SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.04 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is an important piece if legislation in that for the first time in the annals of Singapore, legal provision is being made for the holding of a national referendum in this country. This method of ascertaining the popular will of the electorate introduces another aspect of the democratic process.

As you are aware, Sir, this Bill stimulated considerable interest as evidenced by the number of amendments which had been proposed, so much so that the Second Reading of the Bill was referred in order to enable the Government to study them very carefully in all its implications. We have considered them in full and in detail, and later in my speech I will let the House know which of the Opposition amendments the Government accepts and which the Government rejects. The Government has also, after considering some of the amendments proposed, decided to put in some amendments of its own.

I propose, therefore, to deal with this Bill by first explaining it as it stands at present, and then touching in general on the amendments proposed by the Opposition and those proposed by the Government.

Sir, as it is drafted at present, the Bill can be conveniently explained in three parts, namely:-

(1) the general principles of the referendum;

(2) the procedure for the holding of a referendum and the manner of voting; and

(3) provisions of the Bill dealing with corrupt and illegal practices in connection with the taking of a referendum.

With regard to the first part, clause 5 empowers the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by Order, when he considers that it is in the public interest to do so, to direct that any matter be submitted to the electorate for a referendum. When such an Order has been issued, the Minister is then required by clause 6 of the Bill to notify in the Gazette the date of the referendum at least seven days before the date fixed for such referendum. The Yang di-Pertuan Negara is also empowered by clause 7 to issue a further Order for a referendum if, after the issue of the first Order, he is satisfied that owing to any cause whatsoever no referendum has taken place in pursuance of such first Order.

For the purpose of holding a referendum in Singapore, only Singapore citizens on the electoral registers can vote at the referendum, and they shall be entitled to vote only once at such referendum. Those provisions are laid down in clauses 8 and 9 pf the Bill. Clause 11 provides that for purposes of a referendum, the existing electoral divisions and polling districts under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance are to be adopted. The Superintendent appointed by the Minister for purposes of a referendum is required under the provisions of clause 13 to publish in the Gazette a notice not later than five days before the date of the referendum, specifying all the polling stations provided by him for use in the polling districts and electoral divisions for the referendum, as well as specifying the questions to be submitted to the electors and the symbols which he has adopted for use in connection therein. Under clause 14, polling day has been made a public holiday within the meaning of the Holidays Ordinance.

With regard to the procedure for the holding of a referendum, the procedure has been largely based and modelled on the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, and those procedural provisions are set out in Part II of the Bill. Bearing in mind, however, that no individual candidates or political Parties are involved in the same sense as they are involved in elections, some modifications have been made in the procedure. The position of political Parties in the Assembly in connection with a referendum is recognised, and political Parties represented in the Legislative Assembly may be allowed to appoint polling agents and counting agents at the discretion of the Superintendent under the provisions of clauses 17 and 27 respectively. Under the provisions of clause 27 also, when the counting of the votes cast in the referendum has been completed, the Superintendent shall declare the result of the referendum and in accordance with clause 29 he shall forthwith, after the result has been, declared by him, compile a statement of the referendum and shall cause the said statement to be published in the Gazette.

The manner of voting in the referendum is exactly similar to that at any election under the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Since everyone in this House is familiar with the manner of voting, there is no need for me to proceed with explaining how voting is to be carried out. The same penalties for offences in respect of ballot papers and ballot boxes as in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance are provided for in clause 31 of the Bill.

Part III of the Bill deals with corrupt and illegal practices arising out of the taking of a referendum and, in the main, adopts with suitable amendments the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. The same penalties for offences in respect of corrupt practices and illegal practices, as in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, are incorporated in clauses 37 and 41 of this Bill. The same provisions for prohibition on polling day of undue influence at or near polling stations, unlawful assemblies, offence to operate loudspeakers, and the restrictions on referendum activity are included in clauses 43, 44, 45 and 46 of the Bill. Clause 46 restricts any person attending a primary or secondary school or any person, against whom an Order of Supervision has been made under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, from taking part in any activity connected with a referendum.

Part IV of the Bill makes miscellaneous provisions. Just as for elections, the holding of a referendum involves the Government in expenditure of public money, and based on previous knowledge of funds spent in connection with the holding of general elections, it is estimated that a sum of $400,000 would be required for the holding of a referendum.

Sir, I now come to the amendments as proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition amendments could be conveniently divided into three categories. Firstly, those amendments which intend ostensibly to ensure propriety in the conduct of the referendum, the Government is prepared to accept. I would first of all, however, like to say that the modifications which the Government has made in the Bill with regard to the procedural provisions for the holding of a referendum vis-a-vis the Elections Ordinance were made because no individual candidate or political Parties were involved in the same sense as they were in the case of elections, and also in order to simplify the procedure at the polling stations and to save time. These modifications were to suit the different requirements of a referendum. However, in order that there can be no doubt about the propriety of the conduct of the referendum, the Government accepts the amendments of the Member for Queenstown with regard to (1) the appointments of polling agents and counting agents by political Parties represented in the Assembly themselves, and not as in the Bill empowering the Superintendent to use his discretion in allowing such appointments to be made by political Parties; (2) in including in this Bill similar provisions as in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance with regard to allowing polling agents to affix their seals to ballot boxes and other sealed packets if they so desire, and for the opening of ballot boxes in the presence of such counting agents as attend and for the recounting of votes upon application by political Parties in the Assembly or their counting agents.

Sir, when the Bill was drafted, it was intended that in a referendum on merger since no individual candidates were involved, the Superintendent should use his power of discretion allowed to him to propose to political Parties having the same views on merger that they may jointly appoint one polling agent to each polling place and also one counting agent to each counting centre. This was the purpose of the modification of the Elections Ordinance. The provisions with regard to affixing of seals to ballot boxes and sealed packets by polling agents was to make the procedure at polling stations as simple as possible and to save time, bearing in mind that at no time after the ballot boxes and sealed packets leave the polling station until they arrive at the counting centre are they in the hands of one person, hut are in fact accompanied by the presiding officer and some of the polling staff, escorted by the police. The provision of opening ballot boxes at counting centres in the presence of counting agents was omitted, because it was considered from a drafting point of view that this was unnecessary, since clause 27 (2) already provided that the Superintendent shall make arrangements for the counting of the votes in the presence of such counting agents as attend and these arrangements for counting would include the taking out of the ballot papers from the ballot boxes. However, as I have said earlier, the Government has accepted the amendment of the Member for Queenstown so that no one can Question the propriety of the referendum. Again, the reason why the provision for a recount of votes on application was omitted was to make it an administrative function of the Superintendent in order to prevent requests for recounts on flimsy and trivial grounds or for obstructive purposes and although there was no express provision for a recount to be made, no Assistant Superintendent in charge of a counting centre would refuse any reasonable application for a recount if made at the appropriate time. In omitting from the Bill these provisions which the Member for Queens-town wants included, the Government wanted to simplify the administrative arrangements.

The second category were those Opposition amendments which, after careful study, the Government considers to have some sense and could within reason be, accepted with modifications or improvements. To give two examples, instead of total prohibition of flags, banners, symbols, advertisements, etc., and total prohibition of canvassing either before, during or after any referendum, the Government has accepted an Opposition amendment to limit prohibition of canvassing only to polling day and to limit the prohibition on flags, banners, symbols, etc, only to the period from the date of issue of the Referendum Order of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara up to and including the day fixed for the taking of a referendum. As you are aware, Sir, we have submitted an amendment to this effect. There are other instances also where Opposition amendments request that longer periods of time be given in respect of certain statutory notifications and the Government considers that within reason the period of time could be extended further. These will be gone into more fully at the Committee stage.

The third category of Opposition amendments were apparently designed for and would have the effect of creating delay and obstruction and mischief and trouble at polling stations, or inviting of intimidation or generally creating chaos and confusion to the voters. These amendments the Government obviously must reject if the views of the people were to be properly ascertained without any fear or confusion. At the Committee stage, the Government will give detailed reasons which Opposition amendment it is unable to accept. Suffice it for me to say at this stage that the reasons for non-acceptance are based on grounds of non-justification, causing delay, inviting obstruction and trouble at polling stations.

Also, Sir, at the Committee stage. I shall be moving a number of amendments of which I have given notice and I will explain the reasons for these amendments when they are moved in committee. As mentioned earlier, these amendments were made after considering some of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. Most of these amendments are in connection with provisions for referendum petitions where the Government has put into comprehensive form the Member for Anson's proposal for referendum petition provisions to be included in the Bill, but in keeping with the detailed drafting of this Bill the Government has spelt out the provisions for referendum petitions in greater detail under a new Part V of the Bill. In agreeing to incorporate referendum petition provisions, the Government will also accept with a further amendment the Member for Anson's amendment to clause 27 with regard to the inclusion of Orders of a High Court Judge relating to the inspection., copying and production of ballot papers or other documents required for the purpose of instituting or maintaining a prosecution or referendum petition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the provisions of this Bill, the first matter to be submitted to the electors for a referendum will be the terms and conditions of merger of Singapore with the Federation. Mach has already been said and explained about this merger during the past months through the radio, forums, meetings, discussions and Press interviews. Much more will be said and repeated in the coming months until merger is realised and Malaysia created in or before June 1963. It is for the people of Singapore to decide on the manner of the inevitable reunification of our two territories.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.30 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before the House, the Second Reading of which has been postponed for reasons best known to the P.A.P., seeks to provide for the taking of a national referendum. I emphasise the word "national", Sir, because it is quite clear that in spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, the Bill in its present form and even with amendments will seek only to provide for a referendum run on a party basis. It will not be truly national in character in that there is no provision for proper consultation of other political Parties or for the proper and appropriate ventilation of views of the people. There is also no provision for party consultation in the framing of the question to be submitted to the people. Then there is no provision for adequate time and opportunity in spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has just mentioned for political Parties to put their views before the people concerning the question posed for the referendum. Therefore, we in the Barisan Sosialis feel that there must be certain minimum democratic safeguards that have to be included in the Bill. We are all too familiar with the -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): P.K.I.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - secret deal of the P.A.P. over the question of merger. The people will have to be ever on their guard when they are confronted with these same tricky politicians conducting a referendum.

An hon. Member: In the Barisan.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): You made a deal with the British.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we are not the least against the principle underlying a referendum. But we want to draw the attention of the House as well as the attention of the people of Singapore to possible attempts by discredited politicians to make use of the referendum to achieve certain undesirable political aims. Our amendments are directed towards helping to prevent this happening. Complete with all the democratic safeguards, a referendum is calculated to ascertain in a truthful manner the collective will of the electorate over a clear-cut issue. It is the duty of the Opposition and indeed of the whole Assembly to see that this is actually so. The electorate is required in the coming referendum to decide on the constitutional future of Singapore, a vital issue the importance of which can never be overstressed. It is an issue on which many views have been expressed both inside and outside the Assembly and, as things stand, is an issue that can he made very confusing, depending on how the P.A.P. Government is going to pose the question to the people. One would have thought that since the P.A.P. has discarded the useful past practice of an All-Party conference, since the P.A.P.'s claim to overwhelming support has been invalidated both in terms of majority margin in the House and popular sentiments all over Singapore, and since the question of our constitutional future has to be decided by the people, the natural and logical thing to do is to hold a general election -

Mr Rajaratnam: Why do you chaps not resign?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - in order to have a government more representative of the people and a government fully equipped with the mandate of the people to fight for our next constitutional advance. But not unexpectedly our call for an immediate general election has now been rejected by the P.A.P. for reasons best known to themselves.

Mr Rajaratnam: You are the reason.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: All sorts of rationalisations have been put forward to justify their rejection of a general election. I do not think the people will take them seriously. For example, both the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister twisted our preference for general elections to mean that we in the Barisan Sosialis fear that the people may not have the intelligence to know how to choose in a referendum -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: That is what you have said.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - whereas the P.A.P. believes in the wisdom and intelligence of the people in the referendum. This is the P.A.P. line. Yet the Prime Minister, in one of his famous or notorious 12 talks, argues that a general election will confuse the people because of the multitude of Parties symbols, platforms and candidates, and because other issues brought out in an election will be confused with the merger issue. The Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. I wonder how the Member for Queenstown can relate what he is saying to the Bill. The Bill deals with the proposal to have a National Referendum Ordinance and the argument seems to be that the Member for Queenstown is not in favour of the Bill, if he alleges that a general election would be a better way of doing these things. I might remind the Member for Queenstown. and incidentally all other Members, that we are on the Second Reading of the Bill and under standing Order 67 (2), "a debate may arise covering the general merits and principle of the Bill." Therefore, I cannot see how the failure of the P.A.P. to call a general election has anything to do with this Referendum Bill.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I understand that. I merely wanted to point out the illogical argument all along put forward by the P.A.P. I have no intention whatsoever of dwelling on the subject of a general election or the argument for it. All I wanted to point out was that when they talk of the wisdom of the people they do not really mean what they say. When they say they believe in the wisdom of the people, they also say the people will be confused. Therefore they really mean otherwise. However, now that a referendum is preferred by the P.A.P. to decide on the constitutional future of Singapore, we in the Barisan Sosialis, and I believe all on this side of the House, are fully prepared for the eventuality of a referendum carried out on a democratic basis, on democratic lines. But first we want to know what - of course, it has to be explained - is the issue to be decided upon, and then we must also strive to ensure that all the minimum democratic essentials are not deliberately omitted. Sir, we have so far neither information nor consultation as to how and in what form the vital issue is to be decided upon in the coming referendum. How is the question to be posed? Is there to be one question only or are there going to be two or three questions? And how are the questions to be framed and worded? Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs talks of terms and conditions. What does he mean by terms and conditions? Why cannot he be straightforward and tell us all what this is all about?

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Minister for Home Affairs had enlarged on that phrase "terms and conditions", he would have been completely Out of order with reference to this Bill. We cannot go into details of that nature. The Bill does not specifically say that there will be a referendum in regard to merger. But in passing. Members can mention this Issue which will be perhaps the first issue under this Bill.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Minister did say that it is for the constitutional future of Singapore, and we can assume that the referendum is about the so-called White Paper of the P.A.P. Sir, these are all vital questions and we are glad to note that amendments have been tabled by the Member for Anson on, this particular point, because we know only too well P.A.P. thinking on controversial issues. We know how the P.A.P. will try to do things only to the advantage of the P.A.P. and to nobody else. They have done too -

Mr Rajaratnam: For the Barisan.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - many things arbitrarily in the last 2� years and have twisted and turned once too often. In fact, Sir, if it is a case of posing the questions as regards the constitutional future of Singapore, we would support the amendment of having only one question, as this would give the people an opportunity to give a categorical and clear-cut answer whether or not they want the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals. That is assuming that we are talking of their merger. We are glad to note that the United People's Party also has come out with a statement that they are in favour of only one question to be posed to the people for their decision.

Sir, I am told that in any social or economic survey, there exists a very close relationship between the questions put and the results that follow. The wording of the question can also have a very serious influence on the result that follows. Often improper questions asked -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The answer is no.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and improper words used may lead to answers that may not correspond with the actual situation. I say, Sir, this is more so in the event of a referendum. Let us assume that the issue is whether the voter is for or against merger as our next constitutional advance - a simple one. There can be so many ways of posing the question. If a voter is asked whether he is for or against the P.A.P. type of merger as outlined in the White Paper, he may well say no -

Mr Rajaratnam: On the other hand, he may not say yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - even though he is not against merger. So you can see the difficulty of the framing and the wording of the question. The P.A.P. think they have this trump card up their sleeves. But anyway we will have to watch and find out. But let me add, Sir, that if the posing of the question is going to be fair - since they talk so much about fairness - it must he clear, unequivocal and straightforward so that the electorate can have the chance to answer it in a straightforward and clear-cut manner. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that in view of all this, the Government should table, in the first instance in the Assembly, their proposal regarding the issue, the question and its wording for examination, discussion and debate by Members. That is absolutely important. Then and then only will all Parties be satisfied that there is no juggling or underhand tricks on this vital issue of the specification of question or questions to be submitted to the people.

Another important thing, as far as we are concerned, is that the provisions of the Bill will prevent corruption, rigging of votes and any unfair advantage that would make the result of a referendum meaningless, and a meaningless referendum - a phoney referendum - will give phoney legality to discredited politicians to further discredit parliamentary democracy in this part of the world. The Leader of the House laughs. We have heard a lot about parliamentary democracy from some of the P.A.P. leaders and I say this to them, "Practise what you preach."

Mr Rajaratnam: Lim Ching Siong does not believe in that.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The hope of democracy does not lie in the preachings of men but in the practice of those who hold power, and unfortunately the P.A.P. have shown us how they have abused power.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Come off it!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We have seen how parliamentary democracy can be made into parliamentary dictatorship by P.A.P. leaders intoxicated with the taste of power.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If the P.A.P. are prepared to practise what they preach, then I say to them, amend the National Referendum Bill so that a truly fair referendum will be possible. When I talk about fairness, the Minister for Finance laughs and yawns. Obviously, he does not know the meaning of the word.

Sir, if a referendum is really to reflect the views and wishes of the people, then it must be conducted in a manner that is above criticism and, what is more important, above suspicion -

Mr Rajaratnam: Like Caesar's wife.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - to make the Referendum Bill such that those opposed to the question that is asked will have both the time and the facilities to explain to the people why they are opposed to the question that is asked, to make the provisions of the Bill such that there can never be any accusation that the Government seek to fix things in such a way that the whole business is a mere ritual. Let us make sure there is no mockery of democracy and of the people of Singapore. We want. Sir, to see parliamentary democracy work in Singapore. We want all the people in Singapore to see that parliamentary democracy can and does work in Singapore, and the P.A.P., as the government of the day, have a responsibility to see that parliamentary democracy can and does work in Singapore, not just for the benefit of only a section of the people but for the benefit of all sections of the people; otherwise even people who do not have the benefit of a Cambridge University education will see through the use - or shall I say abuse - of the democratic machinery for undemocratic practice.

Sir, the record of the broken promises of the P.A.P. is still fresh in our minds. The way the P.A.P. have handled the whole question of merger, as revealed in the White Paper agreement between Singapore and the Federation, still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their secret deal in this constitutional link-up does not encourage the man in the street to place any confidence in the Government.

Sir, the amendments which seek to ensure that there can be no foul play, no chicanery can be divided into the following groups. There must be adequate time for a campaign both in support of and against the proposed question. The present clause in the Bill which makes it possible to hold the referendum seven days after the writ is issued is calculated to prevent the presentation of Opposition views. In fact, the period may be only five days, as under the provisions in the Bill the Government need only announce the question to be submitted to the voters not later than five days.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think all these details could be touched upon in Committee. I think the hon. Member has made his point, that is, the general point that adequate time should be given. I think that has been conceded by the Minister for Home Affairs. It is a question of debate in Committee as to what is adequate time.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am only mentioning it in passing. The P.A.P. took seven weeks in Hong Lim and five weeks in Anson to canvass their point of view and even then they thought the time was too short.

Mr Rajaratnam: You were also canvassing.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Therefore, according to our views, this period of seven days and five days is definitely far too short for a public discussion of a question that merits a referendum - a question that is going to decide the lives and future of all the people of Singapore.

The proposed seven-day minimum period is grossly inadequate and can only be taken as an attempt to hold a snap referendum so that the P.A.P. can take full advantage of their control of the State machinery in presenting their case and preventing the Opposition from having either the time or the facilities for presenting the Opposition case to the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Queenstown must have regard to what has been said by the Minister for Home Affairs. I think I am correct when I say that the Minister for Home Affairs has conceded the point that there should he adequate lime. Therefore, the amount of time that should be given would be a matter for debate in Committee. The Member for Queenstown should adjust his speech to meet what has, in fact, been said.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: With due respect, Sir, I do not think the Minister for Home Affairs has conceded the point that the period should be very much lengthened. The Government have given the impression that they are willing to concede a slight extension of the time.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is exactly the point which I am trying to make. That is a debate which can properly be taken in Committee. All those points can be made. I hope the hon. Member does not think the Chairman is excluding him from saying these things. The Chair is only suggesting that those remarks could properly be passed in Committee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I shall be satisfied, Sir, if you will allow me the opportunity to stress a point which to us is very important. In spite of what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, we feel that the case has not been presented in principle adequately unless we inform the House of the actual way we look at it.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is either trying not to understand me or deliberately not understanding me. I have not said that he will be debarred. He will have the opportunity of saying what he wishes to say in Committee. I am only trying to channel the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, which is on the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Mr Rajaratnam: Skip the details, and you are all right.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Anyway, the clause as it stands in the Bill which limits the time period is a most undemocratic provision. Let me just finish off by telling the P.A.P. leaders this: do not help ill the creation of an undemocratic system.

Sir, in clause 5, it is the Yang di-Pertuan Negara who considers when a referendum is to be carried out. In actual practice, the Yang di-Pertuan means the Minister. Now, a referendum as we all know, is a national matter affecting the lives and future of every voter as well as every non-voter in Singapore and, indeed, all Malaya. It is imperative, therefore, that all other Parties be consulted and given a say in the matter. Let the whole question be aired and debated in the Legislative Assembly first.

The same thing applies in clause 7. Surely, it would be more democratic to let the Legislative Assembly be the final authority in this instance. Nowadays the P.A.P. Government have the habit of bringing into the Assembly all sorts of motions and resolutions on matters which should rightly belong to the authority of the Government. We have seen this happen during the merger debate three months back. Yet on matters of truly national importance. on a matter that may possibly occur only once in a lifetime, when a matter should rightly be debated in the Assembly, the P.A.P. Government want to arrogate all power and decisions to itself. Under those circumstances, where is the practice of parliamentary democracy?

On the question of symbols, Sir, it should be borne in mind that the purpose is to prevent confusion, for if symbols are to be used, then all the symbols must be such as not to give the idea of unequal values to the voter. Symbols must be neutral. There are symbols which signify prosperity, and symbols which signify strife and hard-snip in the minds of certain people. Let this not be instrumental in influencing the voter in his real choice.

Now, let me elaborate a little on the principles of canvassing. The Bill prohibits canvassing. A little while ago the Minister for Home Affairs gave me the impression that canvassing will still be permitted in many ways.

Mr Rajaratnam: Only on polling day.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Only on polling day? Anyway, they have all this in the clause on canvassing. I think they are afraid that the truth will be told. I do not know; they may be afraid that their deception might be exposed. All the Parties, we feel, should be allowed to express their views on the questions submitted for the referendum. Truth fears no exposure. Anyway, it is in keeping with the spirit of democracy. The Government, with the monopoly of the radio and Rediffusion, and the help of what has now become a very friendly English Press, need not be afraid of canvassing. Whatever the Opposition Parties can do, I am sure the Government Party can also do. We have no monopoly on rallies. The P.A.P. can also hold their rallies and perhaps there are still a number of people who will go along to listen to them and chalk up more of their broken promises. We stress very much. Sir, that there must he freedom of speech and canvassing in connection with such an important national issue. The question of merger affects all the people of Singapore. And all the people of Singapore should be allowed to hear the views of all the Parties. Then and then only can it be said that the electors have been given a fair chance to decide for themselves.

The Government say that this Bill has been based and modelled on the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. But we find that many important aspects of the Elections Ordinance have been omitted, deliberately or otherwise, in the present Referendum Bill. Therefore, if the assurance given by the Minister for Home Affairs that canvassing will be allowed excepting on polling day, then we say it is a good thing.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): On a point of clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Is it correct that the Minister for Home Affairs said - that is correct, there is no misunderstanding there, canvassing will be allowed except on polling day? Thank you, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: But even then, Sir, I will need further clarification, because I am not sure whether canvassing will be allowed all the time until the day of poll. Will canvassing be allowed during the so-called period of referendum? What does it mean? That is enough, Sir.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: On a point of information, Mr Speaker. Sir,I have said in my speech earlier that canvassing is allowed except on polling day, just as in the general elections.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am very glad to have that assurance. Then I need not elaborate on certain points in order to impress on the P.A.P. leaders the importance of a campaign to present the views properly and in all perspective to the people.

Another principle we wish to emphasise, Sir, is that all political Parties represented in the Assembly must he allowed to provide polling agents and counting agents. I am glad also that the Government has accepted our amendment, but I might point out that at the present moment the Bill only provides that the Superintendent may at his discretion allow. We feel that we cannot allow the Superintendent such discretionary powers in a referendum that concerns all Parties. We feel that there must be no discrimination and all Parties must be allowed to check and see that everything is carried out smoothly and satisfactorily.

Again, Sir, in the spirit of the Elections Ordinance, we feel strict precautions should be taken to prevent possible malpractice in the voting in the referendum. I see also that the Minister has agreed to certain provisions, but I am in no position to know right now, Sir, what the full implications are. They have to be studied. I think precautions are necessary. Now that the Government have given the undertaking that a referendum petition will `be provided for, I will not touch on that particular point. But the Government's last minute amendments leave very much to be desired. We hope the P.A.P. Government will heed our criticism of the Bill. We understand the anxiety of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to rush things through. But more important for the good name of Singapore and for the success of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world, let there be no suspicion, not even a whisper of dishonesty or foul play. The amendments that have been moved in the Bill are only for the purpose of ensuring that when a referendum is held, it will be as clean and praiseworthy as the elections we have had in Singapore. The amendments are to ensure that Singapore's politicians when in power will not be allowed to imitate the election techniques of Ngo Dinh Diem and Syngman Rhee. Let it not be said that there is referendum rigging in Singapore. Let the referendum be so conducted that it can be seen to be truly fair, honest and completely above-board. Let there also be no cause for dissatisfaction or complaint. Once there is distrust in the proper running of any part of the State machinery, then the rot sets in. Despite what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, we hope the P.A.P. will still consider and accept our amendments, and the amendments of other Opposition Members, in the proper spirit of service in the cause of the people of Singapore.

I might add, Sir, that the Government might even give us a categorical assurance that the referendum will be binding on the Government. I will not say more on this subject, Sir, as there is already a motion which will deal specifically with the subject.

Lastly, let me say how unreasonable the Government have been in the manner in which they have notified Members of the Opposition about the Government's amendments. The Government may try to justify their action on the basis that the amendments have been sent in within the legally allowable time period. The National Referendum Bill is important, because on it will be based the law which will decide the future of all the people of Singapore. But their amendments to the Bill have been sent in at the last moment only just before the Bill comes up for Second Reading. Sir, the Government have long ago prepared the Referendum Bill. The explanation of the Minister for Home Affairs given a little while ago does not deceive anybody. The Second Reading was supposed to have taken place two months ago. Now `many months after the preparation of the Bill, amendments are sent in at the last minute. What is the real reason for this sudden pouncing on the Opposition with all these amendments? Is it a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to prevent sufficient time for proper study of the amendments by the Opposition? Or is it the intention of the Government to steamroller through this Bill with the amendments? Why is it that the Opposition Members have hardly 24 hours to study the Government amendments to a Government Bill that had its First Reading four months ago? Is this not, Sir, a travesty of the spirit of parliamentary democracy?

Sir, there are some really terrible amendments proposed by the Government. They are some of the most undemocratic proposals that we have ever seen in the whole of Singapore. But we shall deal with them when we come to the Committee stage, Sir. All in all, this is a most unhealthy state of affairs. I he indecent manner in which the Government try to keep Opposition Members in the dark about important national matters until the very last minute is contrary to the normal practice of parliamentary democracy. I may say, Sir, that it is a perfect example of parliamentary dictatorship in Singapore.

Mr David Marshall: P.A.P. democracy!

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker. Sir,I rise to support the principle of the Bill. I have listened with glee to the not so lengthy speech of the Member for Queenstown when he tried to explain that a national referendum is not a national referendum. But I can understand, Sir, why he is so bitter against his ox-comrades in the P.A.P. I can also feel with him when he described the remnants of the P.A.P. as being people capable of doing twists and turns, and doing all sorts of things in a manner that has a basis of party politics.

Sir, I am very glad to hear from the Minister in his speech just now that the prohibition of canvassing in clause 42 will be amended. He referred to the amendment sent in by the Government to apply only on polling day. Sir, I read these amendments yesterday, and since the Minister has made his speech, I have read it again. I would like to point out to him, Sir, that the amendment proposed by him does not carry out what he intends to do. The prohibition on canvassing is still a total prohibition, hut in so far as a man going into a house more than once is concerned, he can go in more than once so long as it is not polling day. But if it is polling day, then that is canvassing. I would ask the Minister to consult his colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, on whether the amendment put in by him bears out his statement of prohibiting canvassing only on polling day.

Sir, reference has been made in the Bill, to referendum meetings. It first appears in clause 34 and it comes in again in clause 45. No interpretation has been given of referendum meetings to be held by political Parties. Moreover, clause 42 - prohibition on canvassing - even with the amendments proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs, will prohibit the holding of referendum meetings, because a referendum meeting, after all, is a sort of mass canvassing.

There is another point, Sir,In regard to the appointing of polling agents and counting agents, this right is being confined to political Parties represented in the Legislative Assembly. Is it the intention of the Government that in the case of referendum meetings, after suitable amendments to clause 42, that the right to hold referendum meetings should also be confined to political Parties in the Legislative Assembly? If it is so, it should be made clear in the Bill.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown is very fond of challenging the P.A.P. to a general election, but he has supported this Bill subject to the amendments which he has put in. Surely, Sir, with the National Referendum Bill, a general election could be avoided. I think one of the first things the P.A.P. could and should put forward to the electorate to decide is whether or not the P.A.P., when they came in with 43 Members, and now reduced to 26, still have the confidence of the electorate. Do the electorate want them to remain in cilice for the next two years? That is a simple thing. A referendum on that matter would, I am sure, disclose that to us. There is no need for a genera1 election. The referendum will disclose to us whether or not the P.A.P. is as good as it makes itself out to be. And if the P.A.P. is knocked out in a referendum of that kind, there is no need for a merger referendum. The answer is the same. If it is knocked out, then the answer is there. Go ahead with your merger proposals. I would ask the Member for Queenstown to get away from that particular hobby of his that every time there must be a general election. General elections would mean the Barisan Sosialis coming out too, and I do not think all the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members sitting behind me will be returned. I doubt it very much. Whether or not the P.A.P. after having bluffed the electorate in returning them with 43 Members, now reduced to a shambles of 26, should continue in office for the next two years would be a very good question to pose in a national referendum.

Sir, there are many amendments proposed by Members of the Opposition and also by the Government. We will not therefore waste the time of the House on the Second Reading of this Bill other than to say that I will have a lot to say on the various clauses of the Bill when the Bill is in the Committee stage.

With regard to symbols, there is one thing I would like to touch on. It is right that there should be symbols. But I would ask the Government to bear in mind that such symbols should not have a religious character or that such symbols should not bear any relationship to the symbols of political Parties.

7.20 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker. Sir, in most democratic countries vital issues such as the constitutional future of the State are decided in a referendum. In this country, the Government will sumbit such an issue to the people for a vote based on that practice.

During the exchange of letters between political Parties of this Assembly and the Leader of the House, we demanded on the 18th of September, 1961, that the Government should submit its merger proposals to the people for a vote in a referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have today this National Referendum Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, matters have gone very fast since then, and even though the Government might have second thoughts about the result of the referendum, it is very difficult for them to pull out from their position, and we believe they are fully committed to a referendum. What is important now is not whether a referendum will or will not be held, but the most vital issue now posed to the people is, what will be the question posed to them for a decision? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no use our debating in this House whether time will be allowed for canvassing, or whether there will be electioneering facilities allowed to political Parties in this Assembly during the referendum, if the people are asked to choose in the referendum, for instance, between the devil and the deep blue sea; or between a tiger and, alternatively, to jump into a deep ravine; or either to choose eating, like during the Japanese occupation, ubi kayu or sago powder. Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that provisions should be added to the Bill whereby the political Parties in, this Assembly should come to an agreement on the question to be posed before the people. If the people, for instance, in a referendum on merger are asked to choose whether they prefer the P.A.P. type of merger as contained in the White Paper, or whether they prefer the Malacca and Penang type of merger whereby all non-Singapore born citizens would be deprived of all citizenship, including Singapore citizenship, and thus becoming stateless; if the people in such a referendum are asked to choose between these two alternatives, then what is the use of our canvassing or asking time to canvass, because we would then canvass for the people to choose whether they like the devil or whether they like to jump into the deep blue sea? Therefore, Mr Speaker. Sir, it is our contention that the most pressing issue is to request the Government that an All-Party meeting be called to discuss the question to be posed to the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all other technicalities of the electioneering campaign or the referendum campaign are of less importance. These can be discussed among the Parties after this vital issue of what is the question and what are the alternatives to be posed before the people has been settled.

Mr Speaker: Order. Do I take it that the hon. Member is advocating an amendment to clause 5, or is he speaking completely out of the ambit of the Bill?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just emphasising the fact that the Bill has no provisions which makes it compulsory for the Government to consult other political Parties represented in this Assembly, because in a referendum the most important thing is, what are the people being asked to' choose? That is the idea of a referendum. It is no use having a Referendum Bill if the Opposition Parties do not know or have no say in what are the questions the people will be asked to choose.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, the Government would be greatly obliged and indebted to the Member for Hong Lim if he could, with his wide knowledge of democratic practice in other countries of the world, give us a precedent from which to copy, where the Ordinance or the enactment provides for consultation with the Opposition Parties, in order that we could give it due consideration? Australia, for instance. Perhaps he may he able to help us in that respect?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the question posed by the Prime Minister. That is why it is all the more necessary that we should have an All-Party meeting so that we could give our views to the Prime Minister and to the Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes. We will have an All-Party meeting.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, for instance in Australia, when the Government was going to pass a Communist Party Dissolution Bill several years ago, the views of the Opposition Parties were obtained. They were allowed to campaign. They were allowed to send their leaflets through the post. At the same time, Government leaflets were allowed to be sent through the post. These are things which we can bring to the notice of the Government at an All-Party meeting.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

The Prime Minister: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, we accept all these valuable suggestions and proposals from the Member for Hong Lim. If he could point to that section of the Australian Referendum Ordinance or statute which provides for all these things, we are bound to give it all due consideration. We will accept all his valuable suggestions and we will have an All-Party meeting to consider all these valuable suggestions. It is most helpful.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is the case, I suggest that the Government commit this Referendum Bill to Select Committee, where we can discuss these things and we will give the information to the State Advocate-General for him to write to the Australian Government to supply all the requisite information.

The Prime Minister rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

The Prime Minister: On a further point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Regarding the example which the Member for Hong Lim has given about the dissolution of the Australian Communist Party, is he thinking of posing the question whether the Barisan Sosialis should be dissolved in a referendum? Perhaps he will get the help of all the, other Parties in this House. We will send out -

Mr Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. Is the Prime Minister permitted to abuse the privilege in the manner he is doing?

Mr Speaker: I think the Prime Minister rose on a point of elucidation. Perhaps he is asking a question which the Member for Hong Lim is quite capable of answering. I do not think he will ask the Member for Anson to answer.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it shows that when the Prime Minister is confronted with facts, he dare not answer the questions straight away. Would he agree -

The Prime Minister: I agreed.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of information.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I thought the Prime Minister was just asking for certain information from the Member for Hong Lim, that is, what section of the Australian Ordinance on referenda provides for All-Party consultations? The Prime Minister is not running away from facts. Nobody is running away from facts. We are asking for facts.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Therefore, it is our view that we commit this Bill to a Select Committee whereby we will get all the facts as to what happened in Australia during the referendum they had 12 years ago. It is no use for the Minister for Finance to ask me, what section of what Ordinance was passed in the Eskimo Parliament? Mr Speaker, Sir, if he is really keen on getting facts, have an All-Party meeting. We will get the State Advocate-General to write to the Australian Government. We will even send a team of people from the Elections Office and the Ministry of Home Affairs there to study and follow the practice of the Australian referendum held years ago.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, various speakers, including the Member for Queenstown -

Mr Speaker: A point of elucidation must refer to -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, to the Member for Hong Lim. All that appeal to noble democratic practices. All we want is for them to give some instances of these noble democratic practices in other countries. Surely it is a very fair question to ask of people, who evoke very high democratic principles, just where these principles are being observed in the most democratic of democratic countries?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker. Sir, I have already said just now that during the referendum in Australia the voters were posed this question: "Do you agree to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill?" Yes or no. Now, will the Prime Minister just answer this question straight away, or will the Minister for Home Affairs do so later in his reply? What would be the question posed?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think I must stop the hon. Member for Hong Lim. We are now debating the general merits and principle of the Bill. The Member is going into details. He wants, in effect, an amendment to clause 5. I have not seen any notice of amendment which he has sent in. Let us now carry on with the general merits and principle of the Bill and not as to how the Bill is to be implemented. If in Australia the Government did consider that the Opposition Parties should be consulted, that, I take it, was a matter of how the Bill should be implemented. But whether there is a condition in the Australian Ordinance or Australian Act that the matter must be referred to the Opposition Parties, I do not know.

The Prime Minister: Could I, on a point of elucidation?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

The Prime Minister: May I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir? When we postponed the Second Reading of the Bill from January to March on account of the many amendments that were proposed to be moved, we were accused of wanting to run away from the referendum. Now, it is suggested very seriously by the Member for Hong Lim that, in all fairness, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee in order that all democratic practices could be incorporated in it. Sir, far be it from the Government to try to railroad through the Bill, or otherwise give the Opposition no chance - although it has already had two months to consider all the amendments it wishes to put in, including any useful provisions in the Australian statute - if it is the considered wish of the whole of the Opposition to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, we are quite prepared to let it be a free vote of the Opposition to let the Bill go to Select Committee, on condition that the Bill is reported back before the end of April, or by the end of April. That is the position of the Government. I do not want it ever to be suggested' that we are undemocratic.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the only other thing which I would like to raise is -

The Prime Minister: Sir, before I forget a matter. At the end of the Second Reading, let the Member for Hong Lim move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, but the Government's condition is that the Select Committee is to report back to the Assembly before the end of April.

Mr David Marshall: Very fair, very fair.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we want this Bill to be discussed properly in the Select Committee. How could we in the Opposition make a decision whether the Bill will be ready before April or not? It is for the Select Committee to push through the Bill and try to hurry it up as quickly as possible. But we will move that the Pill be referred to a Select Committee.

The Prime Minister: Now the Barisan is in difficulties.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just refer to one of the important amendments to be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs, i.e., if people do not vote, they will be deemed to have voted with what is passed by the Assembly, which means, if it is on the issue of merger, the P.A.P. merger proposals as contained in Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Government will be able, in their reply, to quote in what particular section of other Referendum Ordinances in other parts of the world this, particular provision has appeared.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: No other Member wishing to speak? Mr Ong Pang Boon then in reply.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Does the Member for Anson wish to speak?

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker -

Mr Speaker: Because if I call the Minister, the Member for Anson will lose his opportunity.

7.42 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, in medieval times there were alchemists who sought to transmute mud into gold and failed. The P.A.P. has the most unhappy propensity of successfully transmutting gold into mud. Sir, the concept of a referendum is pure gold. It is a concept of direct democracy, and direct democracy is of course, the ultimate just method of government. It is in large areas cumbersome in practice and impractical for the normal work of government, and, unfortunately, far too little used in the British Commonwealth. Nevertheless, it has been indicated by the previous speaker that it has an honourable history both in Switzerland and in Australia, and we have recently seen it working in France. The power of referendum to the people is a sign of political maturity. If the P.A.P. had it worked as one would have like it to work in this matter, it could have earned legitimate credit for a valuable measure. But, Sir, some people are only comfortable when living in mud and we have had this curious position that a valuable provision in an important Bill has been messed around, manoeuvred in the traditional P.A.P. style.

The Prime Minister: The Member has just said, "Very fair, very fair!"

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: We had this Bill for debate on I think it was the 15th of January. Opposition Members put in amendments by the 4th of January, giving the Government ten clear days at the time for the amendments to get from you, Sir, to the Minister and other Members. It is true there were a number of amendments. Mr Speaker, Sir, they had' ten whole days. With their State Advocate-General's Department and all the Ministers concerned, they could not .digest those amendments. If it was true that they could not, they could quite easily have submitted the matter to a Select Committee and between 15th January and today, 14th March, it is two whole months. The Prime Minister suggests that we should now commit the Bill to Select Committee -

The Prime Minister: The Member for Hong Lim.

Mr David Marshall: - and he has very fairly agreed to the suggestion with a limitation the validity of which I can see, limiting the period of six weeks. We could have done that and completed the agony of the minute examination of this Bill during these two months. On the excuse that they wanted to consider the Opposition's amendments, ten days were not enough for them, Sir. Now we have seven pages of amendments filed two days ago by the Government containing amendments to seven clauses, and 12 new clauses which they expect us on this side of the House to digest and cope with in two days.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Sir, many of those amendments are really amendments to the amendments proposed by the Opposition. Instead of giving two clear days notice, we could very well have given no notice at all, and in Committee stage move the amendments to the Opposition's amendments. In fairness, we gave notice as if they were new amendments. I think the Member for Anson must be quite fair in acknowledging that we have the right, if we wanted to spring any surprise, to move the amendments to his amendments in Committee without notice.

Mr David Marshall: The Prime Minister is misinformed, Mr Speaker. Sir,If he will look at his list, he will find that none of them are those which could have been moved as amendments to our amendments He is completely misinformed.

The Prime Minister: All your petitions?

Mr David Marshall: Now, Sir, he refers to my petitions but I take it he means the provisions for referendum petitions that I seek to incorporate. He could not have moved those by way of amendments to my amendments, although, in fairness to the Minister - or whoever did the work for him - I wholeheartedly agree that the provisions, except in one aspect with which I shall deal in Committee, spell out what 1 seek more extensively than I have done myself. But they cannot be said to be amendments to my amendments in any shape at all. They have taken the ideas and incorporated them and insofar as they go, I have no complaints, Sir, except that I should have liked a little more time to deal with them. But the interesting point is this. The Government find ten days too little to examine our amendments, but throw seven pages at us with 12 new clauses and seven new amendments and expect us to deal with them in two days. That is the unhappy approach of the P.A.P. to this matter.

Sir, I have indicated that the principle of the Bill is one that I welcome. In the amendments that we from this side of the House have tabled, we have sought to clean up extremely suspicious provisions. We have also sought to introduce provisions where there is a complete lacuna. I am happy to note that the particular lacuna of referendum petitions has, in fact, been recognised by the Government, even though it took them two whole months plus ten days' previous notice in order to put in not merely last-minute amendments if it please you. Mr Speaker, Sir, but more than twelfth-hour amendments, because these amendments were, in fact, not tabled in time for discussion today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party would have liked to see introduced in this Bill provision whereby a percentage of the electors could petition His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to hold a referendum at any time - and I am not being personal here - as to whether any government in office should remain in office, as an additional check to the arrogance of absolute power of which the Prime Minister has so much experience. However, we in the Workers' Party -

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir. Am I to understand that on the Second Reading of this Bill, the Member for Anson is introducing a further amendment of which he has not given notice?

Mr Speaker: Any Member of this Assembly can comment during the Second Reading on any omission in the Bill, and this is an omission. He is entitled to comment on it.

The Prime Minister: He is not moving an amendment, I hope?

Mr David Marshall: Once upon a time, the Prime Minister was referred to as a young man in a hurry. Shall we say now he is just a man in a hurry? If he had waited, Mr Speaker, I was going to mention that we in the Workers' Party are practical people and conscious that this referendum is primarily intended - or so we hope - to give an opportunity to our people to vote on the issue of the proposed closer relations with the Federation. In these circumstances, it is not our intention to introduce what might be controversial features which would delay the passing of the Bill and which would bring acrimony to what we had hoped would otherwise be an easy passage. There are undesirable' features of this Bill which can and should be dealt with by this Assembly. The principal one is that everything seems to be what the Government will. The Bill seeks to give the Party in power the right to call for a referendum when it wishes and in such form as it wishes, raising a confusing number of questions if it wishes, appointing officers in control of the counting of votes, which I am now glad to hear will be subject to some check.

The Prime Minister: To every check.

Mr David Marshall: Now at last, not originally.

Mr Speaker. Sir, there are amendments which this Government have brought to cur notice and with which I say to you quite frankly I have not. been able to cope adequately under the pressure of other work. But I was very interested to note that the Minister for Home Affairs was as bashful as a blushing stork hiding its head in the sands in ignoring the rather horrible provisions incorporated in this notice of amendment:

`Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or is uncertain shall be deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred [to in the Assembly].'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that ballot papers unmarked can belong to those who are dead and I am not surprised that the P.A.P. seek to canvass the cemeteries since they can expect few living human beings who will support them. But I should have thought -

The Prime Minister: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Is the Member suggesting that there are provisions to ensure that blank ballot papers belonging to those who are dead are put into ballot boxes to be counted?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the words are "Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked".

The Prime Minister: Is just put into the ballot box.

Mr David Marshall: Not necessarily, Mr Speaker, Sir - "Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or is uncertain". I think whoever drafted that may not have been aware of the conscious desire of the P.A.P. to canvass the cemeteries but, in fact, made such provision. I would, however, point out that even if they do not canvass the cemeteries, they must be indeed bankrupt to have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to this extent, that whatever is ambiguous shall be the Government's vote.

The Prime Minister: Not in the Assembly.

Mr David Marshall: In the Assembly, Sir, they have this majority of one which they have used to steamroller us and it is this majority of one which gives them the right to speak of the vote for the Assembly but, in fact, it is the P.A.P. seeking these ambiguous votes, pleading for these ambiguous votes to be made votes for the Government.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Anson never made this accusation, Sir, because he probably never harboured these thoughts; but the Member for Queenstown over a radio forum said that Singapore was so poor in democracy that the people were not equipped for advanced democratic processes like a referendum, so that in order to take care of those who might fall into his category of people who are unable to live up to the matured democratic processes we bring in the aid of the Assembly for them.

Mr David Marshall: I am indebted to the Prime Minister. I thought he sought elucidation from me, but let us forgive him. I am very interested to see now actually put into words by the Prime Minister what I understand to be the P.A.P. philosophy. The maxim and the foundation stone of the P.A.P. approach to the people is that the voter of Singapore is a blind chicken. Now if the Barisan Sosialis, who retain certain remnants of the P.A.P. contact, have also got the same idea that the voters of Singapore are blind chickens, I am sure they will soon disabuse themselves. But it is very interesting to note the parentage of this idea, that the P.A.P. is seeking to look after these blind chickens by claiming them as its own. Anybody who cannot make up his mind, the P.A.P. has got him. I hope that only those with empty minds will ever support the P.A.P.

Sir, you will notice a matter which I know was stressed to some extent by the Member for Hong Lim but which I fear did not sufficiently receive the appreciation which it merited, and that is that the provisions of this Bill permit the Government a confusing number of questions without any check by any organisation at all. Sir, far be it from me to suggest that the P.A.P. would wish to be dishonest towards these blind chickens. They know that blind chickens can be driven forward before them, as they have driven the poor misguided voters before them in the last elections. But I do say, Sir, that there should be at least a debate in this Assembly in respect of the question that is going to be put to the people and that there should not be an unfettered discretion in, the Government whereby the people can be confused and the people can be misled by the form of the question -

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.