Hansard, 1961-12-16

In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 86, paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 89 and paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 87, I have for both the Estimates containing a Vote on Account for 1963 and the Development Estimates for 1963 fixed the times on each allotted day at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. Those times have been circulated to Honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report*. * Appendix, Cols. 2405-8.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Main Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year 1962 have been considered and approved by the Assembly as Paper Cmd. No. 35 of 1961. It is now necessary to give legislative approval to the expenditure of the sums shown in these Estimates, and the annual Appropriation Bill now before Members is intended to so provide. Under section 97(1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, an Appropriation Bill containing, under appropriate heads of expenditure, the sums of money which are required for the several services of government shall be introduced into the Assembly. The Appropriation Bill lays out all the amounts approved by the Assembly in the Estimates of Expenditure and arranged under the Heads of Expenditure shown on pages 41 and 42 of Cmd. No. 35 of 1961. Once the Appropriation Bill has been approved, the Minister for Finance will be empowered to issue warrants authorising expenditure up to the amount under each Head in the Appropriation Bill to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is one point on which I wish to touch, and that is Head 33 in the Schedule - Charge on Account of the Public Debt. On the first occasion when the Budget was presented to the Assembly by the present Government, I raised one or two queries on the items set out under Head 33- Charge on Account of the Public Debt - and you, Mr Speaker, ruled me out of order because they were statutory debts. Mr Speaker, Sir, under Head 33, the total figure to be allocated is set out on page 350 of the Estimates, and on pages 41 and 42 is an abstract of estimated expenditure for the year 1962, showing statutory expenditure and the amounts to be voted. Now under Head 33, the statutory expenditure is $20,549,310 and the amount to be voted by the Legislative Assembly is $1,500,710. When one examines these items, one notices two points. The first point I wish to bring to the attention of the House is subheads 4 and 5. Subhead 4 is Discount on Treasury Bills . . . . $1,500,000, and subhead 5 is Interest on Treasury Deposits .... $1,600,000. The point I wish to make is that these two subheads appear as statutory expenditure and, therefore, the Assembly has no control over its expenditure. But the difficulty here is that these are interest payments on debts which are not yet incurred and, therefore, my contention is that any interest payment on debt not yet incurred is not a public debt. Section 97(4) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, sets out the heads of statutory expenditure and one of such heads is section 100 which reads: 'The public debt of Singapore is hereby charged on the Consolidated Fund.' What I would like to ask the Minister for Finance is this. If he does not raise money by way of Treasury bills or does not take in Treasury deposits, then these two sums do not become payable by way of interest. That being so, how can he then come to the Assembly and say that this is statutory expenditure and that the Assembly has no control over it? This seems to be a left-handed way by means of which Government can raise money without the consent and, if I may say, Sir, without the knowledge of the Assembly regarding the purpose of expenditure. Assuming that a discount on Treasury bills is obtained at an average rate of five per cent interest, then under subhead 4, Govermnent can borrow about $30 million for 1962. Similarly, they can borrow another $30 million by way of Treasury deposits under subhead 5. So that the Government is then enabled, by the use of subheads 4 and 5, to borrow up to $60 million without the consent of the House. That is the first point, Mr Speaker, Sir. The second point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Finance is this. Under subhead 10 on page 350 of the Estimates, there is a sum of $1,500,000 which appears as Repay ment of War Damage Interest-Free Loan, but that apparently is not a public debt. Although it seems to be a debt which is being paid out of the Consolidated Fund, yet it does not appear under Head 33 as a Charge on Account of the Public Debt, because the Minister is, in fact, asking the Assembly to vote $1.5 million for the repayment of war damage interest-free loan. Perhaps the Minister might care to explain to the House why it is that this particular debt is treated as if it were not a public debt.

Dr Goh, in reply.

I have been assured of the correctness of regarding interest paid on Treasury bills and Treasury deposits as coming within the terms of Charge on Account of the Public Debt. Therefore, it is statutory expenditure which need not require the assent of this House before it is paid. However, I think the Member for Farrer Park has a point, that in respect of long-term le2ns, it is necessary for the Government to seek the approval of the House - at any rate as regards the maximum limit to which we can borrow by way of loans from the public. But as regards the Treasury bills and Treasury deposits, reference to this House is not necessary. I am not quite sure what the legal position is in this respect, because Treasury bills have the authority of an Ordinance which was passed by the former Legislature, and I am not certain whether or not any ceiling has been imposed on the amount that Government can so borrow. It could well be that a ceiling has been imposed under that Ordinance on the amount that could be borrowed by the Government through Treasury bills. As regards the second point, that is the repayment of war damage interest-free loan, the position is this. Before World War II, there was a compulsory war damage insurance scheme to which various categories of business were required to contribute. After the war, the damage was assessed and large amounts were paid out by way of war damage compensation. The funds available under the war damage insurance scheme were not adequate to meet all the claims for war damage, and the U.K. Government had to come to the assistance of both the Singapore Government and the Federation Government. I think this was in 1948 or thereabouts - just a few years after the end of the Second World War. Part of the financial assistance was made by way of grants and part was made by way of interest-free loans. Although the loan carried no interest, it is necessary, of course, to make annual repayments of principal, and this is the contribution which the Singapore Government has to make to the U.K. Government in repayment of this loan. There is still another 15 years to go. I think it is for this reason that the repayment of this loan has not been regarded legally to fall within the terms of Charge on Account of the Public Debt as defined in the Constitution.

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

Third Reading. Mr Minister.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

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

Order for Second Reading read. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The University of Malaya was established on 8th October, 1949, as a national institution to serve the higher educational needs of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The origins of the University could be traced back to the founding in Singapore of the King Edward VII College of Medicine in 1905 and Raffles College in 1929. Both these Colleges gradually expanded to serve the educational needs of the increasing population of Malaya until World War II intervened in 1942. In 1947 a Commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders to inquire into and make recommendations concerning university education in Malaya. As a result of the recommendations of this Commission, the University of Malaya was founded in 1949. Although the Commission recommended that the two Colleges should form the nucleus of the new University, it also anticipated the rapid demand for higher education in a swiftly expanding population of the two territories, and so it recommended that the new University should consider moving into South Johore in order that future expansion would not be hindered for lack of space. However, this did not materialise because of the enormous cost involved, and the scheme had to be abandoned in 1954. In 1957 a Commission of Inquiry headed by Dr R. S. Aitken was set up by the Governments of Singapore and the Federation, this time at the request of the University, in order to review the constitution, working, and finances of the University in the light of experience and rapid expansion of the last seven years, and of the prospective expansion in the near future, including the plan for developing the University in Kuala Lumpur, and to make recommendations. Arising from the Commission's Report and resulting from the recommendations of the two joint Committees on Constitution and Finance appointed by the two Governments, legislation was passed in November 1958 providing for the continuance of the University of Malaya as a single university but with the establishment of two largely autonomous Divisions of equal status, one in Singapore and the other at Kuala Lumpur. This legislation came into effect on 15th January, 1959. The University's running expenses continued to be met from grants from the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, hitherto made on a quinquennial basis in the ratio 40 : 60, on the basis of student numbers from the two territories. But in 1959 they were amended to a triennial basis for the period 1959-61 and the ratio changed to a basis of 1: 2. It was also expected that by 1962 each Government would be responsible for looking after its own Division and at the same time contributing towards the annual recurrent cost of the other Division in respect of its students attending courses not available in its own Division. Capital grants, however, would continue to be made on an equal basis during the triennium. In May 1960 the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya indicated their intention to establish autonomous separate national universities in Singapore and the Federation by 1962. Steps were accordingly taken in both territories to redraft new constitutions for each Division to found two separate national universities. At the request of the Divisional Council of the University of Malaya (Singapore Division), a joint Government/University committee of seven were appointed in June this year for this purpose. And the present draft Bill was submitted to both the Divisional Senate and Divisional Council for their views. I might add that the Singapore Joint Government/University Committee were in the happy position of being able to use the draft Bill of the Federation's Joint Government/University Committee in its deliberations. On the whole, our Bill closely follows the present pattern of the Constitution of the University of Malaya so that a feeling of continuity with the old is being maintained. The present Bill has also incorporated all material points suggested by both the Divisional Senates and Council of the University of Malaya (Singapore Division). Our Bill is also closely in line with the main provision of the University of Malaya Act which was passed in the Federation Parliament this year. I should now like to enumerate the important differences between the provisions of the present Bill with those of the present Constitution of the University of Malaya Ordinance, No. 12 of 1949, and as further amended by Ordinance No. 7 of 1954 and Ordinance No. 44 of 1958. Firstly, there was no provision in the past for the University to grant external degrees. Our draft Bill permits this under clause 4 (b) (ii) at page 9, Part II of the Constitution. The marginal note reads, "Powers of the University":- 'The University shall, subject to the proviions of this Constitution, have power -

Hear, hear!

Singapore being a City State and highly urbanised, it is but fit and proper that adults who of some reason or other could not join the University after a brilliant academic record in school, and for some reason or other, perhaps on economic grounds, are unable to pursue higher education and have to get down to the business of employment, should be given the opportunity to catch up if they wish to burn the midnight oil and pursue their intellectual pursuits. Secondly, membership of the Court. I am referring to page 25 of the University of Malaya calendar year 1960-61. Although under clause 15 (g) of the present Constitution four persons are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to the Court, under clause 13 (g) of the draft Bill at page 13:- 'The Court shall consist of - * * * (g) two persons appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong;'. So although our draft Bill has reduced this number from four to two, provision has been made for the appointment of three additional members, namely, one person appointed by the Sultan of Brunei, one person appointed by the Governor of North Borneo, and one person appointed by the Governor of Sarawak. There are similar reciprocal provisions in the Federation of Malaya Act, 1961, for the Court of the new University of Malaya. In view of the current merger talks and the proposed new Federation of Malaysia, I am sure Members of this House will welcome the provisions of membership of the Court whereby the close association with our brothers in the Borneo territories are being embodied in the Constitution of our University. Provision has also been made for the following additional members to he admitted to the Court of our future University of Singapore. If we turn to page 14, clause 13, paragraph (n): 'the head or director or such other representative as may from time to time he appointed by the governing body of each of the following:-

How long?

Clause 54, if you turn to page 24 of the Bill, provides for the continuation of the present Divisional Council of the University of Malaya in Singapore to be the first Council of the University for a period of one year or such shorter period as may in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor be deemed necessary. Clause 55 provides for the present Guild of Graduates of the University of Malaya to be divided into two Guilds; that is, the Guild of Graduates of the University of Singapore and the Guild of Graduates of the new University of Malaya, at the option of the graduates. Such option could be exercised within a period of twelve months, and if such option is not exercised during the period mentioned, then the last known address of the graduate will .be taken as a basis for going on to the register. I may add that there is a similar clause in the not disposed of of the present University of Malay. Lastly, clause 62, at page 25, provides for the setting up of a Joint Winding-up Committee of eight persons to take over the powers now vested in the Central Council and any other central authority of the University of Malaya. It will have up to two years to wind up affairs still not disposed of of the present University of Malaya. The Bill will not involve the expenditure of additional money. Annual estimates for recurrent annual expenditure and for special expenditure will be submitted by the University in the usual manner annually. The Government is confident that with the establishment of the University of Singapore, more facilities will be provided both in the field of expansion of courses of studies and the number in the intake of students annually. Singapore is a growing State both in status and in its population. With the rapid expansion in secondary education in all the four language streams, it is to he expected that yet greater demands will he made for the provision of higher studies, With the provision thus made, it is hoped that less and less of our students need go overseas to pursue their higher studies for a first degree. Perhaps I should conclude by adding that it is the intention of my opposite number in the Government of the Federation of Malaya and myself to see that both national universities, the University of Singapore and the new University of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, will come into being on the same day, that is, the 1st of January, 1962, if the Bill meets with the approval of this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure we all welcome this Bill. Although for sentimental reasons we may regret that there cannot be one national university to serve the whole of Malaya, yet we know that for practical purposes, this means that instead of one university, we shall have two, and altogether three Universities in Malaya, including Nanyang University. Sir, 15 years ago, when the Carr-Saunders Commission was here, there were still doubts whether there should be a university. They were thinking even in terms of a university college. Yet within 15 years, we have three universities. I am sure that within one more decade people in northern Malaya may be thinking of another university to be sited in Penang or in Ipoh. Then with this idea of a united Malaysia coming to fruition, we can expect Singapore will continue to be very important as an educational centre for South-East Asia. I hope that we shall be drawing students not only from Singapore but also from the neighbouring regions. Sir, I notice that in page 2, paragraph 2 of the Bill, there is a statement to assure that each university will be autonomous. Sir, I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not present in the House today. I have asked a few members of the staff of the University to take part in politics, and they have expressed the view that they were not very sure whether the present Government would show the same degree of tolerance as the previous Government did. I hope that the present Government will be able to give us the assurance that there will be the same degree of courtesy given, and that the Barisan Sosialis will also give the same assurance in case they ever come to power: that is, if any member of the University staff should want to take part in politics in an opposition group, then they would have the same courtesy as they had before. I am sure that in the case of the Member for Anson, he would give that assurance. An hon. Member: For expulsion! Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Sir, I am not ashamed to say that I was one of those poor fellows who were unable to go to a university and had to study as a external student. We had to do it the hard way. I believe the Member for Anson also did it the hard way. I am glad the chance is now being given to those in Singapore to continue their studies after passing their Cambridge School Certificate or Senior Middle III, so that in spite of adverse circumstances they will still be able to attain the object of their ambition and serve their country in a better way. I am sure that we all wish success and still greater success to the University of Singapore in spite of its new name. We believe that the standard will be maintained and that our products will be as good as those that graduated previously. We extend our good wishes, Sir, to the University.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not regret to see the establishment of an autonomous University in Singapore. It is true that the Division of the University of Malaya has been spurred by political motivations. But I do say, Sir, that the requirements of the two territories, and certainly, the requirements of this territory, can only be fulfilled by a university here in Singapore. We have room aplenty for two universities, one in the English language stream and one in the Chinese language stream. I do not view the establishment of an autonomous university as being in any way derogatory to the unity of this area. Mr Speaker, there are political divisions which separate us. The University of Malaya, which was a single unit, did assist, I believe, very considerably in bringing about a common approach anti understanding between students from Singapore and the Federation. I believe this will continue despite the division of the University, by the need of each territory to send students to the other territory to study in those faculties which are absent in the local University. There is another aspect, Sir, which engages me and compels me to rise to sneak this afternoon. The Minister for Education has told us, and told us correctly, that a university is a national institution. Sir, it is a national institution not merely for the dissemination of knowledge but also for the advancement of knowledge, as I think you will see stated in clause 4 (a) of the Schedule. That is the distinction between a university and a technical college. In a technical college, you acquire knowledge. In a university you do not merely acquire knowledge, but you also expand the frontiers of knowledge. That is by far the more important function of a university, that it should keep alive the human spirit of inquiry, research and independent thinking. Before our youth can be trained in independent thinking, there must be academic freedom for those in whose care they are - the academic staff. My complaint about this Bill is that it does not provide for the protection of academic freedom. Mr Speaker, the leader of the S.P.A., with considerable courtesy, soft-pedaled what is a legitimate fear, and that is the fear of political intimidation whereby academic freedom can be arid is inhibited.

Order. Is the hon. Member for Anson referring to the Member for Tanglin?

Yes.

If he is, I do not think the Member for Tanglin claims to be the leader of the S.P.A.

Sorry, Sir, surely he is the leader of the S.P.A. An hon. Member: He is the leader only in this House.

My apologies. Thank you for the correction. Of course, it is the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, I was saying that this fear is a very real fear. It is a fear which has arisen from certain incidents which have occurred during the short lifetime - not too short; the shorter the better - of this Government. I would like to draw your attention, Sir, to this matter of principle, of the urgent need for the protection of academic freedom and the insertion in this Bill of such protection. I would like to draw the attention of this House to certain correspondence which took place between me and the Principal of the University, who will, under the provisions of this Bill, he the Vice-Chancellor on the 1st of January. Sir, on the 14th of October, 1961. I wrote to the Principal, University of Malaya in Singapore: 'The discussions between the Singapore and the Federation Governments on the issue of Merger have raised, in so far as information is available and will no doubt in future raise matters of constitutional law -'

Order. I do not suppose the Member for Anson is going to read the whole letter, because he is not permitted to do that. All he need do is to read extracts and paraphrase the correspondence.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought in fairness to the officer concerned and the principle of academic freedom that is involved. There are four letters. They are all fairly short, Sir,In that case, I shall try to paraphrase and, in fairness then, may I ask that the entire correspondence be tabled, so that it may be available to be checked?

Certainly, that is the correct course. In his speech, the Member for Anson could paraphrase what is contained in that correspondence and then later on table it for the information of any Member who wishes to see it.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. I drew the attention of the Principal of the University of Malaya in Singapore to the need for clarification of the public in respect of certain matters which arose on these constitutional issues. I pointed out that, in my view, there was a responsibility on the part of the academic staff of the University to assist the people of Singapore and their elected representatives, and asked whether he would have any objection to my approaching a certain professor of international law with a view of obtaining his views on constitutional issues raised by the joint statements issued by the Prime Ministers. I said "I...write to you to ask whether you agree a member of the academic staff of the University can properly advise political parties...". Sir, I did not ask for permission to do so, because, to my mind, a member of the academic staff requires no permission to indulge in such extra curricula activities as he thinks proper so long as they do not encroach upon the time required for the discharge of his responsibilities to the University. Sir, I received a reply which slated, in effect, that the University is prepared to permit individual full-time staff of the Law Faculty to give the advice requested if the request is made by the Speaker and is addressed to the Principal. Sir, I thought, in fairness, I should have read the lot, but I now will table it. I can only say this. I take a very grave view of what I consider to be the lack of understanding displayed in that letter of basic, academic traditions. And there are two traditions affected. One is the freedom of the individual academician in his unfettered discretion to advise or not to advise such person or organisation as he thinks fit on such matters as are within his special competence, without any interference of any character whatsoever, on the part of his colleagues or the Vice-Chancellor. The other tradition is the responsibility of the University and its teaching staff to recognise that we do not subsidise Tomtits in ivory towers. That is not what we pay millions of dollars for. It is an organisation for the advancement of learning to assist the nation and if and when matters vital to the nation arise and there is an honest request for information within their specific field of competence, then they have a responsibility to advise - a responsibility which, again in their discretion, they may refuse, for good reasons, to comply with. Sir, I wrote to the Principal seeking to avoid the possibility of a misunderstanding. At length, I finally received a reply on the 22nd of this month to say that while a member of the University may, subject to limitations imposed by his contract and the ethical code of his profession, freely give advice to anyone, the danger lies in the use to which such advice is put to. He would, of course, he giving advice in his individual capacity, but the quotation of his opinion by a political Party is bound to give rise to the impression that the University is involved in or sympathetic to any particular stand. Again, Sir, though much more courteous in tone and to some extent recognising basic academic rights, this letter does substantially say that they are afraid of being involved in political controversies. Therefore, it would he his view (the Vice-Chancellor, the present Principal) that members of the academic stall should not give advice and that they would be discouraged from doing so. It is indeed a pathetic commentary that the University of Singapore, on the eve of its birth, should fail so signally to recognise its responsibility to the people of Singapore, and display a lack of moral courage as indicated in the correspondence to which I have referred and which I would be happy not only to table here but to have it quoted widely. Mr Speaker, Sir, the fear of the University as displayed by its Principal's letters arises from the conduct of this Government with reference to two persons. One has already been the subject of debate in this House and that is the horror known as the Enright Letter. The other concerns the professor who, in the legitimate exercise of his discretion and within his special field of competence, had the temerity to advise the Member for Hong Lim who sought his advice. I do not know exactly what transpired thereafter, Like an honourable gentleman and a man of dignity, he never saw fit to complain, so far as I know, to anybody. But it is widely recognised in the University that, because of his legitimate activity in advising a Member of this House on certain constitutional matters which affected him, that professor came in for grave criticism from the Prime Minister. You heard the Member for Tanglin express to you what is recognised now throughout the University, that political activities will only be tolerated if they arc pro-P.A.P. If you invite the Prime Minister, Sir, permission will be granted for the holding of a meeting. If you invite Mr Lim Ching Siong, that will not be granted. I would urge that the Government itself should give an undertaking that every contract of every member of the academic staff will include some such clause as the following: "Every teacher shall be free in his unfettered discretion to advise any person or organisation on matters within his special field of competence, provided that such activity does not encroach on the discharge of his responsibility to the University." If we cannot have freedom for the academic staff, we cannot have a University. It will merely be a university in name, a technical college in fact. This House cannot be unconscious of the very genuine fears of the academic stall of the University and those whom it seeks to recruit, that here in Singapore one must mind one's P's and Q's, and if you annoy the Government, your visa is cancelled and you are in for the high jump. Such conditions of intimidation cannot bring out the best or cannot bring out anything that is really valuable in the way of the development of the human spirit for our youth. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Point of order?

Point of elucidation, Sir. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The two instances mentioned by the Member for Anson as being evidence that academic freedom is being curbed by the Government related to expatriate professors, and I think the Government has clearly stated its stand on the participation of expatriates in local political affairs. Does the Member for Anson not take this stand of the Government to account?

Sir, I thank the Minister for Finance for himself admitting what I am asking this House to accept. He now says, in effect, that any member of the academic staff who, within his field of competence, advises on matters which may have a political connotation is acting improperly and will be dealt with by the Government, just as I am saying, and I disagree totally - but totally. I consider that stand to be barbaric (if you permit the expression, Sir, in respect of the stand) and truly at variance with the basic concept of academic freedom. II Professor Sheridan or Professor Groves, or any lawyer who is an expatriate, advises on questions of law any person in this territory in matters which may have political implications, I say, Sir, he is absolutely entitled to. They have to lecture on the legal aspects of politics. How can you seek to prevent them? And why should you seek to prevent them from advising on the legal aspects of politics? I say this, not only in the legal field but in every other field, Sir,In the field of culture, about which the P.A.P. are justifiably touchy, because they know so little of it, and like all ignorant people they are so terrified of what they are ignorant of. But I protest vehemently in this House against the suggestion that a member of the academic staff, because he is an expatriate, cannot advise or lecture on matters within his special field of competence if such matters have a political connotation in the context of local politics. What does matter, Sir, - and in this I would like to compliment the Minister, I am delighted at the provision for external degrees. It is true, as the Member for Tanglin has pointed out, that my academic degree is an external one. Some of my friends in the University say that that is an example of the danger of external degrees! That certainly is one way one can take it, Sir. But I think one should recognise that in this area, where poverty is widespread, bursaries are only recent - and even the Government will admit that they are not adequate - where many who are adults cannot afford to pursue academic studies, and the provision of external degrees would encourage them, to the greater benefit of Singapore - and not only Singapore, Sir. We know that London University, through its external degrees, has influenced considerable areas of the world far beyond the shores of England. I say that if this provision for external degrees is imaginatively pursued in Singapore, we can make a very valuable contribution to the culture of South-East Asia - a contribution which would redound to our own benefit. I will naturally support the Second Reading of this Bill. I had hoped to have the assurance I asked for about academic freedom. [Interruption] In view of the interjection of the Minister for Finance and the snorting noise I hear right opposite, I take it that such an assurance will not be forthcoming. I can but regret, Sir, that I have not had the foresight to move an amendment so that it could be adequately debated and voted on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to participate in this debate until the Member for Anson worked himself into a frenzy as usual.

On a point of order, Sir. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

It is improper and unfair to talk about "frenzy". May I ask that it be withdrawn?

Order. The Chair has to decide whether any expression used in this house is considered offensive. The expression used by the Minister for Finance is considered offensive by the Member for Anson and therefore it must be withdrawn.

I so withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Sir, But I cannot help noticing - because of the short distance that separates the Member for Anson and myself - the way in which he works himself into a state of excitement. I think that would be parliamentary, Mr Speaker, Sir. Now, no one, least of all Members of the Government, would want to curb academic freedom in any way whatsoever. That is not the issue. The issue is this, and I pose it quite fairly and squarely to the Member for Anson. Should any expatriate, be he in the University or outside the University, be permitted to interfere in local political party affairs? That is the issue.

On a point of clarification, if you please. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Sir, you will remember the question he posed to which I answered. The question was that a member of the academic staff of the University, though an expatriate, may within the field of his competence advise on matters even though they have political connotations. I repeat "within the field of his competence".

No one will object to that, if his activities are confined to matters within his field of competence even though they have political connotations [Interruption]. But that is quite different. When an expatriate enters the arena in which there are local political contenders, then he is taking a great risk.

On a point of clarification, Sir. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember during the early days of the P.A.P. there was an expatriate senior lecturer at the University who was a good friend of the local people. He stood on the P.A.P. platform and we welcomed him. We thought he was serving a good cause at that time for the local people. Now on the question of Professor Sheridan -

Order. The hon. Member is rising on a point of clarification. What he is now saying can well be said in his own speech. What is the point of clarification? I have not got that and I do not think the Minister has got it either.

Sir, since the Member for Hong Lim has raised this point, I think, in fairness. I should reply. He was, of course, referring to Professor Elliot. He is a Singapore citizen and he cannot be considered an expatriate because he refused to accept expatriation pay from the University.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

No. Sir. I thought it was on a point of academic freedom. I merely want to distinguish between the practice of one's legitimate profession and one's speciality even though, in the words of the Member for Anson, these are matters having political connotations. That sort of activity and entry into the political arena are two separate and distinct activities. I think even the Member for Anson cannot gloss over this great difference. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do place a great value on academic freedom. An hon. Member: Oh!

I have just made the point that there is a distinction between academic freedom in the exercise of one's skill and one's special line, even though there is a political connotation, and the active entry into the political arena. If after all I have said the Member for Anson is still unable to grasp this distinction, I am just wasting my time and might as well end up here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the utmost respect to the Member for Anson, I cannot agree that the present Principal of the University of Malaya (Singapore Division) is a man who lacks moral courage. I have known him for well over ten years. His political thinking in some ways is not the same as mine. We have different ideas on different matters, but in certain areas of thinking we agree. But I have never, at any moment during our ten years or so of association, thought that he was a man lacking in moral courage. I personally felt that he was outstanding insofar as moral courage was concerned. If I remember rightly, when the Member for Anson was the first Chief Minister, and was speaking and governing Singapore through Press headlines every day, when he was mooting the Malayanisation Commission, he picked on Dr Sreenivasan as the most eminent and able man to carry out a most difficult task confronting Singapore at that stage. [Interruption] But he certainly did not lack moral courage then. [Interruption]

Order.

In my opinion, his moral courage has not gone down one bit, However, Sir, that is not my business. But I did think, in fairness to someone absent, I had to say something about it. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is just one matter on which I wish to speak in respect of this Bill. During the Budget debate, I rose to speak on this, but you ruled me out of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there was a Bill before the House. I personally regret that it has become necessary to separate the two Universities. I entirely agree with the previous speakers that there is more than a pressing need for two or three universities. But I was of the view that all this could be done within the ambit of the University of Malaya. However, Sir, since the position has been reached where the two Universities have been split, I think we have to make the best of it. If this business of the so-called merger had come about two years earlier, perhaps the Universities need not have been split. However, Sir, the split has come. I think our main function today should be to try to keep the two Universities as closely together as possible, to see that they work together in such a way that each of them uses the faculties of the other without duplicating them too much, I know it is necessary to duplicate certain faculties in the interest of both countries, but there are certain faculties which need not be duplicated. One faculty in respect of some subjects will be enough for both the territories for some considerable time. Sir, although the Court is an important institution in the University set-up and it has its place, the more important unit of the University is the University Council, both here and in the Federation. Sir, I would like to see a closer unity between the University Council in Singapore and the University Council in the Federation of Malaya so that the policies of the two Universities would be kept as close to each other as possible. Clause 16 on page 15 of the Bill sets cut the composition of the Council. Under clause 16 (1) (d), the Chancellor is given power to appoint not more than four persons. I was wondering whether the Minister would not think it a good idea, and if he did think it a good idea to press this upon the University authori ties, to make it possible for the Vice-Chancellor of each of the Universities to sit in on the Council of the other. The Vice-Chancellor knows what is going On in his own University, and if the Vice-Chancellor of the Federation of Malaya University could sit in on our Council, then his advice and his knowledge as to what is going on in Kuala Lumpur could be readily and easily available to the Council here. Similarly, if our Vice-Chancellor were to sit in on the Kuala Lumpur Council, his knowledge would be available to the Council there, and once the knowledge is made available, then the Councils could keep in line with each other. That is the main point on which I wish to address the House. On the question of academic freedom, I myself have once or twice spoken in this House, and I do urge upon the Government that autonomy means nothing unless academic freedom is possible. But the Government says something else. These are all matters which are very difficult at the moment from the Government point of view, but if academic freedom does impinge upon the political field, I venture to suggest that the Government should not take too serious a view of it if it is satisfied with the bona fides of the person who is embarking on such ventures. 3.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not wish to take part in this debate, but from what I have heard from the Minister for Education it seems that he wants to make use of this Bill to establish a university in Singapore, saying that it is an achievement of the P.A.P. I am not convinced of this point and so I want to stand up and say something about it. In the first place, we must know that we want to pass this Bill solely because Singapore is in a passive position. It is because the Federation has a national university of its own and Singapore cannot make use of its facilities, and the name also cannot be used by Singapore. If it is used, it does not mean that it is a national institution. Therefore, this University of Singapore Bill has been drafted passively due to pressure exerted on Singapore. It is not anything new done by the P.A.P. Government. This point must be clarified. We must not take this as a sort of achievement of the P.A.P. It does not mean that this is a good result of the P.A.P.'s policy on education. Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have spoken on this matter. I wish to point out that the University of Malaya was established during colonial days and its aim was to serve colonial rule. Today cur country has not achieved independence and the people of Singapore have not achieved complete independence and have not joined the Federation as equals. However, if, say, our University is only a semi-colonial university, and you want to talk of academic freedom for such a university, it is really a dream, because I feel that only a true university can have true academic freedom in an independent country. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the split of the University into two Divisions as provided in this Bill, it seems that the Guild of Graduates is also to be split. I hope that in future graduates of both Universities will not be separated and have the feeling that "I am from the University of Malaya and you are from the University of Singapore." If that is the case, then it will not be good for us, because having intellectuals with such a concept is detrimental to the unity of our country. I especially hope that in future all the graduates of both Universities will be treated alike as far as employment is concerned. There should not be priority or privileges given to one University over the other. I again hope that the P.A.P. Government will take close note that in Singapore and the Federation the desire of the people to pursue higher education is very, very intense, and so it is not sufficient to depend on a university run by the Government. In this respect, I hope the Governments, apart from running their own University, must be liberal and also concerned themselves with the University run by the people themselves. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker. I am placed an invidious position in that I should he speaking on this Bill, being a member of tile academic staff of the University of Malaya and, at the same time, a member of the Government. I came into the Chamber just in time to hear certain remarks being made. Therefore, in all honesty and conscience, I must rise to reply to all those remarks. First of all, let me answer what has been uttered by the Member for Upper Serangoon. I am quite prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions or any useful arguments that have been put forward in this Chamber. But so hollow is the drivel that has been uttered by the Member for Upper -

Order. The Leader of the House must know that the word "drivel" used of speeches of a Member of this House is unparliamentary. Will he withdraw that word?

I withdraw the word "drivel" and use "nonsense". The Member for Upper Serangoon has said that the University of Malaya is a colonial university. We all know that Raffles College, upon which the University of Malaya was founded, was instituted by the colonial rulers who came to Singapore and the Federation. But that does not necessarily imply that those of us who went to Raffles College and the University of Malaya are, therefore, colonialists, as he would have imputed. Here you have in this Chamber my colleague, the Minister for Finance, who was in Raffles College; the Minister for Home Affairs in the University of Malaya; the Prime Minister, in Raffles College with me; the Minister for Law in Raffles College: the Minister for Education in Raffles College -

Point of clarification.

He has spoken, so let me continue. The Member for Queenstown was from the College of Medicine; the Member for Nee Soo from the College of Medicine; the Member for Farrer Park was in Raffles College. Are we colonialists because we went to a colonial institution?

Order. I was just wondering whether there was that imputation.

He never said that.

The Member for Upper Serangoon perhaps could be given an opportunity to elucidate. This is misrepresentation. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to clarify this. What I said was that when this University was established, it was founded by a colonial government because it served the colonial government. I did not say the present University of Malaya is a colonial University because -

Order. The point is: has the Member for Upper Serangoon imputed that those who went to this University are colonialists?

Yes.

Has he imputed that? The answer is "yes" or "no"?

(In Mandarin): No, I did not say that. That was distorted by the Deputy Prime Minister.

He just said that this institution was built by the colonialists to serve the purpose of colonialism; ergo those who went to that institution were dupes of the colonialists.

What logic!

Is that not correct? Yes or no?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister must know that in the mainland of China, all those who oppose America are from American universities.

We are interested in the Federation and Singapore. I am not interested in what happens in China. If he is interested in China, then let him go elsewhere and debate what is happening in China. We are interested in the University of Malaya.

(In Mandarin): Point of clarification. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): I protest against the rough manner of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a very unacademic speech.

Order. I think what Members of this Assembly are interested in is whether the allegation made by the Deputy Prime Minister, that the Member for Upper Serangoon is alleging that all those who went to this University are colonialists, is a correct representation or an incorrect representation of what he said. That is all that Members are interested in.

No.

I am obliged to The Member for Upper Serangoon for his clear answer; and, of course, the Member for Anson is not with us.

A different kettle of fish!

Order.

Sir, it appears from what has been expressed that we are now going to have two Universities, one in Kuala Lumpur and one in Singapore, and that this might lead to a disunity of opinion or a disruption of national feeling in Malaya. It is quite unfounded. The mitosis for the University of Malaya to divide into two parts has already taken place. We have a very simple example. Australia, with a population of round about 10 million, has today about six universities for a population of 10 million. There is no reason, therefore, why we in Malaya, with a population approaching nearly 8 million, should not have two Universities.

Three.

Sorry, three Universities. And there is no necessity to fear that there would be any duplication or triplication. I put to you a very simple example. Once upon a time you had only one medical school in Canada. Then came the discovery that the only medical school in Canada was not producing enough doctors to supply the needs of the country. So they thought they could solve the problem - by putting up a second medical school, which they did. They put up a second medical school. However with two medical schools in Canada, they still found that they could not solve the shortage of doctors. And I say the same problem faces us today. And it will be very selfish of us to think that everything can be centralised or concentrated in one institution - that we should produce all our engineers from one institution, all our doctors from one institution, and all our scientists from one institution. I say that is not a healthy or a logical approach to the problem of higher education. You have innumerable universities in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. And in no way has the unity or thought of nationalistic feeling in European countries or the U.K. or the United States been disrupted by the fact that you have so many universities. On the contrary, a healthy spirit of competition can arise The idea that any particular institution .should have a monopoly of higher knowledge or that any institution should have a monopoly of training professional or science students should be totally thrown overboard. I was out of the Chamber just now, Mr Speaker, when I gathered the Member for Tanglin made certain remarks about me. I must admit that when I became the Chairman of the People's Action Party and, at the same time, held a post in the University, steps could have been taken to make life uncomfortable for me. In fact, steps were taken to make life uncomfortable for me. I do not wish to make this Assembly a bureau where I can lay down my complaints. I have forgotten all that.

On a point of clarification

No, I do not wish. Let me continue, Mr Speaker, I will say this. The last Government was generous enough to permit me to continue teaching at the University. I must admit that, I will give them that tribute. But I will say in this House that I have never at any time made the University a battle-ground for party politics. I had ample opportunity to influence my academic colleagues and to influence the students who came under me. But I never did it. I deliberately kept party politics out of the University. I kept politics out of my relationship with the students and out of my relationship with my staff colleagues, because I sincerely believe that the University should remain a neutral ground. It should never degenerate into a battle-ground for party politics. I would regret very much indeed if in the future we should find that the University has degenerated into a playing field for politicians.

Hear, hear!

Members of this House will be fully aware that we have an excellent example in the University of Rangoon. I have met professors from that University. I have met politicians who came from the University. The sad fact is that students in that University are running the government. Sir, I say this under cover of privilege of this Assembly. I do not wish it to be taken as a mark of disrespect towards another country. Perhaps it is a custom which they are used to. But I say that we should never allow any university in this country to become the back-seat driver of any politician. I will say that we should never allow any university in this country also to become the playing field for any politician.

Hear, hear!

Any other speaker? Mr Yong, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if only the Member for Farrer Park had spoken earlier, before the Member for Anson had to say his piece about the exchange of letters between him and the Principal of the University of Malaya, Singapore Division: on the one hand, he said there was a lack of moral courage on the part of the Principal of the University and in the next moment he said he acknowledged that he had moral courage. One moment this, the next moment that. Sometimes we do not know what he talks about.

Sir, on a point of order.

Point of order.

I have been grossly misrepresented by the Minister. Is it fair? Is it in order?

Order. If the Minister will give way now, the Member for Anson can say how he has been misrepresented.

I am much obliged, Sir, I think it was in 1956, Sir, that I appointed this gentleman as Chairman of the Malayanisation Commission. I had great pleasure to express in this House the gratitude of the Government for his excellent job, which was extremely well done. There is no question at all about it. That has nothing to do with the fact, except that the same person is involved in the exchange of letters which we had which is going to be tabled, and which the Minister can read. The fact that the man showed moral courage of a very high order, intellectual integrity of a very high order, and intellectual ability of a very high order on one occasion does not necessarily mean he does not fail in lack of understanding of academic traditions at a later stage.

I am glad he has given himself away, Sir,I think the Member for Anson, the more he has to say, the more he gets involved, and the more he speaks against himself. He is trying to suggest that there should be academic freedom in the University. But the very fact that he is talking about it is just the opposite. He expects the Government to tell the University what to do. Where will there be academic freedom. An hon. Member: It is not true.

He said so.

So, it is clear then, Sir, that all this so-called fear of lack of academic freedom in the University depends on how the man uses his words. The Government has distinctly said, and it is so in this Bill, that the University is to be an autonomous University and that it would respect the autonomy of the institution. That is why the Government too has taken the precaution to see that the constitution of this Council is, as far as possible, left intact. There would only be three Government representatives on the Council which has a membership of 20. I am glad that the Principal of the Singapore Division of the University of Malaya showed his independence by telling the Member for Anson what he thought about the whole matter, by stating that members of the University staff may do what they like in accordance with the contract which the particular serving member of the staff has with the University, who are the employers of the staff.

But -

There are no buts -

There is -

Order.

Unless the Member for Anson wishes to have big "buts".

Me?

But we as the Government are very clear about the part which expatriates should play. Non-citizens are advised not to enter local politics. If it is necessary to give an example - say, for example, a Singapore citizen wishes to go to Montreal to join the University there. If he tried to poke fun at politics in Canada, he would be given a walking certificate and asked to get out of the country. If he wants to take part in local politics, he should become a citizen of that country, go in wholeheartedly, and not be a bird of passage, expect to damage the country and then pack up his bag and go away.

No.

That is right. That is what we do not want of an expatriate.

It is not true.

Order.

The Member for Anson has suggested that the University of Malaya would be happy to arrange parties if the Prime Minister went to the University to address the students, but that if members of other political Parties attempted to go in, they would not be permitted to do so. This is not in accordance with the facts. Sir. The Member for Anson -

I said Mr Lim Ching Siong -

The Member for Anson was invited to a forum before the Anson by-election where he had a lot to say.

A lot of P.A.P.s!

So why all this reference which cannot be supported by facts? I think I need not answer the query raised by the Member for Tanglin about autonomy and academic freedom. I think it is the first time that a University Bill has the word "autonomous" written into it. So it is an improvement over the previous Ordinance under which the present University of Malaya is carrying on. The Govermnent respects the autonomy of the University. But, of course, we would expect the University to be responsible enough to realise that it is not outside the law of the State and that it has a responsibility towards the - An hon. Member: P.A.P.!

- the security of the State. That. I think, is an important factor. I would now like to answer the Member for Farrer Park. His suggestion is that, as far as possible, there should not he any duplication of faculties. This is something, I am sure, both Universities would bear in mind, because it would mean competing for staff and so forth which will not be healthy. But in certain respects, it may not be possible, because for any proper university to function it will have to offer its Art and Science basic courses to students of its own territory. There is the School of Agriculture in the University of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, and it is not likely that Singapore would establish its own separate Faculty of Agriculture. Singapore would send to Kuala Lumpur those students who would like to take up agriculture. The same would apply to Engineering, which faculty was transferred from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. For some time to come, it would appear that we in Singapore would have to look after students from the Federation who want to take up medicine. But everyone is aware that the Federation authorities are interested in establishing a new Faculty of Medicine. How soon they can do it is a matter which they will have to face. As regards the suggestion put forward by the Member for Farrer Park that perhaps the Vice-Chancellor of each University could sit in as a member of the Council in the other University. I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that there is provision in the Councils of both Universities for one person to be appointed, say, in our case, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. There is similar provision in the new University of Malaya Act for one person to be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But in the past it used to be filled by the officials, generally the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education. I think the Member for Farrer Park has a good point there. I will discuss this matter with my counterpart in the Federation Government that perhaps for this particular provision we might invite the Vice-Chancellor of each University to fill the post. I think that is a matter for private negotiation. Lastly, I should like to deal with the remarks passed by the Member for Upper Serangoon. I find that he wants to belittle the fact that the University of Singapore is something established under the P.A.P. Government and that the P.A.P. Government is taking credit for establishing this University. Well, that is a matter of opinion, Sir, I do not think we are crowing over it. In my speech just now on the Second Reading of the Bill, all I did was to trace the background history: how the University was founded, how it broke up into two Divisions, and what would happen if we were to create two separate national Universities. Today the Bill is up for Second Reading and, therefore, it is my duty to present facts and not opinions as to how this University of Singapore is to come into being. The hon. Member lamented the fact that the Guild of Graduates of the University of Malaya has been split into two bodies. Well, I do not see how otherwise it could have happened, because when there was one University, there was one Guild of Graduates; and when one University becomes two Universities, then the two Universities would have to share the number of graduates amongst themselves to form two separate bodies, because out of those two separate Guilds they would have to elect four graduates (in our case, and I think it is high) to the new University of Malaya Council. I must say this, Sir. That this is yet another step in the evolutionary process which produces the new university, just like an ordinary cell which breaks up and forms two separate cells, fairly close. I think, in their upbringing, having the same chromosomes as far as possible and showing the same, shall we say, potentialities. We hope both Universities will have a great future when they come into being in the near future.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]. Bill considered in Committee.

4.18 p.m. Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule -

The Question is, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill." I do not know whether any hon. Member wishes to speak on any Part of the Schedule. Shall I take it Part by Part? I think, that possibly, is the best way. Any comments on Part I, i.e., clauses 1 and 2? No comments? I might mention that we will not be able to go back to these Parts once we have passed them. Part II, i.e., clauses 3 to 6 inclusive. Any comments? None. Part III, clauses 7 to 11. No comments. Part IV, clauses 12 to 24 inclusive. No comments. Part V, clauses 25 to 31 inclusive. No comments. Part VI, clauses 32 to 41 inclusive. No comments. Part VII, clauses 42 to 48 inclusive. Mr David Marshall rose -

Which clause?

Clause 43.

Yes.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that clause 43, sub-clause (3) states the conditions which a teacher's contract should contain, and a teacher is defined in the definition part as including professors, lecturers, etc. Sir, the misrepresentation that was indulged in by the Minister for Education in regard to my efforts on this Bill can now be clarified. I am urging that provisions similar to those indicated there about the terms and conditions of service should include the additional term that every teacher shall be free in his unfettered discretion to advise any person or organisation on matters within his special field of competence, whether he is an expatriate or not. It is not a question of telling the University what to do. It is a question of making it quite clear and giving constitutional protection to the academic staff that they need fear no P.A.P. reprisals if they exercise their academic right in an extra curricula field within the limit of their competence, whether there is a political connotation or not. It is a sad reflection on Singapore, Sir, that though we have here academic staff who can advise us, we have to employ and pay not merely expatriates, but expatriates in other areas, in order to give us advice on matters which our own University professors could do and do well. I ask that my request should not be treated in a spirit of antagonism and distortion. It should be recognised as being a legitimate request for the protection of the staff.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see no reason at all to accept the suggestion put forward by the Member for Anson to make any change to sub-clause (3) of clause 43, Part VII, General Provisions. First of all, the Joint Government - University Committee of seven included the Chairman, who is a member of the Council, i.e., Dr Gwee Ah Leng, three from the Government represented by the Permanent Secretaries of Education. Treasury and the legal draftsman from the State Advocate-General's Office, three from the University of Malaya. SingaporeDivision, represented by the Chairman of the Council, i.e., Dr Tay Teck Eng, the Principal of the University's Singapore Division, i.e., Dr Sreenivasan, and the representative of the Senate. Professor of Law. i.e., Professor Sheridan. Also earlier on I indicated in my speech that the draft Bill had been submitted to the Divisional Senate, the people who are involved in this, and there had been no protest. All the major suggestions, if any, I have already incorporated in this draft Bill and the people who matter have not protested over this so-called lack of academic freedom, which is just in the mind of the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that they said nothing - does that mean that my request is not legitimate? Sir, because a Bill is presented to us by the State Advocate-General, who is a man of considerable legal acumen, therefore it must be correct in every form and this Assembly should not look at it nor should it amend it, and every amendment is unreasonable. Is that the logic of the Minister? I have given to this House two clear examples of intimidation in the academic field. I am prepared that the matter should be referred to a commission of inquiry. I know how frightened they are of commissions. The question is this: is this a reasonable request? Is the provision I seek for the protection of academic freedom reasonable? Is there anything unreasonable in the suggestion that every teacher shall be free in his unfettered discretion to advise any person or organisation on matters within his special field of competence, whether such teacher be an expatriate or not? Is there anything unreasonable in that?

Sir, what is unreasonable is the context in which this request is made. We have nothing against expatriates in their exercise of academic freedom, but I have gone to great lengths to explain that this is a case where expatriate members join the political arena. They should not do so, both in their own interests and in the interests of the University. We do not want to see members of the academic staff embroiled in political fights either with the Government or any political Party. It will not do the staff any good, and it will not do the University any good. This is a simple proposition, Sir, which I put to the Member for Anson. Yet he has deliberately chosen to evade the issue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is fortunate that we are in Committee and I can answer. The gentleman who has just risen, who I understand is a -

The Minister for Finance.

Forgive me, Sir. Minister for Finance, statistician promoted. He asks what is the context. I take the context of Prof. Sheridan, Dean of the Faculty of Law, who within his special field of competence advised a Member of this Assembly on his constitutional rights. He did not enter the political arena. He did a perfectly proper act. He is an expatriate, Sir. Nevertheless it has not been denied what I have indirectly learnt, that he came in for - to my mind - gross criticism from the Government to the extent which, I understand, has decided him to leave the University. A man who has been of considerable value to the University. Sir, the Minister for Finance says it is a matter of coming into the political arena. Where was that question "coming into the political arena"? The second issue was a professor who is a Professor of Literature. He was speaking within his special field of competence. The letter that lie received will be one of the hallmarks of disgrace, a thing of which no civilised government could be anything but ashamed. They ask, where is the political intimidation? For their own good they should not interfere. They are adult professors, Sir, perhaps a lot more mature than the Minister for Finance, and as adults they should be left free to choose what is good for them and what is in accordance with their responsibility and their duty to the University. I am not limiting this issue to the political sphere. I say it is important that expatriates as well as local staff should feel free to advise or refrain from advising in their discretion without outside influence, without any intimidation from the Government. We have heard from the Member for Hong Lim that this Government, when it could get an expatriate who was on the academic staff of the University to stand on its platform, utilised him. Some hon. Members: He was not an expatriate.

Order.

That was not answered.

Order. Well, the Member for Anson heard the answer. The answer was that that particular professor is a Singapore citizen.

Ah, thank you, Sir. He became a Singapore citizen, did he? Very interesting! I am sorry to indulge in personalities. 4.30 p.m. But let us go back to the essential principle. Surely the principle itself is one which every decent person can accept, that the academic staff should feel secure in acting in a manner totally in conformity with academic traditions in giving or refraining from giving advice, and particularly that they should be conscious of a sense of responsibility in advising on matters of national interest when these are within their field of competence. The Minister for Finance said that I had not answered him. I trust he is now wiser.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question I posed to the Member for Anson is simple. Does he accept the principle that a non-citizen, an expatriate, should not interfere in local political affairs?

I think we are just straying from the point. I think the point is whether or not the term of service suggested by the Member for Anson should be written into the constitution. That is the point, is it not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson knows quite well that it is essential that the University should be autonomous and that there must be some meaning to the word "autonomy". You cannot have an autonomous body which does not have any control over what its own employees do. If the University wants to maintain itself as an autonomous body and does not want to get embroiled in political disputes in Singapore, it has the right to maintain that autonomy and it also has the right to control the activities of its employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must leave it to the University to set those limits. Who are we to write in these provisions saying that University employees are free to do as they please within their intellectual competence? If we as legislators try to do that, Sir, I say that we will be derogating from the autonomy of the University. Surely the Member for Anson understands that.

The argument of the Minister is delightful. So if we tell them that they have freedom we are limiting their freedom. That is the argument of the Minister. It is particularly interesting to me to learn from the lips of the Minister that, in fact, he expects the University to discipline its members and control their extra curricula activities. Any University that seeks to do that ceases to have academic freedom. Let us recognise, Sir, when he says, "Who are we to intervene in this autonomy?", that I was speaking of our Prime Minister, his own leader and his own Government who interfered - and interfered, to my mind, in the most improper fashion - in respect of the conduct of two Professors of the University. Who are the "we"? They are the P.A.P., Sir, and it is them from whom I seek to protect the academic staff of the University.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that in drawing up this Bill we have tried to maintain practically the same constitution under which the University of Malaya was carrying on, and this is so. The present clause 42(3) is practically a word-for-word transcription of section 57(3) of the present constitution of the University of Malaya. In answer to the Member for Anson who keeps on saying that it is a reasonable amendment that he is suggesting, I say that it is an unnecessary amendment which we can ignore, because insofar as the persons are concerned. Professor Enright and Professor Sheridan - assuming that the Member for Anson is correct - that happened long ago. Professor Sheridan was one of the members to draw up this draft Bill. He went into the Senate only two to three months ago and no one in the Senate raised this point. They are quite happy with the present constitution, and so is the Government. The same provisions are in this Bill which we are now asking this House to pass and not, as suggested, with an amendment by the Member for Anson.

I think we must press on unless the Member for Anson is very short.

Yes, it is very short. It is merely this. It is true that it is similar to previous provisions. Previous provisions have been proved by subsequent experience to be inadequate. I am now seeking to fill a lacuna that has been proved to exist, which is dangerous.

Part VIII. Any comments on Part VIII which contains clauses 49 to 62? No further comments.

Question put, and agreed to. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill, The Preamble ordered to be the Preamble to the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.41 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The object of the Bill is to amend certain sections of the Private Lotteries Ordinance so as to facilitate administration. Section 4 of the principal Ordinance provides that the Minister may, at his discretion, grant a permit to any person or society for the promotion of a private lottery. He may also withdraw a permit so granted or vary any conditions imposed. At present, the appeal lies to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara from any decision of the Minister. It is now proposed that the power of the Minister in regard to the grant of permits and that of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in regard to appeals under this section should be transferred to the Commissioner of Estate Duties and the Minister for Finance respectively. It is also proposed that the powers of the Minister under section 3, 5, 6, and 16 of the principal Ordinance should now be transferred to the Commissioner of Estate Duties. Section 7 of the principal Ordinance is repealed and is replaced by clause 5 of the Bill which prescribes the rates of duty on private lotteries and regularises the present method of calculating the total amount accruing from the operation of fruit machines for the purpose of charging duty. Discretion is given to the Commissioner of Estate Duties when calculating the duty payable to allow deduction for sums previously paid out by the clubs to winners of jackpots. Clause 8 of the Bill empowers the Minister to authorise the Commissioner to prescribe forms for the purposes of the Ordinance. Clause 9 of the Bill empowers the Minister to exempt social welfare organisations in receipt of Government grants from the payment of tax on private lotteries sponsored by them for charitable purposes. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court at present derives from the jurisdiction and authority conferred on it by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, by virtue of section 17(c) of the Courts Ordinance (Chapter 3). Section 17(c) of the Courts Ordinance confers on the High Court the jurisdiction and authority of the Colonial Court of Admiralty. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, in effect makes the High Court in Singapore a Court of Admiralty with the like jurisdiction over the like places, persons, matters and things as the High Court in England in Admiralty matters and where in any English Act relating to the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England reference is made to England and Wales, there shall be substituted the name of the British possession concerned when such Act is applied to a Colonial Court of Admiralty. So far as Singapore is concerned, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is the Admiralty jurisdiction of the English High Court as it stood in 1890. We have therefore to look at the law as it stood in England in these matters before 1890 in relation to the maritime matters dealt with in this Bill. Most of these provisions have, in fact, been consolidated and re-enacted in section 22 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act. 1925, but the Act of 1925 does not apply to Singapore although its provisions in the matters relating to the present Bill are similar to those which are contained in the English Acts prior to 1890, which are the Admiralty Court Act, 1840, and the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. In 1956 the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, was enacted in the United Kingdom in order to enable ratification of three international Conventions on maritime law signed at Brussels in 1952, to which the United Kingdom was a party. These Conventions were :-

Order. The interpreter has signaled that the Minister is going a bit too fast.

Mr Speaker. Sir, this is a very technical Bill, and a lot of technical phrases are being used. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Convention, that is the third Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing ships, necessitated the majority of the amendments included in the 1956 Act. The more important amendments, apart from the outstanding provisions permitting the arrest of "sister" ships, are:-

Order. The same signal has come through. I do not know whether the Hon. Minister has supplied copies of his speech to the Interpreters.

No, I did not.

Perhaps the Minister will speak a little slowly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I was listening to the Malay interpretation and I think the interpreter is ahead of the Minister! And surely they have copies.

The signal actually came from the Tamil interpreter. Perhaps the Minister will speak a little slower.

Clause 3 (1) (f) seeks to provide that the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim for loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or occurring in connection with the operation of any ship. The English Acts before 1890 made no similar provision for such claims to be determined in an Admiralty action, and only the common law remedies lay against the responsible parties. In England, however, the Act of 1925 expressly made provision for the High Court in England to exercise Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries. As this Act does not apply to us, there is no similar statutory provision which applies to Singapore. This clause 3(1) (f) makes it clear that the High Court can hear and determine such claims by virtue of its Admiralty jurisdiction, and a claim can proceed either in personam or, as clause 4 provides, in rem in cases where the person responsible is the owner, character, or in possession or control and was, at the time the action is brought, the beneficial owner of that ship or any other ship. In the case of his owning not the ship involved but another ship, an action in rem could be invoked against the latter. Thus even where a ship is the passive cause it can be arrested if the person responsible for the injury is its sole beneficial owner. This is in clause 4(4). Clause 3 (1) (g) of this Bill seeks to provide for jurisdiction in respect of any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship, and clause 3 (1) (h) seeks to provide or claims arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship. The existing law contained in section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, provides for jurisdiction in respect of claims for damage done to goods carried in a ship by negligence, misconduct or any breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master or crew of the ship, unless the court is satisfied that at the time of the institution of the proceedings any owner or part-owner is domiciled within the jurisdiction. Section 22 (a) (xii) of the 1925 Act makes a similar provision. Thus both in England and in Singapore no such claims as these could be pursued if the owner or part-owner of the ship concerned possessed a domicile within the jurisdiction. Paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 3 (1) seek to remove this restriction in order to conform to the Convention. Clause 3 (1) (l) seeks to provide jurisdiction in respect of any claim relating to goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance. Under section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, the High Court in Singapore has jurisdiction only in respect of a claim for necessaries supplied to a ship elsewhere than in the port to which the ship belongs, and even in such a case a claim cannot be pursued if the court is satisfied that the owner or part-owner of the ship is domiciled within the jurisdiction. These restrictions are sought to be removed to enable conformity with the Convention. Clause 3 (1) (m) seeks to provide jurisdiction in respect of any claim relating to the construction, repair or equipment of a ship or dock charges or dues. Under the existing law contained in section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, such jurisdiction is possessed only if at the time of the institution of the proceedings the ship in question is under arrest of the court. Section 22 (a) (x) of the 1925 Act contains a similar provision. This restriction, that the ship concerned is already under arrest, is sought to be removed. Clause 3 (1) (p) provides for jurisdiction in respect of any claim arising out of an act which is or is claimed to be a general average act. This provision has no precursor in the existing law, nor did the Act of 1925 contain such a provision Only the common law remedies relating to carriage of goods by sea applied -

Order. Another signal from the Chinese Interpreter this time. I would suggest that if the Minister is making a prepared statement, he should supply the Interpreters with copies so that the interpretation could easily flow from the Interpreters. Perhaps the Minister could go a little slower.

Clause 3 (1) (p) provides for jurisdiction in respect of any claim arising out of an act which is or is claimed to be a general average act. This provision has no precursor in the existing law, nor did the Act of 1925 contain such a provision. Only the common law remedies relating to the carriage of goods by sea applied whereby competing interests in the ship, in freight and in cargo were liable proportionately in a general average contribution for losses arising in consequence of extraordinary sacrifices or expenses incurred for the preservation of the several interests involved. A shipowner, however, has a lien on the cargo for its contribution in general average, but the owner of the cargo in a ship has no corresponding right against a ship where he is a creditor in a General Average Adjustment. The third Convention provides for any claim in respect of a general average act to be a maritime claim which can be pursued against a ship, and this paragraph gives effect accordingly in order to comply with the Convention. Clause 4 prescribes the manner in which Admiralty jurisdiction may be exercised and limits the action in rem to conform to the Arrest Convention. Sub-clause (4) of this clause provides that in certain cases claims are enforceable against "sister ships", i.e., ships held under the same ownership as the ship in connection with which the claim arose. The sister ship principle will allow foreign "sister ships" to be arrested here in the same way as our ships can now be arrested in foreign ports. Clause 5 provides that the court may not entertain actions in person am on claims arising from collision between ships unless: '(a) the defendant has his habitual residence or a place of business within the State of Singapore; or (b) the cause of action arose within inland waters or within the limits of a port in Singapore; or (c) an action arising out of the same incident is proceeding in court or has already been heard and determined in court.' Notwithstanding non-compliance with the above requirements, the court will also have jurisdiction where the defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court. Clause 6 removes the restriction on claims for wages by the Master or the crew of a ship by repealing section 91 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to conform to the Arrest Convention. Section 91 at present provides that suits shall not be instituted in the High Court by a seaman for wages not exceeding $500 except (a) where the owner of a ship is bankrupt, or (b) where the ship is under arrest, or (c) where the District Court refers the claim to the High Court, or (d) where neither the owner nor the Master is or resides in Singapore. Clause 7 excludes jurisdiction in cases falling within the Rhine Navigation Convention as the United Kingdom is not a party to that Convention. Clause 8 repeals provisions inconsistent with the three Conventions signed at Brussels or which are re-enacted in the preceding clauses of this Bill. Section 480 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, which provides for the detention of foreign ships found within our territorial waters in respect of damage caused to the property of British subjects in any part of the world, is sought to be repealed in order to comply with the Conventions. Provision is also made for section 17 (c) of the Courts Ordinance, which confers the existing Admiralty jurisdiction on the High Court, to be read subject to the provisions of this Bill. Furthermore, this clause also provides that no proceedings in rem may be instituted against the Crown nor may any ship, aircraft cargo or other property belonging to the Crown be arrested, detained or sold. Finally, clause 9 preserves causes of action arising before the coming into operation of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne] Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

It is time to suspend. I will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to control sand quarries so that they may be operated in a manner which will not create a nuisance or cause damage to an adjoining area. During sand operations, liquid waste is discharged into streams which drain the area, causing them to be silted and blocked up. The blockage of the streams leads to flooding which causes damage to the farmers and villagers living around the area where there are concentrations of sand deposits. These farmers and rural folks have repeatedly complained of the losses they have suffered. Flooding has been particularly extensive after a heavy rain, and while the Government has taken remedial steps in the past to de-silt the drains, the nuisance will recur unless proper steps are taken to ensure that the operations are conducted in a satisfactory manner. It would be unfair to expect public funds to be utilised for remedial measures solely for the benefit of these operators, but, at the same time, Government does not wish to prohibit sand quarrying operations since sand is an essential material to keep the building industry going. The proper remedy, therefore, is to permit the quarrying to operate under conditions that can be satisfactorily controlled. It may be as well for me to inform the House that complaints from farmers have been coming in year after year. Over the last few years, such floods have caused damage to farmers which could be valued at thousands of dollars. As far back as 1958, the Rural Board has caused action to be taken under the Municipal Ordinance, and notices were served on the sand operators to require them to abate the nuisance. As a result of this action, the sand operators contributed a sum of $5,200 towards the cost of de-silting. Despite the effort to de-silt and clear the drains and streams, flooding in such areas recurred again in 1959 and 1960. On investigation, it was revealed that the flooding was caused by the drains and canals being choked up with waste from the sand quarries. The Government then took steps to clear the Sungei Api Api and a 60-foot wide canal at Pasir Ris was constructed. This work, however, proved abortive and the canal was chocked up again after a short time. Sand operations have been going on in many places in Singapore for some years, the principal areas being Tampines, Changi and Bedok. Activities for the last few years have been concentrated at Tampines. In an effort to secure the co-operation of the sand operators, so that their method for the production of sand will not destroy the livelihood of the farmers in the Tampines area, the operators were invited by my Ministry in June this year for discussion, the purpose being to agree on acceptable steps to be taken and for necessary precautionary measures laid down by the Public Works Department and the Health authorities to be complied with to prevent silt from flooding the common drains and streams. The sand operators agreed that they would comply with the requirements of the authorities, and that they would compensate any farmer for losses suffered as a result of sand operations. The quantum of such losses for damage would be determined on the adjudication of a three-man committee, consisting of the farmers' representative, the sand operators' representative and a Ministry official. In order to prevent further damage to the property of the farmers, steps were taken to obtain an injunction from the High Court to restrain these sand operators temporarily until satisfactory arrangements were made. The sand operators also voluntarily agreed to a payment pro rata among themselves of a sum amounting to some $20,000 as contributions towards the cost of desilting the drains. On the assurance given by the sand operators to abide by the requirements, the farmers were temporarily appeased and no steps were taken to apply to the High Court for continuance of the injunction when it expired on 31st July, 1961. Following the resumption of sand operations, some operators have of late begun to fall down on the undertaking they had given that adequate measures would be taken to prevent nuisance or damage. It is, therefore, necessary, if all the Government's efforts were not to be nullified and the whole issue opened up afresh time and again, that legislation should be introduced to ensure proper control of operations before further damage takes place or serious health hazards arise. There are areas in Changi and Bedok where sand excavations have been going on in the past. Here again, the farmers living in the vicinity have made complaints from Lime to time that the excavations are causing damage to their livestock and their vegetable crops, and polluting their health. New legislation is necessary because most sand quarries stand on land under private ownership over which there is no satisfactory control under existing legislation when such land is used for the purposes of producing sand. In view of the present activity in the building trade, which is likely to increase with the implementation of Government's Four-Year development programme, the demand for sand will continue to arise. Hence, there is every likelihood that the sand operators will step up production activity considerably, giving rise possibly to more damage to the surrounding areas and adversely affecting the farmers, their livestock and crops. It is the responsibility of my Ministry to take steps to ensure that the sand operators work their pits on a properly controlled basis so as not to create health problems or flood or other nuisance. Sir, the Bill before the House provides that after the coming into force of this Bill, it shall be an offence for anyone to operate a sand quarry without a licence. The grant or renewal of a licence will be given at the discretion of the licensing officer, who shall impose such restrictions and conditions as are necessary for the sand operations to be conducted on a proper basis. To ensure that such conditions are carried out, there is provision for the depositing of security so that, in the event of failure on the part of the licensee to provide remedial measures, such work would be carried out by the licensing officer who may then recover the cost of the work from the security deposited. The Bill will ensure that sand digging and sand washing operations shall not cause any nuisance or damage to neighbouring lands and buildings. There are provisions to require that the licensee shall use only fresh water for his sand operations in view of the possibility of contamination of wells. There is also provision to prevent the licensee from interfering with the banks of rivers, streams of water courses and to give effect to the proper disposal of earth, dirt or other waste matter from the sand quarry. In the case of these used sand pits, provision is made for them to be fenced in and the necessary precautions taken to prevent danger or damage to life or property. To avoid any case of possible hardship in special circumstances, the Minister will be empowered to exempt any sand quarry from all or any provisions in the Bill when necessary. There is also provision for appeal to the Minister in the event of any action to grant or refuse to grant, to renew or to suspend or revoke any licence by the licensing officer. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for National Development has today tabled this Bill. But before it was brought up some operators of sand quarries had been prosecuted, and so the minor operators are unable to carry out their work and business. On the other hand, all along the farmers who have suffered damage have not been given compensation. Even in this Bill we do not see any provision for compensation to be made by the operators to the farmers in respect of the damage caused by such operations. It is not stated clearly that compensation will be made accordingly. So, can we say that when this Bill is passed by this House, the interests of the farmers and other vegetable gardeners will be protected by it? I am very doubtful about this. I also want to know whether this Bill will be able to solve the shortage of sand in the building industry. At present the building industry is expanding very rapidly, but the production of sand is rather slow. There is a reduction in the production of sand. Why? Well, this has come about as a result of the action taken by the Minister for National Development. So I must tell this House that before this Bill was brought up, the Minister for National Development had acted in accordance with some of the provisions in this Bill by prosecuting some operators of sand quarries. As the Minister himself has said, in June this year an injunction was applied for in the High Court of Singapore against certain operators of sand quarries. So we would like to know whether this Bill will be able to bring about something good for the farmers and workers, and what it will do to the building industry in respect of sand production. Mr Speaker, Sir, never in the history of Singapore have we heard of any shortage of sand in respect of the building industry, lit is only recently, according to the report of the Ministry of National Development, that we have this shortage of sand. As a result, some 1,000 workers have been out of work. Now, who is to be responsible for this? I think the main blame or responsibility should be put on the Minister for National Development for his dealings with the sand quarry operators. Actually the Tampines area contributes 90 per cent in respect of sand production. Recently, because some operators have come to a stop in their business, some 4,000 workers dependent on such operations have been out of work. Some sand quarry operators just carry on their business without any regard to the interest of the farmers. As a result of this, many drains have been choked, water cannot flow freely, and on rainy days there is flooding in this area. As a result of this situation about 100 farmers in this area had to suffer damages and losses. So they went to their representatives, i.e., the Singapore Rural Dwellers' Association, and asked them to complain to the Minister for National Development in the hope that the said Minister would be able to solve their problems and reduce the damage they were suffering. But the Minister for National Development, in dealing with this matter, had, on the one hand, no knowledge of sand quarry operations, and, on the other hand, did not consult the dwellers concerned. He rashly took steps without giving consideration and warning to the sand quarry operators. So when these sand quarry operations were stopped for a month, some 1,000 workers dependent on such operations were put out of work. There was a standstill in the building industry, as a result of which some building construction workers were put out of work as well. Lorry drivers engaged in carrying sand were also put out of work. So I say that this trouble has come about due to lack of experience on the part of the Minister for National Development. We all know that in dealing with any matter, you must take into consideration the interests of all parties concerned. You must also know the true situation. Without knowing the true situation, it is not right to act or make any rash decision. Let us take, for example, these sand operations again. Before any action is taken, the following points should be considered: 1. The 1,000 workers connected with sand quarry operations must be taken into consideration, so that they would not be confronted with the difficulties of unemployment. 2. We must make sure against whom action is to be taken. Action should not be taken against the farmers. 3. Adequate consultation should take place between the Government and the sand quarry workers' representatives so that their interests could be well looked after. 4. Such action before it is taken and when it is taken should not put a stop to the sand quarry operations, which would put the workers connected therewith out of work. So I can safely say that, as a result of such actions taken by the Minister for National Development, there were some difficulties. He had laid down certain stringent conditions in respect of the sand quarry operations. As a result, minor operators are not able to carry on their business smoothly. So about 200 to 300 workers are out of work or will be out of work. Then as a result of such stringent regulations and conditions, you will have major operators in sand quarries. These people will then be able to monopolise the trade and raise prices as they like.

Order. It seems to me the hon. Member is reading something he cannot even read! I do not know whether the hon. Member is making his own speech. But I ask him to try and make a speech and not read too much.

(In Mandarin): he price of sand has been raised by one-third and consequently building costs have also risen. The taxpayers will have to suffer in the end and so will the poor people. The third aspect of the problem that I wish to touch upon concerns the farmers whose interests have not been protected by way of compensation. This unilateral action of the Minister for National Development has given rise to more difficulties with no actual solution to the real problem. The problem of sand shortage has not been solved; the unemployment problem of the workers connected with this trade has not been solved; the farmers' interests have not been adequately protected. All these are to be answered by the Minister for National Development. In the meantime, in dealing with the matter, the Minister has disregarded the views of his Parliamentary Secretary. 6.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have heard the lengthy speech of the Member for Pasir Panjang Without knowing what he was talking about, because I could not catch the main point in his speech. I do not know whether he said that our Bill is detrimental to the farmers or to the sand quarry operators. He has not made himself clear in this respect. The Minister for National Development has tabled this Bill with this main aim, and it has been clearly stated by him. We are trying to do our best and hope that Members opposite will give their valuable views in respect of this Bill so that it will be able to look after the interests of all. But it is a pity that the Members opposite - especially those in the Barisan Sosialis - oppose good and bad things at the same time. They do not seem to have any principle at all in this debate, as they do not try to put their valuable views across. For example, the Member concerned says that the shortage of sand is unprecedented and he does not know the cause. We can tell him that this was not due to our absentmindedness, but because we have had very little rain for a long period. It was because of this that sand quarrying was affected, as sand quarrying is dependent on the supply of water. As a result of this, some workers connected with this work were affected and we received a lot of complaints from these people in the Ministry of National Development. On receipt of such complaints, we investigated the cases and we found that the farmers also suffered a great deal. So the Minister for National Development thought fit to take proper action to deal with this situation. Of course, in the course of this action, some inconvenience and difficulties may have been caused to sand quarrying operations. But we must also realise that, in view of the expanding building industry, we must not put an end to sand quarry operations and that, on the other hand, we must also look after the interest of the farmers. That is why we have this Bill which is in the interest of both the farmers and of the sand quarry operators. We want to ensure that sand quarry operations can be carried out systematically and orderly without causing any interference to the farmers' crops. So I hope that the Members opposite - especially those in the Barisan Sosialis - will not go against the Bill just for the sake of going against it. They must take into consideration the interest of the people and put across their views accordingly. They can make a contribution to this Bill by telling us how to deal with the situation. But it would appear from the speech of the Member for Pasir Panjang that he did not write it himself. I do not know where he got the speech from, because it appears to me that he could not even read his speech properly. We must try to say things which come from our hearts and we must not do otherwise.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the explanation of the Member for Delta seems to be all right on the surface, but I have a feeling that she seems to want to represent the Minister for National Development. It seems that she is more qualified than the Minister and the Government should appoint her as the Minister for National Development.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speech made by the Member from the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Pasir Panjang, is not as absurd as it might seem. First, he wishes the interest of the farmers to be protected. Then he wants to protect the interest of the sand quarry operators. Then he wants to protect the sand itself. Then he wants to protect the building operators. Then he wants to protect the lorry-drivers. Then he wants to protect all the workers connected with the sand quarry operations. On the face of it, Mr Speaker, Sir, quite a few of them seem to me, anyway, to be conflicting interests which you cannot protect. Sir, I asked my colleague sitting on my left which particular division the spokesman for the Barisan Sosialis represented. I was told that he is the Member for Pasir Panjang. So on that basis, Sir, it was quite a rational speech that he made. What he is trying to persuade the Minister to do is to give up the pits at Tampines and go to Pasir Panjang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, I do not oppose this Bill. The purpose of introducing it is to control sand-washing operations in the rural areas. Sir, this Bill, in fact, should have been introduced in this House in the early part of 1960. If it had been introduced then, then there would not have been so much trouble about sand-washing operations in Singapore. But the Government paid no attention to the sufferings of the people, and it completely ignored the opinions of Assemblymen. As a result, places in sand quarries are always flooded when rain falls and people suffer a loss of their domestic animals and their properties are damaged for which they get no compensation. Recently, sand-washing operations had to come to a standstill and quite a number of sand-workers lost their jobs. Sir, in 1959, I did ask the ex-Minister for National Development to control sand-washing operations, and he did send some members of the Primary Production Department to investigate; but nothing was done. In 1960, this matter was always brought up for discussion in the Rural and Urban Services Advisory Committee, but the Government did nothing about it. At the beginning of 1961, I wrote a memorandum to the present Minister for National Development requesting him to license sand-washing operators but I received not a word of reply from him. In the middle of 1961 - I was a P.A.P. Assemblyman then - I again wrote a memorandum to him criticising him for ignoring my memorandum and delaying a settlement of the problem, and I again received no reply. Sir, in page 3 of the Bill, clause 8 reads: 'No licence shall be granted unless the Licensing Officer is satisfied that the use of the premises as a sand quarry will be unlikely -

On a point of information, Sir. Mr Teo Hock Guan resumed his seat.

The Member for Changi has overlooked paragraph (b) of the same clause - the point he is making here - which reads: 'No licence shall be granted unless the Licensing Officer is satisfied that the use of the premises as a sand quarry will be unlikely - * * * (b) to cause depreciation in the value or amenity of adjoining or neighbouring land or buildings;'. So damage to adjoining or neighbouring lands and buildings is also covered by this clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will come to that. Sir, as I said, because the stream is blocked up by sediment washed down from sand-washing operations, has the Government thought that the farmer has a right to claim for compensation? But we cannot see any clause under which people can claim for compensation. Sir, in clauses 9 to 14, provision is made to prevent flooding. But the provision is not positive. Also it is inadequate. Sir, compensation must be given to those whose property and domestic animals are affected by sand-washing operations. Sir, we cannot see any clause in the Bill where farmers or any person affected can claim compensation. We also cannot see any clause in this Bill to protect the farmers. I hope the Government will see to it, otherwise there will be much trouble. Sir, the Member for Delta talks about sand-washing operations. She does not know what is sand-washing operation. She has not even seen how sand-washing operation is carried out. 6.17 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister has very clearly explained the Sand Quarries Bill. I fully support this Bill because we know that anything we do must have its merits. Members of the Barisan Sosialis oppose this and that, but they have not put forward any principles. They object for the sake of objecting, and the Member for Delta has touched on this very clearly. As regards the speech of the Member for Pasir Panjang. the Member for Farrer Park has touched on it - that the first part of his speech contradicts the latter part. If he knows something about construction, he will not say anything like that. The building construction industry has been expanding over the past few years. Let me tell him that in the building industry not only is there a shortage of sand and bricks, but there is also a shortage of other building materials. Now, what are the causes of the shortage of building materials?

Order. I will not allow that, as we might have a debate on building materials. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confine himself to sand quarries?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to repeat what I have said just now - that as regards the question of compensation our Minister has said very clearly that we have a committee comprising representatives from the sand quarries industry and officials from the Ministry to discuss this. This is the proper way to go about it. This matters concerns the farmers and the sand quarry operators, and the Ministry officials act as go betweens to reconcile their differences. I am sure sand production can be stepped up. I will be repeating what has been said, and therefore I will not touch on it. I am disappointed as regards the Assembly as it is being made use of as a place where jokes are exchanged. I hope that Members from the Barisan Sosialis will change their attitude towards debates. They should not take the Assembly as a place where they can joke. This is my sincere hope and I hope that other Members have the same feeling. 6.21 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not here just now during part of the debate. But I heard my colleague the Member for Changi and also the Minister for National Development. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development said that we in the Barisan Sosialis were joking. This is wrong. The Sand Quarries Bill before us is a very important Bill and deserves our close attention. In principle, we do not oppose it. We do not say this Bill is bad. We just want to give our opinion to the Government and point out that the Minister for National Development has so mishandled this question that a lot of people have suffered. But the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister said that we were joking and being lighthearted about it. He also touched on the question of compensation. The Member for Changi has said that there is no provision in the Bill for compensation to be paid to farmers or others whose properties are damaged by sand-washing operations, and that the operators must compensate those who are affected. This is what we are concerned about - why was this Bill brought up? The reason is to protect the welfare of those affected by sand quarry operations. If the Government does not protect them, what is the use of bringing up this Bill? If the Bill cannot solve this problem, then it is useless. If there is no provision for compensation, then it will lead to trouble. Just now the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Government had formed a three-man committee to deal with the problem of compensation. That was a good constructive move. We do not oppose it. But what we are concerned about is whether this three-man committee can really shoulder this task, and whether its recommendations can have any effect at all. That is what the Assembly should pay attention to. Let me tell the Parliamentary Secretary this: what is the use of establishing this three-man committee? When it was established, it recommended certain conditions for compensation to those affected by the sand-washing operations. But the sand operators paid no heed to its decisions, and the three-man committee had not enforced compliance with its decisions, and so no compensation was paid to the farmers affected. From what I know, the three-man committee mentioned this to the Minister for National Development, and he summoned the sand operators to his Ministry to talk it over. But what was the result? Only the Minister can now tell us whether the sand operators did turn up in his office or not. The final result was that the sand operators paid no heed to the committee and did not turn up at the Ministry. They considered the summons of the Minister as something insignificant. This shows how the three-man committee dealt with this problem. It is a great disappointment. I believe after this first failure, there will be successive failures in future. The reason is this: if there is no provision in the Bill to provide for compensation to the farmers, then the interests of the farmers cannot be looked into. Mr Speaker. Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has said just now that we oppose every Bill. This allegation is not true. We shall be happy if we can be of any use or help to the Government to resolve all difficulties and problems. We can assure them that we shall try our best to help them solve all kinds of difficulties and problems, and that they should not consider our suggestions meaningless and think that we are only trying to embarrass them by putting up such suggestions. That is a wrong attitude on their part. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has also touched on the matter of building materials. I do not want to touch on it. What I want to say is that Government's policy in regard to sand quarrying is full of contradictions. We know that the Work Brigade is shouldering the responsibility of sand quarrying. The usual method of sand quarrying is -

Order. I wonder if those details come within the general principles of this Bill. We are discussing the general principles of this Bill.

(In Mandarin): What I want to say has something to do with the principles of the Bill. Members of the Work Brigade are carrying out sand operations. The usual method of operation is to make use of the water from the rivers, by drawing the water into the sand quarry to wash away certain sediment to get the sand. The Minister has also said that some wells should be dug in order to store the sediment. But then Government's action in this respect is a kind of mockery. On the one hand, the Government is carrying out water rationing and, on the other hand, the water used in sand quarrying is pipe-water. I want to know from the Minister whether, according to his suggestion. there will be no damage or no bad effects as a result of their making use of pipe-water to wash sand. I want to ask him whether this kind of operation will not be more costly, using pipe-water rather than using water from a stream or river for sand operation. The Sand Quarries Bill tabled by the Government in the Assembly today comes about only because in May this year the Rural People's Association responded to the Minister's request by giving their views and suggestions as to how to resolve the problem of sand quarrying, which has caused much damage and losses to the farmers in the affected surrounding areas. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister whether in drawing up this Bill he has consulted the Rural People's Association. I hope that in future, when the Government deals with this kind of problem, it will consult all the people concerned. The Government should consult the rural people's organisations before any steps are taken. At the same time, I hope that after the passage of this Bill, those people and farmers living in the rural areas will, in fact, have their interests safeguarded. 6.34 p.m.

Mr Tan Kia Gan, in reply.

Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang, the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Changi. three Members in the Barisan Sosialis front -

We live in Tampines.

They live in Tampines. Before this Bill was brought into the House, with the exception of the Member for Changi who wrote a memorandum to me towards the end of 1960, they never brought up this question or paid any attention to the sufferings of the farmers in their constituencies. Mr Teo Hock Guan rose -

Point of order?

No, point of explanation.

If the Minister will give way.

I said with the exception of the Member for Changi - [Interruption].

Let us get on with the debate.

On a point of clarification, Sir.

The Minister will not give way. Mr Tan, let us get on with it.

The Member for Changi wrote to me. He is very good for this sort of thing, Sir. He just writes a note to you and expects you to do everything. Sir, I have not lived in that constituency. I do not know the details of the damages to farms from sand operations. They are the people who have been living there for years. Yet they never brought - An hon. Member: Because you are in charge.

This debate is getting "untidy". Mr Tan.

Sir, when the Member for Pasir Panjang talked about this Bill, he was clowning. The Member for Farrer Park did not want to use that word. My Parliamentary Secretary took objection to it. That is why he said Barisan Members are not responsible at all when they made statements in this Assembly. Coming back to the Member for Changi, Sir. He wrote this note to me. Admittedly at that time I just became the Minister for National Development. I was taking over from the Member for Hong Lim. Later on he wrote to me again. But this time I took notice of it. I think it was only a matter of one or two months. Then I did ask him, Sir, to come and see me and discuss the matter.

No, you did not ask me.

Order. I have already called some Members of the Barisan Sosialis to order many times. If they do not listen to the Chair, then I will have to take very serious action under the Standing Orders. Mr Minister.

Sir, to understand the position about the damage that has been caused to farmers through the years by sand operations, I asked the Member for Changi to see me to discuss the details. Possibly what I should have done, as I have done on many occasions after understanding the position in certain cases, was to go with him and have a look into these matters. I did this after representatives from the farmers saw me. Sir, whenever we look for the Member for Changi, it is very difficult to find him. I asked him to see me. He never turned up. I looked for him. He could not be found. An hon. Member: The Special Branch!

Well, they will probably use the Special Branch! Coming to the point about these three Assemblymen who are living in the Tampines constituency. After repeated discussions, I made many trips to Tampines, seeing the sand operators, seeing the farmers themselves from house to house, and I came to the conclusion, from the mouths of the farmers themselves, that they had no faith in these three people who have been living there - Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

On a point of clarification?

Yes.

If the Minister will give way. The Minister is not giving way.

Sir, instead of wasting the time of the Assembly talking about the Barisan Assemblymen, I had better get back to the Bill. Sir, the P.A.P. Government has the welfare of the State, the interests of the farmers and justice at heart. The Sand Quarries Bill has been deigned to ensure that the sand operators may continue producing sand for profit and, at the same time, to provide the necessary safeguards and controls and prevent damage from being caused to the farmers and other rural folks as a result of the sand operations. The complaints of the rural folks, the farmers and the fishermen abut the damage that they had suffered because of the sand operations are of long standing, but the previous Governments, because of vested interests or for reasons best known to themselves, had not looked into the grievances of the farmers.

Order. Might I remind the Minister that he is replying to the debate? Therefore, he cannot make another Second Reading speech. In replying to the debate, he must answer the points raised by the speakers.

The complaints of these rural folks, farmers and fishermen were brought to the Member for Hong Lim when he was Minister, when he was responsible for rural matters. But again the farmers and the rural people received no redress. The sand operators carried on with their operations, doing more damage and making themselves a nuisance. This resulted in my Ministry taking drastic action to apply for an injunction from the High Court to stop them from carrying out sand operations that would cause damage to the rural residents. The Bill now before the House provides all the necessary safeguards to ensure that damage to the farmers will be prevented or minimised. It is also intended that the regulations made under the provisions of this Bill will help the farmers to establish liability for the damage caused to their property. Hitherto, it was not easy for the farmers to make any claim for compensation even though they had suffered considerable damage as a result of the flooding caused by sand operators. It is intended to seek the assistance of the Legal Aid Bureau to provide the farmers and rural folks with the necessary help in their claims for compensation, should any damage arise from sand operations. There is also the further possibility of the Government doing the work of desilting and recovering the cost of such work from the security deposit which must be put down by the sand operators with the licensing officer before a licence is issued. In the event of the operators not abiding by the rules of the game, it will be possible for the Government to withhold their licences and to prevent them from operating. There have been occasions when mischievous operators have tried to frustrate Government's attempt to reach an amicable settlement between the farmers and the sand opera, tors. These sand operators have only themselves to blame if their licences are suspended or revoked. If they play the game according to the rules, they will find that the Government is just and fair. But if they think that they can get away with it because there are loop-holes in the existing legislation, they are sadly mistaken, for the Bill is specifically designed to prevent mischievous and mercenary sand operators from doing harm and damage to farmers and fishermen,, all because of their selfish private motives. We are aware that the farmers have not been able to obtain justice because of their lack of acquaintance with the process of law and also the intricacies of legal procedure. But there is little doubt that they understand what is justice, and can differentiate between what is right and wrong. It is doubtful, however, because of the lack of evidence, whether compensation for damage that has been done previously by the sand operators can be obtained from them. But the Government will continue to pursue this matter and hope that the three-man committee who has been agreed between both farmers and sand operators will be able to come to some satisfactory finding. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are doing this for the helpless farmers and fishermen who had for years suffered at the hands of sand operators, landowners and vested interests. For those who think that they can get away with their mischief, the Government will use whatever there is in its power as provided in this Bill to prevent them from causing further damage and nuisance. To those who abide by the law and ensure that, in seeking after profit they will not in any way adversely affect their neighbours' property, the Bill provides a fair and just way for them to continue their occupation.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Tan Kia Gan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."---[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock p.m. APPENDIX ESTIMATES CONTAINING A VOTE ON ACCOUNT FOR 1963 AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES(Cols 2405-2408)