POLICE PROTECTION FOR STUDENTS TAKING THEIR EXAMINATIONS

2.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): 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!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: - 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 A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): 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.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order.

Mr Rajah: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Sir, the Government accepts the amendment.

Mr Speaker: Well, that is an indication for hon. Members.

3.06 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): 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, -

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Do you understand?

Mr Speaker: Order.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I want to know when he quoted me definitely in which and in what context I said those very words.

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

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): He was away!

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Don't bluff!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Prime Minister: That is what we want to know.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Judo!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

The Prime Minister: 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?

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - 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 -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): He is a Barisan man.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - 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 -

Mr David Marshall (Anson): He is here to defend himself!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - 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 -

The Prime Minister: Nobody did, you know. That is the point.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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?

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I misunderstood you, Sir. I thought you said "Order" for the people opposite. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Perhaps for the people opposite!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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?

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): That is why most of them sat for the examination.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: For the Barisan!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

Mr Rajaratnam: How do you know?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - 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.

The Prime Minister: How many caught colds after that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Wah, terrible!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the P.A.P. today is just like the Labour Front Government of 1956 -

An hon. Member: It is all in vogue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The present Government, however, is just a little bit more shrewd than the Lim Yew Hock Government.

The Prime Minister: Oh, you have found that out!

Mr Speaker: 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.]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, this only shows -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have ruled.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: 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?

Mr Speaker: 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.

Mr David Marshall: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

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

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

Mr Rajaratnam: The Barisan Sosialis.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Prime Minister: Come, come! Let us have -

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am sorry I left out the words "might lead to". [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I never raved.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Prime Minister: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Prime Minister: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

The Prime Minister: That is so.

Mr Speaker: I just mention that in passing.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Prime Minister: By whom was it taken?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Prime Minister: They respond to your request.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Hooligans.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: 1954!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: Barisan supporters.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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 -

The Prime Minister: That is exactly what we have done to see it through!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - 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 -"

Mr Speaker: 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.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: 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.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): 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?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): An English school!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: And with that, may I then proceed to today's debate? [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: I shall give the Member an individual answer.

Mr Speaker: Please continue.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: 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 -

Mr David Marshall: Beleaguered!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: 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 -

Mr David Marshall: A good civil service!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: It is. I make my acknowledgement of that fact without reserve.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Good administration!

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: 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.

Mr David Marshall: 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.

Mr David Marshall: I offered to go with the Serjeant at Arms to rescue him - [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: 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]

Mr Speaker: 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 David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr David Marshall: Certainly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: 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]

Mr Speaker: 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!

Mr David Marshall: 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 -

Mr Speaker: 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.

Mr David Marshall: 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 -

Mr Speaker: 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 David Marshall: 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.

The Prime Minister: 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?

Mr Speaker: It is not a point of order.

Mr David Marshall: 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.

Mr David Marshall: Who said that is right?

Mr Speaker: 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 David Marshall: 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 -

Madam Hoe Puay Choo (Bras Basah): (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.

Mr Speaker: 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 David Marshall: 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!

The Prime Minister: That is why you want the P.P.S.O.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: 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.

The Prime Minister: See how rude he talks!

Mr David Marshall: 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.' -

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I have the name of the speaker?

Mr David Marshall: I was the speaker.

An hon. Member: Words of wisdom!

Mr David Marshall: I do not retract one single word.

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

Mr David Marshall: 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.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Hear, hear! A vote for you!

Mr David Marshall: 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 -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: 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.

Mr Speaker: 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 David Marshall: 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.

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

Mr David 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 -

Mr Speaker: 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 David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I am much obliged.

Madam Hoe Puay Choo: (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.

Mr Speaker: 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.

Mr Lin You Eng (Moulmein): (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 -

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

Mr David 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.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Bullets!

Mr David Marshall: 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 -

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member take a bit longer?

Mr David Marshall: About ten minutes.

Mr Speaker: 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.