EDUCATION POLICY

Order read for resumption of adjourned debate on Question (17th January, 1962).

"That this Assembly calls upon the Government to recommend the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields other than vocational and technical education, and to make recommendations." -[Mr David Marshall].

Question again proposed.

2.33 p.m.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before the adjournment last evening I was replying to the Member for Tanglin when he mentioned the subject of character building in schools. I heartily agree with him that education is just not book learning and the passing of examinations. There are other aspects of education which have to be met by teachers, and in this respect, extra curricula activities are of importance which the Ministry would like to encourage. That being so, the Ministry has been thinking for some time of including extra curricula activities into the school curriculum, because with our extremely large school population and the maximum use to which school buildings are being put - most schools are now on a two-session basis, and certain schools are on a three-session basis to accommodate the adults at night - it would be very difficult for schools to have extra curricula activities outside their school hours; in other words, for pupils in the morning session to return in the afternoon for their normal extra curricula activities, and vice versa. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to implement this for this year since Government has decided to appoint this Commission of Inquiry to review the whole of the educational system, including the six-day week.

The Member for Tanglin did stress that our schools should not be too examination-conscious. Whilst I agree with him in this respect, I must also state the firm view of the Government that it does not favour the automatic promotion system which unfortunately existed in the English stream for quite a number of years and has had serious effects not only on pupils but also on teachers. With the stoppage of automatic promotion for the English stream in 1959, there has been a distinct improvement in the quality of work not only from the pupils but also from the teachers. This is reflected in the improvement in the percentage of passes for the Primary School Leaving Examination for the last two years.

I now wish to deal with the remarks made by my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, who is not in the House at the present moment. But he has said his piece, I presume, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis which he represents today. I must say I am very grateful to the Member for Anson for moving this motion instead of withdrawing it, although he said last month he would, to give me this opportunity first to listen to my former Parliamentary Secretary who says certain things about the education policy, and for me to reply.

He has stated that he fully supports the Commission of Inquiry that is to be formed to inquire into the educational policy of the Government. But he does not agree that a Commission of Inquiry should investigate into political activities in schools. I would like to remind the Member for Serangoon Gardens that there are two Commissions of Inquiry. The first one would be to investigate into the examination boycott which would also include an investigation into the political activities and machinations in primary and secondary schools. This Commission will be headed by a High Court Judge, because we feel that it is most essential that politics should be got rid of in our school system. In fact, my former Parliamentary Secretary must have had a mental black-out (after he changed sides from the Government bench and walked across to be part of the Barisan Sosialis) to hear that under the Education Ordinance, 1957, there are published the School Regulations, 1957. At page 18 of the Regulations, Part XVIII, is a section which deals with political propaganda in schools. The marginal heading reads as follows: "No political teaching or activity detrimental to the State of Singapore." Regulation 110 reads as follows - I shall only read paragraph 110; there are two sections. The first section:

`No instruction, education, entertainment, recreation, propaganda or activity of any kind which shall be in any way of a political or partly political nature or detrimental to the interests of the State of Singapore or of the pupils or contrary to the approved syllabus shall be permitted amongst the teachers or pupils either upon the school premises or elsewhere upon the occasion of any school activity or combined schools activity.'

Subsection (2) reads:

`The use or display by teachers or pupils either upon the school premises or elsewhere upon the occasion of any school activity or combined schools activity or salutes, songs, dances, slogans, uniforms, flags or symbols which have a customarily political association shall be unlawful.'

The Member for Serangoon Gardens stated that a Commission of Inquiry should look into the educational policy of the Government which he termed "has many defects in its policy". This is typical of the Barisan Sosialis type of allegation and accusation. They do not mean that. Why did the Member for Serangoon Gardens not state exactly what are the defects, and what do the Barisan Sosialis say should be done? In fact, Sir, it is the Member for Serangoon Gardens, formerly my Parliamentary Secretary, who dissociated himself from all the decisions taken by him for the last two years until his removal as Parliamentary Secretary on 21st July, 1961. Was he not supposed to be my adviser on Chinese education, and that I sought his views first before I made any decision? So much so that I had to disappoint my loyal colleagues, the Member for Bras Basah and the Member for Tiong Bahru, when they had problems on Chinese education. I had to tell them first to discuss with the Parliamentary Secretary who is now the Member for Serangoon Gardens. They said they were so frustrated that it was no use talking to him; nothing was done. That was why they had to come to me. I should therefore like the Member for Serangoon Gardens to name the number of occasions when I rejected his recommendations when they were submitted to me, and for what reasons. I notice the Member for Upper Serangoon is all smiles, Sir, because he also acted as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education for at least one or two months when the Member for Serangoon Gardens went to New Zealand on a U.N.E.S.C.O. Seminar. When files continued to drift into the room of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Upper Serangoon came to my room and said, "Stop sending all these files to me. Stop consulting me. You should just decide and carry on. I cannot stand the number of files that are coming to me. You are the Minister. Get on with the job." Such are the types of ex-colleagues we have. They wished to be consulted, and when we did consult them, they threw up their hands because there was too much work to do.

So I do ask the Member for Serangoon Gardens, if he must criticise the educational policy of the Government, should he not try to confine his criticisms to the educational policy, if any, that appears to be wrong to him after he has been expelled from the P.A.P. Government? That is, from July 1961 until now. Or would he? The Member for Serangoon Gardens wants me to produce files upon files in the Ministry of Education to show his signature and his initial indicating his decisions on matters of Chinese education, but he does not want to honour his own initial and his signature. One evening he stated that in the matter of the 4:2 system for Chinese secondary schools, if only Government had postponed the holding of the Secondary IV examination last year for one year, there would have been no trouble. Sir, I would like to ask who decided that the 1961 Secondary IV examination in Chinese schools should take place? I will not bore the House except to make references to certain files - Education File No. 1134/60, folio 36, - in which the minutes of the meeting of the Government Senior Middle III Examination Board, 1960, dated 18th November, 1960, were submitted to me on 23rd November. 1960. My minute to the Parliamentary Secretary, now the Member for Serangoon Gardens, was a short one: "O.K.?" I got a reply after one week. It takes a very long time for the Member for Serangoon Gardens to come to .any decision. In fact, Sir, after his removal, sad to say, documents, letters, appeals, which I passed down to him to attend and to "please deal with" were found stacked in the drawers, chockful, until my new Parliamentary Secretary turned up -

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): Ha, ha!

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): What is there to laugh about?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: There were silver-fish and cockroaches inside the drawers and he wants this Commission of Inquiry!

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Inquiry first.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Certainly. It took one week, Sir, on 30th November, for the Member for Serangoon Gardens to say, "O.K." to the minute. So the scope of the first Chinese Secondary school leaving examination (Secondary IV) was decided. A month later, 9th of December, he addressed a minute to me suggesting certain changes to the proposed examination of the Chinese Secondary school medium. On the same day, I minuted, "Agree with the Parliamentary Secretary", and the decision went down. Therefore, Sir, if in 1960 it was decided to proceed with the first Government Secondary IV examination to be held in 1961, it was on the advice of my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens.

Sir, it would be very interesting to know that with this controversy between the 3:3 and 4:2 systems, at one stage the Chinese educational bodies were upset that schools could not issue their school certificates after an examination. Here again, Sir, who decided that the schools could not issue their school certificates in accordance with the usual practice? I refer to Education file 1299/61, folio (3) in which the Member for Serangoon Gardens, as my Parliamentary Secretary then, on the 5th July. 1961, gave approval to the issue of this circular which reads as follows. It was dated 11th July, 1961. The circular is numbered Education 1299/61/39:

`Issue of certificates to pupils of Secondary IV classes.

It was the practice of Chinese Middle Schools to issue their own Senior Middle III Certificates to pupils who completed their Senior Middle III. The Ministry has decided that this practice should not be extended to pupils who sit for the forthcoming School Certificate Chinese examination. Principals are, therefore, requested not to issue their own school certificates to such pupils.

2. This ruling does not apply to the school leaving certificate issued by the school when a pupil leaves a school at any standard.'

Mind you, Sir, this decision was taken in spite of a warning by an official dated 4th July that it was expected that a section of the public would clamour for the retention of the traditional practice for schools to issue their own school certificates. That was my adviser on Chinese education! He took a decision and now he would like to make it appear that he was not consulted, nor does he know anything about it.

I come now to the points which he considered the Commission of Inquiry should look into. They were five in number. The first one was this. Did Government assist aided schools to expand, since there were so few Chinese aided schools but so many English Government schools? The answer is very simple, Sir. Assuming that we have done nothing, it can be asked, in whose hands did I leave the question of looking into the question of the granting of capital aid to schools, which are mainly Chinese? Whose recommendation was I waiting for, if it was not my former Parliamentary Secretary, the present Member for Serangoon Gardens, who sits on files like a hen squatting on eggs to hatch?

Next, he referred to the retirement of teachers in aided schools whom he said Government has no plan to assist. He said that when they retire they would be jobless and unemployed. Sir, there is this distinction about teachers being employed in aided schools and teachers employed in Government service. Whereas a teacher wishing to be employed in an aided school could approach an individual school to see the Principal and get the approval of the Committee of Management prior to his appointment, particulars of which, of course, would have to be forwarded to the Ministry of Education for approval, in the case of employment in a Government school, there would be an open advertisement, and should there be a hundred vacancies, it is likely that at least 500 or 1,000 would apply for such vacancies. There would be strict selection by a Selection Board deputed by the Public Service Commission, and the best people would be selected for service. But the prize for being selected to Government service would mean that a teacher in Government service is liable for transfer anywhere within the State, whereas a teacher in an aided school remains more or less in that school for a long time. There are advantages and disadvantages, whether one happens to serve in an aided school or a Government school. It is not very easy to equate the terms and conditions of service. Whereas the Government servant would, after a long period of service, be entitled either to a part gratuity and pension; in the case of an aided school teacher, there would be his share of the Provident Fund; so either a teacher gets a Provident Fund or he is entitled to a pension. It is up to him to make up his mind what he would like to have in his old age. He cannot possibly have both. If, therefore, teachers would like to look forward to a pension, they should then apply for a post in the Government service. There is, of course, this further advantage of serving in aided schools, as we have examples here, Sir. They are able to take part in politics and elections, get returned and become hon. Assemblymen; whereas a civil servant would not be entitled to take part in active politics. However, the Government is fully aware that Chinese aided schools did not get full aid till 1957. The Central Provident Fund, I think, came into existence only in 1957, that is, about two years before the new Government took office. Therefore, knowing full well that many Chinese teachers in aided schools would not have a proper nest egg for retirement, the Ministry took a very lenient view when the subject of the retirement of teachers came up for consideration. The normal retiring age is 55 and the Government has actually agreed that not only civil servants, but also teachers in aided schools could continue to serve up till 60, provided, of course, the teachers concerned are medically fit and also serve their purpose in schools; that they have a satisfactory record of teaching, and could be of service to the country; and even then, Sir, we were prepared to look into individual cases of Chinese teachers in aided schools who were over 60, if they felt that they could still carry on and were given permission to have their service extended year after year. I handed over to the Member for Serangoon Gardens, as my Parliamentary Secretary, the responsibility to look into individual cases, make recommendations and to allow for extensions. But I hear that there is an impression outside that many aged teachers who wished to continue in service were rather roughly treated by my ex-Parliamentary Secretary. I am afraid I cannot be responsible for his bad manners, but that was the impression I got after he stopped being my Parliamentary Secretary in July last year.

He then touched upon the subject of the bleak future for students in our schools and mentioned the fact that many Senior Middle III and Secondary IV graduates of Chinese secondary schools are unemployed. Sir, this is not typical of Chinese schools. The unfortunate thing about the Member for Serangoon Gardens is that he is only able to look from one angle. He is unable, despite the two years he was under my tutelage, to see education as a whole. We have four language streams. In his position, he should have been trained to look at education in more than one stream. Therefore, I would say that the problem of unemployment in the ranks of those who graduate from our secondary schools, be they Chinese or English, and in the near future from the Malay and Tamil streams, is a fact which this Government was fully aware of before it came into office. That is why we have tried to produce our development plan; it was originally meant to be five years, but because by the time it was published one year was already over, it became a Four-Year Plan - 1961 to 1964. We were fully aware of the unhealthy unemployment position which would be aggravated by the thousands that would be leaving our schools seeking employment. There is a need for industrialisation and a need for the conversion of the educational system which we have inherited from the past, in order to bring about greater emphasis and stress on vocational and technical education and not academic education as we have known for a long, long time. Therefore, before embarking on a large programme of very expensive vocational and technical education, we decided to set up a Commission of Inquiry into Vocational and Technical Education. This Commission's Report was tabled in this Assembly two months ago.

The Member for Serangoon Gardens then went on to make a false statement that many Secondary IV students are not able to join Upper Secondary classes. Now, entry to the Upper Secondary classes in the Chinese medium which started this year is through passing the Secondary School IV Examination. Of 2,348 pupils who passed the Secondary School IV Examination last year, 2,080 or 88 per cent - close to 90 per cent - have been admitted to Upper Secondary classes as at 13th of January this year.

The Member next alleged that the Ministry has not recruited any temporary teachers pending the publishing of the results of the Senior Middle III Examination and the Secondary 1V Examination next month. This again is not true. We are employing and will employ those who have taken either the Senior Cambridge Examination, 1961, for the English stream and those who have taken the Government Senior Middle III Examination and the Government Secondary 1V Examination in the Chinese medium last month as temporary teachers for our schools. Of course, there has been a first recruitment of teachers as temporary teachers. There will be a second recruitment based on the fact that the first recruitment was on the basis that teacher trainees were regarded as one unit for purposes of staffing in the schools, and it has been decided that teacher trainees may have more free periods and could be regarded as .92 unit for 1962.

The fourth point which the Member for Serangoon Gardens made and which he said should be put before the Commission of Inquiry was the question of the recognition of Nanyang University degrees. From the answer given by the Government to questions posed by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce at the forum debate at the Victoria Theatre on 13th January, he said he understood it to mean that the Government, after merger, would seek recognition of Nanyang University degrees, but that they should proceed to recognise this now. It would, I think, be fair if the full questions and answers were stated in the Assembly. It is very dangerous just picking out one line and then asking questions on that one line. It should be in the context of the question and answer. It is not very long, Sir. If you will allow me, this is question No. 15. The question posed was:

"After merger, will the academic qualifications of Middle School graduates and University graduates, including those of Nanyang University, be recognised by the Central Government of the new Federation; and will such graduates be allowed to teach or enter Government service in any part of the Federation?"

The official text of the answer is as follows:

"The question of academic qualifications of Middle School and University graduates, including those of Nanyang University, being recognised by the Central Government of the new Federation is a matter for the Central Government of the new Federation. Alter merger, the Singapore Government will put the merits of the case for recognition before the Central Government. However, after merger and with autonomy in education, Nanyang graduates will continue to be recruited for service in the Singapore Government and in schools. Since Singapore would enjoy autonomy in education after merger, the Singapore Government would naturally continue to recruit Nanyang University graduates into Government service, including the teaching service."

I do not think it necessary to expand on that question and answer. Suffice it to say that the Singapore Government has given conditional recognition to Nanyang University degrees, a stand the Government took two years ago when the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee Report on Nanyang University was tabled in this House, and I had then occasion to state the Singapore Government's stand on Nanyang University. I refer, Sir, to Hansard, Vol. 12, No. 3, col. 143. I will just read one and a half paragraphs:

`From the Review Committee's Report, it appears that the curriculum of Nanyang University shows a lack of systematic planning and proper co-ordination, and individual guidance from staff members appears to be lacking.

What then is the Singapore Government's stand on Nanyang University in view of the findings of the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee? Despite the critical findings contained in the Review Committee's Report, the Singapore Government has decided to employ Nanyang University graduates and to recognise the Nanyang University degrees as equivalent to Pass Degrees of a recognised university. Selection will, as usual, be on individual merits through interview by the Public Service Commission.'

That is the stand of the Singapore Government pending the reorganisation of Nanyang University in accordance with the main principles of the Review Committee's Report. This stand on Nanyang University was a stand in which at least four Members of the Barisan Sosialis who were then Parliamentary Secretaries were consulted before the statement was made. They included my ex-Parliamentary Secretary, now the Member for Serangoon Gardens, the Member for Upper Serangoon, the Member for Havelock and the Member for Nee Soon. They were then Parliamentary Secretaries.

In fact, Sir, the Member for Nee Soon said more than once that by giving Nanyang University parity of treatment with that of the University of Malaya I would become a hero of Chinese education. At that time, the Member for Queenstown was not a Parliamentary Secretary in the P.A.P. Government; he was then an Assemblyman. We took the Assemblymen into confidence before the release of the statement, but he objected, as usual, that he was not being consulted. Everything was cut and tried and there was no use of making any contribution. I remember he was very agitated. The attitude of the Barisan Sosialis is just like that of the Member for Queenstown. If he is consulted, then it is all right - consultation has taken place with the people of Singapore. But if he is not consulted, then there has been no consultation in anything.

Furthermore, two Members of the Barisan Sosialis, then Parliamentary Secretaries in the P.A.P. Government, were members of the very important Liaison Committee which was established, composing of Government members and members of Nanyang University, namely, the Member for Serangoon Gardens and the Member for Upper Serangoon. They had all the chance in the world to make their contributions to bring about a settlement with Nanyang University.

Lastly, Sir, this is classic of the Barisan Sosialis: Is the Government going to reorganise Chinese schools according to the English schools as a model? In other words, will Chinese schools be anglicized; will they follow the English pattern; will they follow the colonial pattern? Sir, every country has to evolve its own education system, and Singapore is no different. We intend to take the best of what is available in the four streams. In prewar days, the Government only conducted Junior Middle III Examinations for the Chinese schools and it was only in 1951 that they conducted the Senior Middle III Examinations. After a six-year secondary education, the certificate was only made equivalent to the Cambridge School Certificate which could be taken after four years in the English stream. But whatever it is, outside of Singapore, the lower secondary education system is five years starting with Form I to Form V for the English stream before they were ready for the Cambridge School Certificate Examination. In Singapore, it is quite some time now since children in English schools are able to take the Cambridge Examination in four years and not five years. So Singapore is somewhat unique in that pupils are able to take an examination in four years, whereas in the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom, they have to do it in five years. But, of course, if I do not mention the Upper Secondary education, the Barisan Sosialis will say, "There you are, secondary education only in four years." We have two years of the Higher School Certificate and it is just nice for us having to integrate the four language streams to bring about secondary education in two parts: four years for the first part and two years for the higher upper secondary section so that you do six years before you go to a University. Of course, times have changed, Sir,In the good old days, in fact, after the Senior Cambridge Examination - after nine years of education: six years in primary and three in secondary (Standards I to IX) - it was possible to do the Cambridge Examination and walk into a University. Six years primary and three years secondary, and we are at university level. But standards have been raised here as anywhere else in the world, and it is now necessary to have a 12-year education - six years primary and six years secondary - before one is considered reasonably mature and adult t& join a University. So that I think it is dangerous talk indulged in by the Barisan Sosialis, and more so I am unable to forgive my former Parliamentary Secretary for talking in this strain: Is Government going to anglicize the Chinese schools and so on? At least if he could have made a suggestion on what other model he has to put forward for consideration, that would have at least been constructive. "The Singapore educational system should be this and that," but there is nothing to offer as a solution. Here, Sir, having raised this question that the Government may want to anglicize Chinese schools on the pattern of English schools in Singapore, I would like to refer to one of the files again - No. 1299/61. There is a document here 28 (C) by the Assistant Director of Education (Chinese) to the Chief Examinations Officer - School Certificate Chinese Examination:

`Parliamentary Secretary [that is, the Member for Serangoon Gardens] has agreed to amendments to Regulations governing the award of the School Certificate (Chinese) [that is, the Secondary IV Examination) so as to bring them in line with the Cambridge [they do not like to hear the word "Cambridge" because it is English and therefore it is colonial] School Certificate standard.'

Therefore, if the Barisan Sosialis have some model or some pattern to suggest to the Government, I would like them to say so. What pattern is it that they would like the Singapore educational system to follow? And not just hide behind a facade of pretence and a silly allegation that the Government intends to do certain things.

I am therefore deeply indebted to the Member for Anson for having proceeded with this motion, because it gave me the opportunity to listen to what was said by my former colleague - I think the Member for Farrer Park has congratulated me on my loss, which is no loss but a gain - and to answer point by point his allegations which are unfounded, malicious and dangerous, and for which he and his own Party must bear full responsibility.

3.28 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to the speech by the Minister for Education, I have the impression that the P.A.P. Government is very satisfied with the present state of affairs in the English and Chinese schools in Singapore. According to his speech, the people can come to this conclusion. If there are any problems in the schools in Singapore, if the teachers have any complaints and if there is any complaint about Nanyang University, they said that these are all created by the Barisan Sosialis. The Minister for Education put the blame for the mistakes and errors in the Ministry of Education on his ex-Parliamentary Secretary. Just now, the Minister for Education gave many examples. He said all these were done on the recommendation of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. From this, if it is so, then the people can see our Minister in the past two and a half years has been useless. I feel that if it is so, he should refund the salaries which he has been drawing for the past two and a half years to the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, later on I shall reply to the criticisms made by the Minister against my colleagues. Let me now express my views on this original motion. Mr Speaker, I feel that this motion is a very constructive one. The Government should not treat it as one with which the Opposition want to attack the Government, because today there are many things on policy and administration which should be reviewed since we all know that the P.A.P. when they came into office after the general elections in 1959 did not have any long-term plan. It was a result of historical developments that they came to form the Government. Under these circumstances, on complicated problems such as the education problem, any responsible Party will not boast that it has all the experience to deal with them. To the P.A.P., when they are confronted with this education problem, it is a new experience to them when they try to solve it. They should admit that when performing this important task, there are bound to be mistakes. Apart from this, in the matter of policy, they have not seen eye to eye with the people. Therefore, today one Member in this Assembly has moved this motion to set up a Commission of Inquiry. This is a very good suggestion. The P.A.P. Government should remember this motion and the result of this Commission will not only benefit those who support it. It is the teachers and pupils in the schools who will derive benefit from the result of the Commission of Inquiry.

Now let me explain why there should be such a Commission of Inquiry. At the same time, what are the terms of reference of this Commission of Inquiry? First of all, let me briefly cite some examples. For instance, in the matter of building new schools by the Government, the distribution of schools in the island in the past two years has not been satisfactory. Has it been satisfactory? Will the distribution of schools enable those who live in crowded areas go to a school which is near their residence? In building schools, does the Government take into consideration the confidence of the people who live in this island?

As to the reunification of all streams of education, what should be the criterion? In this respect, the P.A.P. never stated clearly in its Five-Year Development Plan its education policy. They just mentioned the policy of reunification of the four streams of education without giving any concrete scheme. Does it mean that the reunification of the four streams of education is to be based on the policy of anglicising all vernacular schools? This policy needs to be reviewed.

Talking about textbooks used in schools. The Government could only talk about standardising syllabuses, but they could not give ample time to the publishers to print the textbooks. So today there is much confusion and a lot of trouble in the schools in regard to the availability of textbooks. For instance, Junior IV students in Chinese schools have to spend more money on textbooks, because there are textbooks on Physics, Chemistry, Geometry, Algebra, and others. In the past, in Chinese schools every year the students study only one subject. Now because of the change in the system they have to have the same subjects as used in the English schools. But these textbooks are not available in the market. Therefore, when the schools reopen this year, the students will have to buy more textbooks and their parents will have to incur a lot of expenses. The burden on the students as well as on the teachers will also increase. On this subject the Government has to review its policy.

After the P.A.P. came to power, the P.A.P. Government adopted a new education policy in respect of the training of teachers, that is to say, the teachers have to teach as well as attend training classes every day. As a result, there have been a lot of complaints by the teachers. In the morning they have to teach in far-away schools for half a day and in the afternoon they have to rush to the Teachers' Training College to receive training. Every day about two or three hours will be wasted on transport. Is this kind of system a very good and ideal system for teachers' training? This is another question which causes the teachers much dissatisfaction and also needs review.

Another question is that of the applications from aided schools to expand or build new schools. The Government's restrictions and regulations as regards these applications have also resulted in many complaints from the applicants. Today there are about 3,000 teachers who have been teaching for many years, but because they do not have the so-called recognised certificates, their position cannot be safeguarded and they cannot have yearly increments as the other teachers have. I think there are about 1,000 such teachers and they are very dissatisfied with the Government.

Talking about school administration and students in schools. We know that since the beginning of this year there has been much confusion in schools because some teachers have been transferred. Because some students have also been transferred to other schools and examination centres, there have also been quite a lot of complaints from them. I would ask hon. Members in this House to pay attention to them. Can all these causes be blamed on the Barisan Sosialis? What are the causes? I hope the P.A.P. have the courage to admit that they have probably made some mistakes. They should have the courage to confront these problems and seek an honest way to rectify their mistakes and not take this Commission of Inquiry as something to achieve the purpose of putting the blame on certain people and finding scapegoats. In the past few days, we have heard the Prime Minister say in this Assembly that the Government intends to form about four Commissions of Inquiry to investigate into four separate topics. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is more necessary for the Government to ensure that the correct motive for the establishment of these Commissions of Inquiry should be to investigate into the mistakes of the Government in order that it can rectify its mistakes. If it does not give this undertaking, then there can be an impression outside this House that the Government's intention to establish these Commissions of Inquiry is to find out who have been bad men, who have been evil-doers, who have taken part in strikes, in the boycotting of examinations and so on. Therefore, the Government must clarify its intention in establishing these Commissions of Inquiry. It must say that it has no intention of trying to pin the blame on anybody. It should say that this is not the purpose of the Commission of Inquiry. The work of the Commission of Inquiry should result in alleviating the fears and suspicions in the minds of teachers, parents and students and the public generally. Only then will it serve its purpose. I suggest that the Government should establish, first of all, a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into matters in the Ministry of Education. After the conclusions are arrived at, the Commission could look into student boycott of the Government's Junior IV examinations. The Government should not try to mix up these issues together by allowing them to be investigated by one Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to talk too much, but just now the Minister for Education levelled a lot of criticisms at my colleague, the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, in relation to his personal work in the Ministry. Therefore, I find it necessary to say a few words. When I was still in the P.A.P., I was not satisfied with the education policy and the measures taken by the P.A.P. Government in implementing it. Therefore, at various conferences of Parliamentary Secretaries, I very often said to the Prime Minister that in dealing with the education policy, the P.A.P. Government is like a ship. Every year there are a lot of passengers, namely, the students, who want to board the ship. So it would appear that the ship should be enlarged to provide for more accommodation. There should be a larger ship to accommodate the number of passengers, that is, the pupils. If the Government could achieve this, then it would be fortunate. Otherwise, its socialist policies could not be realised. So the Government should try to find appropriate means to advance its socialist aims and to achieve socialist policies. Therefore, education has a great part to play in the Government's aims and policies.

Our Minister for Education is a very hard-working man. But in dealing with the education policy, he is not very sure of himself. In making policies, the Prime Minister has to give his direction in respect of the political aspect. When the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was still in his Ministry, the Minister himself could not deny that his former Parliamentary Secretary was very hard-working and diligent. He was very punctual in going to the office, and very often he even stayed in the office after 4.30 p.m. Why should there be such a situation? Well, it was because in the policy of organisation, the Minister for Education himself could not make his own decision. So he had to work very hard. But politically he was lacking in experience. I can give you an example to illustrate this point. As pointed out by the Minister himself, I had occasion to act as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. When I went there, I discovered there was a terrifying lot of work to do. This was because almost all the documents relating to Chinese schools in Singapore, such as those concerning the teachers and the principals, and even those concerning the hawkers, the ice-cream hawkers, the canteens and the tuck-shops in the schools had to be referred to the office of the Parliamentary Secretary. Mr Speaker, you can imagine that under such circumstances, you would have to spend even the whole of your life on these papers without being able to make a proper reorganisation of the education system. The reason why the question of education and its administration has not been properly solved is very simple. There is a shortage of administrative officers who know Chinese in the Ministry of Education. Some of the officers who have to act as liaison officers between the Ministry and the Chinese schools do not know Chinese. They have to speak in English. Same officers and principals of schools who do not know English find some difficulty about it. Those officers who know English have no knowledge of the conditions in Chinese schools, and they are also having difficulty. In the primary and secondary schools, the principals do not know very much English. This is a fact. So if the Government does not want to reorganise in this respect, that is, to achieve the aim of having good liaison between the Ministry's officers and the school authorities, then how could we improve our education? It is impossible. Take another example. Inspectors of schools in the Ministry of Education are engaged on the condition that they must have a good standard of English. They must be able to make reports on their findings in the schools in English. So when we engage this kind of inspector to go round the Chinese schools, he is in a very difficult position. It is up to the Ministry itself to get suitable officers to do such work. It is necessary for me to say a few words in defence of my colleague who has been criticised.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was still a Parliamentary Secretary, I found that our views were not final views. The Prime Minister himself had occasion to tell us about this. My colleague, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, has pointed out that he was not satisfied with the policy of the Government in respect of capital grant for the building programmes for Chinese schools. His suggestions were not only expressed at meetings of Parliamentary Secretaries but were also mentioned at meetings of Members of the Assembly, so that he could get the support of other members of the P.A.P. in order to come to a satisfactory conclusion. But after he did this, there was no improvement in respect of the building programmes for the Chinese schools.

Take another example again. We have given our views on other aspects of education. For example, the Minister for Finance has occasion after office to go to some schools. He noticed there were many cars parked along the road leading to the schools. So he formed the opinion that there were many people who were car owners. Therefore, he intended to increase the school fees to $10 per month just because he had seen so many cars around the schools. But for us the Assemblymen who raised objections to it, this increase of school fees would have been imposed, and if it had been done, the P.A.P. would have been in a worse position.

In the appointment of Inspectors of Schools and the registration of teachers, the decision was that the Member for Serangoon Gardens could make his own views as to the registration of teachers and appointment of inspectors. But today many school teachers in Chinese schools as well as principals will remember that in the initial stage of the P.A.P. taking power, there was really a tremendous number of circulars issued by the Ministry of Education. Every day they received at least half a dozen circulars from the Ministry of Education asking them to do this and to do that. These circulars were normally contradictory. The first circular would ask them to do this; then the second circular would say, "Oh, you do not have to do this". And a third circular would again make another change. So if the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education had not done his best to change the whole situation, I believe the P.A.P. Government would have been ridiculed more and more.

I hope the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education will not be too satisfied with himself. The Ministry is not paying much attention to the issue of circulars at the moment. All the Chinese school teachers know what kind of a labour man our present Parliamentary Secretary is. A few days ago I had occasion to meet a primary school teacher in a Chinese school. He told me that the circulars issued in Chinese from the Ministry of Education were actually unintelligible and that in order to understand such circulars, he must get a teacher of English to refer to the original in English before he could understand the translation as to the instructions contained in the circular. Perhaps this is because our Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are on top. They are too high-sounding and 50 many teachers are treating this as a laughing stock.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of this House to enumerate more examples of the mistakes made by the P.A.P. Government in respect of education. I hope they will understand and realise that in dealing with education, they are inexperienced and they have made many mistakes which could have been avoided. I hope they will not treat the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry as one intended to find a scapegoat for their own mistakes.

4.05 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for four reasons.

My first reason is that education today is playing a greater and greater role than ever before in the progress and prosperity of a nation.

My second reason is that education has been internationally recognised as the answer to most of the problems especially of newly independent and developing nations.

My third reason is that a policy that was suitable for the Colony of Singapore is no longer suitable for a Singapore that is rapidly moving towards independence.

My fourth and last reason, Sir, is that there are a number of educational problems which, if left unsolved, will lead not only to stagnation, but also to retro-gradation, discontent and probably even disaster.

In the old days when I was a pupil, the duty of the teacher was to teach the three Rs, and to prepare the pupils for a white collar job. Today those functions still exist, but are definitely not sufficient. The standard of living of a country, the health of the people, the morals and morale of the population, the extent of juvenile delinquency, depend upon the system of education today. Whether there is a population explosion or not, even that depends on how educated the population is. Prosperity in trade, agriculture, commerce and the extent of crime, all these depend on education in the country. That is why I feel the question of education is so vital. International organisations like the Economic Council of Asia and the Far East, the World Health Organisation, etc., do not have education specially placed within their ambit. But if you read reports of all these organisations, not a single one of them has failed or has not mentioned education as the answer to the problems that are facing especially new nations.

Sir, as I have said, a policy that is suitable for the Colony of Singapore is no longer suitable today, because today loyalty to the State and nation of Malaya and national pride must be part of our education system today. There are 12 important matters, Sir, which I feel the Commission should go into.

The matter concerning the different language streams of education. The education system of Singapore is more complicated than in many places in other parts of the world. I am not blaming the Minister for Education. He could not help it. Because of the multi-racial character of the population, different streams of education in different languages are necessary, and the Minister himself will admit, I believe, that the present system is causing discontentment amongst a section of the people. I feel the recommendations of the Commission would be very useful.

The second matter that I would like to raise is the shortage of teachers. Again, Sir, I am not blaming the Minister for Education.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Thank you.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: It is partly the result of the stagnation of teachers' training and stagnation of education during the Japanese occupation and also the rapidly increasing youth population of Singapore. But I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the detrimental effects of the shortage of teachers and to urge him to do everything within his power - I know it is difficult, but a Commission of experts might be able to give some recommendations to try and solve this problem.

Sir, a student of the Senior Cambridge in December who depends on adults to run his life for him in December suddenly finds in January that he has been put as a teacher, an adult running the lives of 40 little children. That sudden switch usually is too much for a youth of 18, 19 or 20 to take all of a sudden. The disaster is not only on him, but also on the 40 little children at a most delicate age. I know the problem is very difficult - again I stress I am not blaming the Minister - but I do urge him to do something to see what can be done to avoid this situation.

The third matter is the shortage of secondary schools. Parents are quite concerned because they feel that they have been kept in the dark of the basis of promotion or absorption into the secondary schools of Primary Schools Entrance Examination passes; not that they suspect any foul play, I did not mean that, Sir. They feel that they do not know whether a student is promoted on his aggregate marks, or has he got to pass special subjects, or is there a quota, through which the promotion into secondary schools is made. If it is on merit, what is the standard of merit that they have to reach, and is that standard consistent every year? Or does it depend on the quota of available seats in the secondary schools? Parents feel that they do not know all this and the danger is this. Because of ignorance, it has given rise to this suspicion. I want to make it clear that I am not making it as an allegation that it is happening. I am just making a statement that parents have come to me stating that the Government, in order to show that they have lots of vacancies and that they can absorb all the passes of the entrance exam nation from the primary schools, are using what they call a trick, it seems, by sifting out those students who are absorbed into the secondary school Form II and, after one year, when they get to Form III, for some reason if they do not reach a certain standard that is required, they are sacked. Therefore, more and more vacancies are created to get students from the primary schools into Form II. Now, this situation may not exist, Sir, and I am not alleging that it does. But I am just saying, because parents are being kept in the dark as to how the children from the primary schools are being promoted to the secondary schools, all sorts of doubts, and suspicions are being created. It would be good for a commission to sit and inquire into this and bring to light how primary school entrance examination passes are judged, and on what basis they are promoted to secondary schools.

Sir, my fourth subject is discontentment among Chinese school students. You yourself know of the discontentment. I am not standing up for the students. Where I am concerned, as I have said before, and I stand by it, I think the 4 : 2 system is better, because it brings the Chinese school passes up to standard and they have the same qualification as the English schools; and if they are going to stand for competition for Government jobs or professions, I think it is a good thing that they do come up to the same level and be reads for equal competition.

4.14 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: My fifth point is discrimination against women, especially the legally married teachers. I emphasise "the legally married teachers". Sir, this injustice has been perpetuated for 13 years and the fact that this injustice could be traced back to history is no reason for justification for a socialist Government, or a Government which claims to be socialist, which promised in the elections that they would implement - not only was it their belief - equal pay for equal work. Two and a half years have gone by and nothing has been done. You will agree with me, Sir, that unjust discrimination against anybody at all causes unhappiness and, to a certain extent, an inferiority complex. Women teachers are usually employed in primary schools where they deal with children of a delicate and tender age. An unhappy teacher with a feeling of inferiority complex is by no means an ideal teacher for young children.

Sir, my next subject is textbooks. I quite appreciate the difficulty of the Minister for Education concerning this subject because, as I have said, we are moving towards an independent Singapore and the contents of textbooks will have to be changed from a foreign background and atmosphere to a Malayan background and atmosphere. National pride and loyalty have to be fostered. The emphasis on white-collar jobs is now giving way to the importance of science, and even moral codes concerning certain subjects, especially with religious bodies, are changing. Therefore, textbooks have to be changed. I quite realised and I appreciate that the Education Department - if I am not mistaken - has a Textbooks Committee working on this and that textbooks are slowly being changed to suit the occasion. But, Sir, I urge the Minister to take an interest in this textbook question and put all that he can into it because it is causing a lot of hardship. Changes are necessary. But let me point out to you that unnecessary changes are causing a great strain on the pockets of poor parents. If a poor man has six children, he expects to buy one set of books to be passed on year by year to his child number two, number three, and so on. But because of the frequent changes in textbooks, every year, a parent with six children has to buy six sets of textbooks every year and he cannot afford it, with the result that his children have to go without education. That is what is causing illiteracy in the country. So although it looks very innocent - the cost of textbooks, say, is $30: six children, $180 (one month's pay or more than one month's pay) - the parents cannot afford it and this is the cause of illiteracy.

Sir, I would urge the Minister to go into the question of textbooks very thoroughly. Another point, Sir: the Government does lend free textbooks to school children who cannot afford them, but the number of books is limited, and if the Government or the schools keep on changing the books, the Government too are wasting money because they have to buy new textbooks every year as the books returned by the previous year's students cannot be used the next year because the schools are using different textbooks. That is why I feel the textbook problem is very important and I hope the Minister will do something about it and let the Commission go into the matter.

My seventh point is syllabuses. I have mentioned before that school-leavers of the different language streams will have to compete equally with the world outside for jobs. I do agree with the Minister that the syllabuses will have to be streamlined so that they do reach a certain level when the children of the different streams leave school.

My eighth point is that there are anomalies among the people of equal qualifications in the Education Department. I do not want to go into details, but if the Minister would like to see me - if he is interested - I can tell him the different posts and different qualifications affected. Although I do not know the names of the officers who are involved, I do know the posts and the qualifications that are involved.

My ninth point is the system of having one principal running the morning and afternoon schools. He is expected to go to one session. He is not expected to stay the whole of the two sessions. Therefore, he has to be responsible for things that happened during a session at which he was not present. I think the Government Is making an effort to have senior teachers or something like that, but I still feel that even with a senior teacher, the principal is ultimately responsible, and he or she is responsible for something which he or she has no control over. I feel that by having two heads - one for the morning session and one for the afternoon - it gives more opportunities to young teachers to rise to headmastership or headmistress-ship and it promotes a more efficient running of the schools, because whoever is there is responsible for whatever happens then, and not somebody who is at home or attending a class.

Now my tenth point is adult education. Sit, if you will look at the 1957 census, you will see that 48 per cent of the over ten-year old population of Singapore are illiterate. The sad part of it is that out of this 48 per cent, which is 455,000, 94 per cent are citizens. How I came to this conclusion is this. We know that the Chinese. Malays and Indians (including Pakistanis) are the main races that form the citizens of Singapore. Other races like Europeans, Australians, Americans, and so on who are citizens of Singapore are very few. You will see that 54 per cent of the Chinese are illiterate; amongst the Malaysians, it is 38 per cent: amongst the Indians and Pakistanis, it is 25 per cent. But amongst the other races, it is only six per cent. Therefore, the bulk of illiterates are citizens of Singapore. I feel that something must be done. I know that the Government has organised language classes and adult classes, but I tin not know how much these classes have helped to reduce illiteracy among the citizens.

Sir, my eleventh point is education through the radio. In more advanced countries, the radio has been regarded as a very strong arm of education. But in Singapore - I do not know whether, the Minister has been too busy to look into this - it is an important thing. The listening facilities in the schools and the guidance of education through the radio is a new subject. No guidance has been given to teachers about education through the radio except through pamphlets printed by the Broadcasting Station. Neither has any demonstration been given. Therefore, for lack of guidance and lack of listening facilities in Singapore, radio lessons are more a nuisance than a help, and are doing harm than good in schools.

My last subject that I would like to touch on is the six-day week.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Hear, hear!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Much has been said about its effect on teachers, but very little has been said about its effects on children. I feel that it is vital that we get the opinions of experts on this matter. A Commission to discuss the effects of the six-day week on children is vital.

So, Sir, I would like to urge the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into this and other matters concerning the Government's education policy. The sooner it is done, the better it will be for all of us.

4.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker. Sir, yesterday the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said that the Commission of Inquiry into Education should not touch upon the political aspects, but today we have heard the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister saying that this Commission of Inquiry should not he treated as one for which a scapegoat or a culprit has to be found. Obviously the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis are afraid of what they did. If the Barisan Sosialis did not carry out any political activities in the schools and if they did not make any mistakes, they should not be afraid of a Commission of Inquiry to look into the political activities in schools.

We all know that it is the policy of the Government that a school student should be given every chance to study and enrich himself intellectually by other ways, so that he will be able to serve society well in future. It is not our policy that a student should be made use of in political activities by a political party.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Upper Serangoon said that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education had too much work to do. He also said that there was no systematic work. As regards the complaint of having too much work, I would like to say that I had the same feeling when I first took over his duties. I have brought many files today to this House not for show.

Before I touch upon the aspect as to how the said two Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been making use of their position. I would like to say to my former counterpart that his turn will also come for him to be investigated into.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the course of two years, my former counterpart did practically nothing. This question should be looked into by the Commission of Inquiry because it is a very interesting subject [Interruption]. Just now a Member opposite has said that if it is proved that in the course of two years he did nothing, then he should refund his salary.

Before taking over the post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, I spent about 1� months before I took over officially to clear all the work which the former Parliamentary Secretary had not done in the course of two years. I do not want to bring in too many details, because it may take me half an hour or even more.

On 14th August, 1959, one Mr Tee Chin Loon wrote a letter from Mei Chin School.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. He is touching on family revelations. I would suggest that they are out of order in the context of the issues of the motion. Can we confine ourselves to the motion?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): If the Parliamentary Secretary is going into details, then the Chair will rule him out of order. So far, I think he has been relevant.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I have already said that I was not prepared to go into too many details because the Commission of Inquiry should inquire into the education problems and we must also know what my former counterpart did in the course of two years.

Here we have many letters written by members of the public and addressed to the Minister and some to the Parliamentary Secretary. Usually the procedure was for the Minister to minute to the Parliamentary Secretary. There is one case in 1959. I went to his office. There were so many letters for reply and they were not dealt with for two years. I have already made a list, but I do not wish to go too much into details. If he wants to have them for reference, he is welcome to have a look at them. So if the Member for Upper Serangoon should say that he was very hardworking, his efficiency would be that of a snail.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Point of clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to distort facts. He did not carefully listen to what I said. I said that the Minister for Education had occasion to praise his former Parliamentary Secretary as a very hard-working man.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): I must thank the Member for Upper Serangoon. This proves that he himself believes that the former counterpart of mine was not hardworking; otherwise, how was it that a matter was referred to him and he did not take it up? Originally I did not want to bring up this matter openly.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, just now the Parliamentary Secretary alleged that I did not do certain things. As regards all those letters about complaints, at that time there was the Complaints Bureau and all such matters could not be dealt with in the Ministry but should be referred to the Complaints Bureau.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think that is not a point of order. Of course, if the Member is not satisfied, the Commission can go into the details of this matter.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): I have already decided not to let Members opposite interrupt my speech. They will be given their chance to speak.

I have already dealt with the statement as to how diligent my former counterpart was. Now I want to talk about why he is afraid of the Commission of Inquiry looking into the political activities in schools. As far as I know, in the course of the two years he spent -

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The issue of a Commission of Inquiry to look into the political activities in schools is not part of this motion, but of another matter which the Minister for Education has promised. I do ask the speaker to confine himself to the issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker: For the information of the Member for Anson, last night when the Member for Serangoon Gardens was speaking, I think he touched on this aspect, and the Parliamentary Secretary is but I think he mentioned that the political aspect should not be included in this Commission. So far I think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite correct in replying to that point.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Originally I had no intention to touch on this point, but it was because the Member for Serangoon Gardens touched upon it and said that the Commission of Inquiry should not touch upon the political activities in schools that I talk about it as well.

In the course of two years, as far as I know - and I can give evidence in the Commission of Inquiry to prove what I say - apart from sitting in the office, all ho knew was how to make his trusted people principals.

Mr David Marshall: Then why pay him?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): One of them was the Principal of Chung Lee School. The Board of Directors, including one Mr Seah Yun Chong, wrote a letter which was not replied to for many months, and then he said, "I want to -."

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is going into details. We are discussing the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, and if there was any irregularity when the Member for Serangoon Gardens was Parliamentary Secretary, I think it can be brought up before the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Unfortunately today there is much surprising evidence which cannot be made public in this House. This also concerns the Member for Pasir Panjang as to what he did in the schools. So he can wait to say what he likes in the Commission of Inquiry. If he cannot believe it, then we will bring up a letter written by the Sin Min School addressed to me.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I have already indicated that we are discussing the motion urging the Government to set up a Commission of Inquiry to go into the education policy, and not about letters. But if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that these have some bearing, he can always refer the matter to the Commission for a full inquiry.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Pasir Panjang has asked me to bring it up, if necessary, and if he wants it I can publish it in the newspapers. Otherwise ask him to -wait for the Commission of Inquiry before it is made public. What I want to show is that the Barisan Sosialis has started to exert political pressure on the schools and try to gain control of the schools.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Point of clarification.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): I have no time for him to clarify. Since it is not possible for me to bring up the evidence, I will go on to touch upon what has been said by the Member for Upper Serangoon. He says that our Minister for Education is a useless fellow. But my view is that my predecessor was either useless or was deliberately trying to undermine the reputation of the Government so as to whip up dissatisfaction among the Chinese schools. Just now the Member for Upper Serangoon made a suggestion. It is very strange. When they were Parliamentary Secretaries, they had ample opportunity to make suggestions on how to improve the educational system, but they seldom did so. It is only after they have left us that they talk about theories which are destructive in nature. They say the Government has to spend more money to build schools. In this respect, I would ask your indulgence to mention the Member for Pasir Panjang who acted as a director of a school. The Government already granted the money to the school to put up a building, but as far as I know, it was the Member for Pasir Panjang who said to many people -

Mr David Marshall: Point of order. Sir. Please, Sir, could we confine the gentleman to the issues of the motion?

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I read the motion which is put before this House by the Member for Anson?

"That this Assembly calls upon the Government to recommend the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, [it never specifies English or Chinese] its content and administration in all fields..."

that is inclusive of Government schools, aided schools, and so on. I think the Parliamentary Secretary so far has been quite all right in mentioning it in passing. But when he gets out of order, I will say he is out of order.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): It would seem that the Member for Upper Serangoon has asked whether the Government is not willing to give money for the building of schools. Now this is a very good example. The Member for Pasir Panjang was a director of the Pasir Ris School. There was a school building fund which was sufficient and he himself contributed $50. The Government granted public funds for the building of the school - but he told the people in that area that they did not want to build the school as yet. They must wait until the Barisan came to power and then they could build a bigger school. If the Member wants to deny this, he can do so in the Commission of Inquiry. But to threaten the principals, school teachers and the people in the area is really wrong. This is the method of the Barisan Sosialis, it is their usual tactics.

Mr David Marshall: Originated from the P.A.P.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Tonight, the school will have a re-election of officials. This matter should also be looked into by the Commission of Inquiry, because in aided schools some patrons and parents are only eligible to take part in the re-election of officials. But we can see here that some who have made great contributions are not even nominated. The list of people -

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): On a point of order. (In Mandarin) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken on- this motion. But we have pointed out on many occasions that what he is saying are matters of detail. If these details are true and correct, he can very well bring them up in the Commission of Inquiry. These details should not be allocated in this motion here.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think I have made my ruling.

Mr David Marshall: Yes, but it is not right.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Anson should remember that the House must listen to the Chairman and there should be no interjection or interpretation. I have made this ruling. I have listened to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis who have spoken. They have brought out the point of Government aid to aided schools, the policy of the Government to build more Government schools, and also what will be the future of private aided schools. That is the point, as far as I can recollect, which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is bringing out. But when he is going out of the context of the motion or even replying to certain points raised by Member of the Opposition then surely I will pull him up as out of order. Mr Lee Khoon Choy.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I ant trying to prove is mainly that the Commission of Inquiry should also look into the political activities of certain parties in the schools. The Member for Upper Serangoon said that we wanted to find scapegoats. I believe that if Members in this House have not done anything wrong they should not be afraid. If they have not done anything wrong, why should they be afraid of the Commission of Inquiry looking into political activities?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought you ruled that, in fact, that is not part of my motion, as it is not. Is the speaker then suggesting, with your leave as being relevant, that we should have this motion amended?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member for Anson has raised this point of order earlier. I have made my ruling during the earlier part of the debate when the Parliamentary Secretary was replying to the Member for Serangoon Gardens. He was replying to what he had said last night in this Chamber. If the Member for Anson thought that the Member for Serangoon Gardens was going out of the motion, he should have raised it last night. Afterwards I have ruled that it is quite in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the point raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens- that the commission of Inquiry should not go into the political aspects, and he touched on that last night. Since the Barisan Sosialis have touched on it, I think it would be fair to the Government side to reply to that. Nobody is going to amend this motion. So far no amendment has been moved.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon has said just now that education is closely related to politics. Now I am not trying to digress by bringing in other matters. I am just trying to reply to what he has said. He says that our Minister for Education only knows how to work hard without knowing what politics is like. He says that politics and education are closely related. Since he says that is so, how is it that he says that the Commission of Inquiry should not look into political activities as well?

He also says that my predecessor had a lot of work. I have already touched upon that. In the meantime, on certain aspects. I admit that in the Ministry of Education the work of the Parliamentary Secretary is rather heavy. But the Member for Upper Serangoon said that in the course of two years there was a shortage of officers who knew Chinese and there was too much work to be done. Now when there is a lot of work, we have to exercise our brains. We should not just work blindly. We have to find the proper system in order to get good results. I believe if my predecessor was really co-operative with the Minister for Education, then they could easily have found the means to solve the problem.

Again the Member for Upper Serangoon seems to be defending my predecessor. He says that the Government is now trying to put all the blame on the shoulders of my predecessor. In this respect, I believe that is not so. Frankly speaking, my predecessor and I are still on good terms as before. But I think that in doing his work, especially in his attitude towards the old teachers, he has brought the Government into disrepute among the schools. Some principals can still remember the occasion when he spoke to the old-timers in education. He was then not only improper in his attitude, but when the principals came to see him he also made them wait, instead of asking them to sit down.

Mr Deputy Speaker: This has no relevance at all to the motion. I have told the hon. Member to please confine himself to the substantive motion.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: Point of order. (In Mandarin) Just now, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that I accused certain old teachers and that I made some principals stand

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have already ruled that as out of order.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): I mentioned this matter just now to refute the Member for Upper Serangoon. He also said that very often the suggestions of the Parliamentary Secretaries and Members of the Assembly were not accepted. He also said that the Minister for Finance wanted to increase the school fees to $10, but this was not put into practice as a result of the objection raised by the Assemblymen. Was he not slapping himself?

Again he talked about the circulars issued by the Ministry of Education which he said were unintelligible. But he did not produce any evidence of which particular sentence was unintelligible. I can also say at random that so and so's book is unintelligible. But if I cannot prove which part is unintelligible, how can I say such a thing at random? He cannot make such a sweeping statement. Is he trying to ridicule the Inspectors of Schools as being not so well educated as he himself?

Finally, as regards the point raised by the Member for Mountbatten. She talked about the entrance examination. I will say that the Primary School students who have passed the entrance examinations will be given a place in the secondary schools.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has already said that we are prepared to set up two Commissions of Inquiry. One of them is to look into the education policy. We welcome Members of the Barisan Sosialis and Members of any other Party to bring up constructive criticisms and suggestions. We also welcome members of the public and organisations to put forward their valuable views before the Commission of Inquiry. As to the other Commission of inquiry, I believe that all members of the public will be treated to a lot of exposures.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is time to suspend for tea. I suspend until half-past five p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

5.31 p.m.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally the motion was intended to investigate into the Government's education policy and administration, but it is to be regretted that the Government has distorted this basis, the emphasis of establishing this Commission of Inquiry. Members on the Government side have changed the basis for establishing this Commission of Inquiry. They have distorted facts. I do not want to say it, but then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has mentioned my colleague, the Member for Pasir Panjang, saying that he wanted to control the Sin Min School. I have been teaching in the Sin Mm School. I am very familiar with what is going on in it. Everything going on there is very clear. The- Parliamentary Secretary says that the Member for Pasir Panjang wanted to control that school. This is an entirely baseless accusation. If the Member for Pasir Panjang and several members of the Barisan Sosialis have contributed money to the school, they are, of course, sponsors of the school. Since they are sponsors of the school, they have, of course, the right to attend when directors of the Management Board of the school are elected. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Member for Pasir Panjang was a director of that school and wanted to control it. This is an entirely baseless accusation. He also says that he has information to prove what he has said. I would like him to produce such evidence or information. I think it would be better if he produces the letter or any evidence so that we can have proof to go on. After that, we will be in a better position to investigate anything -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think this Assembly is interested in any evidence at the moment. All we are interested in is that a commission, of Inquiry be appointed:, and it is the Commission that will ask for evidence.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: (In Mandarin): I want to give an instance. At Chai Chee in Changi there is a middle school. The principal was not too good, because his administration was not good. Therefore, the directors of the Management Board were not satisfied and so he resigned. Then -

Mr Lee Khoon Choy rose ---

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: On a point of order. I wanted to go into the details of certain schools, but I was ruled out of order as a result of the Member for Anson's objection. I do not know how this is relevant to the motion.

Mr Speaker: The motion calls for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields, i.e., the Government's administration in all fields. I certainly think that the remarks passed by the Member for Changi in relation to the remarks passed about the Member for Pasir Panjang can only be relevant if they are in reply to something which was said by the Parliamentary Secretary. If that is so, then that is relevant. Now, the Member for Changi is endeavouring to heap irrelevance upon irrelevance, and I think I must draw a line somewhere. All I can do now is to suggest to Members that if they have anything to reply to what has actually been said, then they may do so. But they should not heap irrelevance upon irrelevance.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wanted to say was intended to be in reply to what he had said. I have no other intention. I only wanted to give an example to show that the principal of the school at Chai Chee, Changi -

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: On a point of order. I never raised the question of Changi School.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: (In Mandarin): You do not understand.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: What school is it then?

Mr Speaker: May I hear the Member first?

Mr Teo Hock Guan: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say is this. No matter whether the directors and principals of a School are P.A.P. members or Barisan Sosialis members, the point is entirely irrelevant. The only point that is relevant is that the principal or director of a school must not introduce party politics into the school. I have been in close relationship with the Member for Pasir Panjang. I understand very well that he never tried to introduce politics into the school, especially among the directors who are not only members of the Barisan Sosialis, but are also members of the P.A.P. and of other political factions; it is also the case among the staff. Therefore, I say that this point is entirely immaterial. It is best that this issue should not be drawn into political turmoil -

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Minister for Education indicate if I am wrong? The request here is a Commission of Inquiry into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields. Infiltration by political Paris or otherwise would be the subject of another Commission of Inquiry. Am I right'?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Except, Sir, that the Member for Serangoon Gardens did say that while he supported the proposed Commission of Inquiry into the education policy, he did not like this Commission to look into political activities in schools. That is how the whole thing arose.

Mr Speaker: That explains it. That is only in passing and possibly the answer to that is yes, this Commission of Inquiry will not look into political activities. It is the other Commission of Inquiry. Sc I see that from that little remark all the irrelevancies have occurred.

5.41 p.m.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to waste the valuable time of this House. I do not want to spend too much of the time of the House to reply to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has accused me, since the Member for Changi has already made certain replies on my behalf, but there are other points which have not been replied to. I now want to touch on them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has said that the Barisan Sosialis want to infiltrate into the schools. This kind of accusation is baseless and cannot stand any rebuttal. If his allegation is correct, then I want to tell him that when I was one of the directors of the said school, in 1960, I was a P.A.P. Assembly Member. Does it go to show that, because I was a P.A.P. member then, the -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin rose ---

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: The Minister has asked for clarification. Will the Member give way?

Mr Tee Kim Leng: No. (In Mandarin): The present principal is Mr Lim Cher Kheng. He has been a principal of that school for many years. Because under his administration the post - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education must not get excited. He has made his accusation. Surely the Member for Pasir Panjang must be permitted to make some rejoinder. I am allowing him to make the rejoinder, but when I think he is going a bit too far, I will stop him. The Parliamentary Secretary must not get excited about it.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. Because the former principal of that school was not very efficient in his administration, and because he made a mess of it, there was no co-operation between the principal and the Board of Directors. Because of this -

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member for Pasir Panjang to reserve all these details - when he or the Parliamentary Secretary refers to them - for the second Commission of Inquiry. It seems to me that that will be the proper forum where all these details could be aired. It is certainly not in this Assembly on this particular motion.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Parliamentary Secretary said that he had listed the patrons and directors, but I say that the people on the list were elected by the sponsors of the schools and not by me alone.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): No, I will not give way. I also know that the Parliamentary Secretary quoted me as having said that I told the people to wait until the Barisan Sosialis came to power before bigger schools were built. This is baseless. If he does not believe me, then he can ask our Board of Directors. I am surprised that a person who claims to have the interest and the welfare of the education of the State at heart, could have said such a thing. He referred to my contribution of $50. This was what I could only contribute to the school. I do not know how many millions of dollars the Parliamentary Secretary has contributed to the school! If he wants to understand, I would invite him to visit our school and perhaps we could arrange a parents' meeting to explain to him the conditions in the school.

5.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): I do not wish to dwell at length on the motion before the House, but after having carefully followed the debate, it appears to me that the speeches of many of the Members who have spoken do not reflect the views of all the people of Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis accuse the colonial Government of inciting communalism, but since the debate started, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have never touched on schools other than Chinese schools. This clearly shows that they are using communalism -

Mr Speaker: The Member is exhibiting excitement. Let us try and speak with a bit of calm. If the Member speaks to the Speaker and looks in this direction, perhaps he will modulate his voice.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): I spoke in that way because we as Members of this Assembly are responsible not only for a particular section of the community but also for all sections of the community comprising the various races. Therefore, if they are genuine Socialists, they should not raise communal issues in this Assembly.

So when speaking on this motion, I would ask them to look at other aspects of the education policy into which the Commission will investigate.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, that is precisely the point which I raised in the debate on merger last November as regards the speeches made by the Barisan Sosialis.

I fully agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister when he says that the speeches delivered by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis today indicate one point, and that is that the Barisan Sosialis do not represent the various communities of Singapore but that they represent only one community - the Chinese community.

An hon. Member: A small one.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: The Chinese community is not a small community, Sir. It is a very predominant community in Singapore. Let me remind the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis that apart from the Chinese community in Singapore, there are also the Malay, the Indian, the Arabic and other communities who owe their allegiance and loyalty to Singapore. If they persist in saying that they are the true representatives of the people of Singapore, they should guide themselves in a manner in this Assembly which would not only gain the confidence of Members of this Assembly but also of the people of Singapore.

Sir, if we look carefully again into the motion that is before us, it is clearly indicated that what is in the mind of the Member for Anson is that there should be "a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields other than vocational and technical education ..." The motion clearly indicates that the Commission should go into all aspects of the educational policy of the Government, except in the fields of vocational and technical education. It does not confine itself to Chinese education; nor does it confine itself to Malay education or Tamil education or English education.

So in the spirit of this motion before us, I on my part hope that when the Government do appoint a Commission, the scope of the terms of reference would be as wide as possible and would cover not only Chinese education but would also cover Malay, Tamil and English education.

5.55 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally we the United People's Party were not interested in this Commission of Inquiry, but the problem of education concerns all the citizens and their generations. This is a very important question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with regret to what the Minister for Education said. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you will agree that we cannot achieve perfection in dealing with any matter. The purpose of this motion is to find out whether the Minister for Education has made any mistakes in his education policy so that there can be a clear solution. But he has tried to put the responsibility on others. I feel this is very unjust. I think the setting up of this Commission of Inquiry should be above politics. Only then will it have any value. This question not only concerns Members of this House, but I believe that outside this Assembly, parents, students, teachers and management committees of schools also have many opinions and views to offer on this question. If this Commission of Inquiry gets involved in politics, then the public will not be interested in it. I believe that not only is there dissatisfaction in Chinese schools, but there is also discontentment in other schools.

We of the U.P.P. have three points to put forward. First, when this Commission of Inquiry is set up, it should be above politics. Second, the Commission of Inquiry should be composed of educationists from the four streams. These are our views on this matter.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member started off by saying that he had three points to put forward from the United People's Party and the interpreters got two. Would he perhaps repeat the three points?

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat the three points raised by me. First, the Commission of Inquiry should be above politics. Second, the composition of the members of the Commission should be agreed to by all Parties and the members should include educationists from the four streams of education. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was wrong, there are only two points. I did not say it correctly, but there are actually two points.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, it was just this unfortunate type of debate with its political mud-slinging and communal slanting that I had sought to avoid when towards the middle of last month I approached the Minister for Education and pleaded that the Government should accept the suggested Commission. He was good enough to say that I write in and indicate my views. I wrote in, and then he was good enough, Mr Speaker, Sir, on 21st December to give an assurance in this House that that Commission would be appointed; and in all sincerity I asked leave to withdraw. But I was told I had to follow a certain procedure. Mr Speaker, at that time I expressed gratification and appreciation to the Minister. Unfortunately, he seems to have taken it as being personally directed against him, and he said that I was gleeful - as though I was celebrating a victory. I can assure the Minister that that was not the intention in my mind, however much he may in his ultra-sensitiveness have misunderstood me. But we all assumed, at that juncture, particularly as he had indicated that the Government would not introduce the measures it had in mind for the relaxation of the six-day week because of the appointment of this Commission, that he would forthwith appoint that Commission so there would be no undue delay in respect of matters vital to vast numbers of our population. In common, I am sure, with many Members, I learned with consternation from the Prime Minister in answer to my question on the Commission in respect of the People's Association that the Commission suggested by this motion was going to be the last of four that he wanted a Supreme Court Judge to chair, and that since there was only one Judge available the Commission would be appointed in the never, never future of P.A.P. fogland.

It was then, Mr Speaker if you will remember, as you were present on the Monday, that I urged that it was not necessary to have a Judge. He pointed out that the second limb of the motion, the proposed terms of reference which I had sent in in my letter and which referred to political machinations in schools, did require a Judge. I said, "Well, could you not join that to the Commission you have in mind in respect of the boycott of the first secondary school examination?" And his reply, Mr Speaker, if you will remember, was, "Oh, this is a radically new matter. Would you write to the Minister for Education?" It was on a Monday evening at about 3 o'clock. The very next morning on a basis of urgency I wrote to the Minister using the words, "I urge that you should now touch on the second limb of the proposed terms of reference to the political commission and leave the terms of reference including the six-day week to a commission of educationists." And "Would you please" - I said "please", Sir, I may use the Deputy Prime Minister's favourite word politely and these are the words:

`As regards the first part of my terms of reference which incorporate the words "including the six-day week" in the Motion before the House, I would urge that the only proper body to investigate this is a body of educationalists and that the appointment of such a body should be proceeded with with vigour and finalised this month. I would appreciate an indication from you by way of a Ministerial or Press statement on the subject if possible before the time for consideration of my Motion is reached.' And when I rose in answer to the call notice of my motion, you will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, I offered an opportunity to the Minister to make a ministerial statement so that the whole matter could be withdrawn. But no. I did this in all sincerity, Mr Speaker. I sought no publicity. I had no political axe to grind in this matter. I was seeking to avoid just this very political mud-slinging which you have seen. But not only did he reject the opportunity - I should be astounded and keep getting astounded, but I should not be astounded by what the Front Bench does, by the violence of his attack on me when he said, "if the Member for Anson thinks he can twist and turn and write letters to mc telling me what to do before withdrawing his motion, if he wishes to act like a weathercock, turning with every breath of the wind, he is sadly mistaken." Sir, it is the Free Press, but I do not have to read the document to remind the House of what was said.

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand the Member for Anson was quoting from a document, if he is quoting, then he must say what that document is.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, at the time I made no notes and I am refreshing my own memory as to what was said. This was, if you please, Mr Speaker, reported in quotation marks by the Free Press of today, which I am happy to table.

Mr Speaker: It is not necessary to table it.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I wrote that letter at the request of his Prime Minister. He was present. Did he not hear it? Maybe he had the wrong spectacles on. Furthermore, Sir, the Minister for Education has told us, "We have already decided that the second limb of the Member for Anson's motion about political machinations and interference in primary and secondary schools should be referred to the Commission on the boycott of the Chinese school examination." This is a startling statement, Sir, because his own Prime Minister on Monday morning said to us that this was a radical departure.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: On a point of correction, Sir.

Mr David Marshall: Certainly, Sir.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am afraid, Mr Speaker, he misquoted me in this respect. I did say that he would bring the second limb of that within the terms of reference of the first Commission to inquire into the examination boycott. But I did not say that it had been decided. "We shall do it," I said.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I will be satisfied with my own memory and what the record shows. The record shows, and my memory indicates, it was the past tense that he used that it was decided that that second limb should be with that Commission. It is an extraordinary thing, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education so dislike each other that they do not talk to each other, I can sympathise with both of them. But the point is this: this is a matter of collective responsibility of the Cabinet in which at least they should inform each other of what is happening. And to stand up there and abuse me in that manner for complying with the request of the Prime Minister to write in is one of the most startling experiences that I have undergone. Now, Mr Speaker -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Point of order. The Member for Anson keeps saying that he will trust his memory. Since he has taken the liberty of quoting The Free Press, would be quote that portion where I did say that there would be a Commission of Inquiry which would bring in political activities and machinations in schools? Would he just quote the document which he is trying to quote in one respect but forgetting another respect?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker. I would like to help the Minister who has not helped us, who has wasted a whole day of our time. This is what I have. It may be that this is not the paragraph, and I will be very glad for an indication as to the paragraph that he wants if it is not this:

`Mr Yong Nyuk Lin made a point by point reply. He said there would be two Commissions of Inquiry, one dealing with education policy including the six-day week.'

That is the summary of The Free Press.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Lower down!

Mr David Marshall: Do indicate the paragraph.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin handed in The Free Press.

Mr Speaker: In fairness to the Minister, perhaps the Member for Anson will read the paragraph in the second column: "He said that the Commission of Inquiry ...".

Mr David Marshall: -

`He said that the Commission of Inquiry into the examination boycott in Chinese schools would include political activity and machinations that are extant in primary and secondary schools and it will be headed by a High Court Judge.'

Yes, Mr Speaker, he did. My point is this. I asked him to make a statement. I offered him the opportunity to make a statement which would have saved a whole day of debate here. No. Instead, I got abused yesterday and today, `Sir, I got compliments - "I thank the Member for Anson for raising the motion so that I can reply point by point." Talk about weathercock, Sir. Just who is the weathercock?

Mr Speaker, in moving this motion I studiously refrained from any acrimony, from any criticism, from even any comment on the educational policy, hoping, even though the Minister had refused the invitation to make a statement which would have finalised it, that the motion would be dealt with on a non-political, non-communal basis. But I must say, Sir, that that is not the way it has been treated by the Minister. He has sought to make political capital out of it and the Opposition have done the same.

Sir, in these circumstances, I will continue to avoid both the political and the communal aspects. But there is one point that I must emphasise and bring to the attention of this Assembly. The Minister made this extraordinary statement: since a Commission of Inquiry is to be appointed, it would be improper for me to introduce the measures he had in mind for the relaxation of the six-day week. Sir, the pipe in my bathroom is broken and the whole bedroom is flooded, but it would be improper for him to repair it because there are plumbers examining the whole plumbing system. That is the most fantastic and illogical statement for a long time from an illogical Government. The very fact that he has in mind a relaxation of the six-day week means that finally he has been convinced that there is widespread intense and genuine dissatisfaction on the part of parents and educationists who say, "Our children need time for human activities, to make friends, to go on picnics, to indulge in the many things that build human character. We don't want our children to be made into P.A.P. machines. We want our educational system to produce decent human beings. It doesn't matter whether they are fully stuffed with this, that or the other. We want decent human beings." And you cannot have that if you have their noses to the grindstone six days a week. Be fair to our future citizens. We recognise it is legitimate, and yet, Sir, they have the gall to come here and say to us: "First, we will postpone the relaxation of the six-day week we have in mind. Second, you will have your Commission in the never never land of the foggy future of the dying P.A.P.".

Mr Speaker, the six-day week freeze, as one newspaper has it headlined, is unwarranted. I do repeat that in fairness to our school population, to the parents and the teachers too! (But they, to me, Sir, are not as important as the school children.) Whatever was contemplated by way of relaxation, let us have now. But it is no question here of anything being sub judice. I say furthermore, Sir, that this Commission should be appointed with all speed. We have had three weeks since the Minister promised us. He complains that his former Parliamentary Secretary sat on the files and the silver fish escaped from his drawer into his Parliamentary Secretary's drawer. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary's silver fish have now escaped into the Minister's drawer, because he has had three weeks, Sir,I for one believed that he was quite honest when he said that he was going to have a commission. I for one anticipated a Press statement at least to indicate the appointment of this Commission. We have had three whole weeks, Sir - three whole weeks in which nothing seems to have been done.

Mr Speaker, there is one small point I would like to correct and which seems to have been misunderstood. I have been asked why has there been an exclusion of vocational and technical training from the scope of this Commission. I would like to remind Members that there is a Commission on vocational and technical training. In fact, we had a Report from it on the 25th of October. That is why I am excluding vocational and technical training from this motion. I repeat, Sir, that it is obvious from the sentiments expressed in fact by both sides of the House when they were slinging mud at each other in a curious contest of throwing things, like a quarrelsome, ill-mannered husband and his wife who have separated. When matters were referred to which were pertinent, everybody recognises the validity of the request for this motion whose intent is not to criticise but to ascertain after a lapse of time where we are going, whether it is in the right direction, and how we are to trim our future course. As the Member for Geylang Serai has quite rightly emphasised, and I would like to repeat it most emphatically, it is not intended to be limited in any sense whatsoever to any single stream of education.

Mr Speaker, I do urge that this Government recognise the responsibility forthwith to introduce the best measures available for the relaxation of the six-day week, and that the appointment of this Commission of inquiry into education should be made now.

Question put.

Mr David Marshall: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, Nil; Paired, 4; Absent, 2. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Nil. Haji Jumat. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Abstentions. Buang bin Nil. Omar Junid. Byrne. K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Paired. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Chor Yeok Eng. Mohammad Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Lee Kuan Yew. Miss Chan Choy Siong, Goh Chew Chua. Madam. Goh Keng Swee. Mohamed Ali bin Hoe Puay Choo, Alwi. Madam. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Absent. Lee Siew Choh. Koh, C. H. Lee Teck Him. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Lin You Eng. Lingam, S. V. Low Por Tuck. Mammen, John. Marshall. David. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ng Teng Kian. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Eng Guan. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

6.28 p.m.