UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Education (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill before the House seeks to amend certain provisions of the University of Singapore Act which have become either obsolete or inadequate since the Act was first enacted.

The proposed amendment to section 3 of the Act empowers the Minister, on the advice of the Council of the University, to make amendments in the future without having to introduce amending legislation in Parliament. This provision is necessary in view of the rapid growth of the University and its impending move to Kent Ridge. Moreover, universities in many parts of the world have found their circumstances and functions altered and their operation rendered difficult by antiquated constitutions which could not be revised without great difficulty. The present procedure of making amendments is too cumbersome and time-consuming. The amended procedure will ensure that the University's growth is not hampered or retarded by outdated provisions in the Act.

The other proposed amendments mainly concern provisions in the Constitution of the University of Singapore as set out in the Schedule to the Act.

The existing Constitution provides, under section 5, for preference in the admission of students to be given to persons domiciled in Singapore, Malaysia or Brunei. It is clearly desirable that preference should now be given to Singapore citizens above all others. The proposed amendment seeks to rectify this anomaly.

Sections 13 and 16 of the Constitution provide for certain governments and institutions to be represented on the Court and on the Council of the University, appropriate in the years before 1965. These outdated provisions are deleted in the proposed amendment. Provision is made instead for some of our own institutions, namely, the Ngee Ann Technical College and the Institute of Education, to be represented on the Court.

The next proposed amendment relates to section 19 which provides for the Deans of Faculties in the University to be elected by their respective Faculties. The Deans are the key academic officers of the University. They are also responsible for the general administration of their respective Faculties. It is therefore vital that persons with the requisite academic standing and administrative experience be appointed Deans. The proposed amendment, therefore, provides for a Dean to be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor after consultation with the Faculty concerned to ensure that the most suitable person is appointed.

The next proposed amendment, which concerns section 42, is a minor one. This section provides for a Convocation to be held annually for the conferment of degrees. In practice, the Chancellor now confers degrees in writing and those who attend Convocation, having already graduated, are merely presented to the Chancellor. The proposed amendment seeks to regularise the position by redefining the purpose of the Convocation.

The last proposed amendment of the Constitution of the University seeks to delete the whole of the existing section 45 which deals with the Students' Union, and to introduce in its place a new section 45 on the same subject. The intention of the proposed amendment is to provide a more comprehensive range of organised activities for the benefit of the students.

The details of the reconstituted Students' Union are not spelt out in the proposed amendment to this section. They will form the subject of a statute to be made by the University for this purpose. It is the intention of the University to have the new Students' Union made up of a number of clubs, including a Political Club, to cater to the academic and extra-curricular interests of the entire student body. Every student will be a member of the Union as well as a member of at least one but not more than three of the Union's constituent clubs. Each club will have its objectives defined in its constitution, and its activities managed by a Committee elected by and from amongst members of that club.

For several years now, a few student, activists, quite a disproportionate number of whom were non-Singapore students, have dominated the Students' Union. They have sought to give the impression that the whole student population is behind them in their activities espousing the causes of communist political detainees, interfering in labour disputes and trade union affairs, and generally taking up anti-establishment political issues.

Under the new Students' Union Statute, such students will have to rally their supporters openly under the Political Club section of the Students' Union. They will have to register themselves under the Societies Act like all political parties, and assume responsibility for their political activities like ordinary citizens in politics, without the protective camouflage of academic autonomy and student exuberance. Only Singapore citizens can be members of such political clubs, a requirement which applies to all political parties.

The role of the Students' Union will be to look after the welfare of the entire student body within the confines of the University in such matters as student welfare and health service, recreational amenities, canteen facilities, and so on. The Union will be managed by a, Council consisting of committee members representing the various clubs constituting the Union, the number of seats on the Council for each club being in proportion to the size of its membership.

Union subscriptions will be collected by the University and apportioned among the Union and its clubs by the University Council as it thinks fit. Sufficient funds will be set aside for the Union to maintain its premises and pay its staff. The balance will be allocated among the clubs in proportion to their membership. All the allocated funds will be retained by the University in separate accounts for the use of the Union and its clubs. The University will act as bankers for all student organisations. This will ensure that their financial' transactions are not disrupted by the annual change of office-bearers and that financial records are properly maintained.

Clause 3 of the Bill, which will be the new section 13 of the University Act, provides .for the application of the Societies Act to the University of Singapore Students' Union and its constituent bodies when they are constituted in accordance with the new subsection (1) of section 45 of the Constitution of the University. However, the Minister in charge of societies is empowered to exempt the Union and any of its constituent bodies from all or any of the provisions of the Societies Act. I wish to state here that, as the Minister in charge of societies, I intend to exempt the Union and its constituent bodies except the Political Club section of the Union from the provisions of the Societies Act. This is because I believe that the University authorities can under normal circumstances well look after the proper functioning of the new Students' Union. As for the Political Club or clubs, I have already stated the reasons why they should register under the Societies Act like all political parties.

An interim provision in the Bill makes it lawful for the University to retain Union subscriptions collected by the University before the commencement of the Act. This provision is made in anticipation of the University's new role as bankers of the Union and its clubs when the Act comes into force. The full amount of subscriptions thus withheld will be used for the benefit of the new Union and its clubs. However, there is also an interim provision for the University Council to make grants to the existing Union.

The amendments proposed are in the best interests of the University. I shall be pleased to supply any further information which Members may require.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.44 p.m.

Mr J. F. Conceicao (Katong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to sections of the Bill which relate to the Students' Union.

Since the University of Malaya was constituted out of the two component colleges, namely, Raffles College and King Edward VII College, for all the time that we have had a university in Singapore, I imagine it would be difficult to find any generation of students who have not witnessed their union experiencing some tribulation or vicissitude of one kind or another. I know because I took an inordinate time to get my Degree!

EOGMs (Extraordinary General Meetings) may not have been held with the same regularity as AGMs (Annual General Meetings). But the EOGM has, one might say, become institutionalised. Indeed, it has become so institutionalised that, at a recent forum attended by the Vice-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor was asked (I am told) whether the same facility to allow students to call for an EOGM contained in the current Union constitution would be retained when the new statute for the new Students' Union is passed; not indicating very great support on the part of the students for the Union leadership.

In the past few years another device seems to have been resorted to quite frequently, namely, the EOCM (Extraordinary Council Meeting). The difference between the EOCM and the EOGM, as far as I have been able to observe, has been that the rate of calling for the EOCM in moments of crisis is much more rapid than the EOGM, the gap between one EOCM and another, in fact, being a matter of days. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, you might appreciate that just as an EEG or ECG can tell you the condition of a patient's health, the EOCM and the EOGM rate can be used to judge the health of the Union.

Motions of no confidence too, Mr Speaker, Sir, have figured among attempts at censure quite frequently throughout the history of the University of Singapore Students' Union. In fact, the Member for Kim Seng has himself had the unpleasant experience of a combination of EOCM, EOGM and a motion of no confidence. Sir, if students want a release of tension, some excitement, at the same time as they make sure the Union is operating in their own interest, this is all fine.

However, recently, events associated with the Union have taken a more serious turn. About two years ago, as a result of the traditional EOGM, EOCM and motion of no-confidence, a number of individuals were elected to Union leadership including Juliet Chin and Tsui Hon Kwong. From then on despite pressing student problems the Union seemed to have been directed towards what I would like to describe as political agitation. I say "despite pressing student problems" because at about that time some students complained publicly of irresponsibility displayed by some of their fellows, and editorial comments in the Undergrad, now also known as the Hsueh Hseng Pau, referred to a general decline in standards of behaviour, both social and moral, and to blatant examples of vandalism, hooliganism, immorality and decadence. Despite this view by some students at that time it was decided by student union leaders to try to achieve what was described as a maximum exposure to social, political, educational and academic issues. Note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that academic issues take last place. There was also no mention of students' welfare and I believe students have commented upon this lack of interest in students' welfare.

As a result of this decision to stimulate a consciousness arousing, national service was criticised. The anti-bus fare hike campaign was launched. The integrity of Members of Parliament was questioned, including my hon. Friend, the Member for Jalan Kayu. Some agitation against the Press Bill was contrived. The Housing and Development Board's increase in service and conservancy charges was severely criticised. Agitation on the ground of issues prevailing in a friendly neighbouring country was mounted, for example, in respect of the Johore Bahru squatters. The so-called Retrenchment Research Centre was started and agitation was mounted ostensibly on behalf of retrenched workers but, aimed also, it seems to me, at denigrating workers' representatives.

Sir, it seems to me that it is all well and good for students to want to indulge in what has been' described as conscientisation. But it seems to me that the awakening that is being contrived is directed overwhelmingly in the direction of a strident emphasis on grievances and on opposition to Government action. Some student leaders have become so hypnotised by this development and have apparently become so inward-looking that they are not able to distinguish illusion from reality. I think my colleagues in the Philosophy Department might describe them as solipsists. A solipsist may be likened to a person who dreams he is a butterfly and when he awakes he is not sure whether he is a person who has dreamt that he is a butterfly or whether he is a butterfly who is dreaming that he is a person. The illusion and reality are confused.

This small group of student leaders complain of anti-people action by the Government and they identify themselves with the people's struggle which, they say, shall be a victory. I have no doubt that the people's struggle will end in victory. But may I ask this small coterie of students whom they represent: what are their credentials? In fact, today they called for a solidarity rally and when I looked out at the lower quadrangle, on which they were supposed to assemble for this solidarity rally, I was greeted by a smiling expanse of empty green with a few students studiously studying under the shade of a tree. A very peaceful sight indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir.

It is sad that a few individuals who have suffered from a distortion of judgment have been able to bring the affairs of the Union to such a sorry state in which, overpowered by the hot air that they themselves have generated, they have neglected even mundane things like Union finances, that it is public knowledge that the auditor has given only a qualified report. Yet the minority, who are student leaders and their personal following, do not have the support of the majority of the students who simply want to swot it out in the library, commuting between library, canteen and lecture theatre and who, despite their own amusement and entertainment over the antics of student leaders, seem reluctant to do anything to change things for themselves. But this is not unusual. In many other universities, as far as I have occasionally witnessed, it is a few who work in the Union while the large majority merely want to go about their business of getting their education, training their intellects and preparing for a role for themselves in society.

However, where we are concerned, we are facing the possibility that the student leadership at the University of Singapore may well find themselves manipulated by those who do not have the woolly idealism of students but instead a clear notion of what they want, and what they want may not be for the benefit of our people.

I have referred to attempts in the University to express dissent, and this I did during the debate on the Annual Budget Statement. I have mentioned that our students should be warned against being pawns of shadowy individuals who, while espousing humanistic aims and freedom, cynically exploit youthful ideals. It is for this reason that I support the passage of this Bill. The Union seems now open to exploitation with the leadership exercising themselves over imagined political grievances which have nothing to do with the welfare of the students themselves and which indeed have no foundation in reality whatsoever. I imagine that it would be correct to say that this Bill is in a way an expression of a no-confidence motion in the present way the Students' Union is being run.

There is no doubt that in future the administration will play a bigger hand than it has been able to in the past in the affairs of the Union. In this respect I can only refer to the statement made by the Vice-Chancellor that he would have the interests of the students at heart in respect of the Union. I would expect that the majority of the students would accept this assurance, and I think they do. I cannot but reprehend the reference made (in a very recent student publication) to the Vice-Chancellor as the chief controller, namely, a man long experienced in controlling student organisations - a sort of super gestapo chief. This is another example of the kind of distortion a small coterie of student leaders go in for. It would be more reasonable to think of the Vice-Chancellor as being a man of vast educational experience who has reached the top of his profession, whose academic abilities have been recognised through the university bestowing on him an honorary award, and so on.

The administration, I am sure, realises that with authority over the Union in their hands they should seek at all times, as far as possible, to move in the direction that reflects the will o~ the majority of the students and certainly towards the good of the Union and the development of student community potential and individual intellectual and moral qualities in an atmosphere of academic calm and stability. This is what I think the Vice-Chancellor wants. This is what the vast majority of students and their parents would want. This is what the people want. This Parliament represents the people, this is what the people want.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

4.55 p.m.

Mr Phey Yew Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill which seeks to amend the University of Singapore Act to bring it up to date and to make it more flexible.

In so far as the Bill seeks to do away with or to modify statutory provisions which were enacted for purposes which have been achieved or to suit circumstances which are no longer valid, I do not think there can be any question as to the need for the Bill.

The provisions of the Bill relating to the Students' Union, however, may give rise to a certain amount of confusion compounded by emotions and sentiments. I do not doubt the usefulness of a Students' Union or the desire of the students themselves to run their Union with the minimum amount of supervision by the University Authority or any other authority. As it is, most University students have left the running of the Students' Union and the various Students' Clubs to a relatively handful of students. There is certainly cause for anxiety when the few students who are supposed to promote the welfare of their fellow students can freely make use of their office for other activities making not the slightest bearing on the welfare of students.

To those who like to invoke the fashionable slogan on the sanctity of academic freedom, they should also consider the fact that University students have no freedom of choice regarding the membership of their Students' Union.

The Students' Union, even after the adoption of this Bill, enjoys a privilege which has always been denied to trade unions in Singapore, and that is the privilege of being a closed shop union. The moment a student is admitted to the Singapore University, he automatically becomes a member of the Students' Union and his membership subscription is automatically and regularly checked-off or collected by the University on behalf of the Union for so long as the student is enrolled in the University.

Sir, may I take this opportunity to request the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Education to persuade the Minister for Labour to make an amendment to the Trade Unions Act and extend this privilege to the unions? I would recommend my NTUC colleagues to make the Minister for Home Affairs and Education a Friend of Labour!

If the provisions of the Bill affecting the Students' Union are seen from the point of view of the minority of students who seek to continue to use the name of the passive majority of the students' body for their own ends, it is obvious that the provisions are unpalatable and constitute a threat to their sectional interest. But if the same provisions of the Bill are approached from the point of view of the general body of students, it is patently clear that the provisions are necessary for the protection of the welfare and interest of the general body of students. The merits of this portion of the Bill should not be gauged from the volume of noise made by a vociferous minority of students but should be judged on the basis of whether the protection conferred by the Bill on the general body of students outweighs the reduction of scope for abuse by a minority of students.

As I have said, the proposed provisions affecting the Students' Union can only serve to prevent abuses in the conduct of students' affairs whether by the whole students' body under the name of the Students' Union or whether by a sectional group of students under the name of one of the Students' Clubs. For the vast majority of students, there cannot be any valid and cogent objection to any proposal for a more equitable and objective distribution of funds on the basis of a number of students participating in the activity to be financed. It is a more democratic procedure than the present basis of allocating common funds to any activity according to whether a handful of students think the activity is desirable. If it is seriously contended, as it has been done in certain quarters, that the Students' Union constitutes an integral part of the educational process rightly associated with a University, then it is more urgent that the students should get their lessons correct. If a few students have repeatedly shown themselves unable or unwilling to discipline themselves to shoulder the monotonous routine of catering for the welfare and interest of the general body of students, it does not mean that this House should also shirk the unpleasant but necessary task of restraining a handful of students from dramatically exploiting their stewardship of the Students' Union for their own heroics. For these considerations, I strongly support the Bill moved by the Minister for Home Affairs and Education.

5.02 p.m.

Mr Ivan Baptist (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of the Bill puzzles me. The Minister just now did give reasons for the necessity for this clause, but I am sure there are many other reasons that he has not disclosed as yet. If he has no other reasons, I am wondering why clause 5 is being enacted and why were the funds collected for the benefit of the University of Singapore Students' Union retained by the University. I hope the Hon. Minister will enlighten this House.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Education is not going to be popular with some of the more union-active students of the University of Singapore for moving this Bill, particularly with reference to the provisions relating to the Students' Union. This is a small occupational hazard that he sometimes faces as a Government Minister in discharging his duties for the good and well-being of the whole community. Perhaps the Minister in this instance can take some comfort in the thought that the Member for Katong, the Member for Boon Teck and I will also probably come in for some pointed criticisms by the Students' Union leaders for speaking in support of this Bill.

The proposal to bring the Students' Union within the ambit of the Societies Act has certainly generated quite some synthetic anger among some members of the Union. The Bill is misconstrued as being deliberately repressive. They see the Bill as an act to end their very special and privileged position to engage in unrestricted activities, particularly in the political field and taking refuge in the sanctuary of the University campus and under the cloak of the oft-quoted but misunderstood concept of academic freedom.

It is a healthy sign, Mr Speaker, Sir, to see some of our students showing interest in the political and social affairs of our island Republic. I only hope that their interest is genuine and abiding and does not vanish as soon as they leave the University and secure good jobs. It is important that we do not treat our University students as young, immature and irresponsible adolescents. They should be treated as adults. Their Union should be accorded the status of an organisation for adults, no more and no less equal than any organisation for adults. They must enjoy rights and privileges, responsibilities and obligations, no more and no less than any group or organisation of adult people.

Trade unions, political parties and other organisations in our State come under the ambit of either the Trade Unions Act or the Societies Act. Therefore, the intention behind this Bill is to bring the Students' Union within the ambit of the Societies Act. It should not be seen as placing unusual restrictions on the students' body but should be regarded as placing the students' body on the same footing as other organisations in the Republic. As a matter of fact, the Singapore Polytechnic Students' Union is registered under the Societies Act. The People's Action Party, as any other political party in Singapore, is registered under the Societies Act. The fact that the PAP is the ruling party today clearly shows that organisations, including political parties, registered under the Societies Act, are not necessarily hampered or restricted in carrying out their functions and objectives fully.

So for all the activities of the Students' Union, other than political activities, there is virtually of no consequence now that the Students' Union has come under the ambit of the Societies Act, particularly when the Minister has now made it known that he intends to exempt the Students' Union and its constituent bodies, except the Political Club, from the provisions of the Societies Act. What it amounts to in the end is that foreign students enjoying the hospitality of the Singapore Government and taking advantage of the facilities paid for by the people of Singapore will henceforth not be allowed to meddle in the political affairs of our Republic, as some of them had done so far. What is wrong with that, Mr Speaker, Sir? 5,08 p.m.

Mr Hwang Soo Jin: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of allowing my personal integrity to be questioned once more, I would nevertheless ask the Minister concerned whether there is any reason why we should not refer this Bill to a Select Committee, in view of the evident concern and interest shown by the students and some of the academic staff.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I approached the House just now my vision was arrested by the colossal claims of the present student leadership that their freedoms are being fundamentally attacked. In view of that fact, may [just make some comments on this Bill?

I just wish to make a brief comment on clause 3 of the Bill and the amendment to section 45 of the Constitution, contained in clause 4. Sir, clause 3 brings the Singapore Students' Union within the purview of the authority of the Registrar of Societies. In the light of the Minister's explanation, many of the anxieties of the present student leadership must surely have been allayed. But it seems to me that the big commotion about this provision in the Bill bringing the Students' Union within the authority of the Registrar of Societies is misconceived. Up to now the constituent bodies of the Students' Union have all along been registered bodies under the Societies Act. It seems strange that hitherto the student leadership has not found it necessary to claim that its constituent bodies have had their fundamental freedoms attacked. But now when the provision in this Bill attempts to bring the Students' Union within the purview of the Registrar of Societies' authority, this claim is loudly made. I think there is some confusion in the thinking of the present student leadership and it would be well for them if their articulation on issues take on a sober and mature note.

The amendment to section 45 of the Constitution allows the Council of the University to determine how Union fees may be applied for the purpose of the Students' Union and its constituent bodies. If the Students' Union shows any real alarm over this amendment, I think it is based on the belief that the Council will suppress legitimate student activities in the future, which belief at this stage must surely be premature. As I see it, the reconstructed Council under the Bill comprise various personalities who should be able to consider and decide impartially the desirable application of Union funds. To argue that by this amendment the Union will be hamstrung in the application of its funds is, [think, to start off by saying that the majority of the members in the Council will comprise puppets who are, therefore, not suitable for office in the Council. This argument is frivolous and, I think, facetious, as it passes adverse judgment on the capacity of people who have not yet begun to exercise this capacity.

But in concluding, Sir, the point I wish to stress is simply, or what surely must be, the accepted principle in the expenditure of Union funds. These funds are largely made up of students' subscriptions during their stay in the University. They should, therefore, be expended for the proper interest of the general body of the students. If there should be an authority set up to ensure that such funds should not be expended wastefully or in a manner contrary to the interests of the general body, then surely commonsense must dictate that such an authority is welcome.

5.13 p.m.

Dr Augustine H. H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my full support to this Bill. The Bill in no way hinders the basic rights of our students as citizens of Singapore. As a university lecturer I can vouch for the fact that the vast majority of our students are hard working, well motivated and taking full advantage of the higher education that we are affording them. Most of them are not concerned with Students' Union politics. As the Minister has pointed out, they are only a small minority of radicals, most of whom are not Singapore citizens. These radicals do not realise that attendance at the University is not a right. The cost of attending it is very heavily subsidised by society. Foreign students are here as guests of Singapore, paid for by the people of Singapore. The Government of Singapore, as the elected representatives of the people, have every right to restrict whatever freedoms and whatever privileges that these foreign students enjoy in Singapore.

As for Singapore students, since society is paying for their higher education, let them not forget that only a very small proportion of our population are afforded higher education. Therefore, society has every right to expect that both students and lecturers at the University make constructive use of their time and facilities and that the University should not be used as a privileged, a protected political platform. As a matter of fact, Sir, the Minister in his statement has generously allowed for the formation of political clubs in the University. These clubs will allow the students to express themselves politically and would serve as an outlet for their exuberance, for their social concern and to increase or heighten their political awareness in their capacity as citizens of Singapore. I would hope that our student leaders will learn quickly that to be truly influential the leadership must be sound, must be constructive, and their honesty and integrity must he beyond question.

At the recent meeting between the Vice-Chancellor and the students, the question of financial probity was raised because the auditors' report indicated some malpractices and misuse of Union funds. This is something which I am very disturbed and very concerned about as a University teacher, because if the younger people with the intellect and with higher education do not have financial responsibility and are not able to assert leadership which is sound, constructive and honest, then what kind of leadership can they subsequently offer to the people of Singapore? Sir, as I look at their publications and statements, I find that they do not reflect appropriately the intellectual standing of a University. The intellectual and factual content of debate is appallingly low. The standard of the Undergrad, in particular, has deteriorated over the years. The articles which are published are emotional and full of ideological blinkers. They do not reflect what the students have been taught at the University, and I have challenged my own students often to make use of the economic principles that I have taught them to appraise economic policies and problems of Singapore, of the region and of the world. I challenged them to make constructive replies to the garbage which is thrown up in the Undergrad from time to time on all manners of social, political and economic issues. If our students really want to make their voices heard and want to make an impression on the people of Singapore and in the world at large, then they should be able to meet argument for argument and to present facts and to confront whatever opposing arguments in a manner befitting people who have received the benefit of higher education.

Sir, I have appeared at many University forums and debates and I have found that the great majority of our students are rational and are responsive and responsible, and if we can somehow reach out to them to try and explain things to them, try to reason with them in a proper dialogue, my own feeling is that many of them would respond. Unfortunately, it is the radical lecturers and so on who seem to make the effort to reach out to these students. But fortunately the vast majority do not respond to them.

5.20 p.m.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank those Members who have come out positively in support of this Bill, and I believe that the support is quite overwhelming.

May I just touch on the speech by the Member for Katong? He has put his points much more picturesquely in support of the Bill. I believe he is able to do so because, as he said, he had watched what happened from his office in the Extra-mural Department, which overlooks the lower quadrangle where they held rallies. As such, I am quite sure he speaks with solid experience.

It now, leaves me to answer two questions which have been raised by Members. The Member for Jalan Kayu wants to know why we do not propose to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. There are two reasons. The first is that it is quite a clear-cut Bill. There is no controversy except the controversy thrown up, as stated by Members, by a coterie or a small group of vociferous student leaders who want to cloud the issue with distortions. Secondly, this Bill is merely making the formal amendments. After the passing of this Bill, as far as the Students' Union is concerned, a statute will have to be enacted by the University Council, setting out in detail the provisions of the new Students' Union that will replace the existing one. As such, we do not think there is any need for this Bill to go to Select Committee.

On the question brought up by the Member for Potong Pasir regarding funds which have been retained by the University authorities and, to-date, not released to the Students' Union, part of the answer has, in fact, been given by a few Members of Parliament who referred to the qualified report given by the external auditors on the 1974 accounts of the University of Singapore Students' Union. I understand that the reason for the University authorities to continue to hold on to the subscriptions has already been given by the Vice-Chancellor when he met the students recently.

The Vice-Chancellor told the students that he was not satisfied with the accounts of the Students' Union because the accounts showed that the Students' Union was indebted to the Australian Students' Union to the tune of $45,000 and that the Students' Union leaders were unable to satisfactorily account for this debt or explain why they were so heavily indebted to the Australian Students' Union. Another reason why he was not satisfied with the accounts was that a large sum of money made out as loans to former University of Singapore Students' Union councillors had still remained unpaid.

The Vice-Chancellor and the University administration, who have a moral obligation to ensure that funds collected from every student are properly used for the benefit of the student body as a whole, therefore have rightly withheld the release of the funds until a satisfactory explanation from the Students' Union has been given to the University authorities, failing which the funds will be transferred to the new Students' Union when it comes into being.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill-[Mr Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 6.00 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.28 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.00 p.m.