Small "a", yes. Thank you very much for getting me out of the predicament. But it is always helpful to get pleas for an increased allocation of funds. But I think, to be fair to the Finance Minister, the funds have been accorded to suit the work that the Ministry will do for the year 1967. If I had more work, more duties involved, I am quite sure he would have given it his reasonable consideration. As you know, Sir, we have already indicated that for the next year we will operate only some nine to ten missions abroad. There are reasons for this. We can open up missions all over the place for prestige reasons, for political reasons. But in Singapore we have decided that the only reason for opening up a mission anywhere is that we must get some advantage out of it. We do not have a showpiece either in Europe or America or anywhere. Wherever we open up a mission, we must be able to justify that we get some benefit from it. So for the time being, the size and number of missions are determined purely by these considerations. That would probably answer the observations made also by the Member for Farrer Park. Apart from deciding what advantage Singapore would have in setting up a mission, we must find the finance to set it up. Missions are very expensive outfits to maintain, especially in countries where the standard of living is considerably higher. So we cannot disburse funds just because it is good to have a mission in country A or B until I can satisfy myself, and quite definitely satisfy the Finance Minister, that if we spend $2 million in such and such a country, we can expect to get trade worth $4 million or $5 million. Then there is justification for it. Or some political advantage. Apart from that, there is the question of staff. One point we must understand about Singapore in its long history is that none of us has ever given consideration to the possibility that an independent Singapore would have to train diplomatic personnel. It is only a year since we became independent, and it takes a long time to train Foreign Office staff, or find people who are prepared to head missions, to be diplomats or ambassadors in foreign countries, it is not only the question of finding the money to justify the setting-up of a mission, but the question of finding the men to staff it. Being non-aligned, we are naturally prepared to set up missions in Eastern Europe. Western Europe, Northern Europe or Southern Europe. But it must pass the criteria I have indicated. What benefit will Singapore get, whether it is economic or political! If there is no benefit, then we can carry on the relationship in some other way. As trade and other relationships increase sufficiently, the moment we find enough staff to man the missions, we will give serious attention to the setting-up of missions abroad. At the moment, we have some trade missions from Eastern European countries. The other point by the Member for Sembawang is that we do not have enough protocol officers. True, we have a small number of protocol officers. That being so, we always arrange things in such a way that not more than one or two V.I.P.s visit Singapore at any given time. If a third V.I.P. intends and presses very hard to come to Singapore, we either politely tell him that maybe we will be able to receive him the next month or the month after that. So I think we can get by for the time being with the number of protocol officers we have. But obviously as we get more experience, as Singapore becomes more popular with V.I.P.s, it may be necessary to consider increasing the number of protocol officers. As for the choice of diplomats, we have not only chosen commercial men - in fact, I think we have deployed the talents of Singapore in a rather representative way. We have commercial men, we have professors, we have professional men, ex-civil servants, a former Speaker, representing practically members of all races and all classes. So I think there is nothing wrong in appointing commercial men or businessmen as diplomats, especially since Singapore lives on commerce and trade. It may be necessary in certain areas, in certain countries, to have men with trading knowledge. The work of a diplomat is not only to have diplomacy but to give us information - information on economics and other information. So in certain countries it may be necessary to have men experienced in trade, banking, business and so on. As regards the final point made by the Member for Sembawang that we should not discriminate against, so to speak, Malay. In fact, our hope is that people coming into the Foreign Office not only speak English and Malay, but they should be able to speak French or Russian - if we should set up a mission in Russia. Definitely we must be able to use the international languages. True, Malay is a good language, but it is spoken at the most by about 110 million people. I am quite sure that if you try to converse with a Belgian or a German in Malay, you will not get very far. So we will impress on people, especially in the foreign service, which is not set up for a national outlook, that it is not our national language that is important, but the language which is useful for a member of the foreign service to have - one of the international languages. If Malay becomes an international language, maybe then a knowledge of Malay will be one of the essentials of an employee of the Foreign Ministry. But we have people who speak Malay. If the Member for Sembawang will come to my Ministry, he will find recruits who are Malays who speak Malay. There are recruits who are not Malays who speak Malay. There are also Malays who speak English and so on. So there is no particular discrimination against any language group. All that we are interested in is that the particular person can discharge efficiently the functions and responsibilities that go with the Ministry.