CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS ASSISTING GOVERNMENT ON PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES

Mr David Marshall asked the Prime Minister whether he would indicate who are the Constitutional lawyers assisting Government with reference to the proposed constitutional changes.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I have been informed by the State Advocate-General that he has been in communication with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, Dr Ivor Jennings, and with Professor Wade and Professor Hood Phillips.

Mr David Marshall: Are we to understand that, in fact, nobody has yet been appointed to assist the Government in these matters?

The Prime Minister: Sir, as I have indicated in my reply to the last question, there is no question of appointing anybody to, as the word goes, assist the Government in these matters. When there are matters of constitutional difficulty arising in which the State Advocate-General considers that he requires expert advice, he has this panel to advise him. But it is the duty of the State Advocate-General's Chambers - persons properly qualified and constituted to discharge their duties and functions - to carry out the necessary statutory amendments which will he required.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, if you will permit me the Prime Minister informed this House on the 23rd January that the State Advocate-General was in correspondence with Constitutional lawyers of considerable experience who would be helping him, and was offering a contract to a Parliamentary draftsman to assist in the work of drafting. Would the Prime Minister inform us whether there has been any progress on those two aspects?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly the point. Mr Speaker, Sir. Had the Member for Anson been kind enough to refer to or refreshed his memory on what was stated, he would have saved us this unnecessary straying away from the point.

There were two specific matters. One was legal advice, and I have named the persons with whom the State Advocate-General has been in touch. The other is the question of appointing a Parliamentary draftsman to do the actual work of drafting. Without having to mention the name of the draftsman, I would like to add that what has happened now is that the Attorney-General's Chambers in Kuala Lumpur has decided to engage this person under contract instead of the State Advocate-General's Chambers in Singapore.

This Parliamentary draftsman of some experience was offered a contract by the Singapore Government, and I think he was also offered, either simultaneously or subsequently, a contract by the Federation Government. As I understand from the Attorney-General in the Federation, he has accepted the contract offered by the Federation Government.

Mr David Marshall: Forgive me, Sir, do I understand that the position is this: that in respect of the proposed constitution, the only assistance the Government of Singapore will have will be a question of reference by the State Advocate-General to the Constitutional lawyers named, of the proposed sections and parts of the Constitution on which he will be seeking advice? Is that the position?

The Prime Minister: The assumption made by the Member for Anson is that our State Advocate-General and his staff are somehow inadequate for their duties and that, therefore, somebody who really knows all about constitutional matters should be there to assist or to be really in charge of these duties. As I see the task before us, it is somewhat different from the experience of the Member for Anson. He decided in his own wisdom in 1956 to take an All-Party mission to London of some 13 Members of this Assembly. Whether or not it was the unlucky choice of numbers or for any other reason, the fact that the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University who is now in touch with the State Advocate-General, was also there to advise him on the Constitution did not help him to succeed. Because it was not the business of the Constitutional lawyer to settle the Constitution. Constitutions are made by people who are supposed to know what is good for their own country. And we have reached basic agreement with the Federation as to the constitutional arrangements with the Federation. And the Constitutional lawyer comes in insofar as he is able to give effect to the intentions expressed by the two Governments. He is not there to try and create a constitution. He is there to implement one. And insofar as the State Advocate-General feels that he requires advice in respect of implementation of details, then he will seek that advice.