LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Committee stage read.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

2.31 p.m.

The Chairman: There is a note to clause 1, in page 5, line 5, to leave out "1958" and insert "1959". That will be done.

New clause (after clause 11)- 'Amendment of Subsection (3) of section 22 section 22. of the principal Ordinance is hereby section amended by deleting the word 22. "two" appearing in the fourth line thereof and substituting therefor the word "three".'.-[The Chief Minister].

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

As the law stands at present, Sir, the Local Authority must hold an election to fill a casual vacancy within two months of that vacancy occurring. This is a very short period and allows only the minimum amount of time in which to follow the legal procedures as well as to enable political parties to prepare and campaign for an election or by-election. For these reasons, an extension is thought to be necessary, in particular in view of the forthcoming General Elections and the possibility that there may be some vacancies to fill in the City Council as a result of City Councillors wishing to participate in the General Elections. It is felt that a three-month period is necessary to enable the by-election that may be necessary to be held after the General Elections. Without this amendment, it may happen that the by-election may have to be held almost at the same time as the General Elections.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported, with an Amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading. What day?

The Chief Minister: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Mak Pak Shee): I second it.

Question proposed.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, this is about the most illuminating example of the futility of this Government's legislation, of which we have had quite a few examples in the last few days.

When this Bill was first introduced in this Chamber, we were all led to believe that at some time or other there were going to be elections to the Local Government and that the District Council elections were going to be held. We were told in 1957 that they would be held at the beginning of 1958. After the disaster they encountered in the City Council elections, the Labour Front tarried and dallied. In the middle of 1958, we were told that there might be elections at the end of 1958. Now in 1959 all pretence has been dropped, and it is openly acknowledged that there will be no elections to the District Council during the life of this Government. So why are we debating this bit of shadow legislation? What is the purpose of it?

Sir, it is a good thing that the Legislative Assembly elections are not so much at the disposal of this Government as the Local Government elections were, otherwise it may well be that 1959 would not see the General Elections. However, we were informed that some of the principles which we debated in Select Committee might be embodied in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Amendment) Ordinance.

Now, we have had the Bill for a few days and when that Bill comes up for Second Reading and goes into Committee, we shall inform the Government of our views. If it were possible, I would like to inform the Government of our views before it comes up for Second Reading. After all, we are all publicly committed to free elections - whatever each Member may privately desire. And since we are all committed to trying to frame rules to ensure free and decent and clean elections, it should not be difficult so to devise things that gangsters are nicely put out of the way. And if it hurts the Member for Serangoon, who is a schoolmaster, to have schoolboys put out of the way; I have seen his own students working not for his Party but for some other Party, and if the Chief Minister thinks that compulsory voting might yet save the sinking S.P.A., ex-Labour Front, ex-Progressive, ex-Liberal-Socialist - all the political riff-raff and flotsam and jetsam, then we will-

Mr Speaker: Order. Firstly, I think the expression "riff-raff, flotsam and jetsam" with reference to Members of the Assembly - I take it there was reference to Members of the Assembly - is completely unparliamentary, and all these personalities seem to me to be quite irrelevant. And if the hon. Member will continue with the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill which must be confined to the contents of the Bill and nothing more, then perhaps we can get on.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Indeed, Sir, I am very keen to get on with the Bill because I think it serves no purpose whatsoever. Firstly this Bill is going to be another piece of futile legislation, and all I was hoping to drive home was to remind Members on the opposite side that they can think of all the schemes they like in the world, but the secret of a long political life is a clean, healthy, good political life. There is no substitute for it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have asked the hon. Member to withdraw certain words.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, I was not referring to Members of the Assembly when I said "flotsam and jetsam". I was referring to the political Parties that have plagued this country for the last few years.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Including yours!

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the hon. Member should debate what my opinion is. My opinion was that he did refer to a government consisting of Members of different political Parties; and those expressions, to me, had some reference to Members of this Assembly, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw those expressions.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: In so far as they referred to Members of this Assembly, Sir, I withdraw. But let the Government at least have the courage, if they want to try their luck at compulsory voting, to say, "I want to try this. This is my last gamble, the last throw of the dice. I believe the P.A.P. got in because lots of people who supported the Labour Front did not vote."

Sir, I said quite frankly to the Chief Minister in Select Committee what we had already stated publicly, and what my Chairman has stated publicly on behalf of my Party. We are not afraid of compulsory voting. If the Government want another last throw of the dice, short of the dice being loaded, short of ballot papers being stuffed beforehand into the ballot boxes - and that is not possible - nothing will save them. If they believe that compulsory voting is the answer to a democratic government, then I say, so be it.

But as far as this Bill is concerned, we are all wasting time debating a piece of shadow legislation which they have not the slightest intention of using. Now, they have not even the opportunity to use it before they go out of office. The whole solemnity of the legislative process is being abused by people pushing through measures which they know full well are just so many extra words on the Statute Book.

2.42 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, this afternoon, we are adopting this Report of the Select Committee. I am glad after all that elections are due, because we had this promise of elections in 1956, 1957 and 1958, when the minority government was working.

Today the situation is much worse. Certain Members elected on certain Party tickets have resigned from their Parties, and therefore they no longer represent their electorate; they only represent themselves. Sir, the Liberal-Socialist Party elected members have no objection whatsoever to whatever Bills the Government pass, because after the life of this Government, the people will be able to judge who is faithful to his word.

Mr Speaker: Order. I thought I made it quite clear that we are now on the Third Reading of this Bill, and the debate on the Third Reading can only be confined to the contents of the Bill. That is all.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, with due respect to the Chair, I am trying to confine as best I can, but as a person elected from my electorate, I am sure I can express my political opinion. But if I am prevented, Sir, by your ruling, I have nothing more to say. After all, this is an Assembly where we can express our political opinions.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with my ruling, he has his remedy - he can move a motion. But I must try and apply the Standing Orders as best I can. The Standing Orders are the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

We are now on the Third Reading of a Bill. Now if the hon. Member had comments of the nature he wishes to pass, he had the opportunity when I indicated what the procedure was-to recommit certain clauses of this Bill, which perhaps would have given him the opportunity to pass the remarks he wished to pass when these specific clauses were discussed in Committee. But he never availed himself of that advantage, and now we are debating the contents of the Bill, and the contents only.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have always respected the Chair during the last three or four years. The Speaker has guarded the rights of the Assemblymen, and the Assemblymen have their own rights too. Thank you for the remarks, Sir. After these few remarks, what I want to ask is this. Do you call this legislation or rules and regulations a guided democracy, or dictatorship? But what I say is this. The voters will judge the persons whom they are going to vote.

2.46 p.m.

Mr William Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I for one would like to comment on compulsory voting. Personally I think compulsory voting is rather undemocratic. On the other hand, compulsory voting would give the masses a chance to give expression to their demands. I say this because I want to quote one incident which happened during the by-election in Tanjong Pagar in 1956. One was the way the members or supporters of the People's Action Party behaved themselves during that time. Their methods remind me of violence and gangsterism. I am referring to an incident which occurred after the by-election result was known, that is, about midnight. A few hundred supporters of the People's Action Party were marching in regimental order along Kreta Ayer Road. They then cut into Keong Siak Road and Sago Lane, where the death houses were. This band of people, while marching along the road, were shouting "Oompa Oompa, Merdeka!" I do not mind this expression at all. This group of unruly ruffians or hooligans then arrived at the Branch Office of the Liberal-Socialist Party. In front of the Branch Office was a coffee stall, and across the road there was a banner put up by the Liberal-Socialist. Party candidate, Mr Chong Wee Ling. When this group of people came to the front of this Branch Office, they behaved in a violent manner. This reminded me of the Hock Lee Bus riots. They climbed on to one another's shoulders and pulled down the banner, and tore it into strips which they then tied together. They then marched along the road like a funeral procession. At the same time, they tore down the posters of Mr Chong Wee Ling from the coffee stall, which were pasted by the sympathisers of our Party. The stall was then smashed by these same hooligans.

Sir, compulsory voting is to allow expression by the people of Singapore. Do we want a party in power to adopt such violent and gangster methods or not? I for one would advocate that the people who make use of these hooligans should be punished.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr William Tan: He had his chance to speak.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has not given way.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Not the people of Tanjong Pagar?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr William Tan: We have given many chances to the People's Action Party. One can now see the force of the P.A.P. to show how lamblike they are and honestly trusting the Communists. They are men who would use, without compunction, the strong-arm and violent methods of gangsters to get into power.

Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the House to another fact, if compulsory voting is going to be adopted. In my area alone there are over 1,000 voters. They are staying in huts and attap houses in the electoral division of Tiong Bahru. The Statistics Department go by the boundary in compiling the electoral registers. The even numbers in the area and the odd numbers in the other area along the main road will be divided, so much so that the people living in my kampong have had their names compiled in the electoral register of Delta Division. If the polling station for the same voter is in the Delta area, how do you expect these people, most of whom are old, to go from Tiong Bahru to Delta Road area to cast their votes, a distance of about one mile? I have pointed this out to the Commissioner of Elections and he replied to me that he was unable to transfer these people from the electoral register of Delta area to the electoral register of Tiong Bahru. Sir, I would also like to say something about the compilation of the records. I should say that about 30 to 40 per cent on the register are inaccurate.

When I took part in the election at Tanjong Pagar, I found that 90 cards, with the voters' names and addresses printed on them, were distributed to one of the houses there. In actual fact, there were only 40 people living in this house. Why cannot the Government take steps to rectify this mistake? Why cannot the Government see to it that the people who do not live in these houses should be debarred from casting their votes?

Coming back now to the question of voters in my area - it is rather strange that Government expect those people living in my area, that is, in Tiong Bahru, to cast their votes in the Delta constituency to elect a candidate to represent their interests in a different constituency, that is, electing a representative in Delta to represent the people who live in Tiong Bahru. This is most ridiculous. But I cannot blame the Department of Statistics, Sir, because I found out that they compiled the registers by the numbers of the houses. Take, for instance, people living alongside a long road. The houses on one side will have even numbers and the opposite side will have odd numbers. The even numbers will fall into one electoral register, and the odd numbers will fall into another electoral register. For instance, the Tiong Bahru register will include all houses with even numbers irrespective of the fact that some of the even numbers of houses are situated in another area, say Delta area. In other words, the Department take the road as the dividing line. I hope the Government will take steps to put the voters back in their respective constituency. That is, the voters who live in Tiong Bahru, but whose names appear in the register of voters in the Delta constituency, should be transferred back to the Tiong Bahru register. I am sure that other areas have the same problem as my area has. I took the trouble of looking into the question of voters in a different constituency and I found that the figures came to over 1,000 people - over 1,000 voters are involved. I would urge the Government to see that this mistake be rectified.

I for one would support compulsory voting. As I said, it would give the people the opportunity to express their feelings, and to decide whether they want a Party which adopts the methods of gangsterism or a Party which adopts a democratic method to run Singapore.

2.55 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk on compulsory voting. The Member for Tanjong Pagar has spoken very strongly indeed on this Bill. He said that this Bill should never have come to this Assembly-we have wasted the time of the Assembly. I do not think so. I have been a member of the Select Committee, and I would like to read out the names of other members of the Select Committee. They are: the Hon. Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat, the Hon. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lim Cher Kheng, Mr Lim Choon Mong, Mr E. P. Shanks, and the Hon. Dr Lim Yew Hock-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Tun, Tun.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Well, Sir, I wonder why the protest was not registered at that stage.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Member has not given way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I do not know why, if this Bill is not good, it should have come to this Assembly; and why we should have had so many meetings of the Select Committee. In this Report the first meeting was-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: 22nd August.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: dated 22nd August, 1958.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - the elections in December?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: - at which the Member for Tanjong Pagar, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was present. Sir, I was really impressed by his enthusiasm at that time. He talked in a very business-like manner. He said that we must clean up all these things; we must prevent the thugs from running the elections; we must prevent those who are non-citizens from participating in the elections, and we must sit down and seriously think what methods we must adopt to make our elections clean. Very commendable, Sir, I would like to commend him further, Sir, because, after the discussion in the first Select Committee meeting, and at his own request, we were called to an All-Party Committee meeting at the Chief Minister's Office. We put up proposals and counter-proposals. Every detail was discussed, right down to posters, compulsory voting, use of students, this and that. He was most enthusiastic. I think he should be given a medal for showing such public spiritedness. But after hearing him today saying: "Look, this is all useless. Take the Bill away. We are wasting our time", I just cannot reconcile the action he showed previously with his present action. What is all this about? Why is the change? Why should we have the change? Who should have the change? Should the change be initiated by the Government, or by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar? I suppose if the change were initiated from the P.A.P., then everything should be all right. The people of Singapore should be very happy. But if anybody else should initiate it, then it would be a waste of time for this Assembly. No, Sir. Talking about people changing political Parties, talking about all these-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has gone very, very far from the Bill. Now he seems to be straying a little further. Let us come back to the Bill.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I was just commenting on a few points which the Member for Tanjong Pagar had said during the Third Reading and which had interested me, and I thought we should also let him have our opinion on the same subject! I was saying that talking about all these changes, it should not be just the wish of one Party to change but the wish of everybody concerned.

Now I come back to the question of compulsory voting. I think it is a very good measure, because the Party which wins will know that it has the support of the majority of the people and not of a small section of the people. Compulsory voting, Sir, will rule out to a large extent the use of thugs, as alleged by Members here. It will tone down the use of schoolchildren in the electioneering campaign.

I have always been referred to as a school teacher. I think it is, after all, a very good thing to be a school teacher and to be able to look after the interests of school children and not just to make use of them. Today, school children stay at their work to study their lessons, and not influenced by the rebel talks of those people, need not go to principals or teachers to ask that they be promoted, or plead that they be found an extra school to go to. I have always been of the opinion that the people who really have the welfare of the children at heart should refrain from using them. They should ask them to think of their studies first, so that when they grow up they may better be able to serve Singapore, instead of their having ideas put in their heads, being sent on a wild-goose chase, neglecting their lessons and failing in their examinations. How many of them have failed miserably? If you look at the list of failures, I am sure you will find that those who are most active in shouting slogans and marching down Kreta Ayer Street will be amongst them. Now, after they have failed, they ask the Government or public-spirited people to help them. I would say we have helped them. But those who make use of them have no solution for them.

I think the idea of getting these children away from all electioneering is a good one.

3.00 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Speaker, Sir, back in the year 1956 the Branch Secretaries of the Labour Front were meeting regularly and were considering the work of the 1955 elections and the work that would be necessary for elections which were foreseen as possible in 1957, and they produced the proposals which finally took fruit just over 2½ years later in this Bill. Substantially this Bill embodies the proposals then put forward through my friend, Gerald de Cruz, by the Branch Secretaries of the Labour Front - for compulsory voting, holidays, control of transport, the use of transport by candidates. The findings of the Elias Commission, which are also related to this Bill, were substantially the findings of that group of Labour Front workers at that time. The Elias Commission did it more thoroughly and more judicially, but the matters discussed and the conclusions arrived at were the same. Sir, it makes me happy to think that the principles embodied in this Bill are ones which find the general assent of this Assembly, however they may regard details of timing.

There is one basic principle in politics, Mr Speaker, which I think this Bill protects and which is best put in the words of Confucius. I can quote them in the English version:

"When a man's mind is ruled by passion, his conduct will be incorrect."

Now, it is already obvious, Mr Speaker, that in this Assembly you are most scrupulously watching to see that our minds do not become moved by passion and our conduct does not err into indecorum. You have been pulling up speakers very frequently for verging on the bounds of indecorous words from which they might go on no doubt into undesirable actions.

Now, as the elections become closer, so politicians will allow themselves to be guided by their feelings; and more than that I am afraid. From past experience, I consider it a certainty that politicians will seek to get the people of Singapore guided by their feelings. They will try to work them up, to make them feel, "Away with this, and away with that!" The still small voice of reason will be less and less heard, except where reason can be used as a machine to produce emotional results. It is, to some extent, a necessary part of political life that politicians should try to stir men's hearts and rouse their feelings, because a great many people undoubtedly are not profoundly moved by political affairs. They go forward in their daily lives not interested in the complicated courses which may make them in fact happy or unhappy. It is not for most people a matter of intellectual interest to study the trade figures of Singapore. They frequently appear not to realise that on the figures of trade and on a sensible interpretation of them depends their own expectation of future employment, prosperity, of adequate hospital services and education services and all the other things that they get, which are in the end a share of the profits of Singapore's trade.

Consequently, if we are to interest people in policies, we have to try to bring those policies down into their daily lives and put them into words which will stir their minds and move them. It can be done in a good way. It can be done in a bad way, it is the part of the honest politician to present it truthfully, only illustrating it so as to make it understandable. If you come with long academic words and profound scientific explanations to an audience of people who cannot more than barely read and write, with a vocabulary of perhaps 1,000 or 1,500 words, you cannot expect they will listen to you with attention.

This is the problem of the school master - and it refers to my own profession - teaching in school where you have to teach difficult subjects in simple words. The same thing applies to politics. Consequently, the honest and good politician will study his subject and see in what way it can be presented so that it can be understood by people who have not a great deal of time to spare, and who have already done a heavy day's work and are sacrificing their own leisure time to come and listen to him talking. He will try to make his explanations of political affairs interesting and significant to them. But because things have to be often put in simple political terms, there is a great temptation for the dishonest politician to misrepresent the facts or even to tell lies. It is this which provides a great danger to Singapore, and has provided it in the past, and will provide it in the future, as it does in any country where people go out and try to win for themselves popular support. It applies not only to politicians, but it also applies to all attempts to secure popular support, whether in your trying to sell a soft drink or a patent medicine or a newspaper or any other thing where your success depends on bringing in hundreds and thousands of people to say, "That is very good. I am for that." The temptation to dishonesty is always there, and very often people yield more or less to that temptation. It would not be hard to bring into this Assembly - in fact I have one here - election addresses sent out to the voters of Singapore in which blatant lies were told and things were misrepresented. The truth was shirked and intentionally dishonest statements were made.

In the Select Committee which sat on this Bill, there was one point which I noticed. There was the question of the interpretation of a Malay word. Whether it meant that the minds of the public were disturbed or whether it meant that the minds of the public were - I forgot what the other interpretation was. Anyhow, it was discussed in the Select Committee and the witness said he did not mean that people's minds were disturbed in any bad way. But, nevertheless, they were disturbed by the two or three months of intensive shouting and the rudeness and so on which goes on between politicians before elections start.

The witness in the Select Committee suggested that there should be two or three days before the actual polling day during which political activity must stop, so that the voters would have a chance to cool down and consider soberly what had been said, what the facts really were and then cast their votes in sober judgment and not in the excitement of a mind inflamed with electoral oratory.

Well, that has not been provided, but at least it has been provided that on polling day itself the mind of the elector shall be left free, and there shall not be attempts to control or intimidate or persuade or influence him as he prepares himself to go to the polls. As he goes there, the parades of all kinds and descriptions of men - some of rather menacing aspect - whom we have seen standing outside polling stations in the past, will I hope not be seen again. If they start to hang around 200 yards from the polling station - that is the distance fixed in the Ordinance - then I hope the police will stand a few hundred yards away as well and will say, "Will you please move along the street, which is for people to pass along, and not for people to loiter in?"

I remember in the Kallang by-election there was an informal agreement between the Parties not to put these watchers or supervisors outside the polling stations to watch the people coming to the polls. But it had little effect. In fact, the day ended with very large accumulations of people wearing all sorts of little funny hats lining up outside. I myself observed elderly and quiet looking people coming, as it were, with the intention of voting and then looking rather dismayed. I saw two elderly Chinese ladies, for example. They came along, talking, with their bits of paper in their hands, and then they suddenly looked up from their talk. They saw the accumulated crowd and then they looked at each other and had a short conference or consultation. Then they turned round and went away. At least two people did not cast their votes that day, because they saw a crowd of people there. They said, "Well, we are quiet people; we do not want to walk through this battery of staring eyes, all trying to wonder which way we are going to vote."

Sir, I very much welcome the provisions in this law that on polling day the political Parties should keep quiet and stay at home and let the voters go to the polling stations, with their minds made up not under the influence of passion - whether anger or fear or any other passion. Let the voters go to the polls with their minds free to think and judge wisely. That is a great step forward, I think, among the things which are worth achieving.

I also personally welcome the introduction of compulsory polling or voting, whichever word you prefer. I suppose the point has been thoroughly studied, but the effect, of course, is that in a compulsory poll, a voter has to turn up and go through the motions of voting; and if he likes to write some rude remarks on his paper or draw pictures of somebody, or do any other action, it should not be possible to find out what he has done since he has voted secretly, because this compulsory polling is, I feel, a further safeguard for the peace of mind of the voters. If all must vote, then it is harder to say of any individual whether he has voted this way or he has voted that way, because he is just one small drop in a very large ocean. The smaller the po1i, the easier will a voter feel it for an unsuccessful candidate afterwards to say, "I believe you voted for the other man, and now I am going to pay you out for it." That is a danger which will certainly be feared by voters sometimes, and it is most important that they should not feel that. Under these proposals, the crowd will be greater, the number of votes will be greater, and the chance of identifying the feelings of any particular voter will therefore be less. For that reason alone, compulsory voting or polling is a very desirable thing.

It is desirable on other grounds as well, Mr Speaker. We have seen a number of elections in Singapore. My mind goes back to 1955. Approximately 156,000 voted then, if I remember rightly. Officially that was about 53 per cent of the poll. If the registers were 20 per cent inaccurate, as they usually are, then it was more like 66 per cent of the possible poll. Anyhow, it was a fair vote, though not a very heavy one. Now in that poll, Mr Speaker, there were 25 Members elected to this Assembly. Of those 25, the great majority were elected by a minority vote. They may not like to have it said of them but, nevertheless, it is certainly true. I remember the indignation with which the former Chief Minister, Mr D. S. Marshall, received my analysis of the election results, when I quite innocently remarked that the Labour Front won five of its ten seats on a minority poll, including the Cairnhill Division where the Labour Front polled 3,500 votes and the Opposition Parties - the Progressives and the Democrats - polled 3,630 votes; so that what was a fairly nice majority over the next candidate was, in fact, a minority vote for the Socialist side and a majority vote for the capitalist side. That was completely shown in the Cairnhill by-election thereafter, when the capitalist vote undoubtedly carried the day. That case, I think, applied to about 14 or 15 of those elected to this Assembly and if there had been a different method of voting they would not have been here. They are here because there was a single vote and the man had got, say, 1,100 votes and his two opponents got 1,000 votes each. He has definitely only got about a third of the total votes cast, but as he has got the largest single number of votes he becomes an Assemblyman and says very proudly, "I speak for the people of Singapore!" What he speaks for is a few thousand people who voted for him, and in his own constituency the majority of the people would have voted against him if they could. Unfortunately, they could not agree whom to vote for, and he is now sitting in the Assembly. These are the inevitable results of our electoral system which is modelled on the electoral system of Great Britain; and the justification for it - if it is a justification - is not so much that it gives effect to the wishes of the people, as that, it does secure that a government comes into power which has a useful majority. On the whole, the tendency is to give a small minority of voters the decisive word which throws the majority in the Assembly. If I might illustrate that, Mr Speaker, by referring to one case in this little textbook. In Great Britain in 1931, the Conservative Party polled 12,730,000 votes and got 460 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberal and Labour Parties polled over 9,500,00 votes and got 250 seats in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party got 120 more seats than their votes would have justified. In other cases, the additional seats achieved have been still higher sometimes. It may go to any Party. It does not matter much to which Party it goes. The tendency possibly will be in the future for the Labour Party in Britain to get advantage of that system of voting for single members where you have to make a choice, and if your choice is not one of the majority, your voice is not heard at all.

So, Mr Speaker, as we bring in compulsory voting, we shall I think do something to ensure - not necessarily that every man or woman in the Assembly has the unanimous support of the people in the constituency where he or she stands - because it is most unlikely that he or she will - and I shall expect myself that any future Assembly will contain a great many Members who do not represent the majority of the voters in their constituencies but who represent a minority, but the largest minority that has managed to agree together...

It is interesting to look back to 1955, if I may look back to it. Had the Liberal-Socialist Party been formed, say, in 1954 and fought the elections and had the Member for Telok Ayer at that time been a member of the Party and not an Independent, then the Liberal-Socialist Party would have had the seats to form the Government if they had been able to get the support of the U.M.N.O.-M,C.A. Alliance. They would have had a clear majority and they would not even have needed, I think, Members nominated to fill up their Benches. The nominated Members could have sat on the other side if they had wanted to. They would have certainly not needed a nominated Minister like myself. The Member for Serangoon, as the leader of the Liberal-Socialists, might well have been the Chief Minister of Singapore for the last four years had there been a united Right or Liberal-Socialist Party at that time. Although, in fact, the votes as cast showed a slight majority - a few thousand votes-for what you might call the Left Parties, nevertheless, the Right votes were so distributed that had there been unity between the Democrats and the Progressives at that time, they would have been able to form the Government, although they would not have represented more than 50 per cent of the votes actually cast.

This rather lengthy excursion into an analysis of electoral results, Mr Speaker, is only to reinforce my point that compulsory voting will give the 1959-1964 Assembly a better chance of knowing what the people of Singapore want. What the people of Singapore want is not necessarily the whole programme of any Party. Certainly when we say "the people of Singapore", it is a loose expression which usually means "my supporters", but not any Party in Singapore is going to command all the support of all the voters. But one thing is certain - that a very large number of the voters will disapprove of whatever Party comes into power at the next elections. How vigorous that disapproval may be it is hard to say, but it is very much to be hoped that as the struggle for votes develops, only fair and proper means will be used and feelings of hatred and emotional excitement will not be encouraged. There should be no need for a competent party which knows its party work, has proper policies, and has taken the trouble to get to see the people, to play on emotions in any unreasonable and undesirable way. It should be able to get their votes by clean, honest and truthful politics. It is to be hoped that we shall be able to get that, because if we do conduct our party politics over the next two or three months on a basis of vicious attacks on each other and irresponsible statements or lies to the voters, we can then expect that the next Government - whatever Government it may be - will come into power against a wave of bitterness and an opposition which has committed itself to all sorts of unjustifiable positions of attack, and then the affairs of Singapore will not be ruled by wisdom and forethought. They will be ruled by emotion and, in the words of Confucius: "A mind ruled by passion or emotion is a mind which will not be correct in its actions."

So compulsory voting will give to the incoming Government, I hope, a weight of public opinion which might otherwise be lacking. They will see that although they are forming the Government, nevertheless, a large percentage of the people did not vote for them. They came to the polis but they did not pass their votes for Mr X or Mr Y of Party X or of Party Y. They cast for another party and that in itself should exercise a moderating restraint on those who might otherwise seek to carry their personal political excitements into extremes. In political affairs, the people who make the decisions are seldom those who suffer for the decisions. The politician makes a mistake but it is the poor people who pay for it. He puts the blame on somebody else and says, "Well, it was not my fault. It was the other chap who did the thing wrongly," and he attacks the other Party. But if a factory has gone out of production and men have lost their jobs; if trade has fallen off and there is less milk for the children to drink so that their bones are not so strong, it is the fault of the politician. He put himself into a position of responsibility. He made a mistake in decision. He got into a muddle; he got into an unnecessary fight - whatever it is - and he does not pay the price. No, it is the poor people at the bottom who pay the price - the 370,000 or so people in Singapore who live on less than $1 a day. They are the ones who suffer first - and they will be the ones who will suffer first if the political Parties of Singapore misconduct themselves in the next general elections or in the District Council elections.

The Member for Tiong Bahru made one point on which I would like to express my profound agreement with him, and that is on the difficulties which are presented for the electorate and indeed for political Parties by the registers which are still far from satisfactory. It is a matter in which I personally have been interested since 1955, I think it was. I received a letter from a man with the correct postal address. He lived somewhere in the area between Braddell Road and Serangoon Garden Estate and I had to say "somewhere in that area", because there is no other recognisable way of describing it. On the map, it is called "Ang Moh Kio" but Ang Moh Kio runs for about seven or eight miles and you cannot identify the words "Ang Moh Kio". And this man wrote to me a very reasonable letter asking for something or other - I have forgotten what it is now - and I wrote to him a very reasonable reply. Within about a fortnight, my letter came back to me in my Ministry marked "Not delivered - Address not known", or whatever the wording was. I then got on to the Post Office and asked, "Can you try and find this man, please? He has written me a letter. I want to send him a letter in reply,"; and in the end they had to put two postal inspectors on and they spent two days. Finally, they found the man who had a proper house with a proper Rural Board number on it. Everything was correct; it was the correct postal address, but it had never been heard of by anybody in Singapore, because that is the way the local authorities had dealt with their legal duty of fixing street names and house numbers.

That was an early example to me of the very serious neglect of the rural areas which had taken place in the past. I do not necessarily blame the old Rural Board - they worked within their terms of what was possible - but there has been very great neglect in the past of rural and often urban areas as well. It is still, I am afraid, true today that as I go through the electoral register of the rural areas and try to see where the people are living and what they are doing, it is almost impossible to say, "Ah, this man is living at such a number, and I shall find him at such a place on the road." You will find No. 47, let us say, at the 5th mile; you will find No. 47 at the 7th mile; they are both proper numbers and they are both on the same road; they both have the same numbers and they are two miles apart. You will also find No. 47 very likely not on the road at all - it is a mile and a half away, at the end of a track, a path, over a river and a bridge, and there is No. 47 as well - still with the same address. It does not necessarily mean getting off the main road; the fact is, if you go along some of the roads like Yio Chu Kang Road, you will find the house numbering is almost incredible in its confusion. It may jump from, say, No. 30, to No. 100 or No. 1000 to No. 30 and back to No. 143, and back to No. 30 again! There is just no system at all.

Those defects have been accumulated over a long time and I was interested primarily because they caused difficulties for the postal authorities, and because I held that any man in a civilized country has a right to have his letters delivered to his door. It is a very important point for the production of the electoral registers. It is not now possible, but I hope it will be done, to provide a renumbering and road-naming exercise for the whole of Singapore. I hope the work will go on and be done so that in a year's time anyhow it will be possible to produce correct registers, and every man, woman or child living in Singapore will have a proper address; and every political party will be able to look into the registers and reasonably know that such an address means such a place and not somewhere five miles off. It is, however, a local government responsibility, although it is one with which the Government is also concerned, at least my Ministry is concerned, because my Ministry is concerned with the delivery of letters or telegrams, and that kind of thing.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken at rather great length, I am afraid, but I do want to make clear to the House my strong support for the principles embodied in this Bill.

3.34 p.m.

Mr R. C. H. Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, the democratic system of government of any country has the right in conferring rights on its citizens to expect a corresponding duty from its citizens. I am proud to say, Sir, that this Government has given to some 300,000 aliens resident in Singapore the right to vote for the first time. It is, therefore, not too much for the Government to ask these citizens to show whether they want these rights or not. If they want these rights, they should vote. If they do not vote, then their rights will be taken away from them.

Sir, this Government has been accused of doing many wrong things, but no one can accuse this Government of having done wrong in giving these 300,000 people the right to vote for the first time. For over a hundred years, Sir, however long resident you might have been in Singapore, you have had no right to have a say in the Government. But now these rights have been conferred by this Government.

Sir, the P.A.P. have boasted that they had an overwhelming success in the City Council elections, forgetting that at that election there was a suicidal alliance between the Labour Front and the P.A.P. - suicide for the Labour Front! We were given Divisions where the Right-wing was strong; we were taken away from Divisions where the Left-wing was strong. The P.A.P. won and the Labour Front lost! Sir, this time things may be different. This time we have 300,000 new voters. No one can forecast how they are going to vote.

Sir, we must support compulsory voting. I, on my side, feel certain that the Government will provide booths for the people, bringing the voting stations to the people, and not asking people to go to the voting stations.

3.36 p.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems the Member for Tanjong Pagar's tactics recently have been to declare that all measures that the Government has introduced since last month are futile - that they are just written words with no meaning - and that the Government cannot carry out the essence of the law. Sir, when he said that this Bill would just remain "certain words", I was wondering whether it is the P.A.P.'s intention to try to break what is contained in this Bill by manoeuvring in such a way that they will escape the written words of the law and yet in essence still do what they like.

Sir, compulsory voting is important for certain reasons. After the achievement of the status under the Rendel Constitution, there was a clamour by hundreds of thousands of people, who have made Singapore their home, to acquire citizenship rights so that they could belong to this place. That clamour meant, Sir, that they wanted the rights of citizenship, the right to belong to Singapore, the right to participate in the shaping of their destiny, the right to participate in the running of government at all levels - local and legislative levels. Sir, since they clamored for these rights, they must exercise the most fundamental right of all these rights, and that is the right to participate in electing representatives of their own choice - compulsory voting will ensure that the people of Singapore get the government they really want. In this way, they cannot afterwards complain that, as far as the total voting strength is concerned, they have got a government which does not have an overall majority.

But there is, Sir, a much deeper significance in this compulsory voting, and that is this. The democratic system on the British pattern has in England evolved over a period of centuries into what it is today. We can see that it is by evolution, because even up to now the United Kingdom has no written Constitution. It is a Constitution which has been evolved through practice. Sir, this system is being handed over to most Asian countries in the form of written Constitutions, which they adopt on their attaining independence from a colonial status.

But let us examine the history of most of the Asian nations. We find, Sir, in the history of many Asian nations that before the imposition of colonial rule during the last century or the century before, they had a pattern of one-man rule and that the British democratic system did not obtain in many of these Asian countries. Therefore, it is an experiment on the British democratic pattern that we are playing with in Asia today.

In Western countries, fears have been expressed recently at the coming into power of military governments in some of the Asian countries. I do not deny, Sir, that some of the military governments that have taken over the charge of affairs in these countries have been more beneficial than the previous elected governments. But the point is that the workings of the democratic system are being questioned in these countries today, because if the democratic system had functioned well, then it would not have been necessary for the military governments to take over. Originally, Sir, the democratic system, and in fact in law it is still so today, is a system where an individual stands for election in a defined area and is returned as an individual. The party system does not exist in law. But it is unfortunate, Sir, that in the British pattern, after evolution, it came about that cliques began to be formed. These cliques were officially recognized as political Parties, and therefore, what you can get today is either dictatorship by one man, or dictatorship by a military commander, or dictatorship by a military government, or even dictatorship by a Party, which can then ignore the democratic system if it has got sufficient strength.

The arrogant manner in which the Member for Tanjong Pagar has expressed his belief that whatever we do, they will win the elections and that everything that we do is futile, Sir, gives me a little bit of fear - "Is Singapore going to be handed over to persons who are not democratically inclined?" I have this fear because I recently read a book by one of the great personalities of today, a Prime Minister (I will not mention his name), and he said, "A small elite using the masses as a battering ram can control a country", or words to that effect. Sir, if you can get hold of determined persons, a clique of, say, four or five persons, and if they can follow the technique properly, they can fool thousands of people and use them to their advantage to set up a government by a clique; legally they would be recognised as a political Party, but in effect they could ignore the process of the democratic system.

I was asked why I could not make up my mind on certain Bills; why I had to speak for two hours. That is exactly the difference in the way of thinking, Sir. I follow the democratic procedure-, where I found that the fears expressed by the Opposition were well founded, I gave way, I made alterations, so long as these alterations did not affect what I aimed at. But, Sir, there are people who will say, "Just because I am introducing this, all opposition should be ignored; I am in the right, and you are in the wrong." That sort of person. Sir, is a person to be feared. That is why compulsory voting is very necessary in Singapore. There are persons who limit the controlling power in a political Party to a cadre of 500 or so - which means that they would then cause - not even all these 500 but only a handful - the hierarchy of the Party - to set up a dictatorship. Let the people of Singapore go to the polls and decide whether they want such a government. If they decide to have such a government, they are welcome to it, and they cannot blame anybody for what follows then.

3.45 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member of the Select Committee on this Bill, I feel more than pleased and happy to support this Bill. Sir, before I go further into the debate on the merits or demerits of this Bill, I wish to extend my congratulations to a few Members of this House. My first congratulation is to the Member for Ulu Bedok who showed much courage and made personal sacrifices, despite the strong opposition from the Party U.M.N.O. Without him, I am afraid this Bill cannot carry on so smoothly.

My second congratulation I wish to extend to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Sir, I am honoured to be associated with him so closely on this Bill in the Select Committee. He was very understanding and co-operative - not only as what the hon. Member for Serangoon has said, highly enthusiastic. Many of us in the Select Committee were surprised that the Member for Tanjong Pagar was so understanding and cooperative in the discussion, even on certain aspects of vital importance to his Party policy. For example, on the question of the limitation of age of those who can take part in election activity, I for one strongly advocate that we must set an age limit to those who can participate in elections. In view of the past election experiences, we must bar anyone below the age of 21 from actively engaging in any election campaign. We are more than happy to have the support of the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he said, "Let us not bother with the time or the age limit. Let us agree to bar all the registered students from taking part in the election." I am sure this vital point shows how keen and generous the Member for Tanjong Pagar is on this aspect of the election. It is the first time that I discover that the Member for Tanjong Pagar really has the interest of the people of Singapore at heart. It is the first time that I discover that the Member for Tanjong Pagar has a genuine nationalist spirit, and has the national interest at heart, and that he is not merely working for the interest of his Party. It is the first time that I discover that the Member for Tanjong Pagar is really prepared to make sacrifices and to bury party differences and work for the best interest of the people of Singapore in order to let this Bill be passed, as it appears today.

Sir, we have learnt just now from the Chief Minister that he is going to bring up new clauses as amendments to the Bill, and the implementation of one of them will restrict, as I have already mentioned, registered students from taking part in future elections. I am sure this will avoid the incidents just now mentioned by the Member for Tiong Bahru when students or hooligans marched in regimental fashion along the roads to support a political campaign. A very important clause also is the prohibition of canvassing on election day, and also the limitation to the putting up of banners and posters and even the use of transportation. We have learnt a great deal from past elections, and many of us have experienced how much corruption has been going on because the candidates can supply transport and put up numerous posters. Some candidates also paid a certain amount of money to seek to protect the banners they put up. In other words, as mentioned in the Elias Commission Report, the candidates engaged gangsters not only to paste the posters but also to protect the banners. All these things do influence the elections.

I am sure, Sir, you still remember that I am an ordinary Member who moved a motion in this House last year that compulsory voting should be introduced. It was only due to many unexpected political repercussions that I had to drop the motion. I beg your indulgence, Sir, but first let me congratulate myself! I congratulate myself because today I see my dream come true. Sir, the reason why I advocate compulsory voting is because I believe that one who believes in democracy must accept the fact that popular voting is of vital importance to the democratic process, because it is only through this vehicle that the true will of the people can be implemented through the authority of the Government.

But in Singapore, Sir, because of the colonial nature of the Government, and because of the commercial port status, the majority of the people always think that politics is not important and some have even come to think that it is filthy. They therefore refuse to have anything to do with politics. This has naturally created a most unfortunate and undesirable situation of political apathy. This has created a vacuum for the manoeuvrings of ambitious and selfish politicians and unscrupulous gangsters.

Let us trace back to the last City Council elections in 1957. We notice that the number of qualified voters who failed to go to the poll was very high. If I am not mistaken, the average voting strength on polling day in the 1957 City Council elections was just only slightly over 30 per cent. Only 30 per cent of the voters turned out on polling day. I would like to bring to the notice of this House that even among this small figure, the majority of them were illiterates or students or hooligans. They went to the poll either because they had received money or had been intimidated or because they had been influenced by fantastic and irresponsible political promises and political propaganda.

Sir, every responsible person in Singapore as confronted with this question. Did all the voters who turned out and voted for the present City Councillors really represent the wishes of the people? These two points are of vital importance. Firstly, must Singapore fall into the hands of the young extremists and the young gangsters? Secondly, if it is not the wishes of the people (and it should be so) by what methods can we encourage the people to go to the poll in order to redress the grave situation that is facing us today? It is only the youngsters who are keen on taking part in election either because they have been lured by irresponsible and fantastic political promises and propaganda, or because they have been lured by corruption, or they have been intimidated by gangsters. Therefore, I firmly believe that only by introducing compulsory voting can we solve this problem.

I have taken a little trouble to study the history of compulsory voting. Sir, compulsory voting was first introduced in the early 19th century. In Switzerland it is not called compulsory voting but obligatory voting. But later on it proved very popular and successful even in Belgium, and other countries soon followed suit, and up to date there are nearly 30 countries in the world which adopt compulsory voting.

The first reason why I am in favour of compulsory voting is that I believe that, by introducing compulsory voting, it would be possible to rectify the error of not having a truly representative form of government which might arise from optional voting. We have just listened to the speech by the Hon. Minister for Communications and Works when he touched on the analysis of the last general elections. He said that if the Liberal-Socialist Party had succeeded in getting together during the time of the elections, maybe the hon. Member for Serangoon would have become the Chief Minister for the past three and a half years. This is exactly the point on which I am going to touch. If a candidate is elected by only a small section of the eligible voters, he will represent only those who voted for him. Therefore, any legislation that is passed would not represent the wishes of the nation as a whole. As the Hon. Mr Francis Thomas has said, anybody can shout: "Ah, I represent the people of Singapore!" But can he really claim to represent the people of Singapore?

Sir, I come to my second point why I believe in compulsory voting. It will bring to the polls many voters who are in favour of a stable government. Sir, you cannot deny that the political scene of today is not as hopeful as we think. In last year's debate on the Budget I said that 1959 would be unstable from the political point of view and a more difficult time would lie ahead, and we people-

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

The Chief Minister: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.