SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL

Debate in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, one other point in respect of this falsehood, that we are seeking a super merger - something that nobody has, something that the arrogant Singapore Commun.sts want and their stooges. Mr Speaker, you have been referred during a bag and unhappy sitting in November and December of last year to the widespread publicity given to polIcy statements of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya wherein he indicated in the clearest possible terms that he was prepared to take in Brunei, Borneo aid Sarawak with full Federation citizenship for the Brunei citizens and the British subjects in the other two territories. So where are we asking for this super merger? That is the secoid falsehood, Sir. Then he said - and this, Sir, but for the fact that it is tragic would make one laugh; prepared for him no doubt by somebody and I wonder if he understands the words he uses - "What would the reasonable man's understanding be of complete merger?" Yes, do they know what a reasonable man is? Can they put themselves in the position of a reasonable man? Do they really think they can? Have they made any effort to talk on an honest man-to-man basis with a reasonable man and ask of him, "What do you understand by the phrase 'complete and unconditional merger'?" Do you understand that there are going to be half our citizens who would be deprived of citizenship? Sir, to put the question is to answer it, except for those who are deaf to all logic, to all reason, to all good sense. For the P.A.P. Front Bench to talk of the reasonable man is almost blasphemy. He said, Sir. "What is wrong, that in June 1962 we should not do what the Member for Anson said we could do in November of 1961?" The Member for Anson has at no time. Mr Speaker, ever considered it proper or said that it was proper that the people should have questions put to them without being given the right to say yes or no to each question as every civilised country has offered. The Minister for Finance has offered us Newfoundland - I hope it was not done cleverly. I should like to think that he is not just that dishonest but shall we say he has glossed over the manner in which the voting took place, whether in respect of the three alternatives, they were given the chance to say yes or no in respect of each of them. But he has put forward the issue of the Cameroons. The Cameroons, and I may be wrong here in my history, Mr Chairman, were a trust territory under the United Nations and it could be, after thorough and exhaustive examination and various commissions going to the Cameroons, that they decided that there was no other alternative, because nobody wanted anything else: either the question of going into Nigeria or the question of going into the Cameroons. There was never any demand for the right to say yes or no, it was never queried by anybody within the Cameroons if you would care to look at the United Nations report in that respect. It was put very frankly, Sir. But here, what is being threatened is not that we are going to put the only two possible issues because they admit themselves through the Prime Minister

• they have said ad nauseam; to talk about radio or gramophone records, Sir, nowadays is really to bring people's minds to the Prime Minister and his performances on Radio Singapore - but he has said that if you ask 624,000 citizens what type of merger you want, according to him, you will get 624,000 alternatives. So, Sir, it is not a question - unless they are going to somersault again and I must confess, Sir, that I have reached the stage where I do not believe that anything we say on this side of the House can convince them except perhaps the power to out-vote them; it does not look possible, in view of the statement made by the Member for Cairnhill - but for the record let us pin down these falsehoods. There are according to the P.A.P. 624,000 possible variations of merger - one for each citizen. So it is not that they are exhausted. Now, why do they refuse the right to say no? Why?

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance said that he missed my lurid analogies of mistress and prostitute, of beating his mother, his wife or his daughter and he asked, in sneering terms, whether calmer judgment has made me realise the inappropriateness - or perhaps he used an abusive word, I cannot remember them all - that this was not appropriate. Mr Chairman, not at all, not at all. These analogies likening the alternatives to the alternative offered of being a mistress or being a prostitute - the essential quality between all these analogies is the quality of - how shall I say it - unacceptability to the normal, decent person; giving the alternative of one unacceptable alternative and another that is even more unacceptable. And it is far from inappropriate to say that the present merger proposals are somewhat equivalent to offering us the position of a mistress coming to my home, joining my board but she cannot have the dignity and status of my bride. Nor is there so grave a discrepancy and so inappropriate that one can complain about the interpretation that they put about joining a State with the deprivation of our citizens of their citizenship being different from that of inviting us to be a prostitute. Mr Speaker, if they prefer, and it is the same to me, I have earlier said it is not fair to say to your daughter, "You must marry A or B." She should have the chance to say yes or no to either.

Mr Speaker, we had the extraordinary performance - not extraordinary, one should become accustomed to this by now - of the Minister standing up and saying, "This is a specific Bill," and three sentences later saying, "This is a general Bill for a specific purpose," and then going on to say, "It is a general Bill and why should not we have a specific referendum thereunder?" Mr Speaker, we all know that general pro visions apply in individual cases but they are general provisions because they are intended for all cases that may be applicable thereafter. But he stated that this was a specific Bill and that is why it was inappropriate that there should be only one question.

Mr Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to this Minister's statement on the 15th of May, 1962, to be found in column 309 of our Official Report from Select Committee, and that is to show you that though this is supposed to be a general referendum Bill he admitted that the present clause 29 was in fact for the specific purposes of dealing with the Communist threat on merger. We will come to the Communist threat. But I want to use the exact words so that I should not misquote him. Now, Mr Speaker, your question after he had quoted himself - he has a delightful habit of respecting himself and admiring himself so much that he is always quoting himself. Now, Sir, he quoted himself over the whole column and then you asked him when he drew breath:

'The Chairman: May I now ask the Minister whether he has indicated, by his reading of the extracts, that the New Clause (A) [that is, our clause 29] has, in fact, been introduced to meet a situation of that nature in regard to a referendum on merger?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I would say, Mr Chairman, not generally, but in particular reference to the present situation,...'.

Now, Sir, what does the Minister for Labour and Law say in respect of that clause? I know he says all over the place - it is peppered with his protestations - that this is a general Bill. But look at the revised transcript of the Hansard of the 16th of March, 1962, Sir - [Interruption].

The Chairman: Order.

Mr David Marshall: I am delighted to hear him turning again because he cannot open his mouth without putting his foot into it! Sir, at page 21 of the revised transcript dated 16th March, 1962 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 270], the last few lines where he stated that the New Clause (A) was introduced specifically for the purpose of a referendum on merger. I will read it.

'In the same way, the Government would be failing in their duty to the people and would be acting foolishly if they did not take the elementary precaution of preventing the referendum from being manipulated -'

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member is reading too fast. I am sure there is difficulty in translation.

Mr David Marshall: I am so sorry. I appreciate that. I will read it again slowly:

'In the same way, the Government would be failing in their duty to the people and would be acting foolishly if they did not take the elementary precaution of preventing the referendum from being manipulated by what would amount to a boycott of the referendum through the tendering of blank and unmarked ballot papers which can be organised to serve the ends of those Communists and pro-Communist groups who are hostile to merger.'

Sir, since they have introduced clause 29

• or perhaps they would like to deny it now, they have the opportunity; nobody is going to be surprised now, but if they would like to deny it they can, so long as they are on the record; I will treat it still undenied and still their policy - specifically for the purposes of the merger proposals of the P.A.P., why can they not consider introducing specific questions or question for the purpose of the merger proposals? After all, here are specific provisions in a general Bill, call it a hybrid Bill, not to use an offensive term, although a hybrid Bill is known technically as meaning something else. Let us use that term here to mean one that is a cross between a general and a specific. They have here clause 29 which is specifically for merger. Could we not have also some provisions with reference to saying 'yes' or 'no' and to the merger proposal question?

Sir, I come to the Member for Cairnhill. I must confess that I am so unaccustomed in this Chamber to hearing a Member of the Assembly referring with courtesy to a political opponent with whom he is in strong disagreement that I trust that you will grant me the indulgence of expressing my surprise and my appreciation for the courteous manner in which he referred to me and his acceptance of my good intentions. Sir, he asked, why do I lead the Barisan Sosialis? Heaven forbid! I think both the Member for Queenstown and I would deny that strenuously, Sir, 1 am sure they do not like to follow that. He has suggested it, and shall we say, if I might change a little without changing the meaning. Why am I with the Barisan Sosialis on this matter of having one question one issue? I must be satisfied that that would lead to the Communists rigging the merger proposals. 1 think that is what he said, Sir. Now, the question there is a fair one and it is unfortunate that he did not elaborate on why and how the rigging would take place.

Fortunately we are in Committee, and it would be helpful - very helpful, Sir - if we could know. But I would like to ask this. I told him frankly that I am associated with this amendment and with this attack on the Referendum Bill, and with his strenuous, and I do assure him, his sincere efforts for its amelioration, because we believe that it is essential for our welfare and the healthy development of democracy that the people should be honestly dealt with. It is as simple as that. And if we deal dishonestly with them - those whom we seek to attract to the democratic way - it would be a retrograde step and it would take us a long time to recover from it. I would ask him, Sir, does he think that if one Question was put to the people, the question that was accepted by this Assembly, it being that the merger proposals are the first step which are acceptable to the welfare of the people, is he then saying that he thinks they would reject it? Because he says they would wreck it. If he does think that, does he think that the majority or our 624,000 people would be acting voluntarily or under compulsion? If voluntarily, Sir, surely it is the very essence of the democratic process that a man, no matter how humble, no matter how ignorant, if he is a citizen of age and sane, should have the right to express his views. That is part of the strength and the defects that we reach a healthy balance. Does he now deny the right of the majority who do not believe in merger, according to him, to say "no"? If so, why, Sir? Because they are confused? Would the Member for Cairnhill not admit that the only confusion of which we have any evidence so far is the calculated confusion created, perpetrated and maintained by the P.A.P. with reference to' this Penang and Malacca bogey? Does he know of any other confusion? Yes, Sir, let me be fair. There is the confusion of second-class citizenship. True. There is that and I know the Barisan did not like me when I said that "second-class citizen" was an inappropriate phrase, that it was distinct citizenship. But assuming, and I accept that is a totally inaccurate way of describing it - distinct citizenship; let us say that there are people who believed that, Sir, and who are merely confused, although, in so far as I can see, the major campaign is this humbug and hypocrisy that is being manufactured by the P.A.P. in respect of Penang and Malacca. But let us say that it is the Barisan who talk of second-class citizenship. I will ask you this, Mr Speaker. Right, I am confused. I have swallowed hook, line and sinker this talk of second-class citizenship. Am I therefore not entitled to vote, because I am confused? Has a man who is confused no right to vote? Since when has democracy sought to distinguish the confused and the not confused? How many of those opposite Benches are not confused? Or on the Back Benches? The Front Benches know not what they are doing. Oh! yes, the Back Benches will begin to wriggle with embarrassment, I hope. So, Sir, I would ask the Member for Cairnhill. He has posed a fair question, and he has the chance, and I would ask him, in these cases if the people would freely vote against the White Paper, are they not entitled to do so? Surely he is not suggesting any matter of coercion or compulsion? It is the essence of democracy that no matter how confused, or humble or stupid a man may be, he is entitled to say "yes" or "no" , and to make his choice. He says, and I think he implies it, to have one question, one issue, would wreck the referendum - the merger proposals. He did not indicate either what other question he had in mind. I want to say this to you, Mr Chairman. I recognize that there can be other questions - legitimate questions - and I want to say to myself, I am not intransigent as regards one question, so long as the people have a right to say "yes" or to say "no" to each. In the context of the merger proposals, we frame this amendment because it seems to us that there was but one appropriate question, and that was the question posed by the Assembly.

Mr Chairman, you are not unaware of the accepted constitutional understanding of a referendum that it puts to the people something approved of by the Legislature for their confirmation and what has been approved are the White Paper proposals. The Opposition stand has been rejected and frankly, from the constitutional standpoint, it does not seem appropriate . I do not, for one moment, believe that there is any milk of human kindness, or a sense of sportsmanship, or a sense of democracy or even a sense of decency on the Front Bench that would put the Opposition point of view to the people. You have heard the Minister for Finance last night say proudly, "What do you think the P.A.P. is? A philanthropic organization that is going to help the Barisan Sosialis with its point of view? Of course it is not." There is no understanding of these things on the part of the Front Bench. This era of the P.A.P. is an era of tragedy which the people of Singapore will remember for a long time. And we are all praying that it will end, and that it will end quietly, and without much more damage to us. The sooner we bury them, Sir, the cleaner the air will be, and the more scope there will be for democracy. So it is not the question that they are seeking to pose our question. I am Asking the Member for Cairnhill - since he posed a fair question - what question has he in mind that could probably be posed which would frustrate the machinations of the Communists? Mr Chairman I want to ask you, Sir, it is not a little fantastic to suggest that the Communists in Singapore could intrude and in fact, influence the voluntary act of voting of the majority of our 624,000 citizens? I would say that is an absurdity. [Interruption] Oh, let us have an end to all these falsehoods. He has been replied to. This is another Dr Goebbels - repeat and repeat like a foolish, worn-out gramophone record that is dusty, dirty, bankrupt and broken.

Now, Sir, let me return to the Member for Cairnhill, who has urged me to an effort at understanding and who has put a fair question which I am trying to deal with. I do ask what further question would he like'? Would he like to indicate them? I would go so far as to say, Mr Chairman, that he has not, in fact, dealt with the last limb of our amendment. The first one was that there should be one question, the second is that there should be one issue, the last part is that every elector shall be required to answer such question. He can put each question. He can put each question with a 'yes' or 'no'. Would he like to move that amendment or would he like to deal with the question as a whole? I have not given up hope, as the Barisan seems to have given up hope, that the S.P.A. would in fact dissociate themselves from a dishonest referendum. I have heard the Member for Cairnhill in Select Committee. You will remember, Sir, that we were indebted to him for a conciliatory and constructive effort and I do hope that we will see no change of that stand in this Assembly now. I would inquire whether the Member for Cairnhill is, in fact, interested in supporting that part of the amendment which requests that there should be an answer of "yes" or "no" to the question, although he objects to the single question and the single issue aspect.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, much already has been debated, discussed, argued from all parties in Singapore on whether there should be one simple straightforward question in the coming referendum. We have listened to all the twists and turns and arguments put forward by the Government and I do not wish to repeat here the same old arguments. But what I must do now is to explode one of the points raised by the Minister for Finance, which, on the face of it, looks very convincing. In his speech the Minister for Finance has said that under the Opposition's united amendment, the Government can still ask: "Do you prefer complete merger to White Paper merger?" I think, Sir, if the Government is prepared to be dishonest and to go to any lengths, however much we tie them up in Bills, Ordinances and by-laws, they still can wriggle out to suit their own convenience. However, I wish today to quote from a book written by J. F. S. Ross from the Assembly Library called "Elections and Electors". Commenting on a referendum, at page 23 of his book, Mr Ross said:

'The essence of the referendum, of course, is that it puts a question to the general body of citizens. Now, any fool can ask a question, but to ask the right question, and to ask it in the right way, is quite another matter. Experience shows that large numbers of people will misunderstand even simple questions if there is the least chance. It needs great skill and care to make questions foolproof. Moreover to ask questions on controversial issues requires, in addition, a high standard of integrity; for if the questioner is unscrupulous he may so word the question as either deliberately to mislead the answerer, or else to suggest to him a particular response that the questioner desires to receive. In short, the referendum offers too many opportunities of misunderstanding on the one hand, and of manipulation on the other, to permit of its acceptance as generally suitable for purposes of government. Further, even if we could be sure of putting impeccable questions and receiving faultless answers, we should still have to confine the use of the referendum to comparatively few and simple issues.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing to prevent the Government, if it so desires, from asking any question. They can have a referendum to ask such a question: "Do you prefer an S.P.A. Government to a P.A.P. Government?"

I read in another book by C. S. Emden, "The People and the Constitution", that he mentions that in 1945, Churchill, at the conclusion of his Coalition Government, suggested a referendum to authorise the maintenance of the existing Parliament until the end of the war against Japan. This referendum was not held because of the opposition of the Labour and Liberal Parties. Now if Mr Churchill in those days had insisted that the referendum should be held, he had two ways out. If he wanted to hold an honest referendum he would put the question simply by asking for a simple 'yes' or 'no'. He would frame the question: "Do you agree that the present Parliament should continue until the end of the war with Japan?" What he wanted was a simple 'yes' or 'no'. But if Mr Churchill were politically bankrupt, but still wanted to cling to power and hold a dishonest referendum, he could pose two alternatives: "Do you want Churchill to govern the country?" and "Do you want Chamberlain to come back to power?", or as the Minister for Finance said just now: "Do you prefer a Hitler or a Mussolini to Mr Churchill?" Mr Speaker, Sir, this shows that a referendum can always be manipulated. That is why we have supported the amendment to clause 5 so as to minimise the risk of the referendum being manipulated. That is why we have thought that the question to be asked in the coming referendum should be a simple straightforward question requiring a simple answer - 'yes' or 'no'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the amendment put forward by the three Opposition Parties is accepted by Government, we believe there will be less room for unscrupulous governments, not only now, but also in the future, to manipulate referenda. However, on this occasion, I doubt whether we can make this Government see some sense. It is prepared to go against the people and to dishonour its pledges. You remember, I mentioned once in this Assembly that the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Opposition Parties on 6th September, 1961, the following:

'There has not been and there will not be any secret deal between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government. The agreement in principle on the two points I have enunciated has been published. When the deliberations of the Working Party are completed and agreement is reached, they will also be published. The people can then either accept or reject them.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the words are very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. "The people can either accept or reject them", which means the White Paper proposals. To accept means to say yes and to reject is to say no. The Deputy Prime Minister has given a pledge to all Opposition Parties and the contents of his letter could be translated as this: Do you want the White Paper - yes or no?

Now, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech yesterday and today has confirmed the pledge and he has given reasons why his Government is dis honouring the pledge. Sir, our analysis, in this instance, happens to coincide incidentally with the Member for Cairnhill's analysis just now. Why does Government want to dishonour its pledge? At yesterday's debate, the Minister for Finance remarked that it was because the Barisan Sosialis had put up proposals for a different type of merger. Now, Sir, this is merely an excuse. This type of argument does not hold ground, firstly, the Barisan Sosialis is not the only Opposition to the White Paper proposals. Secondly, it has claimed that the P.A.P. had distorted its intentions. Thirdly, when the White Paper was put up for debate, the Barisan Sosialis' stand in this Assembly was clearly one of automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens.

Sir, the White Paper has been agreed between the Singapore and the Federa tion Governments as a form of constitutional proposals. As far as we have been informed, there save been no other types of merger proposals other than the White Paper merger proposals. As far as we know, no other types of merger proposals have been discussed between the two Governments.

We want to ask the Government, "Has the Federation Government said that Singapore can choose any type of merger it wants?" We hope the Government will give an answer. Sir, why does the Government want to dishonour its pledge which it has given in speeches by the Prime Minister in July and August 1961, and in a letter sent to Opposition Parties by the Deputy Prime Minister? We feel that the Government has changed its mind, because in the early stages of the talks with the Federation, the P.A.P. Government was confident that its proposals could be acceptable to the majority of the people. This confidence was based on the premise that the people will swallow the bait of the so-called autonomy in education and labour. Therefore, the Government committed itself not only to a referendum but also to a straightforward question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. However, later, the situation developed rapidly. The people did not swallow the bait but instead asked for automatic conversion. Therefore, the Government was having second thoughts when the Referendum Bill came up for Second Reading. The people had known, and the Government had known itself that it will lose in a straightforward and honest referendum. However, the Government after having committed itself to a referendum must find a way out. This was found by the skilful and artful manipulation of putting a second alternative which will be worse than the original proposal. Faced with two bad alternatives the voters will have to abstain.

Sir, there is nothing now which this Government is not prepared to do, lt is already politically bankrupt, and it makes no difference whether one is bankrupt once or bankrupt ten times. The Government can argue that it has not gone against its pledge. It can say, as it had said in the Radio forum, "You still can reject the White Paper by voting for the second alternative, and if you cannot make up your mind, don't worry, the Government will do it for you." As I said just now, it Churchill wants to be politically dishonest, he can always say, "If you don't want me to be the Prime Minister for another few years, then you can vote Chamberlain in." Mr Speaker, Sir, this is all twisted logic and dialectics.

Sir, we do not feel that we should waste the time any more of this House. We have gone through and made countless arguments in debates and forums on this extremely important issue. Both the Government and Opposition Parties have more or less exhausted all the arguments and I am convinced that nothing will change the Government stand. However, it is important for us to know which side of the arguments has been more convincing and acceptable to the people. The best way, Sit, -is to decide in a by-election. I will resign from the seat of Hong Lim if Government gives us two undertakings; one, not to force through the Referendum Bill in its present form until the verdict of the people is obtained: two, not to delay or to postpone the by-election sine die but to have polling day on or before 31st of July, 1962. Mr, speaker, Sir, I will not try to embarrass the Front Benches of the Government by challenging them to resign one seat.

Sir, we will fight on two simple issues - clause 5 and clause 29; that is the question to be put and the blank votes. If the Government wins, I say that the people agree with the Government's arguments but if the Government loses, then the Government should accept the Opposition stand. Sir, there are no personal feelings or rancour in this offer. I am not acting without due consideration and without realising my responsi bilities as an Assemblyman of this House. However, on clause 5 hinges the fate and the destiny of our political and constitutional future and, therefore, it is important that the people must give their verdict before we press on. Mr Speaker, Sir, the destiny of the country is at stake and it all hinges on clause 5 and clause 29. I ask the Government, why not let the free and true will of the people he the judge of the undemocratic clauses in the Referendum Bill.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, one outstanding feature of today's debate is that after the Opposition has put up so many meritorious arguments to back up their stand on this amendment, the Government has said nothing and made no reply whatsoever to these various arguments. All we have heard from the Government is a heap of abuse and a lot of frivolous talk about the Opposition.

The Deputy Prime Minister who spoke yesterday spoke in the most lighthearted vein. The Minister for Finance who spoke today spoke with his usual cheekiness, heaping insults and sometimes talking nonsense.

Sir, I shall not belabour this House by repeating the various valid, meritorious and sensible arguments to people who have schizoid tendencies and who are unable to see arguments and to listen to them, but who have already made up their minds that they are right and everybody else is wrong. The schizoid tendency of certain people in Government is all too well-known.

The Chairman: Order. May I have that word again? I do not know whether it is parliamentary or unparliamentary?

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: 'Schizoid', Mr Speaker, Sir - S-c-h-i-z-o-i-d. I am afraid it is a medical term, describing certain mental illness in which the patient is unable to listen to reason.

Mr Byrne: Just like the case of the Member for Anson.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: More like the Minister for Law.

The Chairman: Order. Probably it is more like most Members of this Assembly, including the Speaker. I do not know.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said throughout this debate, only two Front Benches have spoken, and neither one of them has seen fit to answer the arguments put up by the Opposition. Dr Goh Keng Swee -

The Chairman: Order. The Minister for Finance.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just paying heed and attention to a circular which, I believe, was circulated by the Clerk.

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the Member is suffering from schizoid. I just called the Member up for calling a Member of this House by his name, instead of saying the Minister for Finance.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I might refer you to the circular which I find some difficulty in understanding. Part II of your circular says that in Committee of the whole Assembly and in Select Committees, the Speaker is to be referred to as Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speaker is to be referred to by name, i.e., "Mr Mammen", and any other Member by name, i.e., "Mr . . . ".

The Chairman: I think the Member is probably suffering from schizoid. If he looks at the heading of that letter it is "Form of addressing the Chair," and any other Member might possibly be in this Chair. If the Deputy Speaker happens to be away, this Assembly elects a Member to the Chair.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech just now spent more than half of the time heaping abuse and the other half of the time talking of things hypo thetical and unrelated to the issues that we are faced with today.

According to the Minister of Finance, he says that the amendment was put in for two purposes. The first is that the Opposition hopes that by this amendment to limit or restrict the Government on its questions in the referendum, and thereby to frustrate the P.A.P. Command Paper No. 33 type of merger. Secondly, he says that even if this amendment was accepted and approved by this House, the Government would still be able to rig a referendum because he quoted that under the new circumstances - the circumstances in which the amendment applies - it would be possible for the Government to pose a question thus: "Do you prefer complete merger or Command Paper No. 33 P.A.P. type of merger?"

7.52 p.m.

[Mr Deputy SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Surely, Sir, this kind of attitude reflects only the machiavellian machina tions behind the brain of the Minister for Finance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we all understand that a referendum is a procedure for the ascertainment of the views of the people - the electorate - on matters of national importance. Now, we see very clearly that, insofar as the P.A.P. is concerned, a referendum is not for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the people but to sustain them in office and for that they are even prepared to go to the extent of spending $400,000 on a referendum just for the purpose of having one over the electorate by posing a question in which the electorate has Hobson's choice. That was the Minister for Finance. He thought he was clever, but I think that is more machiavellian machination than cleverness, that to have one over the people for the purpose of sustaining one's own political longevity is certainly not clever. It is either abusing or cheating. He then went on to quote at length the words of the Member for Anson. He said that the Opposition stand was that we were prepared to accept complete merger and in his usual machiavellian and cunning way he distorts complete merger as something akin to the Malacca or Penang type of merger.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think our stand on the matter has been very clearly put up by the Member for Anson who has gone to great lengths to quote the full part of our stand, that is, insofar as we are concerned, complete merger can mean only one thing - the genuine reunification of the territories and the people resulting in automatic conversion in citizenship and in Singapore getting proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. The Minister for Finance keeps on harping on his theme that we can get only what the other eleven States got. But the Prime Minister himself at the Radio Forum, during one of the moments when he thought he was clever, stated that the various States of the Federation of Malaya got into the Federation at different levels. For instance, he said that Pahang got in on better terms than Johore and Johore got in on better terms than Penang or Malacca. And all this business of getting in on different terms or better terms took place before Merdeka Day. The proper provision of the Federation Constitution that should apply would be the provision for these various States to get in before Merdeka. But, Sir, we are not now near Merdeka Day. We are, in fact, more than five years away from Merdeka Day, and therefore any new State that should get into the Federation of Malaya must get in under the provisions of the section of the Constitution which provides for the admission of new States, that particular section in the Federal Constitution that permits negotiations to be made between the various parties on the terms of merger. We are not asking very much, Sir. We are asking only for the safe guarding of the democratic and political rights of the people of Singapore who have already acquired them. There is no reason why they should be lost or given up; not even for saving the P.A.P.

There is really no merit in the arguments put up by the Minister for Finance. If the Minister for Finance is sincere, let him put up the stand of the Barisan in the referendum. Let him not just put up something which he has not even discussed, nor a White Paper produced, nor a full debate taken place in this House, if he is really going to be sincere about giving the people a choice, and not Hobson's choice, it is for him to debate the Barisan stand and the Barisan merger in this House fully, so that in the process of that debate the people of Singapore will understand the implications of the Barisan stand, and subsequently will be persuaded by the Barisan Sosialis that the Barisan Sosialis stand is the correct stand and then they will vote for it.

The Deputy Prime Minister in his speech yesterday also did not touch upon the various arguments put forward by the Opposition. He only harped on one point - that the Referendum Bill is a general Referendum Bill and therefore it is ridiculous to restrict the Government to one question. First I will deal with this aspect of his argument. It is my contention, Sir, that a referendum is only held when there is a matter of national importance. Only a feebleminded Cabinet would actually hold a referendum at the cost of $400,000 of public money simply for the ascertainment of whether one should smoke a cigarette or a pipe. If the P.A.P. Government did that, it would be an indication, not only of the P.A.P. leadership's political bankruptcy, but also of its feeble-mindedness and senility, a sure indication that it is better off in the grave.

Mr Mammen, the Deputy Prime Minister, in trying to justify himself that the Assembly should not limit or restrict the Government in the posing of questions in the referendum, spoke lightly and in a light vein, and quoted, for example, that if we were all thirsty - and he suddenly became kindhearted and offered us a drink - what drink would we have? Granted if the bona fides of the Deputy Prime Minister were good, if he had offered me that drink in his private and personal capacity, I would certainly accept it from him. But, Sir, that premise cannot hold for the P.A.P. The bona fides of the P.A.P. are no good. The intention of the P.A.P. is no good. How can the people accept a drink from a Government whom they know will most certainly serve them poison? Even if they are thirsty, it is better to die of thirst, because it takes longer to die of thirst, and in the period of dying, rain might always come, than to die by poison, when one goes off like a light. And that is what the P.A.P. leadership has in mind for the people of Singapore.

I would suggest, Sir, even if the P.A.P. insists upon calling this Bill, the Singapore National Referendum Bill, a general Bill, and to make provisions so that the Bill becomes not unnecessarily restrictive, it should still allow the voters a choice. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister was good and honest in his intentions, when he offered Coca Cola, or Pepsi Cola or Green Spot - Mr Mammen, I am just quoting these various trade names out of convenience. I by no means indicate that I own any shares in them. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister had good intentions to offer thirsty people drinks like that, surely he should have the same good intentions to allow people to say "no". People may be allergic to Coca cola, people may be allergic to Pepsi Cola, and if the range of drinks that is offered is unlimited, then, perhaps, one can insist on a definite "yes". But the P.A.P.'s offer is limited. It is limited down to two choices - the devil and the deep sea. Under those circumstances clause 29, which permits blank votes and uncertain votes to be in favour of the Government, will surely bring in a neat profit for the Government - a big crop of abstaining votes, because no man would choose the devil or the deep sea, when the alternative to live in prosperity and happiness is there.

Since none of the other Ministers have spoken yet, it is not possible for me to remark on their exceptional performances in this House. But I notice, when the Member for Thomson was speaking earlier, the Minister for Health and Law interrupted to say that when he advised the people of Singapore not to go to the poll in order to show disgust for the P.A.P., it was something legal. Perhaps it may be considered legal in so far as income tax avoidance is legal and income tax evasion is illegal. But then the Minister for Heath and Law had much deeper implications when he gave that advice. I will only refer to this in passing, Sir. Clause 21 subclause (8) provides that anybody who has failed to vote and who, under subclause (7) is unable to give satisfactory reason for his failure to go to the poll will have his name struck off the list and his name will only reappear in the revised version of the electoral roll. I know what the Minister for Health and Law is thinking about. He is thinking that should the Barisan Sosialis advise the people to do such a thing, in one fell stroke he would be able to get the Barisan supporters and perhaps the Barisan candidates off the electoral roll and refuse to revise the electoral roll, as we have seen in Hong Lim and then subsequently having an election with the Barisan Sosialis members and supporters on the electoral roil. The Minister for Health and Law sometimes exhibits shrewdness. Perhaps it may not be shrewdness really on his part. Perhaps he was sincere when he cracked the joke. Perhaps he has not thought about this matter that the Barisan Sosialis can be fixed legally in a way like this. Now I think he understands. And now he knows -

Mr Byrne: What a clever man!

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: - that these things can be done. He knows also that the Barisan will not fall into that trap.

Mr Chairman, Sir, in so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are quite prepared to accept the Government's posing of two questions in the referendum, provided the first question reflects the Government's merger proposals and the second question reflects the Barisan Sosialis' and the Workers' Party's merger proposals, which have been quoted so often that it is unnecessary for me to quote them in full. The essence of our stand is that all our citizens must have their citizenship automatically converted and that there must be proportional representation in Parliament.

If the Government is prepared to accept that, we are prepared to go to the masses and to persuade them that our stand is the correct stand and that, having accepted that, we would want to have a general election so that the people can choose afresh a new Party to represent them.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill before the House is the National Referendum Bill which has been presented to the House for the purpose of a referendum on merger. Naturally, if it is a Bill for a number of referenda, the provisions should, as far as possible, be for general application, and I therefore rise to oppose the amendment proposed by the Members for Anson, Queenstown and Hong Lim whereby they propose the insertion of a new paragraph to clause 5 of the Bill to limit the question that is to be put to electors in the referendum to just one single question so that the answers may be just a yes or a no.

Now, Sir, we concede that the Opposition Members as represented by the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the United People's Party, have quoted precedents of referenda held in various countries where there was just one question that was put to the people. But that does not necessarily imply that every referendum should be with one single question. We have, in fact, on the Government side quoted good precedents of countries where referenda have been held in which more than one question was put to the electorate in the case of New Zealand and more especially in the case of Newfoundland and the Cameroons, the last of which was, in fact, conducted by an impartial world organisation - the United Nations. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has very ably drawn the attention of this House to the fact that in connection with the proposed referendum which we shall taco in Singapore there are two cases: that is, the referenda held in Newfoundland and in the Cameroons, in these two eases, the issues were similar to the issue which we face - that of merger of one country with another. Therefore, Sir, it is possible to pose alternative questions for: the people to decide which they would prefer - A or B, or even C or D. There is no necessity for the Government to tie its hands. In case the issue that is to be decided at the referendum requires one question, so shall it be posed. But where it may be necessary to put more than one question, then it is up to the Government to put two or more questions to the electorate.

Now, Sir, the last Member who spoke in this House, the Member for Nee Soon, argued against himself. The amendment wants to limit the referendum to just one question. What the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the United People's Party object to is the possibility of the Government posing more than one question and the second question would put them in a spot. Before the Member for Nee Soon sat down, he said the Barisan Sosialis would be quite happy to have more than one question, provided the second question would be framed in accord ance with their wishes. So the amendment before this House was put forward because they were afraid that the Government would put the second alternative to the people where merger is concerned. Their case for one question therefore falls flat. They will be quite happy to have the second question put in the referendum, but it should be framed in accordance with their wishes. Now that the Government will not do.

8.15 p.m.

Perhaps, the statements made by the Workers' Party as represented by the Member for Anson, the statements made by the Member for Queenstown as the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis and again by the Member for Thomson - when they mentioned the two unacceptable alternatives that would be put to the people - revealed the true character of this amendment. All this while, Sir, the discussion has centred on the fact that when this Referendum Bill is passed, the first referendum to be held in Singapore would be on merger. The first question would be in respect of the motion on the White Paper passed by this Assembly nem. con. with Members of the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party not having the courage to vote against the motion and to vote against merger, but by taking the coward's way out, by walking out of the Chamber. The White Paper on merger, Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961, will be placed before the electorate. Assuming that these proposals are unacceptable to the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the United People's Party, the next question which we want to put would be that of complete merger, unconditional merger, merger where Singapore would be a member of the Federation on equal terms, like any one of the other 11 States - no more and no less - with no autonomy for education and labour, and where one half of Singapore citizens would be disfranchised because they were not born in Singapore and they would therefore have to reapply before they can hope to be registered as citizens, if they qualify.

Now, however much the Barisan Sosialis may say till they are blue in the face, that was what they wanted and although for this amendment, the Barisan Sosialis have the Workers' Party on the left and the United People's Party on the right, both their representatives at the radio forum told the Barisan Sosialis where the fatal mistake was and that it should have been withdrawn. But no, the P.A.P. will put that to the people, and that is what the Barisan Sosialis stood for, till they realised the catastrophic mistake made. That is why they fear question No. 2. We shall not change question No. 2 to be of the type that the Barisan Sosialis would like to have worded in the referendum paper.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): You want to twist.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: We do not twist, but we put you on the spot because we want you to stand by what you have said. And this is where it is most revealing - the Member for Queenstown, before he sat down yesterday, said, "the two questions that would be posed to the people" (mind you, the people) should really read as "the two questions that would be posed would amount to death and hanging not to the people or to anyone but to the Barisan Sosialis." The Member for Nee Soon used another terminology "to choose between the devil and the deep sea". Yes, the White Paper on merger would be the "death and the devil" for the Barisan Sosialis. The question on complete merger would be hanging and the deep sea for the Barisan Sosialis and not for the people and the citizens of Singapore. So the Barisan Sosialis have revealed their true nature - how the White Paper on merger would mean death and the devil to the Barisan Sosialis, and how the question for a complete merger, when put in the referendum paper, would be the hanging of the Barisan Sosialis and the deep blue sea for them to drown in.

Therefore, Sir, I say that the amendment proposed holds no water; that, in fact, they have argued against themselves, and that the purpose of the amendment is a mischievous one in order that the merger issue will be confused. We only say that the true stand of the Barisan Sosialis has always been "not merger". All they want is a continuation of colonial rule under the British with internal self-government. And if the Member for Choa Chu Kang does not know what that means, it means being colonial subjects, proud to be under the British but ashamed to be independent and free Malayans. But they loudly claim toat they accept merger in principle, Malaysia in principle, everything in principle. But behind the facade, all that they are interested in is to destroy the people and the country. It is useless for the Barisan Sosialis to pretend that they stand for merger and reunification, when their heartland is in Indonesia. The Member for Thomson opened his big wide mouth and has been rapped. Supporters of the Barisan Sosialis are now quivering. We hear very little about Indonesia these days, and the inspiration that is not producing results for the Barisan Sosialis.

Sir, as my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has said, the day of reckoning is close, and we shall put to the people the issues that are clear before them, and it is a foregone conclusion that the people will know what is good for them, instead of listening to a tirade of lies, distortions and perfidy committed in the name of parliamentary democracy. And all that the Barisan Sosialis stand for is just the opposite of democracy.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr S. Ramaswamy): Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment before the House. Before I speak on the amendment, I wish to say a few words in reply to the inference which the Member for Pasir Panjang drew yesterday. Let me quote from the unrevised verbatim report of yesterday's proceedings [Hansard Vol. 18, No. 1]:

'They have clearly shown -'

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): I beg your pardon. Which page is that?

Mr Ramaswamy: At page 48, 4th line of the Member's speech [col. 67]:

'They have clearly shown that if this House does not abide by the practice of parliamentary democracy, then it would mean the death of parliamentary democracy. From the debate up to now, we have only heard one of the Government Members - only one.'

What is the inference, Sir, that all the Government Backbenchers had kept quiet and did not speak in this House?

The amendment we were debating yesterday was more of a constitutional nature, and a lot of legal problems were involved. We heard what eminent lawyers in this House had to say about the amendment. Even well-known lawyers who spoke on the amendment appeared to know less than the Member for Cairnhill who is a layman. In that debate we naturally did not want to poke our noses in and utter nonsense and repetitions, as the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen did. As the Speaker himself said yesterday, parliamentary democracy does not mean that each and every Member of this House must speak and particularly repeat the same argument over and over again to all the Members of this House and bore and waste the time of the House. That is for the allegation from the Member for Pasir Panjang.

Sir, to come to the present amendment. As the Member for Anson has said, in moving the amendment, there are three points. One is: not more than one question should be asked -

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Deputy Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Mammen): I suspend this sitting until half-past nine.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 5-(contd.)

The Chairman: We are on amendment (ii) to clause 5; that is, an amendment to add a new sub-clause (3) as appears in the Order Paper Supplement.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Ramaswamy: Mr Chairman, just now I was saying that the amendment dealt with three points. The first point is that not more than one question should be asked. Second, not more than one issue should be put to the electorate. Third, the electorate should be required to say "Yes" or "No" to the question.

On the first point, Sir, it has been said by Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson that the only internationally accepted method of ascertaining the views of the people is to ask only one question. They quoted examples from the Jamaican referendum, the Australian referendum and the referenda held in Switzerland, France and so on.

This was what the Member for Anson said on the 8th May in the Select Committee, [Official Report No. 3, col. 113]:

'Sir, in so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no country that I know of which does not, in fact, require that the issues in a referendum should be formed in a single question containing a single issue requiring an affirmative yes or no.'

In the Select Committee, the Minister for Health and Law quoted instances where more than one question had been asked. For the record, I would like to quote the Licensing (Amendment) Act of 1948 of New Zealand, under which the referendum was held on the question of the hours for the sale of liquor. That was sometime in 1949. In that referendum, about four or five questions were asked. There are a few more instances, but to the knowledge of the Select Committee, these instances may be and actually had been considered to be on subjects of lesser importance. But let us take the case of Newfoundland where they had a similar problem such as ours, that is, a constitutional problem. This precedent is more appropriate for our purpose. There were three questions which were posed for that Referendum:

(1) Do we wish to continue as we were in a Colony?

(2) Do we wish the Colonial Government to be restored?

(3) Do you wish to join the Canadian Confederation?

Sir, there is one more instance of a referendum held in the French Cameroons. There were two ballot boxes - one box for those who wish to join Algiers and the other box for those who wish to join the French Cameroons. There was no provision for saying "No" to any of these proposals. The only thing the electorate could have done was not to have gone to the polls.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we had discussed in the Select Committee a possible question in a referendum about the Malay language becoming the official language. In fact, there will be no one who will oppose the national language becoming the official language. But there may be different views as to when to make Malay the official language. There may be some people who will hold the view that we should make Malay the official language within five years. Some other people may say within 7 years, yet some others may say within 10 years. If we have different opinions as to when to make Malay the official language, how are we going to ascertain the views of the people, if we are going to pose only one question? That is the difficulty, Sir.

You will remember, Sir, that this question was put to the witnesses in the Select Committee. When it was put to the P.M.I.P. representatives they said:

'It was you who posed the -'

The Chairman: May I have the page?

Mr Ramaswamy: It is at col. 28, C14, dated 10th April, 1962 [L.A. 7 of 1962]. It was you, Mr Speaker, Sir, who elaborated on the question put by the Member for Anson or by the Minister. In reply to that question, they said:

'As I know, Sir, the question will have to be debated at great length in the Legislative Assembly. And the question will be so framed that the answer to the question will have to be either "Yes" or "No".'

Let us assume that the Legislative Assembly arrived at a decision that it should be five years. Then this decision is put to the electorate who are asked to state whether they support it. Will we get the actual views of the people, and if we get an answer 'no', does it mean that the people do not want to make Malay the official language?

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

Mr Ramaswamy resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. Suppose the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and others have indicated that this Bill is specifically for a referendum on merger, would the Member care to confine himself to the topical issue of merger and give us the examples which would be pertinent?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

The Chairman: Point of order, yes.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: May I suggest that the Member for Anson grossly distorted what has been said by the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr Byrne: I shall show him -

The Chairman: Order. I suppose it is the late hour that is making people excited. The Member for Anson is entitled to his opinion. He might be wrong. It is up to the Member -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He is usually wrong.

The Chairman: Order. The Assembly is getting a bit disorderly. I am sure either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Law can indicate how he has gone wrong.

Mr Ramaswamy: Whatever examples the Member for Anson might have, it does not preclude me from quoting whatever examples I deem fit, Sir, I do not want to repeat the arguments over and over again. Sir, I only wish to touch on the point that the electorate should be required to answer the question with a simple yes or no.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our view is this. You will see the point that if there is going to be only one question, there must be art affirmative yes or no to that question. There are precedents which have been quoted by the Opposition Members but where there are two or more questions posed to the electorate, as in the case of Newfoundland and the Cameroons, it is essential that there should be only one affirmative reply. We have to get the electors to indicate their choice. If there are three questions, they can strike out two and there is only one answer. If there are five or more questions, or six questions, they can leave one question and strike out all the others. All the precedents also establish this point. Then how can the Opposition, that is the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson, accuse us that we are undemocratic?

Mr David Marshall: And the U.P.P. And the S.P.A.

Mr Byrne: And the Lib-Socs.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr Ramaswamy: There is also another aspect of the argument. If two or more questions are posed, you are given a choice to say no to any question. As the Member for Anson has asked me to refer to the merger problem, we will take the merger referendum. We pose both the proposals - the White Paper proposals and the proposal of complete merger. If you do not like the White Paper proposals, you can say no and strike it out and vote for the complete merger. If you do not like complete merger, say no to the complete merger and accept the White Paper proposals. I would say in the current merger referendum what is going to be done is not the ascertainment of principle on merger because nobody has said he does not want merger. Nobody has opposed merger. Everybody has said that he accepts the principle of merger. Then the referendum is going to be on the ascertainment of the mode and manner or, in other words, the details of merger. Therefore, as we have to ascertain the views of the people on the mode and manner of, the reunification of both territories, we have no other alternative than to pose more than one question to the electorate and it is for the electorate to choose between the alternatives put before them. If they do not like one of the proposals, as I have said, they can strike it out and vote for the other one.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few moments ago two Ministers from the Government side rose to speak against the amendment moved by this side of the House. After listening to the Minister for Education. I have the feeling that whatever he has said does not merit any reply because what he has said can be described by one proverb - he was just picking up what was said by others.

The Minister for Finance seems to represent the Government when he made an important speech on the amendment we moved. However, his arguments are very strange, and I cannot in any way agree with any one of them. Now, I want to lock from several angles at the inaccurate and wrong arguments put forward by the Minister for Finance in relation to the amendment that has been moved. In the first place, our contention to have only one question during the referendum had been very clearly explained by the Member for Anson with regard to its legal aspect. He quoted examples of referenda held in various Countries. Our Party Chairman has also pointed out many points and given several examples to show that the National Referendum Bill put forward by the Government is actually intended for the matter relating to merger between Singapore and Malaya. A few moments ago the Member for Hong Lim pointed out very clearly and correctly certain examples and legal points and arguments to show that if the National Referendum does not pose one question only, but instead poses several questions, then there will be the possibility that the Government will take advantage of the multiple questions to manipulate the referendum, so that it will not achieve the objectives of finding out the actual views of the electorate as to whether or not they agree with the policy of the Government.

There is one point that I wish to stress, and that is our contention that we should have only one question. This contention is being made now because the Government has all along been trying to distort the stand of the Opposition on the matter of merger. From the speech of the Minister for Finance, we come to know that the Government has not much confidence in its own White Paper merger. No matter how much publicity the Government gives and how much propaganda work it carries out regarding its form of merger, or however much it says about the merger, or however well it speaks of its merger proposals as being able to bring an independent status, the status of Federal national, Malaysian passports, and autonomy in Education and Labour for the people of Singapore, I would like to point out that, if there are actually so many good points about its proposals, how is it that it does not have the guts and courage to frame a simple question on this matter and put it to the people for their decision? The Minister for Finance talks about posing the question of complete merger as another alternative for the decision of the people. This goes to show that the P.A.P. know full well that their own constitutional arrangements are unacceptable to anybody and, therefore, they want to find a way out from their present predicament, and that is why the Minister for Finance has brought up the matter regarding the posing of complete merger as a question for the decision of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this point, I must reiterate and stress again and again that we are against the second alternative to be put to the people for a decision, because in the first place, the posing of the so-called second alternative is not in keeping with the principle. All along we have been pointing out that the matter of merger is not a question of party struggle. It is not a matter of controversy between two Parties or any number of Parties. We have also pointed out that this question of merger should not be one which should be fought between the P.A.P. and the Barisan or any other Party. The main point is: are the constitutional proposals in keeping with the interests of all the people of Singapore? That is the crux of the whole matter.

If the Government wish to pose to the people the stand and contention of the Barisan Sosialis, then the P.A.P. are treating the merger issue as a party issue. It is wrong in principle. If we were in the Government dealing with the merger matter, we would not be afraid to put our stand and contention to the people for their endorsement or rejection. That is a very important principle. The Government does not have the courage to put to the people its own proposal and find out from them whether they want it or not. It would be wrong for the Government to put several questions to confuse the people. We are very much against this behaviour.

The Minister for Finance has said that since the Barisan Sosialis want complete merger the question of complete merger could be posed to the people for their decision. There is nothing wrong about it, he says. What I would like to emphasise here regarding this point is that the matter regarding complete merger, as put forward by the Minister for Finance, is entirely different from the complete merger we have in our own minds. He tries to explain that the complete merger we have in mind will mean that some 324,000 citizens in Singapore will lose their citizenship rights after complete merger. He explains that our contention for compete merger will mean that we are prepared to accept the education and labour policies of the Federation Government. Such a distortion of the stand of the Barisan Sosialis is an example of the behaviour of the P.A.P. which is well-known to everybody. According to our definition, I would like to read a few passages from an article of the Barisan Sosialis regarding the meaning of complete merger.

The Chairman: Order. The Member should not go into too much detail because the Member for Queenstown in fact has given notice of a motion alleging that the stand of the Opposition in so far as the merger problem is concerned has been distorted. Therefore, I have allowed passing reference to these matters, but not a detailed debate on them.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the quotation I am going to make here is taken from a speech which has not been made use of by the Chairman of our Party. This passage will show to the people clearly that the complete merger we are advocating does not mean that we accept the labour and education policies of the Federation Government. This is not a new line. This article was published on the 28th of August, 1961, in a booklet containing a statement on merger. Apart from dealing with the question of citizenship and proportionate representation we point out in this article, as a matter of fact, that the present Right-wing Government in the Federation has many policies which are unacceptable to us. This Government has very close relationship and association with foreign capitalists and it has signed an agreement with the British Government whereby our countries will have bases for the British military forces. This agreement in foreign affairs will try to alienate us from the other Afro-Asian countries.

The Chairman: Order. I cannot see for the life of me how this is relevant to what we are debating. I have indicated that in passing there can be denials of the interpretation of what the merger ideas of the Barisan Sosialis are, and I have also indicated that the Member will have an opportunity, when the right time comes - when his own Party's motion is put before the House - to bring in all these details. Let us come back to the amendment.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, if the Minister for Finance has not brought out his arguments regarding the stand of the Barisan Sosialis and suggest that our stand will be put as an alternative, then I will agree that the quotation I am making will be unnecessary, but since the Minister for Finance himself has said that he would put to the people our complete merger stand which he has tried to distort, then I would like to have your permission to take about two minutes to clear up this point regarding the definition of our complete merger concept. I would like you to give me some time to read another two sentences and then you will know the whole position and realise how the P.A.P. has distorted our stand.

Our statement points out:

'In the meantime, the Federation Government is carrying out a wrong education policy. In spite of this, because of our stand on merger, we are prepared to accept and face difficulties. We will join hands with the Socialists of the Federation to establish a strong alliance of workers, intellectuals and farmers and defeat all reactionary forces in the general election.'

Mr Chairman, from this quotation we can see that when we advocate complete merger it does not mean that we will accept every policy of the Federation Government, it does riot mean that we will give up the struggle against the un reasonable policies of the Federation Government. But what is the stand of the P.A.P.?

I would like to point out specially that the Government has not only tried to distort our views on this point in various ways but it has also tried to whip up communal feelings to bring fear into the people so that they would not think of having a genuine merger.

We are prepared to allow the Government to bring their own merger proposals before the people for a decision. The P.A.P. are against their own words when they say they wish to have a reunification of Singapore and Malaya and to have a socialist nation. The P.A.P. have gone against their words and the principles for which they stand for. They have even tried to stress the communal and racial discrimination.

Since you do not read the Chinese newspapers, I would like to make a quotation from a certain Chinese newspaper to acquaint you of a certain fact. This fact is in regard to merger. The P.A.P. are trying to frighten the people in such a way that they would be afraid to have complete merger in the true sense. The Government Press releases are usually published in the Malay Press, the Chinese Press and the English Press. But we have discovered that recently certain statements on merger issued by the Political Bureau of the P.A.P. are only published in the Chinese newspapers. They are not published in the papers of other languages.

I will quote a passage which is not very long. It is taken from a statement published in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 24th June, 1962. The statement says:

'We want to ask the Barisan Sosialis to answer openly and publicly as to whether they accept the policies regarding giving special privileges to the Malays in Singapore as what the Federation of Malaya is doing.'

They also asked us in this statement whether we are prepared to accept the position where Chinese students should answer in public examinations in English or Malay. They also asked us whether we are prepared to accept the ratio of 4 to 1 in the recruitment to the Civil Service.

Mr Chairman, the Government has all along tried to distort our stand on merger. At the same time it has also tried to whip up communal feelings. So we say that if the Government is allowed to pose the complete merger question in the national referendum, it will be a very unfair way of doing things.

Apart from the distortion and threat of the Government, we in the Opposition have also been subjected to certain restrictions in our propaganda work.

Mr Chairman, let me tell you that whenever the Barisan Sosialis apply for permission to hold a mass rally we are always confronted with many unreasonable provisions and regulations.

The Chairman: Where the Opposition are asking for the insertion of a clause saying there should be one question and reply in the affirmative or the negative

• all these details are completely irrelevant. It can always be mentioned at the right time and at the right moment. Let us get on with this amendment.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I find it necessary to make you understand that if we are given adequate freedom to explain our stand on merger to the people, then we will not be afraid to allow the Government to pose our stand to the people for their decision and judgment.

Mr Chairman, the Ministers opposite claim that they are very democratic. But I will ask your permission to tell you the restrictions we have had to face concerning our application for the holding of mass rallies. When we -

The Chairman: Order, it seems to me that the hon. Member is anticipating the motion of the Member for Queenstown, namely,

'That this House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition stand on the merger issue whereby it seeks to mislead and confuse the people in the forthcoming referendum.'

Now, that has been anticipated time and time again. I have pulled the Member up for that. He is now going on a different tack which, to me, again appears to be irrelevant to the issue. I cannot see how it is relevant to the issue.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, I do not wish to talk too much about this aspect of the matter. I am now going to talk on another aspect. The second part of our amendment says that the people when faced with the choice should have the right to say 'yes' or 'no'. We know that if the National Referendum Bill is now being condemned by the entire people of Singapore, it is because there are provisions relating to the blank and uncertain votes. I would like to point out to you. Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government allows the people to have their basic right to negate a certain issue, in other words, if the Government allows the people to say 'no', then there should not have been so many blank votes in any national referendum, and so this question of taking blank votes as votes in support of the Government will not be embodied in the provisions contained in this Bill. Then it will also be unnecessary for the Government to have a clause regarding the penalty to be imposed on those who deface ballot papers. I would like to point out that it is in this particular clause that the Government does not allow the people to say 'no'. That is why the Government finds it necessary to make certain provisions such as clause 29 regarding blank papers and the severe penalties to be imposed on people who happen to deface ballot papers. Such provisions have made this Bill a laughing stock of the whole world because it does not allow the people so say 'no'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government says that to pose two questions to the people will enable the people to make a choice, but this is not actually a choice. If you want to buy a thing and if you are faced with two things which you do not wish to buy, then you go to another shop and find something which will suit you. It is only when you have this right that you can say you have a freedom of choice - [Interruption in Mandarin]

The Chairman: The unfortunate part of it is that I cannot understand the interruption. It does not seem to be offensive, but it is a bit disorderly.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, says that the P.A.P. wants the people to make a choice between the White Paper company and the complete merger company. This example is not appropriate at all. For example, we have the Housing and Development Board which has built many flats for selection by applicants. Now, the applicants can refuse the offer of flats and the right to refuse to make a choice is actually the right to have a choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government wants to deprive the basic right of the people to say "no", then to say that such behaviour is democratic is actually improper. I would like to quote the speech made by the Prime Minister in 1955 in the Kreta Ayer Constituency. He said that this type of democracy should be given to the dog for consumption.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson in his speech before the dinner break paid me an exchange of compliments and posed to me certain questions, because he felt that there was justification in my criticism of the one-question amendment proposed by him and that he would be interested to know whether we have changed our stand. We, Sir, in this Party do not change stands now and then. We have one stand and that stand is always firm. It is firm to this extent and we would ask the Parties represented in this Assembly to always bear in mind that in a national issue of this great importance, they should sink political differences and try to find out a solution for the best interest of the people of Singapore. The Member for Upper Serangoon quite rightly said that this merger referendum should not be a question for party struggle between the P.A.P. and the Barisan and the ex-P.A.P., and it should not be right and proper that the question to be posed should only be the P.A.P. White Paper and the Barisan's proposal for merger. I would not like to say what it was, but they have denounced and denied that they have ever made such a proposition, although we, as an independent and responsible Opposition, must say that we have read in the Press, a statement issued by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis on what their stand was at the time when this merger issue was very, very hot. The Member for Anson asked whether I do not consider it right that the people should have the right to reject any proposition put forward by the Government, the right to reject Command Paper 33. I say there should be an inherent right. There should be the right to say, "I do not like Paper Command 33."

10.30 p.m.

But then let us treat this merger referendum that is tabled today calmly and soberly and not allow our minds to be poisoned by all the intrigues and distortions that have been indulged in by the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis, both of whom have graduated from the same school of the art of distortion. Let us treat this merger referendum in a manner that is befitting of men elected by the people of Singapore to represent the people of Singapore.

Now you ask me this one question. If this one question of the White Paper is posed to the people, and if they reject it, would it be voluntary or compulsory? I have this to say. I said in my speech earlier this afternoon that it would be voluntary. He knows, we know and everybody on this side knows and the people of Singapore know, except the P.A.P. who refuse to admit that such is the state, anything that the P.A.P. Government does will not be accepted by the people of Singapore. If you pose that question as one question to the people of Singapore, they will cast a "no" - an emphatic "no" - not because they do not want closer association with the Federation of Malaya but because they want to see the end of P.A.P. misrule.

The purpose of the merger referendum would be defeated to the extent that the answer given by the electorate given on that one question, one issue, referendum would not disclose whether or not the people of Singapore want merger. We know that they want merger. In fact, every Party represented in this Assembly and parties outside which hope to be represented in this Assembly have all clamoured for merger. This merger issue is not a new one. It is as old as the existence of all political Parties in Singapore - old political Parties, new political Parties and budding parties. But it has never been spelled out in all the platforms and constitutions and the objects of all the political Parties. All they say is "We want merger." Right, we want merger. Everybody wants merger. But what type of merger? in fact, what is meant by merger at that time was complete merger, a merger which will make Singapore a constituent State of the Federation of Malaya on the basis of any one of the other constituent States at present in the Federation. That was all in our minds. It was all that we prayed for, hoped for, worked for, struggled for, and fought for. Now suddenly the prospects of closer relationship have come upon us. The P.A.P. know it. The P.A.P. was responsible, in fact, for the cold shoulder of the Federation; government for the past two and a half years towards P.A.P. pleadings of merger. At that time, the Barisan Sosialis was sitting on that side too. They were there. They did plead and kept on pleading, "We want merger." Every time they said, "We want merger," the Tunku gave a tight slap, "Shut up. I will not have mercer." Now, the Tunku suddenly thought in his wisdom that perhaps he had been too harsh on Singapore; that perhaps it might be in the best interest of both territories that closer association should be achieved. Then he suggested that he could have Singapore in a closer association so long as he had external affairs, defence and security. That was what he said. He was prepared. In fact, he extended the hand of friendship to the people and the Government of Singapore. Unfortunately, the P.A.P. thought that it was a good thing to play party politics. And it came out with. "We want autonomy in education and labour," and never mind about other things. The Tunku had never said that he wanted education and labour. Why should the P.A.P. -

The Chairman: Order. Are all these details really necessary to the issue?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I am trying to explain the cause of this animosity that is being displayed by the P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis and at times by the Workers' Party. I will cut it short. I will not touch on that any more. But because the debate took place, the P.A.P. had to come with half-merger. And they thought half-merger, and we also thought - we agreed with them - that half-merger was better than no merger. That what has been offered to us - the hand of friendship - should be welcomed and that the White Paper Command 33 embodies the agreement reached. No doubt that does not give as much as we would like to have or to see. But we must be realistic. That is the best that the P.A.P. Government can achieve at the present time under the present circumstances.

So this question of merger is in the forefront. Those who are against the White Paper are for complete merger. They say that the P.A.P. has not got enough. "Therefore, we want more." They say they want merger in the way they meant merger when the Parties had that written into their objectives and written into their platforms. They want complete merger as a constituent part of the Federation of Malaya, on the same basis as any one State at present constituted in the Federation of Malaya. That is all they want.

This question of citizenship and automatic citizenship right need not have arisen and would not have arisen if there had been no -

Mr David Marshall: P.A.P.!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - no P.A.P. style of distortion and the Barisan style of distortion, so much so that citizenship, citizenship and citizenship happens to be the order of the day. It need not be so, Sir. Let us treat this merger referendum in a manner that is befitting responsible representatives of the people.

Then the P.A.P. wanted to pose questions. In fact, they let the cat out of the bag. They wanted to pose the questions in such a way that that there could be only one possible answer. Quite rightly, Members of the Opposition, and I too, were disgusted. We said that that was not an honest way and we would resist any attempt by the P.A.P. to conduct a dishonest referendum with dishonest questions.

Now the Member for Anson, says, I have explained why one question is not a wise thing, and we are going to oppose that one question. The Member for Anson asked me what alternative I had. You will remember, Sir, that in the Select Committee, when I sat down and listened to the ding-dong battle that had been going on between the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P., knowing that we could get nowhere, I thought I had found a compromise that might put an end to this bitter struggle on this one question one issue referendum. So I did suggest that if I got their permission I would like to move an amendment to ensure that there should only be one issue posed in a referendum and that there might be as many questions as the Government liked to pose under that one issue, so long as such questions required a reply in the affirmative or in the negative "yes" or "no".

You will remember, Sir, that when I put forward that suggestion to the Select Committee, there was a lot of discussion on that, and it was proved to me not only by the Government but also by Members in the Opposition too that my suggestion could not hold water, because it you'd make the referendum more complicated and it would just get us nowhere. In spite of that, I begged for leave to move the amendment. The leave was not granted.

Mr David Marshall: Was granted.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Was not granted. The official record will show that leave was not granted. My amendment was not moved. In fact, the Member for Anson, as usual, was quite excited at that proposition. He was for it, and later on he was not for it. Still later on he was against it. The official record will show, Sir.

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

Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: May I refer you to column 146 [Select Committee Official Report No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962], Sir, where he moved it? In fact, it went on to another day and he had my full support and clarification. You will find that it was put by you, Sir, at column 168 [Official Report No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962], and it was negatived.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: May I refresh the memory of the Member for Anson? At column 161, the last paragraph, he said this:

'Now, in answer to the Member for Cairn hill. My suggestion is that in matters of grave national moment, there must be precision in the questions sought. If there are alternatives to be put, then each alternative can be put in a separate referendum with the text of the proposed constitutional changes attached. They are of considerable clarity.'

So it has been proved to me that my suggestion could not be carried out because it is not clear and, therefore, I did not get leave to move the amendment. 1 agree with every Member who spoke and who said that such a propo6ecl amendment would not solve the issue. That is why I am not moving a similar amendment in this debate.

But, Sir, to come back to the main point. We are opposing this more than one question referendum because the Opposition quite rightly feel that this would allow the Government to pose questions in such a way that they can have only one answer - White Paper Command 33. Such suspicion is not groundless. It is based on utterances of Ministers as well as Political Secretaries of the Government.

10.46 p.m.

[Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Therefore, I did say here in this debate that in order to prevent such manipulation on the part of the Government, such questions must be debated in this Assembly. Whatever questions they have to pose must be debated in this Assembly and it would result in the questions being framed by this Assembly. They have given the assurance that they will allow questions to be debated in this Assembly for the decision of this Assembly before the questions are posed in a referendum.

Some speakers from the Barisan sosialis did indicate that their objection to more than one question was because of their fears that the P.A.P. Government would be up to their tricks. The Member for Nee Soon has said clearly that if the Government Wants two questions, he has no objection to it, so long as the second question posed can be the Barisan question. And yet another Barisan Member, the Member for Upper Serangoon, says that it should not he a Barisan question or a P.A.P. question. We are getting more and more confused. Even I become more confused! What is it that the Barisan wants? The Barisan question or no Barisan question? Or that it should be questions based in the best interests of the people of Singapore as stated by the Member for Upper Serangoon? I think so long as we can ensure that the questions to be posed in a merger referendum are clean, honest questions, I see no objection why more than one question cannot be posed. In fact, talking about merger, as I have said earlier, Sir, when all Parties said, "Merger, merger, we want merger," what they meant was complete merger as a constituent State in the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, why are we opposing that? To my mind, I think these questions can be said to be honest, clean, straightforward questions: "Do you want White Paper 33? That is a straightforward question.

Mr David Marshall: Yes or no?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Do you want Cmd. Paper 33?

Mr David Marshall: Yes or no?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Do you want complete merger -

Mr David Marshall: Yes or no?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: as a constituent State of the Federation in the same manner as any one of the States at present in the Federation? Or, with the Cobbold Report now out, but still not yet made public, all right, another question could be posed. "Do you want Singapore to enter the Federation of Malaysia on the same terms, on terms not less favourable than those of any of the Borneo territories?" There could even be three questions and these could be honest questions that want an answer from the electorate.

Now, coming to a yes or no. If you were to pose two questions or three questions like that (the three questions that I have thought out), they would. in our view, be fair and to the point. If you were to ask yes or no, yes or no, yes or no, it can be three yeses and three noes and then we will get nowhere. The choice is there. The political Parties that are for complete merger will speak at referendum meetings telling the people that they should vote for com plete merger. Those of us who axe committed to the White Paper (the 33 of us here) will have to come out and try to sell the idea to the people of Singapore. There may be some, and I am afraid there have been some, who may ask: why is it we are not entering on the same terms as North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei? They could speak strongly at referendum meetings on why Singapore should enter the Federation of Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those of Borneo, Sarawak or Brunei. All political Parties having different ideas of merger can speak and preach to the people to their hearts' content and win the minds of the people. Therefore, the choice is there for the people of Singapore. Do you want half merger? Do you want full merger? Do you want merger like Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei? What they will be asked then is to give their choice. What do they want? In that way the referendum will be able to elicit from the electorate of Singapore the wishes of the majority of the electorate of Singapore.

In regard to the assurance given by the Minister that the questions will be debated in this Assembly before posing them in a merger referendum, I have said that the proper place to write that into the law is in clause 13. The Government says that this is a general referendum Bill, which is for general application and not for merger. If it is a general Bill, I am of the view that in a general Referendum Bill, of course, the Government should have the right to pose the questions. But on a merger referendum, a matter that means life and death to the people of Singapore, a matter on which all political Parties have taken firm stands one way or the other, it is quite right that the questions to be posed should be debated in this Assembly. For all we know it might take three months before a decision could be taken. But it is worth it. It should be debated in this Assembly before it is presented to the electorate for their verdict. There have been criticisms too by other Members of the Opposition that this is a general Referendum Bill to be passed. But as we all know and if we are honest with ourselves, this Bill is introduced just to meet the merger referendum. Therefore. I would suggest to the Government that they should give an assurance here to this House - and if that assurance is given, it might take the heat off a number of other proposed amendments here - that as soon as the merger referendum has been completed, this general Referendum Bill shall be repealed. That will take the heat off, otherwise there will be so many amendments put in just to safeguard the position that a general Bill on referendum should be of a character that should be acceptable to all concerned.

I would like to repeat that if the Government thinks of posing more than one question, perhaps, in our view, the three honest questions could be: "Do you want White Paper 33?" "Complete merger on the same basis as that of the other States that have joined the Federation?" "Or entering the Federation of Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those of any one of the Borneo territories?"

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen, before the Member sits down, may I rise on a point of elucidation?

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Cairnhill has not finished. He has not even taken his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I beg your pardon.

The Chairman: So, before that, if the Member for Anson jumps on the wagon, then the Chairman will be in a very difficult position. So will the Member please wait and see whether the Member for Cairnhill has finished or not, and then the Chairman will notice him and call him.

Mr David Marshall: Forgive me. Mr Mammen, I rose on a point of elucidation -

The Chairman: If the Member gives way.

Mr David Marshall: Yes. I said on a point of elucidation before the Member sits down.

The Chairman: If the Member gives way.

Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged, Mr Mammen. I would ask if the Member has directed his mind to the procedures adopted in Switzerland and Australia where, if there is more than one question, each question is answered with a yes or no. There are instructions that all the questions can be answered with a no, but only one question may be answered with a yes. Would that not meet the situation he has in mind Where there are three questions, so that the people can have the choice of rejecting all, but they can only accept one?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Mammen, Sir, the Member for Anson says you can ask three questions: you can, put two noes and say yes to one. Later on, he says you can say three noes. I really do not know what he wants. To make my stand clear, if you pose 3, 4 or 5 honest questions, free from party political content, questions framed in the best interests of the people of Singapore, then it is but right that we should seek the views of the people of Singapore as to which one they like. What will be needed, as the easier and less confusing way, would be to put a cross against the question you like in the same way as you put .a cross against the candidate to whom the voter wants to give his vote.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, only a while ago the Minister for Finance - the Deputy Speaker was not here when the Minister for Finance made his speech - said that today's sitting seemed to be irksome. I do not know if he meant that the sitting will be up to midnight, so that everybody will not sleep well when he goes home. But here I would like to tell him that the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the Minister for Finance and on the P.A.P. Government because they utilise this Assembly to play about with their phoney parliamentary democracy. We, in the Opposition, who are faced with such .a situation, have no alternative but to clear up the issues which remain to be settled because we, as representatives of the people, have to do so.

11.00 p.m.

Sir, the Minister for Finance has said just now that this Bill is a general referendum Bill. Judging from the wording of the Bill, it is I think a general Bill applicable to all referenda. But we feel that this National Referendum Bill is specifically meant for merger. We have lost our faith and confidence in the P.A.P., and so have the people. Therefore, we have to explain to the people the consequences of passing this Bill. The P.A.P. are now making use of parliamentary democracy to carry out their dictatorial rule.

Sir, we fully understand - and the people also understand well - that the P.A.P. have exhausted all the facilities of attack. Radio Singapore, Rediffusion, the Press, the Ministry of Culture, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Home Affairs have all been the means for them to sell their phoney merger. They have carried out this trickery for a long time but they have now come to realise that their type of merger is not acceptable to the people. That is why they have to resort to threats and trickery to cheat the people, by distorting the stand of the Barisan Sosialis which is genuine merger. They distort our stand in order to further cheat the people. That is why they have alleged that we want the Penang type of merger, and so hope that when the referendum is held they can fish in troubled waters.

The purpose of our amendment to this clause is to pinpoint this fact - that the P.A.P. wants to make much use of this clause as it is the most important clause in the Bill. The meaning of this clause is rather equivocal, and they want to use this clause to enable them to play their tricks. We can see that after the publication of this Bill for the information of the people, all Opposition Parties here in this House and outside, as well as organisations, have felt strongly against this clause. But the P.A.P. are still bent on their arbitrary way and they do not heed the views and opinions of the people and other political Parties. Yet they try to show that they are democratic.

From the debate since yesterday, you can see our reasons for wanting to amend this clause. We feel that they want to make use of this clause to enable them to propose two questions at the coming referendum. I will therefore give some assumptions because the Minister for Finance also gave some assumptions - I should say "parables". He said that the people would be asked the question as to whether they accept Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which embodies the merger proposals, and that to attract the people this question would be framed in such a way as to mean that Singapore would, by this merger, be able to retain autonomy in labour, and education. He also said that the other question would very likely be framed in such a way as to ask the people this, "Do you want the Penang and Malacca type of merger, which means that about 300,000 Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship rights?"

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir, I rise on a point as to whether the House has a quorum. There are only five Members on the Government Benches.

The Chairman (Mr Mammen): That is enough. I think the Member for Anson should know his Standing Orders well enough that 13 Members shall form a quorum.

Mr David Marshall: Yes, Sir. But as far as I can count, there are five Members on the Government Benches - oh!

The Chairman: I do hope the Member for Anson knows the Standing Order on quorum. It says 13 Members present in the Assembly. They need not apply only to the Government side. So there is a quorum.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Sir, from the example which I gave just now, you will know and the people will also know that the nature of These two questions is detrimental to the interests of the people. Under such circumstances, how are the people to make their choice?

But let us return to the point. Some of the Members opposite who have spoken appeared to contradict their previous statements. I remember the Prime Minister telling the people a few days ago that the White Paper merger would finally he put to the people for a decision. But we know what is meant by "a final decision of the people." It means that the people have a right to accept or reject anything. But when two undesirable alternatives are put to them, how can they make their choice? From this we can see what they mean when they say "let the people choose." This is their way of cheating because the people cannot choose one or the other, and it therefore means that the people cannot make a final decision.

A little while ago, my colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, said that in spite of the publicity given by the Government on how good merger is the people do not support the White Paper merger. We know that the Government have no guts to present this question to the people because the nature of the question is such that they dare not do so. There is a saying - "genuine gold dreads no lire." That is true in this case. They dare not pose only this White Paper merger in the referendum because it is had in itself.

The P.A.P. have also been distorting the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. They have provided a clause saying that all blank votes are deemed to be in support of the Government.

The Chairman: Order. The Member for Anson appeared to be rising several times. I do not know whether he wants to rise on a point of order regarding the quorum. If that is his intention, then all he need do is to ask a few Members to absent themselves from this Chamber, upon which I will then ring the division bell for a quorum. Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please continue.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen. I did not hear you.

The Chairman: I noticed that the Member for Anson had been quite anxious to rise on a point of order to call for a quorum in this Assembly. I hope that the Member will contain himself in this Chamber. Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. Mr Mammen. Am I not entitled to call on a point of order for a quorum?

The Chairman: Nobody is denying the right of the Member for Anson to stand up on a point of order. At least in so far as I am concerned, I have not denied him that right, and nobody is saying that he cannot stand up on a point of order. Mr Tan Cheng Tong.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Sir, there is one clause in the Bill which provides that all blank votes and un certain votes are to be taken as support for the Government. I think they know that the White Paper merger is not desired by the people and that is why this clause has been put in to save themselves. And that is also why they have distorted our stand. That explains why they always say that we want the Penang or Malacca type of merger which means the loss of citizenship for hundreds of thousands of people. They have often repeated these platitudes over the radio and in the newspapers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for a Member to repeat the arguments made by his colleagues?

The Chairman: Of course, if repetitions by a Member become too tedious, then the Chair will rule him out of order.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): I have to say such things because I want to enlarge on the arguments put forward by my colleagues, and also to explain the attitude and behaviour of the P.A.P. to the people. They have intimidated us and have bluffed the people. That is why I say that they are trying to distort our stand on merger.

11.15 p.m.

They know that by doing so, they may have a hope of salvaging their fortunes. What does the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger mean? Whose proposition was this?

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member for Jalan Kayu is going into too much detail on the Penang and Malacca type of merger. If I am right, the Assembly has debated the merger issue for twelve days. We are now discussing an amendment to clause 5, that is, the addition' of a sub-clause. The speech of the hon. Member is completely irrelevant to the amendment which we are discussing.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, the Minister for Finance raised two principal points. First, he said that two questions should be posed. Second, he distorted our stand. That is why I want to disclose his two intentions.

On the 28th of August, we published in the Press our stand on merger -

The Chairman: Order. I have told the hon. Member that if he wants to disclose to the public the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue, there is a motion standing in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Upper Serangoon. So when the motion is debated in this Assembly, the hon. Member will have an opportunity to disclose to the people of Singapore how the Government has distorted the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. We are now on the amendment moved by the Member for Anson, the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Hong Lim.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, in that case, we will say something more at some other time on this point.

Mr Chairman, we debated this clause and clause 13 yesterday and we arc still debating them today. Can the representatives here come to any conclusion on the amendments to this clause so that it will be properly worded to ensure that only one question will be put to the people in a referendum? The stand of Members on this amendment will expose their true nature. It will also show whether a Member wants to see our democracy becoming a laughing stock. I have already said that the main part of this Bill revolves around this clause. All political Parties, inside as well as outside this Assembly, and many organisations and individuals, have paid much attention to the provisions of clause 5.

11.20 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: They have published their views and opinions on this clause. Various views on these provisions have been aired at radio forums and discussions. The object is to enable the Government to frame the provisions in such a way so that they will he acceptable to the people. But certainly there is some confusion prevailing. This is because the Party in power do not want to rule in accordance with democratic principles.

I want to quote certain views aired by some eminent lawyers at certain forums. I hope the Government will pay attention to this for their benefit. I hope they will not feel that today's sitting is wearisome or irksome. Not only are we giving our views on the provisions of this Bill, but there are also other people and organisations outside this House who have given their views on these provisions. The intention is to prevent the Government from making a laughing stock of our democracy here. Let me quote the views on this Bill of the Nanyang University Graduates Guild. I think it is necessary that the Ministers' attention should be drawn to this because there are certain Ministers who do not understand Chinese, and they do not like to see the views given by the people. The Nantah Graduates Guild have given their views thus:

'We are faced with the Government's White Paper on merger. We are faced with a situation where we seek for a merger and reunification of the two territories. We have to give our stand here. Our stand is for equality on the reunification of the two territories. We want to ensure that the people of the two territories can enjoy equal rights -'

The Chairman: Order. That appears now to be an argument against the White Paper. We are not worried about that now. What we are worried about is whether or not there should be one question or two questions. I do not want to hear any arguments against or for the White Paper. It has been suggested that a question could be asked on the White Paper. Somebody else said a question could be asked an complete merger. I do not want to hear any argument as to whether the White Paper is good or bad. We are on a specific issue as to whether or not there should be one or two questions or more.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, even in the passage I have quoted, the last point therein continues to say that the national referendum must be held in a democratic manner. This view is also our view. It is because we feel that this opinion is the same as the one we had that we are bringing it up for the reference of Members of this House for their convenience.

The second point which the statement deals with is that we must put the White Paper merger as a question for the decision of the people. By making reference to this statement, I mean to say that the National Referendum Bill is a centre of interest to the various classes of people in Singapore. Here again, I would like to make a quotation of a speech of a Member in the Opposition. This is because he is a Malay and a Malay brother of ours. He is also a representative of a political Party. This Malay brother of ours is a representative of the Party Rakyat. He says that the National Referendum Bill as brought forward by the P.A.P. is an unprecedented one. In other words, you can never find such a Bill in the world. He continues to say that the Prime Minister used to talk about democracy. But now he seems to have forgotten about democracy. Instead he goes over the radio and makes distortions of the stand of other people.

This person has this to say concerning the question to be introduced in the National Referendum:

'The P.A.P. wants us to make a choice, say, for example, between this: Do you want the P.A.P. type of merger or the Penang type of merger? These two things are bad and nobody would like either of them.'

He also says that this amounts to asking whether you want to beat your wife or you want to beat your daughter.

The Chairman: Order. I might remind the hon. Member that he is making a speech. I do not want to hear a speech made by somebody who is not a Member of this Assembly. The Member for Jalan Kayu is reading out somebody else's opinion. I Want to know his opinion. The Assembly is interested to know his opinion, not this gentleman's opinion.

11.45 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the opinion of this man is very good and my opinion is similar to his. That is why I am mentioning his opinion in this House. In the meantime, I mention his opinion because he is a Malay friend and in the course of getting a merger -

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob) rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): On a point of elucidation.

The Chairman: If the Member will give way.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong resumed his seat.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Can the Member for Jalan Kayu say who is the person?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): The meeting of the Socialists. A representative of Party Rakyat. You will know him.

The Chairman: Order. It is quite a valid question, I thought I missed the name. We cannot have any anonymous remarks by anonymous persons mentioned in this Assembly. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked who is this person who is being quoted and I think he is entitled to an answer.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since you want the name I will tell you. He is the representative of the Party Rakyat, Inche Wahab.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to the speech of the Minister for Finance. I would like to quote a passage of his speech. He says that if we can employ our tactics in the proper manner, then we can defeat our enemies. That is what he says. I would like to remind the Members of the Government that as a result of the controversy over the National Referendum Bill, the Government is now placed in a very embarrassing position. Because it is now faced with the attack coining from the Opposition and from other angles and quarters. Even their friends in the Alliance are unhappy about some clauses in this Bill. That will mean that the P.A.P. is actually undemocratic. Even their friends are against them in some places. Let me now deal with the speech made by the Minister for Education. In his speech, the Minister concerned tried to explain why we want to bring up this amendment. Here I would like to tell the Minister that the amendment we are bringing up shows that we have no confidence in you. We have no confidence and faith in the phoney merger which you are playing with.

The Chairman: Order. I think, if my recollection is correct, I have already pulled the Member up as being out of order for referring to the merger proposals which have been accepted by this House as a phoney merger. He must not do that. It is a reflection on a vote of the House and is therefore completely out of order. He must be careful not to be out of order.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): The Minister tried to explain the reason why we wanted to bring up this amendment. I am telling him that because we have no confidence in you, meaning the Members in the Government.

The Chairman: Order. The Member has been interpreted as saying he "has no confidence in you" - the Chair. I hope that is not so. I hope he retains his confidence in the Chair.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I tried to say that the amendment we wanted to bring up was brought up because we have no confidence in the Government and that is why we want to amend this clause. This particular clause is now being incorporated for the sake of merger. The Government is going all out in its publicity over the merger matter and tries to bluff the people by saying that those who are against merger are being fooled by the Communists. This is a step to bluff them. The next step will be to suppress the people. We have many trade unions and other cultural organisations which want to hold meetings over the merger issue and the Referendum Bill, but they have not been given permission. So from this we can see -

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member now is anticipating the motion, a notice of which has been given by the Member for Thomson and the Member for Havelock. He is not entitled to do that and I think I might as well at this stage read the relevant Standing Order about anticipation. I have been lenient, but at this time of the night perhaps leniency is out of place. The Standing Order is Standing Order 50 (2) :

'When notice of a motion has been given, it shall be out of order to raise the subject matter of that motion in the form of an amendment to another motion or to discuss the subject matter to which the motion relates on a motion for the adjournment of the Assembly.'

So I ask the Member to try not to anticipate, for he probably would like to say something on this other motion and I will permit him just to touch on it in passing, but not to go into details.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): The amendment we are bringing up to this particular clause has been brought up because of their behaviour, because we have completely lost confidence in them. I was just trying to show you why we are actually bringing up this amendment to this particular clause. In short, they are very reactionary. That is why we have no alternative but to bring in an amendment to this particular clause which says that there should be only one question in a referendum. That is why the people will be able to say yes or no to any particular matter. Clause 29 deals with blank votes which will be taken as votes in support of the Government. So if the Government should pose two questions which are equally unacceptable to the people, then it is very unfair to the people, because they cannot make a choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of this, we are bringing up this amendment so that only one question will be asked at the referendum.

Let me deal with the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister. He says when a person is thirsty, he would like to drink water. That is common knowledge. When a person is thirsty, he must drink water. There is no point for him to tell us this. He makes the comparison between tea and drain water. Well, it does not matter what type of drink you have as long as you have a drink to quench your thirst. But this is a different matter. Merger is very important as far as the people are concerned. You cannot compare merger to the drinking of clean water or dirty water, because the two are different. What I will say is that the White Paper merger is as bad as dirty water. So to draw a proper analogy, I would ask our Government whether the Government is trying to force the people to drink ditty water. I think this is a more appropriate analog.

Mr Byrne: Dirty water from Jalan Kayu.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to give other examples which, I think, are necessary because they have not been published in newspapers and many people do not know about them. Perhaps some Members in the Assembly, if not all, know about this because the people concerned have sent their memorandum to various Members in this House. The representors urged that as representatives of the people, we the Members of this House must try to carry out the mandate given to us by the people. So, by bringing this up, more people will know about it. In this memorandum, it says that the people's views on Command Paper 33 are to refuse or accept the White Paper. There should be only one question in order that the correct attitude of the people may be ascertained. If there should be two questions on the White Paper merger, then it will be undemocratic because if you ask the people to choose between the Penang type of merger and the White Paper type of merger, then the people have no actual choice and this is not in keeping with the true meaning of a national referendum -

The Chairman: Order. That argument has been advanced in this House from the Opposition side several times. I also asked the Member to spare this House the same argument by somebody who is not in this House. We have had enough of that same argument, and I think possibly I must be a little bit more strict about this because all arguments have been exhausted, and we are going round and round in circles. If the Member can bring his speech to a conclusw4l, then perhaps we can get on faster than we have gone on.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, this argument has only been advanced by the Member for Anson, and that is why I am trying to advance the same argument again in general.

Since I have already made a quotation; that ends my speech. But before I sit down, I hope the Government will not say that, as the Minister for Finance says. because of the trouble created by the Barisan Sosialis, the people are against the national referendum. As a matter of fact, the National Referendum Bill has caught the attention and interest of people of various classes. Their attention has been drawn to it because they want to be sure that in a democratic State this Bill is not implemented in an undemocratic manner.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, we are almost reaching midnight and all this time we have been led far away by some Members of the Assembly with the same old tune, a tune which sometimes gives a kind of entertainment to those who wish to go to sleep.

In the debate on the amendment moved by the Opposition, we have heard many speakers touching on the subject of democracy, democracy, and democracy. But if we go deeply into the matter of democracy, which has been expounded by them as genuine democracy, we find that democracy is practised by them merely for the purpose of the next general elections, that is to say, "We want the seats." That is democracy to them.

In opposing the clause before us, they pretend to be true patriots. But their words expose their true character. We have been led far field, particularly by an eminent lawyer in this Assembly, the Member for Anson, on the subject of the referendum in other countries such as Australia - from north to south, and from east to west. But they have conveniently forgotten that in those countries there is only one nationality. Here in Singapore we are living in a country comprising a multi-racial society with different religions. We must stand on solid ground and, as fighters of democracy, we must respect the views of all sections of the people who live in this country and who owe undivided allegiance to this country. This is the responsibility of fighters of democracy - to respect the views of all sections of the community and whose loyalty to this country is undivided.

For this reason, Mr Speaker, in honouring the respect of these loyal people, we must be cool, calm, and perservering, and must look on a wider plane. Mr Speaker, in discussing this question, which is to be posed in the forthcoming referendum as to how many questions are to be posed and whether it will be answered by a "yes" or "no", we must be cautious so that we will not put something that is not acceptable to our community as a whole. We know that the principle of merger has been agreed upon unanimously, i.e. Singapore must merge with the Federation of Malaya. But the type of merger has been debated upon months ago, and we have also debated the White Paper Cmd. 33 which has been adopted by this Assembly. In my opinion, the basis of merger has been debated and accepted by a great majority of the population comprising a multiracial society in Singapore. But these views and opinions have been misled and confused by opportunistic leaders who play on chauvinistic feelings so as to achieve their own political ends. Nobody can deny this.

I have often heard it said in this Assembly by Members opposite, particularly the Barisan Sosialis which is led by their great leader, the Member for Queenstown, that we have deceived the people and so on and so forth. I do not know the Chinese language and therefore cannot read Chinese newspapers, but until today I have not come across nor have I heard what is the type of merger that the Barisan Sosialis want. The Member who spoke just now about the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis, unfortunately spoke in Chinese. But whatever he said must be read, digested and understood by those who do not understand Chinese too. From this we can see that their opinion is limited and confined to a particular section of the community. In this way, they are playing on chauvinism for their own political future. They only pose to be genuine fighters of democracy. We Assemblymen here, on this side at least, come from all sections of the community, and we disseminate our views to the people in open confrontation, so that the people themselves may decide. So when this problem is clearly understood by all sections of the people. Mr Speaker, it means that we are figh ting for the rights of democracy, and that the people themselves can realise and assess the value of democracy according to their views and their wishes.

Mr Speaker, I wish to reiterate. It is highly dangerous and highly inflam mable and will bring calamity to the country if leaders, especially those sitting in this Assembly, stir up communal passion to light the fire of communalism f or a particular section or part of the community, or for any particular Party.

The Chairman: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is straying away when he went on that tack. That is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant to the amendment. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is guilty of the same fault - being completely irrelevant when he talks about feelings in this particular context when we are dealing with the amendment before the House.

Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to argue with you. But I have said it because that charge has been made several times when Mr Speaker retired from the Chamber for a while. So I think it is imperative that I should explain that in implementing this referendum, we must pose questions which will be acceptable by the people comprising the various races. This is my object. There is a danger if only one question were put and accepted by one section and rejected by another. So in order to safeguard democracy and thereby respect the views of all the communities, the questions to be posed should be acceptable by all sections of the people here. By this there is the hope that the basis of national unity which has been implanted in the people of Singapore who owe undivided loyalty to this country will not be disrupted.

The Chairman: Order. Midnight.

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

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee has made progress on the Bill, and beg leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.