GOVERNMENT CHINESE SECONDARY IV EXAMINATION (Statement by the Minister for Education)

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the net of merger closes on them, the Communist cadres are now falling back on Chinese schools to whip up emotions and, if possible, widespread chaos and trouble in order to stem the rising tide of merger. Today these reckless and desperate Communist elements mobilised innocent and misinformed school children to picket examination centres in the hope of intimidating those students who wished to take the first Government Secondary IV Examination in Chinese.

May I emphasise here, Sir, that no student is compelled to take this examination? All those who are taking this examination are doing so of their own free will and because their parents wish them to do so. And it is the duty of the Government, in a democratic country, to see that no student is denied the right to sit for such an examination if he so wishes it and if his parents desire it.

It is significant that despite the intimi dation and picketing, about 1,900 students, or more than 60 per cent of the students, sat for the examination. The so-called boycott organised by Communist elements has not succeeded, but the fact that they have now been reduced to using school children as pawns and expendable material in their anti-merger campaign is significant. For Chinese schools, Chinese education and culture have often been their rallying points for mustering innocent people to man Communist barricades.

The Government has reason to believe that these Communist cadres, in their desperation, will now incite those innocent and misinformed students into resorting to more reckless and rougher tactics. The boycott was only incidentally, to prevent students from taking the examination. The real objective of the picketing was to force a clash between the police and the school children in the hope that some school children would get hurt, and in this way the Communists can use such incidents to mount public feeling against the Government. It is typical of these Communist leaders that, in order to achieve their ends, they are ready to do this safely behind the skirts of school children. These great revolutionaries, not daring to challenge the Government directly, are willing to gamble with the safety of children.

The Government refused to fall into the Communist trap. It allowed these excited and misinformed students to picket schools but did not bring out the police. The result was that not only was the picketing not a success but the Communist cadres were denied the opportunity of provoking a clash between school children and the police. However, we have reason to believe that they will try to force the situation by using these misinformed school children to do things which would bring about violence.

The examinations are scheduled for a week. All indications are that the students will be used to precipitate violence. Plans are being considered by these Communist cadres in the schools to get into the examination halls, tear up examination papers, and force the candidates to disperse. Squads of students are being organised and may visit the homes of students who are taking the examination to intimidate them into abandoning the examinations. The real objective is to force violence between students and police.

Since the Government has steadfastly refused to use the police in an educational issue which the Government has allowed the Chinese educationists themselves to decide, the Communist cadres who are behind this agitation are becoming more determined to force a clash between the police and the school children. They will go to any lengths between now and the end of the examinations to achieve this.

It is necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the public, the misinformed school children, and parents to bear this in mind. It is significant to bear in mind that this agitation in Chinese schools began only after the merger issue came to the forefront. It is only since then that the cry of Chinese education being in danger was raised. No member of the public believed this. Even the Barisan Socialis representatives, including my former Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, never believed this. For it is unlikely that they would have stayed on with the Government which for two years -

Mr Speaker: Order. In a ministerial statement, I do not think it is proper for the Minister to make a statement which invites debate. Mr Minister.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Well, in fact, my former Parliamentary Secretary defended the whole system before the Prime Minister. It is only since they broke away from us on the issue of merger that they have taken to making vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the Government is not treating Chinese education fairly. The current agitation in schools is being organised by Communist cadres. It is not an educational issue but a political one - part of the pro-Communist campaign to halt merger.

Since June, when the pro-Communist elements decided to challenge the Government on the merger issue, the Communists have been straining every nerve to mobilise forces against the Government with a view to bringing it down and sabotaging merger. The attempt to capture the Government has failed. Their attempt to bring down the Government by constitutional means has failed. Their attempt to capture the Party from within has failed. Their attempt to stir up strikes and precipitate -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir,In a ministerial statement, is it proper that the Minister should indulge in attacks of which we have heard a lot already?

Mr Speaker: To use a word which is often used in this Assembly and was used by the Member for Anson, I have indicated that a ministerial statement should be completely dispassionate, and facts should be placed before the Assembly. If the Minister thinks that the matter is of such importance that he requires a debate, then there is a procedural device. He moves the adjournment of the House, makes a statement, Members are allowed to debate the statement, and then at the end of the debate, the Minister asks for leave to withdraw that motion. That is the device if, in fact, the Minister is inviting a debate.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a statement that I wish to make because I think it is a very topical issue and things will develop.

So now we find that they are falling back on Chinese schools. That is the subject I am talking about. It is a measure of their desperation that they must now try to create a situation -

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. I repeat my point of order.

Mr Speaker: I do not think the Minister is directly attacking the Members of this Assembly in his statement. He is, I think, talking about Communist cadres. If that is so, then he is in order to carry on on that line, and on that line alone.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Perhaps the Member for Anson is not following what I say.

I mentioned the pro-C.P. elements. It is a measure of their desperation that they must now try to create a situation in which school children can be pushed into violence so that a few children can get maimed and hurt while the great revolutionaries debate and incite children from the safety of the Conference room.

And now I come to the Barisan Sosialis. They are behind this desperate move too, because -

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Minister wishes now to attack the Barisan Sosialis, then I think the fair and proper thing to do is to move the adjournment of this Assembly so that there will be a debate on his statement. Mr Minister.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Talking of the Barisan Sosialis, on the one hand, they demand complete merger including the application of the Rahman Talib education policy.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is now making a ministerial statement. Now, if he makes a ministerial statement which attacks a Party or individuals in this House, then it is proper that he should allow a debate on the statement. As I have indicated, the way to do that is for him to move the adjournment of the House, allow a debate to carry on on his statement, and at the end of the debate ask for leave to withdraw the motion. Then the business of the House can go on.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are prepared for a debate. So may I -

Mr Speaker: Order. The time to move the adjournment is at the end of the statement. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I will come back then. Since June when the pro-C.P. elements decided to challenge the Government on the merger issue, the Communists have been straining every nerve to mobilise forces against the Government with a view to bringing it down and sabotaging merger. Their attempt to capture the Government has failed. Their attempt to bring down the Government by constitutional means has failed. Their attempt to capture the Party from within has failed. Their attempt to stir up strikes and precipitate what their followers call the "October Revolution" has failed. Their attempt to stir up revolt in the People's Association has failed.

Sir, now they are falling back on Chinese schools. It is a measure of their desperation that they must try to create a situation in which school children can be pushed into violence so that a few children can get maimed and hurt, while the great revolutionaries debate, and incite children from the safety of this Assembly or Conference Rooms.

The Barisan Sosialis leaders are behind these desperate tactics up to their necks. They hope to achieve their aim of thwarting merger on the injured bodies of school children. On the one hand, they demand complete merger, including the application of the Rahman Talib Report on Education, which proCommunist Party elements claim is detrimental to Chinese education. Yet, on the other hand, in their Party publication, the Barisan Sosialis - this is from the Chinese edition, Sir - encourage students to oppose and boycott the examinations by giving full publicity to the circular dated 17th November,1961, purporting to be issued by Student Re presentatives and/or Committees of Ten Chinese Secondary Schools, which gives a distorted report of what took place at an interview between my Parliamentary Secretary and a student delegation on 16th November, 1961. Further evid ence that the Barisan Sosialis and their pro-Communist mentors are behind this manoeuvre to bring about violent clashes between students and police can be seen from the role that Mr Fong Swee Suan, who is closely connected with the Barisan Sosialis as its Central Executive Committee member, is playing in this dangerous game, dangerous not for Mr Fong and his friends, but for the school children they have duped and intimidated into doing foolish and dangerous things.

All the posters and banners supporting the boycott and picketing are prominently displayed on the buses of the Tay Koh Yat Bus, Company and the Paya Lebar Bus Company, the workers of whom are controlled by Mr Fong Swee Suan and his friends, like Mr Chen Saye Jame in the Singapore Bus Workers' Union. A number of interested personalities who were unconnected with the students were observed at some of the centres this morning.

At 8.00 a.m. Lim Kee Chow, Assistant Secretary of the Hock Lee Branch of the Singapore Bus Workers' Union, went among the picketers outside the Hwa Yi Government Chinese Middle School talking to the picketers. At 8.35 a.m. Lim Teow Kuan, Vice-Chairman of the Paya Lebar Branch of the Barisan Sosialis, and two friends went opposite the entrance of the Chung Hwa Girls' High School in Bartley Road, generally supporting the picketers.

At about 9.00 a.m., Tommy Koh Thong Bee of the University of Malaya Socialist Club faction, which supports the Barisan Sosialis, and three friends visited the centre at Whampoa Chinese Secondary School in St. George's Road. At about 9.10 a.m. Koh Chee Kiong, a strike leader of the People's Association, stopped at the entrance of the Chung Hwa Girls' High School in Bartley Road, stayed for a few minutes, giving general support to the pickets.

How did it all happen? For the past five months Singapore has endured a period of trials and tribulations and a rash of strikes because in June 1961, certain Communist-controlled political forces decided that the forthcoming constitutional talks for independence through merger between Singapore and the Federation Government were to be frustrated at any cost. Controversy over the 4: 2 system for the Chinese Secondary School system was first raised by some members of the Chinese School Teachers' Union in their letter to the Minister dated 9th June, 1961. At the height of the controversy some individuals of the Nanyang University Students' Union tried to involve students by announcing their intention to convene a meeting of all monitors of Chinese secondary schools at the Hokkien Association on 9th August, 1961. This move was checked when principals refused to allow their students to attend the meeting, which was accordingly called off.

On 5th October, 1961, the 4:2 system controversy was amicably resolved with the Chinese Schools Committee-Teacher Association, an organisation regarded by Chinese educational bodies themselves as the highest organisation for Chinese education in Singapore. The Minister agreed to their request to allow those who failed the Government Secondary IV examination but passed the internal school examination to be promoted to upper secondary classes. Then on 15th October, 1961, the Nanyang University Students' Union issued a Press statement which stated that whilst they accepted in principle the settlement reached with the Committee-Teacher Association, they however considered that the requirement that only those who passed the Government Secondary IV examination can take the Government Upper Secondary II examination was "unreasonable" and should be withdrawn. The first shot in a new controversy was fired.

In an attempt to whip up agitation and draw attention to themselves, these student agitators held meetings in schools and resorted to acts of hooliganism. They destroyed tables and chairs in some schools; cut cables of the public address system in order to prevent Principals from speaking to students. They went from house to house to intimidate parents and students who intended to take the examination, and in one case in the. Chinese High School, they carried away the gate of the school. They also dis tributed leaflets falsely giving the impression that the Government was out to destroy Chinese education.

On 15th November, 1961, a delegation of 19 students (ten boys and nine girls) from five schools, namely, Yock Eng, Chinese High, Chung Cheng, Chung Hwa Girls and the Nan Chiau, Girls' High called at the Ministry of Education at Kay Siang Road at 2.30 p.m. to see the Minister. The Minister was then in Kuala Lumpur attending the Colombo Plan Ministerial Conference. The student delegation, however, returned to the Ministry of Education the following day, 16th November, and whilst the number of students was reduced from 19 to 14, the school representation was increased from 5 to 7, which now included representatives from Sin Min High School and Seh Chuan High School. This time, my Parliamentary Secretary decided to see them. He patiently explained and answered their representations as follows. Firstly, there could be no change to the Ministry's decision that only those who passed the Government Secondary IV examination can take the Government Upper Secondary II examination. This is normal educational practice anywhere in the world: that a person should pass the lower examination before proceeding to the higher examination. Secondly, that the detailed syllabuses of the Upper Secondary course will be available before the end of the month. The Parliamentary Secretary stressed that the langu age medium of instruction would remain Chinese. Thirdly, there is no intention or possibility of using conversion to the 4: 2 system to eliminate Chinese education. Fourthly, when the Parliamentary Secretary asked the delegation whether they were going to boycott the Govern ment examination, they all replied that they had no such intention.

Now, although all Chinese secondary schools had closed for the vacation after completion of the year-end school examinations on 20th November, 1961, it was reported that 121 chairs and 34 desks were found to be maliciously damaged in the Dunman Government Chinese Middle School, obviously with a view to preventing the school from being used for holding examinations. On the same day, it was reported that pamphlets were being distributed in the River Valley Government Chinese Middle School. The same day the Chinese Schools Teachers Union also released to the Chinese Press the full contents of their letter addressed to the Minister dated 13th November 1961, stating that the requirement to restrict candidates taking the Government Upper Secondary II Examination to those who have first passed the Government Secondary IV Examination as "unreasonable".

On 21st November, 1961, both the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau gave publicity to the text of a circular issued by individual school supervisors and/or principals of the 27 Chinese secondary schools explaining to parents the importance of the Government Secondary N examination, as the certificate will be equivalent to the present Government Senior Middle III Certificate for purpose of seeking employment in the Government or joining the Teachers' Training College or Polytechnic. This circular letter also pointed out that the Government Secondary IV examination was not com pulsory and that it was left to the students to take or not to take the examination. Parents were, however, advised to encourage their children to take the examination for the sake of their own future and to bring their children to the examination centres themselves.

The same day the Member for Queenstown (and Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis) in moving the amendment to the motion on merger proposed by the Minister for Labour in this House, when criticising the Government's merger proposals to retain local autonomy in education, added (I quote his words), "It was a path leading not to national unity, but to national disunity and to war." Yet their idea of complete mercer would mean that the Central Government's policy on education must be followed in Singapore. Even if the Member for Queenstown makes out that he does not know about this, the people of Singapore, particularly the Chinese-educated, know well that this would lead to trouble.

In the 22nd November, 1961, issue of the Barisan organ of the Barisan Sosialis Chinese edition, page 4, there appeared a full reproduction of this circular issued by the so-called Student Representatives and/or Committees of Ten Chinese Secondary Schools which gives a distorted report of the interview .given by my Parliamentary Secretary to the student delegation on 16th November referred to earlier.

In giving publicity to the students' agitation, which no responsible Chinese newspaper in Singapore had published, it became necessary for Government to issue a statement the same day to alert parents and guardians against antisocial agitators against the first Government Secondary IV examination in Chinese, and advised them to make sure that their children are not used by evil political forces for their own political ends, which has nothing to do with the advancement of education and the future of our children.

This explanation was necessary because of the open intervention in the matter by the Barisan Socialis. The statement also informed parents that Chinese secondary schools had already closed for vacation since Monday, 20th November, 1961, at the request of the school principals, and that their children need not return to school for the school examination results, which would be posted to them by the school authorities. Parents and guardians were also asked to advise their children to make full use of the holiday period in the quiet of their homes to review and prepare for the forthcoming Government examinations.

So, today, having failed to intimidate parents and students from taking the examinations (some 60 per cent of the students took the examination today), the real leaders behind the student agi tation will no doubt try very hard to disrupt the examinations. The students, the parents and guardians and the Government can help defeat this attempt to intimidate them by ignoring their threats and peacefully going on with the examinations. Parents and guardians can accompany their children by bringing them personally to the examination centres and out of them. Full facilities will be given to parents to bring in food and drinks for themselves and their children, and suitable waiting rooms will be arranged for the parents while their children are taking the examinations. Further, those who could not take their examinations today because of intimidation by the pickets can start the examination from tomorrow. They will be given a substitute paper for the subjects they have missed today.

We also appeal to the misinformed students, who have become excited over false allegations of the killing of Chinese education and culture, not to allow themselves to be used by men who have no care for Chinese education as such, or for the welfare and happiness of the students. They have publicly said that if they can get automatic conversion from Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship for their own selfish purposes of standing for election in the Federation, they are quite happy to let education be under the Central Federation Government with all the consequences of implementing the Rahman Talib Education Report. They use these school children as pawns in the dangerous political game of combating merger because they dare not risk their own necks in this dangerous game.

I move,

That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: The position procedurally now is this. Members are at liberty to debate the statement made by the Minister for Education until 8 p.m. At 8 p.m., if the motion has not been disposed of, it will lapse, and the Assembly will adjourn in the usual way. If the matter is to be pursued further, it must be pursued in the proper way by notice of motion given either by the Minister or by any Member of the Opposition, or by another motion for the adjournment on another sitting day.

6.09 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has given us a startling statement in some respects. I can fully understand his position in seeking to make known to the people of Singapore what he believes to be attempts to subvert our school youth to improper political activities. I am with him in his appeal that the educational authorities should have the support of the parents, and the information he has given as to the way they can give that support. I can but regret for myself, Sir, that it should have been found necessary that, instead of just making that statement as a statement of fact of information and of appeal, he should have sought to associate it - I mean, if he wants to attack them, I have no brief for them - not only with an attack upon his former comrades, but also with the merger debate. We have had confusion enough on this issue. Instead of being able to debate the White Paper alone, we have had this irrelevant merger motion brought in, and now we have this further confusion added. I cannot but regret that there is - you will forgive me if I say so, but I say quite honestly, Sir, one gets the impression that he is seeking to make capital out of what is not only an unhappy position, but also for purposes of a debate which quite obviously is not going too well for the Government.

I would like to add one or two points, Sir. The Minister had seen fit to mention the name of a person I know well - Tommy Koh Thong Bee - in a context which suggests that he is a Communist or pro-Communist. I say to you, Sir, that I am prepared to pledge my life that that man is no Communist; he is no pro-Communist, and he is no running dog of the Communist. He is one of the finest human beings I have ever met, and I have complete faith in his genuine dedication to the democratic processes as we understand it. I have had occasion, Sir, to watch that man daily for months, and I do say it is unfair, because he may have been seen somewhere near a school, to use his name publicly in this Assembly in order to make suggestions of that character.

There is only another small matter. I can see that the Prime Minister is anxious to speak and we will welcome what he has to say.

The Prime Minister: I am taking it down.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you. Sir, there is a motion before the House for a Commission of Inquiry into education. Now, it seems to me, Sir, that this allegation, if true - I am not seeking to doubt it in saying if true. I am not seeking to make any connotation that it is dishonest. I do not know, Sir. But I do know this and the public know this; that there is deep hate between the P.A.P. and their former colleagues, who are now the Barisan Sosialis and that there is quite naturally now a tendency to take with a pinch of salt any attacks of this character - then I will welcome an assurance from the Government benches than an impartial Commission of Inquiry will be appointed, because if there are human beings in this city who are subverting our youth of school age going to school for improper political purposes, conduct which is reprehensible, then, Sir, we want that information from an impartial tribunal, and we want their condemnation, as condemned they should be by an impartial tribunal -

The Prime Minister: Agreed!

Mr David Marshall: I am very happy to hear it. I am prepared to sit down if you wish.

The Prime Minister: Sir, as I have already indicated, I have often been accused of wanting to pillory people in Commissions of Inquiry, and one had been suggested for the People's Associa tion which we readily accepted. I understand the Member for Anson is in correspondence with the Minister for Labour on the terms of reference. Of course, the terms of reference must be sufficiently wide in our view to include a complete and comprehensive survey of everything. Similarly in this, the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry to show how this issue has been built up, and in particular in the last stages, their connection with the Barisan Sosialis and the real leaders - the real leaders, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will forgive me for using that phrase - who are in a position to move the digits on the chess-board. All Members of this Assembly will have to waive their Assembly privilege and be examined on oath.

Mr David Marshall: I am much indebted, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the Prime Minister. That is the fair and proper way. I have nothing to add. I am happy by this assurance that there will be a Commission of Inquiry into these so grave allegations and that it can then arrive at an impartial decision. Sir, let me assure the Prime Minister that if, in fact, the Commission of Inquiry finds that there are persons in this Assembly -

The Prime Minister: Outside this Assembly manipulating those inside.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: - within or without this Assembly, who have conciously subverted and manipulated our youth for improper political purposes, I will be with the Government 100 per cent in their condemnation.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis have been accused of many things. Whenever anything goes wrong with the Government, be it in the unions or anywhere, they always want to link it up with us, the whole idea being to frighten people and to isolate the Barisan Sosialis, and thereby to gain strength for themselves. But as the Member for Anson has said, there is already a motion in the Order Paper which talks of a Commission of Inquiry on the education issue.

The Prime Minister: What about the connection with the Barisan Sosialis?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If there is going to be a Commission of Inquiry, let it be, and we will all support it. There need be no diversion at this juncture to debate something else, when we have all our attention directed on to merger and all its implications which the Government is trying to hide.

The Prime Minister: Is that all?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand this controversy over the 3:3 and 4:2 systems has been raging for many months. I think it has been raging even before the Barisan Sosialis was formed.

Just now, the Government accused the Barisan Sosialis of fostering trouble on this issue and the Member for Anson asked for a Commission of Inquiry to which the Government has agreed. Perhaps when this Commission of Inquiry is set up, it will be able to put the picture in a clearer light for the information of the people.

Sir, perhaps the Minister will also be able to tell us - because it was after my association with the P.A.P. - how this controversy over the 3:3 and 4:2 systems came into being and who were the persons involved in advocating the present system. Give us a short summary of how it all happened. Also whether his former Parliamentary Secretary endorsed it -

The Prime Minister: Quite right.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - and perhaps this will help us to clear the air. Sir, I think the Government's suppression of the Press in not publishing news and views on this subject matter of the 3:3 and 4:2 systems and the revolt of the students against these systems has put a dim light on the whole picture. That is why we were taken by surprise when the Minister rose to deliver his statement just now. Had there been no suppression of the Press, I feel that Members today would have been in a better position to debate this controversial subject matter.

The Prime Minister: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Is the Member suggesting that there should be a Commission of Inquiry on the suppression of the Press? I am quite happy to have one.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister did not do too well ire the first Commission of Inquiry and I think he is just trying to put on a hold front. Sir, we will be having two Commissions - one on the People's Association and the other on education.

The Prime Minister: Make it three.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I think the Prime Minister knows there is suppression of the Press. He has said that a responsible Press should not print news of students. It was only after the, Barisan Sosialis paper printed this news !hat the Government was forced to issue a reply.

Sir, we hope that the Minister will further enlighten us as to how this controversy started and perhaps the Commission of Inquiry, when duly appointed, will be able to throw further light on the subject.

6.20 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Sir, speaking for myself and for the Alliance, I am indebted to the Minister for having made this statement, because quite a lot of a were not quite sure as to what was happening in the educational field, particularly the Chinese educational field.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not pretend to he any sort of an expert on education, particularly Chinese education, but the Members of the Alliance and I are interested in the youth of this country, be they Chinese, Malays, Indians or he they anyone We expect certain behaviour from the youth of this country certain conformity to certain social patterns which are not anti-State. It is not for me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to go into the merits or demerits of this little controversy. The Commission of Inquiry will go into that and set the whop problem in proper focus and in its proper perspective. But what staggers me, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. The Member for Anson, speaking on behalf of the Workers' Party, has had his say. The leader of the newlyformed Barisan Sosialis has had his say. The Member for Hong Lim has had his say. The three major political Parties sitting behind the Alliance Members have had their say. But what interests me, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that nobody seems to he interested in these Chinese kids who are sitting for their examinations. Not one of them has mentioned the kids here in this Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: All that they are interested in are the political implications of the situation and not in what is going to happen to these kids. We understand that the kids are being prevented from sitting for an examination. Sir, I would like to hear somebody from the Barisan Sosialis say publicly here that they say to the parents and to the children to go to 4he examinations without fear.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Rajah: We from the Alliance say it, Sir, and I would like them from behind us to say it too.

An hon. Member: Quite right. Thirteen of them too.

6.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Education has made a report to this House giving details of student agitators. He has also pointed out that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis has published a statement on the students. In this statement, it is seen clearly that the meeting between the students' delegation and myself has been distorted. The former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and I have been seeing each other here almost :very day during the period of this sitting. If the Barisan Sosialis really want to find out the truth and the details regarding this question from the Government, they can come forward or, a friendly basis and ask us what it is all about. They should not have published a statement which distorted the facts in their party organ.

The actual truth is this. I heard the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education say that this question of the 4:2 and 3:3 systems should be brought up before the Prime. Minister and other Members for consultation. If there was anything wrong with this 4:2 system he should have brought up this question earlier and tried to find a way out. But unfortunately this question was only brought up after the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis had left, the P.A.P. We know that teachers' organisations and educational bodies have given their valuable views on this system and we have sincerely considered them. We have met representatives off teachers and the Board of Directors and we have accepted their proposals and suggestions. In one of their proposals they stated that they were afraid that the 4:2 system would reduce the period for middle school students from six to four years. At that time, the Ministry of Education's ruling Was that students who failed the Middle IV examination would not be promoted. For this reason, the educational bodies were afraid that the period for middle school students would be reduced from six to four years. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, we accepted their views, that is, all students who pass their school examinations internally would be promoted together with those who pass the Government ex aminations. That was a special concession because, in English schools, if a student should fail the School Certificate Examination he would not dream of sitting for the Higher School Certificate Examination, and even those who pass the School Certificate Examination must have at least three Credits before they can sit for the H.S.C. Examination. In the Chinese schools those who fait the public examinations but pass the school examinations could be promoted to higher classes. In this case, we are making a very special concession by accepting the opinion of the educational bodies. The representatives of Chinese school teachers, directors, and committee teachers have put forward a suggestion that those students who have failed the Middle IV examination can only sit for the Upper Secondary II examination after a supplementary examination.

So, if we accept the proposal of the, students, that would mean that if we fail the Malay Std. I examination we can even sit for the Malay Std. II examination. That would also mean that even if we fail the School Certificate examination we can sit for the Higher School Certificate examination. This would cause great confusion in the education system. Therefore, in this respect, when the student representatives met me (I spent almost an hour with them), I explained to them patiently, and I believe I never showed anger before the students. After the talk lasting for about an hour, I opened the door and let them out one by one. Was that not courteous? I do not know what courtesy means if that was not so.

To the questions they brought up, I explained to them that, firstly, the cancellation of certain restrictions, that is to say, that those who have failed the Secondary IV examination will be allowed to sit for the Upper Secondary II examination, is unreasonable. If we accepted this, it would mean that examinations do not exist in the education system. Secondly, they asked me whether it was the intention of the Government to use English as a medium of instruction in place of Chinese. I assured them that the Government had no such intention. We will never use English instead of Chinese as a medium of instruction in Chinese schools. Regarding the curriculum and syllabus, they asked me when the Government is going to publish details of the syllabus. I told them it would be done soon. When I refused to accede to their demands, one of the representatives accused me of having an intention to eliminate Chinese education. I told them that I myself came from a Chinese school and that some of my children are in Chinese schools, and that it would be nonsense for me to say that I am trying to eliminate Chinese education. I told them carefully and courteously, "Is there any country in South-East Asia in which Chinese education is so well developed and so free to take its own course?" And I also told them that if at all Chinese education should be eliminated in future, it would be they who would do so.

In a statement published in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis, the meeting between the representatives and me was distorted. This organ of the Barisan Sosialis should have clarified the whole, situation before publishing a statement. In the statement, it is said that the Parliamentary Secretary rejected the claims, and turned his face against the reasonable talks about this claim.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Parliamentary Secretary was quoting, he should point out that the statement was given by the students, so as not to give a false impression to the people. This was not what was said by the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon has reason to doubt the statement published in the paper. I am also very happy to know that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis has made a mistake in publishing this statement.

I was talking of the statement published in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis. May I continue quoting? "What we are against is that the 4:2 system should not be used to sieve out Chinese students, and we say that this is a stumbling-block to the development of Chinese education." This statement continues to say that if, after reformation, English is used as a medium of instruction in Chinese schools, then it will be a clear step taken to eliminate Chinese education. You will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during the meeting I told them clearly and assured them that there would be no such thing as using English as a medium of instruction in Chinese schools. But they said so in their statement.

And there is another point. A report in the organ of the Barisan Sosialis says that a reporter of the organ interviewed the students and he noted that there were many slogans and bills posted in the schools and canteens. These posters urged the Government to withdraw the restriction. This means that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis has sent a reporter to visit the schools and the people. The last paragraph of this statement says that there were some slogans saying, "We must steadfastly safeguard the students of Chinese schools and Chinese education. Students! Students! We must not be afraid of storm and rain! The Chinese students want to speak their minds. There will be flowers blooming in Chinese education."

I do not want to waste any more time on this statement, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister for Education has said that these students have some connection with the Barisan Sosialis because of this Press report. We feel that any responsible paper should not publish at random a statement of students without making sure about it or consulting the Ministry of Education. Therefore, the situation it present is very sad to many of us, because in Singapore, students in Chinese schools can sit for public examinations using Chinese as a language to answer questions. We know that this does not exist in the Federation.

We have noted that irresponsible politicians are now trying to exploit students and agitate them to boycott the examinations. They accuse us of not allowing students who have failed the Secondary IV examination to sit for the Upper Secondary H examination. We have said that there is no country in the world that will allow such a thing to happen, i.e., to allow those who have failed in a lower examination to sit for a higher examination. Any rational people will not dream of such a thing. I would like to find out what are the views of Members of the Barisan Sosialis on this matter. They cannot make use of this as an excuse to agitate students to boycott the examination. They cannot make use of this as an excuse to say that this is a move of the Government to eliminate Chinese education. It would be ridiculous if they said so.

When the student representatives met me, they said that they represented all the Senior Middle II, III and Secondary IV students in Singapore. I told them that that might not be so. I asked them, "Are you sure all the students in Secondary IV classes will boycott the examination?" They said that there were some 1,900 students who were not afraid of them and they went to sit for their examinations today. That means to say that these representatives did not tell the truth when they said that they represented all the students in Singapore. It has been proved that the agitators are only some of the students who have been exploited by politicians whose aim is to create trouble and chaos, so that the people in general will believe that this Government has the intention to destroy Chinese education.

Let us look at the statement given by the students' representatives. It is a very funny statement - the so-called Secondary IV Students Conference Pro-tem Committee. Somebody will come to the meeting and then another will second it. Let us read a few paragraphs of the statement:

'All these students in Chinese Secondary IV classes are young people who are loyal to Chinese education. In order to safeguard Chinese education, in order to see that Chinese education is not destroyed, we come forward firmly to defeat all those who are trying to do harm to Chinese education. Our parents have, by difficult means sent us to Chinese Schools to receive education. Our teachers are trying their best to educate us. So in order not to disappoint the goodwill and well wishes of the parents and teachers, we swear that we want to be fighters of our education.'

Then there is the slogan "Long live national education! Long live Chinese education!"

Another statement sent out by the Pro-tem Committee of the Students body is addressed to parents. It is stated there:

'Dear parents,

You are trying your best to educate us by sending us to Chinese schools to have a good education.

You do so only for the sake that we will in future be useful to society.'

And later on, it is stated in their circular that the students believe that the parents will not like the students to sit for this Secondary IV examination, which is, they say, means to destroy Chinese education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence by touching upon the speech made by the Member for Queenstown. They want to have the so-called complete merger, that is to say, -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member could touch upon that when we come to the debate proper.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope that the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis will show their stand here in regard to the boycott of the examination. I would like to know what their views are on this boycott of the examination. If they show that they have nothing to do with the boycott of the examination, then I hope they will appeal to the parents to bring their children to sit for the examination.

5.49 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education make certain accusations against the Barisan Sosialis Members in this House. He said that the organ of the Barisan Sosialis published a statement given by the students. I feel very surprised at this because the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. He was in charge of news, and he was at one time a reporter himself. I just do not understand his lack of general knowledge regarding the publication of news.

Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody knows that to publish an item of news does not mean that we are sympathetic towards its contents. News may be published in papers regarding riots in South Korea, but it does not mean that the editor of those papers is sympathetic to or agree with the riots. I am now the Editor-in-chief of the Party organ. In the past, I was Editor-in-chief of the Chinese edition of the Petir - the Party organ of the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was responsible for the publication of this P.A.P. organ. I would like to quote an article on 14th August, 1958, about the trade union movement. In this article there was a statement on strikes issued by the trade unions. It does not mean that at that time the P.A.P. was in sympathy with the strikes.

For example, on 27th June, 1958, there was report of a strike in the Singapore Glass Factory. Does that mean also that at that time the P.A.P. was in full sympathy with the workers of the Glass Factory in their strike?

Mr Rajah: The Prime Minister has interjected in Mandarin!

Mr Speaker: Order. I suppose any Member can interject in any language. But the trouble is that the interpreter might not get the interjection. If the interjection is unparliamentary, I ask Members to get up on a point of order and indicate to the Speaker what the interjection is about. Mr Chan.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I was just saying that I am the Editor-in-chief of the Party organ of the Barisan Socialis. When the reporter of this paper asked me whether I should publish this item of news, I considered it carefully because I know that the question of Chinese education is a very delicate one. When I was in the P.A.P. I had a feeling that the po licy of the P.A.P. on Chinese education might lead to some trouble. Therefore, when I was confronted with this item of news, I felt it necessary to publish the opinion of the students themselves for the benefit of the public. The main reason was that all the Chinese papers as well as the English papers said nothing about the students in this matter. Therefore, from the point of news and the Press, it was a bad situation. We see some Members in this House such as the Member for Hong Lim and the Member for Anson, do not know the full story about the situation. I only came to know about it when the students sent me their statement. So I came to know that there must be something wrong about this matter, and I felt that it was correct for me to publish such an item of news. Therefore, in our paper, we published the statement issued by the students which was suppressed by the Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said just now that the boycott of the examination by students came as a result of agitation by the Barisan Sosialis. I would like to ask them this. In the time of the Lim Yew Hock Government, there were also boycotts of public examinations, and at that time the present Prime Minister was the legal adviser to the students' organisation. Does that mean that, as legal adviser, the Prime Minister was at that time sympathetic to the action of the students?

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I never throw away bouquets which are thrown at me. But if I really do not deserve one, as in this case, then I do not think I should be given one. I was not the legal adviser to the students union in 1953. As I have explained in my radio broadcast, I came to know them in 1954, through the famous King George V Park incident. An unnecessary tribute was paid to me, Sir.

Mr Speaker: It is a point of clarification, not a point of order. Mr Chan.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I think it is better for the Prime Minister himself to look back the old copies of the newspapers to see whether it was after or before the dissolution of the Chinese Students Union.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at a Barisan Sosialis Central Committee meeting, some Central Executive members brought up some questions and said that there was some unrest among the students, because everyone of us here had received a state ment from the students. Therefore, we considered carefully what attitude we must adopt towards this matter. We felt that before we knew the whole truth, it would be better for us not to make any decision just yet. In the course of dis cussion, some Committee members asked whether we should issue a statement on the reformation of Chinese secondary education. When we considered it, we felt it was not proper for us to issue a statement. We felt that if we should issue a statement asking the students to sit for or not to sit for the examination, then we would be giving the Government a chance to accuse us of doing things behind the scenes. We know that we are now in such a situation that whatever happens, whether it be some unrest or strike that takes place, we may be accused of being the agitators. I personally believe that if some of the leaders in the City Council strike had happened to be leaders and members of the Barisan Sosialis, we would have been accused of creating social unrest and be again detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.

Therefore, on the question of students and education, we decided to be very careful before issuing any statement -

Mr Lee Khoon Choy rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Chan Sun Wing resumed his seat.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): If the Barisan Sosialis wants to find out the whole truth, how is it that their Party organ did not find out the news regarding the principals and the teachers themselves?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have never published any editorial regarding the matter of the students in our Party organ. That means to say that we are very careful in our attitude towards this matter, so that it will not give the Party in power an excuse to do us harm.

We are very clear about the cause and origin of this matter. I will briefly outline the cause of this unrest for the benefit of the Members in this House.

The whole question arose when the Government tried to change the six-year secondary education in Chinese into a four-year system. On one occasion, the Minister for Education said in this House that the Government did not have the so-called four-year system in Chinese education. The Minister was not very truthful about it. As far as I know, the P.A.P. actually did not want to implement the 4:2 system. What it wanted to implement was the four-year system, to reduce the number of years of Chinese secondary education by two years, i.e., from that of six years to four years.

This is a Chinese pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Culture, wherein is the policy speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for 1960. [Indicating] It was delivered in this House on the 20th of July, 1960. There was one section in the speech on education. It is at page 22 of this pamphlet. It states that, based on the principle of equal treatment, the Government has taken steps to unify all the education systems of the different languages. Primary education has a six-year system. In the final year of primary education, students will have to sit for a school - leaving examination. This public examin ation will be held for the first time this year. The number of years of secondary education will also be unified into that of a four-year system. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat this. Secondary education will have a unified four-year system. It has not been stated that it is going to be a 4: 2 system. In this statement, it is stated that it is the objective of the Government to have a common examination in all the four streams of education.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will you please refer to Vol. 13 of our Hansard -

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: On a point of order. The Member for Upper Serangoon is referring to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech for 1961. It would be fair, I think, that he should quote the whole paragraph rather than just read a sentence and stop there. It is true that mention was made that the period of secondary school education would also be uniform, i.e., four years. Then he should go on - Malay and Tamil schools having secondary school classes for the first time this year. I mean, he should do that to give a correct picture. Then there is the further two-year additional Upper Secondary education which is not referred to in this instance, because we do not talk of Upper Secondary education when we are beginning with the Lower Secondary education for the first time.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Minister for Education to point out where the Government has stated there is a 4: 2 system. In 1960 -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Member to carry on up till now but I do not think he should go into a detailed debate on the 4:2 system and the 4-year system. That can come, if he is interested, in a motion notice of which he could give in the proper way.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say briefly how events have developed. The P.A.P. Government is implementing the reformation introduced by the Lim Yew Hock Government in respect of Chinese education. Why is it that it is only this year that Chinese education circles have expressed their dissatisfaction? It is because from next year onwards, Chinese secondary schools will not have Senior III and Senior II like the old scheme. There will be no more of such classes. Therefore, many students will be facing a situation where they will have no more chance of studying in Senior II and III. Chinese education circles have also expressed dissatisfaction about this.

On one occasion, I pointed this out to the Prime Minister when I was still his Parliamentary Secretary. I asked him why the Government wanted to change the Chinese secondary education system, and why the Government had not consulted the Parliamentary Secretaries before such an action was taken. The Parliamentary Secretaries met and wrote a letter addressed to the Minister for Education. I later received a very long letter from the Minister for Education labelled "Confidential". It accused me of raising this point in my letter and also blamed me for writing such a letter. If the disclosure of this letter, which is the reply from the Minister, will not make me liable for committing an offence under the Official Secrets Act, I will be very glad to disclose its contents.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he is -

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way. The Member will not give way.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: He asked for my permission to release a confidential letter. I am prepared -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think I can allow all these details to be pursued. If the Member is interested in an all-out debate, then I think the proper way is for him to give notice of a motion.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Because the Party in power just now has accused us of certain things, therefore, I feel it necessary to disclose all the things in the past which have led up to the present. I do not want to say too much. I only wish that you will permit me to say something so that the public will have full knowledge of this.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has said enough to indicate that the Minister's allegations are not as correct as lie thinks they ought to be. I think we ought to be content with that position. As I say, if the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter further, he should give notice of a substantive motion.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me point out here the dissatisfaction of the educational circles. It is because the Government is not prepared to conduct the post-secondary classes. Therefore, when accused by the educational circles, the Government said, "All right, you can carry on with your 2-year post-senior secondary classes." Before the publication of syllabuses, the Government had not done so. Therefore, the students are very concerned over their future schooling and the kind of textbooks they will be using. The dissatisfaction among the students is the result of bad handling of the matter by the Government; in other words, because of the wrong attitude or stand taken by the Government.

Let me state once more that we are not aware of the whole truth of what has been disclosed today. We do not quite understand the actions of the students. That is why we want to reserve our criticisms in regard to this matter raised today [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister will have an opportunity of speaking after the Member has stopped. Mr Chan.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Let me state once more that this matter can be investigated by the Commission of Inquiry. We welcome the Government to do so. The result of the investi gation by the Commission of Inquiry will enable the people of Singapore to know the full facts.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me explain why I must speak in Mandarin to reply to the accusations of Opposition Members. We all know that the racial, education and language problems are - as pointed out by my ex-Parliamentary Secretary - very acute and delicate questions. The Opposition Members have spoken in Mandarin and they claim that they want to safeguard Chinese education. If I were to speak in English, then there would be rumours outside -

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: On a point of order. This allegation of the Prime Minister is most inappropriate, because it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education who started speaking in Mandarin. He is a better speaker in English than in Mandarin. The Member for Upper Serangoon has all along spoken in Mandarin in this House. So it is quite improper to say that we are using a language to bamboozle the people.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister said that the Opposition Members are using Mandarin to bamboozle the people, then I think he was unparliamentary. He must not impute an improper motive like that. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, that was said by the Member for Nee Soon himself.

My ex-Parliamentary Secretary has made some progress in learning the national language, that is, Malay. But because he is now in the Opposition he, together with the Member for Choa Chu Kang and others, always speaks in Mandarin. Even the Member for Geylang Serai feels that there is something communalistic -

Mr Low Por Tuck (Havelock) rose -

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Low Por Tuck: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can we ask whether we have the right to speak in Mandarin?

Mr Speaker: Yes. I was on the point of rising to ask the Prime Minister to get on with his speech, because any Member is entitled to speak in any of the four languages without any question.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): That is a matter of course. That is why, in order to safeguard the right of speech in the four languages, we have provided in the merger proposals for Members of the State Assembly to speak in any language they wish to. The reactions of those outside this House and of Members inside this House are entirely different. Of course, they understand this full well, because they have been trained by us. The main question is the reaction outside this House. So we must let the people of Singapore know that although some of my colleagues and I have been educated in English we are in full support of Chinese education and its development, as well as of Malay and Tamil education. I have not been able to learn Tamil as this requires time and ability.

I want to ask a very simple question. Has the Barisan Sosialis got any stand on the boycott of the examinations by Chinese students? Although the Member for Farrer Park, who speaks in English, does not understand full well the political problem - the Chinese-educated think the English-educated do not understand the political problem - he knows that basically it is a question of attitude: whether you support or are against this boycott of the examinations. The question is whether you like to see the future of some 3,000 students spoilt by a majority of people, and whether they are to have equal opportunities with others in education so that they can serve the State. We have not heard anything about this from two great men - the President of the Barisan Sosialis and a Central Executive Committee member. I feel we must look clearly at the situation today. The debate on this matter today is incidental. As a matter of courtesy, at 5.30 p.m. today, the Minister for Education had to inform the representatives of the people in this House as to what is happening in Singapore. He will then inform the people about the situation through the newspapers and the radio. He has done so in this House purely as a matter of courtesy. The Barisan Sosialis said that this was unreasonable and that they wanted a debate on this. So we accepted at once the motion for this debate.

Mr Speaker: I think I had better put the record straight. The motion for the adjournment was suggested from the Chair as a procedural device in order that all opinions could be expressed on this statement.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we must therefore thank you for such a suggestion because, by having a free debate on this matter, all those inside this House and the people outside will see clearly in the newspapers that the 13 Members of the Barisan So sialis have said nothing on this important matter. They have only uttered some Live sentences about this matter. I have calculated that carefully. Actually they can speak very well if they have speeches written out for them by people behind the scenes. They can then go on talking for some seven hours. We really admire the energy they have spent on their speeches. Their tone was different. But all of a sudden, without their backseat drivers, they cannot make a clear stand on this important matter. We can now clearly see that it was the Editor-in-chief of their Party organ - he was not the Editor-in-chief of the P.A.P. organ but only one of the editors - who was quite eloquent. But what has he said? Has he touched on the main question of the boycott of the examination? What is the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis towards the boycott of the examination? Do they want some 3,000 students to lose their chances in education? Or do they want to take advantage of the situation to create trouble and confusion? I feel that tonight we must hear the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, because, in my view, his attitude towards this matter is very important. When we came into power, I told my Minister for Education that he was educated in English and that, therefore, his Parliamentary Secretary had to be one who was educated in Chinese or, if pos sible, one who had been a Chinese teacher or a Chinese school principal. In this way, he would have somebody who knew Chinese education full well to assist him. So questions regarding Chinese education must be referred to the Member for Upper Serangoon. His opinion must be valued because he is an expert. What is the result? Regarding the 4:2 system and the 3:3 system, we had a meeting one day of Parliamentary Secretaries. That was not a confidential meeting. We had a very open meeting. We had a very open talk about matters - [Interruption]. I am sorry - ex-Parliamentary Secretaries. My ex-Parliamentary Secretary asked me, when I was Chairman of the Parliamentary Secretaries' meeting, "Why has the 3:3 system got to be changed to the 4:2 system without letting the people know beforehand of its contents and its aim?" Therefore, I entrusted this Question to my Education Minister and his ex-Parliamentary Secretary for them to explain to the Parliamentary Secretaries what it was all about. It was very simple. There was no problem at all. This was a decision made years ago. He never said anything about Lim Yew Hock. I am just repeating what he said. I do not remember whether he said anything about the Lim Yew Hock Government. He said there was nothing wrong with it. The contents were not changed. The system was only aimed at giving the Chinese schools equal status so that they would have four years of secondary education and two years of post-secondary education, which is the same as the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate examinations in English schools. They are all the same. Therefore, my ex-Parliamentary Secretary said, "I never criticised the contents of the system. All I want to know is why were we not consulted before this matter was brought up?" So when I heard him say that the P.A.P. had two failings - one of them was about the handling of the matter - then I knew he was not a sincere man. He is denying what he had said. Then he added that he was criticising the Government for having taken a wrong stand on education. It is very strange. When has the stand of the Government become wrong? Was it after the Hong Lim or Anson by-election? In fact, this matter took place before these two by-elections. It is very strange that before he was expelled from the Party, he said nothing to the effect that our education policy was basically wrong. It is only today that in his eloquence he says all of a sudden that we are wrong in our stand on education. Wrong in our stand? How is it that at that meeting he did not review our stand? How is it that he said nothing about our education policy?

I feel that today we should spend some time on the question of the 3 : 3 and 4: 2 systems. Just now my ex-Parliamentary Secretary said that I had close association with Chinese school students in the past. This question is not one of education, but of students. They are two different questions. When the 4:2 and 3:3 systems became a delicate problem, the teachers held a meeting at the Happy World Stadium sometime in August this year - I think it was on 29th August. At that time I showed them the stand of the Government on Chinese education and Chinese education policy, that the policy on Chinese education must be decided by the Chinese schools themselves. It was not to be decided by us. It was our responsibility to give equal treatment to the four streams of education. Therefore, we brought up this question for the decision of the Chinese schools themselves. We must see clearly that although this 4:2 system has been brought up by the Government itself, he final decision still lies with the principals of Chinese secondary schools. They can only come to a decision after consultation among themselves. Therefore, it is not so easy for them to give trouble. Many of the teachers and principals support the 4:2 system which they have decided to adopt. We have not decided whether we should adopt the 4:2 system. We are only making a proposal. That is the first problem.

The second problem is the boycotting of the examinations. If today the Government is not careful in handling this question rationally and try to solve the conflict between the people by way of persuasion, then there may be some trouble. If we were just like the colonial government which resorted very easily to police and other actions, then there could very well have been trouble. And if there should be any trouble, then there would be casualties among the students. Then we would be accused of being merciless and relentless. So we decided to have this matter determined by the students and the parents themselves. We do not force the students to sit for this public examination. We only say that this is a step taken to help the students to have a good future. If they do not like it, well, they can leave it. We cannot use force to deal with questions such as education and language. Therefore, the students' boycott today - I will not say it is actually a boycott, because some students took the examinations and some of them might be unwell and therefore failed to turn up because of this - so it does not mean that these students too are boycotting examinations. It is our responsibility to let them have a chance to decide whether they want to sit for the examinations or not. But it is the responsibility of the Barisan Sosialis - [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Member for Queenstown wishes to interject, the way to do it is to stand up and see whether the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Well, I will give way and see what he has to say.

Mr Speaker: Does the Member for Queenstown wish to take advantage of that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I say that whatever they have done, they want other people to carry their baby.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Then I must make it clear that the boycott does not mean that it is a method employed only by the Barisan Sosialis. Even long before this boycott of the examinations took place, as stated by my ex-Parliamentary Secretary, I am only accusing the back-seat drivers of the Barisan Sosialis for having some connection, and therefore I welcome the suggestion of the Member for Anson to establish a Commission of Inquiry first, to look into the trouble as a result of the change of the 3:3 system to 4:2; and second, to find out who is responsible for this trouble. I do not say that all the students are boycotting the examination, because there are some 60 per cent of the students who sat for the examinations. It is also the duty of the Commission of Inquiry to look into the question whether the back-seat drivers of the Barisan Sosialis have anything to do with boycotting the examinations. If the Member for Upper Serangoon, who is at present the Editor-in-chief of the Party organ of the Barisan Sosialis, feels that his statement on this matter [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I have great difficulty in following these interjections. If the Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to interject, I am sure if he gets up the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister: Come on, come on!

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Just now I was only helping the Prime Minister to choose the correct word.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Then I must thank him, because very often he used to help me in this. Without his help, I do not think I would be able to speak Mandarin this well. So I must admit that it was only with his help that I have learnt Mandarin and made progress thereon. But unfortunately I am unable to help him in his political thinking. He is still at the stage of young students who are liable to make many mistakes. Because of the language difficulty, I could not explain to him why it would be bad for him to go over to the Opposition. It is a pity that I cannot do so. Partly I should be responsible for his going over, because I cannot help him when he had helped me to learn.

Just now he said that he had published the students' statement because of freedom of the Press and freedom of news. He has had close association with me, and therefore, when we parted, I did not say very much about him because of our personal relationship. All of a sudden, good friends have become enemies. I think it is a bad thing to do.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. Delightful though the Prime Minister is as a speaker, we have a merger motion. Could we dispose of this one and go straight to the point?

An hon. Member: You started it!

Mr David Marshall: I did not start it.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is indulging in his skilful way of wandering away and coming back to the point. At the moment, I cannot say that he is very much irrelevant. Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. He has had close association with me. When he was Editor of the P.A.P. organ, he was in full support of the trade union movement as the P.A.P. was. I introduced him to trade union leaders who gave him, news about their own unions. So

Mr Chan Sun Wing rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): On a point of clarification.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said that news came to me only as a result of his introducing trade union leaders to me. But he has forgotten that before I joined the P.A.P. I was a reporter.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): The Member for Cairnhill knows that the Member for Upper Serangoon was a reporter of Sin Pao, which was closed down, and then after that the P.A.P. gave him some work to do. The Member for Upper Serangoon says today that when he published the statement of the students, it does not mean that the Barisan Sosialis was in support of them. Now we want to talk about how to handle this matter. We will tell them that they are handling this matter wrongly, because the students will look at the paper and say, "Chan Sun Wing has sold us out." This is the first mistake they have made. The second mistake is whether they are sincere. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education asked, "How is it that they publish the views of only one side and not both sides? If there is freedom of speech and freedom of the Press then they should publish the views of both sides."

They have asked about our broadcasting station. We are waiting for them to come to our forum. That night, when I was engaged in a debate in this House, I said that in a forum over Radio Singapore they were defeated by the Minister for Finance, and so they did not dare to come for a second round in a public forum. At that time, because of his temper, he said, "At any time and anywhere." Well, at any time and anywhere. The Minister for Education said that it would be better to invite the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis to take part in the next public forum.

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I thought I had explained to the House that day why it was that I refused. The debate was coming on Monday. They wanted to have the forum on Sunday. What is the meaning of that?

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Now I know it is better for him to have another excuse, because after this debate he will be given another invitation to a forum at a radio station anywhere. It is no use using threatening methods. Or we can have a mass rally. All right, let it be.

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I now ask the Prime Minister to come back to the theme of this adjournment motion, which is this boycott by students? There is no right of reply. I thought that is quite clear. In this debate the Minister for Education has no right to reply. The reply now, I take it, is being made by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must give a chance to the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education because if he does not say it today he may not have a chance tomorrow, or he may have consulted his back-seat driver. So it would be better if he could stand up right now and say whether what I have said is right or wrong. What is his attitude and stand on the 4:2 system and the 3:3 system and what is his stand on the boycott of the examination?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: It is more my asking you for advice whether it is a point of order. The Member for Serangoon Gardens would like to speak, and would the Prime Minister give way to him since he has provoked him into speaking?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister has, in fact, invited the Member for Serangoon Gardens to speak. I take it he will give him an opportunity.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Of course, I will. I think this is some kind of contradiction-an internal contradiction among themselves. The views openly expressed by their leaders have originally been decided by the backseat drivers. Their 'articles have been written by their back-seat drivers. They have now come here to play some spook show. Today it is a free debate. They can freely express their stand and their attitude, if they have any stand or attitude at all.

Mr Speaker: There are only five minutes left.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Two minutes will be enough for me. There are two questions. What is their stand on the boycott of the common examination, and whether they support the students' boycott? The second question is, what :, their stand on the changing of the 3:3 system to the 4:2 system? Of course, this question can be put to the Commission of Inquiry to investigate. I feel that the Member for Anson has great experience in regard to the exercise of democratic rights. I think the investigation by the Commission of Inquiry will give the 13 Assemblymen a chance to come forward and state their attitude, and disclose how they made use of the students to further their own ends to destroy our merger.

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to make it quite clear that in this particular case the debate will end at 8.00 p.m.

An hon. Member: One minute democracy!

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to our Standing Orders, we do not provide that the motion cannot be debated until we reach 3.00 a.m. or 4.00 a.m., because we have the right to set aside the Standing Orders. But I feel that they are rather excited. Perhaps they have something to tell me. That is why I want to give them a chance to speak on this matter.

7.58 p.m.

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not expect the Prime Minister to give me only two minutes to speak. I will reply to certain allegations made.

First, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education talked about what I had asked him a few days ago in the C.P.A. Room about the matters raised today. I have received five letters from the students, who have also sent this letter to every Assemblyman. I think every Assemblyman and every political Party has received this letter. I will ask him how he deals with this matter. But I did not expect that he would keep this matter in his heart without disclosing his intention as to what he wanted to do with it.

The second point is this. I have left the Government for about four months. For two years, when I was with the Government, there had never been any incident. But today, when anything happens, the Government pushes every responsibility and blame on my shoulder. This is not reasonable. Perhaps in case there may be further occurrences or incidents, then the Government will push everything on to my shoulders. It is not reasonable on the part of the Government.

The third point is that we must remember that when this incident occurred recently at the Parliamentary Secretaries' meeting, we know that the opinion expressed at this meeting would not be -

Mr Speaker: The present motion for adjournment lapses. May I ask the Leader to move a new motion for adjournment?