MAIN ESTIMATES, 1960 (Cont.)

Head 40 -

Question again proposed.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should carry on with the debate today without mentioning the fact that we are sitting on a Sunday - a day of rest for the Christians. And that is, in passing, a useful reminder to us that in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society, different cultural, linguistic and religious groups have their different days of rest. It is a tribute to the tolerance, liberal approach, and understanding of one another's peculiar likes and dislikes, standards and patterns of conduct that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, a Christian, have raised no objection to working on Sunday, that our Muslim friends in this House have willingly come to join us in this debate, and our Hindu friends have not raised any protest. I think it augurs well for the work of my colleague, the Minister for Culture, that he, a member of a minority group in Malaya - not even a real Singhalese but a Tamil, an immigrant of Ceylon, who became an immigrant of Malaya - should have been entrusted with the nurturing of a Malayan consciousness and a Malayan culture. Just in case we are talking of different things in different languages, I looked up the dictionary which you have kindly placed at our disposal, but which is now under lock and key in the Library, because a few copies have been somewhat too ardently sought after and never re-discovered. I found that the English word "culture" as defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary means:

"Improvement or refinement by education and training. Otherwise the training and refinement of the mind, taste and manners. The condition of being thus trained and refined, the intellectual side of civilisation."

I then looked up the Chinese dictionary that you have provided us with and it says:

"Wen hwa-ching shen san te wen ming-"

The Chairman: Order. Actually, of course, the Prime Minister must continue in English. But I permit him to read the extract from the dictionary.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not trying to befog you. All I was trying to do was to make sure that the things that our translators are talking about are the same, and it is translated in Chinese, as I was saying, in exactly identical terms in content. Culture-

The Chairman: Let us have the Mandarin version.

The Prime Minister: It says: "Wen" means literature; "hwa" means transformation; and it then goes on to elaborate, "ching shen san te" - the spiritual: "wen-ming", i.e. the spiritual side of civilisation. So I think, in English, the definition of the intellectual side of civilisation is fairly akin to the Chinese definition. I looked up Winstedt's English! Malay dictionary and I was greatly disappointed to see that the great authority was wrong. He has got culture as meaning "Bahasa". A primary schoolboy learning Malay with our new language training facilities in the schools will know that "bahasa" does not mean culture. It means language. But obviously dear Sir Richard in the old days believed that culture is equivalent to language.

But I am happy that I can use this lever to point out that culture, although akin to language, is not the same with language. My colleague, the Minister for Health, has brought me what he says is the correct definition of culture, again in Winstedt's, reading "kebudayaan" which I understand is the usual translation given by the Ministry of Culture.

But one thing sticks out, namely, it is something which is not innate and inborn in a person. One is not born with culture and one is not born with a language. It is not part of the chromosomes and the genes that are transmitted. That is race as distinct from what is learned. The inherent characteristics - the colour of your hair, the colour of your skin, your nose, your eyes and your build; the fact that you have five fingers on each hand - are things which are predetermined. But the kind of person you grow up to be, the kind of society that we make of ourselves collectively, depend basically upon learning - as the words go: "training and refining". We have placed a tremendous emphasis on education because outside the home, outside the automatic learning that takes place when any infant is being reared by the mother and father, there is in the human civilisation, the other factor - the systematic training of our children in schools.

I would be the first to admit - and I think we should all bear this in mind - that, however much haste we make, we will never be able to produce a Malayan culture in less than one generation. It is unlikely that we could make the Member for Kampong Kembangan think and respond like the Member for Tanglin. They do not think and they do not respond in the same way, because of past training and past refinement. Whilst the Member for Tanglin was taken up with Moral Rearmament - how one should emphasise what is right and what is wrong, and who is right and who is wrong - the Member for Kampong Kembangan is nurtured in a different tradition.

One of the most graphic memories in my mind was a little court scene in which the witness, a police detective, was giving evidence through a translator, and he said,"...and the bus came to the junction of Joo Chiat Road and Changi Road and they shouted `Allah Akbar' as they mounted the bus." So the Judge said, "Oh, what is that?". He said, "My Lord, that means God is great!" But he also said that those two words did not mean just "God is great!" It is also the Muslim battle cry. Just like the Japanese when they say "Banzai!" and they come charging across the field.

Now that is the problem with our society. Anyone who has had the opportunity of watching mass activity over the last five years cannot but fail to note that the different cultural groups do not necessarily laugh at the same things. They do not cry over the same things. What is considered extremely witty and funny in one sector may be considered a sacrilege in the other. We do not even have absolutely the same standard of right and wrong and of good and bad behaviour. All the non-Muslims and non-Hindus and a good number of non-Buddhists think that it is not correct for a man to have more than one wife. But there are others who think that it is perfectly legitimate and proper and indeed highly desirable to have more than one spouse.

It is this balancing of the sensitivity of the various cultural groups which is the art of communal harmony through compromise and understanding, which we will have to put up with until such time as in the next generation, if not in one then in two generations, we are able to produce a relatively homogeneous society. Now the Member for Farrer Park quoted me and said: "Yes, that is right. The English-educated were distinct products." When the Member for Farrer Park was in England during the years before the war, he also discovered the same thing - that the Malayan was a distinct product - the English-educated - and so it is. But he is not going to be the final product. Let us face it. He was the product of a particular era. We can cite examples of it throughout the whole of South-East Asia.

No colony of Britain in the Far East was more anglicised and was more deemed to be stabilised than Ceylon. There was the acme of the British theory of gradualism - the gradual Ceylonisation of the Civil Service, and the gradual transfer of power. And no country in South-East Asia today is more in the throes of cultural and linguistic conflicts and religious intolerance than Ceylon. Something has gone wrong there because the veneer was thin. It was wiped out, and stark realities came up from beneath. Once you appeal to your mass base, and your mass base consists of Buddhists, Christians and Hindus or Tamil-speaking or Singhalese-speaking and English-speaking, or Christians and non-Christians, then everybody begins to adjust and make different appeals and shout different slogans.

2.45 p.m.

Whatever we do, let us be thankful for small mercies: that we have got the Member for Kampong Kembangan who in one of the debates referred to members of the non-Malay race as orang asing - the foreigner. He now admits that we are not orang asing. That is fundamental. It is an admission of basic premises. For it means acceptance - although there is not much in a name - that the Member for Farrer Park is not orang using vis-a-vis the Member for Kampong Kembangan nor I am an orang asing - for otherwise there will be trouble.

If we start on a major premise, that we are together going to build up something new, something coherent, something which will be part of everyone of us, but not necessarily all of everyone of us, then I say we shall begin the journey, however long and difficult, towards a more stable and a more closely-knit society.

We shall probably have more of this when we come to debate the next Head namely, that of Education.

What we are trying to do is not to produce in five years, as the Member for Farrer Park suggests, one culture, because it is not possible. But in five years, we can bring home the lesson that if you shout old slogans, make appeals to instinctive emotional responses of each particular sector of your society, each one shouting a different slogan, pumping in different political and ideological beliefs, then the net result must be absolute chaos.

And Malaya - I prefer to talk of Malaya and not of Singapore because in the long run our destinies are settled by what happens in Malaya as a whole - Malaya is unique because of the almost perfect balance of numerical strength between the indigenous people, who have been here a few hundred years longer than anybody else, and the Chinese, with the Indians as a balancing force - 40 odd per cent on each side, balancing with 10 per cent in the middle, and the Ceylonese and the Eurasians and others thrown in. Once the wraps come off, then I say hell would have broken loose. It is our business, as leaders, never to let the wraps come off.

The Members on the Opposition side, from U.M.N.O., I am glad to say, have taken a sensible approach since the very early days immediately after the elections. This is fundamental and basic. If you have urgent and acute problems pertaining to your community, you settle on the basis of Malayan unity. You do not start shouting slogans in the newspapers because, if the Government retreats in the face of slogan-shouting, that Government must abdicate and give way to anarchy.

When the Bertha Hertogh prisoners were sentenced to death, it was an emotional issue - and let us not kid ourselves. But if it turned into a political issue, we must fight and stand firm, not on account of the merits, but because no Government, if it intends to govern in a dispassionate and unbiased manner between races, cultural groups and creeds, can retreat in the face of slogan-shouting by communalists. So in our own good time and at the right juncture, we made the right move. That is important.

Similarly, with regard to our State flag, State anthem, crest and so on. There are certain things over which it would be unwise to beat drums in the open. I ask Members of the Opposition to remember always that they, particularly the U.M.N.O. Members, share as great a responsibility as the Government in seeing that the wraps never come off, and that arguments and differences of opinions are kept within bounds. Once appeals are made to the animal instinctive responses of an individual, once battle cries and not arguments are used, then the answer is the gun and no other. That is the case with any Government, but certainly intensely so with this Government. So I hope the Member for Farrer Park, despite his training and refinement of mind to a certain extent on the Western pattern, will not forget that, when we talk of culture here, we talk of the Ministry of Culture with a capital "C", but when we are talking of ourselves, the people, we are talking of culture with a small "c". And it does not help to poke fun at these things and talk of culture with a capital "K", because that leads once more to battle cries, and slogans and not arguments and sanity.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to take up the complaints by the Member for Kampong Kembangan about the reporting of Assembly debates over Radio Singapore's Malay network. He was not satisfied with it, but unfortunately, he was not precise. He did not give specific instances of where he thought Radio Singapore had fallen down on its job. Does he mean that there had been misreporting of what he or his colleagues had said? If that was so, if he could specify instances, I shall certainly look into the matter. But if the charge is that speeches of certain Members have not been as fully reported as they would have liked, then that is a different matter. In fact, I would ask him to consider the problem of having to compress within the space of ten minutes what was said during the course of five and a half hours. Obviously there must be drastic selection, and much of the torrent of oratory must forever be lost to posterity and only a few tinfuls of what was said here could be reproduced over Radio Singapore after the 9.30 p.m. news for the edification of voters in the various constituencies in Singapore.

The Chairman: There is still the Hansard.

Mr Rajaratnam: But I think the Member for Kampong Kembangan is more worried about what people hear over Radio Singapore than what people read in the Hansard.

The Chairman: But the Minister was mentioning something about posterity.

Mr Rajaratnam: Thank you very much, Sir, for your correction, and I shall certainly convey those sentiments to the Member for Kampong Kembangan just in case. In fact, I would like to point out that the problem of trying to compress all these no doubt exhaustive protestations made in this Assembly into a ten-minute commentary is a very difficult task. Not only that, but the report has got to be ready within the course of about an hour. The debate finishes at 8.00 p.m. The reporter has to go to Radio Singapore, and after writing the report he has to put it over the air by 9.30 p.m. So if there has to be selection, obviously the reporter has to leave out certain things which are said here. But if there is misreporting, then I shall certainly be glad to look into the matter.

Now, I would like to make a few observations on the subject of Malayan culture, about which a great deal was said yesterday and today. One Member of the Opposition asked the Minister for Culture to define the nature and character of the Malayan culture we are proposing to create. I could give a few personal opinions on the subject. No one has the intelligence, the imagination and the breadth of knowledge to indicate precisely what the nature of Malayan culture should be, and what in fact Malayan culture would be like. It is not a matter for any one person to determine, because that will be decided by the people who create the culture - the artists, the dramatists and the painters - and nobody can lay down the law either by administrative actions or by speeches. Therefore, I do not propose here to express my personal views on the matter, since I have already done this elsewhere. If the Member for Kampong Kembangan is interested I can send him a few copies of my talk. But I can tell him the way in which the Government is trying to stimulate the growth of a Malayan culture and provide its emotional and cultural base what is called a Malayan consciousness. I can only tell him of some of the ways in which we have attempted to do this during the last six months. I believe that the first step towards the creation of a Malayan consciousness which is necessary to establish a Malayan culture is to create what I would call an awareness of and respect for the cultures of other communities. That is what we mean when we talk about breaking down cultural barriers. Without an awareness of and respect for the cultures of other peoples, there cannot be even the beginning of a Malayan consciousness. I shall only name two ways in which we are trying to do this. One is by breaking down the cultural walls that exist or have existed in Radio Singapore. The Radio is a powerful mass media for influencing people's attitudes and opinions. Hitherto we have had four language sections operating more or less as isolated units. The Chinese section of the Radio catered purely for Chinese tastes, the Malay section for the Malays, and so on. The result was to make the Chinese more Chinese; to encourage them to believe that Radio Singapore was embodied wholly in the Chinese section of Radio Singapore.

3.00 p.m.

As far as they are concerned, the other programmes do not exist. It is the same with the Indians, the Malays and the English-speaking. What we have done during the last six months was to change this attitude; to get people to realise that Radio Singapore cannot be defined in terms of the particular section of Radio Singapore to which they listen. So today what is happening is that the things that are said to interest only the English-speaking, which are considered interesting only to the English-speaking find their way into other programmes. Malay music, talks about the Malay language and culture, are channelled into the English, Indian and Chinese programmes. We hear Chinese music in English programmes. In other words for the first time, radio listeners have become aware of this-that the Chinese programme is not completely Chinese nor is the Malay programme completely Malay, and that the cultural barriers are no longer as precise and as definite as they used to be once upon a time. So very often today when a listener tunes on to the Chinese programme, he is not quite sure whether he is listening to the Chinese programme or the English programme or the Malay programme or Indian programme, because he might tune to the Chinese programme and listen to Malay music or Western music. This is what we mean when we say we are creating an awareness of and respect for other cultures. An interesting thing, Sir, is that this mixing of programmes has not brought forth any indignant protests, primarily I think because we have succeeded in creating a psychological climate favourably disposed towards the sharing of the cultural heritage of other communities. It is no longer an affront to an English-speaking listener to be exposed to what used to be called "native" music. Today, he accepts it. So by gradually exposing one community to the music, talks and discussions of other communities, we first make them aware of the existence of other cultures and then, by prolonged exposure, they will probably begin to appreciate that other cultural communities have a great deal to contribute. In the past, there was contempt on the part of one cultural group towards other cultural groups. The English-educated always thought that the Chinese or the Malay-educated were ignorant and that they had nothing to contribute or anything interesting to say. It was the same with the Chinese and Indians. Today we have talks put over on the Chinese programmes being translated and put over in the English or Malay programmes, so that for the first time, the English-speaking listener says, "Oh, there are Chinese intellectuals who can say interesting things." So thus we create awareness of and respect for other people's culture.

Similarly, Sir, the open-air concerts are organised attempts to do more or less the same thing - to bring before very large mass audiences the cultural achievements of other communities. I would like, in this connection, Sir, to pay tribute to the various cultural bodies who have so enthusiastically and generously responded to our call to come forward and help us in this positive and practical step to create a Malayan consciousness. Today, all we have to do, Sir, is to say we are going to put on an Aneka Ragam Ra'ayat somewhere in the City or in the rural area, and immediately hundreds of artistes come forward and say, "We will put up items," normally, for a very nominal fee. In the past these cultural bodies felt they had no status and no recognition; they were not wanted. But today they feel that they are wanted and called upon to participate in a very great task and therefore they come forward generously - sometimes for nothing - to perform at these concerts. That is why we are able to put these concerts on regularly and, as I said earlier on, on a large scale, simply because there are now people who are ready to respond to our call.

Sir, another way in which we are trying to create a Malayan consciousness is by creating a feeling of identification with Singapore and its people. First, awareness of the other people's cultures, and now identification with Singapore and its people. We must, I believe, create in our people an awareness that they belong to Singapore and that Singapore belongs to them. National Loyalty Week which has just finished was a massive experiment in this direction. The new State flag, the new anthem, the appointment of a Malayan-born Negara were all attempts to create symbols which would facilitate this identification. However, the sense of identification cannot and should not remain purely at the level of symbols. It must be created in a more positive manner by getting people of all classes, creeds and races to co-operate in order to realise the fundamental principle on which the new State of Singapore is founded. National Loyalty Week, as I said, Sir, was a massive experiment in co-operation and self-reliance. That experiment, Sir, has been a great success. People of all classes, races and creeds co-operated to make Loyalty Week a week to remember. We decided that much of the work of organising Loyalty Week should not fall on the Government. In fact, the Government should, as far as possible, stay in the background. So much of the work of organising National Loyalty Week was delegated to the people themselves. As a result, we were able to make National Loyalty Week celebrations practically island-wide and sustained. Civil servants, trade unionists, members of political parties, employers, newspapers, cultural organisations, school children, University students, the police, volunteer organisations and many others too numerous to mention were all given specific functions and were all asked to go and organise functions themselves. We involved all sections of the people by inviting them to make their contributions to National Loyalty Week. Again, Sir, I would like, with your permission, to convey the Assembly's gratitude and thanks to all these people for having at so short notice helped to organise successfully so massive an operation. This co-operation of so diverse groups would not have been possible but for one psychological fact - the sense of identification. Somehow these groups forgot that they held different opinions - political, cultural, racial and religious. They had some other link to hold them together, and that link was that they suddenly felt that they were all part of Singapore - as I said, they felt they belonged to Singapore and Singapore belonged to them. That created what we call a sense of identification.

All these, I admit, Sir, are only the beginnings of a Malayan consciousness. We have still a long way to go before a Malayan consciousness can become second nature - an instinctive feeling among our people. But we believe that we should reach our goal of a Malayan consciousness as quickly as possible. We shall do this by calculated, if you like, conscious, acts which will stimulate this Malayan consciousness, make it develop faster. Therefore, we are not concerned with the sceptics outside this Assembly who leer at our efforts, who say that we are trying to create a hot-house Malayan culture, that we are forcing the pace. We are not concerned at all with the leers and jeers of the people who say that we are being very foolish in trying to force the pace. We believe, Sir, that the creation of a Malayan consciousness cannot be left to the ordinary course of events, to nature, or to history - to allow it to develop gradually of its own accord - because this is too important and vital a problem to be left to the hit-and-miss methods of history, or nature, or what you will. We know what happened in Ceylon and India and other countries where the integration of people of various cultures was left to the hit-and-miss methods of history. Certainly we do not wish to see such tragedies envelope this island. Therefore we say quite openly that we shall persist in our efforts to create a Malayan consciousness by deliberate and conscious acts which we think would facilitate or quicken the emergence of a Malayan consciousness - call it national consciousness by planning if you like. We have to do it this way because there is no alternative. Leaving it to the natural course of events means eventually racial conflict and cultural conflict; and carnage and chaos might eventually result from it. May I, Sir, in this connection say that the creation of a Malayan consciousness is not a job for this or that political party, and we have tried as far as possible, during National Loyalty Week, to convey the message that it is not a job for any one political party? It is a job for everybody, every group, every political party and every social and cultural group in this country. We must first accept the premise that it is an act of faith; that a Malayan consciousness is desirable, possible and inevitable. We must accept that premise because, if we do not, then the job of creating a Malayan culture becomes difficult and perhaps might even end not in a Malayan culture or Malayan consciousness, but in communal anarchy. Therefore, Sir, on this basic need to create a Malayan culture and in the belief that a Malayan culture is possible, I think we should not have any doubt or any qualms. We should not sit back and say, "Well, this is a job which we cannot accomplish in this generation or the next generation." We must believe we can do it soon and that we can do it by a deliberate act of will.

Inche Mohd. Ali Bin Alwi (Kampong. Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I rise not in reply, but to give my views concerning the speech made by the Hon. the Prime Minister and also by the Minister for Culture. Frankly what I said yesterday merely concerned one or two things. But the Prime Minister had taken the trouble to go further on the subject of culture'. I am thankful that the Prime Minister has given a true and clear explanation of culture' and only time is needed, between this generation and the next, when it will be accomplished to suit our needs. But today, Mr Speaker, I feel fortunate that from the Opposition side here, I can speak my mind freely and that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, as Chairman, have been able to conduct this meeting so capably.

3.15 p.m.

This also can be considered as one aspect of 'culture' or a chapter of our culture' which we can put to use to look after matters affecting culture. I am fortunate, Mr Speaker, particularly for being able to express my views. It is hoped that we will be able to accomplish the Malayan culture' which we are striving to accomplish. Like the Prime Minister, I am also against anything that makes undue appeal to emotion. Therefore, on the question of culture' the views of the Government are laudable, but because the Prime Minister has stated his views, I would not say that they are correct or incorrect. I wish to assert that my ideology is not communalism, nor do I adopt the attitude of being anti' other communities. I do not discriminate between Chinese and the Malays. In Singapore we have many organisations. For instance, the Chinese who are in the P.A.P. - we do not consider them as our enemies. Nor do we consider as our friends only those who are from the S.P.A. It is not our intention to appeal to communal passions. On the question of ideology we fear that there may be ideologies which are diametrically opposed to that of ours and which some may wish to make the basis of `culture' which we are going to create. What we are against is the Communist ideology. We fear undesirable ideologies being introduced into the creation of a Malayan culture. I welcome the programmes put up by the Ministry of Culture, but what I am not satisfied with, is not with the entire work of Radio Singapore but only with one branch of the Ministry of Culture which deals with giving reports of the sittings of this Assembly over the radio. Normally this is heard at 10.45 p.m. I am not after personal aggrandisement or looking for publicity. The object of my comment is to ensure that as far as possible a true summary of the proceedings in this Assembly is conveyed to the public. I am also a tax-payer. I own a radio and I pay tax for that. If I pay $12 but I do not get a proper account of the Assembly proceedings in the news summary, I will not be satisfied. It is not because my name is not mentioned in the news summary over Radio Singapore that I am commenting on this matter. My attitude on this matter is the same as that of the other tax-payers.

Apart from this, Mr Speaker, I was also referred to by the Prime Minister in another respect. I do not deny that there is a difference between the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Kampong Kembangan, that is, myself. But I would like to stress here that I have mixed with people of other races and other classes. For instance, I know how to use chopsticks. I learnt the art for 3½ years during the Japanese occupation when I was an employee at the Japanese Naval Air Force, and my head had to be shaven bald. But this was false culture and we could not accept this. I hope the Government will be cautious in the matter of exercising their authority with respect to 'culture'.

There is another point on which I wish to criticise the Government. I am not complaining but sometimes I feel offended because I do not quite understand the Mandarin language. When the expenses for language training facilities for Assemblymen was approved, I could not get a teacher who was prepared to accept the pay at the approved Government rate. I hope the Government will make available to U.M.N.O. members facilities for them to learn Mandarin. I learnt Katakana, Hiragana and Kanji or Nippon-Go' during the Japanese occupation for 3½ years. That question does not arise now. We would now like to compete with the Government members. If they can speak Malay, we want to be fluent in Mandarin. Sometimes I feel envious when they speak Mandarin amongst themselves. One day when we have learnt Mandarin, we will catch up with them. This, indeed, is a matter of culture, and I would like to be frank and straightforward. We have no communal hatred as I said earlier on. But where we differ is on the question of ideology'. I want to be frank with the Prime Minister. Sometimes outside this House when the Prime Minister speaks he seems to belittle us and make fun of us. We do not subscribe to the view that because you speak Malay you should be converted into the Muslim faith and be circumcised! So I hope that the Government Members will not consider that our thinking is narrow-minded. We are guided by our party political principles. We know that we must protect the interests of our race. I must admit that we want a merger with the Federation of Malaya. We know that in the Federation of Malaya there are many people who are experts in various fields and the combined population total more than 8 million. But before we can create a common aim, I am afraid we shall have to resolve all major matters that are at issue between us, so that both sides will be satisfied, particularly the Federation of Malaya. Our approach to such matters should be acceptable to the Federation. The Government is skilful at criticising and attacking us; that does not matter. We do not depend on criticisms from Government Members, for we get them in good measure from outside this House too. That is inherent in our struggle. It may be that at the next election, the Member for Kampong Kembangan will not be here to speak, but that is unimportant. What I have said comes from the bottom of my heart. What I have explained is my view and conviction. It is not communal. What we positively do not wish to see is an `ism' adopted which will be to the detriment of our State. Although Singapore is small we cannot afford to be separate, either now or in the future, from the Federation of Malaya but rather we must agree on the subject of merger.

And now, another aspect on culture. I wonder, Mr Speaker, is this a normal thing in culture or not? Today, there are limitations and restrictions - I do not know whether this concerns culture or not, whether the Government proposes to introduce legislation about it - but normally, business circles restrict other communities from joining their business ring. No opportunity is being given to others. There should be a spirit of compromise. Ideally, there should be situations where Inche Ali is invited to come along and Mr Ah Chong also invites Mr Sammy and so on. In this way, we will not only protect our interests but also foster a common culture which we can put into practice as from today. That is all, Mr Speaker, that I wish to bring home to Members of the Government in this Assembly. Although I feel a little ashamed when the Prime Minister made comparisons and said that I only have a Malay education and the Member for Farrer Park is English-educated, I would however like to emphasise that as a Malay I know not only the Malay language, but also a little of foreign languages. I went to a Malay school for four years and then I went to an English school until the war came. If it had not been for the war, I would have become a lawyer - for that was my ambition - and I would compete with the Prime Minister.

Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have been a Member of this House for 4½ years. Similarly our Prime Minister, too, has been in this House for a similar period. But it is only today that I have heard a responsible speech from a Member of this House which, if it can be said that we are truly sincere in our objective of achieving communal harmony, is the right thing to do. Originally I had no intention to speak, but when the Prime Minister spoke at length and mentioned my organisation, that is the U.M.N.O., I decided that as Chairman of Singapore U.M.N.O., I must say a few words and give my views on the matter which has been debated in this Assembly. We from U.M.N.O., Mr Speaker, know our responsibilities.

3.30 p.m.

We know that the Malays in Singapore come from a minority group - about 13.7 per cent are Malays - compared to other communities in this State. Therefore, we are aware of our responsibility and because we know it, we are anxious to co-operate with any Party - whether it is the Government or the S.P.A. - in order to protect the people of Singapore and in the interest of peace and prosperity for all the people of Singapore. But - and here I hope the Government Ministers on the other side will pay attention to this - when we from U.M.N.O. propose something which affects the Malays, I hope they will not accuse us of being communalists. That is wrong.

Mr Speaker, I would like to explain further with regard to the position of the Malays. Our number is small, and in many spheres, we are backward. If we look from the economic point of view or if we look at their social status as compared with that of the other communities, I can say in all frankness that our position is very weak. For instance, Mr Speaker, the Chinese and Indians and the Eurasians; in their communities, there are capitalists and professional people like lawyers, doctors, and so on; then there are the middle class groups and then the lower middle class, and, fifthly, the labour class. It can be said that in the society of our brothers from the Chinese, Indian or Eurasian communities, the division into the five strata is complete. But when we take the Malays, it is really a sorry state of affairs. I am quite sure the Government will also be sympathetic towards the position of the Malays, and I hope they will be sincere in their efforts to raise the standard of living of the Malays. There are no capitalists amongst them, no professional people; as far as I know, among doctors and lawyers there is only one Malay doctor and there are two Malay lawyers; the middle class and the lower middle class are almost non-existent. The fact is, 99 per cent of the Malays in Singapore come from the lower strata. So, Mr Speaker, I request that the Government give special attention and, in this respect, not accuse us U.M.N.O. members - as often happens - whenever we put up proposals concerning the livehood of Malay members of our society of being communalists.

Mr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that at this juncture I should say a few words and express agreement with the Government side in their desire to build a new Malayan nation through the promotion of a common culture and a common Malay language. We realise that, with all our problems and special difficulties, unless we can unite the various communities into one or develop one way of thinking and one way of feeling, then we lay up trouble for our future children.

However, I believe that we may miss the point. While dwelling on just language and culture, we forget that the most important thing which can build unity faster is the language of the heart. We know that when people fall in love, regardless of the difference in language and culture, they desire to be together earlier. But the moment that love becomes hatred, as sometimes happens, then we have divorce proceedings.

Reference has been made, Sir, to the Member for Kampong Kembangan and myself having different cultural backgrounds. That is true. But, Sir, we have found that when we develop a common basis for goodwill with identity of aims, we can co-operate very easily and we have no difficulty at all. Sir, there is a language of the heart which I hope will develop in Singapore. For that reason, I believe it is important that no matter how we disagree, we must show goodwill to one another because in this House, if Members of the Assembly cannot show goodwill, how can we expect the citizens of Singapore to show goodwill? The language of the heart, Sir, I hope, will underlie our deliberations and also help the promotion of a common culture and a common language to build a united Malayan nation.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just going to ask a question, if you will permit me, of the Minister for Culture for the sake of information.

I am connected with several organisations whose constitution says "to help cultural development". We have had controversial opinions on "What is Malayan culture?" For instance, I will give a very extreme example. If an Indian troupe dances an Indian dance depicting a Chinese legend, which has taken place in the Victoria Theatre, and if it is done to continental music played by Malay instruments, is that a step towards Malayan culture?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is a step towards madness!

The Chairman: Mrs Seow? Would you like to pursue such `madness' further?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: It is not that I wish to pursue it. I want to inform the Minister for Culture that when the Minister for National Development had the Victoria Theatre opened, we had an Indian dance depicting a Chinese story. There was controversial appreciation. Some thought that it was a step towards Malayan culture. I just wanted to have an authoritative criticism from the Minister himself as to what he thought about it.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Ong Eng Guan): Mr Speaker, I am afraid that to some people Indian music sounds like continental music, and Indian culture is like Chinese culture, and vice versa. I remember last year when the Victoria Theatre was opened, we had an Indian dancing troupe, the best of its kind in Singapore, performing an Indian dance based on a Chinese theme which I remember was Sam Pek Eng Tai, a very popular film screened in Singapore previously. The show, I can remember, was performed by Indian dancers, and the theme was Chinese, that is all. All the rest was Indian - Indian music, Indian musicians, etc. - except that the dancers were dressed in Chinese costumes.

Mr Speaker, I believe that that is a form of culture in which an attempt was made, even as early as last year, whereby a better understanding among the races in Singapore could be fostered. Mr Speaker, we have made a good start, where for the first time the Indians present a Chinese theme, the Chinese present an Indian theme, the Malays present a Chinese theme, and the Chinese present a Malay theme. We congratulate our Minister for Culture on his success, particularly during the National Loyalty Week, where a lot of such themes were presented.

It is important that in the field of culture we should try to bring together the four streams of culture in this country - the English-speaking, the Chinese-speaking, the Malay-speaking and the Tamil-speaking, so that we in Singapore will be able to understand that the cultural differences we may have, are not really differences. It is because they are a part of our cultural heritage of the past. Therefore, the people in this part of the world can know that the real difference existing among us is a difference more fundamental than the so-called cultural differences, and for that we must congratulate our Minister for Culture for having promoted to a great extent, particularly during National Loyalty Week, this type of work.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $6,163,050 for Head 40 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 45 -

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 19.

Sub-head 19 shows:

"Leave Passages, Rail Fares, etc.. . $125,000" provided for in the 1960 Estimates. Mr Speaker, there is a provision of $138,000 for 1959. Could the Minister please inform the House how many of these passages are for expatriate officers? I understand that there are only a few expatriate officers left in the Police Force. If so, why should there be such a high provision for this vote?

3.45 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, the provision of $125,000 for next year is not meant for expatriate officers. They are meant for what we sometimes call "Asian expatriate" officers. For the information of the Member for Farrer Park, these are meant for officers born in India, Pakistan, domiciled in Malaya or otherwise. They are also for rail passages for those recruited from the Federation of Malaya.

There are at the moment 15 officers domiciled in India, Ceylon and Pakistan, who are entitled to passages; and 163 members of the Rank and File domiciled in India and Pakistan, who are also entitled to passages. Of the sum of $125,000 provided for passages for leave next year, about $50,000 will go to officers and the Rank and File recruited from the Federation, and $36,629 to those officers who are either domiciled or otherwise in India and Pakistan.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $22,952,520 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 47-

The following amendment stood in name of Mr Thio Chan Bee-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of sub-head 1.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to move this particular amendment.

The Chairman: The Member is not moving.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (39) of sub-head 1.

Sir, a few days ago, the Hon. the Minister for Education, speaking on the subject of Special Language Schools, assured the House that parents who do not want their children to be transferred to these Special Language Schools would be given the freedom of choice and be allowed to ask that their children remain in their former schools. Sir, I think that was a wise decision. The problem that I am raising under this item involves the same principle. Hitherto, graduate teachers who are undergoing the diploma course in Education at the University, holding Government teaching bursaries, were given the freedom of choice to decide to serve either in Government schools or in aided schools. Most of them, of course, decided to join the Government service because of the special attractions in that service. They would have pensions and free medical treatment and hospitalisation at very low rates. But some of these bursary holders decided to join aided schools for, sometimes, religious reasons, others because of loyalty to their old schools; and hitherto Government policy has been to give them the freedom of choice.

Some time last week, Sir, I was informed that one teacher who had desired to join a certain aided school was told that he could not do so, because all graduates graduating from the diploma course in Education holding teaching bursaries would now have to join Government schools. Already there is inequality in the competition, because the Government service could offer better attractions. In the case of my school, I have lost the top boy, a science graduate, because he said that in the long run it was better to be in the Government service so that in case the members of his family fell sick, they would be given free medical treatment or subsidisation at special rates. If, at this particular juncture, when specialist teachers are difficult to find, this policy of freedom of choice and equality of treatment were not observed, I am sure that is going against the policy already laid down by the Minister for Education himself in regard to schools in the State - that there should be equality in treatment for all schools, whether Chinese, Malay, English or Tamil, whether Government or Government-aided. I believe that this matter was never brought to his attention. It was done as an act of administration. But I feel, Sir, that if this is not reconsidered, then it makes it difficult for aided schools to give adequate competition to Government schools. I believe that competition is most important in order to keep the different sections, as it were, on their toes. I hope, Sir, that the Minister will kindly look into this matter so that bursary holders would be given the same freedom of choice and those - I think there are only a few of them - who opt to serve in aided schools would also be given the chance.

The second matter under this heading concerns their allowances or their pay. Sir, I happened to be involved in drawing up this pay scheme before, and I believe the Political Secretary in the Ministry of Education was also present at these discussions. When these Honours graduates were made to start in the Education Ministry on an initial $75 less than the initial in the administrative service, it was on the understanding that there would be specialist allowances. So the moment these graduate teachers became specialist teachers, they would be given an allowance so that they would be if not equal to, at least not too far behind, their counterparts in the other services. The same thing holds for their maximum. The salary scale of the specialist graduates in the Ministry of Education ends at $1,100, whereas their counterparts in the administrative service end at $1,420. I believe, Sir, about a year ago, the Government decided that there must be a new scheme, and no further payment was made as regards specialist allowances to specialist teachers joining the service. They have been waiting all this time, and I would like to know what the position is - whether a new scheme is coming out or whether the Ministry has got some other way of solving this problem to induce graduates not to regard the teaching profession as a cinderella profession.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): I take it, Sir, that it would be in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Assembly that I should address you as Mr Chairman since we are in Committee?

The Chairman: Mr Speaker.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: It will still be Mr Speaker!

In reply to the Member for Tanglin, I only wonder whether this amendment is in order, asking for a reduction, in view of the fact that the vote for item (39) is less than last year's figure. I think normally Members of the Opposition would criticise the Ministry if the expenditure of the Government is increased.

The Chairman: Order. I think I had better cure what appears to be a misunderstanding. These notices of amendments are really notices of conventional amendments. They are amendments to reduce certain items merely for the sake of either seeking information or debating policy which may be related to the item.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for clarifying the point before I begin to reply to the Member for Tanglin.

He has raised the point that aided schools are having difficulty competing with Government in recruiting graduates for service. I would regard that as a very good piece of news for me, because I heard from my officials that it is the other way round because the best boys are usually nabbed by aided schools instead. To counter that, I did give instructions that to obviate the delay in having to process all appointees to the Government service through the usual channels of the Public Service Commission, we do make temporary appointments and then process it through the Public Service Commission. I do not think I am particularly aware of the case, mentioned by the Member for Tanglin, but I would be pleased if he would be good enough to let me know, and I will look into the circumstances.

On the other hand, I must make this clear to the hon. Member for Tanglin who mentioned in the proceedings yesterday about Government schools and aided schools receiving different treatment by the Education Ministry, that it will not be so in the Ministry of Education of this Government. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, when he opened the exhibition for National Loyalty Week, mentioned that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education were like the old woman in the shoe who had so many children that she did not know what to do. I would have preferred that he amended the saying to the effect that, "as the father of 300,000 children in schools, he knows what to do with them". So I will regard everyone in school, be he in Government or aided school, as deserving of the same treatment.

He then raised the question of specialist allowances, and whether it is Government's intention to bring about a new scheme, and that there were discussions in the past - and he mentioned the name of my Political Secretary as having taken part in such discussions.

4.00 p.m.

While I am not quite well up in history on that point, I have a faint suspicion that my Political Secretary was learning Malay in Changi Prison round about that time. If I am wrong, perhaps he was participating in negotiations with the previous Government on this matter of specialist allowances for teachers. I wish to make it clear however that this Government has decided that there will be no additional allowances for secondary or middle school teachers who are not already in receipt of such allowances. The previous Government may have agreed to this, just like the promise of a $5 million grant to the Nanyang University which failed to materialise. If the previous Government was sincere in implementing this promise, they would have found the money to meet it and included provisions in the 1958 or 1959 Estimates, which they did not. If the former Chief Minister and now Member for Cairnhill (he is not here today as usual) and his close friend and associate, Mr Chew Swee Kee, now digging for iron ore in Ipoh, had issued cheques which "bounced" because there were no funds to meet them, then they are to be held personally responsible for issuing such dud cheques.

The Chairman: Order. These similes sometimes puzzle me. I do not know whether the Minister is alleging that the Member for Cairnhill issued dud cheques metaphorically or literally. Perhaps he could explain before I rule.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, it is metaphorically speaking because, as you are aware, when he was the Chief Minister of the last Government, mention was made of a $5 million grant which received his support, and I think the sponsors of Nanyang University are now begging for the $5 million.

The Chairman: Order. But I understood we are on allowances for specialist teachers and not on Nanyang University at the moment. We might come to that later.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, I shall proceed. It can be argued that if some teachers are in receipt of such specialist allowances, then others should receive them too. However, two wrongs do not make one right. It was wrong to pay these so-called specialist allowances to teachers. But this took place during the days of the Colonial Government. Anyway since January 1958, no new appointees in the Education service have been paid these specialist allowances, and those now in receipt of such allowances are personal to them. However, I have the agreement of the Minister for Finance, although he is not present in this House, to say that since the Government is to encourage the study of science in schools, which will be in keeping with our policy either to industrialise or perish, those teachers who hold science degrees (Honours) and teaching science subjects in our secondary or middle schools may apply for consideration under the technical or professional allowance scheme mentioned earlier by the Minister for Finance during this debate. I hope I have now answered in full the queries of the Member for Tanglin.

Mr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank the Minister for Education for his assurance that henceforth all school children will be regarded as members of one family, and, therefore, there will not be any discrimination.

On the subject of specialist allowances, he does not realise that they are not variable allowances. They are regarded as basic and pensionable, and are given in order to make up for the difference between the specialists who go into the education service and those who go into the administrative service. Therefore, Sir, when the Government made a ruling that there should be no more allowances, I am sure they referred to variable allowances and not to basic allowances equivalent to salaries. If these allowances are not to be paid any more, or if they are only to be paid to specialist teachers who teach science, there is a case for something else - may be a new scheme to be provided for the graduate teachers going into the education service. Otherwise, Sir, this is what will happen. A teacher joins the education service. He joins an aided school. He then applies to the Government administrative service. He is appointed and immediately gives one month's notice to the aided school and goes into Government service, with the same qualification; and right away he starts on a salary of $75 more. So, unless there is some kind of stability in the education service, we shall all the time have a fluid staff of graduate teachers looking around for better salaries in other departments. As soon as they get something better, they drop out of the education service and go on to the administrative service, or Chemistry service, and this makes it very difficult for our education programme to be carried out when the staff is fluid.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, I am fully aware that the specialist allowances that are being paid are pensionable. That is why they are being made personal to those who are already in receipt of them. If they are not pensionable, I can see the Minister for Finance using his big knife and his broad axe on them too. I think it is time to stop quibbling and stabilising our salary structure. This thing can go on perennially. That is why it has been necessary for me today to make the statement, that these specialist allowances will not be considered by the Ministry of Education with effect from 1st January, 1960.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (48) of sub-head 1.

Sir, item (48) says, "Underqualified Teachers of Vernacular Languages; Chinese Teachers", and they give one scale for men and one for women. But for Malay and Tamil teachers there is only one scale provided for both men and women. As far as I know, there is no parity among men and women teachers in almost all categories except this one in the Education Department. I was surprised to find that there is parity in this instance. I am not suggesting, Sir, that this women's salary scale should be brought down. On the other hand, I am suggesting that parity be given to all categories of teachers, since it has been fought for ever since 1940 by the Singapore Teachers' Union. The women have had great hopes that parity will be given when they read in "The Tasks Ahead" (the Five-Year Plan of the P.A.P.) the following:-

"When the People's Action Party comes into power immediate steps will be taken to raise the status of the women to where It should be."

This is on page 17, and it goes on to say:

"In a full socialist society, for which the P.A.P. will work for, all people will have equal rights and opportunities, irrespective of sex, race or religion. There is no place in a socialist society for exploitation of women. The P.A.P. believes in the principle of equal pay for equal work."

It did, however, say:

"This may not be possible immediately. It must be achieved step by step without dislocating our economy."

I quite understand that, Sir, but my argument is that steps could be taken to make the gap narrower. In some countries the women have been promised that within ten years they will be given parity, and arrangements are being made, by a slow process, that after ten years they will get the parity. I understand that with the present Budget deficit and the economy drive, Government will not be able to give parity to women. But all I am asking for is that a first gesture be shown - that the Government is in sympathy with the women, and that within a number of years this parity will come to pass.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, it is sometimes difficult to anticipate what the Members of the Opposition are going to ask. This is certainly a point which only a woman Member of the Opposition is able to pick out.

During the six months that the new Government has been in office, I can assure the Member for Mountbatten that we have not tried to monkey around with salary structures and that this is something which is a carry-over from the previous estimates. I understand the 1959 Estimates were the standstill Estimates of 1958. I am not in a position to say whether the women do get the same pay as the men under the scheme of $220-325 for Malay and Tamil teachers. I wonder whether my friend, the Minister for Finance, might be able to say more about this because establishment comes under his wing. Anyway, we have not interfered with this salary scheme.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, we believe women and men are quite equal, only I think that men are sometimes more equal! I also agree that we should work towards the position of parity in the salary of women and men officers. There are two ways of bringing about parity. One is to raise the salary of women up to the men's. The other is to bring the salary of the men down to that of the women. I am not sure which method the Member for Mountbatten is recommending!

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I am all in favour of the principle that there should be parity between men and women, and I am quite sure that Members of this House will support me when I say that all the men here like them! But there is a story which was told me by a friend of mine about a woman colleague of ours who had a full-time job in the University but who very suddenly changed her mind to join the Education Department, because for the same amount of pay she could take time off from the school to attend to her hubby.

The Chairman: Hubby or hobby?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Hubby.

4.15 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance refers to two ways of achieving parity - one is to bring the women up and the other is to bring the men down. I would like to point out that we are fortunate in that the Government General Orders, I think, say that the total emoluments of Government servants are not to be reduced unless they have committed an offence, and deserve to have their salary reduced. That is one protection. The other point is that even if they do not have this protection, since the P.A.P. claims to be the government of the people, I am sure they should try to be just. Since they have promised to uplift the women should not bring down the salary of the and not bring down the men, they men to the level of the salary of the women.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (51) of sub-head 1.

Item (51) , Sir, is about watchmen. I am sure that the Minister for Education, having heard my argument about women, must be wondering what I have to say about watchmen now.

If he does not already know, I may be able to bring to his knowledge, from my own experience, some of the hardships of some of the school principals. There are some places where two schools are built on one piece of ground and there is only one watchman. But the schools have not yet built servants' quarters for four or five years. I do not know whether they have any intention of building servants' quarters, because I do not see any ground there which could hold servants' quarters. Anyway, it looks as if the schools will be permanently without servants' quarters and if you have one watchman looking after two schools without servants' quarters, and since he has to go out for food sometime or other, it does not make any sense to have a school guarded at certain times of the day but at other hours left unguarded and open to robbery. I am just bringing this fact to the Minister's attention so that in his planning for watchmen, he could do something to see that some sort of scheme is worked out so that the schools are guarded all the time in spite of the fact that they have no servants' quarters.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, I am grateful to the Member for Mountbatten for her kind suggestion regarding the safeguarding of property in schools, both Government and aided. But even if I could meet her suggestion of providing a watchman-or watchwomen in the case of girls' schools - for every school in Singapore, I shall have great difficulty in persuading my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to agree. So what we have to do is to have a regular watchman, who will be provided with quarters, in certain large schools. But in smaller schools, we will have to make do somehow with the school servants. Generally speaking, it is possible to get a school servant to do it because he then gets free quarters to stay in.

Speaking from experience - not from my personal experience, however, but from the experience of my officials - it would appear to be cheaper not to have a watchman because then the loss through theft would only amount to a few hundred dollars per year, whereas the wages of watchmen would come to thousands of dollars per annum.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, if arrangements with school servants are to be made, could I request the Minister to make the arrangements through the Ministry, because in the past when the principals have been left to make the arrangements, the school servants have argued that, according to the Labour Ordinance, they are not supposed to work more hours, and so on and so forth, and the principals have found great difficulty in making such arrangements?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, ever since The new Government took office, the spirit of administration has changed considerably, and I think there has been a great deal of consultations between officials and principals. I am sure that this point has not been forgotten and that as much consultation as possible will take place to ensure that school properties will be safeguarded by detailing some school servants to take over part of the duties of the watchman.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: In view of the assurance given by the Minister, may I be permitted to withdraw that amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (66) of sub-head 1.

Sir, in item (66) I notice "Instructors, Special Grade, six" and in the remarks column "Three new posts." Then in item (65) "Senior Instructors", the remarks column says, "Three posts abolished." For information, is it a technical change in nomenclature?

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Ulu Pandan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, these three new posts are to replace the three posts of Senior Instructors which have been abolished under item (65). The reason for the abolition of these posts is the inability to recruit persons of sufficient experience or calibre to fill them. These posts have been regraded to enable instructors to gain promotion to Senior Instructors, Special Grade.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: In view of that information, may I have leave to withdraws the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (99) of sub-head 1.

Sir, item (99) (viii) of sub-head I says "Principals", and, deals with appointment allowances. I know from experience that English primary school principals get $150 as their allowance for one school, and those who take two schools get another $75 as acting allowance for the second school. There are two questions I would like to ask. One is whether the principals of vernacular schools get the same privilege. The second question is this: I think most principals will be asked to take two sessions from next year. Is the acting allowance of $75 still going to be paid?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, regarding payments of allowances to principals who are now being paid $150 for looking after one session and the present practice of giving another $75 in case they do two sessions, I would say that one of the reasons why principals will have to look after two sessions from 1960 is that of saving of expenditure. That being so, as a rule, the principal of a school would be principal for two sessions, and he will receive only $150. There are, however, certain cases where, because schools are far away in the rural areas, the principals would still be in receipt of $150, but they would be required to assist in the general administration in the Ministry when needed. Therefore, the acting allowance of $75 for looking after a double-session school will not be paid as from 1960.

Coming to the larger issue of payments of allowances to principals in streams other than English, this caused considerable heart-burning in the past, because the Government had talked about equal treatment for the four streams. They kept saying: "What about us who are not in the English streams? When are we going to get those allowances?" I am happy to say, Mr Speaker, that the 1960 Estimates do provide for principals' charge or responsibility allowances in the non-English streams, which means the Chinese, Malay and Tamil streams, with effect from 1st January, 1960. This decision, I am sure, will be greeted with pleasure even though there is to be no backdating.

As regards the scale of payments, I must warn that it would not be the same, because having inherited four streams of education, which have gone through four different stages of development, it is not possible to have actual equality. I understand, for example, in the English stream you have so many streams of classes, whereas in the Chinese stream, you do not have streams of classes. You may have in the middle school, four middle one classes. There will not be four middle two classes nor four middle three classes, and so on to qualify as a "four-stream" middle school. But we do have that in Government institutions in the English stream.

Therefore it has been necessary to amend that formula somewhat, and by doing some multiplication and division, we arrive at certain responsibility or charge allowances for principals in the non-English stream. I think the scale has already been circularised to the various streams of education. They are aware of what they can expect. I must, however, say a few words more especially for those in the Chinese stream, since the payment of responsibility allowance to principals implies that there must be an amendment to the present organisational set-up in the Chinese schools. In Chinese schools, besides the principal of the school, there are the so-called Deans of Studies and Deans of Discipline. These posts must be abolished because it is expected that the principal should himself take full responsibility for running the school and not to delegate four or five other people to assist in the administration of the schools.

4.30 p.m.

At present Deans of Studies or Deans of Discipline in Chinese schools generally have a very light share of teaching duties, and I expect that from 1960 when these Deans are no longer Deans, they will continue to work like other teachers and do their full share of work in schools.

I will now give an example of a Dean of Study - one Mr Lee Hwee Yiow of Yock See School, Prinsep Street. He was, I believe, a former City Councillor, and a close friend of our Member for Cairnhill. Soon after I took office in the Ministry of Education, I received a letter of complaint saying that Mr Lee Hwee Yiow of Yock See School was doing only one-third of teaching duties in this particular school - that is about 400 minutes a week - and that he was a Dean of Studies. I accordingly sent an inspector to investigate whether this complaint was true. True enough, here was a man doing one-third of the duties of a normal teacher, and getting away with it. Before long he tendered in his resignation and I hear he is now undertaking legal studies in London.

4.32 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr G. Kandasamy) in the Chair]

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I understand rightly that in the case of the Chinese school principals, they will be paid a responsibility allowance. Is that on top of the principal's allowance, or does that make up for the principal's allowance?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, it has long been known as a principal's allowance. But I think it is preferable to call it a charge or responsibility allowance of a principal.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I have a note here to say that I must address you as Mr Kandasamy, so I shall have to address you as such. Because all principals will have to do two sessions - especially when some of them have been enjoying an acting allowance - and because if they do two sessions they will have to go back for lunch and come back again, I wonder whether any consideration could be given as regards transport allowance?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am afraid everyone who works has to go back for lunch and nobody talks about asking for an extra transport allowance. So, the question of a principal having to do two sessions would only imply this: that there would be a change in the office hours of the particular principal. He is not expected to be there from 7.45 a.m. to 6.45 p.m. I think an adjustment could be made where the principal would perhaps turn up at 9.30 a.m. or 10 a.m., then go on to 4.30 p.m. In between, of course, every session would have a senior assistant who would look after the school whilst the principal, the substantive holder, is not around there. After all, we do not expect things to happen every day of the year which would require the principal's presence right from 7.45 a.m. to 6.45 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: I feel rather awkward addressing you, Sir, as "Mr Kandasamy" when the Minister for Education keeps on saying "Mr Deputy Speaker". May I be given the right term, please? Is "Mr Kandasamy" the right term?

The Chairman: Would the hon. Lady resume her seat, please?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng resumed her seat.

The Chairman: When the Deputy Speaker takes the Chair in Committee, he should be addressed by his name.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Thank you for the clarification. Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister for Education, may I be given leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 29.

Sub-head 29, Sir, deals with Domestic Science. Sir, you cannot imagine what pleasure it gave me when I saw that domestic science has not been abolished. It has been my fear that it would be abolished, in view of what has been said by the Deputy Prime Minister, to free working-class women from domestic drudgery and household slavery. I thought that the P.A.P. Government does not believe in training women to be good housewives. I was afraid that domestic science would be abolished, Sir. When I saw that it was retained, you cannot imagine my joy. However, I would have been happier if I had seen provision made for expanding it. Probably the economic situation of Singapore does not allow it, but I do wish that, since there will be an increase of young girls as well as young boys, provision should also be made for facilities for girls to be expanded also.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): (In Mandarin): Mr Kandasamy, concerning this problem, I wish to inform the Opposition Member that the object of our Government is to train women to be better housewives since, by becoming so, they can also be useful to our State. In this respect, when we feel it is necessary, we will increase or expand the facilities for training these women. At present, there are five Government secondary schools: Bukit Panjang Secondary School, Cedar Girls' School, Crescent Girls' School, Raffles Girls School, and Tanjong Katong Girls School, and there are 13 Government-aided schools. There are 21 Malay schools. This, I believe, is the present number; next year we will cater for the increase in the number of girls attending schools.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Kandasamy, I wish to explain further to the Member for Mountbatten on domestic science. In the Malay schools at present cooking is being taught together with domestic science, knitting, sewing, etc. These are taught from Std. IV to Std. VII in all Malay girls' schools. In the Geylang Craft Centre these subjects are also taught to pupils in the higher standards. Also at the Geylang Craft Centre the pupils are taught subjects like typewriting and others. With domestic science subjects being widely taught, I am sure the pupils who receive such training will be benefited, and this will enable Malay girls to fit themselves as better housewives when they leave school. I am convinced that the domestic science subjects that are being taught in the lower Malay schools and also at the Geylang Craft Centre are very satisfactory.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I agree with the speaker that the standard of domestic science in Malay schools is very high. I myself was a teacher in a Malay school for about two or three years. In fact, that is where I learnt my Malay. I have also been working in many Malay boys' schools, where I taught English. I spent quite a big part of my teaching career teaching Malay teachers and Malay children in Malay schools, English. I have experience of their domestic science, their embroidery and their cooking. I do appreciate that their standards are very high. My question is just whether any provision has been made for expansion, as I see that the Estimates remain the same for 1960.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of information. I would just like to ask the Member for Mountbatten whether the domestic scientists in schools can produce a good meal or not?

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Kandasamy, if the Deputy Prime Minister goes to Scotts Road Malay Girls' School, he will be entertained. They have entertained officials before with the food cooked by the children. And I know the children there do very good cooking.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Kandasamy, since Government money is spent on these things, what happens to the proceeds of this meal?

The Chairman: Perhaps, the Minister for Education can answer that?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I have partaken of the feast in Scotts Road Malay Girls' School, and certainly they do produce most delectable cakes and dishes, and I think I envy the young Malay men who will be able to marry these girls in time to come.

To answer the Member for Mountbatten regarding the provision for 1960, we feel that those schools which have already been furnished - in fact, they have been too luxuriously furnished - would be adequate for the purpose for next year. That is why there is no increase in the provision. In fact, I would want a revision of the manner in which domestic science is being taught to our girls. I think we should be more realistic in regard to future syllabuses and not think in terms of pressure cookers or electric cookers, because the majority of the people will have to be content with charcoal burners or firewood "anglows" plus frying pans and smoky kitchens! We would like to make it possible for girls to go out to be ready to look after homes and husbands and, well, feed the babies and keep the home fires burning!

4.45 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Kandasamy, for the information of the Minister for Education, that is the very reason why I said I appreciated the standard of domestic science in Malay schools, because they do not teach with only pressure cookers, but they do give the children an inkling of how other people cook. They have from electric cookers to gas, to charcoal, to firewood and from electric ovens they go right down to little tins where you have to put charcoal below and charcoal on top to pretend that it is an oven and bake cakes. They do have utensils as primitive as all that, because they know that in the homes of some of the poorer people, they do not have electric ovens. That was why I said I appreciated the domestic science in Malay schools. But in view of all the information that has been given, may I be given leave to withdraw the amendment?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 58.

Sir, this item is on Contribution to Central Provident Fund - I suppose the angle I am taking on the subject will take the Minister by surprise, but he knows me by now, that I will be taking it from the angle of my own sex. Whereas a man works till he is 55, and then retires, and if he does not have a pension then he draws a provident fund, a woman's retiring age is as low as 45. But when she retires, she is not eligible to draw the provident fund, because in the retirement age for the different sexes there is a difference of 10 years, but in regard to the date of the qualification for withdrawing the provident fund there is no difference between her and a man. A woman is retired at 45, presumably because the employers feel that she cannot work any more. So, if she cannot work any more, why should she not be permitted to draw the money that was intended to be given to her to help her out when she cannot work any more? Why must she wait for 10 more years? She might not live that long, in spite of the fact that women are supposed to live five years longer than men!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I feel that if I go on answering the Member for Mountbatten, I might find myself championing the cause of the down-trodden women! This, however, raises the question of the established practice of men retiring at the age of 55 and women at 45. I believe there has been some amendment for new appointees in Government service, who would be required to retire at 60. I have, I think, the agreement of the Minister for Finance in this - that for the teaching service we would wish teachers to carry on, despite the age limit, until around 60. There is no question of compulsion but we do hope that teachers who are bordering on retirement (if they are men at 55, and if they are women at present 45), should not hesitate to pursue their careers further and we shall be very pleased to extend their appointments until they are 60, unless of course, physically they are not fit to carry on as teachers in service. So it is a matter which is really beyond my control, whether a women teacher retiring from service at 45, may be able to get her money back from the provident fund. It is beyond my control. But I should be pleased to add my recommendation that they should be allowed to take away their contributions. But as I say, it is outside my control.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the question of teachers who have retired and have been re-employed, either after retiring as pensioners if they were in Government service, or after retirement from aided schools, and who have collected their provident fund proceeds. During the last few months, I personally have interviewed about 70 teachers who were aged 60 and over. There were some even aged 72. Of this number, three in the English stream and three in the Chinese stream have been given special permission to continue, but 36 in the English stream have not been allowed to continue. Eight in the Chinese stream have been asked to leave at the end of the year, and there are 19 cases yet to be decided. The purpose behind this is that there have been complaints from younger people to the effect that retired teachers who have already got their pensions or who have already received their provident funds are still in service and this prevents younger people from being employed as teachers. However, these elderly teachers have been allowed to register on a reserved list for re-employment, if necessary. But it is the intention of the Ministry to offer all vacant jobs to younger people if they care to apply. Should it be found that in certain schools there is still a shortage of teachers, then all these retired teachers of 60 and over, if they are still interested, would be re-employed.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Kandasamy, the Minister for Education has very aptly used the word "down-trodden" women. They are down-trodden, especially when they are legally married. I shall prove this to him. If they are not legally married, then it does not come to the notice of the Government! They are not married, so they are quite all right. But if they are legally married, they are penalised. With the Central Provident Fund, they are penalised this way. Unmarried women, if they retire at 45, have only to wait for 10 more years before they collect their money. But married women have what is called a retiring benefit, which is not quite a pension, so that they will have to contribute also to the Provident Fund: and when they retire they not only have paid the money into the Provident Fund, but out of whatever gratuity they get they have to pay the Government's share into the Provident Fund and leave both their share and Government's share for 10 more years in the provident fund before they can draw it. You can see the difficulty that a woman is faced with, in not only having her share kept back for 10 more years, but she will have to pay out of whatever little money she gets as gratuity the Government's share also. So that is why I say, Sir, that the Minister has very aptly used the word "down-trodden". I would appeal to him, since his women teachers are thus affected, to make appropriate recommendations to amend the Central Provident Fund Ordinance.

Mr Rajah: Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I think the problem posed by the Member for Mountbatten is not one really for the Minister for Education. The difficulty experienced by, married women in Government service in the circumstances detailed by the Member for Mountbatten arises out of the wording of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. When a woman gets married while in Government service, she ceases to be permanent and therefore she ceases to be pensionable. Thereafter, she goes on a contribution scheme to the Central Provident Fund. Now, the Central Provident Fund Ordinance says that no member of the Provident Fund may withdraw his money until he reaches the age of 55, or leaves the country, or satisfies the Chairman of the Board that he is unable to work any further. When a woman teacher is asked to leave at 45, she cannot get paid because she is not yet 55; and because she does not leave the country, she cannot get paid; and because she cannot satisfy the Chairman that she is incapable of any further work, she cannot get paid. Therefore, she has to wait for 10 years. The question, of course, is whether the Minister for Finance would consider that the circumstances justify an amendment to the Ordinance to meet cases such as these.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Kandasamy, I just want to make one correction. Even if she satisfies the Chairman of the Provident Fund Board that she is unable to work, she is not allowed to draw the money immediately. It must be after two years of retirement that she can draw the money.

The Chairman: Members will realise that we are discussing the Central Provident Fund Ordinance and not sub-head 58.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Kandasamy, Sir, I am almost moved to tears by the terrible plight of married women teachers. But I would have thought that if they are married and retire at the age of 45, they would have got their husbands to support them until such time as they can withdraw the contributions. However, the whole business is really not under my portfolio and, much as I dislike passing the buck, it really comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister for Labour.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Kandasamy, as the Minister for Labour is not here, there is no point in my pressing on. May I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Order.

Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Assembly is suspended until half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

5.31 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 47 (Cont.)-

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 60.

Sub-head 60: "Contribution to University of Malaya". Mr Speaker, could the Minister for Education inform the House whether these contributions to the University of Malaya are made annually, whether such annual contributions are assessed annually, or whether they are assessed once in five or three years as the case may be, and whether the fact that there is now a University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur Division, in Kuala Lumpur has made any difference to the quantum of contributions by this Government to the University?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I see a little sparkle in the eye of the Member for Farrer Park when he asks those questions to which he already knows the answers, because both of us were Members of the University of Malaya Council way back in 1958 when it was decided that the University of Malaya would start a division at Kuala Lumpur. As a result of that, there were two Committees: one to decide on the constitution, and another on the finance. Both reports were adopted subsequently, and arising out of the Joint Committee on Finance Report a recommendation was submitted to the two Governments whereby for the triennium 1959-60-61 the two Governments of the Federation and Singapore would contribute towards the Annually Recurrent Expenditure for the two divisions of the University - that of Singapore and Kuala Lumpur.

In the past the contributions made by the Governments of the Federation and Singapore for the Annually Recurrent Expenditure for the University of Malaya was in the ratio of 60 per cent Federation and 40 per cent Singapore. But as a result of the Finance Committee's Report, there has been a readjustment of the percentage of contributions - we have the Government of the Federation paying the equivalent of two as against one from the Government of Singapore.

The Estimates for the three years 1959-60-61 were presented in two forms - actual per capita cost or estimated cost, assuming the worst to allow for development at Kuala Lumpur. The two previous Governments accepted the recommendation of the Finance Committee on estimated cost less 10 per cent. Therefore, for the years 1959-60-61, the joint contributions of the two Governments to the University of Malaya were $8.92 million for 1959, $10.2 million for 1960 and $11.9 million for 1961, less 10 per cent. So the provision for 1960 is one-third of $10.2 million, which is $3.4 million, less 10 per cent, making the figure of $3.06 million in the Estimates.

Mr Rajah: Am I to understand that this vote is in respect of Annually Recurrent Charges incurred by the University of Malaya in both the divisions? Should it become necessary for capital grants for the University of Malaya to be obtained from both the Governments for the year 1960, would the Singapore Government lend itself favourably to such proposals, or is the matter of capital grants for 1960 for capital developments out of the question at this stage?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of a capital grant does not appear to arise for the time being, because even for 1959 there is discussion in progress between the Governments of the Federation and Singapore over the formula to meet the increased needs for capital expenditure in the expansion of the division of the University at Kuala Lumpur. That, I think, has not been finalised. I believe the Government of the Federation would like Singapore to contribute the equivalent of 50 per cent, but I think the Minister for Finance is aware that we are standing firm over this question of contribution towards capital expenditure at Kuala Lumpur. The previous decision of Government was that any savings brought about by a deferment of capital expenditure in Singapore could then be diverted towards Kuala Lumpur. In the meantime, therefore, there is no new development in Singapore, but there is increased activity at Kuala Lumpur.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the explanation by the Honourable the Minister for Education, may I beg leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 64.

"Maintenance of Shenton Way Playing Fields." Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember, when I was in the City Council, that the question of what was to happen to, or who should develop the Shenton Way Playing Fields arose; I believe it was decided by the City Council then that the playing fields should be handed over to the Ministry of Education in order that the Ministry might provide playing fields for schools which have themselves no playing fields. I happened to pass Shenton Way Playing Fields when I went to see the exhibition at the Singapore Polytechnic, and I found that the field was somewhat overgrown. The condition in which I found the fields did not give me the impression that they were being used by anybody as playing fields.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 64.

"Maintenance of Shenton Way Playing Fields." I was under the impression that that playing field was given to the Prince Edward Road Boys' Club. When I saw this item in the Estimates under the Head "Education", I was wondering whether it was meant for school children or for the Prince Edward Road Boys' Club children. I was given to understand that it was meant for the Prince Edward Road Boys' Club children.

I ask this because, as Principal ot the Cantonment Road School, I had 32 classes with a playground the size of which is smaller than a football field. And I tried my best to borrow the playing field of other schools for football games, but they were all booked for one purpose or another. I never knew that there was a field available for schools. So when I saw this item, I was wondering whether it is for schools. If it is, none of the principals in that area who are very badly in need of playing fields know about it.

Inche Mohd. Ariff: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify to the Member for Mountbatten about the playing field at Shenton Way, for the maintenance of which provision has been made. This playing field was handed over to the charge of the Minister for Education in August 1958. This field is for the use of schools in the City area which have no playing fields of their own, or whose playing fields are not big enough. The Ministry of Education is responsible for its maintenance, to see that it is kept in good condition to enable the boys to make use of it. This field is now specially used for primary schools only.

To the Member for Farrer Park, I would like to explain, in connection with this field, that after its taking over by the Ministry of Education, temporary arrangements have been made for caretakers of schools in the vicinity to cut down the grass and to maintain the field so that it will be fit for use by school children.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, I hope that the Press will give wide publicity that that ground is meant for school children, so that schools in the Chinatown area which are very congested and have no playing fields will know that they can now apply for that playing field.

Mr Rajah: Do I understand the answer to the question to be that the playing fields are, in fact, being used by primary schools? May I be given leave to withdraw?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mrs Seow Peck Leng:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 69.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to move this amendment, as it has been answered in the debate on my previous amendment.

The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr A. P. Rajah, and Mrs Seow Peck Leng:-

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $100.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): My colleague, the Member for Mountbatten, will move it.

5.45 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, I move.

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 47 be reduced by $100.

Sir, I wish to take the advice of the Minister for Culture and be on the defensive before I am attacked. I would like to make it very clear that whatever I say on Education today is not meant to be destructive criticism nor have I any destructive ulterior motives. Whatever I say will be with a sincere desire to give my opinion on certain matters pertaining to Education and to offer a few suggestions, some of which I hope, if the Minister views them with an open mind, he will agree with. I hope that at least some of my suggestions will find their way through his open mind into his heart.

I would like to compliment him for his enthusiasm over the improvement of education in Singapore. But probably due to his over-enthusiasm, he might have overlooked a few facts. Sir, the Labour Ordinance permits 44 hours of work a week. Office workers usually do not do the maximum. They work from 8.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. minus one hour for lunch - it comes to 7 hours - and with 4½ hours on Saturday, that makes 39½ hours. Out of 52 weeks a year, deducting 12 Public and Bank holidays with 24 days leave a year, that leaves approximately 47 weeks. 39½ hours times 47 weeks gives 1,856½ hours per year.

Now, for teachers in schools. Let us take, for example, Primary V and VI teachers. They have to do 26½ hours of school work. They have at least to correct one set of Arithmetic papers, one set of English papers, and one set of either Hygiene, Geography, History, or Science papers, and then do one set of homework. That makes four sets. And with the Increase of the maximum in a class to 45 pupils, that gives them 180 books to correct every day. Giving the teacher 1½ minutes per book on an average - Arithmetic takes less than Composition - but let us say 1½ minutes each book, that works out to 270 minutes, or 4½ hours. An industrious teacher should prepare his work for the next day. He will take an hour to do that, i.e. 5½ hours times 6 days, that makes 33 hours. Twice a week, a teacher will be expected to go down to school either for games, scouting, Cubs, Guides. Brownies. St. John's, Red Cross, Sea Cadets. Traffic duty before school and during recess, and preparing for school concerts, exhibitions, sports, and other extra mural activities. Let us put it all down to twice a week of 2 hours - that gives 4 hours a week. If you add them up, it comes to 63½ hours a week. Next year. 1960. I believe there will be 245 school days. Divide that by six school days; it comes to 41 weeks, and multiply it by 63½ hours, we get 2,603 hours.

So whereas the Labour Ordinance allows 44 hours times 47 weeks, which is 2,068 hours a year, office workers do 1,856 hours a year, and teachers do 2,603 hours a year. So teachers, in spite of their long holidays, are already doing 535 hours in excess of the maximum permitted for one year. That is why when the Minister intends to make them work another half-session, I approached him and spoke to him. I was very glad that he assured me that this extra - it is not really an extra but it will be a substitute for the free period given to them during school hours. The free period will be added up, and they will have to do that period within the week on alternate days, which will be about 3 days, I suppose.

Although that solves the question with regard to the number of hours, I still do not quite know whether it is really necessary in view of the fact that they have already had a recent pay cut. And that means another item of expense of about $12, this coming back to work during a different session; whereas they used to do it all in one session. Now they have to go back 3 times a week. I suppose they have to go back to school 3 times a week, plus what they used to do; i.e. coming twice in the afternoon for either games or other activities. I feel that this may lead us to contravene the Labour Ordinance. The teachers might feel that they are being deprived of their human rights and that this is forced labour, because it is in excess of what the Labour Ordinance allows. Who will suffer in the long run? The teachers? Yes! Whenever they argue on the point that the children will suffer, they have been laughed at, because the answer is, "Oh, it is for their own good!" That may be, but nevertheless the children will suffer, Sir. No unhappy teacher can create an atmosphere of happiness in the class. No bad teacher can have good results in the class. The life of the teacher is very much interwoven with the life of the children. That is why if it affects teachers adversely, it will indirectly affect the children too. What will be the fate of Singapore if our teachers, discontented and unhappy, bring up a generation of discontented and unhappy children for the next generation? The Prime Minister himself, when addressing a rally of teachers and principals, said in the Straits Times of Wednesday, 9th December:

"In your care is entrusted the impressionable minds of our young people. How you discharge this trust decides whether in the next ten years, we have a united and coherent people, or a more divided and confused one."

And the Minister for Education, in the same rally, said:

"If teachers play their part well and dedicate themselves to the service of their country, the future of Singapore will be bright."

Sir, if so much depends on teachers, if so much is expected of them, then in the name of sanity, are we giving them this treatment? Why are we making them so discontented? If anyone thinks that my calculation is inclined to be overgenerous. I would like to point out that I have not included such activities as the registration of Primary I pupils, when teachers come during the holidays to register children; during the entrance examination they do extra correcting of examination papers; during the school examination extra work on correcting examination papers. Report books and closing of registers are also done outside of school hours. All those are not included in my calculation. If even then, some feel that my calculation is still over-generous, take off 20 per cent of the total, we still have the teachers doing the maximum that the Labour Ordinance allows.

The effect of the six-day week on children, Sir, in the number of hours, does not give them an extra day, except for Primary I pupils who get 4 hours extra a week; Primary II, 1½; Primary III, 3 hours; Primary IV, 3 hours; Primary V, 1¾; Primary VI, 1¾ hours. Physically, it should not be impossible for the children to take this extra strain. They will not be physically affected, I am sure, except for Primary I, not so much because they are young but because they are new to the type of life that is thrusted upon them. From birth up to six years old, a child lives in the home, sheltered by his mother. He runs to her when he is going to be bullied by the neighbour's child or bitten by the neighbour's dog. He is always sheltered and has someone to care for him all the time. All of a sudden he finds himself in a school with a strange man or woman who is called the teacher to whom he has to run for protection, and a strange crowd for him to mix with. And this kind of treatment causes more strain on him than does the teaching of the school. This strain will be hard on the child of six if he is made to do 4½ extra hours and made to carry the same strain as the child in Primary II, who has already had one year to reconcile himself with his new mode of life. As I have said, this should not be an unduly heavy strain physically on the children of other classes. But the question still remains: is it absolutely necessary, and is it beneficial, all things considered? We must not forget, Sir, that, as mentioned when we were talking about school playing grounds just now, the six-day week deprives children of extra mural activities, even if it is not due to anything else, it is due to lack of premises. The morning school takes the first two hours to do their physical education; the afternoon school takes the last two hours; the rest of the time is too hot for the children to play or to do exercises in the fields. On top of that, the afternoon school comes in the morning during the first two hours to have their house practices, and the morning school comes during the last two hours to have their house practices. As I mentioned just now, some schools are unfortunate enough to have a field smaller than the size of a football field, for 32 classes. That will bring an average of, with the new calculation, I believe about 1,300 or 1,500. Except for schools with exceptionally large grounds, there will be no space for extra mural activities for the children. Even if the school does have a big playground, when it rains, these children who come to school for extra, mural activities will run to the school premises and disturb the classes that are functioning.

Another point, Sir - this concerns most families - the week-end is the only time the parents have with their children, especially if both parents happen to be wage-earners. And with Sunday sometimes being a voluntary corps day, parents have only the Saturday afternoon with their children. With children going to school on a Saturday afternoon, they will have practically no time at all with their parents, especially the smaller children who are put to bed by the time the parents come home or they have just had dinner and they see very little of their parents by being put to bed.

6.00 p.m.

Nothing in this world can be important enough to replace the family get-together on Saturday afternoon or once a week. We have seen the disastrous effect on the children who do not get enough attention from the parents. The relationship between children and parents diminishes when they practically do not see one another. With this relationship goes the parent's influence over the children. Sir, instead of remedying delinquency, this might be helping to create more delinquency by parents losing control over their children, Sir, I am not against the principle of a six-day week, provided Saturday activities are for those who need them. After all, before the P.A.P. came into power, as a principal, my school was functioning on a six-day week system. When the newspapers first approached me for my comments on the six-day week school. I hailed it because I did not understand then how the Government intended it to be carried out. I actually hailed it! I did not understand that the Government was planning to make it compulsory, and thrust it on everybody, whether it was good or bad for them. I hailed it because a six-day week can be a blessing to children who would otherwise be spending their Saturday playing in the drains and in the company of undesirables, or cooped up miserably in unhealthy cubicles.

For those children, a few hours spent on Saturday mornings weaving baskets, singing songs and playing games with teachers who have voluntarily given up their Saturday mornings for the benefit of such children, will bring a ray of sunshine into the life of both the children and the teachers. It can create an atmosphere of friendliness and civic consciousness among teachers and pupils. But not when it is done against the protests of the teachers and against parents grumbling and with some children actually torn away from their parents on the only day they have with their parents. May I venture to suggest, Sir, that Government carries on with the six-day week, but reserve Saturdays for extra mural activities which children who will benefit from them will otherwise be deprived of? Let the teachers, who have sufficient civic sense to volunteer, conduct these extra mural activities. This will bring joy and satisfaction to all concerned.

Concerning the centralisation of vernacular language groups, the Minister is quite right when he talked about the lack of premises and shortage of teachers. I must admit that it was a nightmare for me when I was a principal to try and run the vernacular classes as I thought they should be run. It was a nightmare for my teacher teaching the Tamil language, trying to teach children of different ages from different standards at different levels in the Tamil language. And it was a nightmare to the class teacher who, because of the shortage of teachers, had to go into another class while his Chinese pupils were learning Chinese, the Tamil children learning Tamil, and the Malay children, because of the smallness of their number, had nothing to do because they had no Malay teachers in the school. It was a nightmare for everyone concerned. This step that the Minister is taking, I quite appreciate is an evil, but a necessary and unavoidable evil. This state of affairs is not the fault of anybody. It is just that multi-lingual classes in the primary schools are new and are in their infancy. And now, having come to the stage where it is ready to be weaned from the fluid arrangements, the Minister has very aptly brought it to the semi-solid stage, "the centralisation of language groups". I hope we will soon reach the solid stage when concrete arrangements could be made to make all schools Malayan schools. However, had the first Press release stated that children who wish to learn Tamil will go to one school, children who wish to learn Chinese will go to another school, and children who wish to learn Malay will go to yet another school, probably it might not have hit the parents so hard. I can quite understand them. They felt that the P.A.P. Government has said so much against communalism and when, all of a sudden, not knowing the situation in school, they heard that Tamil children were to be segregated, and Chinese children were to be segregated, they were horrified. Later, of course, the Minister tried to explain that it was not Tamil children but children who wanted to learn Tamil that will be put in one school. It is natural, when the first impression has been formed, for explanations to sound like excuses. But I, who have the experience, will confirm that it is a necessary evil.

Concerning textbooks, Sir. In my conversation with the Minister for Education, I was glad to hear that the Textbook Committee is still sitting, and the Minister hopes to publish new textbooks with a Malayan background soon. Sir, this is very laudable. It is a very good scheme. But I would like to say that we could make more use of these new textbooks. I would like to make a suggestion, and I hope the Minister will view it with an open mind and give it his consideration. It is "atmosphere". It is difficult to make myself clear. So I will give an extreme example to show what I mean by the atmosphere of the book. I suppose everyone will be horrified if I say that family planning can be taught even in Primary I. But let me explain. Instead of having Readers saying, "Father has a hen and the hen lays eggs. Father sells the eggs in the market and he gets thirteen cents each for the eggs."; instead of just giving sentences without any purpose, we give them a story like this: "Awang has two children, one boy and one girl. Father earns so much and gives the child so much. The boy helps the parents to rear chickens." The father earns much, and because there are only two children, they go to school, and then gradually show up the prosperity of their family because there are two to feed. Next to it, we have a story of Ahmad who has 12 children, and in spite of the fact that they have enough to form a football team plus a referee, the children are miserable because father cannot earn enough and mother has not enough time to look after them. They are ragged and dirty and their life is miserable. If this line of approach is adopted throughout school life, then by the time the children finish school, they will feel that to have too many children will be as undesirable as going to their neighbours' houses and robbing them of their money. This atmosphere can be built. It does not necessary mean that the textbooks must deal with family planning. I am just taking an extreme example to show that the atmosphere required to build up the citizen in the child could be used as a background to the books, instead of only thinking of a Malayan background. It is left to the ingenuity of the people who are responsible for the textbooks to see that they keep a happy medium.

About civic tours in connection with the schools! Yesterday we had a lot of talk about civic tours. I am fortunate enough to have experienced it. I would like to inform the Minister for Culture that I myself at first did not understand the aims of such tours. When I read in the papers that people were entertained to lunch and tea and given free rides, my first reaction was to go up to the officer-in-charge and say. "What is it I am paying tax for, to make the whole population of Singapore tourists?" I was rather annoyed about it, but when I was told the real reason why these tours were organised, I saw beyond what I was told. I was told that it was to bring the people to the Government departments to see how they are run. I began to see and realise that there are many people in Singapore who suffer hardships just because they do not know the source of help. And if youth leaders and women leaders or community leaders or whoever claim to be leaders could be taken to places like the Fire Brigade, they could learn something, and if their houses or their neighbour's houses catch fire, they would know exactly what should be done to get the assistance of the Fire Brigade. They can go to corrective schools and see how children could be prevented from being delinquents if they were sent to the corrective school early enough. If they could be taken to S.A.T.A. and shown the benefit of S.A.T.A., they would influence their neighbours and the less-informed people of the community to go to S.A.T.A. or Tan Tock Seng or wherever it is that deal with T.B. in time and not to kill themselves by delaying. If the poor people know that there is such a place as the Department of Social Welfare which gives public aid, maybe some of the deserving cases could be attended to, instead of, as the Minister told us yesterday, non-deserving people getting aid. If they know how and when to get help from the Police, and how they can assist the Police, it will be of benefit to Singapore. As children seem to spread news the fastest, it will be very beneficial if civic tours can be reserved as Saturday activity for them also. It will help them very much.

6.15 p.m.

When we mention the word "education", it brings to mind the teaching and learning of reading, writing or counting. But, Sir, the real aim of education is to supply the student with the means which will help him to live the best life that his powers command and in the best way that circumstances permit. It is to teach him to fit himself in society. By society, I do not mean sophisticated social groups. I mean "community". He must be taught to be useful to himself, to the State of Singapore, and to the world in general. Therefore, education should not only be for children but everyone in Singapore should learn to live the best life his powers command and in the best way circumstances permit. Adult education, I feel, should have these aims too. Mere literacy classes are not sufficient. Adult students should be put on the path before they are expected to go along the path and seek further knowledge. Books for them too, I think, should be revised and brought along the lines suggested for the children. For instance, books with stories depicting a parent's duty to children and the citizen's duty to the State. The atmosphere that the Government desires can be put into the books.

Again, Sir, it may be impossible for some people, due to old age, shyness or poverty, to come to the adult classes. These people must also be catered for. This is where voluntary workers can be useful. If they will go to the slums, to the villages and kampongs and bring to these people the knowledge of how to live the best life that their powers command in the best way circumstances permit, I think education will go a long way towards achieving its aims.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Opposition Member just now talked about the problems of education. We must know that there are about 60,000 children who will be entering Primary I in 1960. We know that the past Government did not solve this illiteracy. Therefore, among the youth, there are illiterates, and they go astray in the streets. In order to eradicate illiteracy and to expand our education, we will give school places to these 60,000 children next year. We know that the past Government did not pay attention to this. We lack schools and classrooms. We hope that the number of schools will be increased next year. In order to accept these children into the schools, we will have to hold two sessions - a morning session and an afternoon session.

Because of financial difficulties, we cannot get more money for the expenditure on education. Therefore, we have to ask the teachers to work harder and longer. This is necessary, and we ought to do so. Every teacher ought to take up his responsibility. He must take a farsighted view in the interests of society and in the interests of the next generation, and must therefore work harder. We must have a sense of responsibility. We must not do what the Opposition Member said. When she opened her mouth, she talked about the pay cuts and extra work, but she did not think about these young people; she did not care about their educational opportunities.

We give the teachers not more than 44 hours' work every week. If we analyse it carefully, the period would not be more than 44 hours because every teacher has one free period to rest. The extra mural activities are day-time work. Also the music period, physical training period, and the recreation period. Talking about Saturday sessions, why do we want to have lessons on Saturday? In the past, the Chinese schools have a six-day week. Why cannot we unify all schools to have a six-day week? Therefore, what the Members of the Opposition said was contradictory. Sometimes they said 6 days a week would be all right. Later they would say 6 days a week would not be all right. We do not know whether they are for it or against it. So they are very contradictory.

We do this in the interest of the pupils. If we do not have Saturday school, then these young people will go into the streets and go astray. What the Member for Mountbatten says is right. Therefore, we must have Saturday teaching also. We cannot stop the majority of the poor pupils from going to school on Saturdays for the sake of those who wish to go to the seaside or to church.

Talking about textbooks, there is an Executive Council in the Education Ministry. In the Council there are sub-committees for the English, Malay, Chinese and Tamil sections.

Our purpose is to malayanise the textbooks. We have local experts to take care of this compilation of Malayan textbooks, to make every school use Malayan textbooks.

Talking about literacy classes. Many people have enrolled in them. We are going to expand them greatly next year, so that city residents as well as rural residents will be able to attend them. Unlike the teachers of the former literacy classes who were concerned about their pay and not about their teaching, all the present teachers in our literacy classes will be responsible people and will understand that what they are doing is to wipe out illiteracy. We want to make these literacy classes popular. Therefore, I hope the Members of the Opposition will not argue on pay cuts and extra work any more.

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I had no intention of speaking. But when I heard the speech of the Member for Mountbatten, I feel that I have to say a few words on this issue. As you know, there are two kinds of people who are afraid of changes. One is those who are afraid of a good change. The other is afraid of a change because, after the change, they will not be able to enjoy the benefits which they enjoyed before.

In the matter of education, if a country wants to make progress, the education policy must be reorientated. The Member for Mountbatten said that since the P.A.P. took office, the teachers have been overworked; they are busier than the workers; they work more than 8 hours a day. In this connection, I believe that the teachers in Singapore are hoping to get rid of the old kind of education under the Colonial rule. They also hope that the children in this country will want to have a new kind of education. During the over 100 years of Colonial rule, education became worse and worse. Under the Rendel Constitution Government, the Minister for Education was the boss of a night cafe. That is why education became worse and worse. That is why the school children then looked like Yankees. If we want to bring the people of Singapore on to the right path, we must give up the old way of thinking and accept the modern way of thinking and reorientate our education,

The Member for Mountbatten said that if the pupils attend six days in a week in school, then they will be away from their parents, and they are more likely to indulge in crimes. This view is wrong. As a matter of fact, if we make the teachers work six days a week, it is unlikely that the children will go to the wrong path, for the former will educate and nourish them properly. The previous way of thinking is wrong, but now our education policy is to eradicate the old Colonial policy. That is why our education policy is correct and right.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not heard from the Member for Tanglin for a very long time. We also know that he is not merely a teacher, but a superior type of teacher. Mr Speaker, it looks as if the Opposition are not at one on this. Neither has the Member for Mountbatten nor the Member for Tanglin this evening first taken counsel of the Member for Farrer Park.

6.30 p.m.

This is the first time that I have ever heard that a teacher regards himself or herself as a mere labourer. They have always behaved as if they were superior beings.

Mr Speaker, we know that there are only three laws which have been passed by the Legislative Assembly which affect the conditions of work of employees. They are the Clerks Employment Ordinance, the Shop Assistants Ordinance and the Labour Ordinance. None of these Ordinances affects the working conditions of teachers. As far as I know, the teachers are a very privileged section of the community who work only a total of 236 days in one year of 365 days. I do not think any Legislature would be misguided enough to pass any law to improve their working conditions. We, on the Government side, are the workers who only get 52 Sundays off plus 11 public holidays a year, so that I think we qualify as labourers - not the teachers. They are the very privileged section of our community. It is about time something is done to get them to get a move on and do a little more work.

Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I want to suggest some points here for the House to consider - whether what one of my friends has said is correct. In the past, a friend told me that we could know whether a person was selfish or not by observing his questions. At the beginning, he will ask you, "Where are you working?" Then you answer his question. Then the second question will be about your salary. "How much is your salary?" This kind of person can be considered selfish. Mr Speaker. I raise this question because the Member for Mountbatten mentioned at one time the new Government's broad knife and big axe policy to cut off the variable allowances of the public servants. But today she talked about the Government's policy which will increase the work of the teachers.

Mr Speaker, in our society today we have entered a new stage and the Opposition Members do not know our point of view. Our Government was elected by the majority of the people. Therefore, our point of view is the same as that of most of the people. We want an incorruptible and efficient Government. But the Member for Mountbatten thought that, by incorruptibility, Government servants must have high salaries; by efficiency, she took it to be less work for them. For instance, less working time for teachers. Therefore, her one-hour speech was based on these two points. She emphasised that we must not give extra work to the teachers. We must give them more time so that they can teach the pupils better. But she did not say whether the past Government did concern themselves with the welfare of the pupils. Did the officers of the past Government go to the schools or the students' houses to see whether they were all right or not, or find out about the needs of our society? But our Government consider this to be very necessary.

Talking about textbooks, she said it would be best if we could put stories like this into the textbooks - mother buying vegetables, and father going out to work and bringing money back to mother - and from that stage and in that way, the pupils will be made to understand the family difficulties. We know that under the Colonial rule, we did much educational work. The purpose was to produce the white-collar class, but the experts were few. The Member for Mountbatten suddenly raised a suggestion that the Ministry of Education should teach the pupils how to buy food and how their fathers work to bring money back home, etc. Now, I want to ask her whether it is necessary to teach the pupils to become cooks and know more about cooking and so on. Does she think that this is real Malayan culture? It is no wonder that she is very interested in family affairs. She thought that if a family is good, then the Government will be good. It was not a surprise therefore to hear that the former Minister for Education had taken away $700,000 to enrich his own family, but at the same time had sold our State.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, much of what the Member for Mountbatten has said is about the happiness and unhappiness of teachers, their content and discontent, their satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It all centres on the six-day week. The Minister for Education yesterday announced that one-third of the primary school students have succeeded in passing their entrance examination to the secondary schools. Two-thirds of these students have failed. The reason could be - and I think it is - that insufficient teaching has been given to these students. What can be more logical than to ensure that the teachers who are responsible for the instruction should carry out their responsibility fully and well? I would therefore expect the Member for Mountbatten, and the teachers too, to give support to the six-day week. The six-day week has not been imposed to bring about hardships on teachers or to separate children from their parents. There are seven days in the week, Mr Speaker, and on the seventh day we expect the children to be at home with the parents. It is rather remarkable, therefore, to hear the Member for Mountbatten launching into a vigorous attack on the six-day week. What I would say, Mr Speaker, is that if our teachers had the opportunity to go beyond Singapore into other countries and study for themselves the labours and hardships which teachers in other countries undergo, they will be thankful for the little mercies they have in Singapore. It is essentially a readjustment of teachers and students to a new condition - this six-day week. Never in the history of education in Singapore, and for that matter in the Federation, has there been a six-day week. When I was a schoolboy, I remember going to school five times a week - Saturday being a holiday for me. But then times have moved on and the results of the entrance examination to the secondary schools fully support our policy of introducing this six-day week. What I would plead to teachers and to parents as well is to try to give this six-day week a chance to work. It is for the benefit of our future generations to come. When we remember that 50 per cent of our population are 19 years old and under, it will be a tragedy if we do not give sufficient instruction to them. The future generations of Singapore will then be duffers and morons. Let us face that serious responsibility and let us try to adjust ourselves. Adjusting one's self is a question of conditioning.

May I be permitted, Mr Speaker, to explain what is conditioning? For example, there are some people who cannot sleep when they change their bedrooms. After some time they get used to the new surroundings, they get used to the noise outside, and then they can sleep like a log. That is an example of conditioning. Another classical example is that you can even train a dog to salivate or to make it come up to secrete stomach juice when it hears a bell, or when a light is shone into its eyes. It is just due to training day after day until finally the dog does it. Just as a circus trainer, for example, trains his horses, tigers and elephants to do tricks - the horses and tigers to jump through the hoop, to gallop round the rings; the elephants to do waltzes when the orchestra strikes up. It is just conditioning. And an elephant does not distinguish a six-day week from a seven-day week.

So, may I plead to teachers and parents, let us give this six-day week a chance to work. It was introduced only in September - only last term. The process of conditioning takes time to work. I do not expect that all of us will accept this six-day week within one term or, let us say, even two terms. But I am quite confident that by the end of one academic year, the majority of the teachers and the students will have accepted this six-day week and at the end I am fully convinced that the results of the entrance examinations into the secondary schools will have considerably improved.

6.45 p.m.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Mr Speaker. Sir, I am surprised that the Opposition Members do not realise that in the Chinese schools, not only in Singapore, but also in the Federation, we have been having a six-day week all along. I can assure the Member for Mountbatten that since my childhood when I was in a Chinese school I was having a six-day week - and that was for 12 years. That did not affect my brain.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard Members of the Opposition launch an attack on the educational policy of the new Government in 1960. Education is a question of vital importance in a country. The present Government of Singapore is democratic. We hope that the Opposition Members can bring forward constructive suggestions. But the suggestions they have brought forward just now show that they are not of the opinion that Singapore is getting over from a Colonial government to a self-governing State. Therefore, we maintain that the Opposition Members have not realised that our State is a new self-governing State, so they have attacked our educational policy. At present, Singapore is still in the transitional period. We must put forth an effort to improve and revolutionise our educational system. Since this Government took office, we have paid attention to education. Under the leadership of our Minister for Education, we have found out that we have inherited the old corrupt educational policy. We learn from the Minister for Education that there was a number of teachers who went to see blue films. These are the products of the old colonial society. Therefore, we must improve the educational system. We must pay a certain price and a certain amount of effort must be put forth, especially the teachers who shoulder the task of nation-building. Therefore, next year we will increase the syllabuses and the amount of work for the teachers.

One Member of the Opposition said just now that if we approve this Budget on the Ministry of Education, the teachers will suffer; but we are of the opinion that under the new Government of a self-governing State, it is the duty of the teachers to accept a six-day week. On Chinese education, we have all along had a six-day week and the teachers in the Chinese schools have never complained about a lot of work and long teaching hours. Therefore, I say that the attack from the Opposition Members on our education policy is not altogether correct.

6.50 p.m.