SINGAPORE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

3.04 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are today debating the rules which will govern the election contest sometime in March, April or May this year, and we are all pledged to try and frame a set of reasonable and decent rules akin to what are popularly termed the Queensberry's rules of boxing. Those of us who have been watching the growing tendency of contestants in the ring to use not only their hands but also their feet, and to put knuckle-dusters underneath the boxing gloves and emulate their Siamese counterparts in the art of pugilism, are anxious to see that the next contest does not produce, too literally, a physical contest!

I was intrigued to see the Chief Secretary in his explanatory statement at the end of this Bill make this note:

"It is estimated that implementation of the provisions of this Bill will involve expenditure of the order of $100,000."

If in fact the provisions of this Bill could be faithfully implemented, both in the letter and spirit, then I say Singapore has never spent a more useful $100,000. But I am sanguine enough to believe that perhaps the greater expenditure of men, money, materials and effort given to the referee of this contest can ensure that the rules are observed, that the main provisions of this Bill which we now seek to pass will be honoured, or, if not honoured, at least enforced.

Sir, those who spend their time trying to prophesy the outcome of a contest - be it a horse race or a boxing match - usually do not bother about the final performances of a race horse or a boxer before he goes into the ring. One looks at the long history behind the contestant, to know (1) his stamina, (2) the fighting qualities he has, and (3) the wallop that he packs. On that basis of careful calculation, one could fairly predict, if it is a horse race, which would be the first three of any Derby or Grand National.

I hate to disappoint Members in this Assembly, but I would like to remind them that, in fact, this contest has been going on for the last four years, and it is not on the final playing of the gramophone records and musical chairs which are being enacted in this Assembly, and outside, that the outcome will be decided. For four years the people have watched political parties gyrate and perform and politicians do acrobatic gymnastics, and I would say that the bulk of the masses have already made up their minds whose side they are on, and, if I may put it in a more positive way, whom they believe will be on their side. It is as simple as that.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Misled!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, different people have different reactions when faced with catastrophe. Some are led to extravagant emotional outbursts in the hope that even if they are not big guys, by making noises, particularly at big parties, they might attract some attention. There are those who believe that the position is well lost, and therefore, since this Constitution is not worth having any way, what is the point of it? "Let us forget about winning the election." But to those who are left with the problem of not only winning the election, but carrying on the business of this community, I would like to state the intentions of my Party in unmistakable, terms. In a contest there is always a referee - unless it happens to be a total war, and an election contest is not a total war. It is war within limited confines, according to certain rules of etiquette and certain rules of conduct which the referee is there to enforce. He is a referee with a police force, a civil service and an apparatus of state which is sufficient enough, in my opinion, to be able to administer the majority of these rules fairly and efficiently.

Sir, in the Kallang by-election we had a foretaste of what happened when political leaders started to resort to unconstitutional and indecent methods of electioneering. Two members of my Party were stabbed. A Labour Front car was detained at the Beach Road Police Station for two months. The occupants of that car, which was registered in the name of the Labour Front, were never found. The car contained bicycle chains and iron rods.

We expect the Government, which will carry on after this Assembly is dissolved in March, to maintain law and order regardless of political parties and to see that the rules are observed because this is not like Kallang where no government changed as a result of the election. We envisage a whole host of difficulties which will face the next Government, whoever wins, and it would be a pity if the next Government were to spend its first six months of office ferreting out gangsters and ferreting out police officers who, either because of indolence or otherwise, allow these gangsters to operate; because with the result of this election, there comes a change in the Government. If the referee does not wish to do his duty, then the next Government will.

Sir, may I take the House briefly through the main provisions? When we were debating the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill, I did not consider it either appropriate or desirable that we should argue purely academic or hypothetical provisions which would never be brought into operation until a new Assembly had been elected. But I do consider it important that every provision in this Bill should be carefully scrutinised, because we shall be contesting within these rules.

Sir, I would like to tell the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister that I am obliged to them for the willingness with which they have been meeting the difficulties which I have pointed out to them and which will arise from the operation of these provisions.

I would like to inform you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the amendments which I have indicated to the Clerk this morning I would be moving, will not have to be moved after all, because the Government has decided to postpone the Committee stage to the 3rd of March, rather than adjourn till tomorrow and also carry on in that case with the debate on my motion regarding Malayanisation (it is not so urgent, and we can keep it till next month).

I also asked the Chief Minister whether that would be our last sitting. He was unable to give me that assurance, but I think we can safely predict that the sitting cannot go beyond the month of March. But between now and the sitting on the 3rd March, the several amendments which I had intended to move at the Committee stage would be formally tabled with the requisite two days' notice. Sir, I would just like to inform Members who do not belong to political parties what these amendments are in order that there will be no mystery about them.

The first amendment concerns the parking of motor-cars outside a polling station, and the Government has indicated its willingness to accept a clause to provide that no motor-cars shall be stopped or parked within a hundred yards of a polling station. Those of us who have watched the motorcades on polling day will know that this provision will relieve the unnecessary congestion and the frictions that will arise with motor-cars competing for pre-eminence of position to a polling station.

The second provision, which is also by way of filing up the gaps, is an amendment to ensure that no election office as distinct from a desk or a table on the roadside - is allowed to be opened within 200 yards of any polling station on polling day. This is a common practice of politicians who believe that the presence of their posters and their supporters will help the voter to make up his mind. It is their practice to choose an election office which is near a school, in the hope that the school will be chosen as a polling station; and so on polling day, particularly with the no-canvassing rule, they will be in a place of vantage from which perhaps, if not by the roadside, at least from the legal eyes, the precincts of the drawing room, they might be able to flutter their posters at the recalcitrant voter.

The third amendment is to ensure that the use of cars by those who own them should not be abused in its interpretation to become a means whereby it is possible to supply motor-cars to those who are not members of the family. Certain amendments will be moved to limit the meaning of the word "family" appearing in clause 23 of the amending Bill.

The final amendment is one which provides specifically that polling day shall be a public holiday, it is only fair to say that the Government assured me that they would give me an undertaking, if necessary publicly, that polling day would be a public holiday and declared to be so by the Governor under the Public Holidays Ordinance. But my Party has thought it appropriate that rather than work on the basis of undertakings, since we are legislating on minutia provisions, it might be as well if we included such an important provision which is tied up with compulsory voting and no-canvassing on polling day - namely, that there should be a public holiday in order to enable everybody to go and vote.

Now, Sir, first on compulsory voting. I have only this to say to the Government - that I do not think they have as yet analysed whom they are compelling to vote. They have attributed their defeats since 1955 to a lack of interest on the part of large numbers of people, whom they believe to be their supporters. Sir, I have always been told that the art of self-deception, if practised skilfully enough, keeps one happy. But when the deception is finally discovered, one is apt to be thoroughly discomfitted.

I would like to remind this Government, particularly the Chief Minister who is no novice in these matters, that when the Progressive Party in 1954 and 1955 agreed to automatic registration of voters for the then Legislative Council which they dominated - as the new S.P.A. Government dominates this one - they thought they were paving their way to success. But they did not know whom they were automatically registering, and to their great discomfiture they discovered that the large masses who were apathetic in previous elections and who had not taken the trouble to register themselves, in fact were against the Progressive Party. Because when they were given the facility of throwing their vote for or against a particular political party without the bother of first claiming the right to vote, they cast it decisively against the Progressive Party.

Sir, in the next election there will be some 200,000 people who have been registered as Singapore citizens. Many of them will be voting for the first time. It is a long and complicated story how this came about. The predecessor to. the present Chief Minister believed that he was embracing these people to his bosom in order that they would vote for him. I will say this. These people who have been given citizenship are not fools. They are no different from all the others who reside in Singapore. We can be rest assured that they, having taken the trouble to register for citizenship, will exercise their right to vote and we can be confident that what has happened in the last four years has not missed them.

We do not seek panaceas by compulsory voting. But if this Government believes that this is the way to cure its headache, then I say by all means. But if it so happens that, by the much larger poll that will be created as a result of this provision, the majority of the successful party is thereby increased, I can only say they have not been forewarned.

Sir, there is a provision with which I am not altogether satisfied, and that is contained in clause 25 of this Bill. We broadly know what its intention is. It says here that the principal Ordinance will be amended by adding another section. The content of this section is this: "Regulations for 72A.-(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations display of to regulate the display of posters and banners in posters and respect of an election. banners. (2) Such regulations may provide for the Returning Officer to determine the number and size of posters and banners which may be displayed in any electoral division and for the determination of the places at which they may be so displayed."

It goes on to define what a poster means, what a banner means; and then it says whoever commits an offence against such regulations shall be liable to a fine of $1,000 or to imprisonment for one year.

Sir, I am anxious to see a set of these regulations, because once we have passed this Bill - we will have empowered this Government to enact subsidiary legislation. It is only fair and desirable, even though we all believe we know what is in each other's minds on the matter, if everybody saw a set of these regulations before this Bill goes into Committee on the 3rd of March. We all know that the idea is to prevent an unnecessary and expensive and a rather unsightly poster war. This provision, like so many other provisions, requires an administration determined to execute it. I think the Chief Secretary is very optimistic if he believes he can get away with just $100,000. I think it costs quite a good deal of money to get people to scrub off posters which might have been unlawfully put up, and symbols which might have been unlawfully painted. It is important, if these provisions are to be honoured, that we make it worth the while of any party or candidate to honour them. In other words, we penalise effectively and smartly those who breach these provisions. To do that you need a whole host of men, not only to detect any breach of these regulations, but immediately to rectify it. Because if candidate XYZ belonging to Party RSPCA were to put up a whole series of posters on the wall at some unearthly hour of the morning when nobody is awake, and if his opponent woke up the next morning to find a whole wall plastered with these posters, it would be no consolation to him to be told that in fact whoever did it was committing an offence and that if he had been detected, he would have been punished. So long as those posters remain up, they will be an incitement to the opponent, or supporters of the opponent, to emulate the nocturnal pursuits of the supporters of the candidate who first did so. Therefore, if we are to make these provisions effective, we must make punishment sure and certain and see that no benefit is to accrue from such an act. In other words, the posters should immediately come down. For that there must be a host of men with buckets and brushes and the necessary scrapers to see that all the rules and regulations are effectively implemented.

Now, I trust the Chief Secretary, with or without the assistance of the Chief Minister, will implement these regulations. We all know that the Federation Prime Minister has decided to give up his high office in order to help his Party. In fact, quite a number of people were dismayed that, perhaps, his counterpart in Singapore might be stimulated enough to emulate this great act of sacrifice. But if the Chief Minister, in fact, is to remain in office right up to polling day, then I ask him to do what is only fair. If he does not feel that he can effectively run an election campaign and, at the same time, implement these provisions, he should at least not impede his official colleague the Chief Secretary from seeing that each and every one of these provisions is honoured in its letter and in its spirit.

Sir, polling day - be it April, May or June - will present a sight completely different from that to which we have been accustomed in the past. To many it will be a relief, because of the unnecessary expense and irritations from motorcades, of people running around chasing everybody else up to cast their vote, of crowds milling and gathering outside polling stations - all these will be gone and, perhaps, for the better. Because finally, all we want to do in a fair and equal contest is to get the man to register his vote. If these rules and regulations are honestly and sincerely implemented, we will have a cleaner and better election.

In my opinion, the election result is already foregone, because the margin of the floating voter in the Singapore situation is so small that whatever the twists and turns in the next few weeks, it cannot make any change in the outcome. This is not a situation where a shift of, say, five per cent or two per cent of public opinion could mean success or defeat for a political party. This is an endemic situation which we saw emerge from 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958 right up to 1959. All that I am asking this Government to do - when I say "this Government" I mean the originally elected Labour Front now turned S.P.A. elected Ministers - is that if it has not got the will to implement it, at least leave it to the Officials whose last act of service to the people of Singapore is to make sure that the elections are clean and peaceful.

I hope, Sir - particularly since you yourself will not have the unnecessary chore of taking part in a grisly contest - those of us who emerge from this peaceful competition of political ideas and political records will be able to give you in this Assembly, in any case for an assured statutory period of a year, a much more rousing and entertaining time.

3.31 p.m.

Mr R. Jumabhoy: Sir, I have very little to say on this Bill as discussions have taken place on similar lines when the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill Was debated. Some of my friends on this side of the House have spoken on the subject. Sir, I will go into the details of the Bill when the amendments are put forward either by the Government or by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but I would like to stress this. As the most senior Member in this Legislature, I think a public holiday is very essential to enable the people to vote. In the past, shops were open and sales were going on and many people did not vote. In the coming elections, it will be compulsory for every citizen of Singapore to vote. However, it will help if polling day is declared a public holiday.

Sir, the Liberal-Socialist Party have already announced in the Press that they are in favour of compulsory voting. I have very little to say on this. The people of Singapore will judge the candidates contesting the coming elections on the past records of their Parties-what they have done, whether they have changed their Party labels and whether they have improved the economy of the country. Sir, I have been watching the voters since the post-war period and I think that they are quite shrewd today. They will not be misled by all that is said, but they will go through the records of the candidates and of the Parties standing for election and I am sure that they are not going to vote for those who failed to carry out the task entrusted to them.

Sir, as far as supervision is concerned, I am sure the officials will see to it that the elections are carried out without fear or favour. However, if anyone in the Government service is found not doing his duty, of course, he will be responsible to the future Government. One thing is sure: the present Ministers will not be there because of their past performances.

I have seen, Sir, how clever some of the voters are. They sit in the cars provided by one Party and they vote for another Party because they know for whom they vote. Fortunately, today our voting population consists mostly of youngsters and they are quite clever people.

Sir, some people talk of the Right, and others talk of the Left. Personally, I think Singapore's economy depends on entrepot trade. This can only be fed by capital and labour working hand in hand in the interests of Singapore. No ideology of the Left or the Right will achieve this as far as Singapore is concerned. Singapore as a city has to stand alone and has to formulate its own policy for the sake of the people, and therefore it is rather unnecessary to talk of Leftists or capitalists.

Sir, the present members of the S.P.A. who are ex-Labour Fronters, have been co-operating with the P.A.P. for 3½ years. Now all of a sudden, they say that the P.A.P. is bad. Why have they been cooperating? How is it that the P.A.P. have suddenly become bad during the last two to six months? Why are they now separated? They have been married and divorced many times during the last 3½ years and the Government Benchers are still holding on fast to their seats. Can the public swallow all this? They are now too clever!

Sir, as I said, I have very little to say and I will speak on the clauses when the amendments are moved.

3.39 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, as usual, I find that one's kindness of heart and one's willingness to accommodate even one's political opponent can be twisted round to mean quite a different thing. The Member for Tanjong Pagar, Sir, was a Member of the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill, and it was pointed out to him that what happened to that Bill, in so far as the implementation of the recommendations of the Elias Commission was concerned, would be introduced into this Bill under discussion. He knew of it and did take part in some of the discussions. All in all, he did, in fact, help with several amendments which were accepted in Select Committee and which turned the original Bill into a totally different Bill. At that time, he did not think it was necessary that the definition of "family" should not include grand-parents, grandchildren, brothers or sisters, and that motor cars should not be allowed to park or to go right up to the gate of the polling booth. He also did not think it was necessary to move the two amendments which he is now proposing. He thought everything was satisfactory and, on that unanimous note, we introduced amendments to the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill when it was in Select Committee. But when the adoption of the Report was debated last month, he thought it was not necessary even to waste his time on it other than to ridicule the Government and say that it was just a piece of legislation which meant nothing. It would appear that it means something now, as he desires to propose certain amendments because the thought has been changed for him. I am sure that it must have been changed for him, and not by him, so much so that he was unable to table the amendments in good time, although this Bill was tabled for First Reading on 21st January. Maybe the driving force was not in good operation until it was too late; and yet the Government, being kind and charitable even to its political opponent, said, "Never mind, my dear opponent, we will give you the general assent." The hon. Member then found that he was unable to get the consent or the general assent of this House and yet we still said, "Never mind, my good opponent, we will defer the Committee stage to the 3rd of March." When I was asked whether there would be another sitting in March, I said, "I cannot say. There may be one last sitting in March if we have some more legislative business." But then he spoke in such a way as to deride us. He wants a sitting on 3rd March, and I do not know how many more sittings there will be in March! I do not know whether there is going to be a sitting in April. But he says, "Surely they will not dare to go beyond March!" Sir, I have been hauled up by you many a time and I still call it impertinence!

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Chief Minister: I beg to withdraw the word, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not enough. I do not think the Chief Minister ought to use the same word which was over-ruled at another sitting quite so deliberately as all that. I think he should also apologise to the House.

The Chief Minister: I apologise, Sir, but sometimes one gets roused! I think it is easier to deal with people who do not turn and twist, and twist and turn! I cannot stand that. Here is a man who stands up today and says, "We are going to win! ", and it was the poor Members on this side of the House who cleansed his Party and helped him to become strong and brave enough to talk in those terms today. Such is politics! Talking of clean politics - psst!

Then he said, "This Government, particularly the elected Ministers, will not see to it that there is fair play. Oh, now they cannot be trusted. They will do this and they will do that! They will do a lot of things!" Sir, I may be accused of having done many things, but there is one thing that I have not been accused of and that is political dishonesty. I do what I think is right and I do not care what my political opponents, my friends, or even my family say. What is right is right, and no People's Action Party, or P.A.P. leader, or P.A.P. members can make me say what is right is wrong, or what is wrong is right!

Posters, banners, regulations! Sir, all these were discussed in the Select Committee on the Local Government Elections (Amendment) Bill. The hon. Member had, in fact, quite bright ideas. He suggested that there should be an equal number of posters to be pasted in certain areas, and in certain places in every electoral division, and that the Supervisor of Elections should try to do all he could to implement what had been decided in that Select Committee. Of course, as usual, as we are very accommodating, we will still keep on accommodating. In fact, we sometimes accommodate snakes, and keep them warm too! We will let hon. Members of the Opposition see the regulations so that they too will be satisfied that the election that is to come is clean, healthy and good. They need not worry about that.

Sir, compulsory voting is a very, very old subject. It was brought up by representatives of various organizations and by individuals in Singapore, who sent in petitions to me and said that the Government should introduce compulsory voting. We were not satisfied, and in fact I said at the sitting last month, when we were debating the adoption of the Report of the Select Committee on the Local Govermnent Elections (Amendment) Bill, that I was not satisfied that the introduction of compulsory voting would be to the benefit of my Party. But as good democrats we will always listen to the wishes and representations of the people of Singapore! That has nothing to do with the Party, and because the people want it, we introduced it. Of course, the hon. Member cannot understand - he would like to twist it. I am sorry - he would like to make it appear that it was the Government who want to introduce it, that it is the Government benchers who are anxious to keep their seats warm.

Sir, if the people do not want me to remain here, I think I will go to church and offer my prayers and say, "Thank God! I have no more hairs to drop! My hair does not go grey! And I do not go to my grave sooner, and leave my family not looked after!" But because I felt it was necessary in the service of my country and of my fellow-men, I have to carry on and to bear it; not that I want to remain here, nor do I keep on praying that I will be here. But surely I can say this: it is good psychology for any political party to say at this particular time, "We are bound to win!" I would like to say to the hon. Members of the political parties that the S.P.A. is bound to win, and we will meet them there!

Talking of the new citizens, Sir, it was this Government's desire to give citizenship rights to those people who have been resident in Singapore for eight years or more. We fought for it, we got it, and we gave it to them. But we do not do, as some PAP, politicians have done, and that is to go round and say, "I give you citizenship now, and you vote for me. If you do not vote for me, you jaga! I will take off your citizenship tomorrow!" We do not do that, Sir. We never do that at all! If you do not put up my picture in a coffee shop, maybe some inspectors might go round and do something. That is logic. Talking of such things is not clean, not healthy, and not good.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of information?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: On a point of information, Sir.

The Chief Minister: Information? I am sorry, Sir, because if I give way to one, I will have to give way to another!

Mr Speaker: The Chief Minister is not giving way.

The Chief Minister: Because of the interruption of the Member of the Opposition, I have forgotten what I wanted to say now.

Mr Speaker: I think the Honourable the Chief Minister was in the coffee shops!

The Chief Minister: Oh, yes, I was talking about coffee shops - and the hon. Member for Changi has been frequenting coffee shops! I am sure what he wanted to say was that he did see large photographs of the honourable - I do not think I would like to follow my predecessor who calls someone, "My God the Mayor".

Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar then talked about the by-elections in Kallang. He insinuated that the Labour Front had been indulging in illegal activities.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: A Labour Front car had been involved!

The Chief Minister: A Labour Front car had been involved and he insinuated that because it was a Labour Front car the Chief Minister had instructed the Police not to do anything about it.

Sir, as I said earlier, I can be accused of many, many things-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: You do not know how-

Mr Speaker: Order!

The Chief Minister: I have never been accused of being dishonest. Even if it were my own brother or my own father who was there, I would not raise a hand if the Police had got evidence. He described incidents that happened to his supporters, but there had been many, many incidents which happened to all supporters. We do not plead, nor do we cry. We take what comes.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Like regular gangsters!

The Chief Minister: Then it is suggested that perhaps I could follow the footsteps of the Tunku and resign, and all that. But is it necessary? The Government has to carry on under the Constitution until the next government comes in-not that I would like to warm my seat at all. If it is suggested that I resign my seat, the wonderful People's Action Party then do not have a man as Chief Minister who is wise to the ways of subversionists and P.A.P. tactics. Perhaps they would be given free rein to keep on operating. Sir, I cannot al-low the interests of Singapore to be jeopardised. I remain until I am not wanted.

Sir, from the tone of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar's speech, it would appear that his is the only political party that is keen on clean elections; his is the only political party that has never indulged in malpractices. And yet, strange to say, Sir, the Report of the Elias Commission clearly indicated what the P.A.P. did during the Tanjong Pagar by-election.

3.54 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad the P.A.P. has said a mouthful! They want clean elections. We all want clean elections. In fact, the 1948 elections that we knew were not as dirty as the elections in 1955 and in 1957, when the P.A.P. stepped in. I like the suggestion made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar - that we must keep this country sane and clean, and see that everybody fights according to the rules. This is indeed very commendable, Sir.

During the by-elections in 1957 and in the City Council elections, I happened to be around Elgin Bridge observing election campaigns, and I just want to point out a few things.

At those elections, we found that posters were pasted indiscriminately. We found posters of Ong Eng Guan over the bridge, under the bridge, right in front of it, and behind it! In fact, Elgin Bridge being pasted all over looked as if it was made of paper! Then I also had occasion to observe students milling around with a zig-zag sign over their heads; and crowding around polling stations telling voters what to do, or telling them what not to do! All these, Sir, are of whose making? I would say the Member for Tanjong Pagar has found that all these were not good; all these things done by his Party were quite a sight, and he is now asking this Assembly to do away with them. I agree with him, heart and soul, on this! But I would like to see him observe all these rules. I have a feeling, Sir, that all these rules are made to be observed by all other Parties. And I have a feeling too, Sir, that these rules may not be observed by some Parties. Perhaps at the Committee stage, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, as the present head of the P.A.P., might give us an assurance that he will keep to the rules. However, I have a feeling that students will still be used; posters will still be pasted - though probably not in the way that the Member for Tanjong Pagar wants: "You stick your own posters." Other people might probably be used to put up the Opposition candidate's posters to give him a bit of trouble. But, Sir, if we all want to see the next elections clean, I would say that it is not a matter of rules that will make them clean. It is the determination of all political leaders to see the elections clean. If one Party does not start it, then I am sure other Parties will do the same.

On the second point, Sir, I have been told times without number that the P.A.P. are ever so confident of winning the next elections. "Everybody will fail, but the P.A.P. cannot fail!" I wonder if this is just a way of hiding all the defects within. I am certain, Sir, that the people of Singapore already have a foretaste of what is to come. I agree with the Member for Changi who echoes what the people say: that if the P.A.P. win, the future will be gloomy. In fact, everybody says, "If the P.A.P. come in, there will be no future at all!" And if people are of this opinion, I do not see how they can ever vote them in!

The third point is this: we are not go, ing to be ruled just by students. We are going to have sane people - people who have a lot of experience - going to the polls to cast their votes. I am sure the people will counteract their heartaches. I am certain that the people who can think will exceed those who cannot. I am also certain that those who are afraid of the P.A.P. have been educated. They will know that their votes are secret, and that they will go to the polls without the fear that their attap huts will be burnt down if the P.A.P. candidate is not returned in the Bukit Timah division! Certainly, Sir, all these things tell us that the wind is now blowing in the right direction and not in the direction the P.A.P. want, indeed if they look into the picnics and the adult classes, and also the number of students who failed and who are helping them, the parents will not be happy, and they will tell their children not to go and help them further. Perhaps the students themselves will change their minds. I have heard stories of education classes being conducted by the P.A.P. Have they been doing good work? I have heard many parents were furious because of the many "marriages" to which they have had to give consent before their time. In one area it is so bad that all these "educational" centres have now been classified by the rural folks as "matrimonial agencies"! I am afraid things have not been going right all the time. I am certain the people of Singapore are today fed up to the teeth, and they want to prevent what is going on now, come to them, should the Member for Tanjong Pagar occupy the chair of the Chief Minister.

Sir, we have had a lot of surprises, and my greatest surprise today was when the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is always anti-white and anti-British, told us that he would like to see a good referee! And whom has he chosen as a good referee? Not the Chief Minister, or any other Ministers who have been elected, but the Chief Secretary! I thought he wanted to say good-bye to him a long time ago! I thought he wanted to get him out of the country a long time ago! But today he has revealed, to me his inner desire of wanting the Chief Secretary, an official appointed by Her Majesty's Government, to remain here to be his referee! I must congratulate him, Sir!

4.03 p.m.

Mr David: Sir, to save the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar the necessity of replying, I would remind the hon. Member for Serangoon that in a general election of this kind, it is only the officials who can act as the referees in running the election.

I endorse what the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has already said, namely, that this Government is prepared to put off the Committee stage of this Bill to the 3rd March in order to accommodate him and his amendments. There is one aspect of compulsory voting of which I would like to remind the House, since it was not mentioned either by the hon. Member for Farrer Park or the hon. Member for Changi, or even by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, and that is that the recommendation for compulsory voting was one of the basic recommendations in the Elias Commission Report, in order to assist in doing away with the element of intimidation among persons who were not recording their votes.

Lastly, Sir, I certainly give an assurance to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar that we will do everything that lies in our power to enforce these rules, and we will certainly not let expense stand in the way. He compared this contest to a boxing match with a referee. But I would remind him that boxers going into the ring, or football teams going on to the ground, all do so with the determination to abide by the rules; and they accept those rules before they go on. I would like to reiterate what I said in moving the Second Reading, that by enacting this legislation, we shall not be passing the whole responsibility to the Police Force to ensure clean elections. They will do what they can, and everything they can, to see that these rules are observed. If there is a breach of the law committed, they will take the appropriate action, but even then it is only with the support of the public, and in particular, the witnesses to any particular breach which may have occurred that they can carry the action through. But I hope that all Parties will enter the election with the determination to abide by these rules. In my view, the main responsibility must be shared and shouldered by the Parties, the candidates and the public in ensuring that these provisions are effective.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Committee Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959.