would be entitled to responsibility allowances, which could be $420 if it happens to be a five-stream school, according to the scheme of the higher service. Unfortunately, this question of streams in schools is again a typical English tradition and is not found in the other streams. I would like to see principals' allowances based not on streams but on enrolment. In fact, for 1961 I have decided that schools with an enrolment of more than 2,000 could appoint a Vice-Principal. This Vice- Principal could then be in receipt of half the allowance applicable to the principal. From memory, I think most of the larger Chinese schools will come within this scheme, and only a few schools in the, English stream will benefit from the appointment of Vice-Principals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that the answer is in the negative. Sir, the Chung Cheng High School, the Chinese High School and the Nanyang Girls' High School would be regarded as the three schools equivalent to the three schools mentioned here in the Government school system. Sir, if the policy is one of equality of treatment as regards pay scales, I see no difficulty in giving the heads of the three major schools in the Chinese stream the same salaries as the three big schools in the Government Stream, As regards the difficulty about the aided school system, the difference between the two systems, Sir, is because of the history of education in this country. Aided schools were the ones who pioneered first, although Sir Stamford Raffles started the first school. 4.30 p.m. But gradually, Sir, advantages have been given more and more to the Government schools, and aided school people are feeling sore. If the only obstacle to equality of treatment is the privilege of participation in politics, I am sure the aided school teachers will say gladly, "We renounce our right to participate in politics if"- An hon. Member: For money!

We want to be the same. We have to be fair. At the moment, the Government school employees are already in a superior position, with pension rights and hospitalization at special rates, so that, materially speaking, the Government schools would have greater pulling power when it comes to recruitment. People know that if they go to the aided school system, they have to sacrifice financially. If Government's answer is in the negative, I regret, Sir, that we on this side cannot agree nor can we believe that implementation of equality of treatment is being done here.

It is, rather amusing, Mr Speaker, Sir, to find the Member for Tanglin now taking up the cudgels for Chinese education. The position is just the opposite of the English stream. 80 per cent of the English stream is in Government service, and 15 to 20 per cent is aided. And it is a complete reverse for the Chinese stream, where 80 per cent is aided and 15 to 20 per cent Government. As explained, all these top posts are in the English stream. If and when the Government Chinese stream is also 80 per cent, then I think it would be the right time to consider such super-scale appointments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to say that the Minister is beginning to think in terms of the pre-war colonial educationists: that the Government system must be in a majority before we can implement that kind of policy. But I thought that he was looking forward to the idea that since the children, of the people are the same, whether they are in Government schools or in aided schools and in every stream - Chinese stream, Malay stream, Tamil stream - the aim is to treat them equally. Why then should we wait until the Government group becomes larger and so on? In that case then, it would mean that the children in the Government schools are superior to the children in the aided schools. Surely, Sir, that is not the assumption, and that the people of Singapore, when they pay their taxes, pay taxes to finance only the Government schools? Surely that is not so. When people pay money, it means they pay money to the Government to serve the people. I agree in principle with the Minister when he said previously that there will be equality of treatment of all streams of education. I feel, Sir, that it can be done in such a way that the biggest schools - in the Chinese stream or the English aided school stream, or the Government school stream - could be regarded as the plum posts. And, of course, the Government teachers will draw their pensions and have their special hospitalization rights, whereas in the case of others, they should have the same emoluments as those for their counterparts in the Government schools.

The principle of equality is the basis of our educational policy, Mr Speaker. In the past, unfortunately, Government had failed to assume its full responsibility for educating all the people in the State. That is why we are embarking on a building programme of 19 schools each year so that ultimately most of the school children, in whatever stream, would be in Government schools. It is only a question of time when, we think, this question of superscale appointments would be made applicable to the Chinese schools.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Thio Chan Bee:- *That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (38) of sub-head 1. +That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (39) of sub-head 1. �That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (40) of sub-head 1.

I believe the hon. Member for Tanglin is not moving amendments (3)*, (4)+ and (5)�.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (42) of sub-head 1. Sir, I believe the Government has decided that there should be no more specialist allowances for specialist teachers, but that there should only be professional allowances for certain categories of teachers, such as science teachers. When the salary schemes for the education service and the administrative service were drawn up, they were done in such a way that the educational service was not to be penalised to the point where graduates, Honours graduates in particular, would not want to become teachers, because it was felt that the education service deserved to have good material just as much as the administrative service. And so a device was made, with the agreement of the then Secretary-General of the Singapore Teachers' Union, who was until recently the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Education under this Government, that there should be these specialist allowances; so that ultimately an Honours graduate going into the teaching profession would still be not far behind his counterpart in the administrative service. With the removal of the specialist allowances, of course, there is no more chance for an Honours graduate going into the education service ever coming near his college mates who took and passed the same examinations and who went to the Government administrative service. The result, Sir, is that schools are now unable to get graduate teachers of high calibre. Time and again we have lost them. Some of them are honest, and they tell the schools that they will join as a stop-gap measure, but the moment they get another job in the administrative service, then we must allow them to leave. With that kind of graduate staff in the secondary schools, it is very difficult to maintain a high standard of efficiency, because once in every few months, the Honours graduates leave us and we have to recruit stop-gap replacements. I hope the Minister will find a way out during this period of shortage of graduate teachers. I wonder whether he would agree - most certainly he would not, Sir - if for a special purpose, certain schools which wish to acquire the services of Honours graduates are willing to pay extra out of school funds - our own funds. Would the Minister agree?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the secondary school specialist teachers are approved by the Public Service Commission. With regard to these specialist teachers, their allowances are pensionable allowances and are personal to themselves only. That is why we cannot abolish this sort of allowances. Regarding this system of specialist teachers this was stopped in May 1958, but we have to start it again. As regards using the school funds to pay for these specialist teachers, this is not the correct method because the appointment of every specialist teacher was approved by the Public Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wanted to shout "Hurray!" just now when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that the specialist allowances should not be abolished, that they should be continued, because I was wanting that to happen. Without the continuation of the specialist allowances, we will never be able to get the top graduates. If the Government is going to re-introduce the specialist allowances, then I would beg leave to withdraw this motion.

I am afraid the Member for Tanglin, Sir, is jumping to conclusions too quickly as a result of the translation facilities, which perhaps are not quite adequate. What my Parliamentary Secretary said was that these specialist appointments were discontinued since May 1958, and we have decided that for new appointees we would not consider the payment of specialist allowances. That was made clear, I think, last year. The Member for Tanglin then talked about the desirability of recruiting Honours graduates. Unfortunately, our University is not producing enough graduates to serve the needs of the country. That, unfortunately, is also the cry in every country, not just Singapore. My view is that a pass degree graduate is perhaps of more use to schools. We do need some Honours graduates to teach in the Sixth Form or for pre-university classes. I should like to see our University produce more Pass graduates to man our schools. A way out would be perhaps to introduce what is now known as the Bachelor for Education course in the University itself. The University of Sydney has made a start, and I think British universities which have been most traditional and have avoided the teaching of education as an under-graduate course are slowly coming round. So we are hoping that discussions with the University of Malaya authorities will take place in the near future for the institution of such a course, because our secondary schools would need hundreds of graduates each year to man the classes which we have in mind, because in the next few years, our greatest need is an expansion in secondary education, where the ideal is to have a graduate to be a teacher in a secondary class. 4.45 p.m. But like most other countries, even advanced countries, they are not able to have a graduate for every class in a secondary school. However, that is an ideal which we will strive for, and we hope we will be able to attain it in the foreseeable future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry the translation was not quite correct. I thought the Minister had agreed to the continuation of specialist allowances. My own conviction, Sir, is that the question of supply and demand is such that if we cannot get our science teachers and graduate teachers to man our expanded secondary schools, then we will have to do something rather, than let the thing go sliding down. I wonder if the Minister has been informed that at a meeting with heads of Government and aided secondary schools, when the question of shortage of teachers for secondary schools was discussed, the suggestion was made officially that the only way out was to push up the teacher with the class. Form III teacher with the class into Form IV, Form IV into Form V, with the result that we shall have teachers teaching Form V, who themselves have only passed Form V. Sir, that is a deplorable prospect to face. I wonder whether the Minister will really think out ways and means so that during this intervening period of shortage, something could be done. We are losing science graduates holding Master of Science degrees because they are dissatisfied. We are losing to other branches of Government service teachers who have gained experience in the teaching profession because of the great disparity in pay. We are told by one teacher that if, it was not for loyalty to the old school he could have gone over to Johore Bahru to teach and draw $200 more. It seems rather hard to appeal to a fellow because of loyalty to the old school to keep on sticking to the old school and lose $200 a month. II there can be some adjustment made officially by the Government, our secondary schools could tide over this period of shortage and difficulty.

I failed to give an answer to the Member for Tanglin when he requested whether it was possible for the Ministry to permit, I presume, aided schools to pay the additional salaries out of their own funds. As long as they are not public funds (I think there are philanthropists who support the aided schools and are prepared to foot the bill), I cannot see any objection. In fact, I would wish that there were more such philanthropists to assist education in general. I am afraid I have not been kept informed about the discussions which the Member for Tanglin has mentioned, about the difficulties of engaging graduate teachers in schools. That is a perennial problem. I would be glad if he could send me a copy of that memorandum for study. I think we sometimes make a mountain out of a molehill when we say that standards are going down, and there is a desperate shortage of graduate teachers in schools, when more advanced countries are saying the same thing; and we are a newly developing nation. But this much we can say. Our standards are comparable. There is nothing to be ashamed about. In fact, we can be very proud. The Member for Tanglin is a member of the Education Service himself. Is he proud of the service? Why should we belittle ourselves? After all, before we had even a college or a university, those of us who had the opportunity for secondary education were taught by normal-trained teachers. They did not have more than just a secondary education. Some of them were probably some of the finest specimens of what teachers should be. Their dedication, their love for the school, for education and for the pupils - I mean, it is all a question of the quality of the persons concerned. And I have confidence that in Singapore the teachers in general, despite the additional work required for nation-building and other things, will rise to the occasion, as they have. I am pleased and proud that they are holding up the standard bravely, and this, all of us can be proud of, because before long, we ourselves will not be on the stage, but just spectators looking at the scene.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not complaining that we are lacking in high standards. I am proud, Sir, that we have maintained our high standards. Our high standards are not only comparable to, but in some cases, they excel those of other countries. We can now say that our boys can go to some of the best universities abroad and even top the pass list. Sir, but with all these increasing difficulties, naturally, we have to express our worries; that if we go on like this, it is going to be difficult to maintain the high standards. For instance, Sir, the Minister emphasises the importance of technical training and science training. What is the use of having new schools, laboratories and technical schools if we cannot retain our science teachers? We might say that our organisation is hanging by just a single thread. If one teacher resigns today, in a particular section, we cannot run our science studies. That is a very precarious state of affairs. We should have a reserve always in every branch. In case the first line goes, then there is a second line. But, at the moment, we cannot do it, Sir, I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister, because he does not control the finance. It is good of him to say that aided schools can, if necessary, pay more to engage or retain their specialists. But it would be better if, for the sake of equality of treatment, it could be done by the Government, because that is the fairest way of maintaining efficiency all round. It is not easy, Sir, to get benefactors to donate money nowadays because of various reasons.

We have taken steps, Mr Speaker, Sir, to train more teachers for science teaching. We are, as Members of the House are aware, giving the majority of bursaries and scholarships to those who would take up science and mathematics in their studies in the universities. Likewise, overseas scholarships for undergraduate or postgraduate studies. In the past, unfortunately, too many of the best brains have been attracted to either medicine or the study of law. Now we are hoping to divert such tendencies to the study of science, mathematics and technology. These take time because by the time they do return, we would be, perhaps, outside this Assembly. But a start has been made. We also propose to start training courses at the Teachers' Training College for teachers to undertake the teaching of science in lower secondary classes. The school of education of the University of Malaya is also considering the establishment of special courses for teachers. This is under discussion with the new Professor of education who is an extremely active professor as compared with professors of education in the past. I think we are moving along the right track and will show results as a matter of course.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (45) of sub-head 1. Sir, I have just one question to ask, and that is, whether the Minister is optimistic about getting his University graduates to fill the 64 new posts?

The answer is yes. I am a very optimistic Minister for Education! The 64 extra posts asked for in 1961 is a matter based on possible supply as opposed to demand. We expect to recruit 24 University of Malaya Honours graduates with Diplomas of Education, (they are bonded bursars), 25 University of Malaya Honours graduates without the Diploma of Education, but they will do one year part-time training at the Teachers' Training College, 10 University of Malaya Pass and Honours graduates who are non-bursars and, possibly, five other University graduates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad for that assurance and that optimistic outlook. I hope that when aided schools ask for approval for appointment to aided schools or for those who are bursary holders, the Minister will pass the information down that there should be approval given. In view of the assurance given, Sir, that there will be no real shortage in this case, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (46) of sub-head 1. Sir, in the past, whenever the enrolment of a primary school exceeded 500, and if the excess came up to another 500, then the school could have two heads. If the school had two sessions and the enrolment -

Order. It is 5 p.m. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Order. I suspend this sitting until half-past five. 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 sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (46) of sub-head 1."

5.31 p.m.

The Member for Tanglin has not completed his speech. Mr Thio Chan Bee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister please state what should be the minimum number of pupils and the minimum number of classes before a school is entitled to a primary headship?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I heard it said by the Member for Tanglin that in the past if the enrolment of a school exceeded 500, it was entitled to one head teacher, which means a principal. I am afraid those are days of the past. If we are in any way to cope with the rapid growth of the population, our schools will have to take in more pupils than they did in the past. For example, in our proposed new schools, the enrolment would actually reach something like 2,000: 1,000 for the morning session and 1,000 for the afternoon session. And in certain schools which we hope to build by next year, or by 1962, for example, a ten-storey school in Selegie Road, we will have a total enrolment of close to 3,000, and in Silat Road an enrolment of 4,000. Of course, we cannot say that this is ideal, but because of economy we will have to make the best possible use of what we have. Under the present Schools, Regulations, 1957. Regulation 115 does say: `Except with the permission of the Director [which means the Director of Education] given by notice in writing to the supervisor, not more than one thousand two hundred pupils shall be in the charge of any one principal, and pupils controlled by different principals shall not occupy the same school building or buildings at one and the same time.' So I think the formula of 500 pupils to one principal is too generous a formula to be accepted in these present times. We allow a principal to look after a school. It may be that in certain rural schools there is only a morning session because there are not enough pupils to fill up the afternoon session. But in city schools there will only be one principal for both morning and afternoon sessions. If the enrolment of the school exceeds 2,000, we are prepared to have a vice-principal appointed who will be in receipt of one-half of the allowance applicable to the principal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no doubt because of economic reasons, the Government must economise, but can we economise to the point where there is inadequate supervision of the education of the young? Sir, professionally speaking, I believe those who are advising the Minister agree that if a head has more than 500 pupils in a secondary school and about 640 pupils or 16 classes in a primary school, he is running the risk of not knowing his pupils as human beings but merely as so many figures on the school roll. However, if the number has to exceed 500 in the secondary or 640 in the primary - and as the Government says if it is beyond 1,200 there must be permission from the Ministry - then it is only right that there should be another head with equal responsibility and almost equal remuneration Sir, the arrangement that is being introduced now is that no matter how large a school is there should be just one head drawing a headship allowance. I agree that there should be one overall head in control of a big school, or of a group of units on the same site, in order to preserve unity and to ensure co-ordination. But to insist on having only one head drawing a headship allowance when the total enrolment is beyond 1,000 is expecting too much from a human being. Sir, hitherto I think no Government school has grown as large as some of the aided schools. I believe that the Chung Cheng High School has an enrolment of something like 4.000.

3,000.

3,000. The Chinese High School has also round about 3,000. Some of the aided schools are almost reaching that figure. So the proposed reorganisation in which the aided schools are co-operating is such that if one man only is given the head-ship allowance and the rest as senior assistants are asked to do the work of principals without even getting an extra dollar allowance - unless, of course, they are appointed vice-principals - I think it is expecting too much from them to shoulder all the responsibilities of the regular head. What I envisage is that the senior assistants performing the duties of a head of, say, an afternoon session school of about 1,000 or 1,200 pupils will say to the parents coming in with their problems, "Sorry. I am not the head. Will you please see the head?" Whether we like it or not, although the head is supposed to be on duty chiefly in the morning session, he must shoulder all the problems of the afternoon session, And where there is also an evening session, the poor head is in charge of three sessions with overall responsibility. In theory, the senior assistants are supposed to carry out duties almost similar to those of independent heads in their various sessions. I think that is expecting too much from that one head. Sooner or later, he will have a breakdown, or he will suffer from high-blood pressure, or have a stroke. Sir, we have already had such cases. I think the Minister might know of a few cases where the strain has been so continuous that, humanly speaking, it is expecting too much of one head to be in charge of three sessions with the aid of senior assistants. My suggestion is that where a senior assistant does practically the work of a principal, he should be given at least some responsibility allowance, not because senior assistants are mercenary but because it is only natural - and I am sure the trade union experts on the Government side would agree in the interest of justice - that it they are expected to carry out the duties of the head in their single sessions, they should be given some remuneration so that the appointment of one teacher as a senior assistant can be considered as a promotion. The appointment of an officer as a senior assistant today is regarded as a penalty or a sentence whereby he is asked to do the work of a principal and, at the same time, shoulder the responsibilities of a principal, because if anything goes wrong he is in trouble. Yet he is told that he cannot draw even one cent more unless he becomes a vice-principal. So we have the situation in a very large school where we have only one overall head and senior assistants, where formerly there were three or four heads. Sir, I hope the Minister will look into this matter - in the interest of efficiency consistent with economy, because there will be a lot of saving - with a view to giving some responsibility allowance to the senior assistants who perform the duties of a head.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to correct the figures mentioned by the Member for Tanglin. The enrolment for the Chung Cheng High School for last year was 3,714, and for the Chinese High School it was 2,242. It was not 4,000 for the Chung Cheng High School as stated by the hon. Member. In fact, there is a limitation to the enrolment of the Chung Cheng High School as a result of the unfortunate events in 1957. They are not supposed to exceed S2 classes, thus bringing it to something like 3,600 or 3,700. That is the maximum enrolment permissible for the Chung Cheng High School. Last year, this school was the only school which was permitted to appoint a vice-principal because of its considerable enrolment and, as I have already explained, we have already decided that for 1961 schools with an enrolment exceeding 2,000 pupils will be permitted to appoint a vice-principal. I think this will apply to at least a dozen schools the majority of which will be Chinese schools. I feel it is one thing to say we have an ideal, and another thing to practise it. I have already explained that, for economic reasons, we are unable to bear the burden of one principal for 500 pupils. It is just as well saying it is ideal to have a private tutor to look after your children. If you can afford it, well and good. But here we are not thinking in terms of education for the elite. We are trying to provide education for the mass; not just tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands, and never in the history of Singapore are we giving so much education to so many people. Because it is the responsibility of the State to give the best possible education to as many as possible, so that those who are unfortunate from the point of view of finance may be able, after education, to improve and better their social and living standards. To say that senior assistants regard their appointment as one of penalty is indeed unfair on the part of those who have been given the opportunity to assist the principal in schools to assume heavier responsibility. And I do not think that every time we talk in terms of giving someone a little more responsibility, we must dangle a carrot: here is so much money because you are doing a little extra. I feel that if we approach it from this point of view, then we are all a bunch of mercenaries.

Sir, I do not know what the Minister for Labour and Law has to say. If a man is made to occupy the post of manager and he is told, "Officially we won't call you `Manager'." Or he is made foreman and he is told, "Officially you are not a foreman, although you do the work of a foreman. And it is wrong for you to ask for a bit more." Sir, I wonder whether that is not contrary to the principle of a workers' government. I am not asking that the Government should not economise. I am in favour of it in view of the present situation. But to ask that a senior assistant act as, say, the head of an afternoon session, who has to go to school even during holidays, who has to attend to extra duties, who has to listen to telephone calls and problems during the night, that he should be paid the same salary as the regular teacher on the staff who has not got all the responsibilities under him - if, Sir, that is the Government's policy, and if they still insist on that, I suppose the teacher will have to take it, although I must say we have to express their disagreement. There is another case, Sir - this is very peculiar - that in the interests of economy, measures are sometimes carried out too far. There is one instance where a lady principal of a primary school, on reaching the age of 50, was asked to retire. The obvious reason was that in that way the Government would save the principal's allowance because she was already a principal. Sir, if a lady principal is asked to retire at the age of 50, firstly, she cannot draw her provident fund. According to the provident fund regulations, she must be 55 - I am correct, Sir - before she is allowed to withdraw her provident fund. If she is asked to leave and lose her job just because she happens to have been made principal and because of economy the principal's allowance must be cut off and, therefore, at the age of 50 she could be got rid of, is that an adequate return for faithful service? I am sure, Sir, in the interests of maintaining the morale of teachers and heads, surely at the age of 50 a lady principal like that should be allowed to continue to at least the age of 55 when she could withdraw her provident fund contributions. And there was another case of a lady teacher who in some way, because of qualifications, was given a graduate allowance but was teaching in a primary school. She was asked to retire at the age of 50 because thereby they could use her salary to employ maybe two or three young teachers. Surely at the age of 50, a lady teacher should not be retired. If that is the case, then the Central Provident Fund regulations must be revised to the point where people who retire at 50 should be allowed to withdraw their provident fund benefits. I wonder whether-

Order. It appears to me that perhaps the Member for Tanglin is wandering away from the motion, which is an amendment in connection with primary school principals. He is now debating something about provident fund. I am afraid I was not paying close attention, but it seems to be very far away from the motion. Mr Thio.

Sir, it is indirectly linked up with a primary school principal who was asked to retire at the age of 50 without being allowed to withdraw her provident fund.

I would be grateful to the Member for Tanglin if he could tell me in detail of this particular instance of a principal aged 50 who was asked to retire. If I can have the name and the school, I may be in a position to answer right away.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister is not aware that a woman's retiring age is optional at 45 and forced retirement at 50.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I asked for an answer from the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be glad to furnish the Minister with the information.

Order. I think it is perhaps wise not to mention names in this Chamber, especially if it is not really necessary to advance an argument.

Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister, I shall inform him after the sitting. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (47) of sub-head 1. Sir, the item is described as "Graduates; of recognised Universities and Special Teachers Training Institutions". Could the Minister please say, Sir, what recognised Universities" are?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of recognition of University degrees comes within the province of the Public Service Commission. Under this item (47), they generally apply to teachers employed in the Chinese stream, whose degrees have been recogised in the past by the Public Service Commission and also those who graduated from Nanyang University if they be appointed in Government or Government aided schools after approval by the Public Service Commission. It was a conditional recognition of Nanyang University degrees. This item, too, would include those who qualify from the Teachers' Training College. In the past the Teachers' Training College offered two courses: one, a full-time two-year course, and the other a three-year part-time course. But as from this year, all the courses at the Teachers' Training College have been integrated into a single system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the graduates of American universities and Indian universities have been feeling very dissatisfied because there has been no definite ruling. They have been appealing, and appealing, and appealing. I think the Minister knows that. I wonder if there cannot be some kind of an arrangement whereby those who are already doing work comparable with that of graduates of British universities should be given some sort of an increment in order to remove the feeling of dissatisfaction. I understand. Sir, that some Science graduates of Indian universities are looking for jobs in the Federation, although the Government schools where they are teaching are in need of them, because of the better prospects being offered in the Federation. Sir, I am sure we do not want to keep on losing our good people here if, by some adjustment, the Ministry could help them to stick where they are in Singapore schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of recognition of University degrees is relevant to more than one Ministry, and I am therefore rising to make some statement on the subject. But, first, I must draw attention to the principle proposed by the Member for Tanglin, and that is that he urges the Government to give increments of salaries to teachers with the object of removing their dissatisfaction. Sir, this is a very dangerous principle to apply.

Order. I am afraid the Minister for Finance is a bit too late. We are now on the subject of graduates of recognised universities. I am afraid the Minister is too late. Shall we deal with the subject of graduates?

I was just about to develop the theme and give the real reason why increments should be given. It is not because a person is dissatisfied and therefore you give him money. That would be the bottomless pit, Mr Speaker, Sir, If we do give increments of salaries, it is because we acknowledge the qualifications to be adequate. The Government is aware, of course, that many students from Singapore have studied in American universities and non-Commonwealth universities, the qualifications of which are not recognised at present. So we have been in consultation with the Public Service Commission and have now agreed upon a scheme whereby a Committee of the Public Service Commission could be established to examine this question of recognition of foreign degrees. The draft is practically in the final stage, and I think we shall reach finality on this before very long. 6.00 p.m.

Sir, first, may I explain? I was not asking for extra remuneration chiefly to remove the dissatisfaction. I said that where the graduates we're already doing work comparable with that being done by British university graduates, then they should be considered. However, in view of the fact that steps are now being actively taken. I beg leave to withdraw the motion. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (58) of sub-head 1. Mr Speaker, this is a matter which has often been discussed in this Assembly. I, therefore, seek clarification from the Minister for Education, firstly, with regard to the methods by which these religious teachers are appointed or engaged. Another point is the manner in which they teach religion in schools. I would like to have more details about this. Do these teachers teach only in the Malay schools or do they teach in non-Malay schools too?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, concerning the recruitment of these religious teachers, they were selected from candidates with the highest religious qualifications in Singapore, both men and women. With regard to the manner in which they; teach religion in Malay schools, each teacher is asked to teach in several schools to fit in with the timetable for religion provided by a religious Committee of the Ministry of Education. These teachers teach only in Malay schools.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, apart from the reply given by the Member, I would also like to know from what standard is religion taught in schools. It seems that in the 1961 Estimates, there is no increase in the vote to increase the number of religious teachers, although I know that the number of enrolment of children is increasing. May I get clarification from the Ministry concerned?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, religion in Malay schools is taught from Darjah I to Darjah VI for this year, and this subject will be taught in Malay secondary schools in Kallang in Forms 2 and 3. The syllabuses for these secondary schools have already been prepared by the Religious Education Committee.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, my other question has not been answered. Are there enough religious teachers to meet the demands for 1961?

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer the Member for Kampong Kembangan, it will be necessary to discuss the question of religious teaching in schools in principle. Except for schools in the Malay medium, we are discouraging the teaching of religion in the other streams. In fact, religious teaching in mission schools will be an optional subject as from 1961. As a special lee-way, because certain pupils prepare religious knowledge as an examination subject for the Senior Cambridge Examination, it has been agreed with the Malayan Christian Council that the teaching of religious knowledge in the English schools would be permissible for Form 4 and Form 5 if the pupils choose to take it as a subject for the examination. In other words, we are trying to discourage, being a secular State, the teaching of religion in schools proper. But noting the special position of the Malays in the Constitution, where religion forms part of the school curriculum, we are desirous that Malays who wish to study their religion would join the religious schools. If the pupils are attending the morning session, then, of course, they should attend the afternoon session of the religious schools, and vice versa. These schools will receive aid from the Government at the rate of $10 per annum per pupil.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to belabour the point which has already been explained by the Minister for Education. But in addition to that, there is another point which I see I must explain. I must plead with the Government, particularly the Minister for Education, on this matter, because the Member for Ulu Pandan said just now that the candidates appointed as religious teachers are candidates who possess the highest religious qualifications. But, Mr Speaker, if we carefully consider the emoluments of the religious teachers, we see that the remuneration of the overseer in the Teachers' Training College is much better than that of a religious teacher, So if they are in possession of the highest qualifications, and their remuneration as a religious teacher is low, I consider that their status is not being given due consideration. I feel that the Minister for Education should reconsider this matter. The maximum of the annual increment is $7.50 a year, if we compare it with the other provisions in the Estimates. There is no religious college here. So, comparatively speaking, the disparity is great. May I get a reply from the Minister for Education in regard to my question? Does the Minister consider the status of the Malay religious teachers low or that the certificates are not given due recognition, and hence, they receive a lower pay?

As explained previously, Sir, the question of salary scales has not been altered, and so this is a carry-over of what used to be the effective scale for teachers appointed as teachers of religion in Malay schools. I have been advised that the teachers so appointed are those who have completed seven years of primary education in what is known as sekolah ra'ayat or religious schools, where they teach partly religious subjects and partly normal school subjects. So that the salary scale would appear to apply to those who are appointed with a primary school education. That is the best course in the circumstances because, as the Member for Kampong Kembangan has said, there is no higher religious college in Singapore. The only one existing is in Klang, where there is a Muslim college. Until such time as the Federation Government has decided on an effective salary scale for such graduates, we are just suspending the matter for the time being.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (63) of sub-head 1. Sir, could the Minister please give us some clarification as to the basis on which the Ministry decides on the quota of school servants to be provided for each school; whether it is on the basis of enrolment or of floor area, because many heads do not quite know the basis?

As the day progresses, Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel as if the Member for Tanglin has got the edge on the Staff Section of the Ministry! They work according to a rough formula of providing six servants for a secondary school and four servants for a primary school. It depends again on whether the school has a large playing field which would then require more gardeners, who come under the category of servants. If there are three or four schools grouped together using just one playing-field, then I suppose there will be a little give and take. Three schools - 3 x 4 is 12 servants - I suppose then they could do with two servants less, because all of them are sharing one field and things like that. There are instances, of course, where it is probably cheaper to purchase an electric lawn motor in place of one or two servants. These are matters of detail where I feel, if cases of dissatisfaction arise and if they could be thrashed out in a spirit of goodwill, then most problems could be easily resolved.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish that the same spirit expressed by the Minister now could prevail in the whole Ministry, because things would he much easier and I am sure solutions would be found much more easily. I have to refer to this, Sir, because some time last year, heads of schools were shocked when they were told that the number of their school servants was to be reduced, even in the case where a school had new buildings with a larger floor area. One school was asked to reduce the servants quota by three. Sir, after a lot of time had been wasted in the composition of a detailed memorandum to explain the situation of new buildings, more floor area and large fields, at last the number reduced was one instead of three. Sir, I am not speaking for the heads of schools. I am speaking for the servants this time. How could the servants appreciate a reduction when the schools had increased by new buildings and they were told that their present staff must be reduced by One? So what the school had to do was to employ an extra servant and pay out of private funds. Sir, with this double session and in some school cases triple session, the servants are complaining that if the Trade Unions Ordinance was applied then they could really ask for overtime. But because they have been long in the service of the school and they also have the spirit of give and take, they would rather not do it, Sir, and they naturally ask that they should be supplied with additional servants in order to do the work better. I know of cases where they work from 6.30 a.m. until 7 or even past 7 p.m. Sir, because of that, I am glad that the Minister has given an assurance that in a spirit of give and take, depending on circumstances, he is prepared to adjust the number of school servants allocated to schools. Sir, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

I think the hon. Member should not be in such a hurry to withdraw. Because he has made such a long speech, I am sure the Minister would like to answer the points raised. Mr Yong.

Here again, Sir, I would appreciate it if the Member for Tanglin would mention the name of the school concerned, where perhaps an overenthusiastic official said, "Oh, no. You are overstaffed by three servants," and after a lot of parley, decided, "All right, you may have one back." But the impression I got was this. So much leeway has been given in the past to aided schools that if the formula was applied, certain schools would really have an excess of servants. Anyway, even if there were an excess of servants, it would not involve retrenchment, because we will see to it that the supernumerary servants would be given employment in other schools, and generally they get transferred. The Member for Tanglin then moved a little ahead of time and said that school servants are complaining they cannot get overtime. In fact, there is an item* later on down for discussion. But since the Member for Tanglin has raised it, may I just answer in reply?

Perhaps, if it is convenient, we might as well deal with sub-head 37* at page 470. Is it convenient? *The amendment in respect of sub-head 37 reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 37.

Yes.

It is convenient. Mr Minister.

There is such a circular in November 1957, but unfortunately, it was only sent out to Government English schools. As usual, in the past, those were the only schools that existed in the Ministry. All other schools did not exist at all. Aided schools just carried on. They presented their cheques and money was forthcoming. Anyway, the hours of work for school servants have been the same as in the past. Mondays to Fridays 7 a.m. to 6.45 p.m.; not 6.30 in the morning nor 7 o'clock at night; Saturdays from 7 to 11 a.m., total 44 hours a week. This circular will be issued to all streams, including aided schools. Then there is a further circular issued in February 1959, about extra remuneration for school servants in respect of additional work. Office boys would be entitled to $8 a month and school servants $5 per month for extra work as a result of afternoon sessions. This has been made applicable to all schools which have to do two sessions. Once again, whereas in Government schools they were paid during school sessions, that is to say, exclusive of holidays, servants in aided schools were paid 12 months in a year. This will be put right in 1961 - another case of integration and making it the same for all servants in all schools and all streams.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be glad after the sitting to provide the Minister with information regarding the schools which feel that they do not have enough servants. Sir, regarding extra remuneration and working hours, perhaps the problem is not appreciated unless we are on the scene with the school servants. If they commence operations at 7.15 a.m., it will be too late, because some of our students are in the habit of coming to school very early. The doors must be open, otherwise the children will be hammering impatiently at the school doors. Those in charge of opening the classroom doors and office doors have to be on duty much earlier. If there is an afternoon session and a night session, one cannot assume that the servants only do the sweeping once a day, because after the morning session, there is already one quota of dirt all over the place. We try to relieve the burden of the servants in some schools by having service squads clean up the classrooms before the pupils go home. This is just to lighten the burden of the servants. Then when the new session comes in in the afternoon, you cannot tell the children to keep things as clean as adults could. After that, there will be another quota of dirt. At night there is a third session. Very often, Sir, we have visitors and parents coming round. Surely we do not want the school buildings to be at any moment in an unpresentable state. So, naturally, the servants, after sweeping off the dirt of the morning session, will have to sweep off the dirt of the afternoon session, and at night, they have to sweep off the dirt of the night session also. I do not know how we can stagger the work so that the servants can just do their own particular quota as if they are working only for a one-session school. It is not easy, and we will be glad if the Ministry could really supply us with a workable scheme. But we, who are in charge of schools, realise that with the triple session coming in, the work will become a hardship to these servants. Sir, regarding remuneration, I wonder how $8 extra per month for six days a week plus extra labour not in single-session schools but double, and in some cases triple-session schools, is worked out. Maybe the servants would rather work it out on an overtime basis and calculate it at rates that can be approved by the Labour Ministry. I really feel, Sir, that $8 per month extra where we have a triple-session or a double-session school is not adequate for the labour and the time involved. Sir, a thing like this naturally takes the heart out of the labourers if they are told that. In the case of the school of which I am at the moment in charge, I do not propose even to implement this, because I do not think it is fair. The principals of aided schools have been instructed that since December is a vacation month, Sir, the extra allowance of $5 for December should not be payable. Naturally the servants reason that if fees for December are collected and teachers are paid for December, whether it is a vacation month or not, why should they not have their allowance? Maybe there is some misunderstanding, but the circular has been issued.

Of course, Sir, there is no misunderstanding. I have told the Member for Tanglin just now that that is the position. Many things took place in the past where aided schools just did as they pleased and presented a cheque. I think it is unfair for those working in Government schools to be given poorer terms. If the principle was to pay extra remuneration for extra work, then if there was no work because of the holidays. I suppose it was only fair that during the holidays they should not receive this extra emolument. I find it most amusing indeed that the Member for Tanglin is taking such a great interest in all matters educational just in the last few weeks of his active service in education. I hope it is not that last flicker of the candlelight before be goes off. 6.30 p.m.

I am sure that the Member for Tanglin will flicker quite a lot in this Assembly. On a point of information, Sir: could the Minister inform the House whether servants working in schools do not come within the ambit of the Labour Ordinance, and if they do, why is it that they are discriminated against?

It is unfortunate that my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, is not around to answer that question. I am sure if I had in any way transgressed the law, he would have promptly pulled me up.

Sir, I do not know what goes on in schools at base levels, but listening to the debate, it appears to me that the servants mentioned by the Member for Tanglin come within the category set out in the Labour Ordinance. If they come within such a category, then, in the circumstances delineated by the hon. Member, they must be paid overtime for more than eight hours of work per day; and overtime means 1� times the rate per hour, which would be very much more than $8 per month. Unless the Labour Ordinance says that those working in Government service are excluded from the ambit of the Labour Ordinance, then the present situation is possible. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of the Labour Ordinance excluding servants working for the Government who could otherwise have come within the provisions of the Labour Ordinance. And even if this group of persons are specifically excluded by the Labour Ordinance on the basis that they are servants of the Government - I understand that the Minister for Labour and Law is bringing up a new Bill, the Labour Ordinance - perhaps he might give this category his earnest consideration.

I suppose I will ask my colleague, the Minister for Labour and Law, to read the Hansard to see whether he would like to follow it up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, counting the number of hours stipulated, it does come to nine hours; but I suppose if you deduct the period of recess, and so on, it comes within the limit of the eight hours. Unfortunately, in practice, it is not possible, as the Member for Tanglin is trying to point out. A servant is supposed to start work at 7.45 a.m. but he cannot do so at 7.45 a.m.; and he is supposed to finish at 6.30 p.m., but it is not practical as he cannot finish it by 6.30 p.m. The principals merely try to follow the Government regulations to the letter so that they do not go against the Labour Ordinance, but I feel that it is in a way cheating these servants, especially those servants who do not have quarters in the schools. What we have to do is to keep within the eight hours and say, "All right, you work this number of hours before school, this number of hours during school, and this number of hours after school." And then we work it out for each session so that according to the timetable on paper, the servants work eight hours a day. But then the servant does not work only eight hours a day. During the time when he is supposed to be free, as he has no living quarters in the school, he is at the beck and call of the principal. He has nowhere to go but to remain in school; and should there be any work to be done for the school, for example, if a child feels sick and messes up the floor, who else but he will have to clean it up? The servant is needed during the time when it is supposed to be his relief hour. So actually even if you space it out, as the principals are doing now, so that it can be said that the servants are working eight hours a day as laid down in the Labour Ordinance, I feel that it is really cheating them, because as they are not free to go home and they do not have quarters, they are not resting during the hours when they are supposed to be resting. They are actually on duty.

I feel, Sir, that the Members of the Opposition are very effective in dramatics. All this talk about cheating the poor servant. We think that all this talk and statements mean nothing. We are judged on what we perform and what we do ultimately for the State. I think that is the acid test.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, sub-head 32 reads "Free Text Books". I would like to know from the Minister for Education why the provision for 1961 in respect of free text books has not been increased. The provision for 1960 is $50,000. To the best of my knowledge, the number of students and unemployed persons receiving free text books is increasing. Therefore, the provision of $50,000 should be increased for next year to enable more students to receive free text books from the Ministry of Education. It may be that the Minister feels that there is no need to increase the provision. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 32.

(In Mandarin): As regards free text books, I am afraid the Opposition Members are under a misapprehension. These text books are loaned free of charge to the students for their use. When they finish their courses, they have to return them to the schools concerned. This system of free text books on loan depends upon the number of students. For instance, a family with an income of less than $150 a month, or a family with two or three children with an income of less than $200, can borrow the text books free of charge. For the sake of promoting Malay education, the Government has extended this system to the Malays. The amount spent on them in this respect is double that spent on other schools. As to why the sum allotted for 1961 has not been increased, I would like to point out that these books are on loan. After using them, these books have to be returned to the schools so that they can be loaned out to other students again. That is why the sum allotted has not been increased.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only understand that the word "free" means free. In this case, "free", means "loan". It is very strange. So I think it is not worth while to go into a lengthy debate on this subject if it could be explained that free text books are books that are loaned out. If they are loaned out, it means that the $50,000 worth of books are still on hand. It may then mean that there is no need to increase the provision. I feel that this clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. I am of the opinion that the provision for 1961 should be further increased, because although the books are on loan, the number of students will increase next year. It is only proper that the Ministry of Education should consider increasing this provision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a welcome change to hear from the hon. Member that this vote should be increased. So there should be no difficulty if this vote is increased in future years. I think I should explain that I did query this sub-head, whether the sum voted in the Estimates would be adequate, and I was very much cheered to hear from my officials that the 1960 vote has not been exhausted. They think that the present vote of $50,000 is sufficient. In other words, there should be no increase in the vote. This sum is only for secondary schools. There is a separate vote for primary schools. In their opinion, the sum voted should be adequate, but in the unfortunate event of it becoming in-adequate, then it will be up to the Ministry to apply for a virement from the Treasury, and I am sure that out of the $68 million we will be able to find some money available from other votes to supplement the vote for this free text book loan scheme.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (13)* has been dealt with. *Amendment (13) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 37. 6.45 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 55. Mr Speaker, I find it necessary also to touch on sub-head 56+ to get clarification from the Minister for Education on this matter. +The amendment in respect of sub-head 56 reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 56.

Sub-head 56 is "Bursaries to Students at Polytechnic and for Technical Education." If it is connected in any way, perhaps it would be convenient Please continue.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with bursaries for Malay students in the University of Malaya, it appears that although the figure for this year is high, I believe it should be increased still more. But, Mr Speaker, I find it necessary to get clarification from the Minister for Education about bursaries to students at the Polytechnic and for technical education: whether this figure is included without reference to the community, and whether allocations are made specially for students at the University of Malaya. Mr Speaker, can the Minister for Education explain whether it is the policy of the Ministry, apart from helping students at the University of Malaya or in high schools, to help students in schools other than high schools, with special reference to Malay students?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to explain to the Member for Kampong Kembangan that the bursaries to all Malay students in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya are paid by the Government. At this time, 11 graduates receive scholarships and bursaries. These scholarships are given as an addition apart from those given by the Government. In connection with the students at the Polytechnic, Mr Speaker, at this time there are no bursaries for the Malay students. In 1960 bursaries for Malay students at the Polytechnic are paid by the Government. In the case of free education, however, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a Malay student who receives a bursary after he has competed with other students.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have not had an explanation in regard to the principle from the Member for Ulu Pandan. I hope the Minister himself can explain, as he is the head of the Ministry of Education. Is it the policy of the Government to help other than Malay students at the University of Malaya? That is what I want to know, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the policy of the Singapore Government to give special assistance to Malays in the field of education. That is why this year we announced a scheme to give free education for Malays up to University level. There are special Malay bursaries in secondary schools. In the year 1960, 88 such bursaries amounting to $18,000 and island scholarships totalling $8,400. And as explained by the Member for Ulu Pandan, all the Malay students in the University of Malaya are in receipt of bursaries. Some are in respect of fees, and others additional bursaries for expenses. One Malay received a bursary in the Polytechnic in general competition. We hope to make special arrangements for Malays in 1961. This is a matter which I will have to take up both with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is Chairman of the Polytechnic, and my colleague, the Minister for Finance. There is no question at all that Government is not making special provisions in bursaries and scholarships in respect of Malays to assist them in this very important field of endeavour.

(In Malay): I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (15) * has been dealt with. *Amendment (15) reads as follows: That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 56.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 58. Sir, the aided English schools have their own provident funds, and the teachers employed are allowed to contribute. Formerly it was 5 per cent at the non-graduate scale. Now those who have served for a longer period are allowed to contribute at a higher percentage than 5 per cent. Even then, when they retire, their retirement benefits are far below those of their counterparts in the Government service. Sir, the teachers and principals in the aided Chinese schools are wondering whether Government would allow them, perhaps encourage them, to organise themselves, so that they could have their own aided Chinese school provident fund whereby they will be allowed to contribute more than what is allowed under the Central Provident Fund. The maximum allowed under the Central Provident Fund is 5 per cent up to a point where a contributor can only contribute $25 and not more. Sir, if a teacher in an aided Chinese school has served for 20 years and is only allowed to contribute $25 a month, then by the time he retires he would have very inadequate retirement benefits. I wonder, Sir, whether the Minister can say that Government will be prepared to assist the aided Chinese schools to have their own provident fund schemes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Member for Tanglin please explain in what way he thinks Government could assist in the matter of private provident funds? That, I would have thought, would be an arrangement between employer and employee. May I know whether he is thinking that Government should put in a contribution? If that is not the way, then may I know what practical measures he has to suggest?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is in line with the Government policy of equality of treatment of all schools. Sir, the aided English schools were, in fact, encouraged in those days by the colonial government to have their own provident fund schemes whereby the Government contributed dollar for dollar or whatever the aided school teachers contributed on the basis of certain rates. In the beginning, Sir, I believe it was 5 per cent of basic; then it was changed to 7 per cent. When the teachers had served for long periods- it is, I think, about 18 or 20 years-by the time they started this improved scheme, the rate went up to as high as 15 per cent, and Government contributed 10 per cent of the employees' basic pay. Sir, the Government regarded this as donations to the aided English schools' provident fund. Now, the aided Chinese schools, of course, not being grouped under organisations, are contributing only as ordinary units to the Central Provident Fund. I am just wondering, Sir, whether they cannot be given the same equality of treatment as aided English schools, so that they need not feel that there has been discrimination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is indeed news. I was never aware that there was such a thing as the previous colonial government assisting the English aided school teachers in the starting of a provident fund scheme. I would appreciate it if the Member for Tanglin could submit that for consideration and study.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be glad to ask the proper authorities to submit details to the Minister in due course. 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now when the Member for Tanglin referred to a woman principal who had been asked to retire at the age of 50, the Minister asked for the specific name of the woman principal. It gives me the impression that asking the woman to retire at the age of 50 years was not the correct thing to do. But according to the Pensions Ordinance, which I have read, the retiring age for a woman is five years below that of a man. Since the retiring age of a man is 50 years with an option of retiring at the age of 55 years, I take it that the women would be retiring at the age of 45 years and compulsory retirement at 50 years. Before I go to the Central Provident Fund question, could I have clarification of that, because it all depends on when the woman is asked to, retire?

Is that relevant?

Yes. If the woman is asked to retire at 50, then the situation is different with the Central Provident Fund. But if she is asked to retire at 55, then my argument will not hold any water.

The position is as the hon. Member has said. But the point was raised by my colleague. It was not merely because of the age factor but because there was the statement made by the Member for Tanglin that she lost certain provident fund benefits as a result of retiring at that age. And I think that, because of this, there might have been special circumstances that needed looking into.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that the compulsory age for retirement for a woman is 50 years. Therefore, I would like to point this out, especially with regard to women school teachers. They have to contribute to the Central Provident Fund. Nevertheless, there is provision in the Ordinance that a school teacher who has served 15 years - including principals - and has reached retiring age, which is either 45 years or compulsory retirement at 50 years, is entitled to three-quarters of what she would have got if she were not married. The difficult situation arises - in fact, double difficulty for the woman-in this way. At 45 years of age a woman teacher retires. She has all the time been contributing towards the Central Provident Fund. When she retires, she opts to accept the three-quarters pension plus whatever gratuities it carries - three-quarters of the usual gratuity. Now whatever she has contributed towards the provident fund she is not able to draw on retirement. The Central Provident Fund is supposed to be a sum to help the worker when he or she retires. When she retires, she is not able to draw that amount. The double difficulty is this. From her gratuity is deducted the amount the Government has paid into the Provident Fund because there is a rule in a Government Ordinance that when they pay out any gratuity or any pension, or any money at all to their employees, on retirement, they take out everything that is due to the Government before the sum is given to the pensioner. Therefore, the woman has to pay not only her share of the Central Provident Fund - and not being able to withdraw it for another ten years, because she is not able to withdraw it until she has reached 55 years - but she has also to pay for the Government's share on her retirement. So that if she has put in $5;000, she has to pay Government's share of $5,000 and that money will be in the Central Provident Fund for another ten years until she reaches the age of 55 years. So I feel that that is very unfair on women.

I am just wondering whether the Minister is prepared to answer. The Minister is prepared. Dr Goh.

As the law stands, Mr Speaker, Sir, this would be the position: that in the case of withdrawal from the provident fund, that was the age limit. Obviously the Central Provident Fund has to take safeguards. The fact that a woman retires at the age of 45 or 50 years does not mean that she will not be able to find work elsewhere. Now this is one of the curious anomalies which have arisen in the past and over which we cannot be held responsible. I have always held the view that women should retire at a later age than men. If a man retires at the age of 55, a woman should go on working to the age of 60. It is a biological fact that women outlive men by a considerable number of years. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, it does seem to me that this is a matter that needs looking into. It is not such a desperately urgent matter, but I would say that the time has come to have some second thoughts about this whole business.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurances given, may I withdraw the motion? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 59. Sir, I do not want to get ourselves involved in this highly controversial issue of the fear of the University of Malaya people that because the Government pays the piper, it is going to call the tune. I believe it has been accepted now in view of the Prime Minister's statement that the University of Malaya will be an autonomous organisation- An hon. Member: It has always been.

Well, it has always been, and will always be. I simply want to ask for confirmation in this House that that is going to be the policy of Government in future; and I express the hope, Sir, that that will be the policy of Government also towards Nanyang University, so as to remove their fears, because equality of treatment naturally must hold good here as on the secondary school level or the primary school level.

Surely, Sir, if the Prime Minister has already made a public statement that the autonomy of the University of Malaya has never been questioned, and again in this Assembly the hon. Member for Farrer Park himself also was happy to accept the statement of the Prime Minister as adequate assurance, it does not require the Minister for Education to give a further reassurance of an assurance made by the Prime Minister. If the question of autonomy does not arise, the question of assurance also does not come into the picture, and that should apply to a university if it is properly run and organised.

The Hon. the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech said that the Government proposed to give $1 million more next year than this year. But I see under the Remarks column that it is subject to Treasury sanction. What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that the $1 million is subject to Treasury sanction, or is the whole vote subject to Treasury sanction?

The explanation is simply this, Mr Speaker, Sir. The financing of the University of Malaya for the years 1959/1960/1961-triennium - was decided by a Joint Finance Committee composed of representatives from the University of Malaya and the two Governments of the Federation of Malaya and Singapore. In that report, the annual expenditure for the three years was compiled and subsequently accepted by the two Governments at 90 per cent of the sums recommended. For the years 1959 to 1960, both Governments, therefore, gave to the University of Malaya 90 per cent of the figures stated in the report. But this year, there has been a request on the part of the University of Malaya to the effect that since the present enrolment in the University has exceeded the figures stated in the report, they would like the two Governments to release the 10 per cent. In other words, a full contribution to the University as envisaged by the Joint Finance Committee. That being so. Government representatives on the University have agreed to this, subject to satisfactory answers to be obtained from the Universities during the year whether the 10 per cent should or should not be released. Therefore, for the sake of the Estimates, the full sum has been entered. I might mention that the sum involved for the Singapore Government is $3,966,670. Then there are two additional sums; $74,700 being expenses for the Central Secretariat of the University which has a separate estimate, plus a further sum of $20,000 being the Singapore Government's share in the pre-university courses that are being instituted in the University of Malaya (Singapore Division) at the request of the Singapore Government to provide a one-year course for graduates from the non-English secondary streams of education in Singapore, making a total of $4,061,370 as shown in the vote on sub-head 59.

In view of the assurance given about the autonomy of the University of Malaya, and that the same kind of autonomy would be applied to Nanyang University in due course, I beg leave to withdraw the motion. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $l00*. *The same admendment stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah and Mr Ong Eng Guan. Sir, a great deal of light has been thrown on many problems in the field of education as a result of this debate. I am glad also that there is now promise of a new spirit of give and take and of goodwill-

Order. I am just wondering whether we could touch on topics raised in their order. I think the hon. Member will remember that I stopped him from dealing with tuckshops, and then he moved another amendment. Perhaps he could go on to tuckshops, unless he wishes to carry on with his exordium. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was leading on to that. Sir, the circular on management of school tuckshops is made up of 16 pages in the first circular and four pages in the second, making a total of 20, so I was not inaccurate. Sir, the language, unless I am ignorant of the language, is authoritative. So, if the Minister says that heads of schools can have the discretion in spite of the language of authority to interpret generously, Sir, I am not sure whether his own officials would agree to that. Because I have been taught that when a superior officer says, "Please call", it is really a command, Sir. The circular is in language worded like this: `The following regulations governing the management of tuckshops in all Government aided schools shall become effective from 1st of January, 1961:- Sir, "shall" is a command. Section 1 reads: `School Tuckshop Committees: Every Government and aided school which has a tuckshop shall set up a school tuckshop committee comprising the following:- Principal of a school, Chairman. A representative of the teachers of the school. A representative of the hawkers of the school. An inspector of schools from the Ministry of Education. A representative of students for a secondary or a full school. A representative of either old boys, or parents or pupils for a primary school, and the School Tuckshop Committee shall meet at least twice a year. Other meetings should, however, be held as and when necessary.' And then a list of duties: `."The duties' of the School Tuckshop Committee shall include.'. Sir, if inspectors of schools have to attend all these meetings -

Twice a year, Sir.

- and there are round about 700 registered schools- The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr Byrne): 700 principals!

In that case, there are at least 400 tuckshops and 1,200 meetings at least in a year. Well, some inspectors of schools must be specially allocated to attend to the tuck-shops. I wonder, Sir, whether all this labour and expense is necessary. The Government is all the time saying it must economise. Sir, the Director of Education, a highly paid man, becomes involved. In subsection (2) of section 2, it says: `A school whose tuckshop is unable to accomodate the minimum number of stall-holders required, or which is unable to fill a vacancy to meet the requirements of the above regulation, may be allowed to have less than the minimum number of small stallholders with the permission of the Director of Education.' Then, in almost every paragraph, Sir, appears the word "shall". Appointment of stallholders is in section 3, subsection (1), which reads: `Applications for stalls in all new schools shall be considered by a selection committee consisting of the principal of a new school (chairman), the Assemblyman of the area in which the school is situated, or an Assemblyman member of the Central Tuckshop Committee, Inspector of Schools of the area and a representative from the Sin Chew School Canteen Vendors Association'. Sir, it looks as if politics is entering into school management.

Management of tuckshops.

Tuckshops.

An Assemblyman of the area must be a member of this committee. Sir, I have sufficient trust in the principal. So long as discretion is given as to how things are conducted, I will not want to attend such a committee, unless I receive complaints. Why should I go and interfere with the internal management of a school? As Assemblyman of my area, I become a political figure. I do not want politics to come and interfere in the internal management of a school. I do not want the principal to feel that any political pressure is applied by any Assemblyman of any political Party. I am not sure whether this Sin Chew School Canteen Vendors' Association comprises all the vendors. But if it is not, and if there are other hawkers' associations, they would say that there is a monopoly given to this Canteen Vendors Association. Then the tuckshop fees are also regulated. `Tuckshop Fees: For the purpose of assessing tuckshop fees, all Government and aided schools have been graded a, b, c, d, or e according to the purchasing power of the pupils. The classification of the rate to be applied by each school is given in appendix 5.' An hon. Member: Quite a long story!

Sir, it is very long. It is so long that in the end -

To bring about standardisation!

- the one who drew up this circular, Sir, decided that the people would have difficulty either in understanding or carrying out the details of the circular, so a meeting was convened. The second circular went out, dated about 8 days later. Paragraph (2) reads: `The attached notes [some more notes, Sir] have been drawn up to introduce uniformity in the matter of calculating of fees of individual stallholders and to assist school tuckshop committees in determining the monthly fees to he paid.' Paragraph (3) : `A meeting of all principals of schools affected by Education Circular 33/60 will be held as scheduled below to clarify any doubts you may have regarding the circular and the attached notes, and to expound procedure and other details not mentioned in the circular.' Sir, it is "to expound procedure and other details". So, in due course, the heads of schools went there. Sir, I had to be here, so my senior assistant had to go. I was told, Sir, when I asked for a report, that it was just to listen to a directive. No request was made whether they had any improvements to suggest or whether the system was really the best possible. They were just convened to listen to an exposition of this thing. Somebody expounded and they were asked to carry out the orders. Sir, that is the spirit which democratic people do not quite appreciate. If there is something not quite right with the system, they should be given the right to say so and their views should be considered by the Ministry before the thing is given to them just like that. In that case, the experience of the heads of schools in, tuckshop management counts for nothing. In fact, the system introduced in all the schools here was tried out in many of the older schools, and they found something even better. Now, will the Minister assure us that if a system is better than the system he has introduced, should it be scrapped in favour of a worse system for the sake of uniformity? Sir, we want equality. But when it comes to uniformity, it is just like saying, we want a standard-size dress, that is, the average one, and we ask the Minister for Labour and Law, who is rather huge in proportion, Sir, to go into that standard suit. He becomes too big for that. And we ask the Deputy Prime Minister to go into that suit, Sir. He may not want it. In fact, Sir, I have been told by one head of a Government school that when he tried to implement this, he found that the hawkers in his school canteen were going to be made to, pay more than they were then paying. Sir, the system which was devised in one larger school was on a co-partnership basis. Here the hawkers contribute 5 to 10 per cent of the gross takings to the school in return for use of equipment and canteen. If they make their foodstuffs attractive and delicious, naturally, more school children buy the stuff, so they make more profit. If they give foodstuffs which the children consider to be below quality, they will not buy; so they will get less. So, this kind of a system, Sir, is much better than where the rates are fixed. The hawkers are happier and so are the children and teachers, because they get good quality food. The school is also happy although it does not get as much as it will get under this proposal. Sir, under this proposal, all the net takings are to be surrendered to the Accountant-General. The Government will only get $100 from each primary school. Sir, in the past, tiffin shed profits were ploughed back into the schools for the benefit of the schools and the school children. Under this scheme, Sir, the profits are sent to the Accountant-General for the revenue of the State. Sir, aided schools, since they have to pay for half of the cost of the buildings, are more fortunate in that they are allowed to retain the profits which are to be ploughed back into the schools. But surely, Sir, in the interest of the children in Government schools, at least half of the profits should be retained in the schools for the use of the school children. In any case, Sir, this authoritative attitude militates against the fresh ideas that are being received for improvement. I would suggest, Sir, that in view of what the Minister has said about the spirit of give and take, the same should prevail down below, so that before anything is made cut and dry, the principals of schools or the Head Teachers' Conference - if it is resuscitated - would be invited to discuss the pros and cons and to make suggestions for further improvement. Sir, the next subject I would like to touch on -

Order. I have to remind honourable Members that this debate ends at 7.45 p.m., that is, another quarter of an hour. I do not know whether tuckshops can be disposed of in a couple of minutes before we touch on any other subject? I see that the Member for Farrer Park is also interested in this particular matter-

Not on tuckshops, Sir.

No. Perhaps we could deal with tuckshops. The Minister might wish to give his opinion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Tanglin has touched on the question of school tuckshops. He asked just now why these inspectors were not allotted better work to do, instead of sending them to investigate tuckshop problems. We must understand that only inspectors can be sent to investigate matters relating to schools. When we send inspectors to inspect the tuckshops, we do not mean they must interfere with the schools' internal matters. Their purpose is to supervise, to see that hawkers in the tuckshops carry out their services properly, and also to see whether the tuckshop committee has properly carried out the directives of the Education Ministry. As to another issue raised, he said that in the circular, the word "shall" was used. He touched on this word. 7.30 p.m. This is to show what the Ministry of Education wanted them to do because this relates to directives by the Ministry more or less on matters relating to legal aspects. Therefore, we must use the word "shall" and we must not use other terms. This is very clear. The Member for Tanglin is the principal of an English school and he should especially understand this. The hon. Member does not entirely understand the number of unions there are for hawkers. The Ministry recognises the School Canteen Vendors' Association, because from the list of members submitted to the Ministry, we know how many members there are. We are satisfied that the members of that union outnumber those of other hawkers' unions. As far as I know, the membership totals over 1.

000. Therefore, we have written to the schools saying that the above association represents the school hawkers. The hon. Member said that the rents paid for stalls have increased. This is not true. Formerly, there were two kinds of schools: Government schools and aided schools. In the past, the stalls in the aided schools were rented out through tenders calling for contracts. In this respect, the rents were higher. But since the introduction last year of the unification of rents affecting all tuckshops, they have been reduced by half. In some schools, they pay slightly more than the average rent. After one year of experience, some trouble has arisen. Therefore, we have classified these rents as `A', `B', `C', `D', and `E'. If a school belongs to the `A' class, it means to say that the students of that school have a higher purchasing power. The leviable sum on that school is 18 cents per pupil. On a `B' class school, it is 16 cents per pupil. On a `C' class school, perhaps it is 13 cents per pupil, and on a `D' class school, perhaps it is 10 cents per pupil. The schools belonging to the `A' class are very few in number. What I have just said applies only to primary schools. The `B' class schools are more than the `A' class schools, and so on. The rates charged are fair to all hawkers. The rates paid by the hawkers in Government schools are paid to the Government. The fees from aided schools, of course, are allotted to some other proper channel-

Dr Toh.

7.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to move a motion to censure and suspend the Member for Hong Lim unless he apologises for certain misdemeanours committed in the Assembly. I have waited for the Member for Hong Lim to be present in this Chamber to move this motion, but as he does not seem to be making an appearance here, although it is getting late, I wish to move the motion now.

I was just wondering whether the Leader of the House will make the request at 7.45 p.m. when we complete this debate. There are eight minutes more to go. This is Opposition time and perhaps we could give them eight minutes more.

I do so agree.

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. 7.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as time is pressing on, I will confine my remarks to two main points which I wish to touch upon this evening. Sir, listening to the debate on the Ministry of Education Estimates, it appears to me that the main trouble seems to stem from the fact that the Ministry officials do not seem to have the confidence of the teachers of our schools in Singapore. It seems that the officials in their pettifogging officialdom do not seem to understand the problems of school teachers, school-masters and head-masters. If they can concede the point that the teachers and schoolmasters, being nearer the school children, are in a better position to appreciate educational problems than Ministry officials, perhaps we might be able to restore some sort of peace and thereby ensure some sort of progress in the educational field. It seems to me that all that is happening in Singapore today is a lot of frustration caused by unnecessary circulars, petty regulations, such as the one which was read out this evening, all of which seem to show that the whole point of education is being missed. Perhaps the Ministry officials have nothing else better to do than seem to be interested in tuckshops and spend their time drafting regulations which run to 20 pages. The second point I wish to touch upon is the question of the six-day week for primary schools. I do not wish to speak on the six-day week for secondary schools, because I do not feel that I am sufficiently competent to do so on that subject. But on the question of primary schools, I would ask the Minister for Education respectfully to re-consider the whole position in the light of what has happened in the last year or so. Sir, I submit, with respect, that in so far as the primary schools are concerned, the six-day week has served no useful purpose. If anything, it has acted in a way not in the best interest of the primary schools. We were made to understand that as the Chinese schools themselves have a six-day week, perhaps it is not out of place that the English schools should also fall into line. So I was surprised to read on page 1 of this afternoon's Free Press under the heading "Chinese primary school hours should be cut, Minister told" describing the hours that Chinese primary school teachers should be called upon to work. I have done some multiplication and division and find that it eventually comes to about 41 hours a day which, when multiplied by five, gives them the time they think that primary school teachers should be called upon to teach in Chinese schools. Therefore, it seems to me that we could quite easily get back into the five-day week in so far as the English stream is concerned. I do not wish to take up any more time of the House. Perhaps the Minister might want to reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will quickly answer the points raised by the Member for Tanglin. The circular mentioned is not meant to be an army directive. We are the Ministry of Education. But, unfortunately, the hon. Member thinks that "shall" is a command. I could almost feel that he was clicking his heels every time the word "shall" was mentioned. He takes the view of Assemblymen being asked to take some part in the membership of a school tuckshop committee as political interference. It is far from that. I think it is important that Assemblymen, if they are prepared to offer their services, should know what goes on in their own constituencies. New schools are to be erected. After all, almost every parent has at least one or two children in school. The problem of how they are looked after in the tuckshop is not confined to P.A.P. Assemblymen but to the Assemblyman of the particular constituency in which the school is. We welcome the presence of Opposition Members to see that all is well, so that they can be happy with what is going on, far from interfering with the responsibilities and powers of the principal. Most of the difficulties that we come across are, of course, brought about by the desire of bringing the four streams into uniformity. A simple analogy is this. If we were dealing with only one stream of education, it would be like a ball rolling smoothly; but with four streams of education, it is like a cube. It does not roll but it just wobbles here and there. We come next to the remarks of the Member for Farrer Park. I agree that officialdom could be somewhat stiff and officious in their bearing and also in the manner in which circulars and letters are sent out. That is why it is necessary for the officials to go through a political study course to understand that keeping in touch with the public is important, and I would welcome more discussion groups and meetings of inspectors, principals and teachers. These have already been started and I would encourage more of these discussions. As for the six-day week for primary schools, I am afraid that there will be no change in the educational policy of Singapore, but I can inform the Member for Farrer Park that, at the moment, we are trying to devise new time-tables both for primary and secondary schools for 1961 whereby we will be bringing all activities, which in the past were considered as extra-mural activities, into the normal school curriculum. Since most schools are now normally working on two or three sessions, it becomes very difficult for the pupils in the morning session to turn up in the afternoon for their activities. So, many of the extra-mural activities will become part of the school curriculum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that Assemblymen were asked to take part in the tuckshop committees. Our Assemblymen have never been asked, except maybe one Assemblywoman.

Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has not been paying attention to what I have said. Or perhaps he was out having his coffee in the C.P.A. room. The regulation which was read out in extenso by the Member for Tanglin was that there will be school tuckshop committees in which the principal of the school will be the chairman. That is for 1961 and we are approaching 1961. I am afraid the Member for Tanglin- 7.45 p.m.

Order. It is 7.45 p.m.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $68,157,820 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The final motions are in regard to the remaining Heads of Expenditure in respect of which no amendments stand on the Order Paper. They are Heads 3, 6, 10, 11, 14 to 18 inclusive, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 52 and 55.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the last column of the Abstract of the Estimated Expenditure, on page 31 of Paper Cmd. 26 of 1960 stand part of the Estimates", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $314,583,210 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 26 of 1960", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

7.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Leader of the House it is part of my duties and, in fact, it is my responsibility to assist you in maintaining the decorum of the Chamber. We have seen over the past few sittings -

Order. I think the Hon. the Leader of the House should first satisfy me that this motion can be taken now. I would like to know the terms of the motion to start off with.

Mr Speaker, as you are aware, under Standing Order No. 30, there is no necessity for notice of motion to be given in order to move a motion for the suspension of a Member. The terms of my motion are- That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people, in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly. That he be suspended from the service of this Assembly until such time as: (1) he apologises to this Assembly for his dishonourable conduct; (2) he unreservedly withdraws his unfounded allegations against the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and Law; and (3) he assures the Assembly that he will not persist in abusing his privilege in this Assembly for uttering malicious falsehoods; or (4) be prepared when challenged to repeat outside the Assembly the charges he makes inside the Assembly.

May I have a copy? Copy of the Motion handed in.

I think there are two points on which I must be satisfied. Firstly, whether or not this motion can be taken on a day allotted for the business of Supply. That is the first point that I am not quite certain about. I would like to refer the Leader of the House and honourable Members to the relevant Standing Order No. 85, paragraph (2), which reads - `On a day allotted to the business of Supply, the business of Supply shall stand as the first order, and so long as the business of Supply has not been completed, no business other than the business of Supply shall be taken after 3 p.m. or before 8 p.m.,' the other part of the paragraph is not relevant. Secondly, it appears to me that this motion, which is purported to be moved without notice under Standing Order No. 30, paragraph (e), is a motion which goes beyond merely a motion for the suspension of a Member. Under Standing Order 30: `Unless Standing Orders otherwise direct, notice shall be given of any motion which it is proposed to move with the exception of the following:-

A motion for the suspension of a Member.' It appears to me that in reading the Standing Orders, one must read the Standing Orders as a whole. The Standing Orders are really aimed at giving fair notice to Members of any motion, especially one of grave import. It appears to me, at first glance, that Standing Order 30 (e) should be related to Standing Order 56 (1). There is a motion there which could be moved to suspend a Member from the service of the Assembly on the initiative of the Speaker when there is grave disorder, abuse of the rules of the Assembly, and so on. I would like to consider this point. There is little time left to carry on, unless, of course, the Leader gets the assent of the House to carry on with this business after 8 p.m. But I would suggest that I give a considered ruling tomorrow at half-past two.

So be it, Sir.

We are now nearing 8 p.m. and if the Minister for Finance would agree, we could adjourn. I do not think it necessary to report progress because we have an order of the Assembly already that the Development Estimates anyway will start tomorrow. So perhaps Mr Leader will move the adjournment simpliciter.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to Eight o'clock p.m.