GOVERNMENT RELATIONS WITH UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the evening of the 17th of November this year, the Professor of English at the University of Malaya delivered an inaugural lecture on the subject of "Robert Graves and the Decline of Modernism". A report of this appeared in the Straits Times of Friday, the 18th. This report gave the impression that the lecture was mainly directed at the Government on a matter of policy in which the Government was interested. On the following morning, that is, Saturday, there appeared in the Straits Times a letter purporting to have been written by the Acting Minister for Labour and Law to the Professor concerned, stating in no uncertain terms what the Government thought of this particular Professor and his lecture. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, on Saturday morning the public was able to read this letter of the Government which, in my humble opinion, was couched in language quite unbecoming of a Minister. On reading the report, Mr Speaker, Sir, it seemed to me that three issues arose from that publication.

The first issue is the question of academic freedom and the question of University autonomy, both matters being inextricably mixed one with the other.

The second issue which seems to arise was the wording of that letter and the manner in which it was couched, and whether it was a kind of letter which a Government Minister of the State of Singapore should write to any person, be he an alien or a citizen.

The third issue that seems to arise, Mr Speaker, Sir, was the proposition by the Government that aliens in Singapore - and by "aliens" the Government meant non-Singapore citizens or non-Federal citizens - should be permitted to speak on matters which the Government thought were matters of policy and, therefore, political. Since then, the University of Malaya Students Union have held a dinner, and events have since taken place between the publication of that letter and today which seems to me to have satisfactorily disposed of the question of academic freedom and University autonomy. Apparently a modus operandi has been arrived at between the Government and the University of Malaya; and the statement of the Prime Minister assuring the University that there was no intention of encroaching upon the academic freedom or the autonomy of the University, which I was very gratified to note, disposes of what I thought was the first issue when I read the letter in the Straits Times.

But there are two other issues which remain undisposed of, and it is on those two issues, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I would like to say a few words.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the trouble arose out of matters related to what is culture and what is not culture. We are all fully aware that the Government is embarking on a praiseworthy mission to create a Malayan culture out of all the cultures that we now have here, and to give it a direction and a purpose; and out of that direction and purpose to create something which will be ours, and ours alone. A very praiseworthy mission! When somebody comments on it, even though he has violated the rules of hospitality - shall I put it that way, even if that is accepted, which I do not - should we, as a Government, address that person in terms to say the least of it unbecoming of a Government? Terms like "mendicant professors" and "asinine remarks" were used which, I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, would be unbecoming if they were used in this Assembly. What more when a responsible Minister speaking for the State of Singapore, Mr Speaker, and not for the P.A.P.? What some of our Ministers do not understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my humble view, is that they are no longer P.A.P. members when they write letters as Ministers of the State. As Ministers of the State they belong to the State and not to the Party. If our Ministers would appreciate that, then I think we would have gone a long way along the road to understanding what democratic concepts are.

Was it right and becoming that a Minister should write such a letter on such an occasion couched in such terms? I think it was not. I see that the Professor concerned has sent in a letter couched in terms acceptable to the Government. In this letter the Professor has said that no slight was intended. I have not seen any Government letter yet in the Press apologising for the terms in which their first letter was couched. This letter took the fight far beyond the Professor when it included the phrase "mendicant professors". It takes in, with one fell swoop, all the Professors in the University who are either not Singapore citizens or Federal citizens. Subject to what the Minister for Education has to say - and he is an authority on this subject - I understand at least 60 to 70 per cent of the teaching staff in the University, at least at the higher levels, are not Singapore citizens or Federal citizens. Anyway, the point is that quite a large proportion of the teaching staff of the University are non-Federal citizens or non-Singapore citizens. So, in carrying the fight to this Professor who, in the Government's view, had erred, they took the fight further than the Professor and, if I may say so, gratuitously insulted the rest of the teaching staff in the University.

Sir, we are a young State setting out on quite a perilous journey. We know that the perils which the State is facing are getting greater and greater from day to day. I think the Finance Minister appreciates that, and I think most of our Ministers are beginning to appreciate that. Running a State of 250 square miles, with difficulties surrounding us all around, is not an easy matter. We have always talked about the creation of confidence. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is no way to create confidence in the State of Singapore. A letter of this nature, I dare say, would have been wirelessed all round the academic world. We are still going to the academic world outside for recruitment. The Prime Minister himself has said that for years to come we have to go abroad to recruit teaching staff. Is this then the way to recruit teaching staff abroad by calling them "mendicant professors who make asinine remarks"?

The third point, Sir, deals with aliens. It would appear from the tone of the Government's release on the Prime Minister's statement that if the statement complained of had been made by a Professor who was a Singapore citizen or a Federal citizen, then the Government would have taken no action on it. This statement comes from the Prime Minister, and I accept that statement. Therefore, we reach the position then that any alien in Singapore, be he a Professor or otherwise, who dabbles in politics or makes statements which might relate to Singapore politics, will be slapped down. If that is the policy of the Government - perhaps they may be right - then I think they should see that that policy is implemented fairly and squarely so far as all persons who make such statements in Singapore are concerned. Is this a statement intended to apply only to the University of Malaya; or is it intended to apply to all educational institutions in Singapore; or is it intended to go beyond the University campuses in Singapore and take in everybody who is in Singapore and who happens to be an alien?

I think Members will recollect several occasions on which statements had been made by aliens in Singapore after the advent of the P.A.P. Government which had a direct bearing on the politics and the policies of the Government. In those cases, Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not see a quick reply couched in strong, virile terms in the manner that the Government reacted on this occasion. This question can then be asked of the P.A.P. Government - why is it that on this particular occasion they reacted with such rapidity when on other occasions they had kept quiet?

If the Prime Minister meant what he said, when he said that no alien would be allowed to comment on matters political, then that must equally well apply to anybody who says anything that might have any relation to the political situation in Singapore, be it good or bad. Or is the Government only saying that they shall slap down only those people who criticise the P.A.P. Government and who thereby indulge in politics? Or are the Government also saying that anybody who says anything about Singapore, be it good or bad, will be slapped down? If the Prime Minister says that no alien should interfere in politics, then he cannot restrict that statement by saying that the Government will only slap down those who dare to criticise them or who make slighting remarks about them; but all the others who have good things to say about them are passed unnoticed. And the first thing the Prime Minister will realise is that wherever there is power, there are always sycophants hanging around who will try to say nice things about the Government in order to get on here. But I do not think that is what the Prime Minister means. I agree with the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there are in Singapore a number of aliens who make gratuitous statements about Singapore politics, and this policy of the Government will be supported by us if they slap down every foreigner in Singapore who dares to make a statement about Singapore politics. I think the time has now come when aliens must keep out of politics in Singapore, and if the Government mean what they say, then I think they should slap down everybody who dares to make such statements.

6.24 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that the Member for Farrer Park has chosen to raise this motion about Government relations with the University of Malaya when the case has already been closed would appear as if he has taken on a brief without a client! He has stated that the Enright case appears to have raised three issues, one of which was the academic freedom and autonomy of the University, which he now concedes as having been satisfactorily settled, as Professor Enright himself has admitted that he had no right to comment on nor criticise Government policies, not being a citizen of the State of Singapore. That leaves two other issues. One is the nature and terms of the Government's letter which, in his opinion, was couched in very strong language.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are times when it is necessary to say things in rather strong language. It is just like using a ruler to rap the knuckles of a child who is persistently creating trouble. It should not be forgotten that the Government only took action when Enright made a second statement. The first occasion was the publication in the Malayan Undergrad of an interview which he gave when he arrived in Singapore. The second occasion was when he made his inaugural address. Unfortunately he did not stick to his subject and it was when he crossed the line that he got the rapping. Therefore, it was necessary for Enright to be told in no uncertain terms that there would be no third time.

Coming to the third point, whether aliens have the right to comment on and criticise Government policy, the Member for Farrer Park has, in fact, agreed that it would be advisable that all aliens be told that they should not comment on nor take part in politics, nor to speak on controversial issues which are matters of importance to the citizens of the State. This is important, as the Member for Farrer Park has indicated that in the University of Malaya, which was established in 1949, there is a Senate which is largely an expatriate class. Mind you, this is a relic of the days when the University of Malaya was a colonial University. In the past, whenever we talked about expatriates, we meant to imply expatriates of European origin. In the University, however, an expatriate is one who is a non-Malayan, so we have expatriates of every hue and colour, from white to yellow to dark. In 1949, the Senate of the University of Malaya, which is composed largely of professors in the various departments of the University, numbered around 25 of which there were only four local members. Today, there is a possible membership of 38, but I think the average attendance is around 35, and only a third are local members. Therefore, we have a Senate in which two-thirds are expatriates. It is important that in a situation like this, when Singapore is doing its best to create a common culture and identity among its people, with all the difficulties of language and so forth, that the Senate which is largely controlled by expatriates should be fully conversant with the trends and tendencies of the country. If we do not call a halt to expatriate members of the University staff commenting on the policies of this country, then we shall have an impossible position in which expatriate members of the Senate will attempt to seek shelter in the University on the pretext that it is an autonomous institution, as if it were, shall we say, a foreign concession where they have extra-territorial rights, and from where they can snipe at the Government, and in which they can seek protection. So I think (fortunately the case has been satisfactorily settled) it was a timely move on the part of Government to silence once and for all expatriate members of the Senate of the University of Malaya. As explained by the Prime Minister in his speech to the students at their annual dinner, before the present Constitution came into force, every British national was a citizen of Singapore by virtue of the fact that he was a British national, but it is now necessary for one to prove one's loyalty to Singapore by becoming a Singapore citizen before he has the right to criticise and to comment on political issues in Singapore.

So I do feel it is necessary at this stage to say clearly to all those who are here on teaching assignments that they have freedom, in the pursuit of knowledge, to express their views on the subject for which they are employed, but not to cross the line, but that if they do so, then they will get what they deserve.

I therefore feel, Sir, that the Member for Farrer Park is only trying to stir up again the dust when it has already settled.

6.33 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a feeling that the Member for Farrer Park has to speak on this motion, which has probably gone out of date since it was first submitted to you, although the matter has been more or less amicably settled, and I quite understand the predicament of the Member for Farrer Park in having to flog a dead horse. But since he has indulged in flogging a dead horse, I feel I should comment on some of the points he has raised.

His first objection, as far as I can see, is to the strong language used by the Government in its communication to Professor Enright. I am not quite sure, Sir, whether those words would have been permitted in this Assembly, but if anyone were to read the wartime speeches of Sir Winston Churchill, he would find that that hon, gentleman used robust language when he felt it was necessary to do so. In this particular case, in view of the Professor's remarks which were directed at certain policies that the Government is pursuing, which is to try and create a Malayan culture, we felt that, because the subject concerned was so vital to us and because we felt so strongly about it, it was necessary to make known our feelings on this matter in no uncertain terms; and I am quite sure the letter conveyed our feelings in no uncertain terms.

Since that issue was raised, there has been a lot of talk about the sanctity of the University and the freedom of the University. But I remember, Sir, there was an occasion when the freedom of the University was involved, when a number of students said certain things which were not agreeable to the then colonial power. A number of students were brought to trial, but I cannot recollect at that time the Professors coming to their defence, because the students espoused a cause which has since then triumphed. But now an expatriate Professor made what we thought, on the basis of his lectures, were sneers at the Government's policy - not only the Government's policy but a policy accepted by everybody, including the Opposition - of trying to create a Malayan culture at all costs. There were two such occasions. On the first occasion, Professor Enright gave an interview to an undergraduate journal, and he must have known that a report of it would be published in the newspapers. It was in fact a challenge to an accepted Government policy which is vital to our political peace and stability, that is, the creation of a Malayan culture. The Professor then said that he did not think the Government should waste its time in trying to go out of its way to create a Malayan culture and a Malayan consciousness and Malayan unity among the people. It was couched in terms of a challenge. A few days later, the Professor gave a lecture on a very admirable subject - "Robert Graves and the Decline of Modernism". In fact, Sir, if I may say so, I was personally invited to attend this lecture. At first, I intended to attend it, but perhaps some second instinct made me decide that I should not do so. It was just as well, because not only would the Professor have had the satisfaction of attacking or criticising the Government publicly, but perhaps he would also have had the satisfaction of seeing a Minister of the Government sitting quietly listening. Because at an inaugural lecture, I am told, you cannot talk back to the lecturer - to the little snipes and sneers that he might have made. When a Professor who has been here for only seven months should suddenly say that not only is the Government wasting its time but that it is probably wrong in trying to go out of its way to weld the people into a nation, then it is necessary for the Government to make it quite clear that anyone who is not here to take the consequences of his gratuitous advice on an important matter should not give this gratuitous advice. Surely, Sir, if Professor Enright makes a suggestion, his suggestion is more an advocacy; because he is a Professor, he can naturally influence all the young students who sit at his feet if he tells them that this is all a waste of time, that the banning of jukeboxes really shocks him, and that the Government's attitude towards yellow culture is equally shocking to him. If a Professor of his standing should claim academic freedom to make what we felt to be asinine remarks such as yellow culture is something which is found everywhere and we should not do anything about it, and implying we should re-open the juke-box establishments which were recruiting grounds for fresh gangsters; if that was all the advice a Professor of his eminence - which he is, in his own right - could give, that the Government should stay out of this business of trying to weld the people into one nation through the process of creating a Malayan culture, that it should not try to interfere with jukebox operators, and that it should let yellow culture flourish, then we felt that obviously the Professor was speaking on a matter about which he was not fully informed. He was therefore called up - in fact, I was one of the Ministers present there - and told that, as a Professor in English, he had a perfect right to discourse on matters on which he was an expert, but that if he persisted in sneering and belittling the Government's policy on culture, then he was really trying to undo a work, which we know is an extremely difficult and a very delicate one. It appeared to us that he was trying to upset the Government's policy of creating a Malayan culture, and that it would therefore be necessary for us to lake action if he persisted in this. If the Professor had then and there accepted the position as stated by the Government, that as an alien he should not enter into political issues - not politics as such - but political issues of great moment to the country, then I am quite sure that the matter would not have become the controversy that it did become.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we say that aliens should not enter into political issues, it does not mean that a Professor of Political Science should not discuss politics. But when it is discussed in such a way as to embarrass the Government or the people who are trying to achieve something, and where the speaker is not a Singapore citizen who will take the consequences of his advice, then we say that he has no right to enter into political issues of great importance to this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, we therefore feel that the Government has said nothing which needs retracting, and it has certainly done nothing for which it feels it should apologise to the Professor concerned. In fact, the Member for Farrer Park was quite wrong when he said that Professor Enright needed a reply. No reply is needed from the Government. We published Professor Enright's assurance to the Government, and on the same day we issued Government's letter stating that it was gratified to note that the Professor concerned had given this assurance. If he had given it much earlier, he would have spared himself, a number of University students, and the Member for Farrer Park the trouble of moving a motion asking the Government to apologise for something which it feels it has no occasion to do.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps I ought to explain to hon. Members that there is no motion as such before the House. The motion is for the adjournment, and there is only a discussion on the adjournment.

6.45 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not thought of speaking on this particular motion for the adjournment. But in view of the replies of the Minister for Education and the Minister for Culture, I would like to submit here, Sir, that their replies are no replies at all to the issues which the Member for Farrer Park has brought up. The Member for Farrer Park did say that there were three issues involved. The first issue was the autonomy of the University. That issue has been happily resolved as a result of the exchange of letters between Professor Enright and the Minister for Labour and Law, and the speech given by the Prime Minister at the dinner of the Students' Union.

The second issue was about the first letter sent by the Acting Minister for Labour and Law which the Member for Farrer Park said was couched in language most unbecoming of a Minister of the State of Singapore. Use as strong language as the Minister wants, use as robust language as he pleases, but for the dignity of the people of Singapore, never should he stoop to using unbecoming language. For the wrongs of Professor Enright, in the eyes of the Government, why should all Professors in the University of Malaya be classified as "mendicant professors"? What else do the words "mendicant professors" - those were the words used - mean if they were not meant to apply to expatriate Professors who come here to teach our children to become better citizens of Singapore, when they are being lumped into that term "mendicant professors"? They may earn their living elsewhere. They may be able to earn much more outside Singapore. They come here and try to do their part. For a Minister to use such unbecoming language, it is felt by the Member for Farrer Park, and I share that feeling with him, is not becoming of a Minister of a young State.

The third issue brought up by the Member for Farrer Park was that if restriction about criticism of Government policies is to be placed on aliens, then the Government should see to it that the restriction is placed on all aliens. If the Minister for Culture were to ask his staff to go through the newspaper reports, he would be informed that there had been criticisms of the Government's policy on culture by some other visitors. What surprised the Member for Farrer Park was that it should be aimed at one, and that the others should be left free to say what they wanted.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I really do not wish to comment on what has occurred between the Government and Professor Enright. But I would like very much to reply to what the Member for Cairnhill has said about the Government using unbecoming language. Apparently he objects very much to the terms "mendicant" and "asinine". May I say, Mr Speaker, that the value of terms is relative? For example, if you call Tun Lim Yew Hock Professor Tun Lim Yew Hock in this country, it is an honour. He is treated with respect. But I am told that in the United States, when you call a man "professor", you mean he is a quack. I myself had the unhappy experience, in my ignorance, of calling a real professor who came from the United States "Professor", and I was very much rebuffed.

I wish to point out, Mr Speaker, that a Professor of English in particular, and a poet too, would surely consider all this as either poetic licence or political licence, and I do not seriously believe that a man of literary merit would very much object to the term "mendicant", just as much as we have gathered quite lately that there is a four-letter word the use of which a jury in England have even admitted to be quite proper. On the other hand I would say that in other countries such a four-letter word would be very improper. This again bears out my point that the value of a phrase or a word is relative to values which exist in different countries.

I would like to end on this note. We certainly do not wish to see aliens, non-Malayans, interfere in our political life. And as the Member for Farrer Park has said, while we are in the process of seeking a national identity, while we are trying to form a cohesive whole from out of a crucible that is molten, we should not allow outside forces to tamper with our efforts. And I would like to end with this note of warning. Aliens also should not permit themselves to be used as political tools or the political pawns of others who have an interest in local politics.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Six minutes to Seven o'clock to Thursday, 8th December,1960.