POLICE PROTECTION FOR STUDENTS TAKING THEIR EXAMINATIONS

Debate resumed.

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

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, before adjourning I informed you that I am against using the police against school children. I say to the Government, "If you cannot get men your size - the sinister adults who you say are responsible for subverting these school children - do not go bullying the school children." Their attitude, Sir, is this, "We are not bullying the school children. We have been asked by the parents." If you look at the motion, Sir, it says:

'In response to an appeal from parents of students...'.

Sir, I would like to ask this House, which consists of 51 Members, all alive, did anybody else receive any word from parents in his division? I have not, Sir,I have received letters about the Government's educational policy, but not a word asking me for protection of students who are going to the examination. But it seems that the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education has received such a petition. It is signed, I am told, by about 100 persons. Who are these 100 persons? Were they politically motivated? Who organised the petition? How is it that none of the rest of us have heard from any parents to like effect?

You will appreciate, Sir, why I take this allegation of a petition - no, the statement of the receipt of a petition - with a pinch of salt. Not that I deny that a petition was received. But the genuineness of the alleged representation and the freedom from political motivation of these persons who signed those petitions.

We have been told by the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education that there are only 600 students who have not taken the examinations. I think his arithmetic is wrong. But that is what he has said to us this afternoon. If there are 600 students - school children - and there are only 100 parents petitioning, it does suggest that 600 children have more than 100 parents. I trust he will accept that. In fact, a lot more than 200 parents for 600 school children. In the circumstances, are we to understand that the majority of the parents do not want police protection? And on the basis of what the Minister has said, in a democracy the majority will must rule.

Sir, let us look at it in a different way. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there 600 pupils who have not taken the examination. The Minister for Education told us this afternoon that 400 to 500 pickets this morning were gathered at one centre. So it means that there are only 100 students left - if we take 400 to 500 who are picketing - who might want to enter for the examination. If 240 could take the examination this morning, why could not this extra 100? Wherein lies the urgency or validity of this motion on their own arithmetic? Where is the plea of the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education, his plea -

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

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

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

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking of his plea today that there should be protection against the illegal action of hooligans. Where is the evidence of hooliganism? The Minister himself said that there was. So far as I can remember, in answer to a supplementary question (I think it was on Thursday afternoon), there was not one single instance of violence or physical injury. Are there any instances today of physical injury to anybody? But according to the Minister, 2,000 took part in the examinations out of 3,000. According to his Secretary 2,500 took part in the examination out of 3,000, and not one single incident of physical injury. Yet we are being asked not merely to interrupt a serious, a grave debate, but to ask the police to take action against student pickets who are obstructive.

Mr Speaker, it must be obvious that the Government has, for reasons best known to itself, some of which I might guess at, seriously exaggerated the gravity of what is taking place. I say we must not throw away the principle of patience with school children in order to cope with minor incidents. I will not use the police, and I will not support the use of the police, against groups of school children. I ask this House to recognise that the Government has inflated and exaggerated the facts. And I ask the House to be wary of supporting any action by the police against our school children. Let us not be so foolish as to use a sword to cut a pound of butter. We might find ourselves cutting ourselves. We might find that we are destroying what we have built up over several long suffering years, and that is the tradition of patience and reasonableness with our school children.

But before I sit down, Mr Speaker, I would like to make my own stand clear on the subject of their conduct. I would not like, by implication and in my refusal to Support police action, to let it be implied that I am sitting on the fence in so far as condemnation of improper obstructive or forceful conduct on the part of pickets is involved. Sir, without hesitation, I do condemn political activities on the part of school children. I consider it inimical to the healthy development of a parliamentary democracy when those who can know nothing by virtue of their tender years of the issues which are involved, permit themselves to be manipulated, to take advantage of situations, where our sympathies are involved, for political purposes. I want to go further. If, in fact, the students have used violence, as alleged by the Straits Times cameraman, even once against any pupil seeking lawfully to go in to his examination, then I say such action is improper. It is reprehensible, and the students concerned are not a credit either to their school or their parents. Sir, I would have like you and every Member of this House to see what this gentleman here showed me in a newspaper just now.

Here Mr Marshall addressed an hon. Member sitting below him.

Can I have that newspaper you showed me just now? What is the date?

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry, Sir. Saturday, 2nd of September. It is the Mimi Pau. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very informative photograph where school children seemed to be acting with patience and forbearance in the face of adult intimidation. I would like to say that it is my impression that the vast majority of these pickets have acted with propriety, restraint and discipline. But that they have so acted is only how they should act. It does not in any way excuse the conduct of those few who are guilty or may have been guilty of acts of violent obstruction to those students who sought to take their examinations. I believe they are very few, Mr Speaker, Sir. But few though they are, I would not like to be misunderstood in my condemnation of such conduct, particularly if they are conscious that it is not in pursuance of any educational aims, but in pursuance of improper political activity.

Mr Speaker, there is no room for the second part of this motion. No cause has been shown for the second part of the motion which calls upon this House to request the police and support police action against students. I would like to say, quite categorically, that if the first part of this motion had stood alone, and had I thought that it would have been of any value, I would have moved for the deletion of the second part, but I can see that I will get nowhere with it anti merely lengthen the debate. But in case Government is in any way prepared to withdraw the second part of the motion seeking for police action, I would be content, Sir, to support the first part of condemnation. I repeat, Sir, I will not be prepared, in the circumstances of today, and in the minor incidents of today, to call upon the police to take action against school children.

6.03 p.m.

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

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: First, the condemnation, and then the request which I think spells out logically from the condemnation, for police protection.

Sir, on Thursday evening, the 30th of November, a statement was issued by the Barisan Sosialis in the name of the Member for Queenstown. The contents of that statement showed how important it was for the Government not to have provided the open police protection asked for by the parents of the students taking their examinations without having first debated the matter in this House.

Nobody in his right mind, Sir, can doubt that it is the picketers who are out to make mischief, because if there are no pickets, there will not be any trouble. It is not the students and the parents who accompany these students into the examination hail who bring trouble. All that the parents want to do with their sons is to see that they enter the examination hall in peace and safety and leave in one piece, equally safe.

Let me read to you, Sir, certain extracts from the statement - and we can congratulate ourselves on the wisdom of having first tabled this motion for debate in this House. This was in the Straits Times of 1st December:

'Late tonight [meaning Thursday night] Dr Lee Siew Choh, Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, declared his party's strong opposition to the use of police against Chinese school students who had "genuine grievances" against the Government.

He said: "The P.A.P. Government today tried to introduce a motion to sanction police action against students...".'

We never asked for any police action against students. We asked for police protection - to sanction police protection for parents and students.

He went on to say:

'"It has smuggled into the Assembly a so-called petition alleged to have been sent by parents of Chinese students...".'

The "so-called petition". Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Bukit Panjang, had anticipated all these reckless allegations being made, and when he handed out copies to the Press, he was careful enough to hand out photostat copies, in the genuine handwriting of the parents, and signatures. He informed me that he had made quite sure that the parents who signed those documents were parents who had taken their children to the examination centre at the T.T.C. These things are on the record. We can table the petition. It can be checked at a subsequent date, and he who lies can be discovered.

In today's Nanyang Siang Pau, these same parents have come out with a trenchant letter against the President of the Chinese School Teachers Association for his statement suggesting that this whole examination should be abandoned and that the Government give in to intimidation.

Sir, the statement is in Chinese and I do not wish to do a running translation in English. I think one of my colleagues will probably be speaking in Chinese and the statement can then be translated by the official interpreter.

Sir, Dr Lee, according to this statement, said,

'...it was clear that this was part of the P.A.P.'s scheme to divert public attention from the current important debate on merger in which the Government was fully aware it was not faring well.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are categorical assertions. That something is what one wishes to believe it is, does not make it so. This debate on merger has gone on in its wildest dreary way for more than 10 days.

Mr David Marshall: Dreary for the Government!

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

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

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

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

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

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

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

Sir, it is likely if we go on in this dreary fashion, that we might sit through Christmas, which I think is something which the Member for Anson, as a man of the world, would find very unpleasant and so would I -

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

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

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

The Prime Minister: I am obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, except that had they said that, we would have pointed out that their own Members left the Chamber when they performed. But be that as it may.

The statement then goes on to let what to our minds is the most significant cat out of the Barisan bag:

'"We have seen enough [these were supposed to be the words of the Member for Queenstown] brutalities and violence perpetrated by the Lim Yew Hock Government against our children."'

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that whatever happens in a fracas in which young students are involved with adult policemen, it is more than likely that some young students will be injured. On one last occasion when such a student was injured, his body was taken aloft, still alive, paraded round the town to arouse the feelings of the multitude - which it did - and he, the poor, injured student, died in the process.

I think my colleague, the Minister for Culture, will be quoting to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, the words of the then Chief Minister on this matter. The then Chief Minister has quoted words from that same speech he made. He has been through the mill and he knows what this is all about, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is why he says he has more than a shrewd suspicion that there are adults behind it. And he finds it difficult to believe that young students, for no rhyme or reason, can suddenly misbehave for the purpose of disrupting an examination which is purely voluntary and which is, in fact, intended to be an embellishment and a suitable conclusion to their academic career. Be that as it may, I would like to suggest to the Member for Queenstown - and, more important. I would like to suggest to those who are charting the destiny of the Red Star of the Barisan Sosialis - that they are not going to find in the P.A.P. Government the same hamhanded. unwitting opponent that they found in former colonial governments and in the Government of the first Chief Minister - the Member for Anson - for the, Government of the second Chief Minister-the Member for Cairnhill. Every time he mentions Chew Swee Kee, every time he likens me to the Member for Cairnhill, and every time he says that P.A.P. is like the Labour Front, what his ghost writers are doing is crying in anguish wishing that that were so.

Sir, we had the singular privilege of having worked together with the Communists in a united front against the colonialists - a genuine classic anti-colonial united front. We knew that they were Communists. They knew that we were not Communists. We gave them cover and they gave us cover. We wanted to beat up the British. As a result, not unnaturally we learned how the operations are done. We take up the top hat - they have first put in the rabbit. We pull it out to the applause of the multitude. They allowed themselves to be bound up and put in a box, and after a decent interval of time, we opened it and lo and behold the Communists were free again, to the applause of the multitude.

Sir, the gentleman opposite said it grieved him to see these empty Benches at the back - if he were honest with himself, he would subconsciously wish he was back here instead of being windy across the way. The Communists have embarked on a different kind of united front. This is not the classical anti-colonial united front. This is the hazardous occupation of forming a united front against the nationalists. This is not fighting the dying British. This is fighting the very much alive nationalists. It is a very different proposition. For instance, if the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis allowed himself to be tied up and put in a trussed luggage, after 12 years, when it is opened, he would still be there bound and gagged - not like the last time. It is a different proposition. One of these days, through sheer lack of expertise, instead of pulling out the rabbit from the top hat, the Member for Queenstown might be pulling out a serpent which might bite him mortally. So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a different kettle of fish. It is not Lim Yew Hock or Chew Swee Kee that you are meeting. We do not do foolish things. We have seen the props and we make sure that before the magician performs, we first remove them. Then we ask him to pull out the white rabbit, but there is no assistant to first put in the rabbit. So the magician is left on the stage with the spotlight on him, but no white rabbit comes out, and the audience want their money back.

That is the trouble with the Barisan Sosialis now. We have been through the whole gamut for a long time - 1953, 1954, Fajar, national service. King George V Park, and students beaten up. I have been through all this, Sir. Once in the middle of camping in the Chinese High School, they turned up in the early hours of the morning - one boy had been scalded and he fainted - and asked me what to do. I was their legal adviser and not their medical adviser. So I told them it was a very risky business. They did not want to take him to the General Hospital, because other parents would get excited and take their kids home. But they were resourceful people and undoubtedly children of great promise. So they took him to Youngberg Hospital to keep the whole matter quiet.

So you see, we do know how these things are run and we do know how these things are done. I can assure the Member for Anson that the last thing we will allow the police to do is to interfere with young kids with batons, bullets or fire hoses. But I will tell you what we will do to them if they keep on doing nasty things like throwing bottles into examination halls - which I am told happened on Thursday last week. They might know that in Italy they have discovered a form of powder called itching powder which is very effective, I am told, against Communist demonstrators when they pose in revolutionary postures and clench their fists. A cloud opens over them and then they disperse to riotous laughter. Instead of being figures to be pitied, martyred and pilloried because they are broken, drenched, beaten and carried to hospital, they scratch furiously and run for their lives.

Mr David Marshall: The Government seems to be suffering from laughing here.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I would tell the Member for Anson that I am grateful to him - and to his successor - because he opened Pandora's Box and I watched with great amazement at what came out of it. Therefore for me, Sir, there are no more surprises. He had charted the course and all the landmines blew up. I knew exactly where they were and I knew who put them there and how they blew up. It is not my intention to let this Government go and trigger off any landmine. For that reason, I told the Member for Anson just now during the adjournment - to salve his conscience - that whichever way this House voted, it is our duty to the police and to the people of Singapore to see that the police are not drawn into an incident in which sympathies must naturally go to young students. And so try what they will, do what they want, they are not going to find this Government a lame and sitting duck. The fact of the matter is that they have learnt nothing new. They are performing the same old turns with this one difference, that every time the prop is supposed to be there to pass something, the spotlight, instead of being on the juggler, is on the prop, so that everybody can see that he is passing something over. Hence the difficulty of the Member for Queenstown, and more so the difficulty of the chaps really advising the Barisan Sosialis.

But let me add, Mr Speaker, Sir - I do not know what prompted the parents - but I was informed by the newspapermen that as a result of the almost unanimous support of the Assembly to protect the free right of egress and ingress of the Member for Bukit Panjang, the parents were annoyed that the Assembly had acted so promptly in defence of the rights of its own Members and left the parents, who were ordinary people, not leaders and representatives, to fend for themselves. For that reason, they sought out the Parliamentary Secretary because he was the man who drew the publicity. This House came to his rescue and we were sufficiently encouraged by the way in which the Barisan Sosialis voted on that occasion to believe that suddenly they had become supporters of righteous, orderly behaviour and proper conduct. But I do not know whether it was really intended, because from the tener of the speeches that day, I think we were all most delightfully surprised when the Division came, because having strenuously fought against the motion, they then voted for it. Sir, imagine our disappointment when, in defence of the rights of parents, we asked the motion to be debated, they refused permission. I am told, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when they voted for the motion, they incurred the displeasure of quite a number of their important people who decide these matters. First, the Member for Hong Lim, who is an extremely experienced person in these matters, by his wise act became the only defender of the Chinese students against the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Barisan Sosialis joined the wicked colonial forces in wishing to lock up the Chinese students. I think that must have been a factor which weighed in the minds of those who decide in the Barisan Star. And so when it comes to the second motion which is more important - not the right of access for a representative of the people, the Member for Bukit Panjang, but for ordinary men and women, parents with kids who want to go in and sit for examinations - they who are supposed to champion the rights of the people are extremely reluctant to provide police protection. The last time it was not police protection. Mr Speaker, Sir. The motion called for the police to take action against the culprits according to the law as laid down by the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and 11 ayes - two were discreetly absent; they were talking in the Chamber but when the Division was taken, they were absent -

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

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

The Prime Minister: That is a point of elucidation, but never mind. Obviously at that time, because of the late night sittings and so on on 20th July, he may not have been compos mentis. But I distinctly remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when analysing the situation, there was the Internal Security Council. There was a lion, a tiger, and an Alsation dog. But in the compound a cunning fox had been spotted. And the lion said to the Alsatian dog, "Go chase it and bite it." The Alsation dog looked at the lion and said, "Well, I don't like to eat foxes. You like it. You had better chase it and eat it."

And so, Mr Speaker, Sir, the wishful thinking of those who compose the line for the Member for Queenstown just would not come through. It is not possible, because the P.A.P. is not that foolish. He ought to read what his own member of the Central Executive Committee, Mr Fong Swee Suan, said. Whatever he thinks may be the faults and deficiencies of the revisionists in the P.A.P., and whatever Mr Devan Nair's shortcomings or my shortcomings, we do know something about these matters. We do spend some time analysing and thinking things out. We do know what has happened in the past and why they have happened. So, when confronted with the situation, we sum up a reality, not a fantasy.

So the fox cannot run, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is a closed compound, as I have said, with three powerful forces contained in it. Of course, all want the Alsatian dog to go and run for the fox, but foxes have a nasty way of biting back, and Alsatian dogs usually are brought up domesticated. We are men of peace, Mr Speaker, Sir. We like to talk and argue. We do not like all this bloodbath and violence. And I can explain to them that if a bloodbath and a riot takes place - as I have explained in my attempts to clarify the situation - then they meet in a collision with final authority. As far as I am concerned, I am only the penultimate authority, Mr Speaker, Sir, I can give the order. My colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, can give the order for the police to act. It is doubtful whither he can even give the order to 817 members of the Singapore Infantry Regiment, because there is joint control. The British pay half for it. And so there will be an argument. Supposing the British do not like the troops to be used, then there will be an order, and a counter order, and it is doubtful who has the authority. But I can assure them that there are 25,000 troops in and around Singapore under the command of the G.O.C., Singapore, and the G.O.C., Malaya. And I can assure them, too, that some of these men have been receiving proper training in the Congo, ft you can deal with the Congolese situation, I say there is no trouble at all - I mean in 1955-56 there was no trouble at all. So I urge them to pass this to the chaps who settle the Barisan line - "Don't do foolish things in anticipation of the P.A.P. doing foolish things." The P.A.P. never does a foolish thing. [Interruption] We hope so. Anyway, we spend our time calculating. If we do make a foolish miscalculation, then we have to pay for it, as no doubt others have made miscalculations and will in good time, when the day of reckoning comes, have to settle. But that is their problem. We give advice, generally well meaning and well intended. If it is not accepted, what can we do? But I will say this: forget this bloodbath. Our line is the line of peace.

Sir, among the nursery rhymes that they have coined, not those that the kids have coined, Sir, these jingles are quite cunning. It is not as simply as that suggested by the Member for Anson - "Khoon choy" means "entering the coffin", no. There is quite a cunning play on words - alliteration. They have little words jingled. Like the Member for Bukit Panjang, his name is Lee Khoon Choy, which means something good. So they change it to "Chun Ch'ai", which means a fool. Then they say, "Chin Kwan Ch'ai" which means "enter the coffin". And so the jingle goes on.

And I figured in these jingles too. I have been accused of selling out peace, Mr Speaker, Sir. I was reading the jingle. This is all properly recorded and documented. And part of the honour that I have received of being mentioned in their despatches is having sold out peace. Sir, I do not know how I could have sold out peace that did not belong to me in the first place. It belongs to all mankind. Sir, when the Commission of Inquiry sits, one of the things I would like to ask the student leaders who have got these songs circulated is this: "How is it that I owned peace? How did I sell it out? To whom did I sell it?", and so on. And I will say this: the cards have already been distributed. The stakes have been called, the chips are down. And the way we calculated those cards. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have played peacefully from beginning to end. If we do not, we must perish. We know that. If we bring the police into this, we lose. Why should we beat up our own children, kill Chinese education and culture? Why should we? On whose behalf? What for? The Minister for Education asked the Member for Queenstown, where did his kids go to school, and he wanted to explain but he never had a chance. But never mind.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: My children speak better Mandarin than even you!

The Prime Minister: Well, that is my misfortune, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is why I have to expend such a tremendous amount of energy and effort to try and imbibe a culture and civilisation which is part of my heritage, but which a colonial education denied me. Hence the effort that is made. He knows the effort. Unlike his children who are fortunate in having a father who has given them such great qualities as linguists, I have to do it the hard way, Mr Speaker, Sir. But is that proof that I want to destroy Chinese culture and education?

I will tell them what is their problem - the situation is too cold. That is what is wrong. You cannot get people excited on bogus issues. Who decided 4-2? Let us go to the genesis of it all. The P.A.P. Government wanted to destroy Chinese culture and education? Ask the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. He was defending 4-2 when my former Parliamentary Secretary, at a meeting of Parliamentary Secretaries in which the Member for Queens-town was present, attacked him for his lack of explanation. Let us be honest. Let us not hide behind - say one thing in private and another in public. Who decided 4-2? The P.A.P.? No. It was decided when the motion was already launched. If they did not like it - I went down on Teachers' Day, was it the third?

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Fifth.

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

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry to have to rise on a point of order. I am hoping for the voting to be taken tonight.

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

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

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

Mr David Marshall: Good!

The Prime Minister: So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we try to oblige whenever we can. We are not like the Member for Anson, Mr Speaker, Sir. We try to reconcile the reconcilable. What is not reconcilable, we do not attempt to reconcile, if I may, Mr Speaker, tell you from my experience what I think is irreconcilable.

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

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

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

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

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

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

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

An hon. Member: So you do not know?

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

Mr Speaker: It appears to me, from the levity which appears to be coming from the Government benches, that this debate is not as serious as it ought to be.

6.50 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, anyone who wishes to see peace, law and order in this State of ours and who wishes Singapore to move towards progress will feel, in the present state of things today on the subject of Chinese Middle School students, that this matter cannot be treated lightly. Especially, Mr Speaker, when this matter is something which has happened in Singapore before, as has been explained by the Prime Minister himself. We have all witnessed this previously. A problem has arisen now, and in the minds of the great majority of the people who do not wish to see all the past incidents being repeated, they are asking why there have been no steps or action taken to prevent a recurrence. From the public point of view, this matter is no longer a matter of educational policy but has developed into a political issue. Many people appreciate the difficulties that would be faced by the Government in consequence of any action taken with all its reactions and repercussions.

For my part, Mr Speaker, from past experience of the question of security, the members performing the task of maintaining law and order in this country comprise mainly Malays. So a clash between the student examinees and the picketers, if the police were to resort to any action without taking into consideration its reaction, would cause a further clash and become more dangerous. So I rise here, Mr Speaker, hoping that this House will consider this matter carefully. All elected Members especially should consider this matter seriously without any consideration of political rivalry, and think in terms of peace and good order of the State, so as to prevent any unpleasant incidents as much as we could. I, therefore, fully support the motion moved by the Government, as amended by the Member for Farrer Park, so that this House could afford protection to those who voluntarily wish to take the examinations conducted by the Govermnent. This is our responsibility in the face of the difficulties Government is facing. I believe. Mr Speaker, that every elected representative of the people of Singapore must realise his or her responsibilities.

I do not wish to speak at length. Originally I was reluctant to participate in this debate, but in the interest of Singapore, we must oppose anything that would lead to the destruction of democratic practice in Singapore. Therefore, Mr Speaker. I speak in wholehearted support of the motion and the amendment moved to it by the Member for Farrer Park.

6.56 p.m.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, we were told that our youths have been manipulated by evil men - by Communists. I was very disappointed, in fact disgusted, Sir, to see the Government, especially the Prime Minister, treat this question and this motion with such levity. You yourself have remarked on that, Sir,I have never seen the Prime Minister so happy and so joyful. In fact, he was so tickled that he was giggling like a teenage girl. I was surprised, Sir. This motion is so serious that I wonder how he could ever have brought himself to that pitch of rejoicing. I have never seen him show a greater sense of humour than he has shown today. I hope, Sir, as responsible Members of this House, we could debate a serious question seriously, especially when it involves the safety of our youths. Our youths are being used by Communists and manipulated by Communists, and here we are laughing away at it.

Sir, this boycott and this picket is an important question. On its own, it is an important question. But it has become more important by the added information we have had from the Government that there are evil men and Communists manipulating them. If this is the case, Sir, then why has the Government allowed nearly one week, I think, to go by before it thought of doing anything seriously? It has not done anything at all to try to put a stop to it immediately. I say the Government has not done anything. Look at it, Sir. What difference was there between the last day of the examination and the first day? Children were still prevented from going into the examination centres. Just as many picketers were still there. Everything that took place on the first day took place on the last day. What has the Government done, Sir, during that week to put a stop to it, knowing that these picketers have been influenced and have been manipulated by these so-called Communists or evil men? What has been done to stop it? Sir, it looks like the Government was not prepared to take any definite or serious step to protect children and parents until this House gives its support. Is this delay really necessary, Sir? As far as I can remember, the Prime Minister in July 1959, said in Hansard, Vol. 11. No. 6, col. 373:

'...the business of a government is to govern and we have the mandate to govern. What is more, we had the courage to pm down what we intended to do and had a clear mandate on it, unlike Members on the opposite side.'.

And what is happening today, Sir? Why do they not govern? A mandate has been given to them. Is the mandate no longer sufficient now? I am sure. Sir, it is not the Alliance Opposition that they are frightened of, because they know that we always support any proper move that aims at maintaining law and order. I am sure they can be assured of that. Could it be the Barisan Sosialis that they are so afraid of? They are so afraid that they dare not take action to protect the students and the parents from being manipulated by the Communists without the consent of the Barisan Sosialis? Had the P.A.P. handled the matter efficiently right from the very beginning, it would not have developed into a serious national crisis.

Sir, although experts of parliamentary democracy have stated that it is the job of the Opposition to show that they can do better than the Government, they have never failed to stress that the interests of the State should always be the first concern of both parties - the Government and the Opposition. But we have seen, Sir, that both the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis have not only disregarded, but have actually sacrificed the interests of the students and their parents in an attempt to show that one is better than the other. Sir, the question where the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis are concerned is not which is the better Party. Today, if you go out on the streets, Sir, the popular question is: which is the worse Party? The Barisan Sosialis or the P.A.P.? The answer is obvious, Sir. Both are equally destructive, as is clearly manifested by the way a matter of utmost urgency and importance, i.e., the safety of our youth, is being exploited by both the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. to promote their own political interests. Both are unashamedly using young innocent students to fight out the political battle between the two political Parties.

Sir, if the Government has become so weak that they dare not take steps to protect the youth of our State without the Opposition sharing the responsibility, then why did they not bring the motion to the House immediately the trouble started so that the children would have been spared one week of agony? Alternatively, why did they not postpone the examination? They refused to postpone the examination. Sir, you remember I asked whether it could be done, and they refused to do it because postponing the examination means admitting defeat. So to keep up the P.A.P. prestige, pride and probably complex, children and parents have to be subjected to one week of physical and mental agony. Sir, if the Government claims that there are Communists, and if this is true, then it is their duty to fight and arrest them as soon as possible and not leave the students and parents to do the fighting for them. Why must Government knowingly allow the Communists to continue using the students instead of putting a stop to it immediately, even if it means temporarily halting the examination and probably also hurting the pride of the P.A.P. Government?

Sir, our youth must not be used to pay the price for maintaining P.A.P. prestige with their poor young innocent bodies and one year of their life.

Sir, the P.A.P. have on many occasions ridiculed the Member for Cairnhill and have always hinted, directly or indirectly, at his so-called folly of - I do not quite remember the words, but they are to this effect - putting the subversive Communists in gaol and using the police to stop student riots at the cost of his Party suffering a defeat at the last election. But the P.A.P. forgets, Sir, that the Member for Cairnhill will forever be remembered as the man who sacrificed his personal and his party interests for the good of Singapore. Can the P.A.P. claim this? What have they done? They have sacrificed the safety and the interests of the youth of this country to promote the interests of their Party. The Government is now hiding behind angry parents of candidates to fight against these student pickets.

Sir, I am not trying to talk about the blood-bath and all that, as what other people have been talking about, trying to threaten or trying to bring about commotion; but I do want to ask the Government whether they have ever given this matter serious consideration. Have they ever given thought to the horrible scenes that could have taken place if parents of the student pickets, angered by the treatment dealt to their children by parents of the candidates, had decided to retaliate even if the pickets were at fault? You know, Sir, parents are inclined always to think that their children are right. If they had decided to retaliate, had Government ever given a thought to what ugly scenes might have arisen? Because which parent would stand by and watch their teenage son being attacked, probably by a big hefty adult, without becoming emotionally aroused? Could the Government guarantee that none of the angry parents of the 1,900 candidates would ever be so angry as to attack any of the student pickets in fighting for entry for their candidate sons? Could the Government guarantee that this would not happen? And should a few angry parents of candidates be so tactless as to attack some of the pickets before the eyes of their parents, would it not be possible that this might end up with a clash between the parents of candidates and the parents o students pickets? Sir, the P.A.P. Government should go down on their bended knees and thank their gods - if they have any - that there has been no clash between the parents of candidates and the parents of student pickets. And God forbid that it should ever happen.

I am not trying to advocate using police force on students, but as this motion before the House is asking for police protection for students, Sir, I ask this question: Right from the very beginning, would it not have been safer to use cool-headed, unbiased, and well-trained police officers, over whom the Government has full control, to protect the students and their parents rather than use angry parents, who have been emotionally roused and over whose temper and behaviour the Government has no control whatsoever, into fighting the pickets? What guarantee has the Government that these parents would not lose their heads and get beyond control, especially if they should come to a clash with parents of the student pickets? Could this not lead to scenes of unprecedented ugliness? Why should the whole State be open to this risk just to maintain the pride and the popularity of the P.A.P. Government? The P.A.P.'s argument, Sir, that had they used the police to protect the students, there would have been a riot does not hold water any more, Sir. Because if that is the case, then why are we sitting here considering whether we should give the Government the green light to use the police force to provide this protection?

What, may I ask, it the purpose of bringing this motion into this House? Let us not give the Barisan Sosialis more credit than they deserve. I do not believe that it is Only when the Barisan Sosialis give their consent to the Government to use the police force, can the police be used without causing a riot. They are not as important as all that.

That this trouble is the result of Government's failure to get the education policy through to the Chinese school students is undeniable, Sir. In my opinion, had the Prime Minister taken the trouble during his two months' leave (I stand corrected as to the number of months) to explain to the Chinese students Government's education policy, he might, Sir, with his intelligence and his eloquence and power of speech, have succeeded in persuading all the students to accept the policy, and the Communists would then have been deprived of this opportunity of manipulating our students, and our students would have been saved all the trouble that is taking place today, it is still not too late, Sir, if the Government would agree to postpone the examination, and in the meanwhile make another effort to explain the education policy to the misguided students and to expose the aims of the evil manipulators. Government probably will be preventing a lot of future trouble and misery.

Sir, there are lots of things about this education policy which many of us do not know. I myself have just discovered something new from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, and I am much obliged to him. I am sure many of the students are in the same position. There are lots of things which they do not know and they are under a misapprehension. If that misapprehension could be cleared, probably the air would be cleared. Moreover, Sir, it is fairer to students to take the examination under more normal conditions. The onus. is on the Government to provide a quiet and peaceful atmosphere and environment for students to take the examination. This delay, Sir, will give time, as I have said before, for tempers to subside, nerves repaired and common sense restored.

Sir, I learn that the professional examination of the T.T.C. has to be postponed in order to give way to the supplementary examination of the Chinese school students. I do not see sense in that, Sir. The T.T.C. professional -

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

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Sir, it is Government's duty to educate children and not to fight them or use them to fight their battles. I agree, Sir, that no effort must be spared to bring the real culprits to book. But the poor misguided children must not be used to catch these culprits or to pay for the sins of the Government. Something must be done at once to save the children from the evil manipulators. Sir, every single day that these children are allowed to be used by these evil manipulators, be they Communists or otherwise, is another day of P.A.P. failure. The sooner it is stopped, the better.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think we are debating as to which side has won. I think the hon. Member is entitled to say that she does not agree with the Minister for Education when he implies that the Government have won. That is all. I do not think we should go into details of this nature.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye) rose -

Mr Speaker: I think the House has a business motion.