ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1965

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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.35 p.m.

Head 0801 (contd.) -

The Chairman: At the conclusion of yesterday's sitting, amendment No. (1)+ had been disposed of. We are now on amendment No. (2)++ standing in the names of Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Koo Young. Now, there is an amendment No. (5)§ which appears to me as if it could be taken conveniently with

• Amendment No (1) standing in the names of Mr Ong Lian Teng and Mr Lim Huan Boon, reads as follows:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1161.

++ See Col. 597.

§ See Col. 597. amendment No. (2), i.e. if the Members moving the amendments desire it. Amendment No. (2) is "Head, Programmes Section (T.V. and Radio)", and amendment No. (5) is "Programme Production - Expenses". Could they be conveniently taken together?

Mr Lim Huan Boon (Bukit Merah): Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Chairman: So if the Member will move the amendments, then those two amendments could be debated simultaneously. Mr Minister, will that be convenient?

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Yes.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1261.++

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 2260.§

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has boasted about the establishment of T.V. services as something great for them. I would like to remind all that T.V. programmes have a great influence on the morals of our people and our future generations, and will affect our future trends. With the extension of television services, more and more of the audience will be influenced by the programmes. Most of the audience are young boys and girls who cannot think and decide for themselves. They are still not matured and are wont to imitate what they see and hear.

Since television has an immediate effect on the lives of the audience, we should not under-estimate the effect of its function on the minds of the people. We should consider whether we want to educate them into good citizens or into bad citizens, like rogues. We want to educate our children to be law-abiding citizens with a high moral sense. Or do we want to make them into people who imitate the ways of cowboys and Western rascals?

Parents have raised criticisms about this and have expressed to me that they have no confidence in the future of the next generation because of the influence of T.V. on them. Now that T.V. is an added entertainment, it further increases the worries of parents because, after viewing the programmes on murder, arson, and robbery, their children will imitate the villains or heroes of the films, thus affecting the conduct and character of the children, who will become lax in their studies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what we regret most is that the Government has not censored evil films which are detrimental to the mental attitude of the audience. If we describe all the T.V. programmes as bad, it will not be justified, because there are also useful programmes. But here I would like to raise a question: why should bad films which are detrimental to the thinking and mental attitude of our future generation be mixed with good films? Does it mean that there are no healthy programmes which have both an educational and amusement value? Mr Speaker, Sir, yellow culture is detrimental to our mentality and our thinking because it makes us degenerate to a great extent. For instance, the detective stories appearing on T.V. stress the theme of revenge by heroes. These stories are filled with fighting, rogues, villains, robberies, and things like that. Superficially the theme of the whole film may be right, but the actual film will cause the people to degenerate. The villains and heroes of Westerns and detective stories are worshipped by the young audience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from this, we also see certain filthy films on comedy. These films are not really humorous but are just travesties which perhaps might be liked by Western people. But to the people of the East, these films are not suitable. It is not that we strongly oppose such films. What we oppose is such films that will drive our young people to hysteria. These films are films prevailing in the West and depict Rock-n-Roll, the Twist and others.

2.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has promised to wipe out yellow culture. I would urge it to do so. Let us remember that in 1959, when the P.A.P. assumed office, juke boxes and filthy music were banned. But today the P.A.P. Government is allowing more and even worse yellow culture to intoxicate our innocent youths. We hope the Government will take in more healthy films both from abroad and locally.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to appeal to the Government to see that the T.V. programmes, no matter how good or bad they may be, should be thoroughly scrutinised and investigated. It should seek opinions from cultural and educational organisations. There should be a Review Committee set up composed of representatives from these organisations to review the programmes. Personal feelings and likes or dislikes should not be the criteria for such a review of T.V. programmes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, newspapers, for instance, like the Utusan Melayu and the Berita Harian used to print criticisms levelled by religious and cultural bodies against the Twist and Rock-n-Roll films on T.V. We should not ignore such criticisms. Here I would advise the leadership of the Government to think well for the future generation, to stop yellow programmes on T.V., and to allow more healthy programmes which are more beneficial to the people as a whole to be shown, and not to spend public funds on publicity and propaganda for the Party in power. They should introduce programmes which are of an educational nature and of a high standard. They should not try to economise at the expense of the quality of the films.

The Chairman: Mr Koo Young.

Mr Koo Young (Thomson): I am waiting.

The Chairman: Very well.

Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to say something to supplement what the Member for Bukit Merah has said. We are very surprised that the standard of culture in Singapore is getting lower and lower. We can see in the newspapers nowadays that night clubs have come out into the open and have made a lot of publicity in the newspapers. As Members must have read in the newspapers, there was a fight over some girls at a certain night club. I do not know what the Government's attitude is towards this incident. I hope it will curb this kind of activities and not allow them to spread.

Some healthy cultural societies, I would like to point out to the Government, put up certain items at the Victoria Memorial Hall. They were branded as yellow culture. The curtain suddenly descended. I was told that the police finally cancelled some items in their programme. That forced the show to come to a sudden stop. This cultural body was putting up a show at the Victorial Memorial Hall. We can see the magazine of this musical society.

The Chairman: We are on T.V. programmes. Not on night life and restaurants.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I wish to speak up to this point only.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, television is rather a new achievement. As far as Asian nations, are concerned, only a few are able to introduce T.V. But we are one of the pioneer nations in South-East Asia to make use of it for educational as well as entertainment purposes. It is very amusing indeed to watch the Barisan Sosialis stand up and accuse the Party in power of allegedly abusing T.V. for party propaganda. If there were one iota of truth in it, the public would not clamour for more T.V. programmes and more T.V. sets. A casual glance at the statistics available at T.V. dealers' shops in Singapore clearly indicates that day by day more orders are placed for T.V. sets and that practically every middle-class home in Singapore has one T.V. set in order to enjoy the programmes presented by responsible men from the Ministry of Culture. In other words, the programmes presented to the public through the medium of T.V. have become very popular. It has been realised by one and all that the P.A.P. has succeeded in its attempt to provide entertainment and educational programmes of a high calibre to the masses in Singapore. Further, foreign dignitaries who have had the opportunity to visit our T.V. studio have appreciated the excellent standards maintained in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis, of course, will refuse to believe it, because it is difficult to educate the uneducable. Since they are living in a state of mind of their own creation, I fully sympathise with them, but I request them to wake up even at this late hour.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Merah is the most reasonable man of the lot in front of us, because, I think, he is a bit more intelligent than some of his comrades who do not know what they are talking about and where they are going.

Now, Sir, unfortunately it is difficult to answer him because he was talking in platitudes. As you know, Sir, it is difficult to answer platitudes. I agree with him that T.V. programmes should be good; T.V. programmes should be healthy. They should be less yellow. But having agreed with him now, it is up to him to tell us what programmes he considers unhealthy, what programmes he considers yellow; and what does he mean by saying, for example, that there is too much fighting; there are heroes; there are villains, there are robberies depicted in films. Sir, I have seen what they would call progressive films - Soviet films, Chinese films from New China - and they show heroes and villains fighting against Japanese invaders. I remember there was a traitor called Wang Chingwei. He was trying to betray his country to the Japanese. I have seen a film where these national traitors were depicted as villains, and the revolutionary forces were depicted as heroes. The average cinema-goer would identify himself with the patriots, the people who defend their country against traitors and villains, against robbers and purveyors of violence. Sir, in any film and in any novel, any art form, these things have been depicted. You cannot produce a good film or a good novel or a good play without showing the various aspects of human nature - villainy, thuggery, treason, unpatriotism. These are depicted as bad forces contending with the more progressive forces like heroism, patriotism and virtue.

Therefore, Sir, it is difficult to answer the Member for Bukit Merah until he indicates what particular programme and what particular film or series of films are bad. For example, he says that detective stories are no good. A few weeks ago somebody sent me a list of translations of popular authors in the Soviet Union - Agatha Christie is a popular writer. Her works have been translated into Russian. There are good detective stories and bad detective stories. Detective stories in themselves are not bad. But if a detective story glorifies murder, and if it is shown, and if the Member for Bukit Merah can point out such a film, then I will rectify the matter. I myself am concerned that some of the films do show too much violence. With that end in view, we have transferred censorship of T.V. films to the Film Censors. They are a group of people who are experts in censoring films with a view to seeing that morals are not lowered. They are also experts at detecting subversive propaganda which may get into some of the T.V. films. I believe this censorship job has already been transferred to the Film Censors. I have seen them, and I think they do portray too much of violence.

The Barisan object to cowboy films. But I am told that even progressive people view the cowboy as a folk hero. He is of the people. He is not of the ruling class.

3.00 p.m.

He is a cattleman, a peasant. So you are glorifying a man who fights against oppression, against villainy, against people who do not respect law and order. Most of the Western films show the cowboy as the man who stands up for law and order, not people who want to break law and order and then get into trouble. Therefore, Sir, I agree with the platitudes expressed by the Member for Bukit Merah. But unless he specifies his grievances, it will be a bit difficult to answer him.

As for the Member for Tampines, I do not know whether the association he has been talking about is the same association that I have in mind - that we ruled out some of the programmes - healthy programmes as he calls them - put forward by a certain cultural organisation. It was in connection with the Keng Leh Musical Association, I remember, Sir, that that incident did come up. They were putting in Communist items, and therefore we struck them off. They were trying to sneak them into their programme. So their souvenir programmes were withdrawn. When an association applies to the Ministry to put up a show, and if it gives certain guarantees that it is not going to transgress the law, then it should adhere to its undertaking and not try to sneak in a few items in the hope that people, either the police or whoever goes and sees the show, will overlook them. Therefore, Sir, I hope that the Barisan Sosialis Members will view some of the T.V. films which do teach two things - respect for law and order and respect for truth.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the Minister for Culture. He should not be so courteous and, at the same time, sarcastic. We have raised these questions because it is the right and duty of Opposition Members to do so. We want to offer the Government some food for thought, to consider which films are good and which are bad. I have also said that the merits or demerits of the films should he reviewed by a Censors Board or committee. But if the Minister for Culture wants me to pinpoint certain programmes as bad or good, then I will mention them. They are my personal views. The Minister for Culture has said that some detective films are very good. I do not deny that. But in our T.V. programmes every week, there are too many detective films. Let us just open this Chinese copy of T.V. and Radio Magazine. On Monday there is a Hitchcock detective ---

The Chairman: Could the Member identify the document from which he is reading?

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, T.V. and Radio, published by Radio Singapore Broadcasting Department. On Tuesday, there is again a detective story on Channel 8. On Wednesday, there is Perry Mason, a detective film. On Thursday, another detective story. On Friday there is none. On Saturday, on Channel 8, "77 Sunset Strip". On Sunday another detective story - The Case of the Kiss. I think there are too many detective films. The scenes will be mostly fighting and violence. I feel that this is not too good. As to what good films should he used to replace them, I would suggest that, for instance, last Saturday, there was a French film, "The Beauty and the Beast". I think the Minister for Culture should try to introduce more of such films.

I would also like to refer to what the Minister for Culture has said, that fighting might not be necessarily bad, and that war might not he necessarily bad. But we should see what kind of war or fighting it is. What is the use of fighting over women or using violence in robbery? We should see for what purpose that war or fighting is staged. I do not oppose the type of fighting or war on T.V. programmes depicting the Second World War which is more serious than the cowboy type. Such fighting scenes I think I may welcome.

As I have said, the judging of whether a film is good or had should not he based on personal criteria. Since the Minister for Culture wants me to give some definite examples, that is why I am giving him.

Mr Koo Young rose ---

The Chairman: Ready now?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words about T.V. programmes. They have a great influence on the people of Singapore. The Minister for Education has not studied this problem. Therefore, he is ignorant of the effects of T.V. programmes on the pupils' studies.

Just now the Minister for Culture has asked us to suggest some good films and programmes. I can give a few examples. There are certain Filipino fighting films. The hero dresses like a cowboy, but wears drainpipe trousers. He fights over women and is involved in robbery or kidnapping. This kind of a story or theme is a burden to our society. That it should appear on T.V. may be beneficial to the Minister, but it is not beneficial to the people of Singapore.

Another type of fighting pictures are those from America. Most of these pictures depict how the Americans fight against the Red Indians and glorify the white people. There is a strong note of racialism in these pictures. There is also discrimination against the Red Indians. These pictures are not good at all. They are no good to our younger generation and to those who want entertainment, because they have always depicted the Americans as heroes. One shot from their gun can kill two people, whereas the Red Indians cannot kill any person with even 10 shots. This is an insult to the Red Indians and to the coloured people. These so-called hero pictures are no good at all. After giving these examples, I hope the Minister will review these programmes and not talk about Russian and Chinese stories and pictures.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, as regards the cowboy, I have seen Barisan Sosialis shows, Communist shows, with Chinese dressed up as Cossacks. Sir, there is nothing wrong if a Filipino wants to dress up as a cowboy. In fact, they will be interested to know that in Malaysia we have cowboys. In Sabah there are cowboys who are dressed in - what are they called?

The Chairman: Bajaus.

Mr Rajaratnam: Bajaus. Surely, Sir, they are not going to insult them by saying that they should not adopt a dress which is really Spanish. There is nothing wrong in that. It is not whether a Filipino dressed up as a cowboy is bad, but whether the film itself is bad. There is one valid point on which the Member for Thomson did make representation, and that is that they show Western films where the Red Indians are shown as savages. In fact, there are one or two such films. Instructions have been given not to show Western films depicting the Red Indians as barbaric and backward.

All this apart, Sir, the Member says that a detective film is shown practically every day. But that is not the point. Is he objecting to good films being shown every day? Is the detective film bad or good? The moral is quite clear in many of the Hitchcock films which we show. That crime does not pay. You can say there is too much love drama every day, because most films deal with very basic themes, like crime or love or humour. They say. "I do not like it. There is a humorous film every day. Therefore, out with it." The point is whether that film is good or bad. In fact, about six months ago we withdrew two detective series. There were complaints. I think "The Saint" series has recently come off because our contract has expired. People have been writing in, asking. "Why has my film programme been withdrawn?" Sir, in a T.V. programme running for six hours a day, we must plan programmes with a view to satisfying the unsophisticated as well as the Member for Bukit Merah who likes "The Beauty and the Beast". This film is a very sophisticated one and would not be appreciated by more than a minority of the audience. We have to satisfy everybody. Some people like cowboy films, some like cartoons, some like news, some like comedies. So we have to plan out a programme each day. We have a little bit of everything. Some people like detective stories, so we plan to provide four or five a week. Some people like humour, so we provide that too.

So we see that the Member's objection is not that detective films are bad. At least he has not said so. He says there is a detective film almost every day. But some people like detective stories and, therefore, we have to satisfy all tastes.

3.15 p.m.

Questions on the amendments put, and negatived.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 he reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1331.*

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no matter how the Minister for Culture wants to argue, the fact remains that his Ministry is not fair in its treatment of news. I would like to state one example of the biased treatment of news over the radio and on T.V. An obvious example is the Assembly which deals with the problems of the people and which is the only place where the Opposition Parties can criticise the Government. The proceedings of every Assembly sitting are specially broadcast over the radio. But how does the Government go about it? The Ministers and their Back-benchers get more coverage of their speeches than the Opposition Parties. Sometimes the Opposition Parties do not get any radio coverage of their speeches in the Assembly. The people are anxious to know how the struggle is carried on in this House, and in order to enable them to have confidence in the constitutional struggle, they have a right to know what is actually happening in this House. The reports of the proceedings of this House should not be prejudiced against the Opposition Parties whose speeches are not reported over the radio. It is only when Opposition Members are accused by the Ministers that they are mentioned in the reports. There have been occasions when the news was distorted in an attempt to lessen the time of coverage of the speeches of the Opposition, such as reporting fictitiously that the Opposition Parties were so stunned by a Minister's counter-attack that they did not know what to answer.

Therefore, the reporting of news over the radio and on T.V. should not be made to serve the purpose of the Ministers.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to speak on the other amendment.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, it is curious how one can anticipate precisely the complaints that the Barisan Sosialis will bring up on any issue.

When I heard that the News Section was going to be discussed today, my feeling was that the Barisan Sosialis were going to bring up the complaint that the Opposition do not get fair play. So in order to provide myself with an answer, I asked the News Section to find out for me how much of the time was given to the Opposition and to the Government Benches since the last few Assembly sittings began. The Barisan Members are only seven in number and mathematically they should be getting less coverage. But according to the News Section, for example, on 4th November, the Opposition were given 105 lines and the Government were given 76 lines. On 5th November, the Barisan were given 60 lines. On 12th November, the Opposition were given 142 lines and the Government were given 68 lines.

Sir, the news period is about ten minutes. We have to get not only the proceedings of this Assembly into the-news bulletin but, more important, news of what Soekarno is going to do - whether his boys are coming to blow up this place as they did yesterday. This is also important news, and the people want to hear it too. So we have to apportion the news time. It depends on what the Opposition say. The News Section have trained newsmen; they judge. They do not report somebody just because he has spoken. They report people if they have something to say.

The Member for Thomson has complained of distortion in last night's news because one of the reports did mention that the Opposition Members were too stunned to reply to a question that I asked. I have the transcript, Sir, It is factual and accurate reporting. Yesterday I asked the Barisan to name one book which they thought was healthy literature and which had been banned. I am quite prepared to run through the transcript. There was no reply. Therefore, any news reporter would say, "Well, a pointed question was asked to which there was no reply." How can that be distortion?

Therefore, I suggest that if Members want to get a little more time over the radio or on T.V., they should say something interesting, something to catch the eye of the newsmen, and not repeat things which they have been saying for the last two or three years. The newsmen will also get tired and they will say that it is no use reporting them on T.V. because the Barisan further complain that the television programmes are dull.

Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has said that the News Section of the Ministry of Culture has reported fairly and justly the proceed ings of the Assembly. In fact, when people compare the T.V. news report on the proceedings of the Assembly and what they see in the Chinese newspapers, they know that there is a certain amount of bias. The reports in the Chinese newspapers are different from those put over the radio. On T.V. the reports are politically biased in favour of the Government. Our suggestions, refutations and strong points in the debates are not broadcast, whereas the speeches of the Government Members are reported. The Government's weak points which come under fire from us are not broadcast, so that the people do not know anything about them at all. The Government talk about the apportionment of time. Although the Opposition Members are few in number, they speak on facts. It is not fair to compare the time with the contents of speeches. If the Government take up more of the time, then what will be left for us?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis should be thankful to the Government for the time given over the radio to report their comments made in this Assembly. If we were in Peking or Indonesia or Moscow, the Opposition would not have the opportunity to voice their opinions over the radio.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Jurong has accused the Government Back Benchers of not being able to speak. In other words, all the Government Back-Benchers are dumb.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that Budget time is more or less referred to as Opposition time. This is the time when Opposition Members make concrete and constructive criticisms against the Government so that the Government can rectify its mistakes, if there are any. Instead, the seven Barisan. Members on the Opposition side have talked nonsense without making any worthwhile criticisms.

3.30 p.m.

In this respect, Mr Speaker, I would refer to what the Member for Thomson has alleged - that news over the radio and on T.V. was distorted and that it was more or less biased. But as the Minister for Culture has pointed out, in its ten minutes of report on the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly, they have got to give a wide coverage and they have to summarise the whole proceedings in just under ten minutes. So these reporters know what their job is. Those points worth bringing home to the people of Singapore will be given coverage. And no absolute falsehoods uttered will be carried because they are not constructive criticisms - one Opposition Member after another accusing Government of this and that. Well, you do not expect people to just waste their time listening to the news. What is the news for? That is the most important programme, when people will be informed not only of what is happening around them but in the whole world.

The Member for Jurong has also said that the Chinese newspapers have given them wide coverage in their daily reports on the proceedings of the Assembly. But the Chinese newspapers are not in the hands of the State Government. We are not controlling them. It is up to them to publish whatever Members opposite talked for publication in the Chinese newspapers. They have enough space. That is the point I am trying to bring home - that the Back-benchers of the Government side are not just sitting clown here keeping quiet, hut are giving them time to make their constructive and well-supported criticisms.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from what the Member has just said, we can find out the faulty points of the Government, especially when they themselves have disclosed them.

First, the Member for Punggol has said just now that Budget time is the time for the Opposition to air their views. We on this side have been trying to air our suggestions and criticisms, but the Minister for Culture has said that there should be a certain ratio in giving coverage to speeches of Members on both sides of the House.

Secondly, as to the point whether there is any value in what we say in this House, who should be the judge to say whether the points we raise in this House are of any news value? Is it for the Minister for Culture to decide, or is it for the audience to decide? Speeches made by Opposition Members are not liked by the Minister. So it will be most unfair for the Minister to judge our speeches. I would ask him what he considers valuable? When ever he opens his mouth, he says "Marxism" and "Communists". And if we were to talk about these things, we would only be wasting the time of this House. So are we going to utter such mad talk or even to emulate him?

There is another very important point. Just now the Member for Punggol has said that Chinese newspapers are not under the control of the State Government. So they can report at random, and even report unnecessarily. This will show their weakness in regard to the ---

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Point of order. I did not say that the Chinese newspapers can report anyhow and at random.

The Chairman: Order. What is the point of order?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I did not say that the Chinese newspapers ---

The Chairman: What is the point of order?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: The point of order is that the Member is distorting what I have said just now.

The Chairman: What is the distortion?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I did not say that the Chinese newspapers could report at random or anyhow.

The Chairman: The Member for Thomson was saying that you have said that the Chinese newspapers are not under State control. That was the point. Mr Koo Young.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Thank you. Mr Speaker. This will make us look at the picture more clearly - that whatever they can control, they will suppress the reporting. When they cannot control the Chinese newspapers, when reporting in the Chinese newspapers gives more coverage, then they become fussy and say that they report haphazardly. So from this we can clearly see the picture.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the points raised was, "Well, look at the Chinese papers. They give more coverage to the Opposition Members than does the radio or T.V." As I have said, over the radio, at the most the regular news bulletin on the whole proceedings of the Legislative Assembly may take no more than five minutes. And that would mean perhaps no more than 300 or 400 lines. If we give the same coverage as newspapers, it will probably take half an hour or even three-quarters of an hour. So the problem over the radio or on T.V. is the time factor - how to condense the essentials - not only the essentials but things of interest to the public - within a few minutes.

What they have said is true, Sir, - that one of my colleagues has revealed that the Chinese newspapers are not under our control. And they took it up. Yet from time to time they keep on saying that we control Chinese newspapers. Now at last they admit that Chinese newspapers are not controlled. I think it was the Member for Thomson who took up this point saying, "There you are. You see, we can get more space in Chinese newspapers because the Government does not control them but the radio." That is true, we do control the radio and television. We are the Government. I ask them: they control the Barisan newspaper. What is it called? The Plebeian? No, the Barisan Express, which is supposed to be running non-stop. Will they publish Dr Lee Siew Choh's reply to them in their newspaper? They are controlling their newspaper and, therefore, they have the perfect right not to publish Dr Lee's reply. And Dr Lee has been complaining that they are undemocratic.

Sir, if they really want to know how to catch the headlines of the newspapers or over the radio, I will give them a good instance of how to do it. Say something sensible, and say something that catches the eye of the public. For example, Sir, in today's newspapers we know that the police are still hunting for Indonesian infiltrators - people who come here with hand-grenades, tommy guns and sten guns, not to kill Indonesians but to kill our people. If the Barisan come out tomorrow and make a statement that they condemn it, then I am quite sure they will catch the headlines of every newspaper. That is the way to get your views published in newspapers, over the radio, on T.V. and even over Radio Indonesia. In fact, Sir, I have looked at the Monitoring Digest of 14th November. It contains a report on the proceedings of the debates here. There is great prominence given to the Barisan Sosialis. It does mention one thing that is very interesting:

In Malaysia our agents report ---.

"Our agents" these are the gentlemen, Sir [indicating]. Fortunately for them, we have done them a favour by not reproducing this over our radio. Therefore, they should learn that newsmen are always obliging. They want a good story, and they can get a good story tomorrow if the Barisan come out and say they condemn the Indonesian infiltrators who come here with hand-grenades and tommy guns to kill our people. If they say that, Sir, the newsmen will black out every other item of news, even the Budget proceedings in this Assembly, and give them space.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what we have been talking about is the coverage given by the Chinese newspapers, which is quite extensive compared to the coverage given by T.V. and the radio. We do not say how many lines T.V. or the radio has given or how many lines have been given in the Press. We are not talking about that. We are also not talking about other things. What we say is that the radio and T.V. have given more publicity to the speeches made by the Government side. In spite of this, the Chinese newspapers are influenced by the Government to a certain extent. As to the inside story of this state of affairs, I think the Minister for Culture is most aware and clear about. After comparing the difference in coverage between the radio and T.V. and the Chinese newspapers, we can also look to the Hansard of these proceedings and find that even the Chinese newspapers are not reporting as much and as accurately as what is reported in the Official Report. I think this phenomenon can be well understood by the Minister for Culture. He is the only person to understand what is the reason for this.

In the past, many of our speeches made in this House were not published in the Press. Even the Member for Jalan Kayu and the Member for Bukit Merah did not have many of their speeches reported. From this I think that perhaps this has something to do with the influence of the Ministry of Culture or the Special Branch.

The Banck-benchers on the Government side have been asking us whether we will report the material supplied by Dr Lee Siew Choh. What we want to say is that T.V. and the radio are run on public funds, and they should report fairly. We do not ask that our speeches be given full coverage in their P.A.P. organ.

3.45 p.m.

If they are not prepared to give us any coverage on anything we say, in other words, if they want to silence us, they are at liberty to do so. If they wish to resort to such action, let them do so. The Government Ministers, especially the Minister for Culture, are wont to shout about "Communism", "pro-Indonesia", and so on. They criticise us and harp on the fact that we are repeating old tunes. We have heard this time and again in the House. After uttering such words, the Ministers would sit down. Their speeches would then appear in the newspapers, over the radio and on T.V. As a result, they black out the speeches made by us in this House. When they use such tactics, our speeches are not given a fair coverage. We are now faced with such a situation.

Mr Sia Kah Hui: Mr Speaker, Sir, following on what my colleague, the Member for Punggol, has said, if you had allotted the time in such a way that one Opposition speaker is followed by one on the Government side, the Opposition Members would not have so much time to repeat the same things over and over again. Not every one of them would have a chance to speak, remembering that there is a "guillotine" time for each amendment. As it is, Mr Speaker, Sir, you are giving the Opposition Members every opportunity to have their say, and rightly so, because it is Budget time. Therefore, the Member for Jurong's reference to the Government Back-benchers as being dumb is most unfair. If they prefer to take turns, that is, one speaker from the Opposition is followed by one from the Government side, then they might like to inform you, Mr Speaker. I am sure ---

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member is now transgressing on the functions of the Chair. Will he get on with the subject under debate?

Mr Sia Kah Hui remained in his seat.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government controls all the media of news reporting. They are very clear about this. The people of Singapore know this very well. In debating the Budget today, we have criticised the inappropriate manner in which the P.A.P. have handled the radio and T.V. in reporting news. We are speaking on behalf of the people. We hope that our criticism will be adequately aired over the radio. This is our responsibility. I can give a very simple example. One night last week, the Member for Paya Lebar spoke during the adjournment debate, and during an adjournment debate there should not be any argument. The radio has transgressed the rules of this House. It has confused the people. This mishandling by the radio is not good. For example, there is a controversy between China and the Soviet Union. In order to maintain their policies, the respective countries do not allow their people to tune in to foreign stations. We hope that the radio in Singapore will give a fair coverage of the proceedings here. This will enable the people to understand fully the actual situation in Singapore. Our arguments with the P.A.P. involve issues which are connected with the people's livelihood; for example, the issue of merger. We want our views to be judged by the people. It is the only correct thing for us to do. I hope that the P.A.P. will be fair in its news reporting. The radio has not been fair at all in the coverage of news.

The Member for Jurong has talked about the difficulties of the commercial Press. We have had sittings for a whole week. There is not much news in the Press. We feel that the speeches reported in the newspapers are quite fair. But what we want is that all the views expressed from this side and front the Government side should be aired and presented to the people. I hope that the Minister will do something to improve the position. What we are saying here concerns the people's livelihood. If what we say is not correct, of course, it will be judged by the people as such. There should be a fair presentation of the views from this side of the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Just now, the Opposition has spoken about the allocation of radio time. In fact, we allocate the radio and T.V. time on the basis of the number of Assemblymen. If we are dictatorial and wish to suppress the Opposition's views, then we should adopt the principle that since we are more in number we should be given more time. The Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and the Minister for Culture have to make important statements on the Indonesian invasion and aggression, saboteurs, and so on. We should inform the people of this important news which is of national interest. We have not controlled the allocation of radio time. We should have more time because we have over 30 Assemblymen on our side. But as we are a democratic Government, we have sometimes allowed the Opposition more radio time. Just now, the Minister for Culture has mentioned the number of lines given to them over the radio. This shows that we have given them much more time although they are outnumbered by us.

With regard to the news value of their statements, they have said that they should not be judged by the Ministers or Government Assemblymen. They say that they should be judged by the people. If the people had supported them, they would have had more seats in the Assembly.

We have pointed out Dr Lee Siew Choh as an example. As a member of the Barisan Sosialis, he should have been allowed to put forward his views in his own Party organ. If there is no democracy in the Barisan Sosialis itself, how can the people expect democracy ---

The Chairman: Order. It is not democracy of the Barisan Sosialis that is under discussion. It is T.V. news. Let us get back to T.V. news.

Mr Chan Chee Seng remained in his seat.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in democracy, everyone should be free to air his views. But in today's debate, the Opposition have levelled only criticisms at the Government. All this is quite in order. The Government will have to consider and reply to the criticisms of the Opposition. The reply from every Minister responsible is a matter which affects the welfare of the public. Therefore, it is only proper that the Minister's policy speeches are given wider coverage. The Barisan say that their speeches in this Assembly are for the public to judge. I believe that you yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, know that the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis held the record for the longest speech made in this Assembly. He spoke for more than seven hours. If the speech, which lasted for seven hours, was merely to mention the weak points of the Government, it would have been welcomed. But as a result of his speech lasting for over seven hours, the Barisan Sosialis lost in the referendum! It is the policy in any country that the time given to report speeches over the radio is allotted according to the number of candidates in the Party. If there are many Members, more time is allowed by the radio. The speeches of the Opposition sometimes make no sense. On the other hand, every syllable uttered by a Minister is a matter of policy. It is important for the welfare of the people.

4.00 p.m.

It is therefore important for the people to know exactly what the Government policy is. The Opposition should well understand this point. As I have said earlier, they should be grateful that their criticisms do get ample coverage, unlike in Indonesia and in Peking where the Opposition have no coverage at all.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): I would like to supplement my statement on the News Section of the Ministry of Culture. By what criteria does the Head of the News Section decide what is to be reported and what is not to be reported to the people? Let the people have full reports on what is said here and let them decide whether there is anything of value or not. The Ministry of Culture have admitted that in reporting the news they have the media of T.V. and radio. The purpose of reporting is to propagate the publicity work of the Party in power; they have admitted this. The speeches made by us contain important points with regard to certain mistakes made by the Party in power but they are usually omitted by the Head of the News Section. I have described just now the attitude to be adopted in reporting our speeches made here. We should know that such people are getting salaries out of public funds and yet they are doing work to benefit the P.A.P. which is the Party in power. The Assembly does not belong to the Party in power, and the radio and T.V. are paid from public funds. They do not belong to the P.A.P. Since the Assembly, T.V, and radio do not belong to the P.A.P. as the people have to pay for them and the purpose of the existence of the Assembly is to exercise the democratic system, we say that such reporting is not in keeping with the spirit of democracy. Whatever the P.A.P. have said just now cannot fool the people, because how we deal with matters concerning intra-party democracy is our business. What the Government side has said about this can only cause laughter.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think they know what exactly they want, unless by fair report, they mean just report Barisan speeches. Is that what they mean by fair report? Or as the Member for Jurong has just suggested, report it in full. We start at 2.30 p.m, and finish at 8.00 p.m.; so it will take just as long; that is practically the whole day's T.V. programme to be given over to reporting the speeches from the Assembly. That is what I understood from the translation---

Mr Chia Thye Poh: On a point of explanation.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Sir, I was talking about the News Section which deals with the reporting of our speeches. I never mentioned that we should have reporting coverage of the full proceedings from 2.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m., as suggested by the Minister.

Mr Rajaratnam: In other words, at least there should not be full coverage. Therefore, we must decide how much coverage the Assembly proceedings should get, and out of that, how much the Opposition should get. So by and large, Sir, as I have said, we have only about 5 or 10 minutes, of which probably 3 or 4 minutes are devoted to Assembly proceedings. So by and large it is a process of elimination. What is said from 2.30 p.m.to 8.30 p.m. has to be drastically reduced to 3 or 4 minutes. The News Editor therefore decides. He has got the whole report before him and practically 95 per cent of it must be left out. The Member for Jalan Kayu complained, "Oh, there is no free speech, because an adjournment speech by the Member for Paya Lebar was not reported." But I can tell you. Sir, if that is the basis, then I say I am not getting free speech because neither the Straits Times nor the Nanyang Siang Pau has today published what I said yesterday ---

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): On a point of clarification.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): I said last week that the Member for Paya Lebar spoke on the adjournment debate in this House. Later the Minister gave his reply. Now, this is not a controversial matter and there should not be any dispute over it. Radio Singapore reported that after the Minister rebutted what the Member for Paya Lebar had said, the Member for Paya Lebar was unable to give any reply to the Minister. That is what I said.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is not a clarification. That is a long speech. As I have said earlier, I can complain that Radio Singapore has been unfair to me, or that the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Straits Times have been unfair to me, just because they left out my speech. But I know very well that they have good reasons why they cannot get in everything that is being said here. But sometimes we do give full coverage, Sir, even for the Barisan, to the exclusion of everything else. We have done it from time to time. For example, Sir, on 12th September, the Barisan were going to stage a demonstration in favour of Indonesia in Chinatown. We gave it wide publicity over the radio and on Television, saying that the Barisan pro-Indonesian, pro-Communist elements were going to have a demonstration ---

The Chairman: Order. I do not think the Members on the Opposite Bench were complaining of that. They complained about the reporting of proceedings in the Assembly. Let us come back to the reporting of proceedings in the Assembly.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, again let me point out the unreasonableness of the Barisan. We can give an accurate report of what went on today and make the Member look a bit silly. All I have got to do is to ask the Head of the News Section tomorrow to report his speech complaining that there is no free speech because his speech is not reported. If it is reported tomorrow in the 7 o'clock news, saying that the Member for Tampines complains that there is no free speech in the Assembly because he is not being given adequate time over the radio, he will look a bit foolish. Because then the people will say, "How foolish can a man get?" He is being allowed to say and disprove himself that there is no free speech, no fair reporting over Radio Singapore because his speeches are not reported. If I do that, tomorrow, next time or next year, they will complain again that the Ministry of Culture has not been fair to them by reporting it. So, therefore, Sir, these are matters of judgment. I can assure them that I do not go after this meeting to Radio Singapore and sit down and tell the Head of the News Section or the reporters there what they should report of the Opposition speeches. If they think it is interesting, if they think they have said something worthwhile, they will report it. But as everybody knows, not everything that they say - in fact, Sir, in my view as a former newspaper man, probably 95 per cent of what they say is not worth reporting. I know why newspapers do not give adequate coverage to some of the Opposition speeches. If they do that, they will lose circulation because nobody is going to read the tripe. They select, polish it up, sometimes they improve on their speeches and make them appear better speakers and more intelligent men than they are in this Assembly.

Sir, these are matters of judgment. You can go on arguing what is fair and what is accurate reporting. But, by and large, the people in the News Section are experienced newsmen. They have seen many politicians come and go. They know what interests the people better than the Barisan. The Barisan do not know what interests the people. The newsmen know. So if you say something intelligent, something catching, something picturesque; as I have suggested earlier, if you get up and say something about Indonesia, then people will think, "Well, at last these chaps are sensible," then I am quite sure they will get adequate and complete coverage over the radio, on T.V. and in the newspapers and, probably, even over Radio Peking.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Just now the Minister for Culture has said that had we made speeches of value, then the reporters would have reported them and they would have been broadcast over the radio and on T.V., because the journalists know what news is of interest to the people. The Minister, in saying so, seems to argue that what we have been saying in this House is of no interest to the people. Had that been so, or whatever we have said is useless, then I will say that the Government's purpose and intention underlining all the speeches made by the Government side is for their own interest. Is it not to the interests of the Party in power to report more on their own speeches than on ours? In fact, in the present system the so-called democracy is controlled by the Party in power and the selection of news is also in accordance with such a purpose. So this is really a political issue.

4.15 p.m.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture claims to have been a journalist in the past. He boasted about this. But what kind of a journalist was he, and what newspaper was he working for? He was a journalist on a colonial newspaper. He was a cultural worm in that newspaper, a cultural rogue in a colonial newspaper.

The Chairman: Order. I am being very patient with the Member. He is completely off the track. He must withdraw the expression "cultural rogue".

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, all right, I withdraw the expression "cultural rogue".

The Chairman: Order. Will the Member confine his speech to the motion before the House?

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Minister for Culture, everything that we say here is valueless and useless, and that is why it is not given coverage in reporting. Of course, in a colonial newspaper like the Straits Tunes, we cannot find reports of speeches of an anti-colonial nature. Today we have such a Minister ---

The Chairman: Order. What is being debated is "news" and not the Straits Times.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was saying that the Minister for Culture claims to have been a journalist in the past and has boasted about this. He has also said that all that we have said here is useless for reporting. This has something to do with his experience as a journalist.

I now want to give my comments on the speeches made by the Back-benchers of the Government. Their speeches are not reported because they are also of a useless nature. The people know today ---

The Chairman: Order. I must inform Members of the Opposition that if they excite a debate from the Back-benchers of the Government side, it is they who are at the losing end. Whether they understand that or not, I do not know. I do not mind that sort of a debate. But if Opposition Members excite a debate from the Back-benchers, it is they who will suffer because a number of their amendments will then stand undebated.

Mr Poh Ber Liak: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the claim made by the Minister for Culture and his attacks on us. I have been defending our position, as I feel that the speeches made by Opposition Members have been attacked. At this time, we find it necessary to counter his attacks which are facetious. Today the Minister has described our speeches as useless. But, according to what we know, the people of Singapore fully understand that in the present day society of Singapore, the speeches made by Opposition Members, whether reported over the radio or on T.V., are severely curbed. This is an open secret. If our speeches were useless and of no value, then at least the Minister need not utter such fierce threats and exercise such suppressive control over reporting.

Those are the facts that I want to mention in countering what the Minister for Culture has said.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this. Whatever speeches that are made in this Assembly are for the good of the people. Television is a good medium for the people, especially at a time when we are faced with confrontation from Indonesia. T.V. and radio are run by the Government, and the speeches of Members are given coverage over them. If the Opposition wish to have a full coverage of their speeches over the radio and T.V., that will take a lot of time. It will, therefore, leave little time for other programmes of entertainment. If Members of the Barisan Sosialis make speeches that are of no value, then it will be a waste of time to give them a wide coverage. Time could be put to better use.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the matter under discussion is whether or not the P.A.P. has been fair in reporting our speeches made here. Just now we have been talking about whether the apportionment of time is based on the number of Members here or otherwise. Secondly, whether the contents as reported have been distorted. This interests me most. I feel that when Radio Singapore reports our speeches, it is entirely distorted. It gives the listeners an impression that Opposition Members are unreasonable, and that the Ministers are all justified in making their speeches, and sound in their reasoning too.

I can give an example. On the 13th of this month when we were debating the Budget, I said that in dealing with the matter of land the Government had taken action to reclaim a certain piece of land from the sand quarry operators and had also mentioned the farmers affected. The report that came over the radio was to the effect that - I heard it in the Amoy language - when the Minister asked the Member for Bukit Panjang to give specific examples, the Member was unable to give any. In fact, I had given all the necessary facts in detail. On the previous day's debate, the Minister for National Development asked me to give specific examples on a certain matter, and I did so. Yet in the report over the radio, there was no mention of it. If they are to continue with this way of reporting, then I suggest that no report should be given at all of the proceedings here.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, the Opposition Members are very clever in talking about television and the radio. Generally, the radio and T.V. are entertainment media for the public. If that is the case, we cannot allow it to be used specially for the Barisan Sosialis. The public are paying $12 and $24 licence fees. But what the Barisan Sosialis want is that publicity should be given to them. If we do that, the Government will be in difficulties. The radio and television are for the public, and not for the Barisan Sosialis. Therefore, we cannot accept their suggestion. We have to let the people know what is going on, and that is what the P.A.P. Government is doing. But the Barisan Members are repeatedly talking about these things, and I ask them to put a stop to such nonsense.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (4)* standing in the names of Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Koo Young.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2053.*

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government, in carrying out any cultural programmes or schemes, is unilateral in its approach. It is not willing to listen to the views of those who have experience and who differ from them. Therefore, this has resulted in schemes being a flop or having only superficial success. Such an attitude of the Government means a waste of public money. It does not help the propagation or interfusion of culture. Mr Speaker, I would like to cite an example of the Dewan Bahasa Dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan. This organ is very attractive in name. Judging by its name, the Dewan Bahasa Dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan, this Institute is to guide the nation's culture and language in a healthy direction so as to enable them to spread widely and flourish and to enable research on them to be encouraged and fully promoted.

4.30 p.m.

Therefore, in any country, such an Institute has a very heavy responsibility to discharge and a very important task to perform. Mr Speaker, Sir, we regret to say that the Dewan Bahasa Dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan has not properly shouldered its responsibility. It is only a cultural ornament for the Government. It is a sort of cultural ornament which is rather out of date. Originally it was in a big show-case. But now it has been shifted to a small show-case. It has been shifted from the library to a small room in the Ministry of Culture. Ever since the inception of the Dewan Bahasa Dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan more than three years ago, the yearly estimate of expenditure provided for this Institute is, if I am not mistaken, about $610,000. For example, the sum spent on research, on the Director, on publications and other items, is about $296,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, this sum of money may not be very big. But the question is, after spending this amount of money, have any real results been achieved so far? I hope the Minister for Culture will give this House a satisfactory reply. On this issue, there are suspicions in the Press and the public. For example, in the Berita Harian of the 12th of this month, there is an article by "Irama" which criticised this Institute. I will now translate this article into Chinese. The article runs:

`Unfortunately nobody knows what this organ has done up to the present time. The officers responsible have been moved into another office.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the research and publications by the Dewan Bahasa Dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan are deplorable. For the past three years, apart from publishing two or three reference books on the customs and the history of the Malays, this Institute has only published booklets on Malay conversations and booklets about the public entrance examination for Standard I Malay. Such publications are plentiful on the market. They are of many kinds. Therefore, I feel this Institute should not publish such publications. It should publish more important books which will give guidance to our culture.

The publications should meet the tastes of the readers. The teaching of language should meet the various objectives of the people. There is a direct method and an indirect method in the teaching of a language. The former method is suitable for children and for those who live in such language surroundings. The second method is suitable for adults, and for those who make use of the language as a second language. Mr Speaker. Sir, in order to popularise Malay we must study such conditions. Otherwise no results will be achieved. In some of the advanced countries English is taught as a second language. Many scholars have written books on methods of teaching from their own experience. They have based them on their own research. Books written according to those principles are easy to learn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Institute is going to popularise Malay and Malay culture, it should imitate and study the methods of teaching languages from these advanced countries. They should do more research into the methods of teaching Malay, Tamil and Chinese so as to develop them into a special field of knowledge. They should publish books adopting these modern principles so as to meet the demands of the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the vote provided for the Dewan Bahasa Dan Kebudayaan Kebangsaan, it seems that our Minister is not going to carry out his duties. There is a reduction in the vote. We can see very clearly that in 1964 the money provided for this Institute was $140,000. But next year the provision is only $36,000. If the Ministry of Culture wants to carry out its work properly, it will not achieve anything if it can only spend such an amount of money. If they like, they should do away with this sort of cultural ornament and not waste any more of the public funds.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am more and more convinced that the Member is a reasonable man. First, some of the things he has to say about the Dewan are quite valid, especially in regard to the teaching of the national language. This is probably because he is something of a student of the national language.

The problem about the Dewan is this, Sir. With the advent of Malaysia, we had to decide whether there should be two Dewans, one a very elaborate one which has been in existence for the best part of 8 or 9 years in Kuala Lumpur, and whether our Dewan should duplicate those functions. Or should we decide, in view of Malaysia - and I hope, Sir, this time they will not use this and say, "There you are. Malaysia has brought about further disasters for us!" It is not disaster, Sir. We have decided that with Malaysia we can save some money and use the $100,000 that we have saved to more effect. The immediate problem, as we see it, Sir, is to inculcate in our people, especially the non-Malay adults, a knowledge of the national language. Therefore, the functions of the Dewan should not be to surpass the Dewan in Kuala Lumpur. We aim for a more modest objective of trying to get the non-Malay adults to learn the national language as soon as possible. For this reason, the provision for next year has been considerably reduced. In fact, the staff ---

Mr Lim Huan Boon: Only one editor left!

Mr Rajaratnam: There is one research officer, one editor, a typist and a clerical officer. Their job now is to try to help to propagate the national language over the radio, on T.V. and in their publications. I hope that this will be accepted as a very reasonable decision. It is no use our spending money to do something which Kuala Lumpur is already doing and is experienced in doing. That is the reason why the provision for next year has been reduced.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has just given a reply to the Assembly. I would like to ask a question. Since there is an Institute of Language and Culture in Kuala Lumpur, and also since several projects which had been launched have to be removed from the Singapore Institute to the Kuala Lumpur Institute, I wonder whether we should still spend over $30,000 to support this Institute. Why should we not close down this Institute? We can make use of the money for some other fields of cultural activities.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I do not quite understand the Member for Bukit Merah. Earlier on in his speech, he said how we should try and propagate the national language. Now he says, "Let us not do it. Let Kuala Lumpur do it." I am assuming that he is all in favour of our making our own effort to propagate the study of the national language. Therefore, the functions of the Dewan have correspondingly to be reorientated. It is not spending thousands of dollars in research. I think the provision is a thousand dollars for next year, mainly on research in regard to how to better teach the national language, especially through the medium of T.V. which we think is a very effective and powerful medium for propagating the national language. The fact is that there is a Dewan which publishes textbooks and so on, and therefore we agree that there is no need for us to enter the book publishing business because Kuala Lumpur can do it better. They have got all the resources. So, because of this, we have decided to reduce the staff and change our objectives to a simple, immediate and more useful one of popularising the national language.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would not like to elaborate further because of limited time.

The Chairman: Does the Member wish to proceed with a vote?

Mr Lim Huan Boon: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Koo Young and Mr Lim Huan Boon ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 2401.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): I am not moving.

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Lim Huan Boon ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3101.

Mr Kow Kee Seng: (In Mandarin): I am not moving.

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Koo Young ---

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $100.

Mr Lim Huan Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to let my colleague speak first.

The Chairman: All right. Mr Koo Young, you have exactly one minute.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): The name of the Ministry of Culture, in fact, should be changed to the Ministry of Propaganda ---

The Chairman: Will the Member move his amendment first?

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0801 be reduced by $100.

The name of the Ministry of Culture should be changed to the Ministry of Propaganda, because it is involved in more propaganda work than cultural work. They have only put up posters about Ministers performing opening ceremonies and so on. Pamphlets published by the Ministry of Culture have been thrown away by the public as waste paper. I have not seen any books on culture published by the Ministry. "The Battle for Merger" by the Prime Minister ---

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $14,251,380 for Head 0801 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0901 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 107l.

• The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

At one Assembly sitting last year the Party in power amended the Registration of Societies Ordinance. At that time, we pointed out that their motive was to suppress those societies which were not supporting P.A.P policy. After only a few months the P.A.P. used this amendment in the Ordinance to victimise old boys' associations. Over 30 old boys' associations have existed for a very long time, over 8 or 10 years. But in the last few months, they have been notified by the Registrar of Societies to alter their regulations or constitutions. This is the so-called democracy by the P.A.P. Government. They do not even respect the right of members of the old boys' associations. They notified them by order to alter their constitutions, not allowing them to express their opinions as to whether they agree or do not agree. They say if they do not agree, the organisations will be banned. This is a very serious matter. This will make the P.A.P. democracy a farce.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): I will say a few words, Mr Speaker, in answer to the Member for Thomson. It is not true when he said only 36 old boys' associations received notice from the Registrar of Societies asking them to amend their constitutions. There are altogether in Singapore 54 old boys' associations. All of them were given notice by the Registrar to amend their constitutions according to certain requirements in the law, which was amended, as mentioned by the Member for Thomson, last year. One of the reasons for making amendments to the Ordinance concerning the registration of societies is to assist them in maintaining public peace and helping them to run their societies according to the objects as stated in the constitutions of the associations. Every organiser of a society, whether it be an O.B.A. or a musical society, knows very well that before the society is permitted registration, it has to satisfy the Registrar of Societies with regard to certain requirements and has got to state very clearly the objectives of the organisation. Now, an old boys' association, or any social organisation, obviously will cater for the interests and welfare of its members. But in our past experience, old boys' associations, or at least some old boys' associations, are not as simple as they would appear to be. Brass gong societies do not only beat brass gongs, but they do something more damaging than just creating a lot of noise. Old boys' associations do not only meet once a year to take their annual dinner, but they go out taking part in political activities.

Now, if any association wishes to participate in the political affairs of the State, then it is very obvious that such a body must register itself quite separately as a political Party and not pretend that it is an association catering merely for old boys. It has come to our knowledge that some of these O.B.A.s have shamelessly acted as front organisations. They have agitated against conversion of the educational system in the Chinese stream. Some of them, too, took part in calling for blank votes in the referendum campaign organised by the Barisan Sosialis.

We see very well indeed why the Member for Thomson expresses anxiety that these O.B.A.s have been asked to conform so that they will adhere solely to the objectives of their associations as stated when they applied for registration. Some of these O.B.A.s admit as members students in schools. Students who have not even passed out and could barely claim themselves to be old boys, are already members of old boys' associations. It is through these members of theirs that the O.B.A.s seek to extend their influence into the schools, or, for that matter, into institutions of higher learning. It is not our intention to suppress any association if it is organised solely for the objectives for which the association was registered. But certainly we cannot pretend to allow any organisation to wear false colours, as it were, to hang up a sheep's head and sell dog's meat. That is a little Chinese saying, Mr Speaker. That is what some of the old boys' associations have been doing. The amendment to the Societies Ordinance made last year was necessary, and, in accordance with it, the Registrar of Societies has acted. I am glad to say, Mr Speaker, that from our knowledge, quite a number of the old boys' associations have agreed to make the necessary adjustments to their constitutions.

The Chairman: I think this will be a convenient time to take the tea-break.

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

Mr Speaker: I shall suspend the sitting of this House and resume the Chair at 5.30 o'clock.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

The Chairman: Before the tea-break, we were on Head 0901 - Ministry of Social Affairs; amendment (1). I think Mr Chia Thye Poh was waiting for a chance to speak. Mr Chia Thye Poh.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my colleague just now has mentioned that the Registrar of Societies has ordered some old boys' associations to make some changes to their constitutions. The purpose obviously is to curb their activities.

Just now the Deputy Prime Minister said that the constitutions of certain old boys' associations are out of date and that they should be amended to meet the present situation. The amendments sought will not only curtail the rights and powers of the Central Executive Committees of the old boys' associations but also affect the exercise of their rights in some activities, such as inviting members of the public to take part in certain social activities. The amendments to the constitutions of the old boys' associations will affect the powers of these associations as well as those of the higher institutions.

First, I want to say that the amendments sought by the Government will curb the exercise of the powers of the old boys' associations and that what the Deputy Prime Minister has said is, in fact, to hide the real intention of the Government. In fact, the constitutions of the old boys' associations have proved to be good and they have been in force for many years. Some of these associations have existed for 20 to 30 years and their constitutions have proved to be useful, without being out of date. The activities of the associations have been praised by educational circles. At the present juncture, the activities of the old boys' associations have been directed towards the promotion of healthy educational and cultural activities, such as concerts and shows which are partly for the amusement of their members. These concerts and shows have usually been staged openly and as far as their contents and techniques are concerned, they have won the praise of members of the public. Such activities are actually of value and use to society. We cannot see anything that is detrimental to the public.

Another point I wish to make is that the activities of these old boys' associations can help in the matter of education. For instance, when certain schools find themselves in financial difficulties and are in need of public donations, the old boys' associations launch a campaign for donations from the public to help these schools. In this way, the "mother" schools are greatly assisted. This also helps the growth and promotion of education in the country.

We have also seen certain members of the old boys' associations becoming teachers or even directors on the board of management of their "mother" schools, and thus being of great use and service to education. Therefore, I just cannot see the validity of the Deputy Prime Minister's contention that the activities of these old boys' associations have been deterimental to the interests of society.

He has also said that these associations have issued statements on political matters. In this respect, I say that it is their right to express what they think will be in the interest of Singapore. It is not only the right but also the duty of every responsible citizen of Singapore to express such views. Moreover, the statements made by the associations have not been irresponsible. It is not right to say that these associations should not express their opinions on important matters of State, because organisations and educational bodies under the control of the P.A.P. have also made statements on political matters. Educational and cultural bodies of the P.A.P. have issued statements expressing their views on political matters. So it is unfair for the Deputy Prime Minister to accuse these old boys' associations of such action. Unless the P.A.P.'s intention is to suppress all freedom of expression, I do not see anything wrong with members of the old boys' associations expressing their rights as citizens of the State.

Just now the Deputy Prime Minister has also described the associations as putting up heads of sheep and selling dog's meat. But I say that the P.A.P. is burning a big fire while prohibiting other people from lighting lamps. I also say that the amendments sought to the constitutions of the old boys' associations will not help in resolving the matter. It is intended that old boys who want to join higher institutions of learning should not be allowed to become members of the old boys' associations. By doing this, the Government will undoubtedly be curbing their activities. These old boys have every right to join the old boys' associations since they have graduated from those schools. The authorities should not, therefore, try to deprive them of their right to join up as members of the old boys' associations. If the Government were to issue orders to the effect that former students should not join the old boys' associations, I would say that this is not a matter within the power of the Registrar of Societies, because there are parents to look after their children. In fact, there are parents who are proud and happy to see their children joining the old boys' associations, because these associations can give them plenty of help. For instance, I know that some old boys' associations conduct classes to teach the more backward students, thus providing a great service to the students. Therefore, I feel that there is nothing wrong in the pupils joining the old boys' associations. There are even people in the P.A.P. taking part in the P.A.P. activities, and some old boys of the P.A.P. group are also invited to take part in the P.A.P. activities. So, why should the Government now accuse others of joining old boys' associations, when the P.A.P. themselves carry out such activities? There have been such activities where P.A.P. members have become members of old boys' associations. I therefore say that the Government should not abuse its powers by curbing the old boys' associations.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it now seems that the Opposition Member is very clever in distorting the facts. I want to rebut every point that he has raised.

From the name "old boys' association" we know what such an association is meant for. If we were to change the name to "students/old boys' association", according to what was suggested by the Member for Jurong, then students will be allowed to join the association as well. But, in actual fact, according to the present name, such an association is only meant for students who have already left school. That is why it is called old boys' association, because it is not meant for students attending school.

5.45 p.m.

After understanding what the association is meant for, we can understand why the Government is asking for changes to be made in the constitutions of the old boys' associations.

There are four points. First, all those students who had in the past been studying in one particular school can join the old boys' association of that school. Students who left the school before completing their studies in that school cannot join the old boys' association.

Secondly, old boys' associations should not be used for political purposes. The P.A.P. Government does not oppose the establishment of political Parties. Neither does the P.A.P. Government fear political argument. If they want to set up an old boys' association, then its activities should be within the purview and constitution of the association and not those touching on political matters. So we are of the opinion that old boys' associations should not indulge in political activities or be made use of by political Parties for political purposes.

Thirdly, on the funds of the old boys' association, the Barisan Sosialis and their united front want to use such funds under cover of the name of donations to help the Communist Front in its activities. The Government is aware that association funds have been misused for political purposes and would advise old boys' associations not to use such money for activities, but should use the money within the confines of the constitution.

Fourthly, statements issued by the old boys' associations should be approved by the supervisory committee or the central committee of the associations concerned. We stress on this. We do not say that it should be passed by the P.A.P. Central Committee. It should be passed by the committee of that particular association. In the past, we have seen many statements issued in the names of certain associations without their being properly approved by the associations. They were merely chopped with the association's stamp. We know that every old boys' association has its own stamp and it is not possible to affix its chop on to one particular statement. There have been over 30 chops affixed to a statement of a political nature in the past. So I hope that the stamps of the old boys' associations should not be made use of by certain irresponsible people. Therefore, we say that before any statement is issued by any old boys' association, it should be properly approved by the committee responsible. After it has been approved by the committee, it can then be published. So far, some old boys' associations have been quite irresponsible in issuing statements ---

5.50 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time is up.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 0901 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the names of Mr Ong Lian Teng and Mr Lim Huan Boon, was not proceeded with:

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $922,400 for Head 0901 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0903 -

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

5.51 p.m.

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0903 be reduced by $100.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, last year during the debate on the Estimates there was a fire. If I remember correctly, the fire occurred one day after Deepavali. It seems a coincidence, when we are debating the Estimates this year, that there should be a fire.

The fire at Pulau Minyak, in Lorong 1, deprived 1,000 people of their homes. When we were debating on the subject of the Fire Brigade last year I suggested that the Government should think of ways and means to prevent outbreaks of fire. Every year hundreds of attap houses go up in flames. These houses happened to be in areas under eviction orders. This is a coincidence. If this is arranged by God, we would rather say that it is arranged by the P.A.P. Last year I requested the Minister to pay attention to this matter. I requested him to help the people in areas with many attap houses against fire. Only people living in villages can prevent outbreaks of fires, if we rely on P.A.P. members to fight fires, I believe more fires will occur.

In Lorong 1 the fire victims did not receive the same benefits that were obtained by the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims. I know, when I mention these things, what the reply is going to be. I know they are going to say that they give free housing. I know that the fire victims are being moved to Housing and Development Board flats. They were also given $35 per family. I know all this. But this is not an honourable thing. I know that many Housing Board flats are empty and yet the P.A.P. are still building them. These flats are built to prepare for the victims. Most of the victims had their own houses. They were required to pay only $5 per month. But now they are made to pay more. This would give more revenue to the P.A.P. That is why the P.A.P. is happy in doing these things. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs said they were going to give milk, etc. and some money to the victims, saying that every victim could get $10 - $5 being donated by the Relief Committee and $5 by the Lee Foundation. The money collected by the Relief Committee was collected from the public during the Bukit Ho Swee fire. This time the Government could not appeal to the people to donate money as before, because the people have already lost interest in what the P.A.P. is doing. Therefore, the P.A.P. has to make use of money collected before. Victims of the Bukit Ho Swee fire have complained that shoes donated for the victims have not been given to them. They have also complained that the money donated to them has not been distributed to them in full. And now the Government is using this money for the victims of this fire. The indications are that many more houses will he burnt in future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, another matter I would like to stress is that these victims should be looked after properly. Some victims were running provision stores before the fire. I know no insurance company would insure attap houses. When these houses go up in flames, the occupiers lose everything. They can hardly open another shop to earn a living. It is not possible to open shops in Housing and Development Board shops because the rents are so high. In the past, they paid a rent of $10 or so, but in the Housing and Development Board shops, the high rent is a great problem. They have to pay a rent of $300 or more. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister should pay more attention to this problem. He must also pay more attention to the fire victims and appeal to the public to help the victims and not rely on the Government alone.

6.00 p.m.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that there is no one smarter than the Barisan in distorting facts. According to what the hon. Member has said, it seems that the P.A.P. started the fire. However, the victims knew that it was caused by some careless people. There was evidence to prove this. What the Barisan say is not substantiated. Whatever we say or do, we have evidence to support us. The Government is happy to receive criticisms and it will help the people to improve their lot. But we are faced with difficulties because the Barisan criticisms are not constructive. It would appear that the Barisan Sosialis are mewing for dead rats. They say that they are sympathetic to the fire victims. I myself, after the fire, went round to see the victims. At that time, the House was in session and the Prime Minister went there too. The Minister for Health also went there. They went there to pacify the victims. They asked that relief work should be started immediately to help the victims to rebuild their homes again. It is not our intention just to come here to say some good words in order to win their votes in the next election. We do not want to add oil to the fire.

Because of time, I am unable to reply to the hon. Member's questions point by point. The Barisan do not debate on principle at all.

The hon. Member says that our flats are too expensive. The Government let the victims stay in Housing Board flats, and we give them an allowance of $7.00 per person, subject to a maximum of $35.00 per family, and a subsidy of three months' rent. If anyone can say that the Government is not helping the people, then I say that in the whole of South-East Asia, or for that matter even in the whole world, there is no such Government as ours. Can one point out any country in South-East Asia which gives such generous allowances to the victims? Of course, this is so in Indonesia! In Indonesia, if your house is destroyed by fire, the authorities will ask you to eat rats!

About the Fire Brigade, I am the adviser to the Fire Brigade. If I cannot do the work properly, they will not want me. There are in Singapore 51 fire brigades with good fire-fighting equip ment. If there is a fire in any place, the fire brigade teams go there to help the people fight it. These are facts which we cannot refute. If you go to any village, you will see such arrangements. I ask Opposition Members to give me facts to prove otherwise. They are unable to substantiate what they say. What they say is just nonsense. They blame the radio for not broadcasting their speeches made here. In every village, there are 71 fire-fighters. For example, in Toa Payoh, every one can see that there are fire-fighting teams. If the Barisan say that the P.A.P. is not working for the people, then what are they talking about?

Mr Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member says that it is very strange that fires usually break out in places where the people are faced with eviction orders. He even says that the P.A.P. helped to cause the fire. Such utterances are irresponsible. I have just rebutted that by saying that some careless people caused it. There were witnesses to substantiate that. We can prove that the Barisan Sosialis have been spreading rumours and distorting facts to the villagers to make them misunderstand the Government. The reporters at the scene of the fire can testify that we asked the fire victims whether they would like to move to Tanjong Rhu, and most of them say that they would, because it is a very cool place. The present accommodation is better than their former accommodation. When they were speaking, they were smiling. The Barisan did not think of the people when they were speaking. They were just speaking to the audience outside the House. I believe they would be happier when there are more fire victims. We moved these people to Tanjong Rhu, to better houses, and gave them $10 per person, so as to restore their confidence and to enable them to live as ordinary people. This is a task of the Government and we are doing it. We are not playing politics when we do this. We do not have to do propaganda work. We know that they went there and said that they were members of the Barisan. When they opened their mouths, they mentioned they were members of the Barisan. They did not go there to work. They went there and told the people they represented the Barisan. If they really cared for the people, they would have taken out some money to help them. We did not receive any donations from them. These victims would be happy to receive donations. But the Barisan did not give any donations. They did not say they were sympathetic and that they would give their $500 allowance to them. They only paid lip service. Did they go to the scene to console the victims? No, they did not. Yet in this House ---

6.10 p.m.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. Time is up.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $2,756,300 for Head 0903 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0905 -

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

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0905 be reduced by $100.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Social Welfare Department in Singapore, I believe, is quite busy at present, because this Department is one which reflects the ills of society. If its work is getting heavier and heavier, then, relatively speaking, there are more and more people receiving aid from it and more and more people are suffering from misery. That means after Malaysia there are more and more people who require help from the Government and the Social Welfare Department. The P.A.P. Government cannot boast that it is able to help many people in Singapore. In fact, the P.A.P. should be ashamed of itself. All over the world, under enlightened leadership, governments try to prevent the occurrence of misery and suffering in society. But the P.A.P. does not belong to this category of government. The P.A.P. will try to create misery and suffering and then try to show that it is as merciful as the Goddess of Mercy by helping them, so that it can tell the world how it helps the poor people in society for their publicity purpose. They do not have the courage to mention the cause of misery in general. I can give you some facts. Mr Deputy Speaker, to illustrate my point. For example, the Social Welfare Department does not say what type of people are eligible for aid and how these people are eligible for it. I have some facts to show you. One, the P.A.P. Government is wasting public funds by employing the police to arrest people so that members of their families will be rendered helpless, and their source of financial income cut off. As a result of the arrest of some breadwinners, a lot of people have to go to the Social Welfare Department. This accounts for a part of the people receiving relief from the Social Welfare Department.

Another point is that the Demolition Squad is responsible for this. They abused the law and pulled down the houses and hawkers' stalls of the poor people without paying any compensation. This happened in Choa Chu Kang and it is well known to the people that this is due to the P.A.P. Government.

6.15 p.m.

Hawker stalls are pulled down in Aljunied Road, in Queenstown, and this is a common sight. This action against the poor people forces them to go to the Social Welfare Department for aid.

And then, more serious still, is the question of racial disturbances. Some people lost their lives during the recent disturbances, thereby rendering the members of their family helpless. They have to go to the Social Welfare Department for help. The Government should be held responsible for the loss of such lives. Instead, it takes pride in being able to give aid to members of the unfortunate families. That is why I have said earlier that the P.A.P. tries to create misery, and then tries to help the people afflicted and takes pride in it. All the present misery is due to the formation of Malaysia, in short.

Another point I wish to bring out is that all the facts that I have mentioned show that there are more people in Singapore who require relief, but, on the contrary, we can see that the relief by the Social Welfare Department has been cut down. Some people have had their allowances cut down or completely stopped. I have been informed by a Parliamentary Secretary in this House that some 1,100-odd persons have had their relief stopped, and 1,280 cases have had their relief reduced. This is very puzzling, because, on the one hand, we have more and more people requiring aid, and, on the other hand, the Social Welfare Department is cutting down on the allowances drawn by these people. The reason given is that some recipients do not make accurate and true reports of their financial circumstances. But how can we account for the great number of such cases? Another point is concerned with the stoppage and reduction of relief.

We can see from the newspapers that the Prime Minister said on the 14th of this month that more and more beggars are appearing in Singapore. Some beggars come from hundreds of miles away. That is what the Prime Minister said. This shows that the economy of Singapore is going to the dogs, so that more and more beggars are appearing in our streets. There are some who come from the Federation. I cannot imagine that Singapore has become a paradise to beggars so that beggars from other territories in Malaysia are attracted to our place. The so-called New York of Malaysia is the collecting centre of beggars! In the Federation, the position is quite different. So the beggars have to come to Singapore. But this is a problem which concerns Singapore and we have to give our attention to it. The Prime Minister says that some of the beggars are from the Federation. I think he is right by half of what he says. I believe that most of the beggars actually suffer ---

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): There is five more minutes left. Does the Member wish to complete his speech so that the opportunity will he given to the Government Bench or Parliamentary Secretary to reply?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to finish as soon as possible. There is one other point I must bring up in this House. On the 14th December last year, when we were debating this item, I asked the Minister for Social Affairs to pay attention to the inmates of a certain temple in my constituency, but so far more than one year has lapsed, and nothing has been done. I wrote to the Minister for Social Affairs on the 19th June this year, but so far I have received no reply. On the other hand, the Government claim they are sincere in wishing to relieve the people. But the question I have brought up over a year ago is still not being attended to. This shows that they are only concerned with publicity and propaganda when they do relief work. When relief work is required to be done without any publicity, they would not care.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Deputy Speaker, if I were to give the House statistics of the amounts of public assistance which have been given out by the Social Welfare Department, the public would be in a better position to understand how much care and concern the Government has for those who are unemployed and for those whose families have suffered hardship either on account of some persons being disabled or the breadwinner of the household being detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. In 1961 public assistance was $7.21 million; in 1962, $4.49 million; in 1963, $9.72 million; in 1964, $9.40 million; for 1965 we are asking in this Budget sitting $10 million. It can be seen that year by year the sum which has been allocated for public assistance is increasing, not diminishing. For the sums given to patients who have been receiving treatment on account of tuberculosis, the figures are as follows: 1961, $1.89 million; 1962, $2.14 million; 1963, $1.88 million; 1964, $2.20 million, and 1965, $1.90 million.

I may ask the Member for Bukit Panjang. "Which country in Asia doles out so much assistance per capita?" Let the Members of the Barisan Sosialis remember that somebody has got to pay towards the contributions for public assistance, it is the public eventually who have got to stump out the money which is given to assist those persons who are suffering from hardship. And as caretakers of the public money, it is necessary that the Government should see to it that the sum of money which is devoted to public assistance is carefully spent. In fact, after the PAP. Government assumed office in 1959, the rate of public assistance allowance to the heads of households was increased from $15 to $16 per month; and to the wife from $8 to $10 per month. In January 1962 the rate of allowance was further increased for the head of the household from $16 to $21 per month. Now it has also come to our attention that a number of recipients of public assistance do not fairly report changes in their financial circumstances. It has been found that a number of these recipients tend to conceal their other sources of income, for example, income derived from part-time employment, hawking, or piece-rate earnings.

6.25 p.m.

The Chairman (Dr Fong Kim Heng): Order. Time is up. Does the Member wish to have a vote taken?

Mr Ong Lian Teng: Yes.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The sum of $14,595,110 for Head 0905 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1001 -

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1001.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Lim Huan Boon.

The expenditure in respect of education for next year amounts to some $107 million. This occupies approximately one-third of the entire expenditure of the Government for next year. Therefore, the Party in power takes pride in saying that their education policy is the most progressive policy in the whole of South-East Asia. As a matter of fact, I am afraid that this old refrain makes one fed up. As far back as last year, when the education policy of the Government came under debate in this House, I drew the attention of the House to the defects of the education policy of the Government. However, one year has passed, and the Ministry of Education has taken no steps to remove the defects. On the contrary, they still persist in implementing the wrong policy in education, which is to continue the whole colonial educational structure. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the past few years, one must note that the expenditure on education has been around $100 million. This is quite a big sum.

6.30 p.m.

We must not forget that this money comes from the taxpayers by way of revenue paid to the Government and that the taxpayers have the right to hope that the Government will make proper use of this money so that our younger generation may be educated properly and trained to shoulder their responsibilities as citizens when they grow up. But what are the facts? Has the Minister for Education made good use of the hard-earned money given by the taxpayers? No, he has wasted it. I wish to give some illustrations to explain this point.

In the first place, the Ministry of Education is spending some $107 million on education. A part of it is to pay for free primary education, but while, on the one hand, the Government is paying so much for free education, on the other hand, the students who have received six years of primary education mostly fail the Primary School Leaving Examination. We can see the number of failures during the past three years or so. Almost every year, some 40 per cent of all the students fail the examination. As a result, they have to leave school. Can they then get any job? No, because they are too young to take up employment. Can they go for further studies? No, because they have not passed the Primary School Leaving Examination. So the only thing for them to do is to roam about the streets and do nothing. Finally, they end up, under the leadership of our Minister for Culture, as yankees, hooligans and, even worse still, as members of secret societies. These yankees wear trousers similar to those worn by the Minister for Culture. As a result, crime is on the increase. A lot of the taxpayers' money is spent on educating them but they do not reap any benefit. So the money is wasted. Furthermore, the taxpayers have to pay more money for the maintenance of the courts, the reformative training centres and even the prisons to accommodate these misled students. As a result, there has been a double wastage of public funds. Perhaps the Minister for Education may say that this state of affairs is inevitable because these unsuccessful students are unable to further their studies, as they are stupid, useless and good for nothing.

6.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Koo Young: Now, what can one do about it? In my opinion, if the P.A.P. Government gives up the idea of monopolising education as an enterprise, particularly if it stops suppressing educationists and inducing some of the people in educational circles to serve its interests, then the educational workers will have more confidence in their work and a greater sense of responsibility, and they will carry out their duties more efficiently. If this happens, then the whole situation will change. If educational circles are not respected by the Government and are treated by them as tools, then they will not have any confidence in their work. They will not, under suppression, oppression and humiliation, contribute their share to society.

Mr Speaker, the results of the students, whether good or bad, mainly depend on the teachers. I will give you an illustration of this point. When the results of the public examination are announced, one will notice that in some schools the percentage of passes is as high as 90 per cent or even 100 per cent, but it is sad to say that the percentage of passes in some schools is only 20 to 30. Why should there be such a great difference? Why is it that some schools are able to score one hundred per cent passes while others can only score 20 to 30 per cent passes? Why should this be so? Does it mean that some schools have students who are extremely intelligent, whereas other schools have students who are stupid? Of course, the answer is in the negative. So the undeniable facts prove that the students can improve and get better results. As a result of improvement, less students will fail, and we do not have to turn a lot of them away from school and waste public funds.

Mr Speaker, there are many parents, students and even teachers who are beginning to suspect that it is the policy of the Government to eliminate the students on a large scale by holding a public examination which is not intended to measure the merits and standard of study of the students. So I urge the Government to review the present system - or better still, to abolish it entirely. Perhaps in order to improve these students' results, another question arises and this brings us to the second point. That is, if there were only some 60 per cent of students passing from the public examination and this figure is raised to more, say, 70 or 80 per cent, then there would not be enough schools to accommodate them when the greater number of passes go on to further studies. As a result, if we are to build more schools to accommodate the extra passes, then the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education may say, "Since we are spending some $100 million on education, if we allow more students to pass, does it not mean that we have to spend more money on education?" The Government will say it is not in a position to shoulder such a burden. But I would like to tell the Party in power that we should not worry about this point. I can tell them that they need not pay extra money towards this end. In fact, it will reduce the expenditure on education and have more students going to school. But there is one pre-requisite, and that is, the P.A.P. must give up the idea of monopolising education as a matter of enterprise. I mentioned last year in this House that the Government was trying to monopolise education and, as a result, a lot of disadvantages and defects arose. But the facts now show that they are not prepared to give up this idea of monopolising education.

Mr Speaker, if the Government is prepared to do this, as I suggest, then it can do better by encouraging vernacular education, education in schools run by the people themselves. There are some wise businessmen who are prepared to pay for the management and maintenance of schools run privately. In fact, the poorer people of Singapore are also prepared to contribute their share towards education. The establishment of Nanyang University is one clear example. Thousands of people have contributed towards the setting up of Nanyang University and thousands have contributed towards its maintenance. The hawkers have sold their wares, and contributed the whole proceeds to Nanyang University. But the situation at the present moment is quite different. In the past, during the colonial days, when there were many Chinese schools in existence and established under this system, one will remember that the maintenance of such schools depended on the financial contributions made by the poor people and the business community in Singapore. But ever since the Government assumed control of Nanyang University and aided schools and refused to respect the Board of Directors, the whole situation has changed. Members of the Board of Directors have received no respect from the Government and so they would not contribute any further towards education. This is a reasonable reaction. As a matter of fact, education run by the people is good so far as it helps to train our younger generation. In fact, it helps the Government to run education in a better way and help education to flourish.

The Chairman: Order. The Member has had his 15 minutes.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, just now the Member for Thomson has talked about matters relating to our education system and has alleged that the system of public education is to eliminate students on a large scale so that young people are forced out of school to roam about in the streets. Mr Speaker, this falsehood and unfounded criticism has been repeated over and over again in this House and outside this House. If we allow these wild utterances to be repeated without any rebuttal, then the impression may be created in the minds of some people that such utterances may have some truth in them. So it is my duty to answer such wild utterances and allegations.

The Member for Thomson has said just now that the percentage of passes in the Primary School Leaving Examination is about 60 per cent and the remaining 40 per cent have to be eliminated. But this statement is not in accordance with the facts.

6.45 p.m.

The results of the public examination are improving year by year. In fact, the percentage of passes is raised every year. For this year, in the Primary School Leaving Examination, 63 per cent have passed, which is higher than that for last year by almost 5 per cent. Mr Speaker, the remaining percentage that have failed are still in school. As a matter of fact, we have not dismissed them. They are not eliminated. Taking the 1963 figure of unsuccessful candidates in the Primary School Leaving Examination, 60 per cent were successful, and of the remaining 40 per cent who were unsuccessful, 24 per cent had to repeat the Primary VI classes in preparation for this year's examination. Another 15 per cent of the remaining 40 per cent were sent to vocational schools for two years. So the actual figure eliminated was 1 per cent, because students in this category have reached the age of 16.

We have said time and again that the minimum school leaving age is 16 years. We never ask a child of 11 or 12 years to leave school. Every primary school student who has failed in the Primary School Leaving Examination has more than two opportunities to make the grade. He can sit for the Primary School Leaving Examination twice, and if he should fail again he will be asked to join a vocational school to receive another two years of education. This has been the practice over the past few years. I am surprised to note that the Member for Thomson should repeat the old refrain and falsehoods in this House. If he did not do so deliberately, then it only shows his ignorance of the actual situation.

Mr Speaker, the minimum age for leaving school is 16 years. In Asian countries, and even in England, this is the objective yet to be achieved. But in Singapore we have already achieved this objective by raising the school-leaving age to 16. If this is not an unprecedented achievement, I do not know what is an achievement. The Member for Thomson also agreed that we should spend a great deal of money on education. For last year and this year we have spent about $105 million. In fact, in the Estimates for next year, the vote asked for amounts to some $107 million. This figure is enormous and it is about one-third of the total expenditure of the State. Mr Speaker, no country in the whole of South-East Asia can excel Singapore in the field of education. We spend so much money on training and educating our next generation and turning them into useful citizens of tomorrow. We do not have to go to a far country for a factual comparison. Just look at Indonesia, which is a close neighbour and which is a country admired by the Barisan Sosialis. How much do they spend on education every year? Is it 5 per cent of their total expenditure or less? We spend so much money in order to educate our next generation and to make them nation builders of the future. But in Indonesia, the situation is different. Some 70 per cent of their Government expenditure is spent on armament, military expansion and on the purchase of ammunition.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Thomson also said just now that we tried to monopolise education. I do not know what he meant by that, because up to now anyone who is enthusiastic and interested in education and is prepared to donate or establish a private school is always welcomed. No one will object to this kind move and charitable inclinations. So when the Member for Thomson said that we monopolise education, I really do not know what he meant. But if he says that we restrict the activities of pro-Communist elements in schools, then I admit that this is so. If he says that restriction of activities by Communist elements in schools is to monopolise education, then my reply is that this is what it should be.

The Member for Thomson also touched on Nanyang University which, before the reorganisation, received generous donations from the public, such as from trishaw riders, hawkers, and members of the business community. He also said that these donations are not forthcoming any more. I have to tell the Member that, in fact, such donations ceased before the reorganisation of Nanyang University because the enthusiasts were aware of the domination of Nanyang University by Communist elements, and they were quite dissatisfied with the anti-national activities of the pro-Communist elements in the University. So even as far back as a few years ago before reorganisation took place, such contributions stopped. No one contributed any more. We do not have to mention trishaw riders and hawkers to illustrate. We only need to mention the business community and the sponsors of Nanyang University. They have lost confidence in the University and they did not contribute any more to it. I can give two illustrations. Take, for example, Tan Lark Sye, who agreed to donate some $5 million. He has actually paid only $2.3 million, although he has agreed to donate $5 million. Whether he wants to contribute further or not. I would not know. Another example is the Nanyang Siang Pau, which is also one of the sponsors. They have agreed to donate $1 million by instalments of $100,000 a year. Now what happens to them? Up to date they have only paid $100,000. In fact, when they agreed to donate $1 million, great publicity was given to it. But what happens today? The situation is clear for everyone to see. A further example is Shaw Brothers Ltd, which have agreed to donate $250,000, but have actually paid about $50,000. So enthusiasm in Nanyang University has dwindled. If he says that the dwindling of this enthusiasm is due to the fact that Nanyang University is under the control of the Government, then we have to refute it. No one can put the blame on the Government. If he says that the loss of enthusiasm is connected with the reorganisation of Nanyang University, then how can he account for the facts I have already given? Even the sponsors themselves have not contributed what they already agreed to contribute before the reorganisation. This, of course, is a matter entirely left to the donors themselves. No one can force anyone to contribute or donate. But one can assume that since a certain person has agreed to contribute a certain sum, then it is his responsibility to pay up whatever he has agreed to donate. I have already given examples to show certain people who have not paid up the amounts they agreed to before the reorganisation. All this deadening of enthusiasm is attributable to the activities of pro-Communist elements in Nanyang University. They organised anti-national activities in the University campus. That accounted for the loss of confidence of the people in the University and their refusal to pay up any further. If you want to find out the cause of the faults, then I will say that Members of the Barisan Sosialis are wholly to be blamed.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, the Minister himself has admitted the fact without our asking him that sponsors of Nanyang University have not been paying up under the present Government. In fact, Mr Tan Lark Sye has paid $2,300,000 and the Nanyang Siang Pau has paid [Interruption] more than $100,000 and Shaw Brothers have paid $50,000 although they promised a larger sum. I would like to ask the Minister for Education this question: have these sponsors notified the Ministry of Education that they would not --- [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order. The topic under discussion is the policy of the Government on education. In passing. Nanyang University was mentioned by the Member, and in passing the Minister has replied. I will not allow a debate to develop on Nanyang University.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Just now I was talking about education by the people themselves. If the Government does not monopolise education, then this will benefit the people. If the Government takes this advice, then the money can be put to better use, such as improving the lot of the people. For instance, in the case of Nanyang University, the donations could have continued. But up to date the Government has not encouraged community education. It is because the P.A.P. want to monopolise this field.

7.00 p.m.

The Minister for Culture has blamed the pro-Communists and the anti-nationals for this mess. I will talk about this later on.

I would like to touch upon a certain mistake the Government has made. The P.A.P. Government is not willing to change the colonial type of education even up till now. Has the Government planned the students' future after they have left school? During the colonial period, the students were faced with unemployment after they left school. Today the situation is still the same. Their parents have spent a lot of money on their education. Now after leaving school, they have to spend their time on the roads. The P.A.P. Government will have to solve this problem. Many pupils find it difficult to get any employment after leaving school. In this respect, the P.A.P. Government should try to abolish the colonial system of education. They should develop community education, that is education by the people themselves. They have been in power for one year. They have not given any help to solve the problem of unemployment. Even when Sabah and Sarawak are short of workers, they recruit workers from Hongkong, the Philippines and Taiwan. They are not willing to recruit our school leavers who are unemployed.

The fourth point is this. The P.A.P. Government is looking down upon community education - education by the people themselves. This is a well-known fact. Even in recent years, according to the Government's statement on the number of primary school-leavers joining secondary schools, there has been a definite effect as a result of their policy to destroy community education. There were 32,000 primary school-leavers in the English stream. In the Chinese stream there was an equivalent number. I would urge the Minister for Education not to carry on with this policy of discrimination any further. I will explain later on the increase in the number of entrants into the English stream. In respect of Chinese schools, there was a fewer number of pupils, and as a result, teachers were retrenched because of redundancy. Last year, the Ministry of Education sacked a number of teachers on account of their so-called anti-national activities. The total number is 200. This year, 18 teachers in a certain primary school were said to be redundant. In another primary school, 14 teachers were said to be redundant. I think there will be more redundancy in the other primary schools. How will the Minister for Education deal with this matter? Will he retrench more teachers on security grounds? They have talked about pro-Communists and Communist activities as an excuse. All this is a bluff in order to pacify the public. Perhaps the Minister for Education has other plans to deal with this matter.

A few days ago, the Minister for Education announced that there will be a second language to be studied as a compulsory subject in the schools. I think the purpose is to absorb those redundant teachers from Chinese schools into English schools. I would say that if the policy in regard to Chinese schools is not changed, then the number of Chinese schools will dwindle in future. There will not be enough English schools to absorb the redundant teachers from the Chinese schools. So the basic remedy is for the Government to strike at the root of the problem. This is to implement their self-proclaimed policy of equality of treatment to all the four streams of education.

The Minister for Education said a few days ago that the choice of a school lies in the hands of the parents concerned, and that the Government has no right to interfere. But, in actual fact, the Government has not built enough Chinese schools to accommodate the number of pupils who are willing to study in the Chinese stream. When the parents find that there is no Chinese school in the neighbourhood, they have to send their children to the English schools. The authorities concerned are making it difficult for the parents to enrol in Chinese schools. In the city areas, the Government have been building many English schools in the midst of quite a number of Chinese schools. In the satellite towns there are no Chinese schools. The residents there are finding it impossible for them to send their children to Chinese schools. As a result, they have to send their children to English schools in the neighbourhood or inside that area.

After leaving school, there is no equality of employment opportunity for the different streams of education, it is not possible for school-leavers from the Chinese schools to find employment. I think the Minister for Education has given a few figures just to bluff the people. He says that about 40 per cent of primary school students have failed in the primary examination, and that a certain percentage of them have been admitted into vocational secondary schools. Some have been asked to stay back. The actual number of schoolleavers being eliminated is very small. It is one per cent. Nobody will believe the claim made by the Minister for Education that about one per cent of the pupils was eliminated. The P.A.P. is exercising its power to strangle community education. I can give more examples.

Whenever the P.A.P. do not want to build more primary schools, they send primary school-leavers to join the so-called vocational schools. What the Minister for Education dare not disclose is the fact that they will conduct courses at random. There is no advanced preparation, either in the field of technical education or vocational education. Thus no good results are obtained from this kind of education policy. There are other difficulties, such as the shortage of classrooms or teachers. I think of giving another example to illustrate the fact. The Government is trying to develop industries. For instance, in Toa Payoh, there is a school called Chi Hua Chinese School. This school has received orders from the Minister for Education to close down. This is most unreasonable on the part of the Minister, if the Government want to make use of that piece of land, they should try to get another piece of land as a substitute to build this old school. They should not just close it down. For instance, on the 8th October, 1964, a certain school was broken into by Government authorities. They have thus left the Chinese schools no choice. The pupils especially have no chance to study in the schools. All these are concrete facts. The Minister cannot deny this. They are trying by every means possible to destroy community education.

Mr Ho See Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a trade unionist. The Member for Thomson is a school teacher - an exschool teacher. The speech he has made today in this Assembly seems to tell us that he is a great protector of Chinese education. He has expounded to us how to educate the people. The Barisan Sosialis have four Members in this House at the moment. With only four Members here, you are going to protect Chinese education! I think Mao Tsetung can do better. China is a great country with 700 million people. If these people cannot protect Chinese education, do you think four of you are going to protect Chinese education?

The Chairman: Order. The Member must address the Chair.

Mr Ho See Beng: I am sorry. Sir, doubts may be lurking in the minds of a few Members of the Barisan Sosialis while we are debating the vote of the Ministry of Education. Any State which wants to prosper should necessarily pay enough attention to the budding generation so that in a matter of a decade or two, the quality of the population would necessarily be of a high standard and the State's programme for industrialisation will be carried out in an efficient manner by skilled intelligence and enlightened manpower. Singapore has one of the youngest populations in Asia, and as such, more attention must be paid to the budding youths who are going to be leaders of the country. Naturally education should be of paramount importance. No effort should be spared to see that the children receive sufficient education to equip themselves, before they attain manhood, with sufficient knowledge to tackle any situation and to implement constructive programmes of development of the State but, of course, not to propagate the Soekarno line and the Communist line.

7.15 p.m.

During the colonial era, sufficient emphasis was laid on a good education policy and the little amount that was spent on education was to train a microscopic group of colonial orientated white-collar workers who would necessarily form the third rank of the British bureaucratic machinery and who would necessarily have to safeguard the economic and political interests of Her Majesty's Government. The attainment of full internal self-government and the eventual formation of Malaysia has resulted in the realisation of the necessity to train the youths to shoulder the nation's responsibilities and also to reorientate their thinking in terms of one nation. The People's Action Party has already succeeded in infusing the spirit of nationalism during the past decade and after coming to power through the ballot box, we decided to implement social programmes and policies. As part of Malaysia, we will strive to achieve industrial prosperity. But man-power resources are equally important for any plan or programme to succeed. Otherwise, the blue-print will continue to remain in cold storage. Sir, that exactly is the reason why, apart from encouraging education through the English medium, we have also decided to give equal importance to the other three streams of languages spoken by the three different races in Singapore. The colonial approach of encouraging English education resulted in creating a small minority of western-orientated gentlemen, while the masses remained ignorant and naturally submissive to the colonial power. But the implementation of the various plans of the P.A.P. during the past few years has resulted in the renaissance in this State, a renaissance which perhaps can be favourably compared with the renaissance in Europe.

We are marching forward and this estimate of expenditure for the Ministry of Education provides further proof of our determination to educate the masses along the right lines and also infuse the spirit of nationhood, the spirit of progress and prosperity.

Sir, since we have succeeded so far, we cannot understand why we should not succeed in the immediate future. This is the spirit in which the Barisan should welcome the withdrawal of their amendment. It is possible that some of the pro-Communist elements, who have no faith in democracy, but who happen to remain in this democratic institution, will turn round and accuse and abuse the Government of some omissions. We have withstood such destructive criticisms earlier and we can very well afford to tolerate them since we know full well that Soekarno's running dogs bark, but the democratic caravan goes on.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Thomson moved the amendment to reduce the whole amount allocated to the Ministry of Education, we would have thought that he had something constructive to suggest or to propose in the matter of policy. But the very feeble attempt to criticise minor aspects of the general education policy, which was started in 1959, only shows the bankruptcy in the thinking of not only the Member for Thomson, but of the lot of the Barisan Sosialis Members opposite. If I heard the Member for Thomson right, he said that the Government was monopolising education. Like the Minister for Education, I was also wondering what he meant when he said that the Government was monopolising education in Singapore. I was also wondering whether, by monopoly in education, he meant that the Government was taking very firm and positive action against subversion in the schools, or whether he meant that the Government was carrying out its obligations to open up schools for the people, to find places for all children who need places in schools, giving capitation grants to schools in all the four language streams, capital grants for new schools. If he interprets all that as a monopoly, then it is a monopoly whereby the Government is carrying out its duty and its obligations to meet the educational needs of the people of the various races in Singapore, giving equal treatment to the schools in the four language streams. If, of course, by monopoly he meant that we were taking firm action as we should and we will do in future, then that is also monopoly. For that matter, he mentioned also about 200 teachers having been dismissed from the schools last year. I have no doubt whatsoever that if more of the types who were dismissed last year were to make their appearance in the future, they will also be dismissed. If that is monopoly in education, so it will be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member had nothing constructive to offer. Since 1959, we have promoted an education system which is moving slowly and steadily towards a national education system. Much has been done in the way of removing the colonial aspect of the old education system, and the first aspect which comes to mind is, of course, the syllabus content. There is today a common syllabus content in the schools of the four language streams. There are no more geography and history and possibly literature, whether in the Chinese schools or in the English schools, which were orientated to foreign countries. Much has been done also in the fields of science and mathematics which have all gone towards promoting a national education system. The Member for Thomson is either ignorant of these things, or he is afraid to mention them.

The policy of equal treatment for the four language streams of education in Singapore has won the support of the people. This is best illustrated in the results of the last elections when the people overwhelmingly supported the Government and, more particularly, because in the last three years since the anti-national and the pro-Communist elements had decided to go where they belonged, there has not been any serious criticism of the Government's education policy of giving equal treatment to the four language streams. The incidents of 1955, 1956 and 1961 were completely out of the picture in the last three years. The Member for Thomson also very conveniently forgets about this. The education policy which we are carrying out in Singapore has the widest possible support of the people, because the contradictions which used to exist in the education policy in those days before the P.A.P. came to power have, by and large, been removed.

Regarding the Member for Thomson's criticism of the children who he imagines have to leave school when they fail the Primary VI School Leaving Examination, he also does not seem to know that the minimum school-leaving age in Singapore today is 15 plus years and it goes on right until 16 plus, if the child prefers to remain in school. He tries to say that what the Minister has said about the one per cent who have had to leave school in the last two or three years as something which he can not believe. Well, whether the Member for Thomson wants to believe it or not, of course, is not for us to decide. If he does not want to accept the truth as truth, then he can believe in all the things he wants to believe. Probably if Indonesia says that the percentage there is higher and he wants to believe the figures dished out by Professor Priono, who is the Minister for Education there, then he can jolly well believe what the Indonesians want to tell him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, throughout the speech of the Member for Thomson, I heard the term "community education". I do not know whether the translation ---

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Communal.

Inche A. Rahim Ishak: --- was accurate. It is as the Minister for Health has said a moment ago - "communal education". The Member for Thomson is only interested in communal education. Probably he used a Mandarin term which meant "racial education", which is no better. We talk of a national education system. We work towards the promotion of a national education system. But everytime he opens his mouth to talk about education, it is "community education", which, of course, as far as he is concerned, is Chinese education in Singapore.

The policy which we have carried out for the last five years gives equal treatment to all the four language streams. As much as we talk of education in the English stream, the Chinese stream, the Tamil stream, or the Malay stream, we want to bring progress and improvements in education and teaching standards, and increase the number of teachers to meet the shortages as they arise. We give thought to all streams of education and not only to one stream. Where one particular stream is lagging behind, as in the case of the Malays where they never had secondary education in the whole long history of Singapore, then, of course, secondary education is provided for them. We bring equitable treatment to all streams. With us there is no such thing as talking about one communal stream alone.

7.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing more which the Member for Thomson, or for that matter any one of them on the other side, can offer in a constructive manner for the education of the people of Singapore. At best they can only try to criticise without really being able to offer constructive suggestions which are really for the benefit of the people. Whatever amendments they are going to make will, for the rest of the evening, run along the same lines.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Members have not given me satisfactory answers to the points which I raised. They have raised other issues, like pro-Com munists and Indonesia. These are not pertinent to the question.

Just now when I raised the point of community education, the Government side confused it with communal education. I did not say "communal education" but "community education". Community education applies to Chinese education and Malay education as well. How much has the Government done for this type of education?

I will now talk on what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the support given by the people to the Government on its education policy. I ask him to forget about last year's elections. Malaysia is a disgraceful thing. If that is a true reflection of the people's wishes, then Ngo Dinh Diem would still be the President of South Vietnam today. In every election in the past, Ngo Dinh Diem received the majority support of the people.

Let us forget about the past. Let us talk of facts. In regard to the P.A.P.'s monopoly of education, the Parliamentary Secretary said he did not understand what I was saying. It was because I was picking out some unpleasant facts for them.

Last year about 200 teachers and principals were dismissed. We can talk about these things. After this happened, the P.A.P. members straightaway wanted to become principals. This is an open secret.

In Jurong, there are some schools where the principals are now P.A.P. supporters and relatives of P.A.P. members.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Their names, please?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Do they want me to reveal the names? In Upper Serangoon there is a Chinese school whose principal is now a P.A.P. member. He was previously an Arts teacher. This is clear evidence of their monopolising of education.

In the Thomson area there is a school. The ex-principal was detained and a P.A.P. member was put in his place as principal. This individual was a member of the preparatory committee of the P.A.P. concert held there. Do you want me to reveal names? I can do so. This clearly shows that the Government is misusing public funds to employ their own people in the education field.

During the Federal elections last year, the schools in Singapore were not on vacation. There were some school principals who went to the Federation to do electioneering work for the P.A.P. They forgot about their schools. I have got the facts and evidence, if they want me to reveal names, I can do so one by one. If this is not monopolising education, what is?

Did I go? I was not a teacher. I could go. I was not using the Government's money. These are facts which they cannot refute. I do not wish to follow the P.A.P. practice of saying things behind the backs of people. I do not wish to reveal the names of these people. If they can accept my challenge, I will repeat the names one by one.

About constructive criticisms, just now I have given my criticisms and some suggestions. Are these not constructive criticisms? I requested the Government to encourage community education. Is this not constructive criticism? Community education will bring benefits to the country and the people.

About the Primary school-leaving examination, my suggestion that it should be abolished is another constructive criticism. They talk about Jakarta, Soekarno, Russia, China. We are fed up with these things. If they can explain all the points raised by the Opposition, we will be satisfied.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, we have already said a few moments ago - in answer to the allegation of the Member for Thomson that enrolment for the Chinese schools is lower in number from year to year, and that the Government is trying to strangle vernacular education - that we have already implemented equal treatment for all the four streams of education. It is entirely up to the parents to choose what stream of education to send their children to. If the majority of parents see fit to send their children to English schools or other schools, then it is entirely up to them to decide. We have no right to stop them. We cannot force parents to send their children to any particular school - a Chinese school, an English school or a Tamil school. The choice is entirely in the hands of the parents themselves.

The Member concerned has also mentioned just now that parents wanted to send their children to Chinese schools but found that there were not enough Chinese schools to accommodate them. This is another old refrain. I can give figures to prove it. Since 1959, the Government has built 14 new Chinese Primary schools and 12 Chinese secondary schools. In 1959, school enrolment numbered 2,500. In 1964 ---

7.40 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. Time has expired.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived.

The time allotted for Head 1001 having expired, the following amendments, standing in the names of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi, Mr Koo Young and Mr Lim Huan Boon, were not proceeded with:-

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1222.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1226.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of subhead 1431.

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $100.

The sum of $107,944,600 for Head 1001 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 1101 -

The following amendment stood in the names of Mr Chia Type Poh and Mr Lim Huan Boon-

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1101 be reduced by $100.

Mr Chia Thye Poh: (In Mandarin): Sir, I am not moving.

The sum of $77,770 for Head 1101 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 0101, 0102, 0302, 0303, 0405, 0501, 0504, 0602, 0603, 0605, 0606, 0607, 0608, 0609, 0902 and 0904.

Question, "That the sums stated for those heads which appear in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on page 39 of Paper Cmd. 24 of 1964 stand part of the Estimates," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the sum of $304,579,850 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1964," put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

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

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

Resolution reported ---

That the sum of $304,579,850 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public ser vices shown in the Estimates contained in Paper Cmd. 24 of 1964.

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

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.