Hansard, 1961-12-04

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Dato Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat, (Geylang Serai) - on 4th and 5th December, 1961.

31 p.m.

I have to inform hon. Members that on the 29th day of November, 1961, the Clerk of the Assembly, on my direction, duly conveyed to the Commissioner of Police the contents of the resolution of the Assembly agreed to on that day in relation to the matter of privilege reported to the Assembly by the Leader of the House affecting the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. A reply has been received by the Clerk dated the 30th November, 1961. It reads as follows: 'Dear Sir, I have for acknowledgment your letter of November 29th, drawing my attention to the resolution passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 29th November, 1961, concerning the conduct of certain persons in preventing the member for Bukit Panjang from attending the Assembly and the action which the Police should take in this respect. 2. I have ordered an immediate investigation and shall be submitting the results to the State Advocate General as soon as possible. Yours faithfully, (signed) A. E. G. BLADES, Commissioner of Police, Singapore.'

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted day].

2.34 p.m.

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Supplementary Estimates?

I so signify.

The Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961 is contained in Paper Cmd. 34 of 1961. The summary is at page 5. No notice of amendment has been received. I, therefore intend to take the four heads of expenditure* as shown on page 5 en bloc. *Following is the summary: Head Title Total $ D 25 Health 36,000 D 56 Education 60,200 D 57 Public Works, Non-Recurrent (General) 2,015,000 D 58 Colonial Development and Welfare Schemes 69,048 2,180,248

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads stated in the summary of totals* contained in Paper Cmd. 34 of 1961 stand part of the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961", put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $2,180,248 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Fourth Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1961 contained in Paper Cmd. 34 of 1961", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution read.

I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

2.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the following motion*, *The motion also stood in the names of the Minister for Education, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House supports any action by the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recollect that last Thursday, the House condemned the illegal action of hooligans who tried to prevent me from attending the Assembly. However, as representatives of the people, we should be equally concerned for the safety of hundreds of parents and their children who are still being forcibly prevented from entering the examination rooms to take their examinations. On Thursday last, with your kind permission, Sir, I read out a joint petition from a large number of parents urging me to bring to the attention of this House the fact that they would like police protection extended to parents and students, so that their safety could be ensured in the exercise of their right and freedom to take the Government examinations. The Government has so far refrained from using the police in order, to avoid a clash between the innocent and misguided students and the police, which is what the sinister men who are manipulating these children really want. The behind-the-scenes organisers of this boycott are working to bring about a clash between parents and picketing school children - An hon. Member: You are!

- in the hope of sparking off violent emotions. If a clash should in fact occur, these evil men could then accuse the Government of using the Police Force against innocent students and they could then mount an anti-Government campaign to overthrow the Government. I had, Sir, on several occasions explained these sinister motives to representatives of parents who came to request for police protection following the intimidatory and rough tactics used by the picketers last week. But the intimidatory methods and force used by pickets during the past week have become so intense that the parents have decided to send in a joint petition urging me to get this House to sanction the use of police to protect them. Sir, before I proceed any further, I would like to emphasise the word "protection". What the parents and students are asking for is police protection and not police suppression, as the Barisan Sosialis had eerily and deliberately twisted and distorted in the Press statement which appeared in the Press on 1st December. Let us see how the Barisan Sosialis had twisted the meaning of this motion to incite the feelings of the people against the Government. This is an extract of the Press statement: 'Now, the People's Action Party is in a hurry to use the police to suppress the growing tide of discontent and the Legislative Assembly cannot be responsible for the inability and evil acts of the P.A.P. Government. The Barisan Sosialis is strongly against any attempt to use the police force with reason to deal with students. We have seen enough of the violent acts of the Lim Yew Hock Government against the students.' This was an extract of the statement. Since Thursday last, there has been a deliberate attempt by the sinister men behind the scenes to whip up a feeling of hatred and hostility against the Government, not only among parents, but also among people in densely populated areas. Inflammatory slogans which were entirely unfounded, such as, "Special Agents Beat up Students" and "Students' Blood Does Not Flow In Vain" were painted in red on street walls, cinemas, lamp-posts and other strategica1ly glaring spots, with a view to inciting the feelings of the people against the Government. Sir, during the weekend, with the cooperation of the diligent staff of the Ministry of Education, we have made a thorough check of the actual number of students who have taken examinations and those that have not taken. We have facts, figures and names to prove that of the 3,171 candidates, only 927 have not taken their examinations. Of these 927, we have good reason to believe that many would have sat for the examinations, but for the intimidatory methods used by picketers. With the kind co-operation of the postal authorities, we have sent out urgent letters, signed personally by the Minister for Education, to parents of the 927 candidates, appealing to them to bring their children to sit for the supplementary examinations which began this morning. This morning, Sir, 240 candidates who were prevented last week from taking their examinations by pickets have turned up for the supplementary examinations. A large number of parents rang up the Ministry to complain again that their children were still prevented from entering the examination rooms. There are still human chains outside the examination centres. Similar methods of intimidation are being used by the pickets. The parents have emphasised in their petition to me that in a democratic country like ours, the people should have the democratic right and freedom to sit for an examination. When such freedom and rights are interfered with by uninvited intimidation and force, it is the duty of the Government to see that such rights are upheld and the parents protected. What the parents are asking for, Sir, is police protection and not police suppression, as twisted by the Barisan Sosialis. If the picketers had from the beginning adopted peaceful methods of persuasion instead of the type of hooliganism as we have witnessed, then this motion would not have been necessary. According to Press reports, Sir, the picketers claim that 2,000 so-called parents attended a meeting at the Chinese High School yesterday and passed certain resolutions supporting the picketers. One of the resolutions sounds rather mysterious and no doubt it was coined in such terms as to mislead the people. It reads: "Determined to oppose using of military and police against students who use peaceful persuasion to picket and determined to request the Government to withdraw its motion on December the 4th to condemn the picketers." Sir, you will have seen the Straits Times of 30th November with a picture on the front page, and everybody in the city knows whether this is peaceful persuasion or this is intimidation. Sir, who are these so-called parents? So far, according to official figures, only 927 candidates have not taken examinations last week, and of these, 240 have sat for the supplementary examinations this morning, leaving barely 600 candidates who have not taken examinations. Of these 600, many have rung up to say that they could not get into examination rooms. Even taking for granted that there are 600 picketers, surely 600 picketers cannot have 2,000 parents. We challenge the picketers to publish the names of these so-called parents and the names of their children who they claim are candidates of the Government Secondary IV examinations. On our side, Sir, we are prepared and ready to publish the names of candidates who have taken the examinations and those who have not taken them so that the public will not be confused and misled into believing that the action of the picketers has got the support of the majority of parents. Sir, the resolution which I have just mentioned - that is the slogan by the so-called parents at the Chinese High School - gave the impression that the Government had used the military and the police against innocent students. This, I say, is most mischievous. The whole city knows and, in fact, in many cases the Government has been blamed for not doing its duty to maintain law and order. Nobody, except in the imagination of the agitators, has seen any military truck or any police in action against the students during the last week. Sir, we have stressed over and over again that it is not the intention of the Government to use the Police Force against students. As long as the real non-student organisers of this dangerous campaign believe that there are Members of this House ready to condone this picketing, and, what is more important, ready to exploit the strong emotions that could be aroused as a result of clashes between children and police, these non-student organisers will egg the picketers on to more desperate acts of provocation. Sir, if the elected representatives of this House - both Government and Opposition - make it quite clear that they are on the side of law and order, that no Assemblyman will be prepared to exploit a situation arising when the police give such assistance as may be necessary to parents and students in the exercise of their lawful rights, then I am certain that the non-student organisers of this picketing and the picketers themselves will not embark on acts of recklessness. They will not do so because they will then know that behind the lawful exercise of police authority there is, the sanction of not only parents and students but also of the elected representatives of the people without regard to party conflicts and bribery. For in this case, we are not dealing with an educational issue but with an explosive situation which, if badly handled, could plunge this whole city into violence and disorder. In this case, the organisers of this boycott are working to bring about a clash between the police and picketing school children in the hope of sparking off violent emotions. But there is a clear indication, Sir, that if and when police protection has to be enforced it would have behind it the backing of the public, students, parents and all our Assemblymen, then the organisers of this dangerous and cowardly campaign would know that if they do anything foolish they would have the full force of public opinion at every level against them and these agitators would themselves have to face the anger of the people and take the full consequences. In view of this, Sir, we ask every Member of this House to make it clear that where police authority is lawfully and justly used as in this case, it would have the endorsement o, all Members of this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some three or four days ago, I had occasion to speak in this House about matters appertaining to the present motion before the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I for one cannot understand how the problem of education and any disagreement in an educational system which the State has arrived at after due and proper consultations with persons who are able to advise the Government on these matters, should have now turned out into the issue which it has. -If the issue before the country is whether Chinese students should be allowed to take the Secondary IV examination, I personally am not competent to speak on that. But in such matters on which I am not competent to speak, naturally I am guided by persons who are competent to speak on such matters and, in my view, the persons who are competent to speak on these matters are the educational experts in the Chinese educational field. As far as I could understand from the Government, these people have been consulted and it was agreed that the Secondary IV examination was a good thing for Chinese education and Chinese culture. Apparently, that was the situation two or three months ago, but since then things have taken a different turn. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was speaking to a friend of mine who is also interested in education. He is not interested in the Chinese education stream but he is interested in the English education stream. He is attached to the University. He has some experience of education and children and how children react to examinations. He told me that if a vote was taken amongst the children as to whether they should get promotions without sitting for examinations, more than fifty per cent of them would vote for promotions without sitting for examinations. That would be the position if students were asked to express their views on it on a democratic basis. But let us not overplay this democratic basis, Mr Speaker, Sir,In my own home, I would like to think that I treat my children fairly and well, and that the way I treat them is not the way my grandfather treated my father or my father treated me. But then there comes a point of time when in every home, as in every State, authority must be applied and the young children of the country must be told where they get off - if I may use a colloquialism. And if in the view of a parent - and who knows better what the interest of the child is than the parent? - the child is going off the track, it is up to the father and the mother to pull him up and tell him where he has got off the track. And if he gets difficult about it, then the solution is to put him across the lap and to administer a couple of good smacks where it will hurt most! That is how I would deal with the situation in my own home. The State, Mr Speaker, Sir, is merely a translation of the various homes into one. Now if the children are objecting to this examination when all the educational authorities are agreed that it is a good thing for Chinese education, I say that the children who are acting as picketers should be dealt with in an appropriate manner, first of all by the parents of those children. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, however much these students disagree with the Secondary IV examination, I do not think it is their business to go and picket and prevent others, particularly, when from the results that we have seen, according to the statement of the Minister for Education, about two-thirds of them have attended these examinations. On a democratic basis where the minority accepts the will of the majority, I suggest that the picketers should silently take up their tents and vanish. If one is talking about democracy, that is the way the pickets should behave. So that from that point of view, I am entirely with the 66 per cent of the students who are going into these examinations, and I appeal to the picketers no to prevent the others from, taking their examinations. If they have any legitimate objections to the Secondary IV examinations, they have their channels through which to make representations. If those representations are logical, to the effect that the Chinese language and Chinese culture are going to be destroyed, that naturally any government must take heed and make the necessary adjustments. But in the meantime, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a problem, that is, children who wish to take these examinations are being prevented from doing so. The duty of the Government - as the parents have rightly pointed out - in the democratic system, when the people want to exercise their lawful rights and somebody else is trying to prevent them from exercising these rights - is to come to their rescue. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am wholeheartedly in support of the motion, but I think the terms of the motion are such that it is liable to give some misunderstanding to people outside. When the motion about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education came before the House, where it was a question of violation of the rights of a Member of this Assembly, I thought it was for the Assembly to direct the police to take the necessary action. In this instance, where the rights of a citizen are being violated, it is the duty of the State to protect that citizen and to see that his civil rights are not being violated. Therefore, the responsibility of protecting such a citizen falls fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Government. But as a responsible legislature which happens to be sitting at the moment when Government is faced with a problem, and if the Government comes to this House for an expression of its opinion on the problem before it, then, of course, the Government is entitled to get a fair answer from the House. Therefore. Mr Speaker. Sir, I wish to move an amendment to the latter part of the motion. I have here a typewritten copy. Mr Speaker, Sir. The amendment will be, To delete the words "supports any action by" in lines 6 and 7 of the motion, and insert therefor the words, "approves of any action according to law by the Government through". If I may repeat it again, Mr Speaker, Sir, To delete the words "supports any action by" in lines 6 and 7, and insert therefor the words. "approves of any action according to law by the Government through". Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order.

Sir, I will not be very long. I think I have made my point. The amendment, Sir, is moved in order to clear certain doubts. As the motion stands, it says "... hereby resolves that this House supports any action by the Police ..." Now that might give room for doubt, although the Government will naturally say that "any action by the Police" there means any lawful action. But it could mean that any action could be taken by the police, and if something turns out to be unlawful, they might come back to the House and say, "Well, you have already agreed to this. Therefore, pass legislation which will idemnify." We do not want all that. I think what the Government can do and should do is to act according to law in respect of persons acting not in accordance with the law. And it is with that intent and purpose, Sir, that this amendment is moved.

The Original Question was, 'That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House supports any action by the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls." Since which an amendment has been proposed. In lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "supports any action by", and there to insert "approves of any action according to law by the Government through". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Perhaps it might be for the convenience of hon. Members if I suggest that in the debate that is to follow, Members debate both the original motion and the amendment, so that at the end of the debate - it means, of course, that each Member will be allowed one speech, and not more than one speech, except the proposer of the substantive motion who will have the right to reply - I will put the Question on the amendment, and then on the original motion, as amended, as the case may be. That is for the convenience of hon. Members. No dissenting voice.

Sir, the Government accepts the amendment.

Well, that is an indication for hon. Members. 3.06 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has given his own grim picture of so-called sinister men - but sinister men of the P.A.P.'s own making, own make-believe, so that they can keep on building and maintaining that artificial atmosphere of tension and suspense. This will fit into their scheme of things, Sir, as I will endeavour to explain. The Parliamentary Secretary also talked of the hooliganism of the students. We, on our part, Sir, never believe that the students can ever be hooligans. Hooliganism is only present in those mysterious people who wear drainpipe trousers, who throw stones, bulbs and glasses at the students, and generally attack the students in every way. Sir, education issues are always emotional issues. And emotional issues bring out undesirable features which, in a debate of this nature, we want to avoid. For this reason alone, we would have preferred the motion before the House not be debated now. There would be cries of chauvinism from people who do not understand the Chinese education problem. Even the Deputy Prime Minister himself, Sir, -

Do you understand?

Order.

- said the other day that Nanyang University is evidence of Chinese chauvinism. So we see how even the so-called enlightened -

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order.

I want to know when he quoted me definitely in which and in what context I said those very words.

I cannot quote you the exact context, Sir, but it was said in this very Assembly only a few days ago.

He was away!

Don't bluff!

Order.

Let him look at the Hansard, and the exact truth will be revealed. As I say, even a Chairman of a political Party who once upon a time preached equal treatment for the four streams of education can make blunders like this. It is no wonder that people outside are becoming more and more confused. Sir, the motion before the House is not just to get the Assembly to endorse the rule of law and order. That is not necessary. We all want law and order.

That is what we want to know.

Order.

We, in the Barisan Sosialis, all abide by the Queensberry rules of parliamentary democracy in spite of the Siamese boxing indulged in by the P.A.P.

Judo!

Sir, this motion has, however, been introduced with sinister motives. There were already insinuations and innuendoes of pro-Communist elements inside and outside the Assembly. There were suggestions that the Barisan Sosialis was obstructive and did not allow the Assembly to discuss important matters of State. We have seen, Sir, how surprise motions, one after another, were introduced in the midst of this merger debate, and it is not unexpected therefore that we have this motion before the House. The P.A.P. hopes that such diversion will draw the attention of the people away from the ugly revelations of their sell-out merger. The P.A.P. is desperately trying to divert public attention from the merger debate in which -

Sir, on a point of order. After you have ruled that a Member should avoid tedious repetition, if I may quote the exact words, Sir, of Standing Order 54 to which you drew the attention of the House: 'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.' I have heard all this, Sir, even though it was in some other debate. Could we be spared?

Order. I suppose there is a little repetition. A little repetition is inevitable since this motion and the merger motion overlap. I suppose a little repetition is unavoidable. It is only when it becomes tedious that the Speaker will have to intervene. Perhaps the Member for Queenstown will bear that in mind.

Sir, this only proves my point, namely, that they are trying to distract public attention from the merger issue. We are quite used to tricks like this. We were in the P.A.P. at one time, so we know - An hon. Member: Traitors!

- what tricks are up their sleeves. Sir, what are the real motives be, hind this sudden move? As I said, these motives are all sinister. As you know, Sir, there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the P.A.P. to smear all those who do not agree with them as Communists and pro-Communists. And this motion is meant to link the Barisan Sosialis with the students' strike and paint everything as Communist inspired. Thus, Sir, just because the students stick posters on Chinese-owned buses, and as Mr Fong Swee Suan (you will remember the other day, Sir) is the adviser to the Singapore Bus Workers' Union -

He is a Barisan man.

- the adviser to that union, so, according to the P.A.P., Mr Fong must be responsible for those posters on the buses! Such dangerous and illogical reasoning of the P.A.P. shows how completely off the track they have gone. Sir, many will know that posters have also been stuck on the S.T.C. buses and trolleys. Mr Devan Nair is adviser to the S.T.C. Employees' Union. If we were to accept the P.A.P.'s logic, would we not have to blame Mr Devan Nair for the students' dissatisfaction? Again, Sir, the Member for Anson is -

He is here to defend himself!

- is the legal adviser to the Public Daily-Rated Employees Union Federation. On the same logic, are we to blame the Member for Anson for the recent strike -

Nobody did, you know. That is the point.

Order.

Sir, year after year, millions of dollars - money which has been taken from the people - has been spent on the Special Branch. For what? So that the Special Branch can misrepresent all expression of genuine grievances of the people as Communist-inspired? For getting intelligence like that concerning Tommy Koh? I will come to the Special Branch again. Sir.

Order. I hope we are not going to embark on a debate on the Special Branch, because I will not allow it.

No, Sir. I just want to bring out the relevant points about the Special Branch in this particular motion. An hon. Member: Why are you interested in the Special Branch?

Order. I think if the Government Benchers are a little bit more patient, they will have the opportunity of replying. Let us not have these interjections. Dr Lee.

Thank you, Sir. Such gross inefficiency of the Special Branch can only be matched by the utter stupidity and inefficiency of the whole Ministry of Education and the whole Lee Kuan Yew Government. Here, Sir, is a delicate situation caused by the mishandling of the genuine grievances and discontent of students fostered and deliberately allowed to be aggravated by the P.A.P. Government. Instead of finding a solution to the just grievances of the students and so preventing the development of an explosive situation, we find the most inept handling of student grievances in the whole history of Chinese education. in their incompetence and impotence to deal with the situation caused entirely by their own inefficiency and ineptitude, the Government now attempts to pass the buck to the Assembly. By this the P.A.P. hopes to saddle all the responsibility of their misdeeds on the Assembly. Are the Ministers, and the Prime Minister also, so utterly sterile in their outlook and approach that they must get the Assembly to be responsible for their foolish mistakes? They created the mess and they want us to clear it for them. If they are so incapable of governing, why do they not resign? They still hold on to government when they cannot govern. Sir, today, the name of Yong Nyuk Lin has become -

Order. In this Assembly, and outside, Mr Yong Nyuk Lin is the Minister for Education.

The name of the Minister for Education has become no better than the name o-f Chew Swee Kee. He is a man attempting to do two big jobs when, in fact, he is not even fit for one of them. Sir, I will explain. The Minister for Education is concurrently Chairman of the Singapore Harbour Board, a full-time job. One-quarter of Singapore's budget is -

Order. I cannot allow this trend of debate. I think the hon. Member must know that the responsibility of one Minister is the responsibility of the whole Cabinet, and therefore I do not think a personal attack of this nature is permitted.

I was only trying to explain to the House that the full attention of the Minister has not been devoted to the Ministry of Education. See what he has done? He has made a mess of the whole job. If the Minister cannot spend adequate time and attention in the Ministry, then it is only fair that he should let somebody else do it. If he could have spent more time, Sir, in the Ministry, possibly the present situation would not have arisen. Let us hope, Sir, that the Singapore Harbour Board would not be messed up as -

Order. I think the hon. Member for Queenstown knows that he ought to follow the indications coming from the Chair. I have indicated that the position, as far as this Assembly is concerned, is that the Cabinet is responsible for all the actions of each individual Minister.

I misunderstood you, Sir. I thought you said "Order" for the people opposite. [Interruption]

Order. Perhaps for the people opposite!

Sir, all this student dissatisfaction is caused by the incompetence, if not of the Minister for Education, then of the whole Cabinet. All this can be clearly seen from a review of how this trouble has developed. Let me briefly give you an outline of the Government education policy with regard to Chinese education.

Order. No. I must certainly prevent that being done, because if I do that, then there will be a debate on the education policy. We are now debating a motion, "at the request of parents of students ... that this House supports any action by the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations" I am paraphrasing the motion - "and in order that students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls." That is all we are doing. I will not allow any debate on the education policy to take place on this motion.

I was hoping I could explain to you, Sir, that there is always relevance when there is cause and effect. One cannot discuss the effect without knowing the cause. And it is because of that that I have tried to give you, Sir, just a very brief outline so that we can have the proper background. Only then would we be able to understand the present dissatisfaction of the students. May I, Sir?

The Chair is still not convinced, because the motion, to my mind, seems to be just a request that the House does something in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take examinations. That is all. The fact that there is discontent among certain students about the education policy is incidental. It may be mentioned of course, in passing, as indeed it has been. But to go into details is completely irrelevant.

Sir, I bow to your decision. But it is difficult to debate this motion, Sir, without at least touching a little on -the background of the motion, because the Government's trick on this particular occasion is purely to let the people concentrate on the result of what they have been doing. They want people to forget all about the causes of the present dissatisfaction of the students. It is almost impossible, Sir, not to talk a little of the causes so that we really could understand fully why we have to debate the present motion. However, Sir, I will endeavour to cut off as much of it as possible. An hon. Member: Cut off the whole item!

Order.

Anyway, Sir, the grievances of the students are genuine and legitimate. They have genuine fears that the so-called new system of the Government is not meant as a step towards giving equal treatment to the four streams of education but something else. And because of their genuine fears the present dissatisfaction has come about. They fear, Sir, that with the present system, the end result would be a reduction in quantity as well as quality of Chinese education.

Order. The difficulty is for the Chair to draw a line somewhere. I think all that this Assembly should know in this particular debate is that there are grievances - certain students think they have grievances - and therefore as a result of these grievances, these students are taking this action. I think that is about all this Assembly must be told in this particular debate. Of course the hon. Member will have other opportunities of airing the grievances of the students in this particular matter, but certainly not in this motion.

I will skip all that, Sir. Anyway there are genuine grievances of students, parents and educational bodies which the Government has ignored. If there had been consultation and democratic practice, the ugly situation today would not have arisen. There would have been no student protests today, Sir. Unfortunately, the inefficiency of Chew-Swee-Kee-like Ministers in the P.A.P. Government have caused further dissatisfaction among all Chinese education circles. Coupled with this, there is also behind the scenes a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to foment even more trouble. As I have indicated, Sir, educational issues are emotional issues. They can be easily misconstrued and mischievously interpreted to mean Chinese chauvinism and the like. Sir, all news of this impending student dissatisfaction and trouble was completely hidden from the people. There was a complete black-out of news until recently. Many people not connected directly with Chinese education did not have the slightest inkling of what was afoot and what the present dissatisfaction. don is all about. The English-educated especially, Sir, Those who read only the English Press were kept completely in the dark. It is no wonder that the recent student dissatisfaction has hit the English-educated like a bolt from the blue. But what the P.A.P. Government does not realise is this: that the students have parents, and both the students and the parents have friends, and they pass the information round to all the people who show a little interest in Chinese education.

That is why most of them sat for the examination.

And thus it was that a good number of people already knew that maladministration of the P.A.P. was going to lead to trouble.

For the Barisan!

The students in the last few months have been trying to bring their grievances to the attention of the public, but the Government has deliberately suppressed all student opinion on this matter affecting their very future. For instance, the students had been holding mass meetings in the various secondary schools -

How do you know?

- and at each of these meetings, there were thousands of students present. On the 25th of November, 1961, about 10,000 students met in pouring rain at the Chinese High School grounds.

How many caught colds after that?

But not a whisper of this appeared in the Press. All this, Sir, was hidden from the public and, in particular, from the English-educated and the parents. Why? Why did the Government suppress all these grievances? Why is it that only now, when trouble has started that the Government brings the problem to the notice of the Assembly? The Government has attempted to explain their deliberate suppression of student opinion by saying that the so-called responsible Press did not want to publish the opinion of students. You will recall, Sir, that the organ of my Party, "Barisan", published a circular issued by the students expressing the students' view-point, and because of this, we in the Barisan Sosialis were accused by the Government of instigating trouble amongst the students. Sir, as all the Members of the Assembly will know, this circular, which was published in the Barisan and which was quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education a few days ago, was actually the same circular that had been sent to all Assemblymen. I am sure the Government benches have all received their copies of this circular. We also know, Sir, that a memorandum was submitted to the Minister for Education. Why is it that the Government must wait until now, when the situation has developed to such a serious extent, before seeking the help of the Assembly? Their mishandling of the situation has allowed the whole matter to develop into the present impasse. Hoping to get scapegoats for their mishandling of the situation, the Government starts using terms like anti-social elements, political agitators and so on. They want to vilify opponents and smear them as this and that. If today, the Prime Minister has a tummyache or a toothache, I am sure he will also blame the Barisan Sosialis.

Order. If he has that, and a Member wishes to raise the matter, he has to do that by way of a substantive motion.

I will bear that in mind, Sir. Sir, the present dissatisfaction in the Chinese schools fits into the Govermnent political strategy very well. It is to the Government's advantage that the present delicate situation be aggravated. It will then provide the Government with an excuse to move against their political opponents. We in the Barisan Sosialis have already been blamed for the students' boycott of the examinations. Already the stage is set. Having accused the Barisan Sosialis of instigating the students, the Government hopes that when an explosion does take place, it can suppress the Barisan Sosialis under the guise of preserving peace and order. We all remember the days when the Prime Minister himself and the P.A.P. were constantly accused by Chew Swee Kee of using Chinese school students for political purposes. We all also remember, Sir, that when the student trouble eventually exploded in 1956, the Lim Yew Hock Government found a pretext to launch a massive purge of its political opponents and the entire trade union organisation.

Wah, terrible!

Sir, the P.A.P. today is just like the Labour Front Government of 1956 - An hon. Member: It is all in vogue.

The present Government, however, is just a little bit more shrewd than the Lim Yew Hock Government.

Oh, you have found that out!

Order. I think we must stop these interjections from the Government benches. The motion itself asks for law and order. I ask for order. [Laughter.]

Sir, this only shows -

Order. I have ruled.

The P.A.P., Sir, have learnt the folly of Chew Swee Kee. They know that any repressive action against the Chinese school students in Singapore would mean political death for the Party in power. That is why the Government has now brought in this motion. This motion on the surface, Sir, appears to be very correct and proper. They hope, thus, to inveigle all the Parties in this Assembly into supporting police action against the students. We can be sure, Sir, Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion does not ask for police action, but the Member is indicating that it does. Could he indicate where it does ask for police action?

That is not a point of order. It is just a point of interpretation of the motion itself. The motion itself asks that this House supports any action by the Police to protect students. It is true that an amendment has been moved which has been accepted by the Government, but that amendment must first be accepted by the House.

A point of guidance from the Chair. If it please you, Sir, I have noticed repeatedly Ministers raising points of order which are not points of order. I ask the Chair whether it is possible to use disciplinary measures to prevent an abuse of a right which could seriously impede fair and consistent pursuit of a line of thought.

Yes. There have been occasions when Members of this Assembly, not only Ministers, have risen on points of order which are not really points of order. That is a practice which, of course, must be frowned at, because that is, in fact, an abuse of the rules of this House. Any abuse of the rules can, of course, be adequately dealt with by the Speaker.

The Government benches, Sir, hope to confuse me. I am not a lawyer and they want to play -

Order. Is this on the point raised by the Minister? If it is, it is out of order. Please continue.

As I was saying, Sir, we can be sure that should this motion be unanimously passed, the Government would use this as a pretext to launch massive repressive action against the students. As everybody knows, this can only lead to violence and bloodshed all over the city. And this is precisely what the Government wants, violence and bloodshed, because under cover of such violence and bloodshed, they hope to find an excuse to suppress all political opponents in Singapore -

The Barisan Sosialis.

In other words, Sir, the Government is asking Members of this Assembly to give their blessing to a scheme - to provoke a situation which will lead to violence and bloodshed, which they hope will, in turn, provide the Government with the excuse to suppress, not the students, but their political opponents. Sir, the people of Singapore are not fools. They have all learnt the bitter lessons of the past. They remember 1955 and 1956. The horrible memories of violence and bloodshed in the days of Chew Swee Kee are still vivid -

Order. I wonder whether this repetition of the name of Chew Swee Kee will help us at all. It has been repeated about six times. I wonder whether the Member for Queenstown could now avoid using that exprecsion, which is becoming tedious.

There is such a semblance, Sir, between the attitude of the present Minister towards the students and Chew Swee Kee's attitude that one cannot help but recall Chew Swee Kee. But I will endeavour not to mention Chew Swee Kee too often. The students and the people of Singapore have suffered enough brutalities. But, unfortunately, we have today in the Minister for Education, a person not unlike the past Lim Yew Hock Government's Minister for Education. Whereas the previous Lim Yew Hock Government was stupid enough to carry out repressive actions on their own, the Lee Kuan Yew Government and the present Minister for Education are cunning enough to try to involve the whole Assembly in a bloodbath which may follow any action on the students.

Come, come! Let us have -

Order. I am just wondering whether that is a deliberate attempt to impute an improper motive to the Government Ministers. If that is so, then it is completely wrong. It is out of order. If the argument is that any action might lead to the incidents which have been related, then perhaps it is in order. There is a slight distinction.

I am sorry I left out the words "might lead to". [Interruption].

Order.

I do not wish to touch on personalities, Sir, but everybody knows that the present Minister for Education is known to everybody - particularly the English-educated and the school teachers - for his arrogance and haughtiness, and he is not a man who can handle the present delicate situation with realism and reasonableness. If there is anybody to be blamed for the present chaotic situation, it is none other than the Minister for Education and his Cabinet colleagues. They alone must shoulder all responsibility. They cannot get away from this responsibility by hysterically blaming their political opponents for stirring up trouble. Starting on the anti-Communist line, the Front-Benchers opposite want to behave and rave like the Labour Front anti-Communist so-called Ministers.

I never raved.

Sir, the English Press - the Straits Times - has given only one side of the story, that is, the Government story of the present situation. As usual, they want to paint the Chinese school students as little devils of violence and unrest. That has been the familiar line of the English Press for quite some time. Sir, in order to get a correct picture of what is happening in Singapore, one must also read the vernacular Press. Every day in the past week, the Chinese newspapers have carried detailed accounts of how the Government have been trying to provoke trouble Sand violence in the delicate situation in the Chinese schools.

On a point of order, Sir. A very serious allegation is made that the Government is out to provoke violence and trouble. I think the hon. Member must substantiate that allegation and we want to meet it.

The point of order is well taken. I have indicated that there must not be any allegations of that nature. All that the Member would be entitled to say possibly is that by the Government's action they might provoke disorder and so on. But he cannot make a deliberate allegation that the Government are doing that, because if he does that, then, of course, he opens himself to a situation in which he will be called upon to substantiate a serious allegation of that nature. Dr Lee.

I understand, Sir. The Government at the present moment is even using the familiar tactics of getting plain-clothes men from the Special Branch amongst the students. We understand that some of these plain-clothes men even posed as students and were trying to instigate the real students to violence. We have also learnt that others posed as parents.

On a point of order. Since the hon. Member is persisting - and obviously he must have solid grounds for persisting - I must ask him to state it categorically in writing and substantiate.

The hon. Member need not state categorically in writing. He is making a responsible statement in this Assembly which is going down on record and he takes the consequences if he makes a statement which he cannot substantiate. If my recollection is correct, I do understand that a Commission of Inquiry into the student unrest has been promised.

That is so.

I just mention that in passing.

Sir, all these things that have happened can be found in the Chinese newspapers. There is genuine ground for suspicion that things like that have happened. We see pictures of so-called parents in the various newspapers, and they appeared to be more like Special Branch plain-clothes men than real parents. Sir, there are also other pictures in the Chinese papers which, of course, do not appear in the Straits Times. These pictures show unidentified men who many people guess and believe to be Special Branch men in disguise .assaulting students. Sir, let me show [Indicating] you a picture published in the Mm Pau dated 2nd December, 1961. Here is a picture of a young man dressed in drain-pipe trousers raising his hands against the students who are turning away.

By whom was it taken?

Order.

Any person can see from this picture alone that there are vicious persons - definitely not the parents - who want to cause trouble amongst the picketing Chinese students. Sir, there are other reports that plain-clothes men were hiding in the building of the Teachers' Training College and that they threw bottles and stones at students picketing peacefully at the gates of the College compound. Let me quote you, Sir. All this does not appear in the English papers. They can only be found in the Chinese Press. I think it will help matters if I read it in Mandarin and you allow the interpreter to interpret it for you.

I think all the hon. Member can do is to give the name and date of that paper and paraphrase what is in it in English.

In the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 30th of November, page 2, there are reports of students being assaulted, and stones, glasses and bottles thrown at the students by people hiding behind certain buildings. You cannot imagine that students want to hurt themselves. It cannot be so. Again, Sir, there is a report in the Nanyang Siang Pau of the 2nd of December, page 2, which says that a student called out, "They are using the handcuffs to hit me on the head." Only the police have handcuffs, Sir. Sir, from this little bit alone, you will see the provocation that has been directed at the students by "unidentified men", "mysterious men" and "men with handcuffs". If they are not people who have authority behind them, then I am sure the Commissioner of Police should take particular note and get all of them arrested. These are only pinpricks and they were meant to get the students to retaliate. If there should be any retaliation, then, of course, it suits their scheme. Then they could take action and they hoped that, by taking action, they would be able to draw everybody into their so-called net. Sir, these are the things which the English-educated section of our population do not know, because the Straits Times presents only one side of the picture. It plays up every little incident that may seem unfavourable to the students but - deliberately or otherwise - it suppresses all factual truths. The Assembly is constantly being supplied with official statements from this Ministry and that. We have heard of the so-called intimidation by students. But let us ask the Minister - where does he get all those reports? We have known how reliable they are. I do not have to remind you again, Sir, of the Tommy Koh incident. Yet it is solely on the basis of such information from spies and informers that the Government is trying to make us believe their version of the present situation. We know, Sir, that people in the Special Branch have been trained to orientate their thinking only in one direction. They have been trained to see all children of Chinese schools as potential Communists or even criminals. How can we ever trust such reports, Sir? Sir, the present situation has arisen out of genuine grievances among the Chinese school students. To say that there are political agitators behind the present dispute is to tell the public a deliberate falsehood. If there are any political agitators - as I have endeavoured to show - amongst the Chinese students, today, they are the people who wear goggles, those mysterious men with drain-pipe trousers, those mysterious men with handcuffs, and those mysterious men who throw glasses and bottles at students. The motion tabled by the Government is only an attempt to involve the whole Assembly in their diabolical scheme of trying to maintain tension and strife. The Government's determination to prolong this tension can be seen by their deliberate institution of supplementary examinations as announced. On the one hand, they say that they do not want to use force on the students. Yet on the other hand, the Government are advocating or hoping that the Assembly will support their police action whenever they find it necessary. We in the Barisan Sosialis will never give a blank cheque to the desperate men who have to use force against the students. The students have shown themselves to be restrained and orderly in their picketing.

They respond to your request.

I do not think I need point to you pictures of students sitting around in circles. They are not people who are unruly. They are not people who want to fight against the police. Nobody in his proper senses would be able to interpret anything like that. And yet we hear the Prime Minister, the Education Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education saying that the students are causing the trouble. In fact, I would say that the students should be congratulated on their calm and restraint in the face of such grave provocation by the P.A.P. Government - and the Special Branch too, I am sure. We trust and we hope the students will maintain and remain calm and restrained and not fall into the P.A.P. trap of violence and bloodshed. We urge the Government not to use the police on defenceless students. Students have suffered enough violence and brutalities at the hands of the Lim Yew Hock Government. We have complete sympathy with them in their fear of the police and in their wanting to cover up part of their faces. This is not cowardice, Sir, as what the Minister for Education wants us to believe.

Hooligans.

This is simple common sense. The students know that photographs would be taken of them, and that if recognised they would be dealt with in various ways, like arrests on some other charge or deprivation of jobs later on when they should ask for jobs. We know, for example, Sir, that good citizens of Singapore have been denied their citizenship or their jobs because they had taken part in the 1955 and 1956 student demonstrations.

1954!

So, Sir, I think the students are very wise. They have common sense. They know with whom they are dealing - unscrupulous people in the P.A.P. The only cowardice, Sir, is the cowardice of an inept Government that wants to hide behind the Assembly for their irresponsible handling of the whole affair. That is the only cowardice. Take note of that. Sir, we resolutely oppose the motion. We oppose everything that smacks of Chew Swee Kee. If the name of the Minister for Education is to be linked up with the name of Chew Swee Kee, then let us hope it is not going to be in the use of oppressive action against defence-less students, but rather that it is in the ownership of iron mines. We urge the Government, if it is sincere in its desire to solve the present problem, to adopt a realistic approach. First, there must be calm and quiet in the schools. We urge the Government that instead of prolonging the affair and so creating further tension, to reduce immediately this tension by allowing conditions to return to normal. Let all anger, temper and emotions settle down first, before the Government tries to do anything drastic. Using the police at this juncture is not going to contribute to peace and tranquillity. It is not going to solve any problem. It is no use the Government trying to bull-doze its way through. We know the Government has enough police, and military strength too, to manhandle the students if they want to. This is nothing that an elected Government need be proud of. We know the Government can easily choose to ignore the grievances of the students. But this will not solve the problem.. It will only postpone the solution. Let the Government not put its pride and arrogance above the interests of students. It is sheer irresponsibility on the part of the Government to insist on conducting supplementary Government examinations this week. This is a deliberate attempt, I say, to prolong the present trouble. Sir, the Chinese School Secondary IV examinations are, in fact, over. But the Government intends to carry on supplementary examinations. Already it has been admitted by the Minister himself that these examinations, having been conducted under abnormal psychological stress and strain, did not allow the students to give of their best performances. And the Ministry has indicated that it is going to take into consideration the students' normal school records in the assessment of their academic standards. This examination has obviously lost its educational value. It cannot be regarded as a proper assessment of the student's academic abilities anymore. Then why carry on this fiasco? Already it is rightly believed, Sir, that the Government is going to pass everyone who took the examinations. This is obviously an attempt to encourage more students to take the examinations. But what is more ridiculous, Sir, if true, is that the Government intends to pass even students who did not take the examination. This, of course, will boost up the official figures of students who were supposed to have taken the examination. Sir, yesterday thousands of genuine parents, I stress the word "genuine", Sir, assembled in the Chinese High School Hall and collectively condemned the Government's educational policy and its mishandling of the present situation. How is it that this Assembly has not heard anything from the Government of the opinions of these thousands of parents?

Barisan supporters.

We are told, Sir, that there is a petition from parents asking for police protection. But what about the parents who are condemning the Government? Sir, I am sure my colleagues will enlighten you on what had passed yesterday, so that you - and especially the English-educated - may know exactly what is happening. But we, in the Barisan Sosialis, have always stated that we do not want tension and strife, for we do not need this tension and strife to achieve our objectives. We believe that the people of Singapore are intelligent enough to see through the present propaganda campaign of the Government -

That is exactly what we have done to see it through!

- and we are confident that by purely peaceful and constitutional means we can achieve our objectives. Let no one misinterpret our opposition to this motion as an indication that we do not want peace and order in Singapore. We can well expect the Government and the Straits Times to twist our opposition to this motion as an indication that we want violence and unrest. In fact, they can twist and distort anything they like. But it will not save the P.A.P. from their political doom. We urge the Government, Sir, to climb down, "Climb down from your arrogant attitude, from your Lyceum heights -"

Order. I do not think I have reached those heights at the moment? I ask the Member for Queenstown to address the Chair so that he will not forget that he should be calm and collected in this Assembly.

I will keep that in mind, Sir. The use of the police force is not going to solve anything at all. It will only aggravate the already tense situation. The only realistic way for the Govermnent to solve the present difficulties is for it to admit its responsibility for the present situation. Let the whole matter be viewed calmly and dispassionately. Everyone concerned must be consulted and his views must be considered. Let the Government consult again the educationalists, the real parents, and above all the students, and arrive at a peaceful solution to what is essentially an educational problem. Let it not try to make any more political capital out of the present delicate situation. We hope the Government will pay heed to what we have said. 4.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House, and I also accept the amendment which was proposed by the Member for Farrer Park. It will have been noticed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that for want of facts on his side, the Member for Queenstown has resorted to personal attacks, which method I do not intend to follow, except to put just one personal question to him, who appears to be a great defender of Chinese education - Where does he send his children to - a Chinese school or an English school?

An English school!

And with that, may I then proceed to today's debate? [Interruption]

Order.

I shall give the Member an individual answer.

Please continue.

Sir, there is every reason for the present motion before the House being debated seriously, because the Member for Queenstown himself has given the Government credit for not having brought in the police at the very start of the Government Secondary IV Examination over which there has been this boycott. But the motion has come before this House at the request of parents whose children are students taking the examination under very difficult conditions at great cost of time and energy, just in order to have the right to take the public examination. You will remember, Sir, that after my ministerial statement on Monday last, announcing to Members of this House the position as known to me then of conditions which existed as a result of the boycott, the Prime Minister challenged Members opposite, that is, the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen, to indicate whether they were in favour or otherwise of the boycott. This call also came from Members of the Opposition, namely, the Member for Farrer Park, who himself was very agitated. Where was the stand of the Barisan Sosialis? We got no answer - which is very clear indeed that silence means consent and that, in fact, the Barisan Sosialis was egging on and encouraging the students to persist in this foolish boycott, that they were all part of the grand design to bring chaos out or order. Therefore. Sir, in those circumstances, had Government brought in the police to protect the poor students and the parents who wanted to carry on with the examinations, the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis would have been the very first to exploit the situation and say, "There you are. Here is the P.A.P. Government with the heavy hand of the police and the armed might to crush the children." That we did not do. We did not fall into their trap, much as they tried. But it is a different position entirely when the students and the parents themselves felt that they needed it because they could not stand this nonsense for too long a time. May I refer Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Straits Times issue of Saturday, 2nd December, where there was a report made by parents of students at the Teachers' Training College Centre, that is, parents of students who were taking the examination? I am quoting the paper now on page 4: 'The parents then said that a delegation of picket leaders had met them earlier in the day and had expressed regret for the clashes during the past few days.' The spokesman for the parents said: 'We accepted their regret and advised them to sit for the substitute examination due to begin on Monday.' But unfortunately the pickets did not keep their word. The Member for Queenstown has tried to voice the so-called grievances of students in the Chinese schools. But let me quote what the students themselves told reporters at a Press conference the same day and in the same column: 'At a Press conference given later the ten member boycott action committee, including five girls...'. This is what they said: 'They said they were not against the examination itself, but the condition which stipulates that only those who pass the Secondary IV examination will be allowed to take the Upper Secondary II examination.' Just that and nothing else. Sir, all right-thinking people applaud the brave stand taken by students, their parents and guardians who refused to be cowed by the intimidation of Communist and pro-Communist manipulators who used innocent school children for their diabolical aims. Although two-thirds of the candidates are taking the examination and its supplementary papers, the persistence on the part of agitators to carry on picketing even for the supplementary examination today shows the unreasonableness of the political agitators behind this boycott. This attitude has exhausted the admirable patience of students and parents who want to be left alone to have the freedom and the right to take a public examination. Having been unreasonably harassed for more than three days, they decided to form a Students-Parents Committee. One of their constructive recommendations was not to look after themselves but to suggest cutting short the examination period by one day. This was immediately accepted by the Government. As Government has already indicated that supplementary papers would be set this week, the Students-Parents Committee, noting the continued forceful intimidation of pickets on both students and parents who wish their children to take the examination and wishing to avoid further incidents, have asked for police protection. Hence the motion before the House. Had the pickets conducted their picketing peacefully, which they should have but did not; had they left the entrances to examination centres open for people to move in and out freely and without forming human wall and human chain barricades and even locking up the gates of schools in the dark of night, the Students-Parents Committee themselves would not have called for police protection. It would have been unnecessary. This is purely a move in self-defence. They are the aggrieved party, not the picketers. They want to be allowed to exercise their democratic right and freedom to take a public examination. Those who do not want to take the examination are not being compelled to do so. They can stay at home and it is their own business. If they want to boycott it, no one is stopping them either. But they should not impose their views on others. Worse still, trying forcefully, stopping and preventing others from taking this examination. This is not the way to behave in a democratic society like ours. This is the way of force, intimidation and thuggery. Mr Speaker, Sir, at 10.55 this morning, I arrived at the junction of Tanglin and Kay Siang Roads. There were about 15 to 20 pickets, and my car was stopped by one of them. He asked my driver where he was heading for. I answered in reply that I am the Minister for Education. At this the leader said, "Oh, the Minister is here." When I asked, "May I be allowed to proceed to do my work?", they instinctively formed a human chain first before coming to a decision, which was that my car would not be permitted to go in but that I might proceed on foot, which I did. Then they burst into song. Of course, the song was very derogatory to me. Twenty yards ahead was another human wall of about 50 to 60 student picketers singing in unison and awaiting my arrival. When I was a foot away from the singing human wall, one leader ordered, "Let him pass." And the middle link of each human chain was loosened. I walked into the human mass and came out of it again amidst their chorus which ended after I had walked another ten yards away. There were in all 240 candidates, as mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary earlier on, who took the first supplementary paper on Chinese Language this morning. But for the picketing which blocked all entrances to the three centres for the supplementary examination, there could have been a larger attendance today. However, since 1,859 candidates took this paper last week (the earlier report made last week did not include two candidates at the Trafalgar Home) the total number of candidates who have taken the Chinese Language paper, which is a compulsory paper, is now 2,099, or 2,100 approximately. This represents, Sir, two-thirds of the possible candidates of 3,171. Earlier on the Member for Farrer Park did say that if we are to follow democratic procedure, the fact that two-thirds of the candidates want to take the examination is clear evidence that the majority support the examination and that the picketers should accept this verdict and leave the others alone. May I mention that this point was also stated by the Students-Parents Committee after the first day of the examination? They have said that more than half have decided to take the examination. So will the picketers try to stop the boycott and let others carry on? But, unfortunately, there are forces who talk about democratic procedure but who avail themselves of all the benefits of democracy just to make a mockery of them. Sir, let us not belittle the effect of tabling a motion for debate in this Legislative Assembly. On Wednesday, the 29th of November, 1961, when my Parliamentary Secretary was prevented from coming to this Assembly by the pickets -

Beleaguered!

He was prevented, and naturally he was beleaguered together with me had I attempted to come out earlier; but I was prevented from doing so because of work, and I would have come forward after the work was over. The pickets were immediately dispersed as soon as the debate on the motion regarding the freedom of movement of a representative of the people was in progress in this Chamber. Sir, on my way to this Assembly, I noticed that the pickets who were being dispersed on instructions were looking very confused. They were having a grand time playing games and singing songs. It was all in good fun. Because it was after all during the vacation. But there was another group of pickets still on duty along Tanglin Road at the examination centre, still under control, picketing. And this other group in the Kay Siang Road were asked to disperse. So they had a very confused look. "What is all this? How come? Why are we called off?", and so on. Likewise, Sir, today, four hours before now, at 12.30 p.m., about 400 to 500 pickets at the Teachers' Training College and at the Ministry of Education mysteriously melted away. Sir, had the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen not objected to the present motion being debated on Thursday, the pickets would not have been called out for last Friday and today's supplementary examination. Students and parents of those students who want to take the examination would have been spared the annoyance, the irritation brought about by the pickets and the people behind them. Before I conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to pay once again my tribute to the students, the parents and the guardians of those students who stuck their necks out in defence of democracy; to the staff and officials of my Ministry, to the postmen and officials of the Post Office for their loyalty and dedication to duty during a very difficult period. It may not be known that at this very moment more than 9,000 candidates are taking the Cambridge School Certificate and the Cambridge Higher School Certificate Examinations. So I wish today to acknowledge how creditably my staff and the officials of the Ministry of Education have, with great patience, handled this situation over the boycott of the first Government Chinese Secondary IV Examination and, at the same time, looked after 9,000 other candidates who are doing their examinations. This is not the work of an inept Government -

A good civil service!

It is. I make my acknowledgement of that fact without reserve.

Good administration!

And it goes to show how, far from being desperate men, we know what to do and we always think three steps ahead of you across - I mean not you, Mr Speaker, but the Barisan Sosialis, who can only look at their own noses and not recognise them. I therefore, Sir, wish to say that I fully support the motion before the House and would urge every Assemblyman, if he has a conscience, to support it. 4.36 p.m.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has charged that Communists and pro-Communists are using the Chinese students for political purposes. His Parliamentary Secretary has charged That sinister men are using the Chinese students for political purposes. When I asked who they are, we got no precision. Sir, I am not so naive as not to recognise that the charges are probably true. I find it difficult to believe that these students without adult instigation would carry on the strike in this manner. But who are the men who are instigating them? We do not know or we have not been told. But I would like to say one thing, Sir, though I am prepared to accept that there are adults who are responsible for perverting our youth and utilising them for political purposes, I say this Government and this Front Bench is using our Chinese students for political purposes and using their boycott of the examination for political purposes. In the very midst of this unhappy debate, where the vital issue of the future of the whole people of Singapore is involved, we have had manoeuvre after manoeuvre on the Government side. We have had the spectacle of the Minister for Education utilising his right to make a ministerial statement - instead of making it as he should have, factually, it was an important statement to make if the facts were accurate - by indulging in an abuse of political opponents and making remarks which ultimately called for a ruling from you, Sir, that there must be a debate if it was to be proceeded with. Subsequently we have the spectacle of the Minister for Culture standing up as the Leader of the House and telling us that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was beleaguered by 300 hooligans, and, Sir, I once more fell into the error of believing the Government. Though I have no love for the gentleman concerned, and, in fact, if it must be known, I have a strong personal antipathy to him, nevertheless the thought that he was beleaguered by 300 hooligans was so repugnant to my feeling of justice that I offered to go [Laughter] - Ah, yes, they laugh. An hon. Member: Serjeant at Arms.

I offered to go with the Serjeant at Arms to rescue him - [Laughter]

Order.

And the Government Bench laughed. And why, Sir? We learned shortly afterwards, when the Member concerned walked into this Assembly with every hair of his head well oiled and slicked back and - [Laughter]

Order. I think all that the hon. Member for Anson is entitled to do is just to have a passing reference to these past incidents and not to go into all those details. Let us come back to the motion. I have always allowed exordiums, but if they are a bit lengthy and try to go away from the motion, then I must always bring the Member back to the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged.

On a point of explanation, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

Certainly.

Since the Member for Anson has brought the Government to task for laughing at his proposal to send the Serjeant at Arms to rescue the beleaguered Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps I could explain why there was laughter. The main reason is that the Serjeant at Arms is a venerable gentleman of 68 years of age and is armed with a sword, not meant for more than decorative purposes - [Laughter]

Order. An hon. Member can only get up on a point asking for elucidation of a Member's speech and not to offer an explanation of his own!

Sir, they say they want this motion because the dignity of this House and support of this motion would have effect on the school children. How much more effect it would have if a representative of this House in the person of the Serjeant at Arms had been there, Sir? I go no further than that. I was seeking to point out to you, Sir, that we cannot accept the allegation in this motion as being true by virtue of the evidence that we have before us. We have before this very Assembly evidence of the untruth - I use the word "inaccuracies", Sir - inaccuracies of allegations made by the Minister for Culture as Leader of this House in this very House, but a few days ago, on the very same subject, Beleaguered -

Order. I think the hon. Member knows the matter is now in the possession of the Committee of Privileges and, therefore, he ought not to anticipate what he thinks the Committee of Privileges might decide.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in the midst of a debate on the merger motion, and as the speakers have been proceeding, it is being made abundantly clear to the people of Singapore that the proposals in the White Paper are rather handing up the people of Singapore, tied hand and foot, with a very large tribute -

Order. I do not think the Member for Anson is entitled to pass those remarks in this debate on a motion which is asking for police protection.

Mr Speaker, I am sorry. I am seeking to make it plain that this is not a genuine motion seeking the assistance of this House, but that it is a political motion with political intent, that it has been obscuring and diverting attention from our merger motion. On the subject of political agitation by school students, Sir, this is at all times reprehensible; to the minds of those who are Western-educated, it is particularly abhorrent. But let us recognise that it is part of the Asian scene of this era all the way from Cairo to Tokyo, and not excluding India. The fact that it is part of the Asian scene does not make it any the less reprehensible, Sir, but let us recognise that it is a phenomenon which is not unique to Singapore. I for one have always condemned, today condemn and always will condemn improper political activity on the part of school children. But I cannot see that there was any call for this Government to interrupt repeatedly a vital debate for the purpose of seeking these two debates.

On a point of order, Sir. Is the Member not aware that we offered sittings on Saturday and Sunday in order that the debate could go on uninterrupted?

It is not a point of order.

No. If it please you, Mr Speaker, the Government has repeatedly made allegations that the Barisan Sosialis, the Communists and the pro-Communists are subverting our youths in this improper political activity. An hon. Member: That is right.

Who said that is right?

Order. When the Speaker is on his feet, there must be silence in this Chamber. I think the Member for Anson will find it much easier if he looks at the Chair and addresses the Chair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have always understood the Chair to be a medium of communication to Members opposite as well as to Members on this side of the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad to have heard - as I believe I heard - the words, "That is true" from Government Benchers. I should not like to misquote them. I repeat, they have alleged through their Ministers that the Barisan Sosialis, the Communists and pro-Communists are responsible for subverting our youths in this political activity. If this is true, then those people should be in gaol not tomorrow but today. They should have been in gaol yesterday, last week and before that, when the conspiracy was known to the Government. They are the people who should be in gaol and they are the people -

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson seems to be rattling the whole of the Assembly. He is not giving his reasons.

Order. I was just about to get up on my feet because I think the Chair was being intimidated. Perhaps the Member for Bras Basah was also feeling the same. I ask the hon. Member for Anson to modulate his voice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I understand what the Government means by intimidation - school children intimidating. If that is the extent of the intimidation, bless the school children. Sir, if the Government has information of adults who are poisoning and subverting our youths, then those adults should be in goal. That is simple. It is not intimidatory. If they have not got that information, they should not make those allegations in this House. I have not heard of a single person being charged in the courts or being arrested for poisoning and subverting the-minds of the Chinese school children. [Interruption] in connection with the, organisation of this boycott of the examinations. I think the House should know - not vague allegations by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and by the Minister: Communists and pro-Communists, or Barisan Sosialis backseat drivers - since they seek to make a serious debate on it, who are the adults responsible for what, to my mind, is unquestionably criminal conduct of a grave character affecting the welfare of a material, segment of our population and the welfare of the people of Singapore as a whole? It is those people I should like to see aimed at. It is those people against whom I would like to use the police. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

That is why you want the P.P.S.O.

Order.

I shall come to the P.P.S.O., Mr Speaker, Sir,I promise the Prime Minister that he will have a motion on the P.P.S.O. when we can clear the air and we will see how he talks.

See how rude he talks!

Sir, as regards the conduct of the students, it may well be - in fact, Sir, although I have no evidence, and although no evidence has been offered except the word of the gentlemen from the Front Bench which I have, through bitter experience, learnt to question - that our Chinese youths who are indulging in this boycott are not, in fact, interested in the educational aspects, but are being utilised for political ends. If that is so, Sir, then it is wrong to use the police against them. You are punishing the victim. You are not punishing the criminal. If it is admitted that they are misguided victims of adult political intriguers, then it is not they whom we ought to punish. When the Member for Queenstown spoke about an ineffective and ineffectual Government, I say that to this extent this has been proved true. The Government cannot find the criminals. So they want to punish the victims. That is what it looks like on this motion. Whatever the conduct of the students may be - it is very difficult to get at the truth with all the smokescreen and exaggeration put up by the Government - I say that to date the maximum possible, Sir, indicate reprehensible conduct, but not conduct of a grave character seriously prejudicing the peace or the welfare of this country in any way. I would remind hon. Members opposite that this is not the first time we have had student trouble. In fact, they have been so reminded. I would remind them that when I was seated where they are seated today [Laughter] - a curious sense of humour, Sir! - we had sit-down strikes of a very serious character affecting several schools over an extended period. The English Press and my English-speaking friends and those who were not my friends called me a coward for not using the police to flush out the students from the schools. At that time, Sir, the leader of the S.P.A. was my colleague and he found himself in full conformity with my views. The Prime Minister from the Opposite Bench could find nothing to criticise in my not using the police. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I draw your attention - because the parallel is very real - to a very short passage made in this very House on 25th May, 1955 (6� years ago) at column 258: 'Government has been told - we have been accused - that our action, and our inaction, has undermined authority. We are told that our son has publicly cocked his snook at us, and our other sons stand by wondering at our forbearance, perturbed, even dismayed.' -

Order. Can I have the name of the speaker?

I was the speaker. An hon. Member: Words of wisdom!

I do not retract one single word.

Order. I was just going to remark that I might have guessed!

Mr Speaker, I am glad I have not changed. I read on: 'Sir, our son is as one who is ill. He lies stricken with the chicken-pox, his body a mass of red spots, and the more we forbid him to scratch, the more he stubbornly scratches, and the more those spots suppurate. What would you have us do? Use a knife to excoriate those red spots? Take down the whip and lash out in a frenzy of hurt pride, and then weep at the damage we have done? This, Sir, is not the time for the whip, or the knife. I have no pride in the face of this illness. The Chinese people, Sir, are the very heart in our body politic. They are the blood in our veins. To harm them would destroy all. It would destroy forever the glorious future now within our grasp of a free and independent people, working together as brothers in love and in mutual respect. This, Sir, is a time, in our view, for gentle nursing. Age-old Chinese wisdom and Chinese stability, working on a constitution that is basically sound, will restore this son to health, and we will be proud of our Chinese son. Friends think us weak; others call us cowards. They will not deflect us from our vision of a united people. The task before us, Sir, is a tremendous one - a task to win the confidence of our Chinese people, a people who have had considerable cause for complaint in the past. In humility, and with all we have, we shall seek to gain that confidence and to gain that cooperation which is absolutely necessary for the welfare of all races ...'. That was said, Sir, in times of stress, in times when I had to suffer from Chinese school children much more than this Government has ever had to suffer. I do not regret even after 6� years the patience not only under stress but under insults from the English Press and the English speaking world - the terms of abuse and of cowardice that were flung at us for the strength of our patience which they could not recognise. For I say to you, Sir, that in moments when patience is called for, it is weakness and cowardice that runs to the police to ask for the baton and the bullet. I would not use the police against school children 6� years ago. I will not use the police against school children today. I repeat, the Government should and it must use the police against the adults. If they really do exist, and I am inclined to believe that they do exist, then use your police and use your powers. You have got plenty.

Hear, hear! A vote for you!

To use the police against school children at this stage is to admit complete defeat of the democratic process. As I have said, you are not punishing the criminals. You are punishing the misguided victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, looking back over the last seven eventful years, surely some Members of this Government - one of whom at least was active politically - must be conscious that the tradition of patience with school children pays. The every fact that today, far from having 100 per cent of the students barricaded in their schools - as we had to suffer it - you have two-thirds of the children (according to the Minister), you have three-fourths of the children (according to his Parliamentary Secretary) having taken the examinations, is that not some evidence that we have come a long way through patience in teaching those children the discipline compatible with democratic principles? To use the fire hose and the baton against school children today -

On a point of order, Sir. The motion here calls upon the House to give approval to allow police protection to students and not to assault them with the baton and the bullet. I do not know whether the Member for Anson has clearly in his mind the terms of the motion. He seems to be under the impression that the motion suggest that we should ask the police to beat up these kids, but that is not the text of the motion.

Order. Surely that is an argument which the Minister could advance later on. If the hon. Member reads into word "protection" as beating up students or using the fire hose on students, it is his own look-out. He can do so. But he can be answered. It is not a point of order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to ask your guidance. I would like the conduct of the Minister in interposing at this juncture on a point which he knew not to be a point of order, to be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I do not think I will be justified in doing that. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister had read in his motion: '...supports any action [now we have "any lawful action" quite properly introduced if you agree with the motion] by the Police to protect students [we have not heard of any who have been assaulted] wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are riot intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access...'. We have been told by the Minister that the students are forming human chains and human walls. How do you get -

Order. I have asked the hon. Member to modulate his voice because the accoustics are rather good. The loudspeaker is also quite good. It takes up every modulation of the voice. am getting slightly deaf in my left ear. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, I am much obliged.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we Assemblymen and Assembly women are discomfited to hear his loud voice and we lodge a protest.

I think I have adequately dealt with the point of order whether a Member should be allowed to speak in a loud voice. I think I have dealt with the hon. Lady herself when she spoke in a loud voice.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Assembly woman objecting to the hon. Member's loud voice. We are also against this but -

Order. I am not going to have a debate on loud voices now. Mr Marshall.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The motion asks that the police should be requested to make available free access to parents and students who seek to take the examinations. The Minister has told us that the students who are picketing are picketing as a human wall and a human chain. Sir, perhaps when the time comes for the Minister for Finance to deal with what he has sought to raise on a point of order, he wi1l explain to this Assembly just how you are going to deal with human chains and human walls except with a fire hose at its lightest and with the baton at its worst.

Bullets!

I never used the word "bullets" in that context, Mr Speaker. I regret that the Government has put us in this position today of arguing and debating a motion which seems unnecessary. The Minister for Education has told us that there were -

Order. Will the hon. Member take a bit longer?

About ten minutes.

Possibly it is convenient to suspend for tea. I will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Dr Goh. The object being?

The object being to make a statement on the Estimates for the year 1963 and the Development Estimates for 1963 which I have presented to the Assembly. Members might be interested to have an explanation before it is made public in the Press.

The Hon. the Minister, of course, is out of time according to our Standing Orders. But he can always make a statement if he has the assent of all Members present. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the Minister makes his ministerial statement now? [Interruption] I just want "ayes" or "nays".

It is about 10 or 15 minutes. Some hon. Members: Aye.

Dr Goh. 5.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in accordance with Standing Orders. I presented to the Assembly the "Estimates containing a vote on account for part of the year 1963 for the State of Singapore" and the "Development Estimates for the State of Singapore for the year 1963". Notice required under Standing Orders of the first allotted day has been submitted to the Clerk of the-Assembly at 3.20 p.m. today. The Estimates containing a Vote on Account for six months' expenditure in 1963 were presented in accordance with section 98 (3) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, which reads as follows: 'The Assembly may, by resolution approving estimates containing a vote on account, authorise expenditure for part of any year before the passing of the Appropriation law for that year, but the aggregate amount so voted shall be included, under the appropriate heads, in the Appropriation Bill for that year.' The Estimates are calculated at 55 per cent of the expenditure appearing in the 1962 Estimates shown as expenditure to be voted by the Assembly. This means an increase of 10 per cent is provided in 1963 over 1962 estimated expenditure as allowance for normal expansion. These Estimates containing a Vote on Account were presented to the Assembly in accordance with Standing Order 89. Section 98 (3) of the Constitution to which I referred earlier does not apply to the Development Estimates. For the Development Estimates for 1963, contained in this Paper, it is necessary therefore to follow section 4 of the Development Fund Ordinance, 1959. Under section 4 (1) of this Ordinance, it is necessary for the estimates for the full year to be shown. Also the sums necessary to meet each head and sub-head of expenditure have to be shown. This explains why the Development Estimates for 1963 show expenditure for 12 months as compared with the estimates containing a Vote on Account which show expenditure for six months only. It also explains why the Development Estimates for 1963 show both heads and sub-heads of expenditure, whereas the Estimates containing a Vote on Account show only heads of expenditure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must explain why the Government had decided upon these steps. In recent months, it had become obvious that progress towards merger has been achieved at a rate which has exceeded all expectations. With the support of the vast majority of the peoples of the Federation, Singapore and the Borneo territories, the movement towards reunification of these territories has gathered momentum and has be-come an irresistible force.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have given permission for him to make factual statement. Is it appropriate for him to introduce matters of political inferences and political propaganda?

I have indicated in the past, of course, that a ministerial statement should be factual and should not be such as to invite a debate. If the ministerial statement is such as to invite a debate, I did indicate that the proper procedure would be for the Minister, after making his statement, to move the adjournment of the House to enable the House to debate the statement.

Sir, I am quite happy for this statement to be debated. But if the Member for Anson will bear with me for a while and reflect on what I actually said, there is absolutely nothing here that is controversial, because all sides of the House are agreed that merger is desirable. It is nothing controversial at all, as I said. Very well, to continue, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is important that we in Singapore must not allow lack of preparation to hold up the implementation of merger plans because of possible hold-ups in the administrative machinery. We must not only look at what is likely to happen in 1962, we must also try to visualise events in 1963. The Prime Ministers of the Federation and Singapore, in a joint statement made in September this year, have set the target date for merger in or before June 1963. The way events are moving, there is little reason for doubt that it would be realised. The Government anticipates that the preparation of a budget for 1963 will encounter numerous technical problems of details. The budget of any government is not something that is prepared just before Budget Day. As I have mentioned in a previous budget statement, the preparation of a budget is a continuing and a continuous process. No sooner has one budget been approved in the Assembly than the Treasury gets down to the task of preparing for the next one. The preparation for the budget for 1963 must normally therefore begin in a month or two. At the same time we expect that all Ministries of the Singapore Govermnent, especially the Ministry of Finance, will have to bend their minds to the many intricate details of implementing the White Paper proposals on merger. The strain on the Treasury Division of my Ministry will be particularly heavy. We have had experience of one exercise in the preparation of a budget when the whole basis of the administration is radically changed. I refer, of course, to the current year's budget which integrated certain City Council departments into the Central Government both in respect of its revenue and expenditure proposals. The preparation of the budget for the new State of Singapore, as a constituent member of the Federation, will be even more complicated and onerous. It is well, therefore, that the situation should be explained now and that both the Assembly and the general public be made aware of it. To settle the details of allocation of votes and revenue between State and Central Government, additional work will devolve on Treasury officials and those Ministries affected by transfers of responsibility, and it is not likely that the 1963 Budget will be ready in time. This may well expose the Government to criticism. There might even be a loss of confidence in the administration. For this reason and in fairness to the administration, I will be asking the House to approve a vote on account for the first six months of 1963. I also intend to ask approval for the Development Estimates for the whole of 1963. These requests are only in accordance with the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, and with the Development Fund Ordinance. The Development Fund Ordinance, as I said a moment ago, requires that approval for development expenditure should be passed by the Assembly in respect of a full year while the (Constitution) Order in Council allows a vote on ac-count for part of the year. This provision of the law is quite reasonable. The vote on account is asked in respect of annually recurrent expenditure. Such expenditure is incurred in regular amounts each month being payments for salaries of staff, regular services used by the Government such as water, light, electricity, stationery, telephone, rents of offices and so forth. Development expenditures on the other hand is paid for in block amounts as and when a project is completed. Payments are therefore not regular throughout the year. The vote on account, as I said earlier, provides for expenditure for the first six months of 1963 at 55 per cent of the expenditure appearing in the 1962 Estimates now before the House. As regards the Development Estimates, no new items have been introduced. They were all projects entered in the Four-Year Development Plan which had been approved by this Assembly earlier this year as well as a few new projects which I have discussed in my Budget Statement last week. I should perhaps refer to one difficulty in the preparation of the Development Estimates for 1963. This is the problem of forecasting the date of completion of projects. Some projects which are scheduled to be completed in 1962 and therefore paid for from the funds to be voted for that year, may incur some delay owing to circumstances beyond the control of the Government. In such cases, financial provisions must be made in 1963 to pay for the completion of such projects. But let me add that the Treasury will, in spite of the heavy duties which the administration would have to undertake in the coming months, try to prepare the estimates in time. If it can be done, the Government would then present these estimates to the Assembly in the normal way. But ex abundantae cautela we consider it prudent to ask the Assembly's approval for expenditure in the first six months of 1963. Everyone will agree that in matters of State finance, the cautious approach has much to commend it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to allow a debate on the statement that has been made, particularly in view of the remarks by the Member for Anson, may I now move the motion for the adjournment?

I would suggest that perhaps the more opportune moment will be 2.30 p.m. tomorrow when hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study that statement. Copies of the statement will be made available. Any Minister could then move the adjournment to enable a debate to take place. Does that satisfy hon Members? I might add, of course, that at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow, if hon. Members think they do not wish further debate they could indicate, and then the motion need not be moved.

Debate resumed.

We are now on item 2 of the Order Paper. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, before adjourning I informed you that I am against using the police against school children. I say to the Government, "If you cannot get men your size - the sinister adults who you say are responsible for subverting these school children - do not go bullying the school children." Their attitude, Sir, is this, "We are not bullying the school children. We have been asked by the parents." If you look at the motion, Sir, it says: 'In response to an appeal from parents of students...'. Sir, I would like to ask this House, which consists of 51 Members, all alive, did anybody else receive any word from parents in his division? I have not, Sir,I have received letters about the Government's educational policy, but not a word asking me for protection of students who are going to the examination. But it seems that the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education has received such a petition. It is signed, I am told, by about 100 persons. Who are these 100 persons? Were they politically motivated? Who organised the petition? How is it that none of the rest of us have heard from any parents to like effect? You will appreciate, Sir, why I take this allegation of a petition - no, the statement of the receipt of a petition - with a pinch of salt. Not that I deny that a petition was received. But the genuineness of the alleged representation and the freedom from political motivation of these persons who signed those petitions. We have been told by the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education that there are only 600 students who have not taken the examinations. I think his arithmetic is wrong. But that is what he has said to us this afternoon. If there are 600 students - school children - and there are only 100 parents petitioning, it does suggest that 600 children have more than 100 parents. I trust he will accept that. In fact, a lot more than 200 parents for 600 school children. In the circumstances, are we to understand that the majority of the parents do not want police protection? And on the basis of what the Minister has said, in a democracy the majority will must rule. Sir, let us look at it in a different way. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there 600 pupils who have not taken the examination. The Minister for Education told us this afternoon that 400 to 500 pickets this morning were gathered at one centre. So it means that there are only 100 students left - if we take 400 to 500 who are picketing - who might want to enter for the examination. If 240 could take the examination this morning, why could not this extra 100? Wherein lies the urgency or validity of this motion on their own arithmetic? Where is the plea of the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education, his plea -

Order. The Member for Anson must refer to the Parliamentary Secretary as a Parliamentary Secretary and not as a Political Secretary. They are two different types of individuals.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. Where is his plea for the safety of hundreds of parents? Where are the hundreds of parents? Have we had a single instance of a single parent being injured or hurt? Where is his plea about the illegal action of hooligans? As far as I can see, Sir, it is based on his suggestion that his car was stopped, that eight people said to him, "Khoon choy, khoon choy", which in Chinese means, "Will the Political Secretary got into his coffin?"

Order. Is the Member for Anson going back to the original motion which we have debated - the motion on privilege? The Member for Anson is referring to an incident which is not the subject matter of this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking of his plea today that there should be protection against the illegal action of hooligans. Where is the evidence of hooliganism? The Minister himself said that there was. So far as I can remember, in answer to a supplementary question (I think it was on Thursday afternoon), there was not one single instance of violence or physical injury. Are there any instances today of physical injury to anybody? But according to the Minister, 2,000 took part in the examinations out of 3,000. According to his Secretary 2,500 took part in the examination out of 3,000, and not one single incident of physical injury. Yet we are being asked not merely to interrupt a serious, a grave debate, but to ask the police to take action against student pickets who are obstructive. Mr Speaker, it must be obvious that the Government has, for reasons best known to itself, some of which I might guess at, seriously exaggerated the gravity of what is taking place. I say we must not throw away the principle of patience with school children in order to cope with minor incidents. I will not use the police, and I will not support the use of the police, against groups of school children. I ask this House to recognise that the Government has inflated and exaggerated the facts. And I ask the House to be wary of supporting any action by the police against our school children. Let us not be so foolish as to use a sword to cut a pound of butter. We might find ourselves cutting ourselves. We might find that we are destroying what we have built up over several long suffering years, and that is the tradition of patience and reasonableness with our school children. But before I sit down, Mr Speaker, I would like to make my own stand clear on the subject of their conduct. I would not like, by implication and in my refusal to Support police action, to let it be implied that I am sitting on the fence in so far as condemnation of improper obstructive or forceful conduct on the part of pickets is involved. Sir, without hesitation, I do condemn political activities on the part of school children. I consider it inimical to the healthy development of a parliamentary democracy when those who can know nothing by virtue of their tender years of the issues which are involved, permit themselves to be manipulated, to take advantage of situations, where our sympathies are involved, for political purposes. I want to go further. If, in fact, the students have used violence, as alleged by the Straits Times cameraman, even once against any pupil seeking lawfully to go in to his examination, then I say such action is improper. It is reprehensible, and the students concerned are not a credit either to their school or their parents. Sir, I would have like you and every Member of this House to see what this gentleman here showed me in a newspaper just now. Here Mr Marshall addressed an hon. Member sitting below him. Can I have that newspaper you showed me just now? What is the date?

Order, order.

I am sorry, Sir. Saturday, 2nd of September. It is the Mimi Pau. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very informative photograph where school children seemed to be acting with patience and forbearance in the face of adult intimidation. I would like to say that it is my impression that the vast majority of these pickets have acted with propriety, restraint and discipline. But that they have so acted is only how they should act. It does not in any way excuse the conduct of those few who are guilty or may have been guilty of acts of violent obstruction to those students who sought to take their examinations. I believe they are very few, Mr Speaker, Sir. But few though they are, I would not like to be misunderstood in my condemnation of such conduct, particularly if they are conscious that it is not in pursuance of any educational aims, but in pursuance of improper political activity. Mr Speaker, there is no room for the second part of this motion. No cause has been shown for the second part of the motion which calls upon this House to request the police and support police action against students. I would like to say, quite categorically, that if the first part of this motion had stood alone, and had I thought that it would have been of any value, I would have moved for the deletion of the second part, but I can see that I will get nowhere with it anti merely lengthen the debate. But in case Government is in any way prepared to withdraw the second part of the motion seeking for police action, I would be content, Sir, to support the first part of condemnation. I repeat, Sir, I will not be prepared, in the circumstances of today, and in the minor incidents of today, to call upon the police to take action against school children. 6.03 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened with great interest to the dexterity and skill with which the Member for Anson supported all sides that were right. I say it is no mean achievement to be able to say, on the one hand, "I condemn intimidation"; and on the other, "Look at this picture which shows how peaceful they are in the face of intimidation". At the end of it all, I am left in doubt as to whether, in fact, the Member for Anson is quite sincere when he says that he will vote for the first half of the motion, but not for the second half, for the reasons he has stated. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I am in some doubt as to that, I would suggest that at a later stage perhaps the vote can be taken in two parts.

Hear, hear!

First, the condemnation, and then the request which I think spells out logically from the condemnation, for police protection. Sir, on Thursday evening, the 30th of November, a statement was issued by the Barisan Sosialis in the name of the Member for Queenstown. The contents of that statement showed how important it was for the Government not to have provided the open police protection asked for by the parents of the students taking their examinations without having first debated the matter in this House. Nobody in his right mind, Sir, can doubt that it is the picketers who are out to make mischief, because if there are no pickets, there will not be any trouble. It is not the students and the parents who accompany these students into the examination hail who bring trouble. All that the parents want to do with their sons is to see that they enter the examination hall in peace and safety and leave in one piece, equally safe. Let me read to you, Sir, certain extracts from the statement - and we can congratulate ourselves on the wisdom of having first tabled this motion for debate in this House. This was in the Straits Times of 1st December: 'Late tonight [meaning Thursday night] Dr Lee Siew Choh, Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, declared his party's strong opposition to the use of police against Chinese school students who had "genuine grievances" against the Government. He said: "The P.A.P. Government today tried to introduce a motion to sanction police action against students...".' We never asked for any police action against students. We asked for police protection - to sanction police protection for parents and students. He went on to say: '"It has smuggled into the Assembly a so-called petition alleged to have been sent by parents of Chinese students...".' The "so-called petition". Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Bukit Panjang, had anticipated all these reckless allegations being made, and when he handed out copies to the Press, he was careful enough to hand out photostat copies, in the genuine handwriting of the parents, and signatures. He informed me that he had made quite sure that the parents who signed those documents were parents who had taken their children to the examination centre at the T.T.C. These things are on the record. We can table the petition. It can be checked at a subsequent date, and he who lies can be discovered. In today's Nanyang Siang Pau, these same parents have come out with a trenchant letter against the President of the Chinese School Teachers Association for his statement suggesting that this whole examination should be abandoned and that the Government give in to intimidation. Sir, the statement is in Chinese and I do not wish to do a running translation in English. I think one of my colleagues will probably be speaking in Chinese and the statement can then be translated by the official interpreter. Sir, Dr Lee, according to this statement, said, '...it was clear that this was part of the P.A.P.'s scheme to divert public attention from the current important debate on merger in which the Government was fully aware it was not faring well.' Mr Speaker, Sir, these are categorical assertions. That something is what one wishes to believe it is, does not make it so. This debate on merger has gone on in its wildest dreary way for more than 10 days.

Dreary for the Government!

No, Sir, dreary for the Speaker. The Government never complained -

Order. I did make an announcement on the matter, but I think the matter should end there. It should not be interpreted as being dreary for the Speaker. The Speaker is trained to listen to dreary debates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I am letting anything out of the bag if I indicate that at a meeting called in your Chambers on Friday, the Acting Leader of the House made it quite clear - Mr David Marshall rose -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is this. To my mind, all conversations with the Speaker whether in his Chambers or otherwise, whether alone or in a group should be completely confidential, unless permission is given in advance for their disclosure however innocuous.

That, of course, is a ruling which I have not made, but it is a good indication of what should be the case. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he does not go into details of what took place in my Chamber. He could, if he likes, refer in passing to the announcement I made.

No, Sir. I think I am entitled to do more than that. By way of analogy, may I remind the Member for Anson that what transpires in the Judges' Chambers is not necessarily forgotten when one goes into open court and takes a different stand? One cannot say something in private and go into the public chamber and say something quite different. We are accustomed to saying privately what we think publicly and say publicly. I am entitled to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had prior conversation and discussions with the Acting Leader of the House - he agreed to tell Members of the Opposition and you that we considered it, a matter of the utmost importance that everybody in this Chamber, all Members, should have all the time and all the opportunity in the world to say whatever they wish to say on this merger debate without any restriction either by way of time or by way of guillotine. We said that to you privately. We say that publicly. We wanted to give Opposition Members more time and, for that reason, we moved that the House sit on a Saturday and on a Sunday, and we are still prepared to do that. Sir, it is likely if we go on in this dreary fashion, that we might sit through Christmas, which I think is something which the Member for Anson, as a man of the world, would find very unpleasant and so would I -

Order. Then may I add my voice to it? So would the Speaker.

So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, how can it be said that we were, in fact, trying to divert attention from a debate in which we were not faring well when, in fact, the whole House was bored stiff, Mr Speaker, Sir, with 7� hours' weary rattle -

I think the Hon. Prime Minister has made his point. If he goes on in that strain, then Members from the Opposition will say that the Assembly was not bored stiff. So it goes on, and the debate will be more dreary.

I am obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, except that had they said that, we would have pointed out that their own Members left the Chamber when they performed. But be that as it may. The statement then goes on to let what to our minds is the most significant cat out of the Barisan bag: '"We have seen enough [these were supposed to be the words of the Member for Queenstown] brutalities and violence perpetrated by the Lim Yew Hock Government against our children."' Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that whatever happens in a fracas in which young students are involved with adult policemen, it is more than likely that some young students will be injured. On one last occasion when such a student was injured, his body was taken aloft, still alive, paraded round the town to arouse the feelings of the multitude - which it did - and he, the poor, injured student, died in the process. I think my colleague, the Minister for Culture, will be quoting to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the words of the then Chief Minister on this matter. The then Chief Minister has quoted words from that same speech he made. He has been through the mill and he knows what this is all about, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is why he says he has more than a shrewd suspicion that there are adults behind it. And he finds it difficult to believe that young students, for no rhyme or reason, can suddenly misbehave for the purpose of disrupting an examination which is purely voluntary and which is, in fact, intended to be an embellishment and a suitable conclusion to their academic career. Be that as it may, I would like to suggest to the Member for Queenstown - and, more important. I would like to suggest to those who are charting the destiny of the Red Star of the Barisan Sosialis - that they are not going to find in the P.A.P. Government the same hamhanded. unwitting opponent that they found in former colonial governments and in the Government of the first Chief Minister - the Member for Anson - for the, Government of the second Chief Minister-the Member for Cairnhill. Every time he mentions Chew Swee Kee, every time he likens me to the Member for Cairnhill, and every time he says that P.A.P. is like the Labour Front, what his ghost writers are doing is crying in anguish wishing that that were so. Sir, we had the singular privilege of having worked together with the Communists in a united front against the colonialists - a genuine classic anti-colonial united front. We knew that they were Communists. They knew that we were not Communists. We gave them cover and they gave us cover. We wanted to beat up the British. As a result, not unnaturally we learned how the operations are done. We take up the top hat - they have first put in the rabbit. We pull it out to the applause of the multitude. They allowed themselves to be bound up and put in a box, and after a decent interval of time, we opened it and lo and behold the Communists were free again, to the applause of the multitude. Sir, the gentleman opposite said it grieved him to see these empty Benches at the back - if he were honest with himself, he would subconsciously wish he was back here instead of being windy across the way. The Communists have embarked on a different kind of united front. This is not the classical anti-colonial united front. This is the hazardous occupation of forming a united front against the nationalists. This is not fighting the dying British. This is fighting the very much alive nationalists. It is a very different proposition. For instance, if the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis allowed himself to be tied up and put in a trussed luggage, after 12 years, when it is opened, he would still be there bound and gagged - not like the last time. It is a different proposition. One of these days, through sheer lack of expertise, instead of pulling out the rabbit from the top hat, the Member for Queenstown might be pulling out a serpent which might bite him mortally. So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a different kettle of fish. It is not Lim Yew Hock or Chew Swee Kee that you are meeting. We do not do foolish things. We have seen the props and we make sure that before the magician performs, we first remove them. Then we ask him to pull out the white rabbit, but there is no assistant to first put in the rabbit. So the magician is left on the stage with the spotlight on him, but no white rabbit comes out, and the audience want their money back. That is the trouble with the Barisan Sosialis now. We have been through the whole gamut for a long time - 1953, 1954, Fajar, national service. King George V Park, and students beaten up. I have been through all this, Sir. Once in the middle of camping in the Chinese High School, they turned up in the early hours of the morning - one boy had been scalded and he fainted - and asked me what to do. I was their legal adviser and not their medical adviser. So I told them it was a very risky business. They did not want to take him to the General Hospital, because other parents would get excited and take their kids home. But they were resourceful people and undoubtedly children of great promise. So they took him to Youngberg Hospital to keep the whole matter quiet. So you see, we do know how these things are run and we do know how these things are done. I can assure the Member for Anson that the last thing we will allow the police to do is to interfere with young kids with batons, bullets or fire hoses. But I will tell you what we will do to them if they keep on doing nasty things like throwing bottles into examination halls - which I am told happened on Thursday last week. They might know that in Italy they have discovered a form of powder called itching powder which is very effective, I am told, against Communist demonstrators when they pose in revolutionary postures and clench their fists. A cloud opens over them and then they disperse to riotous laughter. Instead of being figures to be pitied, martyred and pilloried because they are broken, drenched, beaten and carried to hospital, they scratch furiously and run for their lives.

The Government seems to be suffering from laughing here.

Sir, I would tell the Member for Anson that I am grateful to him - and to his successor - because he opened Pandora's Box and I watched with great amazement at what came out of it. Therefore for me, Sir, there are no more surprises. He had charted the course and all the landmines blew up. I knew exactly where they were and I knew who put them there and how they blew up. It is not my intention to let this Government go and trigger off any landmine. For that reason, I told the Member for Anson just now during the adjournment - to salve his conscience - that whichever way this House voted, it is our duty to the police and to the people of Singapore to see that the police are not drawn into an incident in which sympathies must naturally go to young students. And so try what they will, do what they want, they are not going to find this Government a lame and sitting duck. The fact of the matter is that they have learnt nothing new. They are performing the same old turns with this one difference, that every time the prop is supposed to be there to pass something, the spotlight, instead of being on the juggler, is on the prop, so that everybody can see that he is passing something over. Hence the difficulty of the Member for Queenstown, and more so the difficulty of the chaps really advising the Barisan Sosialis. But let me add, Mr Speaker, Sir - I do not know what prompted the parents - but I was informed by the newspapermen that as a result of the almost unanimous support of the Assembly to protect the free right of egress and ingress of the Member for Bukit Panjang, the parents were annoyed that the Assembly had acted so promptly in defence of the rights of its own Members and left the parents, who were ordinary people, not leaders and representatives, to fend for themselves. For that reason, they sought out the Parliamentary Secretary because he was the man who drew the publicity. This House came to his rescue and we were sufficiently encouraged by the way in which the Barisan Sosialis voted on that occasion to believe that suddenly they had become supporters of righteous, orderly behaviour and proper conduct. But I do not know whether it was really intended, because from the tener of the speeches that day, I think we were all most delightfully surprised when the Division came, because having strenuously fought against the motion, they then voted for it. Sir, imagine our disappointment when, in defence of the rights of parents, we asked the motion to be debated, they refused permission. I am told, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when they voted for the motion, they incurred the displeasure of quite a number of their important people who decide these matters. First, the Member for Hong Lim, who is an extremely experienced person in these matters, by his wise act became the only defender of the Chinese students against the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Barisan Sosialis joined the wicked colonial forces in wishing to lock up the Chinese students. I think that must have been a factor which weighed in the minds of those who decide in the Barisan Star. And so when it comes to the second motion which is more important - not the right of access for a representative of the people, the Member for Bukit Panjang, but for ordinary men and women, parents with kids who want to go in and sit for examinations - they who are supposed to champion the rights of the people are extremely reluctant to provide police protection. The last time it was not police protection. Mr Speaker, Sir. The motion called for the police to take action against the culprits according to the law as laid down by the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and 11 ayes - two were discreetly absent; they were talking in the Chamber but when the Division was taken, they were absent -

Order. I do not think the Prime Minister should make these allegations.

Sir, I am speaking on facts. All I was drawing attention to - and I did not want to condemn all the 13 Members; it would be unfair - is that 11 voted for the motion in support of law and order, and two, the Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Upper Serangoon, were absent although they spoke on the debate. So I wanted to clear them -

Order. I think the Prime Minister used the word "discreetly" which I think is unfair.

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir. Perhaps I should not allow my subconscious to influence me in these matters. What I meant was that they were conspicuously absent when their names were called out. I remember distinctly that the Minister for Health was indiscreet enough to shout, "Absconded!", much to the discomfiture of the House.

Order. I do not think the Prime Minister should take advantage of the leniency of the Chair by bringing in all these jibes.

All I wanted to say was that the parents were encouraged by the voting on the motion, in defence of the rights of free passage for Assemblymen, to seek the support of our Assembly to give them some rights. But it would appear that they were wrong in assuming that the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are as jealous of the rights of parents and students as they are of their own rights as Assemblymen. However, be that as it may. I hate to believe that anyone in Singapore would take seriously the allegation made by the Member for Queenstown - that the Government wants to maintain tension, and wants a bloodbath and a riot, and in the course of the riot, political opponents can disappear. Sir, I can give them no such comfort whatsoever. I have explained this to my former Parliamentary Secretary at great length in the days before he took such a precipitate step. In the compound of Singapore there is a lion, albeit a bit old and ageing, and there is a tiger that is young and virile, and there is an Alsation dog, i.e. the P.A.P. Government. And there is a fox running around - Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) rose -

Is it a point of order?

Point of clarification.

If the Prime Minister will give way.

Yes.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister just now mentioned that I had several talks with him before I parted with him. I cannot recall saying anything about a lion or an Alsation dog in our conversations.

That is a point of elucidation, but never mind. Obviously at that time, because of the late night sittings and so on on 20th July, he may not have been compos mentis. But I distinctly remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when analysing the situation, there was the Internal Security Council. There was a lion, a tiger, and an Alsation dog. But in the compound a cunning fox had been spotted. And the lion said to the Alsatian dog, "Go chase it and bite it." The Alsation dog looked at the lion and said, "Well, I don't like to eat foxes. You like it. You had better chase it and eat it." And so, Mr Speaker, Sir, the wishful thinking of those who compose the line for the Member for Queenstown just would not come through. It is not possible, because the P.A.P. is not that foolish. He ought to read what his own member of the Central Executive Committee, Mr Fong Swee Suan, said. Whatever he thinks may be the faults and deficiencies of the revisionists in the P.A.P., and whatever Mr Devan Nair's shortcomings or my shortcomings, we do know something about these matters. We do spend some time analysing and thinking things out. We do know what has happened in the past and why they have happened. So, when confronted with the situation, we sum up a reality, not a fantasy. So the fox cannot run, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is a closed compound, as I have said, with three powerful forces contained in it. Of course, all want the Alsatian dog to go and run for the fox, but foxes have a nasty way of biting back, and Alsatian dogs usually are brought up domesticated. We are men of peace, Mr Speaker, Sir. We like to talk and argue. We do not like all this bloodbath and violence. And I can explain to them that if a bloodbath and a riot takes place - as I have explained in my attempts to clarify the situation - then they meet in a collision with final authority. As far as I am concerned, I am only the penultimate authority, Mr Speaker, Sir, I can give the order. My colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, can give the order for the police to act. It is doubtful whither he can even give the order to 817 members of the Singapore Infantry Regiment, because there is joint control. The British pay half for it. And so there will be an argument. Supposing the British do not like the troops to be used, then there will be an order, and a counter order, and it is doubtful who has the authority. But I can assure them that there are 25,000 troops in and around Singapore under the command of the G.O.C., Singapore, and the G.O.C., Malaya. And I can assure them, too, that some of these men have been receiving proper training in the Congo, ft you can deal with the Congolese situation, I say there is no trouble at all - I mean in 1955-56 there was no trouble at all. So I urge them to pass this to the chaps who settle the Barisan line - "Don't do foolish things in anticipation of the P.A.P. doing foolish things." The P.A.P. never does a foolish thing. [Interruption] We hope so. Anyway, we spend our time calculating. If we do make a foolish miscalculation, then we have to pay for it, as no doubt others have made miscalculations and will in good time, when the day of reckoning comes, have to settle. But that is their problem. We give advice, generally well meaning and well intended. If it is not accepted, what can we do? But I will say this: forget this bloodbath. Our line is the line of peace. Sir, among the nursery rhymes that they have coined, not those that the kids have coined, Sir, these jingles are quite cunning. It is not as simply as that suggested by the Member for Anson - "Khoon choy" means "entering the coffin", no. There is quite a cunning play on words - alliteration. They have little words jingled. Like the Member for Bukit Panjang, his name is Lee Khoon Choy, which means something good. So they change it to "Chun Ch'ai", which means a fool. Then they say, "Chin Kwan Ch'ai" which means "enter the coffin". And so the jingle goes on. And I figured in these jingles too. I have been accused of selling out peace, Mr Speaker, Sir. I was reading the jingle. This is all properly recorded and documented. And part of the honour that I have received of being mentioned in their despatches is having sold out peace. Sir, I do not know how I could have sold out peace that did not belong to me in the first place. It belongs to all mankind. Sir, when the Commission of Inquiry sits, one of the things I would like to ask the student leaders who have got these songs circulated is this: "How is it that I owned peace? How did I sell it out? To whom did I sell it?", and so on. And I will say this: the cards have already been distributed. The stakes have been called, the chips are down. And the way we calculated those cards. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have played peacefully from beginning to end. If we do not, we must perish. We know that. If we bring the police into this, we lose. Why should we beat up our own children, kill Chinese education and culture? Why should we? On whose behalf? What for? The Minister for Education asked the Member for Queenstown, where did his kids go to school, and he wanted to explain but he never had a chance. But never mind.

My children speak better Mandarin than even you!

Well, that is my misfortune, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is why I have to expend such a tremendous amount of energy and effort to try and imbibe a culture and civilisation which is part of my heritage, but which a colonial education denied me. Hence the effort that is made. He knows the effort. Unlike his children who are fortunate in having a father who has given them such great qualities as linguists, I have to do it the hard way, Mr Speaker, Sir. But is that proof that I want to destroy Chinese culture and education? I will tell them what is their problem - the situation is too cold. That is what is wrong. You cannot get people excited on bogus issues. Who decided 4-2? Let us go to the genesis of it all. The P.A.P. Government wanted to destroy Chinese culture and education? Ask the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. He was defending 4-2 when my former Parliamentary Secretary, at a meeting of Parliamentary Secretaries in which the Member for Queens-town was present, attacked him for his lack of explanation. Let us be honest. Let us not hide behind - say one thing in private and another in public. Who decided 4-2? The P.A.P.? No. It was decided when the motion was already launched. If they did not like it - I went down on Teachers' Day, was it the third?

Fifth.

Fifth, and told the Chinese educationists that it was theirs to decide - 3-3, 4-2, have it any way. I do not understand Chinese education as well as they do. I never went to a Chinese school. I just learned my Chinese the hard way, after I became an adult. I am sorry if it is not good enough, but I am still trying, Mr Speaker, Sir. But they decided it. They wanted 4-2. We did not decide 4-2. We could have gone back to 3-3, and we made the offer, "Stick to 3-3." Whom are they fighting? Where is the united front of non-Communists, crypto-Communists, and Communists, versus whom? Versus the colonialists? No. They are out of it. They are smart. They leave this to us.

I am sorry to have to rise on a point of order. I am hoping for the voting to be taken tonight. Sir, I do rise to point out that the Member for Queenstown was stopped because he was discussing Chinese education and he seemed to be meandering between Chinese education and Communism. Can we not get on with this motion? I would like the voting to be taken tonight.

I was thinking that possibly the Prime Minister was going further and further away from the motion. And the Member for Queenstown was stopped as he was going into too much detail.

In the nature of things, Mr Speaker, Sir, once you allow a Member to make allegations, you must expect, as a matter o course, that they have to be answered even if in passing. But I can assure the Member for Anson that the voting will take place tonight, because the Leader of the House has told me that he intends to lift Standing Orders to see that this motion goes through.

Good!

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we try to oblige whenever we can. We are not like the Member for Anson, Mr Speaker, Sir. We try to reconcile the reconcilable. What is not reconcilable, we do not attempt to reconcile, if I may, Mr Speaker, tell you from my experience what I think is irreconcilable. If you form a Communist united front to fight the nationalists and you keep on telling the people. "We are fighting the colonialists", but, in fact, you are banging at the nationalists, then they are not sticking out their jaws for you to bang. After a while, what they have said on the posters and what they know in their minds do not reconcile themselves. They are fierce slogans, Mr Speaker, Sir, all these little strips of coloured paper which you see but perhaps do not understand. They are fierce words - destruction of Chinese culture, education, unreasonableness of the Government - fierce traditional slogans, a rallying cause, battle cries for Chinese students since 1945. I knew it. The Member for Anson knew it. The Member for Cairnhill went through it. And you will remember the great trials and tribulations he had. He had to excuse himself every few minutes from this Chamber. But let us not pretend that these things do not exist. they do exist. The Member for Cairnhill knows that. The Member for Anson does know. And what we say is this: we learned from him at his expense. We are grateful. If we had not learnt, we would have made similar stupid mistakes. The reason why we are debating and not rioting is that we have not allowed the police to be an excuse for an incident. Whatever happens to this motion, be it accepted unanimously by this House, by the Opposition, we will not allow the police to be the cause for an incident. We will give protection, yes, but in a manner which will never open them to the slightest chance of being implicated in an incident. We have been through all that and we do not want it anymore. Let me say to those adults to whom the Member for Anson has referred - as I have said, there is a lion and there is a tiger. The lion may be old. His claws may be a bit hard and corny, and his teeth may have lost their bite. The tiger is young and virile, but is not a man-eater, Mr Speaker, Sir. The lion is a man-eater. And they went into the Barisan Sosialis thinking they were-going to fight the lion, quite oblivious of the fact that the lion was too wily, and had hopped off and left behind the tiger. And now they say, "Down with the lion!" But the lion says, "Yes, that is right. I am already out. Here is the newcomer. Face him!" What do we hear in this House? A bouquet. Mr Speaker. Sir. You have heard it. I was surprised. I was not here, Mr Speaker, Sir, or I would have interjected to ask the Member for Nee Soon to repeat it again. He is one of the most intelligent of all the thirteen Assemblymen. In fact, I would say, "For I.Q. I give him the fullest number of marks." He was always the Secretary at our Parliamentary meetings. He kept very good minutes. He noted all the points in case -

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, r wonder whether this has anything to do with the main motion. It seems that the Prime Minister is repeating what he has said.

I am inclined to agree that the Prime Minister is probably being repetitive, if that is the right word. Perhaps he could now bring his speech to a conclusion.

That is the point I want to make. I have to explain this to them. But they did not grasp the essentials of the problem. They thought they were going to fight me, Mr Speaker, Sir, and chase me around. I mean, with 817 troops, what could I do? I was not even in proper command of the troops. I explained at Hong Lim and Fullerton Square that if you want to take -on final authority, then count me out. And I say to these adults that the way they are going, they will be taking on final authority sooner or later. When that happens, I have not the slightest doubts in my own mind what the outcome will be. I am quite convinced and certain of this. We as an elected democratic government should always talk peacefully, act peacefully and persuade people peacefully.

On a point of clarification.

If the Prime Minister will give way. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I am obliged to the Prime Minister. Do we understand that the Government, knowing who these adults are, will not move against them? Is that what he is telling us?

I have explained with the aid of metaphors. I am not as good as the Member for Anson. because I have not the command of lurid metaphors, like chicken pox. It frightens me. Mr Speaker, Sir,I have a horror for disease. But, nevertheless, what I was trying to explain with the aid of animals was to show that we are looking for that fox. We know he is around. We -have a shrewd idea which o the three hiding places he could be in. We do not intend to put our snout into those hiding places, because that is the surest way to get a nasty snap! But we know that the tiger has got a way to scratch these hiding places open. It is a matter of time. The day of reckoning must come. An hon. Member: So you do not know?

No, we do. There are three hiding places, and there is one fox. So you can put your nose into any one of those three. You may or may not be -bitten. But in one of them you will be bitten. So I say, we talk peacefully, we act peacefully, we persuade peacefully - always peacefully. To the Member for Queenstown, to all his thirteen - I myself never thought much of this business of being superstitious, but now, coming to think of it, I think they took on one new person just too much!

It appears to me, from the levity which appears to be coming from the Government benches, that this debate is not as serious as it ought to be. 6.50 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, anyone who wishes to see peace, law and order in this State of ours and who wishes Singapore to move towards progress will feel, in the present state of things today on the subject of Chinese Middle School students, that this matter cannot be treated lightly. Especially, Mr Speaker, when this matter is something which has happened in Singapore before, as has been explained by the Prime Minister himself. We have all witnessed this previously. A problem has arisen now, and in the minds of the great majority of the people who do not wish to see all the past incidents being repeated, they are asking why there have been no steps or action taken to prevent a recurrence. From the public point of view, this matter is no longer a matter of educational policy but has developed into a political issue. Many people appreciate the difficulties that would be faced by the Government in consequence of any action taken with all its reactions and repercussions. For my part, Mr Speaker, from past experience of the question of security, the members performing the task of maintaining law and order in this country comprise mainly Malays. So a clash between the student examinees and the picketers, if the police were to resort to any action without taking into consideration its reaction, would cause a further clash and become more dangerous. So I rise here, Mr Speaker, hoping that this House will consider this matter carefully. All elected Members especially should consider this matter seriously without any consideration of political rivalry, and think in terms of peace and good order of the State, so as to prevent any unpleasant incidents as much as we could. I, therefore, fully support the motion moved by the Government, as amended by the Member for Farrer Park, so that this House could afford protection to those who voluntarily wish to take the examinations conducted by the Govermnent. This is our responsibility in the face of the difficulties Government is facing. I believe. Mr Speaker, that every elected representative of the people of Singapore must realise his or her responsibilities. I do not wish to speak at length. Originally I was reluctant to participate in this debate, but in the interest of Singapore, we must oppose anything that would lead to the destruction of democratic practice in Singapore. Therefore, Mr Speaker. I speak in wholehearted support of the motion and the amendment moved to it by the Member for Farrer Park. 6.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we were told that our youths have been manipulated by evil men - by Communists. I was very disappointed, in fact disgusted, Sir, to see the Government, especially the Prime Minister, treat this question and this motion with such levity. You yourself have remarked on that, Sir,I have never seen the Prime Minister so happy and so joyful. In fact, he was so tickled that he was giggling like a teenage girl. I was surprised, Sir. This motion is so serious that I wonder how he could ever have brought himself to that pitch of rejoicing. I have never seen him show a greater sense of humour than he has shown today. I hope, Sir, as responsible Members of this House, we could debate a serious question seriously, especially when it involves the safety of our youths. Our youths are being used by Communists and manipulated by Communists, and here we are laughing away at it. Sir, this boycott and this picket is an important question. On its own, it is an important question. But it has become more important by the added information we have had from the Government that there are evil men and Communists manipulating them. If this is the case, Sir, then why has the Government allowed nearly one week, I think, to go by before it thought of doing anything seriously? It has not done anything at all to try to put a stop to it immediately. I say the Government has not done anything. Look at it, Sir. What difference was there between the last day of the examination and the first day? Children were still prevented from going into the examination centres. Just as many picketers were still there. Everything that took place on the first day took place on the last day. What has the Government done, Sir, during that week to put a stop to it, knowing that these picketers have been influenced and have been manipulated by these so-called Communists or evil men? What has been done to stop it? Sir, it looks like the Government was not prepared to take any definite or serious step to protect children and parents until this House gives its support. Is this delay really necessary, Sir? As far as I can remember, the Prime Minister in July 1959, said in Hansard, Vol. 11. No. 6, col. 373: '...the business of a government is to govern and we have the mandate to govern. What is more, we had the courage to pm down what we intended to do and had a clear mandate on it, unlike Members on the opposite side.'. And what is happening today, Sir? Why do they not govern? A mandate has been given to them. Is the mandate no longer sufficient now? I am sure. Sir, it is not the Alliance Opposition that they are frightened of, because they know that we always support any proper move that aims at maintaining law and order. I am sure they can be assured of that. Could it be the Barisan Sosialis that they are so afraid of? They are so afraid that they dare not take action to protect the students and the parents from being manipulated by the Communists without the consent of the Barisan Sosialis? Had the P.A.P. handled the matter efficiently right from the very beginning, it would not have developed into a serious national crisis. Sir, although experts of parliamentary democracy have stated that it is the job of the Opposition to show that they can do better than the Government, they have never failed to stress that the interests of the State should always be the first concern of both parties - the Government and the Opposition. But we have seen, Sir, that both the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis have not only disregarded, but have actually sacrificed the interests of the students and their parents in an attempt to show that one is better than the other. Sir, the question where the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis are concerned is not which is the better Party. Today, if you go out on the streets, Sir, the popular question is: which is the worse Party? The Barisan Sosialis or the P.A.P.? The answer is obvious, Sir. Both are equally destructive, as is clearly manifested by the way a matter of utmost urgency and importance, i.e., the safety of our youth, is being exploited by both the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. to promote their own political interests. Both are unashamedly using young innocent students to fight out the political battle between the two political Parties. Sir, if the Government has become so weak that they dare not take steps to protect the youth of our State without the Opposition sharing the responsibility, then why did they not bring the motion to the House immediately the trouble started so that the children would have been spared one week of agony? Alternatively, why did they not postpone the examination? They refused to postpone the examination. Sir, you remember I asked whether it could be done, and they refused to do it because postponing the examination means admitting defeat. So to keep up the P.A.P. prestige, pride and probably complex, children and parents have to be subjected to one week of physical and mental agony. Sir, if the Government claims that there are Communists, and if this is true, then it is their duty to fight and arrest them as soon as possible and not leave the students and parents to do the fighting for them. Why must Government knowingly allow the Communists to continue using the students instead of putting a stop to it immediately, even if it means temporarily halting the examination and probably also hurting the pride of the P.A.P. Government? Sir, our youth must not be used to pay the price for maintaining P.A.P. prestige with their poor young innocent bodies and one year of their life. Sir, the P.A.P. have on many occasions ridiculed the Member for Cairnhill and have always hinted, directly or indirectly, at his so-called folly of - I do not quite remember the words, but they are to this effect - putting the subversive Communists in gaol and using the police to stop student riots at the cost of his Party suffering a defeat at the last election. But the P.A.P. forgets, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill will forever be remembered as the man who sacrificed his personal and his party interests for the good of Singapore. Can the P.A.P. claim this? What have they done? They have sacrificed the safety and the interests of the youth of this country to promote the interests of their Party. The Government is now hiding behind angry parents of candidates to fight against these student pickets. Sir, I am not trying to talk about the blood-bath and all that, as what other people have been talking about, trying to threaten or trying to bring about commotion; but I do want to ask the Government whether they have ever given this matter serious consideration. Have they ever given thought to the horrible scenes that could have taken place if parents of the student pickets, angered by the treatment dealt to their children by parents of the candidates, had decided to retaliate even if the pickets were at fault? You know, Sir, parents are inclined always to think that their children are right. If they had decided to retaliate, had Government ever given a thought to what ugly scenes might have arisen? Because which parent would stand by and watch their teenage son being attacked, probably by a big hefty adult, without becoming emotionally aroused? Could the Government guarantee that none of the angry parents of the 1,900 candidates would ever be so angry as to attack any of the student pickets in fighting for entry for their candidate sons? Could the Government guarantee that this would not happen? And should a few angry parents of candidates be so tactless as to attack some of the pickets before the eyes of their parents, would it not be possible that this might end up with a clash between the parents of candidates and the parents o students pickets? Sir, the P.A.P. Government should go down on their bended knees and thank their gods - if they have any - that there has been no clash between the parents of candidates and the parents of student pickets. And God forbid that it should ever happen. I am not trying to advocate using police force on students, but as this motion before the House is asking for police protection for students, Sir, I ask this question: Right from the very beginning, would it not have been safer to use cool-headed, unbiased, and well-trained police officers, over whom the Government has full control, to protect the students and their parents rather than use angry parents, who have been emotionally roused and over whose temper and behaviour the Government has no control whatsoever, into fighting the pickets? What guarantee has the Government that these parents would not lose their heads and get beyond control, especially if they should come to a clash with parents of the student pickets? Could this not lead to scenes of unprecedented ugliness? Why should the whole State be open to this risk just to maintain the pride and the popularity of the P.A.P. Government? The P.A.P.'s argument, Sir, that had they used the police to protect the students, there would have been a riot does not hold water any more, Sir. Because if that is the case, then why are we sitting here considering whether we should give the Government the green light to use the police force to provide this protection? What, may I ask, it the purpose of bringing this motion into this House? Let us not give the Barisan Sosialis more credit than they deserve. I do not believe that it is Only when the Barisan Sosialis give their consent to the Government to use the police force, can the police be used without causing a riot. They are not as important as all that. That this trouble is the result of Government's failure to get the education policy through to the Chinese school students is undeniable, Sir. In my opinion, had the Prime Minister taken the trouble during his two months' leave (I stand corrected as to the number of months) to explain to the Chinese students Government's education policy, he might, Sir, with his intelligence and his eloquence and power of speech, have succeeded in persuading all the students to accept the policy, and the Communists would then have been deprived of this opportunity of manipulating our students, and our students would have been saved all the trouble that is taking place today, it is still not too late, Sir, if the Government would agree to postpone the examination, and in the meanwhile make another effort to explain the education policy to the misguided students and to expose the aims of the evil manipulators. Government probably will be preventing a lot of future trouble and misery. Sir, there are lots of things about this education policy which many of us do not know. I myself have just discovered something new from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, and I am much obliged to him. I am sure many of the students are in the same position. There are lots of things which they do not know and they are under a misapprehension. If that misapprehension could be cleared, probably the air would be cleared. Moreover, Sir, it is fairer to students to take the examination under more normal conditions. The onus. is on the Government to provide a quiet and peaceful atmosphere and environment for students to take the examination. This delay, Sir, will give time, as I have said before, for tempers to subside, nerves repaired and common sense restored. Sir, I learn that the professional examination of the T.T.C. has to be postponed in order to give way to the supplementary examination of the Chinese school students. I do not see sense in that, Sir. The T.T.C. professional -

Order. Let us not debate that, because that is really far away from the motion we are debating.

Sir, it is Government's duty to educate children and not to fight them or use them to fight their battles. I agree, Sir, that no effort must be spared to bring the real culprits to book. But the poor misguided children must not be used to catch these culprits or to pay for the sins of the Government. Something must be done at once to save the children from the evil manipulators. Sir, every single day that these children are allowed to be used by these evil manipulators, be they Communists or otherwise, is another day of P.A.P. failure. The sooner it is stopped, the better. Sir, according to the Minister for Education, there has been a victory for the Government over the evil men (to quote him) who tried to use misguided students to cover their sinister operations. He said, Sir, that the evil mainpulators had been reduced to a state of impotence and frustration. Let us face the naked truth. Sir, no matter how unpleasant and humiliating it may be to the P.A.P. Government. The public must know the truth. Has there been a victory for the Government and a defeat for the manipulators? Let us analyse the situation. I suppose the Government will agree with me that it was the Government's intention that all the students should benefit by the 4-2 system of Chinese secondary schools, and that it was the intention of the evil manipulators that they should not. I am sure the Government will agree to that. But what is the situation today? Hundreds of students who have picketed have lost one year of their life. They are now bitter against the Government. The State has lost one year's expenditure on the students who have wasted their one year's education. Those who are young enough to take the 4-2 examination next year and could have taken it this year, but did not, will cost the State one year more of expenditure. The candidates who had to do their examinations amidst noise, confusion, fear, worry and fights probably have suffered. Have any of the Chinese children benefited? Have the picketers benefited? Who has benefited? Whose intention was it that they should suffer - the Government's or the evil manipulators'? Who has won the battle, Sir? Who have been reduced to a state of importance and frustration? It looks as if the Government has been, Sir - so frustrated and so impotent that they need the moral support of the Opposition before they would dare exercise the power vested in them to carry out their duty. Although the pickets might have melted away, Sir, the Government need not run away with the idea that they have won the fight, for I say that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. May I ask, "Have they convinced the students -

Order. I do not think we are debating as to which side has won. I think the hon. Member is entitled to say that she does not agree with the Minister for Education when he implies that the Government have won. That is all. I do not think we should go into details of this nature. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye) rose -

I think the House has a business motion.

7.17 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 2 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, I maintain that the Government has not won the battle. The evil manipulators seem to have got the better of the Government. May I ask what is the next step? What is Government going to do to see that they win the battle eventually? I think this House has a right to know, because, as I said, we feel that the Government has not won the battle. Sir, when the parents of the candidates - many of them must have voted for the PAP, in the last election - voted the P.A.P, into power, they expected to be protected. Have they been protected? When their children needed protection, they had to do the fighting. They were left to protect their own children. Is this what they voted the P.A.P. into power for? Sir, we the Alliance would rather take the blame and, if necessary, lose another election than expose the youths of Singapore to danger and to leave them at the mercy of evil manipulators and the Communists. We will therefore support the motion as amended, so that our youths and their parents can be protected. I have said before, Sir, and I hope you will permit me to repeat just this, because it is very important, the motion has indicated how Government intends to protect the candidates and their parents from the student picketers, but the more important question is, what steps is Government going to take to bring the evil men to book?

Hear, hear!

Can we have the assurance that they would not be shielded as some have been? 7.20 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has tabled this motion with the main aim of confusing the minds of the people on this question of merger. The Government is trying to put the blame on others to cover up their own faults. This is very irresponsible on the part of the Government. The motion before this House indicates that the Government is useless, because we know that if there is a fight between secret society members, or if there is some trouble at the scene of a strike, would the Government then table a motion before something is done? This shows that the education policy of the P.A.P. is at fault and, therefore, it should be brought up for review and discussion. But in order to save their own faces, they have brought up this motion. They seem to be prepared to make use of the police against the helpless and unarmed students. We know that the students are dissatisfied with the 4:2 system, because this is a departure from the policy drawn up in 1958 by the Urn Yew Hock Government. We know that the Government 4:2 education system in the secondary stage is the same as that in the English schools, that is, they take four years to reach -

Order. I am trying to avoid a debate on the details of the policy. I think the hon. Member is correct in just referring to the policy in passing to say that the students are dissatisfied, and that is as far as I permitted the Member for Queenstown to go, and I think the Prime Minister as well. So let us not go into detail as to whether the 4:2 system is a good system or a bad system. All we need know for the purposes of this debate is that the students appear to be dissatisfied with it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try to cut short my speech and explanation. The students are dissatisfied with the system because only 25 per cent in the English schools can sit for the H.S.C. examination.

Order. I thought I had made myself clear. I do not want a debate on why the students are dissatisfied. The debate on this motion should be confined to the bare statement that the students are, in fact, dissatisfied. Once I allow a debate on details as to why the students are dissatisfied, then we will be going far, far away from the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a cause as to why this has come about. The dissatisfaction of the students has arisen from the fear of being eliminated. The standard of education may be lowered, because they are being deprived of their six-year education in the secondary stage. I think perhaps the Government is trying to save a lot of money on education. Now I want to talk about what has been done by the Ministry of Education in regard to this system. I have said that what has been done is insufficient. The only thing is that the students taking their Secondary IV examination will be promoted to Upper Secondary II and then they will be able to go into the University of Malaya and Nanyang University.

Order. I do not want to appear to be obstructive. I have indicated that we cannot in this motion debate the education policy. All we can do in this particular motion is to say that the students are dissatisfied with the education policy, and that because they are dissatisfied, there has been picketing. The House is asked to condemn the actions of those picketers and, in response to an appeal, to support any action by the police to protect students and to allow students and parents to have free passage and access into and out of all examination halls. That motion does not open out the field for a debate on the education policy. The hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of saying what he wishes to say on the education policy when we debate item 13 of the Order Paper which calls for a Commission to inquire into the Government's education policy. At the moment, we are asking the House whether or not it condemns the action of picketers, whether or not the House would support action by the police to protect students and to give free passage and access to students and parents. That is all.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the boycott has come about as a result of the Government's mishandling of the problem. The Government has not accepted the views of the educational organisations because the memorandum submitted by the Teachers Union of Chinese schools asks that the secondary education in Chinese should be six years. This memorandum has received no reply from the Government. The Government is using pressure on the principals to make them conform to its policy in education. The principals of Chinese schools were called to attend a meeting in the Ministry of Education and they were asked to agree to the 4:2 system. They were not given enough time to discuss this with their teachers and, therefore, they had to agree with this policy under pressure. Thirdly, the Government has exerted pressure on the Board of Directors to agree to this reform. In fact, the Government has called the Directors of Chinese schools for a meeting in the Ministry of Education.

Order. I do not know whether the Member is deliberately misunderstanding the Chair. I do not wish to appear to -be obstructive, but can he tell the chair how all this is relevant to the motion, which is merely asking a condemnation of picketers and asking the House to support Police action? I cannot see anything relevant in what he has said.

(In Mandarin): We read from the newspapers that during the boycott over the past few days, there were so many young men, whose identity was not known, beating students. But the Government did not take steps to protect the students. Similarly, we learn that on the same day a car, with three young people inside, knocked down a student, and the car then escaped. I wonder whether the police has taken action to protect the safety of students. The situation has arisen as a result of a mistake made by the Prime Minister. During Teachers' Day he declared at a meeting of teachers that the 4:2 or 3:3 system should be decided by the teachers themselves. So the students were at a loss not knowing what to do. They are waiting for a final decision. The Government, in order to save their faces, have rightly promised that those who have failed the Secondary IV examination may be promoted to higher classes, but will not be permitted to sit for the Upper Secondary II examination. This is a contradiction on the part of the Government. Why should the Government. on the one hand, allow these people to be promoted, and on the other hand, refuse them the opportunity to sit for the higher examination? Why should the Government not say frankly, "We want to implement the four-year system. If you fail, then you should not be promoted."?

On a point of order, Sir,If the Member for Serangoon Gardens like to debate on the Chinese school system, he will have a chance later on.

The point of order being?

I think he is going into the details of the system.

I have indeed time and time again told the Member for Serangoon Gardens that his remarks are completely irrelevant to the motion. I have indicated that he will have an opportunity of saying what he wishes to say when we come to item 13 of the Order Paper, which is a motion standing in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Joo Chiat: 'That this Assembly calls upon the Government to recommend the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields other than vocational and technical education, and to make recommendations'. That is the motion on which the Member for Serangoon Gardens can speak, and speak at length, on how he thinks the Government's education policy needs revision. I might again draw attention to Standing Order 54. which says: 'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance [that is what I think the Member is doing now], ... may direct him to discontinue his speech.' I ask him not to persist in irrelevance.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this occurrence has taken place, and -the only solution to the trouble is, I suggest, for this motion to be withdrawn. The Government should hear the opinions and views given by Chinese teachers, principals and directors. There should be a solution to be discussed between the Government and the Chinese school authorities. We must not make use of money, such as the 100 bursaries, to buy over the students.

Order. I will give the hon. Member just one more chance. If he persists in this line of debate then I must ask him to discontinue his speech. May I mention again that we are now debating a motion which asks this House to condemn the action of picketers, and which also asks this House to support any action by the police to protect the students, and to give the students and parents free passage and access into and out of all examination halls. I have mentioned time and time again that it is in order to say that the students are dissatisfied with the education policy. That is perfectly in order. But if the hon. Member goes into details and tries to start debating what that policy is and how it is alleged that it is wrong, then that is completely irrelevant. I ask the Member for Serangoon Gardens to try to be relevant.

(In Mandarin): The solution lies in the postponement or the abolition of the examination. Therefore, I oppose the motion moved by the Government. 7.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, here we have a motion moved on a note of urgency on a serious matter, and here we have today Members of this Assembly, in particular the Prime Minister, talking merrily on the subject and on stories of animals. Sir, the motion is divided into two parts. First of all, it asks the House to condemn the action of the students, and secondly it asks support of the House for police action against the students. Sir, we have a Government here, and there is no better example of a government which is shirking its responsibility, a government which refuses to govern. We are now seeing in front of us a Government which wants the Assembly to give it cover for a certain action which it intends to take but dare not. Sir the motion, if accepted, would reduce the Singapore Government to just an escape body taking instructions from this Assembly. This Assembly would be like the 32 men in the City Council with you as President. And we would have Standing Committee comprising members of all political Parties running the government of Singapore, just as a Standing Committee of 32 men in the City Council ran the local government a few years ago. Sir, when the Government used the police and military personnel against the strikers or used the police and military personnel for the protection of new workers when the City Council went on strike, they did not co-me to this House to ask for a vote. They went under their own steam, and they took the responsibility of government. I cannot understand why, on this occasion, the Government should come here and ask us for a vote. And that is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, they should not use police when there are children. Sir, during the last week we have almost a similar motion which also called for police protection against the students, so that we could defend the privilege of an Assemblyman. What happened in that motion is that we would be getting the police to bring the students - or arrest them if necessary - before the Committee of Privileges. And if they are guilty -

Order. I do not think that is what the motion means. The motion just asks the police. I think. to take action according to law. I do not think we should go back to that motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am trying to drive at is that the basic principle of the two motions is about the same, that it calls for police action against students, which action will lead to trouble. Sir, in the present atmosphere, it is important for the Government to reduce whatever tension there is. By calling students hooligans and by using the police against students would not be, conducive to the creation of peace, as what the Prime Minister said just now. The threat of violence or the threat of police action would not reduce tension, but would instead aggravate the situation and create bitterness on all sides. Sir, I cannot understand why this motion is necessary.

Hear, hear!

As we all know, the Middle IV examinations were completed last Friday. I really cannot understand why the Government did not defer its supplementary examinations until a calmer atmosphere prevails. And why it should insist on having the supplementary examinations immediately after the Middle N examinations are completed, and coming to this House asking it to give protective cover for any police action it might intend to take, not on this occasion but on future occasions. Sir, the Government has said that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the students have taken their examinations. Only a fraction is left. A few hundred of the students have not taken the examination. That is why I cannot understand why this motion is necessary. When three-quarters of the students have taken their examinations without police protection and without police action, why should the Government ask for police protection when a small fraction is left? Sir, although we oppose this motion, as we opposed the motion last Friday, we are confident that the parents of the students will understand that if there is any police intervention in the supplementary examinations or in the Senior Middle III examinations which are to come, their children might be hurt during any scuffle which might ensue. We are confident that without police intervention, any student who wants to take the examination can do so since three-quarters have already done so. From the newspapers, it seems that those who are picketing have announced that they will be picketing peacefully. Sir, today's debate is not one on the merits or demerits of the 4 : 2 system versus the 3 : 3 system. But we hope that these problems will be aired and resolved during the ensuing debate on item 13 of the agenda or at the Commission of Inquiry, for which the Member for Anson has asked and which the Government has promised. We hope that during the Commission of Inquiry the merits or demerits of the 4 : 2 system and the 3 : 3 system can be respectively aired and resolved to the satisfaction of everybody.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has accused the Government of trying to use the police against the students and that the Government has abdicated its duty to govern. May I suggest to him that in trying to be friends to all and be the champion of Chinese school students and Chinese education, his efforts will not be appreciated by the Communists? In fact, they would only hate him more for trying to pose as a champion. Mr Speaker, Sir, serious allegations have been made by the Member for Queenstown that police have been disguised as students and parents to assault student picketers. I do not wish at this stage to be drawn into a lengthy argument with the Member for Queenstown, since there will be a Commission of Inquiry and the Member for Queenstown no doubt will have to substantiate his allegations. However, I should like the Members of this House to note that none of the parents and the students who want to sit for the examination mask their faces, for they have nothing to be ashamed of or to hide. And it seems to be utterly foolish for the police to assault students - if such an allegation is true - by going about it openly, to invite identification without taking the necessary elementary precaution of disguising themselves like the student picketers. Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion flows logically from the motion that was approved by this House, including Members of the Barisan Sosialis, on 29th November. That motion read as follows: 'That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.' Mr Speaker, those who approved that motion cannot logically disapprove of the motion now before the House. In fact, there is more reason for them to endorse this motion. The motion of 29th November related only to the protection of the rights and privileges of an individual Assemblyman. The motion we are now debating extends protection to the ordinary citizens, in this case parents and students, to exercise their lawful rights. Let me briefly state what the parents have to say on this question and whether their appeal for protection is justified. I refer, Sir, to a statement issued by the Preparatory Committee of the Parents Association in reply to the President of the Singapore Chinese School Teachers Union who accused them of asking the police to be brutal against the students. 7.53 p.m.

This statement appears in today's Nanyang Siang Pau. The parents asked these questions of the Singapore Chinese School Teachers Union. 'Have the parents no right to enjoy the fundamental right of personal safety which every citizen should have? Are the parents committing an offence in bringing their children to examination centres? Are the parents to be deprived of even the right to appeal for police protection when they and their children are subject to obstruction by pickets and be the targets of brutal assault by stones, mud and bad eggs?' Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

On a point of clarification. Mr Ong Pang Boon resumed his seat.

I am much obliged. Could the Minister inform us whether he is aware of any parent having suffered a single injury at any time?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am paraphrasing the statement issued by the Parents Association and I shall come to it later. The parents continued: 'We believe that the police is a department for the preservation of peace and good order in a democratic State. The pickets are not armed. The students who want to sit for the examination and their parents are also unarmed. Can anyone deny this fact?' Then the parents go on to enumerate four instances of injury and assaults by the picketers. In one case, a parent took two parcels of food to his children at the Teachers' Training College. He threw the food over the fence to his children. The pickets rushed and grabbed the food and assaulted the students, with the result that there was a scuffle between the pickets and the parents who want to the victims' aid. Stones and bottles, according to the parents, were thrown by the picketers. Then the parents also quoted an instance where a 70 years old woman who took her grandson to the examination centre, had to brave abuses and the pickets in order to go into the examination centre. She fell as a result and her leg was broken. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what this motion asks is that no one should forcefully prevent students who wish to take examinations from doing so. This motion does not force those who do not want to take the examinations to do so. All it seeks to do is to protect the right of students who want to sit for the examinations and the right of parents and guardians to see that no one prevents their children from taking such examinations. In fact, if the boycott is a popular move and has the support of the majority of the students and the parents there is no need of picketing and human chains, and the presence of the police is unnecessary. Or if the picketers indulge in genuine, peaceful picketing, instead of linking arms to prevent by force students from taking the examinations, then the need of parents to ask for police protection does not arise. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is therefore surprising that allegedly responsible political leaders of the Barisan Sosialis should try to confuse this simple issue by raising a hue and cry about police brutalities and violence and presenting it as an attempt to use the Police Force against school children. And I regret, Mr Deputy Speaker, that even the Chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, who should have more sense and should have been more clear-minded, should have allowed himself to be fooled and confused by the Barisan Sosialis. An hon. Member: What did he say?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I humbly suggest that the Barisan Sosialis, as part and parcel Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order, Mr Marshall?

Yes. The President of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce has been mentioned and abused for being a fool for saying what he said. Can we know what he said? I think it is only proper, since he is being abused, that we should know what the abuse is about?

It is not a point of order. Ms Ong Pang Boon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I refer him to the Nanyang Siang Pau of today's date? May I go on? I humbly suggest, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis, as part and parcel of their desperate strategy to create clashes and violent disorder in order to halt merger, have deliberately distorted this motion to mean that we want to launch police action against picketing students. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the falsity of this charge can be seen from the fact that throughout the past week, we have deliberately refrained from using the police against picketing students simply because we do not want to fall into the Communist trap of trying to provoke clashes between school children and the parents. We resisted doing this even when picketing students illegally and forcibly assaulted students (who wanted to take the examination) and their parents. However, the Barisan Sosialis, who on 29th November were ready to condemn acts of hooliganism by picketers against a fellow Assemblyman, and call upon the police to ensure that an Assemblyman's rights are protected, are obviously not prepared to extend the same protection against hooliganism to law-abiding parents and students. Though I fully agree that an Assemblyman must be protected in the exercise of his rights and privileges, I think this Assembly should be just as ready to protect the rights of ordinary students and citizens as well, otherwise this House would be treating Assemblymen as privileged people. The Barisan Sosialis, in particular, would, if they oppose this motion, be saying we are ready to protect the rights of Assemblymen because that involves our personal welfare, but who cares about the rights and welfare of students and parents? In a statement published on 1st December in the Straits Times, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis declared that the present motion is a motion to sanction police action against students. The statement went on to say, and I quote: 'The P.A.P. is now anxious to use the police to suppress mounting dissatisfaction. The Barisan Sosialis strongly opposes any attempt to justify the use of police force against the children of our State. We have seen enough brutalities and violence perpetrated by the Lim Yew Hock Government against our children.' Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a completely distorted statement of the purpose and intent of this motion and a typical example of the political dishonesty of the men who manipulate the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis and his Assemblymen henchmen. Let me now show, Sir, how the Barisan Sosialis have distorted the spirit and intent of this motion. The motion starts off by asking the House to condemn the actions of picketers in obstructing, intimidating or otherwise forcibly preventing students from taking their examinations. Not even the Barisan Sosialis can deny that students have been and are being prevented from taking examinations. Students have not only been obstructed and intimidated, but force has been used by picketers against them. Now, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis are not themselves directly involved in the boycott, they should surely be ready to condemn the actions of picketers in obstructing and intimidating students who want to take examinations. The students who wanted to take the examinations were not doing anything wrong. They did not even query the right of picketers to stay away from the examination. All that the students asked was that they should be allowed to take these examinations. The Barisan Sosialis, unless they are up to their necks in this Communist plot to create a clash between police and picketing school children, should have no difficulty in condemning those who obstruct or intimidate or use force on those who want to take their examinations. As responsible political leaders, the Barisan Sosialis cannot maintain that those people who intimidate and obstruct students should not be condemned. Mr Deputy Speaker, the next part of the motion refers to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded police protection -

Count them P.A.P.!

No.

Sir, it is true that parents have asked for police protection for themselves and their children. I repeat, Sir, that what this motion asks the House to do is to approve police protection - and I repeat, police protection - for students and parents, not as the Barisan Sosialis falsely claims, to endorse police action against students.

And to ensure.

The last part of the motion makes it amply clear that the intention is not to take action against peaceful picketing by students but to take such action as may be necessary to protect students wishing to take their examinations, to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents, who accompany them, are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls. There is, therefore, no question of taking action against picketers or breaking up the pickets. To do so would be to fall into the Communist trap.

Oh, Communist semua-yah?

So long as the pickets do not interfere with the rights of students to take examinations, so long as they do not intimidate examinees or use force against them, and so long as the picketers do not do things to endanger the life and limb of people, there can be no question of using the police against them. This motion merely seeks to prevent picketers from intimidating or obstructing or using violence against examinees and their parents. If a hooligan starts beating up an innocent hawker and the hawker appeals to a policeman for assistance, would the Barisan Sosialis claim that the policeman was being brutal in not allowing the hooligan to beat the hawker to pulp? Yet, that seems to be the stand taken by the Barisan Sosialis leaders. Any action taken by the police to see that students and parents are not molested or intimidated by student picketers who are being manipulated by pro-Communists is, in the eyes of the Barisan Sosialis, an act of brutality, if I read the Barisan Sosialis' stand correctly, it is that picketers should be allowed a free hand to intimidate and use force against students and parents. That to protect the students and parents from such action is brutality. This is not merely logic gone mad, but politicians gone mad. One can imagine the kind of justice and law that would prevail under a government run by the Barisan Sosialis politicians.

Sama juga P.A.P.-lah!

What about your Government?

Same!

Barisan Sosialis followers would be given the constitutional right to beat up those who disagree with them, and any one who defends himself against such assault would be charged with high treason. It is contended that if we withdraw this motion, everything would be all right. It is our submission, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if this Assembly does not approve of such a motion, then the green light would be given for more intimidation, more obstruction and more use of force by picketers against peaceful and law abiding students and parents. For one week the picketers intimidated and obstructed students. They grew bolder until they decided that they would prevent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education from coming to this Assembly. But within a few minutes of a motion of privilege being raised in this House, the students dispersed, and not only that, but the day after the motion was passed with the approval of the Barisan Sosialis, the picketers not only did not try to obstruct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, but were extremely polite to the Minister for Education and his Parliamentary Secretary. In other words, Sir, the motion of 29th November, had a salutary effect on the students. There was no need to give police protection to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, because the fact that this motion was endorsed by art overwhelming majority vote was sufficient deterrent. I am equally certain that a unanimous vote for this motion would have an equally salutary effect on the pickets. But if they are led to believe that some Assemblymen would be prepared to espouse their right to intimidate and use force against parents and students, then the pro-Communist elements who are using these children would egg them on -

Why do you not arrest them?

Order.

- to commit unlawful acts of intimidation and force in the hope of precipitating clashes between the police and student picketers. By the stand the Barisan Sosialis take on this motion, they will make it clear whether they are or are not up to their necks in this plot to use children as cannon fodder in their political warfare against merger. They will make it clear whether, being too scared to come into open conflict with the police themselves, they are ready to use little children as a shield to protect themselves. They want to achieve their sinister political aims on the maimed and injured bodies of school children.

That is your view and of the Special Branch.

Anyway, I appeal to their innate sense of decency not to hide behind the skirts of school children. Let them not persist in the pretence that this motion is a motion to take police action against picketing students. All that this motion seeks to do is to prevent picketing students from using force and intimidation against parents escorting students to examination halls and students who want to take their examinations. It is significant, Sir, that since the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis announced his intention to oppose this motion, the picketers have picked up courage and have renewed their picketing and intimidation today. I understand that today they picked up enough courage to halt the car of the Minister for Education and force him to walk to his office. I humbly suggest, Sir, that it was the statement of the Barisan Sosialis which gave them this new confidence. In so far as the Barisan Sosialis leaders egg picketers on to persist in their acts of intimidation and show of force, then the Barisan Sosialis leaders are playing with fire and with the pro-Communist elements in so far as these sinister men are using the children as cannon-fodder in their political game. Let it be made clear now that the Barisan Sosialis leaders cannot evade responsibility if, as a result of their reckless and dangerous manoeuvres, they succeed in providing pro-Communist elements with a pretext for forcing clashes between school children and the police. The Government for its part will not allow the police to come into a clash with school children. Our aim is to come to grips with the adults who are manipulating these children.

When?

All that the Government is asking this House to do is to ensure that protection is given to parents and children, and if unanimous support is given to this motion, then, in our view, the picketers will, of their own accord, stop intimidating and using force against parents and students.

On a point of clarification. Would the Minister for Home Affairs, who is responsible for security, inform this House whether he intends to arrest those adults whom he knows to be responsible for subverting our youths to improper political activities? Just a simple yes or no.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has answered a similar question raised by the hon. Member just now. 8.20 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would now appear very clear that every motion that is brought before this House will be a matter for struggle between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., and that the debate on every motion will be an occasion for each to try to tear down the other. In a motion of this grave nature, one would have thought that the Government would have presented the issues fairly and squarely. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs said that if the Government could get a unanimous vote of this Assembly, it would have a salutary effect on the picketers. Let us examine the way the Government Benchers are going about trying to seek this unanimous vote. First and foremost, doubts are cast on the Barisan Sosialis. They accuse the Barisan Sosialis of doing this, that and the other. But they appeal to the Barisan Sosialis, "Please give us your vote. It will have a salutary effect on the pickets." Sir, even the Prime Minister himself is not free from blame. Members will remember that when the motion on the question of privileges of a Member of the Assembly - that is, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - was discussed in this Assembly a few days ago, the Barisan Sosialis Members stood up and spoke strongly for the rights and privileges of Assemblymen. They were against anyone who tried to prevent any Member of this Assembly from attending sittings of this Assembly and doing his work as an elected Member of the people.

8.22 p.m.

But what did the Prime Minister do? He laughed at them and said, "Ha, ha. They were caught. They voted with us." What is this, Sir? Is this House going to listen to all the political fights that are apparent between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P.? When the Barisan Sosialis voted for a motion in all sincerity, the Prime Minister himself could just laugh and say, "Ha! They were caught." Now that is why they do not want to be caught again. Can we blame the Barisan Sosialis for taking their present stand? Sir, the Government is indeed a watchdog of law and order and of the security and welfare of the people of Singapore. The Prime Minister in his speech just now likened the P.A.P. Government to an Alsatian dog. I beg to submit, Sir, that he has too high an opinion of his own Government. An hon. Member: Pariah dog!

An Alsatian dog is indeed a very good watchdog, and I would like to say in this House that the P.A.P. Government is not a good Government. Therefore, it cannot be a good watchdog. If the Prime Minister is fond of likening himself to a dog, then I would say that the proper description of the P.A.P. Government would be a mongrel and not an Alsatian dog. Sir, before I go on to other matters. I would like to say this. Having been a Member of this Assembly for many years, and having been the, shall we say foolish Chief Minister in the last Government, I cannot help but feel that the debate which is taking place today is actually just a replay of what took place in 1956. At that time, I was on the other side of the House and our great Prime Minister was sitting on this side of the House as an elected representative of the P.A.P. I would like to say this - and there is the Hansard to prove it - that the words he uttered are almost the same as those uttered by the Member for Queenstown today against his Government. If one were to draw any conclusion, one would just say that perhaps the Barisan Sosialis (ex-P.A.P.) have learnt very, very well from their masters. Now they come out and give back a little bit of the medicine which the P.A.P. when in the Op position gave to the previous Government. But what the previous Government did - according to the P.A.P. - was a foolish thing. "The Government fell into a trap." So it is now admitted in this Assembly that there was a trap laid by the P.A.P. for the previous Government. At that time, Sir, I was the Chief Minister. I knew that there were such political moves being made, but I felt that if a government wants to govern, it must govern. It must not take into consideration, in carrying out its sacred duty of looking after the welfare and the security of the people of Singapore, whether the Party will survive. The security and the welfare of the people of Singapore are above the continued existence of any Party in Singapore and anywhere in the world. So I say to them that if they want to claim that they are a good, strong and responsible Government they should behave like one. Do not come to this Assembly on a motion telling us in advance, "We do not want to do this. Last time the previous Government fell into a trap. Now this is a trap which we laid but it is laid for us. Therefore, we do not want to fall into the trap. Please help us out. If you will all just say yes, everything will be over." Sir, that is not the way to run a government. It is the duty of a Government to govern. It is definitely not the duty of the Government to place the interests of the people of Singapore second to the interests of their own political Party. That will not give them the right to claim that they are a good, clean and honest Government.

Where is the Government?

I remember, Sir, that even in the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs just now, he said, "Look at the Barisan Sosialis playing with the students." I have no sympathy for the Barisan Sosialis in all its attempts to, shall we say, overthrow the Government, but what I would like to point out in this Assembly is this: what they are accused of doing today is actually what the P.A.P. did when they were in the Opposition. Let them deny this. The Government say, "Oh, yes, we know there are adults behind all this move." If they really know that there are adults who are instigating innocent children and misleading them into behaving in a manner which does not bring credit to their schools or to their families, then it is their duty to bring these instigators to book. If they do not want to do it, then the less they try to hide their weakness by saying that there are men behind all this, the better for all concerned. They should to their duty, but if they do not, they should not try to find an excuse for their weakness and ineptitude. I said earlier that the debate that is going on today appears to be like what happened in 1956, but there is now a change in the dramatis personae. The Prime Minister is now having a dose of his own medicine and he does not like it, but then he is trying his best to wriggle out of it, and in trying to do so, he keeps on insulting the Opposition and then says, "Tolong lah! If not, I mati!" How can it be like this? What kind of culture is this? It has been asked by this Assembly why such a motion should have been tabled in this House. Well, the Prime Minister made it clear just now - he spent most of his time laughing it off; I do not know why he should treat a very serious subject as a laughing matter - that he was out to trap the Barisan Sosialis, and he charged that the Barisan Sosialis were out to trap him. I do not know who is trapping whom. If this is going to be the trend of debate on every motion in this House, then this sitting is going to be a very, very long and protracted affair. I hope that the Members of the P.A.P., either present or past, should try to refrain from bringing their political war into this Assembly. Sir, I do not want to come to the defence of the Barisan Sosialis, but I must say this, that having been in the government myself, I know it is wrong to start accusing people of being involved in activities that are detrimental to the security of the State and not do anything about it.

Hear, hear!

If it is true that today there are people in the Barisan Sosialis who are involved - as I pointed out that during my time there were people in the P.A.P. who were involved in subversive activities, and we arrested them - then the Government should arrest these people, and I am sure that they themselves would be only too pleased. "If we are really guilty, pull us in. We don't mind going to gaol. But don't just simply black-list in that way and call us all sorts of names." When the previous Govern ment took action against subversives in the P.A.P., what did the Prime Minister who was then in the Opposition - in fact, sitting almost in the same seat as I am sitting now - do? He stood up and defended them, and called the Government all sorts of names. He said, "These are good people. These are comrades of mine." Above all that, he even shed tears trying to defend them. And today, out of his own mouth he called them worse names than I ever dared to call them. Sir, it is indeed a pity that politics in Singapore has come to such a stage whereby a government would not dare to move in the interests of law and order without trying to get the Barisan Sosialis involved. According to their logic, if the Barisan Sosialis votes with them, then everything is honky-tonky. And if the Barisan Sosialis say, "No", then everything is going to be difficult. How could it be? If they like the Barisan Sosialis, then invite them to go back and work with the Government. Do not let them sit on this side of the House and give us a lot of unnecessary noise from their sides. We are quite able to look after the interests of the Opposition. Sir, my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, has tabled an amendment. The amendment is to make it clear that it is the duty of a government to govern, to maintain law and order. And if it is of any assistance to the Government in the proper discharge of its duty to maintain law and order, then we are prepared to give them our vote. But we want to say this to them - and the amendment seeks to focus attention on this - that it is the duty of a government to govern. I do hope that in future the Government will not come running into this Assembly asking for the views of this Assembly in matters which directly concern the duties of government. They either govern or they do not govern. If they do not wish to govern, the answer is simple. They get out.

That is right! 8.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it very difficult to understand the Member for Cairnhill. I do not know where he stands, what he means, whether he is here or there. He starts off by criticising the Government for having cast doubts on the sincerity of the Barisan Sosialis. And then he ends up by criticising the Government, yet at the same time agreeing to the sentiments expressed in the motion. I can only say, Sir, that I find the Member for Cairnhill a very slippery customer. But I would like to tell him this - he has left the Chamber, but nevertheless I would like to tell him this - there is a strong rumour in town that there is, in fact, an alliance between the Singapore People's Alliance and the People's Action Party Government. And it could be, Sir, that in the anxiety of the Member for Cairnhill to cover up this alliance, he wants to criticise us and the Government, but nevertheless, when it comes to the basic situation, he makes sure all the time that the Government gets more than 26 votes. Sir, I regret that in a debate on a motion of such a serious nature as we have today, we saw a clowning performance of the Prime Minister. Sir, either the Prime Minister thinks that the motion before the House is one that makes him laugh, because he thinks that after the passing of this motion what is going to happen is going to be amusing to him; or because he finds that What the Member for Cairnhill has said is the truth, and as it is the truth, it hurts him and he wants to cover it up by just laughing it off. Sir, since the debate started at 2.30 p.m. today, every Government speaker has been trying to avoid the issues projected by this motion before us. Sir, nobody in the Barisan Sosialis doubts that, on the face of it, the motion purports to uphold and defend the right of every student to his freedom to pursue his studies and sit for an examination. But, Sir, is this all there is to this motion? Sir, the motion before the House seeks to obtain for the Government a blank cheque from this Assembly. But, Sir, before we decide to put such a blank cheque in the hands of the Government, it is our bounden duty to ensure that there is, in fact, no foul play intended. Sir, Singapore today is forced to witness and tolerate the pathetic picture of poor vain threats, plots and plans of the P.A.P. Government in its last days. And, Sir, we would fail in our duty to our people if we did not expose the desperate move of this discredited Government. Sir, the motion calls on this Assembly to condemn the student pickets and to sanction the use of police force against school children.

Order. I do not think the hon. Member can say that. It calls upon the House to support any action by the police to protect students. I do not think the motion says anything about force.

May I submit, Sir, that in my interpretation, the intention of the Government in moving this motion is to get this Assembly to condemn the student pickets and to sanction the use of the police against school children?

Order. Of course, the hon. Member is quite entitled to interpret it that way. But if he says that the motion says so, then he is wrong.

If I may now continue, Sir,It is my contention that before we can venture to condemn the student pickets, we must first seek to understand why there was, in fact, the necessity to picket. Sir, this picketing is the logical consequence of the Government's determination to hold the Secondary IV Examination in the face of genuine grievances and fears on the part of Chinese educationists and students. Sir, the P.A.P.'s education policy - I assure you, Sir, that I do not intend to start a debate on the education policy, but all I want to say is that the P.A.P.'s education policy, particularly in respect of Chinese education, should be understood. For it is this that has brought about the boycott and sufferings to both parents and children, whether they be in the examination ball on in the picket line. Sir, today, all teachers from all streams of education in Singapore know about the efficiency of the Ministry of Education. The public, because of this sad situation in the Chinese schools, is also made aware of this fact. Sir, as I have said once before, I have respect for the trust and privacy of private conversations, unlike the Prime Minister. Hence, I do not think I should reveal to this House what Mr C. V. Devan Nair told me many times, when he was the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education, of his estimation of the competence of the Hon, the Minister for Education, who incidentally is the ex-General Manager of an insurance company. But, Sir, I want to make this point: running an Education Ministry is not like running an insurance company. Even in the insurance company and in the insurance business, he is known as an Asian expatriate by the local staff.

Order. Is all this really necessary in the debate on the motion? Let us get on with the motion. Time is getting on. It is a quarter to nine.

Hear, hear!

The point that I really want to make is this expatriate attitude, this contempt for the view of the poor native, be he an educationist or a student, which has helped to result in the boycott. The question of having to sit for an examination was never disputed. In this respect, Sir, we must condemn the P.A.P Government for not telling this Assembly the facts. They tried to confuse the issue by distorting the facts and stating that the students do not agree to the universally recognised principle that one must pass a lower examination before going for a higher one. This principle, Sir, as I have said, was never an issue. It probably remained an issue in the mind of the Minister, and I would suggest that the sooner he sorts out his thoughts and facts clearly, the better it is for him and everybody else. We know how the Government examination, at the end of Primary VI in the English education stream, serves as a bottleneck, as a valve to limit the number of children going into the Secondary English schools.

Order. I am sorry I have to interrupt again. I did stop the Member for Serangoon Gardens when he endeavoured to go into those details. I think the Member has made his point, that the students are dissatisfied with the education system, and as a result of that dissatisfaction, they have picketed.

As I said, I have no mention of going into details. But what I do want to say is that it is the subconscious fear of many Chinese educationists that the Government may use their Secondary IV Examination like nets. Sir, the Government's insistence and adventurous attitude on its effort to hold examinations in one way or another have all helped to enhance the fears. Whether these fears are groundless or whether they do in fact, reflect Government's intention is of no consequence to us today. But what is of importance, Sir, is that these fears are genuine. They are a reality and we must take cognisance of them. Sir, if we behave like expatriates then we will end up in this present mess. The P.A.P. has deliberately ignored these objective factors. It ignores them, Sir, at its own peril. But this Assembly shall not share in the responsibility due to the consequences of the P.A.P.'s follies. It is the height of impertinence, Sir, and an insult to this Assembly that this House should be asked to sanction police action so that the P.A.P. may pursue a course pregnant with threats to the peace of the island. Sir, under the pretext of maintaining law and order, the P.A.P. wants us to give it the green light so that its action might create more disorder and violence and enhance the atmosphere of tension the Prime Minister has tried to create in his radio talks. Sir, if the P.A.P. Government does not want violence, does not wish to create an artificial tension in Singapore, and does not wish to turn this sad issue, which is a result of their own folly, into a weapon to suppress political opponents, then they should not have handled the situation in the way they in fact did. The present student unrest appears to be the result of a plan by the P.A.P. to cause violence and an air of tension. The Government seems to be out to justify what the Prime Minister has warned of in his radio talks. We have seen, Sir, how the Government tried to justify such forecasts, as the Prime Minister said in relation to the industrial front, by indulging in acts which would have provoked violence amongst strikers and police. We have even seen the case of the strike by the Public Daily-Rated Employees, when the Government tried to make the issue a political one, when in fact the strike was precipitated by Government's sponsorship of a yellow union, the A.U.P.E. The Prime Minister had forecast that his political opponents would use students. He now appears to create a situation to make his forecast appear true. Sir, it is important for us all to realise how the present situation was created by the P.A.P. and how it could have been avoided if the P.A.P. had not been bent on creating trouble so as to push through their phoney merger in the resulting confusion and unrest. History has shown us many such examples. In Singapore's recent history, Sir, we have seen how the Member for Cairnhill and Chew Swee Kee sparked off trouble in the students section so as to clamp down on militant trade unionists and political opponents. We see, Sir, in the P.A.P. manoeuvres designed to create unrest so as to eliminate effective opposition and keep themselves in office. Sir, as early as 1960, the Minister for Education mentioned the P.A.P.'s plans to revise and shorten the secondary education in the Chinese secondary schools. But nothing was done until mid 1961, when the Minister restated his intention once again. Sir, all news regarding criticism of this policy was systematically suppressed. There were grievances and fears. But there was no means for all to have open discussions. The public was completely kept in the dark. Then in September, the P.A.P. decided to announce officially the conversion plan. They decided to push through the examinations even when the syllabus for the upper secondary classes plan was not available. They started on this course knowing full well the resentment and fears of the Chinese educationists and the students. Sir, if they were fools and half-wits, then we would have forgiven them. But they are men who claim to be intelligent, Sir, and as such, they know full well that pushing through this delicate and emotional issue against suppressed grievances and fears will only result in a blow-up. Sir, their censorship of grievances and fears failed when the "Barisan", the organ of my Party, published in full the grievances of the students. The "Barisan" was careful just to report the news of the grievances of the students without any comment whatsoever. Our aim, Sir, was that unless all are made fully aware of the grievances and the fears of the educationists and the students, they would not be able to appreciate the mischievous designs of the P.A.P. Government. Sir, a showdown was obvious and inevitable with the Government determined to teach the students a lesson and thus achieve their desire. It is our responsibility to lay facts for the parents and others to see. We did not comment, Sir, for we did not want to stir up any feelings and fall into the P.A.P. scheme of things. Our publishing of the genuine grievances had ultimately let the cat out of the bag for the P.A.P. Despite the fact that we passed no comments, the P.A.P. thought fit to unleash a campaign directed at us for agitating and instigating the students. Sir, we see the same process being repeated. Sir, Chew Swee Kee in 1956 blamed the P.A.P. for instigating the students. The P.A.P. leadership then knew that those allegations were fictitious. Now they have resorted to the Chew Swee Kee tactics, and it is the Barisan Sosialis this time which is the scapegoat. Sir, the Minister for Education mentioned three Barisan Sosialis Members and Mr Tommy Koh Thong Bee as having gone to the schools to instigate and give moral support to the students. We are glad that in the case of Tommy Koh the Minister had to eat his own words. But, Sir, what is more important is the logic of the Special Branch and the Minister. Tommy Koh's car was there -

Order. I do not think we should go into details on that. I think the Member has made his point.

I beg your indulgence, Sir, because this is the basis on which serious allegations have been made against the Barisan Sosialis.

Order. I think the Member has made his point, so far as Tommy Koh is concerned. We know the whole history of it. There is no need to repeat it.

I am not, in fact, going into the details of Tommy Koh's case, Sir. But I just want to expound on the logic of the P.A.P. Ministers and the Intelligence Service that they are using to base their allegations upon. I was saying that Tommy Koh's car was there. An hon. Member: It was not!

Order. Exactly. There you are, when one goes into detail, one makes mistake. The hon. Member now says that Tommy Koh's car was there, but the information is that his car was not there. Anyway, I think I must stop details of that nature. The point has been made. Let us come back to the motion.

I would like to ask the Minister whether, apart from the students, there were others that morning at the schools, and whether they also were giving moral support. Were they, Sir, to use the Special Branch logic, instigating the children? The Minister and the Special Branch ventured to carry their logic to a higher stage. Because three Barisan Sosialis Members were there that morning - three out of numerous parents and onlookers - the Barisan Sosialis was therefore behind the disturbances. And again, as two of the three there happened to be at the same time bus workers, Fong Swee Suan was behind the show. Sir, such logic is the same as saying, if a P.A.P. Member commits murder, then the Prime Minister and Secretary-General of the P.A.P. instigated him. This is the very logic that composed the underlying theme of all the radio talks of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have all been thrilled by the rhythm of the Harry Lime theme, but our people are now being subjected to the sickening refrain of the Harry Lee theme. How desperate can this man be, Sir? And how low can the P.A.P. leadership sink? Sir, having found somebody to blame for their follies, the P.A.P. was determined to push through the examination in the Chinese schools. Mind you, Sir. there was no urgency for this plan. It could be introduced even next year. Having failed in their efforts, Sir, they now persist and want to hold and, in fact, are holding supplementary examinations. Why do they wish to perpetuate tension? Why is the P.A.P. Government determined to force students to sit for the examination when everybody knows and feels that, because of the atmosphere, which is and was not conducive to getting the best out of the candidates, the examination results cannot be of any significance? Sir, it is easy to fight school boys and school girls. But to ask Gurkha mercenaries to beat up our children is no way to solve educational problems -

Order. I have not heard any allegation that Gurkha mercenaries have been asked to beat up children - [Interruption]. Order. When the Speaker is on his feet, there must be silence. That type of statement is completely false and should never have been made in this Assembly.

I want to establish this, Sir, that there is definitely a reason why the Government persists in wanting to perpetuate the tension. Sir, the point is, how can any candidate answer examination papers with peace of mind when he knows that his fellow classmates, perhaps his team mates in the basketball team, are outside picketing and may be engaged in a struggle with the police? Sir, these are effects which I am sure even the Minister for Education is not unaware of. Sir, I am inclined to believe that the Prime Minister does not want to solve this problem peacefully. He might want tension and violence so that under an emergency atmosphere, he can oppress his political opponents. But by his own admission, he has learnt a lesson from Chew Swee Kee's mistakes. He does not want to bear the responsibility for police action. He wants this Assembly to sanction such action. He wants to commit this Assembly to an act which he himself dare not do alone. Sir, except for slight modifications, we see Chew Swee Kee's actions all over again. Sir, the former Minister for Education under the previous Government may be dead but it would appear that his soul goes marching on. Marching, Sir, in step with that of the P.A.P. leaders. Today we witness in this House the joining up of forces of the Member for Cairnhill, Chew Swee Kee's cronies, and the P.A.P. desperadoes. This is not unexpected, Sir, -

Order. These unparliamentary expressions are getting more and more unparliamentary. I do not know whether the Member for Thomson is alleging that the Member for Cairnhill was Chew Swee Kee's crony. If he is, then that is completely unparliamentary and is offensive. He must withdraw it.

I was not referring to the Member for Cairnhill as a crony of the previous Minister. But I was saying, Sir, this is something that we expected. The plan to reduce Chinese secondary education- stems from the previous Government. Sir, the tactic of creating disturbances while professing to maintain law and order is something the Member for Cairnhill holds dear to his heart. Sir, the trouble was that Chew Swee Kee was, in fact, too straightforward. But then, Sir, he had not the experience to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors - Mr Yong Nyuk Lin rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is customary for the Barisan Sosialis always to mention Chew Swee Kee. I thought that the Speaker had already ruled that Chew Swee Kee's name was becoming very tedious.

Yes. The name of Chew Swee Kee was becoming very tedious when used by the Member for Queenstown. Perhaps I can say to the Member for Thomson that the use of the name of Chew Swee Kee is becoming tedious but it has not reached that stage at the moment.

Sir, I can very well understand how the -

Order. Please continue.

Sir, the P.A.P. has now polished the old machine and we see a bunch of polished and skilled operators. Today, ("parents" are parents within inverted commas) used as their first line of attack instead of the police. In the last few days, Sir, we have seen well-trained and co-ordinated "parents" manning gateways through picket lines. Sir, we have seen students being assaulted by these so-called parents. Sir, I have here, for your information, a picture published in the Free Press of Friday, 1st December, of these people whom the P.A.P. Government called "parents". And the note under the picture reads, "Parents and supporters stand by outside the Ministry of Education." They all appear to me to be people ranging from the age of nine to not more than 20. Sir, I can assure the Minister for Education, who seems to be amused, that this is not a picture taken by the Barisan Sosialis cameraman. This is a part of the Straits Times outfit, and if at all anybody supplies photographs, it should be the Government, as the Government, in fact, supplied the photograph to be published in the Straits Times. I cannot remember the date, Sir, but the Straits Times carried a photograph and underneath it is a note saying, "Photograph by Ministry of Culture."

What about the Chinese Press?

Sir, anyway, that is something that we are not in the habit of doing. But the point I want to make here is, are these the parents of Chinese middle school students who I am told are aged about 16 or - An hon. Member: Twenty-four.

- 17? One is left to wonder about the multifarious designs of the Special Branch. We have noted window panes being broken by these men, so that the glass may injure the students below. Definitely there have been more casualties amongst the students than among the "parents". Now we are asked to protect these "parents". We are asked to sanction police action - that is my interpretation - against school children. Sir, we have never been asked to sanction police action against striking workers, as, for example, in the case of Robinsons. When the police were used against salesgirls, the Government did not come here and ask us to sanction such action. Why is the Government doing this now? Will the Government assure us that in the future if police action is to be taken against pickets, they will summon an emergency sitting of this Assembly? Sir, it is not too late for the P.A.P. to call off its scheme. We appeal to them once again not to place their political future above the interests of the people of Singapore. Their actions might have provoked violence, but thanks to the restraint shown by the strikers and the pickets and recently by the school students, there was none. One point that I wish to answer is something raised by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister. Sir, the charge against the Barisan Sosialis is that we want to create violence to topple the Government. Let me assure the Members opposite that we do not have to have violence to topple the Government. We have complete faith in the peaceful and constitutional methods available in the State, and we tell the Government that. If they doubt the statement, all they have to do is just resign and hold general elections. An hon. Member: Today?

Order.

This is not a matter for laughing. We are not desperate men, Sir -

It is a day-dream!

Order.

- who are afraid to meet the people, who are afraid to face effective opposition. Therefore, they have to dress up agents provocateurs as parents. We have the confidence of the people and we are prepared to meet the people any time. As I have said, we have every confidence in replacing this Government by peaceful and constitutional means. Sir, if the P.A.P. wants to prevent violence and further unrest, then I say, better withdraw this motion. The way for a peaceful settlement does not lie in the use of police action.

Hear, hear!

Sir, the results of the examinations, as I have explained, are of no significance. No intelligent man in his right senses can expect the results of an examination held under such unfavourable circumstances to reflect the true ability of the candidates. The Government must also cancel all supplementary examinations scheduled for this week, which, in fact, have started today. This step will prevent the perpetuation of tension. Police action on the one hand and bursaries on the other are not going to make examinations any more acceptable to the students, nor the results any more significant. Sir, the 100 bursaries to successful candidates remind me of the $12 million -

Order. There again I think the Member for Thomson is straying into details which he ought not do. He has made his point and I do not think he should go into details.

Sir, what is important is that an atmosphere conducive to gainful negotiation and consultation with Chinese educational bodies must be achieved. This cannot be done, Sir, by the use of police. It is only by consultation, discussion and persuasion that fears can be dispelled and grievances settled. It is only when all points of views are fully explained and publicised that fears of parents and students can be allayed. The censorship of news and then exploding it to shock the public is no way to solve problems. Sir, let me remind them this that when the Government stops playing hide and seek with the students, I am sure the students will stop catching the running dog. Let me say once more to the P.A.P. leaders to stop their reckless scheme. Let me remind them that even if they do succeed in creating conditions for unrest and violence, they cannot continue to hold office forever. All the achievements in this respect by the previous Government, led by the Member for Cairnhill, did not help to keep them in office forever. Sir, for those who secretly admire Chew Swee Kee and wish to tread in his footsteps, let me also remind them that it is not easy to create 26 iron mines and 26 directorships. Uncle Sam may be generous but Uncle Sam is also a businessman. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis do not accept this motion at its face value. It must be considered in the context of events which have led to the introduction of this motion. We do not intend to share the responsibility arising out of the incompetence and deliberate scheming of the P.A.P. Government. It has landed itself in a mess. It now wants us to help carry its burden. Is the P.A.P. Government willing to admit its mistakes and its responsibilities for this present unrest amongst the Chinese school students? If not, we call upon the Government to resign and not by their reckless policies bring more sufferings to our people. 9.20 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the Member for Thomson, I was reminded of the tourist who smuggled a whisky bottle in his luggage, and when he was asked by the Customs official, "Have you anything to declare," he went into a long tirade about his own life story.

Like the Prime Minister and his animals!

So similarly in the case of the Member for Thomson, with occasional "Hear, hears!" from the Member for Anson. The Member for Queenstown was the only one who laughed at the jokes. Obviously that was prearranged. This motion is a very simple one. All it asks is -

For police action.

- for the House to condemn the actions of picketers in obstructing, intimidating or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations. That is the first part with which the Member for Anson agrees, that if there is intimidation to prevent students from taking their examinations, then there should be such condemnation. This first part of the motion is a simple statement. Do you or do you not agree whether a minority of students - which is quite clear now - can prevent two-thirds of the student body from taking their examinations? That is a simple question. Can you throw bottles, form human walls - An hon. Member: How about window panes?

- to prevent a group of students from taking their examinations? They are not asking to do anything that is illegal and they are entitled to sit for their examinations. They say, "Please, we want to sit for an examination. Let us pass. Please picket by all means, but do not resort to violence and intimidation." That is a simple proposition. There is nothing very complicated about it.

On a point of information, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

For the information of the Minister, I must tell him that without provocation two strikers were assaulted by the police this afternoon.

If the hon. Member rises on a point of information or elucidation, he must rise on a point which has reference to what has been said. I do not know whether strikers are meant to be picketers. Were they picketers?

They were strikers. The Minister was saying -

Order. I just want an answer. By "strikers", does the Member for Thomson mean "student picketers"?

No, Sir. They are employees of Guthrie & Co.

Then the Member was out or order. Please continue, Mr Minister.

I am coming to this because this is far more dangerous than merely debating a motion to ask the House to condemn obstruction by students. Sir, for the best part of this afternoon and evening, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been beating about the bush, talking about the Robinson strike, Chew Swee Kee, bullets -

Your version!

- and everything else, except answering a direct question. Are you or are you not in favour of condoning students picketing and intimidating the vast majority of students who want to take their examinations? It is quite clear what this amounts to. They have been exposed. For a couple of days, they have been saying that the students and the public are against the examinations - just like their propaganda that the public are behind them in everything else - but it transpired that a vast majority of the students went for their examinations and still many more would have gone but for intimidation and the use of violence by student picketers and, more important, by the dangerous and wicked men who are using these students to further their political aims. I hope these men will have the courage one day to come and face the Government - and on that day we will face them and meet them.

Order. The Minister is doing exactly what I have asked Members not to do, and that is to point accusing fingers at the Members opposite. I think if he points his finger at me, I might not be intimidated. An hon. Member: He has intimidated.

Thank you very much, Sir. Yet I managed to point my finger at the empty Benches. But let me first say that this debate is not an issue on which we are going to take a vote and go home sometime this evening. I think the Member for Anson went through this before. He asked a question whether, in fact, the Government is creating a fiction about adults using school children. He said that he agrees to the motion in principle but that he disagrees because we cannot name names.

No, no.

But let me quote from a speech -

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I am much obliged to the Minister. I said that I am prepared to believe that there are adults manipulating the students but I find it difficult to believe that the students would organise this boycott on their own. I did not talk of fiction.

I am glad of the correction. But I would like to point out that the use of students to boycott the examinations is not purely for the purpose of embarrassing the Government but of creating a situation in which the lives and limbs of students and young people could be jeopardised. Sir, I quote from Hansard, 16th May, 1955, column 241. During the Hock Lee strike, school students went to help the strikers. There were clashes between the police and the students. I remember, Sir, there was one student who was badly injured and the students, instead of ensuring that this boy was sent to the hospital, carried the body of a dying schoolboy all over the place including, I think, the office of a newspaper, because they were quite determined to have a martyr - a dead schoolboy. Had the boy been taken to hospital straight-away, he would have been saved. But the men who organised this demonstration were quite determined to have a dead schoolboy as a martyr. When the Member for Anson was the Chief Minister, he had this to say: 'That this Government believes in the decency and the worth of the great mass of our youth and their potential; that we believe a tiny group, which does not stop at murder...', because I am sure the Chief Minister then knew that the men who manipulated the school children were prepared even to incite innocent boys who were misinformed to do something which amounted to murder. '...has given Singapore and the Chinese schools of Singapore a bad name.' Then he went to say: 'Students have been driven from class-rooms to the streets.' He then pinpointed the responsibility indirectly - he had no proof then - on a Member who is now the organising Secretary of the Barisan Sosialis - Mr Lim Ching Siong. The Chief Minister said: 'I am not an expert on Chinese culture, I admit to the hon. Gentleman for Bukit Timah, but I know this much about Chinese culture;...'. He went on to say that in so far as he was concerned - quite rightly - that Chinese culture indicated an exquisite courtesy and reasonableness. So we know, Sir, that if a situation like this were mishandled, it could result in the Communist elements, who are manipulating the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis and' putting things into their mouths, being ready to climb to power to get at their political objectives on the maimed bodies of children. This has happened in the past and it will happen again. Therefore, let us not discuss this debate and say "aye" or "no". Because we know, Sir, as one of the Barisan Assemblymen indicated to me in the course of the discussion, the fight for merger has now gone outside this Assembly, and we are just talking, and as a result it is quite meaningless. We knew long ago that the battle for merger would be fought outside the Assembly. As I said earlier, Sir, in the opening of the debate on merger, sooner or later merger must be stopped, not by words but by deeds. And this incident of boycott and agitation over the 4 : 2 and 3 : 3 systems is one part in a long struggle since last June to halt merger. I do not want to repeat what I have said before on the industrial front, the Peoples Association, and so on, but only this: this is one more attempt to provide an opportunity to spark off violence and disorder. In fact, Sir, I have noticed very recently that the Barisan Sosialis have taken an interesting line. We charge them with playing at communalism or doing things which incite communalism. They now take the line that we are the communalists. We say that they want to incite. When I say "Barisan Sosialis", I am not necessarily referring to the 13 gentlemen, as I do not think many of them really know where they are heading for, but to the men who are manipulating them. They know what they are doing. So we say those people, as Communist elements, have always believed that parliamentary democracy is a facade. They have always maintained the theory and practice that revolution must come from outside the talking chamber. I will believe in parliamentary democracy if you can do it by debating and voting. They know that. The parliamentrian wing of the Barisan Sosialis may think that that is what they are doing - that they are really deciding the fate of -history in this Assembly. But the manipulators know that sooner or later they must give the red light for violence. When that happens, the 13 Barisan Assemblymen will have to toe the line and join them in the streets when the battle starts. If they do that, I will take my hat off to them. At least we will know that these are real revolutionaries. But for people to come here and talk about revolution, about overthrowing the Government by parliamentary means, when, in fact -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Please, Sir, it is 9.35 p.m. Could we debate the motion?

I was about to rise and inquire of the Minister how all that he has said has any relevance to the motion; there may be some relevance but not all of it is relevant. Mr Minister.

Sir, the point that I want to make is that this boycott of examinations is part and parcel of an attempt to create violence and disorder which they have tried to do in other fields - the People's Association, the unions, and so on. Therefore, it is essential to know that this boycott by itself is nothing. If there had been picketing, shouting slogans, putting up banners, then, as far as the Government is concerned, we would not have bothered. But if they attempt to create a fracas, or to stop students from taking their examinations, or hold meetings, victory parades or victory marches, then we know that there is something more than that. It happened before - a little strike, students went out to parade, a fracas, and students got killed, and even the Chief Minister had to give way. So it is our submission that if the Barisan Sosialis are genuine about settling this dispute over the examinations, they can very simply do so by condemning the students, not for picketing but for preventing others from taking examinations which they have a right to do, and for intimidating parents who want to take their children to school. The other motion, as I have indicated earlier - the Barisan Sosialis itself has agreed to it - is that when a Member of the Assembly is barricaded and prevented from coming here, we pass a resolution. That was enough to persuade the students that it would be very foolish to do so when practically all Members of the Assembly were quite determined to provide police protection and even to punish schoolboys. The Barisan Sosialis then were not talking about police action. It was quite clear, Sir, that they were quite prepared because of self-interest. It was self-interest. And that is why they passed the motion. Because - I think it was the Member for Farrer Park who indicated it - if you did not pass a motion like this, perhaps one day they themselves might be in the same position. Therefore, they passed the motion saying that this Assembly should extend police protection to an Assemblyman and even punish the people concerned. But when we asked them, "Well, here are the parents and the students who want to take their examinations. Would you be prepared to do so?" They were not so certain about that. May I therefore tell the Barisan Sosialis: let us by all means play politics. Let them by all means challenge the Government in the Assembly or outside the Assembly. We will be ready to meet them. But for God's sake, do not play with the lives of school children, which, as the Member for Anson will tell you, the last time it happened, it resulted in what he called the murder of a school boy. Therefore, I say to the Barisan Sosialis, "We are adults. Let us go and fight this inside or outside the Assembly, any way you want." But do not hide behind the skirts of eight-year old or nine-year old children who do not know what it is all about. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Point of order?

Point of order, Sir,I think the Minister for Culture is very intimidating in his remarks. He is looking at me all the time.

Order. That is exactly what I am trying to ask Members - not to look across the Floor in threatening attitude and making threatening gestures. [Interruption] Order. The Leader of the House must keep quiet when the Speaker is on his feet. I ask the Minister for Culture to look at the Speaker and make his gestures to the Speaker. Possibly the Speaker would not be intimidated.

Thank you, Sir. I have not seen a more cheerfully intimidated man than the Member for Queenstown!

He is only a little bored!

Since this little theme of "Resign now" has been recurring, may I, Sir, in passing, put a stop to this rather tiresome request by reminding them that every Assemblyman who crossed over has signed a document stating quite plainly in black and white that any time they cross the Floor or resign from the Party, they have promised to resign their seats and pay the Party $2,000. These are gentlemen who are not prepared to honour what they have written in black and white. We shall produce it if you want it. We shall even give it to the newspapers. So therefore let us not hear any more about "Resign", and so on. This Government was elected to fight for merger. In fact, the Party was formed to fight for merger. And one thing we can guarantee the gentlemen opposite: until such time as we have got merger, we are not going to quit. We will see to it that merger gets through before we decide what we shall do.

You have a -

Order.

Anyway, Sir, coming back to this point. As the Prime Minister has indicated, let us by all means fight this merger according to Queensberry rules or Queenstown rules. But we ask of them: keep away from school children who do not know what this is all about. The Barisan Sosialis Members keep on saying, "Why don't you consult school children?" Some of them are eight years old, with dried milk on their lips; and we are supposed to go and consult them as to whether they want 4:2 or 3:3 when, in fact, educationalists, reverends, and ancient gentlemen who know all about education have decided that 4:2 is the best system. And now the Members in the Barisan Sosialis say, "No, no. You must discuss with the school kids." Some of them are six or seven years old. And they also say that the Minister for Education should probably sit down with them and discuss, "Well, what do you think of the 4:2 system? What do you think of 3:3?" Even if you conceded that point of democracy, I am quite sure, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis, or its leaders, would want to pick a quarrel with the P.A.P. They would say, "No, no. You must consult with children of two or three years old. Children who are still in their cradles should also be consulted as to whether it should be a 4:2 or a 3:3 system." Therefore, Sir, I ask of them, let us play politics. Let us even resort to revolutionary tactics outside this Assembly. But please do not use children as your shield, so that you might get children as martyrs to prop up the falling prestige of a Party or at least of a group of men who are as ruthless and as desperate as they were when they manipulated school children in 1955 and in later years.

I do not know how many more speakers there are. But we are getting to the stage where arguments are being repeated. I would just like to get an indication as to how many Members are going to speak. From the Opposition side? Four. From the Government side? Two. Well, I might give a warning that if there is any repetition of any sort, the Chair is going to intervene, and as strictly as possible. If there are any points to be made, let them be new points. 9.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson just now made a very serious allegation against the Singapore People's Alliance. That, Sir, has to be answered right away. I am asked by my Party leader, the Member for Cairnhill, to state categorically in this House that the S.P.A. will not - repeat, will not - at any time, now or in the future have an alliance with the P.A.P. The S.P.A. condemns the P.A.P. for the trouble and misery it has caused the people of Singapore. What we mean by the P.A.P. are not only those sitting on the other side of the House, but also those who now describe themselves as the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, we have made our stand clear. We as a Party stand for the interest and welfare of the people first and foremost regardless of our own party interest. We are not prepared to and will not ensure our success by riding on a tiger, as the P.A.P. did and as the Barisan Sosialis Members are now trying to do. Sir, the issue before the House is becoming confused in the eyes of the public, because it is being represented to them that the parties here are debating the issue whether we are for school children or against school children, whether we are for or against Chinese education and culture. Sir, as I see it, we are being asked to vote on whether we are for or against intimidation, instigated and organised from behind. And whether we are for or against giving protection to the parents and students who are being intimidated and who seek protection. Sir, as an educationist, I believe students all over the world are by nature the same. In whatever media they study, their thoughts and emotions run on practically the same lines. As students they know they have to study. But, at the same time, they are fond of good fun, excitement and adventure. They are also fond of group activity, of group leaders and of working for some good cause. Sir, under wise guidance, students in any school can be developed into good citizens with a high sense of responsibility. But if they get into the clutches of people who have wrong motives, their energy and enthusiasm can be exploited, disciplined and expressed in wrong and sometimes very dangerous ways. Sir, their main protection has always been their principals, their teachers and the education authorities. If this line is broken, then trouble begins. This motion shows that this line of defence in Singapore has broken down. Apparently principals, teachers and the educational authorities have tried to do their best and, because they are not able to keep their defences intact, the motion is moved before this House asking for approval to give the necessary protection to the parents and children who want to take the examination. We are not asked to approve aggressive police action against school children. We are being asked to give protection to the law-abiding parents and students who want to do the right thing. Of course, Sir, we wonder why an educational issue like this has become a political issue of great importance. Why should students be organised against students, and parents and students be organised again also against parents and students on the other side? Sir, the reference to a chichak dance has made many people think of the snake dance which took place in the streets of Tokyo, and threatened the Japanese Government. I suppose, Sir, the present Government thinks that there must be some kind of similarity here, and having known the strategy of the Barisan Sosialis Members, as they themselves were their tutors, they have made the necessary moves. Well, Sir, that is their game. But as for us, we are interested in the welfare of education in Singapore and law and order in this country. I would like the Government to clarify at this time their policy as regards the participation of secondary school students in politics. As far back as 1957 -

Order. Does that arise on this motion? If the hon. Member wishes to debate that point, let him give notice of a motion.

Sir, I have a suggestion to make - that if on any controversial matter involving students and that matter is likely to give rise to a situation like this, the Government should refer it completely to an independent educational body and let them decide on it. Otherwise, because of party politics, Sir, the thing can be developed again into a situation like the one we are now facing. Sir, on this issue of the 4:2 and 3:3 systems, at this point, if it could be referred to such a body, those students who have been misguided can; realise that the matter will be taken up in the proper quarters. In this hurly-burly, Sir, people are saying that parents in Singapore are showing their proper mettle by coming out to defend the rights of their children. They are not interested in the political struggle and, therefore, they have had to do that because the present Government, knowing what had happened to the previous Government, is wary about taking the necessary measures to enforce law and order. I am sure, Sir, that Members of this House, if they are really interested in the welfare of our children, would be against those who try to manipulate things from behind and exploit the children from behind: We should grant protection where parents and children need such protection to preserve their freedom to do what is right. 9.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you will remember that last Friday, when the Minister for Education was making his ministerial statement on this matter, he did show you a photo in the Free Press. He said in a very proud manner that the parents were supporting the government. Sir, I do not know whether you have seen the photo or not. But if you or anyone else had seen it, I believe he would have laughed. He would have laughed because the so-called parents in the picture in the Free Press are so young. These so-called parents are too young to be parents and too old to be students. The Government would feel ashamed if it compares the picture of would-be parents, about 20 in number, to the thousands of old parents who attended the meeting at the Chinese High School yesterday afternoon. The joint meeting of these parents and students proves that the so-called 62 per cent who sat for the examination is inaccurate. I deeply believe that all the parents do not like to see the Government using the Police Force against the students. I know the feeling of the peace-loving parents. I therefore believe that it is not the real intention of a few parents who called upon the Government to use the police against the peaceful strikers. No one would use force of arms against the students, who are under 17 years of age, except the reactionary forces. The main purpose of this motion is to condemn the peaceful strikers, and the Government seeks to use the Police Force against them so as to achieve the P.A.P.'s sordid political aim for the benefit of a few. I would like to ask all P.A.P. Assemblymen, Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers, if they are not in the Government and their sons and daughters are involved in any form of strike and are beaten up by the police, what would they feel? Are they going to keep quiet and ignore the brutality of the Government? Or are they going to suggest that the freedom of action must be suppressed? The P.A.P. leaders, by moving this motion, clearly show their insincerity to settle the four-year examination problem. Instead of postponing the four-year examination, the P.A.P. Government extends it for another week. By extending it for another week, the following incidents may occur - I quote one by one, Sir, the incidents which may occur: (1) To make the students continue their strike and picket at various examination centres for another week, so that the policeman and the C.I.D. can lay hands on the students. (2) Once the students continue to picket at the various examination centres, the Government may use its machinery and mobilise its stooges to threaten the peaceful student strikers in an attempt to worsen the situation, thereby forcing the Senior Middle III students to go on strike again. (3) To extend the examinations means to extend the strike for another week. In this way, the Government would have more chance to blame their political opponents. (4) As the merger issue has become so widely known and all the people know the importance of citizenship, the Government is now in a very precarious position. It therefore adopts the tactic of putting the strike issue over the merger issue. (5) The P.A.P. leaders, seeing that they are in a state of utmost confusion over the question of merger, are therefore trying to direct the attention of the people from the merger issue to the student strike issue. (6) The P.A.P. Government, by blaming its political opponents for creating the strike, has made a despicable attempt to camouflage its attempt to sell the rights of Singapore. (7) Due to their inefficiency and lack of knowledge of the educational problem and their arrogant attitude, the whole educational problem is now in a mass. They, therefore, dare not shoulder the responsibility which they are paid to do. They want to push their responsibility away. (8) The police may use batons against the little children who put up banners, posters and cartoons criticizing the P.A.P. Government's educational policy. (9) Having seen the banners, posters and cartoons posted on the streets, in buses and in schools, the P.A.P. ruling clique go mad and become desperate and shameful. Because of their narrow-mindedness, they cannot stand criticism from the people. They, therefore, find a way out by taking the blame from their shoulders and putting it on the so-called agitators. (10) The Government in moving this motion is not going to protect the students, but to use a baton charge against the peaceful and empty-handed students who picket outside the gates of all examination centres. The Government in moving this motion is threatening the peace-loving parents. I think the Government might have thought that since this Assembly could approve a motion to protect the Member for Bukit Panjang, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, therefore, it is quite appropriate for this Assembly to approve another motion to protect the students. The purpose of this motion is not to protect the students, but to use the police force to suppress the students who are young and innocent. We supported the motion to protect the Member for Bukit Panjang from being hindered by hooligans. These hooligans were not and could not be students. As representatives of the people and above the policemen, it is up to this Assembly to protect any Member of the Legislative Assembly, because there is no one who has the power to protect him. The Government, in moving this motion, would make it appear, in the eyes of the public, that the police force is not under the control of the Government, but under the control of this Assembly. It would also appear, in the eyes of the public, that the police have no power to maintain law and order which they, in fact, have. In actual fact, the P.A.P. Government intends to use the police force to suppress the innocent students, but dare not do it on its own. It therefore asks this Assembly to give power to the Government to use the police force against the students. I would like to advise the P.A.P. Government that the only way to settle the student strike problem is by peaceful means and negotiation and not by force. The Government, or even the police itself, has the power to deal with this matter. Why does the Government want to bring this matter into the Assembly and ask it to authorise the police to "protect" the students? What is the power of the police and what is the duty of the Government? Their duty is to maintain law and order. If the P.A.P. Government is unable to govern, then the only way for them is to resign. The Government's intention to bring this matter to this Assembly is to turn this controversial education issue into a political issue. The P.A.P. leaders and all Members of this House must realise that it is safer to look before they leap. The Government must not use its political power to suppress the known political resentment of the students. These political powers are nothing but batons and tear gas. The P.A.P. Government is trying to use the police against the peaceful student strikers. The P.A.P. Government's proposal to use the police against the empty-handed students will not help -

Order. I think this argument has been repeated about five times already. I ask the hon. Member just to refer to past arguments made by his Barisan Sosialis colleagues and say he accepts them or agrees with them. I do not want any repetition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, education is not suppression. Education can only create harmony and suppression will create hatred. The Government must confess that it has implemented the policy of the 4:2 system in a hurry, without any prior preparation and prior consultation with the educational bodies as to how the policy is to be implemented. They must also realise that they are not -

Order. This argument also has been advanced and is nothing new. It is a repetition of past arguments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government blames the peaceful strikers for creating trouble. Yet we do not see anyone who has sat for the examination having been injured. But we can see young men who behave like gangsters trying to fight the little students. These young men, all unidentified, are not students or parents. They break and force their way through in order to disperse the students. Sir, I have two photos in the Mm Pao, dated 2nd December this year. These two photos show a few unidentified young men trying to fight a group of little children picketing near the Ministry of Education. I ask the Government to inform this House who are those unidentified young men. The Government should have no difficulty in identifying them. I would like to advise the P.A.P. leaders that the sons and daughters of other people are the sons and daughters of the State. They are innocent. The duty of the government is to bring them up to serve the State and not to crush them. I sincerely hope that all P.A.P. leaders will fight for the interests of all the people and not just the few who love the P.A.P. The duty of the Government is to govern the country. The Government must see that the rights and interests of all the people are protected. It must not rule the country for sectional interests and in order to protect the rights of the minority. The P.A.P. Government, which claims to represent the vast majority of the people, is now seeking help from the Opposition. Is it not clearly shown that what the P.A.P. claims to be is entirely false? The P.A.P. Government has now become so weak because the majority of the people are not backing the Government. I would like to state the requests of the people in this Assembly, and I would also like to put forward a few suggestions to the Government. I hope the Government will pay some heed to them. (1) The Government must inform the parents publicly that it will not use the police force and the C.I.D. men against the peaceful strikers. (2) The Government shall forthwith postpone the 4-year examination so as to lessen the worsening situation. (3) The Government must see that no gangsters are being used to threaten the strikers. (4) The Government will immediately seek consultation with all educational bodies to examine the cause of the strike and to make recommendations on this 4:2 system of education. (5) After consultation with the educational bodies and after all problems of the 4:2 system are settled, the Government must assure all parents that their children who went on strike will be allowed to re-enter their schools to study, and that there will be no discrimination or prejudice against their former action. This is especially important when marking their examination papers. (6) Any proposal to change the educational system must be based on equal treatment for the four streams of education. (7) The Government should study and consider all reasonable requests stated in the memoranda sent to all Assemblymen by the students. (8) The Government must accept the views and proposals suggested by the various educational bodies which know the cause of the strike and know what is the meaning of education. 10.11 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we fully understand the true motive of this motion of the P.A.P. From the debate on the motion, we have the impression that the whole world is becoming chaotic. You have people outside the examination centres shouting and asking for a fight. The safety of those students who are taking the examination is being jeopardized. Therefore, the Government has to resort to the use of police to suppress such actions. But, as a matter of fact, we do not see such incidents. The activities of the students, whether they are correct or not, is another matter. But from any angle, we can say that the use of police against students should not be supported. We support the police in their maintenance of law and order. But we resolutely oppose the instruction to be given to the police against students who are helpless and unarmed. Mr Speaker, we can see from the newspapers today that the Minister for Education has announced that in the present situation, those who have not taken the examination are only 927 in number. This only goes to show the motive behind the motion of the Government. Among these 3,000 students, if there are only some 927 who have not taken the examination, then they will not be prevented at all. This goes to show further that there is no need to make use of the police to suppress the so-called activities of the students. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that this motion is redundant. In the first place, as seen from any angle, the motion should not have been brought up by the Government so that the police will be used against the students. Secondly, the safeguard for the people is already in the hands of the police, and the Government is just trying to shirk their duty and pass it on to the other Members of the Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, we resolutely oppose this motion. 10.15 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and amended by the Member for Farrer Park. It is to be expected that the Opposition - especially the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis - will allege that the P.A.P. espouses the same policy as that of the S.P.A., because we know that they have double-edged prongs. They change the truth to something that is untrue. However that may be, Sir, we have been taught a lesson that from childhood we should listen to what is being spoken but we should not pay attention to who is speaking. In the interest 01 safeguarding democratic practice which we have here in our country, it is right that every fighter of democracy should accept suggestions and views of parents who do not want the education of their children to be hindered. 10.17 p.m.

On the question of the boycott by the students, it is clear that it has nothing to do with the weakness of the education policy. If it is viewed from the result that two-thirds of the students have sat for the examinations, it shows that the present education policy is accepted by the majority of the people. Sir, nonsensical allegations have been made by the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis to the effect that the boycott was the result of our failure of our education policy and its non-acceptance by the people. We wish to know why, when they were with us in the Government, they merely folded their arms and kept quiet? We also wish to know further the stand and attitude of the Barisan Sosialis towards Chinese education. It is the custom and habit of undesirable elements to distort facts. For instance, the Member for Thomson just now tried to make out that the Government would use the police to suppress strikers. We should distinguish workers from children. Our responsibility now should be centred on those who are manipulating the misguided children. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should not forget the efficiency of the subversive elements who have succeeded in influencing these young innocent children for their own- political ends. They would prefer to see the destruction of these children with a smile, because, on their dead bodies, they can organise and achieve their aims. Nobody in his right senses will believe that there are no evil men behind this boycott. I can bring up two incidents for this House to ponder over very carefully. I am impressed by an article written by Inche Gazali Bin Ismail, the ex-Secretary General of the Malay Students Union, which appeared in the Utusan Melayu of 1st September, 1961, under the heading of how these pro-Communist elements tried to control or influence Malay students in 1955. This article presented two special features consecutively, but I am merely touching on the excerpts to show how these pro-Communist elements infiltrate not only into Chinese middle schools but also in the Malay Students Union. One of the excerpts exposes one of the methods adopted by the Communist cadres to influence the students, and that is by organising picnics and tea parties. Normally these functions are paid for by the pro-Communist elements themselves through devious channels. I will refer to another passage. A leader from the University Union - I wish to call him J - played an important part in the birth of a new movement amongst Malay students. He helped to organise picnics for Malay students. The cost was met from contributions by the Pan-Malayan Students Federation. In one of these picnics, students from Chinese middle schools participated. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these activities by undesirable elements could only go on for one year, and then in 1956 their attempts failed. This clearly goes to prove that these destructive elements can influence not only the minds of Chinese school students but they also attempted to infiltrate into the Malay Students Union. Fortunately, their efforts failed miserably. Subsequently I sincerely believe that these same people tried to whip up communal sentiments among the Chinese students who. I am quite sure, were pure in their minds and healthy in their thinking. I received two circulars issued by the Chinese middle school students throughout Singapore, one of which reads "Students on strike" written in the national language, with the intention of sparking off communal emotion. If there had been no evil men behind them, I am quite sure the students would not have resorted to such tactics. I will read a passage from the contents: 'We are youths who love the national culture and national language. We are the sons and soil of Chinese education.' I am merely reading short passages at random and these go to show that they are fanning communal sentiments: 'In order that the wishes of teachers and students be not subverted, we swear on oath that we will become fighters to defend our national or racial education.' It ends with "Long live national education and long live Chinese education!", thus implying that the present Government wants to kill Chinese education. In point of fact, our aim is to unify all the main streams of education into one national education in order to build one united Malayan nation. These people who intentionally and deliberately whip up communal feelings are very dangerous. We will oppose them from whatever quarter they come because, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are in the process of building a united Malayan nation. The contents of this circular are lengthy and if I were to read them, it might lead to misunderstanding among the various races. What is even more strange is that the circular on the boycott in Chinese schools is written -in Malay and it is being circulated among Malay students with the object, of course, of making the parents adopt a communal attitude. This is typical of the measures taken by these dangerous elements. The object is to cause communal clashes which are very dangerous indeed. We must condemn these destructive elements who are trying to get the various sections of the community to fight amongst themselves. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must realise that the students can be likened to white cloth - clean and pure - and it is up to us to change this cloth into any colour we like. Therefore, it is our common responsibility to use the proper colour to suit our climate. We have heard Members of this Assembly putting forward their views and opinions. There are some who support the motion whilst others oppose it. It is evident where they stand in this matter and we know why they adopt such an attitude. They cannot hide the facts. If some of them try to hide behind the skirts of school children, I challenge the 13 Members in the Barisan Sosialis to declare their stand openly and in all sincerity. It is not enough for them to challenge the Government by asking them -to resign when they themselves have not got the guts to go back to the people. To us, this motion is one which seeks to reconcile differences and bring about happiness and prosperity in our community. It also seeks to uphold the principle of democracy so that democracy can be practised in the true sense of the word. I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. 10.32 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the motion tabled by the Government is absolutely unnecessary. In today's Chinese newspapers, including the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau, we can clearly see that many educational bodies have given their views on the motion which we are debating now. The newspapers also published the views of the Singapore Teachers' Union, the Nanyang Graduates' Association and its Students' Union, and the opinions of other educational bodies. All these organisations feel that it is unnecessary for the Government to use the police against the students, but to handle the dispute peacefully. Apart from these educational bodies, it was also reported in today's paper that yesterday 2,000 parents met in the Singapore Chinese High School Auditorium. They also felt that the Government should not make use of the police. The people in these organisations have a very close association with Chinese education But the Government does not seem to hear their opinions and views. In the motion that we are debating today, it is stated that it is made in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to sit for the examinations. We want to ask the Minister for Education this: if he is paying attention to the demand of only a minority of the parents, then why should he not pay attention to the opinions of 2,000 parents? Does it mean that the opinions of some 2,000 parents should be disregarded? The Committee of the School Teachers' Association, the Nanyang University Graduates' Association, and the Students' Union of Nanyang University were established long before the Barisan Sosialis was formed. I believe they are unwilling to allow any political Party to make use of them or to embroil them in a political war-pool. From all this we can see that the Government is only paying attention to those opinions which are useful to the Government, and not to those views and opinions which do not express agreement with the Government. Under these circumstances, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the P.A.P. is a Party which values the opinions of the people in general. My colleagues have pointed out in :their speeches made just now the various reasons for opposing the motion tabled by the Government. I do not wish to repeat what they have said, but I would like to point out here that the students' boycott has come about as a result of the education policy of the Government. The Government's intention to use the police against students and parents cannot solve the problem of the mishandling by the Government of its education policy. I would like to stress again that all the educational bodies and organisations have suggested to the Government many practical methods of how the present situation could be handled. In today's papers, as I have said, the organisations I have mentioned have sincerely suggested how the Government should handle the situation and what the Government should do about it. I believe if the Government should accept the opinions and act according to the suggestions, then that would be much better than resorting to the police. But the Government, instead of acting on the opinions of the educational organisations, has come to this House and brought up this motion. This shows that the Government's intention is to try and change this question of education into a political one. We feel that since the Government's education policy has brought about these incidents, we in the Opposition have no reason whatsoever why we should bear the responsibility for the Government. The organisations I have mentioned just now have been in existence for a long time. Some have existed for a year, and others for seven or eight years. The P.A.P. Government, if it is sincere in valuing the opinions of the people, should have won these organisations over to its side. So to say that these organisations have been won over by the Barisan Sosialis and are being made use of by them would be wrong, because the Barisan Sosialis came into existence only three months ago. And it would be nonsensical to say that it is impossible for the Government, in the course of two years, to win over these organisations. If it is correct to say that we can win over these organisations in the course of three months, then we can see clearly that the government has made a mistake in its education policy.

On a point of elucidation. Mr Chan Sun Wing resumed his seat.

The Member for Upper Serangoon has been saying that the Government's education policy is mistaken. Can he please explain how our education policy in regard to the 4:2 system is so wrong, and why is it that a great majority of the students want to take these examinations?

Order. I do not think we are debating the merits and demerits of the education policy. We are discussing a motion requesting police protection for the parents and students who wish to sit for the examinations.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the reform in education, I think we had better leave it to a later stage when the proper motion in regard to education policy comes up for debate. I will then make a clearer explanation of the matter. But I would now like to point out to the Minister for Finance that the boycott of the students today is not against the 4:2 system. We must bear in mind that there is no educational body which is against changing the system of six years to the 4:2 system.

Order. I have made a ruling on the education policy. The hon. Member will have his opportunity to move a motion and he can then go into the merits or demerits of the education policy.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, regarding the question of education, I think we had better leave it to the proper time when the relevant motion is brought up. But I must answer an allegation made by the Party in government. They say that the motion approved last Friday is aimed at protecting a Member of the Assembly. Regarding this, we must clearly point out that the motion passed by this House last Friday is basically different from the present motion we are debating now. The motion passed last Friday in this House only allowed the police to protect Members of the Assembly, but did not allow the police to take action against the students. What we contended was that if the Parliamentary Secretary concerned had been obstructed by the hooligans, then we should condemn the hooligans. We never contended that young students should be considered as hooligans. This is a very important difference. The motion we are debating now is very clear, that is, the police must be made use of against student picketers who are doing their duty peacefully. I feel that the Government and the Ministry of Education should not consider students as hooligans. If it does, and if the Minister should do so, then he will not be fit to administer our education system, and this Government will not be able to handle the education problem properly. The last question I would like to ask is this: cannot the present situation be avoided? In other words, if the Ministry of Education has handled this question properly, could this situation be avoided? I have already pointed out that if the Government had accepted the opinions given by the educational bodies, then the unpleasant events and the question of using the police could have been easily avoided.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion today is basically clear in this respect. There is a minority of opportunistic political adventurers, especially my friends in the Barisan Sosialis. We know that the Barisan Sosialis adopt opportunistic tactics. On any question, they are very good at trying to gain over the support of the people by opportunistic means. They are trying to do the same on this question now. We know that the tail of the fox cannot be hidden from view. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion today is the same as the motion we brought up in regard to the protection of Members of the Assembly. Why should the Barisan Sosialis oppose the present motion when, on the other hand, they have supported the previous motion? I think it is very clear. 10.46 p.m.

(In Mandarin): They hope that if they can create more unrest in our present society, they can achieve their aim of preventing the attainment of merger. This will be beneficial to them.. But the eyes of the people are very bright. They can see everything clearly. We can see today that the Barisan Sosialis, especially the Member for Queenstown, are only puppets in the eyes of the people.

I am sorry for having to interrupt just after coming back to the Chair again. But I Think the hon. Member is speaking a bit too loudly. Perhaps he would like to modulate his voice.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Queens, town tried to liken our present Minister for Education -

On a point of order, Sir. Has that got with the motion?

I have Member yet.

(In Mandarin): I was just trying to say that the Member for Queenstown has mentioned Chew Swee Kee and has placed him side by side with our present Minister for Education, forgetting that he is only a puppet in this Assembly.

Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, I think, is alleged to have said that the Member for Queenstown is a puppet in this Assembly. If that is so, then the Parliamentary Secretary must withdraw that word.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw. Mr Speaker, Sir, the boycott of the examination today is not a simple question. It is full of political colour. We know that the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis in the past has been to make use of all sorts of strikes, including the People's Association's, and unions -

Order. I do not think any other strike has any relevance to this motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, our motion today is for the protection of the parents and the students who want to sit for the examination. This is very fair and very reasonable. But our friends opposite, especially those in the Barisan Sosialis, are opposed to the Government using the police to give legitimate protection to the people. They are opposing our making use of the police to protect the students and their parents, in spite of the fact that they have supported the motion in regard to the protection of a Member of the Assembly. Why should they not take the same attitude now?

Order. That has been advanced by at least six Members on the Government side. Let us not repeat that argument.

(In Mandarin): I would like to quote some figures from the Nanyang Slang Pau because the Member f or Queenstown said that some 4,000 people attended a meeting in the Chinese High School. But in the Nanyang Siang Pau of today it is stated that at about 2.00 p.m.-

On a point of order. He never heard me properly. I said that that was on the 25th of November. Ten thousand students had a meeting.

That is not a point of order. It is a point of clarification. Mr Chan.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Queenstown is very good at exaggerating. I would like to point out that among the 3,171 candidates there are only 1,012 who have not taken the examination. But there is some discrepancy between the number pf students and the number of parents attending the meeting. They said that in the whole of the Chinese High School there were 2,000 parents who attended the meeting when, in fact, there were only about 927 students who have boycotted the examination. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the present motion. 10.53 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, we have spent much time today debating this question. Almost every one of -the Members of the Opposition has spoken on this motion at length. To sum up the arguments of the Barisan Sosialis. They have put forward the same views. In a nut shell, what they have said amounts to this. They have exaggerated the number of the so-called parents in the Chinese High School. At the same time, they have deliberately neglected the fact that there were 2,000 parents of students who took part in the examination. Secondly, they wanted to put the blame on the Minister for Education and on the Government. Lastly, the Member for Upper Serangoon asked why we did not accept the proposals of the so-called educational bodies. The Member for Anson said he supported the first part of the motion. With regard to the second part of the motion, he was in doubt. He said he doubted whether there should be such a motion, that is, the second part of it. The Member for Cairnhill said that we, the Government, tried to shirk our responsibility. The Party represented by the Member for Cairnhill asked: why did the Government make use of its authority to use the police to protect the students? Mr Speaker, Sir, before I make any reply to their criticisms, I must point out the fact that this was before the 13 ex-P.A.P. colleagues left the P.A.P. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said, "When I was in the Party, there was no trouble. When I left, there was trouble." This goes to show that all these troubles have been created after they left the P.A.P. We can all learn from the newspapers that before the 13 Members left the P.A.P., we had a Party Review Committee of which the Member for Queenstown and I were the Secretaries. We received a memorandum submitted by the 51 Branches. We also received a very long memorandum submitted by the Member for Serangoon. As far as I can remember, in all these memoranda, there was not a word mentioned that the education policy of the P.A.P. was wrong. If the P.A.P. education policy was wrong, then the 13 Members, especially the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, should have pointed this out to the Committee at that time. He should have pointed out that the education policy of the Government was wrong, so as to avoid the unpleasant incident that we have today. However, they did not mention a word about this matter. Obviously, from all the designs we can get from the organ of the Barisan Sosialis, and from the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis Members, we know who are the people who manipulated the boycott of the students. Everyone knows that the eyes of the people are very clear. They will not be deceived by the Barisan Sosialis Members who pass off the eyes of the fish as pearls. Why did they not point this out in the Committee? When they left the P.A.P., they created all this trouble to embarrass the Government. We can also see from the newspapers that those who took part in the examinations were in the majority. We have also seen that parents were insulted by the student picketers. If any Member in this House is in doubt as to whether these parents have been instigated by the P.A.P., or that they are nonexistent, we have a signed document to prove this. We can point out that their children are students and also in which classes they are in. I can swear here that I do not know any one of these parents. Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the petition referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has been endorsed by the Clerk under Standing Order No. 16?

Order. I never understood the petition to be a petition to the Assembly. I understood the petition to be a petition to the Ministry. If it was a petition to the Assembly, then, of course, it had to come under Standing Order 16. I am correct, I think, in that aspect of it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this petition was submitted to the Ministry of Education. If this Assembly hopes to possess a copy of this petition, I am willing to submit it to the Assembly. The Member for Anson raised a doubt. In his interjection, he asked whether these parents were members of the P.A.P. I want to tell him that before they submitted their petition, I did not know any one of them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts have proved that the majority of the students sat for the Secondary IV examination conducted by the Government. I feel very sad that our Members, who claim to represent the people, have distorted the views of the people. They are in the habit of using tactics. Their attitude is that the majority should follow the minority, and not the minority should follow the majority. We have seen this thing before. Before they left the P.A.P., we Assemblymen had a meeting and we passed a resolution at that meeting that before they could make any statement to the Press, it should be passed by the meeting. Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

Point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, can we have an end to these domestic and very touching disclosures and continue with the motion, please?

I have been trying to cut this debate as short as possible. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to be answering a point made by the Opposition, but perhaps it could be a little more brief.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member for Anson objected to my giving details of this thing, I will forget about it. The Barisan Sosialis Members in this House said that there were 2,000 parents in the Chinese High School. I want to ask them whether they can submit the names of these 2,000 parents. On our part, we are willing to submit the names of the parents as well as the pupils who sat for the examinations. We do not want to drag all the people together and brand them as parents of the students. The facts have proved that the majority of the pupils sat for examinations and there was only a minority of students who have prevented pupils from taking their examinations. We think that as representatives of the people, we have the duty to persuade this small number of pupils not to do such foolish things, because in a democratic country, any person has the right to sit for an examination and he cannot be denied this freedom. If we know this to be the democratic system, then it should mean that the minority should follow the majority. But, unfortunately, the Member for Queenstown congratulated this small number of pupils. But does he not think that his congratulations will embolden the pupils to flout the law of the country and make them more daring to commit unreasonable actions? Some of the Members have said just now that all those pupils who boycotted the examinations were picketing peacefully. If their picketing were peaceful, then I think it would not be necessary to table this motion. But in our view peaceful picketing should not mean that the pupils should form a human chain and link arms. As far as I know, when the representatives of the pupils came to see me, they had already used every method to convene protest meetings in the school. They had been trying to persuade the pupils not to sit for the examinations, but their efforts had failed. Then they resorted to this unreasonable action. If their picketing were peaceful, then it would not have been necessary for us to use the police, because when a pupil went to sit for the examination, they should convince him and not - as reported in the paper - use force. I want to refer to the open letter of the Preparatory Committee of Parents Association to the Chairman of the Chinese School Teachers Union. The letter was addressed to Mr Lim Sek Kian of the -

(In Mandarin): On a point of order. Just now the letter was quoted by the Minister for Home Affairs and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to repeat it again in this House.

If the allegation by the Member for Upper Serangoon is correct, then, of course, we do not want any repetition. But if it is not correct, then we will have that statement read.

It is definitely not correct. I was delivering my speech in English. The letter was in Chinese and obviously I could not have quoted.

Mr Lee, will you carry on?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, an incident was mentioned in this letter. One parent who accompanied his child into an examination centre yesterday said, "We parents who want to take our children to sit for their examinations have to stomach all the abuses flung at us by the picketers who wore school uniforms. Are they any different from the hooligans?" Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not cover up everything. We must not think that by using unreasonable arguments, we can convince the people. All those who have gone through this experience know whether the attitude of the student picketers is right. I do not blame these student picketers because they are young and easily manipulated. Therefore, I hope they will ponder over what they have done. They should learn that they should not be made use of by evil politicians. I listened very carefully to the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education when he spoke. I have not been in the Ministry of Education for long. I have been there for only two or three months now. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was in the Ministry of Education for quite sometime before me. Our Minister for Education is a very frank man. He knows that he is not Chinese-educated, and therefore on matters concerning Chinese education, he always consults his Parliamentary Secretary. It was with surprise that I heard the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education say that the Government did not listen to the opinions of education bodies. It will be remembered that the decision on the 4:2 system was taken after we have had discussions with the Committee of the Chinese School Teachers Association. We have been accused that we forced the principals of Chinese schools to adopt the 4:2 system. This is an insult to the principals of Chinese schools in Singapore. Only God knows whether any principal of a Chinese secondary school can be so easily deceived. If this is so, then what kind of a world is this going to be? All people in the educational field can remember the attitude of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education towards teachers and principals Yet he dares to say that we force the Chinese School Management Committees to accept our proposal. This is an insult to the Committee of the Chinese School Teachers Association. He was in the Ministry of Education for two years and he knew very well what the 4:2 system was all about. But now he wants to distort the facts by saying that we want to make use of the 4:2 system to lower the standard of Chinese education. It is mentioned in the Paper that when the students pass the examination after the four-year secondary education, they will be promoted to the upper secondary classes for two years. How can it be four years? The hon. Member said the Prime Minister made a very big mistake because, on Teachers Day, he announced that the question of the 3:3 or 4:2 system could be decided by the educationists. If it is wrong to decide the question by a majority, then I do not know the meaning of democracy. The hon. Member also said that we wanted to buy over the students with money. Does it mean that he is opposed to the giving of aid and assistance to poor pupils to enable them to take up further education? Does he think that this is wrong? The Member for Hong Lim said that the Government is shirking its responsibility. He wanted to know why the Government did not want to exercise the right that it has, but came instead to this Assembly to ask for a mandate to be given to them. The Members on the Opposition are contradictory in their speeches. The Member for Hong Lim and other Members accuse the' Government of being dictatorial. But now the Government is not willing to use force. Is this not contradictory? We know that when dealing with adult gangsters and criminals we should use our power. But these are innocent and young middle school pupils who are being made use of by other people. We know the people behind the scenes who want to make use of them, to drive them into a clash with the police so as to create unrest in Singapore with the object of getting everyone to oppose the Government on the merger question. There is another important matter. The Member for Hong Lim asked why we should make use of the police when the Secondary IV examination was completed. My answer is very simple. Today we have heard from the Minister for Education that he was obstructed by the picketers from going to his office. What kind of a country is this going to be? This is due to the instigation of the Barisan Sosialis Members who incite the students to trouble. Not only do these students have no respect for their teachers but they also have no respect for Ministers. This is the aim of the Barisan Sosialis. The reason for our tabling this motion is this. The examination is in progress, and the Senior Middle III Examination will be held on Friday. I do not need any information from the Special Branch to know that many pupils have been humiliated. They are disgusted with the student picketers and they are willing to give information to us. We have information that the Senior Middle III students will boycott the examination. I am in the dark as to the reason for this boycott. Just now the Member for Changi implied that the Senior Middle III students also want to boycott the examination. This seems to be connected with the Barisan Sosialis. I feel strange that ten minutes after the motion was passed in the Assembly, the students who beleaguered me dispersed, and the Member for Changi said today that the Senior Middle III students wanted to boycott the examination. Mr Speaker, Sir, the last point is that the intention of our motion is not to use the police to suppress the unarmed students. If we make a detailed study of the motion, we will see that our motion is intended to ask for police protection for the parents and the pupils, if the pupils who boycotted the examination could carry out their picketing peacefully, then there would not be any incidents or clashes with the police. Therefore, what we feel very bitter about is that a Member of the Barisan Sosialis deliberately distorted the word "protection" into "suppression". Is this not something to provoke the pupils? Just now the Member for Upper Serangoon said that the Chinese School Teachers' Union and the Chinese Committee Teachers' Association had suggested many proposals. But up to now we have still not received any formal letters from these organisations. If we follow what is reported in the newspapers, it can happen that the reports in the papers may be wrong. If any organisation has any views to submit, it should submit them to us in writing. We cannot follow the papers blindly. There is another point I want to tell the House. Last night, the Chairman of the Chinese School Committee Teachers' Association (Mr Ko Teck Kin) rang me up and said that he was under pressure from certain people. He said, "Everyday they give me trouble. They want me to give a public statement. What must I do?". I told him, "It is very simple. You can say to them that the Chinese School Committee Teachers' Association has come to an understanding with the Ministry of Education." He said, "It is not as simple as that. They come to me everyday." As regards the Chinese School Teachers' Union whose Chairman is Mr Lim Sek Kian, you will remember it was reported in the papers that that Union wanted to convene a meeting to discuss the problem of the student boycott and the problem of reform. But on the following day, we did not see any resolution made by the Association. We could only see the statement made by the Chairman. We want to ask Mr Lim Sek Kian whether his statement was approved by all the Members. Does his -

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is now going far away from the motion.

Hear, hear!

He is replying to arguments. Let us have a reply.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, -

Order. We are now having a bit of clowning from the Barisan Sosialis, and I will not permit it.

(In Mandarin): The representatives of the Barisan Sosialis are all like that. I mention this -

Order. Let us carry on with the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, lastly, I want to emphasise the fact that this motion is intended to request the police to extend protection to the parents and students, and not to suppress the pupils.

Let us first take the votes on the amendment. The original Question was, "That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House supports any action by the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halts." Since which an amendment has been moved, In lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "supports any action by", and there to insert "approves of any action according to law by the Government through".

Question put, and agreed to. Amendment agreed to.

There has been a suggestion that this motion is in two parts, and I agree. I shall then put the Question on the motion in two parts. The first part - Question put, "That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations,".

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 15; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Bani, S. T. Ibrahim. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammad Akib. Miss. Buang bin Lee Siew Choh. Omar Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Low Por Tuck. Chan Choy Siong, Ng Teng Kian. Madam. Ong Chang Sam Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Chew Chua. Sheng Nam Chin. Goh Keng Swee. Tan Cheng Tong. Hoe Puay Choo, Tee Kim Leng. Madam. Teo Hock Guan. Kandasamy, G. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Absent. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Abdul Hamid bin Mammen, John. Haji Jumat. Marshall, David. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ariff bin Lim Yew Hock. Suradi. Lingam, S. V. M. Ismail Rahim. Mohd. Ali bin Ong Pang Boon. Alwi. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Motion (First part) accordingly agreed to.

The second part of the motion, as amended - Question put, "That this House, in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House approves of any action according to law by the Government through the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls." Some hon. Members: Division. The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 16; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Sun Wing. Mohammad Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan Hoe Puay Choo, Sheng Nam Chin. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Khoon Choy. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Kuan Yew. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Absent. Mohd. Ariff bin Abdul Hamid bin Suradi. Haji Jumat. M. Ismail Rahim. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lim Yew Hock. Rajah, A. P Lingam, S. V. Rajaratnam, S. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Ayes (cont.) Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Motion, (Second part), as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House approves of any action according to law by the Government through the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to 12 o'clock midnight.Rajaratnam, S.