SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.16 p.m.

Clause 5-

The Chairman: We are on clause 5. It has been moved as an amendment, in page A2, line 23 - [Interruption]. I hear people talking. I am waiting for silence.

It has been moved as an amendment,

In page A2, line 23, at end, to add-

"(3) Not more than one question shall be submitted to the electors in any one referendum and such question shall contain only one issue and the electors shall only be required to answer such question in the simple affirmative or negative.".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to he added, be there added."

I have indicated that the debate may range over amendment (ii) to clause 13, that is,

In page A3, line 41, to leave out "questions" and insert "one question as framed by the lcgislativc Assembly";

Clause 18, amendment,

In page A6, line 23, at end, to add "Every ballot paper shall he in the Form in the First Schedule to this Ordinance.".

The Schedule indicating that there should be only one question with an answer yes or no, and Clause 20,

In page A7, line 2, after "vote", to add and the voter shall record his vote in respect of each question by marking a cross in one of two squares against each question marked respectively "Yes" and "No"'.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker. Sir, a lot of heat has been generated by the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. over referendum and merger, and it is regrettable that the public are becoming more and more confused. The more they carry on this political warfare, the more confused will the electorate be. I do net know what is the object of this deliberate intention to confuse the public by distortions, counter-distortions, smears and counter-smears. Merger is a national issue. In the words of some Members of this House, it means life and death to the people of Singapore. Yet the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. choose to make use of this national issue as a plaything for them to indulge in their political warfare, calling it round 1, round 2, round 3. I do not know how many rounds they want to have. All I say is that the sooner the rounds are ended and both of them get knocked out, the better it will be for politics in Singapore.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Better for the S.P.A., you mean.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, when this Malaysia Plan was first made public by the Tunku at a foreign correspondents' luncheon in May 1961, the P.A.P. quickly jumped on the band-wagon and said, "Ah, ah, now merger is possible: we will try and regain our lost political prestige by pressing ahead with talks with the Tunku for an agreement for merger." They did that in order to claim political credit and to save themselves from the doom that was facing them. But at that time, there was great interest over this question of merger - or closer association as I choose to call it - So much so that there was a forum at which representatives of the P.A.P., the S.P.A., the U.P.P. and the Barisan Sosialis were present. The question was posed as to what was a more desirable method of ascertaining the wishes of the people in regard to closer association with the Federation of Malaya. Was it to be by means of a referendum or by means of a general election? The Barisan demanded general elections. The others, the P.A.P., the S.P.A. and the U.P.P., quite rightly stated that the proper way to ascertain the views of the electorate was through a referendum. So at that time, even before agreement was reached between the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation of Malaya, the P.A.P. Government was committed to a Referendum Bill. So they went ahead with the preparation of a Referendum Bill, and in that preparation, of course, their intention was that the Bill should be a Referendum Bill on merger. That is how it came to be that the P.A.P. is now saying that the Referendum Bill is general Bill. They thought at that time they were honest. They thought that it would be right and proper that the agreement which they hoped to reach with the Government of the Federation of Malaya would be put to the people fairly and squarely. They thought that in that way they would get the electorate to say yes to the agreement which they had reached. That was months ago. In their own words, that could be round 1 of the fight between the P.A.P. and the Communist group in the P.A.P. But when they came to round 3, when they found that if they were to pose only one question, a straightforward question, to the people in a referendum, it would turn out to be a majority vote against the White Paper, not because the people do not want closer association with the Federation of Malaya, but because the Communist group in the P.A.P. went out telling the people that the quickest way to get rid of this rotten Government was to say "No" in a referendum to the question to be posed by the Government. So they thought that it would be danger OUS to pose one question, because they knew that the Barisan Sosialis had gone out preaching hatred against the P.A.P., preaching that the only way to get the P.A.P. out of office was to vote "No" to the White Paper. The Deputy Prime Minister then had to stand up on the Second Reading of the National Referendum Bill and say - and very few people caught the meaning of the words he said - "The result of the referendum need not mean the resignation of the Government. A referendum is a referendum; it is not a vote of confidence in the Government." He had to say that in order to read just the minds of the people that had been contaminated by the smears and distortions that had been pervaded by the Barisani Sosialis. So they thought that one question would be a dangerous question, because it would not get a fair answer. It would also result in getting the electorate to cast a vote of their loss of confidence in the P.A.P. Government. Therefore, the Second Reading of the Bill was delayed. It was delayed for that reason. And sud denly, Sir, the bright boys of the P.A.P. thought, "Aha, now that we are committed to a referendum, how are we going to wriggle out of it? We must at least put up some semblance of honesty and decency." They hit upon the idea of saying, "Ah, let us put two questions: one question to the White Paper, and another question to be worse than the White Paper." Therefore, the answer can only be the White Paper, and nothing else.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: What is the other one?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: That was in their minds. If the Deputy Prime Minister wants to know it, it is this. He said, "There are two types of closer association with the Federation of Malaya. The first type is the White Paper where [as the P.A.P. is very fond of saying] there will be autonomy in education and labour demanded by the P.A.P. Government. The second is merger of the Penang and Malacca type where 340,000 non-local-born citizens would lose their citizenship rights." Sir, if those two questions were posed, surely the 340,000 non-local-born citizens, who are in the majority, would not vote for the second type. They would say. "This is the P.A.P. White Paper, and therefore they want to win." So the P.A.P. knew that in this game of "Heads, I win, Tails, you lose", it is easy; we go ahead." Now they had the idea of putting two questions. This may be their Round 6 against the Ban-san. Then the Barisan came out with their upper-cut or below-the-belt blow. I do not know. They said, "In that case, blank votes, blank votes, blank votes."

All this, in fact, does not bring credit to the political Parties in Singapore. It is not even bringing credit to the Parties that are indulging in distortions and counter-distortions. And now all this trouble - they are going to ask more than one question. And obviously the Barisan Sosialis, very ably led by the Member for Anson, came out very strongly for "one question one issue." I can understand what is in the minds of the Barisan Sosialis - they want to wreck merger; they want to wreck every opportunity that is offered to us for closer as sociation, because it is inimical to the Communist group in Singapore. It is their death blow. But what I find it difficult to understand is: why should the Member for Anson feel it is a grand thing to lead the Barisan Sosialis on the war-path and cause more confusion in the minds of the people?

4.30 p.m.

Sir, the Member for Anson was a very good colleague of mine in the previous Government. From my experience working under him and with him, I can say this: he means well. He means to serve the best interests of the people of Singapore. And he believes that, in moving this amendment, he is doing it for the best interests of the people of Singapore. But, unfortunately, he has overlooked the danger of the Communist game in this fight for existence. He has in a way been misled into providing the lead to the group that is losing the battle for merger.

We are against the amendment. This is in answer to the question of the Mem ber for Anson as to why there has been no explanation given to our view that the amendment is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in this respect - and I have to stand here explaining and be misunderstood as wanting to defend the P.A.P.; to which I say that the sooner the P.A.P. get out of the Government. the better it will be for Singapore.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It is this - because a one-question referendum will not elicit the truthful answer. We will be playing into the hands of the Communists, and we must resist it at all costs.

We, as the Opposition, have no love for the P.A.P. In fact, it was because of the intrigues of the P.A.P. who slept with the Communists since they first came into existence and who, when they sat on this side of the House, loved the Communists, welcomed and praised them as their comrades and won their way into power, that they are now in this mess today. If they had played clean politics, and they should if they were a good, honest government, they would not have been in this mess and have to fight their ex-comrades whom they describe as heroes one day and denounce as Communists another day.

We cannot allow a one-question referendum, because if that one question were to be posed: "Do you accept Command Paper No. 33?" - "Yes/No", I can say this : there may be 90 per cent of the people saying "No", not because they do not want closer association, but because they want to show their contempt, their disgust, and their loss of confidence in the P.A.P. Government. It would not give us the right answer and it would create a bad impression in the minds of people outside. They will be surprised as to why it is that Singapore does not want something for the good of Singapore. Malaya could misunderstand the verdict of a one-question referendum by thinking that now that they had decided to extend the hand of friendship to the people of Singapore, that friendship had been rejected. What would be the consequences? I dare not imagine. Once the hand of friendship is extended to us but cast aside by a referendum that does not give a real verdict, it will be almost impossible to resume negotiations for better terms perhaps, or for closer association.

Now, Sir, what is very important to us, the S.P.A., a responsible Opposition in this Chamber, is to ensure that the questions to be posed by the Government in a referendum are questions that can allow the electorate to pass a verdict. The Minister for Finance, speaking on behalf of the Government, has given an assurance to this House that such questions shall be debated in this Assembly before they are posed in a referendum. I accept the assurance, but I do urge upon the Government to carry out that assurance by suitably amending thc Bill to' ensure that such an assurance will be carried out. I gave an indication yesterday, Sir, that when the amendment to clause 13 is under discussion, I hoped to' achieve that amendment by proposing an amendment to the amendment. I will touch on that when the time comes.

Sir, today is just the second day of the debate, and I do not know what round the P.A.P. would like to call it - the 8th or 9th round. But let us make it the last round for the good of the people of Singapore. Make it the last round. Do not have any more rounds; the people are getting more and more confused. Even the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis was getting confused, so much so that his confusion was so badly apparent in the discussion in Select Committee. I think the Minister for Finance kept arguing with him on certain amendments proposed in the Select Committee. The confusion was so apparent that the Minister for Finance had to say that his skull was thick or something like that. I am trying to quote from the Official Report. Yes, here it is, Sir, column 474 of the Official Report of the Select Committee No. 7, of 17th May:

'Sir, the Minister for Health and Law has said that some people's skulls are so thick that no light can penetrate and no amount of clarification can convince them.'

And what did the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis say?

'Let us assume that I have a skull that thick.'

And I will therefore assume that he has a skull that thick.

Sir, let us put an end to all this political warfare that is going on which is damaging the interests of the people of Singapore.

Let us debate this very important piece of legislation with a calm, cool head and with only one guiding factor - and let us be guided by this one factor - the interests of the people of Singapore should come first, and not the in terests of any political Party, and in that the S.P.A. is prepared to serve the interests of the country first. We do not mind what happens to the S.P.A. So long as we have served the country, we shall die satisfied.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very confusing to see the Member for Cairnhill once again expressing support for the Government's arguments against this clause. I thought, before the Assembly sitting, on reading the sort of statements that the S.P.A. issue or listening to none other than the Secretary-General of the S.P.A. at a forum at the University of Singapore, that the S.P.A. should come into this Chamber and say, "Down with the Referendum Bill because it is undemocratic, because it is not possible to determine the views of the people with a Bill of this nature." Even as late as, I believe, last week when the S.P.A. representative at a mass rally at Anson denounced the Bill, he gave the impression that his representatives here, namely the S.P.A. Legislative Assemblymen, would be opposing the Bill and expressing support to certain amendments that the Opposition had filed. However, Sir, today it is clear that no matter what they say outside the Assembly, inside the Assembly it is ex tremely necessary for them to support the Government because this is part of the deal. And if the S.P.A. does not support the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. will not have a majority at the moment. I believe, and as is believed by many people outside this Chamber, that part of the deal is to make sure that the S.P.A. makes all the noise that it wants to make outside in order to make political capital for itself, at the same time to ensure that the Government keeps ticking and that their scheme of things is put through quite neatly.

Sir, as I said yesterday, I do not want to spend time replying to speeches made by S.P.A. Members. I will now come to the amendments before the Committee today. I wish to start off by saying this: that if the Government tells the world that the Barisan Sosialis is up to mischief, that we are undesirable social plagues, that our business is to go about wrecking peace and tranquility, and that our functions are to confuse the people, I assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are not what the P.A.P. desperadoes make us out to be. But just for the Purposes of argument, if we accept the Government statements on their face value, then we in the Barisan Sosialis are bad chaps; we go about confusing the people; and those in the P.A.P. are good chaps and they go about helping people not to get confused.

4.45 p.m.

Sir, the purpose of our amendment to clause 18 of the Bill is to help the voters get used to the form of the ballot paper before they actually go to vote. It is also suggested in this ballot paper that the question to be posed should be a simple and straightforward question which will require only a "yes" or "no" answer. Sir, this is the first time that a referendum will be held in Singapore, and our literacy rate compared with, for example. New Zealand, is extremely low. And to add to this we have a multi-racial society where even the literate popula tion is not necessarily literate in English. In this context it is absolutely necessary, if we want to honestly ascertain the views of the people, to make matters as simple as possible so that the people are not confused or misled.

Sir, a referendum is to ascertain the views of the people. This we are all agreed. The Government ostensibly agrees that the sole purpose of a referendum is to ascertain the views of the people, if the Government means what it says, namely, that it wants to determine the views of the people, it cannot but agree that its responsibilities and obligations are as much the Opposition's, if not more, to help the people give their views in the simplest possible manner and to ensure that the verdict of the people is unequivocal and that there is no ambiguity about it.

Sir, the Government Ministers have time and again suggested that it is the Barisan Sosialis that seeks to confuse the people. This is nonsense. We are not seeking to confuse the people or mislead the people. We want to do everything possible to hold a referendum in which the issues are put clearly to the people and in which the people will be given every opportunity to vote unequivocally so that there can be no ambiguity about the verdict of the people, no matter which way the verdict goes. And these amendments before the Committee that we have moved are to minimise confusion. I think any man should be in a position to realise this. There is no hide and seek in this. The amendments are straightforward. If the Government are honest in wanting the people to decide clearly, in wanting the people to indicate their wishes clearly and in unambiguous form, then they must accept this amendment. They do not have to be afraid.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Assembly at the time when the White Paper was de bated, the Government Members repeatedly said that they were confident that the people would support their proposals when, in fact, Members of the Barisan Sosialis said that in their view the people would reject it. They were confident. They said, "When you say 'the people', you mean the Communists." They were confident. If they were confident, and if they are confident now, why are they afraid to put the question to the people in the simplest and clearest form, so that the people can give their verdict? I say that we are not interested in getting the people to vote against merger in principle. We have opposed the White Paper. If the White Paper is put to the people, and if the people oppose it, it is opposition to merger on terms contained in the White Paper. Sir, if the Government are serious in saying that they do not want the people to be confused, then I do not see, as I say, any reason why they should not accept these amendments which make things simpler and clearer for the people.

Sir, this new clause that the Opposition is proposing to clause 5 of the Bill is important. It is, in fact, very important. Yet the Government reject it. They reject the amendment moved for clarity and simplicity. Yet they have the cheek to come and say that we are the people who go round wanting to confuse the people.

Sir, the whole Referendum Bill will not serve its purpose if the Government reject this and the other amendments, this amendment, in particular, which will allow for the submission of only one question to the electorate in a referendum and which will make it possible for the people to vote "yes" or "no". Sir, the Government in rejecting this amendment in Select Committee revolved its argument around two central points, viz, (1) that it may be necessary to ask the electorate more than one question, and (2), that it is not unusual to have more than one question posed in one referendum, in that there are precedents elsewhere in the world.

Sir, I would like to take these two points one by one. The Government's arguments are naive and hypocritical. Their arguments must be exposed for what they are worth. But before I do that, Sir, it is necessary for me to state that in the debate on this amendment we must bear in mind clauses 21 and 29 of the Bill. Clause 21 enforces compulsory voting. Clause 29 makes all unmarked and uncertain votes as votes for the Government proposition. These three clauses, Sir, viz, clauses 5, 21 and 29, put together, in fact, mean the denial of free choice to the people. It is against this background that we must consider the validity of the amendments before the House.

Sir, the fundamental proposition that the Barisan Sosialis makes is that the basic human right of free choice must be guaranteed to the people, notwith standing the number of questions, the right to accept, reject or abstain must be uninterfered with. Irrespective of whatever alternatives are put to the people, the basic right of the people to accept, reject, or abstain must be guaranteed and not deprived by legislation, which is brought in by a Government which has lost the confidence of the people and which survives with one vote on its own side and with the support of a discredited political force like the S.P.A. This then, Sir, is our basic proposition.

On the first point that the Government has used for its argument, I have this to say. I do not think it is that the Government by necessity has to ask the electorate more than one question at a given referendum. Whether to have one, two or more questions will entirely depend on the Government if the amendment is rejected. The framing of the question, the number of questions to be posed, etc., will all be left completely in the hands of the Government, lithe Government are thoughtful and really care for the views of the people, if not for anything else at least for the sake of clarity, they can easily pose one question in one referendum. On the other hand, if this amendment is rejected, it will also allow the Government, if they so desire, to pose more than one question. Again, Sir, if the Government so desire, they can also pose two totally unacceptable alternatives and use an unfair law to force the people to vote for one of the two unacceptable alternatives and deny the people the right to abstain. As a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government have already indicated that this is exactly what they seek to do, and it is our responsibility - it is the responsibility of all of us in this House - to ensure that there is no room in this Bill for such a dishonest referendum. If we allowed room for this, then we would, in effect, be encouraging and condoning the rigging of the referendum.

Sir, because it is obvious that whether there should be one or more questions will depend entirely on the Government, we have moved these amendments. By these amendments we seek to prevent foul play. We seek to prevent a dishonest government from rigging the referendum.

Sir, an argument used incidentally by the Government Members is that it will cost $400,000 to conduct a referendum. Even if it were so - I have not personally calculated it but I am prepared to take the statement of the Government on this

• the Opposition cannot accept the argument that because of this cost it is necessary to have a Bill with the provision to ask for more than one question at one referendum.

5.00 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. I intend to suspend.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 5 - ( contd.)

The Chairman: We are on clause 5, an amendment to add a new sub-clause. The Member for Thomson had the Floor. Mr Bani.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying just now, the Government Members have suggested that it will cost $400,000 to conduct a referendum. Even if this was so, the Opposition cannot accept the argument that because this is the cost, it is necessary to have in the Bill a provision to ask more than one question at any referendum, it may be that on issues of minor importance, two or three questions could be asked, provided, of course, the basic right of the people to free choice is not restricted, provided the people are not compelled by law to choose one of two totally unacceptable alternatives, and provided the people are not denied the fundamental human right to freely accept, reject or abstain. But, Sir, the Opposition, particularly the Barisan Sosialis, cannot and will not accept a position where it will give the P.A.P. Government, which has already indicated its dishonest intentions, a blank provision in this Bill - a Bill which, in fact, will deny the people a very desirable right - the democratic right to free choice. It is not the intention of the Barisan Sosialis to waste public money by asking that a few referenda held at $400,000 each. It has been suggested, Sir, in the Select Committee that there may be referenda held to determine questions like whether toddy shops should close, whether smoking should be prohibited, or whether pipe-smoking should be prohibited. I can only say, Sir, that to hold a referendum at $400,000 to determine whether the people of Singapore should smoke a pipe, a cigarette or a cigar is absurd, and any argument on these lines is only frivolous in my view. We do not for a moment believe that this National Referendum Bill is going to be used to determine frivolous issues lie that. We say quite categorically that we do not want three or four referenda held at public expense to determine such matters. But, sir, on matters of national importance, on matters which affect the lives of all our people and the lives of all our children and that of our future generations, on matters like constitutional changes, on matters like merger. I say that if it is necessary to hold more than one referendum in order to determine with clarity the issues, in order to determine with clarity the wishes of our people, it is desirable to do so even if it will cost $400000 to hold a referendum. Therefore, Sir, in thinking of the cost of a referendum, let us not disregard the importance of the issue that may be referred to the people. $400,000 or a few million dollars of public money spent in order to determine the people's own future is money worth spending. In any case, Sir, it is definitely better than going round the world and flying over the North Pole.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second point used in the Government's arguments, namely that there are precedents for asking more than one question, I must at the outset say that there is a fundamental difference between the referendum examples quoted and the P.A.P. National Referendum Bill, and that is while in every referendum held elsewhere in the world, the people were given their basic right to freely accept, reject or abstain on any question, the P.A.P. National Referendum Bill will deny the people this right to free choice. Clause 29 of this Bill absolutely interferes with the people's right to free choice. Sir, in an endeavour to substantiate the arguments, the Government Members have tried to quote certain examples of the sort of referenda held elsewhere in the world where more than one question have been put. They have quoted, for example, New Zealand. I must point out, Sir, that the precedents quoted by the Ministers in Select committee are completely irrelevant. This is so because in the examples quoted, there has always been the right for the electorate to reject or abstain in a referendum irrespective of the number of questions posed. And this is fundamental. The Singapore National Referendum Bill is unique in that it seeks to deny the people the right to vote against or abstain from voting ii a referendum. This is completely untenable. It is no use quoting examples if we forget the fundamental position that basically the referendum that the P.A.P. Government is proposing is different from that of New Zealand, or Australia, or other referenda held in other parts of the world.

I do not wish, Sir, to debate the merits or otherwise of clause 29 of this Bill at this moment. Nevertheless, I think to discuss the amendment before the House in isolation, in complete disregard of other clauses of the Bill, particularly clauses 21 and 29, is not proper. In any case, it is certainly misleading if we accept the precedents the Government Members have quoted without consideration of these clauses, namely clauses 21 and 29.

Sir, because the Government has quoted the examples of referenda held in New Zealand, to argue against the amendment before the House, it is necessary to understand the fundamentals involved. The Minister for Law, in the Select Committee, quoted three New Zealand examples. The first one was on the time that hotels should close. The second one was the question on the sale of liquor, and the third one was the question on compulsory military training. These were quoted, Sir, as I have said, to substantiate the arguments that there can be more than one question. I would like to go over the examples that the Minister for Law gave. The first one, Sir, is on the 8th of May in column 116 of the Official Report No. 3. The first example, according to the Minister for Law, the ballot paper was in the following form: "I vote for closing at 6 p.m." and another line - "I vote for closing at 10 p.m." Then, Sir, the Minister gave the instructions which have been given to the voter. They are:

'The voter must strike out one line, leaving untouched the line which shows the way he wishes to vote.

If the voter strikes out both lines or fails to strike Out one of the lines, the voting paper will be void and his vote will not be recorded.

The voting paper so marked is to be placed by the voter in the ballot box.

The voter is not allowed to take his voting paper out of the polling booth.'

Now, Sir, it will be noted that in this referendum, the voter's free choice was in no way interfered with. If the voter did not support both the propositions put to him, the voter was completely at liberty to strike out both lines. Such a ballot paper would be rejected. It would be declared void and the vote will not be recorded, unlike the P.A.P. referendum where unmarked votes would be recorded as votes for the Government. In other words, Sir, in the referendum quoted by the Minister which was held in New Zealand, the fundamental right to either reject or abstain was given to the voter. This very right is being denied to the people of Singapore, and therefore, this example is completely irrelevant in the context of the Referendum Bill that we are discussing. It does not support the Government's case.

Sir, in the second example which the Minister quoted, there were three pro posals put to the electorate. This is also in column 116. The three propositions put to the electorate were: (1) "I vote for national continuance", i.e. for allowing the sale of alcoholic drinks: (2) "I vote for State purchase and control", i.e. for all alcoholic liquors, and (3) "I vote for national prohibition.' In this example, Sir, the same procedure was followed. The same instructions were given to the voter, whereby if THC voter struck out all the three propositions or only one of the propositions or none at all, the voting paper would have been void and his vote would not be recorded. Here again, Sir, the fundamental right of the voter to a free choice with no limitation and with no imposition was given to him. Therefore, Sir, this example again is one that is irrelevant in the context of this Referendum Bill before the Committee. It does not again support the Government's case.

Sir, in the third example given by the Minister for Health and Law, i.e. the one on compulsory military training, the ballot paper, as quoted by the Minister in column 232 [Official Report No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962], says as follows: "I vote for compulsory military training" and on the second line, "I vote against compulsory military training". In this example, Sir, the voter was given a fundamental right to reject compulsory military training or to accept it. The voter had his fundamental right to either vote for or against or, ii necessary, to abstain. If the voter put in an unmarked vote, his vote would not be counted as a vote for compulsory military training. This is not what the P.A.P. intend to do in Singapore. I repeat, Sir, this example again is irrelevant because it does not support the Government's case and it is irrelevant to the context of the Singapore National Referendum Bill.

As I said earlier, Mr Chairman, we cannot accept this precedent which is quoted blindly to substantiate a case for more than one question without regard to the type of referendum that the P.A.P. Government is proposing. It is one thing for the Government to say that they do not want to accept our proposal for a simple question requiring a 'yes' or 'no' answer on the grounds that it may be necessary to pose more than one question. But it is entirely another matter for the Government to substantiate this argument by quoting precedents which are fundamentally in conflict with the Referendum Bill that is being proposed.

Sir, if the Government is confident that the people are in favour of the merger arrangements that they have made, then the Ministers need not fear giving our people their basic right to choose freely. Put to the people a simple question requiring a 'yes' or 'no' answer. They do not have to be afraid. They keep telling the world that the Barisan Sosialis is up to mischief. They keep telling the world that we are out to confuse the people. I would like to know whether the Government would agree to sit down with us and work out the simplest possible procedure whereby confusion would be minimised, and whereby the people would be given every opportunity to give their verdict unequivocably.

Sir, while the Liberal Socialist representatives were being examined in the Select Committee, the Minister for Law at one stage said that the voter can stay away if he did not want to accept either of the two propositions. This is on Page C.28, column 55, Sir. I will just read the last sentence of Mrs Leon-Soh's answer and then what the Minister for Law had to say:

'[Mrs Leon-Soh] But, on the other hand, the question is not clearly framed; it is a question of wanting either (A) or (B), and the voter says, "I do not want (A) and I do not want (B)." We are taking it on that level, Sir.

[Mr Byrne] He can stay away.'

Sir, the Minister is supposed to be the Minister for Law for the State. It is his Ministry that drafted this Referendum Bill. Surely, Sir, he is not so foolish as to be unable to understand clause 21 of the Bill which seeks to make voting compulsory. I do not want to suggest -

Mr Byrne rose -

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Byrne: On a point of information.

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Yes, the Member has given way.

Mr Byrne: If the Member for Thomson will read clause 21, he will find that any elector can stay away, pay $5 and get his name back on to the electoral roll. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Bani: Sir, I fully understand the implications of clause 21. His name can be struck off. He can be fined five dollars, depending, of course, on who he is. For instance, if a P.A.P. enthusiast does not go and vote, perhaps, even the five dollars fine may be waived. But if it is somebody else, then quite definitely his name will be struck off. But in any case, Sir, it is not necessary for the Minister for Law to tell the people that one can stay away and pay the fine or get one's name struck off. Compulsory voting, as could be seen in the 1959 elections, is known to the people. But is the Minister seriously suggesting that one should stay away at home against the law? Is he in fact suggesting to abet an offence? Is he encouraging the breaking of a law -

Mr Byrne: On a point of information.

The Chairman: Will the Member give way?

Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Byrne: Mr Chairman, there is one, thing that the Barisan Sosialis can do. They can organise the throwing in of blank votes but they cannot organise abstentions from the polis.

Mr Bani: Sir, if ever the Barisan Sosialis Central Executive Committee needs any advice from the Minister for Law as to how we should conduct our business, I shall always have him in mind. We would approach him with no hesitation, Sir, if we need his advice. And if we carry out his advice in practice, I only hope that the Government will not leave him unpunished if we are to be punished. Sir, the Minister, as I said, knows this. Then why did he say, "You can stay away."?

Surely, Sir, it appears to me that either he was trying to bluff Mrs Leon Soh or he was just being silly for some unknown reason. The point is that, Sir, in a situation where, as the Government has indicated, two unacceptable alternatives are going to be put to the people: where the people are not going to be given the right to say 'no' and you have also compulsory voting, then the sum total of all this, as I have said, is a denial of a very desirable democratic right - the right of an individual to say 'yes' or 'no' or abstain. And pillars of parliamentary democracy; people who preach democracy, people who claim that without them democracy will die in this part of the world, are seeking to bring this about!

Sir, the Prime Minister has time and again laughed it off whenever we say that the P.A.P. Government is adopting Fascist tactics. He stands up and says, 'Am I a Fascist? Look, I allow you to do this, I allow you to do that.' Sir, I must say that I have greater respect for Hitler than our Prime Minister because at least Hitler made no pretences. He had the courage and the guts to say, 'This is what I believe in - no democracy, nothing'. But the Government today have very strong Fascist tendencies and they want to camouflage them by talking of democracy and individual freedom, 'We are pillars of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world.' It has already been pointed out very many times in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the so-called democrats like them - like all the Chiang Kai-sheks and Syngman Rhees that we have - who spelt doom for democracy in this part of the world. It is not the people who are accused as Communists; it is not the people in the Barisan Sosialis who will destroy democracy. It is the men who are drunk with power and want to keep power at the expense of the people.

Sir, as the Bill stands now, the Government can pose a question in any form. It can pose a number of questions. It can also ask the people to choose between two unacceptable alternatives and deny them the right to abstain. If a voter does not wish either of the alternatives, he cannot say 'no', because he is not allowed to say 'no'. He is legally expected to say 'yes' to one of them at least. So, Sir, a voter who does not desire both will be helpless. This voter, as many, many others like him, will not be uncertain as to choose which of the two alternatives.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order. It appears to me that he is speaking on the amendment to clause 29 and not on the motion to amend clause 5.

The Chairman: What the Member for Thomson is doing is just arguing on the premise that clause 29 will be accepted. Therefore he is just stating a fact that under clause 29 that is so. He is not arguing for or against the merits of clause 29. I think in that respect he is perfectly in order.

Mr Bani: Thank you, Sir. He cannot put in an unmarked vote, for that will, according to the law, be a vote for the Government proposition. Sir, this is the trick formula worked out with clause 5 of the Bill as a basis, which the P.A.P. leadership has invented to get the 'support' of the people for its merger proposals, and it is with this trick formula that they feel confident.

They say the Barisan Sosialis have been cornered. They say the Barisan Sosialis are desperate now; the Communists are desperate - they do not know what to do. I tell them, Sir, we are not desperate. We are not cornered and desperate, because we have great respect for the intelligence of the people, unlike the P.A.P. leadership. We do not have to go and tell the people what to do. We believe the people know themselves what they should do. So all this talk of referendum on smoking, toddy shop is just humbug. This Bill has been drawn up by the Government with the sole intention of pushing through the P.A.P merger proposals, no matter what bluff they make in this Assembly or outside it.

Now, Sir, you will see why the Opposition lay so much importance in this amendment to include a new clause which will mean only one question to which the electorate can say without ambiguity, unequivocally yes or no. Who is trying to confuse the people? The Barisan Sosialis or the P.A.P. We are fighting to get the Government to put a simple yes or no question so that the people will not be confused and helpless. So that the verdict of the people whichever way it goes will be clear-cut and the irony of it is that we are accused of trying to confuse the people This is the conduct pf an absolutely dishonest Government.

Sir, every single amendment that has been moved by the Opposition to this Hill is to minimise confusion, is to help the people to indicate their wishes clearly and yet the P.A.P. is opposing it. The S.P.A. talk a lot outside, but inside here they make certain that the Bill goes through. The P.A.P. to-day has no other way of surviving except by cheating the people, and that is exactly what it is seeking to do. The Government is seeking to rig the referendum. This in simple straight forward language is rigging, and I would say it is not only rigging, it is shameful rigging. To those Members of this House who sit as Back benchers of the Government, who are fully aware of the pressure of the people and who wish to believe that all this dirty work is being done by the Prime Minister and that the responsibility is his alone, I say, "You are also responsible." Sir, every dishonest act of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is also the responsibility of the Back benchers, because without their support, the Government cannot implement its crooked decisions. As I say, it is the responsibility of every one in this House to ensure that in this Bill there is no provision for rigging the referendum one way or the other.

The new clause proposed to clause S of the Bill is one of the most important amendments to the whole Bill. Without this clause and with the inclusion of clauses 21 and 29, the Referendum Bill would seek to deprive the exercise of democratic rights by our people. The Government on the one hand says that a referendum is to consult the people, to ascertain the views of the people. It says that a referendum will be held in order to determine whether the people support the White Paper merger or not. On the other hand, Sir, it seeks to interfere with the people's right to free choice.

The referendum that the Government has in mind would, in fact, compel the people to vote only yes. The right to say no and the right to abstain will be deprived by legislation. We in the Barisan Sosialis have been accused as people who work to wreck democracy. We are not hypocrites, Sir, like those who claim to be democrats. We are not hypocrites like those who claim to be pillars of parliamentary democracy but who are in fact destroying the very foundations of a democratic society. The argument the Government has put forward against the amendment is untenable. We are told that if a simple question requiring a yes or no answer is put, the people will be confused. The stupidity of this argument is clear. It is absolutely ridiculous for the Government to say that our amendment which will seek a yes or no answer unequivocally would confuse the people. Any man who makes a suggestion of this sort, Sir, must be insane. And whatever form the question takes in the referendum, the right to reject or abstain must be given to the people. This is denied by the Referendum Bill and any proposition which denies the people the right of free choice, the right to say freely yes or no or abstain would be in conflict with the principles of democracy.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate on the Referendum Bill threatens to be the most dreary performance ever in this Assembly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Oh, you are not afraid, are you?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: All the points that have been made and all the arguments that have been put forward by the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party had all been set out on previous occasions. You, Mr Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Referendum Bill, would have recognized them immediately. If you had listened to the radio forums conducted by the University of Singapore and Radio Singapore, you would have come across the very same old dreary arguments used by these Members of the Opposition on these occasions. For practical purposes, if the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party had been provided with cuttings from tape-recordings of those occasions, they could have played back their previous performances, thereby saving their throats unnecessary effort and our ear-drums unnecessary tedium. It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that on this occasion we have so far been spared the more lurid perorations of the Member for Anson. You will recollect that on previous occasions he likened our proposed referendum to beating of wives, beating of daughters, drinking of arsenic, prostitution, concubine, etc. Perhaps sombre reflection, which I concede even the Member for Anson on occasions is capable of, has convinced him of the absurdity of these analogies. So, now, we have to put up with the gramophone record performances of some hon. Members opposite. In all these weeks and months of cogitation they have not been able to think of a single new idea. Their brains appear to have been completely dried up. One would have thought that decency requires them to spare us the dreary repetitions of half-truths and untruths, but this is not the case. These hon. Members set about their business as if they are informing the House of startling new discoveries in human affairs. So there is nothing for us to do but to meet each and every one of these arguments again. We shall try on our part to introduce, if not a completely new set of arguments, at least a more refreshing approach to a very stale subject.

Now, Sir, every time the Member for Anson speaks on how questions in a referendum should be framed, he lists out referenda in other countries where one question is asked with a yes or no answer. No one denies that this is the way certain countries carry out certain types of referenda, but the Member for Anson has conveniently forgotten the two referenda most closely akin to the one that will be carried out in Singapore soon. I refer, of course, to the referendum in Newfoundland in 1948 and the referendum, carried out last year by the United Nations in the Cameroons. Both these referenda were to decide the constitutional future of the territory concerned. The analogy with Singapore is therefore close, but the matter goes even further than that. The future of these territories is to be decided along certain alternatives, one of which is merger with a larger territory. The parallel with Singapore is therefore exact. In Newfoundland, the choice was whether the country should merge with Canada or achieve independence by itself. In the Cameroons, the choice was between merger with Nigeria and merger with the French Cameroons. Here are the most apt precedents that we have, and our framing of the question follows exactly these precedents, that is to say, the choice of alternatives and not one question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson say that the right to say "no" is a basic, fundamental, inalienable human right. I find it difficult to understand this, urge of theirs to say 'no' - an urge which may be appropriate in the case of a virtuous damsel being assailed with an improper suggestion. But the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party are neither virtuous nor damsels. In constitutional affairs, I do not see where the right to say "no" is a basic human right. In the Cameroons, for instance, voters were asked to drop their ballot papers in one of two boxes; one box for Nigeria and another for Cameroons. There was no third box for voters, who did not want either of these a1ternatives. So let us not be misled by precedents selected and slanted by the Member for Anson of referenda carried out in other countries. Some referenda support his case, others do not; and I hope he will admit that too. Those which do not support his case have a more immediate similarity with our own situation in Singapore than those which do. So this disposes of international precedents.

Sir, both the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown have made quite a fuss about the fact that this is a general Referendum Bill under wnich a specific referendum, that is, on merger, will be held. One accepts this, and I do not see why this should call for much excitement among these two hon. Members. Some proposed amendments are unacceptable because they are inappropriate to a general Referendum Bill, and others are because the Bill will be used to carry out a referendum on merger. So what is so extraordinary about it? [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, am I to understand from the Member for Anson that this general Referendum Bill is to remain a general Referendum Bill, but not used for any specific referendum? Is that what he wants us to understand? The hon. Member even offered the utterly preposterous suggestion that in addition to this general Referendum Bill, we should have a specific Referendum Bill on merger. Sir, I can see some point, in logic, if he maintains, that we should scrap this general Referendum Bill and in its place have one specifically for the referendum on merger. I can see some point in this. But I am unable to see how and why we should have two Bills on referendum passed at the same time, both of which would be used to regulate one referendum.

Let me get down to the gist of the matter. These people want the referendum to contain only one question, which will admit only a "yes" or "no" answer. We have stated quite correctly that in a general Referendum Bill such a limitation is unnecessarily restrictive. The arguments have been set out in Select Committee Reports, and I do not wish to weary this House by repeating them. But I only want to draw attention to two points. First, I want to discuss what they hope to achieve by this amendment. Second, I want to show that even if this amendment is accepted by the Government, it is defective from their point of view and that the objectives which they had in mind can be frustrated quite easily by the Government.

Let me first deal with the point as to why they want one question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The Member for Queens-town said that the original intention was to put up the White Paper proposals for acceptance or rejection. He is quite right. That was our original intention and it still remains our present intention. But where we disagreed with the Member for Queenstown is this: he wants a rejection of the White Paper proposals to mean that there will be no merger whatsoever. We say that the rejection of the White Paper merger would mean complete merger on terms of absolute equality with any of the other 11 States of the Federation of Malaya. In other words, if the electorate does not like the White Paper proposals, then they get the type of merger which the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party had been advocating all the time in this House. What is so wrong about this? They want complete merger on terms of absolute equality with the other States. Why do they fear to put this proposition to the electorate? If they are absolutely honest in wanting complete merger, then they should insist that complete merger should be offered as an alternative to the White Paper merger in the Referendum. In fact, if the White Paper merger were the only proposition that the Government puts to the electorate, then he should rise in anger and demand that complete merger should be put as an alternative. Why have they not done so, if they really wanted complete merger?

Sir, yesterday four of us, the Members for Queenstown, Anson, the Prime Minister and myself went to Radio Singapore to record the third forum on merger and the Referendum Bill. Some time was spent on which questions should we discuss. Eventually we agreed to discuss three questions, and they were: first, whether the electorate should be able to say 'no' at the referendum: the second was the question of blank votes, and the third question asked was why the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party objected, to complete merger, a proposal which they have advocated all the time, to be included in the referendum. Sir, more time was then spent on deciding how much time should be allotted to each of these questions. The two hon. Members in the Opposition said that the basic issue was the right to say 'no', and that the other two were not really very important so that half the time should be spent on discussing the basic right to say 'no', and a quarter of the time to each of the other two questions, including the question why they object to complete merger being put to the electorate.

On our side we maintained that they had to explain to the people of Singapore why they had always, objected to complete merger being put in a referendum, and we considered this to be a central issue. We, therefore, proposed that half the time -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. Mr Chairman, you have pulled up Members who have grossly misrepresented another Member in the Assembly. I would suggest that this is a gross misrepresentation of the Opposition part that we have at no time resisted any question of the position of the Opposition being put in a referendum. It has never been put to us, and it is a gross misrepresentation.

The Chairman: It is not really a point of order. I think the Member for Anson could raise that point in argument against the Minister for Finance.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I do not understand it. How is there misrepresentation, considering that the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown will be moving a motion later in this session to say that the question to be put to the referendum is White Paper merger? There is no mention of complete merger. What is he talking about?

To continue the narrative, Mr Speaker, Sir, we said, "Give them half the time to explain why they did not want to put complete merger to the electorate." But they displayed a marked shyness in accepting this opportunity to put their case straight before the public. Eventually, Sir, we compromised and decided that each of the three questions should be given equal time. Now, their reluctance to deal with this very basic question, "Why do they not want their own proposals to be put to the electorate?" does not surprise us, for we know that whatever they pretend to say they have never wanted complete merger or any form of merger. Even now they are saying that they never really asked for complete merger like any of the 11 States.

Sir, everyone knows that at the first Radio Forum, the Members for Hong Lim and Anson in public rebuked the Member for Queenstown for letting the side down in making a grave mistake when the Barisan asked for merger like Penang and Malacca. And on behalf of -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. Mr Chairman. If this is going to go on, then you will appreciate that we will have to reopen the issue of merger, and we will be discussing Penang and Malacca. I merely ask: is this relevant to the amendment before the House? If you so consider, then I myself would like ample time to answer it.

The Chairman: I do not think the Minister for Finance has gone too far over the rails. He is just making a statement of fact.

Mr David Marshall: He has taken 15 minutes.

The Chairman: Will the Member for Anson not interrupt when the Speaker is on his feet? The Minister for Finance is relating just a statement of fact. He is, in fact, not arguing as to whether or not the White Paper merger is a better proposition than the Penang Malacca type of merger or any other type of merger. If he does that, then, of course, he will be irrelevant.

6.30 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I charge the Barisan Sosialis with being downright dishonest when they said they wanted complete merger. In the first instance, they asked for complete merger like Penang or Malacca. Then, realising their error, they added a new condition which demands that the Federation Government should treat Singapore on better terms than any of the 11 States. In other words, what the Barisan Sosialis want is not complete merger for Singapore but super-merger. This is not a proposition that can be seriously entertained, except by those whose real intention is to frustrate merger.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon): What about Brunei?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Nee Soon says, 'What about Brunei?' If they want merger on equal terms with Brunei, we will put it to the public. There is no trouble about that. But do not ask for super-merger. That does not happen anywhere.

Sir, both they and the Workers' Party are committed to a policy of complete merger. In any reasonable man's understanding of the words 'complete merger', the terms must be like those enjoyed by anyone of the 11 States of the Federation - no better than these and no worse than these. In fact, the Member for Anson has laid down his policy in no uncertain terms. I quote from Hansard Vol. 15 No. 7, dated 23rd November, 1961, column 557. He was referring to -

'a dog-eared copy of the very first and the only party platform of the Workers' Party on its formation in December of 1957. In the very first paragraph and in the very first sentence, it says,

"The basis and framework of all policy must be recognition of the fact that Singapore is geographically, ethnically, and economically part of Malaya and the only healthy ultimate solution is integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other states..."

Then he went on to say in column 562:

'I believe that if the issue were put to the people of Singapore, "Do you want unconditional merger complete, or do you want the P.A.P. White Paper?" we would have 90 per cent of the people voting for unconditional and complete merger.'

Mr David Marshall: Nine nought.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Ninety, nine nought, 90 per cent of the people voting for unconditional and complete merger. This statement is remarkable for two things. First, we find that the Member for Anson has displayed on this occasion occult powers of prediction, powers which I never thought he possessed. He must, therefore, be congratulated on the astounding accuracy of prediction on what questions will be posed in this referendum. Whether he succeeded by guess or by God I do not know, but I would not grudge him praise, whichever way it is.

Sir, next, the Member for Anson, at that time at any rate, believed that 90 per cent of the electorate would vote for complete and unconditional merger. Obviously, he is not in the same ebullient mood of buoyant optimism as he was on the 23rd November last year.

Mr David Marshall: I would ask about P.A.P.'s dishonesty.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, is it dishonest to put in the question which he finds so natural and so right? [Interruption] I beg your pardon?

The Chairman: Order.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged to the Minister. If the Minister would put our position in our words. I have already offered to pay a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists. We are not running away from it; we would be very happy, but knowing the P.A.P.'s dishonesty, we know they will not. They will put our words according to their interpretation.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, may I ask the Member for Anson: if we were to frame the alternatives in the way he has put it, would he be happy?

The Chairman: Order. I do not think we should go into details like that. The Minister for Finance has gone on record to say that these questions will be debated in this Assembly. So that that is the time to debate.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: So be it, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, if he is of the same frame of mind us he was in last year, I think he would he the last person to suggest that there should be only one question with a "Yes" or "No" answer. But what strikes me as beyond comprehension is his anger that the Government should carry out the referendum in exactly the manner which he thought so natural several months ago. Why is it blatant dishonesty in June 1962 to do what was so obviously right in November 1961? That .is to put two alternatives for the people's choice - White Paper merger and complete and unconditional merger. Sir, if he wants complete and unconditional merger, to use his own words, "on an equal basis with any of the, other States", why does he object to this choice being offered to the electorate as an alternative to White Paper merger? More especially so as he is convinced that 90 per cent of the electorate will choose complete and unconditional merger. Why does he say that complete and unconditional merger is like drinking arsenic, beating one's wife, going into prostitution and other perverted forms of human conduct which his morbid imagination conjures up every now and then?

Sir, this brings me to the point raised by the Member for Queenstown. He said that we had originally intended to pose the White Paper proposal for acceptance or rejection. He meant by this we wanted to put the White Paper proposal in a form of a question which only admits of a "Yes" or "No." answer. Sir, how he gets this curious notion I do not know. But he now admits that if the choice were given to the people between White Paper merger and complete merger, this would put Barisan Sosialis in a "zugzwang".

At long last the awful truth has dawned upon him, and I must congratulate him on his realisation of the dire straits in which he finds himself, belated though his perception comes. But he will recollect that when I first told him that the Barisan Sosialis was in a "zugzwang", it was not this year, but well into last year that it happened. Sir, time does not permit me to check through Hansard to identify the date but this may be a useful piece of research for the hon. Member to do.

So to say that there has been a recent switch in our policy on referendum is untrue. Right from the beginning we were fairly certain of the outcome of the referendum we propose to carry out. There was no hasty change of intention or design, as a result of a reappraisal of political trends. The P.A.P., Sir, makes long-term forecasts fairly accurately and, in addition, allows for the inevit able margin of error and inaccuracy for which special precautions are always available. This is the way to handle a troublesome situation.

Sir, if the Member for Queenstown is still not convinced of what I say, may I refer him to the parable of the inquisitive camel, which I brought up in the Select Committee? This stupid and inquisitive camel - I am referring, of course, to the Barisan Sosialis - is led to the belief that there is a fish in the mud-hole.

Mr Bani: Are you referring to merger?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, I am not referring to merger. Eventually the camel, wanting to know more about the fish, goes nearer to the mud-hole and falls into it.

Sir, this parable is intended to show that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis made their basic error, not in recent months or weeks, but as long ago as last July, August and September, when in complete dishonesty they claimed that they wanted full and complete merger. They think that they can get away with this dishonest pretence. Sir, the time for reckoning is not far off. The day of retribution is at hand. Once they said that they wanted complete and absolute merger, then there was no escape for them. Sir, how different the position would be if they had, right from the beginning, said that they did not want merger on any terms whatsoever. They were instructed by the Communist underground to say that the next stage of the constitutional development of Singapore should be internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government so that they can save their own skins. If they had stuck to this M.C.P. underground official line steadfastly and without deviation, they would not have been in their present predicament of having their bluff called.

When you ask for complete merger, you ask for complete merger, not for super-merger. This attempt to wriggle out from complete merger by saying that you really wanted super-merger is too obvious and dishonest a maneuver to deceive anybody.

So, now, Sir, the camel is in the mud-hole and there he remains until he is carried out by persons who want to take charge of naughty and inquisitive camels arid to put them in their proper places.

Mr Bani: You are the camel, then.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Some people are trying to make a pretence of being quite jolly about the situation. I congratulate the Member for Thomson on his show of resolution. But, Sir, we were not born yesterday.

Mr Bani: You are optimistic, you know.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: We are optimistic, confident and relaxed. We face the future as Mao Tse-tung says -

An hon. Member: When?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This was after -

The Chairman: Order. Let us hear about Mao Tse-tung [Laughter].

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This was after the third annihilation campaign which the Kuomintang forces mounted against him and they were defeated and routed every time, and Mao Tse-tung said, "When your strategic position is sound and when your tactical disposition is complete, you can face the enemy with ease and' poise." That is the happy position we find ourselves in today. We face everything with complete ease and poise. We are not ruffled, even by the threats of the Member for- [Interruption].

The Chairman: Order. I take it that that quotation comes from a book and the book is available in the Library.

6.45 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This quotation comes from Mao Tse-tung's Selected Works. I think it is Volume 2. It is in the library.

An hon. Member: Mao Tse-tung is a real Communist.

The Chairman: Order. Please continue.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The open front leader of the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis paid the Prime Minister and myself a most handsome compliment. He said, "These are the people who study the Communist classics and use their tactics and strategy to put them in a fix." That is a very big compliment. Why should we not do it? In a democracy, Sir, are we democrats disallowed, the freedom to read Communist classics? I am sure the Member for Thomson would not say so.

An hon. Member: You had better give me a few books.

The Chairman: Please continue.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I now come to the second feature of the proposed amendment. I said, before that even if the Government accepted this amendment, it could still frustrate the objective which the amenders have in mind, namely, to block merger. Now. Sir, let me transfix the point that we can easily devise the question in accordance with the requirements of this amendment and still have merger, whatever the answer is. We can frame the question like this.: "Do you prefer complete merger to the White Paper merger? Answer 'yes' or 'no'." If the answer is 'yes', you get complete merger. If the answer is 'no', you get the White Paper merger. All the conditions of the clauses are followed, but the camel still remains in its mud-hole. So this amendment really is an example of inept draftsmanship, just as the amendment we discussed yesterday was clumsy and inept. They wanted to have the questions put to the referendum to be discussed in this Assembly. They dealt with the wrong clause of the Bill, amending it in such a way that it became constitutionally ridiculous. May I, therefore, suggest to them, the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party, that they should pay more attention to the finer points of legal draftsmanship?

Now, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have been so obsessed with having questions with an answer of 'yes' or 'no' that they said through their representative, Dr Lim Hock Siew, at the forum of the University of Singapore, that they did not mind whether there is one question, two' questions, or five questions put to the referendum, provided the answer is 'yes' or 'no' to each one of them. And if the electorate were given the choice to say 'no', they would, not mind whether blank votes counted one way or the other. Sir, these are very rash, bold and inadequately considered views. If we were to take Dr Lim at his own words, it does not require much ingenuity to frame the questions in such a way as to frustrate the Barisan Sosialis' attempt to wreck the merger referendum. Sir, the point is not whether there should be one question to which the answer is to be 'yes' or 'no'. This is merely a matter of legal draftsmanship on which they slipped up so badly. The real issue is this: should the Communists and their stooges be given a chance to wriggle out of their open commitment for complete merger and so wreck the referendum by dishonest and fraudulent misrepresentation of the issue? They claim that in a democratic state they have the right to use democratic privileges to jam up the democratic processes. Sir, only the most innocent of people believe that the democratic state is so feeble, so flabby, and so powerless as to provide its enemies, who wish to destroy democracy, all the facilities and encouragement to do so. They may feel that the democratic system should allow itself to be corroded and destroyed in this manner. We of the P.A.P. say that it is the duty of the democratic state to set up defences in sufficient strength to deny the enemy any opportunity to do this.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the Minister preparing and reading a written speech for that tour de force of abuse and falsehoods. I will ignore the abuse. Let me come straight down to the falsehoods.

He said, "The Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party have always objected to their type of merger being put to the people in a referendum", and he cannot understand our reluctance in that we do not want our proposals to be put to the electorate. Mr Speaker, every human being is expected to have a memory that lasts at least 24 hours. Not 24 hours ago, Mr Speaker, I had to meet these gentlemen across the Floor in Radio P.A.P. There was a loaded question from Utusan Melayu. Let me read it, Sir, so that you can have it accurately, from the official transcript; it is not mine:

'The Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party have in the earlier stages asked for complete merger. Why are they now objecting to this question being put to the people in the referendum?'

My reply, in the hearing of the Minister, was that the first part was correct that, in so far as the Workers' Party was concerned, we believed, we believe and will continue to believe, in a complete merger. As to the second question, it was completely inaccurate to suggest that we were reluctant that that matter should be put. In fact, Mr Chairman, I have stated, in the hearing of the Minister who still repeats that falsehood, that we are reluctant to have it put to the referendum.

'Mr Marshall, they say that they will put the alternative. Do you want the P.A.P. proposals or do you want complete merger?' I say to you that I am prepared - the journalists were present - to donate a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists if, in fact, the alternatives are put.

The Chairman: Order. This is not a point of order. It is only to ask the Member to speak a little slower because of the difficulty in translation.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. Sir. And I said that, in fairness, the alternative should be the alternative which we proposed in all solemnity to the motion for merger on 21st November

• an alternative, Sir, which you will find on the day it was proposed by the Member for Queenstown, and strongly supported by the United People's. Party and by the Workers' Party on 21st November, 1961, at col. 406 of the Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 5.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You wanted super merger.

Mr David Marshall: I shall come to that falsehood in a minute - one at a time. I know it is very embarrassing. I do not know, but perhaps it is not embarrassing to him. I am feeling how I would feel if I were doing this sort of thing.

Sir, this was the amendment. We sought to introduce the words:

'genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day.'

Sir, that deals with the first falsehood that we do not want our stand put to the people.

Mr Speaker, I almost feel apologetic with the respect that I normally have for the traditional august nature of this Assembly, which one is apt to forget sometimes in the light of the unprecedented conduct of the Government to use the word "falsehood". But there is no other word, Sir, which could fairly and squarely pin it down in the light of the fact that it was but 30 hours ago - yesterday, between 12.30 and 2.00 p.m., this was stated in his presence, and his answer was, "This is a bribe." I said. "It is not the P.A.P. that I am offering the bribe to." The National Union of Journalists can hardly assist me in it, Sir. That is the first falsehood. They said, "Ah, yes." Now, Sir, we went right off. They did not accept the challenge. Would they put the position of the Opposition as enunciated by them after consultation and fully supported, which they defeated' with the Front Bench of the Opposition by I think it was 32 votes to 17 with two absent on 6th December.

Now, Sir, let us pin this falsehood once and forever, and I am prepared to sit down to receive' the answer. Would the Government be prepared to put the alternative in the form that the Opposition want? And, Sir, I added this. You know, Mr Speaker, never I think - and you have known me for a long time - have I ever alleged that I could at most but guess at the wishes of the people. Nobody knows it. And when I expressed my own views as to the possible result, those are my own views, but I would say this that even if our proposals were put to the people, I say that they are entitled to say yes or no to each, that there should never be any question because the Opposition Parties say they believe the people want one thing and the Government say they believe the people want another thing, that the people should have no right to reject both the Government and the Opposition proposals. We are no gods. We are human beings. Some of us seek in sincerity to assess what is wanted, to assess how good it is, to assess how far it should be taken, and I, in so far as the Workers' Party is concerned, even if that were put, I would insist that the people, should have the right to reject and categorically and clearly to reject my proposals if they deem fit to do so. They should have the unequivocal right to say yes or no to either the Government proposition and/or the Opposition proposition.

Now, Sir, the second falsehood - that we asked for super merger. I do not have to prepare or get prepared by one of many paid stooges any speech to answer this. The second falsehood that was perpetrated in that tour de force of abuse and falsehood is that we seek a super merger.

Mr Chairman, first let us look at the terms again: "genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens." That was our amendment which was defeated by the P.A.P. with the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. in support. Where is its super position?

7.00 p.m.

We ask for integration. Do you think that when Newfoundland entered Canada the citizens of Newfoundland did not become Canadian citizens? You know that since 1948 the Federation has had provisions whereby persons living in Penang and Malacca could have Federal citizenship. Do you think that when the eleven States joined together, the Federal citizens of Penang or Malacca did not become Federation citizens? Now, Sir, Penang did not have any Singapore citizens or Penang citizens. Malacca did not have any Singapore citizens or Malacca citizens and the issue as regards our citizens should be dealt with in the same way as the citizens who were Federal citizens and that this can be done is clearly shown: it was in the mind of the Federation parties and the Alliance which helped to formulate the Constitution whereby under Article 22 the Government of the Federation is given the power to grant citizenship to those in new territories who are citizens of the new territories which join it. So, Mr Speaker, that is the second falsehood, that we asked for a super, super merger -

The Chairman: Order, order. An application to move a business motion. I suspend the sitting.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.