SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [14th March, 1962], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

4.36 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned last night, I was drawing attention to the fact that the principle of the Bill itself is pure gold, and the unhappy tradition of the PAP, to transmute gold into mud. We have had an exhibition of that in the past hour of the endless gramophone. I pointed out also that the Minister for Home Affairs himself seemed to be so deeply ashamed of the provisions of this Bill that he ignored them and pretended they did not exist. I must say, Mr Speaker, I sympathise with the Minister, if, in fact, these provisions do not have his approval, but are part of the P.A.P, traditions which are forced on him. I drew attention to the pathetic provisions which the Government seek to incorporate in this Bill providing, in effect, that unmarked and uncertain ballot papers should be counted as Government votes. These people who are so capable of sneering, these masters of the sneer, should recognise that there is hardly any piece of legislation or any provision on our statute book which is so worthy of contempt as that provision which they seek - the votes of blind chickens - because it is only blind chickens who would be voting for them. Those capable of understanding and marking their ballot papers correctly would not, as they correctly anticipated, be casting their votes for the Government.

Sir, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance with their usual sneering approach sought to pin the Opposition down to chapter and verse in the precedents of other territories for measures which we seek. They themselves, in fact, have no precedents at all. They themselves cannot point, even in the cheapest country in the world - we do not reproduce a P.A.P. government twice - to any provision similar to this thing of contempt which they seek to introduce.

Another provision, Sir, a matter that is startling and dreadful, is the provision that if on polling day you are to be seen entering more than two premises in the same polling district, you would be prima facie guilty of a criminal offence. Is it believable, Sir, that a responsible Government of decent human beings should go so low as to seek that kind of muck? I take it, Sir, that only non-P.A.P, members would be arrested under those provisions. In respect of the original and really evil provision of this Bill, i.e., preventing any effort by political Parties to advise the electorate and to inform them of the issues - clause 40 - the Minister for Home Affairs has assured us that now canvassing will be permitted except on polling day. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has not introduced any amendments to that shameless clause 40, but I take it that he will be accepting the amendment of the Member for Queenstown.

Another curious provision which adds up to the contemptible approach by the Government to the principle of this Bill is to he found in the provision that evidence can be submitted or documents can be submitted by the State Advocate-General before the Referendum Judge, not on oath, without indication of sources, and in fact parts Thereof which may be marked secret will then be withheld from other parties who are interested. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have personally known of cases where, under the P.P.S.O., documents have been marked secret which you can buy at 10 cents a time or 15 cents a time on the newsstands; they are actually chopped secret, dozens of them chopped secret by some peon to whom that responsibility is assigned and presented. Copies of the Min Pao, Sir, which were readily available were marked secret and submitted to the P.P.S.O. tribunal. That is the kind of tribunal we are supposed to be having. There can be no doubt, Sir, that if the P.A.P. were to remain much longer in office, there would be no rule of law. It would only exist in the breach with all the holes introduced by the P.A.P. by way of exceptions to a great tradition which we have inherited in order to transform it into P.A.P. justice for P.A.P. members. It is not my intention, Mr Speaker, to take up the time of this House nor to ramble. Perhaps because I have not got the ability to ramble in such an extraordinary fashion as the leader of the Front bench of the Government. But I do say that I do ask the Government to recognise that this Bill is for the future, not merely their future, that the principle is a thing of value, which today we should have been celebrating instead of pouring scorn on, as scorn it deserves, and that the amendments from this side of the House seek to restore dignity and integrity to a principle that is basically of considerable worth. It is true, Sir, that some of the amendments we have tabled spring from a deep suspicion of P.A.P. motives, but I ask you to recognise that our suspicion is well founded. I ask you to take a look at the Bill, Mr Speaker. The original Bill had no provision whatsoever for setting aside a referendum dishonestly conducted, no provision at all for upsetting any report by the Superintendent even though all know that it was false. I ask you, Sir, whether it is possible to imagine that there is a draftsman in existence who would be so incompetent as not to provide for a Referendum Judge and for referendum petitions. If there is no such incompetent draftsman, then was the omission intentional in order to provide for an eventuality when this Government would require a dishonest report?

The Minister asked you also, Sir, to look at the provision in the original Bill whereby canvassing was precluded throughout the period of referendum so that their Minister for Culture could pour his mess through their P.A.P. Radio but no others could even intelligently discuss or seek to assess what it is that is being asked.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Australia under the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, 1906-1936, there are provisions whereby the exact measure that it is being sought to introduce may be attached to the question. Here the question is going to be left in the dark. No one is to explain anything. It is to be sprung on you, and within seven days you are to vote. That is the original measure. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether this measure, obviously intended for the blind chickens that the P.A.P. think our people are, should not be rightly viewed with the gravest suspicion by this side and every aspect scrutinised and treated from the point of view that the P.A.P. would, where it can, abuse the provisions for their own party political ends. I would say that it is unfortunate that a measure which I have no doubt every Member in this House welcomes in principle, should have been dressed up in such fashion for purely political ends that we should have to deal with it with acrimony instead of welcoming it with delight. I say to the Government Benches - or such of them as have the courtesy to remain to hear - that we mean well by our amendments and I challenge the Minister for Home Affairs to prove that any single amendment is, as he alleges, obstructive or would cause delay. I say that every one of those amendments is intended to tidy up the Bill and is perfectly bona fide.

Sir, we have had a marathon debate on the merger issue. It is my hope that the symptoms of a marathon debate on the Third Reading will not eventuate and that the Government will have adequate sense, if not adequate decency, to cooperate in cleaning up this mess which they have made of an honest principle.

4.50 p.m.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, a referendum is a good thing, for it provides for the consultation of the people on constitutional and other issues of national importance. To that extent, we welcome the Singapore National Referendum Bill. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with a deep sense of regret that we see the Government using cunning tactics to delay this Bill. This Bill should have been read and passed two months ago. We on this side of the House do not feel that it should be delayed any further. We are therefore not asking this Bill to be committed to Select Committee, for we do not wish to be associated with any further delaying tactics of the Government.

Sir, there have been strong rumours in town - for a long time too - that the Government had intended to railroad merger through without having a referendum. There was genuine fear that there might be no referendum at all, despite the talks of the P.A.P. leaders that the final decision would rest with the people. We are glad that the Minister for Home Affairs, when introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, has given a categorical assurance that there will be a referendum. Therefore, we consider that an open discussion of the pros and cons of the various clauses of the Bill will enable the people of Singapore to have a better insight of what is to come.

Sir, like all good things in life, the Referendum Bill can be used for evil intentions. We all know that when Nobel invented the procedure for the taming of T.N.T. not so long ago, it served as a great industrial advance; but later the very same invention was used to cause unaccountable misery. All of us in this House will remember with disgust the bombs that fell in Singapore during 1941/42 - no thanks to Nobel indeed for his good invention. As the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy, it is our duty and our responsibility to see that sufficient safeguards are entered into the Singapore National Referendum Bill so that the possibilities of its abuse by a discredited government may be reduced to the very minimum. It is with this noble and honourable intention that the Opposition had filed the amendments. Instead of acknowledging the good intentions, the Minister for Home Affairs had seen fit to slander some of our amendments as, according to the Straits Tunes of today, page 11:

`The 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.'.

Sir, all our amendments were made after a careful study of this Bill in relation to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. I wonder whether the Minister for Home Affairs really meant to have his slanderous words apply to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. If not, he would certainly do well to withdraw his slanderous remarks at a later stage.

Sir, we have seen the Government playing dirty political games in this House too often. We all remember the Government's jubilance when they thought they had us in the Barisan Sosialis cornered on a matter concerning the privilege of a Member of this House to come to this House unobstructed and unhindered. We in the Barisan Sosialis have played the parliamentary game honestly and honorably, but the Government laughed like Mad Hatters - to borrow a phrase from the Deputy Prime Minister, it was as if they had expected us to play the game in some other fashion and not in accordance with the parliamentary rules. I do not know, Sir, what inspired them to think evil of others - "Honi soit qui mal y pense." I am not surprised. But whatever it is, Sir, we do not want them to spring their dirty surprises on the people of Singapore.

Sir, to all honest people, a referendum means the submission to the electors of a matter of grave national importance; but to the P.A.P. it is not so. A referendum to the P.A.P. is something rigged up to salvage its political bankruptcy and doom. Sometime ago, the Prime Minister said in this very House that if things got too hot for the P.A.P. the P.A.P. would duck. I think it was the Member for Tanglin - I stand to be corrected - who remarked that if ever the P.A.P. did duck, it would certainly become a dead duck!

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): It was the Member for Cairnhill.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: It was a good passing remark. The Prime Minister has very evidently and obviously understood the wisdom of that passing remark.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): He said you will be a cooked goose!

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Understanding the reality of what will happen to them if they really ducked, the P.A.P. have steadfastly and stubbornly refused to duck. But some way must be found for the P.A.P. to get out of the "ducking" they had at the hands of the Barisan Sosialis. What could be better than a renewal of its mandate by a sham referendum? Nothing could be better than that strategy, and therefore this strategy was fixed and there would be a referendum. That was towards the end of last year. The Bill was introduced and, all of a sudden, the P.A.P. was confronted with some snags which could be overcome and resolved in quick time. The Second Reading of the Bill was therefore delayed to save its face. What are the snags that gave the Prime Minister and his colleagues cold feet? I venture to suggest, Sir, that there are two important ones. Firstly, the Government had taken a look at the results of the referenda conducted in other places and had found, to their discomfiture, that most referenda had ended in disaster. In Australia, from 1906 to 1935, they had conducted 16 referenda. I quote, Sir, from the Commonwealth Acts 1901 to 1935, Volume One, A to E, and Constitution. Of the 16 referenda conducted between the period 1906 and 1935, only three were approved by the people and 13 were rejected by the people. That must have given the Government cold feet. This fact alone, Sir, would have prevented the Government from toying with the idea of a renewal of its mandate by way of a referendum. Far from having its mandate renewed, the Government would be obliged to resign, for their constitutional proposals posed in a referendum would be surely and certainly rejected by the people. However, judging by past performances, it is not impossible that the Government will not resign even after their sell-out proposals had been rejected by the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are now on the general merits and principle of the Bill. The remarks of the Member for Nee Soon are straying very far from the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Sir, in coming to the general merits and principle of the Bill, I was seeking to explain why it was that the Bill had been postponed for two months. I will not go very far, Sir, but just touching a little bit on it.

Having had their proposals rejected by the people, I can foresee the Government not resigning. But then the Prime Minister could not get away very lightly with that, for there are still honest people and decent people in the P.A.P. I am looking at the Deputy Prime Minister, for I have a great regard for his honesty, and as a scientist of no mean repute -

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the Member for Nee Soon is suggesting an amendment to the Referendum Bill in mentioning the Deputy Prime Minister as an honest politician. We are on the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Thank you for your guidance, Sir,I thought I should give a bouquet when it is due. [Interruption] I might disagree with the Member for Anson on that score, Sir.

I am confident, Sir, that there are few people in the P.A.P. who have some decency left, and that should the referendum on merger be rejected by the people, it would be an eye-opener to these people. That is why the P.A.P. Government is so keen to delay this as long as possible, so that some form of compromise can be arrived at and that there will be no loss of face after the referendum. The P.A.P. is perching on a precarious political position today.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must call the Member back now to the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: The second reason why the Bill was delayed was the lack of a good issue to pose to the people. The P.A.P. had imagined that if they posed a national issue to the people, it would gain wide acceptance, approval and support. But then the Tunku, the Prime Minister -

Mr Speaker: Order. We are not debating why the Bill was delayed. Members are entitled, of course, to mention it in passing. But I think the hon. Member for Nee Soon is going too much into details on that particular aspect. He is entitled to criticise the Government because of the delay. But he is not entitled to raise a debate on that issue.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Can I, Sir, just briefly mention the two reasons which I have given this House that led to the delay of the Bill? The first was that they had cold feet after they had had a look at the results of referenda held elsewhere. The second was the absence of a good issue which could gain wide support from the people. They thought the merger issue would be a good one; but then the Tunku put obstructions in their way, so that the merger proposals now have become unacceptable to the people. They are now shifting from the merger proposals to the glorification of Malaysia.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Nee Soon is still out of order. Will be please come back to the general merits and principle of the Bill?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as the National Referendum Bill provides for the consultation of the people on matters of grave national importance, we welcome it in principle.

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member take much longer?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: About ten minutes.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps we could suspend for tea. I suspend this Assembly. I will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we broke off for suspension just now, I was saying that in so far as the National Referendum Bill provides for the consultation of the people on matters of grave national importance, we in the Barisan Sosialis welcome it. But as I have said before, the P.A.P. has other intentions about this Bill. The P.A.P. has sought to use this Bill to give it an artificial span of life. But those who invoke the supernatural to live an unnatural span of life must be prepared to pay the price of the devil. Let the P.A.P. state here categorically in this House that it will stand or fall on its merger proposals. Let the P.A.P. state categorically in this House that it will resign if the people reject the P.A.P. proposals in the referendum.

Mr Speaker: Order. I did pull up the Member for Nee Soon, indicating that he was going away from the debate, and that is on the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the sitting of the Assembly on 15th January, the Minister for Home Affairs moved the postponement of the Second Reading of this Bill on the excuse that Government wanted time to study the Opposition's amendments. But what has Government done with those amendments? It has compromised on matters of lesser importance and has introduced more rigid amendments to the Bill which denigrate not only the principles of democracy but also the rule of law as we understand it. The Government is so fearful that its flimsy propaganda on the merger proposals would be so easily and effectively torn apart that it seeks virtually to impose a curfew on polling day. During the period of the referendum, nobody but the Government may present its views. The Minister for Home Affairs said so in so many words. I refer to the Straits Times of today, when the Minister said that he would seek to limit the prohibition of 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; that is to say, during the whole period of the referendum, there would be a complete prohibition of flags, banners, symbols, and mass rallies.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Read it again.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: It is not necessary for me to read it again. Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister can clarify it when he replies.

Another amendment of the Government virtually transmutes all unmarked and spoilt ballot papers or uncertain ballot papers into a vote of confidence for the Government. It is indeed ironical that the once arrogant P.A.P. Government should seek a vote of confidence from the unwary and from the unenlightened, not to speak of those who had intended to boycott the P.A.P. by not marking their ballot paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a member of the electorate wishes to show his disgust at the P.A.P. Government -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): He should vote against it.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: - and marks or draws something that symbolises obscenity on the ballot paper, will the P.A.P. accept such a symbol as an expression of support for the P.A.P.?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yellow culture.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Let the Minister for Home Affairs say so, and say that they are in such a plight today that even obscene symbols will be interpreted as support for the Government.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: How will you demonstrate?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Sir, yet another amendment of Government, the amendment to clause 4, does away with the concept that one is innocent unless proved otherwise. Instead of putting the onus on the Government to prove the accused's guilt, the amendment seeks to put the onus on the victim to prove his innocence.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: That is what is done with crime.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: That is not justice as we know it. Sub-clause (5) of New Clause (B) reminds us of trial under the P.P.S.O. where only the Judge and the Government know the facts. Sir, it is not that I have any doubts about the integrity of our Judges. On the contrary, I have full confidence in their integrity and their ability to pass judgment on the evidence presented. What I am saying, Sir, is that I have grave doubts about the evidence, because it is not allowed to be examined by the other parties.

The main drawbacks of the Bill have been mentioned by my leader, the Member for Queenstown. It is only necessary here for me to stress that, in view of the desperate position in which the P.A.P. Government finds itself -

Mr Rajaratnam: You have been saying that for the last ten months.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: - it is of the utmost importance that the framing and the wording of the question should be left with the Assembly. We all know that the P.A.P. Government is quite capable of asking in a referendum whether one would like to have independence through merger or prosperity through Malaysia. I say that such questions are grossly unfair and dishonest. If the P.A.P. is really so shamefacedly determined to exact a positive answer from the people, it may do well to ask whether the people prefer to live in the midst of peace and plenty and prosperity. Even then the people may have grave doubts because the credentials of the Government are questionable. We all remember that the slogans of the S.P.A, in the 1959 elections promised the people food and work for all. But the people knew what empty promises they were and they showed in a very positive manner how such fake promises should be dealt with.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we must insist that in a matter of such grave national importance, the question posed in a referendum must be framed in this House so as to leave no doubts unanswered as to the question and to the possibility of bias. I submit that in no other place in Singapore can the question be discussed and debated more fairly than in this House. Under normal circumstances, we will always support a referendum because it is a mechanism for consultation with the people. Furthermore, a referendum will always ascertain that the wishes of the people will be respected and that it is the people who will, in the final analysis, decide their future. But in the present circumstances, we feel that the Government, in pursuing its Rightist deviation, and in trying to utilise the referendum for a second lease of life in a most shameful manner, has lost its mandate from the people. It is only right that there should be a general election instead of a referendum.

Mr Rajaratnam: Why do you not resign?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would gladly resign if any one Member of the Front Bench or, for that matter, any Back Bencher would resign with me and fight. If the Government Members are prepared to give me that assurance, and are prepared to honour it, I will resign right now.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): Resign!

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Of course, the Government will not give such an assurance. They fight shy of giving such an assurance because they do not want to meet and face the people. I hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs shouting that I should resign first. If only he would honour his word and say in this House that he would resign immediately after I resign, I shall gladly resign.

Mr Speaker: Order. Now both sides of the House are out of order. We are now dealing with the general merits and principle of the Bill. Let us go on with that.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, to please you, I will say in conclusion that, knowing that the referendum is but a political stunt of the P.A.P. we still support it. The people will know what is good for them and the people will vote what is good for them. They have seen enough of the somersaults, political and otherwise, of the P.A.P. to ever again place their faith and their future in the hands of such discredited leaders.

5.50 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the idea of a referendum to ascertain the desire of the people, I think it is only right for me to point out also the special difficulties we face in the Singapore context by using this procedure to ascertain that desire.

Sir, we must remember that democracy in Singapore is comparatively young. Before we introduced elections, we had rehearsals and mock elections in schools. Even then people were scared about voting, not knowing what they were in for. And we had to legislate to make voting compulsory. They have got over it, and I think they will learn to vote more wisely next time.

This referendum is a new procedure. The aim is to ascertain the will of the people on a specific issue. Whereas in most countries the issue is stated plainly in written language, here the issue is represented by a symbol, and that is going to be our first difficulty - the choice of a proper, symbol that will represent that particular issue without implying other issues. At an election, of course, the symbol represents a political Party or a political candidate. People holding even different views would still vote for a political Party or for a particular candidate. But in a referendum they have to come down to one particular issue. We must not allow their reasoning or their thinking to be coloured or prejudiced by other irrelevant issues. I am afraid in the Singapore context a referendum on a very important issue might become involved because of political propaganda and agitation with other issues not connected with the specific issue. It could be in connection with race. It could be in connection with language. It could be in connection with other emotional issues, such as the Toa Payoh issue. We are thinking in terms of a referendum on the Greater Malaysia idea. It is going to be difficult to find a symbol that reflects, and reflects fully, that idea. I hope that before the symbol is really chosen, many people will have put their minds on to it so that the particular idea rightly represents the Federation of Malaysia idea. I am not very sure whether the people will be able to see it. But I give them my best wishes.

Also it is stated that when it comes to voting, we should just be voting for one symbol, one political issue, so that the answer could be yes or no. Now on the merger issue, Sir, there are various alternatives. Some want the Penang type of merger; some want the Singapore type of merger; some want another type. Which particular symbol is to be chosen to represent which particular type? Sir, it is always wise to find out from other countries and benefit by their experience. Australia has been mentioned. Although time was short, I happened to have a book lent to me entitled "The Government of the Australian States" edited by S. R. Davies. It mentions here, Sir, that over the past 50 years the Australian States have tried out this method of referendum. The Barisan Member for Nee Soon has frightened the Government side by telling them that out of 16 referenda 13 were in the negative. The idea is that people naturally are negative and obstinate when it comes to anything they are not sure about; so the answer is usually no. So if doubts can be aroused about any important issue, any doubt of any kind, no matter how good the thing is, the answer will most likely be no, unless care is taken to present the idea clearly so that doubts cannot be aroused easily and extraneous ideas are not brought in.

Sir, I would like to read a very brief extract to show that if in Australia they have experienced these difficulties, we in Singapore are going to experience these difficulties even more. In page 708, in the last five lines or so:

`Certainly it is very doubtful whether at any time in the past 50 years the issues have been put and explained to the people in such a way that their answer of yes or no in referenda could reveal their feelings.'

The writer must have been shaking his head over this:

`For this reason, referenda statistics are barely more than placings which can give little or no insight to the complex mind of the people.'

Then he said this, which is especially good for us in Singapore:

`Granted that it is really the voice of their party that most electors hear in a referendum, what would they say to the same question if the party voices were silent? Undoubtedly it would vary profoundly.'

Sir, the danger is that the people would not be expressing their own views but, because of various reasons, they would be expressing their party views, and they would express their likes or dislikes in terms of whether they like a party or do not like a party; not whether, they approve of that particular issue or not. That was the difficulty encountered in Australia and which, I can see, will be encountered over here. Of course, we might train our people to vote regardless of party affiliation or party support on specific issues. Perhaps if there is time and the Government have the means, we could have a trial or a rehearsal on a particular issue that is quite clear. For instance, -

An hon. Member: Confidence in the P.A.P.!

Dr Thio Chan Bee: - equal pay for men and women. You would say a hundred per cent would be in favour. Now we say that should be the view of the people. Try it out and I venture to say that we will not get a unanimous vote on that from the people. But we will get a unanimous vote from every Member of this House. Now if the people have tried out voting at a referendum several times, so that they learn to think above emotion or antipathy to a party or to any individual, then they can see what is right for the country; they will know how to vote. I am afraid, Sir, at this particular juncture, if a referendum is carried out and merger is brought in, there will be a great deal of confusion. The reports of our debate here confuse people. Can we be sure, in the confusion of a campaign on an issue, submitted for referendum, there would be clarity? In the amendments proposed by the Member for Anson and by the Government, the question of spoilt votes and uncertain votes came out. Each one claimed that these votes should be assumed to mean voting for one side. Naturally people would say that if the votes were uncertain or blank, they were voting for nothing. They had not decided on anything. That is what the ordinary man would say, Sir. But the politicians may not want it that way. I therefore agree with the Member for Hong Lim when he suggested that all these amendments should be put before a Select Committee and carefully studied in an atmosphere not charged with emotion or political bias, with a view to ascertaining truly and honestly the views of the people on any particular issue submitted to them through a referendum.

6.00 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I wish to bring the debate back to the rails as members of the Opposition in the course of the debate have wandered off considerably from the aims and purposes of a referendum.

We ought to clarify in our minds why a referendum is conducted. A referendum is conducted by the government of the day in order to settle a certain question on which it probably feels that by itself it cannot decide. Let us take an example. Sometime ago in New Zealand a referendum was conducted to find out the views of the electorate as to whether beer, brandy and other alcoholic drinks should be served after 6 p.m. in bars and hotels. That apparently was a very touchy question for the Government side as well as for the Opposition side. The New Zealand Parliament felt that neither the Government nor the Opposition would want to decide upon a simple question like this, whether alcoholic drinks should be served in hotels and bars after 6 p.m. Therefore, the matter was referred to the electorate, although I was told that Members on both sides of the House, particularly the male Members, were definitely in favour that alcoholic drinks should be served after 6 p.m. But when the referendum was carried out, it turned out that the electorate did not want alcoholic drinks to be served after 6 p.m. What does that prove? Does it mean that the electorate have lost confidence in the Government? Does it mean they have also lost confidence in the Opposition benches? Neither the Government nor the Opposition Members resigned from their seats. Parliament just went on merrily and up to date alcoholic drinks in New Zealand are not served after 6 p.m.

Therefore, a referendum cannot be won or lost. It is wrong to say that a referendum is won by the Government or lost by the Government; or whether it is won by the Opposition or lost by the Opposition. A referendum is conducted on a simple question to, be asked of the electorate: "Do you wish to have this? Do you wish to have that?" Therefore, a referendum is quite different from a general election in which groups of bodies or political Parties take issue over certain matters, and, therefore, the electorate vote according to the political platform of the Parties which are standing for election.

The Member for Tanglin and the Member for Nee Soon have just mentioned the specific instance of Australia where 16 referenda have been carried out since the Australian Parliament passed the Referendum Bill. The Member for Nee Soon has mentioned that only three proposals put to the electorate were accepted. Rut the important thing that he has forgotten to tell the House is this, that at no time did the Australian Government resign, or considered that it was an indication of no confidence in the Australian government of that day; neither was the Australian Parliament dissolved.

There is another example which we may cite here. It is a very recent example indeed of a referendum conducted in the West Indies. The question put to the people was whether Jamaica should continue with the Federation of the West Indies or should it opt to quit the Federation. The people, by a very narrow majority, decided to quit the Federation of the West Indies. But the present Government in the West Indies has a very large majority. The Government never considered that it was a vote of confidence against it. So it is important that in this debate we should very clearly come back to the aims and objectives of a referendum and that, therefore, our discussions should be centred on what would be the best way of conducting such a referendum on any question that may be put to the people, either in the near future or at some other date.

The point made by the Member for Queenstown was that the question for the referendum should be decided by the House. I put it that it is not possible for the Assembly to decide on the question for the referendum. In the Australian Constitution it is the Government which decides on the question for the referendum. It is the Government which decides on the date for the referendum. It is pretty obvious why an Assembly or a Parliament cannot decide on the question for a referendum. As we have seen it here in this very Chamber, the reason is obvious. When we had a debate on the question of merger and on a number of other problems, it was not possible for both sides of the House, or for five political Parties, to come to an agreement. Even the Opposition Members among themselves are not in agreement on the referendum. The United People's Party and the S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance have asked that the Referendum Bill should be submitted to a Select Committee. The Member for Nee Soon has just announced the stand of his Party, that they do not want the Bill to go to Select Committee. On the simple question whether or not the Bill ought to go to Select Committee, we find that even the Opposition themselves cannot agree. How then can Members on the opposite side come forward with the proposal and say that all can agree on such a major question like the question for a referendum?

It is pretty obvious that the responsibility for the execution of the referendum falls upon the Government. It is, in fact, the first time in the history of Singapore that a referendum will be held. But we have precedents elsewhere that it is the government of the day that decides the question for the referendum and the date when it will be held.

The Member for Nee Soon has accused the Government of delaying the passage of the Referendum Bill. I put it to him simply that if we had not decided that the Second Reading of this Bill would be held yesterday, the Barisan Sosialis would never have been in a position to insert the number of amendments that they have. Similarly, the Member for Anson would not have been able to insert that number of amendments. Far from having any intentions to delay the passage of this Bill, it is our desire that it should pass through the Assembly smoothly and as rapidly as possible. But now the Government is faced with the proposal by some Members of the Opposition that this Bill should now go to Select Committee, where it can be examined probably in more detail and more coolly. Therefore, we have to consider whether it would be in the interests of the people to allow this Bill to be considered in Select Committee. If the passage of this Bill is delayed by its being referred to Select Committee, the blame for that delay will not fall upon the shoulders of the Government. I must remind the House that if it does go to Select Committee, it will be at the wish of the Opposition.

The difficulty with the Member for Anson is this, that any proposal which he puts forward, if not accepted by the Government, brings out from him always a tirade of abuse and a dysentery of abusive epithets. He pretends that he is a knight in shining armour fighting for the people. But if only the Member for Anson were to look at himself in the mirror or come over to this side of the House where he can look at his other self on the other side, he would realise the muck in which he wallows. In the course of the debate, he has tried to forget what the purpose of this referendum is. Like the Barisan Sosialis, he pretends that the question for the referendum is similar to issues which are put forward during a general election. But as I have explained very clearly indeed, a referendum is simply conducted on a question which is being put to the people for their views, and it does not reflect in any way whether it is a matter of confidence in either the Government side or the Opposition side. Therefore, in order to find out the views of the electorate, this Bill has been introduced, and the clauses in this Bill outline very specifically how the referendum is to be carried out. In this way, the clauses in this Referendum Bill differ to some extent from what you ordinarily have at a general election.

The Member for Tanglin has quite correctly pointed out that the question should be put succinctly and clearly to the people and that there should be no confusion when the electorate are asked to express their opinions. It is not a question of picking any political Party's symbol. This is not a party issue. The question for a referendum is put to the people when the gravity of the matter is so great that the Assembly by itself cannot decide either way.

6.15 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. This debate is on a very important Bill because this Bill is closely related to the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation. When it is passed and becomes law, it will, firstly, be used for the purpose of asking the people of Singapore to decide by ballot the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation in accordance with the heads of agreement as contained in the White Paper.

When the Minister for Home Affairs made his speech yesterday, I was very glad to note that he was willing to drop certain undemocratic provisions of the Bill. For example, he promised that during the period of referendum all political Parties could canvass. Is this good? Yes, I will say it is. Is it democratic? Well, apparently it seems to be so, but, in actual fact, I will say that it is not democratic enough. He also made a promise that he would relax certain provisions such as all-owing the Chairmen of the various political Parties the right to appoint polling agents who could attach their seals to the ballot boxes. He also promised that if the period of the referendum was too short, he was prepared to extend it. He also indicated that he was prepared to appoint a High Court Judge to supervise and examine papers and documents relating to the referendum. Are these promises all good? Well, my answer is that they are. But are they democratic? I will say again that apparently they appear to be democratic, but they are not actually democratic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few years when I was in the P.A.P. not only did I come into close contact with the Prime Minister but I also had the opportunity of working with him and, as a result of this, I have come to know the manner of his thinking. At that time, I lived together with the Minister for Finance. Not only was I a student of economics under him, but I also played chess with him. So from these experiences, I know that when the Prime Minister - or for that matter the Minister for Finance - says, "Well, go ahead. I give way. If you like this, I will give it to you," that is when we have to be very, very careful.

We can see that the Minister for Home Affairs has in many respects pretended to be very democratic in regard to the Bill under discussion. He has said that he is prepared to relax the provisions contained in the Bill. We want to ask this question: Are the leaders of the P.A.P. really so kind-hearted? The answer is no. The reason for the P.A.P. giving way lies in the proposed New Clause (A) to be inserted after clause 28 of the Bill. The addition of this new clause provides that 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 Government. This new clause makes us understand why the P.A.P. is prepared to come to a compromise on other minor questions. This is the main issue. This new clause has a bearing on clause 13 of the Bill, that is, the right given to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as to how and when the questions can be put up. These two clauses - New Clause (A) and clause 13 - are closely related.

The few leaders of the P.A.P. have thought of a wonderful method of doing this in this manner; that is to say, if they can so word the question to be posed to the people that in any way the votes of the electorate will amount to saying that they support the Government, then they will be able to stand on solid ground. That is why they propose this new clause so as to ensure that when the people do not want to express whether they are against or for the question, then their votes will be counted in favour of the Government, I would say that this is really a wonderful plan indeed!

Yesterday, our Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, indicated in no uncertain terms the importance of the wording of the question. The Member for Anson also clearly stressed the implications of the New Clause (A) which provides that unmarked and uncertain votes are deemed to be in support of the Government. The Member for Hong Lim also stated clearly that the whole issue lies in how the Government words the question. He was very right when he reminded the people of Singapore of this very important point. The Member for Anson stated that it was very unreasonable to treat unmarked and uncertain votes as those in support of the P.A.P. He deserves credit for reminding the people of Singapore of this important point.

We would like to point out that we can imagine - in fact, we can see quite clearly - that from these two clauses, the P.A.P. is going to depend on the wording of the question to play its game.

The latest issue of the P.A.P. organ contains an article to remind us that in future, when the P.A.P. brings up a question for the people to decide, it will be something like this: a 20-cent coin and a 50-cent coin will be given to the people and they are to decide whether they want heads or tails. The editorial reminds us of this: "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." So you can decide for yourself from this "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." If the question to be posed to the people is on these lines, then, Mr Speaker, if you are a voter, which way are you going to vote? You may be very angry and may want to refrain from voting. But the Government will be very happy, because they will say, "Oh, such a vote will be taken as support for the Government." Now, if you are angry and draw a tortoise or a bird on the ballot paper, then the Government will be very happy because "You will be supporting me too." The Government have nothing to lose either way. Now, if you are even angrier still and tears the ballot paper, then it is just too bad, because in the Bill under discussion, there is clause 31 (1) (a) which provides that any person who intentionally destroys any ballot paper will be fined or sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years. And more important still, you will be deprived of the right to vote for a period of seven years.

So, Mr Speaker, you see how well the Government thought of these things. If you do not want to vote, your vote will go to them. If you draw a tortoise or a bird on the ballot paper, your vote will go to them too. If you destroy the ballot paper, you are just inviting trouble for yourself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can you say this National Referendum Bill is a democratic one? I would very much like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to give us precedents as to which countries in the world deem blank votes to be votes in support of the Government. This provision concerning unmarked ballot papers is a very dangerous provision and is detrimental to the interests of the Opposition Parties. At present there are people already carrying out propaganda work in the city that if you are afraid of trouble in future you can go to a polling station, get a ballot paper, and just drop it into the ballot box unmarked. If these people could go round and tell the not quite intelligent voters to do this, then, by virtue of this provision, such votes cast will have been cast in a very unjust manner as far as the Opposition Parties are concerned. So I say this provision should be cancelled. Otherwise, it is against the whole spirit of a national referendum.

Just now I have touched on the results and consequences of destroying a ballot paper. We are of the opinion that it is necessary to endorse the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson, i.e., in page 11, line 40, to insert certain words to ensure that when a person does not know what to mark on the ballot paper or when he wants to show his disgust at the Government's provision, he should not be deprived of the right to vote for a period of seven years or be sent to gaol for two years. If the Party in power agrees to this, then we can be rest assured that the Government has no intention of taking advantage of the wording of the question posed to the people to play out the Parties in the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already said, the National Referendum Bill has been introduced to ascertain the attitude of the people towards the question of merger. On the question of merger, if the people are invited to decide, there is one simple way to do it, and that is to ask them whether they agree or oppose the motion and the White Paper on merger passed in this House. It is not a question of asking the people which type of merger they want. It is only in this way that the people can confirm the decision of this House on the question of merger. The main question now is to ask the people to decide whether they want the White Paper proposals on merger. It is not a question of asking the people which type of merger they want, because when we were debating the question of merger in this House, the various political Parties brought up various forms of merger. They talked of constitutional progress and the courses it could take. But the White Paper passed in this House does not say which type of merger the people should choose. It is whether or not the people should accept the proposals of merger as contained in the White Paper. So in order to implement truly parliamentary democracy and to enhance the spirit of a national referendum, the Government should not bring up various questions and consult the people on their views. The Government should accept the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson, i.e. in page 3, line 38, to change the word "questions" to "question", from a plural to a singular number.

I pointed out just now why the P.A.P. was prepared to relax certain provisions to show that they were democratic. I said that they did so because they wanted to play on the wording of the question to be posed to the people. From this we can see that before the government thought of this method, they were very undemocratic in prohibiting canvassing and campaigning. It was only after the Government had thought of the method which I described that it appeared to be generous, saying, "I have accepted many of your amendments. So how can you say that I am undemocratic?" I say that this show of democracy is hypocrisy and insincerity. In any ease, the wonderful way discovered by the Government is the best they could find. All of us know that on the eve of a national referendum on merger, the P.A.P. has done and is doing all sorts of things, such as equal pay for equal work, increasing social relief and public assistance, building more houses, just to catch more votes. We are not actually against such acts at all. We support such acts, the building of more houses, the giving of equal pay for equal work. We are all for this because we have full confidence in the people of Singapore. We know they are politically aware and awakened. We have full confidence in their political consciousness. We know for sure that they will not, because of the provision of better accommodation, abandon the struggle against colonialism. We believe they will not exchange their right to vote for certain benefits.

Just now when I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister, I could gather from his speech that there was good news for us, because he indicated that the Government had no confidence in a national referendum and that is why he stressed and listed examples in Australia and New Zealand where, in spite of the adverse decision of the people, the Government in Australia and in New Zealand did not resign.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to compare an important issue such as merger with the question of the sale of liquor after 6.00 p.m. This is improper. I would like to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that on essential issues - we can take Australia, for example; a national referendum was held there and when the Government lost, they resigned. We can find such examples. I am telling him now, and more important still I would like to draw the attention of the Party in power to this question of selling liquor after 6.00 p.m. Let us put it another way. If the Government should lose and did not resign, but it carried out the decision of the people as expressed in the national referendum on the sale of liquor after 6.00 p.m. Now, I would like to ask the P.A.P. whether they are prepared to abide by the decision of the electorate in the event of the people refusing the White Paper on merger. That is to say, are the Government going to stop all activities in regard to merger when the people refuse their White Paper? If you want to take other countries as examples, then you must also follow the examples to the full as far as democracy is concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now my colleague, the Member for Nee Soon, has more or less expressed our attitude towards the national referendum. We are of the opinion that in a country which practises parliamentary democracy, the decision to put important affairs of state and important political issues to the electorate to decide is a very good method, so that the Government can always abide by the decision and opinions of the people. This is a very good way to practise parliamentary democracy. But if this method of resorting to a national referendum is used to achieve the purpose of enhancing one's own party prestige and to continue in office, then that is bad and it is entirely wrong. If the Government are prepared to accept the decision of the people in a national referendum, then it is a good way to exercise it. But now, the question is whether the Government are really sincere in seeking the opinions of the people. It would appear that the Government are resorting to a referendum in order to achieve their purpose of continuing in office. In history there have been many precedents. For instance, Syngman Rhee, Ngo Dinh Diem and Chang Kai-Shek. At every election they were always elected. If the P.A.P. is willing to follow their example to maintain power so as to remain in office, then I believe that under the circumstances, when the people do not like them to continue in office, they will never have a good ending to their political career. Here I would like to remind the Party in power. If the electorate refuse to accept the P.A.P. type of merger -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Member to carry on up till now. I suppose he is entitled to criticise the Government on that line for a little bit. I have pulled up the Member for Nee Soon for being out of order in going on that tack. We are now on the general merits and principle of the Bill. I think the hon. Member has made his point. Let us come back to the Bill.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not say much on this. I would like only to express my opinion of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said. He has raised several issues, one of which is that even should the Government lose in a national referendum, they could still carry on in office. But I would say that this is entirely different from the real issue, because the P.A.P. Government today tell the people that if there is no merger, then the problem of unemployment cannot be resolved. If there is no industrial development, then the people will not have any more houses to live in. In other words, if the people reject the White Paper on merger, the present P.A.P. Government will not have the ability to seek out new paths for the development of Singapore. They will not be able to resolve the problem of unemployment and to carry out industrialisation.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must have regard for the Chair. The Deputy Prime Minister was forced into irrelevancies because he was replying to irrelevant arguments. I do not want these irrelevancies to carry on. Let us come back to the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to what I have just mentioned, there are other undemocratic and unreasonable provisions as well. For instance, there is clause 27 (6). The Member for Anson has proposed an amendment to this sub-clause (6).

I wish to say something about the Member for Anson's amendment in regard to impersonated votes. The provision in the Bill says that if a person goes to a polling station to cast his vote, the presiding officer may perhaps tell him that there have just now been certain persons who have cast votes on his behalf. Then he could be given a new ballot paper with a different colour. And this vote could be described as an impersonated vote. But according to the draft of this Bill -

Mr Speaker: Order. Any comments on the amendments proposed are in order if they have some relation to the general merits and principle of the Bill. But if they are only in support of an amendment or against a proposed amendment, then I think the proper time for the hon. Member to enlarge on his views is in Committee. But if, as I say, a comment on an amendment has really some bearing on the general merits, then the Member is entitled in passing to mention that, but not to debate the desirability of that amendment.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, our criticism and opinion of this amendment will be raised in Committee. Now, I would like to stress one point. With the addition of this provision which acts as a safeguard, there will be no fraud in casting votes, because the impersonated votes will be counted.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): On a point of elucidation.

Mr Chan Sun Wing resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, it would appear that the Member for Upper Serangoon is casting aspersions on the civil servants who will be in charge of all these election procedures. So far as I know from past experience in the last few elections -

Mr Speaker: The point of elucidation being?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: It is an unfair allegation against the civil servants who have no chance to refute it.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of elucidation. That is a point which the Hon. Minister will probably emphasise when he replies to the debate.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I was not accusing the civil servants. I was only saying that any Party in power could make use of any loophole in that sub-clause to profit itself.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Therefore, if we want to talk about democracy, it is better that this amendment should be made to this sub-clause. That is what I want to stress.

On the question of canvassing and campaigning, there is something bad in the provision because the police are being given very great powers. For instance, in clause 42, the Minister for Home Affairs has proposed a new amendment to prove whether any person has committed any offence relating to canvassing. It is not for the police to prove that the person concerned is guilty of any offence, but it is for the person who is accused to prove that he is innocent. That is really against democracy. The Government have thought it all out after two months and they are now introducing this amendment into the Bill. It shows that they want to make use of this provision perhaps to deal with the campaigning work carried out by the Opposition Parties. This is something which is undemocratic and unreasonable. As to the other unreasonable and undemocratic provisions. I have already said my piece. Now, I will let my colleague, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, supplement what I have not touched upon just now.

Mr Speaker: I do not know whether the Member for Upper Serangoon is conducting this sitting by calling upon the Member for Choa Chu Kang to supplement his speech. I propose to turn a blind eye to the left for the time being.

Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

Mr Speaker: Well, I am persuaded now to see the Member for Choa Chu Kang. I hope there will not be any repetition of arguments.

7.03 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam (Choa Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Minister for Home Affairs in concluding his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, said this. I will now quote today's Sin Chew Jit Poh which has reported on what he said on that occasion. The Minister said that under the provisions of this Bill, the first question the people of Singapore have to decide in a referendum is the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. We have in the past already debated this question over the radio and at Press conferences. We have also debated this question at several Assembly sittings in the past. There are many things which are necessary to be said before June 1963. But now it is for the people of Singapore to decide on the inevitable form of merger between the two territories. That is what the Minister for Home Affairs said in concluding his speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly in the past nine months the people of Singapore have closely watched the merger arrangement which was conducted solely by the P.A.P. They are concerned over the question whether the P.A.P. would let the people have a chance to decide on this question of merger. I would like to say this. If there is no general election or no new election, at least there is a National Referendum because the people and the Press request this; also because the P.A.P. has made certain promises under pressure; and also because of the debate today in this Assembly on the National Referendum Bill. That is why the Bill is now proposed under these circumstances. Now what the people want to know is whether the Singapore National Referendum Bill is introduced under democratic and reasonable circumstances, and whether there are any loopholes in this Bill. Or perhaps this Bill is intended only to meet the interests of the present minority Party which is now in power. What question do the Government intend to put before the electorate to seek their decision? And on what basis will the question be put to the people for a decision? Mr Speaker, Sir, all these doubts and questions are very prevalent among the people. This House has the duty to elucidate and to tell the whole truth about the Bill to the people. As Opposition Members in the Barisan Sosialis, we have the unselfish duty of exposing certain unreasonable and undemocratic provisions in this Bill. We have the duty of criticising this Bill and of proposing reasonable and democratic amendments and suggestions. We hope that the Party in power will have the courage to accept such correct amendments proposed by the Opposition. If the Party in power will only insist on carrying on as it has been doing in the past, then we can be very certain that a national referendum will lose its true meaning following the passage of this Bill. For this then, the Government will have to bear all the consequences. The Minister for Home Affairs made a certain explanation when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He used certain cunning words and sophisticated arguments; but all those words and arguments could not cover up the false and undemocratic provisions in the Bill. He thinks perhaps he has carried out the work by propagating the P.A.P.'s idea. If the P.A.P. can try to impress the people that they are democratic, then the people will not have the impression that the P.A.P. is dictatorial.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. is of the opinion that by just coming to a compromise on certain minor points, that is tantamount to accepting the suggestions of the Opposition. But I would like to tell the Minister for Home Affairs that this kind of tactics and thinking cannot fool us. Why did the Minister for Home Affairs not reply to the Opposition Members' suggestions and amendments? Why did the Government not explain why they have now put up new clauses and new amendments? Why should the Government -

Mr Speaker: Order. That comment is procedurally wrong. Amendments are argued for or against in detail in Committee, amendments are only mentioned if they have some relevance to the general merit's and principle of the Bill. When the Member for Choa Chu Kang asks the question why the Minister for Home Affairs has not explained his amendments in detail, he is procedurally wrong.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say is that the Minister for Home Affairs in his speech divided the amendments of both the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown into three categories. On the first and the second categories, the Minister for Home Affairs quite clearly explained the Government's reasons; but as regards the third category and the new amendments, he only promised to bring up his explanations in Committee. Therefore, we on the Opposition side have come to the conclusion that the Minister for Home Affairs did not give any explanation because he was trying to evade giving an explanation and evading our questions. That is the most important point he was trying to evade -

Mr Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that we are on the general merits and principle of the Bill. We are not debating the amendments. He can only mention the amendments in passing if -they have relevance to the general merits and principle of the Bill. If he has further criticisms to make about the amendments, he must wait until we go into Committee.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we shall definitely raise all these points in the Committee stage. I had raised those points just now because I wanted to show that the Government's attitude was only to try to reduce the criticisms that could he levelled by the Opposition at the Government; so that they think the people will not then be able to understand clearly that there are some provisions in the Bill which are unreasonable and undemocratic.

The Minister for Home Affairs said that judging from the sum of money spent in the last general election, the cost of holding a national referendum would amount to $400,000. He also stated many times that certain provisions in the Singapore National Referendum Bill are similar to those in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Cap. 53). We have spent a long time comparing the Singapore National Re ferendum Bill with the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance to find out the differences. The Government have now decided that polling day should be a public holiday, that voting would be compulsory, that the provisions in respect of the expenses for a national referendum would be the same as those for a general election, and that we should have adequate time to enable us to carry out our work. But the Minister for Home Affairs has only orally agreed that the period for canvassing can be lengthened. He has not mentioned specifically whether it will be lengthened from the original seven days to 12 days. Flags and symbols will only he allowed from the date the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issues an order for the holding of a referendum up to polling day. On this question, the consequences will be just the same, as there has been no amendment to this effect: firstly, before the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issues an order to hold a national referendum, the Opposition can never know when he will do so; secondly, before he issues an order to hold a national referendum, the Opposition can never have the chance to decide on certain symbols, banners and posters. This is also the case in a general election. Before nomination day is announced, the Opposition Parties cannot put up flags, symbols and posters. Thirdly, the Superintendent can issue the symbols, banners and posters in respect of a referendum three days after the order is issued. For instance, when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issues an order to say that there will be a national referendum 20 days from today, the Superintendent must abide by the order of the Minister for Home Affairs, that is to say, after one week from today, he can then announce the symbols, banners, posters and the question for the referendum. In that case, how can the Opposition Parties know all this in advance? How can they know when the Superintendent will announce the question and the symbols for a national referendum? Therefore, the oral amendments stated by the Minister for Home Affairs are only superficial amendments. In fact, they are just the same provisions as those in the original Bill. The amendments are more apparent than real. For example, you prohibit a person from eating and then you amend the rule by saying that he can only eat before the rice is cooked. I suggest that the Minister for Home Affairs should give up all these deceiving tactics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Superintendent will make an announcement after they have received an order from the Cabinet. Therefore, the Opposition Parties will have no chance to carry out their propaganda work, whereas the Government can make use of the radio and the Press to carry out their propaganda work. Can the P.A.P. say that this is in accordance with the spirit of democracy?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P.'s attitude today is different from what it was in July last year. Outwardly it appears to be democratic. In the debate on this Referendum Bill, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance are no longer arrogant and they should be praised by us. However, we must not forget the conspiracy that lies behind their sweet words.

The Minister for Home Affairs has superficially accepted many of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. It can be said that the Government have accepted contain amendments after having considered them for two months. However, Sir, we must not forget that the amendments proposed by the Government are really the important ones and these are the new clauses proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs. He said that he would be moving certain amendments in the Committee stage and that he would be explaining them.

Sir, I do not intend to discuss all the new clauses, but I would like to add to what my colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, has said in connection with certain amendments, especially the New Clause (A). Sir, we can see that this new clause is a very absurd clause. If the elected representatives in this House support it, then we will only ridicule ourselves by becoming the laughing stock of the world. Sir, why do the P.A.P. want to include in the Bill this provision which is not found in other countries? If they want to carry out a referendum on merger between Singapore and the Federation in a democratic and just way, we are sure that 100 per cent of the people will oppose it. There can be no doubt about this. Even the P.A.P. know this very well. Even the S.P.A, have made statements pointing out that in the coming referendum the P.A.P. will suffer a crushing defeat. Therefore, the Government have introduced this new clause in order to salvage its political fortunes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. is trying to make use of some questions which are detrimental to the people and which cannot be easily decided by the people. In the coming referendum I believe the P.A.P. will do this; for example, the people should express their views on the question posed by the Government. And the P.A.P. can pose the question this way: "Do you want independence through Malaysia?" The second question could be this: "Do you want to achieve independence through merger between Singapore and the Federation?" Under these circumstances, the electorate will find it very difficult to make a clear-cut decision on these questions. Although these two questions are not the same, the content is the same, that is to say, "Do you accept the merger proposals as contained in the White Paper?" The people cannot make a decision on this question, because even if they make their decision, they will fall into the trap of the Government; whichever way they vote, they will all the same fall into the trap. The result is that they may abstain. Following the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, if we abstain, then our votes will be considered as spoilt votes. However, in the Bill we are now debating, abstention votes cannot be regarded as spoilt votes but as votes in support of the Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. I wish to draw the attention of this House that this argument has been repeated about three times. It has been repeated by the Barisan Sosialis speakers and by other Members. I just wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to that fact, and the repetition is beginning to be tedious.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I agree to your ruling. But as far as our Party is concerned, we are trying to avoid repetition, but we feel that this is a very important principle. But I am only mentioning it in passing.

Just now the Deputy Prime Minister has said that it is impossible for the question to be brought to the House for discussion and debate. The reason given by him is that the Opposition Parties are not unanimous on whether this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. His reason is not convincing at all. You may recall that in the past, when debating the question of merger and Malaysia, the Government tried to make use of the debate to sound the views of Members of this House. Therefore, on the question of the referendum, the Government have the duty to introduce the question to this House to be discussed so as to get it passed by this House. Otherwise we cannot say that this is in keeping with parliamentary democracy. I have mentioned just now that New Clause (A) proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs provides that:

`(1) Any person whose ballot paper -

(a) is unmarked; or

(b) is uncertain

shall be deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly...'.

Perhaps the Government are trying to evade their responsibility on this point, and want to put the responsibility on this House. Then we, the Legislative Assembly, should have the right to debate this question. Otherwise it will be unreasonable and, at the same time, not in keeping with the rules of parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Opposition have this worry. That is, during the period of the national referendum, can other Parties be given the chance to hold mass rallies? Because clause 45 of the Bill clearly states that:

`It shall be an offence for a person to operate any loudspeaker or other instrument for the production or reproduction of speech, sound or music in any street or public place or any premises adjoining any Street or public place, so as to interfere with any referendum meeting or so as to cause annoyance to persons conducting or attending such meeting.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, we hope the Minister will come forward and explain whether this clause is applicable to the Government as well, because it does not state clearly that the Opposition Parties can be given the chance of holding mass rallies. Under this sub-clause, any person is prohibited from interfering during a referendum. I say that this sub-clause allows only the Government to carry out propaganda work during the referendum by way of the Ministry of Culture public address system and other facilities. In these circumstances, it is most unfair and dangerous to the Opposition because the Party in power has the right to resort to the propaganda and publicity machinery of the Government to call any meetings and rallies in respect of the national referendum. On the other hand, the Parties in the Opposition will not be given a chance to do the same by this Bill. It is impossible, in these circumstances, for the people to know the true picture of the national referendum. In the meantime, especially now, these people may be misled by the speeches and talks of the Party in power. So it is my ardent hope that the Minister for Home Affairs will explain to us clearly the questions I have raised.

Lastly, let us repeat our claim and demands: we hope that the Government will conduct the national referendum under democratic and just circumstances. The Minister for Home Affairs knows that New Clause (A) provides certain facilities for the Government, and it should be withdrawn. The Opposition Parties should be given adequate time to put before the people their views on the question of the national referendum.

7.42 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill in principle. We have had a very lengthy debate in this Assembly on the question of merger. The Assembly debated it fully and exhaustively over a period of time, and it was carried, if I remember rightly, Mr Speaker, Sir, unanimously. In those circumstances, it becomes necessary - if some other form of consultation with the people is necessary - to determine on what method is available to the Government for such consultation. To my mind, there are only two possible ways of doing it. One is through a referendum, and the other is, in my opinion, a wholly unacceptable one which has been suggested by the Barisan Sosialis for a long time, and that is for the Government to resign and go for a general election. That is no way of consulting the people on a national issue, because, as I have previously indicated to the House, if it is an election that is to be used for purposes of determining a national issue whereby the Government and the whole Assembly resign and go to the electorate, in such an election there is not one single issue before the electorate but several issues. Therefore, if a particular result ensues in favour of a political Party, it could well be that the national issue which is before the electorate would be lost sight of. Therefore, the only possible way to do this is through a referendum. If that is accepted, Mr Speaker, Sir, then under our statute laws we have no provision for a referendum in Singapore at the moment. Therefore, it becomes necessary to table a Bill before the House which will enable this referendum to be held properly and legally, and the Government are entitled to incur expenditure for such a procedure. That is what the Government. I hope, is seeking to do in this Bill. Nobody from the Opposition side, as far as I can see from the Barisan Sosialis, has criticised the Bill from the procedural point of view. I think what the Bill tries to effect is a set procedure for consultation with the people. Instead of which a lot of under-currents, which I personally am not aware of, have been introduced and the whole debate has centred on these under-currents which seem to be known both-to the P.A.P. and to the Barisan Sosialis. But we in the Alliance, being innocent people in these matters, have not understood the point and purpose of all these discussions up till now.

An hon. Member: Is that so?

Mr Rajah: The Member for Upper Serangoon says, "We are fully convinced that the people of Singapore are politically alive." He also says, "We are fully convinced that the people of Singapore are politically conscious." He has also said, "We are fully convinced that they will not sell their rights to vote on P.A.P. propaganda." If the Member for Upper Serangoon is not speaking with his tongue in his cheek, what then is he afraid of? The P.A.P. might pose questions to say, "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." But the politically conscious and the politically educated people of Singapore surely can see through that. What then is the Barisan Sosialis afraid of? The Member for Choa Chu Kang says that telling the Assembly about the Referendum Bill is not a sufficient telling to the people of Singapore. He wants some other form whereby you can tell the people of Singapore about the Referendum Bill. It is a very interesting proposition made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang, when the whole attack by the Barisan Sosialis on the Government up till now has been that this is something which is not in keeping with parliamentary democracy. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis seem to me to be the greatest defenders of parliamentary democracy. The accent is on parliamentary democracy. Now if they are not again talking with their tongue in their cheek, what is the best way of consultation with the people in a parliamentary democracy except through this Assembly? That is parliamentary democracy as I understand it. If they are defending parliamentary democracy, then it is consultation with the people through this Assembly and not a mass rally. That was possible in the City State of Athens some thousands of years ago. But it is not possible these days. If every time a Bill has to be put through in a parliamentary democracy, and the people have to be consulted, and the Bill has to be taken outside the Assembly and debated in public, then government in a parliamentary democracy would be impossible. But in some other form of democracy that may be possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to take too much time of the House. But I support the principle of the Bill. The procedure is necessary and the Bill seeks to lay down the procedure. Since the Bill was formulated on the first occasion, a number of amendments have been moved by Members of the Opposition, and now further amendments have been moved by the Government.

Mr Speaker, I was not present in the House when the Member for Hong Lim made the proposal that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am entirely in agreement with him, and I do hope that, at the appropriate moment, he will take the appropriate step to have it committed to a Select Committee. But I do wish to say that in the light of the opposition that has been raised both to the Bill and to the merger proposals - this Bill is something which merely seeks to lay down the procedure to consult the people on the merger proposals - it is important that this Bill be given a thorough ventilation. To that extent, I will agree with the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the best way of telling the whole truth to the people in a parliamentary democracy is to commit it to a Select Committee. I repeat this again for the benefit of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, that the best way in a parliamentary democracy to consult the people is through a Select Committee, because procedurally it is laid down that an advertisement be put out in the papers inviting members of the public to send in their comments to the Select Committee; and, if necessary, those submitting representations will be invited by the Select Committee to give oral evidence. That is the only possible way by which all the people of Singapore can be consulted. As for my friends in the Barisan Sosialis who are not talking with their tongue in their cheek when they talk about parliamentary democracy, I hope that at the appropriate moment they will support the reference of this Bill to Select Committee.

7.50 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to comment on the arguments put forward by Members of the Barisan Sosialis on the debate on this Bill. I shall divide my comments into two classes. First, on the question of matters of detail, and, secondly, on matters of some fundamental importance. By that I mean what the Member for Farrer Park has just referred to as the under-currents of tension that are passing between the Barisan Sosialis and us.

As regards the first class of comments. I was rather astonished to hear from the Member for Queenstown a complete denial of his statement made at the radio forum that he had no confidence in the people's intelligence. He denied ever making such a statement, and he even went so far as to say that it is the P.A.P. who has no confidence in the ability of the electorate to decide on important issues. I therefore propose to read out before hon. Members a part of the verbatim report on the radio forum held at Radio Singapore on Thursday, 21st September, 1961. This is what the Member for Queenstown said on the referendum:

`As regards the referendum, I don't think it is suitable because a referendum is something new to Malaya. As you know, the whole democratic process at the present moment is not very conversant. People are not very conversant with the whole democratic process and it takes a long time before people realise what it is all about.'

In other words, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis does not believe that the people are able to make up their minds in a rational way; that they cannot understand the issues put to them; and, therefore, a referendum is completely unnecessary. The Member for Farrer Park rather seems to agree with that point of view. I infer from his comments on the meaning of parliamentary democracy that the best possible way to consult the people is through the representatives elected by the people to this Assembly. That being the case, if the people's representatives have decided on the issue of merger that a certain course of action is the proper course of action, then it is up to the Government to implement that course of action. More specifically on the issue of merger, this Assembly, which was elected in a democratic manner at the last general election, has passed and approved the White Paper. And, therefore, it satisfies the highest principle of democracy to get on with the work of implementing the White Paper proposals with all the constitutional processes that are necessary to merge Singapore with the Federation. I agree with the Member for Farrer Park, on a point of constitutional law and on a point of constitutional principle that the Government would be completely correct, completely democratic, if it proceeded with the constitutional arrangements to merge Singapore with the Federation on the basis of the White Paper without further ado. It would be absolutely democratic in so doing.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Chiang Kai-shek!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Absolutely democratic, and if the Member for Queenstown disagrees, I can recommend him the best textbooks on constitutional theory. I would recommend him to read, for instance, Ivor Jennings Cabinet Government, wherein this theory is propounded in detail. Why does he bring in Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem? I am not quite clear. Neither of these two gentlemen was elected to power on the basis of democratic elections. The Barisan Sosialis think that we are the P.A.P. dictators like Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem. Every child knows that if that were the case, hon. Members in the Barisan Sosialis would not only be in Changi gaol, but they would be six feet underground. That is the way Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem deal with their political opponents. They are really like spoilt children that need a jolly good spanking. And I have no doubt -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Chair is entitled to draw a line there and to ask the Minister to withdraw that expression. I do not think the Minister can call Members of this Assembly "spoilt children" and suggest that they should have a spanking. Will the Minister please withdraw that expression?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Certainly I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I do not for one moment intend that my remarks should be taken literally. The Member for Queenstown was a rugger player of some eminence and I think it would take possibly a judo expert to put him under reasonable control and give him a spanking. I would just say that the correct and proper democratic processes would be satisfied if, on the basis of the debate on merger when all the Members present at the end of the debate voted in favour of the White Paper -

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.