THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND THE EDUCATION MINISTRY AND THEIR REPUTATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCLOSURES

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to torment the Minister for Education - he is such a likeable fellow in many ways. But I was very much shocked by his declaration yesterday that he was going to be his own judge.

Sir, many of us have been outraged by his statements that the school certificates and all the passing-out certificates would not be worth the scraps of paper that they are written on. We often wondered why he said it. We thought that perhaps the Minister for Education did not understand the purpose of education. But when the leak about the examination papers came out, the conclusion naturally was drawn that, of course, it was because you could buy these scraps of paper! That is why the Minister said that it was not worth the paper it is written on.

Sir, there have been three minor scandals: one, the English examination; two, the Chinese examination; and three, a story of embezzlement involving a sum of money in the region of a million dollars. I was told by the Minister during the luncheon adjournment that he strenuously refuted this story which was carried in an English language newspaper, and I would be glad if he would touch upon it in his reply.

When the machinery of State falls to bits in this way, little flywheels fly off from the axle and go into nothingness; papers can be sold and bought; money is missing; and the Minister says, "I am looking into the matter - I have a clear conscience and my Permanent Secretary has a clear conscience too," - then I say that those of us here who have to listen to this twaddle would like to know from him why he thinks he has got such a clear conscience. If I were the Minister for Education and these things happened in my Ministry, I would be a very troubled man indeed. It is no use just telling the public that you have got a clear conscience. You have got to tell them why your conscience is clear and, furthermore, why the public should believe that the Minister should be allowed to carry on looking after what he obviously had not been able to look after.

Sir, I promised the Hon, the Chief Minister yesterday that I would not unduly prolong the debate today. I would therefore like to shorten the proceedings simply by asking the Minister for Education to tell us frankly why he thinks his conscience is clear; how much money is missing; and when he intends to tell us the real story behind it all.

3.47 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I had intended to keep quiet, but after listening to the Member for Tanjong Pagar I would like to say a few words. It is a pity that a criminal lawyer like the Member for Tanjong Pagar should have picked out a few words from the statement delivered only yesterday morning by the Minister for Education, namely, "My conscience is clear and my Permanent Secretary's conscience is also clear", and made it the subject of a debate on the Motion for Adjournment today. The Member for Tanjong Pagar should have made up his mind about bringing up this matter at least a few days ago. Sir, I think it is most improper. But it cannot be helped, since it is the custom with the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Only statements or speeches delivered by him or his Party are not "wild" talks! In the case of others, they are merely for the purpose of vote-catching. Sir, I wish to state that this debate on the Motion for Adjournment is 100 per cent vote-catching.

3.48 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Chew Swee Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stated categorically yesterday the reasons for the leakage in the first examination, namely the English Secondary School Entrance Examination, and where the leakage occurred. As regards the second leakage, investigations are still proceeding and, as I have said, for obvious reasons, I do not want to state more than that. I will give a fuller story perhaps at the next sitting of this Assembly.

The question has been posed to me as to why I said that my conscience and that of my Permanent Secretary is clear. Doubts have been raised as to why I should investigate matters myself. I would like to tell hon. Members that my Permanent Secretary and I are taking every step to look into the matter. The Police have been brought into this.

Now, as regards embezzlement, there was no such case. I refuted that in a public statement on 21st November in the Straits Times, the heading of which reads "MINISTRY DENIES INQUIRIES ON EMBEZZLEMENT". I have also been asked: How much money has been lost? What is the real story? There might have been irregularities. Sir, but "irregularity" does not mean fraud or misappropriation of funds.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Money is missing.

Mr Chew Swee Kee: There is no money missing. The Director of Audit has been asked to go into these reported irregularities and he is checking every case. The Grant-in-aid Regulations came into force in 1957. Many Chinese schools could not apply earlier than 1957 for provisions to be made in the 1958 Estimates. Under Regulation 88 of the Grant-in-Aid Regulations, 90 per cent of these Chinese schools would not have been eligible for payment of capital grant. This would have created a situation contrary to the recommendation of the All-Party Committee. One of those recommendations is that where schools are below standard, every facility must be afforded to them by Government in order to assist them to come up to the standard required. In view of that recommendation and in view of Government's policy formulated as a result of that recommendation, there has been a relaxation of Regulation 88, thus making it possible for Government to pay, in 1958, bills dated as far back as 1955 and 1956. Now we must realise that in the past Chinese schools have been neglected for a long time, and so they are in a special category, especially during the first few years of the operation of this school grant-in-aid scheme. At some of these Chinese schools, work of a capital nature was carried out prior to 1957 and the bills were sent to Government for payment in 1957 and 1958. The Public Works Department could not therefore check and certify that such work had actually been carried out; but as I said, allowance must be made for such cases and I accordingly authorised payments to be made to these Chinese schools. The payments were very small - it may be boring, Sir, but I will quote here several of the schools and the amounts given to them: $ c. Way Sin School 305 00 Chiang Teck School 822 48 Ban Lay School 4,105 00 Pei Mi Public School 822 28 Loke Yung Public School 246 93 Sin Min Public School 676 58 and so forth.

These might be termed irregularities because, as I said, the P.W.D. could not check or certify that the work had actually been done; but there was no doubt that bills were presented by the schools concerned to the Ministry for payment. As I said, no public funds have been embezzled at all. The Police have been told. The Director of Audit is going into every case. Sir, I hope to be able to give a fuller story at the next sitting of this Assembly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes to Four o'clock p.m. to 12th December, 1958.