RUBBER DEALERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

3.27 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill be ordered to be read a third time.

Members will recall that this Bill was read a Second time on 15th January, 1962, and was committed to Committee. Upon a division that clause 2 stand part of the Bill, the votes of Members were equally divided. The motion was accordingly declared lost in accordance with the provisions of section 53 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958. Clause 2 was accordingly negatived.

Sir, this occurrence was without precedent in this House and I am accordingly much obliged to you for having given advice on this matter. With your permission, I shall now take the liberty to quote liberally from your advice so that the House may be aware of the procedural principles involved. In paragraph 5 of your note, you said:

`The Bill was reported to the Assembly in the usual way, and on being reported the Bill was deemed to have been ordered to be read the Third time. No motion, however, was made for the Third Reading nor was a future sitting day named for the Third Reading. The order for the Third Reading of the Bill therefore became a dropped order.'.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. Sir, the Minister is reading from a document. Is that document to be tabled for use by other Members as well?

Mr Speaker: I will certainly make copies of my ruling available to all Members.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, you then went on to consider what effect this has on the Bill and your observations were as follows:

`The Committee, having negatived the only effective or essential Clause, virtually destroyed the Bill.

The decision of the Committee is, of course, not binding on the Assembly. The Bill itself, therefore, has not, as a Bill, been negatived albeit it is now a mere "shell". A Bill can only be negatived by the Assembly at the Second Reading if the Assembly agrees to any of the two amendments to the question, "That the Bill he now read a Second time", as described in paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 67.

It is therefore open to the Assembly to take steps as indicated... below to restore the provision of law which was negatived by the Committee.

Before such a move is initiated, consideration would no doubt be given to the principle "that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected, and that it is unfair to resort to methods, whether direct or indirect, to reverse such a decision. The practice, resulting from this feeling, is essentially a safeguard for the rights of minority, and a contrary practice is normally not resorted to, unless in the circumstances of a particular case those rights are in no way threatened".'.

You were then quoting from Erskine May, page 417. You went on to observe:

`The principle is a principle applicable to decisions of the House, but the Assembly might consider that the spirit behind the principle could equally apply to decisions of a Committee of the whole Assembly.'.

You then went on to observe:

`Nevertheless, the fact that the Clause was negatived by reason of the Committee being equally divided would no doubt be borne in mind when arriving at a decision as to whether any further step should be taken in the matter.'.

As regards the steps which may be taken in the present Session of the Assembly, your advice was as follows:

`If thought fit, therefore, steps could be taken firstly to replace the dropped order for the third reading of the Bill on the Order Paper and secondly, to give notice, before a Member rises to move the third reading of the Bill, that it is proposed to introduce a new clause (i.e, a clause similar to the clause which was negatived by the Committee of the whole Assembly or a clause substantively the same) on recommittal of the Bill to a Committee of the whole Assembly under the provisions of Standing Order No. 73.'.

You went on to say:

`The Committee of the whole Assembly in considering the new clause would of course be at liberty to ignore the decision of the former Committee of the whole Assembly which negatived the clause - a decision o one Committee is not binding on another Committee.

If the new clause is accepted, the Bill as amended by the addition of the new clause is reported and read the third time under the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 73 (8) and 72.'.

Sir, I have now dealt with the procedural aspect of this matter as advised by you. I shall reserve my arguments for reintroducing the negatived clause at a later stage when this matter goes into Committee.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill be ordered to be read a third time."

I might add, on a procedural note, that hon. Members will have noticed that item 6 on the Order Paper deals with the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill (Minister for Finance) - Third Reading, but that item is printed in italics, which indicates that it will not be called unless and until the motion now being debated is accepted by the House.

3.35 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, it is startling to those of us who have strenuously sought for many years to spread the concept of democracy in this area to find the Government treating the traditions of democracy with such little respect as is indicated in this motion.

The Minister for Finance has quoted from an advice from you to him where May, the authority on parliamentary procedure, speaks of respect for the majority decision, however unexpected it may have been. The Minister has drawn your attention to the fact that on 15th January last the Bill was committed to Committee and clause 2, which is the whole body of the Bill, was negatived constitutionally. As you yourself put it at that time - and I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the arrangement whereby you made available to us copies of the verbatim proceedings of that day - the Bill became meaningless and was in fact a defeated Bill. I say, Sir, rightly defeated. This was only three months ago; 23 votes against this provision. Now the Government, with complete disregard to a decision constitutionally arrived at though disadvantageous to itself, no doubt having made arrangements which it thinks will guarantee it a majority, has brought in word for word the same clause which was defeated four months ago except, if my memory serves me right, Sir, there is an explanation. The last time the Government said that this will cost the Government nothing; this time we are told that this will cost the Government $39,000 a year, which will be a loss of revenue on licences. If you remember, it was pointed out to them that it could not mean no loss at all.

Mr Speaker, it is, to my mind, not only an unhappy day from the point of view of a Bill which I regret is legalising gambling in a manner ruinous -

Mr Speaker: Order. I suggest to the Member for Anson that those remarks would be applicable if and when the Bill is debated. At the moment, we are on a procedural point.

Mr David Marshall: I am touching incidentally on my regrets, as I say not merely because it is a Bill which was rightly defeated for good reason, but because it is indicative of a completely Fascist approach. The idea of democracy of this Government is a Fascist dictatorship between elections. At election time, we are all democrats. Once you are in office, then the steamroller of the majority is to be utilised irrespective of democratic traditions.

Mr Speaker, am I to understand that on a motion for committal of this Bill for a Third Reading the objects and the merits of the Bill are not to be debated? I seek your guidance, Sir, so as to proceed.

Mr Speaker: Does the Member mean on this particular motion?

Mr David Marshall: Yes.

Mr Speaker: No. On this particular motion, the merits of the Bill are not relevant.

Mr David Marshall: In those circumstances, I would urge this House - both those who voted in favour and those who voted against - respecting the traditions of democracy and a decision constitutionally arrived at but three months ago, should unite unanimously in condemning an effort, however legal in the technical sense, which seeks to reopen that issue.

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh, in reply.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, the Government needs no lecture on traditions of democracy from the Member for Anson.

Sir, one of the most elementary principles of parliamentary democracy is that it is basically a debate on the two-party system - the party returned as the government in power and the party in opposition. It is fundamental to the working of parliamentary democracy that we must have a loyal Opposition. Sir, in the Member for Anson we can see - I for one can see - there is no trace of loyalty to the country, to democracy -

Mr Speaker: Order. Could the Minister indicate how that is relevant to the motion? The motion is on a procedural point. I do not think what the Member for Anson has said has invited those personal remarks.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Anson has sought to call this Government a Fascist dictatorship and I say that that allegation needs rebuttal. We have seen the Member for Anson when he formed the Government. It was a lamentable and pathetic performance. We had a Chief Minister who was constantly - and in his own words - acting as a prima donna.

Sir, if you want to raise respect for democratic institutions among the ordinary masses who are not accustomed to them and who have never had the opportunity to operate the system, it is necessary that the political leadership conducts itself with dignity. I say that the Member for Anson, in his role as a political leader from a dismal beginning of his Chief Ministership to his present role as a supporter, as a stooge of the Malayan Communist Party - I say, Sir, that a man of this description -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, Sir. A supporter of the Malayan Communist Party is a criminal. I ask you to take notice of a breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker: As Chairman of this particular Assembly, I have heard allegations of supporters of Communists thrown across this Chamber. I do not propose to take any action on the question of privilege as Speaker. But, of course, the Member for Anson is at liberty in the usual way to file a notice of motion, should he so choose. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I do not intend to waste the valuable time of this House in answering the contemptible allegations of the Member for Anson. I have already explained, and I have quoted you as an authority, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the procedure adopted by the Government is quite constitutional and in keeping with the traditions of parliamentary democracy.

Question put. "That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill he ordered to be read a third time."

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir

3.45 p.m.

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 17; Absent, 4; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani S. T. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Miss Buang bin Koh, C. H. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Lingam, S. V. Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Abstentions. Mammen, John. Nil Mohd Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M.Ismail Rahim. Ahmad bin Ong Pang Boon. Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Ahmad Jabri bin Rajaratnam, S. Mohammad Akib. Ramaswamy, S. Chan Sun Wing. Sahorah binte Yong Nyuk Lin. Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan. Thin Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill be ordered to he read a third time.