POLICE PROTECTION FOR STUDENTS TAKING THEIR EXAMINATIONS

Debate resumed.

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, I maintain that the Government has not won the battle. The evil manipulators seem to have got the better of the Government. May I ask what is the next step? What is Government going to do to see that they win the battle eventually? I think this House has a right to know, because, as I said, we feel that the Government has not won the battle.

Sir, when the parents of the candidates - many of them must have voted for the PAP, in the last election - voted the P.A.P, into power, they expected to be protected. Have they been protected? When their children needed protection, they had to do the fighting. They were left to protect their own children. Is this what they voted the P.A.P. into power for?

Sir, we the Alliance would rather take the blame and, if necessary, lose another election than expose the youths of Singapore to danger and to leave them at the mercy of evil manipulators and the Communists. We will therefore support the motion as amended, so that our youths and their parents can be protected. I have said before, Sir, and I hope you will permit me to repeat just this, because it is very important, the motion has indicated how Government intends to protect the candidates and their parents from the student picketers, but the more important question is, what steps is Government going to take to bring the evil men to book?

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mrs Seow Peck Leng: Can we have the assurance that they would not be shielded as some have been?

7.20 p.m.

Mr Leong Keng Seng (Serangoon Gardens): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has tabled this motion with the main aim of confusing the minds of the people on this question of merger. The Government is trying to put the blame on others to cover up their own faults. This is very irresponsible on the part of the Government.

The motion before this House indicates that the Government is useless, because we know that if there is a fight between secret society members, or if there is some trouble at the scene of a strike, would the Government then table a motion before something is done? This shows that the education policy of the P.A.P. is at fault and, therefore, it should be brought up for review and discussion. But in order to save their own faces, they have brought up this motion. They seem to be prepared to make use of the police against the helpless and unarmed students. We know that the students are dissatisfied with the 4:2 system, because this is a departure from the policy drawn up in 1958 by the Urn Yew Hock Government. We know that the Government 4:2 education system in the secondary stage is the same as that in the English schools, that is, they take four years to reach -

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

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

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

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a cause as to why this has come about. The dissatisfaction of the students has arisen from the fear of being eliminated. The standard of education may be lowered, because they are being deprived of their six-year education in the secondary stage. I think perhaps the Government is trying to save a lot of money on education.

Now I want to talk about what has been done by the Ministry of Education in regard to this system. I have said that what has been done is insufficient. The only thing is that the students taking their Secondary IV examination will be promoted to Upper Secondary II and then they will be able to go into the University of Malaya and Nanyang University.

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

At the moment, we are asking the House whether or not it condemns the action of picketers, whether or not the House would support action by the police to protect students and to give free passage and access to students and parents. That is all.

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

Thirdly, the Government has exerted pressure on the Board of Directors to agree to this reform. In fact, the Government has called the Directors of Chinese schools for a meeting in the Ministry of Education.

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

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): We read from the newspapers that during the boycott over the past few days, there were so many young men, whose identity was not known, beating students. But the Government did not take steps to protect the students. Similarly, we learn that on the same day a car, with three young people inside, knocked down a student, and the car then escaped. I wonder whether the police has taken action to protect the safety of students.

The situation has arisen as a result of a mistake made by the Prime Minister. During Teachers' Day he declared at a meeting of teachers that the 4:2 or 3:3 system should be decided by the teachers themselves. So the students were at a loss not knowing what to do. They are waiting for a final decision. The Government, in order to save their faces, have rightly promised that those who have failed the Secondary IV examination may be promoted to higher classes, but will not be permitted to sit for the Upper Secondary II examination. This is a contradiction on the part of the Government. Why should the Government. on the one hand, allow these people to be promoted, and on the other hand, refuse them the opportunity to sit for the higher examination? Why should the Government not say frankly, "We want to implement the four-year system. If you fail, then you should not be promoted."?

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

Mr Speaker: The point of order being?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: I think he is going into the details of the system.

Mr Speaker: I have indeed time and time again told the Member for Serangoon Gardens that his remarks are completely irrelevant to the motion. I have indicated that he will have an opportunity of saying what he wishes to say when we come to item 13 of the Order Paper, which is a motion standing in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Joo Chiat:

'That this Assembly calls upon the Government to recommend the appointment of a Commission to enquire into the Government's Education Policy, its content and administration in all fields other than vocational and technical education, and to make recommendations'.

That is the motion on which the Member for Serangoon Gardens can speak, and speak at length, on how he thinks the Government's education policy needs revision.

I might again draw attention to Standing Order 54. which says:

'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance [that is what I think the Member is doing now], ... may direct him to discontinue his speech.'

I ask him not to persist in irrelevance.

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

Mr Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Member just one more chance. If he persists in this line of debate then I must ask him to discontinue his speech.

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

Mr Leong Keng Seng: (In Mandarin): The solution lies in the postponement or the abolition of the examination. Therefore, I oppose the motion moved by the Government.

7.40 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, here we have a motion moved on a note of urgency on a serious matter, and here we have today Members of this Assembly, in particular the Prime Minister, talking merrily on the subject and on stories of animals.

Sir, the motion is divided into two parts. First of all, it asks the House to condemn the action of the students, and secondly it asks support of the House for police action against the students. Sir, we have a Government here, and there is no better example of a government which is shirking its responsibility, a government which refuses to govern. We are now seeing in front of us a Government which wants the Assembly to give it cover for a certain action which it intends to take but dare not.

Sir the motion, if accepted, would reduce the Singapore Government to just an escape body taking instructions from this Assembly. This Assembly would be like the 32 men in the City Council with you as President. And we would have Standing Committee comprising members of all political Parties running the government of Singapore, just as a Standing Committee of 32 men in the City Council ran the local government a few years ago. Sir, when the Government used the police and military personnel against the strikers or used the police and military personnel for the protection of new workers when the City Council went on strike, they did not co-me to this House to ask for a vote. They went under their own steam, and they took the responsibility of government. I cannot understand why, on this occasion, the Government should come here and ask us for a vote. And that is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, they should not use police when there are children.

Sir, during the last week we have almost a similar motion which also called for police protection against the students, so that we could defend the privilege of an Assemblyman. What happened in that motion is that we would be getting the police to bring the students - or arrest them if necessary - before the Committee of Privileges. And if they are guilty -

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

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am trying to drive at is that the basic principle of the two motions is about the same, that it calls for police action against students, which action will lead to trouble.

Sir, in the present atmosphere, it is important for the Government to reduce whatever tension there is. By calling students hooligans and by using the police against students would not be, conducive to the creation of peace, as what the Prime Minister said just now. The threat of violence or the threat of police action would not reduce tension, but would instead aggravate the situation and create bitterness on all sides. Sir, I cannot understand why this motion is necessary.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: As we all know, the Middle IV examinations were completed last Friday. I really cannot understand why the Government did not defer its supplementary examinations until a calmer atmosphere prevails. And why it should insist on having the supplementary examinations immediately after the Middle N examinations are completed, and coming to this House asking it to give protective cover for any police action it might intend to take, not on this occasion but on future occasions.

Sir, the Government has said that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the students have taken their examinations. Only a fraction is left. A few hundred of the students have not taken the examination. That is why I cannot understand why this motion is necessary. When three-quarters of the students have taken their examinations without police protection and without police action, why should the Government ask for police protection when a small fraction is left?

Sir, although we oppose this motion, as we opposed the motion last Friday, we are confident that the parents of the students will understand that if there is any police intervention in the supplementary examinations or in the Senior Middle III examinations which are to come, their children might be hurt during any scuffle which might ensue. We are confident that without police intervention, any student who wants to take the examination can do so since three-quarters have already done so. From the newspapers, it seems that those who are picketing have announced that they will be picketing peacefully.

Sir, today's debate is not one on the merits or demerits of the 4 : 2 system versus the 3 : 3 system. But we hope that these problems will be aired and resolved during the ensuing debate on item 13 of the agenda or at the Commission of Inquiry, for which the Member for Anson has asked and which the Government has promised. We hope that during the Commission of Inquiry the merits or demerits of the 4 : 2 system and the 3 : 3 system can be respectively aired and resolved to the satisfaction of everybody.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has accused the Government of trying to use the police against the students and that the Government has abdicated its duty to govern. May I suggest to him that in trying to be friends to all and be the champion of Chinese school students and Chinese education, his efforts will not be appreciated by the Communists? In fact, they would only hate him more for trying to pose as a champion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, serious allegations have been made by the Member for Queenstown that police have been disguised as students and parents to assault student picketers. I do not wish at this stage to be drawn into a lengthy argument with the Member for Queenstown, since there will be a Commission of Inquiry and the Member for Queenstown no doubt will have to substantiate his allegations.

However, I should like the Members of this House to note that none of the parents and the students who want to sit for the examination mask their faces, for they have nothing to be ashamed of or to hide. And it seems to be utterly foolish for the police to assault students - if such an allegation is true - by going about it openly, to invite identification without taking the necessary elementary precaution of disguising themselves like the student picketers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion flows logically from the motion that was approved by this House, including Members of the Barisan Sosialis, on 29th November. That motion read as follows:

'That this House, taking cognisance of the complaint on a matter of privilege reported to it by the Leader of the House, condemns the conduct of the hooligans if in fact such hooligans illegally prevented the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, who is the Member for Bukit Panjang, from attending this meeting and discharging his duties as a representative of the people, and calls upon the police to ensure that the culprits are dealt with according to the law as laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.'

Mr Speaker, those who approved that motion cannot logically disapprove of the motion now before the House. In fact, there is more reason for them to endorse this motion.

The motion of 29th November related only to the protection of the rights and privileges of an individual Assemblyman. The motion we are now debating extends protection to the ordinary citizens, in this case parents and students, to exercise their lawful rights.

Let me briefly state what the parents have to say on this question and whether their appeal for protection is justified. I refer, Sir, to a statement issued by the Preparatory Committee of the Parents Association in reply to the President of the Singapore Chinese School Teachers Union who accused them of asking the police to be brutal against the students.

7.53 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Mr Ong Pang Boon: This statement appears in today's Nanyang Siang Pau. The parents asked these questions of the Singapore Chinese School Teachers Union.

'Have the parents no right to enjoy the fundamental right of personal safety which every citizen should have?

Are the parents committing an offence in bringing their children to examination centres?

Are the parents to be deprived of even the right to appeal for police protection when they and their children are subject to obstruction by pickets and be the targets of brutal assault by stones, mud and bad eggs?'

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification.

Mr Ong Pang Boon resumed his seat.

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

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am paraphrasing the statement issued by the Parents Association and I shall come to it later. The parents continued:

'We believe that the police is a department for the preservation of peace and good order in a democratic State. The pickets are not armed. The students who want to sit for the examination and their parents are also unarmed. Can anyone deny this fact?'

Then the parents go on to enumerate four instances of injury and assaults by the picketers. In one case, a parent took two parcels of food to his children at the Teachers' Training College. He threw the food over the fence to his children. The pickets rushed and grabbed the food and assaulted the students, with the result that there was a scuffle between the pickets and the parents who want to the victims' aid. Stones and bottles, according to the parents, were thrown by the picketers. Then the parents also quoted an instance where a 70 years old woman who took her grandson to the examination centre, had to brave abuses and the pickets in order to go into the examination centre. She fell as a result and her leg was broken.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what this motion asks is that no one should forcefully prevent students who wish to take examinations from doing so. This motion does not force those who do not want to take the examinations to do so. All it seeks to do is to protect the right of students who want to sit for the examinations and the right of parents and guardians to see that no one prevents their children from taking such examinations. In fact, if the boycott is a popular move and has the support of the majority of the students and the parents there is no need of picketing and human chains, and the presence of the police is unnecessary. Or if the picketers indulge in genuine, peaceful picketing, instead of linking arms to prevent by force students from taking the examinations, then the need of parents to ask for police protection does not arise.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is therefore surprising that allegedly responsible political leaders of the Barisan Sosialis should try to confuse this simple issue by raising a hue and cry about police brutalities and violence and presenting it as an attempt to use the Police Force against school children. And I regret, Mr Deputy Speaker, that even the Chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, who should have more sense and should have been more clear-minded, should have allowed himself to be fooled and confused by the Barisan Sosialis.

An hon. Member: What did he say?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, I humbly suggest that the Barisan Sosialis, as part and parcel

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Point of order, Mr Marshall?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. Ms Ong Pang Boon.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I refer him to the Nanyang Siang Pau of today's date? May I go on? I humbly suggest, Sir, that the Barisan Sosialis, as part and parcel of their desperate strategy to create clashes and violent disorder in order to halt merger, have deliberately distorted this motion to mean that we want to launch police action against picketing students. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the falsity of this charge can be seen from the fact that throughout the past week, we have deliberately refrained from using the police against picketing students simply because we do not want to fall into the Communist trap of trying to provoke clashes between school children and the parents. We resisted doing this even when picketing students illegally and forcibly assaulted students (who wanted to take the examination) and their parents. However, the Barisan Sosialis, who on 29th November were ready to condemn acts of hooliganism by picketers against a fellow Assemblyman, and call upon the police to ensure that an Assemblyman's rights are protected, are obviously not prepared to extend the same protection against hooliganism to law-abiding parents and students. Though I fully agree that an Assemblyman must be protected in the exercise of his rights and privileges, I think this Assembly should be just as ready to protect the rights of ordinary students and citizens as well, otherwise this House would be treating Assemblymen as privileged people.

The Barisan Sosialis, in particular, would, if they oppose this motion, be saying we are ready to protect the rights of Assemblymen because that involves our personal welfare, but who cares about the rights and welfare of students and parents? In a statement published on 1st December in the Straits Times, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis declared that the present motion is a motion to sanction police action against students. The statement went on to say, and I quote:

'The P.A.P. is now anxious to use the police to suppress mounting dissatisfaction. The Barisan Sosialis strongly opposes any attempt to justify the use of police force against the children of our State. We have seen enough brutalities and violence perpetrated by the Lim Yew Hock Government against our children.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a completely distorted statement of the purpose and intent of this motion and a typical example of the political dishonesty of the men who manipulate the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis and his Assemblymen henchmen. Let me now show, Sir, how the Barisan Sosialis have distorted the spirit and intent of this motion. The motion starts off by asking the House to condemn the actions of picketers in obstructing, intimidating or otherwise forcibly preventing students from taking their examinations. Not even the Barisan Sosialis can deny that students have been and are being prevented from taking examinations. Students have not only been obstructed and intimidated, but force has been used by picketers against them.

Now, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis are not themselves directly involved in the boycott, they should surely be ready to condemn the actions of picketers in obstructing and intimidating students who want to take examinations. The students who wanted to take the examinations were not doing anything wrong. They did not even query the right of picketers to stay away from the examination. All that the students asked was that they should be allowed to take these examinations. The Barisan Sosialis, unless they are up to their necks in this Communist plot to create a clash between police and picketing school children, should have no difficulty in condemning those who obstruct or intimidate or use force on those who want to take their examinations. As responsible political leaders, the Barisan Sosialis cannot maintain that those people who intimidate and obstruct students should not be condemned.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the next part of the motion refers to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded police protection -

Mr David Marshall: Count them P.A.P.!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No.

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

Mr David Marshall: And to ensure.

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Oh, Communist semua-yah?

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sama juga P.A.P.-lah!

Mr David Marshall: What about your Government?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Same!

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Barisan Sosialis followers would be given the constitutional right to beat up those who disagree with them, and any one who defends himself against such assault would be charged with high treason.

It is contended that if we withdraw this motion, everything would be all right. It is our submission, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if this Assembly does not approve of such a motion, then the green light would be given for more intimidation, more obstruction and more use of force by picketers against peaceful and law abiding students and parents.

For one week the picketers intimidated and obstructed students. They grew bolder until they decided that they would prevent the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education from coming to this Assembly. But within a few minutes of a motion of privilege being raised in this House, the students dispersed, and not only that, but the day after the motion was passed with the approval of the Barisan Sosialis, the picketers not only did not try to obstruct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, but were extremely polite to the Minister for Education and his Parliamentary Secretary. In other words, Sir, the motion of 29th November, had a salutary effect on the students. There was no need to give police protection to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, because the fact that this motion was endorsed by art overwhelming majority vote was sufficient deterrent. I am equally certain that a unanimous vote for this motion would have an equally salutary effect on the pickets. But if they are led to believe that some Assemblymen would be prepared to espouse their right to intimidate and use force against parents and students, then the pro-Communist elements who are using these children would egg them on -

Mr David Marshall: Why do you not arrest them?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is your view and of the Special Branch.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Anyway, I appeal to their innate sense of decency not to hide behind the skirts of school children. Let them not persist in the pretence that this motion is a motion to take police action against picketing students. All that this motion seeks to do is to prevent picketing students from using force and intimidation against parents escorting students to examination halls and students who want to take their examinations.

It is significant, Sir, that since the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis announced his intention to oppose this motion, the picketers have picked up courage and have renewed their picketing and intimidation today. I understand that today they picked up enough courage to halt the car of the Minister for Education and force him to walk to his office. I humbly suggest, Sir, that it was the statement of the Barisan Sosialis which gave them this new confidence.

In so far as the Barisan Sosialis leaders egg picketers on to persist in their acts of intimidation and show of force, then the Barisan Sosialis leaders are playing with fire and with the pro-Communist elements in so far as these sinister men are using the children as cannon-fodder in their political game. Let it be made clear now that the Barisan Sosialis leaders cannot evade responsibility if, as a result of their reckless and dangerous manoeuvres, they succeed in providing pro-Communist elements with a pretext for forcing clashes between school children and the police. The Government for its part will not allow the police to come into a clash with school children. Our aim is to come to grips with the adults who are manipulating these children.

Mr David Marshall: When?

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

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

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has answered a similar question raised by the hon. Member just now.

8.20 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would now appear very clear that every motion that is brought before this House will be a matter for struggle between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., and that the debate on every motion will be an occasion for each to try to tear down the other.

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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

8.22 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: But what did the Prime Minister do? He laughed at them and said, "Ha, ha. They were caught. They voted with us." What is this, Sir? Is this House going to listen to all the political fights that are apparent between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P.? When the Barisan Sosialis voted for a motion in all sincerity, the Prime Minister himself could just laugh and say, "Ha! They were caught." Now that is why they do not want to be caught again. Can we blame the Barisan Sosialis for taking their present stand?

Sir, the Government is indeed a watchdog of law and order and of the security and welfare of the people of Singapore. The Prime Minister in his speech just now likened the P.A.P. Government to an Alsatian dog. I beg to submit, Sir, that he has too high an opinion of his own Government.

An hon. Member: Pariah dog!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: An Alsatian dog is indeed a very good watchdog, and I would like to say in this House that the P.A.P. Government is not a good Government. Therefore, it cannot be a good watchdog. If the Prime Minister is fond of likening himself to a dog, then I would say that the proper description of the P.A.P. Government would be a mongrel and not an Alsatian dog.

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

Mr David Marshall: Where is the Government?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I remember, Sir, that even in the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs just now, he said, "Look at the Barisan Sosialis playing with the students." I have no sympathy for the Barisan Sosialis in all its attempts to, shall we say, overthrow the Government, but what I would like to point out in this Assembly is this: what they are accused of doing today is actually what the P.A.P. did when they were in the Opposition. Let them deny this. The Government say, "Oh, yes, we know there are adults behind all this move." If they really know that there are adults who are instigating innocent children and misleading them into behaving in a manner which does not bring credit to their schools or to their families, then it is their duty to bring these instigators to book. If they do not want to do it, then the less they try to hide their weakness by saying that there are men behind all this, the better for all concerned. They should to their duty, but if they do not, they should not try to find an excuse for their weakness and ineptitude.

I said earlier that the debate that is going on today appears to be like what happened in 1956, but there is now a change in the dramatis personae. The Prime Minister is now having a dose of his own medicine and he does not like it, but then he is trying his best to wriggle out of it, and in trying to do so, he keeps on insulting the Opposition and then says, "Tolong lah! If not, I mati!" How can it be like this? What kind of culture is this?

It has been asked by this Assembly why such a motion should have been tabled in this House. Well, the Prime Minister made it clear just now - he spent most of his time laughing it off; I do not know why he should treat a very serious subject as a laughing matter - that he was out to trap the Barisan Sosialis, and he charged that the Barisan Sosialis were out to trap him. I do not know who is trapping whom. If this is going to be the trend of debate on every motion in this House, then this sitting is going to be a very, very long and protracted affair. I hope that the Members of the P.A.P., either present or past, should try to refrain from bringing their political war into this Assembly.

Sir, I do not want to come to the defence of the Barisan Sosialis, but I must say this, that having been in the government myself, I know it is wrong to start accusing people of being involved in activities that are detrimental to the security of the State and not do anything about it.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: If it is true that today there are people in the Barisan Sosialis who are involved - as I pointed out that during my time there were people in the P.A.P. who were involved in subversive activities, and we arrested them - then the Government should arrest these people, and I am sure that they themselves would be only too pleased. "If we are really guilty, pull us in. We don't mind going to gaol. But don't just simply black-list in that way and call us all sorts of names." When the previous Govern ment took action against subversives in the P.A.P., what did the Prime Minister who was then in the Opposition - in fact, sitting almost in the same seat as I am sitting now - do? He stood up and defended them, and called the Government all sorts of names. He said, "These are good people. These are comrades of mine." Above all that, he even shed tears trying to defend them. And today, out of his own mouth he called them worse names than I ever dared to call them.

Sir, it is indeed a pity that politics in Singapore has come to such a stage whereby a government would not dare to move in the interests of law and order without trying to get the Barisan Sosialis involved. According to their logic, if the Barisan Sosialis votes with them, then everything is honky-tonky. And if the Barisan Sosialis say, "No", then everything is going to be difficult. How could it be? If they like the Barisan Sosialis, then invite them to go back and work with the Government. Do not let them sit on this side of the House and give us a lot of unnecessary noise from their sides. We are quite able to look after the interests of the Opposition.

Sir, my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, has tabled an amendment. The amendment is to make it clear that it is the duty of a government to govern, to maintain law and order. And if it is of any assistance to the Government in the proper discharge of its duty to maintain law and order, then we are prepared to give them our vote. But we want to say this to them - and the amendment seeks to focus attention on this - that it is the duty of a government to govern. I do hope that in future the Government will not come running into this Assembly asking for the views of this Assembly in matters which directly concern the duties of government. They either govern or they do not govern. If they do not wish to govern, the answer is simple. They get out.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That is right!

8.35 p.m.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it very difficult to understand the Member for Cairnhill. I do not know where he stands, what he means, whether he is here or there. He starts off by criticising the Government for having cast doubts on the sincerity of the Barisan Sosialis. And then he ends up by criticising the Government, yet at the same time agreeing to the sentiments expressed in the motion. I can only say, Sir, that I find the Member for Cairnhill a very slippery customer. But I would like to tell him this - he has left the Chamber, but nevertheless I would like to tell him this - there is a strong rumour in town that there is, in fact, an alliance between the Singapore People's Alliance and the People's Action Party Government. And it could be, Sir, that in the anxiety of the Member for Cairnhill to cover up this alliance, he wants to criticise us and the Government, but nevertheless, when it comes to the basic situation, he makes sure all the time that the Government gets more than 26 votes.

Sir, I regret that in a debate on a motion of such a serious nature as we have today, we saw a clowning performance of the Prime Minister. Sir, either the Prime Minister thinks that the motion before the House is one that makes him laugh, because he thinks that after the passing of this motion what is going to happen is going to be amusing to him; or because he finds that What the Member for Cairnhill has said is the truth, and as it is the truth, it hurts him and he wants to cover it up by just laughing it off. Sir, since the debate started at 2.30 p.m. today, every Government speaker has been trying to avoid the issues projected by this motion before us. Sir, nobody in the Barisan Sosialis doubts that, on the face of it, the motion purports to uphold and defend the right of every student to his freedom to pursue his studies and sit for an examination. But, Sir, is this all there is to this motion?

Sir, the motion before the House seeks to obtain for the Government a blank cheque from this Assembly. But, Sir, before we decide to put such a blank cheque in the hands of the Government, it is our bounden duty to ensure that there is, in fact, no foul play intended. Sir, Singapore today is forced to witness and tolerate the pathetic picture of poor vain threats, plots and plans of the P.A.P. Government in its last days. And, Sir, we would fail in our duty to our people if we did not expose the desperate move of this discredited Government.

Sir, the motion calls on this Assembly to condemn the student pickets and to sanction the use of police force against school children.

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

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

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

Mr Bani: If I may now continue, Sir,It is my contention that before we can venture to condemn the student pickets, we must first seek to understand why there was, in fact, the necessity to picket. Sir, this picketing is the logical consequence of the Government's determination to hold the Secondary IV Examination in the face of genuine grievances and fears on the part of Chinese educationists and students. Sir, the P.A.P.'s education policy - I assure you, Sir, that I do not intend to start a debate on the education policy, but all I want to say is that the P.A.P.'s education policy, particularly in respect of Chinese education, should be understood. For it is this that has brought about the boycott and sufferings to both parents and children, whether they be in the examination ball on in the picket line.

Sir, today, all teachers from all streams of education in Singapore know about the efficiency of the Ministry of Education. The public, because of this sad situation in the Chinese schools, is also made aware of this fact. Sir, as I have said once before, I have respect for the trust and privacy of private conversations, unlike the Prime Minister. Hence, I do not think I should reveal to this House what Mr C. V. Devan Nair told me many times, when he was the Political Secretary to the Minister for Education, of his estimation of the competence of the Hon, the Minister for Education, who incidentally is the ex-General Manager of an insurance company. But, Sir, I want to make this point: running an Education Ministry is not like running an insurance company. Even in the insurance company and in the insurance business, he is known as an Asian expatriate by the local staff.

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

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

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

We know how the Government examination, at the end of Primary VI in the English education stream, serves as a bottleneck, as a valve to limit the number of children going into the Secondary English schools.

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

Mr Bani: As I said, I have no mention of going into details. But what I do want to say is that it is the subconscious fear of many Chinese educationists that the Government may use their Secondary IV Examination like nets. Sir, the Government's insistence and adventurous attitude on its effort to hold examinations in one way or another have all helped to enhance the fears. Whether these fears are groundless or whether they do in fact, reflect Government's intention is of no consequence to us today. But what is of importance, Sir, is that these fears are genuine. They are a reality and we must take cognisance of them. Sir, if we behave like expatriates then we will end up in this present mess. The P.A.P. has deliberately ignored these objective factors. It ignores them, Sir, at its own peril. But this Assembly shall not share in the responsibility due to the consequences of the P.A.P.'s follies. It is the height of impertinence, Sir, and an insult to this Assembly that this House should be asked to sanction police action so that the P.A.P. may pursue a course pregnant with threats to the peace of the island.

Sir, under the pretext of maintaining law and order, the P.A.P. wants us to give it the green light so that its action might create more disorder and violence and enhance the atmosphere of tension the Prime Minister has tried to create in his radio talks. Sir, if the P.A.P. Government does not want violence, does not wish to create an artificial tension in Singapore, and does not wish to turn this sad issue, which is a result of their own folly, into a weapon to suppress political opponents, then they should not have handled the situation in the way they in fact did. The present student unrest appears to be the result of a plan by the P.A.P. to cause violence and an air of tension. The Government seems to be out to justify what the Prime Minister has warned of in his radio talks. We have seen, Sir, how the Government tried to justify such forecasts, as the Prime Minister said in relation to the industrial front, by indulging in acts which would have provoked violence amongst strikers and police. We have even seen the case of the strike by the Public Daily-Rated Employees, when the Government tried to make the issue a political one, when in fact the strike was precipitated by Government's sponsorship of a yellow union, the A.U.P.E. The Prime Minister had forecast that his political opponents would use students. He now appears to create a situation to make his forecast appear true. Sir, it is important for us all to realise how the present situation was created by the P.A.P. and how it could have been avoided if the P.A.P. had not been bent on creating trouble so as to push through their phoney merger in the resulting confusion and unrest. History has shown us many such examples. In Singapore's recent history, Sir, we have seen how the Member for Cairnhill and Chew Swee Kee sparked off trouble in the students section so as to clamp down on militant trade unionists and political opponents. We see, Sir, in the P.A.P. manoeuvres designed to create unrest so as to eliminate effective opposition and keep themselves in office.

Sir, as early as 1960, the Minister for Education mentioned the P.A.P.'s plans to revise and shorten the secondary education in the Chinese secondary schools. But nothing was done until mid 1961, when the Minister restated his intention once again. Sir, all news regarding criticism of this policy was systematically suppressed. There were grievances and fears. But there was no means for all to have open discussions. The public was completely kept in the dark. Then in September, the P.A.P. decided to announce officially the conversion plan. They decided to push through the examinations even when the syllabus for the upper secondary classes plan was not available. They started on this course knowing full well the resentment and fears of the Chinese educationists and the students.

Sir, if they were fools and half-wits, then we would have forgiven them. But they are men who claim to be intelligent, Sir, and as such, they know full well that pushing through this delicate and emotional issue against suppressed grievances and fears will only result in a blow-up. Sir, their censorship of grievances and fears failed when the "Barisan", the organ of my Party, published in full the grievances of the students. The "Barisan" was careful just to report the news of the grievances of the students without any comment whatsoever. Our aim, Sir, was that unless all are made fully aware of the grievances and the fears of the educationists and the students, they would not be able to appreciate the mischievous designs of the P.A.P. Government.

Sir, a showdown was obvious and inevitable with the Government determined to teach the students a lesson and thus achieve their desire. It is our responsibility to lay facts for the parents and others to see. We did not comment, Sir, for we did not want to stir up any feelings and fall into the P.A.P. scheme of things. Our publishing of the genuine grievances had ultimately let the cat out of the bag for the P.A.P. Despite the fact that we passed no comments, the P.A.P. thought fit to unleash a campaign directed at us for agitating and instigating the students. Sir, we see the same process being repeated. Sir, Chew Swee Kee in 1956 blamed the P.A.P. for instigating the students. The P.A.P. leadership then knew that those allegations were fictitious. Now they have resorted to the Chew Swee Kee tactics, and it is the Barisan Sosialis this time which is the scapegoat.

Sir, the Minister for Education mentioned three Barisan Sosialis Members and Mr Tommy Koh Thong Bee as having gone to the schools to instigate and give moral support to the students. We are glad that in the case of Tommy Koh the Minister had to eat his own words. But, Sir, what is more important is the logic of the Special Branch and the Minister. Tommy Koh's car was there -

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

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

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

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

An hon. Member: It was not!

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

Mr Bani: I would like to ask the Minister whether, apart from the students, there were others that morning at the schools, and whether they also were giving moral support. Were they, Sir, to use the Special Branch logic, instigating the children? The Minister and the Special Branch ventured to carry their logic to a higher stage. Because three Barisan Sosialis Members were there that morning - three out of numerous parents and onlookers - the Barisan Sosialis was therefore behind the disturbances. And again, as two of the three there happened to be at the same time bus workers, Fong Swee Suan was behind the show. Sir, such logic is the same as saying, if a P.A.P. Member commits murder, then the Prime Minister and Secretary-General of the P.A.P. instigated him. This is the very logic that composed the underlying theme of all the radio talks of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have all been thrilled by the rhythm of the Harry Lime theme, but our people are now being subjected to the sickening refrain of the Harry Lee theme. How desperate can this man be, Sir? And how low can the P.A.P. leadership sink?

Sir, having found somebody to blame for their follies, the P.A.P. was determined to push through the examination in the Chinese schools. Mind you, Sir. there was no urgency for this plan. It could be introduced even next year. Having failed in their efforts, Sir, they now persist and want to hold and, in fact, are holding supplementary examinations. Why do they wish to perpetuate tension? Why is the P.A.P. Government determined to force students to sit for the examination when everybody knows and feels that, because of the atmosphere, which is and was not conducive to getting the best out of the candidates, the examination results cannot be of any significance?

Sir, it is easy to fight school boys and school girls. But to ask Gurkha mercenaries to beat up our children is no way to solve educational problems -

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

Mr Bani: I want to establish this, Sir, that there is definitely a reason why the Government persists in wanting to perpetuate the tension. Sir, the point is, how can any candidate answer examination papers with peace of mind when he knows that his fellow classmates, perhaps his team mates in the basketball team, are outside picketing and may be engaged in a struggle with the police? Sir, these are effects which I am sure even the Minister for Education is not unaware of. Sir, I am inclined to believe that the Prime Minister does not want to solve this problem peacefully. He might want tension and violence so that under an emergency atmosphere, he can oppress his political opponents. But by his own admission, he has learnt a lesson from Chew Swee Kee's mistakes. He does not want to bear the responsibility for police action. He wants this Assembly to sanction such action. He wants to commit this Assembly to an act which he himself dare not do alone.

Sir, except for slight modifications, we see Chew Swee Kee's actions all over again. Sir, the former Minister for Education under the previous Government may be dead but it would appear that his soul goes marching on. Marching, Sir, in step with that of the P.A.P. leaders. Today we witness in this House the joining up of forces of the Member for Cairnhill, Chew Swee Kee's cronies, and the P.A.P. desperadoes. This is not unexpected, Sir, -

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

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

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

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

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

Mr Bani: Sir, I can very well understand how the -

Mr Speaker: Order. Please continue.

Mr Bani: Sir, the P.A.P. has now polished the old machine and we see a bunch of polished and skilled operators. Today, ("parents" are parents within inverted commas) used as their first line of attack instead of the police. In the last few days, Sir, we have seen well-trained and co-ordinated "parents" manning gateways through picket lines. Sir, we have seen students being assaulted by these so-called parents.

Sir, I have here, for your information, a picture published in the Free Press of Friday, 1st December, of these people whom the P.A.P. Government called "parents". And the note under the picture reads, "Parents and supporters stand by outside the Ministry of Education." They all appear to me to be people ranging from the age of nine to not more than 20. Sir, I can assure the Minister for Education, who seems to be amused, that this is not a picture taken by the Barisan Sosialis cameraman. This is a part of the Straits Times outfit, and if at all anybody supplies photographs, it should be the Government, as the Government, in fact, supplied the photograph to be published in the Straits Times. I cannot remember the date, Sir, but the Straits Times carried a photograph and underneath it is a note saying, "Photograph by Ministry of Culture."

Mr Rajaratnam: What about the Chinese Press?

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

An hon. Member: Twenty-four.

Mr Bani: - 17? One is left to wonder about the multifarious designs of the Special Branch. We have noted window panes being broken by these men, so that the glass may injure the students below. Definitely there have been more casualties amongst the students than among the "parents". Now we are asked to protect these "parents". We are asked to sanction police action - that is my interpretation - against school children. Sir, we have never been asked to sanction police action against striking workers, as, for example, in the case of Robinsons. When the police were used against salesgirls, the Government did not come here and ask us to sanction such action. Why is the Government doing this now? Will the Government assure us that in the future if police action is to be taken against pickets, they will summon an emergency sitting of this Assembly?

Sir, it is not too late for the P.A.P. to call off its scheme. We appeal to them once again not to place their political future above the interests of the people of Singapore. Their actions might have provoked violence, but thanks to the restraint shown by the strikers and the pickets and recently by the school students, there was none.

One point that I wish to answer is something raised by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister. Sir, the charge against the Barisan Sosialis is that we want to create violence to topple the Government. Let me assure the Members opposite that we do not have to have violence to topple the Government. We have complete faith in the peaceful and constitutional methods available in the State, and we tell the Government that. If they doubt the statement, all they have to do is just resign and hold general elections.

An hon. Member: Today?

Mr Speaker: Order.

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

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): It is a day-dream!

Mr Speaker: Order.

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

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr Bani: Sir, what is important is that an atmosphere conducive to gainful negotiation and consultation with Chinese educational bodies must be achieved. This cannot be done, Sir, by the use of police. It is only by consultation, discussion and persuasion that fears can be dispelled and grievances settled. It is only when all points of views are fully explained and publicised that fears of parents and students can be allayed. The censorship of news and then exploding it to shock the public is no way to solve problems.

Sir, let me remind them this that when the Government stops playing hide and seek with the students, I am sure the students will stop catching the running dog. Let me say once more to the P.A.P. leaders to stop their reckless scheme. Let me remind them that even if they do succeed in creating conditions for unrest and violence, they cannot continue to hold office forever. All the achievements in this respect by the previous Government, led by the Member for Cairnhill, did not help to keep them in office forever. Sir, for those who secretly admire Chew Swee Kee and wish to tread in his footsteps, let me also remind them that it is not easy to create 26 iron mines and 26 directorships. Uncle Sam may be generous but Uncle Sam is also a businessman.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis do not accept this motion at its face value. It must be considered in the context of events which have led to the introduction of this motion. We do not intend to share the responsibility arising out of the incompetence and deliberate scheming of the P.A.P. Government. It has landed itself in a mess. It now wants us to help carry its burden. Is the P.A.P. Government willing to admit its mistakes and its responsibilities for this present unrest amongst the Chinese school students? If not, we call upon the Government to resign and not by their reckless policies bring more sufferings to our people.

9.20 p.m.

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

Mr David Marshall: Like the Prime Minister and his animals!

Mr Rajaratnam: So similarly in the case of the Member for Thomson, with occasional "Hear, hears!" from the Member for Anson. The Member for Queenstown was the only one who laughed at the jokes. Obviously that was prearranged.

This motion is a very simple one. All it asks is -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: For police action.

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

An hon. Member: How about window panes?

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

Mr Bani: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

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

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

Mr Bani: They were strikers. The Minister was saying -

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

Mr Bani: No, Sir. They are employees of Guthrie & Co.

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

Mr Rajaratnam: I am coming to this because this is far more dangerous than merely debating a motion to ask the House to condemn obstruction by students.

Sir, for the best part of this afternoon and evening, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been beating about the bush, talking about the Robinson strike, Chew Swee Kee, bullets -

Mr David Marshall: Your version!

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

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

An hon. Member: He has intimidated.

Mr Rajaratnam: Thank you very much, Sir. Yet I managed to point my finger at the empty Benches.

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

Mr David Marshall: No, no.

Mr Rajaratnam: But let me quote from a speech -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

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

Mr Rajaratnam: I am glad of the correction. But I would like to point out that the use of students to boycott the examinations is not purely for the purpose of embarrassing the Government but of creating a situation in which the lives and limbs of students and young people could be jeopardised.

Sir, I quote from Hansard, 16th May, 1955, column 241. During the Hock Lee strike, school students went to help the strikers. There were clashes between the police and the students. I remember, Sir, there was one student who was badly injured and the students, instead of ensuring that this boy was sent to the hospital, carried the body of a dying schoolboy all over the place including, I think, the office of a newspaper, because they were quite determined to have a martyr - a dead schoolboy. Had the boy been taken to hospital straight-away, he would have been saved. But the men who organised this demonstration were quite determined to have a dead schoolboy as a martyr. When the Member for Anson was the Chief Minister, he had this to say:

'That this Government believes in the decency and the worth of the great mass of our youth and their potential; that we believe a tiny group, which does not stop at murder...',

because I am sure the Chief Minister then knew that the men who manipulated the school children were prepared even to incite innocent boys who were misinformed to do something which amounted to murder.

'...has given Singapore and the Chinese schools of Singapore a bad name.'

Then he went to say:

'Students have been driven from class-rooms to the streets.'

He then pinpointed the responsibility indirectly - he had no proof then - on a Member who is now the organising Secretary of the Barisan Sosialis - Mr Lim Ching Siong. The Chief Minister said:

'I am not an expert on Chinese culture, I admit to the hon. Gentleman for Bukit Timah, but I know this much about Chinese culture;...'.

He went on to say that in so far as he was concerned - quite rightly - that Chinese culture indicated an exquisite courtesy and reasonableness. So we know, Sir, that if a situation like this were mishandled, it could result in the Communist elements, who are manipulating the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis and' putting things into their mouths, being ready to climb to power to get at their political objectives on the maimed bodies of children. This has happened in the past and it will happen again.

Therefore, let us not discuss this debate and say "aye" or "no". Because we know, Sir, as one of the Barisan Assemblymen indicated to me in the course of the discussion, the fight for merger has now gone outside this Assembly, and we are just talking, and as a result it is quite meaningless. We knew long ago that the battle for merger would be fought outside the Assembly. As I said earlier, Sir, in the opening of the debate on merger, sooner or later merger must be stopped, not by words but by deeds. And this incident of boycott and agitation over the 4 : 2 and 3 : 3 systems is one part in a long struggle since last June to halt merger.

I do not want to repeat what I have said before on the industrial front, the Peoples Association, and so on, but only this: this is one more attempt to provide an opportunity to spark off violence and disorder. In fact, Sir, I have noticed very recently that the Barisan Sosialis have taken an interesting line. We charge them with playing at communalism or doing things which incite communalism. They now take the line that we are the communalists. We say that they want to incite. When I say "Barisan Sosialis", I am not necessarily referring to the 13 gentlemen, as I do not think many of them really know where they are heading for, but to the men who are manipulating them. They know what they are doing. So we say those people, as Communist elements, have always believed that parliamentary democracy is a facade. They have always maintained the theory and practice that revolution must come from outside the talking chamber. I will believe in parliamentary democracy if you can do it by debating and voting. They know that. The parliamentrian wing of the Barisan Sosialis may think that that is what they are doing - that they are really deciding the fate of -history in this Assembly. But the manipulators know that sooner or later they must give the red light for violence. When that happens, the 13 Barisan Assemblymen will have to toe the line and join them in the streets when the battle starts. If they do that, I will take my hat off to them. At least we will know that these are real revolutionaries. But for people to come here and talk about revolution, about overthrowing the Government by parliamentary means, when, in fact -

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

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

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, the point that I want to make is that this boycott of examinations is part and parcel of an attempt to create violence and disorder which they have tried to do in other fields - the People's Association, the unions, and so on. Therefore, it is essential to know that this boycott by itself is nothing. If there had been picketing, shouting slogans, putting up banners, then, as far as the Government is concerned, we would not have bothered. But if they attempt to create a fracas, or to stop students from taking their examinations, or hold meetings, victory parades or victory marches, then we know that there is something more than that. It happened before - a little strike, students went out to parade, a fracas, and students got killed, and even the Chief Minister had to give way. So it is our submission that if the Barisan Sosialis are genuine about settling this dispute over the examinations, they can very simply do so by condemning the students, not for picketing but for preventing others from taking examinations which they have a right to do, and for intimidating parents who want to take their children to school.

The other motion, as I have indicated earlier - the Barisan Sosialis itself has agreed to it - is that when a Member of the Assembly is barricaded and prevented from coming here, we pass a resolution. That was enough to persuade the students that it would be very foolish to do so when practically all Members of the Assembly were quite determined to provide police protection and even to punish schoolboys. The Barisan Sosialis then were not talking about police action. It was quite clear, Sir, that they were quite prepared because of self-interest. It was self-interest. And that is why they passed the motion. Because - I think it was the Member for Farrer Park who indicated it - if you did not pass a motion like this, perhaps one day they themselves might be in the same position. Therefore, they passed the motion saying that this Assembly should extend police protection to an Assemblyman and even punish the people concerned. But when we asked them, "Well, here are the parents and the students who want to take their examinations. Would you be prepared to do so?" They were not so certain about that. May I therefore tell the Barisan Sosialis: let us by all means play politics. Let them by all means challenge the Government in the Assembly or outside the Assembly. We will be ready to meet them. But for God's sake, do not play with the lives of school children, which, as the Member for Anson will tell you, the last time it happened, it resulted in what he called the murder of a school boy. Therefore, I say to the Barisan Sosialis, "We are adults. Let us go and fight this inside or outside the Assembly, any way you want." But do not hide behind the skirts of eight-year old or nine-year old children who do not know what it is all about.

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

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

Mr Speaker: Order. That is exactly what I am trying to ask Members - not to look across the Floor in threatening attitude and making threatening gestures. [Interruption] Order. The Leader of the House must keep quiet when the Speaker is on his feet.

I ask the Minister for Culture to look at the Speaker and make his gestures to the Speaker. Possibly the Speaker would not be intimidated.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He is only a little bored!

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

Mr David Marshall: You have a -

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: Anyway, Sir, coming back to this point. As the Prime Minister has indicated, let us by all means fight this merger according to Queensberry rules or Queenstown rules. But we ask of them: keep away from school children who do not know what this is all about.

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

Mr Speaker: I do not know how many more speakers there are. But we are getting to the stage where arguments are being repeated. I would just like to get an indication as to how many Members are going to speak.

From the Opposition side? Four. From the Government side? Two.

Well, I might give a warning that if there is any repetition of any sort, the Chair is going to intervene, and as strictly as possible. If there are any points to be made, let them be new points.

9.44 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson just now made a very serious allegation against the Singapore People's Alliance. That, Sir, has to be answered right away. I am asked by my Party leader, the Member for Cairnhill, to state categorically in this House that the S.P.A. will not - repeat, will not - at any time, now or in the future have an alliance with the P.A.P. The S.P.A. condemns the P.A.P. for the trouble and misery it has caused the people of Singapore. What we mean by the P.A.P. are not only those sitting on the other side of the House, but also those who now describe themselves as the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, we have made our stand clear. We as a Party stand for the interest and welfare of the people first and foremost regardless of our own party interest. We are not prepared to and will not ensure our success by riding on a tiger, as the P.A.P. did and as the Barisan Sosialis Members are now trying to do.

Sir, the issue before the House is becoming confused in the eyes of the public, because it is being represented to them that the parties here are debating the issue whether we are for school children or against school children, whether we are for or against Chinese education and culture. Sir, as I see it, we are being asked to vote on whether we are for or against intimidation, instigated and organised from behind. And whether we are for or against giving protection to the parents and students who are being intimidated and who seek protection.

Sir, as an educationist, I believe students all over the world are by nature the same. In whatever media they study, their thoughts and emotions run on practically the same lines. As students they know they have to study. But, at the same time, they are fond of good fun, excitement and adventure. They are also fond of group activity, of group leaders and of working for some good cause. Sir, under wise guidance, students in any school can be developed into good citizens with a high sense of responsibility. But if they get into the clutches of people who have wrong motives, their energy and enthusiasm can be exploited, disciplined and expressed in wrong and sometimes very dangerous ways. Sir, their main protection has always been their principals, their teachers and the education authorities. If this line is broken, then trouble begins. This motion shows that this line of defence in Singapore has broken down. Apparently principals, teachers and the educational authorities have tried to do their best and, because they are not able to keep their defences intact, the motion is moved before this House asking for approval to give the necessary protection to the parents and children who want to take the examination.

We are not asked to approve aggressive police action against school children. We are being asked to give protection to the law-abiding parents and students who want to do the right thing. Of course, Sir, we wonder why an educational issue like this has become a political issue of great importance. Why should students be organised against students, and parents and students be organised again also against parents and students on the other side?

Sir, the reference to a chichak dance has made many people think of the snake dance which took place in the streets of Tokyo, and threatened the Japanese Government. I suppose, Sir, the present Government thinks that there must be some kind of similarity here, and having known the strategy of the Barisan Sosialis Members, as they themselves were their tutors, they have made the necessary moves. Well, Sir, that is their game. But as for us, we are interested in the welfare of education in Singapore and law and order in this country.

I would like the Government to clarify at this time their policy as regards the participation of secondary school students in politics. As far back as 1957 -

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

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Sir, I have a suggestion to make - that if on any controversial matter involving students and that matter is likely to give rise to a situation like this, the Government should refer it completely to an independent educational body and let them decide on it. Otherwise, because of party politics, Sir, the thing can be developed again into a situation like the one we are now facing.

Sir, on this issue of the 4:2 and 3:3 systems, at this point, if it could be referred to such a body, those students who have been misguided can; realise that the matter will be taken up in the proper quarters.

In this hurly-burly, Sir, people are saying that parents in Singapore are showing their proper mettle by coming out to defend the rights of their children. They are not interested in the political struggle and, therefore, they have had to do that because the present Government, knowing what had happened to the previous Government, is wary about taking the necessary measures to enforce law and order.

I am sure, Sir, that Members of this House, if they are really interested in the welfare of our children, would be against those who try to manipulate things from behind and exploit the children from behind: We should grant protection where parents and children need such protection to preserve their freedom to do what is right.

9.55 p.m.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you will remember that last Friday, when the Minister for Education was making his ministerial statement on this matter, he did show you a photo in the Free Press. He said in a very proud manner that the parents were supporting the government. Sir, I do not know whether you have seen the photo or not. But if you or anyone else had seen it, I believe he would have laughed. He would have laughed because the so-called parents in the picture in the Free Press are so young. These so-called parents are too young to be parents and too old to be students. The Government would feel ashamed if it compares the picture of would-be parents, about 20 in number, to the thousands of old parents who attended the meeting at the Chinese High School yesterday afternoon. The joint meeting of these parents and students proves that the so-called 62 per cent who sat for the examination is inaccurate. I deeply believe that all the parents do not like to see the Government using the Police Force against the students. I know the feeling of the peace-loving parents. I therefore believe that it is not the real intention of a few parents who called upon the Government to use the police against the peaceful strikers. No one would use force of arms against the students, who are under 17 years of age, except the reactionary forces. The main purpose of this motion is to condemn the peaceful strikers, and the Government seeks to use the Police Force against them so as to achieve the P.A.P.'s sordid political aim for the benefit of a few. I would like to ask all P.A.P. Assemblymen, Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers, if they are not in the Government and their sons and daughters are involved in any form of strike and are beaten up by the police, what would they feel? Are they going to keep quiet and ignore the brutality of the Government? Or are they going to suggest that the freedom of action must be suppressed?

The P.A.P. leaders, by moving this motion, clearly show their insincerity to settle the four-year examination problem. Instead of postponing the four-year examination, the P.A.P. Government extends it for another week. By extending it for another week, the following incidents may occur - I quote one by one, Sir, the incidents which may occur:

(1) To make the students continue their strike and picket at various examination centres for another week, so that the policeman and the C.I.D. can lay hands on the students.

(2) Once the students continue to picket at the various examination centres, the Government may use its machinery and mobilise its stooges to threaten the peaceful student strikers in an attempt to worsen the situation, thereby forcing the Senior Middle III students to go on strike again.

(3) To extend the examinations means to extend the strike for another week. In this way, the Government would have more chance to blame their political opponents.

(4) As the merger issue has become so widely known and all the people know the importance of citizenship, the Government is now in a very precarious position. It therefore adopts the tactic of putting the strike issue over the merger issue.

(5) The P.A.P. leaders, seeing that they are in a state of utmost confusion over the question of merger, are therefore trying to direct the attention of the people from the merger issue to the student strike issue.

(6) The P.A.P. Government, by blaming its political opponents for creating the strike, has made a despicable attempt to camouflage its attempt to sell the rights of Singapore.

(7) Due to their inefficiency and lack of knowledge of the educational problem and their arrogant attitude, the whole educational problem is now in a mass. They, therefore, dare not shoulder the responsibility which they are paid to do. They want to push their responsibility away.

(8) The police may use batons against the little children who put up banners, posters and cartoons criticizing the P.A.P. Government's educational policy.

(9) Having seen the banners, posters and cartoons posted on the streets, in buses and in schools, the P.A.P. ruling clique go mad and become desperate and shameful. Because of their narrow-mindedness, they cannot stand criticism from the people. They, therefore, find a way out by taking the blame from their shoulders and putting it on the so-called agitators.

(10) The Government in moving this motion is not going to protect the students, but to use a baton charge against the peaceful and empty-handed students who picket outside the gates of all examination centres. The Government in moving this motion is threatening the peace-loving parents.

I think the Government might have thought that since this Assembly could approve a motion to protect the Member for Bukit Panjang, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, therefore, it is quite appropriate for this Assembly to approve another motion to protect the students. The purpose of this motion is not to protect the students, but to use the police force to suppress the students who are young and innocent. We supported the motion to protect the Member for Bukit Panjang from being hindered by hooligans. These hooligans were not and could not be students. As representatives of the people and above the policemen, it is up to this Assembly to protect any Member of the Legislative Assembly, because there is no one who has the power to protect him. The Government, in moving this motion, would make it appear, in the eyes of the public, that the police force is not under the control of the Government, but under the control of this Assembly. It would also appear, in the eyes of the public, that the police have no power to maintain law and order which they, in fact, have. In actual fact, the P.A.P. Government intends to use the police force to suppress the innocent students, but dare not do it on its own. It therefore asks this Assembly to give power to the Government to use the police force against the students.

I would like to advise the P.A.P. Government that the only way to settle the student strike problem is by peaceful means and negotiation and not by force. The Government, or even the police itself, has the power to deal with this matter. Why does the Government want to bring this matter into the Assembly and ask it to authorise the police to "protect" the students? What is the power of the police and what is the duty of the Government? Their duty is to maintain law and order. If the P.A.P. Government is unable to govern, then the only way for them is to resign.

The Government's intention to bring this matter to this Assembly is to turn this controversial education issue into a political issue. The P.A.P. leaders and all Members of this House must realise that it is safer to look before they leap. The Government must not use its political power to suppress the known political resentment of the students. These political powers are nothing but batons and tear gas. The P.A.P. Government is trying to use the police against the peaceful student strikers. The P.A.P. Government's proposal to use the police against the empty-handed students will not help -

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

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

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

Mr Teo Hock Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government blames the peaceful strikers for creating trouble. Yet we do not see anyone who has sat for the examination having been injured. But we can see young men who behave like gangsters trying to fight the little students. These young men, all unidentified, are not students or parents. They break and force their way through in order to disperse the students. Sir, I have two photos in the Mm Pao, dated 2nd December this year. These two photos show a few unidentified young men trying to fight a group of little children picketing near the Ministry of Education. I ask the Government to inform this House who are those unidentified young men. The Government should have no difficulty in identifying them.

I would like to advise the P.A.P. leaders that the sons and daughters of other people are the sons and daughters of the State. They are innocent. The duty of the government is to bring them up to serve the State and not to crush them. I sincerely hope that all P.A.P. leaders will fight for the interests of all the people and not just the few who love the P.A.P. The duty of the Government is to govern the country. The Government must see that the rights and interests of all the people are protected. It must not rule the country for sectional interests and in order to protect the rights of the minority. The P.A.P. Government, which claims to represent the vast majority of the people, is now seeking help from the Opposition. Is it not clearly shown that what the P.A.P. claims to be is entirely false? The P.A.P. Government has now become so weak because the majority of the people are not backing the Government.

I would like to state the requests of the people in this Assembly, and I would also like to put forward a few suggestions to the Government. I hope the Government will pay some heed to them.

(1) The Government must inform the parents publicly that it will not use the police force and the C.I.D. men against the peaceful strikers.

(2) The Government shall forthwith postpone the 4-year examination so as to lessen the worsening situation.

(3) The Government must see that no gangsters are being used to threaten the strikers.

(4) The Government will immediately seek consultation with all educational bodies to examine the cause of the strike and to make recommendations on this 4:2 system of education.

(5) After consultation with the educational bodies and after all problems of the 4:2 system are settled, the Government must assure all parents that their children who went on strike will be allowed to re-enter their schools to study, and that there will be no discrimination or prejudice against their former action. This is especially important when marking their examination papers.

(6) Any proposal to change the educational system must be based on equal treatment for the four streams of education.

(7) The Government should study and consider all reasonable requests stated in the memoranda sent to all Assemblymen by the students.

(8) The Government must accept the views and proposals suggested by the various educational bodies which know the cause of the strike and know what is the meaning of education.

10.11 p.m.

Mr Ng Teng Kian (Punggol): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we fully understand the true motive of this motion of the P.A.P. From the debate on the motion, we have the impression that the whole world is becoming chaotic. You have people outside the examination centres shouting and asking for a fight. The safety of those students who are taking the examination is being jeopardized. Therefore, the Government has to resort to the use of police to suppress such actions. But, as a matter of fact, we do not see such incidents. The activities of the students, whether they are correct or not, is another matter. But from any angle, we can say that the use of police against students should not be supported. We support the police in their maintenance of law and order. But we resolutely oppose the instruction to be given to the police against students who are helpless and unarmed.

Mr Speaker, we can see from the newspapers today that the Minister for Education has announced that in the present situation, those who have not taken the examination are only 927 in number. This only goes to show the motive behind the motion of the Government. Among these 3,000 students, if there are only some 927 who have not taken the examination, then they will not be prevented at all. This goes to show further that there is no need to make use of the police to suppress the so-called activities of the students. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that this motion is redundant. In the first place, as seen from any angle, the motion should not have been brought up by the Government so that the police will be used against the students. Secondly, the safeguard for the people is already in the hands of the police, and the Government is just trying to shirk their duty and pass it on to the other Members of the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we resolutely oppose this motion.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and amended by the Member for Farrer Park.

It is to be expected that the Opposition - especially the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis - will allege that the P.A.P. espouses the same policy as that of the S.P.A., because we know that they have double-edged prongs. They change the truth to something that is untrue. However that may be, Sir, we have been taught a lesson that from childhood we should listen to what is being spoken but we should not pay attention to who is speaking. In the interest 01 safeguarding democratic practice which we have here in our country, it is right that every fighter of democracy should accept suggestions and views of parents who do not want the education of their children to be hindered.

10.17 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): On the question of the boycott by the students, it is clear that it has nothing to do with the weakness of the education policy. If it is viewed from the result that two-thirds of the students have sat for the examinations, it shows that the present education policy is accepted by the majority of the people.

Sir, nonsensical allegations have been made by the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis to the effect that the boycott was the result of our failure of our education policy and its non-acceptance by the people. We wish to know why, when they were with us in the Government, they merely folded their arms and kept quiet? We also wish to know further the stand and attitude of the Barisan Sosialis towards Chinese education. It is the custom and habit of undesirable elements to distort facts. For instance, the Member for Thomson just now tried to make out that the Government would use the police to suppress strikers. We should distinguish workers from children. Our responsibility now should be centred on those who are manipulating the misguided children.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should not forget the efficiency of the subversive elements who have succeeded in influencing these young innocent children for their own- political ends. They would prefer to see the destruction of these children with a smile, because, on their dead bodies, they can organise and achieve their aims. Nobody in his right senses will believe that there are no evil men behind this boycott. I can bring up two incidents for this House to ponder over very carefully. I am impressed by an article written by Inche Gazali Bin Ismail, the ex-Secretary General of the Malay Students Union, which appeared in the Utusan Melayu of 1st September, 1961, under the heading of how these pro-Communist elements tried to control or influence Malay students in 1955. This article presented two special features consecutively, but I am merely touching on the excerpts to show how these pro-Communist elements infiltrate not only into Chinese middle schools but also in the Malay Students Union. One of the excerpts exposes one of the methods adopted by the Communist cadres to influence the students, and that is by organising picnics and tea parties. Normally these functions are paid for by the pro-Communist elements themselves through devious channels. I will refer to another passage. A leader from the University Union - I wish to call him J - played an important part in the birth of a new movement amongst Malay students. He helped to organise picnics for Malay students. The cost was met from contributions by the Pan-Malayan Students Federation. In one of these picnics, students from Chinese middle schools participated. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these activities by undesirable elements could only go on for one year, and then in 1956 their attempts failed. This clearly goes to prove that these destructive elements can influence not only the minds of Chinese school students but they also attempted to infiltrate into the Malay Students Union. Fortunately, their efforts failed miserably. Subsequently I sincerely believe that these same people tried to whip up communal sentiments among the Chinese students who. I am quite sure, were pure in their minds and healthy in their thinking. I received two circulars issued by the Chinese middle school students throughout Singapore, one of which reads "Students on strike" written in the national language, with the intention of sparking off communal emotion. If there had been no evil men behind them, I am quite sure the students would not have resorted to such tactics. I will read a passage from the contents:

'We are youths who love the national culture and national language. We are the sons and soil of Chinese education.'

I am merely reading short passages at random and these go to show that they are fanning communal sentiments:

'In order that the wishes of teachers and students be not subverted, we swear on oath that we will become fighters to defend our national or racial education.'

It ends with "Long live national education and long live Chinese education!", thus implying that the present Government wants to kill Chinese education. In point of fact, our aim is to unify all the main streams of education into one national education in order to build one united Malayan nation. These people who intentionally and deliberately whip up communal feelings are very dangerous. We will oppose them from whatever quarter they come because, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are in the process of building a united Malayan nation. The contents of this circular are lengthy and if I were to read them, it might lead to misunderstanding among the various races. What is even more strange is that the circular on the boycott in Chinese schools is written -in Malay and it is being circulated among Malay students with the object, of course, of making the parents adopt a communal attitude. This is typical of the measures taken by these dangerous elements. The object is to cause communal clashes which are very dangerous indeed. We must condemn these destructive elements who are trying to get the various sections of the community to fight amongst themselves.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we must realise that the students can be likened to white cloth - clean and pure - and it is up to us to change this cloth into any colour we like. Therefore, it is our common responsibility to use the proper colour to suit our climate.

We have heard Members of this Assembly putting forward their views and opinions. There are some who support the motion whilst others oppose it. It is evident where they stand in this matter and we know why they adopt such an attitude. They cannot hide the facts. If some of them try to hide behind the skirts of school children, I challenge the 13 Members in the Barisan Sosialis to declare their stand openly and in all sincerity. It is not enough for them to challenge the Government by asking them -to resign when they themselves have not got the guts to go back to the people.

To us, this motion is one which seeks to reconcile differences and bring about happiness and prosperity in our community. It also seeks to uphold the principle of democracy so that democracy can be practised in the true sense of the word. I wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education.

10.32 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the motion tabled by the Government is absolutely unnecessary. In today's Chinese newspapers, including the Sin Chew Jit Poh and the Nanyang Siang Pau, we can clearly see that many educational bodies have given their views on the motion which we are debating now. The newspapers also published the views of the Singapore Teachers' Union, the Nanyang Graduates' Association and its Students' Union, and the opinions of other educational bodies. All these organisations feel that it is unnecessary for the Government to use the police against the students, but to handle the dispute peacefully.

Apart from these educational bodies, it was also reported in today's paper that yesterday 2,000 parents met in the Singapore Chinese High School Auditorium. They also felt that the Government should not make use of the police. The people in these organisations have a very close association with Chinese education But the Government does not seem to hear their opinions and views.

In the motion that we are debating today, it is stated that it is made in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to sit for the examinations. We want to ask the Minister for Education this: if he is paying attention to the demand of only a minority of the parents, then why should he not pay attention to the opinions of 2,000 parents? Does it mean that the opinions of some 2,000 parents should be disregarded? The Committee of the School Teachers' Association, the Nanyang University Graduates' Association, and the Students' Union of Nanyang University were established long before the Barisan Sosialis was formed. I believe they are unwilling to allow any political Party to make use of them or to embroil them in a political war-pool. From all this we can see that the Government is only paying attention to those opinions which are useful to the Government, and not to those views and opinions which do not express agreement with the Government. Under these circumstances, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that the P.A.P. is a Party which values the opinions of the people in general.

My colleagues have pointed out in :their speeches made just now the various reasons for opposing the motion tabled by the Government. I do not wish to repeat what they have said, but I would like to point out here that the students' boycott has come about as a result of the education policy of the Government. The Government's intention to use the police against students and parents cannot solve the problem of the mishandling by the Government of its education policy. I would like to stress again that all the educational bodies and organisations have suggested to the Government many practical methods of how the present situation could be handled. In today's papers, as I have said, the organisations I have mentioned have sincerely suggested how the Government should handle the situation and what the Government should do about it. I believe if the Government should accept the opinions and act according to the suggestions, then that would be much better than resorting to the police. But the Government, instead of acting on the opinions of the educational organisations, has come to this House and brought up this motion. This shows that the Government's intention is to try and change this question of education into a political one. We feel that since the Government's education policy has brought about these incidents, we in the Opposition have no reason whatsoever why we should bear the responsibility for the Government.

The organisations I have mentioned just now have been in existence for a long time. Some have existed for a year, and others for seven or eight years. The P.A.P. Government, if it is sincere in valuing the opinions of the people, should have won these organisations over to its side. So to say that these organisations have been won over by the Barisan Sosialis and are being made use of by them would be wrong, because the Barisan Sosialis came into existence only three months ago. And it would be nonsensical to say that it is impossible for the Government, in the course of two years, to win over these organisations. If it is correct to say that we can win over these organisations in the course of three months, then we can see clearly that the government has made a mistake in its education policy.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Chan Sun Wing resumed his seat.

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

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

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

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

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, regarding the question of education, I think we had better leave it to the proper time when the relevant motion is brought up.

But I must answer an allegation made by the Party in government. They say that the motion approved last Friday is aimed at protecting a Member of the Assembly. Regarding this, we must clearly point out that the motion passed by this House last Friday is basically different from the present motion we are debating now. The motion passed last Friday in this House only allowed the police to protect Members of the Assembly, but did not allow the police to take action against the students. What we contended was that if the Parliamentary Secretary concerned had been obstructed by the hooligans, then we should condemn the hooligans. We never contended that young students should be considered as hooligans. This is a very important difference. The motion we are debating now is very clear, that is, the police must be made use of against student picketers who are doing their duty peacefully. I feel that the Government and the Ministry of Education should not consider students as hooligans. If it does, and if the Minister should do so, then he will not be fit to administer our education system, and this Government will not be able to handle the education problem properly.

The last question I would like to ask is this: cannot the present situation be avoided? In other words, if the Ministry of Education has handled this question properly, could this situation be avoided? I have already pointed out that if the Government had accepted the opinions given by the educational bodies, then the unpleasant events and the question of using the police could have been easily avoided.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion today is basically clear in this respect. There is a minority of opportunistic political adventurers, especially my friends in the Barisan Sosialis. We know that the Barisan Sosialis adopt opportunistic tactics. On any question, they are very good at trying to gain over the support of the people by opportunistic means. They are trying to do the same on this question now. We know that the tail of the fox cannot be hidden from view.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion today is the same as the motion we brought up in regard to the protection of Members of the Assembly. Why should the Barisan Sosialis oppose the present motion when, on the other hand, they have supported the previous motion? I think it is very clear.

10.46 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

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

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

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of order, Sir. Has that got with the motion?

Mr Speaker: I have Member yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in full support of the present motion.

10.53 p.m.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, we have spent much time today debating this question. Almost every one of -the Members of the Opposition has spoken on this motion at length. To sum up the arguments of the Barisan Sosialis. They have put forward the same views. In a nut shell, what they have said amounts to this. They have exaggerated the number of the so-called parents in the Chinese High School. At the same time, they have deliberately neglected the fact that there were 2,000 parents of students who took part in the examination. Secondly, they wanted to put the blame on the Minister for Education and on the Government. Lastly, the Member for Upper Serangoon asked why we did not accept the proposals of the so-called educational bodies.

The Member for Anson said he supported the first part of the motion. With regard to the second part of the motion, he was in doubt. He said he doubted whether there should be such a motion, that is, the second part of it.

The Member for Cairnhill said that we, the Government, tried to shirk our responsibility. The Party represented by the Member for Cairnhill asked: why did the Government make use of its authority to use the police to protect the students? Mr Speaker, Sir, before I make any reply to their criticisms, I must point out the fact that this was before the 13 ex-P.A.P. colleagues left the P.A.P. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said, "When I was in the Party, there was no trouble. When I left, there was trouble." This goes to show that all these troubles have been created after they left the P.A.P. We can all learn from the newspapers that before the 13 Members left the P.A.P., we had a Party Review Committee of which the Member for Queenstown and I were the Secretaries. We received a memorandum submitted by the 51 Branches. We also received a very long memorandum submitted by the Member for Serangoon. As far as I can remember, in all these memoranda, there was not a word mentioned that the education policy of the P.A.P. was wrong. If the P.A.P. education policy was wrong, then the 13 Members, especially the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, should have pointed this out to the Committee at that time. He should have pointed out that the education policy of the Government was wrong, so as to avoid the unpleasant incident that we have today. However, they did not mention a word about this matter. Obviously, from all the designs we can get from the organ of the Barisan Sosialis, and from the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis Members, we know who are the people who manipulated the boycott of the students. Everyone knows that the eyes of the people are very clear. They will not be deceived by the Barisan Sosialis Members who pass off the eyes of the fish as pearls. Why did they not point this out in the Committee? When they left the P.A.P., they created all this trouble to embarrass the Government.

We can also see from the newspapers that those who took part in the examinations were in the majority. We have also seen that parents were insulted by the student picketers. If any Member in this House is in doubt as to whether these parents have been instigated by the P.A.P., or that they are nonexistent, we have a signed document to prove this. We can point out that their children are students and also in which classes they are in. I can swear here that I do not know any one of these parents.

Mr Low Por Tuck rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

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

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

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this petition was submitted to the Ministry of Education. If this Assembly hopes to possess a copy of this petition, I am willing to submit it to the Assembly.

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

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

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

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

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member for Anson objected to my giving details of this thing, I will forget about it.

The Barisan Sosialis Members in this House said that there were 2,000 parents in the Chinese High School. I want to ask them whether they can submit the names of these 2,000 parents. On our part, we are willing to submit the names of the parents as well as the pupils who sat for the examinations. We do not want to drag all the people together and brand them as parents of the students. The facts have proved that the majority of the pupils sat for examinations and there was only a minority of students who have prevented pupils from taking their examinations. We think that as representatives of the people, we have the duty to persuade this small number of pupils not to do such foolish things, because in a democratic country, any person has the right to sit for an examination and he cannot be denied this freedom. If we know this to be the democratic system, then it should mean that the minority should follow the majority. But, unfortunately, the Member for Queenstown congratulated this small number of pupils. But does he not think that his congratulations will embolden the pupils to flout the law of the country and make them more daring to commit unreasonable actions?

Some of the Members have said just now that all those pupils who boycotted the examinations were picketing peacefully. If their picketing were peaceful, then I think it would not be necessary to table this motion. But in our view peaceful picketing should not mean that the pupils should form a human chain and link arms. As far as I know, when the representatives of the pupils came to see me, they had already used every method to convene protest meetings in the school. They had been trying to persuade the pupils not to sit for the examinations, but their efforts had failed. Then they resorted to this unreasonable action. If their picketing were peaceful, then it would not have been necessary for us to use the police, because when a pupil went to sit for the examination, they should convince him and not - as reported in the paper - use force. I want to refer to the open letter of the Preparatory Committee of Parents Association to the Chairman of the Chinese School Teachers Union. The letter was addressed to Mr Lim Sek Kian of the -

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

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

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Lee, will you carry on?

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, an incident was mentioned in this letter. One parent who accompanied his child into an examination centre yesterday said, "We parents who want to take our children to sit for their examinations have to stomach all the abuses flung at us by the picketers who wore school uniforms. Are they any different from the hooligans?" Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not cover up everything. We must not think that by using unreasonable arguments, we can convince the people. All those who have gone through this experience know whether the attitude of the student picketers is right. I do not blame these student picketers because they are young and easily manipulated. Therefore, I hope they will ponder over what they have done. They should learn that they should not be made use of by evil politicians.

I listened very carefully to the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education when he spoke. I have not been in the Ministry of Education for long. I have been there for only two or three months now. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was in the Ministry of Education for quite sometime before me. Our Minister for Education is a very frank man. He knows that he is not Chinese-educated, and therefore on matters concerning Chinese education, he always consults his Parliamentary Secretary. It was with surprise that I heard the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education say that the Government did not listen to the opinions of education bodies. It will be remembered that the decision on the 4:2 system was taken after we have had discussions with the Committee of the Chinese School Teachers Association. We have been accused that we forced the principals of Chinese schools to adopt the 4:2 system. This is an insult to the principals of Chinese schools in Singapore. Only God knows whether any principal of a Chinese secondary school can be so easily deceived. If this is so, then what kind of a world is this going to be? All people in the educational field can remember the attitude of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education towards teachers and principals Yet he dares to say that we force the Chinese School Management Committees to accept our proposal. This is an insult to the Committee of the Chinese School Teachers Association. He was in the Ministry of Education for two years and he knew very well what the 4:2 system was all about. But now he wants to distort the facts by saying that we want to make use of the 4:2 system to lower the standard of Chinese education. It is mentioned in the Paper that when the students pass the examination after the four-year secondary education, they will be promoted to the upper secondary classes for two years. How can it be four years?

The hon. Member said the Prime Minister made a very big mistake because, on Teachers Day, he announced that the question of the 3:3 or 4:2 system could be decided by the educationists. If it is wrong to decide the question by a majority, then I do not know the meaning of democracy.

The hon. Member also said that we wanted to buy over the students with money. Does it mean that he is opposed to the giving of aid and assistance to poor pupils to enable them to take up further education? Does he think that this is wrong?

The Member for Hong Lim said that the Government is shirking its responsibility. He wanted to know why the Government did not want to exercise the right that it has, but came instead to this Assembly to ask for a mandate to be given to them. The Members on the Opposition are contradictory in their speeches. The Member for Hong Lim and other Members accuse the' Government of being dictatorial. But now the Government is not willing to use force. Is this not contradictory?

We know that when dealing with adult gangsters and criminals we should use our power. But these are innocent and young middle school pupils who are being made use of by other people. We know the people behind the scenes who want to make use of them, to drive them into a clash with the police so as to create unrest in Singapore with the object of getting everyone to oppose the Government on the merger question.

There is another important matter. The Member for Hong Lim asked why we should make use of the police when the Secondary IV examination was completed. My answer is very simple. Today we have heard from the Minister for Education that he was obstructed by the picketers from going to his office. What kind of a country is this going to be? This is due to the instigation of the Barisan Sosialis Members who incite the students to trouble. Not only do these students have no respect for their teachers but they also have no respect for Ministers. This is the aim of the Barisan Sosialis.

The reason for our tabling this motion is this. The examination is in progress, and the Senior Middle III Examination will be held on Friday. I do not need any information from the Special Branch to know that many pupils have been humiliated. They are disgusted with the student picketers and they are willing to give information to us. We have information that the Senior Middle III students will boycott the examination. I am in the dark as to the reason for this boycott.

Just now the Member for Changi implied that the Senior Middle III students also want to boycott the examination. This seems to be connected with the Barisan Sosialis. I feel strange that ten minutes after the motion was passed in the Assembly, the students who beleaguered me dispersed, and the Member for Changi said today that the Senior Middle III students wanted to boycott the examination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last point is that the intention of our motion is not to use the police to suppress the unarmed students. If we make a detailed study of the motion, we will see that our motion is intended to ask for police protection for the parents and the pupils, if the pupils who boycotted the examination could carry out their picketing peacefully, then there would not be any incidents or clashes with the police. Therefore, what we feel very bitter about is that a Member of the Barisan Sosialis deliberately distorted the word "protection" into "suppression". Is this not something to provoke the pupils?

Just now the Member for Upper Serangoon said that the Chinese School Teachers' Union and the Chinese Committee Teachers' Association had suggested many proposals. But up to now we have still not received any formal letters from these organisations. If we follow what is reported in the newspapers, it can happen that the reports in the papers may be wrong. If any organisation has any views to submit, it should submit them to us in writing. We cannot follow the papers blindly.

There is another point I want to tell the House. Last night, the Chairman of the Chinese School Committee Teachers' Association (Mr Ko Teck Kin) rang me up and said that he was under pressure from certain people. He said, "Everyday they give me trouble. They want me to give a public statement. What must I do?". I told him, "It is very simple. You can say to them that the Chinese School Committee Teachers' Association has come to an understanding with the Ministry of Education." He said, "It is not as simple as that. They come to me everyday." As regards the Chinese School Teachers' Union whose Chairman is Mr Lim Sek Kian, you will remember it was reported in the papers that that Union wanted to convene a meeting to discuss the problem of the student boycott and the problem of reform. But on the following day, we did not see any resolution made by the Association. We could only see the statement made by the Chairman. We want to ask Mr Lim Sek Kian whether his statement was approved by all the Members. Does his -

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

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: He is replying to arguments. Let us have a reply.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, -

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

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

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us carry on with the motion.

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

Mr Speaker: Let us first take the votes on the amendment. The original Question was,

"That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House supports any action by the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halts."

Since which an amendment has been moved,

In lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "supports any action by", and there to insert "approves of any action according to law by the Government through".

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker: There has been a suggestion that this motion is in two parts, and I agree. I shall then put the Question on the motion in two parts. The first part -

Question put,

"That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations,".

The Prime Minister: Division.

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

Motion (First part) accordingly agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The second part of the motion, as amended -

Question put,

"That this House, in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House approves of any action according to law by the Government through the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls."

Some hon. Members: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 16; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Sun Wing. Mohammad Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan Hoe Puay Choo, Sheng Nam Chin. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Khoon Choy. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Kuan Yew. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Absent. Mohd. Ariff bin Abdul Hamid bin Suradi. Haji Jumat. M. Ismail Rahim. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lim Yew Hock. Rajah, A. P Lingam, S. V. Rajaratnam, S. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Ayes (cont.) Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Motion, (Second part), as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns the actions of the picketers in obstructing, intimidating, or otherwise forcefully preventing students from taking their examinations, and in response to an appeal from parents of students who wish to take these examinations that they and their children should be afforded Police protection, hereby resolves that this House approves of any action according to law by the Government through the Police to protect students wishing to take their examinations to ensure that they are not intimidated or injured, and that the students and their parents who accompany them are given free passage and access into and out of all examination halls.