Tay Boon Too
Singapore
“Of course, I am glad to hear that the answer is "No". Sir, I would like to ask, or rather make a suggestion. Can the two languages be given equal exposure time, i.e. 50% for the mother tongue and 50% for English?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would just like to request the Senior Minister of State to clarify certain matters in regard to bilingualism. I have already quoted the Prime Minister in my speech just now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State's answer to the question of six- and seven-year primary education seems to be wrong. According to my understanding, the curriculum committee has already revised the six-year syllabus to a seven-year syllabus. For example, there is a textbook graded Book Seven.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. If a student's home environment is not conducive to his learning the language in a particular language stream, under our bilingual policy is it possible for him to learn more in the language in which he is proficient?”
“As a result of this statement the school inspectors in charge of second language teaching are very worried. So they visit all the various Chinese schools, not with the purpose of advising the teachers how to raise the standard of English as the second language but to tell the teachers, "My superior has pulled me up, so I must pull you up…”
“Sir, earlier on the Minister for Education mentioned that the discretion of limited corporal punishment has been given to principals and senior teachers. I do not know whether he realises a situation like this.”
The complete record
Every one of 311 lines we hold for Tay Boon Too, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 7.
“But the Government goes out of its way to increase the licence fee from $5 to $10 per year, and this is done when the country is experiencing a period of economic stability. This is really beyond my understanding. If the Minister can assure us, as suggested by the Member for Kampong Kapor, that the increase in driving licence fee is to be paid by the employers of these wage-earners and chauffeurs, I will gladly support it. Otherwise this will be contrary to the principle of an egalitarian society. The budget, on the whole, is a sound one. Therefore, I will fully support it notwithstanding what I have said just now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore have been greatly encouraged by the Budget Statement delivered on the 5th of December by the Finance Minister. Everyone says that it is an encouraging one. But as a Back-bencher, I would not like to praise it excessively. Otherwise, people would say that I am the loud-speaker of the Government. My duty is to play the role of the Opposition Party and to make certain criticisms and comments on certain parts of the Budget Statement, where necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to point out involves the 100 per cent increase in driving licence fees. I feel that this is in conflict with the principle of the P.A.P. I do not know whether the Ministers in the Government are aware that our Party's aim is to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. When the Finance Minister raises this licence fee, I do not know whether he himself has paid enough thought to it, as most of the driving licence holders are poor people. If 70 per cent of them are rich people, then I will acquiesce in this increase. However, in point of fact, most of the driving licence holders are from the lower income group. They are poor people. They work for the rich towkays, because most of the towkays have big cars and they do not have to have driving licences. They can engage chauffeurs by paying them about $100 a month. Such a meagre income is hardly adequate to support the livelihood of a family. Some other driving licence holders are earning money for the capitalists, e.g., the taxi drivers and bus drivers. These taxi drivers, bus drivers and chauffeurs who work for their towkays are only able to earn about $100 a month.”
“Otherwise a few anti-national elements would be able to manipulate the organisation and to infiltrate into this Council because foreigners can come into it and manipulate it to carry out their nefarious subversive activities. On the other hand, we should also encourage those who really love Nanyang University and Chinese education to be in this Council. I therefore support the present amendment to the composition of the Council which inter alia provides for six members to be appointed by the Government, of whom three may be members resident outside Singapore. But I feel that in the composition of the Council they have neglected representatives from the working class. In other words, there is no provision for such representatives on-the Council. The Nanyang University Fund is made up of donations from people in various walks of life, including taxi-drivers, trishaw riders and workers. They have shown great enthusiasm in their support of Chinese education and Nantah. Therefore, in the new Council in the amendment Bill, I feel that clause 7 (1) (e) should be amended to include representatives from the working class, say the N.T.U.C. With such an amendment, I feel the composition of the Council will be perfect, more effective, and more representative and, as a result, will have a greater contribution to make to the future of Nanyang University. The few undisciplined students who hold their teachers in contempt, who have destroyed University property and have carried out nefarious acts of vandalism, will be wiped out, so that those students who are really sincere in their further studies in the course of the next four years may be enabled to pursue their studies in peace and in a better environment. 4.07 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, as one who has been educated in Chinese, I am very concerned with the highest of Chinese academic institutions, namely, Nantah. When Singapore achieved independence, members of the public had high hopes of Nanyang University. Everybody thought that it was the highest expression in higher education. It is one of the supports of our society. It is everyone's duty to give encouragement and support to Nanyang University because this institution is a very important factor in our society. They all hope that the University will provide opportunities and facilities for students so that in future they can put what they have already learnt in the University at the service of society. In view of this, the previous University Council have requested the Minister for Education and the Nanyang University authorities to make a careful study of the Nanyang University organisation and the Nanyang University Ordinance. They have formulated and recommended amendments to the original Ordinance which are now before the House. We all remember that under the Nanyang University Ordinance, 1959, its organisation and composition are not in keeping with the present requirements and time. The section on the composition of this Council very clearly provides that 20 University members should be elected by the Council and at least one of them should be a resident of Singapore, and at least one each should be a resident in the various States of Malaya. [Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair] 4.02 p.m. From this it can be seen that it is necessary to amend this provision in regard to the composition of the Council.”
“From the point of law, in the past, there was no practice to regard the winning of a lottery as a criminal act if the practice was allowable under the law. So we cannot credit or discredit the issue of lottery tickets. In principle, we may support this Bill, hut what we hope is that in practice there should be necessary arrangements to ensure that the lottery system in Singapore will not have any undesirable evil consequences or any disadvantages which will make many people change their correct concept of life or lead them to believe that we are indulging in gambling. So this is what the Government should pay attention to. This is what I hope the Government can do. Finally I would like the Minister concerned to clarify what I have asked him to clarify.”
“Also it cannot be 100 per cent sound or reasonable to support the running of sweepstakes. We must urge that our socialist policies should be implemented. Singapore cannot be isolated from other countries. We cannot build a wall around it so that other countries cannot get our people's money to spend on their lotteries. But, on the other hand, if we can run our own lottery, of course, it will prevent our people's money from being drained into other territories. The Member for Bras Basah has said that the rich get the money from the poor by striking a lottery, and then they spend it on the poor again. That, I think, is difficult to understand. Is it really justifiable to get money from the poor and spend it back on the poor? I do not quite see his argument. We are used to hearing very often the name of the N.T.U.C. in his talks. I do not understand what is his purpose in saying this. Is he trying to enhance his prestige by calling on the name of the N.T.U.C.? Whether it is of any use in doing this in this House I do not quite know. It will have to depend on the Speaker to decide. If it is intended that some poor people in Singapore can overnight become millionaires -- but the chances of this happening are very remote, only one out of one million, and this is perhaps also not in keeping with socialist principles - we can perhaps increase the number of prizes by reducing the amount of the first prize to, say, $100,000. Perhaps this will provide more opportunities for more people to get rich, and therefore it may be a bit fairer. But in the past, from the point of law, if people ran illegal lotteries and they were caught, they would have to suffer the consequences.”
“I feel that the idea of getting some benefit out of a lottery is the normal thinking of any ordinary person. If we can be more practical in the analysis of human psychology, then we can understand that the urge and desire to get a windfall through buying lottery tickets is a kind of economic as well as a psychological manifestation. A windfall can be got through various illegal or criminal methods, such as robbery or stealing or smuggling. Through such methods, one can overnight get some unjust windfall. That is practical. It is more easily put into practice than running a lottery. But if you say that it is fair and just on socialist grounds that a person can get a windfall by striking a lottery, then I do not quite understand the meaning of "windfall" because from the standpoint of socialism, we feel that there are certain contradictions and discrepancies there. We see that nowadays it is difficult to voice our thoughts on socialism, namely, from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. In the situation here in Singapore, most of our people have regular employment. The Member for Bras Basah has said that the housewives have to look after their households, and the breadwinners are the husbands or some other members of the family. If these breadwinners have no means of sustenance, or if they do not depend on their employment but on some windfall to look after their families, then it is unwise to spend too much money on lotteries and we should adopt measures appropriate to deal with these cases. But if people who are regularly employed look for an opportunity to get a windfall through some unjust or shameful or illegal or criminal methods, then I say this is contrary to the normal means of earning a living.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my views on this Bill. I agree very much with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Bras Basah. At the same time, I beg to differ from what the Member for Sembawang has said, and make some criticisms of his speech. Our Government is a socialist government. We understand what is the final aim of a socialist government; that is, to give to each his due and to extract from each his ability. If you get one dollar from each man so that in the end the money comes to fifty or five million dollars, then it will be contrary to the policy of our socialist Government. It will be to misunderstand our principles. So I agree with the Member for Bras Basah that this Bill should be debated by the public before it can he introduced into this House, Mr Lim Guan Hoo(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of lotteries and sweepstakes, I have some views of my own. I would also like to express my disagreement with certain statements of a certain Member here. The Minister has given reasons and explanations which are not entirely satisfactory or sufficient. Recently we have heard some Ministers saying that wages should be in accordance with the productivity of the person concerned. In other words, it should be measured according to a person's effort and performance, and this seems to be contrary to the principle of this Bill. If the Government does not clarify the situation further, then the public will be led to think that the Ministers are inconsistent, and I feel this is regrettable. So I hope some Ministers can give explanations to enlighten us all. In view of the Finance Minister's inadequate explanation, and also in view of Members' arguments just now, there has been a certain psychological reaction to this Bill.”
“That is what I wanted to say - nothing more. UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE (Government's financial contribution for 1966) 7. Mr P. Govindaswamy asked the Minister for Education what is the Government's financial contribution to the University of Singapore for 1966; and whether he will obtain and give a breakdown of how the contribution is expended.”
“Thank you for your direction, Sir. It is very clear that if there is no integrated secondary school in the Paya Lebar Constituency, then it will be a great inconvenience to the residents. The point is that in the Paya Lebar Constituency, there are no means of communication, no crossroads, not even pirate taxis. Under such conditions, it is very difficult for the residents to send their children to schools outside the constituency. So I feel that it is rather inconvenient in respect of time and other -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The point I would like to raise is that I regret that the Minister for Education does not see fit to set up the secondary schools as requested by me. There are quite a number of residents in this constituency. If there are not enough secondary schools, then -”