EDUCATION BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

2.31 p.m.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the adjournment, we were discussing the seven doors of destruction let in by clause 14 of this dictator of education Bill. These seven doors, Sir, are where the dictator of education has his big guns to enforce his absolute will on all educationalists subject only to an appeal to his boss the Minister. Now, Sir, I have pointed out that where there is no Appeals Board at all, an appeal to the Minister is better than nothing though in truth and in fact it usually is a pure formality but here there is an Appeals Board. There is an Appeals Board of seven, five of whom are specifically picked and chosen by the Minister himself: five to two preponderance of those who are persona grata to the Minister. Why then, Sir, can this Appeals Board not be trusted with the matters coming under the seven classes exempted under the provisions of clauses 14 and 48? Let us look at them, Sir. I will take them in order. It says that clause 24 (o), (p) and (q) is not subject to appeal to the Appeals Board. Now clause 24 on page 11 of the Bill reads:

"The Director may refuse to register a school if it shall appear...

(o) the proposed school is likely to be used for a purpose detrimental to the interests of the Colony or of the public;".

I do not know whether "interests of the Colony" are identical with the fact of being a colony or the Colonial Office's interests but let us assume for a moment that the words are legitimately used as interests of this territory and the people therein. Notice how extremely wide that wording is, Sir: if it appears to the Director that the proposed school is likely to be used for a purpose detrimental to the interests of the Colony or of the public. You could not possibly find wider words. Look at the next one:

"(p) the proposed school is likely to be used for the purpose of instruction detrimental to the interests of the public or of the pupils;".

I do not know what difference there is. Then:

"(q) the proposed school is likely to he used as a meeting place of an unlawful society;".

Then we go to clause 25, Sir. Clause 25 (f) says:

"The Director may cancel the registration of any school-

(f) if it appears to him that discipline in the school has not been or cannot be adequately maintained."

Here again, although the Appeals Board is surely an organization far better suited than the Minister to understand what educational discipline is, no, the Appeals Board cannot be trusted with an appeal from a decision of so serious a character as to cancel the registration of a school on the ground that "it appears to him (the Director) that discipline in the school has not been or cannot be adequately maintained."

Then let us take clause 33 (i). I am sorry, Sir, if I seem to be going into details. I am not seeking to amend them at this stage. What I am seeking is that this House should realise that this Bill is, in fact, a Bill for the establishment of a dictator of education and to that extent it is entirely unacceptable to those who accept, shall we say, the popular phrase, the democratic principle that, in fact, this Bill is undemocratic. Now, Sir, let us take clause 33 (i) which reads:

"The Director may in his discretion refuse to register any person as a manager of a school if-

(i) it appears to the Director that it will be prejudicial to the interests of the Colony or of the public or of the pupils of the school that such person should be so registered."

How wide, how much wider is it possible to frame any clause giving absolute powers! Let us go on to clause 34 (g) which says:

"The Director may cancel the registration of any manager-

(g) if after the date of his registration it appears to the Director that he is a person who ought not in the interests of the Colony or of the public or of the pupils of the school to remain a manager."

Finally, clause 38(g) -finally, I say. Sir - I am merely talking of the seven main doors. After these seven, Sir, there are 27 areas of discretion but these are the main doors. Clause 38 (g) reads:

"The Director may refuse to register a person as a teacher if it appears to him that the applicant-

(g) is likely to influence his pupils in a manner prejudicial to their welfare or to the public interest;".

Now I say, Sir, that the exception in clause 14 makes a complete farce of the Appeals Board, that in fact, those exceptions give the Director absolute power to refuse to register schools (clause 24), to cancel registration of a school (clause 25), to refuse to register the manager of a school (clause 33), to cancel registration of a manager (clause 34) and to refuse registration of a teacher (clause 38). In truth and in fact, this exception means there is no protection whatsoever for educationalists against the arbitrary exercise of dictatorial executive powers.

Sir, I have said before that the Minister in charge of this Bill does not fully understand its provisions but I here and now, Sir, challenge the Hon. the Attorney-General to tell you that my statement is incorrect, that in truth and in fact there is absolute power in the Director of Education as the right-hand man of the Minister to refuse to register a school - absolute and unchallengeable - to cancel registration, to refuse to register a manager, to cancel registration of a manager and to refuse registration of a teacher. Those are the seven main doors of control - absolute and dictatorial - but they are not all, Sir. Throughout this Bill, there are 27 areas of discretion, in addition to these seven given to the Director and they are divided into four classes. One, the phrase "in his discretion". That phrase is used seven times. Two, "if it shall appear to him" and that phrase is used 13 times. Three, "he has powers if in his opinion" and that is used four times. Finally, "he has powers if he is satisfied" and that is used three times, a total of 27 areas of discretion. Now let us see what this means. I do not intend to pull the wool over anybody's eyes in these matters. I would like you to see exactly what it means. Let us take class one "in his discretion" and let us turn to one of the items to which it refers and I ask you to look at clause 22(2) which reads:

"An application for the registration of a school [that is important enough, you think] other than a Government school shall be made to the Director by a person intending to become a manager of the school and the Director may in his discretion grant such application subject to such conditions, if any, as he may think fit or may refuse such application."

There is no right of appeal whatever either in respect of the conditions or in respect of the refusal to register the school because it is "in his discretion" - this colossus. Let us look at class number two "if it shall appear to him". It is handy. Let us look at clause 24. Take any of the paragraphs (a) to (s) : I do not know how many they make. Let us take the first paragraph (a) which reads:

"The Director may refuse to register a school if it shall appear to him that-

(a) adequate educational facilities already exist in the area in which it is proposed to open the school;".

Now, you will notice not that the Director may refuse to register a school it adequate education facilities already exist but he may refuse to register a school if it appears to him. So when you appeal against his decision, you have got to go before the Appeals Board not to prove that in fact the decision is unreasonable but you have got to prove that it did not appear to him. Otherwise what is the meaning of that phrase? Why put it in there? "The Director may refuse to register a school if adequate educational facilities already exist." That is fair enough. He may refuse, you appeal, you prove there are adequate educational facilities and that, in the normal course, the Director was wrong and you win. But no, no, Sir, the Director may refuse to register a school not if adequate educational facilities exist but if it appears to him (His Excellency the Dictator) and you must take into account his personal idiosyncrasies, not if it appears to the common man but if it appears to him. All he has to say when he comes before the Appeals Board is, "It appears to me. Now, you call me a liar. Are you going to prove me a liar?" Take another one, take any of these paragraphs. Clause 24(c) reads:

"The Director may refuse to register a school if it shall appear to him that-

(c) the fire precautions in the proposed school premises are or are likely to be inadequate;".

Now, for instance, you can call the fire brigade, you can call every fireman in town to prove to the Appeals Board that the fire precautions are, in fact, adequate but if the Director says, "It appears to me that these are inadequate," then where is your appeal? If it means the same thing, why do you put the words "if it appears to him"?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must remind the hon. Member that he must address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall not take up more of your time. Let us take class three. I do want to satisfy you. Sir, that, in fact, these discretionary clauses are complete and absolute discretion and though there is supposed to be an appeal, in fact, there can be no appeal from the exercise of a discretion. Class three where the phrase "in his opinion" is used. Let us take any one. Let us take clause 34 (g) which reads:

"The Director may cancel the registration of any manager-

(g) if after the date of his registration it appears to the Director that he is a person who ought not in the interests of the Colony or of the public or of the pupils of the school to remain a manager."

Now, how do you appeal? You go to the Appeals Board and you say, "Well, look, there is nothing wrong with me except I belong to the Party Ra'ayat or I belong to the P.A.P. although they are now in favour but-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): In favour of what?

Mr Marshall: In favour of the Government. Let us say that you go along and appeal. All the Appeals Board can say is, "Look, we are sorry. The Director may cancel the registration of a manager, not if the manager is a person who ought not, in the interests of the Colony, to be a manager, but the manager is a person who 'in the opinion of the Director' is not a person who ought to be and the Director tells us that in his opinion he ought not to be a manager." We cannot legally overrule him because it is a matter for the opinion of the Director. I want you to see another one, clause 39 (b). This is rather neat:

"The Director may cancel the registration of a teacher-

(b) if it appears to the Director that the teacher has been guilty of professional misconduct;".

Not, if the teacher has been guilty of professional misconduct. After all, there is a Schools Appeals Board. The Minister has told you that there are four teachers on this Board and therefore you can expect them to enforce the appropriate discipline. That is fine but yet you are not allowing him to go. I mean here that it is not the Board that will decide whether there has been professional misconduct if it appears to the Director that the teacher has been guilty of professional misconduct. So you go and appeal to the Board and all the Board can say. "Well, it appears to the Director. How do we interfere? He has got the discretion under clause 39 (b)." Or, "Under clause 39 (b), it appears to the Director that he is not competent to perform the duties for which he is employed." If it is the Director who decides, what is the value of an appeal from a discretion except to be thrown out?

Let us take the last class where the wording is "he may do an act if he is satisfied". Ah, now, how do we satisfy this dictator? Let us look at clause 37 which reads:

"Subject to the provisions of section 38 of this Ordinance . . . , and after such enquiry as he may think necessary the Director shall if satisfied register the applicant [that is, the teacher]."

Now, the applicant appeals and says, "Look, I have been wrongly refused registration. What can the Appeals Board do?" It says, "Clause 37 provides that the Director must be satisfied. The Director says that he is not satisfied." And so he goes.

Sir, these dictatorial powers under clause 14 and under these minor clauses of discretion are of a character which make of the Minister through the Director of Education a complete and absolute dictator in all matters educational. Now, I would like to make it clear that I support much of this Bill but I am not prepared to support now or at any future time dictatorial powers to the executive when they are completely unnecessary. It seems to me, Sir, that this Bill should be withdrawn or at least its Third Reading postponed until the Minister has had time fully to digest its exact implications but if the Minister insists on the maintenance of these dictatorial powers, then I for one will vote against the Second Reading of this Bill today.

2.50 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a great deal of good in this Bill. It has followed more or less the All-Party recommendation to bring all schools under a single control so that every school will receive equal treatment. In the past, teachers have been differentiated: Government teachers, aided school teachers as well as private school teachers; one type of teachers receiving a great deal of benefit, whereas the other classes are left out in the cold. This Bill is trying to remove the caste system: the high caste of the Government school teachers, the middle caste of the aided school teachers and the low caste of the private school and vernacular school teachers. However, I think it has not gone far enough. In this Bill, you will find that preferential treatment is still given to Government school teachers and although you have a very large number of aided schools because the private or partly-aided Chinese schools will come under this system, yet no teacher can ever hope to be promoted to Inspector of Schools. Under clause 51, the Governor may appoint any officer of the Department of Education to be an Inspector of Schools. This leaves all the other teachers out completely, whether they are good, whether they are able or whether, shall we say, they have qualifications far above those of Government schools. Every teacher in this country is trying to serve Singapore in his own way. Every teacher is performing the same duty in one school or in another. They should receive equal encouragement and equal treatment.

In this Bill also I find, and I must say that I have to agree with the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Marshall), that a great deal of power has been given to the Director of Education. This, I think, is a wrong administrative act and I hope that Government will take into consideration ways and means of removing such discontent. One way, I think, that will best remove such suspicion, as the Minister for Education has said that there is suspicion and criticism of this Bill by many people outside this Assembly, would be to commit this Bill to Select Committee after the Second Reading and I propose moving that after the Second Reading. If it is agreed to, this Bill may yet turn out to be a good Bill after it has received the opinion of many people outside this Assembly who are more qualified to help us shape this Bill.

There are a great number of points in this Bill that seem to be vague and seem to need revision. I will just point out a few of these. At page 2, clause 3, you will find that the Minister may exempt from registration a school that is purely religious in character. I will not grumble about that: but if the institution is one for higher education, we would like to know what higher education means. We need a definition on that. I think in the Federation they define that and we should also define what higher education is otherwise it will be left to the opinion of the Director or the Minister.

The Education Finance Board will have four persons to be appointed by the Minister. The Finance Board is one of the most important Boards in this system. To leave it to the discretion of the Minister alone and to allow him to appoint a person or to sack him afterwards would not be democratic. I remember that we also have such Boards in other Bills. I refer you to the Singapore Youth Sports Centre Ordinance. We appoint these people by statute and allow institutions to nominate their representatives. Here, members of the Finance Board should be people who are connected with education or know something about education. It would be absolutely useless to appoint a person who is not at all connected with education; perhaps when you are discussing the necessity of introducing special types of apparatus or special lessons that need extra provisions, he will be out of his depth. Sir, we have many institutions that are good enough to come within this definition and if this Bill goes into Select Committee, we could think of how to appoint such people to this Board, not by the whims and fancies of Ministers or Directors but by statute. Under this provision, as the Bill now stands, anyone who is appointed by the Minister owes him allegiance and will probably have to toe his line. It will be very difficult for him to be nonpolitical. If you look at his duty, you will find that it is even more important that he should be independent.

Let us look at the Advisory Council under clause 8 (6). Here you find that some institutions may appoint their representatives but they have the right to revoke such nominations. Added to it again, the Minister can also dismiss the person concerned. The arguments for that have been put forward to you, Sir, during the debate on the Polytechnic Bill and I think those stand for this provision too.

The Appeals Board under clauses 15 and 16 is given some sort of a power equivalent to that of the Police and the Court but I wonder whether decisions by the Appeals Board can be contested in the High Court because sometimes it may be a very important thing, like the cancellation of a school, and if we have our democratic system, the High Court should be the highest organ for arbitration. Would it mean then that such an appeal cannot go to the High Court and that this Bill will give police as well as judicial powers to the Advisory Council whose members are merely nominated by the Minister?

For registration under clause 23 (1) (b), the Director can give conditions for the registration of schools. It is very vague and should be made clearer. Under clause 23 (2), the powers given would be very wide indeed and the Director in every case can use a great deal of discretion.

Clause 24 (a) reads:

"The Director may refuse to register a school if it shall appear to him that-

(a) adequate educational facilities already exist in the area...".

I would like to point out to Government that if educational facilities were adequate in any area, then no such schools would ever come up for registration and this clause is therefore unnecessary. No one in his right mind will start a school in an area which probably will not attract pupils: it will be like carrying coal to Newcastle. Clause 24 (e) reads:

"the area provided for the open air recreation of pupils is inadequate or unsatisfactory;".

We know that the area in Singapore left for open fields is very limited and it would be too ideal a condition. Many schools today have no open fields. What are we going to do about these schools? Of course, if we have unlimited land, we may solve this problem but I know that many schools will be affected by this clause. Under paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 24, I think they are aimed at private schools where they say that the fees are excessive and the qualifications and experience of the proposed teachers are not adequate. I again say that if such conditions ever exist, then it is the fault of the Government for not providing sufficient educational facilities for the young people so that they have to pay excessive fees and they have to be taught by teachers with insufficient qualifications or experience. I would like to say that these paragraphs are not necessary but they could be removed if we can provide sufficient schools.

Clause 26 (2) reads:

"Except with the approval in writing of the Director, no Committee of Management shall exceed five persons in number."

Clause 27 gives the power to the Director to take over the affairs of a school by appointing additional managers to such a school. Sir, I would like the Assembly to understand that people who come in to help us start a school should not be discouraged. Again you will find that there are many people who are interested in giving our young people a better deal to provide more facilities for our young people but they may or may not know much about school affairs and if we limit the Committee of Management to five persons, it will be very difficult indeed to run any public school. Clause 27 (2) will definitely discourage all people who are interested in contributing to schools and in helping in the management of schools because, after they have put in so much money, time and effort for the schools, they may find that at the next moment the Government steps in and the schools are not theirs but will be run by the Government.

In clause 28, we find that to be a member of the Committee of Management or to be the supervisor, you must have the approval of the Director. I wonder, Sir, if a person has shown a great deal of interest, if a person knows about education or if a person helps financially and wishes to contribute further towards education and to serve on the Committee, he has still to be under the influence of the Director and approved by him. It really will discourage all people from helping schools. Probably, they will sit back and do nothing about it and I think that the position of education in Singapore will not progress as fast as it should. After all, I think aided schools, private schools and schools that are not run by Government exceed the number of Government schools and they cater for a larger number of students than Government schools. Yet, if these clauses are imposed on them now, we are going to put a stop to voluntary efforts. It is not going to help education. It is going to impede education.

Again under clause 30, you have the Director's approval again. I meet with this phrase so many times that I put a marginal note on my Bill. It seems that the Director's approval is almost covering the whole of this Bill and that if you want to help in the schools, you must have this approval; if you want to be a supervisor you must have this approval and if you want to be a member of the Committee of Management you must have this approval. In short, it means that if I want to help in the matter of education voluntarily, then I must be a yes-man to the Director. I would say that everybody wants education to go on in a certain order and then finally arrive at a fixed point where they cultivate Malayan loyalty, or Singapore loyalty with a Singapore outlook, and so on. But if we have this system whereby everybody is under the control of one man, we will have a system producing a uniform type of people. Hitler tried it out very successfully and he had all the youth behind him all regimented and every time there was a command, they reacted in exactly the same way. We, however, are living in a democratic country, and I think everybody should be allowed to develop in his own way without losing sight of the final aim. We must not compel every school to react in the same way and I think that the word "approval" should be drawn so that we have more latitude for all other schools.

Under clause 29, a supervisor who has to be appointed. A supervisor has not only to be approved by the Director but he also has to carry out a great deal of work from the Department of Education and if he does not carry out his work satisfactorily, he may be punished under the penalties of this Bill.

Clause 33 (g) says that a person may not be appointed if he has attained the age of seventy years. This seems to me to be very funny because if a person who reaches the age of seventy years or over is still capable and is still willing to serve, I see no reason why he should be precluded. I know that there are many prominent people over the age of seventy years still doing very well and making great contributions to the nation. This is a very small point but it does seem to me to be very, very funny to exclude people of this type. It seems that this Bill has been gone through with haste and without much thought. Even under clause 38, you will find that:

"The Director may refuse to register a person as a teacher if it appears to him that the applicant-

(c) has previously been refused registration as a manager on grounds which would also have precluded...".

Now, if he had been precluded from being registered as a teacher, conversely he cannot also become a member of the Committee of Management; it does not seem to be logical. A person may not be capable of becoming a teacher but he is quite capable of helping to run a school. A person may not be capable of becoming a manager of a school but he may be good enough to be registered as a teacher and teach efficiently. I do not see how these two could be connected.

Under clause 29 (c), the duties of the Supervisor shall be to report to the Director forthwith by notice in writing, and from another section of the Bill it seems that he has to answer immediately every query of the Education Department. This is in clause 54, Sir. It says:

"(i) If it shall appear to the Director that any provisions of this Ordinance or of the regulations made thereunder have not been complied with in any school or that any school is not being properly or efficiently conducted, he may, without prejudice to any other powers vested in him, by notice in writing addressed to the supervisor direct him to take within a time to be stated in the notice such measures as are in the notice specified...".

This seems to be very unreasonable and I think the only way out is to amend the clause so that the supervisor need not take action within "a time" but within "a reasonable time". This will help a person who is trying to assist us in our education to serve on this Committee.

On clause 51, Sir, with which I have already dealt, I would say that it leaves out all other schools except Government schools. Government has all this while been trying to satisfy the other systems of schools. They are telling them that they are now on a par and will not be stepsons any longer. But if clause 51 (a) remains in its present form, it will be another point where there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction not only from the English-aided schools, but from all Chinese and vernacular schools.

Under clause 53, the Bill now gives great power to the Director and his officers, and very little respect will be shown to the principal of a school. I would ask Government whether this is the present procedure. It seems that heads of schools are now to be given a position much lower than what they used to have. Clause 53 (2) gives the officers a great deal of power, and clause 56, Sir, states that any person wishing to appeal against a decision of the Director shall within the period prescribed deliver to the Director two copies of a statement in the English language giving notice of his appeal. We passed a motion in this Assembly not so long ago agreeing to multi-lingualism.

An hon. Member: Last year.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: We again stated that all schools and all languages should be equal. It will therefore be unreasonable to ask a vernacular school to reply or to appeal to the Director or the Appeals Board in English when what they know is only Chinese, Tamil or Malay. To make this clause more palatable and acceptable to everybody concerned, I think that Chinese schools should be allowed to appeal in Chinese, Tamil schools in Tamil and Malay schools in Malay; English schools will, of course, use English.

Sir, I find that this whole Bill, although it is an effort to correlate every type of education into one (which is a good thing), is very bad when put in its present form, it is bad from the administrative point of view. It will cause a great deal of heartburn. Instead of allaying suspicion, instead of getting the co-operation of a great many more people and bringing them to our side, we will probably find that if this Bill is not further considered, it will create just the reverse result. I hope that Government will take this into consideration and agree to the Bill being considered by a Select Committee.

3.21 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was told that the future of Singapore was being decided this morning by the Singapore Polytechnic Ordinance, and that I have missed an interesting discussion on this and other aspects of the future development of Singapore. However, being much more mundane in my approach, I choose to imagine that the future of Singapore will be decided more by the educational policy of successive Singapore Governments than by any other single matter.

The education policy which the British Administration pursued in the past is the reason for the confusion, the conflicts and contradictions with which our multi-lingual, multi-cultural society is confronted today. In their desire to exploit the natural resources of this country, they kept expenses and expenditure down to the barest minimum. Large undigested cultural and linguistic groups were left to care for themselves. The Chinese community demonstrated to the British that they could care for themselves. Now any government which comes into power must take account of the pride of all the management committees, and of the Chinese population as a whole, in having had the drive and the stamina to keep their cultural and linguistic world alive in spite of government indifference - colonial government indifference - towards them. But any government which wishes to mould a Malayan nation must sooner or later come to grips with the problem of moulding the minds of future generations of Singaporeans and Malayans.

Sir, the question is one of principle: Is the Government to decide the educational policy, or is it not? It is clear from the report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese education that the right of an elected government to decide educational policy cannot be fettered. A government must have the right to implement its educational policy or perish. However, I do not agree with the technique the Labour Front Government has chosen to stockade and barricade itself behind the Education Finance Board, the Educational Advisory Council and the Schools Appeals Board. A decision must either, be a quasi-judicial decision or an administrative decision. Democracy means that a people have the right to vote for a government which will have the right to implement a programme which it has put before the electorate from whom it has received a mandate. This is the first major premise. But the technique of fencing a government behind three statutory bodies, in which the government has the power to nominate the majority - the overwhelming majority - is not one which is likely to endear itself to the electorate, The Education Finance Board, according to clause 5 (2), is to consist of six people - two officials and four persons nominated by the Minister. All six are therefore to be the government's men. The Educational Advisory Council, under clause 8 (2), is to consist of 22 members. Of these, 14 will be government men, and eight will be non-government men but who must nevertheless have received the approval, the clearance, of the government. The Schools Appeals Boards, under clause 12 (2), is to consist of seven members. Of these, five are to be government men, and two are to be non-government men but they also are to be first approved by the government.

Surely the Minister for Education cannot expect educational institutions in this Colony to sit back and see him stockade himself behind these statutory tribunals so that if anything should happen, he can take an administrative act and then bolster such action by the support of the alleged quasi-judicial decision of one of these statutory tribunals. For these tribunals, being filled with government men, will in fact be government decisions. The question of how far these councils - the Advisory, Finance and Schools Appeals Boards - are to act as quasi-judicial or purely advisory tribunals, must be decided on principle. My proposal is that if the Minister wishes to have the last word in every administrative act, then he should have the courage to let the Educational Advisory Council have a majority of unofficial or non-government members, so that if he chooses to go against the advice of the Council (which he should be entitled to do), he should be prepared to face criticism from educational institutions and public opinion, because he cannot bulldoze an educational policy which is being resisted by the majority of our population.

As far as I can gather, the criticisms against this Bill are on the administrative provisions in clauses 5, 8 and 12 relating to the Education Finance Board, the Educational Advisory Council and the Schools Appeals Board; on the registration of schools and the cancellation of registrations in clauses 24 and 25; and on the registration and cancellation of certificates for teachers in clauses 38 and 39. Whilst the Government should have an unfettered right in administrative decisions, questions as to the registration of schools and the cancellation of registrations, and to the registration and cancellation of teachers, peculiarly lend themselves to consideration by a quasi-judicial tribunal. The Minister will be well advised to rid himself of this very grave responsibility of having to take away the right of a school to exist, or the right of a teacher to continue to teach. He should give this responsibility to an independent tribunal, to make the decision on certain given principles laid down beforehand, whether a school is to continue to be allowed to exist, or a teacher should be allowed to continue teaching or should cease to be a teacher.

Briefly, therefore, I can sum up my Party's views on this Bill as follows: Questions as to the registration and cancellation of schools and teachers should be sent to a quasi-judicial tribunal so that the Minister will not have the power to make or the odium of having made a party political decision against either schools or teachers. As to the Education Finance Board, the Educational Advisory Council and the Schools Appeals Board, decisions, except those on the registration and cancellation of schools and teachers, must be executive ones because they are decisions on educational policy. Any government which has not got the courage to state its policy for the education of the future generation, but goes beating about the bush hoping to get support from all directions and finally winding up with support from none, will not only perish, but will make the whole of Singapore perish with it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be seconding a motion by the Member for Serangoon to send this Bill to a Select Committee. It is in the interests not only of the Government and of the Parties in this Assembly, but of the whole of Singapore, that this question of education should be fully debated and settled in a thorough manner.

3.32 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, I would like to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Serangoon that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee for further discussion. We just heard the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar on the importance of education. Allow me to add further comments. We have made known to the people that our political struggle at this stage only aims at self-government, and that independence is still far away. Why? This question has haunted me for a long time. At this stage, we are not ready for independence, but what can we do to realise it? We have no guns and, even if we have, there are so few hands to hold them. However, one most effective weapon we can hold is the pen. If the people of Singapore are more capable of holding the pen than the gun, the prospects of our national struggle will be brighter. Our people should be equipped with effective pens, and it is the duty of the Minister for Education to do so, to provide us with an effective educational policy. When I came in just now, an hon. Member asked for my opinion on this Bill. I said I was not very happy about it. Indeed, I have not been happy since last April when the Minister rushed through the White Paper. I have had no confidence in the Government's educational policy since then because the White Paper, which outlined the background of our whole educational system, was so badly done, created so many suspicions and even tried to run down a certain educational system. I believe the present Bill has been drafted by the author of that White Paper, or that he has at least been closely connected with drawing up the Bill.

My opposition to the White Paper was that it did not take into consideration the vital political advancement and changes in this country. Multi-lingualism, for example, has been accepted by this country, yet our educational system, to judge from the White Paper and the present Bill, would raise doubts in the many educational bodies, whether Government is following the lines recommended by the All-Party Committee as it professes to do.

Section (v) in the All-Party Committee's report says that the greatest hope for multi-racial Singapore will be to ensure that the younger generation grow up under the best conditions of intermingling; and that everything should be done to break down mutual exclusiveness between the two streams of education, that is, English and vernacular. As a member of the All-Party Committee seeking to build a true Malayan nation and a unified education system, I wonder how much proof Government can give to the people that it has implemented the recommendations of the Committee, recommendations made a year ago.

Perhaps someone will say to me. "You are a Chinese and therefore you are bound not to be impartial on education; you are bound to be fighting only for Chinese education." Sir, I take this opportunity to make it clear that this is not true. I fight for justice, for the true welfare of the people. If we accept the principle of multi-lingualism in this country, how can we try to restrict the free growth of educational systems other than the English? The Bill is supposed to further the unification of educational systems in Singapore, yet it contains so many restrictions and regulations against this objective, as the Member for Cairnhill has so clearly pointed out.

Sir, no doubt, at this stage, the Chinese schools have become a problem child of this country. A top-ranking officer told me not long ago that he was not worried even about gangsterism but that he was concerned about Chinese school students. From such an attitude, we can perhaps gauge the true spirit which has guided the drafting of the Bill. Sir, my support for the Government in the riots last October is clear; I am also aware of certain subversive activities in schools. But Sir, still I cannot understand why Government is trying to introduce these regulations and restrictions on the free growth of other educational systems, especially the Chinese. Long before Government considered a bilingual system, it was already being followed in Chinese schools but never in English schools, even now, two years after an elected government came into power. How many English school students are there who can read and write Chinese? But there are many Chinese school students who can read and write English even up to Cambridge School Certificate standard.

Sir, if the Government believes that our entrepot trade will always boom and bring us rich revenue, and we are going to control and provide sufficiently for all educational institutions for the people of Singapore, then I have no objection at all to this Bill. But if the Government should one day find that its resources are dried up, when the price of rubber drops to 50 cents per pound and our trade shrinks, and under the Bill, management committees must register and their existence be at the discretion of Mr McLellan, who may say, "No"...

Mr Speaker: I cannot find the name of Mr McLellan in the Bill; it is "the Director of Education".

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir, it so happens that my good friend, Mr McLellan, is the Director of Education.

The provisions of the Bill on the registration of management committees of schools alone worry me a great deal. Why cannot we truly follow the lines of the report of the All-Party Committee the Chairman of which was the Hon. the Minister for Education himself? Can we ignore its attempt, its spirit, to provide beneficial educational institutions for our people? This Bill will only end further voluntary contributions to promoting education, and the people will not easily forget it. Government has proudly proclaimed that Malay education has always been looked after properly and is provided for by Government, yet how many Malay schools have been provided? And what have the Malay schools produced in raising Malay cultural standards today?

Sir, the suspicions of, I may say, the majority of the people, still exist. I do not like the word "dictator" applied to those in power, but I do think that the discretionary, extraordinary powers provided by the Bill for the Director of Education are really unsound. I hope the Hon. the Minister for Education can clear my doubts. There are many more like me outside this Assembly who would like to know the answers to my two questions:

(1) Do you sincerely believe every word of the All-Party Committee's Report on Education?

(2) Can you convince the people-

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should refer to the Minister for Education.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: I am sorry, Sir. The second question is whether the Hon. the Minister for Education can assure us that he has not the slightest intention to restrict the free growth of other educational systems?

The questions I ask may look odd and quite silly, but this is a transitional period and it happens that the present Director of Education is an expatriate; and, with due respect to the Hon. the Minister for Education, the people are not convinced that the Director of Education is not his back-seat driver, especially as this Bill will empower the Director of Education to cancel the registration of any school manager. Cannot we add a proviso that he can do so only "after consultation with the Permanent Secretary"? If this can be added to all the clauses so bitterly criticised by the Member for Cairnhill, all the trouble and time will be saved.

Sir, I beg to support the proposal by the Member for Serangoon that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that my Director of Education should have been brought in and called a dictator of education and other names which I think do not befit him. The public do not understand the intricate government machinery. The registration of schools and teachers is essentially an executive function and must be performed by an executive officer, in this case the Director of Education. But administratively, the Director of Education receives his instructions from me or the Permanent Secretary, and I can assure the House that, where the Director of Education is given discretionary powers under this Bill, he will not exercise those powers without the authority of the Permanent Secretary (who is my chief adviser), or myself. I will see to it that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, administrative action will be taken to provide this safeguard in my Ministry.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Thank you.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: The Member for Cairnhill has placed a lot of emphasis on clause 24 (o), (p), (q), clause 33 (i) and so forth, and he says that in clause 22 there can be no appeal where an application for registration has been refused. I would like to refer him to clause 56 where it is stated that any person wishing to appeal against any decision - any decision - of the Director, can do so; and of course it prescribes the form in which the appeal is to be made to either the Appeals Board or to the Minister.

Under clause 48, the provisions under which the public or the aggrieved parties must appeal to the Minister involve questions of public security. If I remember rightly, the Member for Cairnhill supported the subversion clause imposed on us by the Colonial Secretary in our recent Constitutional Talks; he said that the Government must have the courage to face the public and prevent subversive elements from contesting elections. Now, this is a matter which will come under clause 48; this is a matter dealing with subversive elements, and...

Mr Marshall: It does not say so.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: Of course it does say so. The Member for Serangoon referred to clause 51 under which, he says, the Government appoints by name an officer of the Department of Education to be inspector of schools, and that that will preclude members of other schools from becoming inspectors. That is, of course, not true. It only means notifying in the Gazette the names of officers of the Department of Education; the appointment or enrolment of inspectors is entirely an administrative action. If the Government appoints teachers from other schools to be officers of the Department, they automatically become officers of that Department, and they are of course entitled to be appointed as inspectors of schools.

Sir, this Bill is a very important one and, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar rightly said, the country must be given an educational policy and the Government must be unfettered in its implementation. It is my intention to accept the proposal put forward by the Opposition Parties that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee.

The Member for Serangoon also says that the implementation of certain clauses in the Bill will be subject to the whims and fancies of Ministers. Well, I think Ministers do not exist on whims and fancies, and certainly no Minister will ever exercise any discretion because he has certain whims and fancies.

I think I have replied to all the important points raised, and as this Bill is going to Select Committee, I propose to cut short my reply.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

COMMITTAL TO SELECT COMMITTEE

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Speaker: May I suggest to the hon. Member that no limit be placed to the number of Members? I do that because of the difficulty experienced in getting a quorum in certain Select Committees.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I am obliged for your suggestion. I move,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee with Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection.