The full official text, structured for quick navigation. Copy any provision or jump straight to a section.
Hansard, 1965-12-20 is Singapore HANSARD, cited as HANSARD 7 1965 and first recorded in 1965.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT - 7TH MILE TAMPINES ROAD
The following Question stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak - 1. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government intends to establish a pedestrian crossing at 7th mile Tampines Road, near the market and when.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT - 7TH MILE TAMPINES ROAD
Mr Poh Ber Liak. There was no response.
PENG GHEE HIGH SCHOOL - (Government Assistance)
The following Question stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak :- 2. To ask the Minister for Education whether the Government intends to give any assistance to Peng Ghee High School for development, and if he will give details.
PENG GHEE HIGH SCHOOL - (Government Assistance)
Question No. 2, Mr Poh Ber Liak. There was no response.
TANJONG RHU ESTATE MARKET
asked the Minister for Health whether the Government has any plan to build a medium-sized market to replace the present covered pitches at the Tanjong Rhu Estate to serve the residents in the area.
TANJONG RHU ESTATE MARKET
Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister to reply. For the present, the Ministry of Health does not plan to build a medium-sized market in Tanjong Rhu Housing Estate as there is no available land for such a purpose. Arrangements were made previously with the Housing and Development Board to provide the present covered pitches for hawkers at a cost of $30,550 in 1963. It is too early yet to decide whether these covered pitches should be demolished and replaced by a small but not a medium-sized market, if any is to be built.
KALLANG AND TANJONG RHU ESTATES - (Electricity and water for pitches)
asked the Minister for Health whether the Government will provide electricity and water supplies in the covered pitches in the Kallang and the Tanjong Rhu Estates, particularly for the night pitch-holders.
KALLANG AND TANJONG RHU ESTATES - (Electricity and water for pitches)
Mr Speaker, I have been asked by the Minister to reply. It is not intended to provide electricity for covered hawker pitches in Kallang/Tanjong Rhu Estates as this would create an undesirable precedent in that no other hawker pitches have been provided with electricity. As for water supply, standpipes are already provided in these localities and they appear adequate at present. The position of these pitches, whether day or night, requires review as these have developed beyond the original scope envisaged by the Ministry of Health.
MALAYSIAN MIRROR - (Particulars)
The following Question stood in the name of Mr Ong Lian Teng :- 5. To ask the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (a) the total number of employees involved in the publication of the Malaysian Mirror; (b) the amount of money spent on each issue; and (c) the Head and subhead of the 1965 Estimates which provides for the expenditure.
MALAYSIAN MIRROR - (Particulars)
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been directed by my Minister to state that a written answer to this question will be handed to the Clerk later for circulation to Members.
NANYANG UNIVERSITY - CO-OPERATIVE STORE - (Reasons for dissolution)
The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chia Thye Poh :- 6. To ask the Minister for Law and National Development the reason for dissolving the Nanyang University Co-operative Store.
NANYANG UNIVERSITY - CO-OPERATIVE STORE - (Reasons for dissolution)
Mr Chia Thye Poh. There was no response.
ANCHORAGE FACILITIES AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD
asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when the Government will improve the anchorage facilities for fishing boats near the jetty at the end of Upper Serangoon Road.
ANCHORAGE FACILITIES AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD
Mr Speaker, Sir, I am directed to answer on behalf of my Minister. An area of about 6,006 square yards near the jetty at the end of Upper Serangoon Road has been erected in order to improve the anchorage facilities for fishing boats and others using the jetty at a cost of $30,000. The work was completed on 15th October, 1965.
LEGALISATION OF TRAWLING - (Legislation)
asked the Minister for Law and National Development whether and when the Government will introduce legislation to legalise trawling.
LEGALISATION OF TRAWLING - (Legislation)
Mr Speaker, it is the intention of the Government to draw up a new Fisheries Ordinance in order to encourage deep-sea and off-shore fishing, including trawling. The new legislation will be presented to the Assembly as soon as it is ready, and will contain provisions to permit trawling to be carried out without causing detrimental effects to our in-shore fishermen. In the meantime, those persons who wish to engage in deep-sea and off-shore fishing, including trawling, can consult officers of the Primary Production Department for advice and assistance.
BILL INTRODUCED - SINGAPORE FAMILY PLANNING - AND POPULATION BOARD BILL - First Reading
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to create a statutory authority to be the sole agency for promoting and disseminating information pertaining to family planning in Singapore, and for matters incidental thereto." Sir, I beg to introduce accordingly. Bill read the First time.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
2.40 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th December, 1965], `That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly.".'. - [The Prime Minister]. Question again proposed.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Mr Speaker, Sir, the enforced emergence of Singapore as an independent and sovereign State is an event that has far-reaching consequences on the lives of the people of our country. The chain reaction started by this dramatic event has begun, and has become apparent in the allocation of expenditure in the first Budget of independent Singapore. Foreign affairs and defence are responsibilities which we can no longer avoid. These must be paid out of revenue. In the present state of affairs, it must mean that other fields of responsibilities cannot claim as large a share of the budget as had been the case in the past. Thus, the amount devoted to education next year has dropped from about one-third of the budget to 24 per cent. However, it must be noted that there has been a drop only in proportional terms of the whole budget. The actual amount allocated for education in absolute terms has increased, being $129 million or an increase of $16 million more than this year. In other words, education is still amply provided for, and will continue to make progress. This is because the Government fully realizes that investment in education is crucial to economic and social progress, and that "no single factor is more likely to bring about a more fair and just society than equal opportunities for education for all." Before I outline the Government's education programmes for the future, let me briefly summarize our past achievements. By the end of this year, the present Government will have spent nearly $654 million on education since 1959. In return for this big outlay of public funds, we have built up an education system that has become the envy of many less fortunate countries. We have achieved universal free primary education without making it compulsory. There are enough school places to admit every child aged six plus, not only now but for many more years to come. Every child of school-going age is assured of a place in a school using the medium of instruction of his parent's choice. Once admitted, he is assured of ten years of primary and secondary education, finishing at the minimum age of 16 with at least a Secondary Vocational School Certificate. Of those who obtain the School Certificate, no less than 25 per cent are admitted to Pre-University classes to prepare for the Higher School Certificate and entry to the universities and the Polytechnic. Our school enrolment has shown spectacular increases. In the primary schools, the enrolment in Government and Government-aided schools has increased from 261,000 in 1959 to 360,000 in 1965, or an increase of about 38 per cent. Secondary enrolment has increased in an even more spectacular manner, having risen from 44,000 in 1959 to 113,000 in 1965, that is, an increase of 157 per cent. We should note with satisfaction that our total primary and secondary enrolment of 473,000 represents about 25 per cent of our entire population. This expansion in enrolment has been made possible by heavy capital outlays on the construction of schools. In this year alone, 15 new schools and four major extensions to existing schools have been completed. All in all, the Government has built 72 new schools of all types, with 1,700 classrooms - excluding special rooms like the teachers' common room, the school hail, etc. - affording more than 125,000 places. These schools have been constructed at an average rate of one school per month. In order to ensure that no child in Singapore shall remain illiterate on account of financial difficulties, free primary education has been introduced for children born in Singapore or whose parents are Singapore citizens. In addition, there is provision for 15 per cent of the secondary enrolment to be free. About 17,000 pupils have been granted free secondary education under this provision on account of their financial background. Malays who are Singapore citizens enjoyed special assistance in education. Malay children have been guaranteed free education from primary schools to the University. All in all, about 35,000 Malay pupils are enjoying free education at all levels. Annually, large sums of money have been allocated for scholarships and bursaries. In this year, the Government has spent $1.6 million on scholarships and bursaries, and this amount has enabled 40,266 poor students to study in the secondary schools, universities and the Polytechnic. In addition, the Government has also spent $259,000 in the provision of free text-books. In the past five years, the Government has fulfilled its objectives with regard to primary education. From now onwards, the emphasis on education will be:-
the improvement of the quality of education at all levels; (ii) the expansion of educational facilities in the secondary and tertiary levels; (iii) diversification of educational development which is essential for the development of an industrial society; and (iv) the further development of education for national unity and tolerance in a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society. Future building programmes will reflect the shift in the emphasis on priorities in education. Less primary schools will be built. It is expected that by the end of 1966, six primary schools and three major extensions to existing primary schools will be completed. In addition, four dilapidated and sub-standard-sized Malay schools - the Telok Kurau East School, the Telok Kurau Malay Boys' School, the Siglap Malay School and the Pulau Bukom Kechil Malay School - will be reconstructed and completed into standard-sized modern primary schools. Work will also begin on two new primary schools under the 1966 school building programmes in Toa Payoh and MacPherson South Housing Estates. The construction of secondary schools will receive special attention next year. In the course of next year, 13 new secondary schools and nine major extensions to existing schools will be completed, thereby providing an additional 36,000 places for secondary students. Furthermore, work on eight new secondary schools under the 1966 building programme will commence early next year. The building programme next year will ensure that every child who is now in primary school and with the eligible qualification will be assured of a place in secondary school. Under the Second Development Plan, the Government will also build a number of secondary schools to be known as Junior Colleges specially for Pre-University students. This will make possible the optimum use of teaching staff and laboratory facilities and relieve the secondary schools of the pressure for accommodation up to the Secondary IV level. Construction of one of these Junior Colleges will commence early next year. The Junior Colleges will admit Pre-University students from all the language streams, thereby bringing integration one stage nearer. The need to diversify our education system to meet the demand of industrialisation was recognised as early as 1960. Today there are nine secondary technical schools and nine secondary vocational schools which can provide a maximum enrolment of 18,000 students in each type. However, in 1965, only 4,600 students were in secondary technical schools and 8,600 in secondary vocational schools. In 1966 it is expected that the number of students in secondary technical schools will increase by 63 per cent to 7,500 and the number of students in secondary vocational schools will increase by 34 per cent to 11,500. The 1965 enrolment in secondary technical and vocational schools as compared with the total secondary enrolment of 113,000 is only 11 per cent. To overcome the traditional prejudice against technical and vocational education in favour of academic education, a new feature has been introduced in our educational system, namely, the incorporation of workshop facilities into the secondary structure and consequent ending of the separation of schools into academic, technical and vocational units. In fact, all new secondary schools in future will have workshops. With the emergence of Singapore as an independent and sovereign State, the necessity to use education as an instrument to weld national unity and to build a nation out of its heterogeneous population has become urgent and unavoidable. The study of the National Language will be intensified at all levels without, however, affecting the medium of instruction in schools. For some years it has been compulsory for students in primary schools to learn a second language. It has now been decided that the study of a second language will be made compulsory in the Secondary school, beginning with Secondary I in 1966 and continuing on to Secondary IV in 1969, when every school candidate for the School Certificate Examination will be required to offer a second language. In this manner, all school leavers will at least be proficient in two languages. This policy, aiming at breaking down the language barrier in Singapore and enabling students of one language stream to appreciate the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of those in another language stream, will be extended to all our institutions of higher learning. In order that the additional teaching load should not fall on the shoulders of our existing corps of teachers, extra provision of language teachers will be made. In the meantime, in-service courses for existing language teachers will be intensified so as to raise their efficiency and effectiveness. All the expansion in education could not have been made possible without co-ordinated efforts in increasing the number and quality of teachers. In 1960, full-time teacher-training was replaced by part-time in-service training in order to meet the unprecedented demand in primary education. With Primary I enrolment levelling-off at the rate of about 60,000 per annum for the last three years and a declining birth rate, the problem of increasing supply is now overcome and emphasis is now shifted to improving the quality of the training of teachers. A positive step will be taken towards qualitative improvement by a gradual reversion to full-time training. A second Teachers' Training College will be built under the Second Development Plan to take in fee-paying students on a full-time basis. With the establishment of this new College, it will be possible for the existing College to make a gradual reduction in the annual intake of part-time trainees and to start full-time training courses of its own. Eventually, both Colleges will have only full-time students for regular training, and more attention can be devoted to in-service courses for qualified teachers. The anticipated improvement in the quality of training will, in the years to come, be reflected in the quality of teaching throughout our schools. The curriculum and the intensity of training will, by and large, be similar to the present 3-year in-service training course but crammed into two years of full-time training. On graduation, they will become qualified teachers drawing the same salary as the 3-year in-service course teachers. The anxiety expressed by the Singapore Teachers' Union of a multiplicity of salary scales and more favoured treatment for these full-time students will not arise. Outside the regular school system, vocational training will be greatly expanded. Additional training facilities at the Singapore Vocational Institute, at the cost of $1.65 million, are in the process of construction. When completed by the middle of 1966, the enrolment capacity will increase from the present 1,200 to 2,500. In addition, two new vocational institutes will be built under the Second Development Plan, one providing courses in the manual and applied arts, the other in engineering and building. When completed, the three institutes together will be able to take in about 6,500 students, including a proportion of those with the Secondary Vocational School Certificate, for training to become skilled craftsmen to meet the demand of our expanding industries. At a higher level of technical training, the Polytechnic has finalised arrangements for its graduates in Engineering, Building and Accountancy to he awarded degrees by the University of Singapore. The long-term plans of expansion envisaged moving the Polytechnic to a new site to develop into two separate units - a College providing training at Technician Diploma level and an Institute of Advanced Technology awarding Degrees of its own. With the establishment of these institutions, it is expected that Singapore will become a centre for technical and technological education in South-East Asia. In the next few years, more attention will be paid to integrating our higher institutions of learning into the national community so that they will the better serve society. Universities represent the apex of the educational system in a country. They have an essential and influential role in society, and the quality and character of the universities are bound to have important impacts on the social, economic, and political life of a country. The role and character of universities have varied from place to place and from time to time. Universities are simultaneously conservative and progressive institutions - conservative in the sense that they preserve the best in the culture of a society, and progressive in the sense that they introduce new ideas, new discoveries, and new inventions, usually for the betterment of society. As institutions of higher learning, universities throughout the world share certain common functions, but they differ also because they have to cater for the different needs of the societies for which they purport to serve. It is obvious that universities in homogeneous societies with a well-developed sense of national identity have one important difference in role to play from universities in newly independent countries faced with the problems of building national identity out of a heterogeneous population. Problems, too, differ from one newly emergent heterogeneous country to another. Thus, most of the African countries are beset by the problem of building national identities out of diverse tribes, divided by a multiplicity of local dialects, loyalties and customs. In Singapore, where we are thrown by the circumstances of history and geography on the crossroads of trade and cultures, we are confronted by the immeasurably greater problem of fostering a national identity out of competing cultures - cultures which have an inherent vitality of their own. The hard facts of geography, history, and demography in South-East Asia have forced upon us the realisation that we cannot build our distinctive national identity on the basis of one race, one religion, and one language. Our brief experience in Malaysia has driven the lesson home. It is a matter of history that our universities were founded in different circumstances, without careful thought as to the burning problems imposed upon us by the complex character of our population. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me at this juncture quote certain extracts from the much publicised Nanyang University Curriculum Review Committee, a document more popularly known as the Wang Gung-Wu Report, and named after its Chairman, Professor Wang Gung-Wu, a local scholar, internationally known for his scholarship and linguistic proficiency in English, Chinese, and Malay. Parts of this report run as follows: `...there is an urgent need for people with a deep, rational and sympathetic understanding of the multi-racial basis of the country. The University should produce graduates able to guide the course of the country's development, and trained to administer the public services and manage the growth of commerce and industry, and specially equipped to meet the nation's need for rapid modernisation . . . It should be the aim of the University to produce graduates who are at least bi-lingual, if not tri-lingual, in the languages relevant to the development of the country. The University cannot depend on outside teaching staff for an indefinite period of time. There must he every opportunity for the employment of young but highly qualified local graduates with a deep understanding of the conditions in the region. In this way, the University will play an increasingly valuable role in the service of our society.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the extracts I have just cited were written in the context of Malaysia and with reference to Nanyang University. But the views expressed are also valid for multi-racial Singapore and for the University of Singapore. In other words, both Nanyang University and the University of Singapore must reflect the character of the society which they serve. But the character and the dimensions of the problems differ. These arise from the fact that in one university, the question of university reforms has been wilfully turned by anti-national elements into a political issue on the preservation of Chinese education, while in the other the problem is one of adjusting the university to the realities of society in Singapore. Unlike Nanyang University, the University of Singapore is not faced with major re-organisation to bring it up to the requirements of modern university education. Internationally, it is recognised as an institution of higher learning with a reputation for scholarship because its standard of scholarship and teaching can measure up to international standards. Its international reputation is likely to increase with the implementation of its development programme. This expansion programme includes two new faculties, namely, a Faculty of Technology and a Faculty of Social Sciences. It also includes an Institute of Medical Specialties, a Science Tower, which is about to be completed, an animal farm to provide facilities for teaching and research, extensions to the Medical Faculty and new library facilities. In the case of the University of Singapore, there is no problem of raising standards. However, the University shares one common defect with Nanyang University. This concerns the sensitivity of the universities to the character of their environment, and the political and social changes occurring therein. To begin with the University of Singapore, this institution has been somewhat slow in its responses. Nevertheless, it has begun to take a more realistic view of things. It has admitted for some years already students from the Chinese-medium stream and from Nanyang University. The indications are that its response to social changes and needs will he quickened, for there is a growing national consciousness in the university as more and more local staff are recruited into the university. In fact, about a year ago, the local staff, with a few notable exceptions, have organised themselves into an association dedicated to making the University of Singapore into a truly national institution, reflecting the needs and character of our society, without sacrificing international standards. They demanded a local Vice-Chancellor to head the University, and their demand was met. In the University of Singapore, steps have already been taken to revive the Malay Studies Department, and to strengthen the Chinese Studies Department in order to take in students from the Chinese stream. The Chinese Studies Department has already existed for about a decade, but it has failed to measure up to expectations. Obviously, a radical re-organisation of the Department is necessary. But more has still to he done to ensure that facilities for the study of languages will he made available to all students in the University. In a multi-racial society, the intelligentsia has not only to be multi-lingual in order to play an effective role in all walks of life, but bi-lingual and tri-lingual graduates have better chances in the competition for jobs and promotions. Even in the field of researches in the arts and social sciences, the bi-lingual or trilingual academic men have advantages over their mono-lingual rivals both in the scope and depth of their work. It is pertinent to observe that an increasing number of Western Universities have introduced the study of Asian languages and have required that their post-graduate students on Asian studies should have proficiency in these languages. The Government has set out to build Singapore into a model multi-racial, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural society in this region of South-East Asia. The contribution that the University can make towards helping the Government to achieve this end is immense. This is a challenging task which I think the University can fulfil, with a qualitative change in its orientation as more and more local staff with a national outlook come to control the University. The problem of reforms in Nanyang University is one of great magnitude, because anti-national elements have turned the efforts of re-organisation into a political issue on Chinese culture. Before I proceed, let me repeat in Parliament what the Government and the Nanyang University authorities have categorically stated so many times in the past and also recently, namely, that Chinese shall continue to be the main language medium of instruction even after re-organisation. The objective of re-organisation is to turn Nanyang University into an institution of higher learning consonant with the needs of modern university education in a heterogeneous society. This is a necessary step in order to fulfil the Government's educational policy of equal treatment for four languages - Malay, Chinese, Tamil, and English. Let me repeat the main features of the Government's policy on languages. Malay is the national language. The official languages are Malay, Chinese, Tamil, and English. In education, there is no discrimination against any of these languages. All four language streams of education have been accorded equal treatment. The Government has not only been giving full grant-in-aid to aided Chinese schools, but has also actively built schools for the Chinese language streams. There were only nine Government Chinese medium schools before June 1959. Today, there are 60 such schools, 28 of which are secondary schools and 32 are primary schools. This has made possible a major increase in the enrolment in Government Chinese medium schools. In 1959, the year in which the P.A.P. became the Government of Singapore, the enrolment in Government Chinese schools amounted to only 6,500. Today, the enrolment is about 35,000, or an increase of nearly 540 per cent in enrolment within six years. All this increase and future increases mean that Nanyang University has to be re-organised so that those who have the necessary qualifications will be given a proper university education that is their due. Re-organisation means better qualified teachers for the Chinese-medium schools, with the result that the quality of Chinese education will be improved. It also means that Nanyang graduates will have the necessary qualifications to compete for other jobs. The best of them will be acceptable to do post-graduate work in universities abroad, with improved prospects for even better and more lucrative jobs, including employment in Nanyang University itself, when they return with post-graduate degrees. To summarise, Sir, the re-organisation of Nanyang University will benefit Chinese education at all levels as well as open up new opportunities for Nanyang graduates. Each and every individual graduate will gain by these changes; society will also gain by them. For there is a great deal of talent in the Chinese stream which has never had the opportunity for development because the education system has not been adequately staffed and, at university level, properly organised to give it full opportunity for development. The real question which the nation has to face is whether Nanyang University is to be allowed to be re-organised quietly and peacefully so that Chinese education will improve in quality at all levels within the context of a multi-racial nation, and Nanyang graduates will be in an equal position to compete for jobs and play a positive role in the life of a multi-cultural society. This is the real issue which all those who profess to love Chinese education must face. The issue is not the preservation or destruction of Chinese education. Unfortunately, the Barisan Sosialis and other pro-Communist organisations have confused the real issue and presented the re-organisation as an attempt to kill Chinese education and turn Nanyang University into an English University. Before I explain how the anti-national Communist elements stirred up a campaign against re-organisation, let me briefly explain what they hoped to gain by it. Since 1961, the fortunes of the Communist Party and its front organisations, like the Barisan Sosialis, have gone from bad to worse. By fighting against merger and Malaysia, by getting involved with the Brunei revolt and the P.K.I., they have exposed themselves before the public. There is hardly any major issue left in Singapore for them to exploit except communalism. And it is not impossible to stir up Chinese feelings on questions of Chinese education, with unavoidable increase in communal feelings between the Chinese and other cultural groups. The re-organisation of Nanyang presents for the Communists and their supporters an Opportunity to stir up trouble. But the re-organisation of Nanyang University presents to them more than just an opportunity to stir up communal feelings; it is also a threat to their sources of supply of new recruits. With Nanyang University re-organised, and its graduates equipped for better jobs and a meaningful role in our society, their sources of supply will dry up. Furthermore, it will no longer be possible for them to make use of Chinese education as a political issue. For these reasons then, the re-organisation of Nanyang University has falsely been presented as a move to kill Chinese education. Unfortunately, a number of errors in the Chinese translation of the Report had been mischievously exploited to lend credence to their distortion that Nanyang University was to be converted into an English University. Under the pretext of the preservation of Chinese education, a group of pro-Communist students carried out a boycott of classes. The boycott is a familiar technique employed by the Communists when they stir up trouble in the Chinese educational stream. It involves violence, intimidation, and even arson, in the present case, the agitators resorted to physical violence against the Acting Vice-Chancellor and some members of the academic and non-academic staff. They intimidated and forcibly prevented students from attending classes. They committed vandalism by tampering with the locks of lecture rooms, and defacing all the University buildings except the library. They even tried to burn down a dormitory block. It is estimated that it will cost the Singapore taxpayer some $100,000 to renovate and repair the damages done to the University buildings. It will be noted that these criminal and destructive acts had been perpetrated against Nanyang University - itself a symbol of Chinese education and culture - by people who professed to preserve Chinese education and language. Their actions only served to prove their hypocrisy. In their campaign of vandalism and boycott of classes, the agitators were openly aided and abetted by the usual pro-Communist front organisations, the Barisan Sosialis, the Old Boys' Associations, and some trade unions. Unfortunately for them, the public was not convinced that the Government was anti-Chinese education and language. Without public support, the boycott collapsed ignominously. The Nanyang University authorities have taken disciplinary action against 85 students involved in the agitations. Nearly half of them came from the Federation. It would appear that many Federation students find the relative liberalism and freedom in Singapore a convenient place for them to manifest their suppressed grievances and frustrations over the years in their home town where the cry was and still is "One race, one language, and one religion." It is pertinent to point out that with separation these students are now in the territory of an independent country, which has not only allowed them to pursue their studies here but has also subsidised their studies at Nanyang University at public expense, an educational responsibility which their own Government has consistently refused to shoulder. We are quite prepared to continue allowing them to come here for higher education, and even subsidise their studies at Nanyang University, for, despite separation, we are still one people. But the Government expects them to observe the laws of the country and the discipline of the University while they are in Singapore. It would be a pity if the Government had to send them back to the Federation half-way through their studies - a step which the Government would be reluctant to take. They have chosen the wrong battleground to fight for the preservation of Chinese language, education, and culture. Since re-organisation began in Nan-yang last July, the Government has donated a sum of $1 million for a new Library Building. Construction work on the Library has begun, and will be completed by about July 1966. Another $1 million has also been granted for the purchase of scientific equipment and library books. To enable the University to lower the fees for students who are Singapore citizens, Government subsidised the University to the extent of $81,000 in 1964 and $137,000 in 1965. In addition, it is expected that the Government will have advanced, since re-organisation, a total of $1.86 million to the University by the end of this year to make up the deficit in recurrent expenditure. As further re-organisation takes place, Government will increase its financial assistance to the University for both recurrent expenditure and capital development, so that the University may develop on a sound financial footing into an institution of high academic standing, free from subversive influences. In the field of adult education, the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa, now in its sixth year of existence, continues to provide a valuable service not only towards eradicating illiteracy and raising standards of education among adults, including the provision of facilities for learning a second or third language for those already proficient in one, the running of academic classes up to and including pre-university education, and conducting vocational classes, but also in widening the outlook of the citizens of Singapore by providing extra-mural courses to enable them to make more fruitful use of their leisure time. In 1960, the total student population was 20,000. This year it has increased to 50,000. To cope with the expansion of activities in this field, a new Adult Education Centre will be built by the Government under the Second Development Plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have set out some of the problems connected with education we have to face, and certain targets to be achieved in the immediate future. However, the efforts to achieve these targets would be hampered should there be an influx of children of school-going age from outside Singapore. As the Prime Minister has explained to this House a few days ago, when he moved a Motion of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech, `In the short-term, we have had to introduce certain new measures in order that we can take stock of what our liabilities are, our immediate liability to give jobs to our own... citizens, provide schools for their children, hospitals and social community services, housing and so on.' To this end, we have taken steps to tighten rules governing admission to schools and to revise school fees for non-Singapore citizens by requiring them to pay for the actual cost of education. It is a well-known fact that education is taking up a substantial and increasing proportion of the annual budget of Singapore. The number of children born outside Singapore and whose parents are not Singapore citizens admitted to schools in Singapore has been on the increase each year from 874 in 1960 to 2,026 in 1965. Already in 1965, the Government had to subsidise nearly $1.4 million on these children who are not Singapore citizens. Obviously, it is unfair for the people of Singapore to pay for the failure of another Government to provide for the education of its citizens to the extent of ultimately affecting our ability to cater for the educational needs of our own citizens. Nevertheless, the special relationship between the people of Singapore and those of Malaysia has been taken into consideration by the fact that children of non-Singapore citizens who are in Singapore with the concurrence of the Singapore Government or who are permanent residents of Singapore on or before 31st December, 1961, will not be affected by the increase in school fees. This concession, in practice, will benefit many Malaysian citizens now in Singapore. In his address to this House a few days ago, the Member for Bras Basah has referred to anomalies in the salary structure of the teaching service. I must point out that the multiplicity of salary scales and the complexities of problems arising therefrom are not the makings of this Government. The Member for Bras Basah is aware of the complex nature of the problem and, because any revision in the salary structure for teachers will have direct repercussions on the other services, the Government had decided to appoint a Salaries Commission to review the salary structure of the Government services as a whole jointly with the then Federal Government. Since then we have been notified that we are no longer a Member of this Joint Salaries Commission, and, therefore, the Government has now decided to appoint a new Salaries Commission of our own. I am as anxious as the Member for Bras Basah to settle the long-standing issues as soon as possible because, as the Member has pointed out, dissatisfied teachers cannot give of their best. However, it is heartening to note that the problem is one of rationalisation of the existing multiplicity of salary scales in the teaching service and not a question of under-remuneration for service performed. The Member for Moulmein raised certain problems regarding Tamil education at secondary level. I am aware of the problems that she has posed, especially in respect of shortage of qualified secondary school teachers as well as qualified teacher-educators in the Teachers' Training College. I shall certainly look into these problems, including the desirability of sending students to India for higher studies with a view to subsequent service in our secondary schools, and the feasibility of recruiting qualified Tamil secondary school teachers from India on short-term contracts. 3.35 p.m.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
(In Malay): Mr Speaker -
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Just a minute. I have not called the Member yet. Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to associate myself with my colleagues in expressing my thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his speech on 8th December. In his speech in this Assembly, His Excellency said that Singapore is undergoing a new history because Singapore is now an independent and sovereign State. Now that Singapore has obtained its independence, we can show to the world that the people of Singapore can live in peace and prosperity in a multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. Mr Speaker, while we are making every effort to build up our newly independent and sovereign country, the Barisan Sosialis have chosen to boycott this Assembly on the pretext that the present Government is not democratic. But, Mr Speaker, you know that the Barisan Sosialis have no more life in the independent and sovereign State of Singapore. The reason why the Barisan Sosialis have boycotted this Assembly is that they are now in a precarious position. We have proof that the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are quarrelling among themselves on ideologies. As you know, the Rightist Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis is receiving medical attention at Woodbridge Hospital. A number of their leaders are in an uncertain position. If the Barisan Sosialis are still in Singapore, they will definitely be in this Chamber to argue in the interest of the people. They were elected to this Assembly by the people, but they were unable to give their views in the interest of the people. You may perhaps remember, Mr Speaker, the time when the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis gave a speech in this Assembly which lasted seven hours. He thought he was a champion fighting for the rights of the people. But now not even one Member of the Barisan Sosialis is seen here. One point can clarify this. If I am not mistaken, in the Assembly on Friday, there was a Question for Oral Answer put up by the Barisan Sosialis. This concerns the workers in a Bee-boon company who lost their jobs where the Barisan Sosialis themselves were the leaders of the workers there. Mr Speaker, it is not only the people who have lost faith in the Barisan Sosialis. Many workers at one time had faith that the Barisan Sosialis is a Party that can lead the people, but they finally realised that they had been led up the garden path. Many workers have lost employment because they have been led astray. Many of the firms had to dismiss their workers and close down. This is all because of the Barisan Sosialis who led the pro-Communist unions. Many workers' unions, which were formerly with the Barisan Sosialis, have now withdrawn their membership and have joined national unions which are affiliated with the N.T.U.C. This is a clear indication that the influence of the Barisan Sosialis in the Assembly today is dwindling. It is not because Singapore is no longer enjoying democracy but because of the realisation by the people in regard to the leadership of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, I wish to stress in this House what I have said just now. Singapore is undergoing a new phase in its history. The manner in which she was forced to receive its independence fills us with a feeling of sadness. If we were to compare Singapore with other countries which have achieved their independence, we will see that they received their independence with joy. Even the independence achieved by the Ian Smith's faction in Rhodesia was a source of joy to the people of that faction. On the other hand, we received our independence with sadness because of the doings of the people on the other side of the Causeway. We have read in the papers, particularly the Utusan Melayu, that the Malays in Singapore are downtrodden. The Utusan Melayu very often gives a wrong picture of the true situation of the Malays in Singapore. On the other hand, if we deeply study the true position, it can be said that a great number of people in Singapore have connections with people in Malaysia who are well aware of the conditions of the people here. Mr Speaker, to those who allege that there is no democracy in Singapore and that the Malays here are oppressed, I would like to say that the Government of Singapore is very much practising democracy and is giving freedom to all races, languages and religions. The Head of State of Singapore is a Malay. The Chief Justice is a Chinese. And the Speaker of this House is an Indian. Here, we can see for ourselves that only a tolerant multi-racial and multi-lingual society can bring about this state of affairs. It is this sort of society that we must have in order to live happily. On the other hand, the efforts of the Malaysian Government appear to be directed against the harmonious living together of the people. For instance, in the Utusan Melayu of Saturday, 11th December, Tun Razak in a speech likened the speech of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to that of playing an old film. But the new film which will be screened in 1969 was not stated in that paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, when old films are re-screened in the same theatre, it means that the film is popular and liked by many. That is the reason why it is re-screened. Therefore, it is proof that that old film was a film which was popular. The shorts of the new film were screened in Ayer Hitam in Penang, and Rahang in Negri Sembilan, to attract the people of Malaysia in 1969. This is a new picture, Mr Speaker. If my memory serves me right, in 1962 the Malaysian Government stopped the import of poultry and pigs into Singapore. That was one way to stop the prosperity of Singapore. But, on the other hand, because we wish to live, we have to find a way to bring about a better standard of living for the people of Singapore. We in turn have to stop the import of their vegetables into Singapore. But this was later discontinued. All these restrictions were not for the benefit of the people of Singapore. If the people on the other side of the Causeway were shouting about the oppression of the people of Singapore, particularly the Malays, then these restrictions which they had imposed and were against that ideal would further create distress and difficulties for the Malays in Singapore, because 90 per cent of the Malays in Singapore are wage earners. If these restrictions were imposed, then it is the Malays in Singapore who would feel the pinch. Further, we wish to resume barter trade with Indonesia in order to bring about a better standard of living in Singapore, particularly to that community of wage earners. But the Government of Malaysia objected to that wish on the ground that it would be against their defence interests. However, that was part of our effort to bring about a better standard of living for our people, including the Malays. If the Malaysian Government still continues with that attitude, it will mean that they are not only not giving their co-operation to the people of Singapore, but indirectly oppressing the Malays of whom a great majority are poor. If they truly wish to be of assistance to the Malays here, then they should not continue to object, because by so doing the fat people will grow fatter and the thin people will grow thinner, as what has happened in Malaysia. As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, the true picture has been misrepresented by the leaders in Malaysia who, through the ultras in their midst and through the Utusan Melayu, say that the Malays in Singapore are oppressed and are not enjoying life. Why I say that the Utusan Melayu is behaving that way is this. There was an article by its correspondent on the 16th December, 1965, regarding the speech of the Member for Geylang Serai, when he referred to Tun Razak's comments on the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. As reported in the Hansard of the 14th December, the Member for Geylang Serai continued with his speech and mentioned what had happened in Rahang. Here, we can see that what actually was said in the House was misreported in the paper. Thus we can see how the true position of the Malays in Singapore is misrepresented in the Malay paper, the Utusan Melayu. Mr Speaker, our effort to build an independent sovereign nation and a harmonious relationship between the peoples of various races, religions and cultures is being countered by efforts to destroy it. We have clarified our efforts to unite the people of various races, and the acceptance of Malay as the national language has been well received by all sections of the people. But recently when the Government launched its National Language Month campaign, Ahmad Haji Taff of U.M.N.O. is reported in the newspaper Berita Mingguan to have stated that U.M.N.O. Singapore supported the National Language Month and supported the Government's campaign. But, in fact, not a single programme was supported by U.M.N.O. It is difficult to see how they supported the campaign. This is something insincere as Malay has been accepted by all sectors of the people as the national language.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Can the Member give the date of that paper?
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
(In Malay): The Berita Harian of Sunday, 14th December.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Dr Toh, in reply. 4.00 p.m.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to go into the details of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Address, as my colleagues on the Government Benches have so ably brought them up during the course of this debate. I would rather try to present a general picture of the new situation in which Singapore has found itself since we separated from Malaysia. Sir, there are standard textbooks which military strategists, Ministers of Defence and aspiring political leaders read in order to improve themselves and widen their knowledge in the course of their having to administer the affairs of the country. One, of course, is the Western standard textbook by Clausewitz on The Art of War. But there is a much more interesting text-book which relates to the history of the Three Kingdoms in Chinese history. The Three Kingdoms are the Wei Kingdom, the Chu Kingdom and the Wu Kingdom. It is a history of three territories seeking to survive, each trying to preserve its integrity and sovereignty, how much political guile and strategy and resourcefulness were shown by their generals; but in the end, unfortunately, all three kingdoms disappeared. They were taken over by another power. Although I do not believe in the dictum that history repeats itself, because there are now institutions and devices which prevent history from recurring so often, I will only add that looking around us there are comparable situations in South-East Asia which are like that of the Three Kingdoms in ancient Chinese history. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention to spell out what the Three Kingdoms are in modern South-East Asian history. I will only say, for our edification and education, that we in Singapore should try to read a little more of The Three Kingdoms and make sure that we are not one of the victims of absorption and conquest as the Three Kingdoms were. That is why we thought it extraordinarily important that Singapore should be a member of the United Nations Organisation. There was no such world body in the days of the Three Kingdoms. So when one territory was attacked by another territory, there was no recourse to an appeal or recourse to succour by a world body. But it is fortunate for many small countries today that there is such a body as the Security Council of the United Nations where a considerable amount of dirty linen can be washed in front of the world You have perhaps, to some extent, quite satisfactory measures which can he applied by the world body in the solution of disputes between smaller powers. It is our good fortune that we have been admitted into the United Nations organisation, because you never can tell when one of these days we may appear as a complainant before the United Nations Security Council, However, I hope that does not happen, because I believe that, like the able leaders and generals of one of the Three Kingdoms, people in Singapore will also have the resourcefulness to ensure their own survival. There is a very interesting story about a famous general in one of the Three Kingdoms. He was called Chu Ker Liang. General Chu Ker Liang was short of arrows and short of ammunition. They were using arrows in those days. He had only bows but very few arrows to shoot with. So what he did was he had dummies made of straw, put them on board some barges and sailed the barges down the river. The enemy thought Chu Ker Liang's army was attacking them. So they fired thousands of arrows into these straw dummies. Chu Ker Liang was happy. He pulled out those arrows, was richer because of the ammunition he found and used the same arrows to shoot back at the enemy. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Defence should acquire his ammunition like Chu Ker Liang, but we feel safe and secure because our Minister of Defence is versed in the history of the Three Kingdoms. Only I disagree with him on his proposals to recruit only volunteers in the People's Defence Force. He admits that our regular army is a very small army - two battalions, 1,600 soldiers. In fact, when I went with my colleagues, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the State Minister for Education, to all the African countries and explained to them that we just had only 1,600 soldiers, they chuckled, "How could you be an independent country - no Army, no Navy and no Air Force?" They asked us what we were going to do. I said, "My Minister of Defence has a bright idea. He is going to recruit a militia." My disagreement with the Minister, of course, is that he is just going to recruit the militia on a voluntary basis. But in other countries which are seeking to survive too - I could mention a few, but perhaps in deference to my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would rather not do so, because it may make his work more difficult - I would say that compulsory national service, compulsory militia service, probably would he more effective, not from the point of view perhaps of trying to teach recruits the art of handling sterling guns, tommy guns, bazookas or howitzers (I do not think that would be the primary purpose of a militia) but from another point of view, and that is this; a far more important function of such a militia would he to instill a sense of national consciousness into the recruits. It is absolutely necessary, because Singapore is an open port, an open city, to which people from all walks of life and from all races and cultures migrate, that these people must he assimilated and absorbed into a nation. That is the weakness which we find in our efforts to build a nation, and I think a compulsory militia would he an extremely effective instrument indeed on which to build our Singapore nation. We started the task in 1959 since the People's Action Party assumed power. We believe the schools are the real battleground for nation-building. But I do not think that is adequate and, in any case, the results will not be seen until after 10 to 15 years. Meanwhile, it is more urgent that able-bodied men and women too should possess a spirit of national consciousness and should he able to comprehend meaningfully the efforts of the Government in trying to build up Singapore as a viable nation and how we propose to do it. Nevertheless, it is a start in having even volunteers in the People's Defence Force. I have no doubt my colleague the Minister of Defence will not only teach the volunteers or the militia the art of self-defence, but also teach them, more important than anything else, the art of how to be a citizen of Singapore. I do not believe that Singapore by just becoming independent can remain isolated from our neighbour, much less from the rest of the world. In fact, we must keep on remembering that the Causeway, which is like an umbilical cord, ties us to Malaya. It has been that way for a very long time. Singapore is still a big city in South-East Asia. Therefore, we can always expect a drift of population from the rural areas of Malaya to Singapore. This problem of urbanisation, of course, increases our problem of controlling population growth. If we were to believe in the estimates that annually about 10,000 people migrate to Singapore from Malaya, then over the course of years, in the last 10 years, we would have gained 100,000 people. All this is going to defeat the plans of the Minister for Health with his I.U.D. campaign. There are about 50,000 to 60,000 babies born in Singapore, but if all the time you are going to have such a substantial number of persons migrating to Singapore, then, of course, the Minister for Health's plans to limit the population increase by using this unique contraceptive device are going to get nowhere. Therefore, we are keeping a watchful eye on migration into Singapore. We hope at least to protect Singapore citizens by instituting measures, e.g, issuing work permits, so that Singapore citizens will not he flooded out in the process of looking for employment. This, of course, ties up with economic planning. Population control is just as important as our ability to plan for the future. It is necessary that we must not find ourselves in a situation where we keep on running on a tread mill which moves backwards, and in the end, we find that no progress has ever been made at all. I would like to make only one comment on students, and students in Singapore in particular. I believe that students all over the world have an important role to play, not just because they are part of the educational process, hut that they will in time come to man the Civil Service, man industries, and a few will become the ruling elite. In fact, my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I had the great advantage and opportunity to address students in London when we were there last October. I spoke to Singapore students and I found that they were a very keen and enthusiastic crowd. On my questioning them, they told me that they would he very happy indeed to be allowed to continue to be associated with students from Malaysia, to he allowed to use Malaysia Hall (it was Malaya Hall in the old days), and also to continue to use the services of the Students Unit in London. Some of our students were living in Malaysia Hall, some were living in Hans Crescent - a hostel - where students from all Commonwealth countries stay when they study in London. I wholeheartedly agree with them that although Singapore is now politically separated from Malaysia, at least we should not inflict upon the students, upon the younger generation, the failures of the older generation. Therefore, it is most regrettable indeed for me, Mr Speaker, to read in the Press this morning that advice will soon be given to the authorities who run Malaysia Hall to evict Singapore students too. We have suffered eviction from Malaysia. Now, it is regrettable indeed, and a big disappointment, that this also would be the fate of Singapore's students who live in Malaysia Hall.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Is that in the Straits Times of this morning?
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Yes, Mr Speaker. Malaya Hall, as it was called when I was a student, had memories for me and my colleagues - the Minister of Defence, the Prime Minister and other Ministers. And it was in Malaya Hall that we first organised our student political body called "The Malayan Forum". It was in the Forum in Malaya Hall, that we first met those who today are Ministers in the Malaysian Government or are political leaders in Malaysia. Therefore, it is most unfortunate that a decision is being taken which reverses completely the process of bringing minds together. Perhaps I would say the beginnings of political thinking of independence for Malaya, and of reunification of Singapore with Malaya, also originated within the Malayan Forum, within Malaya Hall, in London. It is to our advantage, indeed - for the future generation at least, if not for us - that the students of today, students from Singapore and students from Malaysia, should have a common venue where they can meet and exchange views, study like students, and act and behave like students. After all, most of their activities at Malaysia Hall are not political. They are more social, and it will be very unfortunate indeed if a Singapore student has a girl friend from Malaya and she cannot take him to a dance in Malaysia Hall, because he would be thrown out by the jaga there who looks after Malaysia Hall. Sir, these are problems which really ought to have been taken into consideration by those who have arrived at this decision. I think it would be a better example to the rest of the Commonwealth if at least we make an effort to allow students from neighbouring Commonwealth territories to study and live together. Who in the Commonwealth would believe that we are so anxious and concerned over the future of the Commonwealth, over the integrity and unity of the Commonwealth when problems which are much closer to us cannot be solved? Hans Crescent Hostel for students from all Commonwealth countries has made no decision to throw out students from any particular country. Therefore, it is very regrettable indeed that Malaysia Hall will now be empty of Singapore students. It is more particularly annoying, Mr Speaker, because the Singapore Government is paying one-third of the cost of running Malaysia Hall. And we are also contributing a quarter million dollars annually to the Students Unit in London. Be that as it may, it is a decision in which we have no say. We are the junior partner of Malaysia Hall, and it is a lesson to us.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Mr Deputy Prime Minister, that was not a decision of the Federation Government.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
It is a decision made at a meeting of Ministers who were present at the Alliance Council, and I have no doubt that this could be duly transmitted to the Government.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Perhaps if it is dealt with at that level!
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
What I was saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the lesson, of course, is that in future, in joint organisations, we should ensure that we are not a junior partner where we hold only one-third of the shares. Because holding one-third of the shares would mean that we can be unceremoniously thrown out when the other partner so pleases. And there are many other organisations at the moment in which we are also a partner with Malaysia. But I do sincerely hope that the political separation of Singapore from Malaysia will not bring everything to its logical conclusion, and so make irreversible the separation which publicly, and to all intents and purposes, leaders of both sides of the Causeway so much regret. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just comment on the absence of the Opposition. It is a pity indeed that they are not here. I suppose many of our Back-benchers miss the diatribes which the Opposition could have hurled at us. But certainly their absence has not in the least hindered the proceedings of this House. The Government Benchers have fulfilled their full quota of time during the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Address. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a rule in Standing Orders that each speaker is permitted so much time. I am fully convinced we have dutifully shouldered our share of responsibility. If there is any unfulfilled quota of time, then that responsibility must be borne by the Opposition. All I hope is that the Opposition will learn that second thoughts are best and that they will, at some future date, clearly enunciate their stand on the constitutional struggle for power. All that I want to say now. Mr Speaker, is that in the three months since Singapore left Malaysia, we have been having an exciting and a busy time trying to normalise public life. I would only add that Singapore will never be allowed, either by our neighbours or by the rest of the world, to remain a backwater for the rest of our lives. It just cannot be. I personally for one, Sir, do not mind very much if Singapore were to be but a `sleepy hollow', like Malacca. In fact, I sometimes wonder why it is that my colleague, the Minister of Defence, had ever left the sleepy hollow of Malacca! It is a sort of little paradise, where you are free from all the world's - [Interruption]. Yes, I have just found the answer. He is not Mr Tan Siew Sin! However, I would like to say that we occupy an important and a central position in the hub of political events in this area of the world, it is our hope that many of us will imbibe the morality of the history of the Three Kingdoms, that we strive to ensure that we do not suffer their fate. That is our purpose. I will only add that the people of Singapore - two million of them - plus 10.000 yearly from Malaya, together will, with energy and industry, understand the meaning of survival of Singapore. I think with this spirit we can build a national consciousness which will in the end ensure that Singapore maintains its integrity and independence.
YANG DI-PERTUAN NEGARA'S SPEECH - Debate on the Address - (Fifth Day)
Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara he agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present Session of this Assembly." The following motion* stood in the names of Mr Poh Ber Liak, Mr Ong Liang Teng and Mr Kow Kee Seng -
COMPENSATION FOR EVICTED DWELLERS
*That in view of the hardships suffered by the dwellers who were forced to move out from their homes without reasonable compensation and proper care by the People's Action Party Government this House strongly condemns the People's Action Party Government for its unjust acts and urges the Government to pay attention and give reasonable compensation and proper care to the dwellers who are affected, and to help settle their means of livelihood.
COMPENSATION FOR EVICTED DWELLERS
The mover of the motion*, Mr Poh Ber Liak, is not present in the House; neither are his supporters. I have not received any written intimation from Mr Poh Ber Liak that he has nominated a third party to move the motion. In view of that, the motion lapses. The following motion+ stood in the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Koo Young -
RELEASE OF POLITICAL DETAINEES
+That this House urges the Singapore Government to repeal and revoke immediately all repressive legislation and regulations: and release unconditionally all political detainees detained prior to and after the formation of Malaysia, and to restore all the fundamental democratic rights and freedoms of the people of Singapore.
RELEASE OF POLITICAL DETAINEES
The Member for Paya Lebar, the mover of this motion+, is not present in the House; neither is his supporter. I have not received a written request that another Member of the House move the motion. In view of that, the motion lapses. The following motion++ stood in the names of Mr Chia Thye Poh and Mr Koo Young -
FOREIGN POLICY
++That this House urges the Singapore Government to adopt a foreign policy friendly to Afro-Asian countries, and to resume trade immediately with Indonesia; to get rid of foreign bases which allow Singapore to be drifted into the aggressive war against the newly emerging countries, and to stand with the Afro-Asian people to support the Vietnamese people in their struggle against United States military intervention.
FOREIGN POLICY
The Member for Jurong is not present in the House; neither is the Member for Thomson. I have not received a written request from the Member for Jurong that another Member of this House should move this motion. Therefore, the motion, under the Standing Orders, lapses. Mr Leader, will you move the motion for the adjournment?
ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." - [Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock p.m.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Monday, 20th December, 1965. The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 20th December, 1965:-
Pedestrian crossing at 7th mile Tampines Road
"Mr Poh Ber Liak `To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government intends to establish a pedestrian crossing at 7th mile Tampines Road, near the market and when." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Deputy Prime Minister supplied the following answer:- 1. "The area on both sides of 7th milestone Tampines Road is swamp land and there is no market there. There is, however, a small village in Jalan Bersekutu (off 7 m.s.) but there is no justification for establishing a pedestrian crossing at this point." The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 20th December, 1965 :-
Peng Chee High School - (Government Assistance)
"Mr Poh Ber Liak To ask the Minister for Education whether the Government intends to give any assistance to Peng Ghee High School for development, and if he will give details." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Education supplied the following answer:- 2. "The answer depends on whether the School Management can fulfil the requirements as laid down in the Government Grant-in-Aid Regulations 1957, with which all schools are expected to comply. For example, the school must, among other things, hold a legal title to the land and have the amount of its own contribution in hand. If the School is in a position to comply with the Regulations. I see no reason why its application for capital grant for building cannot be considered together with others. As a matter of fact, Pin Ghee High School is more a Primary than a Secondary school. In 1957 it began with one Secondary I class; by 1964, it had only 6 Secondary classes. The academic standard achieved has been appalling: in 1964, out of 36 candidates who sat for the Government Secondary IV Examination, only 6 passed, of whom 5 passed with Grade III and 1 with Grade I certificate. Since 1957, when this school began its first Secondary I class, it has been encouraged to improve its school buildings and equipment. The Government approved in 1962 capital grants amounting to $5,241 for the school to purchase science equipment and furniture in order to help the school develop gradually its secondary classes into a proper secondary school. But unfortunately, the Management Committee of the school not only had not been able to make any improvements, but also allowed the school administration and discipline to deteriorate. For instance, the school, under its former Management, was known to have sold textbooks at list price, thus making a profit of some $9,000 a year from students, and yet it owed several bookshops a total of $18,000 in September 1964. No serious attempts had ever been made to improve the school buildings, which still consist of 7 blocks of wooden structures with asbestos and attap roofing. Repeated requests by the health authorities to improve its health requirements had not been fully complied with. Only one wooden plank room is available for an all-purpose laboratory; Chemistry, Physics and Biology experiments are all conducted in it. The secondary department of the school is notorious for indiscipline. In November 1964, a pupil was caught intimidating other pupils to subscribe to Barisan Sosialis Party Fund. More recently, school monitors, two of whom were known to have attended meetings organised by the Barisan Sosialis for its cadres, defied the authority of the principal and engaged in producing and distributing illegal handbills giving a distorted picture of Government policy towards Chinese education. Unless the School Management Committee can work selflessly and genuinely for the future well-being of the school, I do not see how all the present indiscipline, poor management and political manipulation by the Barisan Sosialis are going to help develop this school. Work has already begun on the construction of a secondary school at 10 m.s. Changi Road at a cost of $1.1 million plus an additional $250,000 for furniture and equipment. This school will be completed next year in time for the enrolment of students in 1967. It will cater for students living in the Kampong Chai Chi, Changi, Tampines, Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong areas who now have to travel long distances to attend school. Before the completion of this school, if parents living in the village nearby Pin Ghee School find it inconvenient to send their children to attend secondary schools elsewhere next year, the Government is quite prepared to open secondary classes at Changkat Primary School situated at 10 m.s. Changi Road to eater for this need until the new secondary school is ready." The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 20th December, 1965:-
MALAYSIAN MIRROR - (Particulars)
"Mr Ong Lian Teng: To ask the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (a) the total number of employees involved in the publication of the Malaysian Mirror; (b) the amount of money spent on each issue; and (c) the Head and subhead of the 1965 Estimates which provides for the expenditure." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs supplied the following answer:- 5. "The Malaysian Mirror, published from March this year, stemmed from the need to keep the public informed of current affairs for the development of an enlightened public opinion in the interest of democratic Government. With our independent status, it has now been decided to abandon the Malaysian Mirror and instead bring out a weekly publication called The Mirror, with a similar objective. (a) The publication of the then Malaysian Mirror and now The Mirror is undertaken by the staff of the Publicity Division of the Ministry of Culture. The four Editors in the Publicity Division, whose duties include the publication of booklets and other material, also contribute in the production of The Mirror which is issued in four languages. (b) Approximately 62,000 copies of The Mirror in the four languages are being printed each week at a cost of approximately $4,245. (c) The Head and Subhead of the 1965 Estimates which provide for the expenditure of printing cost are: Head A/C - Code 0801 Subhead - 2377 - Printing (non-standard)" The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 20th December, 1965:-
Nanyang University Co-operative Store - (Reasons for dissolution)
"Mr Chia Thye Poh To ask the Minister for Law and National Development the reason for dissolving the Nanyang University Co-operative Store." Pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (2), the Minister for Law and National Development supplied the following answer:- 6. "The Nanyang University Co-operative Store was dissolved by Order made under section 38 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Ordinance as a result of investigations into the running and management of this Co-operative Store by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The investigations were instituted following complaints received by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the effect that this Store was run and managed in contravention of the by-laws."
If one provision's text doesn't match the official source, use Suggest a fix beside that provision — it opens an editor next to the source document. For anything else — a missing amendment, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — report it here.