UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.46 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The University of Malaya was established on 8th October, 1949, as a national institution to serve the higher educational needs of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The origins of the University could be traced back to the founding in Singapore of the King Edward VII College of Medicine in 1905 and Raffles College in 1929. Both these Colleges gradually expanded to serve the educational needs of the increasing population of Malaya until World War II intervened in 1942.

In 1947 a Commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders to inquire into and make recommendations concerning university education in Malaya. As a result of the recommendations of this Commission, the University of Malaya was founded in 1949. Although the Commission recommended that the two Colleges should form the nucleus of the new University, it also anticipated the rapid demand for higher education in a swiftly expanding population of the two territories, and so it recommended that the new University should consider moving into South Johore in order that future expansion would not be hindered for lack of space. However, this did not materialise because of the enormous cost involved, and the scheme had to be abandoned in 1954.

In 1957 a Commission of Inquiry headed by Dr R. S. Aitken was set up by the Governments of Singapore and the Federation, this time at the request of the University, in order to review the constitution, working, and finances of the University in the light of experience and rapid expansion of the last seven years, and of the prospective expansion in the near future, including the plan for developing the University in Kuala Lumpur, and to make recommendations. Arising from the Commission's Report and resulting from the recommendations of the two joint Committees on Constitution and Finance appointed by the two Governments, legislation was passed in November 1958 providing for the continuance of the University of Malaya as a single university but with the establishment of two largely autonomous Divisions of equal status, one in Singapore and the other at Kuala Lumpur. This legislation came into effect on 15th January, 1959.

The University's running expenses continued to be met from grants from the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, hitherto made on a quinquennial basis in the ratio 40 : 60, on the basis of student numbers from the two territories. But in 1959 they were amended to a triennial basis for the period 1959-61 and the ratio changed to a basis of 1: 2. It was also expected that by 1962 each Government would be responsible for looking after its own Division and at the same time contributing towards the annual recurrent cost of the other Division in respect of its students attending courses not available in its own Division. Capital grants, however, would continue to be made on an equal basis during the triennium.

In May 1960 the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya indicated their intention to establish autonomous separate national universities in Singapore and the Federation by 1962. Steps were accordingly taken in both territories to redraft new constitutions for each Division to found two separate national universities. At the request of the Divisional Council of the University of Malaya (Singapore Division), a joint Government/University committee of seven were appointed in June this year for this purpose. And the present draft Bill was submitted to both the Divisional Senate and Divisional Council for their views. I might add that the Singapore Joint Government/University Committee were in the happy position of being able to use the draft Bill of the Federation's Joint Government/University Committee in its deliberations. On the whole, our Bill closely follows the present pattern of the Constitution of the University of Malaya so that a feeling of continuity with the old is being maintained. The present Bill has also incorporated all material points suggested by both the Divisional Senates and Council of the University of Malaya (Singapore Division). Our Bill is also closely in line with the main provision of the University of Malaya Act which was passed in the Federation Parliament this year.

I should now like to enumerate the important differences between the provisions of the present Bill with those of the present Constitution of the University of Malaya Ordinance, No. 12 of 1949, and as further amended by Ordinance No. 7 of 1954 and Ordinance No. 44 of 1958. Firstly, there was no provision in the past for the University to grant external degrees. Our draft Bill permits this under clause 4 (b) (ii) at page 9, Part II of the Constitution. The marginal note reads, "Powers of the University":-

'The University shall, subject to the proviions of this Constitution, have power -

(b) to confer degrees upon persons who have -

(ii) satisfied such requirements as may be prescribed by Act;'.

I am sure Members of this House will welcome this provision.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Hear, hear!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Singapore being a City State and highly urbanised, it is but fit and proper that adults who of some reason or other could not join the University after a brilliant academic record in school, and for some reason or other, perhaps on economic grounds, are unable to pursue higher education and have to get down to the business of employment, should be given the opportunity to catch up if they wish to burn the midnight oil and pursue their intellectual pursuits.

Secondly, membership of the Court. I am referring to page 25 of the University of Malaya calendar year 1960-61. Although under clause 15 (g) of the present Constitution four persons are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to the Court, under clause 13 (g) of the draft Bill at page 13:-

'The Court shall consist of -

(g) two persons appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong;'.

So although our draft Bill has reduced this number from four to two, provision has been made for the appointment of three additional members, namely, one person appointed by the Sultan of Brunei, one person appointed by the Governor of North Borneo, and one person appointed by the Governor of Sarawak. There are similar reciprocal provisions in the Federation of Malaya Act, 1961, for the Court of the new University of Malaya. In view of the current merger talks and the proposed new Federation of Malaysia, I am sure Members of this House will welcome the provisions of membership of the Court whereby the close association with our brothers in the Borneo territories are being embodied in the Constitution of our University. Provision has also been made for the following additional members to he admitted to the Court of our future University of Singapore. If we turn to page 14, clause 13, paragraph (n):

'the head or director or such other representative as may from time to time he appointed by the governing body of each of the following:-

(i) the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa;

(iii) the University of Malaya established by the University of Malaya Act, 1961;

(v) the Dewan Bahasa dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan;

(vi) the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Federation of Malaya;'.

Thirdly, membership of the Council. Although the representation of the Council has not been altered, remaining at 20, with the Government having three representatives being officials holding the posts of Permanent Secretary in the Ministries of Treasury, Education and Health, our draft Bill has amended this clause to read as follows - if we refer to page 15, clause 16:

'The Council shall consist of -

(f) three persons to be appointed by the Government of Singapore;'.

Such a provision will allow for more flexibility in the appointment of officials and also for continuity.

I come now to the transitional provisions of the Bill. It will be noted that under clause 49, at page 23, the first Chancellor of the proposed University of Singapore will be an appointment by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the advice of the present Divisional Council of the University of Malaya in Singapore.

Clause 50 provides for the present holder of the principalship of the University of Malaya in Singapore to become the first Vice-Chancellor of the new University.

Mr David Marshall: How long?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Clause 54, if you turn to page 24 of the Bill, provides for the continuation of the present Divisional Council of the University of Malaya in Singapore to be the first Council of the University for a period of one year or such shorter period as may in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor be deemed necessary.

Clause 55 provides for the present Guild of Graduates of the University of Malaya to be divided into two Guilds; that is, the Guild of Graduates of the University of Singapore and the Guild of Graduates of the new University of Malaya, at the option of the graduates. Such option could be exercised within a period of twelve months, and if such option is not exercised during the period mentioned, then the last known address of the graduate will .be taken as a basis for going on to the register. I may add that there is a similar clause in the not disposed of of the present University of Malay.

Lastly, clause 62, at page 25, provides for the setting up of a Joint Winding-up Committee of eight persons to take over the powers now vested in the Central Council and any other central authority of the University of Malaya. It will have up to two years to wind up affairs still not disposed of of the present University of Malaya.

The Bill will not involve the expenditure of additional money. Annual estimates for recurrent annual expenditure and for special expenditure will be submitted by the University in the usual manner annually.

The Government is confident that with the establishment of the University of Singapore, more facilities will be provided both in the field of expansion of courses of studies and the number in the intake of students annually.

Singapore is a growing State both in status and in its population. With the rapid expansion in secondary education in all the four language streams, it is to he expected that yet greater demands will he made for the provision of higher studies, With the provision thus made, it is hoped that less and less of our students need go overseas to pursue their higher studies for a first degree. Perhaps I should conclude by adding that it is the intention of my opposite number in the Government of the Federation of Malaya and myself to see that both national universities, the University of Singapore and the new University of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, will come into being on the same day, that is, the 1st of January, 1962, if the Bill meets with the approval of this House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure we all welcome this Bill. Although for sentimental reasons we may regret that there cannot be one national university to serve the whole of Malaya, yet we know that for practical purposes, this means that instead of one university, we shall have two, and altogether three Universities in Malaya, including Nanyang University.

Sir, 15 years ago, when the Carr-Saunders Commission was here, there were still doubts whether there should be a university. They were thinking even in terms of a university college. Yet within 15 years, we have three universities. I am sure that within one more decade people in northern Malaya may be thinking of another university to be sited in Penang or in Ipoh. Then with this idea of a united Malaysia coming to fruition, we can expect Singapore will continue to be very important as an educational centre for South-East Asia. I hope that we shall be drawing students not only from Singapore but also from the neighbouring regions. Sir, I notice that in page 2, paragraph 2 of the Bill, there is a statement to assure that each university will be autonomous. Sir, I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not present in the House today. I have asked a few members of the staff of the University to take part in politics, and they have expressed the view that they were not very sure whether the present Government would show the same degree of tolerance as the previous Government did. I hope that the present Government will be able to give us the assurance that there will be the same degree of courtesy given, and that the Barisan Sosialis will also give the same assurance in case they ever come to power: that is, if any member of the University staff should want to take part in politics in an opposition group, then they would have the same courtesy as they had before. I am sure that in the case of the Member for Anson, he would give that assurance.

An hon. Member: For expulsion!

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I am not ashamed to say that I was one of those poor fellows who were unable to go to a university and had to study as a external student. We had to do it the hard way. I believe the Member for Anson also did it the hard way. I am glad the chance is now being given to those in Singapore to continue their studies after passing their Cambridge School Certificate or Senior Middle III, so that in spite of adverse circumstances they will still be able to attain the object of their ambition and serve their country in a better way.

I am sure that we all wish success and still greater success to the University of Singapore in spite of its new name. We believe that the standard will be maintained and that our products will be as good as those that graduated previously. We extend our good wishes, Sir, to the University.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not regret to see the establishment of an autonomous University in Singapore. It is true that the Division of the University of Malaya has been spurred by political motivations. But I do say, Sir, that the requirements of the two territories, and certainly, the requirements of this territory, can only be fulfilled by a university here in Singapore. We have room aplenty for two universities, one in the English language stream and one in the Chinese language stream. I do not view the establishment of an autonomous university as being in any way derogatory to the unity of this area. Mr Speaker, there are political divisions which separate us. The University of Malaya, which was a single unit, did assist, I believe, very considerably in bringing about a common approach anti understanding between students from Singapore and the Federation. I believe this will continue despite the division of the University, by the need of each territory to send students to the other territory to study in those faculties which are absent in the local University.

There is another aspect, Sir, which engages me and compels me to rise to sneak this afternoon. The Minister for Education has told us, and told us correctly, that a university is a national institution. Sir, it is a national institution not merely for the dissemination of knowledge but also for the advancement of knowledge, as I think you will see stated in clause 4 (a) of the Schedule. That is the distinction between a university and a technical college. In a technical college, you acquire knowledge. In a university you do not merely acquire knowledge, but you also expand the frontiers of knowledge. That is by far the more important function of a university, that it should keep alive the human spirit of inquiry, research and independent thinking. Before our youth can be trained in independent thinking, there must be academic freedom for those in whose care they are - the academic staff. My complaint about this Bill is that it does not provide for the protection of academic freedom. Mr Speaker, the leader of the S.P.A., with considerable courtesy, soft-pedaled what is a legitimate fear, and that is the fear of political intimidation whereby academic freedom can be arid is inhibited.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Anson referring to the Member for Tanglin?

Mr David Marshall: Yes.

Mr Speaker: If he is, I do not think the Member for Tanglin claims to be the leader of the S.P.A.

Mr David Marshall: Sorry, Sir, surely he is the leader of the S.P.A.

An hon. Member: He is the leader only in this House.

Mr David Marshall: My apologies. Thank you for the correction. Of course, it is the Member for Cairnhill. Sir, I was saying that this fear is a very real fear. It is a fear which has arisen from certain incidents which have occurred during the short lifetime - not too short; the shorter the better - of this Government. I would like to draw your attention, Sir, to this matter of principle, of the urgent need for the protection of academic freedom and the insertion in this Bill of such protection. I would like to draw the attention of this House to certain correspondence which took place between me and the Principal of the University, who will, under the provisions of this Bill, he the Vice-Chancellor on the 1st of January.

Sir, on the 14th of October, 1961. I wrote to the Principal, University of Malaya in Singapore:

'The discussions between the Singapore and the Federation Governments on the issue of Merger have raised, in so far as information is available and will no doubt in future raise matters of constitutional law -'

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not suppose the Member for Anson is going to read the whole letter, because he is not permitted to do that. All he need do is to read extracts and paraphrase the correspondence.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought in fairness to the officer concerned and the principle of academic freedom that is involved. There are four letters. They are all fairly short, Sir,In that case, I shall try to paraphrase and, in fairness then, may I ask that the entire correspondence be tabled, so that it may be available to be checked?

Mr Speaker: Certainly, that is the correct course. In his speech, the Member for Anson could paraphrase what is contained in that correspondence and then later on table it for the information of any Member who wishes to see it.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. I drew the attention of the Principal of the University of Malaya in Singapore to the need for clarification of the public in respect of certain matters which arose on these constitutional issues. I pointed out that, in my view, there was a responsibility on the part of the academic staff of the University to assist the people of Singapore and their elected representatives, and asked whether he would have any objection to my approaching a certain professor of international law with a view of obtaining his views on constitutional issues raised by the joint statements issued by the Prime Ministers. I said "I...write to you to ask whether you agree a member of the academic staff of the University can properly advise political parties...".

Sir, I did not ask for permission to do so, because, to my mind, a member of the academic staff requires no permission to indulge in such extra curricula activities as he thinks proper so long as they do not encroach upon the time required for the discharge of his responsibilities to the University.

Sir, I received a reply which slated, in effect, that the University is prepared to permit individual full-time staff of the Law Faculty to give the advice requested if the request is made by the Speaker and is addressed to the Principal. Sir, I thought, in fairness, I should have read the lot, but I now will table it. I can only say this. I take a very grave view of what I consider to be the lack of understanding displayed in that letter of basic, academic traditions. And there are two traditions affected. One is the freedom of the individual academician in his unfettered discretion to advise or not to advise such person or organisation as he thinks fit on such matters as are within his special competence, without any interference of any character whatsoever, on the part of his colleagues or the Vice-Chancellor. The other tradition is the responsibility of the University and its teaching staff to recognise that we do not subsidise Tomtits in ivory towers. That is not what we pay millions of dollars for. It is an organisation for the advancement of learning to assist the nation and if and when matters vital to the nation arise and there is an honest request for information within their specific field of competence, then they have a responsibility to advise - a responsibility which, again in their discretion, they may refuse, for good reasons, to comply with.

Sir, I wrote to the Principal seeking to avoid the possibility of a misunderstanding. At length, I finally received a reply on the 22nd of this month to say that while a member of the University may, subject to limitations imposed by his contract and the ethical code of his profession, freely give advice to anyone, the danger lies in the use to which such advice is put to. He would, of course, he giving advice in his individual capacity, but the quotation of his opinion by a political Party is bound to give rise to the impression that the University is involved in or sympathetic to any particular stand.

Again, Sir, though much more courteous in tone and to some extent recognising basic academic rights, this letter does substantially say that they are afraid of being involved in political controversies. Therefore, it would he his view (the Vice-Chancellor, the present Principal) that members of the academic stall should not give advice and that they would be discouraged from doing so. It is indeed a pathetic commentary that the University of Singapore, on the eve of its birth, should fail so signally to recognise its responsibility to the people of Singapore, and display a lack of moral courage as indicated in the correspondence to which I have referred and which I would be happy not only to table here but to have it quoted widely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fear of the University as displayed by its Principal's letters arises from the conduct of this Government with reference to two persons. One has already been the subject of debate in this House and that is the horror known as the Enright Letter. The other concerns the professor who, in the legitimate exercise of his discretion and within his special field of competence, had the temerity to advise the Member for Hong Lim who sought his advice. I do not know exactly what transpired thereafter, Like an honourable gentleman and a man of dignity, he never saw fit to complain, so far as I know, to anybody. But it is widely recognised in the University that, because of his legitimate activity in advising a Member of this House on certain constitutional matters which affected him, that professor came in for grave criticism from the Prime Minister.

You heard the Member for Tanglin express to you what is recognised now throughout the University, that political activities will only be tolerated if they arc pro-P.A.P. If you invite the Prime Minister, Sir, permission will be granted for the holding of a meeting. If you invite Mr Lim Ching Siong, that will not be granted. I would urge that the Government itself should give an undertaking that every contract of every member of the academic staff will include some such clause as the following:

"Every teacher shall be free in his unfettered discretion to advise any person or organisation on matters within his special field of competence, provided that such activity does not encroach on the discharge of his responsibility to the University."

If we cannot have freedom for the academic staff, we cannot have a University. It will merely be a university in name, a technical college in fact.

This House cannot be unconscious of the very genuine fears of the academic stall of the University and those whom it seeks to recruit, that here in Singapore one must mind one's P's and Q's, and if you annoy the Government, your visa is cancelled and you are in for the high jump. Such conditions of intimidation cannot bring out the best or cannot bring out anything that is really valuable in the way of the development of the human spirit for our youth.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The two instances mentioned by the Member for Anson as being evidence that academic freedom is being curbed by the Government related to expatriate professors, and I think the Government has clearly stated its stand on the participation of expatriates in local political affairs. Does the Member for Anson not take this stand of the Government to account?

Mr David Marshall: Sir, I thank the Minister for Finance for himself admitting what I am asking this House to accept. He now says, in effect, that any member of the academic staff who, within his field of competence, advises on matters which may have a political connotation is acting improperly and will be dealt with by the Government, just as I am saying, and I disagree totally - but totally. I consider that stand to be barbaric (if you permit the expression, Sir, in respect of the stand) and truly at variance with the basic concept of academic freedom. II Professor Sheridan or Professor Groves, or any lawyer who is an expatriate, advises on questions of law any person in this territory in matters which may have political implications, I say, Sir, he is absolutely entitled to. They have to lecture on the legal aspects of politics. How can you seek to prevent them? And why should you seek to prevent them from advising on the legal aspects of politics? I say this, not only in the legal field but in every other field, Sir,In the field of culture, about which the P.A.P. are justifiably touchy, because they know so little of it, and like all ignorant people they are so terrified of what they are ignorant of. But I protest vehemently in this House against the suggestion that a member of the academic staff, because he is an expatriate, cannot advise or lecture on matters within his special field of competence if such matters have a political connotation in the context of local politics. What does matter, Sir, - and in this I would like to compliment the Minister, I am delighted at the provision for external degrees. It is true, as the Member for Tanglin has pointed out, that my academic degree is an external one. Some of my friends in the University say that that is an example of the danger of external degrees! That certainly is one way one can take it, Sir. But I think one should recognise that in this area, where poverty is widespread, bursaries are only recent - and even the Government will admit that they are not adequate - where many who are adults cannot afford to pursue academic studies, and the provision of external degrees would encourage them, to the greater benefit of Singapore - and not only Singapore, Sir. We know that London University, through its external degrees, has influenced considerable areas of the world far beyond the shores of England. I say that if this provision for external degrees is imaginatively pursued in Singapore, we can make a very valuable contribution to the culture of South-East Asia - a contribution which would redound to our own benefit. I will naturally support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I had hoped to have the assurance I asked for about academic freedom. [Interruption] In view of the interjection of the Minister for Finance and the snorting noise I hear right opposite, I take it that such an assurance will not be forthcoming. I can but regret, Sir, that I have not had the foresight to move an amendment so that it could be adequately debated and voted on.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to participate in this debate until the Member for Anson worked himself into a frenzy as usual.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: It is improper and unfair to talk about "frenzy". May I ask that it be withdrawn?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Chair has to decide whether any expression used in this house is considered offensive. The expression used by the Minister for Finance is considered offensive by the Member for Anson and therefore it must be withdrawn.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I so withdraw it, Mr Speaker. Sir, But I cannot help noticing - because of the short distance that separates the Member for Anson and myself - the way in which he works himself into a state of excitement. I think that would be parliamentary, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Now, no one, least of all Members of the Government, would want to curb academic freedom in any way whatsoever. That is not the issue. The issue is this, and I pose it quite fairly and squarely to the Member for Anson. Should any expatriate, be he in the University or outside the University, be permitted to interfere in local political party affairs? That is the issue.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, if you please.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, you will remember the question he posed to which I answered. The question was that a member of the academic staff of the University, though an expatriate, may within the field of his competence advise on matters even though they have political connotations. I repeat "within the field of his competence".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No one will object to that, if his activities are confined to matters within his field of competence even though they have political connotations [Interruption]. But that is quite different. When an expatriate enters the arena in which there are local political contenders, then he is taking a great risk.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): On a point of clarification, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember during the early days of the P.A.P. there was an expatriate senior lecturer at the University who was a good friend of the local people. He stood on the P.A.P. platform and we welcomed him. We thought he was serving a good cause at that time for the local people.

Now on the question of Professor Sheridan -

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is rising on a point of clarification. What he is now saying can well be said in his own speech. What is the point of clarification? I have not got that and I do not think the Minister has got it either.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, since the Member for Hong Lim has raised this point, I think, in fairness. I should reply. He was, of course, referring to Professor Elliot. He is a Singapore citizen and he cannot be considered an expatriate because he refused to accept expatriation pay from the University.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No. Sir. I thought it was on a point of academic freedom.

I merely want to distinguish between the practice of one's legitimate profession and one's speciality even though, in the words of the Member for Anson, these are matters having political connotations. That sort of activity and entry into the political arena are two separate and distinct activities. I think even the Member for Anson cannot gloss over this great difference.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do place a great value on academic freedom.

An hon. Member: Oh!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I have just made the point that there is a distinction between academic freedom in the exercise of one's skill and one's special line, even though there is a political connotation, and the active entry into the political arena.

If after all I have said the Member for Anson is still unable to grasp this distinction, I am just wasting my time and might as well end up here.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, with the utmost respect to the Member for Anson, I cannot agree that the present Principal of the University of Malaya (Singapore Division) is a man who lacks moral courage. I have known him for well over ten years. His political thinking in some ways is not the same as mine. We have different ideas on different matters, but in certain areas of thinking we agree. But I have never, at any moment during our ten years or so of association, thought that he was a man lacking in moral courage. I personally felt that he was outstanding insofar as moral courage was concerned. If I remember rightly, when the Member for Anson was the first Chief Minister, and was speaking and governing Singapore through Press headlines every day, when he was mooting the Malayanisation Commission, he picked on Dr Sreenivasan as the most eminent and able man to carry out a most difficult task confronting Singapore at that stage. [Interruption] But he certainly did not lack moral courage then. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajah: In my opinion, his moral courage has not gone down one bit, However, Sir, that is not my business. But I did think, in fairness to someone absent, I had to say something about it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is just one matter on which I wish to speak in respect of this Bill. During the Budget debate, I rose to speak on this, but you ruled me out of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there was a Bill before the House. I personally regret that it has become necessary to separate the two Universities. I entirely agree with the previous speakers that there is more than a pressing need for two or three universities. But I was of the view that all this could be done within the ambit of the University of Malaya. However, Sir, since the position has been reached where the two Universities have been split, I think we have to make the best of it. If this business of the so-called merger had come about two years earlier, perhaps the Universities need not have been split. However, Sir, the split has come. I think our main function today should be to try to keep the two Universities as closely together as possible, to see that they work together in such a way that each of them uses the faculties of the other without duplicating them too much, I know it is necessary to duplicate certain faculties in the interest of both countries, but there are certain faculties which need not be duplicated. One faculty in respect of some subjects will be enough for both the territories for some considerable time.

Sir, although the Court is an important institution in the University set-up and it has its place, the more important unit of the University is the University Council, both here and in the Federation. Sir, I would like to see a closer unity between the University Council in Singapore and the University Council in the Federation of Malaya so that the policies of the two Universities would be kept as close to each other as possible.

Clause 16 on page 15 of the Bill sets cut the composition of the Council. Under clause 16 (1) (d), the Chancellor is given power to appoint not more than four persons. I was wondering whether the Minister would not think it a good idea, and if he did think it a good idea to press this upon the University authori ties, to make it possible for the Vice-Chancellor of each of the Universities to sit in on the Council of the other. The Vice-Chancellor knows what is going On in his own University, and if the Vice-Chancellor of the Federation of Malaya University could sit in on our Council, then his advice and his knowledge as to what is going on in Kuala Lumpur could be readily and easily available to the Council here. Similarly, if our Vice-Chancellor were to sit in on the Kuala Lumpur Council, his knowledge would be available to the Council there, and once the knowledge is made available, then the Councils could keep in line with each other. That is the main point on which I wish to address the House.

On the question of academic freedom, I myself have once or twice spoken in this House, and I do urge upon the Government that autonomy means nothing unless academic freedom is possible. But the Government says something else. These are all matters which are very difficult at the moment from the Government point of view, but if academic freedom does impinge upon the political field, I venture to suggest that the Government should not take too serious a view of it if it is satisfied with the bona fides of the person who is embarking on such ventures.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not wish to take part in this debate, but from what I have heard from the Minister for Education it seems that he wants to make use of this Bill to establish a university in Singapore, saying that it is an achievement of the P.A.P. I am not convinced of this point and so I want to stand up and say something about it.

In the first place, we must know that we want to pass this Bill solely because Singapore is in a passive position. It is because the Federation has a national university of its own and Singapore cannot make use of its facilities, and the name also cannot be used by Singapore. If it is used, it does not mean that it is a national institution. Therefore, this University of Singapore Bill has been drafted passively due to pressure exerted on Singapore. It is not anything new done by the P.A.P. Government. This point must be clarified. We must not take this as a sort of achievement of the P.A.P. It does not mean that this is a good result of the P.A.P.'s policy on education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, several Members have spoken on this matter. I wish to point out that the University of Malaya was established during colonial days and its aim was to serve colonial rule. Today cur country has not achieved independence and the people of Singapore have not achieved complete independence and have not joined the Federation as equals. However, if, say, our University is only a semi-colonial university, and you want to talk of academic freedom for such a university, it is really a dream, because I feel that only a true university can have true academic freedom in an independent country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the split of the University into two Divisions as provided in this Bill, it seems that the Guild of Graduates is also to be split. I hope that in future graduates of both Universities will not be separated and have the feeling that "I am from the University of Malaya and you are from the University of Singapore." If that is the case, then it will not be good for us, because having intellectuals with such a concept is detrimental to the unity of our country. I especially hope that in future all the graduates of both Universities will be treated alike as far as employment is concerned. There should not be priority or privileges given to one University over the other.

I again hope that the P.A.P. Government will take close note that in Singapore and the Federation the desire of the people to pursue higher education is very, very intense, and so it is not sufficient to depend on a university run by the Government. In this respect, I hope the Governments, apart from running their own University, must be liberal and also concerned themselves with the University run by the people themselves.

3.50 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker. I am placed an invidious position in that I should he speaking on this Bill, being a member of tile academic staff of the University of Malaya and, at the same time, a member of the Government. I came into the Chamber just in time to hear certain remarks being made. Therefore, in all honesty and conscience, I must rise to reply to all those remarks.

First of all, let me answer what has been uttered by the Member for Upper Serangoon. I am quite prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions or any useful arguments that have been put forward in this Chamber. But so hollow is the drivel that has been uttered by the Member for Upper -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House must know that the word "drivel" used of speeches of a Member of this House is unparliamentary. Will he withdraw that word?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I withdraw the word "drivel" and use "nonsense".

The Member for Upper Serangoon has said that the University of Malaya is a colonial university. We all know that Raffles College, upon which the University of Malaya was founded, was instituted by the colonial rulers who came to Singapore and the Federation. But that does not necessarily imply that those of us who went to Raffles College and the University of Malaya are, therefore, colonialists, as he would have imputed. Here you have in this Chamber my colleague, the Minister for Finance, who was in Raffles College; the Minister for Home Affairs in the University of Malaya; the Prime Minister, in Raffles College with me; the Minister for Law in Raffles College: the Minister for Education in Raffles College -

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Point of clarification.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He has spoken, so let me continue. The Member for Queenstown was from the College of Medicine; the Member for Nee Soo from the College of Medicine; the Member for Farrer Park was in Raffles College. Are we colonialists because we went to a colonial institution?

Mr Speaker: Order. I was just wondering whether there was that imputation.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): He never said that.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Upper Serangoon perhaps could be given an opportunity to elucidate. This is misrepresentation.

Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to clarify this. What I said was that when this University was established, it was founded by a colonial government because it served the colonial government. I did not say the present University of Malaya is a colonial University because -

Mr Speaker: Order. The point is: has the Member for Upper Serangoon imputed that those who went to this University are colonialists?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Has he imputed that? The answer is "yes" or "no"?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): No, I did not say that. That was distorted by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: He just said that this institution was built by the colonialists to serve the purpose of colonialism; ergo those who went to that institution were dupes of the colonialists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What logic!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Is that not correct? Yes or no?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister must know that in the mainland of China, all those who oppose America are from American universities.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: We are interested in the Federation and Singapore. I am not interested in what happens in China. If he is interested in China, then let him go elsewhere and debate what is happening in China. We are interested in the University of Malaya.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Point of clarification.

Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I protest against the rough manner of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is a very unacademic speech.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think what Members of this Assembly are interested in is whether the allegation made by the Deputy Prime Minister, that the Member for Upper Serangoon is alleging that all those who went to this University are colonialists, is a correct representation or an incorrect representation of what he said. That is all that Members are interested in.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: No.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I am obliged to The Member for Upper Serangoon for his clear answer; and, of course, the Member for Anson is not with us.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): A different kettle of fish!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, it appears from what has been expressed that we are now going to have two Universities, one in Kuala Lumpur and one in Singapore, and that this might lead to a disunity of opinion or a disruption of national feeling in Malaya. It is quite unfounded. The mitosis for the University of Malaya to divide into two parts has already taken place. We have a very simple example. Australia, with a population of round about 10 million, has today about six universities for a population of 10 million. There is no reason, therefore, why we in Malaya, with a population approaching nearly 8 million, should not have two Universities.

Mr David Marshall: Three.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sorry, three Universities. And there is no necessity to fear that there would be any duplication or triplication. I put to you a very simple example. Once upon a time you had only one medical school in Canada. Then came the discovery that the only medical school in Canada was not producing enough doctors to supply the needs of the country. So they thought they could solve the problem - by putting up a second medical school, which they did. They put up a second medical school. However with two medical schools in Canada, they still found that they could not solve the shortage of doctors. And I say the same problem faces us today. And it will be very selfish of us to think that everything can be centralised or concentrated in one institution - that we should produce all our engineers from one institution, all our doctors from one institution, and all our scientists from one institution. I say that is not a healthy or a logical approach to the problem of higher education. You have innumerable universities in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. And in no way has the unity or thought of nationalistic feeling in European countries or the U.K. or the United States been disrupted by the fact that you have so many universities. On the contrary, a healthy spirit of competition can arise The idea that any particular institution .should have a monopoly of higher knowledge or that any institution should have a monopoly of training professional or science students should be totally thrown overboard.

I was out of the Chamber just now, Mr Speaker, when I gathered the Member for Tanglin made certain remarks about me. I must admit that when I became the Chairman of the People's Action Party and, at the same time, held a post in the University, steps could have been taken to make life uncomfortable for me. In fact, steps were taken to make life uncomfortable for me. I do not wish to make this Assembly a bureau where I can lay down my complaints. I have forgotten all that.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No, I do not wish. Let me continue, Mr Speaker, I will say this. The last Government was generous enough to permit me to continue teaching at the University. I must admit that, I will give them that tribute. But I will say in this House that I have never at any time made the University a battle-ground for party politics. I had ample opportunity to influence my academic colleagues and to influence the students who came under me. But I never did it. I deliberately kept party politics out of the University. I kept politics out of my relationship with the students and out of my relationship with my staff colleagues, because I sincerely believe that the University should remain a neutral ground. It should never degenerate into a battle-ground for party politics. I would regret very much indeed if in the future we should find that the University has degenerated into a playing field for politicians.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Members of this House will be fully aware that we have an excellent example in the University of Rangoon. I have met professors from that University. I have met politicians who came from the University. The sad fact is that students in that University are running the government. Sir, I say this under cover of privilege of this Assembly. I do not wish it to be taken as a mark of disrespect towards another country. Perhaps it is a custom which they are used to. But I say that we should never allow any university in this country to become the back-seat driver of any politician. I will say that we should never allow any university in this country also to become the playing field for any politician.

Mr Rajah: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: Any other speaker? Mr Yong, in reply.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, if only the Member for Farrer Park had spoken earlier, before the Member for Anson had to say his piece about the exchange of letters between him and the Principal of the University of Malaya, Singapore Division: on the one hand, he said there was a lack of moral courage on the part of the Principal of the University and in the next moment he said he acknowledged that he had moral courage. One moment this, the next moment that. Sometimes we do not know what he talks about.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Mr David Marshall: I have been grossly misrepresented by the Minister. Is it fair? Is it in order?

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Minister will give way now, the Member for Anson can say how he has been misrepresented.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged, Sir, I think it was in 1956, Sir, that I appointed this gentleman as Chairman of the Malayanisation Commission. I had great pleasure to express in this House the gratitude of the Government for his excellent job, which was extremely well done. There is no question at all about it. That has nothing to do with the fact, except that the same person is involved in the exchange of letters which we had which is going to be tabled, and which the Minister can read. The fact that the man showed moral courage of a very high order, intellectual integrity of a very high order, and intellectual ability of a very high order on one occasion does not necessarily mean he does not fail in lack of understanding of academic traditions at a later stage.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am glad he has given himself away, Sir,I think the Member for Anson, the more he has to say, the more he gets involved, and the more he speaks against himself. He is trying to suggest that there should be academic freedom in the University. But the very fact that he is talking about it is just the opposite. He expects the Government to tell the University what to do. Where will there be academic freedom.

An hon. Member: It is not true.

Mr Byrne: He said so.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: So, it is clear then, Sir, that all this so-called fear of lack of academic freedom in the University depends on how the man uses his words. The Government has distinctly said, and it is so in this Bill, that the University is to be an autonomous University and that it would respect the autonomy of the institution. That is why the Government too has taken the precaution to see that the constitution of this Council is, as far as possible, left intact. There would only be three Government representatives on the Council which has a membership of 20. I am glad that the Principal of the Singapore Division of the University of Malaya showed his independence by telling the Member for Anson what he thought about the whole matter, by stating that members of the University staff may do what they like in accordance with the contract which the particular serving member of the staff has with the University, who are the employers of the staff.

Mr David Marshall: But -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: There are no buts -

Mr David Marshall: There is -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Unless the Member for Anson wishes to have big "buts".

Mr David Marshall: Me?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: But we as the Government are very clear about the part which expatriates should play. Non-citizens are advised not to enter local politics. If it is necessary to give an example - say, for example, a Singapore citizen wishes to go to Montreal to join the University there. If he tried to poke fun at politics in Canada, he would be given a walking certificate and asked to get out of the country. If he wants to take part in local politics, he should become a citizen of that country, go in wholeheartedly, and not be a bird of passage, expect to damage the country and then pack up his bag and go away.

Mr David Marshall: No.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: That is right. That is what we do not want of an expatriate.

Mr David Marshall: It is not true.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Anson has suggested that the University of Malaya would be happy to arrange parties if the Prime Minister went to the University to address the students, but that if members of other political Parties attempted to go in, they would not be permitted to do so. This is not in accordance with the facts. Sir. The Member for Anson -

Mr David Marshall: I said Mr Lim Ching Siong -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Anson was invited to a forum before the Anson by-election where he had a lot to say.

Mr David Marshall: A lot of P.A.P.s!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: So why all this reference which cannot be supported by facts?

I think I need not answer the query raised by the Member for Tanglin about autonomy and academic freedom. I think it is the first time that a University Bill has the word "autonomous" written into it. So it is an improvement over the previous Ordinance under which the present University of Malaya is carrying on. The Govermnent respects the autonomy of the University. But, of course, we would expect the University to be responsible enough to realise that it is not outside the law of the State and that it has a responsibility towards the -

An hon. Member: P.A.P.!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: - the security of the State. That. I think, is an important factor.

I would now like to answer the Member for Farrer Park. His suggestion is that, as far as possible, there should not he any duplication of faculties. This is something, I am sure, both Universities would bear in mind, because it would mean competing for staff and so forth which will not be healthy. But in certain respects, it may not be possible, because for any proper university to function it will have to offer its Art and Science basic courses to students of its own territory. There is the School of Agriculture in the University of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur, and it is not likely that Singapore would establish its own separate Faculty of Agriculture. Singapore would send to Kuala Lumpur those students who would like to take up agriculture. The same would apply to Engineering, which faculty was transferred from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. For some time to come, it would appear that we in Singapore would have to look after students from the Federation who want to take up medicine. But everyone is aware that the Federation authorities are interested in establishing a new Faculty of Medicine. How soon they can do it is a matter which they will have to face.

As regards the suggestion put forward by the Member for Farrer Park that perhaps the Vice-Chancellor of each University could sit in as a member of the Council in the other University. I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that there is provision in the Councils of both Universities for one person to be appointed, say, in our case, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. There is similar provision in the new University of Malaya Act for one person to be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. But in the past it used to be filled by the officials, generally the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Education. I think the Member for Farrer Park has a good point there. I will discuss this matter with my counterpart in the Federation Government that perhaps for this particular provision we might invite the Vice-Chancellor of each University to fill the post. I think that is a matter for private negotiation.

Lastly, I should like to deal with the remarks passed by the Member for Upper Serangoon. I find that he wants to belittle the fact that the University of Singapore is something established under the P.A.P. Government and that the P.A.P. Government is taking credit for establishing this University. Well, that is a matter of opinion, Sir, I do not think we are crowing over it. In my speech just now on the Second Reading of the Bill, all I did was to trace the background history: how the University was founded, how it broke up into two Divisions, and what would happen if we were to create two separate national Universities. Today the Bill is up for Second Reading and, therefore, it is my duty to present facts and not opinions as to how this University of Singapore is to come into being. The hon. Member lamented the fact that the Guild of Graduates of the University of Malaya has been split into two bodies. Well, I do not see how otherwise it could have happened, because when there was one University, there was one Guild of Graduates; and when one University becomes two Universities, then the two Universities would have to share the number of graduates amongst themselves to form two separate bodies, because out of those two separate Guilds they would have to elect four graduates (in our case, and I think it is high) to the new University of Malaya Council. I must say this, Sir. That this is yet another step in the evolutionary process which produces the new university, just like an ordinary cell which breaks up and forms two separate cells, fairly close. I think, in their upbringing, having the same chromosomes as far as possible and showing the same, shall we say, potentialities. We hope both Universities will have a great future when they come into being in the near future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.18 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule -

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill." I do not know whether any hon. Member wishes to speak on any Part of the Schedule. Shall I take it Part by Part? I think, that possibly, is the best way. Any comments on Part I, i.e., clauses 1 and 2? No comments? I might mention that we will not be able to go back to these Parts once we have passed them.

Part II, i.e., clauses 3 to 6 inclusive. Any comments? None. Part III, clauses 7 to 11. No comments. Part IV, clauses 12 to 24 inclusive. No comments. Part V, clauses 25 to 31 inclusive. No comments. Part VI, clauses 32 to 41 inclusive. No comments. Part VII, clauses 42 to 48 inclusive.

Mr David Marshall rose -

The Chairman: Which clause?

Mr David Marshall: Clause 43.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that clause 43, sub-clause (3) states the conditions which a teacher's contract should contain, and a teacher is defined in the definition part as including professors, lecturers, etc. Sir, the misrepresentation that was indulged in by the Minister for Education in regard to my efforts on this Bill can now be clarified. I am urging that provisions similar to those indicated there about the terms and conditions of service should include the additional term that every teacher shall be free in his unfettered discretion to advise any person or organisation on matters within his special field of competence, whether he is an expatriate or not. It is not a question of telling the University what to do. It is a question of making it quite clear and giving constitutional protection to the academic staff that they need fear no P.A.P. reprisals if they exercise their academic right in an extra curricula field within the limit of their competence, whether there is a political connotation or not. It is a sad reflection on Singapore, Sir, that though we have here academic staff who can advise us, we have to employ and pay not merely expatriates, but expatriates in other areas, in order to give us advice on matters which our own University professors could do and do well. I ask that my request should not be treated in a spirit of antagonism and distortion. It should be recognised as being a legitimate request for the protection of the staff.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I see no reason at all to accept the suggestion put forward by the Member for Anson to make any change to sub-clause (3) of clause 43, Part VII, General Provisions.

First of all, the Joint Government - University Committee of seven included the Chairman, who is a member of the Council, i.e., Dr Gwee Ah Leng, three from the Government represented by the Permanent Secretaries of Education. Treasury and the legal draftsman from the State Advocate-General's Office, three from the University of Malaya. SingaporeDivision, represented by the Chairman of the Council, i.e., Dr Tay Teck Eng, the Principal of the University's Singapore Division, i.e., Dr Sreenivasan, and the representative of the Senate. Professor of Law. i.e., Professor Sheridan.

Also earlier on I indicated in my speech that the draft Bill had been submitted to the Divisional Senate, the people who are involved in this, and there had been no protest. All the major suggestions, if any, I have already incorporated in this draft Bill and the people who matter have not protested over this so-called lack of academic freedom, which is just in the mind of the Member for Anson.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that they said nothing - does that mean that my request is not legitimate? Sir, because a Bill is presented to us by the State Advocate-General, who is a man of considerable legal acumen, therefore it must be correct in every form and this Assembly should not look at it nor should it amend it, and every amendment is unreasonable. Is that the logic of the Minister?

I have given to this House two clear examples of intimidation in the academic field. I am prepared that the matter should be referred to a commission of inquiry. I know how frightened they are of commissions. The question is this: is this a reasonable request? Is the provision I seek for the protection of academic freedom reasonable? Is there anything unreasonable in the suggestion that every teacher shall be free in his unfettered discretion to advise any person or organisation on matters within his special field of competence, whether such teacher be an expatriate or not? Is there anything unreasonable in that?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, what is unreasonable is the context in which this request is made. We have nothing against expatriates in their exercise of academic freedom, but I have gone to great lengths to explain that this is a case where expatriate members join the political arena. They should not do so, both in their own interests and in the interests of the University. We do not want to see members of the academic staff embroiled in political fights either with the Government or any political Party. It will not do the staff any good, and it will not do the University any good. This is a simple proposition, Sir, which I put to the Member for Anson. Yet he has deliberately chosen to evade the issue.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is fortunate that we are in Committee and I can answer. The gentleman who has just risen, who I understand is a -

The Chairman: The Minister for Finance.

Mr David Marshall: Forgive me, Sir. Minister for Finance, statistician promoted. He asks what is the context. I take the context of Prof. Sheridan, Dean of the Faculty of Law, who within his special field of competence advised a Member of this Assembly on his constitutional rights. He did not enter the political arena. He did a perfectly proper act. He is an expatriate, Sir. Nevertheless it has not been denied what I have indirectly learnt, that he came in for - to my mind - gross criticism from the Government to the extent which, I understand, has decided him to leave the University. A man who has been of considerable value to the University.

Sir, the Minister for Finance says it is a matter of coming into the political arena. Where was that question "coming into the political arena"?

The second issue was a professor who is a Professor of Literature. He was speaking within his special field of competence. The letter that lie received will be one of the hallmarks of disgrace, a thing of which no civilised government could be anything but ashamed. They ask, where is the political intimidation? For their own good they should not interfere. They are adult professors, Sir, perhaps a lot more mature than the Minister for Finance, and as adults they should be left free to choose what is good for them and what is in accordance with their responsibility and their duty to the University. I am not limiting this issue to the political sphere. I say it is important that expatriates as well as local staff should feel free to advise or refrain from advising in their discretion without outside influence, without any intimidation from the Government. We have heard from the Member for Hong Lim that this Government, when it could get an expatriate who was on the academic staff of the University to stand on its platform, utilised him.

Some hon. Members: He was not an expatriate.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr David Marshall: That was not answered.

The Chairman: Order. Well, the Member for Anson heard the answer. The answer was that that particular professor is a Singapore citizen.

Mr David Marshall: Ah, thank you, Sir. He became a Singapore citizen, did he? Very interesting! I am sorry to indulge in personalities.

4.30 p.m.

But let us go back to the essential principle. Surely the principle itself is one which every decent person can accept, that the academic staff should feel secure in acting in a manner totally in conformity with academic traditions in giving or refraining from giving advice, and particularly that they should be conscious of a sense of responsibility in advising on matters of national interest when these are within their field of competence.

The Minister for Finance said that I had not answered him. I trust he is now wiser.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question I posed to the Member for Anson is simple. Does he accept the principle that a non-citizen, an expatriate, should not interfere in local political affairs?

The Chairman: I think we are just straying from the point. I think the point is whether or not the term of service suggested by the Member for Anson should be written into the constitution. That is the point, is it not?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson knows quite well that it is essential that the University should be autonomous and that there must be some meaning to the word "autonomy". You cannot have an autonomous body which does not have any control over what its own employees do. If the University wants to maintain itself as an autonomous body and does not want to get embroiled in political disputes in Singapore, it has the right to maintain that autonomy and it also has the right to control the activities of its employees. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must leave it to the University to set those limits. Who are we to write in these provisions saying that University employees are free to do as they please within their intellectual competence? If we as legislators try to do that, Sir, I say that we will be derogating from the autonomy of the University. Surely the Member for Anson understands that.

Mr David Marshall: The argument of the Minister is delightful. So if we tell them that they have freedom we are limiting their freedom. That is the argument of the Minister. It is particularly interesting to me to learn from the lips of the Minister that, in fact, he expects the University to discipline its members and control their extra curricula activities. Any University that seeks to do that ceases to have academic freedom. Let us recognise, Sir, when he says, "Who are we to intervene in this autonomy?", that I was speaking of our Prime Minister, his own leader and his own Government who interfered - and interfered, to my mind, in the most improper fashion - in respect of the conduct of two Professors of the University. Who are the "we"? They are the P.A.P., Sir, and it is them from whom I seek to protect the academic staff of the University.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that in drawing up this Bill we have tried to maintain practically the same constitution under which the University of Malaya was carrying on, and this is so. The present clause 42(3) is practically a word-for-word transcription of section 57(3) of the present constitution of the University of Malaya.

In answer to the Member for Anson who keeps on saying that it is a reasonable amendment that he is suggesting, I say that it is an unnecessary amendment which we can ignore, because insofar as the persons are concerned. Professor Enright and Professor Sheridan - assuming that the Member for Anson is correct

• that happened long ago. Professor Sheridan was one of the members to draw up this draft Bill. He went into the Senate only two to three months ago and no one in the Senate raised this point. They are quite happy with the present constitution, and so is the Government. The same provisions are in this Bill which we are now asking this House to pass and not, as suggested, with an amendment by the Member for Anson.

The Chairman: I think we must press on unless the Member for Anson is very short.

Mr David Marshall: Yes, it is very short. It is merely this. It is true that it is similar to previous provisions. Previous provisions have been proved by subsequent experience to be inadequate. I am now seeking to fill a lacuna that has been proved to exist, which is dangerous.

The Chairman: Part VIII. Any comments on Part VIII which contains clauses 49 to 62? No further comments.

Question put, and agreed to.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill,

The Preamble ordered to be the Preamble to the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.