MAIN ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1963

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

Resumption of debate on Question (13th June, 1963),

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1."-(Mr S. T. Bani).

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.33 p.m.

Head 46 -

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, last night I read to the House the legal opinion given by the State Advocate-General's Chambers on the point of holding secret ballots where there is a certified and registered collective agreement. The Member for Thomson accused us of trying to evade this issue. Here are the facts of the matter.

C.K. Tang Ltd, and the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union signed a collective agreement which was certified by the Industrial Arbitration Court on 15th March, 1961. The agreement was for two years, from 15th March, 1961, to 14th March, 1963. On 5th December, 1961, that is two years ago, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union claimed to represent the majority of the employees of C. K. Tang, and this union requested the Commissioner for Labour to conduct a secret ballot to determine union representation. The Commissioner for Labour, who then was Mr Kok Ah Loy and not Mr Pang Tee Pow, referred this matter to the State Advocate-General's Chambers for advice, and the S.A.G.'s Chambers gave advice which I read last night. The union was, therefore, advised accordingly. The matter then rested at that stage without being pursued further by this union.

It was after two years, that is on 13th March, 1963, that the S.B.H.E.U. again took up this matter. The present Commissioner for Labour, Mr Pang Tee Pow, then told the union that it could not proceed with a secret ballot because of legal advice being given. However, in the meantime, he again referred the matter to the State Advocate-General for clarification. The S.A.G.'s Chambers took some time and it was only on 30th April, 1963, that the Commissioner for Labour was advised that he could proceed to hold a secret ballot in cases where there were certified and registered collective agreements.

From then onwards, any dispute on the question of representation of unions is always resolved by way of a secret ballot. Therefore, a secret ballot was held in the C. K. Tang case sometime after April.

Mr Speaker, Sir, last night the Member for Thomson also made an accusation that the present Commissioner for Labour, Mr Pang Tee Pow, is biased and is acting on instructions. I will reveal to this House the facts of the other two cases so that the House will be able to arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not the Commissioner for Labour, as a civil servant, really acted on legal advice and according to the statute of the State.

Take the case of the Plywood dispute which hitherto has had dealings with the Singapore General Employees' Union. On 23rd February, 1963, the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union approached the Commissioner for Labour to hold a secret ballot to determine union representation. The S.M.M.W.U., on 23rd February, that is, before clarification was given to the Commissioner for Labour on 30th April, also informed this union, which the Member for Thomson accused as belonging to the P.A.P., that no secret ballot could be held because of a legal ruling.

Again in the case of Seiclene, as late as 16th April, I think, the S.M.M.W.U. approached the Commissioner for Labour to hold a secret ballot to determine union representation. Similarly, the Commissioner for Labour again rejected the request because of the legal ruling.

So all these cases pertaining to secret balk: were only disposed of after 30th April, 1963, when the Commissioner for Labour was advised that, though there may be a certified and registered collective agreement, a secret ballot can be conducted. From that date onwards, all cases that were held up because of this ruling had been disposed of by way of secret ballot.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson also claimed yesterday that the S.A.T.U. group of unions believe in maintaining industrial peace with justice through the machinery of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. I think all the workers know how sincere the Member for Thomson is with regard to this matter. He cited the case of the dispute between the S.B.H.E.U. and Fraser & Co. In this particular case, the union managed to reach agreement through direct negotiations with the employer on all points except the clause on retrenchment. Immediately after the deadlock, the union took it upon itself to lead the workers to go on strike, instead of adhering to the Industrial Relations Ordinance which provided that the next step the union should have taken was to notify the Commissioner for Labour under section 19 that they had reached a deadlock although they had direct negotiations. Had that been done, the Commissioner would have arranged for a further conciliation. But in this case, the union did not resort to this procedure. They deemed fit to resort to direct action.

In the Industrial Relations Ordinance, there are so many procedures to go through where every facility and every assistance and every effort can be made to settle a dispute. Just now, I referred to section 19. Under section 19 where the Commissioner fails to effect a conciliation, he could notify the Minister for Labour that no further progress could be made through conciliation. The matter could then be considered by the Minister as to whether it should be referred to arbitration or further conciliation could be made through his good offices. But no, the Union did not avail itself of all these facilities. So this is one of the classic cases where the Member for Thomson incited and misled the workers to go on strike. And when he is in a fix, he always puts the blame on the Minister for Labour or the Labour Ministry that we make no attempt to help them resolve their trade disputes. In this case, though they went on strike, nevertheless our conciliation officer on his initiative, immediately the strike was on, approached both parties to resume negotiations at the office.

Another case where the S.A.T.U group of unions deliberately by-passed the conciliation machinery and the Industrial Relations Ordinance was the recent dispute in Singapore Oxygen Ltd. This case involves the question of transfer. The union took up this matter with the management. No progress could be made through direct negotiations. Immediately after that, the union took it upon itself to lead the workers to go on strike.

2.45 p.m.

So in this case, it was the management itself which referred the matter to the Labour Department and asked it to assist in effecting a conciliation. Immediately upon this request, the Conciliation Office brought the two parties together and tried to resolve this matter. After several meetings, the dispute was then resolved on certain terms. Among the terms of the settlement arrived at was that this matter was to be referred to arbitration. Here again, this is a matter of interpretation. The union could have approached the management and suggested, after the deadlock, to refer the matter to arbitration. No, they went on strike. So after they went on strike and failed, they put the blame again on the Labour Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Thomson said that he was sincere in making use of the conciliation machinery and the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Your record shows that!

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Yes. There is a letter here. After the settlement, the management wrote to the union saying, "All right, according to our terms of settlement, we are to refer this matter to arbitration." The employer asked the union to sign a joint application to refer the matter to arbitration. But what was the reply from the union? They said, "No, we are not interested in referring it to arbitration. If you want to do so, you do it by yourself." There you are, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is the conduct of this unionist who, in this House, claims that he is being deprived of the machinery and that we are playing politics in dealing with trade disputes - [Interruption] These are the facts. There are letters here in the file ---

Mr Bani: What did the secretary reply?

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Speaker, last night the Member for Thomson also said that we were deviating from our labour policy. The Minister for Labour had in his reply referred him to our labour policy which we have enunciated in our Five-Year Election Programme. If he verifies from the programme and the work we have done in the Labour Ministry, he can hardly find anything to show that we have fallen short of our election manifesto.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know, of course, that it is a waste of time for us to convince or persuade the Member for Thomson to agree that we have strictly followed our labour policy which we have enunciated in our election programme. We know that according to him, the means justify the end, that is, even if the workers are to be sacrificed or they are to suffer, it is immaterial as long as he can achieve his ulterior motive by all these means, that is, to introduce a foreign ideology to this country. Whereas on our side, Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe in our basic political philosophy and we are going to go about it by peaceful revolution. Therefore, we state that that is why there is a basic difference between the Member for Thomson and our side. Therefore, the machinery and the facilities; that prevail in the State are detrimental to the manner and activities of the Member for Thomson, because you are aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that from time to time it is announced in the paper that workers have left the S.A. T.U. group of unions and joined the other unions, because the workers are fed up with them. They have been misled and a classic case was Borneo Motors, where their backroom boy, Mr Lu Shee Peng, fully realised that, in the agreement, the understanding reached was that the company would endeavour to pay an annual bonus of one month's salary or more within the terms of this agreement. This agreement was entered into on 1st July, 1961. For the year 1961, the union had advised the employees - their members then - to accept the rate of bonus as stipulated in the agreement reached. But in 1962, they deliberately misled the workers into believing that they could ask for more bonus. All right, even if they thought they had a case to do so, then the proper and peaceful way, without causing lot, of suffering to the workers, would be to refer this matter to the Arbitration Court, since this was not a question of bargaining over the quantum of the rate. It was just a question of interpretation of the clause. But, no. Again the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union led the workers on a strike. After the management had stood firm and pointed out the legal position of this case, they then realised that they had again misled the workers. In this case, they forced the workers to go back to work. There is no time for me to read through all the circulars put up by the members who were then in their union. These members were suddenly then told that they were expelled. They refused to go back to work. They were asked to call off the strike. They were first asked to go on strike; the union tried to deceive them that there was a case for them to ask for more bonus. After the union failed, they realised the legal position there and then they forced the workers to call off the strike. The workers then turned round and said, "Now, what is this? You have asked us to go strike because there is a case for more bonus. How is that you want us to call off the strike and go back to work without anything?" Therefore, the workers put up some arguments with the Member for Thomson. The Member for Thomson knew that it was very embarrassing. The only simple way of doing it is, as I have said just now, as long as the means justify the end, he just cuts them off. The workers, fortunately, were conscious of the consequences, because the management was already on the verge of serving them with notices of termination of services. They immediately approached the Labour Ministry for assistance. It was only at our intervention that the workers were not made to suffer unduly.

The Member for Thomson also accused us of playing politics in dealing with trade disputes. Mr Speaker, Sir, everyone in the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union knows what the Member for Thomson is aiming at, and how they are going to make use of them. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, immediately after the action in February taken by the Internal Security Council, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union held a meeting in the Hokkien Huay Kwan. They passed a resolution, the usual thing, demanding the release of their trade unionists. They printed this resolution on paper. Then they asked their usual runners to go to every branch to force them to sign, saying that they must sign individually, each one of them, one copy saying that they supported the resolution, to show that it was genuine that the workers were up in arms against the Government. Not only that, Mi. Speaker, Sir, the workers were asked by force to donate one day's wages to support the detainees' families, not by voluntary donations. It was by force, otherwise they would be subjected to intimidation. I have often heard workers who are in the Singapore General Employees' Union say, "Though the union may have obtained one or two cents increase for me, every month or every now and then, I will be asked to contribute either to a strike fund, a Barisan rally or legal fees. In the end I have suffered a loss instead of gain by joining the union." That is a fact. The Member for Thomson can clarify it from his own members. There is a recent case of United Engineers when an old man had the courage to stand up and fight against the chairman of his own branch. He refused to contribute to this fund, because he had his own political convictions. He said, "I refuse to. I do not want to involve myself in these political manoeuvres." What did the branch do? The Singapore General Employees' Union used pressure on the employer and forced the old man to be sacked from the firm. This is on record. If the Member for Thomson wants any time, we can ask the Press to hold a Press conference and ask the workers to come and reveal the story. That is a fact ---

Some hon. Members: Shame!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: And again, they say they are always acting in the interests of the workers. But as I have pointed out just now - [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order. This item goes on till 3.15 p.m. There will be plenty of opportunity for Members to speak.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Everyone knows that in the Bus Workers Union, they go and tell the employers that as a union, in principle, they should have the right to recommend workers to be employed in the firm whenever recruitment is made. Of course, in that case, their argument was that in 1955, there was a group of workers who were dismissed. They said they were wrongfully dismissed because, at that time, they said there were riots and industrial action. So on that ground, the management conceded to their demand. But everyone in the Bus Workers Union and all Singapore bus workers know that that right was fought for by the workers themselves in order to bring back their colleagues into employment. But instead of using it for the good of the ex-employees, the Member for Thomson's colleague, Mr Fong Swee Suan, used that right to recruit Barisan cadres into the Bus Company. He cannot deny that. All the bus workers are challenging him. Mr Tan Say Kam, who is the secretary of that union, was being pestered and he had to hide himself on certain occasions, because groups of workers were chasing after him. That is a tact. He cannot deny that. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think probably I will have to conclude because of the time limit ---

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): We all like to hear more.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: The Member for Thomson accused us by saying that the basic point in our labour policy is the reunification of the trade union movement. Yes, Mr Speaker. Sir, the word "reunification" to the Member for Thomson means that all workers should be grouped and dumped on the laps of those pro-Communist agents, so that they can manipulate them. Mr Speaker, Sir, that definitely is not our labour policy. We say that we want to promote a united democratic and independent trade union movement. That is our object, and that is not the way as the Member for Thomson puts it.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, all the workers have now realised - [Interruption] Yes, it is quite true. They are coming out batch by batch ---

The Chairman: Order. I think that point has been covered by the Minister for Labour, the switch-over of labour unions.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: What I am trying to emphasise now, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the workers have now realised that they are not going to be made use of as tools for the interests of the Member for Thomson. They have said in the past that those that have switched from the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union are the white-collars. Last night they accused us saying that that we held in contempt the English-educated class. But he is now saying that those chaps who drifted to us were English-educated ---

Mr Bani: When did I say that?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: You refer to your record. Now, the industrial workers from the General Employees' Union are coming out batch by batch. This morning in Pepsi-Cola, known as the Union Ltd., a ballot was held. These are the Chinese-educated industrial workers. Out of 146 employees, 133 voted in the secret ballot and 101 voted for the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union; only 27 indicated that they were not members of the Singapore Manual and Mercantile Workers Union. So I presume that this can be an indication that there are only 27 members now who are members of the Singapore General Employees' Union.

3.00 p.m.

As I said last night, I quite appreciate how anxious and frightened the Member for Thomson is getting nowadays.

Mr Bani: Sir, I suggested last night that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister should bring the whole of the Ministry of Labour to this Chamber so that they can refer to all their files. It appears that they have at least half the Ministry here.

The Chairman: Half the Ministry?

Mr Bani: In terms of documents and files, Sir.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is only a quarter of an hour, and it is not possible for me to touch on every single case that the Parliamentary Secretary raised in the course of his speech. Therefore, I just want to confine myself to one or two points and also to explain our basic accusation that the Government's labour policy is a policy of convenience to the Government. I said last night that they had a very inconsistent labour policy because the concentration given in solving trade disputes was political and not on the merits of trade disputes as such.

Sir, I would like to take the case of Fraser and Co, which is a very recent case. The Parliamentary Secretary just said that an agreement had been reached between the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union and the employer on all claims that were submitted by the union before the strike took place. Sir, that is correct. That is so. But in the usual style of fabrication, he has seen fit not to tell the whole truth. Sir, negotiations commenced and were concluded on all items submitted by the union to the employer under section 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance as claims of the members. After the settlement was reached in a peaceful atmosphere, the employer brought up the question of retrenchment. The employer wanted an item to be included in the collective agreement covering retrenchment. Sir, the union objected to this. In this connection, Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 27 (a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. This is a recent amendment which was introduced by the Government last year.

`Any person or trade union which enters into negotiations in relation to industrial matters otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Ordinance shall be guilty of an offence under this Ordinance.' Sir, the provisions in this Ordinance for a negotiation are sections 16, 17, etc. In section 27 (a), employers are also included. If the employer wants to introduce an item to be included in a collective agreement, the employer should serve under section 16 as provided. En the case of Fraser & Co., the employer did not do this. Surely the union was right in insisting that the retrenchment question could not be included in the collective agreement. So the strike took place because the employer was insistent.

The conciliation officers of the Ministry of Labour who handled this dispute know the facts. Only two days ago we received the letter.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, on a point of explanation.

Mr Bani: No, Mr Speaker, I do not intend to give way because there is not the time - [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, there is not the time, and I am sure it is only fair that I try and explain one or two points that the Parliamentary Secretary raised just now which gave a completely distorted picture of the facts.

Sir, that was in the case of Fraser. Only two days ago, we received the letter from the conciliation officer who informed us that he regrets he cannot solve this problem because the employer does not want to concede at all. The current situation in the dispute is that the employer wants to sack all the workers. As far as the employer is concerned, he has sacked all the workers and they are no more employees of Fraser and Co., and, therefore, the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union cannot enter into negotiations. This again is a violation of a provision in the I.R.O. There is a provision which says that no employer can victimise workers for having taken industrial action. The employer also says that the workers had breached the contract of service by staying away from work because they were on strike. Sir, a strike, I would like to point out, is a legitimate weapon guaranteed to the workers under the laws of the country, and, therefore, that again does not arise.

The next point I would like to deal with is ---

Mr Byrne: No such law.

Mr Bani: --- the question of secret ballot. Sir, what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have said, I repeat, only confirms what I have said, namely, the Ministry has no consistent policy. The Minister himself or the Parliamentary Secretary admitted that there were two opinions given to this interpretation of secret ballot in the context of an industry where a collective agreement exists. Sir, we know how these opinions were got. We know why they were got and we know how they were applied.

Sir, while, on the one hand, the Ministry refused to hold a secret ballot on the ground that there was a collective agreement in force, on the other hand, there were workers switching sides in certain firms where there existed collective agreements. So if one goes through the list of these switch-overs, one will note that, in some cases, switch-overs took place, although there was a collective agreement.

Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were informed of the reasons why a secret ballot was refused. This is untrue. We were not even given a reply to letters that we wrote to the Commissioner for Labour. It is because of this. Mr Speaker, that last night I said that it is regrettable that the Commissioner for Labour, who is a public servant, plays politics also. I said that we appreciated the work of the majority of the labour conciliation officers. But I cannot say the same for the Commissioner for Labour. His conduct has been such that he has treated large groups of unions with a political bias. Yesterday it was reported in the papers. Mr Speaker, he talks of anti-national elements being a threat to Singapore while he is in Geneva. I do not know who wrote the speech for him - by the Minister for ---

The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Pang Boon): He is delivering the speech on my behalf.

Mr Bani: But the papers did not say that. Perhaps it was a speech written, as the Minister says, by himself. Sir, this question of we being dangerous Communists who extort the workers, squeeze money out of them, force them to sign circulars, etc., I think, is too stupid a charge for me to reply. I can only say that the Government Benchers must have some respect for the intelligence of the workers. Sir, we do not despise people like they do.

Sir, the Singapore Business Houses Employees' Union is just one union. The total membership of that union is in the region of 10,000. The 40 odd unions, which are directly affiliated to S.A.T.U., represent over 100,000 workers. I think it is insane for anyone to suggest that 100.000 human beings can be intimidated by us. We do not have the things they have - the police; the State machinery. We have nothing to threaten them with.

An hon. Member: Thugs!

Mr Bani: They have got thugs. The Secretary of the Singapore Bus Workers Union was beaten up by thugs who were employed by the Manual and Mercantile Workers Union. They do this. They are talking of thugs! Sir, as an incentive to get some leading workers to work for them they have a few agents, discredited and questionable characters like T. V. Gomez, who spent money taking chaps to bars and indulging in everything under the sun which is questionable and immoral. Sir, I am prepared to substantiate everything that I say here. If the Government wants, they can give me the opportunity, and I will have sufficient witnesses to show which bars are frequented, how much money is used, where this money comes from. And they talk of us using thugs! I do not think anybody can seriously believe that if we really use thugs, the Government will say, "Jolly good, you use thugs. We will just keep quiet." They will lock us up. Sure, they will do. Sir, they are waiting for the opportunity to smack us down.

They dare not arrest the Assemblymen under the P.P.S.O., but they are waiting for an opportunity. I am sure they must be very sorry that they have still not got me because I have been a little slippery.

3.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 46 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the name of Mr S. T. Bani, were not proceeded with:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (40) of subhead 1.

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 46 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $1,101,010 for Head 46 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 47 -

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

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

Sir, one of the benefits - if I may say so - which I hope will ensue for Singapore out of the recent drought is the realisation by the Prime Minister that trees are an essential commodity which, if' not looked after and planted from time to time, will eventually involve the country in rainless days.

Sir, when the City Council was a going concern, there used to be a department which was specially entrusted with the planting of roadside trees, pruning them, looking after them, bringing them down and replacing them wherever necessary. Since the present Government took office, they have wound up the City Council and with it has gone the incentive for the department which was looking after trees and the planting of trees.

Now it is a phenomenon of recent times that housing estates are springing up in large numbers. Large areas which have been wooded are being constantly felled down and houses being erected, with the result that a lot of trees have been brought down in Singapore and they have not been replaced. Roads have been put through these housing estates and when you visit these housing estates - although we have nice houses and nice gardens - you will find that they are bereft of roadside trees or big trees. The Prime Minister has now realised how important it is that trees should be planted and, where brought down, others in their place should be planted.

Sir, I welcome the Prime Minister's statement and I do hope that in future, not only will the Government or the department which has now been entrusted with the planting of trees take a more active and keen interest in the planting of trees, but will convince estate developers that merely to bring down trees in their estates to give way to houses and roads is not the end of a housing estate and that they should also be encouraged, if not coerced, into planting trees on the roads and elsewhere.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, this particular branch of the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Division, was transferred to the Labour Ministry in accordance with the integration of the City Council into the Government machinery.

It is true that in the last one or two years there has not been much work done by this Division simply because we have lost the Chief Parks Officer who resigned for some reason or other, and we have only managed to find a replacement in January this year. We are now proceeding actively, as the Member for Farrer Park has pointed out, with the planting of trees and looking after gardens and playgrounds.

Mr Rajah: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,454,030 for Head 47 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 48 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Lin You Eng ---

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

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (In Mandarin): I am not moving.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not moving.

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (22) of subhead 1.

In 1959, the P.A.P. made a series of promises, but up to today they have not kept them. In their pamphlet there is a paragraph which says that the P.A.P. will build more creches to enable women to come out of their homes to take part in the task of nation building. The P.A.P. have been in office for four years and their downfall is coming fast. The sun is now setting for them. The signs are that they are not able to build these creches which they have promised. Of course, a politician can make a lot of promises at election time, but when he comes to office, he pays attention to acquiring a car and other material luxuries. I would like to ask how many creches have been built in relation to what has been promised?

The people of Singapore are concerned with the question of whether their interest and welfare can be looked after. I understand a number of staff who were not liked by the Government had been sacked. I would like to ask whether the staff employed in these creches are subjected to intimidation, because there is a rumour to this effect. I would also like to ask the Government whether such a situation exists. If this is so, then the people will view with suspicion the policies of the Government. I would like the Minister to explain.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I can gather from the speech of the Member for Moulmein, what he is asking is, how many creches have been built by the Government since its assumption of office? For his information, one new creche was opened in 1962 and four new creches are now under construction: two will be completed in another two or three months' time, one will be completed at the end of the year, and the other one probably in the early part of next year.

As to how the staff working in the creches are promoted, I can only inform the Member for Moulmein that there are set rules and procedures for recommending promotions, and in any case all staff promotions and appointments arc governed by the P.S.C.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we have heard the reply given by the Acting Minister for Labour to the Member for Moulmein. From his reply, we can see that the workers of Singapore, especially the domestic servants, do not receive any benefits from the Social Welfare Department. These people place high hopes on the fact that they will be able to send their sons and daughters to the creches to receive care in education and health. It is not possible for these people to employ servants. From the reply of the Minister, we can see what help the Government has given to the domestic servants. The Government claims to look after the interest of the poorer classes, and these domestic servants belong to the poorer classes. The Ministers who are elected from the populated town areas know that they need people to help them in their house work. That is why more creches should be built. I understand the Government have not built more than ten creches during the last four years and that some of them have not been completed. In 1961, only one creche was built. We do not see more creches coming up now. All this goes to show that the Government are not really sincere in helping to look after the children of housewives and household women so that they can go out to work.

The Minister has also said that the management and control of the staff employed in the creches are in the hands of the P.S.C.

3.30 p.m.

The Government's method of recruiting staff to the creches is not according to set rules. I can give a very clear example. In the creche in Kreta Ayer a certain member of the staff there was sacked not because he committed an offence under the regulations, but I believe because of political reasons. This member of the staff was sacked for only one reason. On that night in question he was in the creche. He invited his friends to a makan. In the meantime, certain members of the P.A.P. branch There telephoned the police saying that there was an incident in the creche and; asked the police to investigate. A police inspector went there and took down the identity card numbers of all those present at the makan. These people were all friends of the member of the staff. They used to frequent that place, i.e., the place where they were then feasting. But the Government sacked this member on account of his giving a dinner to his friends. Mr Speaker, Sir, this person had been employed for a long time.

From this we can see that the fate of the staff is in the hands of the P.A.P., and it is their loyalty to the P.A.P. that decides their appointment and fate. This should not be so, because creches are maintained from public money. The P.A.P. are recruiting their own members into Government departments in order to deal with those who are not in the P.A.P.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the resources of the State are limited and the amount that we can spend on social welfare services for the people of Singapore are limited to a sum that the State can afford. And within this limit of the State resources, we are trying to `do as much as we can. Social welfare services are not confined to providing creches for babies of working mothers. There are other forms of social services. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang fails to see any of these social welfare services provided by the Government, then I can only say he is perhaps blind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has mentioned the dismissal of a creche assistant working at the Kreta Ayer creche. The creche assistant referred to is a Miss Soh Hwee Hong who incidentally is concurrently charged in connection with the City Hall riots. During the referendum campaign last year, this creche assistant happened also to be an Executive Committee member of the Barisan Sosialis Tanjong Pagar Branch. During that campaign, the Barisan Sosialis Tanjong Pagar Branch (it was their Kreta Ayer Branch at that time) was finding it difficult to get a place to hold their branch meetings. The idea then struck this particular creche assistant that the creche at Kreta Ayer could be a wonderful place - being very spacious - for branch committee meetings and indoctrination sessions. So she applied pressure on a friend who is a creche amah to allow her to invite all members of the Barisan Sosialis Kreta Ayer Branch Committee to hold meetings in this creche. This was found out. The police raided the place and found that there were no cooking utensils, no food. Subsequently disciplinary enquiries were held under the Disciplinary Rules of the City Council.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: Of the P.A.P.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The creche assistant happened to be on the City Council staff. Surely the Member for Choa Chu Kang must admit that the creche is not a dining hail or a guest house for the creche assistant working there to invite her friends and partake of a dinner at a social function. In any case after office hours no officer of the creche is supposed to invite members who are not the staff of the creche to the creche. The Disciplinary Committee constituted by the City Council Disciplinary Rules deliberated and the persons concerned were found guilty and their services terminated.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Moulmein wish for a vote?

Mr Lin You Eng: (In Mandarin): Yes. I would like to put it to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Tee Kim Leng (Pasir Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4*

• The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr Teo Hock Guan, Mr Leong Keng Seng, and Tun Lim Yew Hock.

Mr Speaker. Sir, we all know that the branches of the P.A.P. are without cadres. They are using the community centres for their party activities. As far as I know, there are 112 community centres at present, and the P.A.P. are using them as centres for political activity. For example, if V.I.P.s are visiting, or the Prime Minister is visiting, the only method of the P.A.P. Government is to hire buses to transport people from these community centres and take school children with flags, and to send supporters to receive the V.I.P.s In fact, the community centres are not used as a means of social welfare work. The Prime Minister has agreed to make use of community centres as clinics during the day, and at night to use them as veterinary centres. Up to now, all we know is that the purpose of the community centres has not been accomplished. The Government has used these places only to conduct their political activities.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): Mr Speaker. Sir, there is one thing the P.A.P. can be proud of, and that is the building of community centres. The reason for the building of so many community centres in Singapore is that the P.A.P. wants to give employment to its members. Therefore, as more community centres are built they can have more P.A.P. supporters. And this can be proved.

Many P.A.P. branches are situated near community centres, because no one wants to work in a P.A.P. branch. So the most convenient way for them to do is to build a community centre near a branch or to build a branch near a community centre. The other reason for the building of community centres is to install a television set in the community centre so that the people can see the beautiful faces of the Ministers.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): The worst is more beautiful than yours!

Mr Teo Hock Guan: I am not as beautiful as you are!

The Chairman: Order. I do not know whether that is a compliment to the Speaker or to the Minister. But the Member must remember that he is addressing the Speaker.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, my constituency is very small and, if I am correct, there are nearly ten community centres there.

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): I am not speaking.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): I will speak later.

The Chairman: If there is time.

Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

The Chairman: Mr Rajaratnam is answering for the Minister for Labour?

Mr Rajaratnam: Contributing my little bit.

The Chairman: Yes, all right, but time is limited.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, since some Members of the Barisan Sosialis are not speaking, though they have given notice of the amendment, I thought I might do a little service by filling in the gap. It is quite obvious that throughout this debate, before July 1961, whether it was community centres, the Industrial Arbitration Court, or everything that the Government did was good. After July 1961 the same things have become bad. The community centres were established long before 1961, and many Members who are now in the Barisan - if you look up the Hansard you will see it - paid a glowing tribute to these community centres.

3.45 p.m.

It was quite a different story after 1961. So it is quite clear, Sir. The community centres have not changed - the organisation, the method of operation is still the same. But the political objectives of the Barisan Sosialis have changed. They see in the community centres another bulwark against their political objectives. If the community centres are as they now claim - purely centres for preaching P.A.P. propaganda, for training cadres for the P.A.P., for mobilising people, as they say, to bundle them into lorries to cheer V.I.P.s - if that were so, then I am quite sure they must give credit to the intelligence of the people of Singapore that they are not going to allow themselves to be used as cheer leaders for V.I.P.s. They can go to any community centre today, or any night. They will find that people go there to play basketball. I cannot see any P.A.P. propaganda but I can see basketball being played, sewing classes and cooking classes going on, and people resting. I can tell them, Sir, that if, as they have indicated, the P.A.P. community centres are' recruiting grounds for the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. is even stronger than they deny it is.

Sometime last week, I had the good fortune to celebrate the third anniversary of the Kampong Glam Community Centre. The ordinary people there collected about $3,000 or $4,000 to put up a Teochew drama to celebrate the occasion of the community centre. They were even quite prepared to publish their names - despite the Member for Thomson, they know that if they published their names, they would be marked men - as they knew it had nothing to do with the P.A.P., and because they believed in the community centres, they felt that the occasion merited spending some money of their own not on celebrating the P.A.P. but to say that it is a worthwhile welfare enterprise by the Government. They say that their kids now can go there and learn something instead of joining the little picnic parties that are occasionally organised by the Barisan Sosialis. The kids can now go there to play basketball, learn to cook, learn to sew, and watch television. I wish that occasionally Members of the Barisan Sosialis would go to their respective community centres and learn something, instead of coming here and saying very silly things against which we have warned them. If they could only go to the community centres and enjoy the amenities there, they themselves would thank the Government for at least having provided them with one social amenity which is non-political.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, when this House was debating the Annual Estimates, we noted that there were some reductions in a number of items. But in this item regarding development of community centres, there has been an increase to $2 million from $1½ million.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance says that there will be an increase of up to $3 million next year. Is that so? Well, it appears that the P.A.P.'s industrialisation programme has turned into the development of community centres because, in 1959, when the P.A.P. came into office, there were only 18 community centres. But to date there are 112 community centres. This, of course, shows that it is a great achievement on the part of the P.A.P. But what we are concerned with now is this. For what and for whom are the community centres? If they are meant for the people, then, of course, they must be given all the credit. But the community centres of today are meant for the service of the P.A.P. I must point out this together with the other facts, to show that my point is right and how community centres are being used by the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, on 7th June, the Minister for Labour said in this House that there were 485 members staffing the community centres. I believe that of the 485 members of the community centres, there is a percentage of up to 90 belonging to the P.A.P. They are members of the P.A.P., up to 90 per cent ---

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Rubbish!

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Minister for Labour also said, in reply to a question put by the Member for Jalan Kayu, that in the community centre in Yio Chu Kang, there was a person known by the name of Choh Ee Min. This person is actually a member of the P.A.P. Jalan Kayu Branch. He is also working in the community centre. In my own constituency, I think the Government is going to build up to 15 community centres ---

Mr Rajaratnam: You had better watch out!

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, out of the 15, eight have been built and every one of these eight is staffed by P.A.P. members. The P.A.P. are building community centres as their own branches in order to deal a blow against the Barisan Sosialis. My own branch is in Woodlands. But because the P.A.P. are unable to deal with the activities of the Barisan Sosialis, the Land Office has given us notice to move away from the place to give way to the construction of a community centre within two weeks. Mr Speaker, the Minister for Culture and the Minister for National Development say that our building is an unauthorised building. But I can give them the receipt of assessment and other documents to show that the building is authorised and has been approved by the Government. So when I went to the officials in charge of the Land Office and other various departments, these officials told me that they could not do anything. When I asked for a reason, they said it was because the Government wanted to build a community centre there.

Mr Speaker, my branch has been demolished and in place of it there is a community centre coming up. This is only one example to show that my point is correct.

The expenditure intended for the community centres is very great, up to $2 million. But this sum of $2 million is only being used for the propaganda work of the P.A.P. now and in the future. On the 13th of May, 1960, this House approved the People's Association Bill. A period of three years has elapsed, and during this period we have not been able to see the Government giving us the actual accounts with regard to the expenses in the community centres. How much money has been spent, we do not know; and for whose service are the community centres meant, we do not know either. In fact, every department in the Government has given Annual Reports, but there has been no Annual Report from the People's Association with regard to community centres.

Mr Speaker, you will remember that on the 16th of January, 1961, this House passed a resolution to set up a Commission of Inquiry into nepotism in the various Government departments. About two years have passed. How is it that the Government has got no guts to set up this particular commission to look into nepotism in the community centres? Since the Government is so anxious to carry out a Commission of Inquiry into the students' boycott in the examinations, how is it that it has no guts to set up a similar commission of Inquiry to look into the matter of nepotism? Mr Speaker, the facts are very clear. If the Government sets up a commission of this nature to look into nepotism in the community centres and other departments, then the P.A.P. will not be able to cover all their irregularities.

The Chairman: Order. I Member must keep an eye on This item gives over at 4.10 p.m. and there other Members wishing to speak; there are other items.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I will only take one more minute before I conclude. The facts are very clear. Every Government department's expenditure is decreasing, but the expenditure for the community centres is increasing. This gives rise to much concern. Our concern is this. The P.A.P. Government are now attaching their hopes to the community centres which they think will replace the activities in their branches. In fact, they are carrying out party activities in the community centres as they would have done so in their branches. In Bukit Panjang there are activities of the Party branch's sewing classes who are paid from the vote of the community centre. The Members seem to deny this, but I only hope that the Government will set up as quickly as possible a Commission of Inquiry into political nepotism if they have the guts.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture, when he replied to the allegations made by the Barisan Sosialis Members that community centres are being used by the Government for political party purposes, did not deny that allegation. He only said, "Well, when they were with us, they liked it. Now that they are no longer with us, that is why they are objecting." In other words, what he is trying to say to the Barisan Sosialis now is that the grapes are sour. We have always taken a consistent stand. We say that the Government have been using this vote for their own political ends. We have been saying that for years. The community centres (in other words, the People's Association) are the second political arm of the P.A.P., the first arm being the Work Brigade. I would have touched on that had there been time, but because I lost time, I had no chance to say it. But on these community centres, under the People's Association Ordinance, it is a clear indication that they are nothing but a political arm.

Sir, the development of community centres is, in fact, a very commendable thing to do and we would have supported the Government every time for more and more community development if they had not tried to make use of community centres for their own political ends.

4.00 p.m.

We are indeed most concerned, especially now when we are getting nearer towards general election time, that the Government want an extra half a million dollars for them to play party politics in the community centres. There had been community centres before the P.A.P. came to power. But these were run by voluntary organisations. There was no attempt at all to channel community centres for the use of any political Party. But since the P.A.P. came to power. they introduced a law, the People's Association Ordinance, and one can see one thing from the set-up of the Board of the People's Association, with the Prime Minister as Chairman, the Minister for Labour and Law as Deputy Chairman, the Minister for Finance, the Director of Social Welfare, and six members to be appointed by the Chairman. All this is just an attempt on the part of the Government to make use of public funds to disseminate P.A.P. propaganda. Because of that, we will resist this vote.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Barisan Sosialis claim that we are using community centres to beat them down. My point is this. We do not have to use community centres or any other methods to beat down the Barisan Sosialis because they are already down and out ---

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Do not bluff yourself!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: These rather foolish, immature, inexperienced so-called leaders, who have been outwitted and outmanoeuvred by us. They have disgraced the Communist open front organisation. Now, the reports both from our Party Branches and from our Intelligence sources ---

Some hon. Members: The Special Branch.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, certainly. They have advised us that a major shake-up is due to take place in the Communist front organisations ---

The Chairman: Order. I do not think we should go on that track. We are on community centres now.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is right ---

Mr Ong Chang Sam: He has nothing to say.

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: My point is that they will go down because the people who control them have decided to discard them. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary for us to use all these devious methods such as using community centres to break up what is already a semi-defunct organisation. History in the next few months will bear this out, that these people have disgraced their masters and they will be rejected by their masters in due course. The manner in which they will be done will be done with some finesse. They will not be openly repudiated because they have tried their best to serve their masters. But no doubt suitable means will be found whereby they will be brushed aside and cast into the limbo of history, forgotten men, complete failures.

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to try and clarify one point. The Minister for Culture has said that because we are now in the Barisan Sosialis, that is why we oppose the community centres to be used as centres of political activities.

Sir, I remember even when I was in the P.A.P. I had been all the time opposed to making use of the community centres for party politics. It is quite difficult to differentiate as to what are political activities. But all the time when I was in charge of the Havelock Community Centre as well as the Minister for Finance's Kreta Ayer Community Centre, I was opposed to making use of the community centres for party politics.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan): You are not shy.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Low Por Tuck: The other point is that sometime after we had parted with the P.A.P., I found to my surprise that the official plaque at the opening of the Havelock Community Centre, with my name engraved on it, had disappeared. If my name is so influential, as the Minister for Finance has said, then I hope the Government will give a reason why the official opening plaque was removed.

Mr Rajaratnam: Kalong Guni man.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the one hand, the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are saying that the community centres are nothing but P.A.P. branches; and, on the other hand, they say the P.A.P. Branches are all deserted, without anybody. If the centres are P.A.P. branches, they must admit that these centres are full of people and, far from being deserted, there is a hive of activities every night.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the real reason, 1 think, why the Barisan Sosialis are against the community centres can be found in what the Member for Choa Chu Kang has said just now. He says that the community centres have affected the Barisan branch activities because they have drawn away the crowds from the Barisan branches. Now, if it is of any comfort to the Member for Choa Chu Kang, I can tell him the Government is going to build many more community centres.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: For the P.A.P.

The Chairman: We have not solved the mystery of the missing plaque yet.

4.10 p.m.

Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 4."

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 23; Absent, 6; Paired, 2. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Chan Sun Wing Omar Junid Fung Ying Ching Byrne, K. M. Miss Chan Chee Seng Lee Siew Choh Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng Madam Lim Yew Hock Chor Yeok Eng Lin You Eng Goh Chew Chua Low Por Tuck Goh Keng Swee Mohd. Ali bin Alwi Lee Khoon Choy Ng Teng Kian Lee Teck Him Ong Chang Sam Lim Cheng Lock Ong Eng Guan Lingam, S. V. Rajah, A. P. Mammen, John Seow Peck Leng Mohd. Ariff bin Mrs Suradi Tan Cheng Tong M. Ismail Rahim Tee Kim Leng Ong Pang Boon Toe Hock Guan Rajaratnam, S. Thio Chan Bee Ramaswamy, S. Wong Soon Fong Sohorah binte Ahmat, Madam Tan Kia Gan Absent. Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Ahmad Jabri bin Yaacob bin Mohammad Akib Mohamed Al-Haj Hoe Puay Choo, Yong Nyuk Lin Madam Kandasamy, G Paired Koh, C. H. Marshall, David Abdul Hamid bin Sheng Nam Chin Haji Jumat Lee Kuan Yew

Question on the amendment accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: Time has expired for that Head.

The time allotted for Head 48 having expired, the following amendment standing in the names of Mr Lin You Eng, Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Dr Thio Chan Bee, was not proceeded with:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 48 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $16,088,560 for Head 48 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 49 -

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

The Minister for Culture - the Fascist who wants to teach me to be a better Communist! Sir, we know that the Ministry of Culture is, as a matter of fact, a Ministry of P.A.P. propaganda. There have been suggestions by the P.A.P. in the past that propaganda organs, particularly Radio Singapore, be taken over and authority given over to a corporation. This was done, I think, prior to the elections. However, since the elections, the P.A.P., far from setting up an independent body to run Radio Singapore, has only increased the use of Radio Singapore. In recent times, to make matters worse, we have television.

Sir, I am sure we are all aware of the fact that propaganda media like the radio and television can be used by those who are in power to spread party propaganda, and the P.A.P. undoubtedly has used these organs for party propaganda. I do not want to take much time. I merely want to say this.

4.15 p.m.

On television first. Sir, we know the vigour with which the Government have gone about introducing television in Singapore - just like the vigour with which they are trying to complete the construction of the National Theatre. Sir, various important Government projects which will contribute more to the needs of the people are not given the priority that television and the National Theatre have been given.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Such as?

Mr Bani: Sir, the National Theatre. The Minister for Finance says "Budget". Budget? They are already six months behind time.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of explanation.

The Chairman: If the Member will give way.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Member said that the Government did not give sufficient priority to other worthy projects to improve the livelihood of the people as compared with television. I did not say "Budget". I asked "Such as?". Would he give some examples? We would be pleased to entertain his views.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Bani: I am sorry I misheard the Minister. Sir, it is not my mistake. It is the mistake of the Minister. If he wants to speak next time, I suggest to him that he shout at the top of his voice.

The Chairman: Order. In that case, the Speaker will have to shout a little louder to pull him to order. I suggest that the Member for Thomson ignore these interjections which are made under the breath - sotto voce.

Mr Bani: Sir, we know that the National Theatre is given top priority. It is being done on a 24-hour shift work. I do not think there are very many Government projects, development projects which are given priority to this extent. It is true that they want to build roads and more flats. Prestige developments are being given priority to some extent and also, to a certain extent, roads and other projects which will be obvious to the people are given priority, because they want to impress upon the people that they are doing good for the people and that is because elections are around the corner, as I said yesterday. But I do not think there are many - in fact, I cannot think of even one Government development project - which are given as much priority as the National Theater done on a twenty-four hour shift work. For twenty-four hours a day, construction proceeds.

Sir, in the same way, the television project was hurried through and given priority. And today, we have television with four hours' entertainment at home. Sir, I would like to say one or two things about the material that is televised. It is only to the extent that it reflects the general policy of the Ministry and the Government as a whole.

Sir, even today the Government claims to be genuinely anti-colonial. But we find television programmes which go to glorify colonialism. I remember very vividly the Minister for Home Affairs in 1960 giving directives to the Film Censor on how the censorship should be done, how films which glorify imperialism and colonialism should be banned. But today, over T.V. 1 give you one good example. I cannot remember exactly on what day it was and at what lime, because it was a few days back. "Stage 7." [Interruption] If the Minister does not know what Stage 7 is, then he had better not sit there. This is a programme, and I suppose a weekly programme, and in this week's programme, a few days hack, white men were glorified for killing all the Red Indians. Sir, this is an example of glorifying colonialism.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Bankrupt!

Mr Bani: Sir, there is no bankruptcy in the first place, because the Minister for Education does not understand what colonialism means.

An hon. Member: You know!

Mr Bani: Sir, he is a passenger in the boat. He does not know what anti-colonial slogans mean. Ask his colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs. He needs a directive. Sir, the same directive that the Minister for Culture referred to the film censor. Killing Red Indians is glorifying colonialism. The white men in America are not the sons of the soil. They are not the indigenous people of America. The Minister for Education surely should know his history when he says this is bankruptcy.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Of course - [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Bani: This only confirms ---

The Chairman: Order. All these interjections are so completely unnecessary in this context. Let us carry on with the debate as fast as we can.

Mr Bani: Sir, however, I am gratified because it shows what sort of anti-colonialists the P.A.P. are.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think the Member for Thomson should pursue that line any further.

Mr Bani: Sir, that is one example of the quality of the programmes that are being televised. There are also various other examples. Generally, I think - if this is to the credit of the Government - I must say that some of the best programmes that are being televised are in fact programmes which were made by overseas television corporations, like the B.B.C. and so on. The quality of the local programmes very poor. Of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, the dull and dreary programmes over television are occasionally interrupted by comic operas, as, for example, when Inc Prime Minister visits a constituency, a crowd is shown welcoming the Prime Minister. Sir, we also see the Prime Minister in weird and strange looking head-dresses drinking coconut water, etc. In fact, I think there was one shot where the Prime Minister appeared in a strip-tease show. But it was cut abruptly, and I do not know exactly what happened. All that we could see was that he was rolling up his pants waist high. Sir, I agree that ---

The Chairman: Order. We are on an amendment to item (1) which deals with the Minister, and I thought the hon. Member was on the right track when he started off by saying that he was going on the general policy of the Government in so far as culture is concerned. Now he comes to the Prime Minister's actions as shown on television. I cannot see how that has any connection with the general policy of culture of the Government.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Bani: These were merely incidental remarks. The point I wish to make, by relating these little incidents and examples, is that it is a most effective propaganda medium as a matter of fact. T.V. today does not have material to put forward constructive educational programmes. Because they are so bankrupt they have to show white men shooting Red Indians, the Prime Minister's visits, ten-year old Hong Kong films which are very reactionary films.

The other reason why these are being put forward is to provide a cover for the need of having T.V. in their hands right at the moment. Having given all the priority, they must dish out something. But, Sir, if we look at the Government's general policy - the Ministry - it would appear clearly that the radio and TV aside from the fact that they exercise almost complete control over the Press, is to further P.A.P. propaganda.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Bani: Sir, I need not repeat what I have said before. In my view, this is an abuse of State power. That is so much for the radio and television and now, Sir, the Press. It will be noted that the control the Government exercises over the Press is reflected in the reporting of political items. P.A.P. news items are always played up; news not in the interest of the P.A.P. is always played down. Sir, this has worsened since the last time we had occasion to raise this matter in this House. That also was during the Estimates debate under the Head Ministry of Culture.

Sir, I would like to say this here: that we deplore the Government, in the first place, for using State organs to suppress publication of legitimate news, for using State power to prevent the people from knowing the truth. I also deplore the Press. All the newspapers in the country call themselves national newspapers - the Straits Times - $20 million foreign capital included - call themselves national capital. Practically every newspaper. Sir, the control over the Chinese Press today is greater than that over the Straits Times, and the majority of the people who depend on the Chinese newspapers for their news are denied the right to get the news.

I would like to say this before I sit down: that although we do not possess State power, although we do not have the means of using State organs to intimidate and control the Press, we have the manpower to do it. We do not want to intimidate them, but we tell them this: we have the manpower to cripple them if necessary.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is intimidation.

Mr Bani: I could not care less how this is interpreted by the Minister for Culture. But I think it is necessary for us, in the interests of justice and fair play, to state this: that it is not possible for the people to accept the situation indefinitely, and that if it is necessary, we can organise an effective boycott of one or two newspapers, particularly the Sin Chew Jit Poh, so that the point may be driven home well.

Sir, it is regrettable that as the Government uses all other State organs, today the Ministry of Culture is also used for party propaganda purposes, and the Minister for Culture is the party propagandist, and I think he should take the responsibility for this.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Ministry of Culture can carry out its aims and objectives as declared from time to time, which is to foster a Malayan culture-and they have a leaflet saying that their main aim is to foster a so-called Malayan culture-then we do not mind their spending so much money each year. But during the past four years we have found that other than ---

An hon. Member: Hong Lim.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: That was also the watershed of P.A.P. propaganda technique. We taught them. I was the propaganda expert: I taught all these chaps ---

Mr Rajaratnam rose ---

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Point of clarification?

Mr Rajaratnam: Can the Member for Hong Lim tell me when he taught me propaganda, on what occasions and for how long?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the time of the general election in 1955, none of us has seen this "bird" on the Front Government benches ---

The Chairman: Order. I can only indicate to the Member for Hong Lim to please carry on with the debate on the amendment.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: It was only when victory was assured that the Minister for Culture quitted his job in the Straits Times ---

The Chairman: Order. I have made my ruling. If the Member wants to invite a debate on the general election with the Minister for Culture, then, according to the Standing Orders, he is completely irrelevant.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Ministry of Culture has not done anything in fostering a Malayan culture. It is nothing but just a propaganda arm of the P.A.P., using Government funds for P.A.P. propaganda purposes.

Let us see how much the P.A.P. has been using, other than $6 million a year on the Work Brigade, $2 million on community centres. The P.A P Government will be using $10 million on television; a few million dollars more on radio, and these few items are to replace the P.A.P. branches which have melted away, the P.A.P. masses which have melted away, and the P.A.P. Party organ, Petir, which has no sales and no circulation. We manage to print 50,000 copies of each issue of our Party organ, and that is why the Government is so scared and sends Special Branch people every now and then to intimidate the printers.

An hon. Member: 20,000 copies!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: 50,000, if he wants to know. We can send the bill to him. And this sum total of about $20 million a year to replace the P.A.P. branches which have melted away, to replace the P.A.P. Party organ, Petir, which has no sales at all, is being taken, if I could estimate, as follows. Each year they collect only three-quarters of a million dollars from hawkers' licences. In other words, what the P.A.P. are spending to replace their lost Branches and Party organ requires 30 years of collections of hawkers' fees. Their collection from school fees from the few hundred thousand school children in Singapore is only $1.5 million. In other words, what the P.A.P. Government are spending each year to replace their Branches and their Party organ requires about 15 years to collect from the school children.

4.45 p.m.

Hospital fees: only $1.25 million. They would require nearly 20 years to collect from all the patients in Singapore for the amount to be sufficient for one year of P.A.P. propaganda.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, not only have the Government these propaganda weapons. If only they will use them for propaganda, like T.V., the radio or Rediffusion, which every day just praise the P.A.P., its merits, its Four-Year Programme, we do not mind it so much. We do not mind spending $20 million on this, but what is worse now is since the introduction of T.V., in order to attract crowds to the community centres, to the T.V. shops in town, to attract the school children, they show Western films - shooting. You know, this morning. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my little boy of 15 months just saw one T.V. show for five minutes, and this morning he pointed a gun at me - pom, pom! It shows the influence of T.V. on small children. That is why in the past few months the rate of juvenile delinquency has been on the increase, crimes committed by young children have been on the increase ---

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: He knows whom to shoot --- your son!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I always make it a point in this Chamber to debate only with persons who are my equal or at least my equal, but never with the Minister for Education. He is too behind in the game of politics --- (Interruption]

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: We built him up before he could go and stand for Geylang West. He was nobody ---

The Chairman: Order. I have indicated to the Member for Hong Lim that he is inviting a debate on this issue which has no connection with the amendment. Of course, the time allotted to Head 49 which ends at 6.05 p.m. is Opposition time, and if the Member is really inviting the Government to debate a different matter, the Opposition will be losing the chance. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, together with television, radio and Rediffusion propaganda, there is rigid control of the Press by sending people like Mr Lee Vei Chen around town intimidating the Press editors, writing letters to the Press editors under fictitious names. All these are negations of democracy. They are negations of the principles of our parliamentary system, and to top the apparatus, the whole campaign, we have the "colonial Straits Times" helping the P.A.P. Government. I remember once upon a time the Prime Minister used to say, "Whoever is embraced by the Straits Times is in the embrace of death." And today the Straits Times embraces the P.A.P. and, therefore, according to logic, the P.A.P. is finished. It will not be long: two or three months. By August 31st, as I have said during the last few days, the P.A.P. will be scratched out - just scratched out from the political arena.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will remember during the election campaign in 1959, the Minister for Culture wrote in the Straits Times, "P.A.P. attacks the Straits Times". He was exposing the Straits Times, which he knows. He explained to us how a small `group of two or three colonial shareholders, with a very small capital - they controlled less than five per cent of the shareholdings, but because of the manipulation in the Articles of Association, they managed to control the Straits Times. Only they had the voting power. The Minister for Culture in those days promised the people - all of us - that if the P.A.P. came to power they would close down the Straits Times.

Mr Rajaratnam: Point of clarification.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Point of clarification, Mr Ong.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he will have his chance to reply. But this is one more instance of the P.A.P. breaking its solemn election promises. Today the Straits Times is as strong as ever, its sales are still increasing with the support of the P.A.P. Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we do not care a sixpence or a farthing about them. We never care at all. They do not count. If they begin to publish our statements, we will collapse! But I will say this: whatever T.V. has been propagating, whatever the radio can do for them, whatever Rediffusion, the Straits Times and the control of the Press, whatever the techniques with which the Government can employ, nothing - not even ten Straits Times, ten T.V. channels, can save this bunch of men from political extinction.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, of course, the Ministry of Culture is a very important Ministry. As I have already pointed out, a lot of money has been spent on this Ministry. Because it is with this Ministry and the help of auxiliaries of this Ministry that the P.A.P. hopes to return a few of the Ministers in the next election. Of course, most of them will probably lose their deposits, in spite of all their talk about people spending money on wayangs welcoming them. Well, as regards our friend behind the Front bench, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has no chance. He knows it; therefore he ---

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. I must remind the hon. Member for Queenstown that we are debating the Ministry of Culture, not the general election that is coming soon. So just touch on the Ministry of Culture.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is because of this. Sir, that there is now a tussle between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government as regards control of television and local broadcasting. They have transferred the control of T.V. from one Ministry to another hoping thereby to allow the local Government to have effective control of the propaganda machinery - the Federation Government or the Singapore Government. We still do not know who really controls television. I am sure, if the Minister would oblige, at least the House would be able to know what is going to happen.

I think everybody knows that the radio in Singapore is a P.A.P. radio; it sings only P.A.P. songs. If there is any news, it is all about the Minister saying this, the Prime Minister saying that. As has already been pointed out by many people, it is also another political arm of the P.A.P. They have put great faith in T.V. and they hope everybody will buy - they want everybody to buy - T.V. sets, so much so that they had even sent directives to coffee-shops telling them that they must buy T.V. sets, otherwise the usual consequences might follow. But what we cannot understand is why the Minister should lower himself so much as to go along to be used as propaganda at opening functions of various private firms - private firms that sell T.V. sets. I remember reading in the newspapers about the Minister for Finance going along to open the "National Tower" for the firm Matsushita or something like that. I do not know; maybe the Minister has some vested interests in this, and it may be that because of this that the Minister has been running along, flying all the time to Japan and Tokyo. I do not know -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose ---

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Point of order, Mr Minister?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. The Member is guilty of a breach of privilege. He is accusing me of having shares in the company whose opening ceremony I never attended. So either he withdraws it or I want to report him to the Committee of Privileges.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): As far as I remember, the Member for Queenstown remembers, but he never confirms that the Minister opened the "National Tower". If I have heard it and since the Minister has taken objection to it, the Member for Queenstown should withdraw that statement.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, unfortunately for the Minister for Finance, he always comes in at the last minute. He never heard what I said and he started to ---

The Chairman: Order. On this particular aspect: since the Minister for Finance was here, I ask the Member for Queenstown to withdraw all the words up to 'open the "National Tower"'.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I never referred to the Finance Minister opening this. I referred to the Minister for Culture.

The Chairman: No, I think the Member might have made a mistake. That was what I said. What the Member said was, "You will remember the Minister for Finance opening the National Tower." Maybe it was a slip of the tongue. So the Member for Queenstown has made that, and the Minister has made an objection to it. I have ordered the Member for Queenstown to withdraw it. Do not use that word; just withdraw it. [Interruption]

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Order. I have made my ruling. I have asked the Member for Queenstown to withdraw it. After that, the Minister can stand up on a point of order. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know what you want me to withdraw, but if you say you want me to withdraw I withdraw. I still do not know what you want me to withdraw. [Laughter]

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. That is exactly the Member for - [Interruption] Order. The Member for Queenstown has indicated, which I myself have heard and Members in the House have heard, that the Minister for Finance has opened or attended the opening of the National Tower - which words he has used, and as such, I ask him to withdraw the words without any condition. The Member must withdraw those words.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If you insist, Sir, I withdraw, but - [Interruption]

The Chairman: Listen. Order, order. No condition.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: May I explain, Mr Deputy Speaker ---

The Chairman: Order, order. I am now insisting. You used those words; you must withdraw them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let me repeat that the Minister for Culture went along to open certain functions and ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Point of order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, that is half of his allegation and the less important half. He also alleges that I have vested interests in this particular company, and that could be one of the reasons why I went to Japan so often. I take very grave objection to that and unless the Member withdraws and apologises, I intend to send this to the Committee of Privileges.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): If the Minister for Finance seriously thinks that there has been a breach of privilege, he is at liberty to file a motion.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And I am sure I will be waiting ---

The Chairman: Ministry of Culture.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes. But I say. Sir, he is just lowering his dignity when he goes along to these private firms to perform opening ceremonies for them. I was asking whether the Minister had vested interests in the opening of such firms. Otherwise, why should he go along to perform ceremonies for private firms? He is a Minister of the Government. Is he a director of that firm? Just because he happens to like T.V.? Possibly there must be more reasons What do we see in these T.V. shows?

An hon. Member: We see you.

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think the Minister is not happy at seeing me at all.

Of course, in T.V. we see only the Prime Minister going around toasting one person after another. I do not know if that is the reason why we have T.V., and why the Prime Minister is so insistent on Singapore having T.V. But one thing is certain: this T.V. at the present moment is doing the people no good because many parents object to their children wasting their time on T.V. When the children should be spending their time on lessons, they now spend on watching T.V. And what do they see - American films which even the Americans have rejected.

Mr Rajaratnam: Point of information.

The Chairman: Point of information. Will the Member give way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, he can wait. Is he trying to ask us, to convince us to follow the American way of life, because, as far as I know, most of the films ---

An hon. Member: Have you got any?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not have t buy one of that lousy stuff - [Interruption]

An hon. Member: Then steal one - [Interruption]

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. May I remind the Government Bencher that we are in Committee of Supply? If any Members wish to speak, they can always stand up. Of course, if the Member for Queenstown will give way, or after his speech they can clarify any point. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was asking if the Government was trying to persuade us to follow the American way of life. because the American way of life is now being condemned by the whole world. We have seen in the newspapers reports of racial discrimination, of leaders of the negro population being shot in the back. Surely he is not going to encourage us to follow that way of life.

There is a new programme these days, I hear - "The Changing Face of Singapore". A little while back the Minister for Finance - er, Culture - was saying that everything hinges on the date July 1961. Previous to July 1961, we all had pretty faces. All of us were good men. Immediately after July 1961, Sir, when we broke away from them we began to have ugly faces, we become Communists, we become everything.

An hon. Member: Show your real face!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know why the Minister for Education makes a remark like that, Sir,I think he should answer the Member for Hong Lim. I do not want to interfere ---

The Chairman: Order. Surely the Member for Queenstown is inviting the Government to make an irrelevant remark. It is the Ministry of Culture now.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I merely want to comment on one thing. If they want to tell the truth to the people of Singapore, they should tell the people of Singapore that in 1959 they had 43 seats, and, after a little while, they had 40 seats: then 39; today they have 25 - I think it is 24. Then let them tell the truth to Singapore. Why are they showing houses and flats in which nobody stays?

The Chairman: Order, time for suspension.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suspend the sitting until half-past five.

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

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Resumption of Debate on Question,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I was talking -about the radio and T.V. at the rising. The radio is, of course, completely under the control of the Minister. He uses the radio and T.V. for party propaganda as well as for the distortion of facts entirely to the advantage of P.A.P. I need only refer to the statement of the P.A.P.'s one-time Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, about a report over radio and T.V. about the nurses' strike. The statement from the now Member for Kampong Kapor is that Radio Singapore had distorted the facts about the strike. This, of course, was not published in the Straits Times; it was blacked out from the Sin Chew Jit Poh, it was blacked out from Nanyang. But, unfortunately for the P.A.P., it came out in the Malaya, Times. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry itself tells us what Radio Singapore is doing. Of course, there is great pressure on the papers - I have a little while back mentioned the pressure on the Sin Chew and Nanyang. But I might also mention. Sir, that there is also great pressure on other papers like the Min Pao. I think we had occasion to refer to this last year. The Min Pao, because it did not toe the P.A.P. line, was forced to close shop. Now they have a new management.

But there is one thing which I want to draw the attention of the House to, and that is the blackout even of news concerning what the M.P.s had to say. You will remember, Sir, you read in the English newspapers, the Straits Tunes, about Mr Brockway saying that the treatment of detainees was barbaric. We looked through all the Chinese newspapers, the Sin Chew, Nanyang; but not a single word. Then we learnt later on that some pressure was brought to bear, on the right quarters, and all this news was completely blacked out. Of course, the Press has very often been called up by the Prime Minister. There was one occasion when the Prime Minister called up the Press. He told reporters that if they wanted to take any picture of him in future, they must make pretty sure that they take pictures of the Prime Minister only when he is with a crowd. Otherwise they should not take any picture of him - it would show that there is nobody around him and nobody supporting him.

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Queenstown does not seem to realise that he is eating into Opposition time. This item ends at five minutes past six. The second point is that he must give the Minister reasonable time to reply to all the points that have been made. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have finished.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, of the Member for Queenstown, I am reminded of certain experiments performed by Dr Pavlov on his dogs which could possibly explain the state of intellectual retrogression that the Member for Queenstown has undergone in the last few months. I am told, Sir, he projected an oval before the dog to signify food, and he projected a circle to signify no food. So the dog, when he saw just the oval started salivating, and when he saw a circle he was quite satisfied that there was no food. But once the oval was gradually extended to a circle the dog became so confused, not knowing whether it was a circle or an oval, that the result was a general nervous breakdown and the dog started barking.

The Member for Queenstown has been barking up the wrong tree for the last 20 minutes. The first point he makes, Sir, is one to which I need not bother to reply, because he has made it repeatedly for the last three years, namely, that radio and television are used for party propaganda. When I challenged them on innumerable occasions to state what kind of party propaganda has been put across over the radio and television at any time, I think the Member for Tanglin at least attempted. The others never even attempted to produce a single specific instance when party propaganda was put out across either radio or television. So the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Thomson and the Member for Hong Lim have been saying repeatedly that radio and television have been used for party propaganda, yet they have not been able to ---

Mr Ong Eng Guan: A point of clarification, Sir.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way?

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember in June 1960, after my expulsion, the whole apparatus of the State was being used to disseminate ---

The Chairman: Order. This is not clarification. The Member is making another speech. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: I would like to explain what they are really trying to put across, and it is essential for us to understand. The Government was elected on a specific policy. Initially the policy might have, been a party policy. But once we are elected as a Government, that policy becomes a national policy as long as that Government is the legally and constitutionally elected representative of the people. Sir, so it is our duty to put that policy across, and we were elected essentially on two things. That we stood for a non-Communist, democratic, socialist Singapore. That might have been a party policy before we were elected. But after we were elected it became a national policy because the people approved of it, and, therefore, it is our duty to put across over the radio, T.V. and other mass media this policy, because there is the stamp of the people on it.

The second objective of the Ministry of Culture, again a policy approved by the people, is that we should try and create a non-communalist and non-racialist united Malaya and Singapore. You will notice, Sir, that I said earlier that the charges by the Barisan Sosialis that Radio Singapore and television have become propaganda organs for the P.A.P. began when we broke away from them on the issue of merger, which was party policy, but became a national policy after we were elected. The whole substance of their antipathy and criticism is not that we are putting over party policy and propaganda, but that we are putting across what has become a national policy - merger. It is quite true that during the last two years, we have used the radio effectively to win the battle for merger and Malaysia. We make no bones about it, we make no apology for it. And if I may read, Sir, from Democratic Socialism in Action, a publication by the Ministry of Culture ---

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Hmm!

Mr Rajaratnam: --- and we will tell him now how we used the radio and television to expose the Barisan as foreign agents, as people working for foreign powers, who want to sell Singapore to people outside of Malaysia. And we used the radio and television all out. I can list some of the things we did. They are not party propaganda. There is a long piece on the Referendum. I will read just the essential points. There was first the Prime Minister's talks, which again annoy them because they were an exposure of the Communists. And we make no apology for making use o the radio to expose the Communists, and we will still do it. Because, after Malaysia, Sir, it is even more important that the radio and television, and all the mass media, are strengthened, because after Malaysia the battle for Malaysia will go on, but not with these gentlemen. These are the tenderfoots and the wolf cubs. They will be out of the scene. More powerful gentlemen are going to come out, both in Singapore and outside Singapore to try to break up Malaysia. We are going to ensure that the mass media - radio and television - are up to scratch to fight them. That is why we are expanding.

"Why this priority for T.V.?", the Member for Thomson asked. Because it is important that after Malaysia, the foreign friends of these gentlemen, the people who are underground today, who have written off the Barisan - Sir, the Barisan is an ineffective force, they have lost out. You will have noticed that recently even the Workers' Party has quitted from the United Front, because it is a dead duck, a sinking ship. Therefore. Sir, we are not going to fight them. [Interruption] In about 80 days you will know the answer, Sir. In 80 days, 31st August, we will meet bigger boys, more adept at propaganda. But we have the resources. For example, a few days ago, when we were on the Development Estimates, they wanted to know why we wanted a short-wave transmitter. They know why we are going to use the short-wave. Because their friends too have got short-wave. [Interruption] Your friends.

The Chairman: Order. The Minister has been doing very well up till now. Now he has forgotten that the Speaker is here. I suggest he try to put his hand away, probably in his pocket. He is pointing too much at the Opposition.

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, Sir, I have tried to overcome that habit by holding on to a pencil, as the Member for Farrer Park advised me once. But I am not the Member for Farrer Park, Sir. Still I will take his advice and point the right way.

The other pamphlet, The Battle for Merger, we distributed 327,000 copies which they sneered at. But when we had the Referendum they knew, and they know now, that those 327,000 copies did their work. Because those gentlemen could not get more than 20 per cent of the votes.

5.45 p.m.

Again, Sir, we had Malaysia Week organised by the Ministry of Culture. There was no party propaganda there. There was a Malaysia Exhibition organised by the Ministry of Culture - no party propaganda there. There was a booklet called Malaysian Heritage, of which 245,000 copies were distributed - no party propaganda. Copies are available here. I asked the Member for Queenstown or the Member for Thomson to show where there is party propaganda. But it is national propaganda. It helps to defeat those anti-Malaysia elements who want to destroy Malaysia. We have even had a Malaysian Grand Prix - no party propaganda. If I recollect, Sir, Members of the Barisan sneaked in quietly and even had a free lunch at the expense of the Ministry of Culture.

Mr Byrne: They did not get indigestion!

Mr Rajaratnam: No, Sir, they were well treated and sent off quite happy. This time I noticed the two Barisan Assemblymen did turn up and they looked sheepish, unlike at the first Malaysia Grand Prix. We even have Malaysia albums, film shows, posters - none of these involve party propaganda.

Again the Ministry of Culture has other branches under its care; the Museum. Surely the Member for Queenstown does not suggest that the Museum is being used for party propaganda. There are stuffed birds - a condition which the Barisan Sosialis might also be reduced to after 31st August! There are flint, stones, old krises.

Again, Sir, we have the Printing Department which prints ledgers, gazettes - they used to print the Hansard. So the only objection, therefore, that they have is not to the very many other departments of the Ministry of Culture as they have for the radio and television.

I am always happy that the Barisan Sosialis are getting more anxious as the radio and television are developed. As I have said earlier, we must be prepared after 31st August for a more intense battle for the hearts and minds of the people. We are going to meet more powerful enemies. This was only a trial. If the Member for Queenstown can point to any instance where pure party propaganda is used, then I will be quite happy to put the matter right.

Earlier, they were talking about the intimidation of the Press. For example, he wanted to know why Mr Fenner Brockway's comments on the treatment of detainees did not appear in the Chinese papers. I can tell him. He did not have to fabricate imaginary reasons. Mr Fenner Brockway and his friends, before they left, had a Press conference where all the Press were there. When they were waiting for the plane to take off, two reporters quietly cornered them - one was a Straits Times reporter, the other was a foreign Press correspondent - because they wanted to have a scoop. Mr Fenner Brockway, for some reasons, did not bring up the matter of detainees before his two other colleagues. So the two reporters who wanted a scoop took Mr Brockway to a corner and asked him if he had anything to say about the detainees. And he said what he felt. Therefore, the Straits Times published the story; it was a scoop. If we had wanted to stop it, we would have stopped the Straits Times too. Two Chinese reporters went off early, so they did not get a scoop. And the U.P.I. carried the story, which I am told appeared in the Australian Press. If we had wanted to stop it, we could have stopped it too. This is the kind of imaginary, unfounded speculation in which the Member for Queenstown indulges.

We now see the significance of the experiment carried out by Pavlov. Here is a gentleman who started off as a non-Communist, a socialist - the oval. Somebody provided him with a circle - Communist circle. He read a few books. Now he has come to a point where the oval ---

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of order, Sir. We have less than 15 minutes for the other items under this Head, and I submit that the Minister has already made his point.

The Chairman: It is not a point of order. However, a point of order could be with reference to experiments indulged in. I think there was a reference to Nara. There was also a reference to stuffed birds. Possibly these references might cause offence. They have not so far, and I have not noticed any objection taken. But they might cause offence. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: Earlier, Sir, the Member for Thomson talked a great deal about the Minister for Culture and the Ministry of Culture intimidating the Press. But he for the first time publicly indulged in what is called "open intimidation". He has charged that if certain newspapers, especially the Sin Chew Jit Poh, do not toe his line, he has large numbers of supporters who can force the paper, by a boycott, to change its views. I have openly said that if they can produce evidence that we intimidate in the sense that we force the newspapers to say - "Do not publish so and so's speeches." What we might do and we often do is that we would like our speeches to go in. As we have said so openly before we want to play up this news and we want to play up that news. The only occasion where we asked newspapers so far as not to publish certain news items was in the A.R.T.I.S. case. We said though they were news items, certain people were out for mischief, "So please do not publish." But here openly in this Chamber, under the privilege of this Chamber, the Member for Thomson gets up and says that if the newspapers do not toe his line, do not play up the pro-Communist line, he is going to call for a boycott. This is evidence of the typical type of intimidation. Here openly it is being done. Since it is being done, nobody will have cause to disbelieve us.

The last point before I give way, Sir. The Member for Hong Lim - more or less his strategy is to repeat what the Barisan did. He knows the Barisan's time is up; so he will inherit the slogans and he hopes also certain of the followers will escape the net. And he says the same thing, that the P.A.P. Radio and television are being used for ---

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

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we, unlike the P.A.P. leaders who, on the one hand, say that the British ---

The Chairman: Order. What is the point of clarification? Let us have it.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The Minister was saying that we are echoing what the Barisan has said, which is completely untrue. We have our own independent minds.

The Chairman: Order. That is clarification. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: His Party organ is called Bersatu. You know the S.A.T.U. unions, which are the Barisan unions.

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

The Chairman: No. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Rajaratnam: He, after having repeated the same points, I think he made factual errors which need to be corrected. He said that he was the man who taught me propaganda. That is all right. I asked him when and where but he could not substantiate or name the time and place. He also said that he was the man who led us into the movement. If I remember correctly, Sir, it is for the record, since he has made the point, that it was I who met him long before when time was hanging heavily on his hands in an accountant's office, and I said, "Would you like to join the P.A.P. because I am a founder member?" Ever since, I have regretted this great error on my part. It was one of the biggest mistakes I have made. Still, for the record, it was far from ---

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification, Sir, because it is a personal matter.

The Chairman: There is no time.

Mr Rajaratnam: We are quite proud that we have used the radio and television for the purposes for which the people of Singapore elected us and we will continue to use them until such time as the cause of democracy has been safeguarded and strengthened.

The Chairman: Mr Bani is here. I take it that he wishes for a vote.

Mr Bani: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I am not moving.

The Chairman: The Member is not moving. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

This is a vote for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Sir, the ex-Parliamentary Secretary is either the hero of the day or the villain of the piece. And today if the Opposition had had the time, as it now does not have, it could have made the Government so uncomfortable that in spite of all the propaganda training of the Minister for Culture, he would find it difficult to wriggle out of this position.

Sir, it was mentioned yesterday by the Minister for Health and Law that letters had been sent to this ex-Parliamentary Secretary, who is the Secretary-General of the union, and that attempts had been made to contact him several times, but failed. It would seem that the Minister for Culture has therefore failed in his duty. I would like to ask him what he has been doing in allowing his Parliamentary Secretary to be doing something else? That surely is a sad reflection on the Minister. We have said many a time about this particular man - this ex-Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Kampong Kapor, when he was Deputy Speaker - in this House that it was wrong on the part of the Government to make use of him to try and control the trade union movement. He was made the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. Not content with that, several Political Secretaries were made the Ten Tall Men of the T.U.C. They came out very proudly that these were the Tall Men of the T.U.C. At that time, it was well and good, because the Barisan Members were with them. The Barisan Members broke away, and the Ten Tall Men became very short men - and not only are-they short, but they are now in prison. So that is the type of men the P.A.P. wanted to use to capture the trade union movement.

Now, they have made use of the Member for Kampong Kapor who, at first, was elected Deputy Speaker, and later made a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Of all places the Ministry of Culture! It is a type of P.A.P. culture that they try to make use of public funds for their own political ends. They thought, no doubt, that by making him Parliamentary Secretary, paid out of public funds, he could be made to toe the line and that he would be leading this union for the benefit of the Government. I told the Member concerned that one day it would happen that there would be a clash of loyalties. That happened. The clash of loyalties came and the Member chose loyalty to the Union rather than loyalty to the Government.

6.00 p.m.

Therefore, he resigned. But another typical P.A.P. culture is this. Here is a man who has lent himself to be made use of by the Government and he has now shown that he is a rebel, that he is prepared to fight the Government. What is the Government going to do about it? Is it because they have now been reduced to 25 to 25 that they must tolerate this position of letting the rebel sit there? Surely, if it were a clean honest Government, it would have taken only one action, but it is not taking it. It is not taking it, because it knows that it cannot. It has got into this embarrassment as a result of its own cleverness. It tried to control the union. But now if anything were to happen to the Member for Kampong Kapor, he could expose a lot of things, that it was the Government which tried to make use of him to control the civil service. Now there is an open clash and that is why if he were removed, there would be a lot of things that he could say to damage the P.A.P.

We feel very strongly about this waste of public funds by the Government to try to do something for its own party political ends. We hope that the Government has learnt its lessons and will not continue wasting public funds to fill posts like Political Secretaries - there are a number of vacancies there - to achieve their party ends.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a subject dear to the heart of the Member for Cairnhill, because, as far as I can recollect, the Member for Kampong Kapor had come for censure when he was an Assemblyman, when he was a Deputy Speaker, when he was a Parliamentary Secretary and now when he is back again as an Assemblyman. So the problem is, therefore, an eternal and perennial one, not related at all to the fact whether he was a Parliamentary Secretary, an ex-Deputy Speaker or is an ex-Parliamentary Secretary. So, as far as his position as a Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, as you know, Sir, the Constitution provides for a Parliamentary Secretary to every Ministry. For the hon. Member to claim that the post of Parliamentary Secretary is a waste of public funds is no more accurate than the fact that vacant posts of Ministers are also a waste of public funds, or the fact that any other post provided for in the Constitution, if filled, is a waste of public funds. Whether the Member for Kampong Kapor is fit to he a Parliamentary Secretary or not is a matter of opinion. When this question came up repeatedly, especially when he was made Parliamentary Secretary, the arguments switched from Deputy Speaker having connections with the trade unions to a Parliamentary Secretary having connections with the trade unions. The point was then made that there might come a time when his duties as a Parliamentary Secretary - and a Parliamentary Secretary is not a member of the Cabinet. I mean the Government stand collectively: all Assemblymen are part of the constituent elements of a Government just as in the long run the whole Assembly constitutes the Legislature and, therefore, generally speaking, the Government of Singapore. But insofar as he was the Parliamentary Secretary, the point was then raised, and I did say that as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Culture, he would have no trade union functions, though he might outside carry on trade union activities and if there should arise an occasion when there should be a conflict between his duties as a Parliamentary Secretary and those of a trade unionist, then he would have to make a choice. Well, the conflict has conic, and he has decided to opt for his loyalties as a trade unionist. Whether he did the right thing or not, is a matter for him to judge. As far as a Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, I think the position is as what we stated it was the last time.

6.05 p.m.

The Chairman: Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 49 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock, Dr Thio Chan Bee, Mr A. P. Rajah, Dr Lee Siew Choh, Mr Low Por Tuck, Mr S. T. Bani, Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, Mr Ong Eng Guan, Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Mr Ng Teng Kian, were not proceeded with:-

Tun Lim Yew Hock:

Dr Thio Chan Bee:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

Dr Thio Chan Bee:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $l0 in respect of item (4) of subhead 1.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (143) of subhead 1.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 66.

Mr A. P. Rajah:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 69.

Dr Lee Siew Choh:

Mr Low Por Tuck:

Mr S. T. Bani:

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat:

Mr Ong Eng Guan:

Mrs Seow Peck Leng:

Dr Thio Chan Bee:

Mr Ng Teng Kian:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $12,550,030 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 50 -

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): I will allow my colleague, the Member for Thomson, to move.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Sir, I would like to deal with the use of the Police ---

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member should wait until we come on to the Head - Police. There is a special Head - Police.

Mr Bani: Sir, I just wish to seek clarification on this.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Bani: Sir, we are of the opinion that it is the Minister who is responsible for the overall policy insofar as police, prisons and so on are concerned, and, to that extent, we would like to raise under "Minister" if it is proper.

The Chairman: The position here is that there is a Head 55 - Police - and of course, the Minister has overall responsibility for the Police. I notice there is an amendment seeking to reduce the total sum allocated for Head 55 by $100. That is the time the policy in regard to Police can be raised. The Member for Thomson has given notice of that amendment. Is there any other topic under the Minister?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

The Chairman: Tun Lim is not here. Mr Ng Teng Kian.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (31) of subhead 1.

Mr Speaker, this item concerns the post of Assistant Secretary (Societies and Publications). I would like to ask the Minister concerned this. The United People's Party has made an application to the Assistant Secretary, Societies, and it was only after one year or so that we received a reply from the official concerned, sometime in January this year. The letter was addressed to our Secretary-General, Mr Ong Eng Guan. In this letter it was instructed that our Party badge of three circles was objectionable. Actually, there is nothing wrong with it. There had been no objection raised with regard to our badge. How is it that the objection should be raised after one year or so to change our Party badge? So our Secretary-General, the Member for Hong Lim, replied accordingly. In this reply, we pointed out that we had done nothing against the rules. We asked the official concerned to point out the rule as to the power by which he has the right to ask us to change our Party emblem. So we are using our Party emblem for the coming general elections, as is to be expected. But after this letter, we have not been able to get any reply from the Assistant Secretary, Societies. So I would like the Minister concerned to assure us that if there is to be any election or by-election at all, the undertaking should be given that we are allowed to use the present Party emblem of three circles.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Registrar of Societies has at no time ordered the United People's Action Party to change its symbol. What the Registrar of Societies did was to draw the attention of the United People's Action Party [Interruption] to the fact that there are many other organisations which have almost -

The Chairman: Order. I think the Minister mentioned the United People's Action Party. I do not know whether there has been a union or not.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. What the Registrar of Societies did was to draw the attention of the United People's Party to the fact that there are many other organisations in Singapore having more or less similar symbols to that of the United People's Party and these other organisations were in existence very much earlier than the United People's Party. The purpose of drawing the attention of the Member for Hong Lim, the Secretary-General of the U.P.P., was to give him time; or rather, the Registrar was kind-hearted to draw his attention, so that in case when it came to a future election and there should be any objection raised against the use of the present U.P.P. symbol, he would have the opportunity and the time to think of some other symbols.

6.15 p.m.

The kind-heartedness of the Registrar of Societies has now been criticised by the Member for Punggol! [Interruption] Whether the U.P.P. want to accept the advice of the Registrar of Societies or not is up to them.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am not very much conversant with this legal aspect. All I know is that political Parties and societies are different. The Minister points out that there is a certain organisation which has an emblem similar to our emblem, but I do not know which organisation has any symbol similar to our Party emblem. I am not aware of any such organisation. May I ask the Minister to tell us in what respect is our Party emblem similar to that of any other organisation, and which are the organisations, if any?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a number of organisations which have almost similar symbols to that of the U.P.P. Off-hand, I can mention that the symbols of the People's Association, the Nanyang University Students Union, the Hawker's Union, the rural organisations and also a number of trade unions are more or less similar to that of the U.P.P.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, according to what I can see, there are different features in these symbols; for example, there are four circles in the symbol of the People's Association. In the case of the Nanyang University Students Union, there are different colours in the different circles and there is one star among the circles in the case of the Nanyang University Students Union. I do not know whether these organisations mentioned will be allowed to take part in a general election. That is one point.

Another question is this: will such organisations field candidates during a general election? According to what I understand, organisations and societies are different from political Parties.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Member for Punggol and his Party want to heed the advice of the Registrar of Societies is their problem. If they like to take the risk, by all means they can do so. Nobody is stopping them.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (37) of subhead 1.

Sir, the present identity card in use in Singapore is unsatisfactory in one vital aspect, and I hope that when new identity cards are issued after Malaysia the defect will be removed.

Sir, in the present identity card, it is not stated whether the address is the residence of the person or just the postal address. On the back portion of the card, the words stated are "Removed to (Full postal address)". The result of this is that anybody can register his postal address in any district without residing in that district, because the electoral register is made up of names of people whose postal addresses are so stated in their identity cards. Now, if that is allowed in the new identity cards, then 2,000 people from different parts of the island could be organised to register in one particular constituency and thereby have the right to vote. In that case then, the Member for that constituency will be elected not by people residing in that area, but by people scattered all over the area who have organised to have their postal addresses so changed that they can all vote in one area. I think, Sir, that is not the purpose of an election. An election is to enable those living in that area to vote for a Member to represent them as residents in that area. So, unless something is done to the new identity cards to remove this defect, it may lead, in one instance in Singapore in the City Council elections, to the number of voters being more than the number of adult residents in one constituency.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Member for Tanglin really resides in the Tanglin constituency. In any case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the present identity card was devised in 1948 when we were not the Government and it has been in use since. As far as my understanding goes, the address in the identity card should be the residential address of the person. While it is true that the electoral registers are compiled from the identity card, and if the address given in the identity card is the postal address, his name nonetheless will be included in the particular constituency. But the Member for Tanglin probably is aware that all the electoral registers are displayed during the annual revision and the public is entitled to inspect these registers and to raise objection. If a voter happens to reside in a particular constituency but his name is found in another constituency because he gave his postal address, anyone could raise objection against that.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was a member of the commission discussing the limitation of boundaries when this point was raised. The Chairman maintained that since the identity card is printed with the instructions "Removed to (Full postal address)", anybody could have the right to vote in any area by putting down his new postal address as in that area. Now, Sir, I am residing in Tanglin. Supposing I know that the S.P.A. has no chance in Tanglin and I want to vote in a certain constituency and I round up all my supporters all over the island and just say to them, "Come along, put down your new addresses as in that constituency," there is no way of protesting, because the identity card shows the right place. The Chairman of that commission said that there was nothing to be done unless something was done to the identity card. I hope the Minister will look into this, because otherwise we can have all kinds of unusual things happening. You will see 20 people registered as residing at No. 3 Belilios Lane, when actually there will be only two voters residing there. The others are just ghost voters and there is no way of taking them out.

Mr Rajah: Sir, I think there is a lot in what my colleague, the Member for Tanglin, says. As the House is aware, the identity card system was introduced sometime in 1947 or 1948 to serve a specific purpose. Subsequently, the preparation of registers was geared to meet the system of the National Card Registration. The basis of registration under the Elections Ordinance is "residence". "Residence" means where you reside, not a postal address. I think we all know when we go round canvassing certain houses where there are 60 or 70 votes, there are only about ten persons living there, and then someone will tell you, "Oh, these other ten persons have lived in this house, but we have never heard of the names of those other 40. So far as we know, we have lived here for ten years and we do not know their names." I think we have all of us met with that situation when we went canvassing. So the question arises, "How did these 40 names get on to the register?" Well, quite obviously somebody has given the postal address as the address of such and such a person. Now, on checking the election registers after the elections, as it was possible to do sometime ago, we found that all those 40 persons had voted. Although the election propaganda cards had not been distributed because they were all lying there without being read, yet those 40 voters had come and cast their votes.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest to the Minister that there is some jiggery-pokery going on. I think the Minister is interested to see that a fair register is compiled and the people who are responsible for this jiggery-pokery do not get an advantage over the honest people who try to contest the elections on a proper basis.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister says that anybody can protest. I wonder who he envisages can protest, because if I purposely put my postal address on my identity card with the intention of getting the right to vote in a certain place, I am not going to protest. Now evidently, if I put the address of a friend or relative, he is not going to protest. Now, who would be protesting - the neighbour who lives next door and says, "Your niece does not live with you. Why is her name there?" I do not think that would happen. For instance, if we want to protest, how do we know that such a thing is happening in Kampong Kapor or in Tanglin? So, the people who would be protesting have no way of finding out and the people who know about it are not the people who would he making the protest.

6.30 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Sir, if at all there is any juggling there, it has been there for the last 10 years since we had elections in 1955. In fact, we encountered the same problem too during the City Council election and also the 1959 election, when we found quite a large number of voters in the Cairnhill electoral division were not residing in Cairnhill. In fact, the Member for Hong Lim at that time was wondering whether there was something fishy going on. I think the problem can only be solved if the voter or the identity card holder will report his change of address promptly to the Registration Office and the Registration Office will ensure that in future it is the residential address that should be recorded and not the postal address. Perhaps, what could be done in future is that when the present identity card is being re-devised, a column should be provided for residential as well as postal addresses.

Mr Rajah: To my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, the solution is a simple one. Just to ask for "an address" on the face of the identity card could mean a postal address or a residential address. It should therefore read "residential address". Where room for fraud does arise is in the phrase "removal to postal address". A postal address need not be a residential address. Under the present system of identity cards, if a man intends to commit an election fraud, he just "changes his postal address". So he is not committing any crime. Now, if we say "removed to full residential address" and if he still continues with his jiggery-pokery, the Minister is then in a position to prosecute him. At the moment, the man who commits a fraud on the elections cannot be prosecuted because he is, in fact, complying with the law.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the subject of identity cards will come under the Central Government when Malaysia is formed and we shall put forward this suggestion to the appropriate authority to make the necessary changes. Anyone who should want to commit a fraud can still do so even though we may insist on a residential address.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance that the Minister will pass on the request to the proper authority, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (47) of subhead 1.*

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ng Teng Kian.

Sir, in the Federation, they have an independent Elections Commission. In Singapore, Sir, the Elections Department is under the Minister for Home Affairs. The chief officer, therefore, in a way is not independent. He can be subjected to pressure and he will have to obey instructions.

It is very important that during elections in particular the Supervisor of Elections and all election officers should be independent. They should not favour any political Party. Sir, in the past, some of us had to undergo favouritism. There was one instance where I protested to the Supervisor of Elections against certain things that were being done wrongly and the poor officer just evaded my questions. He played for time until after, of course, the closing of the polling. Sir, if that officer had been independent, he would have had the courage to do what he thought was right instead of being scared, since he was after all under orders. Sir, I do not know whether this could be done because even if the Minister says the man is going to be independent, he is still a civil servant in the Ministry of Home Affairs. I wonder whether the Minister could suggest something so that the public could be sure that when once a man is made Supervisor of Elections during that period, he should be free from pressure of any kind or anybody, so that the public could be sure and the Parties involved in the elections could be sure that they have somebody in charge of elections who is going to treat everybody in the same way.

The Chairman: Mr Ng Teng Kian is not speaking?

r Ng Teng Kian indicated dissent.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are recent indications as we prophesied in our Party organ, Bersatu (Chinese issue) two weeks ago, that Federal elections will come very soon, maybe in July next month. We are very concerned about the conduct of elections because we know too well the dishonesty of the P.A.P. Government - the tricks they are prepared to play.

During the last referendum campaign, we saw the way Mr Ponnuduray was being transferred from some other department to supervise the referendum. The way how the referendum was conducted! We have very little confidence in P.A.P.-conducted elections. As the Member for Tanglin has said, in the Federation they have an independent Elections Commission. In Singapore the elections officer is under the direct control of the Government. Mr Speaker, this is more important especially when we have other signs of repression. For instance, the Government have asked us to change our Party symbol because they are scared of our three rings ---

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Hong Lim was not here when that subject was dealt with and that subject is closed. It has already been dealt with.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we should have in Singapore the equivalent of the Federation Elections Commission, where an independent body to conduct the elections should be appointed after a round-table conference of all the Parties and not just like any other statutory board or any so-called independent body appointed by the Government. Unless this is so, we do not believe that any future election held under the PAP. Government could be a clean and honest election.

Under the White Paper merger, there are two types of elections. One is Federal election, which is under Federal control, and the other is State election, which will be under State control. Nowhere in the proposed Malaysian territories could State elections be under State control. And for what reason, Mr Speaker, Sir? We know. Now with this Bill coming up, and, if the British and the Federation Governments agree, the P.A.P. Government will try to hold elections to the 15 seats in the Central Malaysian Parliament before 31st August this year, so that it will have full control and a full say in running the elections. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no faith in P.A.P. run elections.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Elections Department has been in existence since the Colonial Secretary days. From that day onwards until now, I think it is the same officer who has been in charge of the elections. If I recollect, at the time of the City Council elections and also at the time of the last general elections, the Member for Hong Lint and other Members, in fact, praised the officer, Mr Ponnuduray, for the fair and impartial manner in which he conducted all these elections. Now that he is across the Floor, he is casting aspersions on the integrity of the same officer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are safeguards and provisions of appeal to the High Court in the Assembly Elections Ordinance. These same safeguards will also he provided for in the new Bill that was introduced this afternoon. And if at all the Member for Hong Lim is of the opinion that the last referendum was improperly conducted, he could always have recourse to appeal to the High Court.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret the Minister is unwilling to give the assurance that the Supervisor of Elections will be free from his control during the period of election. He says that if anything goes wrong we have the right to appeal to the High Court. Sir, we know how difficult and expensive it is to go through the procedure of appealing to the High Court. In fact, during election time when something goes wrong, immediate action is required. We cannot wait until after the polling has been completed, the decision announced, and then we appeal to the High Court. That really prevents the carrying out of elections in a fair way. I am sure, Sir, that in the interests of all Parties concerned, we should have an independent officer in charge of elections in Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Member for Hong Lim says he cannot trust any election organised by the P.A.P. Government. He says there is some fraud somewhere. In 1960 there was the Hong Lim by-election. May I know where the fraud was practised, and if so, would he like to rescind the result and then have another round?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said during the last few days, the Hong Lim by-election was the watershed of P.A.P. policy and P.A.P. tactics. In Hong Lim they were sure they were going to win. They had lion dances ready, dragons ready, lire crackers ready and banners ready. They were sure of a P.A.P. victory. If they had known that they were going to lose, the position would have been different. But when the referendum was held, the whole position changed. Mr Ponnuduray was not in charge of the Hong Lim by-election. Mr, de Souza was in charge. Mr Ponnuduray was transferred back from a more important and higher position to conduct and supervise the referendum.

6.45 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Elections Office should be independent of the Government, as has been done in the Federation. They are fond of going back to the referendum. I was there. In fact, I nearly raised objections. Here was the Supervisor of Elections taking orders. He was not free to do what he considered should be done. He was taking orders. Then he was told to say and what not to say. Even before the results were announced, the Minister was there sitting in that office drafting something out and then it was given to the Supervisor to read out. This is all wrong. I do not wish to imply that the Government cooks up all this. No - but in order to give at least a semblance of non-interference, let us make this office an independent office.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am very glad, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill has now come out to confirm what we have been saying all along, that the referendum was a sham, that everything was done in such a way - [Interruption].

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Queenstown is very fond of making reckless statements in this Chamber which might land him in serious trouble one day in the Committee of Privileges. I do not think the Member for Cairnhill said the referendum was a sham. The Member for Cairnhill may wish to deny that.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I have said that the Supervisor of Elections was too much under the control of the Minister. He could not do anything on his own except on instructions, even at the counting place at the Badminton Stadium.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is what we said also. We said that the Supervisor of Referendum was taking instructions from the Prime Minister who was conducting the whole process of counting at the Badminton Hall that night. We mentioned all this on 2nd September. Now, this is confirmed by the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Rajaratnam: I think the Member for Queenstown again puts words into the mouth of the Member for Cairnhill. The Member for Cairnhill said he did not agree to certain things. He said instructions were being given, whereas the Member for Queenstown is obviously on the lookout for some independent witness to substantiate the allegations that have been made for the last two years-the phoney referendum. Now he says the Prime Minister was conducting the balloting. That is not true, Sir. There were Opposition Members there. Far from the Prime Minister conducting the actual counting of the balloting, I think the Members of the Barisan Sosialis were running from one table to the other looking for the little cards that were placed inside the balloting boxes.

As far as the Member for Hong Lint is concerned, I think, after the first one or two hours he had quite decided which way the wind was blowing. He was sitting up in the gallery. Anyway, I quite agree that there should be an assurance given that the referendum or any balloting would be conducted fairly. It was done so in the past. The system is what has been obtaining since 1948 under the former Chief Minister. We never quarrelled that the 1959 elections were unfair, and I do not think the Member for Hong Lim, for whom history starts with Hong Lim, has ever questioned the propriety of the Hong Lim by-election. Now he is just safeguarding himself for the future by-election by saying right beforehand that if he and his Party do not win the next general elections or elections to the 15 seats, he thinks that the elections should be phoney; but if he does win, he will be quite satisfied that the elections were fairly conducted.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Another point is that it is important that we should have an independent Elections Commission concerned with the delimitation of boundaries. Now, in the coming federal elections the boundaries are going to be delimited by Government ---

The Chairman: Order. I think a Bill has been introduced which will deal with that point and that is the time to debate the relevant clauses.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, Mr Speaker, I saw Mr Ponnuduray at the Badminton Hall during the counting in the referendum, and I was told that the Prime Minister was in the room. From my experience ---

The Chairman: Order. I must warn Members that these innuendoes will, if taken up in the right way, land Members into very serious trouble with the Committee of Privileges. Members should not make these innuendoes under the cloak of privilege. If there had been any foul play, the proper thing to have done was to bring the matter up in the High Court. I can only sound this warning. I cannot stop Members from making innuendoes, but if they choose to make statements loaded with innuendoes, they take the risk of very serious action by the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to say that the basic reason why the Opposition would prefer to have an independent Elections Commission for conducting elections is that we do not trust the P.A.P. I do not think it is improper for us to say that we cannot trust the P.A.P. By the standards of P.A.P. performance in the past, they are quite capable of rigging up an election legally, if necessary otherwise.

Sir, it is not proper for Government to have one department of the Government conducting the elections. Our doubts or fears were proved when the referendum results were produced. We think that if the Government gets a department of the Government to conduct elections, there is a possibility of foul play. As to whether they will do it or not do it, well, that is a different proposition. We cannot say. But if the Government is sure that the people support them, as they have always said, - there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why they should object to agreeing in principle to have an independent commission to conduct elections. There is no reason at all, as is the case in the Federation of Malaya.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is no use to flog a dead horse, but it appears to me that Members of the Opposition, both on the right and the left, seem to think that there is something wrong in the present situation in that the Department of Elections is a department of Government and is not an independent statutory authority. Sir, they can hardly blame us for this position, because this is the situation as laid down in the Constitution, and it was not the P.A.P. who negotiated and drew up the Constitution in 1959. So if the Member for Cairnhill dislikes the present situation, then he must bear the major part of the responsibility.

As for the Barisan Sosialis not liking it, they are not trusting it, they are entitled to their dislikes and distrusts. It does not move us the slightest bit on this side of the House.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I find that the Ministry of Home Affairs has become more reactionary and more repressive to us. When we were in the P.A.P. we were blinded by them, but once when we found that they had become reactionary, we lest them. Even concerning the Undesirable Publications Ordinance, the purpose of which is really to deal with undesirable publications, but in actual fact it is not so, because this Ordinance is used to curb any publications not desirable to the P.A.P. Ever since the past few years the P.A.P. has been banning many publications which were opposed to it: for instance, the publication by the General Employees' Union and the publication of Nantah - Nanyang University Students' Union. The P.A.P. Government is further suppressing us and preventing our publications from being published. Further, they will not allow many unions and organisations to issue their anniversary publications. On the face of it, they want to show that they are democratic and there is freedom, but, in fact, they threatened a printing house as a result of which our Party organ was no longer able to be printed in that printing house. All this shows that the so-called democracy is phoney democracy. At present our Party organ is being stencilled.

Another incident is that in 1959, slogans and posters and printed matter need not have to be approved, but nowadays the P.A.P. has become more reactionary. All these publications, cartoons, posters and other things will have to be approved by the P.A.P. From this we can see that their amendment to the Undesirable Publications Ordinance and their so-called abolishing of yellow culture are all humbug.

The Chairman: After a long speech he has not moved the amendment!

Mr Tee Kim Leng: (In Mandarin): I so move the amendment.*

• The amendment, which also stood in the names of Mr S.T Bani, Mr Ong Eng Guan and Dr Thio Chan Bee, reads as follows:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by $100.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Pasir Panjang had really gone through the Undesirable Publications Ordinance, he would not have accused the Government today of misusing it. It was stated quite clearly in the Ordinance that the purpose is to prohibit the publication and circulation of publications which are either morally undesirable or are against the public interests.

The publications referred to were banned by the Government as a result of an I.S.C. decision taken in February this year, and these publications were nothing but vehicles of Communist propaganda.

7.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,759,560 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 52 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Sir, the policy of film censorship in Singapore is a mystery to many people. Outside the Film Censor's office and probably the top men in the Government, the exact policy with regard to film censorship in Singapore is unknown.

Sir, I shall be glad if the Minister will kindly state, firstly, the policy given to the Film Censor for the censorship of films in Singapore; secondly, whether that policy is the same as that of the Federation; and, thirdly, how many members of the Cinematograph Films Appeal Committee are members of the People's Action Party.

The Chairman: The Member for Tanglin has gone on the general policy which, of course, is not covered by the amendment he has moved, which is in connection with the Chairman of the Board of Film Censors. The Chairman of the Board does not settle policies. The hon. Member should really speak on general policy under their second amendment, which is, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $100." I do not know whether the Member would like to withdraw the first amendment, and go on to the second amendment.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 52 be reduced by $100.

Sir, perhaps I had better repeat my question.

The Chairman: That is not necessary.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I would be much obliged if the Minister would answer what I asked just now.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, as regards the policy on film censorship, I think it is published in the newspapers, and I do not think I should take up too much time in dealing with it in detail. The general principles come under matters affecting the organs of the State, especially the Police: scenes which tend to bring the police into general disrepute and contempt; defiance of the Police and law and order; anything which tends to excite inter-racial feeling or promote religious ill-feeling or rivalry; anything that might provoke sedition or cause disturbance of public tranquility; certain matters which might contravene good taste in regard to public morals; films which tend to depict horror for its own sake. Of course, there are broad political objectives: films which tend to bring into disrepute the constitution and the ideals on which a State is founded, or to incite people into political violence, political disorder and unconstitutional acts. These are the broad principles around which the Film Censor has to work. Naturally, when he comes to apply these broad principles to specific cases, individual judgment comes in. That is one of the reasons why we have to have an appeal committee which consists of nine members. Again the interpretation is based on the individual position of the nine members collectively. The result is that very often you do find that the Federation censors on rare occasions pass a film which we have prohibited. And when a new Committee of Appeal comes in, very often, on second thoughts, they reverse the decision made by the preceding Committee of Appeal.

Since the Member for Tanglin has made this issue a rather broad one, I have to touch on it on general lines. [Interruption] Yes, the membership. There are nine members.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Who are they?

Mr Rajaratnam: We have two Political Secretaries who will always be there, a Parliamentary Secretary, three from the University, one from the Dewan Bahasa and one, I think, is an independent gentleman, Mr Tan See Chin.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that when the Minister was giving the list of principles governing the censorship of films, what was missing was this: is there not one principle that a picture should be banned if it is inclined to make people respect colonialism and to belittle the people's aspiration of wanting to be a free nation? Are not such pictures banned?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes. Any picture which tends to glorify colonialism, or bring certain people, especially Asians or Africans, into unnecessary ridicule and contempt is banned.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered the third question rightly. According to the Government directory here, out of the nine members of the Committee of Appeal, at least six are members of the People's Action Party.

Sir, as an educationist, I regret to say that I am of the opinion that there are many pictures of gangsters emphasizing gun-play, crime, sex and violence which are passed and freely shown. But under this present system, because the Committee of Appeal is loaded with people with a political bias, some good films, have been banned. There are two such films which were banned in Singapore but passed in the Federation, strange to say. One of them, "Satan Never Sleeps", was shown in Johore Bahru.

Mr Rajaratnam: What is it?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: "Satan Never Sleeps". I have read the story, Sir. The main character is a Communist in Red China who rediscovers his soul and ends his life in a very noble manner. We do not know why that film should have been banned in Singapore. I am even more curious to know why a second film was banned. This second film, called "The Crowning Experience", is the story of a woman educator of Negro extraction who rose from a very low position to become the founder of a college and adviser to two presidents. She was known personally to the present Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya as an educator. This film was seen in Tokyo by three Malayans who went there to attend a U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference; one was the respected Singapore State Advocate-General, another a very well-known lawyer in Penang, Mrs B. H. Oon, and the other a Muslim lady social welfare worker. They were so impressed that when they came to Singapore, they said, "This film must be brought to Singapore and the Federation." Now, Sir, knowing that the People's Action Party may have political considerations. First I asked the S.A.G. whether he would personally make the request to the film people. He did. He, with the lady lawyer from Penang, and I went to the film people and made the request to have the film brought here. In due course, the film was brought here and it was passed by the Film Censor with a few minor cuts. An appeal was lodged because in no country, except in Communist countries had this film been banned or cut, and the P.A.P.dominated Committee of Appeal banned it. The film went to the Federation, and it was passed without any cut. The previous Education Minister, who had seen it in Tokyo, praised it.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Which one?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: The second, i.e. the present Federation Education Minister who is of an independent mind, saw it and said that it was a good film. He was not satisfied and invited his own committee in charge of films for showing to public schools to vet it. They passed it, and he certified that it was a film of educational value to be shown to schools. Educationists in Kuala Lumpur saw the film and they said, "This is the kind of film we must have in Malaya." Of all the places, here in this Colony - er, this State -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Colony?

Dr Thio Chan Bee: P.A.P. colony really, a good film which is rarely to be found is banned, because the spirit of that film shows that love is better than hatred, reconciliation and co-operation are better than division and strife. The People's Action Party now talk about a new spirit of co-operation, less strife, and they ban a film which has, as its main theme, the kind of spirit which has been shown in Tokyo generated by President Soekarno and our Tunku, and in Manila recently. That is the kind of spirit which the Party in power says in words, "We want", but in deed they do not seem to want, Sir. That is the thing that perplexes many people. If they are really for reconciliation and co-operation, why must they ban a film which has been regarded by two Education Ministers as of educational value and highly recommended by their own Singapore State Advocate-General whose qualities we have praised in this House?

7.15 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, one thing about the Member for Tanglin, is that he is always a year behind with his facts. The list that he read out of the Appeals Committee is an old one. The present Committee consists of my Political Secretary, the Prime Minister's Political Secretary, Dr Huang from Nanyang University, Dr Wong Lincoln from the University of Singapore, Mr Tan See Chin who is a lawyer, Mr K. C. Lee (my former Parliamentary Secretary), Madam Chan (Assemblywoman), Inche Buyong bin Adil from the Dewan Bahasa, and Dr K. J. Ratnam also from the University of Singapore. These are not men whose tastes can be lightly dismissed.

The other point is that when the Member mentioned "Satan Never Sleeps", I was quite interested because it is probably a reference to Barisan Sosialis history. I have not seen the film myself but I made a quick enquiry. It is a very poorly produced, rather puerile, anti-Communist film. It is not just because it is an anti-Communist film, but we believe that anything which can intelligently expose Communism, or Fascism, or anything else, should be allowed. There is no greater dis-service you can do to the democratic cause than to put forward a picture which is so puerile that you are likely to win more converts to Communism than anything else.

The other film, again I think probably the Member for Tanglin is being modest in that he did not tell all the stories. "The Crowning Experience", I understand, is a film about Moral Rearmament. Personally I have not seen the film, and so I would not like to make any judgment. But I am told it has been rejected on similar grounds - that in this country, if you are going to expose Communism, do it intelligently. But if you do it in such a bad way, you are more likely to rouse the antagonism of people who might otherwise not be interested in Communism. As for the judgment of the film as to whether it is good or bad, I think we should leave it to the Appeals Committee - nine people who have a directive to follow. If the Member for Tanglin wants to get a reappeal, he can reappeal to the Committee.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that the Minister considers a film like "The Crowning Experience" puerile, as it were. Sir, in addition to the S.A.G. who commended it, the late Tun Leong Yew Koh, Minister for Justice in the Federation, said it was very inspiring. Now, could the Minister say that these two men who, you might say, are at the very apex of their professions, had puerile minds?

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $320,210 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 53 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 53 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 20.

I notice this is a new vote. I am just wondering whether this $14,000 new vote is to take over some of the duties and services of Head 7, subhead 12, item (1) [Maintenance of Fire Fighting Equipment], also on the same subject of fire fighting equipment, which has been cut down for the rural areas from $1,150 to $500. I am also wondering whether this Head 7 vote was cut down because there is this new vote and also some of the duties are being carried by this $14,000 vote.

I raise this because I feel that equipment for fire fighting services for the rural areas is very important, in view of the fires that are breaking out in the kampongs. I have brought this to the notice of the Minister before, but nothing seems to have been done. Previously there used to be fire fighting squads in the kampongs and fire extinguishers were provided, and the Government saw to it that there were groups of about 20 young volunteers each on whom the kampong could fall back in case of a fire emergency, and also to see that the extinguishers were kept up to date. Now the extinguishers are all dry, the squads no longer exist, as they were ignored and neglected. I thought it such a pity because these kampong fire fighting squads with extinguishers are good safeguards and are a real help to prevent fires from spreading.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum of $14,000 will be used to purchase equipment sufficient for 20 kampong fire fighting squads.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: May I withdraw, Sir?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,591,210 for Head 53 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 54 -

The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 54 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 6.

The Chairman: Tun Lim? He is not here. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 54 be reduced by $100.*

• The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr A. P. Rajah, Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat and Mr Ng Teng Kian.

I want to ask the Government whether they are ready to reconsider their policy as regards Singapore-born people who have been to China and are not allowed to return to Singapore. The Prime Minister in his rural visits told the people of Singapore that such people had not been allowed to come back to Singapore, because if they did, they would be taking away the rice bowl - the jobs - of quite a number of people. We say that is all nonsense, because the Prime Minister himself has also said that should Malaysia be formed, people from all the so-called Malaysian territories would be able to come into Singapore and compete for jobs, in which case, let me ask: how is it that outsiders from the so-called Malaysian territories are allowed to come into Singapore while actual local-born people who went out of the country for a short term are not allowed to return to Singapore? We would like an explanation from the Minister.

Mr Rajah: Just one matter, Mr Speaker, Sir. The other day I had a visit from a Singapore citizen who is an Indian. He is married to a lady in India and he was trying to get her into Singapore. As a Singapore citizen, he is entitled under the law, I think, to bring his wife into Singapore although she might not be a citizen. He produced to me his papers and the correspondence he had had with the Immigration Department. The official reply that went to him was - no, first of all, there were difficulties made about proof of marriage, which is a legitimate difficulty. He got over that, and the Department was satisfied that the lady was, in fact, his wife. Then the final reply came saying she was not - what was the phrase ? - in the category of persons who were entitled to come into Singapore. I think that was the phrase used, although they were satisfied that she was, in fact, his lawfully wedded wife. He was persistent, as a husband should be as regards his wife, and asked the Controller of Immigration why she was not in the category of persons permitted to come into Singapore although she was accepted as his lawfully wedded wife. Came the reply quoting some regulation which said that because he had been separated from his wife for more than five years and had not seen her during the five years, therefore, she was not in the category of persons entitled to come into Singapore.

The position to me seems ridiculous. Apparently if he had gone and seen her two days just prior to the five years expiring, she would have been in the category entitled to come in. This operates harshly against a poor man. The man who is well provided with money can go to India, see his wife and come back and he apparently can bring her into Singapore. But if you are so poor as not to be able to go and see your wife for five years and you want to bring her in after five years, you would have had it under our law, so it seems. A regulation was quoted to this unfortunate husband as the regulation under which it was deemed that his wife was not in the category of persons entitled to come into Singapore. If that is the law, Mr Speaker - it may be, I do not know - I think it is a very harsh, unconscionable and anti-social law. I think the Government should look into it.

Mr Ng Teng Kian: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to immigration, the application for wives coming into Singapore is indeed very complicated. Many citizens of Chinese origin who have been staying in Singapore for a number of years and received Singapore citizenship rights are not allowed to bring their wives from foreign countries into Singapore. Some of them who have had approval to bring their wives are not allowed to bring their children in. These children are only about 14 years old.

7.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, many citizens of Chinese origin have received citizenship rights. They have looked upon Singapore as their own country. They hope to stay forever in Singapore. We cannot understand why there are such regulations to limit lawful wives to join and stay together with their lawfully wedded husbands. Some citizens after having gone abroad for travel or studies and married foreign girls are still able to bring their wives into Singapore. In this particular case, this person is not allowed. How is that others are allowed while this particular case is not allowed, in spite of her being a woman of about 50 years old? I would like the Minister to explain such a question.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown has asked the Government whether it would reconsider the change of policy with regard to Singapore-born persons who are now in China and could not return, if the House will recollect, in 1961, there was a Review Committee of the P.A.P. of which the Member for Queenstown was the Secretary, and this Committee, after studying this problem, came out with a recommendation agreeing with government policy that these people should not be allowed to return. The reasons are many, quite apart from the economic reasons which the Member for Queenstown alleged the Prime Minister had advanced. First, we would like to know why these people left Singapore for China. Most of these persons left Singapore somewhere around 1950 to 1954. They left because they wanted to take part in the reconstruction of their motherland, or fatherland as you call it. They were very much inspired by the great revolution that was going on in China and they wanted to go in and participate in the reconstruction of their motherland. So they left this place with no intention of coming back. Some of them even went against their parents' wishes. They did not consider Singapore their home. So they left. If that was their reason for leaving Singapore, well, so be it. Since China is their motherland, by all means stay there.

Subsequently, even those persons who claimed to be registered Singapore citizens or claimed to be Singapore citizens because they were born in Singapore left for China without taking any travel documents. In other words, they have exercised the rights accorded to the national of another country, and in so doing they have lost their citizenship rights: and these people, quite properly, were not allowed to return. I do not see any reason for changing the present policy. But, in any case, in another two months' time, this will be a Central Government matter and it will be up to the Central Government to review the matter if there is a case.

As for the other case mentioned by the Member for Farrer Park, there was such a regulation where, if the husband is separated from his wife for more than five years as from 1st December, 1954, then generally she would not be allowed to return. Since 1962, this matter has been taken up with the Federation Government and we are yet to hear the Federation Government's views. Because the Immigration Ordinance and Regulations are pan-Malayan, it is not possible for us to take action on our own. Nevertheless, in a few cases, certain discretion was made on special compassionate grounds and such persons were allowed to come in.

With regard to the point raised by the Member for Punggol, I have already mentioned just now that there are various reasons why wives and children are not allowed in. Quite apart from economic reasons, there is also the security reason. I am sure the Member for Punggol was not aware that in some of these cases, approvals were given for the wife and children to come into Singapore. But each case has to be viewed on its own merits. I would say that in most of these cases, the sponsor could not produce any proof whatsoever that the applicants were either their wives or children, and it would be very difficult for the Immigration Department officers to make a decision.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am surprised at the Minister, Sir,I remember the last time when he touched on this subject, I had conclusively proved then that the Advisory Committee or Review Committee of the P.A.P. of which I was then Secretary, had already agreed, on principle, that Singapore-born people were to be allowed back to Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Nonsense!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We recommended that and that was what caused us to argue and quarrel about - for quite some time.

The Minister asks why did they leave Singapore for China in 1956/1957? Surely he must remember that at that time, the P.A.P. was not the Government. It was a colonial government and they objected to the measures of the colonial government. Is the Minister now trying to defend the colonial government?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We all know, of course, that he is merely the stooge of the colonial power, but he seems to be admitting this fact so openly nowadays.

I remember the Minister for Home Affairs at one time had headed a procession on March 8th, i.e. on Women's Day, demanding that Women's Day be recognised. Now, because he happens to be the Minister he turns a somersault.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the impression that the Minister was not unsympathetic. He also suggested that he has a discretion in this matter. I will therefore pursue the matter with him. To put the position of these Indians in the proper light so that a decision could be taken on a logical basis. Sir, this particular Indian who saw me is a messenger. He is earning a salary of $120 or $140 a month. It is not possible for him to visit his wife regularly every year. The mistake he has apparently made is not to visit her within five years.

Another factor which weighs in favour of these people is this. The population ratio for women and men, so far as this group of Indians is concerned, is heavily weighted in favour of the male, so that if they choose to marry, they cannot marry here among their own people. So it is incumbent upon them to find their bride somewhere else. It has happened to some of us here already. I think a sympathetic view should be taken of these cases. This is not a case of where somebody is trying to defraud the Immigration laws and side-step them and bring people here who are undesirables. I think he is being a good social creature. He is not doing anything anti-social and is in no way trying to evade the immigration laws. It is merely that his financial position is such that he has not been able to break the five-year barrier.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not mention 1956/57. I mentioned 1950 to 1954. The Member for Queenstown said that, because in those days Singapore was under colonial rule and because these young men disliked living under colonial rule, therefore they left for China.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if these young men had regarded Singapore as their home, their country, and if they had any loyalty to Singapore, they should have stayed back and fought against the colonialists, as we have done, instead of running away to China like cowards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as for the other case which the Member for Farrer Park has brought up, I think if he will give me the particulars, I will look into it.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,166,240 for Head 54 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 55-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani.

This is the Commissioner of Police and, of course, although he is the Commissioner of Police, he merely takes orders from the Minister and the Prime Minister. And not only that. He is also taking orders from the adviser whose post is specially created in order to rule ---

The Chairman: Order. I take it then that the hon. Member wishes to debate his second amendment+ as well, which is in respect of item (2) of subhead 1?

• The amendment reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, if I may do that?

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

7.45 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: First of all, I will touch on this Police Adviser. The P.A.P. has always professed that it is an anti-colonial Government. But only last night we heard the Minister for Finance saying that he preferred to retain the services of another Britisher in order to run the civil service to his satisfaction and in order to make sure that he may protect the interests of his colonial master.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Point of order, yes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Member has completely misrepresented me. I said nothing of the sort.

The Chairman: It is not really a point of order. But I allowed it because I think the Member for Queenstown should be careful in his choice of words. I do not think the Minister said what the Member for Queenstown alleged that he said.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He is very sensitive about things like that.

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Queenstown, I think, ought to acknowledge that he has made a mistake instead of persisting. He has made a mistake. The Minister has never said what he has alleged the Minister has said. He must not put words into somebody else's mouth which never came out from that person's mouth.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Of course, that is our interpretation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Withdraw.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Well, we will leave it at that. Why should the Police Adviser be kept back? We would like to know that. Are our local boys not good enough? Does the Minister not trust our local boys? Must he have one of those who can rule from behind and suggest from behind? If the Minister wants to tell us that there is independence, then, of course, these people must go. The whole idea of Malayanisation means that all who are not local born must go. After all, his loyalty is not towards Singapore. The Minister for Home Affairs just talks about loyalty, and yet he is retaining people whose loyalty is directed elsewhere. As far as I know, the Police Adviser is not even a Singapore citizen, and yet our Minister is fighting to retain a non-citizen of Singapore in order to help - what? - to preserve the interests of some other outside power. They have always been talking about being a national Government and being nationalist. Now, who is fighting to preserve the outside power's interests? Is it not the P.A.P. Government? So how can they call themselves nationalists in any way? We are the people who fight against outside powers and yet they are trying to call us anti-nationalists. Who is serving the interest of outside powers?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is right. You.

The Chairman: Order. If the Member for Queenstown asks a question across the Chamber he must expect an answer. If he does not ask questions, then I think - I am not quite certain - he will not be interrupted as often as he is.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nowadays, Sir, the police are not used to preserve law and order. They are used to break strikes. As far as I can see ---

The Chairman: Order. I did indicate that if there is to be a debate on the general policy of the Government in regard to police, we should wait until we come to amendment (3) , that is, the amendment which reads: "That the total sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $100." We are now dealing with personalities - personnel.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, they are more or less connected. If you will allow me, I will range over the whole matter.

The Chairman: I think we had better dispose of amendments (l)* and (2)+ first. Then, incidentally, when we talk about general policy, if these officers' names have to be mentioned in connection with general policy, the names can be mentioned.

• The amendment reads as follows:-

That the sum to be allcated for Head 55 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

• The amendment reads as follows:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will confine myself to the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police is supposed to look after the civil liberty of the individuals. He is there to ensure that the individual is not subject to interference and he is there to see that law and order is preserved. But I am saying that the Commissioner of Police does not do his job properly. When a person is arrested, he is supposed to be given the facilities to contact his lawyers and his family. I am going to give you an instance where the Commissioner of Police, either on the direction of the Minister or the Prime Minister, does not allow the individual this freedom. I refer to the arrest of myself and our legal adviser. [Laughter] The Minister for Finance finds it amusing. But he would not find it so amusing if he should be placed in the same position as I was. I went along to the police station to bail my colleagues at about a quarter to four. I am not talking about the actual case itself. I was given all the consideration by the Superintendent, or whoever it was who was in charge of the police station. I could see the arrested Assemblyman, but while we were talking to him, a telephone rang and immediately after that, the Superintendent of the police station told us, that is, our legal adviser and me, that we would be under arrest. Mind you, Sir, we were not arrested when we went to the police station. The Superintendent did not arrest us. He never thought at any moment that we had done anything wrong. But the telephone rang and immediately after that we were put under arrest. That was round about 4.10 p.m., Sir. When we were told that we were put under arrest, we asked, first of all, to contact our lawyers. The Superintendent said no. He refused to allow us a chance to contact our lawyers. Then I asked if I could inform my family. Again the answer was no. The Superintendent said that we had to go through certain processes; he gave certain excuses. We accepted that for the time being, and since he insisted that we had to make a statement, do this or do that, we followed what the Superintendent said. But every time we asked to contact our lawyers and to inform our family, the same answer came back-no. We were told at the time we were arrested that the charges were bailable charges. But somehow or other the Superintendent refused to allow us to be bailed. From 4 o'clock to 5 o'clock, to 6 o'clock, to 7 o'clock, to 8 o'clock, and right through the night. Sir, while we were kept inside the room we heard our legal adviser coming. He had heard of our arrest. He wanted to contact us and to speak to us. But even a lawyer was prevented from seeing us. We were kept in the Inspectors' Room. We were told that if we were to make a statement, we were told that if we had our thumb printed, we would be allowed to go home. We did that. Still we were not allowed to contact our lawyers or our family. Very luckily, some of our colleagues brought some rice for us, and we managed to have a little bite. But all the time we were kept inside the police station. We were held, in fact, incommunicado. I do not know under what law the police kept us. But we were so angry when we were prevented from even informing our families that I told them that if they really wanted to punish us, let them punish us in any way they liked. But let them not punish our families as well. I was very angry, Sir, with the Superintendent. But he turned round and said, "Sorry-orders." We asked some of the police inspectors there whether this was the normal practice. They said no. That is not the normal practice. We asked whether people arrested would normally be allowed to contact their family and their lawyers. They said yes. Normally they were allowed. Why then were we treated differently? We tell those gangsters opposite ---

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not get so excited as to be unparliamentary. He is now in the Assembly Chamber. He must remember that. That word is completely unparliamentary with reference to a Member of this Assembly. It must be withdrawn.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: For the sake of decorum of the House, Sir, I withdraw that word. But I will call them the same outside this House at any time.

The Chairman: Order. I am not interested in what the Member for Queenstown wishes to call them outside this House, and he should not threaten to do that in my hearing. Let us carry on with the debate as calmly and collectedly as we can.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Ministers gave instructions. We do not blame the policemen for all this. The inspectors themselves were surprised at how such a thing could have happened. But it is the Ministers who abused their powers just to punish their political opponents. This is, to say the least, very unparliamentary. Why should they do a thing like that? If they wanted to shoot us, they could. We do not have any guns on us. They have guns around them all the time. They could easily do that. I understand the Prime Minister is a crack shot. He learns to shoot every day.

An hon. Member: You cannot shoot.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But I am also quite good at shooting.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Although the gun has been taken away from me!

The Chairman: Order. I hope the Member for Queenstown is talking metaphorically?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Metaphorically?

The Chairman: Metaphorically.

8.00 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, that is just a little hit. I do not want to go now into greater details because we tend to reveal more of the facts later on. Let me just touch a little on the Special Branch ---

The Chairman: Special Branch would be under "policy", would it not?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Under policy.

The Chairman: Under policy, yes. We will deal with items (1) and (2) first. The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by 510 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1."

The debate may range over the second the second amendment.

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1."

Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government promised us last time, when we raised the question of the Malayanisation of the post of Commissioner of Police, that it would be done very soon. So far this post has not been Malayanised. Particularly in a country where the governing party is feeling that it is losing ground, the post of Commissioner of Police is very important. We see that they draw the applicant either from the Director, Special Branch, or the Assistant Commissioner of the C.I.D. It is very important, therefore, that the persons who are being groomed, being built up, who are being given all-round experience for this post, must he persons of sufficient integrity, and not sycophants, nor position-seekers. If we have a Director, Special Branch - and in the past few years most Directors of the Special Branch automatically subsequently became Commissioner of Police - who is a position-seeker and takes orders from the governing party, what will happen is that the future Commissioner of Police would be prepared at any time to take orders from the Government. You know, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commissioner has immense powers under the P.P.S.O. and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance to help the Government in power to suppress and repress political rivals. You know, Mr Speaker, they can fix up evidence and do all sorts of things, and there will be a good case to detain a political rival. Therefore, it is in the interests of the State, particularly at a time when the Commissioner of Police is going to retire, to be Malayanised, that we should have in the top ranks of the police men of integrity, men who are not prepared to take orders, not yes-men but men who believe in carrying out their duty as police officers in the best traditions of the British police system.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the present Commissioner of Police has selected by the Public Service Commission and he is a man of considerable experience, probably longest in the police service, and he has had varied experience. I wonder whether the Member for Hong Lim is casting aspersions on the integrity of this Commissioner of Police.

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

The Chairman: Point of clarification, yes. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister, either unconsciously or purposely, has quoted me in a different way. I am only giving the broad principles of how we should have men of sufficient integrity who are number two and number three in the police, because when the time comes that this Government carries out its promise of Malayanisation of the post of Commissioner of Police, we will have men of integrity who are local men capable of taking up this most important post.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker. Sir, the post of Commissioner of Police has been Malayanised. I do not know what the Member for Hong Lim is talking about. And below this Commissioner of Police, who is a local man, the Deputy and the other Assistant Commissioners are all local men. There are no more expatriates there. Unless he wants to question the present holder of the post of Commissioner of Police - that he is not a man of integrity?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the post of Police Adviser is a supernumerary post, and the present holder will vacate this post on 31st August, when the post will be abolished. He will not be responsible for the direction and administration of the Police Force; his function would be mainly to liaise with the Director of Police Affairs, Federation of Malaya, in so far as Singapore is concerned; to discuss matters concerning the establishment of a unified Police Service of Malaysia, and to advise the Commissioner of Police, Singapore, on such matters. He will also advise the Commissioner of Police, Singapore, on any matter which may be referred to him by the Commissioner. He has no power to direct or give instructions to the Singapore Commissioner of Police, and whether his advice is to be accepted or not is up to the Commissioner of Police. As I have said just now, his job is mainly to liaise with the Federation Police with regard to a Pan-Malaysian Police Force. In any case, his post will be abolished on 31st August.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Amendment (2) * has been dealt with. Dr Lee.

• Amendment (2) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 55 be reduced by $100.

First, it is public relations, Sir. The Police are supposed to be the friends of the people. But we have a recent occasion, Sir, where the police have been used to hit women, and old women especially. I will not enlarge on this now because this is a case supposed to be sub judice. But, of course, all this has been arranged by the Special Branch of today.

The other point which I would like to touch on is that the police today have been used for the breaking of strikes. We have been saying this for quite some time. Last year, the year before last, we had been saying that. But, of course, they always turn round and say, "Oh, you are Communists," and therefore the use of the police is justified. Today, we see employees of the Home Ministry itself, in front of the Central Police Station, in front of the C.I.D. in Robinson Road. They are camping out and they are on strike. And one of their placards says, "We condemn Government for forcing mata-mata to be strike-breakers." I have pictures here to show, and these are pictures taken from Robinson Road, from the Home Affairs Ministry, and from the Central Police Station. I wonder whether they have suddenly become Communists, or that the P.A.P. has in fact all the time been using the police to break legitimate strikes. That is point number two. And then, Sir, when it comes to a quarrel between employer and employee, and when both the employers and employees request help from the Police, the P.A.P. make sure that the employers are served and the employees are ignored.

I quote, Sir, the instance of the Fraser strike. The employers asked the police for help and the workers also asked the police for help. What happened? The police went to the aid of the employers and not to the employees. If the Government were really a pro-workers' Government, they would most certainly have used the police to help the employees and not the employers.

The third point I want to bring up is the Special Branch. The Director of Special Branch, as you might know, Sir, is a direct appointee of the Minister for Finance. In fact, we say that he has specially been planted in the Special Branch. We say that there are quite a number of key posts held by appointees of the Minister for Finance. I do not know, but if there should be a clash between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Finance will know exactly what his position is. He has all his men planted in the right places.

This is the thing I want to inform the House of: it is the Special Branch lock-up in the Central Police Station. This does not come under Prisons, because we as Assemblymen have no chance of going into that place. I went to that place once, not as a chap to be put inside, but as a then Parliamentary Secretary. The police saluted me smartly, took me around. But nowadays, the position is slightly different. What I want to inform the House is this: the treatment given to the political detainees in the lock-up of the police station is too terrible for words. There is one political detainee who was so ill-treated that he had to bang his head against the wall.

An hon. Member: That is not the real story.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All right, we are willing to hear the real story. But the fact is this: this person was transferred to the General Hospital and he has now four stitches in his scalp. How can a political detainee inside a cell, with no interference so to speak, get a scalp wound? I rang up the Prison doctor, and he informed me that the detainee would he out of danger after three or four days. The fact is that this political detainee still has a lacerated scalp wound. We would like the Minister to explain how a detainee can have a lacerated scalp wound. If it is not a case of his being driven to knock his own head against the wall, then it must be the Special Branch using inhuman and barbaric methods on the political detainee.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Queens-town alleged that the police hit women. Unfortunately this case is pending. I do not wish to say more. But I can tell him that the contrary is true. The police have never been used to break strikes. In fact, we have been very careful in not allowing the police to be involved in a strike. If the Member for Queenstown would cast his mind back to 1959 or 1960, he would be aware of the number of circulars and instructions that I had issued to the police advising them how to deal with the workers whenever there was a strike. As I have said again and again, if the workers were to observe peaceful picketing rules and if the employers were to refrain from taking provoking action, there is no need for the police to be there. The police are there only when there is a danger of a breach of the peace. I must say that over the last two or three years, particularly in 1961 and 1962, there were many instances of workers belonging to the pro-Communist unions who took the law into their own hands and assaulted members of the police as well as the public. One clear example was the President of the Singapore Business Houses Employees Union, Mr Foo Yong Fong, who used a burning cigarette butt on a member of the public. These are the persons who commit all these offences. The job of the police is to see that there is peace in a strike-bound area. It is not the job of the police to serve the employers or the unions.

8.15 p.m.

The Member for Queenstown mentioned a detainee who had a head injury. Mr Speaker, Sir, this detainee was transferred to the Central Police Station lock-up only very recently, and within four days in the lock-up he attempted suicide. The reasons are, (1) he was a bit disturbed over the news that his mother was ill; but the second and main reason was that his wife was fed up with him. His wife advised him not to get involved with all the pro-Communist elements and he refused to heed her advice. Eventually he found himself in the prison, and the wife threatened to divorce him unless he recanted from his Communist beliefs. That had a great effect on him, so much so that he attempted to commit suicide by banging his head on the floor. How he did it is still a mystery to the investigating officers.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Minister says that the detainee was only transferred there for four days. Does the Minister know that he had been in solitary confinement for four months? Have we not been telling the Ministers that solitary confinement can cause terrible injury to the mind as well as to the body? Does he not know that? Now he says that it is the wife. I am ashamed of him. Already married, and with a family ---

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Queenstown should try to keep his temper in this Chamber. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have finished.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, .1 will take just half a minute. The Minister says that the Government never use mata mata to interfere in strikes. I want to ask him this: how is he going to explain the fact that all the members of the staff of his Ministry who are members of the A.U.P.E. put up posters or placards stating, "We condemn Government for forcing mata mata to be strike-breakers."? How is he going to explain this?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the job of the police is to maintain law and order. This service of the Police cannot be dispensed with. It does not mean that because there is a strike, the police must therefore refrain from carrying out their duty. For the police to carry out their duty of protecting the lives and property of the people, certain services must carry on, such as tele- printing, telephone and telecommunications services. These services must be kept going 24 hours a day and if certain civilian employees go on strike, then the uniformed services must come in.

8.20 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $28,478,320 for Head 55 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 56 -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I beg to move, Sir,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.*

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. T. Bani.

This item is in respect of the Commissioner of Prisons. Sir, the Commissioner of Prisons, I take it, looks after the prisons and all the conditions inside them. Political detainees have been kept in Outram Prison for four months. As far as I understand, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Prisons, 1960, say that there should be no solitary confinement and that political detainees should not be kept in the way that they are being kept today. In addition, we have found out that the detainees had been allowed to come out of their cells for only limited periods of the day. When we enquired as to why this was so, the Commissioner said that this was because he could not help it. Can the Minister tell us whether the Commissioner was receiving orders from him or from the Special Branch, and why this has to be so?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said sometime ago in this Assembly that some of the detainees were kept separately from the others during the interrogation period. We could not help it. After the interrogation ---

Mr Ong Chang Sam: How long?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: --- they were removed to another place where the" could live together. We have been doing so, and so far only 11 persons are left segregated from the others. In fact, on this question, I think the good friend of the Member for Queenstown, Mr Fenner Brockway, made certain suggestions as to how the Government could overcome this objection. He suggested that we should bring in non-political detainees to live with the politic d detainees. I can tell the Members for Queenstown that we are putting this recommendation into effect.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Home Affairs said that at present there are 11 persons kept separately because of interrogation. I would like to ask whether these 11 persons are kept in the Central Police Station lock-up or in Outram Prison.

The other point I want to raise is the designation of this post-Commissioner of Prisons. I remember, Sir, at the last sitting, the designation of Commissioner of Prisons was altered to Director of Prisons. It seems that the Estimates of 1963 must have been prepared quite some time ago. This proves the Government purposely allow us insufficient time for a more detailed debate on the Estimates.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the post of Commissioner of Prisons was re-designated Director of Prisons only very recently. I suppose that is the reason why the old designation of Commissioner of Prisons is still there.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I still do not have an answer to my first question about the 11 persons who are kept separately. Where are they kept?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: They are detained in Outram Prison.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker. Sir, there may be 11 persons in Outram Prison, but what about the number of detainees who are still being segregated in the Central Police Station lock-up? I want to know how many persons are still being detained in the Central Police Station lock-up.

The Chairman: That does not arise really, but if the Minister has the information, he can give it.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the exact figure, but I would think it is around 10 to 12 persons. I think they are under interrogation now.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Sir, if that is the case, the Minister is not giving us the true number of the actual persons who are kept separately. He is trying to give us a wrong impression, that there are only 11 persons at present when, in fact, the total figure is 23.

The Chairman: Order. The question was in connection with Prisons, and the Minister answered that there were 11 or 12 - is it 11 or l2?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Eleven.

The Chairman: --- eleven persons still in prison. Now the Member for Havelock has ascertained there are some in the Central Police Station as welt, and that is the end of it. I do not know how the Minister can be accused of misleading the Member.

It is half-past eight. Shall we take a vote on that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: It is time to suspend.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend this sitting. I shall take the Chair at half-past nine.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 56 (contd.) -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (15) of subhead 1++.

++ see col. 1265.

I have also under my name item (49)* and item (125)+. They are all interlinked, so may I speak on them?

The Chairman: Amendment (3) *4 and amendment (4) +?

• Amendment(3) which also stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock, reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (49) of subhead 1.

• Amendment (4) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (125) of subhead 1.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Amendments (2)++, (3) and (4).

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because I am not mentioning them in respect of the persons so much as the posts.

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the political detainees in the prisons have recently been supplied with newspapers. But these newspapers have "windows" in them: certain portions are cut out, and I do not know whether it is the duty of the Superintendent of Prisons to cut out or make "windows" in the newspapers before handing the newspapers to them. Moreover. I understand newspapers have to be bought by the detainees themselves. The Government has $97 million surplus last year. I do not see why the Government cannot supply newspapers to our Political detainees who have been deprived of their freedom by the Government. The food rations are very poor. I know what the rations are: I have had a taste of them and I can assure you, Sir, that they are not fit for consumption. People eat them because they are forced to eat them. I understand during the Lim Yew Hock regime that dry rations were supplied to political detainees and they could cook their own food. Similar requests have been made to the present Government, but until now no decision has yet been made regarding dry rations to be given to the political detainees. Then there are no chairs and tables given to detainees. They have been allowed to write letters once a week, but the last time I saw detainees doing any writing, it was done on the floor. They had to kneel and write on the floor. Surely that is not the proper way for anybody to write any letter. In Changi also, although they are supposed to have badminton and other recreational facilities, these have not yet been provided them in spite of repeated requests from the detainees. Until today, the detainees are allowed only 20 minutes for visits from their families, and that, Sir, is not sufficient. Not only that, Sir, there are certain political detainees who have asked to see their fiancees, but the Government has seen fit to prevent them from seeing them, although they have no other next-of-kin.

I did not quite catch what the Minister said about Mr Brockway, but we do know what the comments of Mr Brockway are. There is already the case of Mr Szeto who has, according to the Minister, tried to commit suicide. He tries to pass the blame on to the family, but let him look at himself. Let him look into the mirror, and see how much he should blame himself for this state of affairs. If only the Minister suffers just one-tenth of the sufferings of these political detainees today. I think he would not be so happy here today. The callous, completely heartless way in which the Ministers are treating this question of detainees has aroused not only complaints from the detainees' families themselves and from us, but also the P.A.P.'s own political supporters, the M.P.s who are supporting them today like John Strachey, like Arthur Bottomley - complaints, Sir, in England when I told them of what was happening in Singapore today of the way the P.A.P. is treating political detainees. They could not understand why the Government should confine these prisoners to tiny solitary cells and not implement the Report of the Prisons Inquiry Commission of 1960. Sir, the people who put in this Report are people who have the trust of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister always praises Mr Devan Nair, and you will see that Mr Devan Nair himself is the Chairman of this Commission that has given us this Report today. In page 5, paragraph 15 of this Report, it tells us that political detainees are and should be regarded as an anomaly in a democratic society. I do not have to go through the whole paragraph, but the Minister should realise that what he is doing today is in complete contradiction to what has been recommended by the Commission appointed by the P.A.P. Government.

According to the Minister there are still 11 in Outram and there are 11 or 12 in the Central Police Station, but let him remember this. The year before last there was one death in the C.I.D. Let him not have another death before he considers transferring all the detainees out of solitary confinement into better surroundings. If there should be another death, then the Minister will have to bear full responsibility, and I am sure, when the time comes, the people of Singapore will know how to deal with the P.A.P. At the present moment, so far as we understand, the Special Branch has a special interest in those prisoners in Changi. Outram and in the Central Police Station lock-ups. I want to remind our Ministers that the people in charge of the Special Branch today - Mr Blades, Mr Corridon. Mr Ahmad Khan - are all non-citizens. Their loyalty is not to the people of Singapore. We cannot expect people who are not citizens and who are not loyal to the people of Singapore to look after the people of Singapore properly. These non-citizens of Singapore are the people who serve the interests of the colonial masters. Let the Minister tell us whether he subscribes to all that the Special Branch advises and does and whether he has a hand in everything that is happening in the lock-ups and in the prisons today. Let him give us an answer.

The Chairman: Did I bear the Member for Queenstown correctly when he said he was also dealing with the Superintendent of the Pulau Senang Settlement, i.e., item (49)?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No. I did not mean to speak on Pulau Senang at all.

The Chairman: So it is on item (15) and item (125)?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (15) of subhead 1."

The debate may range over amendment (4) , which is "That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (125) of subhead 1." That is the Superintendent of Changi Prisons.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, all detainees are now given reading material. It is true that on certain occasions, certain newspapers have been censored before they are given to detainees, and for good reasons. The censorship is presumably done by Special Branch officers. I do not think the prison officers do the censoring of the newspapers themselves. I mean, it is quite normal. I do not see what is wrong with that.

The Member for Queenstown complains that the rations are poor and that they are not fit for consumption. Mr Speaker, Sir the rations are given to these detainees in accordance with the regulations laid down. In fact, I would remind the Member for Queenstown that even the Member for Anson who visited these detainees had no complaint whatsoever about the food. In fact, no detainees ever complained about the food being poor. The political detainees in the prisons do receive a special ration very much better than ordinary convicted prisoners. As to why they are not allowed to cook their own food, the answer I would imagine is obvious. Surely you cannot expect cooking to be allowed in the prison with smoke and fumes and all that floating around the place. Cooking by the detainees themselves was allowed in the Changi open camps and in St. John's Island. Those are places where cooking can be done by the detainees themselves. But if they are in the prison blocks, surely you do not expect cooking to be allowed.

9.45 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We will consult the Commissioner.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The visits of families are limited to 20 minutes for obvious reasons. The number is large and supervision is difficult and we have to confine the visits to 20 minutes. As time goes on, as more detainees are released, there are less people around which makes supervision easier and we will consider extending the time for visits by families, it is true we did refuse in one case to allow the fiancee to visit a detainee. Why, Sir? For good reasons also in this case, because the fiancee too has a long history of pro-Communist activities and naturally we would not allow this particular person to see the detainee.

I have already explained just now about somebody in the Central Police Station lock-up who attempted to commit suicide. If the Member for Queens-town would be honest with himself, he would know that this person is a very emotional person. The reason why he attempted committing suicide is not because of solitary confinement. He was perfectly normal and happy in Outram Prison. In fact, he was coming round very well. He was responding very well to interrogations until the wife made that visit and told him that unless he gave up all his pro-Communist sympathies and stopped getting himself involved any further with his pro-Communist colleagues, she would divorce him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You had better go into solitary yourself.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: If the conditions of detention in our Singapore prison are really that bad, then I fail to see the Member for Havelock moving a motion in this House, asking that those detainees in the Federation should be brought back to Singapore. I just could not understand.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You will never understand.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The motion moved by the Member for Havelock would surely indicate that the conditions of detention in Singapore are much more favourable than those in the Federation and that is why he is asking the House to bring in his detainee colleagues from the Federation to Singapore.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on this matter I actually have a lot to talk because I myself have had the experience of being imprisoned for some 10 days. But because of the time limit, I do not wish to touch on my own personal experience. I have been paying close attention to all these debates, but I find that the Minister himself has not made adequate replies to the charges that we have made. Our Party Chairman has said that when we paid visits to the prisons, we noticed that the detainees had been ill-treated, and so we made our complaints to the Superintendent of Prisons. But he said all these were instructions given from the top. We asked who gave the instructions - was it the Special Branch or the Minister? No answer was given. Can the Minister give us the answer?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now the Minister for Home Affairs has said in this House that only one of the political detainees was refused visits from members of the family and the others were all allowed family visits. That was what he said. Perhaps this is because the Minister himself does not understand the true position or perhaps he has told us an untruth in this House. I can give him a very clear example. Mr Lim Woon Chye is flow being detained in Muar. His wife is being detained in Outram Prison. When the father of Mr Lim Woon Chye wrote two letters to the Government making a request to visit his daughter-in-law, it was not granted and so the father of Mr Lim Woon Chye personally came down to Singapura from Muar to see the Superintendent of Outram Prison and the officials of the Special Branch. But the result is that he has not been given permission to see his daughter-in-law.

Mr Speaker, on the matter of detainees who have not been convicted, I will say that the Government is not giving them a fair deal. These people are now being detained in the remand prison. Because they have not been convicted by any court, they should be given all the rights that they could be enjoying outside. I myself spent about one week in the remand prison. Many of the prisoners in remand complained to us that they were unable to contact their counsel. They were unable to tell members of their family and their counsel to get bail arranged. As a result of this, those who are actually bailable are not actually on bail and so the only way out for them is to write letters to their families. But the letters will take some two weeks before they can actually be delivered to the homes. Sir, this is a very unfair way of doing things.

Mr Speaker, on the 1st of May, Mr T. T. Rajah, a lawyer, was detained together with the rest of us. He brought along some law books making some references on the 2nd of May, but the Superintendent of Prisons did not allow the law books to he brought in for the benefit of Mr T. T. Rajah. His reason was that all these books must be censored. Mr Speaker, a lawyer must be allowed to look through the law books before he can argue it in the court. I see no reason, however, why the Prison authority should have any reason to refuse such facilities to be given to counsel - to this particular lawyer.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs one question. When we gave a statement in protest against the ill-treatment of political detainees, the Government also issued a statement to say that Outram Prison would be demolished soon. It appears that the Government is trying to give the public this impression: that the prison in Outram Road will be demolished very soon so that the period of detention will come to an end very soon. I would like the Minister to tell us when this prison in Outram Road will be demolished, or whether it is to be expanded.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Communists and their running dogs have always intimidated and deceived the people with the myth that should any of them be rendered inactive for acts against the interest of the people and the State, the masses will rise up in arms and there will he riots and bloodshed in the streets. However, when the Communist front cadres were neutralised by the I.S.C. in February ---

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Who wrote that!

Mr Ong Pang Boon: --- there was complete calm and peace, with nobody getting excited over the arrests.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Who wrote that?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Communists and their underlings must have felt the situation most disconcerting. And having failed to work up public excitement over the arrests, they then met the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Answer our questions.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: They next attempted to work up this public excitement by making use of the detainees and the conditions of their detention.

The Chairman: Order. I am just trying to figure out how that is a reply to the points raised by the Opposition Members. They raised certain points and I called the Minister to answer these points.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I am just going to explain that. The reason why they raised the question of detainees and how they were ill-treated and all that was that they could not get the public excited over the arrests, and therefore the next best thing they could do was to exploit the issue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Go and jump into the river.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: And in so doing they even made use of the detainees' families by leading them to the City Hall, hoping that there would he a collision with the police. Well, I will not proceed further than that. But that is the whole purpose of bringing up the issue of these detainees here. They know that the detainees were treated in accordance with prison regulations and, in fact, they do get better treatment than the ordinary prisoners. And those detainees now in Changi receive much better treatment than many of the others.

I think Mr Lim Woon Chye's case was brought up. Now, his wife was under interrogation and naturally she was not allowed to see her husband. Now that the interrogation is over, arrangements have been made for her to go to Muar to see her husband.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: There is only one minute more. Tun Lim.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Just a quick one, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (49) of subhead 1.*

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh.

Sir, this is an item for the Superintendent of Pulau Senang Settlement. According to the salary scale, the maximum is $1,240 and that could not work out to $25,000 a year. This annual emolument is also very much more than the annual emoluments for the Commissioner of Prisons now known as the Director of Prisons who is supposed to be Number one in the Prison service. Would the Minister please explain how this man is paid $25,000?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The Superintendent of Pulau Senang is a contract officer and I think the salary is inclusive of all allowances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Time is up.

The time allotted for Head 56 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh, Tun Lim Yew Hock, Mr S. T Bani and Mrs Seow Peck Leng, were not proceeded with:

Dr Lee Siew Choh:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (125) of subhead 1.

Tun Lim Yew Hock:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 120.

Dr Lee Siew Choh:

Mr S. T. Bani:

Mrs Seow Peck Leng:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 56 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $5,246,930 for Head 56 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 57 -

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (1) of subhead 1.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has on many occasions stated inside and outside this House that equal treatment for the four streams of education will be given. Four years have gone by and the promise of the Minister has not been implemented. I believe the Minister for Education knows what he would become if the policy of equal treatment for the four streams of education cannot be implemented. For four years he has been sitting there in his office doing his best to clean up all the dishonest and dirty work left by the former Minister for Education, Mr Chew Swee Kee, and his colonial masters. For four years. I believe, he has worked very hard, but it is regrettable to say that his promise still has not been carried out.

Mr Speaker, Sir in a multi-racial society like Singapore the education problem is a very complicated one, and it must be handled with care, otherwise there will be resentment from the people. We have in Singapore four different streams of education but these four different streams of education are treated under two different kinds of policy.

Sir, the treatment given to English education is very much better than that given to the other streams, especially in the field of employment. The Government has only a few months to go, or maybe one year, and the four-year old promise of the Minister is still in his mouth.

Sir, has the Government any plan to solve the Nantah problem, especially the recognition of Nanyang University degrees and financial help, and is he prepared to give any help to Ngee Ann College?

Sir, in 1962 the number of enrolments to enter Primary I in Chinese schools was very, very small if compared to the enrolments in English schools. Why? The reason is because of the unequal treatment given to Chinese education, is the Minister aware why there is such a great decrease of Chinese pupils in primary schools? If an elected Government of Singapore cannot solve the education problem in Singapore, how can we expect, after Malaysia, the Federation Government to solve the education problem in Singapore?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very unusual for a Member of the Barisan Sosialis to pay compliments to me, saying that I have worked very hard, tried my best, et cetera, for the last four yours to clear the legacy of the past, and to admit that it is a pretty complicated educational system that has to be solve in Singapore and that it has to be treated with care. It is, therefore, because of this that, whereas in most countries of the world the educational system would be based on one language as the chief medium of instruction, we in Singapore, having inherited four language streams, have to proceed carefully.

I should like to answer the first criticism made by the Member for Changi why the 1962 enrolment was small in respect of Chinese schools. It is the policy of the Government to allow parents to make the choice for their children as to which language medium school they wish their children to be in, and it is the duty of the Government to provide the facilities once that choice has been made. It is, therefore, a decision made by the parents and citizens of Singapore. If the Member for Changi really wants to know the real reason why parents choose not to send their children to Chinese schools, then it is time that they stop doing the foolish things of introducing polities, misleading young, innocent children by dragging them into political controversy.

Then comes again the statement of alleging better treatment for the English-educated. This has been the theme song of the Barisan Sosialis that has no foundation whatsoever. They always persist in distorting what is true. When the thing is white, it is black to them. When we talk of truth, they talk of falsehoods.

In his ignorance, the Member talks of when the Government will recognise the degrees of Nanyang University. Way back in February 1960 when the Member for Changi was a Back-bencher, when the Report of the Review Committee of Nanyang University was tabled in his Assembly, we had already indicated that we would conditionally recognise the degrees of Nanyang University graduates for employment both to our secondary schools and to Government service. That has been carried out for the last four years when graduates of Nanyang University, wishing to teach in our secondary schools or to enter Government service, would have to have their applications subject to consideration by the Public Service Commission and appointed thereby. Of course, he follows up with the question of financial aid to Nanyang University. Indeed two Members of his Party, my former Parliamentary Secretary, now the Member for Seagoing Gardens, and the Member for Upper Serangoon, were members of the Liaison Committee then representing the Government to discuss conditions and terms with the Nanyang University authorities, and they know very well how the discussions came to a grinding halt.

I have indicated at the last convocation ceremony at Nanyang University that the undertaking given by the Singapore Government more than three years ago still stands, that financial aid would be granted to Nanyang University on the same basis as the aid given to the University of Singapore, subject to Nanyang University reorganising along the lines recommended by the Gwee Ah Leng Review Committee on Nanyang University.

As for Ngee Ann College, the sponsors, Ngee Ann Kongsi, have expressed a desire that this should be a private institution, but at the opening ceremony, I was pleased to disclose to those present that the Singapore Government have decided to provide bursaries to the students - Singapore students, of course, or the children of Singapore citizens admitted to the college - on the same basis as that accorded to Nanyang University, the University of Singapore and the Polytechnic.

The Member for Changi, unfortunately, asked how the Government of Singapore would tackle Chinese education once Malaysia was established and ended up by saying that it would have to be left to the Federation authorities. Sad to say, the Member for Changi is unaware that with merger and the establishment of Malaysia Singapore will continue to have autonomy in education and will therefore give Chinese education equal treatment as has been given hitherto.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister has said that the number of enrolments in the Chinese schools was very small because of political infiltration, but let me quote the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 8th June.

Since 1959 the P.A.P. Government have built only eight schools in the rural area. All of them are integrated schools, but only one school is being used as a Chinese! English integrated school. How can you expect parents to send their children to a Chinese school if there is no school for them to go to?

The second point is that there is not much chance for a Chinese-educated student to seek a job in Government service. This is the most important point.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Changi is fully aware that when Government built schools, they do not decide that such and such a school would be used for the English medium, or the Chinese medium, or the Malay medium, or the Tamil medium. A school is built, and if there are more Chinese pupils in that area, that school becomes a Chinese medium school, if there are more who wish to study English, then it will become an English med urn school. And if it so happens that there are as many students who enrol for English as well as for Chinese, then it becomes an integrated Chinese/English school.

It is just a waste of time, I think, to try to drive the facts into the mind of the Member for Changi.

10.15 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He has got a thick skull.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: As for the seeking of jobs, surely that is not the function of the Ministry of Education. What the Ministry of Education endeavours to do is to train them so that they could look for jobs. For this reason, we are endeavouring, in course of time, to be able to switch the emphasis from academic schools to vocational and technical schools and that, I am pleased to say, will happen by next year, because by that time we should be having no less than five secondary vocational school's and another four Secondary technical schools and thus, for the first time, making it possible for students to have something different from what they used to have in the past.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister still keeps on blaming politics for the small number of students going to Chinese schools. Let me ask him one simple question. I will give a concrete example to show him - Queenstown. There are. I think, 12 or 13 schools in Queenstown - he can tell me the number - but there is not a single primary Chinese school. Does the Minister mean to tell us that nobody in Queenstown has applied to study in a Chinese school? There is a secondary Chinese school. In fact, I spoke to the Minister about this when we were still in the P.A.P. ---

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You were?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- and he told me that the P.A.P. at that time was really carrying out the building programme for 1959. In other words, the P.A.P. Government was carrying out the building programme which had been laid down by the S.P.A. Government.

If it is a matter of the choice of the parents, let the Minister explain to us how a parent, say, in Queenstown is to ask for his son to go to a Chinese school when there is no Chinese school in Queenstown? Does it mean that a hawker, who cannot even support his own family, will have to send his son to Bedok or Changi in order to attend a Chinese school?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We will send you to as far as Changi.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Therefore, if the Minister really was sincere in wanting the parents to send their children to a Chinese school, as in this case, then he most build the school near the people who want to study in them. Otherwise this is economically impossible.

At the present moment, I see in the newspapers that there is a call by the Singapore Chinese: Chamber of Commerce that parents should send their chi1iren.to schools to study their mother tongue. "Mother tongue" means Indian for Indians, Malay for Malays, and Chinese for Chinese. It does not mean to say that you study only the mother tongue of course. Let the Government, if it is sincere, also issue the same call. Tell the parents to send their children to study the mother tongue, and build schools for them so that they may have a chance to go to these schools.

Talking of jobs, at the present moment, all of us realise that the best job facilities are open to the English-educated. It is quite true that it is not the duty of the Education Ministry to lock after job seeking. But if the Government is really sincere in the implementation of equal treatment of the four streams of education, then it must make sure that job opportunities are available equally in all the four streams. At the present moment, the Chinese-educated can go to Nantah, but Nantah qualifications are not recognised. And when a Nantah student comes out looking for a job, he gets a smaller pay for it.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Nonsense.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Nonsense? Then recognise Nantah qualifications. It is as simple as that. Give them the opportunity and if you still find that in spite of all that they want to study English, then I say. "Most certainly. It is because they like to study English." But first give them the opportunity to have equal job opportunities and equal ---

An hon. Member: Equal rights.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: --- equal salaries. For example, I understand that at present quite a number of students are asking for opportunities to have a polytechnic in the Chinese medium. If this Government were sincere in all this, surely it could provide facilities and opportunities for Chinese-educated students to go for studies that are already provided in the Singapore Polytechnic.

Even on the matter of bursaries, Sir, the Minister talked so much about the Government wanting to give bursaries to Ngee Ann. We know for certain that a certain number of Nantah students were quite worried as to whether they were going to get the bursaries or not. They were not informed until quite late. We had a Question here in this Assembly not so very long ago about this. Whenever the Government talks of wanting to give bursaries to students, it makes sure that that person is not against the P.A.P. Politics come in-the Government makes use of the Special Branch and their hirelings to find out whether or not the applicant is against the P.A.P. If he is against the P.A.P. he has no chance of getting a bursary or a scholarship.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: How stupid.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So what is the use of talking about equal treatment of the four streams of education?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that every Minister in the Government is blaming the Communists for its wrongs if he could not face his responsibilities and cover up his shortcomings. A little while ago the Minister for Education has said that the decrease in the number of enrolments in Chinese schools is due to the Communists. This reason is expected because it is the way by which he can evade his responsibilities. The Minister has also said that the decrease is due to party politics and the choice of parents. It is true that parents in Singapore can choose the medium of instruction for their children. But the question before us is not the choice of parents. There are many schools at present and when the parents bring their children to these schools for registration in Chinese schools, they would be told, "Sorry, this year we have only a few Primary I classes of 40 pupils each." Mr Speaker, the population is increasing daily and the number of school-going population is also increasing, but the vacancies in Chinese schools do not increase correspondingly. The number of enrolments is related to the number of vacancies. Under these circumstances, a parent has no alternative but to send his child to another school. It is a case of Hobson's choice. Therefore, it is not a matter of free choice of the parents. For instance, when a person has to ea, the Government says, "I have no rice for you; accept bread. So the only alternative is for you to take this loaf of bread or go hungry."

The Government has not denied the fact that there has been a decrease in the number of students in Chinese schools. On the 5th April this year the Minister for Education replied to a Question in this House [Hansard, 5th April, 1963, col. 74] in which he gave detailed figures. He gave the figures as follows: 1962 1963 Malay medium schools 21,249 24,311 Chinese medium schools 132,632 130,995 English medium schools 163,669 177,440 Tamil medium schools 1,406 1,518

10.30 p.m.

From these figures given by the Minister, we can clearly see that there is a decrease of about 2,000 pupils in the Chinese schools, whereas for the other streams the figures remain the same. We can, therefore, see that the education policy of the Government is not to fulfil their policy of equal treatment of the four streams of education. That is why educational societies, organisations, including the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, have no alternative but to make a call to parents to send their children to educational institutions run in the mother tongue. Had the Government encouraged the development of education in the mother tongue. I believe these educational bodies would have had no need to appeal to parents. This simple example clearly shows that the Government is not carrying out its policy of equal treatment but instead has indulged in discrimination.

The Minister for Education has also said that eight Government schools have been built in the rural areas, and that because parents choose to send their children to English schools the number of Government Chinese schools is small. That is not so in fact, 98 per cent of the schools in the rural areas are Government-aided schools. When these aided schools wish to expand, they should get a 60-year lease of the land, as otherwise Government would not allow the expansion. In addition, the Health Department also requires such schools to have sanitary facilities and other conditions before approval of expansion could be given. Under these conditions, these aided schools cannot expand their accommodation for pupils. Many such schools are also built on Government land, and threescore they have a right to apply for a 60-year lease for expansion. But replies from the Land Office are very disappointing to every one of them.

If the Minister is really and truly willing to assist and encourage Chinese students to receive education in their mother tongue, then he should relax these conditions. If he could do so, then I am sure many people will come out to assist him in carrying out this policy. But, in fact, he is not doing so. On the contrary, he is implementing a kind of education policy that suppresses education in our mother tongue. So in spite of all the excuses he can think of, I do not think he can escape from his responsibility of adopting a suppressive policy, which is pointing a finger at him.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy) rose ---

The Chairman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary answering for the Minister?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Yes, in Mandarin. (In Mandarin) Mr Speaker, the Opposition Members in the Barisan Sosialis say every now and then that the Government has not been implementing the policy of giving equal treatment to the four streams of education. In this respect, I believe that they, the Barisan Sosialis Members, will have paid attention to the Singapore Chinese School Teachers' Union and the Parents Association's statements in the Press. These two educational organisations have made statements after careful consideration. The two main points in the statements point to the true position regarding the first point indicated in the appeal of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce made after the students' boycott of the Secondary IV Examination. There are two points raised in this statement. The first point is that the students have lost interest in their studies and are spending their time in political activities because they have been misled by the agitation of irresponsible politicians. They take part in Hsueh-hsi lessons to learn Leninism and are also engaged in other activities to subvert the Government. These facts are not new. We had a similar experience during our school days. You cannot deceive us.

The second point is that these people are of the opinion that in this multi-racial society of ours, what the students learn in school should be revised according to the context of local conditions. They think that apart from political infiltration, those students after leaving Chinese schools cannot acquire a high standard of English. They are therefore at a disadvantage when it comes to getting employment because their standard of English is law. There has been this sort of conception. In the past, during colonial days, if anybody were to say that we should raise the standard of English in Chinese schools, he would he called a pro-colonialist. But now, we cannot say that this slogan is still up to date. In fact, it is already an outmoded slogan. It is not in keeping with the present times. In fact, it is necessary to have another language in addition to one's own mother tongue. I do not mean to say that the Chinese school students must acquire the same standard of English as those students in the English stream. But from my own personal experience, I myself was educated in the Chinese High School in Penang, the Chung Ling High School and I believe that a Middle school student on leaving school should not only be quite well versed in Chinese, but be able to acquire such a standard of English as to pass the School Certificate Examination. This is not a very difficult task to achieve because, from my own personal experience, anybody who has learnt up to Senior Middle Standard must have acquired a standard of English equivalent to the School Certificate Examination. This will not only be a personal asset to him, but it will also be his contribution to society.

Mr Speaker, if you want to put in the context of political slogans by saying that Singapore has been under colonial rule and so English is an official language of the colonialists and anybody who is good in English is a pro-colonialist, then it is all wrong because we know now that English is an international language. I believe that when those organisations suggest that the standard of English should be raised, they recognise the fact that English is a useful language. It is indeed a very useful international language. They recognise it.

Talking about the decreasing number of enrolments of students in the Chinese schools, my own view is that the students' boycott that took place recently was one of the important factors that accounted for this decrease. Those students who took part in the boycott of the examination were unable to get any school certificate. They arc now facing great difficulties. I would ask those people who were agitating the students' boycott behind the scenes, how they have sacrificed these students, and how are they going to help those students so sacrificed? As leaders, they have already misled some students and they should be held responsible for this shortcoming. They just cannot run away from the fact that they have sacrificed the interest of the students. They just cannot be indifferent to the whole matter. In fact, if they remain to be so irresponsible, it will be very wrong indeed. So the very simple example I wish to make now is this. If there are politics in school and they do not affect the students, you just cannot say it is possible. In the Chung Cheng High School there is a senior member of the Board of Directors. He himself is a member of the Board of Directors for Chung Cheng High School. If you want his name, I can give it to you. This person came to see me and told me that he would like to send his own son to the Catholic High School. I asked him, "Since you yourself are a director of Chung Cheng High School, why should you send your son to the Catholic High School?" He said, "Well, you know and I know. There is no point for me to elaborate." It occurred to me that this was very strange. "You are a director of Chung Cheng." He said, "I have my own difficulty. I shall be grateful if you can help me." I referred him to the principal concerned. So this is a very simple example. This particular director of the school knows that there are politics in his own school. That is the first point.

10.45 p.m.

The second point is that he knows that in the case of the Catholic High School, the student who has come up to Senior Middle I will be able to sit for the School Certificate in the English stream. In time to come, I will say that students in the Catholic High School will have acquired quite a high standard in Malay. So this knowledge of three different languages will be of use to the students themselves and to society in general. The Parents Association think that in order to enable Chinese schools to exist, the standard of English in Chinese schools should be raised. Because by then the parents will realise that students in Chinese schools will not only know Chinese but English as well. So I believe that the director that I have mentioned has similar ideas. In the meantime, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce has made some high-sounding slogans - "Love Chinese Education", "Save Chinese Education", etc. But I would like to ask those people concerned: To what schools have they sent their own children? I have two of my children in Chinese schools. I am not ashamed of this. My two children are in Chinese schools. But some children of a certain Vice Chancellor of a Chinese university are sent to an English school. So those people who pay lip service to Chinese education, who claim that they must safeguard Chinese education, send their own children to English schools. So there is no point in shouting empty slogans. All that we must do now is to think of a practical way to ensure that our future citizens will be able to become useful citizens in our multi-racial society. That is the practical problem we should face ---

The Chairman: Order. I have to remind the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that this item gives over at 11.55 p.m. I think this item has had a very good innings. It has lasted for 45 minutes. I am sure other Members would like to raise other points on education. Perhaps we should wind up this particular item. Perhaps the Minister would like to wind up?

Mr Low Por Tuck rose ---

The Chairman: If Mr Low Por Tuck will take only about two minutes, I will let him speak.

Mr Low Por Tuck: One minute, Sir.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask a question on policy regarding the so-called equal treatment given to the four streams. At present in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil schools, the English language is compulsory and is one of the main subjects. If you fail in the English language, you cannot be promoted. But in the English school, the Chinese, Malay or Tamil language is optional. It is not compulsory. Even if you fail in Chinese, Malay or Tamil, you can still be promoted. This is the question that I want to ask.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Out of date.

The Chairman: Mr Yong to wind up?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: First of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do want to clear up one point mentioned by the Member for Queenstown, that there is no Chinese Government school in the Queenstown area. There is the new Hua Yi Integrated Primary School, which uses the Chinese and English media, which was opened a few months ago, and which has an enrolment of nearly 2,000 pupils. So he is only half right there.

As my Parliamentary Secretary has said, if only the Barisan Sosialis would stop the boycott and strikes in Chinese schools, they would be doing a service to Chinese education in Singapore.

The Member for Havelock is somewhat behind time when he says that whilst English is compulsory in Chinese medium schools, the local languages are not compulsory in the English medium schools. Well, in 1960, for the Primary School Leaving Examination, we did indicate that if children have had three years of second language teaching, they will have to take this subject for the Primary Leaving School Examination, which, in effect, means that it is a compulsory subject in schools.

Finally, I should like to answer the Member for Choa Chu Kang who says that the present Government is following a colonial educational policy. It is typical of them. Everything is colonial which is not in accordance with the Barisan Sosialis who are playing nothing but the communal line, which is the Barisan Sosialis line. Anyway, Sir, the last few speakers have been talking about the same old subject for the last two years. However, since the Lim Tay Boh Commission of Inquiry into Education is sitting, if the Barisan Sosialis intend to be constructive, they should submit a memorandum on education to this Commission. They can take an oath and justify what they say and what they believe in and stand the test of scrutiny.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 1.

Sir, there is only one thing to say about him. Sir, of all the Parliamentary Secretaries, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is the only one well educated in Chinese. That is why the Government sent him there to help Chinese education. If anything happens to Chinese education, he himself must also bear the responsibility.

The Chairman: Has the Member moved the amendment?

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Yes.

The Chairman: Giving it with one hand and taking away $10 with the other!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes Members of the Opposition give right answers. My Parliamentary Secretary is sufficiently versed and educated in Chinese to know what he is doing, unlike the so-called Chinese-educated people in the Barisan Sosialis.

My Parliamentary Secretary has done a great service to Singapore and to Chinese education. When the boycott by the Chinese school students of the Secondary IV examinations was about to take place, and when certain student representatives called on him and asked for a calling-off of the first Government Secondary IV examination, the Parliamentary Secretary told the student leaders that they were the people who would destroy Chinese education. He has been proved right. Anyone like the Barisan Sosialis who instigate these students to persist in foolish boycotts and strikes in Chinese schools are the ones who are destroying Chinese education. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order. The Minister is now inviting a debate. He can take a month to complete it. I will allow just a short reply from the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Chan Sun Wing has not spoken yet.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has done in educational matters and his showing in the House, we can only say that he is the biggest blacksheep in Chinese education. If I were to go into all the matters relating to the raising of the standard of Chinese education in detail, I can go through them for more than 10 hours and still I will not be able to finish it. For example, let us take the case of the Secondary IV examinations and the boycott.

I would like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education that if the P.A.P. radio would allow us time for a series of forums and allow the Parliamentary Secretary and me to discuss the P.A.P. education policy and their actions, I would be very glad to do so. The public can then pass judgment on who is really doing good to Chinese education. It is because I had been Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and also before I was elected as a Member I had for many years been discussing the problems of Chinese education with him. I had done this even before he was a Member.

From what starting point does the P.A.P. base its education policy? How is it that they are unable to tackle the education problems and the various problems which are in the mind of the Prime Minister? All these problems are increasing and they do not know how to deal with them. The Parliamentary Secretary, as the self-proclaimed champion of Chinese education, should accept my challenge and invite other Members in the Party, who are the so-called Chinese educationists, to a series of forums on this question over Radio Singapore so that members of the public can pass judgment on us.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, at the very beginning, the Member for Upper Serangoon called me a blacksheep in Chinese education. But he has not been able to give me any concrete example. I must refute what he has said. If today and in future there is a decrease of enrolments in Chinese schools, then the Member for Upper Serangoon should bear a great responsibility. He is actually the blacksheep in Chinese education. He is the, greatest criminal in respect of the destruction of Chinese education because he was one of those agitating for the boycott of the Chinese Secondary IV examination. But now the students are victimised. Has he been able to help the students? I do not claim to be an expert on Chinese education. I am not bragging that I have made a very comprehensive study of Chinese education. I am not claiming that. But within the solemn walls of the Assembly House, this Member at the very outset has called another Member a blacksheep. This shows that he is a very despicable person. He says that he would like a debate with me over Radio Singapore. That shows what a boastful and arrogant person he is. What a conceited man he is!

With regard to this matter, I will say that I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. I have no control over Radio Singapore. But your suggestion will receive our consideration. I am not like you who say things at random.

The Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is addressing the Member for Upper Serangoon or the Speaker. He should address the Speaker, and perhaps he could now wind up.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Talking about the anxiety of the Prime Minister, as he says, I think he knows what it is all about. He knows full well why the Prime Minister is anxious and what the anxiety is. If this particular Member can search his own conscience in the calm of the night, then he will know that he has done many things for which he should be sorry in respect of the people of Singapore and the Prime Minister.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The following amendment stood in the names of Tun Lim Yew Hock and Dr Thio Chan Bee ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

The Chairman: Tun Lim Yew Hock is not here. Dr Thio Chan Bee.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (3) of subhead 1.

Sir, this is the post of Personal Secretary (Political). I believe the post has been vacant for several years now. I wonder whether it is the intention of the Government to fill this post.

11.00 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Dr Thio Chan Bee: If not, then why let it continue to be vacant?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member for Tanglin, I suppose hope lies eternal in the human breast. If at any time we do come across someone who will be able to fill the post, we would like to appoint this person concerned to this post.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Tun Lim Yew Hock:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (11) of subhead 1.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Tun Lim Yew Hock is not here.

The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee:-

(5) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (15) of subhead 1.

(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (24) of subhead 1.

(7) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (25) of subhead 1.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not moving amendments (5), (6) and (7). Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (43) of subhead 1.

This is for the post of Principal of Raffles Institution - a Grade G post. There are two other posts similar to this Grade G post, the Posts of Principals of Victoria School and Raffles Girls' School.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Is it convenient to take the other two amendments*?

• The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee:-

(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (44) of subhead 1.

(10) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (45) of subhead 1.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: If you will permit it, Sir, I will range over the three items, because the same principle is involved.

Sir, these three schools are regarded as the premier schools in the Government school system. I raised this point before and I asked, since equality of' treatment is recognised, whether they could not recognise certain schools in the aided schools system as being of a similar standing. In the case of myself, Sir, I was given the pay of this post personal to myself.

An hon. Member: Lucky man!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: But I feel that it would not be proper because my successor and the principals of other premier schools in the aided schools system would not get it. I think it is right to regularise this matter so that if the Government would recognise certain premier schools in the aided schools system as being of equal ranking with the top Government schools, then there would be no cause for, complaint. I am not talking of just the English stream. I believe Chung Cheng High School. Chinese High School and Nanyang Girls High School to be, you might say, of the same ranking in the Chinese stream. I am sure the Government could evolve something like that and prevent any more criticism from coming up on this issue.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (43) of subhead 1."

The debate can range over amendments (9) and (10). Mr Yong.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is true that this question was raised by the Member for Tanglin last year. I indicated then that these so-called premier schools in the past, Superscale posts, shall we say, were part arid parcel of the Singapore Education Service Scheme which was only made applicable to English schools. I had at that time indicated that this was a matter for review to be made applicable to all streams. I am happy to say that my Ministry has been able to put up certain amendments which are the subject of study by the Treasury.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose ---

The Chairman: Does the Minister for Finance wish to speak on this?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Treasury is involved in these things. I, of course, agree that the schools are equal, but there again, some schools are more equal than others, and it takes quite some time to sort out the relevant merits. But as the Minister has just said, this matter is under consideration. Maybe something will' come out of it, although I do not want to raise hopes too high. We are making progress in the right direction, but we may not move as fast and as far as the Member for Tanglin hopes, but at least something may come out of this.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: In view of the assurance given that the matter is under review. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The Member for Tanglin is not moving amendments* (9) and (10).

• Amendments (9) and (10) , standing in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee, read as follows:-

(9) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (44) of subhead 1.

(10) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (45) of subhead 1.

Amendments (11) and (12) , standing in the name of Mr Teo Hock Guan, read as follows:

(11) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (50) of subhead 1.

(12) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (53) of subhead 1.

The Chairman: Mr Teo Hock Guan, amendment (11) .

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Sir, I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment (12) . Not moving?

Mr Teo Hock Guan indicated dissent.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Amendment (13) , Dr Thio.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (56) of subhead 1.

This concerns Malay teachers of the Malay language. Sir, I understand that at the moment the number of trained teachers able to teach Malay in the other streams is not adequate, and I wonder whether that is correct.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The assumption made by the Member for Tanglin about the inadequacy of Malay language teachers in our schools is correct. Because, after all, only 6 per cent of pupils, and therefore of teachers in Singapore, use Malay as the medium of instruction. So, having accepted Malay as the National Language of Singapore, we have to make it so that 94 per cent of the pupils and 94 per cent of the teachers in Singapore will pick up the National Language in course of time. This is a problem which we will have to do our best to resolve. In this respect, I must say that we have, I think, progressed well. For the last four years at least 5,000 people have been able to take public examinations in the National Language, and a good number of them are qualified teachers. In fact, for the last few years we have been continually conducting courses in the National Language for qualified teachers, but, unfortunately, we cannot take in all the teachers at one time and the most, I think, that we are able to handle is 1,000 per annum.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: In view of the situation being like that. I am sure the Minister will realise that he cannot make passing the Malay language in Primary School Leaving Examinations compulsory. At the moment, it is not. It means that we have to be practical, and until we have enough Malay teachers, I think we cannot enforce this ruling, because some parents are very worried about it.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: In reply to the Member for Havelock, I said that in 1960 for the Primary School Leaving Examination, we gave notice to teachers and pupils that if a pupil has had three years of continuous teaching in a second language, then they will have to take that paper for the Primary School Leaving Examination. The standard of the second language for three years in a primary school is not very high. That is the precaution we are taking in this regard.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, the reason why I stress that is this. This craze for examinations, almost a mania now with parents, teachers, students and Ministry officials, is psychologically bad for young children. I remember that when you and the old Members all here were at school, we were not thinking of examinations as being the most serious thing in life until we were more or less in the secondary school stage. In the primary school stage you had plenty of time for play. I think that should be the privilege of children; their childhood days are made happy, and they should not be swotting over their homework day in and day out, making their young lives miserable. If, therefore, the examination load could be made as light as possible for the young children in their younger days, I think that would be all to the good. So the less we say, "This is compulsory," and "That is compulsory." I think the less we frighten them, and in the end they will be able to do better when they are older, and make the spurt necessary in the secondary school phase.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was equal pay introduced for civil servants and teachers, too. But among the Malay teachers, I notice that there is a scale for women and another scale for men. I believe Sultan Idris is the counterpart of the Men's Training College, but there are two scales. Is there no equal pay amongst Malay teachers?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to reply to the Member for Tanglin, examinations are always controversial, but I think in Singapore we are not overdoing it, considering the fact that we have an examination for the primary schools at Primary VI level, that is the sixth year of education, another at secondary school level when they reach the end of lower secondary school in the tenth year of education, and the Higher School Certificate in the twelfth year of education, before entering the University. In reply to the Member for Mountbatten, it is true that the Government sometime ago decided on equal pay for equal work in respect of women.

11.15 p.m.

But it also did say that it would not be done immediately, but over a period of three years. So these are present salary scales subject to adjustment.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, why does this apply only to Malay teachers? Unless I have made a mistake - I did look through as far as the English teachers are concerned, there is only One scale, although I know the transitional period is three years for the English teachers, but two scales are put down for the Malay teachers only.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I have indicated that present women officers, whether in English schools or elsewhere, are on different scales, but over a period of three years their adjustments are being made.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand that. What I am saying is this. Whatever happens to English teachers and Malay teachers, the same things are happening to Malay teachers, whether it is three years or the period of adjustment, or whatever it is. Why in the Estimates is there a difference? In practice there is no difference. Whatever transitional changes there are for the English teachers, the same applies for the Malay teachers. But why is it necessary to have this differentiation where Malay teachers are concerned? It gives one the impression that Malay teachers do not get equal pay, or will not be getting equal pay.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I am not able to answer that question because I am not responsible for the printing of these things in the Estimates. I have given my assurance that equal pay for women applies to all teachers irrespective of race.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (62) of subhead 1.

Sir, I just want to know whether those teachers in the T.T.C., whose services have been terminated, can still be trained in the T.T.C. I ask this question because those teachers who have been dismissed are puzzled about it.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, if what the Member for Changi says is correct, that the services of certain teacher trainees are being terminated, then they should not be trained in the T.T.C. because there are very many teachers who wish to be admitted into the T.T.C. and we have had to prevent some of them from undergoing training because of the limitation of facilities.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: If that is the case, then they must be informed.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I take it that this is a purely administrative routine matter and that they have been informed, or they have been informed but that the letters have not reached them.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Teo Hock Guan ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (69) of subhead 1.

Mr Teo Hock Guan: I am not moving, Sir.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Amendment (16) . Mr Leong Keng Seng.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (92) of subhead 1.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, what are the qualifications of such trainees? Secondly, in what medium of instruction is such training carried out? Thirdly, what 1 would like to ask is this. At the end of the training, to what schools will such successful trainees he sent? Fourthly, at the present moment, since it is necessary to train so many technical teachers for the technical schools, how many such technical schools use Chinese as a medium of instruction: how many use English; how many use Malay, and how many use Tamil?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Deputy Speaker, in reply to the Member for Serangoon Gardens. There are about 192 teachers in training for the technical streams. Of this, 104 are from the English stream and 88 from the Chinese stream, making a total of 192. The qualifications of these teacher trainees are, in respect of the English stream, the Cambridge School Certificate; in respect of the Chinese stream, the Senior Middle III certificate or the Secondary IV Certificate.

I believe his second question was on the languages of instruction. I believe they are given instructions in English, and in respect of Chinese students, there are some subjects in Chinese. I have not got the brief in that respect, but since most of the Chinese secondary school graduates have had studies in English, I think they are able to get by with English as the medium of instruction.

On graduation - the first batch of teacher trainees should be graduating in a month's time - they will be posted to secondary technical schools. There will be four new secondary technical schools ready for occupation at the end of this year for 1964. We hope to post the first batch of 41 technically-trained teachers for these secondary schools.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): The Minister has not answered my last question, and that is, how many technical schools use English. Chinese, Malay or Indian as the medium of instruction?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: It is not likely that the secondary technical schools will be conducted in Malay or Tamil, because, as I have indicated just now, the 192 teachers who are now being trained at the T.T.C. for technical teaching are from the English and the Chinese streams. As to how many of the four secondary technical schools will be in English or in Chinese, that has not been decided. But it is likely that they will be integrated Chinese/English secondary technical schools.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Does the hon. Member wish for a vote?

Mr Leong Keng Seng: No, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (17) . Mr Leong Keng Seng.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to take the amendments on subheads 12* and 15+ together in respect of Head 57.

The amendments reads as follows:

• That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12.

• That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 15.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like the Minister to reply to my questions with regard to Bursaries for the University of Singapore and Bursaries for Nanyang University. I would like him to give us the names of the members of the Bursaries Committee.

The second query is this, when applications are made and by these two Universities, how long will they be approved and after what lapse of time will the bursaries be given to the students concerned?

11.27 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: Is the hon. Member moving his amendment? Perhaps he will move it.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12 and subhead 15.

The Chairman: We will deal with amendments (17) * and (20) * at the same time. That is correct, is it not?

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Yes.

The Chairman: The Question then is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 12."

The debate may range over amendment (20), that is to say,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 15.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I will deal, first of all, Sir, with the Selection Board. I believe the Member for Serangoon Gardens would like to know the names of the members of the Selection Board for the award of bursaries to students in the University of Singapore and the University of Malaya.

A Press release announcing the award of bursaries was issued on 25th April, and I think we have received 257 applications. The Selection Board has not yet been constituted, and we feel that it will be constituted any moment now.

As regards the Selection Board for the - award of bursaries to Nanyang University students, a Press release was issued inviting applications on 14th March, 1963. 210 applications were received and the names of members of the Selection Board are as follows:

Chairman - Professor Li Hsiang Lin of Nanyang University.

Members - The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Development, Mr Chor Yeok Eng;

Mr K. H. Tan, an official of the Social Welfare Department;

Mr Chen Chin, who is the Senior Inspector of Schools in the Chinese medium of the Ministry of Education;

Mr Kuay Guan Kai of the Ministry of Culture; and

Mr Tan Tai, an official from the Department of Inland Revenue.

I understand that they have since interviewed the 210 applicants, and I am awaiting the Report from the Selection Board.

11.30 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, with regard to the bursaries for Nanyang University and the University of Singapore, I would like to say that they are very important to the poor students. Without sufficient aid, such poor students will not be able to go through their university and higher education.

According to the Estimates in respect of the Universities of Singapore and Malaya, the estimated amount for bursaries is $585,950, whereas in respect of Nanyang University it is $680,000. Mr Speaker, from the 1961 Financial Statement, page 181, the Government agreed to pay the University of Malaya $473,000 but the actual amount spent was $402,677. In respect of Nanyang University, the bursaries approved amounted to $680,000, which is the same amount as that asked for in respect of this year. But in 1961, the Government only spent $388,000 on Nanyang University students by way of bursaries. So we can see that in 1961, the Government only spent about half the amount of the vote made to Nanyang University and the other half was not used at all. In this year's Estimates, the Government is asking for more than that for last year in respect of the Universities of Singapore and Malaya, whereas the amount for this year in respect of Nanyang University is the same as that for last year, So, according to the Financial Statement for 1961, we can come to a very clear conclusion, that in the case of bursaries for Nanyang University students, the Government has not gone all out to help them. The Government has not made full use of the money available to help poor students in Nanyang University to enable them to have a higher education

Mr Speaker, there are many Nanyang University undergraduates who have to go round borrowing money from their friends and relatives to pay for their fees and boarding, and their only hope of continuing their studies is by means of the bursaries given by the Government. If these are not granted to them, then they will have to leave the University half-way without being able to continue with their higher education, The Government, when dealing with applications for bursaries from Nanyang University students, attach a lot of conditions and strings. Generally speaking, the Nanyang undergraduates complied with all the conditions, because I myself was a member of the Selection Committee at one time, but from the Financial Statement of 1961, the Government did not go all out to help Nanyang University graduates by way of giving bursaries. As a result of this, many students were unable to continue studying in Nanyang University. They had to leave and work for one year, and then return to the University to complete their third year, because they were not given bursaries. But if the Minister for Education, including his Parliamentary Secretary, had paid attention to this matter, they would have understood the whole position. So I hope this amount of $680,000 in respect of bursaries will be fully utilised so that more Nanyang undergraduates can get the benefit of the bursaries to enable them to continue with their studies.

Let us get to the root of the matter. This money comes from the people, but to the Government this amount is what is due to them. Because this money comes from the people, the poor students are entitled to get the bursaries. It is not a grace granted by the Government. I hope the Minister for Education will give an undertaking in this House that the Estimates in respect of this item will not be partly used.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, it just shows how irresponsible the Member for Chua Chu Kang is in assuming that if there is a vote, therefore it should be spent regardless of anything. In the awards for bursaries, he himself has admitted that he was a member of the 1961 Bursary Selection Board, and his colleague, the Member for Changi, was a member for the years 1959 and 1960. These bursaries are awarded to students on the basis of financial need and scholastic merits. So it does not mean that everyone who applies will get it. That is why we have taken the precaution to have someone from the Inland Revenue Department amongst the members of the Selection Board, just in case declarations are made that they are very poor but are really fairly well off financially, and also someone from the Department of Social Welfare, so that if needs be, investigations could be made as regards the financial position of the applicant. I think it is just utter rubbish for the Member for Choa Chu Kang to suggest that there should be a guarantee by the Minister that the whole sum of $680,000 must be spent or given out in the form of bursaries. God help Singapore if such people are going to disburse public money: these most irresponsible suggestions coming from the Barisan Sosialis.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish for a vote?

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): No, I withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment (18) , Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to move amendments* (18), (19) and (21).

• The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Leong Keng Seng:-

(18) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 13.

(19) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 14.

(21) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 18.

The Chairman: The Member is not moving amendments (18) and (19). Amendment (20) has been dealt with. Amendment (21) is not being moved. Dr Thio, amendment (22) .

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg te move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 30.

This is about free textbooks. Sir, could the Minister please explain the procedure as to how parents apply for free textbooks and whether the textbooks are supplied in time before the school year begins? It is because on previous occasions I have had poor parents coming to me for free textbooks, and when I wrote to the heads of schools for free textbooks to be given to the children of these poor parents, the answer was that either the parents were too late in applying or that there were no more free textbooks to be given to them. I wonder whether the Minister could please enlighten us on that.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Tanglin has retired from the education service for some time and things have moved on. It is correct that in the past there were certain difficulties over the granting of textbooks. They are actually not free. It is really lending. Textbooks are being lent out to poor students to use for the year and when they move up, books are left behind, provided they are not tattered and torn, for the next poor student to use them. The system was somewhat faulty for the last few years and there were certain complaints that poor students were not able to borrow books in order to pursue their studies. So in 1962 we had a position where 335 schools in Singapore, both Government and Government-aided, applied for aid under this scheme and the money involved was around $130,000, although we had $190,000 in the Estimates. This year a notice was issued on 5th January, a few days after schools were opened on 2nd January this year, and a simplified form of application was then evolved. This time we were somewhat faster, and I am happy to say that for this year more schools have taken advantage of the scheme; as many as 440 schools involving 22,300 children. We have actually exhausted the vote of $192,000 shown in the Estimates. It is likely that the figure will go up to more than $215,000.

Mr Low Por Tuck: Mr Speaker, Sir, in this subhead 30, item (4), I notice that the money provided for in the 1963 Estimates is $1,500 less than that in the 1962 Estimates. Can the Minister explain why this is so?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: The Member for Havelock was at one time associated with the Ministry of Finance, and I think this is one of those little calculations which officials in the Ministry like to hack at. Anyway, I have already indicated that it is more than likely that what we require would be more than the present Estimates, and we would have to go through the rather stringent test of getting Treasury's approval for it.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: May I withdraw, Sir?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Dr Thio Chan Bee ---

(23) That the sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 52.

The Chairman: Amendment (23) . Dr Thio.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment (24)*. Mr Teo Hock Guan is not here. Mr Leong.

• The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr S.T Bani, Mr A. P. Rajah, Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, Mr Ong Eng Guan, Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Dr Thio Chan Bee.

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 57 be reduced by $100*.

• The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr S.T Bani, Mr A. P. Rajah, Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, Mr Ong Eng Guan, Mrs Seow Peck Leng and Dr Thio Chan Bee.

11.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, we know that every time the Prime Minister goes down to the rural areas he plans for many teachers and students to welcome him. Does the Minister for Education know that these teachers and students are forced to send representatives to the welcoming committee on which there are also representatives from other organisations and political Parties? This puts the teachers and students in a very invidious position which is political in nature. How would the Minister explain this?

Another point is this. Does the Minister know that at every welcoming party small school children have to stand in the hot sun or even in heavy rain waiting for several hours for the Prime Minister to arrive? Is it correct to ask young school children to welcome the Prime Minister? I would like the Minister for Education to investigate into this and to explain whether it is proper for them to do so.

Another point is this. When the Prime Minister went to the rural areas, he once said that after a few years all the secondary school students would be given free education. On this point I am very doubtful, because in the past, when school fees were rationalised in secondary schools, the boys were charged $4 and the girls were charged $3. Why can they not reduce the $4 to $3 instead of raising $3 to $4? The Minister for Finance has also said that it is likely that in middle schools the school fees will be raised to $10 per student. How is that the Prime Minister talked about giving free education to the students? Is this not cheap political propaganda?

I hope the Minister will explain all this so that we can understand.

Mr Ong Chang Sam rose ---

The Chairman: The Minister should be given an opportunity to reply. Mr Ong Chang Sam.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was very red in the face. He also touched on the Commission of Inquiry into the Junior IV boycott. He said that the Member for Upper Serangoon was behind the scenes instigating the boycott.

The Chairman: We have completed that subject already. Any other new subject?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon has been waiting for several months hoping that the Commissioner would summon him to give evidence, but, unfortunately, this Commission has already concluded its business in a haphazard way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government used to condemn the Barisan Sosialis for carrying out political activities in schools. In fact ---

The Chairman: I have just mentioned that we have completed all those subjects. Is there any other new subject? We have only got five minutes left. Any other new subject?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say is this. The Government has asked all school principals - especially the Parliamentary Secretary has asked them - to summon many principals to take part in political activities. I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to sack these principals. At one time, the Straits Times and the Malayan Times reported that there would be a Minister for Education. I want to enquire whether it is true.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I think it is useless to answer the Member for Choa Chu Kang who is always irrelevant and has nothing new to offer, and who repeats himself time and again and has to be called to order. I will restrict my remarks to answering the Member for Serangoon Gardens. Well, the Prime Minister's tour of the constituencies is an event which is well received by the people in the constituencies concerned, and, in fact, with every visit of his, it would appear that there is severe competition between the constituencies to do one better than the other, so that it is snowballing and gaining great popularity.

It is true that when the Prime Minister intends to visit a constituency, certain groups of people - community leaders and others - would get together, hold meetings and plan for the reception and welcome of the Prime Minister and this would naturally include organisations, schools, committees of management, principals, and so forth. In fact, if such community leaders are not invited - even principals and teachers of schools - they will feel as if they have been slighted. Therefore, if community leaders get together and call upon principals and teachers to send representatives for this preparatory committee, I see no reason why they cannot get together to plan a welcome for our Prime Minister. If the visit of the Prime Minister to the rural areas is an event of no mean order and if both parents and pupils are very excited about it and would therefore like to celebrate, I think standing in the sun for a little while will be good for their health, just as on National Day. I am sure the Member for Serangoon Gardens, when he was on this side of the House, was the better for it when standing for a few hours to witness the national parade. These are things that one meets with - the waving of flags or the Prime Minister pinching their cheeks, perhaps, while passing through and having the thrill of shaking their hands. These are things we should not prevent. People - young children, parents and old women - are making it possible for the Prime Minister to be with the people. After all, he has to look after them; so he might as well get to know them better. Well, the tour of the Prime Minister has now become such an event that teachers and pupils get excited and rather tired. Requests have come into my Ministry for a holiday to be declared the day after a visit so that they can recover from all the excitement. I have granted holidays - certainly.

Then we come to the question of free secondary education. The Member for Serangoon Gardens says that this has come to him as a surprise. Three years ago we rationalised fees for secondary schools, so that the girls in secondary schools would be paying the same fees as the boys at $4 per month. The hon. Member asks: why is it he now hears that the Government is contemplating the provision of free secondary education at some later stage? Well, this is not just propaganda. It is something, which a good Government, if it is financially able to provide free secondary education, should endeavour to do.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $94,774,100 for Head 57 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: The remaining heads of expenditure in respect of which no amendment stands on the Order Paper - I take it that the Minister for Finance will be following the list very carefully if he wants his votes. I hope I will not leave out any Heads of Expenditure.

An hon. Member: He cannot concentrate. He is worried.

The Chairman: I know it is a late hour, but I am telling the Minister for Finance that he had better listen to this in case 1 have left out any Heads of Expenditure. The Heads are 3, 5. 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 28, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 and 51.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on pages 35 and 36 of Paper Cmd. 14 of 1963 stand part of the Estimates," put, and agreed to.

The Chairman: There has been a Vote on Account for 1963 as shown at the end of page 36 of Paper Cmd. 14 of 1963.

Question, "That the sum of $179,l01.810 shall be supplied to the Government to complete the sum necessary under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 14 of 1963," put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution.

Resolution reported -

That the sum of $179,101,810 shall be supplied to the Government to complete the sum necessary under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 14 of 1963.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I beg to move, "That the Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Supply on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.