MAIN ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1964

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.02 p.m.

Head 32 -

The Chairman: The Assembly was debating an amendment to Head 32 moved by the Member for Paya Lebar. The Minister for Culture had the Floor.

The Question proposed was,

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head 32 be reduced by $100.".

Mr Rajaratnam.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I quoted from the testimony of three gentlemen closely connected with the S.A.T.U. in answer to the Barisan's challenge to show that the Government allegation that the S.A.T.U. is Communist controlled is false or true. We have the evidence from three S.A.T.U. leaders who are far more knowledgeable about S.A.T.U. unions than any of these eight gentlemen here. So, I hope, Sir, after this they will at least be clever enough not to be provoked by our allegation that they are Communists. The best thing is to keep quiet, which the former gentlemen did, and not try to challenge us to try to prove they are Communists. Again our allegation that S.A.T.U. unions are Communist controlled is not a bogey. It is a fact. Mr James Puthucheary, Mr Woodhull and Mr Lim Shee Ping said so. If that is so and if there is evidence to prove that S.A.T.U. unions are Communist controlled, then it is quite clear that in banning the S.A.T.U. unions, we are not banning ordinary trade unions, but we are banning the Communist controlled outfit out to damage our economy and our country. Probably, Sir, they will keep on denying that they are Communists. And that is a good Communist. Because, Sir, in the Communist book of manual, they are expected and ordered that "if you are a good Communist you must deny that you are a Communist".

Sir, in a different connotation in a debate in the Legislative Assembly, Vol. 16, 25th January, 1962, col. 707, there was a debate on the trade union issue. I had occasion then, Sir, to quote from Lenin's advice to Communists. He said:

`It is necessary [for a good Communist] to agree to any and every sacrifice and even, if need be, to resort to all sorts of strategems, manoeuvres, and illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges...'

"Subterfuges" means lies.

`in order to penetrate the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs.'.

So when hon. Members keep on denying that S.A.T.U. trade union Communists are Communist, they are being good Communists. Lenin said so. You must deny that you are a Communist.

Therefore, Sir, I hope they will be intelligent enough not to deny that the S.A.T.U. unions are Communist controlled.

Sir, having shown the S.A.T.U. unions are Communist controlled, then it is quite obvious why we have to take action against them and closed them down; not because of their trade union struggle. In so far as trade unions fight for genuine economic issues, the Government have always supported them. But in so far as trade unions are misused for political and Communist ends, then those leaders and those unions will get into trouble with the law.

Sir, I have here a book called Lenin on Trade Unions and Revolution. The Communist unions must follow the advice and strategy of the Communist leaders. They make it quite clear, once a Communist gets into a trade union, what he should do with the trade union. That is what the Communists in Singapore are doing. Lenin makes it quite clear and I quote from this book, Lenin on Trade Unions, what a Communist should do in a trade union; not fight for the welfare of the workers.

1. He must use it for armed violence, violent uprising. And it says. Sir:

`Armed uprising is the highest method of political struggle for a Communist. For its success a broad development of all sides of the labour movement is necessary.'

So, Sir, if Communists get into trade unions, they must use trade unions for an armed uprising which is the highest form of political struggle. Therefore, is the Government wrong in taking action against the Communists in trade unions? They are openly committed by their own strategy, by their own theory, by their own ideology, to misusing trade unions for the purposes of Communism.

2. This is most important and relevant in Singapore. The Communists are advised that there are times when trade unions should be used to make life more miserable for the workers. It is stated so quite clearly. Here, Sir, is another quotation:

`We cannot and will not in every way promote the improvement of the situation of the workers under existing conditions. We struggle only for such an improvement of the situation of the workers as will increase their ability to lead the class struggle.'.

Which means you only fight for the workers if the fight can increase the prospects for Communists to succeed and for Communism to win.

`There were times when Lenin declared that the worsening of the condition of the workers under capitalism helps the revolutionary movement and there were also times when he said the improvement of the workers' lot hurts the revolutionary movement.'

We can now understand why during the last one year, the S.A.T.U. union leaders deliberately worked for a situation where nearly 1,800 workers were out of job. Why did they deliberately frustrate our industrial development plan? Because they must increase the misery of the workers. These are Lenin's words. And these gentlemen, Woodhull and Puthucheary, have said so. These are controlled by Communists ---

An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Mr Rajaratnam: As I have quoted earlier, a good Communist must lie that he is a Communist. He must resort to subterfuges --- [Interruption] And these young men --- [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: They have been told by their trainers, masters, how to lie.

An hon. Member: Ha, ha!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: Young men taught in the art of falsehood. [Interruption] No, I am quoting Lenin's words. He said that a good Leninist must indulge in subterfuge. And a last parting shot, Sir, If these people are not Communists, I am prepared to give them time over Radio Singapore to come and say why they are not Communists ---

An hon. Member: Are you a Communist?

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): "Are you a Communist?" Please take us to the court if you can.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we saw the Minister for Culture stand up, we know he is going to recite his bible. Because apart from shouting Communism, he will not be able to say other things.

In this House, whenever the Minister for Culture stands up to speak, he always talks of Communism because he has nothing else to say. He has time and again said he has evidence to show that S.A.T.U. is Communist inspired. Why have the P.A.P. arrested people? They have arrested hundreds of people and they have banned all sorts of organisations. But have they produced these people in court to prove that they are Communists? Since you say that our country is a country of the rule of law, why do they not take them to court and try them? Because there is no evidence. That is the crux of the question. They do not have the evidence. Therefore, they dare not take them to court for an open trial. That shows they cannot solve this question. I am not prepared to rebut the rubbish talk ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Woodhull, rubbish?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): --- by the Minister for Culture.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question involves labour. What I want to point out is that the P.A.P., after their five-year term of office, are now in their second term of office. In words they say they are for the interests of the workers. But are they really for the interests of the workers? The P.A.P. say they want to induce foreign capital to come here. Now what is the basis of attracting foreign capital?

3.15 p.m.

The basis is to ask the people to starve; they cannot strike. And the inducement to foreign capital would have to be based on the starvation of the workers. This was spoken by the Minister for Finance; it is not rubbish. In 1960 the Minister for Finance said that the P.A.P. did not agree that Singapore should rely only on foreign capital or help the foreign capitalists; we do not depend on them. Is this rubbish? If so, then the Minister for Finance was talking rubbish.

If they blame the workers for the absence of foreign capitalists, this is not a pro-labour attitude because they ask the workers not to resist the exploitation of foreign capitalists. [Interruption] You are talking rubbish.

In the past the P.A.P. said that we have a lot of money invested abroad. Why do we not withdraw this money to build more factories in our country for improving the livelihood of our people? They said this was because of the past colonial regime. But when they came to power, what happened? Did they withdraw our capital from abroad in order to build factories here? What are the facts?

Let me point them out. In 1958-59 our investments abroad amounted to $135 million. This was increased to $320 million in 1961, and it has since been increasing. These figures were given by them, as they had invested our money abroad. On the other hand, they are begging for money, like a son begging from his father. They are begging foreign investors to invest in Singapore. At the same time, they want to suppress the workers, without wanting to improve their living conditions. They have to mortgage our property to the World Bank for loans, payable with interest which comes from the taxpayers. Is this the way to safeguard the interests of the workers and the people of Singapore? The people of Singapore will one day realise whether the P.A.P. do really look after the interests of the workers. Likewise, under its pro-labour policy, the P.A.P. made a lot of promises to the workers. They said that once they formed the government they would unify the trade union movement. But five years after coming to power, has the trade union movement been unified?

3.20 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng) in the Chair]

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: Touching on the Trade Union Congress, the Prime Minister himself reorganised the T.U.C. and established a Secretariat. But after the reorganisation, the P.A.P. did not recognise the legal status of this Secretariat of the T.U.C. After the Trade Unions Bill was passed, it was not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. This is unprecedented in the history of legislation in Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Is it a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. The hon. Member is yelling his head off. My eardrums are rather sensitive. So could Mr Deputy Speaker please ask him not to shout? It is most unbecoming of an hon. Member.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): There is a microphone in front of the Member for Choa Chu Kang. Could he please tone down his voice a bit?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): This Trade Unions Bill was not assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. It shows that the P.A.P. has no real intention to look after the interests of the workers. In the past the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has never withheld his assent to a Bill except upon the request of the P.A.P. Government.

Talking on another point. The P.A.P. said that they wanted to set up an Arbitration Court to solve trade disputes. In the past the P.A.P. guaranteed that only P.A.P. unions had the right to refer a dispute to the Arbitration Court. But after the P.A.P. came to power, what happened? An Arbitration Court was actually set up, but for what purpose? It was made into an instrument to promote the interests of P.A.P. unions, because the Court only agreed to arbitrate in disputes that had the consent of both the management and the workers. But the P.A.P. Minister for Labour had the right to refer any dispute to the Arbitration Court. In other words, the P.A.P. Minister can negate the right of the workers to strike and to refer the dispute to the Arbitration Court. The Chairman of the Arbitration Court was appointed by the P.A.P. Minister. All these facts prove that the P.A.P. cannot look after the interests of the workers.

Over the past two years the disputes that were resolved by the Arbitration Court only led to the expansion of P.A.P.-controlled unions. It also led to the strengthening of the management in exploiting the workers. [Interruption] This Arbitration Court of yours is intended to control the trade unions, and you are acting as the N.T.U.C. boss.

During the P.A.P.'s term of office, they likewise banned four confederations of trade unions. This is a fact, which goes to show that the P.A.P. are anti-worker. [Interruption] You can only talk "Communist". You cannot talk anything else. I do not know what type of mouth you have. Whenever it opens it can only call out "Communist, Communist".

Let us see how the P.A.P. handled the trade unions and how they suppressed them. Since the mass arrests on 2nd February, workers in this country can see clearly that the P.A.P. are more keen in pursuing an anti-labour reactionary policy. They talk of not putting on the dirty gloves of the Lim Yew Hock regime and of wanting an open argument. Facts have proved that the P.A.P. dare not have an open argument. They have put on the dirty gloves of the Lim Yew Hock regime. Why should they ban the trade unions? Why should they arrest trade union leaders?

The radio, television, and the Press are under the control of the P.A.P. On the 8th of October they also arrested trade union leaders and Assemblymen. Civic organisations under false democracy have been undermined by the P.A.P., on the pretext that these organisations have taken part in Communist united front activities. If united front activities are illegal, how is it that the P.A.P. also carry out such activities with the imperialists and the Federation Government? The P.A.P. Government banned these resisting organisations and cancelled the registration of seven trade unions just to satisfy their desire to retaliate when the people booed the Prime Minister. All these facts are well known to the people. But the leaders and the organisations themselves were not banned for taking part in Communist united front activities. At the time the seven trade unions participated in the mass rally sponsored by the Chinese Chamber of Commerce on the question of the blood debt, was there any riot in Singapore? No, there was not. The police announced to the people that the mass rally was orderly, and the P.A.P. cannot deny that. Since there was no riot or any disorder of any sort, why then should the P.A.P. Government give them a bad name by banning these unions and arresting their leaders?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the facts are as follows. These trade unions did not want to be led by the P.A.P. by the nose. They would not support the P.A.P. in their Malaysia intrigue. As a result, the P.A.P. banned them and arrested the leaders. But in banning these trade unions, the P.A.P. never considered the consequences that the workers would suffer.

3.30 p.m.

They completely disregarded the question of the livelihood of the workers. In actual fact, they are trying to create more favourable conditions to enable foreign capitalists to exploit our workers. The Siong Hoe Biscuit Factory and the Wiremesh Factory industrial disputes are clear examples.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, according to the Schedule, the debate on the Ministry of Labour ends at 3.40 p.m. So far neither the Minister nor I have had a chance to reply to the criticisms made against our Ministry. Can we be given the opportunity to reply to the criticisms in the time left? After all, whatever the Member is speaking now has been repeated last night.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): I will give the Member for Choa Chu Kang two more minutes to end his speech so that we can allow the Minister for Labour and his Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the points raised by the Opposition side.

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now I said that the Wiremesh Factory industrial dispute has not been solved for the last one year. The Government do not care to do anything about it. Only their trade unions and those trade unions controlled by the P.A.P. are allowed to solve their industrial disputes through the Government. Is that the way to look after the welfare and interest of the general masses of the workers? For the sake of preserving their own rights and looking after their own interests, the workers took strike action on 8th and 9th October, but the P.A.P. Government which claimed that they would not want to put their hands into the dirty gloves of Lim Yew Hock, took action to ban the unions. Where is the pro-labour policy of the Government? Because of the time limit, I end by asking the P.A.P. Government whether there is autonomy in labour in Singapore?

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis and their pro-Communist stooges are adept at making malicious allegations against any government that does not toe their line or is not amenable to their pressures. They portray themselves as the champions of the workers and repeatedly allege that the Government has not only done nothing for the workers but that it has also denied them the opportunity to organise themselves, that police are used to intervene in strikes and to assault and maim the workers, and that the Government sides with the employers to break strikes. The charges, repeated as they have been time and again, have become nothing more than the repetitive beating of a drum on one single note and, as such, they have become meaningless. The main intention is, of course, nothing more than to malign the Government, because the Barisan and their Communist friends are denied the opportunity at every turn to propagate their ideology of destruction. They echo the call of their foreign masters for anti-national activities - activities which are meant to destroy the very foundation of the happiness and prosperity of the people. They have the audacity to ask us what we have done for the workers other than using the police to intervene in strikes and side employers in breaking up strikes. I hope that the Barisan realise that constitutionally the police force is under the control of the Central Government. If they have not found out that, I suggest that they brush up their knowledge. Whatever the position might be, the police force in any State (including Communist States) is to maintain law and order. In this country, they cannot stand by in the interest of the Communists and watch impotently the destruction of property and the beating up of workers by their henchmen. They incite the strikers to violence but prudently keep themselves out of it so that the workers who are misguided into violence take the rap. They then turn round and accuse the police of violence against the workers to give the impression that the workers are repressed. They, however, conveniently forget that innocent fishermen on the high seas have been assaulted and maimed by their foreign friends but not a single voice has been raised by the pro-Communist unions purporting to represent them ---

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): Hear, hear!

Mr Wee Toon Boon: --- the Singapore Marine Product Workers Union. Further, they have been responsible for killing certain business establishments and throwing workers into the unemployment slush. I ask them, what have they done to the workers other than bringing hardships to them?

An hon. Member: Shame!

Mr Wee Toon Boon: I say that what they have done has not been in the interests of the workers. On the contrary, they have exploited the workers and the unions to further their own anti-national interests and those of their foreign masters. On the other hand, the Government's achievements concretely show that the malicious allegations by the Barisan have no foundation. The achievements of the Government since June 1959 will clearly bear this out. This could only have been brought about by our enlightened labour policy and our open stand on the side of the workers.

The following facts will show how the workers of Singapore have benefited considerably in the form of monetary wages and fringe benefits. The energetic enforcement of the labour laws brought in a sum of $450,288.21 from employers for distribution to the workers in the form of arrears of wages for overtime, holiday pay, rest-day pay and annual leave pay. The Labour Court, in addition, recovered a total sum of $483,065.89 in respect of legal claims by workers and a further $50,000 on behalf of domestic servants by way of conciliatory action. In the field of conciliation, out of a total of 4,393 disputes, 3,390 were amicably settled, 402 were referred to other authorities, and 476 were not pursued further by the complainants. Out of 326 strikes and lockouts, only 7 were outstanding at the end of November 1963. The conciliation service was also responsible for the conclusion of 237 collective agreements. The Arbitration Courts have made 106 awards and certified 647 collective agreements involving a total of 103,300 workers. These agreements and awards have certainly brought enhanced terms and conditions of employment to the workers. They say that we have denied the workers the opportunity to organise themselves. In May 1959 before the P.A.P. Government took office, the number of unions in existence was 226 with a membership of only 134,650. The number of unions at the end of November 1963 was 111 but the number of members was 147,188 as against 134,650 in May 1959 - an increase of 13,000. What more convincing proof does the Barisan require? Their allegations founder on these facts. They further allege that the Government attempts to control the unions but they cannot substantiate their statement. What have they to say about the unions catering for the workers in the armed services - the Singapore General Printing Workers Union and a few others? These unions are not affiliated to the N.T.U.C. but yet they form an important component ---

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Yes, what is the Member's point of order?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the time limit is up.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): If the time is up, my Clerk will be informing me.

An hon. Member: Is the Member scared?

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): The Parliamentary Secretary may continue on for half a minute more.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: Yet those unions form an important component of the trade union movement in the State. The deregistration of S.A.T.U. and seven other pro-Communist unions was not aimed against the workers but against the anti-national elements who were using these unions for purposes inconsistent with the objects and rules ---

3.40 p.m.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. Time has expired.

Mr Wee Toon Boon: May I add just one more sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker? Though the unions have been deregistered, the workers who belong to them have not in any way suffered. They continue to enjoy the benefits through the collective agreements made previously.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. Does the Member for Paya Lebar wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I would like to put it to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,317,600 for Head 32 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 34-

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move that the two amendments be discussed together.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): It would be better if the Member for Tampines moves amendment (2) which will cover amendment (1)* Is it all right?

*Amendment (1) reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 34 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (163) of subhead 1.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: I withdraw the first amendment.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Head 34, amendment (2) then. The Member has withdrawn amendment (1) .

3.45 p.m.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 34 be reduced by $100.

We believe that since the Minister for Culture has not successfully shouldered his responsibility to the people and if the Assembly approves such a big sum for the Ministry of Culture, then it will help to bring more sorrow and depression to the people. The next year's Estimates for the Ministry of Culture consist of a lot of unnecessary items because under the tyranny of the P.A.P. the Ministry of Culture has long ago become a monopolised organisation for its propaganda machinery. It has been used to mesmerise the people and inculcate pro-colonial ideas into them. The Prime Minister has betrayed the people. They have been suppressed in their pursuit of healthy literature and culture. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, the Government claim that culture has flourished under their rule. They are only praising themselves. In the past 4½ years of P.A.P. rule, only three literary magazines have been published. Those that were not approved for publication numbered thousands. Even the University magazines on studies and dramatics were also banned. On 16th October. 1962, the P.A.P. Government approved an amendment Bill to the Undesirable Publications Ordinance. By using the power given them in the Bill, the P.A.P. have been making use of it to prevent the people's culture from developing. So in the end only very few publications were allowed and the P.A.P. restricted the publication of private newspapers. This is a fact and everybody knows it. Not long ago, the P.A.P. also cancelled the registration of more than ten publications in the two Universities without any reason.

During the reign of the P.A.P., a number of yellow literature publications has been banned. That is all they can do. The P.A.P. have been blinding the people. They give out P.A.P. literature as healthy literature. The people can now see through clearly the P.A.P.'s policy in regard to the Ministry of Culture. For instance, certain films which have a low taste and sexual appeal have been passed by the Board. There was a film whose title was "Love and Desire". This is a filthy film of very low taste. Yet this film was passed by the Board of Film Censors. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this film "Love and Desire" is a filthy film. Such a dirty film has been approved for screening by the Ministry of Culture. And these people, Ministers of low morals, dare to go and see this film.

Mr Rajaratnam: How many times did you see it?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): They should not lower the morals of our people.

With regard to the National Library, the number of books there cannot compare with that in the University of Singapore or in any modern secondary school. There are very few literature books in the Malay, Chinese and Tamil languages. Almost all the literature is in the English language. This is to help the English educated. Students from English schools will perhaps find it convenient to read in the library. But students from the other streams of education will find it difficult to get any literature to read. This is wrong. This is an evil which has been perpetuated by the Ministry of Culture.

Now let us talk about the P.A.P. radio. We can say that the present Radio Singapore is actually Radio P.A.P. During these few days, Radio Singapore has been taking passages from our speeches at random. They have given very little coverage to our speeches. On the other hand, all the coverage has been devoted to the speeches made by the Government Ministers and their Back-benchers. This shows the P.A.P. are traitors.

And what about the T.V. shows? Most of the programmes are about fighting and the rest of them are given to such dirty things as practised by the P.A.P. There were scenes as those published in the Straits Times. They are as dirty as that. Whenever you tune in to the radio, you will hear all sorts of Western music such as Rock 'n Roll and the "Twist". Many kinds of national music have been either curbed, restricted or prohibited from being broadcast. Many of the concerts put up by the schools and civic organisations were prohibited from being broadcast over the radio and telecast on television. This goes to show that they are the running dogs of the British imperialists. They are controlled by the British imperialists. The people will not forget how the Government, by their control of the broadcasting station, have made it their instrument to further the interests of the colonialists.

We must make use of broadcasting as an instrument to improve the standard of education of the people. This is necessary in order to inculcate in the people a high sense of morality and improve their standard of education. Radio and television can play a great part in this respect. Since this instrument is now virtually a P.A.P. monopoly, the provision of such large sums of money for this department is a waste of public funds. It is evil. That is why we have moved an amendment to reduce the sum provided for radio and television. The whole set-up gives the people the impression that the department is only a branch of the Voice of the U.S.I.S. The literature issued by the Ministry of Culture is no different from that issued from the Anglo-American imperialists. "Television Singapura" has almost become T.V. America. Radio Singapore has almost become Radio America. The Minister for Culture cannot be a suitable Minister for Culture. All he can do is to shout "Communist" in this Assembly whenever he opens his mouth. Other than that, he cannot talk of anything else. He says today that the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist Party. That is an insult to this Legislative Assembly. To describe us as Communists or our Party as a Communist Party is an insult to the Legislative Assembly. We were elected by the people to be their representatives in this House in a constitutional manner.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Deputy Speaker, is the Member addressing the Chair or across the Floor?

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. Will the Member for Tampines please address the Chair when making his speech? Please proceed.

Mr Poh Ber Link: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am of the opinion that the Minister for Culture has not met with the general approval and desire of the people in his dealing with matters relating to his Ministry. Although they have claimed that we are living under the rule of law, yet whenever we debate any matter in this House we are interrupted. The coverage they give to our speeches in their reports is most unreasonable and biased. They give the Government side favourable coverage. I hope the Minister for Culture will try to take steps to remedy this situation if he wants to claim to be the fit and proper man for this Ministry. He should take measures to improve the work of the Ministry of Culture.

Mr S. Rajaratnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the Member for Tampines got up to speak, I shouted across the Floor that the first thing he was going to say was "Radio P.A.P." Sure enough. Sir, he said that the people are very depressed by what they hear over Radio Singapore and Television Singapura. The people are not depressed. The Barisan are depressed. Every time television goes on the air, the news comes out, the truth is told, and the people understand. The 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen then vanish. Sir, may I, in this connection, ask the gentlemen, because their adopted country is Jakarta, who gives a fairer report? Is it Radio Jakarta or Radio Singapore'? Sir, I have the Monitoring Digest for Wednesday, 11th December, 1963, which reports the debate in this Assembly.

`10th December, Jakarta.

The Opposition Party, the Barisan Sosialis of Singapore, has tabled a proposal in the Singapore Assembly that Singapore and the so-called Malaysian Government should contact the Indonesian Government to settle present differences for their common interests..'

and so on.

4.00 p.m.

It is fair enough, Sir. First, the report was only three paragraphs amounting to no more than 150 words. Radio Singapore on the same day gave something like 200 to 250 words. That is fair enough. Secondly, Radio Jakarta in reporting the proceedings of the Assembly, reported nothing about the Government speeches, but only the Barisan Sosialis speeches. But even worse, Sir, unlike Radio Singapore whose report is accurate, Radio Jakarta, their adopted country, concluded by saying - and I hope the gentlemen will take good note of this, and tell Radio Jakarta to be a bit more factual about their reporting:

`The leader of the Barisan Sosialis, Dr Lee Siew Choh, said that the difficulties suffered by the people in Singapore resulted from the Indonesian confrontation.'

Sir, everybody knows that Dr Lee Siew Choh has vanished. And here was Radio Jakarta reporting them, ignoring them, and saying that Dr Lee Siew Choh is still their leader in the Assembly. Sir, either they are sending incorrect reports or Radio Jakarta has so great a contempt for them that it thinks it is not worth while mentioning their present leader because the leader is no longer here. Sir, this is a good example. Whatever might be said of Radio Singapore, it gives greater coverage for them and it reports accurately and faithfully. But the radio of their adopted country gives, firstly, an incorrect report, a very brief report and insults them. Yet they support their adopted country. Sir, let them, therefore, not come around here denouncing Radio Singapore. They are repeating old speeches.

One of the points they made was this. They said that under the P.A.P. Government healthy and recreative reading has been suppressed. We ask the seven of them, the eight of them - if this gentleman ever comes back to this Assembly - this. Please give us a list of healthy reading matter. I am quite sure, Sir, that if it is not Communist, not subversive, we will order it. Before this Assembly debate is over, I hope they will give us a list of what they consider healthy reading matter - the titles, the authors, the publishers, and where they can be obtained. I hope it will not be the kind of reading matter that Mr Lim Ching Siong recommended in a document which was published in The Battle for Merger - Document One - and reads, "We have sworn before the Red flag and old Stalin." Sir, all this is Communist bogey! Signed by him, never denied by him, he never sued us for libel for publishing a statement that he took an oath to Stalin. Still they keep on saying, "Communist bogey". Communist bogey! [Interruption]

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have raised just now has been misunderstood by the Minister for Culture. Can I --- ?

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Is it a point of clarification or a point of order, please?

Mr Poh Ber Link: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of --- [Interruption]

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Would the Member for Tampines please indicate whether it is a point of order or a point of clarification? Then I can make a ruling?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): On a point of clarification, because the Minister has misunderstood my views just given.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Will the Minister give way?

Mr Rajaratnam: No, Sir, because he is so confused that I do not know what he wants to clarify, but he will have an opportunity in another few minutes to clarify.

Because they have been talking about "healthy reading matter", I have asked them to give us a list and I am quite confident - I can take a bet - there will not be a single list of titles coming from them on healthy reading matter. I can be quite sure that they will not be able to give me a list of titles, authors, publishers of what they consider as healthy reading matter. But I hope it will not be a list that Lim Ching Siong recommended for the work of the underground and Communist organisations, such as political reports, Stalin's talks, Li Shao-Chi's Training in Discipline for the Organisation, editorials of the Freedom News which we have suppressed, further books for acquiring a basic knowledge of Marxism and Leninism, "The history of the Russian Communist Party" - which is now out of date, Sir, because since then I think they enjoy reading the history of the Chinese Communist Party - the basis of Leninism and "On Political Parties".

Sir, the only valid point that they made and which I can say without insulting them was in regard to the number of non-English books. I am not referring only to Chinese books. By non-English books, I refer to Malay, Tamil and Chinese books. These gentlemen are only interested in Chinese books. It is quite true that in the National Library, the number of non-English books is not as numerous as it should be, but I would like to point out to them that since the P.A.P. took over in 1959, the number of books in Chinese lent out in 1959 was 18,000. The present figure is 113,000 - a substantial increase. Similarly, there were only 1,000 hooks in Malay in 1959; there are 31,000 books in Malay now. In Tamil, there were only 4,000 books; today there are 23,000 books. In 1963 alone we have purchased over 25,000 books in Chinese for the National Library. One of the difficulties is the availability of non-English books, because we can get books in English from all over the world, cheaply and in adequate numbers. Many of them come to us as gifts, but some of the books in other languages are not as numerous. I know that is what the gentlemen opposite are hoping I will say, "Well, what about Mao Tse-tung's works, Stalin's, Marx's, Lenin's?" Sir, those which are available - [Interruption] If they do not want those books, then I am quite prepared for them to give me a list. I hope they will give me a list of the titles of books and we will consider them and order not only one copy but five or six copies each.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Deputy Speaker, as there are three minutes more, may I take the opportunity to answer a few points raised by the Opposition Members.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): All right, the Parliamentary Secretary may continue.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find it difficult to understand the line of argument of the Barisan Sosialis, or even get near the province of understanding the mentality of their argument. We were alleged to be irresponsible, that our cultural activities brought disaster. Mr Deputy Speaker, do we have an eruption in Singapore like the Bali eruption? Do we have famine in Singapore? I can assure the Members of the Opposition that the people of Singapore are the best informed, at least in this part of the world.

Sir, we were accused of using the radio and T.V. Singapura to deceive the people. But can the Barisan Sosialis account for the rapid increase in radio and television sets? Are they suggesting that the people of Singapore are so foolish they allow themselves to be deceived by the so-called "Radio P.A.P."! Surely they are not thinking that it is "Radio P.A.P." broadcasting in this House. Sir?

We were accused of having no cultural activities. Now, what cultural activities do they want? Do they want the "Yong Koa" - The Harvest Dance? [Laughter] Simply because we do not show a "Yong Koa" on T.V. and we have no cultural activities. Those items we put up on T.V. in the dim --- [Laughter]

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, about the films again, there was a very interesting point put up by the Opposition Member who said we should show films with sex appeal and so on. I think those films may appeal to them, but I am afraid I have to, say that the Member for Tampines probably has seen such films several times, otherwise he would not be able to analyse the films. [Laughter] No, it is true. How is it he was so sure and so confident the film was banned?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is common logic which the Barisan Sosialis must accept and adopt. I just want to put a simple question to them. Will Radio Jakarta be prepared to allow the "Rebel of Celebes" to broadcast over it? Will they? No! What they have is anti-revolutionary. There is no revolution in Singapore. What revolution we refer to is bloody and violent. We have no such revolution in Singapore. There is peaceful, social evolution here. We are charged with broadcasting anti-revolutionary material. Is Radio Peking prepared to allow Radio Kuomintang to broadcast to the people of China? Will they allow that? No.

Sir, I think it is the duty of the Government to explain to the people what kind of society they are in. They should be kept informed of what is going on in Singapore. They charge that we do not give them coverage over the radio on their speeches. I think we will be failing in our duty if we do not broadcast their speeches, but they contain nothing but repetitions. No quality, no substance. We will be failing in our duty if we do that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do they want us to broadcast folk songs and play gramophone records? What songs do they want? Give us a list and we will check with our library. If those songs are not there, and as the Minister for Culture has said, if they are not Communist, we are prepared to put them as additions to our library.

4.15 p.m.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order, time is up. Does the Member for Tampines wish to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): I would like to put it to a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $12,058,070 for Head 34 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 35-

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 35 be reduced by $100.

We know that under Head 35 there is one department, that is, the Registry of Societies, whose title should be changed to "A Department which dissolves all Organisations". I want to cite one example to prove that the myths put forward by the P.A.P. cannot hold water.

4.16 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Koo Young: All along they have been shouting about Communists. This is only a pretext. On the 22nd of last month, we received a letter from the Registrar of Societies asking us to dissolve the kindergarten classes which were held in the premises of the Country People's Association and the Rural Dwellers' Association. The reasons given by the Registrar were that these classes were carrying on indoctrination of Communist ideas into the children. But it is strange that these classes cater for children of only five to six years old. They are so young. How can we say that we could inculcate in their heads the Communist ideology? Anyone with common sense will not say such things. But the P.A.P. have been all along talking about the Communists and creating a Communist bogey. They are accustomed to use the term "Communist" and, therefore, they fall into the trap of describing these classes as inculcating Communist ideas in the young children, which is very absurd.

Now, you can see that the textbooks used by these classes were printed by some of the publishing firms in Singapore. I will enumerate some of them. [Mr Koo Young held up a Chinese textbook.] This is a textbook on general knowledge entitled, Go to School in the Morning. This book says, "in the morning, go to school". And it has been described by them as Communist ideology! Another book is an arithmetic book, about figures, from one to ten; and this has also been described by them as Communist ideology. There was another book full of pictures, and they also call it a Communist book. It is an English textbook entitled My Book of ABC. You may investigate, and if you have any evidence you can bring it to Court. The first lesson in this book reads "A-Apple, Arrow". Mr Speaker, Sir, just look at this book. [Indication] Is it a Communist book? The Minister for Social Affairs can look at it. Perhaps he will say that the apple is an apple imported from China, and that when the children look at it they become Communist. What a funny reason.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been thinking why the P.A.P. said this is Communist, that is Communist; even a book on A, B, C, can become a Communist literature book. Perhaps our Minister for Social Affairs can supply some material to the Minister for Culture so that when the Minister for Culture attends the United Nations General Assembly he can tell the U.S. President, Mr Johnson, that in Singapore, children from four to six years old are receiving Communist indoctrination. Perhaps the U.S. President will say, "Good, good, Mr Rajaratnam. Your discovery is splendid, excellent. I will order the Pentagon to give you a title, Doctor of Anti-Communist". Perhaps this is his reason. But we must warn the Minister for Culture if this news were to lead to the belief among the Americans that children in Singapore are also Communists, the people in Singapore have all become Communists, I am afraid the U.S. President will send a plane to bomb Singapore because he fears that there are many Communists in Singapore.

What is a Communist? This is what they call a Communist. They are entirely irrational in their argument. The Minister for Education, in debating the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, mentioned this. If you do not believe, we can produce a letter. The letter from the Registrar of Societies did contain such statements, saying that the classes were used to propagate Communist ideas. All these statements are false. The real reason is that they are afraid that we are helping the farmers in the rural areas by opening these kindergarten classes. We are helping to solve their problem. These classes have very large attendances, whereas the Government classes have been all empty. We are looking after the children so as to enable the householders to go to work. We are helping the farmers by conducting such classes. What do you mean by Communists?

On the 26th November we saw a news item in the Sin Chew Jit Poh that the Queenstown P.A.P. Branch is going to open adult classes. The notice says that the Branch are recruiting students for the adult classes and list the vacancies in the various classes; 40 vacancies for the kindergarten classes, 40 vacancies for first-year primary. Why the P.A.P. Branch can run such classes, and why not Communist? Because the classes are run on Fascist education? Why should the Minister for Labour talk about the Chinese, saying that you allow only the officials to light a big fire, whereas you prevent the common people from lighting a lamp? I would like to ask the Minister for Culture whether he admits this fact. If he wants to deny, of course, he can do so. But I would advise him not to talk about children of four and six being inculcated with Communist ideology. It is a ridiculous allegation. Were this news to leak out to foreign countries, then the American Press would be publishing in headlines that Singapore's Minister for Culture said that the children of Singapore from four to six are all Communists.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the House today we have touched upon the question of Communists. We dare openly declare that we are not Communists. We challenge them to say that they are not Communists. We can do things openly. That shows that we are not Communists. If they dare not, then they are Communists. Say that you are not Communists. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order. I cannot follow the English translation of what the Minister for Labour is trying to say.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): You dare to say that you are not Communists. You can come to Radio Malaysia to say so, to say why you are opposed to Communism, why you do not like Communism. If you dare, you can come to Radio Malaysia and say publicly and in the newspapers that you are not Communists and that you hate Communism. I challenge you. You say you are not Communists but when other people talk about Communism, you are so very angry. [Interruption]

The Chairman: No more interruptions, please.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): The fact is that whenever I or any of the Ministers mention Communists, the Barisan Sosialis are very angry. If they are representatives of the Communist Party, then we will not blame them, but because they say they are not Communists, then people doubt very much why they should adopt such an attitude when they are called Communists.

The Registrar of Societies is in charge of matters relating to societies and the control of them. Certain societies are engaged in illegal activities, so it is necessary for the Registrar to take steps to control them and also to investigate as to whether they have been used for purposes of Communist propaganda or other subversive activities or used as gambling dens. Do I hear somebody say, "My house"? Now, the father of the Member for Tampines, I heard, is operating a gambling den which was closed down recently.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): On a point of order. Just now the Minister was not debating the question. He was accusing me.

The Chairman: I believe the objection is in order. Do not attack him personally, talking about gambling dens.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I was not saying that the Member for Tampines opened a gambling den. I said that his father is involved in running a gambling den.

The Chairman: The Minister is out of order there because he is attacking the Member's father, and surely he is throwing implications at the gentleman in question.

An hon. Member: He does not have a father.

The Chairman: There you are, when you talk of fathers, it seems to hurt everybody. So, please, the Minister has got two minutes and I suggest he make full use of it without any abuse.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not wanted to talked about that, but because the Member for Thomson said that I had a gambling den in my house, that is why, in order to show that something is happening, I said that the Member's father is having a gambling den.

The Minister for Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, because I have only about one minute, let me rebut the allegations hurled by the Barisan Sosialis in connection with the kindergarten classes conducted by them. The Registrar of Societies wrote to them in this connection. Mr Speaker, just now the Member for Thomson has shown to us books which he claims were used by these kindergarten classes. But what about those books in the curriculum? Can they exhibit other books which are being used in these kindergarten classes, for instance, anti-Government songs, anti-Prime Minister songs, Communist songs? Not a word about these. They concentrate more on these in the kindergarten classes. Secondly, Mr Speaker, the law of this State lays down that it is not an offence for a political Party to conduct kindergarten classes, but they must first obtain a permit from the Ministry of Education. The letter written to the Barisan Sosialis concerns kindergarten classes based on the State laws which are in force at the moment.

Mr Speaker, during the general elections we did see how the Barisan Sosialis used children in the election campaign to attend election rallies ---

4.35 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired. Will the Member for Thomson indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I would like a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $1,074,860 for Head 35 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 37 -

Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 37 be reduced by $100.

Mr Speaker, I cannot understand this question, whether it is connected with the Communist bogey, but it is a very important one. The people of Singapore, especially those living in the rural areas in congested attap dwellings, pay great attention to this question of fires. We hope the Ministers will not think we are trying to pull their legs. But these people are not like them living in new air-conditioned flats. If the Government are sincere in wishing to solve problems - as the Prime Minister has said he is very glad to hear criticisms from the Opposition as well as from his own Back-benchers - it is our duty to put up suggestions in this House. Here I have some figures to show that this is a question which is receiving much attention.

According to the Fire Brigade Department's recent Report, in 1962 there were 1,776 fires in Singapore. The losses incurred amounted to about $859,000. One example is Siglap. In 1963, there have been 2,882 fires. It means that there has been an increase in the number of fires this year. Losses amounting to $755,000 have been incurred in 1963. Of course, this includes the fires that took place in Lorong 21 and Lorongs 5 to 9, Geylang.

I would like to raise a few points. I hope the Government will pay attention to this. The first question is whether these fires have a direct bearing on the water rationing. I hope the Minister for Social Affairs will give a reply to this question.

The second question relates to the causes of the fires. As far as I know from the Government's report, no explanation or reasons have been given for the causes of these fires, but there are rumours circulating that they have some bearing on the landlords' desire to evict the occupiers of their lands. There are rumours that certain people were so hard up that they burned their houses to achieve their purposes. Some people say that it was due to Communist activities, and there are other rumours. There have been such fires in Lorong 29 and Lorongs 3 to 11, Geylang.

The third question is on the coordination between the Fire Brigade Department and the rural Fire Brigade branches. I would like the Minister to assure us that in future more fire stations will be built in the rural areas which are crowded with attap houses. But there are two difficulties to be faced. One is the question of equipment and supplies. Many fire stations are short of equipment. Without the necessary equipment, they are of no use even if there is water. I hope the Government will provide more and better equipment to the various fire stations and give them better training. The second point is in regard to the funds available. In the past, the voluntary Fire Brigade corps formed by the rural people themselves were supported by the farmers living in those areas. But the Government did not seem to want to give a single cent. The people on watch took turns, and some of them stayed awake overnight. While they were on duty, they had to pay for their own food and other expenses.

I hope the Minister will give a reply to my questions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member opposite spoke for five minutes. The Barisan Members can only repeat their argument and waste a lot of the time of this House.

4.45 p.m.

The Member concerned said that he heard many rumours in regard to the fires in Geylang, that some people say that they were caused by the Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is another way to spread rumours. In fact, those who spread this rumour here are the rumour-mongers themselves. Some fires like lallang fires cannot be controlled by the Government. These are due to natural causes. And they also said that some fires are caused by rats. They make use of all these points to attack the Government. If they want to criticise, they must substantiate their criticisms so that the Government can take proper action. They also blame the Government for the lack of rainfall. During their campaign, they said that if they were elected they would abolish water-rationing. Some people asked them, "Where is your water reservoir?" What causes a wild fire? Now this is not caused by the rural people. Wild fires cannot be controlled by people. I hope the Barisan will not waste our time by bringing up all these irrelevant points in order to attack the Government. [Interruption] You talk about God! Do you believe in God? If you want the Government to listen to your suggestions, you should bring up substantial points. The Members opposite cannot bring up substantial points to support their amendments. They have been unable to bring up concrete points. [Interruption] Do you want me to prove that you are Communist stooges? I have a lot of material to prove that. This is your leader - your god! [Indicating a Chinese newspaper] And you have posted this picture on the walls and the pillars! These words were spoken by Mr Puthucheary and Mr Woodhull! These words were said by your leaders - your gods!

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): On a point of order. The Member for Bukit Panjang spoke on the causes of the fires between Lorongs 5 and 21. But the Parliamentary Secretary has not given us a clear reply on the causes of these fires.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary was about to read the Chinese newspaper to prove that somebody was a Communist. I think he was invited to do that by interruptions from the Opposition.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): I must protest against the Member for Thomson. He said that my area is a dirty area. He said that my constituency is a dirty constituency. I want to lodge a strong protest against him. What about his own constituency?

The Chairman: Order. Let us forget Thomson. Let us forget Jalan Besar. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will allow me, I can repeat what I said about their leaders, their gods and the source of their inspiration. I can reveal all this to you to prove whether they are really the stooges of the Communists. I think they are not politicians but stooges of the Communists. They are not Communist members themselves, but they are Communist stooges. Mr Lim Shee Ping is my friend. I have known him from my school days. He is also one of the Central Executive members of the Barisan Sosialis. He said, "The Communist activities in Malaysia are incompatible with their objectives. Now Communism in Singapore is not a bogey. The Barisan have become the stooges of the Communists and yet they do not realise it." If they can rebut the statements of their ex-leaders, then I can say that they are clever. Can they rebut or refute their statements? But I think they are opium addicts.

The Chairman: Order. I must remind Members that although a little humour will take away the dreariness of this debate, they should not make any personal attacks as the Parliamentary Secretary did. We have only two minutes more for this particular item.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Bukit Panjang asked about the causes of the fires at Lorong 21 and at Lorongs 5 to 9, Geylang, but the Parliamentary Secretary did not give us the answer at all.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: On a point of order. I can explain that. Rainfall and wild fires are not under our control. How can he say that I have not answered their points?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of opinion.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): Our question was not directed against the Government, accusing them that they did not try to put out the fires. The question was in regard to the causes of the fire. Yet the Member just now produced a newspaper to read about the Communists and so on. All this will not help to resolve the question. On this question we hope that wherever there is a likelihood of a fire starting, preventive equipment should be provided at such places, and that the Government should look after the fire victims and find out the cause of the fire in order that rumours will not spread leading people to believe that the Government are taking advantage of the situation.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Kim San): I am very glad that the Member for Bukit Panjang brought up this matter. I am very happy to note that he is as concerned as we are over the numerous fire outbreaks during the last few years. But if he will look into the matter properly, he will note that all the fires took place in attap hut areas. However, his method differs from that of the Government in trying to prevent fires. He suggests that there should be more fire brigade stations and more equipment. We, on the other hand, say that we must not allow a situation to arise where Reds or Communists or anybody can set fire to a place. And in fact ---

4.55 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired. Will the Member for Bukit Panjang indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,697,610 for Head 37 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 39-

Mr Chio Cheng Thun: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 39 be reduced by $ 100.

I direct my question to the Minister for Social Affairs. In the recent fires which occurred at Lorongs 5 to 9 and Lorong 21, Geylang, how many fire victims received public assistance from the Government? How much did each of them receive? How many of them have been accommodated in S.I.T. flats? What concessions are given to them for the occupation of these flats?

The Chairman: Order.

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

Mr Speaker: It is five o'clock now. I propose to suspend the Assembly until 5.30 p.m.

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Resumption of Debate on Question,

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head 39 be reduced by $100."

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Question again proposed.

5.31 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Fong Kim Heng) in the Chair]

Head 39-(contd.)

Inche Othman Bin Wok: (In Malay): In answering the questions posed by the Member on the Opposition side regarding the fires at Geylang, I will give full details. Victims of the Lorong 21, Geylang, fire which occurred on the 29th October, 1963, have received $40 each. The last payment of the fourth instalment to the victims of Lorongs 5 and 9 fires have been paid today. That is the position, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

In addition, the families who have lost their possessions as a result of both the fires have been paid a rent subsidy of $7 each, but the maximum for each family is $35 per month for a period of three months irrespective of whether the family want flats from the Housing Board or other accommodation for which they have to pay rent. The victims of the Lorong 21 fire were also given a tin of condensed milk per person from stocks of food which were donated by the public who were in sympathy with the sufferings of these victims. For the victims of the fire at Lorongs 5 to 9, donations in the form of condensed milk, rice and noodles were received from the public and these were distributed to the victims. Each person was given a tin of condensed milk, three katties of rice and one pound of noodles. Clothing donated by members of the public was also distributed to the victims of both fires at Lorong 21 and at Lorongs 5 to 9. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the amount of $40 given to each of those victims is from the Social Welfare Department, $5 from the Lee Foundation and $30 from the Singapore Council of Social Services. The fire victims at Lorong 21 involved 82 families and those at Lorong 9 involved 179 families or 1,001 persons. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad to state here that as a result of the efforts and work carried out by members of the Social Welfare Department and the Housing Board, these victims of the fire at Lorongs 5 to 9 have been given houses within 24 hours. I hope this explanation of mine satisfies the question of the hon. Member.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): I have a further question to ask the Minister. That is, in Marsilling, Bukit Panjang. There is a Lian Wah San Temple. There are 50 aged people living there - widows and widowers. These 50 aged people have not been looked after by the Government. Some of them come from institutions for the aged, public or private, and some come from the Tan lock Seng Hospital, and some even come from homes in the Federation. I would like the Minister concerned to indicate whether he would consider giving aid to these people and increase their personal allowance. I have been there to see for myself and found that their facilities and aid are very poor. I hope the Minister will do something in this regard to help them.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: (In Malay): As this House knows, the Social Welfare Department has two Homes to look after - homes for the aged. One is at Bushey Park for men, and the other at Woodstock for women. I am thankful to the Member for Bukit Panjang for drawing my attention to the fact that there are so many aged people who are in need of assistance. If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me further details, I will be only too glad to look into the matter. Assistance is based on the conditions and circumstances of the people. I hope the hon. Member will be good enough to provide me with further details that I have asked for.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): I think I can give the details to the Director of Social Welfare. Most of the people at this temple are sick. Since they are being treated at the temple, they have been staying at the temple. They are getting $15 each per month from the Social Welfare Department. That is not enough to pay for medicine. Even they have to wash their clothing and they need further aid. Up to now they have been looked after by public donations. I hope the Minister will provide them with medical care.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if these people are prepared to come to the Homes for the Aged, I can guarantee that they will be given free assistance and aid.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): I would like to ask one question. As to the explanation given by the Minister and the Government in respect of assistance and aid given to the people. I appreciate it. I would like to ask whether people who are not Singapore citizens and living under such conditions would also be admitted to institutions for the aged. I hope the Minister can also do something and give some means of livelihood to these people, as they are also members of society.

Inche Othman Bin Wok: (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me explain here that in all cases of assistance, whether in the form of money, etc., priority is given to Singapore citizens. Those who are not Singapore citizens are not given priority. We are governed by the laws of the State and Singapore citizens are given priority in respect of such aid and assistance.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. There is only one minute left. Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Chio Cheng Thun indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $14,323,370 for Head 39 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

5.45 p.m.

Head 40-

The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Koo Young ---

(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 16.

(2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 17.

The Chairman: Mr Koo Young?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I do not wish to move the first two amendments standing in my name.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): The Member for Thomson is not moving amendments (1) and (2) . Mr Poh Ber Liak.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Poh Ber Liak ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 18.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I do not wish to move the amendment in respect of subhead 18.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): The Member is not moving. Mr Koo Young again.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 40 be reduced by $100.

On the 10th of this month, on Tuesday, we heard the Minister for Education outlining the Government policy on education. What I feel strange about his speech is that half of it was about Communism and chauvinism. I just do not understand and I fail to see how Communism, Marxism and Leninism should have come into his speech. In fact, he has talked more about Communism than the Minister for Education in other countries in the world, and even in the Communist countries. Perhaps he is just like our friend Mr Rajaratnam who wants to go there to get a doctorate in Communism.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Members are not allowed to refer to other Members of the House by their names. You may proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Rajaratnam is the Minister for Culture. I will refer to him by his designation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the P.A.P. always say that the question of education is a very emotional one and can stir up the emotions of people very easily. The P.A.P. are always making use of educational issues to stir up public emotions. I shall make an adequate reply to his allegation of chauvinism and Communism later on. Now I wish to deal with the figures given by the Minister for Education in his speech. He has said that the P.A.P. has implemented the six-year free primary education for a few years. He also says that there are 460,000 students receiving education in Singapore. He also says that these children are well-dressed and well-fed before they go to school and that this standard is very high in Singapore. I do not know how he can bring in this matter of well -dressed and well-fed children into education, unless education means eating and dressing and nothing more than that. I dealt with the question of education on Tuesday. In my speech I said that the question of education cannot be explained away by figures and slogans. Education should be made to nurture our future generation. The question is whether education managed by the P.A.P. will go towards the fostering of a better generation. If he wants to talk about figures and figures alone, and shout slogans and slogans alone, then I say to everybody in Singapore and to our future generation that it is useless, and even to the P.A.P. supporters it will be useless. What we want to know is the quality of education. What we want to know more is whether in the process of being educated children in schools will be able to learn how to be human beings, how to become members of society and live happily in a community, and whether the knowledge that they acquire in schools can be of any practical use to them when they come out to society. But the P.A.P. are more interested in figures than in the quality of education. You may have some, children receiving education for six years but they are not able to go for further education and they have to go into the streets and sometimes they may fall into the company of bad associates and they become hooligans.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): The Member seems to say that our education system is turning out hooligans. I do not know what he is talking about.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): I think the Member for Thomson is speaking on a relevant matter. He may proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, may I make an earnest request to the Members on the other side to listen to me carefully? I am talking of facts. I do not say that the P.A.P.'s education system is to turn out hooligans. This is not what I said. Please give me time to speak without any interruption. Nobody can ever deny that it is a fact that some children, who are unable to go for further education, fall into bad company after leaving school. In Malay schools, Chinese schools, English schools, there are many children who have left school and who are unable to find jobs, and they have no future and no outlet. Is this not a point which should be taken up by the Government in the review of the education structure? The Minister for Education in his speech on Tuesday, the 10th of this month, said, in the last four and a half years the Government has pushed forward a programme of school buildings, thereby providing opportunities for children of various races to go to school. He said, "We are faced with a very serious problem concerning Chinese education in the twentieth century and that is the question of the Communists making use of educational issues in Chinese schools as a cover for their activities."

Mr Ong Pang Boon: From which paper is he quoting?

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Could the Member for Thomson answer that and proceed?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I am quoting from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of Wednesday. If the Minister for Education is going to withdraw what he said, I am not going to quote any more.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I was going to advise him to make use of the Sin Chew Jit Poh, because it gives a better translation. I was worried that he might he reading from a different paper.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): You may proceed, Mr Koo.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs says that this is a Barisan paper, but anyway we will forget about this other talk. We proceed with the debate. The Minister for Education continued - "to a certain degree the Communists are successful, in that they are able to instigate the children against the Government". He continued, "these political opportunists will resort to all ways and means to make use of educational issues to cover up their insidious activities of a political nature". This is the point I have raised just now. On his speech, which is supposed to deal with education, he has mentioned Communist activities more than educational matters. I do not know how far he is true in making this allegation. Perhaps he is making an allegation about his own senior officer, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. If there is anybody using educational issues for their insidious objectives, he is none other than Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I believe we are not so absent-minded in this connection. In 1954, 1955 and 1956, there were camping-ins in various Chinese schools. Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time was the legal adviser to the Singapore Middle Schools' Students' Union. He was fighting very hard for the Chinese school students against the Lim Yew Hock regime and the colonial masters for their action against Chinese education, and for their action in forcing the children in the Chinese schools to become soldiers for the purpose of national registration. So if the Minister for Education should now turn round and say that educational issues are being used by people for political purposes, then that person is none other than Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our Prime Minister.

Mr Rajaratnam: I think the Member should be at least courteous enough to refer to the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries by their designations. It is only a courtesy. I mean, they may not accept the Constitution of the country, but it is a courtesy which is expected of them.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Will the Member for Thomson please remember that Members must not refer to other Members of the House except by their correct designations and not by their names? He may proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I am very sorry, but at that time the Prime Minister was not the Prime Minister yet, so I have to refer to him by name. He is now of course.

6.00 p.m.

Now this allegation made by the Minister for Education is not quite fair. Sonic people say that the P.A.P., in order to come to power, in 1955 came out to fight for Chinese students, to speak in their defence, to see that justice was done to them. But they have forgotten what they had done and they now turn round and say that it is the Communists who make use of educational issues in Chinese schools to instigate the students.

6.02 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I have a grave suspicion that if that is so, then our Prime Minister is a Communist as well. Mr Speaker, I must point out to you, if I remember correctly, that our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, on a certain occasion when a meeting of the Singapore Middle Schools' Students' Union was held, shouted "Long Live Chinese Education!" He said so at the meeting.

Mr Rajaratnam: When a Member is making an allegation, he must quote the source. Could he indicate to us when, where and from what source Mr Lee, the Prime Minister, shouted this slogan of "Long Live Chinese Education! "? Could he please quote the source? It is essential for our reference?

The Chairman: Can the Member for Thomson quote the source?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, if you want to know the place and the time, I think the Minister for Culture should go and ask the Prime Minister. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order, please allow the Member for Thomson to proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I try to go over my speech as quickly as possible. This is a national issue, but the Minister for Labour always attempts to interrupt me. It seems that our friend the Minister for Labour has eaten too many onions and that is why he is letting out a lot of gas! [Interruption]

The Chairman: I have had occasion previously to ask all Members of the House not to attack the personal conduct of any Member of this Assembly, because one attack from one side of the House leads to an attack from the other side, and it goes on and on forever. So I will remind the Member for Thomson not to cast any aspersions even on the Minister for Labour. Please proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, as a matter of fact, the cause of the camping in and the boycott by the Chinese school students was due to the fact that they had made legitimate claims for certain things. The true cause is mentioned in the speech of the Minister. He said that the colonial regime was not interested in education, particularly Chinese education, in Singapore. That is why the Chinese themselves had to take it upon themselves to build schools to educate their own children. When employment avenues opened up for the English school students, then the school-leavers from the Chinese stream were despondent because they felt that they were not wanted by society.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: On a point of order. I suggest that when the Member for Thomson quotes, he should not quote out of context but he should give the particular period which I referred to.

The Chairman: If he can, and if he wishes to.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No. I was referring to prewar ---

The Chairman: Does the Minister say that he was reading out of context? He was referring to prewar.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No. I was referring to prewar and not during the time of the P.A.P. Government. But he did not quote the period when the Chinese educated were rejected, and employment opportunities were denied to the Chinese educated.

The Chairman: Very well. Please proceed, Mr Koo Young.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): If what the Minister has said existed in the past, then I say that the same situation also exists at the present moment. The P.A.P. say that during their term of office there has been equality in education. But they are unable to convince the people of whatever they say.

Mr Speaker, the question of Communists in the field of education does not actually exist. It exists in name only. If there is any unrest and discontent, it is because the P.A.P., to a certain degree, are perpetuating the educational policies of the colonial masters.

On Tuesday, the 10th of December, I spoke very clearly on five points. I believe that if we put aside our party affiliations for the time being and look at the matter from the purely educational point of view, then we can examine the educational policies of the P.A.P. and realise that what I have said is true. I quoted on Tuesday the speech of the ex-Education Minister from an article entitled Youth is the Spring of the Nation. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P., in trying to cover up their mistakes in the field of education, make the allegation that Chinese school students have been manipulated by the Communists. They even go to the extent of smearing the students. Now, how are they going to explain the position of the merchants who support and finance Chinese education? [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Well, they turn round and call these people Chinese chauvinists. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. always make the allegation that the Barisan Sosialis always bring up educational issues in order to stir up public feelings and discontent. But the people who really stir up public feelings are the P.A.P. They talk about chauvinism. This allegation about chauvinistic feelings can easily stir up the emotional feelings of other races and even give rise to misunderstanding. This is a very dangerous game to play. We warn the P.A.P. now that if, as a result of what they have done and what they are doing, there is any racial riot - as the Prime Minister has said, a riot like the Maria Hertogh riot - then they should be held fully responsible.

The Minister for Education says that the directors of the Chinese schools are chauvinistic in their outlook. In the same way, they smear the School Management Committees as organisations which run schools on a commercial basis. Both these allegations are equally insulting to the people concerned. I am talking of facts. I am not trying to stir up any feelings or sour up relationships between people. Mr Speaker, we urge the P.A.P. to give equal treatment to the four streams of education in the real sense of the term. I believe that if the P.A.P. can actually give equal treatment to the four streams of education, then we will support them to the fullest extent.

6.15 p.m.

On the question of encouraging the learning of the national language and the assistance to be given to our Malay brothers for higher education, I say that we are in full support of this P.A.P. policy. But I wish to tell them now that in spite of their slogans and publicity given to the "National Language Month" and the rest of it, they are unable to promote fully the learning of the national language. They are just putting up a show. Some years ago, the Adult Education Board started many Malay classes in the night. But what is the position now?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Why do you not want to learn?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): The Parliamentary Secretary asks me why I do not learn Malay. Yes, I do. What is the position now? What has happened to all these national language classes? They have disappeared, and the P.A.P. have become quiet. In some schools, at the beginning there were about 10 classes, but now there are only two or three classes left. Formerly, there were about 30 to 40 students in each class, but now you can only find about 8 to 10 students in each class. What has happened? Why has this happened? Is it because the people are unwilling to learn the national language? Or is it because they joined the classes only for a short while and then left? It is because the P.A.P. have not got a comprehensive plan to encourage the learning of the national language. Many people joined these classes with high hopes but because they were unable to obtain good results, they were discouraged and left the classes. This is a very good example of their failure to promote the study of the national language.

On the aid to be given to our Malay brothers for higher education, we are accused of having no interest in this matter. We are now bringing this up to show that we are really interested in it. In our Budget, we see under subheads 16 and 17 of Head 40 that the aid to be given to Malay students at the Singapore Polytechnic and the Singapore Vocational Institute by way of bursaries has been reduced in terms of money. Bursaries and other forms of assistance to students at the Universities of Singapore and Malaya have also been reduced. Bursaries for the Singapore Polytechnic and the Singapore Vocational Institute have been reduced from $50,000 for 1963 to $20,000 for 1964. In respect of students at the Universities of Singapore and Malaya, the amount has been reduced from $50,000 in 1963 to $40,000 in 1964. We draw the attention of the Government to this point and these figures. We hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education in particular will pay attention to this. We just want to know why these reductions have been made. Is it because the Malay students in the universities and the Polytechnic have, after five years of P.A.P. aid, left the institutes and the aid has therefore got to be reduced? Or what other reasons have they got?

Mr Speaker, nobody can ever deny that education is a national matter and that it must not be used to serve the interests of a Party, nor should it be allowed to be made use of to achieve political ends. Nobody can deny these facts and assertions. If the People's Action Party try to control education, then the consequences will be very grave.

I have already pointed out certain facts to show that the P.A.P. are trying to control and monopolise education for their own ends and objectives. My facts have now been proved and they will continue to be proved in the future.

Mr Speaker, I wish to bring out more facts and examples to supplement what I have said a few days ago. At the 8th Executive Council meeting of the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Union the P.A.P.'s ex-Parliamentary Secretary to to the ex-Minister for Education, who is now the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, instigated some teachers to capture the leadership of the Union. For what reasons? The reasons are that the 7th and 8th Executive Council members exposed the education policy of the P.A.P. Some teachers, under intimidation, coercion and inducement, carried out instructions to capture the leadership and so overthrow the Executive Council led by Mr Lim Seck Kian. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary hunted that if they were successful in overthrowing the leadership they would be promoted. As a result, many of the teachers became principals of schools. Many school clerks were promoted to become teachers. [Interruption] If you want me to produce evidence, I might expose your evil deeds and weaknesses.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Apart from this, it is said that the P.A.P. planted their own people as school teachers, school clerks or even school servants in the various schools. Their job is to investigate whether the teachers in the schools supported their education policy or not. Is it good for them to do so? [Interruption] The Minister for Labour is a second Ngo Dinh Diem.

The Chairman: Order. Please allow the Member for Thomson to proceed without interruption. We have one and a half hours left. I was hoping we might finish this debate before even eight o'clock.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the result of their action? Will it do any good to the P.A.P.? Will it do any good to the cause of education itself? The principals and teachers are worried. They are in a state of anxiety. Whenever they explain their lessons, they must be careful lest they say something which might lead to their dismissal. If they are not able to carry out the work of educating our pupils in a peaceful atmosphere and without fear and anxiety, how is it possible for them to educate our future generation in a better way of life? Graver situations have arisen. In order to control the educational institutions, the P.A.P. have sacked all those who do not support them in the field of education. But the P.A.P. dare not sack these people themselves. On the other hand, they force innocent people, like members of the School Management Committee, to do the work of dismissing their political opponents and all those whom they do not like. Of course, the P.A.P. can do whatever they like at the present moment. These people dare not oppose them. It is really too mean of the P.A.P. to do this. Instead of asking the School Management Committee to sack the teachers whom they do not like, why do they not sack the teachers themselves? [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, there is a tendency on the part of the P.A.P. not only to control the regular schools, but also to monopolise organisations and movements for the eradication of illiteracy. Not only do they not praise some of the literacy classes run by others, but they also want to obstruct other people from running their literacy classes. We have this to ask the P.A.P.

6.30 p.m.

Can they solve our illiteracy problem by monopolising this campaign for the eradication of illiteracy? After having been in office for so many years, what results have they achieved in the way of eradicating illiteracy? If the campaign is helped by other people or organisations, I am sure the number of illiterate people will become fewer and fewer.

I would now like to talk about the new slogan which has been brought forward by the P.A.P. This is to raise the standard of teaching of the second and third languages in the schools. I have said in the past that this slogan is good. But we call upon the P.A.P. to carry out this programme in a practical way. They must achieve results. We urge upon the P.A.P. to find ways and means of how to raise the standard of teaching of the second and third languages. The period devoted to the teaching of geography, history, science, mathematics and other technical subjects is becoming less and less. It is not possible to reduce this period further in order to increase the period for the teaching of the second and third languages. The children in the vernacular schools have also fewer hours in learning their mother tongue. They have only one hour a day to learn their mother tongue. The Government cannot further reduce the period for the teaching of the mother tongue in order to teach the second and third languages. How then are the P.A.P. to raise the standard of these second and third languages? Are they prepared to curtail the hours of teaching, or do they propose to turn all the textbooks on history, geography, science and mathematics into English textbooks in the Malay and Tamil schools? If it is so, I believe that the raising of the standard of the second and third languages will be tantamount to raising the standard of English only. This will result in the lowering of the standard of the other vernacular languages. I hope the Minister will pay careful attention to this point. If they really have a good educational programme which is not detrimental to the teaching of the mother tongue and other subjects like science and mathematics, then in principle it is good to raise the standard of the second and third languages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to join the P.A.P., then I would be forced to shout. "Communist, Communist!" all the time.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: (In Mandarin): Opportunist!

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): They only know how to enjoy life. On the 26th of November the Prime Minister, in talking to a reporter of the Sin Chew Jit Poh, referred to the learning of the mother tongue. He said that the War broke out in 1942. He said that in those difficult years it was the Chinese educated who were brave and most able to endure the difficulties. He continued:

`I also found that the Chinese, because of their long tradition of culture and history, arc imbued with virtues and a high sense of morals. When I was in Europe, I had occasion to meet students from China and other Chinese students. I found that those who had received education in their mother tongue and those who had received Chinese education were very polite generally.'

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Point of order. If the Member for Thomson is going to read the whole text instead of just giving a precis of the printed matter he is reading, then I am afraid he is wasting our time.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Under our Standing Orders, a Member can read from the text of a newspaper when he is quoting. I am sure he is not going to waste our time by reading the whole newspaper. Please proceed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I am going to read only a short passage.

`Those who were not educated in their mother tongue or those who were not educated in Chinese are totally different. Their way of thinking, their feelings, and their way of life are totally different. It is easy to distinguish between these two groups of students.'

The Prime Minister said that this discovery had deepened his conviction in the value of education in the mother tongue. Whatever education people receive, they must first receive education in their mother tongue, whether in Chinese, Malay or Tamil. And these words were spoken by the Prime Minister to a reporter of the Sin Chew Jit Poh. We admire him; we pay high tribute to him for his high esteem of education in the mother tongue. But we hope that he will not only pay lip service to what he has said, but he must also carry it out. If the P.A.P. ---

The Chairman: Order. There is one microphone amongst Members of the Assembly or those in the Gallery which is blasting in Malay. Can we just check? It is a little disturbing, and I would be obliged if Members could assist. Please proceed. Mr Koo.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): What we urge is that the P.A.P. should carry cut what the Prime Minister has said, and that they should not merely pay lip service or merely carry out propaganda.

On education, our demand is that the P.A.P. must carry out their promises and put them into practice, and not accuse us of stirring up racial feelings, or of having penetrated the schools. What are they like? If we ask them to do these things, they accuse us of being Communists and of trying to stir up all sorts of disturbances. What about they themselves?

We sincerely hope that the Party in power, especially the Minister for Education, will consider our suggestion and not merely talk about Communists, chauvinism, or of stirring up racial feelings. The Minister should face education problems and try to solve them, if he can do so, I think these problems will be resolved easily and there will be success.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, nobody can deny the importance of education and teaching in the development and progress of a nation. Because of the importance of education, the P.A.P., in merging Singapore with the Federation, have defended and safeguarded its autonomy in education.

6.45 p.m.

The Members who have left the Party and crossed over to the Opposition in the last session about two years ago did not dare speak about Malay education. They merely spoke about Chinese education. I warned them at that time to look into education in other streams, i.e. other than the Chinese stream, for example, in the Malay, Tamil and English streams. But today is the first time I have heard the Member for Thomson say that his Party supports the Government's policy which gives special treatment to Malay education. It seems that they have now changed their attitude after failing in the election to get the support of the Malays. I think they are doing this not out of sincerity but to show to the Malays that they are the champions who will safeguard the rights of the Malays in this Assembly. They have indirectly slapped the face of the Malay Members here on this side.

Mr Speaker, we are not communalistic. That is why you can see that we have Chinese, Indians, Ceylonese, Eurasians and Malays on this side of the House. All but one of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis are Chinese. The Barisan Sosialis previously entrusted the question of Malay education to the Party Rakyat who are their colleagues and comrades-in-arms. Since they had entrusted the Party Rakyat to fight for Malay education that was why the Party Rakyat had instigated the Malay children in the Geylang Craft Centre to go on strike. But let me say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is better to keep quiet, so that people cannot judge whether they are stupid or clever, than to speak and show ignorance on a certain subject.

Why did the students in the Geylang Craft Centre go on strike? If we were to investigate this, it would take two or three hours. This was because of the members of Party Rakyat. The leader of the strikers was the fiancee of the Chairman of Party Rakyat. There is no use for me to speak further on this subject.

I would like to explain to this Assembly the tactics of their struggle in the education field. With regard to the Chinese middle school students, I am not against them. I would like to state that the P.A.P. fight for autonomy in education to safeguard and improve the standard in all the four streams of education in Singapore. This is our task. Our objective is to fight so that all schools in the four language streams will get equal treatment. But unfortunately there are people who use educational problems in a very peculiar way. I would like to stress in this Assembly that in the history of Singapore there is no one except the P.A.P. who have improved Malay education. Malay schools have been built for the past hundred years, especially in the colonial days but there is not a single Malay secondary school. It was only after the P.A.P. came to power that a Malay secondary school was built. There are now two of them. With this proof, is the allegation made by the Member just now true, that the Government have disregarded Malay education? This is just a move so that they can win over the Malay votes because their comrades in Party Rakyat failed to win even a single seat in this Assembly. The candidate who lost in Ulu Pandan has run away to Indonesia and is supporting the United States of Kalimantan Utara. Are these the kind of men who want to fight for the destiny of our people and defend the fate of our nation? But when we face confrontation, these people run away to the enemy? As the Malay proverb goes: "If the house is on fire, all the rats will run away."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I on the Government side am responsible for the national language campaign. But let me remind them that it is the responsibility of every citizen to urge members of the public to join the schools and classes which are sponsored by the Adult Education Board. But in most cases there are elements that obstruct and hinder the people from joining these classes, so that now these classes are dwindling. Who are to blame? If they are sincere, come forward. It is in this Assembly that the Government provided $3 per hour to give to teachers who teach the national language.

There is not a single Member from the Opposition wanting to speak the national language in the Assembly. The teachers are paid. Now they want to speak about others. Let them cut their coat according to their cloth.

With regard to bursaries being cut, it already happened the last time in this Assembly when the U.M.N.O. was in the Opposition. The U.M.N.O. said that the P.A.P. was treating the Malays like step-children with regard to education.

The amount allocated is sufficient and adequate, because the Malay secondary schools have been built during the time the P.A.P. are in power. Only in 1960 was it possible to build a Malay secondary school and there is no single student that has passed out from that school this year. Therefore, if we are to follow the development in Malay education, let us not speak about matters which we do not know of, lest others should laugh at us, just like the Malay folk-lore that says about the stupid man jumping with a pumpkin.

If the Members of the Barisan Sosialis want to clean themselves of the allegation of communalism and so forth, it is better for them not to speak about communalism. You are the ones who set fire to the thing and then you accuse others of setting fire to it. The carcass of an elephant cannot be hidden by a coconut husk. It is clear to the people of Singapore that the incidents in the past prove that Members of the Barisan Sosialis used communalism. They used communalism for elections and other issues. Therefore, there is no Malay Member who represents the Barisan Sosialis in this Assembly. These are facts. We treat all as equal and we safeguard the rights of all communities Malays, Indians, Eurasians. Look at us. Because we fight for equal rights and equal treatment for all, we are therefore chosen by the people. We are members of all communities. In the Malay constituencies like the Southern Islands, Geylang Serai and Kampong Kembangan, which previously were fortified places of U.M.N.O., we won over them, because we do not differentiate between communities. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we talk about communalism, we should reply to that allegation and accuse them that they are the ones who are communalistic. Let us refer to the speeches made by the Opposition Members from the Barisan Sosialis, during those years that they have been here. Let us check what they have said.

Some hon. Members rose ---

The Chairman: I notice that we have less than one hour and I see that so many Members are anxious to speak. I cannot impose on any Member and ask him to cut down his speech. I can merely request Members on both sides of the House to be as brief as possible so that as many as possible can be heard. Mr Chia Thye Poh.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Party in power used to say that they wanted to hear constructive suggestions from us, but whenever the Opposition put forward any constructive suggestions, they turn round and accuse us of trying to create trouble or make use of the issues under discussion to create trouble to further our own purposes. We always put forward our constructive suggestions and it is the P.A.P. and the Back benches who interrupt and accuse us. The P.A.P. are the real persons who do not want our constructive suggestions.

Now, in the speech by the Minister, he has said that in Singapore equal treatment for the four streams of education has been achieved and he has given certain figures to show that the so-called "lies" about the Left-wing P.A.P. Government's destruction of Chinese education are unfounded.

7.00 p.m.

To show that this allegation is wrong, he has used the figures of students and schools. These figures, of course, are only those favourable to them. The Minister dare not give the other side of the picture because it will go to show that his policy is not really giving equal treatment to all. If it is really true that there is equal treatment for all four streams of education, I will ask him to produce figures of the last few years of students in the four streams of schools respectively, and show in which stream the number of students has increased faster; show which stream of education has been fostered and developed faster than the others. He dare not give us such figures. He has mentioned Government Chinese Primary Schools. How is it that he dare not give us figures relating to the numbers of Government English schools, Malay schools, and other schools to serve as a comparison? How is it that he dare not give us such figures? And he dare not also disclose how many schools have been closed down under such pretexts as unhygienic conditions in such schools. How many such schools have been closed during the course of the past few years? He dare not tell us the figures of these schools. As a result of his policy, teachers, principals and others were sacked and schools dissolved on the pretext that their activities were detrimental to the State and endangered the security of the State. This is suppression and, not a true education policy. I hope if there is any equality in education, there should be equality all round and not just one-sided. The figures given should show both sides of the story and not just one side. He says that in Government Chinese Primary Schools, more than half of them are integrated schools. If these schools can really bring students of various races and enable them to live harmoniously together, then we will welcome them. We will be glad about it. But is this the case? It is not. The P.A.P. are turning Chinese schools into English schools and integrated schools into English schools. They are also making students from schools other than English to become English school students. And English has been used as the main stream of education. Other streams of education are not well looked after. Most of the administrative staff are English-educated too.

Regarding the policy of integrated schools, it is always the English schools which are being used as the pivot. There are only English/Malay, English/Chinese and English/Tamil integrated schools. In the integrated schools built by the Government, we can see that they have resulted from the dissolution of certain Chinese schools. When such Chinese schools were dissolved, they were integrated into English schools. These are their so-called integrated schools. These are the facts. The simple picture is this. I would be taking up a lot of time if I were to mention other examples and enumerate more facts.

Now, on Malay education, a Member from the Government side said that the P.A.P. have, in the course of their office, built a good number of Malay schools. He said this situation had never existed under the colonial regime. He also claimed that they had achieved more than had been achieved in the past. The Minister said that under the P.A.P. rule two Malay schools were created. He said "created". He said this in order to praise the achievements of his education policy. I would say that Malay education was not allowed to develop in the past because it was under the suppression and control of a colonial power. If there are Malay schools today, it is the result of the fight by the Malay community itself. From the talks given by Malay educationists, they have claimed this because they have all along been insisting on having more Malay schools built.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): On a point of order.

The Chairman: Point of order?

Inche A. Rahim Ishak: The point of order is to show an untruth just uttered by the Member for Jurong. Under the Lim Yew Hock regime, there was a Malay Assistant Minister and there were many Malay members in the Government. But in spite of the long struggle by the Malay Education Council calling for the establishment of Malay secondary schools, not a single Malay secondary school was established.

The Chairman: The Parliamentary Secretary cannot debate this point. His point of order is that the Member for Jurong has stated an untruth. But surely that is a matter of opinion. The Parliamentary Secretary can reply to it as soon as the Member for Jurong has finished. Please proceed. Mr Chia.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): In the speech given by the Member from the Government side, he also admitted that as a result of the efforts of the Malay community, we see nowadays more Malay schools. You do not have to claim it as due to the merits of the P.A.P. After the setting up of these two schools not very long ago, the students of one of these two, namely, the Malay Girls Craft School, went on strike. The Member who spoke on this subject just now accused the Party Rakyat of being the instigators of the strike. He dare not accuse us any more of being the instigators of the strike. Let us see the report that appeared on the 20th of October. This is a memorandum submitted by the striking students to the Minister for Education. Let me quote from it in order to show the truth.

Mr Rajaratnam: When he is quoting from a document, he should produce the document.

The Chairman: I have not quite followed, Mr Minister. I did not know what he was quoting from.

Mr Rajaratnam: Now he says he, is quoting from a memorandum. I notice he is quoting from his notes. If he is quoting from a memorandum, he must produce the memorandum.

The Chairman: If he has got the memorandum. Please proceed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): I was talking about the extract contained in the memorandum. If the Minister for Education wants to have the full facts he and the Minister for Culture can go back and refer to the records. Here in my file is also a copy written in Malay. If he wants to read it, he can come now and read it from my file. I have a copy in Malay distributed by these striking students action committee. The memorandum says, "I feel the graduates of this school do not have any outlet or opportunity because Government departments and commercial firms do not esteem our value. Our graduation certificates are deemed to be valueless and are not recognised. The Singapore Government do not recognise our graduation certificates, not to mention about private firms. We are very sorry for this situation and are very concerned because the Singapore Government has not taken any steps to Improve the situation or to remedy it. We appeal to all the parents of students and members of the public to pay attention to this fact. We have received various promises from the Government, but they are of no use."

The so-called equality of treatment to all the four streams of education amounts to this. The Party in power has just now accused us of being not concerned with Malay education.

7.15 p.m.

In raising this question, I hope they will not say that we are trying to get the support of the Malay community, or that we are trying to play the communal line. The Government benches have accused us of rousing up racial feelings. Who is doing this? The P.A.P. have been telling the Chinese that the Barisan Sosialis wants to collaborate with Indonesia, which is anti-Chinese, and therefore, the Barisan is anti-Chinese. Now, this has come from the horse's own mouth. It came from the last Member who spoke. This kind of talk will create disquieting racial feelings, disturbances and disharmony. There are Malay Members in our Party as well. If the Government had not resorted to the P.P.S.O. and other repressive measures, we would have had many more Malay brothers among our rank and file. But since so many of us have been arrested and suppressed all along by the Government, the result is that we are left with members on our side who are mainly Chinese. This is the result of Government's repressive action. We even have Malays in our Central Executive Council. This is a fact the Government cannot deny. We have all along been concerned with Malay education. We hope that Malay education will develop and flourish, and that it will take its place in our stream of education. We regret very much that in the past colonialism and imperialism have curbed Malay education with the result that the progress of Malay education has been retarded.

I would ask the P.A.P. Government whether it is their intention to set up a Malay university. I would ask them whether they would consider the matter seriously. [Interruption]

The Chairman: We have not much time left. We will stop at 7.55 p.m. The more the Member for Jurong is interrupted, the longer he will take to finish his speech. Please allow him to proceed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): When Members of the Opposition queried certain matters relating to education today, the Minister for Education said that he did not have the figures concerning Tamil education. He is not paying attention to Tamil education, and that is why he has not ---

Mr Ong Pang Boon rose ---

The Chairman: Will the Member for Jurong please proceed? I have just ruled ---

Mr Ong Pang Boon: A Committee of Inquiry into Tamil Education is sitting at the moment. It has not finished its deliberations. When the Committee has finished its deliberations and its report has been published, I am sure the reasons will be given.

The Chairman: Is it the Minister's point that the matter is sub judice?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No, I do not want to say at this point what are the reasons.

The Chairman: I see. Please proceed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): We can, therefore, see that the so-called P.A.P. education policy of giving equality of treatment to the four language streams has not amounted to much. Ever since the P.A.P. came to power, the number of Tamil-educated students has remained at the static figure of between 1,300 and 1,500 students. Why do the Government not take further steps to help Tamil education? There are more Tamil students in English schools than there are Tamil students in Tamil schools. The number is many times more. It may be about ten-fold. Why is there such a phenomenon? It is because the P.A.P. Government have never seriously tried to understand the difficulties of Tamil education in the past. They have never tried to develop Tamil education.

Graduates from Tamil schools find it difficult to obtain employment. Tamil schools find it difficult to get support from the Government, the Tamil community, and the public as a whole. I feel the Government should not ignore Tamil education. We feel that the Government have not taken proper measures to look after the education of the Tamil community in the last few years. As disclosed by the Minister for Education, the Government have set up a Committee of Inquiry into Tamil Education. According to the reports in the Press, there is an inquiry into the Umar Pulavar Tamil High School to find out what the Ministry of Education should do in order to raise the standard of teaching in this school and other matters. I hope that after this investigation, the P.A.P. will be able to help Tamil education.

We also hope that the Party in power will not allege that because we have raised this matter, we want the support of the Tamil community. If the Government have the interest of Tamil education at heart, they should have raised the point.

During the last few days we have been debating the question of printing official documents in all the four official languages. We find it regrettable that the Minister for Labour should blame us for not having been educated in English. This is their attitude. This is a question of fundamental principles. It is a question of whether the P.A.P. are really sincere in their desire to have equality of treatment for all the four languages. Do they recognise this principle or not? They put the blame on us by saying that we did not try to learn English in the past. It is a question of adopting the principle of having documents printed in all the four languages. Nothing more than that. Since the Government have not been really implementing the policy of giving equal treatment to all the four language streams, many parents have sent their children to English schools. I urge the Government to do something more to help implement the policy of equality of treatment for all the four streams of education. Before the P.A.P. Government have achieved the objective of equality of treatment, we find that they have inherited the evils left by the colonial regime.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: Point of order, Sir. The Member is repeating his points over and over again. This is a waste of time. This is a repetition. I have heard it several times.

The Chairman: I do not think he is repeating himself. [Interruption] No comments, please. I rule that he is not out of order. I realise that there are only 25 minutes left. I pointed that out to the Member 25 minutes ago. I have asked Members not to interrupt. The more Members interrupt, the less time will they have available. Please proceed.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): We find that education laws and regulations left over by the colonialists are still in force today, e.g. the 1957 Education Ordinance. Why is it not repealed? If the Government are really sincere in implementing their new education policy, why do they not repeal laws made under the colonial regime? Furthermore, in the programme of education, we notice that the curriculum and textbooks still smack of colonialism and colonial ideas. If the Government agree that the existence of such textbooks and curricula is wrong, then they must take steps to remove them and improve upon it. If they say that the Communists are trying to use kindergarten classes to indoctrinate school children, then in the whole education structure this system of enslavement should be removed in the first place. Why do they not direct their attention to this aspect? The point now is whether they want to eradicate colonial colour from our educational structure or not. There is no question of Communist manipulation of schools.

Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. make use of the Communist bogey for one objective, and that is to try and cover up their failures in implementing the policy of equal treatment of the four educational streams. In covering up their mistakes on this aspect, they put the blame on the Communists saying that they try to destroy Chinese education, to instigate the students into going on strike, and so on. But one of the Members opposite said that the decrease in the student enrolment in Chinese schools is not due to the "strike" of students. I hope that the Member who has said this will not remain silent. He must admit that he has made such a statement. He cannot just change the story from time to time. They cannot give one side of the picture and forget the other side. They just cannot change the story every so often to puzzle others.

I now want to talk about academic freedom and autonomy in universities. The P.A.P. have all along been trying to gain control of the two universities in Singapore. Before the P.A.P. can achieve their control over Nanyang University, they have made certain allegations which are sheer nonsense.

7.30 p.m.

The Prime Minister, in moving his motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, said that because of financial problems, there are many difficulties besetting the University. If the difficulties are not solved within five years, then Nanyang University will become the University of Yenan. Now let me refute him on this point. Here is a newspaper which reports that Dr Sreenivasan, an expert in education, and who is the ex-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore said in a letter to the Prime Minister that ---

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, can we have the date of the newspaper and the source of this information?

The Chairman: The newspaper is there before the Member. Well, could the Member cite the date of that newspaper, and what newspaper it is?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): I am quoting the Nanyang Siang Pau of 27th October, 1963, Singapore news, page 1, which publishes the letter of Dr Sreenivasan to the Prime Minister dated the 5th July, 1963:

`A few months ago when I accepted the post of Vice-Chancellor, I discovered that there were certain discouraging aspects among the staff in the University. The staff were afraid that the Government might interfere with their academic freedom and the autonomy of the University.'

On the 12th February, 1963, in another letter to the Prime Minister, he said:

`The Government should not give me a tutelar position if I am not given actual powers to deal with the requirements of the students and to have enough funds to run the University. I will be forced to accept not so well-qualified staff if insufficient funds are given to me.'

The Prime Minister said that financial autonomy will strangle academic freedom. That is what the Prime Minister said in respect of Nanyang University, but this point has been well taken up by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore, that as long as financial powers are held by the Government, then academic freedom is threatened to a very great extent.

The Chairman: May I remind the hon. Member that we have only 20 minutes more? He has been quite long on his feet. Could he wind up his arguments quickly, as I think it is fair to give the Minister for Education a little time to reply?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): I shall try to cut short my speech as far as possible. I will just give you the main points now. As a matter of fact, if financial control is in the hands of the P.A.P., they will abuse such control and they will interfere with the autonomy of the University.

The Prime Minister says, it is likely that Nanyang University will become Yenan University. But that is very ridiculous. Actually Nanyang University is using textbooks written and published in America. How can it be said that it will become Yenan University? In fact, the staff come mostly from places other than Yenan and Communist China. Under these circumstances, how can you say that Nantah will ever become Yenan University? This is ridiculous. We know that the Government will always try to make use of preposterous excuses to further their cause. We have a suspicion that the Government are trying to take further steps to suppress Nanyang University by refusing the permits of some members of the staff of the Nanyang University to extend their stay.

Let me go further into the question of autonomy in education. The P.A.P. have all along been boasting about autonomy in education. But the facts have shown that there is no autonomy in education. When they want to take steps against any school or any educational organisation, all that they have to do is to brand these people as Communists, and the Central Government will then take police action against them. This is the game they play with regard to autonomy in education. If they really want to give us autonomy in education, then when the Central Government arrest persons in educational circles, what should the P.A.P. do? They should speak on behalf and in defence of the persons arrested.

My colleagues have already stated very clearly that the greatest crisis existing in the field of education is that the P.A.P. are making use of the State machinery and political powers to bring politics into the schools in Singapore, and to take action against those who do not agree with them. They take steps to dismiss teachers who do not agree with them.

The Chairman: Order. Mr Chia, can you wind up the debate?

Mr Chia Thye Poh: Yes. (In Mandarin) If they really want to have autonomy in education, then they must allow those who are really dedicated to education to take part in teaching our children. They should not allow personnel from the Special Branch to run education in Singapore. That is the end of my speech, Mr Speaker.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker. Sir, I just wish to answer some of the points that have been raised by the various speakers in the Barisan Sosialis.

The Member for Thomson alleged just now that many of the students can only attend six years of primary education and that thereafter they have to leave school with no opportunity to proceed to secondary education. Sir, I think this is a falsehood which must be corrected. Any student who passes his primary school-leaving examination will be given a place in a secondary school and even for those who fail in their primary school-leaving examination, a place will be found for them in a vocational school where they will receive two further years of education with a vocational bias.

Allegations have also been made that many of the secondary school-leavers cannot find jobs, and for this I will give two reasons. One is the economic problem and the other is the problem of the education system. Unless the economy of the country can prosper and develop, however perfect your education system is, there will still be this problem of finding employment opportunities.

Therefore, in the secondary school education, we have decided that the previous emphasis on the grammar school stream should change and that we should give more emphasis to vocational and technical training. While we are trying to industrialise in order to provide more opportunities of employment for our secondary school-leavers, it is the Barisan Sosialis chaps who are fomenting strikes and agitation causing about 1,800 unemployed ---

An hon. Member: And the confrontation.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: The confrontation encouraged by them is likely to cause another 8.000 to lose their jobs ---

An hon. Member: Shame!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jurong spoke on academic freedom and university autonomy. Much has been said about the Government interfering in academic freedom at Nanyang University. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government are all for genuine academic freedom and the genuine pursuit of knowledge and truth. But the kind of academic freedom the pro-Communist Nanyang University students are asking for is the freedom to recruit, preach and train their cadres for anti-national activities and to undermine the democratic system. Where is the academic freedom when in May 1961 the pro-Communist students in Nanyang University demanded the expulsion of six undergraduates who dared to defy their activities? Where is the academic freedom when in 1961 the pro-Communist controlled Dramatic Society wrote to the Registrar of Societies to object to the application for registration of another rival body? One would have thought that as followers of Mao they would have welcomed "100 flowers to bloom" and "100 birds to sing." But no. They objected openly to the registration of a rival student society.

Mr Rajaratnam: The seven birds sing!

7.45 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Similarly the pro-Communist Students' Union objected to the formation of another student body in early 1963 by getting the Board of Student Welfare, which they control, to refuse the Society from functioning in the University. As a result, this student body subsequently went direct to the Registrar of Societies for advice and registration.

In June 1962 both inside and outside this Assembly, I quoted a number of articles appearing in the University Tribune which were reproduced with superficial changes, articles written by the Communists. On 7th September, 1962, the Government had to ban a booklet entitled A Brief History of the National Movement in Malaya, published by the Nanyang University History and Geography Society. This booklet, though purporting to give a historical record of the independence movement in Malaya, was in effect justifying the armed struggle of the Communist Party of Malaya. It not only blatantly defended the record of the Communist Party of Malaya, but it also openly lauded the violence and terrorism of the Communist Party. This booklet. Mr Speaker, Sir, was one of the publications which the Nanyang University Students' Union wanted Government's permission to publish during the 1962 University Week.

Talking of the University Week, the House may be aware that there is another one being prepared by the Students' Union for March 1964. In fact, today is the last day of the camping-in in the Nanyang University campus by some 300 hard-core students, ostensibly to prepare for the coming University Week when their academic work in the University will be exhibited to the public.

However, it is interesting to know some of the things that have been going on during the camp-in. First, the camp-in students set up a Livelihood Committee which is similar in pattern to the ones organised by the middle school students in the past whenever they defied the Government. This Livelihood Committee is to run, direct and coordinate the activities of the 300 undergraduates who stayed in the campus during the University vacation. The programme of activities published in the local Chinese Press has very little to do with the preparation of University Week. A few examples of the activities will prove this. Two stories, The Story of an Old Lady and The Struggle by the Riverside which glorified the armed struggle of the Red Army in China, were tape-recorded and played through loudspeakers at 7 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to students in the campus. A Current Affairs Session was conducted in which questions on the Alliance Government's definition of "patriotism", loyalty in the current Indonesia confrontation, and national service registration were discussed.

A forum was organised on 6th December, 1963, on "some problems concerning the current situation." Prepared speeches were read, and the aim of national service registration was attacked as bringing about hostility among Asians, thus serving the purpose of the imperialists and suppressing the patriotic national independence movement which is unfavourable to Malaysia, and that the Government should be held responsible for the creation of a state of war between Indonesia and Malaysia through the formation of Malaysia by force.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that these activities have nothing whatsoever to do with the academic work which they are supposed to exhibit to the public during University Week early next March. It is clear that it is not genuine academic freedom that the anti-national pro-Communist Nanyang University Students' Union are asking for. What they are demanding is the freedom to carry out indoctrination in the Communist ideology, the freedom to train their cadres for anti-national pro-Communist activities, the freedom to intimidate and victimise students who dare show independence of thought and action, and the freedom to run the University as they like.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it pains me to relate all these happenings in the University which is built up by the support of thousands of ordinary citizens for the advancement of Chinese language and culture. I am sure these citizens, like the Government, would be eager to see that Nanyang University is restored to its real purpose for which it was established and that it should become a genuine institution of higher learning and dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the impressive and concrete achievements in education under the P.A.P. Government in the last four years can stand the test of time as much as it can stand any amount of destructive and senseless attacks from any quarter. The more fantastic and malicious the charges made by the Barisan Sosialis, the more they reveal of the achievements, progress, growth, expansion, and development of education in Singapore. The trouncing defeat the Barisan Sosialis suffered in the last general election is clear evidence that the people's eyes are as clear as snow. No amount of falsehoods and malicious distortion of facts can blind the people from seeing the numerous new and splendid schools going up everywhere in the last 4½ years, and many more thousands of school children going to school every year. Parents in Singapore know that their children are enjoying ten years of education, six years of which are free. They can choose whatever medium of instruction they like. If they are poor, their children can get assistance in the form of bursaries and free text-books and there are equal opportunities for education from primary level to university level if their children are intelligent and are prepared to study. They know that nowhere else in South-East Asia can children enjoy such full facilities for education, least of all in Indonesia, the country of adoption of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think there is time, and I might as well stop here.

The Chairman: As you please, Mr Minister.

Inche Rahim Ishak rose ---

The Chairman: The Minister has one minute.

Inche Rahim Ishak: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson earlier mentioned bursaries and other forms of assistance to Malay students, and since he tried to distort the facts, I have got for you, Sir, some very telling facts.

Now, of the provision for this subhead for 1963, only $11,992 has been expended. There was an under-expenditure of this vote because of the insufficient number of Malay students at the Singapore Polytechnic to qualify for such awards. Consequently in an attempt to arrive at a realistic Budget, the Ministry of Education agreed to a reduction of the provision from $50,000 to $20,000 for 1964. That is the reason. In regard to the University of Singapore of the provision for 1963, only a sum of $18,084 has been spent. This under-expenditure was recognised, and in order to arrive at a realistic Budget, the Ministry of Education agreed to a reduction of $ 10,000 in the 1964 Estimates. However, the number of Singapore Malay students seeking admission to the University of Singapore and the University of Malaya is expected to increase. In order to meet the expected demand adequate provision has to be made. Lastly, Mr Speaker, in 1963 there were 15 awards. The provision of $40,000 is for 40 awards. That means there is an increase of awards for the coming year.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Thomson indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the amendment or take a vote?

Mr Koo Young: Take a vote.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $94,856,000 for Head 40 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 are Heads 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36 and 38.

Question, "That the sums stated for those Heads as they appear in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on pages 37 and 38 of Paper Cmd. 30 of 1963 stand part of the Estimates," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $282,746,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 30 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.

Mr Speaker: As the Minister for Finance is not here, probably the Minister for Education will report.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution.

Resolution reported

That the sum of $282,746,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 30 of 1963.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Assembly doth agree with the Committee of Supply on the said resolution."

Question put, and agreed to.