HINDU MARRIAGES (Legislation)

Mr M. P. D. Nair (Seletar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu Marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus is necessary; and that the Government should introduce the necessary legislation as early as possible, after consultation with the Hindu public opinion.

Sir, at a meeting of representatives of Hindu organisations held on 5th February, 1956, in the Seletar Division at which I was present, the question of Hindu marriages was raised and it was decided that I should take this matter up with the Assembly. The representatives unanimously approved a draft resolution which has been presented by me to the Clerk of the Assembly.

Sir, apart from those received from members of the Hindu community in my own constituency, I have received several letters from Hindus outside the Seletar Division. Representations were made to me from the Hindu Sabhai, Singapore. Among matters discussed at their annual general meeting affecting their interests, this organisation raised the question of Hindu marriages in Singapore and approved a resolution as follows:

"To press the Government to bring into law the proposed Hindu Monogamous Marriage Bill at an early date as it is long overdue."

Sir, in a letter addressed to me on 7th February, 1956, the President of this Association wrote to me as follows:

"My Committee feels that, being the only Hindu in the Legislative Assembly, you alone are competent to raise the issue in the Assembly. Perhaps you would consider introducing a motion in the Assembly with a view to bringing pressure on the Government to reintroduce the Hindu Monogamous Marriage Bill which has been shelved."

Sir, I also have received letters from the Malayan Tamil Association, Kuala Lumpur, informing me of its endeavour to introduce similar legislation in the Federation Legislative Council. They have asked for my co-operation in the matter.

Again, Sir, the Dravagalagam, another Hindu organisation in Singapore, in a letter addressed to me on 27th February, states:

"My Committee wishes to place on record its deep appreciation and gratitude for your efforts to get Hindu marriages registered, which is overdue in Singapore."

Sir I have also received another letter from the Malayan Tamil Association, Singapore, which is also in accordance with my aim.

Sir, I have had consultations with the Secretary of the Tamil Representative Council, Mr G. Sarangapany, who also agreed to the text of my resolution.

Furthermore, Sir, I have also discussed this question with another leading member of the Hindu community in Singapore, Mr C. R. Dasaratha Raj, who was responsible for the introduction of the Hindu Monogamous Marriage Bill in 1954.

Sir, the question of Hindu marriages and its legal recognition is not my own idea. Nor is it a new thing in Singapore. I do not, for a moment, Sir, like to take credit for the work which I am doing today in this Assembly. In the previous Legislative Council in 1954, my friend, Mr C. R. Dasaratha Raj, introduced a Hindu Monogamous Marriage Bill. This Bill, which came up for its Second Reading in April 1954, was referred to a Select Committee as some of the provisions were controversial. I was a Member of this Select Committee and we discussed the matter at considerable length, but it was unfortunate that this Committee was unable to make a Report to the Legislative Council as it was prorogued prior to the General Elections in April 1955.

Sir, members of the Hindu community find things extremely difficult when disputes arise between husband and wife, in particular, disputes in respect of maintenance for the wife and inheritance, because the Courts of the Colony are reluctant to accept Hindu marriages as valid for want of proof of marriage. At present. Sir, Hindu marriages performed in the Colony are not required to be registered. It is also difficult, Sir, to prove Hindu marriages performed outside the Colony. Since 1933 or 1934, Sir, several pleas have been made by the Hindu community in Singapore to the proper authority. The Hindu Advisory Board also have taken considerable time in expounding this cause and I am glad that they have taken up the matter very vigorously at all stages. Hinduism being a religion, members of the Hindu community would prefer to have separate legislation to validate marriages between Hindus, and matters incidental thereto, just as we have the Muslim Marriage Ordinance and the Christian Marriage Ordinance for Muslims and Christians respectively.

Sir, the second part of my motion, which requests Government to introduce the necessary legislation, is designed to enable the Bill to be as non-controversial as possible. At present, I understand there are differences of opinion among Hindus in Singapore as to the question of certain provisions in the Hindu Monogamous Marriage Bill. A section of the Hindu community contends that there is no need for the provision of divorce in the Marriage Bill, while another section contends that since Hindus are monogamous, there should be provision for divorce in the Marriage Bill. That section of the community which wants divorce provisions in the Bill argues that Government employees who are members of the Hindu community are unable to contribute to the Widows' and Orphans' Fund. There seem to be these differences, Sir, and I feel that, instead of attempting to introduce a Marriage Bill which again would be very controversial in nature, I had better leave the whole matter in the hands of the Government which can iron out the differences with the aid of public opinion in Singapore. There is also a section of Hindus in Singapore, Sir, who feel that marriages should be performed in a reformed style, but I feel, Sir, that both the old style of marriages and the reformed style should be recognised in any Marriage Bill.

Sir, the reason why I want the Government to go into this matter has already been mentioned by me earlier. I would suggest, Sir, that the Government, if my motion is accepted, call a meeting of all representatives of Hindu organisations and then appoint a working party, with the aid of the Hindu Advisory Board, of course, to go into this question very thoroughly, so that whatever little differences they have amongst themselves can be ironed out and a Bill which is acceptable to all Hindus can be introduced into this Assembly.

Sir, my motion, as it stands today, is absolutely non-political in character and I am placing it before the Assembly in the hope that Members will rise above their Party level and give it the support that it deserves.

I wish to take this opportunity, Sir, of thanking the Hindu Sabhai, the Malayan Tamil Associations in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, the Dravagalagam, Mr G. Sarangapany (the representative of the Tamil Representative Council) and Mr C. R. Dasaratha Raj for giving me their advice, guidance and cooperation in my endeavour to introduce this motion.

Sir, I wish to congratulate publicly those organisations in my constituency for their sense of social consciousness and readiness to co-operate amongst themselves for the sake of social reform so necessary when the people of Singapore are marching towards self-government and independence. Sir, I beg to move.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have great pleasure in seconding the motion before the House. It is very necessary that a married couple must have a marriage certificate. It has been most disturbing to the Hindus that there is no such machinery existing in Singapore.

Sir, a Bill was introduced in the previous Legislative Council by an intelligent local-born gentleman, Mr Dasaratha Raj. This Bill was referred to a Select Committee. As the mover of the motion has said, owing to the General Elections, the Report of the Select Committee was not submitted to the Council. I do not know why this was so. A year has passed since this Assembly came into existence, and I do not know why Government has not taken the responsibility of picking up the threads left by the previous Legislative Council - threads which are most important to a very important community in Singapore.

The Member for Seletar has spoken at length on this subject and has told us of the various representations received by him and by many of us here on this side of the House. I hope, just like the Muslims Bill, Government will devote their immediate attention to putting an end to this troublesome matter.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, strange as it may seem, as a non-Hindu I rise to support the motion. I have always maintained that religion should not come within the four walls of this Assembly and should not prejudice us in any decision where religion is concerned. I do not like to discuss the merits or demerits of the motion, as it only calls upon Government to introduce such legislation as early as possible, but I would like to congratulate the Member for Seletar, who is the only Hindu Member in this Assembly who has initiative to move the introduction of such a motion in this Assembly in the social interests of the Hindus.

In my own Division, at least about 30 per cent of my electorate are Hindus, and when this motion came into my hands after being circulated, I consulted a number of them and they told me that this Bill had been far, far delayed. It should have been introduced when this Assembly met in April last year.

I am all for any legislation in social reform and I fully support the motion introduced by the Member for Seletar.

Mr Goode: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has considerable sympathy with the views which have been expressed, both by the hon. mover of this motion and by those who have supported him. I think, however, that it is only right that I should sound a note of caution on the difficulties that face us in considering the motion. I was hoping that, in speaking to it, we should get a clear lead exactly what is required, because, with all respect, the wording of the motion leaves the issues very broad and very indefinite. We are asked to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages "and other matters connected therewith", and if the Government is to legislate on a matter which is one of considerable religious controversy, it is important that we should have a clear lead exactly what is meant by the "other matters connected with Hindu marriages".

The Member for Seletar, in moving his motion, referred to the desire to have marriages registered and he referred to the desire to have Hindu marriages made monogamous. Now, he did not make it clear to me whether he was speaking as a member of that religion who thought it right that, by statute, we should compel Hindus to be monogamous. That is one of the first important questions that have got to be decided before we can proceed to introduce legislation.

Several Members have referred to the fate of a previous attempt to introduce legislation concerning Hindu marriages, and it has been suggested that the Bill introduced in the previous Legislative Council was unfortunately brought to nought by the expiry of the time of that Council. As another Member put it rather more colourfully, it was brought to nought by reason of the elections - a somewhat strange cause. But, in fact, a contributory cause to the failure to get that Bill on the statute book was that it did arouse very acute controversy amongst those persons who profess the Hindu religion, and my own impression of it is that if we are not careful, the same fate will befall any new legislation which we may introduce. We must try to ensure that it does not founder on acute religious controversy amongst the very people whom we are trying to help.

I understand the present position to be that a number of Hindus, including the Hindu Advisory Board, do want legislation to be introduced to make the registration of Hindu marriages compulsory; to legislate that Hindu marriages should be monogamous; to make provision for divorce; and to make provision for the ages at which Hindus shall be allowed to marry. From the representations we received on the previous occasion, there are a number of other organisations in the Hindu community some of whom support some of those points and some of whom support only one; but there is, in particular, an organisation known as the Tamils Reform Association, and that Association has on two occasions produced an alternative draft Bill with the request that their draft Bill, which they claim is a simple Bill, should be introduced without any further delay to settle the other very much more controversial issues. In their draft Bill, they merely ask that the registration of Hindu marriages should be compulsory and they suggest that, if legislation is provided to make registration compulsory, that could meet the greatest and the common need of the Hindu community. They are against embarking on further controversial matters such as provisions for monogamy, for divorce and other connected matters. When those views were produced two years ago - I think it is about that - there was very considerable criticism by other members of the Hindu community who said that the Tamils Reform Association was really an Association of Tamils and not an Association of Hindus, and it was not representative of Hindu opinion. Whether that is a valid criticism or not, I am sure I do not know, but the point I do want to emphasise is that this is a matter which has, in the past, roused great public controversy between persons professing the Hindu religion, and unless we can get some lead which appears to be unanimous or nearly unanimous, it is going to be extremely difficult for the Government, with the best will in the world, to draft legislation which will be acceptable to the majority of the community.

It was, I think, suggested that there was no way at the present moment in which a Hindu marriage can be registered. It is true that there is no provision for registering Hindu marriages as such, but I think it is possible for Hindus who marry to register their marriages under the Civil Marriage Ordinance. That, I know, is not what is asked for but it does provide some facility.

I should like to make it clear, Sir, that the Government has, as I think I have said, great sympathy with this request on behalf of the Hindu community for legislation to enable their affairs of marriage to be more satisfactorily regulated, and I am quite prepared to give an undertaking that we will give facilities for legislation; but I think I must say that before we can make any real progress, it will be necessary for the leading members and the leading organisations of the Hindu community to try to reach some measure of agreement on precisely what legislation would be acceptable to them at the present time. Provided that the Hindus can make it clear to us what they want and we can have a reasonable prospect of drafting and introducing legislation which will not provoke intense religious controversy, then I can assure you that the Government will be very ready to examine this question in consultation with Hindu public opinion. But we do not wish - and I think the House will agree that it would be ill-advised - in trying to help the Hindu community to get ourselves involved in perhaps a bitter religious controversy.

Mr R. C. H. Lim (Nominated): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a Hindu but I am interested in this problem, and it seems to me rather amusing that a bachelor like the Member for Seletar should be so interested in the question of marriage and divorce. Whether he is contemplating marriage in the near future or not, he has not informed us. Whether there is a girl behind the throne who wants to compel him to register their impending marriage, he has also not informed us. But I never like to make anything compulsory. If registration of marriages for the Hindus or for any other race is necessary, it should be voluntary and not compulsory. The Hindus have customs as old as the Chinese or other communities of Singapore, and they may like to stick to their customs and not want to register their marriages. So, on the question of compulsory registration, I am not in favour of it.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with considerable hesitation that I voice my Party's opinion on this motion. One of the reasons why the British has survived for so long in their colonies is because they never tamper with deep-seated loyalties and prejudices, loyalties to a particular religion, a particular mode of life, a particular mode of conduct. This policy of the British Government, which has worked so successfully in the past, has led us into curious situations. We have, for instance, in Singapore today polygamy legally recognised because, at the time when the British first came here, the people who then lived here had polygamous institutions brought from the country of their origin. Time has marched on in India and in China, but time has stayed still in British Malaya. This has created urgent social problems. Today a Chinese can have ten wives and fifteen concubines in Malaya, but if he were to go back to China, he would be promptly put into gaol and his wives freed to marry others who can more satisfactorily look after their welfare. So it is that the Hindus in Singapore have been allowed to carry on their religious practices without any let or hindrance from the Government. So long as the practice did not hamper the development of rubber and tin and such other useful and profitable pursuits, there was no reason - quite rightly, the British thought - to interfere with all these human activities. But I am sure time must have moved on in India, and a great deal of what the Indians consider to be the less desirable characteristics of Hinduism, like a widow flinging herself on her husband's funeral pyre, have been completely abolished in India. But I think in Singapore - in law anyway - there is nothing to prevent a widow from having a funeral pyre, upon which she can immolate herself. So it is that the Member for Seletar is concerned with the unsatisfactory state of the law relating to Hindus.

Sir, I am not versed in Hindu law. It is one of those subjects which I thought too erudite, and I am still in a state of comfortable vagueness about the customs of the Hindus. But I do appreciate, from the points made by the Member for Seletar and supported by the Muslim Member for Telok Ayer, that certain changes have become necessary. But it seems to me that the policy of separate legislation for separate religions may raise difficulties. I am not saying that it is wrong. I am not saying that we should oppose it. But we must consider the problem which this kind of legislation would create for us if every religious group - Taoists, Buddhists and Confucians - were to come before this Assembly and say, "We believe in cutting a cockerel's neck when we take our oath in the witness box. Therefore, could you kindly provide for such ceremonies to be performed in all the law Courts of the Colony of Singapore?" The result would be that we might have in Singapore the most wonderful crystallisation and mummification of all the various cultures, customs and prejudices of the peoples that ever settle here.

The whole problem has to be carefully surveyed and reviewed. One of the planks of several of the women's sections of political parties represented in this Assembly is the institution of monogamy. Even the Malay community - I do not know if it is Kaum Ibu, but it is some Malay women's organisation - have advocated that polygamy be abolished and that the Malays should practise monogamy. There has been a great deal of male resistance to this suggestion and the matter is still unresolved. But for large sections of the population, particularly the Chinese, the position is thoroughly unsatisfactory and completely reprehensible.

Today, one has in Singapore the curious spectacle of the English law of intestacy of the eighteenth century embellished and embroidered to fit the polygamous institutions of China of the eighteenth century. When a man dies leaving ten wives and ten children, those ten wives can all go to Court to get probate in order that they can share what in English law has been set aside for the widow - one-third to the widow, two-thirds to the children. The Courts in this Colony administering English law in such a curious position have said, "One-third to all the widows, and two-thirds to all the children." This is a matter which should receive comprehensive review. No single political Party could brave the storm of religious protest and resistance, but if we made a serious attempt to reconcile religious practices with modern-day needs in a modern-day world, we might then first decide whether special legislation for each religion is the answer, or whether omnibus legislation covering all religions, except the Muslim religion which is an almost established church in the Federation, might not be a better answer than the proposal of the Member for Seletar.

I have here, Sir, an amendment to move to this motion which I understand is acceptable to the mover, namely,

"That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed by the Government to investigate the need for and advisability of an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all."

The rest of the paragraph is left out.

The Chief Minister: Is that not fantastic?

Mr Speaker: Can I have that amendment in writing?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard an involuntary ejaculation from the Hon. the Chief Minister. I do not know if my friend the Member for Seletar is in agreement with my amendment. I understood that he was, but if anything should appear fantastic to anybody, let me be the first to withdraw. I wanted to be helpful, but if I am not helpful then I would like to have it pointed out where I was wrong. I am only suggesting that the matter should be carefully looked into. If there are controversial points, it can be argued between all those worthy organisations to which the Member for Seletar has referred and by all the worthy and civic-conscious leaders of the Tamil community. Rather than have the forum here in this Assembly, we might have it in some discreet part of the building where a Committee could sit with relative calm and composure to hear opposing and conflicting points of view.

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: Would the hon. Member like to add anything further in respect of his amendment?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment in no way detracts from the original motion. All it does is to get the ground cleared first.

An hon. Member: May we hear the amendment?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion, as amended, would read:

"That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed by the Government to investigate the advisability of enacting an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus and to make the necessary recommendations to the Government."

It does not detract from the original motion except that it provides for machinery whereby differences of opinion as to the content of such legislation could be more effectively resolved in Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendment.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang): I second the amendment.

Mr Speaker: The original motion was,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu Marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus is necessary; and that the Government should introduce the necessary legislation as early as possible, after consultation with the Hindu public opinion.

Since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out all the words after the words "opinion that" in the original motion and to insert the words "a Committee be appointed by the Government to investigate the advisability of enacting an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus and to make the necessary recommendations to the Government."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Goode: Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to make two observations on the proposed amendment.

One is to draw attention to the fact that the amendment makes a very substantial change, and that is this. The original motion put forward by the Member for Seletar expressed the opinion that legislation is desirable, whereas we are now proposing to set up a Committee to discover whether or not legislation is advisable. I am not saying that it is not a better way of approaching the problem, but it seems to me to be fundamentally different.

The second point that I should like to put forward for the consideration of the House is that there is in existence today, and it has been for many years, what is known as the Hindu Advisory Board. That Board consists of a number of Hindus who are appointed for the express purpose of advising the Government on precisely such matters as this, namely, matters affecting Hindu customs and religion. It would appear, at first sight, though it may not be the intention of the Assembly, that by appointing a Committee we indicate that the Hindu Advisory Board is not the most suitable body to advise us on this question.

Mr Nair: Sir, I am really at a loss to know what is in the mind of the Government. Originally, the Hon. the Chief Secretary stated that the Hindu Advisory Board has made certain recommendations and the Tamils Reform Association are against them. That would mean substantially that the recommendation of the Hindu Advisory Board is not really the view of Hindu public opinion in Singapore. I find it difficult to reconcile the two arguments, and I am inclined to accept the amendment because of this reason.

I thought I had made a good case for my original motion when I had explained the whole circumstances, and it would appear that, because differences of public opinion among Hindus exist in Singapore, the Government could do very little in the way of promoting legislation. Now, I think the suggestion made by the mover of the amendment clearly shows that if there are such differences and if the Government cannot tackle them, then it would be necessary to appoint a Committee to find out what public opinion is in regard to Hindu marriages. I feel the Government must accept the situation one way or the other, and I can only hope that the alternative suggestion put before the House, would be accepted by Government, otherwise they would have accepted my original motion.

The Chief Minister: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no difficulty in understanding Government's attitude. It seeks at all times to meet the legitimate requirements of the people of the country. There is no question but that the Hindu population, as I understand it, desire some sort of legislation but the unfortunate part about this motion, and one that has taken us by surprise, is that it seems to have been so inadequately prepared. It is true that legislation is required, but the hon. Member who has proposed it does not seem to have delved sufficiently into the background to enquire into the possibility that there could be any question of unanimity on the part of the Hindu population in respect of the matter which he seeks to raise. Sir, we could introduce the Bill, and fairly soon, for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages which might find general acceptance, but the other issues which many Hindus feel should be tackled at the same time are extremely difficult.

Now, the Hindu Advisory Board has been referred to, and so that there should be no misunderstanding that it is this Board that the hon. Member wishes to have represented, I should like to say that it is in existence and should be named; but if it is, in fact, not named, then Government would be free to appoint to this Committee members of the Hindu Advisory Board as well as others who would not have been appointed.

I would like to say, Sir, that in respect of the exclamation which the Member for Tanjong Pagar seems to have taken resentment to -

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Your resentment to -

The Chief Minister: - the fact is that at that time I found it somewhat fantastic because I was drafting an amendment almost identical to the one he moved.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Great minds think alike!

The Chief Minister: I am so happy to see my friend flattering himself!

Sir, I would like to say this on behalf of the Government. We will appoint this Committee with pleasure. We can but hope that it will produce some degree of unanimity. We hope that at least on some aspects, particularly on the aspect of compulsory registration, we shall have a firm recommendation. We accept this recommendation, Sir, contained in the amendment as being a helpful one, and we shall certainly vote in favour of it. But from what I understand, Sir, it is going to be a matter for prominent members of the Hindu community to try to sink their differences if there is going to be anything worth while produced by Government by way of an Ordinance following on this motion.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Chief Secretary, in replying to the original motion, said that the last attempt at legislation could not be brought into being because of the various differences of opinion existing amongst the Hindu community and their various bodies. This amendment has solved his troubles. The Government should appoint a Committee and all these bodies will come before the Committee and present their views. Where they are unanimous on, say, the registration of marriages, that may be accepted. Other things, like the age of the marriage or the divorce, can also be tackled by that Committee.

From what I can understand, the difficulty really is this - that a married couple require a certificate to prove that they were legally married. This is the actual trouble that is going on in Singapore and the Federation. This is actually what is required, and if the points that these people give in their evidence are unanimous, then the Government should at least help them by bringing in such legislation. I think this amendment solves the question by having a Committee appointed and this Committee can examine all these matters.

Mr Goode: We had the Committee before.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak with great timidity on this sort of subject because I am a religious man myself, and I should hate to have my religion interfered with; but I feel that we are hopefully looking forward to an increasing national unity which tends to mean national uniformity in behaviour and standards and so on - that people more or less behave in the same kind of way, which is the Malayan way, and not any other kind of way. But the way to achieve that sort of national unity and national uniformity is not to try to get large-scale legislation which makes massive changes rather rapidly. That does possibly seem to be implied in this motion. I am not sure. The "other matters" are unspecified and they might merely be whether you register your children as well or whether you do not do not know what the "other matters" might be, but it obviously could be very far-reaching in matters connected with the Hindu religion particularly almost anywhere.

The sort of thing that seems to me to be desirable is that we should accept for practical purposes the fact that, here and there, everybody accepts the same law. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that no matter what your religion is, as far as the Income Tax Ordinance goes, you are only allowed one wife. Mr Speaker, I do not know whether I am correct or not, but that is my understanding of it. That seems to be the way in which we should go to work to produce national uniformity. [Interruption.] If you have not got a wife, you cannot claim for her as well!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You need a certificate too!

Mr Francis Thomas: That seems to me the way in which we should go to work. I am a little doubtful about this amendment because it does reproduce a certain amount of the difficulty which was in the original motion. "acceptable to all Hindus" - I just do not believe, I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that you are going to get something which is acceptable to all Hindus or even to the massive majority. There is sure to be some influential society or group which says, "No, we think the opposite." It is always like that in human affairs, whether it is Hindus, British, or anybody else, and I prefer the much simpler motion "to study the needs and wishes of the Hindu community with regard to Hindu marriages and to make recommendations" which would leave you without these rather restrictive clauses about being in accordance with the Hindu religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus. But I will save time and assume that this will be read in a generous light by the Committee and I will not move a further amendment to this motion.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding this question, I think it is better for me, in supporting this amendment, not to add any word, because, as I understand, this amendment has been actually brought up by two of the most brilliant Members in the Assembly. I would, however, like to point out that the Government should recognise and admit that such a Bill is already overdue and that immediate action should be taken.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out in the original motion, be left out," put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." For the benefit of the hon. Members, I will read those words again. The words are:

"a Committee be appointed by the Government to investigate the advisability of enacting an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus and to make the necessary recommendations to the Government."

Mr Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to take the opportunity of elucidating a phrase which is in my motion, and that is, "other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus".

The reason why this motion has been so worded is to satisfy both sides. If I had only said "registration of marriages" and then stopped there, we would be getting a lot of representations from people who also wanted some other religious matters incorporated into the Marriage Bill. So I thought that, side by side with having registration of Hindu Marriages, it would be advisable for the Government to consider other aspects connected with Hindu marriages and religion. Therefore, I added "other matters connected therewith". When I said "therewith", it does not mean Hinduism and its law in all aspects, but I only said "connected therewith". That means only Hindu laws affecting marriages. So you appreciate, Sir, that the question which the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works has raised in regard to Hindu law does not arise. It only affects marriages. In Hindu law, there are only certain cases which affect religion, just like the sacred ceremonies which are held. One side says, "We want sacred ceremonies to be held." Another side says, "No, we do not want any sacred ceremonies. Just call a few people and have a feast and then that is the end of the marriage." That is the main reason, Sir, why I inserted this particular phrase.

Now that everybody is agreed on this motion, I do not wish to say too much on this except to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Committee which will consider the other relevant matters.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now is the original motion, as amended, namely,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed by the Government to investigate the advisability of enacting an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus and to make the necessary recommendations to the Government.

Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Muslim myself, I think this motion before the House should be given full support, because we are fully aware that some religions have not been brought up to date. This is the time that religions should be respected and I hope all Members of the House will support this motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly is of the opinion that a Committee be appointed by the Government to investigate the advisability of enacting an Ordinance to provide for the compulsory registration of Hindu marriages in Singapore and other matters connected therewith in accordance with the Hindu Religion, customs and manners acceptable to all Hindus and to make the necessary recommendations to the Government.