ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1966 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

3.01 p.m.

The Chairman: We are on the Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the year 1966 contained in Cmd. Paper 25 of 1965. For the convenience of hon. Members, I intend taking the total for each head of expenditure as it appears in the last column of the abstract of estimated expenditure on pages 53 and 54 of the Paper. We are dealing now with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

Head 0103 ---

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0103 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2009.

Sir, the basic duty of Members of Parliament is to represent the voice of the people who elected them to this Chamber.

As a good Opposition, the Barisan Sosialis Members of Parliament are responsible for giving concrete criticisms and suggestions with a view to assisting the Government in discharging its duties. As a reward all Members of Parliament, including the Opposition Members, are given $500 tax-free allowance. If there is no parliamentary democracy, there will be no such allowance for anybody. Since Members have the privilege of receiving such allowances, it is also their responsibility to serve the people as genuine Parliamentarians.

Sir, the policy adopted by the Barisan Sosialis to boycott this Session of Parliament is utterly an insult as well as a challenge to the whole process of parliamentary democracy. I would like to substantiate this because what I have said is nothing but the truth. I would like to quote the organ of the Barisan Sosialis, the Plebeian Express dated mid-December 1965. Page 5 of the Plebeian Express states here:-

`In the middle of the last century, the House of Commons was a centre of real political power where important decisions on policy and legislation were made. Since those days the growth in the power of the Cabinet based on development of the modern party system has brought about a fundamental change. The House continues to occupy the centre of political stage but merely for propaganda purposes. It has long ceased to be the centre of political power.'

Sir, in another paragraph in the same issue of the Plebeian, at page 8, it is stated:-

`At the most it is a forum of criticism of the Government, for ventilation of grievances and for the extraction of information. This revealed that the central power does not lie in the House of Commons as commonly believed.'

Sir, the pro-Communist Barisan Sosialis have clearly stated here that this House is not important at all, and that it is only a forum for political propaganda and nothing much could be done in this House. They have gone to the extent of saying that they even do not wish this House to exist. Therefore, this speaks for itself - that the Barisan Sosialis want to turn Singapore into a Communist State based on the bible of Karl Marx. They do not want a democratic system to prevail in Singapore. So the boycott is one way to attain their political aims. It is simple logic that once they boycott this Parliament, it will be more admirable for them to "boycott" the $500 tax-free allowance too.

The Barisan Sosialis have claimed time and again that they are the only angels that represent the people of Singapore. But by their boycotting of this Session, it has cast a shadow of doubt on whether they are really or genuinely representing the people. If not, they must submit to the fact that they are nothing but the representatives of the poorly butchered Partai Komunis Indonesia.

May I refer again to another paragraph of the Plebeian, dated December 1965, page 12, which states as follows:-

`The P.A.P. hopes to use the parliamentary Session to confuse and deceive the people with its propaganda, distortions, lies and fabrications. In the circumstances, attending the coming parliamentary Session in Singapore would mean giving support and respectability to the P.A.P. ... and in helping, wittingly or unwittingly, the pro-imperialist P.A.P. to deceive the people with all its deceptive talk of parliamentary democracy, would have lent credence and support to the phoney independence of Singapore.'

Sir, if it is true that the P.A.P. really confuse and deceive the people, and if the Barisan Sosialis are really or genuinely responsible birds and have the interest of the people at heart, then they should come forward and express their views in this House. Instead they have chosen to run away from the open argument and dare not face the truth. The whole trouble with them is that they can never be voted to form the Government because the people know that they are a useless lot and have no ability to govern. So perhaps these Barisan birds -

The Chairman: I hope the Member is not referring to the Barisan Members of this House!

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Thank you for your pertinent advice, Sir. Perhaps they were voted to be the Opposition, and even then they are unable to carry out their duties properly. What a shame, Mr Speaker! They must remember that this money is coming from the people. By shirking their responsibility in boycotting this Parliament, I am sure we, the people, come not to praise them but to bury them and we are not obliged to pay them. Sir, I would suggest that no public funds should be wasted on people who are irresponsible, unscrupulous, anti-national and not interested in the welfare of the people.

Sir, I beg to move.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 0103 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2009."

I notice there is a motion standing in the names of Inche Mahmud Awang and Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap:

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0103 be reduced by $100." Is the topic which they wish to discuss similar to this?

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it is a different matter.

The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to reply on behalf of the Prime Minister. It seems that the Member for Changi has been harping on the $500 allowance received by Members of the Barisan Sosialis who have been absent from the sittings of this Assembly. However, in a constitutional State where the Government honours its Constitution, such allowances will be continued to be paid. The special allowance will continue to be paid to an elected Member for so long as he continues to be a Member. Under Article 30 (2) (d) of the Constitution of the State of Singapore:

`The seat of a Member ... shall become vacant if during two consecutive months in each of which sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) are held, he is absent from all such sittings without having obtained from the Speaker before the termination of any such sitting permission to be or to remain absent therefrom.'

Therefore, the seat of a Member shall become vacant if he is absent from all sittings of Parliament (or any committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) held in December 1965 and to he held again in January 1966, without having obtained the Speaker's permission to be or to remain absent therefrom. If they absent themselves for two consecutive months, then we will hold by-elections in many constituencies.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move.

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0103 he reduced by $100.*

*The same amendments also stood in the name of Inche Rahamat bin Kenap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore has been established to control and maintain an orderly society so that the people can lead a happy and peaceful life, in a spirit of mutual understanding and with a sense of responsibility. This spirit of a plural society - multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious should not only he confined to our people but should be disseminated to people all over the world.

3.15 p.m.

If the aims of our Parliament are as I have expounded just now, the people must possess those qualities. Members of Parliament must debate a subject for the benefit of the people as a whole, while you, Mr Speaker, act as the guardian of Parliament. The verbatim reporters in Parliament take down the proceedings; so do the newspaper reporters in the various language streams.

Mr Speaker, $704,040 has been allocated for the Head "Parliament". This Parliament should not be misused by people who are inefficient or unfit to report the proceedings of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I may be accused - as the Minister for Law and National Development has accused me recently - of making an "allegation". On looking up that word in the dictionary, I came across the word "alligator" which means "crocodile", if it means "crocodile", so be it; it does not matter, so long as all my speeches in this Parliament are for the benefit of our multi-racial people. I quote paragraph 3 of the Utusan Melayu of 16th December, 1965:

`He then mentioned the speech of Tun Razak which appeared in the Utusan Melayu quoted from Malaya Merdeka. Tun Razak considered the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as an old film.'

And it goes on to another paragraph. But in our Official Report, Volume 24, No. 3, page 20, line 12, after the words "old film", the Member for Geylang Serai said a little more but this did not appear in the Utusan Melayu. What he said was:

But they will realise that with the victory achieved recently in the by-election in Rahang ----.

At this stage, you, Mr Speaker, called him to order; this was reported in tire Utusan Melayu correctly. Perhaps the word "Rahang" is not pleasant to the ears of certain parties with the result that his speech was belittled. After you pulled him up, he stood up and continued speaking:

`This proves that the people of Malaysia are aware that what the people of Singapore have achieved will be good for them...'.

This part of the speech was not reported in the Utusan Melayu, but it does appear in our Official Report. The report in Utusan Melayu is as follows:

`No sooner had Mr Speaker pulled him up than Inche Rahamat sat down and did not continue his speech.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, they wish to indulge in "twists" even on proceedings in the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore. If they confine themselves to "twists", it does not matter, but they continue to "shake". If it is a hand-shake, then we accept it. I am at a loss to understand the aims of Utusan Melayu. I hope they will realise that peace cannot be endangered. Let us not discuss Utusan Melayu with its "old film". I will bring out a "new film" in the issue of the Utusan Melayu of 21st December, 1965, page 3, column 3. Mr Speaker, can I read the whole news item?

The Chairman: Not if it is too long.

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): It is not long - about 28 words only. Originally I thought the heading in the Utusan Melayu was for the benefit of "polo", but actually it is for the facilities for the Southern Islanders, because the word spelt in Jawi - "pa-wow lam-wow" - can be pronounced as "polo" as well as "pulau". The news item in the Utusan Melayu reads:

`The Singapore Government spent the sum of $232 from 1962 to 1965 to provide facilities for the inhabitants of the Southern Islands. The Government is sincere in wanting to raise the standard of living of the people of the Southern Islands.'

We cannot raise the standard of living of the Southern Islanders with $232 over a period of four years! I am angry, because I personally heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development on Saturday, 18th December, 1965, on the occasion of the official opening of the jetty east of Bukom Kechil by the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, who is also the Member for Southern Islands. I heard very well that the sum of $99,300 was spent in 1964 and that $77,970 has been spent for 1965, making a total of $177,270 for the period of two years 1964/1965. This covers a period of only two years, because prior to 1964 the votes were not under the jurisdiction of the Urban and Rural Services Committee. This relates to a news item outside the Parliament. But what I am discussing here is how proceedings of Parliament should be reported faithfully and in a responsible manner to preserve the peace of the country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no objection even if the news were to be blacked out. But we take offence if the news is "twisted and shakened". If it is a hand-shake, our country is safe. On that note, I end my speech.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this House to the newspaper reporters who are allowed to report the proceedings of Parliament. Standing Orders must also apply to these reporters in the course of their reporting of the proceedings of Parliament in order to maintain the decorum of this House, because there are reporters of a certain Malay newspaper who "twist and turn" reports with the object of smearing Members as well as denigrating this House. The reporters referred to are from the newspaper, the Utusan Melayu. They quoted my speech in this Parliament on 14th December, 1965, thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his policy speech at the opening of Parliament held on 8th December, 1965. I refer to the issue of Utusan Melayu of 16th December, 1965, page 3. Mr Speaker, permit me to read this news item for the information of Members. The headline on page 3 was "Speaking outside the matter under debate - Speaker pulls up P.A.P. Member" -

`Singapore - 15th December.

The Speaker, Mr A. P. Rajah, yesterday pulled up the P.A.P. Member for Geylang Serai, Inche Rahamat Kenap, for speaking outside the matter under debate in Parliament.

Inche Rahamat Kenap was speaking in support of the motion of thanks by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the policy speech at the opening of Parliament recently.

Inche Rahamat in his speech referred to the question of flats bought by the Singapore National Housing Co-operative Society about which, according to him, U.M.N.O. leaders felt envious of the success of the P.A.P.

He then referred to the speech of Tun Razak published by the Utusan Melayu and quoted from the Malaya Merdeka wherein Tun Razak had likened the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to an old film. At this stage, the Speaker pulled him up because his speech had deviated from the original motion. No sooner had Mr Speaker pulled him up than Inche Rahamat sat down and did not continue his speech.'

This was the content in the Utusan Melayu of 16th December, 1965, on page 3. If we examine our Official Report of the proceedings of this Parliament on the speech which I made on 14th December, we can clearly see that a lot of my speech has been "twisted" by the reporters concerned with a nefarious object.

3.30 p.m.

I feel very sorry because I spoke in Malay and the reporter himself is a Malay from the Utusan Melayu. It is impossible that he cannot understand the Malay language that I used, since the non-Malay reporters of the Straits Times, which is an English newspaper, could produce my speech sincerely in good faith, although brief.

It seems that, apart from the Barisan Sosialis who are anti-nationals and anti-democratic Parliamentarians, and whose first object is to boycott the Parliament, the Utusan Melayu also has the same nefarious objects to obstruct the proceedings of this Parliament by twisting and turning speeches made by Members of Parliament.

If Government does not take positive action against the reporter concerned, I fear that the Utusan Melayu will turn back to its old line when Singapore was in Malaysia, a time in which the Utusan Melayu played a prominent part in disseminating communalists views in order to disrupt the good harmony that existed among the various races in Singapore. The people of Singapore have lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years. We, the people of Singapore, do not wish to see the incidents of July and September 1964 re-enacted in Singapore. Therefore, I hope positive action will be taken against the Utusan Melayu which has perverted and twisted the news.

I contacted Zabha, the Manager of the Singapore Utusan Melayu, by phone and informed him of the position, and he asked me to put in my complaint in writing so that the mistake could be rectified. On 16th December, 1965, I did send a complete report of my speech, but I regret to say that up to now the full text of it has not yet been published.

To ensure the decorum of this Parliament and to reflect the true independent status of Singapore, positive action must be taken against the Utusan Melayu which is fond of twisting the views and proceedings of this Parliament.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am replying on behalf of the Prime Minister. When the Member for Kampong Kapor was speaking just now, I observed that there is an Utusan Melayu reporter here.

The Chairman: Order. The Minister of State must not refer to anybody, who is not a Member of this House, when speaking to the House.

Inche Yaacob (In Malay): This is merely for information, Mr Speaker. I am in full sympathy with the hon. Members who spoke just now on the freedom of the Press. This matter also concerns those who charge the Government for its dictatorial attitude.

However, I wish to remind the reporter concerned, or anyone who may be concerned, that we are bound by regulations. Section 30 (h) of the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities, and Powers) Ordinance, 1962, provides that:

`No person shall -

(h) publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate or proceedings of the Assembly, or of any speech of a member in the Assembly;'.

This is a reminder to reporters who, cover the proceedings of the Assembly. If a Member considers that there has been a contravention of this section of the Ordinance, he may seek recourse, under Standing Order 92 (7) , to move a motion complaining of a breach of privilege after notice, if the matter complained of is not raised at the earliest opportunity. If both Members consider that there has been a breach of privilege, then they are entitled to seek that recourse.

The Chairman: In view of the explanation of the Minister of State, does the Member wish to proceed to a vote?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap: (In Malay): After hearing the explanation from the Minister of State, Inche Yaacob Al-Haj, I am prepared to beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Normally it is no part of the Speaker to take part in any proceedings of the House. But the matter which has been raised just now is of some importance, and I think I should intervene.

Over and above the provisions of the Standing Orders which Members may employ, under section 30 of the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, certain penalties are provided. Now, section 35 (2) of that Act says:

`Any person who attempts to contravene any provision of this Ordinance or abets the contravention of any such provision shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the penalty to which he would have been liable for a contravention of the provision itself.'

And under section 36 of the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act:

`No prosecution shall be instituted in any court for an offence under this Act, unless the matter giving rise to that prosecution has been referred to the State Advocate-General under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 21 of this Act.'

As Speaker of the House, I am the custodian of its powers and privileges. If any Member feels that he has been misreported in any Press - be it Malay, Chinese, English, or Tamil, or Malaya-lam - I am at his disposal for a complaint, and I will give him all possible assistance in the matter. The Member will then consider whether he will move a motion in the House or lay a complaint before the State Advocate-General.

I hope I have made the position of the Speaker of the House clear to everybody in this House.

The sum of $677,040 for Head 0103 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0104 -

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2005.

Sir, I wish to find out from the Minister concerned the number of scholarships granted under this head in 1965, and also the number of Singapore holders, and whether there are any Malaysian holders. Sir, I beg to move.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, the total is 25. The number of recipients who are Singapore citizens is 11, and the number of recipients who are Malaysian citizens is 14. This total is for the year ending 1964. There were no awards made in 1965.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the information supplied by the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2012.

Sir, the recent decision of the Malaysian Alliance Council Meeting in Kuala Lumpur to withdraw hostel facilities from Singapore students studying abroad is a matter of great regret. This is yet another political move -

The Chairman: Order. Members must understand that the decision of the Alliance in Kuala Lumpur is not a decision of the Federation Government. So long as the debate is conducted along those lines, I have no objection to it. But if the Member proceeds on the basis that an Alliance political party decision affects the Federal Government, I will disallow it.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek your guidance on this point, because I feel this is a matter of great importance - where all along Malaya Hall -

The Chairman: The Member is free to discuss the question, but he must not bring the Federation Government into it; that is all, because this is not a Federation Government decision. He may proceed along those lines as if a member of the public has made a statement which he is entitled to criticise. But he must not drag the Federation Government into the discussion.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, when Singapore was booted out of Malaysia on the 9th of August, this is what is termed a division of what is historically and ethnically one people into two separate peoples. Even in colonial times, when British interest required the severance of Singapore in order that it should exist as a separate political and constitutional unit from the former Malayan Union, which became the Federation of Malaya, hostel facilities for Malayan and Singapore students studying abroad had always been jointly provided. Malaysia Hall in London, which was formerly known as Malaya Hall, had not only provided hostel accommodation for both Singapore and Malayan students hut it was also a meeting place of students both from Singapore and Malaya.

3.45 p.m.

The students whether from the island of Singapore or the Malay peninsula have never regarded themselves other than as one people. The student associations which they formed and run had for more than one generation, been on a pan-Malayan basis, that is to say, there was no discrimination in the membership between those who came from Singapore and those from the Malayan mainland - everyone was regarded as a "Malayan". This is true of the Malayan Students' Union and the Malayan Forum in London which were formed nearly two decades ago. One of the leaders of the Malayan Forum happened to be Tun Razak during his student days. This is also true of the Malay Society of Great Britain which later became the Kesatuan Melayu United Kingdom (the K.M.U.K.), one of the founders of which happened to be Tunku Abdul Rahman himself during his student days.

And it was in these student associations which had their meeting place in Malaysia Hall that some of the present leaders of both Singapore and Malaysia had first met as students. As stated by our Deputy Prime Minister, Malaysia Hall held memories for him and his colleagues, and it was there that political thinking on independence for Malaya and the reunification of Malaya and Singapore originated.

It is interesting to remind the House of the news expressed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia soon after Singapore's separation from Malaysia. He was reported to have said that he was happy to note that students from Singapore and Malaysia would continue united in Britain and Eire in spite of the political changes at home. However it is also significant that the decision to withdraw hostel facilities to Singapore students was taken at a top level meeting of the Alliance Council in Kuala Lumpur where, in the same meeting, the important decision to open their Party membership direct to individuals who do not belong either to U.M.N.O., the M.C.A. or the M.I.C. was taken. One cannot therefore dismiss this latest move as something routine, logically following on the political separation of Singapore from Malaysia. It is certainly a decision with deep political overtones.

Can one argue that this is just a matter of hostel facilities for Malaysian students abroad being inadequate, as the Straits Times editorial puts it? If it is only a matter of hostel facilities abroad being inadequate, the correct solution should be to expand the existing facilities by acquiring more hostels. I am quite sure our Government will be more than willing to bear a fair share of the capital expenditure that this will entail. As a matter of fact, our Government is contributing a sum of $150,000 towards the cost of running Malaysia Hall without even having any say in the running of it. No such approaches have been made to our Government. The fact that our Government is bearing part of the cost of running Malaysia Hall requires, out of common courtesy, that we should be consulted before a decision is taken to deny our students hostel facilities. But no such thing was done before the unilateral announcement was made by the so-called Malaysian Alliance Council.

It was further argued by the Straits Times editorial of the 22nd of December that no doubt the Alliance Council was influenced in its decision by the Singapore Government's action that, as from next year onwards, Malaysian students in Singapore in primary and secondary schools have to pay unsubsidised school fees. On this decision of our Government, I wish to point out that it is based purely on finance and economics, for Singapore being a small country cannot and should not be expected to pay or subsidise the education of children of citizens of her bigger neighbour. Further, it is important to note that our Government by this action is not in any way denying educational facilities to Malaysian students as in the case of the Malaysian Alliance Council decision of denying hostel facilities to our students. As I have stated, our Government will be willing to pay for these hostel facilities.

It is interesting to note that only the other day, our Minister for Culture and Social Affairs spoke at a luncheon given by the Lion's Club in honour of five visiting Malaysian students to Singapore on the desirability of exchange of students between Malaysia and Singapore. He stated that this was one of the ways of promoting good relationship between the two countries.

Let me now refer to some of the views expressed by the students who are directly affected by this deplorable move as it was reported in the Press. Sir, I am quoting from the Malay Mail dated 21st December:

`"Reactionary" was the description given to the decision by an Ipoh woman law student who is an official of one of the student associations.'

I continue to quote:

`"It's a very unfair move against our students abroad," she said.

"During the past year, we Malaysian and Singapore students in Britain and Eire have tried to remain united.

"This decision shatters all our hopes and aspirations of maintaining unity and working towards the formation of a single Malaysian-Singapore Students Union in Britain."

Another association official, also a Malaysian, expressed a similar view. He said: "It's a wedge in the hearts of students who have over the years aspired to belong to a single family. We deplore the government's action.".'

The President of the London Union of Malaysian and Singapore students, Tengku Noone, also expressed surprise and regret and has this to say: "When Singapore parted from Malaysia, the Tengku praised the union for saying it would continue to promote good relations between Malaysian and Singapore students and that the government itself would endeavour to promote this undertaking." [Malay Mail, 21-12-65]

Even if the Malaysian Alliance do not think it fit to seek the views of our Government on this issue, perhaps they should consult and listen to the views of their own Malaysian students, particularly the leaders of the various student associations abroad, since it has been their constant protestations of being model democrats. By this far-reaching move of theirs, they have not only arrogated to themselves the right to shape the lives not only of the present generation but also of the next, for the present student leaders are bound to be the political leaders of the next generation.

To sum up, one cannot help viewing this move by the M.A.C. as one designed to close the minds of the Malaysian students from any outside influence, particularly the ideas of freedom of thought, multi-racialism, multi-lingualism that are being encouraged and practised in our country Singapore. Perhaps they fear the meeting of minds with the Singapore students who are being brought up in such an atmosphere of freedom, just as they fear the plague carrier who might infect the Malaysian students in these "subversive ideas" and end up in destroying the fabric of Alliance power in Malaysia. One begins to wonder whether this is not the first step towards the development of a closed society of one race, one language, one religion and, above all, one idea.

We in Singapore can only view such moves towards perdition with sadness. Perhaps it would not be too inappropriate for me to remind them that however much you can achieve in separating people physically, ideas can never be isolated or killed. We have too many examples of such determined but unsuccessful attempts in world history. We saw the campaign in Hitlerite Germany of the burning of books; and in more recent history, the notorious Berlin Wall. Ironically, it was only the other day that the Tunku was castigating the Opposition in the Malaysian Parliament by accusing them of adopting Hitlerite and Communist tactics. One wonders where the cap fits.

Lastly, Sir, in the event of our good advice not being heeded and if they still persist in denying the use of such facilities to our students abroad, will our Government immediately set up a Singapore Hall so that our students can be accorded hostel facilities and not be left stranded? Perhaps when we have our own Singapore Hall, I am positive that the door to such facilities will be left wide open for brother students from Malaysia.

Sir, I beg to move.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed AI-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, it seems that the question of Singapore students in London is not only heard in this House, but it is also heard in the Dewan Negara as stated in a newspaper today --- the Utusan Melayu, page 6, headed "Students of Singapore in Dewan Raayat at":

`The Minister for Lands and Mines said that it is the responsibility of the Malaysian Government to look after our students abroad. He said this in reply to a question in the Dewan Negara asking why a request was made by the Alliance that the responsibility for the Singapore students abroad be taken out of the Malaysian Government. Singapore, he said, should look after its own students and workers overseas. But we, up to now, have been lenient and have given facilities freely.'

So according to the Malaysian Minister it is as though Singapore has been getting things free. I feel this is putting Singapore to shame. Since it is Malaysia's intention to exclude Singapore students from the use of students' halls abroad, Singapore would cease paying its one-third contribution towards the upkeep of Malaya Hall as well as the various Malaysian students' clubs as from 9-8-65. This item should therefore now be amended to read "Students' Accommodation Overseas".

We are exploring possibilities of seeking alternative means of accommodating Singapore students. The High Commissions in London and Canberra will be asked to look into this matter. Incidentally, we have also paid capital cost for the acquisition of a long-term 50 years' lease of Malaya Hall in London, and we are now taking action to recover whatever liquidated value may be due to us when the calculations have been made.

So, Mr Chairman, in regard to our students overseas, the Government is ready to shoulder its full responsibilities towards our citizens wherever they may be.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.00 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2013.

Mr Speaker, in past years, bursaries and other forms of assistance given to Malay students in Singapore and Malaysia to attend higher institutions were from special bursaries for Malays. But in the 1966 Estimates, there are no special bursaries for Malay students because they are to compete only among themselves in order to get bursaries. So I would like to know from the Minister concerned whether there are special Malay bursaries for 1966.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I wish to answer the question of the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The allocation of funds, according to this item, is only a matter of administrative convenience. Actually, all Malay students who qualify for assistance are automatically eligible for these awards. So there should not be any doubt regarding the competition between Malay students and non-Malay students. There are a number of people who claim to be Malays in order to benefit from these bursaries. The word "Malay" is now defined as "a person of the Malay race who professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaking the Malay language, conforming to Malay customs, and born in Singapore, or is a citizen of Singapore, or acquires the citizenship of Singapore." It is only these people who are eligible for these bursaries on condition that they have the necessary academic qualifications.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,253,530 for Head 0104 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0105 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0105 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2001.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is observed that there is an increase of $5,500 for this expenditure as compared to 1965. An increase in this amount may give rise to vandalism by drivers who often take advantage of breakdowns to stay idle. There are common allegations against our Government drivers, though these have not been substantiated, that they deliberately cause breakdowns and send their vehicles to the P.W.D., Kallang, for repair, so that they can stay idle. As to why these drivers intentionally cause these breakdowns. I am afraid there is no need for me to mention here the reasons, which are best known to all.

As their services are essential and important, we can hardly afford to go without them in our daily life. For example, the drivers of the Health Department, the P.W.D., the Social Welfare Department, the Veterinary Department, etc. provide valuable services to the public every day. Since our Government cannot afford to maintain many vehicles, readily available, as replacements in cases of breakdown, I sincerely urge the heads of departments concerned to exercise greater care by supervising the drivers in order to bring down to the minimum the consequential cost of repairs and accidents involving Government vehicles.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first explain that this vote is to cover the cost of damages to other vehicles which have come into collision with Government vehicles. Government vehicles are not insured, so that this item is to provide for all damages that may he caused to other vehicles, the damage having been caused and the accident having arisen due to the negligence of our own drivers. The increase of $5,500 for this item has come about through the separation of Singapore from Malaysia. As a result of the separation, many vehicles, which prior to Malaysia Day belonged to the Singapore Government, revert to the Government of Singapore after Singapore Day. So with the increase in the number of Govern ment vehicles in Singapore, this item has increased by $5,500.

As to the allegations of sabotage, there has been no evidence of this. But whenever a Government driver has been grossly negligent, disciplinary proceedings have been taken against him. In fact, in the past few years, a few drivers have been dismissed because of gross negligence. I can assure the hon. Member for Mountbatten that this figure has not been increased because of an increase in the number of accidents or more heavy sabotage by our own drivers.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $820,850 for Head 0105 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0301

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0301 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1015.

Mr Speaker, Sir, citizenship is very important to everybody, because if a person has citizenship he is entitled to all facilities and amenities, such as education, social welfare, housing and the enjoyment of free medical attention. All these are the rights of a citizen. Politically speaking, whoever has citizenship has the right to vote and to be elected -

The Chairman: I do not know whether the Member is on subhead 1015 - Assistant Secretary. That is the heading. His speech up till now does not seem to relate itself to "Assistant Secretary".

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, below this item "Assistant Secretary", there is another item under the heading of "Singapore Citizenship Registry". So this refers to the "Registrar of Citizens".

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, possibly I think the Member wants to reduce $10 from the salary of the "Assistant Secretary (Registrar of Citizens)", if I follow what he has been saying just now. Under subhead 1015 there is "Assistant Secretary", a man who is posted in my Headquarters. I think that is the reason why it is very confusing. Perhaps the Member will confirm.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am referring to is the item relating to "Assistant Secretary (Registrar of Citizens)" under subhead 1015.

The Chairman: The Member has given notice only under subhead 1015. Normally he would not be allowed to speak on this. I understand that under Head 0901, amendment (3) * would give him the opportunity to raise the matter he now proposes to raise. So if the Member will withdraw his motion and wait for his opportunity then, perhaps, he can have his say.

*Amendment (3), standing in the names of Mr.P.Govindaswamy, Mr S. V. Lingam and Mr Ng Kah Ting, reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1251.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to withdraw, and I will talk about it when we come to that item.

The Chairman: Yes. The appropriate moment is when subhead 1251 under the Ministry of Labour comes up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

The sum of $325,900 for Head 0301 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0304 -

Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0304 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1001.

Mr Speaker, Sir, prior to Malaysia when the Department of Civil Aviation in Singapore was under the charge of the Deputy Prime Minister, it functioned well without much criticism. There was expansion of facilities both from an operational and commercial point of view. The standard of service was high and the integrity of the Department of Civil Aviation staff was unquestioned.

After Singapore became part of Malaysia in September 1963, when the control of the Department of Civil Aviation was vested with the Kuala Lumpur Government, the amenities provided for passengers and members of the public meeting passengers at Singapore Airport leave a very great deal to be desired.

A number of serious criticisms have been levelled at the Airport Administration, and I feel it my bounden duty to voice it here, with the hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will inquire and take the necessary action to put things right. During the last two years a number of senior officials of the Department of Civil Aviation have accepted complimentary air trips offered by foreign airlines for their personal pleasure. These officials include the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, the Airport Manager, Mr Devan, and the Airport officer-in-charge of the Police, Ungku Adam.

In an independent Singapore, the same officials will be responsible for negotiating traffic rights granted to foreign operators, very possibly those same foreign operators who have extended hospitality to the officials concerned in the Department of Civil Aviation. Acceptance of these favours, Mr Speaker, Sir, will no doubt weaken their negotiating power in protecting the interest of the people of Singapore.

In May 1964 the new Passenger Terminal Building was opened. Before it was opened, various airlines operating through Singapore protested to the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, about the manner in which the restaurant had been run in the old terminal building. These airlines made strong representations that the concession for the restaurant in the new terminal building should not be given to the same person by the name of Mr Neo Tai Kim, who exercised the right in the old terminal building, on the grounds of very inferior service and malpractices. However, these representations were ignored by the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, and the airline operators were most disappointed at this. And to crown it all, the D.C.A. saw fit to grant a further concession to operate the duty-free liquor and cigarette shop at the new terminal building. This new company called Sharikat Malaysia, which was formed to conduct this business, had no previous experience in the handling of liquor and cigarettes.

Now I would like to touch on the Airport restaurant. This is let out on the basis of a concession, but after 10 p.m, each evening it functions as a night club, remaining open until the small hours of the morning, long after other such establishments in Singapore are closed. During the day the prices charged in this restaurant are excessive, particularly for refreshments. For example, the price of a cup of coffee or a bottle of coca-cola is 60 cents. For a public place like Singapore Airport, where the concession is virtually a monopoly, the charge of 60 cents is, to say the least, extortionate. Surely it is unthinkable for the D.C.A. to give protection to the concessionaire to fleece the public.

When evening comes and the restaurant is turned into a night club, prices are increased further and the premises are crowded with large numbers of youngsters who are aware that the premises remain open until the early hours of the morning. During this period it is very difficult for passengers and persons having essential business at the Airport to obtain service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say here that I am not against the operation of a night club, but I feel that with the restricted facilities at the Airport where the place is meant as a restaurant for passengers who use the Airport, the night club, if it has got to be a night club, can be operated elsewhere. In this respect, I would also like to quote the Prime Minister's recommendation that night clubs should be for foreigners so that we can earn their money but our youngsters should go to bed early and have physical jerks in the morning so that they can keep fit.

I believe the granting of concessions is decided by a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Tan Beng San. Surely in an area as important as this, a high-powered committee should be established and advice sought from airlines and other commercial concerns prior to a concession being granted. Surely also some provision should be made for persons tendering for concessions to guarantee that the price levels at the Airport will not exceed general prices in the State.

I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to review the composition of the Airport Commercial Committee and have it reconstituted, so that there can be proper control over all the various aspects of commercial activities at Singapore Airport.

The various shops at the Airport are let out on concession, and the prices charged in these shops are generally higher than those charged in the city. In particular, transit passengers shopping in the Transit Lounge frequently complain about price levels, particularly those passengers who, on previous occasions, have actually stopped over in Singapore. Passengers who regularly transit at Singapore frequently ask their friends to do their purchasing in the City and bring the goods to the Airport, as they know that the prices charged in the Airport shops are excessive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of what I have said and in the interest of the public and the country, I urge the Deputy Prime Minister seriously to consider conducting an inquiry into the activities of the Director of Civil Aviation, Mr Tan Beng San, and the commercial aspects of the Department of Civil Aviation, and to take appropriate action against the person or persons responsible for the maladministration. It surely must be the objective of the Government to ensure that the Singapore Airport is a showpiece and an attractive gateway for tourist traffic visiting the State of Singapore.

Before I close, Mr Speaker, Sir, the irons of all this is that the Airport restaurant concession is run by a Mr Neo Tai Kim. The duty-free liquor and cigarette shop licensee is also a Mr Neo Tai Kim. I believe this Mr Neo Tai Kim also operates the Shamrock Hotel which is in my constituency. It is a bit fishy when I find that officials of the Department of Civil Aviation have parties at the Shamrock Hotel.

4.30 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Member for River Valley for drawing my attention to all the deficiencies in the administration of the Airport. I must say that the responsibility for Civil Aviation left my charge for the last two years when Singapore was part of Malaysia. It became the responsibility of the Central Government of Malaysia and it was only recently that the responsibility for administering the Airport has reverted back to me. Being occupied with other more urgent matters. I have been unable to look into the complaints which have been registered against the administration at the Airport. But the allegations the Member has made are quite serious and I will certainly look into them and rectify whatever maladministration has taken place.

I would like to clarify, not only to the Member but also to the House, that in so far as the granting of traffic rights to airline operators is concerned, ultimately it is the Minister who has the responsibility of signing the agreement and looking into the clauses of the agreement. It is not quite correct to say that officials at the Airport are responsible for negotiating traffic rights. They have no such responsibility at all. It is the responsibility of my officials, who are in my Headquarters, and the Minister.

I do admit that I have also heard from other transit passengers, who have passed through Singapore, that shops in the transit lounge leave much to be desired. In fact, when I was in Moscow, my interpreter, a young Russian, was on his way back to Moscow from Jakarta - he was transiting in Singapore - and he visited the shops in the transit lounge and bought a radio, and when he went back to Moscow he found that he could not even receive Radio Moscow. He sent his transistor radio to he examined and it was found that the insides were all rusty although the brand was a very famous brand. The man was evidently very much cut up and I am afraid that such oneupsmanship on transit passengers by shopkeepers in Singapore is going to do themselves no good and do a considerable amount of harm to our reputation as honest traders and dealers. This is not the only story I have heard. In fact, it was heard somewhere else in Africa too. Somebody had bought a watch with a reputable name on the face of tile watch. But after one week the watch refused to work. He opened up the watch and found that its mechanism was not what it was supposed to be; it came from a cheap company. All in all, I must say that this fraud, which is perpetrated on tourists and on people who pass through Singapore, is damaging our reputation. This fraud, if it exists, must certainly he stopped, and I will make it a point to see what is going on in the transit lounge. Certainly if it is discovered that shopkeepers in the transit lounge are trying to defraud transit passengers who are in a hurry to do their purchases, then the licence which has been given to them for opening shops in the transit lounge will be cancelled.

In so far as the Airport restaurant is concerned, I find it very difficult indeed to see what can be done with regard to the prices which are charged by the Airport restaurant for drinks, Coca Cola and other foodstuffs. The restaurant is allowed to operate on a tender fee, and there is no condition imposed to say that the operator must fix a certain price for the sales of drinks. Just as much as a licence is given to a coffee shop in town to operate an eating shop, I do not think there is any law to say that the owner must sell his soft drinks at 25 cents a bottle or 20 cents a bottle. The price of drinks must, of course, be related to the cost of production and the number of customers who patronise it.

To be fair to the Director of Civil Aviation, the Member for River Valley ought not to blame him as being the evil man who has granted concessions to Neo Tai Kim and others, because he himself has admitted that a Committee studies all applications and it is the Committee which makes the decision, although no doubt the Director of Civil Aviation is the Chairman of this Committee.

But I was rather curious indeed when I listened to the Member for River Valley saying that he has on occasions met officials of my Civil Aviation Department patronising the Shamrock Bar which is also owned by Neo Tai Kim who also operates the concession at the Singapore Airport Restaurant. This is an important point, and if there is reason to believe that there are undesirable dealings under the table or under the counter, then I have no hesitation in referring this matter to the C.P.I.B. which will be qualified to investigate any innuendoes or allegations of corruption.

I can assure the House that it is the intention of the Government to ensure that everybody who makes use of the Airport and the terminal building will be given all facilities and all courtesy, because we do realise that more people pass through the Airport in Singapore than in any other part of the State. So it is very necessary indeed that the Airport, as a gateway to Singapore, should give all travellers a good impression of our integrity and honesty, and if there are any shortcomings, I will be only too happy to hear from any Member of the House, or for that matter any member of the public.

I will only add now that the Member for River Valley has very usefully raised these points in this debate, and I shall certainly look into all the allegations that he has made this afternoon.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: In view of the assurance by the Deputy Prime Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of item 3 of subhead 2001.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek information from the Deputy Prime Minister as to what type of laundry service is being incurred in respect of the $5,000.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the provision of $5,600 for 1965 covers the cost of laundering of hand and bath towels used by passengers in transit and in the V.I.P. lounge daily, the laundering of cushion covers, and the mending and dry-cleaning of curtains periodically. On the average, a sum of $330 has been expended monthly this year. As more and more passenger traffic lands at Paya Lebar Airport, this expenditure is expected to rise. The sum of $5,000 estimated for 1966 shows a reduction of $600 on the provision for 1965. This is due to the purchase of hand-drying equipment which will lessen laundry charges.

The Chairman: Mr Lim, amendment withdrawn, with leave?

Mr Lim Cheng Lock indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0304 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2006.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is spending about half a million dollars in expenditure to attract tourists. Yet the Airport Administration has badly neglected to provide proper identity facilities either at the land-side or the air-side to identify our country, Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you visit the Airport, you will notice on the porch of the new terminal building in bold lettering "International Passenger Terminal" without reference at all to Singapore. In an important place like this, I consider an identity most desirable, especially so now that Singapore is an independent country.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I will only say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that before a passenger in an aeroplane lands anywhere, he will know that he is landing somewhere. There are announcements coming over the intercom, "Tighten your seat belts. We are landing in such and such a place." I am quite sure that everybody who lands at Singapore knows that he is in Singapore and not in Timbuktu. However, I would like to inform the Member for River Valley that the Department is considering putting up a neon-sign with the name "Singapore Airport" at Paya Lebar and that this project is now being pursued.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, with due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister, when the passengers have been in the plane and have been flying for a few hours, most of them are more or less deaf. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $5,453,310 for Head 0304 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0305 -

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0305 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2013.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a sum of $72,000 is being provided for passports. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please inform the House whether this item of expenditure is in respect of new issues of Singapore passports?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is true, Mr Speaker. The sum provided for is for the cost of printing new passports which are now being ordered from a firm in London.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0305 he reduced by $100.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to inform the House when it is likely that a new Singapore passport will be issued. As Singapore is now an independent country, it is most undesirable to continue using the Malaysian passport longer than is necessary. It is a risky business. As you are aware, the Alliance Council has recently announced their intention to withdraw facilities to Singapore students overseas. There is no guarantee that the same intention may not apply in this case. If that happens, very many more of our citizens will be affected. I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister to hasten the issue of our own national passports.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another item which I would like to bring up in regard to the Immigration Department is that they are still operating on outdated procedures and regulations inherited from our colonial masters.

The Minister for Health (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Ex-colonial masters!

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Ex-colonial masters. I refer to the current arrangement whereby Singapore-destined passengers are required to clear immigration formalities at the first port of entry in Malaysia and, vice versa, Kuala Lumpur-destined passengers in transit from Singapore are required to clear immigration formalities in Singapore. This, I understand, is not satisfactory, more so now that Singapore is an independent country. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please consider taking steps to revise the procedure?

Mr Speaker, another item concerning immigration is that Singapore is still depending on Malaysian and British embassies to grant visas or entry permits to people wishing to enter Singapore. This procedure should be remedied as soon as we open up our own overseas missions. Complaints are being received that applications for approval for visas and entry permits by intending tourists and businessmen to Singapore are unduly and unnecessarily delayed at Bangkok and Hongkong. In view of the volume of passenger traffic between these two places and Singapore, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider the posting of passport officers at these places?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, at the moment, we are issuing provisional Singapore passports, Any person who holds a Malaysian passport or any other type of passport, provided he is a citizen of Singapore, and he wishes to change over to the Singapore passport, can do so. The main reason why we have not urged every Singapore citizen to acquire a Singapore passport is simply because of the suddenness of Singapore being independent. We were caught flat-footed with regard to passport facilities, and we, therefore, arrived at an agreement with the Central Government of Malaysia that Singapore citizens who hold Malaysian passports could continue to use these passports until they expire or until the holder of the passport wishes to exchange it for a Singapore passport. I have indicated just now that new passports are being ordered from abroad, and we have been informed that it would take about six months or so for them to reach us. So we should be in a position probably some time in the early part of next year to issue normal Singapore passports.

In answer to the second point raised by the Member for River Valley on immigration clearance at Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, I agree with him that this is an established procedure. I would not say that all procedures initiated by ex-colonial masters are bad. Whether it will be in the interest of both Singapore and Malaysia to have different arrangements with regard to clearing passengers by air at Kuala Lumpur and Singapore has to be discussed, but if it appears that it is necessary that we should review this question, then, of course, it shall be done.

With regard to the issuing of visas or entry permits to those who wish to visit Singapore, I am afraid as far as overseas applications are concerned, we are very much dependent on the Malaysian Embassy and the British Embassy to help us out, for the simple reason that, at the moment, we just do not have a single embassy abroad. However, I have made arrangements to allow the Trade Commissioner in London to issue visas and passports, and subsequently when we have appointed a permanent representative to the United Nations in New York, he also will be empowered to perform this function. When our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established our embassies in those capitals - this has already been indicated - then this problem will no longer arise. However, I shall look into the matter of taking immediate steps to find an agency or an agent in Hongkong who will be given the power of issuing visas to those who wish to visit Singapore. However, it must be remembered that the issuing of visas is not as simple as just chopping the stamp of an immigration passport on to a piece of paper, because many of these applications have to be sent back to Singapore for examination, and it may turn out that some of the applicants are undesirables whom we do not wish to allow entry into Singapore. So if there is some inconvenience due to the delay, I am afraid it cannot be helped because we have to consider the security aspect of such applications also. Nevertheless, I will look into the matter of expediting the issuing of visas and entry permits at Bangkok and Hongkong to places which the Member for River Valley has just now mentioned.

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $1,369,410 for Head 0305 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: It is nearing 5 o'clock now. I think it is a convenient time to have the tea break.

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

Mr Speaker: I shall resume the Chair at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at Two minutes to Five o'clock p.m, until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head 0307 -

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1022.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government have provided many amenities for the people and we have to praise the Government for that. But if we take the case of the postal employees, they have not been provided with sufficient quarters, and most of them do not enjoy these facilities. I do not think it is fair to criticise the Government for this. The main reason for it is the shortage of houses.

Most of the quarters for the postal service were built by the colonial masters. They were built 40 or 50 years ago. They are not fit for use today. I hope the postal employees will be given more facilities.

I suggest that this should be done. Wilkinson Road, Geylang, Paya Lebar, Maxwell Road and Choon Guan Street are the areas where these quarters are situated. The people living in these quarters use common water-meters and, as a result, they are wasting their money. Water-meters should be fixed to individual houses, so that it would be economical to use water. The Government should also look into the facilities for the postal employees just as they look after the facilities for their other employees. The authorities have not taken any action in this direction so far, but I hope it will be taken very soon.

In 1962, the Postal Services accepted the policy that quarters would be provided for postmen. But it has not been implemented, and I do not know the reason for it.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, on the subject of quarters for Postal Services which worries the Member for Anson, the position is that the Postal Services are not the same as the Police where the latter have to provide quarters for their members. Members of the Police Force are provided with quarters. It is not so with the Postal Services whose conditions of service are the same as those for other Government employees. However, I will look into the problems of the postal employees, and wherever possible, action will be taken and assistance given to the postal employees.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): I am happy to hear the Minister of giving that assurance. So I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for head 0307 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2006.

In the Postal Services, employees who work more get more money. This is appreciated, because the Postal Services are an important service and we have to give overtime for this purpose. But in certain places, the postmen do not receive any overtime. Certain postmen only receive this. I hope the Minister will look into this and give equal overtime to all postmen.

The Chairman: Does the Member for Aljunied want to speak on this amendment?

Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied): No.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, overtime paid by the Postal Services is for work done during public holidays, Sundays and on festive days. For this reason, payment of overtime in the Postal Services is unavoidable. Therefore, some postmen are paid overtime whilst others are not, depending on the nature of work done by them.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, the reply is not satisfactory. There are delivery postmen -

The Chairman: Order. The Member is going a little too fast. The interpreters are in great difficulty and I am being buzzed.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): In small post offices there are clerks who work for about 50 hours. The headquarters clerks also do the same work, but they also do not get overtime. I have to emphasise on the delivery postmen because they are doing outside work. If they work four hours, they are given preference for two hours' work. They say that the overtime they receive is worthwhile and we want people to investigate whether the overtime they receive is worth it or not. The Minister should look into this and do the needful.

Inche Yaacob (In Malay): Mr Speaker, the original question asked was of a general nature, but the additional question asked is of a detailed nature, and I have to answer it in detail and I therefore require further notice.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): I hope the Minister will give consideration to this, so I do not want to prolong it any more, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0307 he reduced by $10 in respect of item 4 of subhead 2007.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know whether the Minister of State will consider appointing more postal agencies where the members of the public can purchase their requirements such as stamps, etc.? In certain parts of Singapore, especially in the rural areas, the post offices are very far from their homes. Will the Minister consider appointing postal agencies at or near all community centres?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, postal agencies are established in order to provide services for people in the rural areas who live away from the post offices, but now there are 29 postal agents. If there are other rural areas which require postal agents, consideration will be given to appointing such postal agents in close proximity to community centres, as suggested by the Member for Aljunied, subject to the condition that the community centres are situated in a position where they can provide better facilities for the residents living around that area.

5.45 p.m.

Mr Lingam: In view of the answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $13,258,240 for Head 0307 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0401 -

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3004.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of the Interior and Defence is asking this House for a block vote of $30 million for special expenditure for the Armed Forces. According to the information in the Federal Budget Statement, it is stated that details are yet to be finalised. What I want to seek is an assurance from the Minister for Finance and also the Minister of Defence that the money is properly spent.

The Chairman: Who is going to answer first? The Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Armed Forces?

Mr Lim Kim San: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure Honourable Members of this House that I will see to it that the money is very carefully spent.

The Chairman: Does that satisfy the Member?

Mr Lim Cheng Lock: Yes. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $33,679,520 for Head 0401 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0402 -

Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0402 be reduced by $100.

Mr Speaker, everybody knows that in an independent State, its defence is of great importance, and in this framework, apart from having a strong and well organised army, we must also have a well organised Police Force to maintain social order and security for the people as well as protect their property. These are the responsibilities of the entire Police Department. Therefore, if I may say so, the Police have become a very important and integral part of our nation. We are living in a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. It is, therefore, important that in the case of the Police Force we must bear all these facts in mind. In view of this, our Government should introduce the policy of multi-racialism into the Police Force, so that it will be organised and staffed by people of different races.

I would like to point out today that in the course of a nation which has just achieved independence, the people may have some erroneous impression of the Police. In this particular case, the impression that our people may have of our Police is not very good. This impression was created particularly during the period when we were in Malaysia. I noted that during this period the work of the Police had been out of the normal trend. For example, the people and the Police must get along well; in other words, both parties must understand each other, particularly the Police who must understand the problems of our people, so that they will be able to discharge their duties and responsibilities according to the needs of the people. But, unfortunately, some members of the Police Force tend to forget that they are in uniform and that they have certain specific responsibilities to discharge; they do things which they should not do. For example, when some of them on beat duty along the streets come across a woman in an attractive dress, they whistle and make wolf-calls. So if a foreign female tourist finds this sort of behaviour of members of the Police Force, then it will damage the reputation of Singapore and will show up the stupidity of such people.

What I am trying to say is that Members of the Police Force must be well behaved in public, particularly so in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. This is very important, because, in certain cases, language barriers may give rise to misunderstanding between members of the Police Force and members of the public. I remember that when Singapore was a State of Malaysia, we had two civil disturbances in Singapore and the work of the Police was very important and difficult. We, of course, could not put too much blame on them. The important point is language difficulty. Some members of the public had reasons to go outdoors during curfew hours. For example, in emergency cases of women who wanted to go to the maternity hospital, their husbands had to go out of doors to summon ambulance or other forms of vehicles to convey their wives to the hospital, and thus they broke the curfew. But some members of the Police Force did not seem to understand their difficulties. For example, a man who went out of doors to summon a taxi or an ambulance was unable to put his point across to a policeman who did not understand his language and so he was taken to a police station and all the while his wife waited for the ambulance or some car to take her to the hospital. Because of such misunderstandings, a bad impression has been created in the minds of the people against the Police. And to some extent, some ill-feelings have been created. It is, therefore, very important for us to note that the duties of the Police Force in independent Singapore are more onerous and more important than at any time in our history.

I would urge therefore that, apart from the basic training that a policeman must have, say, in training, parade and other matters of responsibility, we must also inculcate into their minds a feeling of national consciousness, so that they will be able to discharge their duties more efficiently and with a greater sense of responsibility.

The other point I wish to emphasise is that our multi-racial country is made up of women who constitute about half our population. It is therefore important and necessary that this sex ratio in the population should be maintained when employing people in the Police Force. In other words, we must have more policewomen in the Police Force. I understand that, although there are policewomen in the Police Force, further recruitment of women police constables has been suspended. I feel that this is not proper, because women P.C.s have done a good job, and they have shown that they are able to do the jobs that a policeman normally does. They have played their part in the defence and maintenance of our social order, and so they should not be a minority section in the Police Force. As befitting our independent status, I urge the Minister concerned to give further thought to this matter and recruit more women police constables so that the other half of our population is also well represented in our Police Force and they will be able to do their share and play their part in the maintenance of social order.

The Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, since our Party came to power, the Singapore Police Force, which is an important arm of the Government, has been re-moulded from a colonial Police Force into a people's Police Force. It is well known that the Police Force is a friend, helper and guardian of the public. Unfortunately, during the last two years when we were in Malaysia, the Police Department was taken over by the Central Government from our State Government. Therefore, during those two years, the Police Force was not under our control and some officers and even the rank and file from the Federation came down here to serve in our Police Force. In those circumstances, we believe that the good image of the Police Force we had built up during the pre-Malaysia days was erased and that a bad image was created.

However, Mr Speaker, we are now an independent country and the Police Force is again controlled by us. Every step is being taken to erase the bad image that was created during the period when Singapore was in Malaysia. I can assure the Member for Delta that our Police Force now has gone hack to the pre-Malaysia days when they gave a good impression to the people that they were not colonial tools used to oppress and suppress the people; they are law officers going about their duty to help protect the people of Singapore.

6.00 p.m.

Just now the Member for Delta has cited a few instances that occurred during Malaysia days. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that that was beyond our control. However, if any police officer misconducts himself now, he will, of course, be subjected to disciplinary action. And if anyone is aware of such misconduct, he can report it to the police or to the Ministry concerned, and immediate action will be taken.

With regard to the question of women police constables, at present we have enough to cope with the present situation. Therefore, there is no need to augment the present strength. However, there are vacancies in the present strength of women police constables, and these vacancies will, of course, be filled in due course.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $40,301,620 for Head 0402 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0501 -

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0501 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3104.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that there is a provision of $1,500,00 set aside for Staff for Singapore Missions Overseas. What I would like our Minister to do is to inform us whether this sum of $1� million actually includes the remuneration of Singapore diplomats to he assigned to foreign countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is considered that we should set up trade commissions in foreign countries instead of setting up embassies, so as to minimise our expenditure. The primary aim of our Government in setting up embassies in foreign countries is to foster good relations with these countries, and by doing so, we will ultimately gain their confidence and eventually trade with them. Therefore, it is more economical and practical that, for the time being, we establish trade commissions in those countries which are likely to trade with us. Later on we can set up embassies, because it is considered that our resources are rather limited at present.

Perhaps the Minister for Foreign Affairs can enlighten hon. Members of this House with his comments.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker, yes, this sum of $1� million includes remuneration of diplomats, High Commissioners, and other members of the staff who might fill these missions. As you know, Sir, we have decided to set up some ten missions during the coming year, and these missions, or embassies, will, in some cases, be concentrating more on promoting better trade relations between Singapore and other countries. In other instances, it may be necessary to promote our political interests in certain countries, because in these countries we may not have much prospect of having a large volume of trade.

Sir, it is not a question of only setting up a trade mission. It costs just as much to set up a trade mission at it does to set up an embassy or a high commission. So the Member can rest assured that all our missions, whether they be embassies or high commissions, will try to promote both the political interests of Singapore as well as the trade interests of Singapore.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong: Sir, in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $4,162,750 for Head 0501 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

Head 0601 -

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1005.

And I also move my second amendment,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1019. I wish to have these two amendments considered together, Sir.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Govindaswamy: Mr Speaker, I am very glad that the Government has constructed many schools to cater for children of various communities. Although many difficulties are encountered, I suggest that children should be admitted to schools in their respective areas. Certain difficulties may be encountered by the Ministry in making these arrangements, especially in regard to transport facilities, but, as far as possible, arrangements should be made for children to enrol in schools in their own areas. Parents should also be privileged to enrol their children in schools of their preference and such requests should not be refused.

Now, regarding School inspectors. In schools of all language streams, proper supervision should be maintained. School Inspectors should visit schools to see for themselves how they function and make out their reports. Experienced teachers should he transferred to the higher classes according to their merits, as this is the way in which we will be able to improve our education system.

Now, while beating of students should be barred. I feel that students should respect and fear their principals. Teachers, however, should behave with due consideration. They should not adopt modern ways and modern styles of dress. They should remember that they are Asians at all times.

The Chairman: The Question is:

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of sub-head 1005."

In discussing this amendment, the debate may range over the second amendment.

The Minister of State for Education (Inche A. Rahim Ishak): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the points the Member for Anson has raised is the question of children who pass the Secondary Entrance Examination and are transferred to schools which are a little too far away from their houses. Although this situation exists, the fact is that it is actually a problem which concerns a very small minority from among 40,000 pupils who have been transferred from primary to secondary schools in the last examination. This has been a recurring problem simply because when parents have been asked to make first, second and third choices - as was the case the year before last, and two choices this year - they have made their choices, and in a very small number of cases, their children have not been allotted the schools of their choice.

Principals of primary schools which presented candidates for the Primary School Leaving Examination were actually instructed on the 7th of December this year to inform their pupils, who request for transfers, to submit their applications to the Principals of the secondary schools where they have been posted. This applies to cases where parents have not been satisfied, and invariably they have not been satisfied because the schools are too far away.

Application forms may be obtained from principals of the secondary schools concerned from the 3rd of January to the 7th of January, 1966, that is five days after the schools reopen for the New Year.

6.15 p.m.

In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to add that parents naturally are anxious to know whether they have to buy textbooks for their children who have been so promoted to Secondary 1. Well, in cases where they are not satisfied with the schools where their children have been sent to, they need not buy textbooks until they have made fresh appeals for their children to be transferred to schools nearer their homes. Also they need not make school uniforms for their children because of the uncertainty of their children being transferred to some other school or back to their old school.

The Member for Anson was worried about school teachers wearing modern dress. I did not hear him actually say wearing drainpipe trousers. I do not exactly know what he meant by the word "modern" - whether the clothes are of the transparent type - very "flimsy voile" a term used by textile merchants - or with very low-plunging necklines. Also I do not know whether he was referring to men or women teachers in the schools. At any rate a few years ago, I read complaints along these lines in the Utusan Melayu (that is before it became an U.M.N.O. newspaper) from readers, parents and others against Malay school teachers who were fond of wearing Baju Kebaya which is very transparent. However, in Singapore, I think the complaint is not all that widespread. As a matter of fact, this is the first time that I have heard of such a complaint, Mr Speaker, Sir. However, if complaints are made to the Ministry, we shall deal with them. But I have full confidence in our teachers. Probably the Member for Anson saw them in their off-duty hours along Changi Beach. He might have recognised them as teachers in Singapore, but I should think that in their classrooms, in their work places, they wear very appropriate and very decent clothes.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Perhaps the Minister did not quite understand what I meant. When I referred to very modern dress. I think most people would realise, including Members in this House, what I meant. I referred to what is called "Yankee" dress. If a teacher wears this type of dress, we can imagine the effect this will have on his pupils. He has to set an example and then only will his pupils dress correctly.

Now, some inconvenience may be caused to teachers in this respect, but they must fully realise the implications of living in a democratic society: they must behave according to the circumstances. As school teachers, they have a special responsibility. All of us in this Assembly are here today because we were educated by our teachers. It is through their exemplary behaviour that we achieve what we have achieved. It was in this respect that I spoke. I am afraid the Minister has misunderstood me. I did not refer to women teachers. I doubt very much that women will behave in this manner. I was referring to men teachers. Women teachers are hardly likely to behave in such a manner.

However, I am glad to note what the Minister has said, and I hope he will look into the matter.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi -

That the sum to he allocated for Head 0601 he reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1219.

The Chairman: Inche Mohd. Ariff is not present. Mr S. V. Lingam, amendment No. (4) .

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2111.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are school children who are posted to schools far away from their houses. Parents with small incomes find it very difficult to meet their transport expenses. In view of this, will the Minister for Education consider giving a transport allowance to students? I also wish to know whether these facilities are extended to students whose parents are unemployed or receiving social welfare allowance and whether these facilities are known to the public.

Inche Rahim Ishak: Mr Speaker, Sir, transport bursaries were started some years ago and they were a feature of the liberal award of bursaries by the Education Ministry to help children of poor parents, who were in most cases living far away from the secondary schools, although, of course, there are adequate primary schools built in the rural and urban areas near residential areas. However, the question of transport bursaries has never arisen in connection with the primary to secondary school postings of children. If I am not mistaken, the Member for Aljunied referred to the recent complaints and requests by parents because their children have been posted to schools far away from their homes. But each and every case, as it arises, will be taken into consideration for transport bursaries and, to that extent, the allocation for transport bursaries not only in the main island but in the Southern Islands will take into consideration every single case which comes to our attention.

Mr Lingam: I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Inche Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi ---.

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2112.

The Chairman: Inche Mohd. Ariff? Amendment No. (6) . Mr Ng Kah Ting.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2116.

Sir, this concerns, the contribution to the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa which is also known as the Adult Education Board. From the facts I have gathered, this increase in $600,000 is still not enough. There was an appeal for $2 million for 1966 and only $1.8 million has been provided.

Sir, from the facts I have gathered, I would like to deal with this at some length. I strongly feel that our Minister for Education should look into this matter. Since the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa was constituted in April 1960, adult education in the State has taken on a new meaning and new purpose in keeping with the Government's overall education policy. While helping the State to eradicate illiteracy, other activities have been engaged in to link adult education with the State's national aspirations, i.e. helping to raise the level of living so that all its citizens can have a better life. It is in this context that adult education has come to be regarded as continuing education to meet the urgent needs of adults to forge links between the multi-racial heritage of the past and new knowledge, techniques and those of the present and future. However, it is noted that the adult education programme of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa has been somewhat limited by lack of funds. Perhaps, Sir, the following grants made by the Government for last year and this year will help to explain. In 1964, only $900,000 was provided in the Estimates for Adult Education. In the course of the year, it took much convincing to get a further supplementary grant of $300,000 to help the Board meet its commitments for the year. Again for this year only $1.2 million was provided for in the year's Estimates and further efforts have to be made to get a supplementary grant of $435,000 to meet all the financial commitments of the Board for this year.

I understand that the Board applied for $2 million for 1966 but only $1.8 million has been put down in the 1966 Estimates. It is apparent that the Board's past submissions for annual grants have not been fully accepted, despite the fact that for 1964 and 1965, Government had to provide later supplementary grants to enable the Board to meet its commitments for these two years.

6.30 p.m.

It would interest the House to note the yearly increases in the number of persons attending all the Board's classes and courses for the years 1961 to 1965. I hope the House will bear with me if I give some figures. The following figures speak for themselves.

On literacy and language classes - in 1961 there were 11,749 students. In 1962 it was increased to 12,670. In 1963, it was 20,491; in 1964, 27,353; and in 1965, 34,633.

Now for the secondary evening classes, in 1961 there were 4,394 students. In 1962, there were 5,712 students; in 1963, 6,934 students; in 1964, 9,854 students; and in 1965, 10,826 students. In the other classes and courses, that is, commercial, vocational, recreational, local and foreign languages; in 1962, we had 7,357 students; in 1963, there were 10,524 students; in 1964, there were 14,858 students; and in 1965, 15,026 students. So you can see, Sir, that every year there is a big increase in the student population in the classes conducted by the Education Board. In 1961 the two main activities of the Board were literacy and language, and secondary evening classes. In 1962 it extended its activities to other fields. The increase in the number of persons the Board catered for was very marked last year and this year. In the last five years the Board has nearly trebled the enrolment in its literacy and language classes. It is expected that given more grants the Board can still expand its activities in the other fields of adult education. Sir, I hope I have painted a clear picture of the activities of the Adult Education Board and I sincerely hope our Minister for Education will look into the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Inche Rahim Ishak: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Member for Punggol for the very long compliment he gave to the Ministry of Education in regard to adult education in Singapore. He not only mentioned the consistent increases in enrolment in the various classes, language, literacy, secondary and the other kinds of classes, but he also thought that the allocation was not enough and that it should get more. Those are very kind words indeed. It is a fact that for 1966 we have asked for more; almost 40 per cent more than for 1965. The contribution to the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa is expended mainly on the running of language, literacy and secondary evening classes. The administrative cost, including personnel - emoluments for the permanent staff - has remained relatively stable over the past few years since the formation of the Board in 1960. The demand for adult education, however, has been increasing year by year, so much so that the annual provision in recent years has always had to be supplemented. That fact alone shows that for 1966 we cannot go purely by previous figures and that should there be any need for further expenditure, then supplementary provision will be sought for.

There are already 10,000 students in 340 secondary classes, and the 1966 provision is for 355 secondary classes - a further increase - with an estimated enrolment of 12,000 students. In the field of literacy and language education, the 1966 provision is for 355 literacy and language classes up to Standard 3 level for 33,000 students. Fifteen Primary 6 classes catering for 450 students are also planned for 1966. The Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa is also conducting extra-mural courses to cater for the vocational, civic and recreational interest of the public, all of which are run without Government subsidy. I do not know if the Member for Punggol was thinking of these classes. But if he was, then, of course, as I said a minute ago, they are being run without Government subsidy, despite the ever-expanding activities of these extra-mural classes. Every so often, Sir, you will hear of Japanese flower arrangement classes, photography classes, motor mechanic classes, classes on radio repair, T.V repair. They will probably soon go into other courses on electronics. Besides that, the extra-mural section of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa also caters for the more intellectual type of courses with which you are familiar, Sir, like Hindu philosophy, Islam and so on, given by very prominent people well versed in these subjects.

The Chairman: What about bird watching!

Inche Rahim Ishak: Bird watching, Sir, has not really started in Singapore since the departure of Mr Malcolm MacDonald and the most untimely death of Dato Loke Wan Tho. But in the not too distant future, I think the extra-mural study department of the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa might consider bird watching. The Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa asked for the amount of $1.8 million more in the general interest of economy of our State. If the provision of $ 1.8 million to meet the 1966 expenditure is not adequate, as I said earlier, then we shall seek supplementary provision.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must thank the Minister of State for Education for giving me the assurance that should the Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa over-spend the $1.8 million, then a supplementary vote will be given. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The Chairman: I think the Minister said if it is only on birds and nothing else!

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy ---

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $l0 in respect of subhead 2118.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): I am not moving.

The Chairman: Amendment (8) standing in the name of Mr P. Govindaswamy.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2124.*

*The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr S. V. Lingam.

Sir, I am glad that all schools receive aid, but certain schools find it difficult to get aid in time. Certain schools might have land given to them by some benefactors, but if they do not have a proper title to it, action is taken against them. This should be looked into.

Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know whether the Minister has received an application from Yun Fong School at Potong Pasir, which is in my constituency, for grant-in-aid? I believe that this application was made some time ago. May I know what is the position? And will the Minister expedite this application?

Inche Rahim Ishak: Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to the complaint raised by the Member for Anson about the slowness in giving grant-in-aid to schools - I presume he means new schools - I do not think there has been such a complaint for a long time, except for new schools. As for the new schools, there are a number of problems which arise, and quite often the Ministry of Education alone is not responsible. There are the health and other requirements with which the Planning Department, the Chief Building Surveyor's Department and a host of other departments are connected, and the problems are finally issued to the School Management Committee before the Ministry of Education actually dishes out the grant-in-aid. As far as possible, we have managed to get things done, and I can assure the Member for Anson that there have not been many complaints of such type of cases. If he can bring to our attention any particular case of grant-in-aid coming too slowly, the Minister for Education will take it up

In connection with the remark made by the Member for Aljunied regarding a particular school, I am able to answer in specific terms. He mentioned Yun Fong School. It is a Government-aided school and, therefore, receives grant-in-aid to enable it to pay the staff as well as for the cost of administration of the school. I think what he wants to know comes under the Development Estimates - Head D 03 Subhead 004. I shall however answer the question though it is a little out of place at this time. Yun Fong School in Potong Pasir applied for a 1965 Capital Grant on the 25th of November, 1964, in respect of furniture and equipment under that head - 200 sets of pupils' desks and chairs at $20 per set, costing a total of $4,000. It also applied, at the same time, for a grant for minor works to cover repairs, colour wash to the school building, painting, altogether costing $1,000. Incidentally, Yun Fong School is not a new Government aided school.

6.45 p.m.

In respect of the first application for furniture and equipment, the Ministry has already processed it and a decision will be given soon. It must be pointed out that replacement of furniture of old schools should not be undertaken all at once, but should be done in stages over a period of time, in order to enable the Ministry to provide funds for other schools as well, whose needs are equally as urgent as Yun Fong's if not more so in some cases.

In respect of the second application which is for minor works, the Ministry does not as a rule approve grants of projects which have already been initiated or completed. It is, therefore, unlikely that consideration will be given to this request.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (9) . Mr Govindaswamy.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0601 be reduced by $100.

The Minister for Education spoke at length on the education policy. But recently certain things have come to be published where parents who are not Singapore citizens have to pay extra fees. But where the parents are Singapore citizens but the children are foreign nationals, the position is not clear. Will the Minister please clarify?

The Chairman: Mr Lingam?

Mr Lingam: I am not speaking.

The Chairman: Mr Ho Cheng Choon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, under this subhead 2118 relating to grants for higher education, the sum allocated is $15,488,000 which is about $2.7 million more than that of the previous year. From this we can see how much importance the Government attaches to higher education. I would like to mention one thing in passing, namely, Nanyang University. When it was first initiated, it received donations from members of the public. Now I want to talk about the problems relating thereto. Ten years ago when Nanyang University was about to be set up, different classes of the people, including trishaw riders, merchants, traders, workers, all responded keenly and donated generously to the Nanyang University Fund, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, but 10 years hence - today - we find that about $6.13 million of such donations has not been received by the Nanyang University authorities. I would like to mention a few points in regard to this sum. For instance, Mr Tan Lark Sye was one of the sponsors or founders of Nanyang University, and he was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Nanyang University until 1963. He donated $5 million. From 1954 to 1959 he paid $2.5 million. He is still in debt to the Nanyang authorities to the tune of $2.5 million. The Nanyang Siang Pao donated $1 million, but it has paid only $99,662.50 and is still in debt to the tune of $900,337. Another example is Shaw Brothers Co. Ltd. They donated $250,000, but they are still in debt to the amount of $0.2 million. It has only paid $50,000. So from these examples, you can see that such people have won general acclaim from all sides through the newspapers because their names were publicised. But up till now, in the course of 10 years, large sums from them are still not yet paid. There are other minor examples I would not like to enumerate. I only hope that the Ministry of Education can urge the present Nanyang University Council quickly to claim such outstanding donations from these people and collect the sums quickly so as to satisfy the general members of the public. At the same time, Nanyang University is almost bankrupt. If such sums can be collected, then I believe it will he a great help to Nanyang University's development.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has mentioned the revision of school fees just now. I think it is not necessary for me to go into the reasons for this revision of school fees for non-citizens. I have already explained this in great detail when I spoke on the motion thanking the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech. The revision of school fees really only applies to non-citizens; in other words, children who were not born in Singapore, or whose parents were not Singapore citizens. So all the other cases will not be affected by this ruling.

As for the contributions promised by certain members of the public towards the establishment of Nanyang University, I think legally I would say the Government has no power to compel them to contribute if they refuse. At best what the Government can do is to exert some moral pressure, but beyond that I do not see what we can do. But, of course, I agree completely with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development that these well-wishers who have already got all the publicity they received should keep their promises. That is all we can hope for.

Mr Govindaswamy: (In Tamil): I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

The sum of $129,240,690 for Head 0601 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.

The Chairman: Mr Minister, I believe you have a business motion to move?

The Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Kim San): Yes.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House,

6.57 p.m.