SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

3.02 p.m.

Clause 5-

The Chairman: We are on clause 5, amendment (ii):

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

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

I have indicated that the debate could range over amendment (ii) to clause 13*; the amendment to clause l8+ and the amendment to clause 20++.

*Amendment (ii) to clause 13 reads as follows:

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

+Amendment to clause 18 reads as follows:

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

++Amendment to clause 20 reads as follows:

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

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

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, yesterday some Members of the Opposition cited precedents from other countries where only one question was put to the people. Precedents were quoted from both East and West. But I have explained that in most of the countries quoted by Members of the Opposition, there is only one nationality, one culture and one religion. We should not forget that the people of our country are different in race and religion. Therefore, the basis of democracy which should be practised here is to respect the views of all sections of the population. If we ignore this basic principle of democracy, then it will be a death-blow to democracy in our country.

Mr Speaker, to return to the question which will be posed to the electorate; let us say that it will be on merger. All are unanimously agreed that merger must come. The question to be answered is what kind of merger. We must be aware that the Government have been elected by the people and that they have left their destiny in the hands of the Government. Therefore, the Government in im plementing the task entrusted to them must always bear in mind that the in terests of the people come first. The Government have on many occasions re iterated that we must respect the views of all sections of the people. I hope the Opposition will also respect the rights of all sections of the people. We should not think in terms of what we want. For instance, yesterday, the Member for Jalan Kayu quoted the example of buying an article in a shop and that if the article offered to us is unacceptable we go to the next shop. We can go from Sungei Road to Robinson, Sir, but there is a difference in the price. The prices of articles in Sungei Road vary very much from those in Robinson. The price of an article depends on its quality. So it is with merger. If we want a super mer ger, then we must be prepared for sacrifices. But instead of fighting for the rights which we are enjoying now, we are asking for other rights. As I said previously, our wives will remain our wives. But we should not be asking for other people's wives. If the Federation of Malaya can be likened to a shop and if the products sold in that shop are not suitable, where shall we go? We do not want Singapore and the Federation of Malaya to be a second Palestine. We must admit that this referendum is on a national issue and not on a political issue. In facing this national issue, we must be realistic. We must respect one another's views and rights. We must not make this Referendum Bill an issue for winning the next election. We must be fully aware of this as we are the elected representatives of the people in whose hands the people have put heir destiny. Therefore, Mr Speaker, in facing this issue, we oppose the proposition that only one question is to be put to the elec torate. We must submit a number of reasonable questions because we are concerned with merger. There must be agreement on both sides and the view of the other side should be taken into consideration as well. If I take my child to a shop, he might want to buy expensive articles. But I must first find out whether I have enough money in my pocket before I can buy them for him. So, if what I have just said materialises, then Singapore and the Federation will be a second Palestine. There will be no peace between these two countries. 'Therefore, political leaders, in facing this problem, must be sober in the interests of national unity and peace for the country.

Miss Fung Yin Ching (Stamford): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say something on this disgusting National Referendum Bill. It does not look like a national Referendum Bill. It is something like a repressive Bill. It does not re ally reflect the views of the people. This Bill can only force the people to choose two unacceptable alternatives. The people in the whole of Singapore know that this Bill is a very undemocratic Bill. The Government have put on the cloak of democracy. But, as a matter of fact, they are selling the contents of democracy. Therefore, this Bill is a plot.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have reason to believe that this national Referendum Bill has been created by some of the leaders in the P.A.P. in order to trap the people. Therefore, I hope that the Back-Benchers of the Government Party will come forward to uphold justice and the people's democratic rights.

3.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, now let me come back to the clause. The clause which we have been discussing is one of the most important clauses. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the amendment proposed by the Opposition is not acceptable by the Government, then it only proves that the Party in power does not dare to face the people. It also proves that the P.A.P. Government has lost its own confidence in the White Paper merger proposals. Mr Speaker. Sir, regarding the questions why the leaders of the P.A.P. have to go back on their word, why they want to distort facts, why they dare not bring up their White Paper proposals for the people to decide, let us see whether the people want their proposals or not. Mr Speaker, this question has been debated in this House for a long time, because the Party in power itself knows that its own White Paper proposals are not in accordance with the views of the majority of the people. If the Government put forward these proposals they are sure to be rejected by the people. Therefore, the leaders of the Government shamelessly go back on their word. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Gov ernment leaders have decided to pose two questions to the people for their de cision. This is clear to everyone and we have spoken at great length on this. But originally the Government wanted to pose only one question, but now they have decided to pose two questions. The P.A.P. leaders are very clever people. They can think out all sorts of devices. What is the device? It is that they try to create confusion over the title of the Bill. The Government has altered a specific Bill for the specific question of merger to a general Bill. This Bill has been changed by the Government into a general Bill, so that the Party in power can pose one, two, three or four questions to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Government have changed the fundamental nature of this Bill, therefore they are trying to quote instances from other countries to justify their stand . This is meant only to confuse the vision of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me quote some examples to show you how the Government are trying to confuse the people's vision. This is a copy of the Sin Chew Jit Poh of 7th of June in the local field. A speech by the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister was published on this page in which he said:

'Here the Government has decided to hold a national Referendum on the question of merger. However, we must be clear that this National Referendum Bill is not only meant for this merger issue; it is not only applicable to a referendum on the merger issue, but it is also intended to be applied for future referenda on other issues.'

And in discussing this Bill the question of merger was mentioned. This is be cause it is necessary to cite examples. It is not a central question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that this Bill was brought up because the Gov ernment wanted to carry out its White Paper merger proposals, but today the Government try to describe it as a general National Referendum Bill. The Government at the same time have inserted certain provisions into this Bill in order to distort it: that is to say, if there is only one question posed to the people, then it means a waste of public money. This is said by the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. He is trying to distort the spirit of this Bill into something else. Now, let me quote him. This was on the 9th of this month. It was published in the local news, the Sin Chew Jit Poh. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this article he said about the Select Committee:

'There is someone who mentioned two examples. One example is the question of Malay as the official language. Everybody agrees that this should be so. But when Malay is made the national language, evervbody agrees that it should be the official language. But there might be a divergency of views on when this should be implemented. Therefore, the Government should seek the views of the people. Therefore, the Government will have to ask the people whether it should be implemented in 5 years or 7 years or 10 years. The second example is a hypothetical example, and that is the control of toddy shops. This example shows that if only one question is posed and if the answer requires only 'yes' or 'no', it might become very restrictive. These two examples show that if the answer is a straightforward 'yes' or 'no', it will not effectively reflect the views of the people, If in the national Referendum we provide only one question, then the Government has to hold 3 or 4 national referenda and each national referendum will cost about $400,000. Why should we spend so much money unnecessarily to pose only one question and the answer is 'yes' or 'no'? Why should we do that and spend so much money?'

Mr Speaker, Sir, from this speech we can see very clearly that the Government have put in an entirely different question in this Bill. This is very unfair. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see the P.A.P. Government are trying to twist the Bill into something else and it becomes something else. That is why the P.A.P. Government want to turn a specific Bill for the merger question into a general Bill. Mr Speaker. Sir, I want to point out to you that the Government have lost their confidence in their own merger proposals but they are not prepared to abandon them. The Government have put their own interests above those of the people. They are trying to achieve their ends without regard to the means. They do not care whether it is justifiable or reasonable and they do not care whether it is democratic or not.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now we listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister when he rebutted a remark by the Opposition. The example quoted by the Opposition of buying things is merely to show that we have a freedom of choice when we buy things. But what we buy must be something which we really want to have, but the things which are offered by the Government are not wanted by the people. The Government themselves know that they have no faith in their own goods. Only the P.A.P. Government are anxious to have this thing because they try to make use of this method to salvage their political fortunes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech yesterday made many abusive, distorted and smear remarks about the Opposition. He said the Barisan Sosialis and Mr Marshall have maintained that the right to say no is the fundamental and basic right of the people. The right to say no is the fundamen tal right of human beings, but the P.A.P. would not like the people to have such a right. From this you can see why we do not understand what the Minister for Finance has said. The example should be taken to mean to refer to the Government themselves. That would be more proper. The Government want to have a certain type of referendum in order to deprive the people of their democratic rights. Mr Speaker, you can see that the Government - the Party in power - are preparing for their outrage. They are not a clean Party. That is why they are trying to deprive the people of the right to say no and to force them to say yes in order to meet their own desires and wishes.

3.30 p.m.

I would like to note two points. The first is I want to touch upon the purpose of the amendment. Later on he said everything was in a mess.

Mr Speaker, I would like to avail myself of this chance to reason with this muddle-headed Minister for Finance. The purpose of our proposing this amendment is very simple because we want the Government to pose only one question, to ask the people whether they want the Government's White Paper on merger. The Government should not try to confuse the people by setting more than one question. That is the purpose of our amendment, but our particular Minister for Finance of Singapore up to now has not understood this, and that is very pitiful. I hope he will not avoid our questions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has also touched upon another point, namely, "that the Barisan Sosialis is now in a quagmire." That is what he said. I will not touch on this point. He said, "Let me straightforwardly say that we will very easily frame the question on this issue whether you want to accept this White Paper merger. And the answer can he 'Yes' or 'No'. If the answer is 'No'. if you prefer this one to the other one, you can have what you want from the two alternatives." I can rebut him on this point. You can see that the P.A.P. Gov ernment are very worried. They are now struggling very hard to save themselves. But I will say this: if the P.A.P. will not change and try to improve themselves and make things better for all, then their struggle will only end with themselves dead.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another question - the last question - which is a true question. Here it says:

'The true question is not "Yes" or "No" to merger hut whether the Communists and their stooges will have the chance to pretend to have complete merger and to sabotage the national referendum.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this question should be explained in this way. The true question should be one that would require "Yes" or "No", it is not a question of whether the Communists have any chance to sabotage the referendum. The P.A.P. themselves are the culprits. They are trying to wreck the national referendum by means of this Bill because they do not have confidence in themselves. They are now trying to destroy the national referendum and yet they say others are trying to wreck it. This is very improper. They tear their own clothing and blame others for doing so.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, we on the Government side have all along maintained that this Bill is a general Referendum Bill and that it would be improper to incorporate in it a provision like the amendment proposed which would have the effect of limiting the scope of the Bill. The Member for Anson argued that if it was clearly the intention of the Government to use this Bill for the purpose of holding a referendum on merger. would the Government not have acted more appropriately and fairly if it introduced a specific Referendum Bill to hold a referendum on merger? He said that this was done in all countries where referenda were held. Is there any merit in this argument? All Bills which deal with referenda matters, whether they are called general Referendum Bills or specific Referendum Bills, must provide the machinery whereby questions can be put to the electorate, and whereby the choice of the electorate can be ascertained through the usual electoral procedures. The only difference between a Bill to hold a referendum on a specific issue and a general Referendum Bill is that in the former the ques tions are framed as a clause in the Bill. In other words, the participation of the Legislative Assembly is sought by the Government in the framing of the question or questions before they are put to the electorate. When the Opposition was seeking to create a song and dance about this, you yourself, Sir, pointed out to them that the remedy lay in their own hands. You indicated that there was nothing to stop the Opposition from tabling a motion in the Legislative Assembly on the question or questions that should be put to the electorate in the referendum on merger. This you suggested would provoke a debate and, by recourse to the normal constitutional machinery open to all Members of this Assembly, the Assembly would be able to debate the matter, and the participation of the Legislative Assembly would in this way be obtained in the framing of the questions that would he put to the electorate.

The Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party have since taken your advice in this matter and have tabled a motion indicating the sort of question they would want to he put to the electorate in a referendum on merger, so that it can readily be seen that there is very little substance in the distinction that the opposition sought to draw between a general Referendum Bill and a Referendum Bill on a specific issue.

Sir, in the Select Committee when the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson seeking to limit the scope of this Bill was under consideration, we on the Government side gave very serious consideration to the proposition contained in this amendment. The proposition was this: if there was to be what the Barisan Sosialis and Workers' Party considered to be a fair referendum, there must be in cluded in the Bill a provision that there must be only one question, that this question must be limited to a single issue, and that the electorate should be invited to say "Yes" or "No". We had therefore to consider whether there was any merit in this proposition. We began by testing this proposition from the common sense point of view.

It was you, Mr Speaker, who suggested the case of toddy shops. You said that in a referendum on toddy shops, it was possible that two or more questions could be put to the electorate. The electorate could be asked such questions as:

(1) Should all toddy shops be closed?;

(2) Should only Government toddy be sold in shops?

The Minister for Finance then said that if a referendum was to be held on the question as to when Malay should be adopted as the official language, the electorate could be asked to indicate in two questions whether it should be in 5 or 10 years.

When we were seriously considering the merits of this proposition, the Member for Anson in his usual way became very frivolous about the matter. He asked, "What about a referendum on taxi girls?" I replied: "What about a referendum on smoking?" As time went on, he became more and more frivolous, more and more excited, and went on to talk about referenda on such questions as the following:

"Do you prefer to heat your wife or do you prefer to beat your mother?"

Then you, Mr Speaker, interposed and said:

"What about the question, 'Would you like to beat or list your wife?'"

Then the Member for Anson went on further to say:

"What about a referendum on this question, 'Would you like to shoot or fist your wife?'"

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a clear indication that trouble is brewing in the Member for Anson's matrimonial household. I have no doubt that when his good lady comes to know that such serious propositions have come from the lips of the Member for Anson himself, she will have very good reason to seek the protection of the police almost immediately. I know, Sir, that the Member for Anson is a very able lawyer and that it is part of his training, for which he receives handsome rewards, to interpret unlawful acts in a favourable light. In order to get back to a serious note, I told him that we on our side were most concerned with lawful propositions and suggested that it would be more worth while to consider the questions that could be put in a referendum on smoking.

Sir, it has been said by the Opposition that instead of treating this Bill seriously, we on the Government side have been talking about referendum on piddling matters like toddy shops and smoking. I do not think that the records will support such a charge.

Sir, we nevertheless felt that in spite of the eccentricities of the Member for Anson, the question that he posed in his amendment required serious consideration and, for this reason, we proceeded to find out whether there were any precedents which support his proposition and whether it is true that if a referendum is to be held on an important constitutional issue, we would be acting unfairly and unjustly to the electorate if we were not to accept the proposition contained in his amendment. In support of the proposition, we ascertained that it was true that referenda had, in fact, been held limited to a single question where the voter was asked to say yes or no in the following countries in the past. For example:

1. Western Australia in 1933, on the question whether Western Australia should secede from the Commonwealth.

2. France in 1958, to approve a new constitution.

3. New Zealand in 1959 -[Interruption].

I will deal with that. Be patient about it. New Zealand in 1959, whether or not the electorate supported the introduction of compulsory military training. Here the elector was not asked to say yes or no, but to strike out the proposal he did not support, which was much the same thing as saying yes or no.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): I vote for/I vote against.

Mr Byrne: New Zealand, you strike out one.

Mr David Marshall: Yes or no.

Mr Byrne: Jamaica? Yes, it is equivalent to that. Jamaica in 1960, whether Jamaica should continue to be a member of the West Indian Federation.

Switzerland in 1962, whether the use, manufacture or deployment of atomic arms on Swiss soil should be banned.

France in 1962, to approve the agreements to be established and measures to be taken concerning Algeria.

3.45 p.m.

Sir, in our researches we also discovered that referenda were held in the past where two or more questions were put to the electorate and they were asked to make a choice of one. The examples are the two referenda held in Newfoundland in June and July 1958.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): What about blank votes?

Mr Byrne: In the first referendum, three questions were put and the elector was asked to choose one. It was stipulated that if any of the questions put did not receive an overall majority, the question which received the lowest number of votes in the first referendum would be dropped, and a second referendum held on the two remaining questions. As in the first referendum, no single question received an overall majority, a second referendum had to be held.

The next examples we found were on referenda held in Australia and New Zealand on the local licensing laws. These precedents established that it was quite a normal thing in Australia and New Zealand for referenda to be held on such questions as the hours during which premises selling intoxicating liquor should be opened and whether particular areas should be prohibited or non-prohibited areas for the sale of intoxicating liquor. Precedents also established that when such referenda were held, it was usual for two or more questions to be put to the electorate and for the electorate to he invited to make a choice of one.

The next example was the referendum held in the Cameroons. The Prime Minister drew public attention to this referendum in a recent public forum on merger. In this referendum, two questions were put to the electorate of North and South Cameroons, which were trust territories administered by the British Government. The people in each of these two territories were asked to decide whether they wanted to join the independent Republic of the Cameroons, which was a former French colony which had become independent, or whether they wanted to join the Federation of Nigeria, which had become independent. Each voter was given a ballot paper which he had to place in whichever of the two ballot boxes which corresponded to his choice, namely, the box marked to correspond with the choice of joining the Federation of Nigeria, or the box marked to correspond with the choice of joining the Republic of the Cameroons.

Sir, after a study of the precedents, it occurred to us that there was a close analogy between the procedure adopted in referenda where two or more questions were put to the electorate, and where the elector was invited to choose one, and the normal procedure that is followed in a general election or by-election.

Mr Bani rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr Bani: On a point of elucidation.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: Can the Minister indicate the number of countries that he has quoted so far where in the referenda, irrespective of the number of questions posed - two or three or four questions

• the basic right of a voter to either accept, reject or abstain was denied? If he could name the countries and the referendum, I should be much obliged.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, I will be dealing with all this. If he will be patient and listen to me, he will get all the explanation that he wants.

Sir, in a general election or a by-election, the electors are asked to make their choice of candidates, whether they stand as independents or as repre sentatives of political Parties. They have to indicate their choice by marking a cross against the name of the candidate whom they support. When this was pointed out to the Member for Anson, he, immediately in his reckless way, said that he saw in this analogy which we sought to draw "the seeds of a Machiavellian concept which will, in fact, mean a major act of perfidy towards the people." It is in the Official Report of the Select Committee of 11th May, 1962, col. 161. It is in the third paragraph of the first column. He went on to say that the analogy was false because we were, in fact, saying that in general elections, we do not permit a negative reply and the voter must say yes. This was, in his view, an inaccurate statement of the position. His argument was that in a general election or by-election, the elector could put in a blank ballot paper. This was denied to him under clause 29 of the Bill which provides that where a ballot is unmarked or uncertain, the voter is deemed to have accepted or to be willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred in the referendum.

It is true that except in the case of the referendum held in the Cameroons. where two or more questions were put to the electorate and the elector was invited to make a choice of one, the elector was allowed to put in a blank ballot paper if he wished to do so. We have already explained to the Select Committee in great detail -

Mr Bani rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr Bani: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: Can the Minister indicate whether in the Cameroons referendum there was compulsory voting; whether every man in the electorate was by compulsion of law expected to vote?

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Thomson will be patient, I will come to it in due course.

I said just now, Sir, that it is true that except in the case of the referendum held in the Cameroons, where two or more questions were put to the electorate and the elector was invited to make a choice of one, the elector was allowed to put in a blank ballot paper if he wished to do so. [Interruption] Yes, I will come to that. We have already explained to the Select Committee in great detail why we have found it necessary to introduce clause 29. The Bill when it was first introduced did not contain this new clause. It was introduced only after the Opposition had moved an amendment to make it not an offence for a person to deface a ballot paper, whether it was his own ballot paper or any other ballot paper.

Mr David Marshall: It has been defeated.

Mr Byrne: We shall he dealing in more detail with this new clause when we reach it.

Mr Bani: If we ever reach it!

Mr Byrne: Sir, the fundamental objection, in the view of the Member for Anson, to adopting the procedure in the precedents with regard to the referenda held in Newfoundland, Australia 'and New Zealand, is that in view of the New Clause, the voter would be deprived of his fundamental right of saying no by putting in a blank ballot paper. Let us look and see if there is any merit in this submission. I have already mentioned the referendum held in the Cameroons where the elector was asked to answer one of two questions and where the procedure adopted was that he should put his ballot paper in whichever of the two ballot boxes which corresponded with his choice. This was a referendum held under the supervision of the United Nations. In this referendum, the procedure adopted can be assumed to be unimpeachable. Yet in the procedure adopted, the voter was not given the opportunity of putting in a blank ballot paper. Where then is there any merit in the Member for Anson's argument that if an elector is not given an opportunity of saying no, by putting in a blank ballot, then he is deprived of his fundamental right to say no and the whole procedure thereby becomes tainted? In the case of the referendum held in the Cameroons, it is true that the elector could decide to stay away if he chose, as there was no compulsory voting.

Sir, the Member for Anson then went on to argue that in his view, if two or more questions were put to the electorate and they were asked to choose one, then there was an obligation on the part of the Government to give an opportunity to the elector to say yes or no to each of the questions put. He cited as his authority for this proposition the many multiple referenda which have been held in Austra1ia under the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act of 1906. Everybody knows that the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted by a constitutional instrument, it is provided in this constitutional instrument that wherever changes are to be made to the constitution 1tself or to laws of general applicability, it will be necessary for the changes to the constitution or to these laws to be submitted to the electorate by way of a referendum. It is also provided in the Australian Constitution that where such proposals are put to the electorate by way of a referendum, the elector must be given the right to say yes or no to each of the proposals put.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Byrne: I have with me now a copy of the ballot paper which was used in a referendum held in Australia in 1946 when proposals were made to the Australian electorate to decide on changes to be made in three laws concerning the social services, organised marketing of primary products, and industrial employment. In each case the electorate was asked to say yes or no to each of the questions put.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Mr Byrne: So that, Sir, the position in Australia is that neither the Common wealth Parliament nor any of the State Legislatures can make any law on matters which, under the constitution, require popular approval by way of a referendum unless a referendum is first held. Sir, that is certainly not the position in Singapore. The Singapore Legislative Assembly has the power under section 47 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Singapore. It is nowhere provided in the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council that any law has to receive the approval of the electorate by way of a referendum before it is to have legal validity. How then can the Member for Anson support his proposition that when more than one question is put to the electorate, the electorate must be given the opportunity of saying yes or no to each of the questions put?

Sir, I have already said in this Assembly that the Member for Thomson has a far sharper mind than the Member for Anson in these matters. Yesterday in this Assembly, the Member for Thomson said that it would be stupid of anybody to consider clause 5 of the Bill as it stands unless at the same time he gives his attention to clause 29, because clause 29 deprives the elector of his fundamental right to say no to each of two or more questions where he is asked to make a choice by putting in a blank ballot. He vent on to refer to what I had said to Mrs Leon-Soh when she gave evidence before the Select Committee. Mrs Leon-Soh asked what should an elector do if he did not like any of the questions that were put, assuming that two or more questions were put. I said that the elector could keep away. The Member for Thomson then feigned to express great surprise that such words could have come from the Minister for Law.

4.00 p.m.

There was clause 21 of the Bill which provides for compulsory voting. "Here was a Minister for Law telling the elector that he should keep away." The Member for Thomson is not a naive person by any means. He well knows that clause 29 was not in the original Bill and had to be introduced. Sir, I hinted to him that it was because of the presence of clause 21 in the Bill that the Barisan Sosialis could not organise a boycott of the election by getting those whom they tried to dupe to keep away from the polls.

Mr David Marshall: Quite simple.

Mr Byrne: He told me in polite terms that I should mind my own business, and that the Barisan Sosialis did not need my advice on how they should go about their affairs. Sir, shortly after he spoke yesterday, the Member for Nee Soon let the cat out of the bag. He accused the Government of trying to set a trap for the Barisan Sosialis and that we were trying to get them to organize a boycott of the election so that the procedures to be found in clause 21 of the Bill accrue to the Government's advantage. He himself offered the explanation that if the Barisan Sosialis were foolish enough to organise such a boycott, it would be the Barisan Sosialis who would suffer a crushing blow, as the names of their dupes would be removed from the electoral register. There would then be a deliberate delay in the revision of the registers and meanwhile a snap election would be held under circumstances where their dupes would not be able to vote. I can assure the Member for Thomson and the Member for Nee Soon that there was no trap set by the Government because clause 21 of the Bill is almost an identical reproduction of a similar section which appears in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance passed by the last Government in 1959.

An hon. Member: He has no objection to beating his wife.

Mr Byrne: The Member for Anson yesterday, in his usual reckless way, proceeded to repeat in this Assembly a challenge, which he made to the Government in a letter to the Singapore National Union of Journalists. He never makes a direct challenge. He always conveys it through a third person. [Interruption] Is that so? He has been known to make such reckless challenges before.

Mr David Marshall: Where?

Mr Byrne: I do not think anybody in Singapore really does take any heed of his challenges very seriously. Only very recently. Sir, he challenged the Government Front Benchers to repeat outside the Assembly any of the statements we made about him in this Assembly and he would immediately institute legal proceedings against us. In our quiet and modest way, we told him to go and play and that one of the Front Benchers had already published a statement about him in the Straits Times, and we invited him to take action against the person concerned.

Mr David Marshall: Which issue?

Mr Byrne: To our surprise, when he appeared before a Committee recently, Sir, he made the astonishing statement that as far as the law of defamation was concerned, his knowledge of defamation was no more than that of the intelligent citizen.

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Sir. This is a breach of privilege. The matters to which he refers are matters before a Select Committee which in so far as I am aware have not been reported out. I ask that this breach of privilege be noted.

The Chairman: I do not know whether the Minister for Law is, in fact, referring to the proceedings in the Committee of Privileges where the Member for Anson gave evidence. If he is, he is wrong in doing so as the Report itself has not as yet been presented. In fact, he should withdraw those remarks.

Mr Byrne: These proceedings will be published in due course, and I therefore withdraw these remarks, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Why then, Sir, is he so reckless in making his challenges? He told the Union of Journalists that he would be prepared to make a contribution of $1,000 to their funds if the Government would say that it was prepared to put these two questions to the electorate: "Do you want complete merger with automatic conversion and proportionate representation, or do you want the White Paper proposals?"

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

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I think the Minister should get his facts accurately. The challenge was at a radio forum on Wednesday last - two days ago - in which the Prime Minister was present. It was not a challenge to the National Union of Journalists. It was a challenge to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Finance who was also present. The question was that they should put the P.A.P. proposals and the counter proposals as enunciated by the Opposition Party in the amendment to the motion on 21st November, 1961 - "complete and genuine merger with Federation citizenship for all Singapore citizens". Give the facts straight.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept that correction. He went on to accuse the Government of perfidy and dishonesty if it refused to accept this challenge. I would say to the Member for Anson that he is the most politically dishonest person that I know of. Does he recall that when he was in my office on 18th January this year, he told me that he was prepared to come out with a statement supporting the White Paper proposals if the Tunku would give an indication that he would be prepared to accept all citizens of Singapore as citizens of the new Federation after a period of, say, ten years.

Mr David Marshall: Within.

Mr Byrne: Yes, within or after. Let us have it that way, if you so desire. He told me that he believed the Tunku was not receptive to this proposal and he asked me if I could influence my colleagues to get the Tunku to give an indication that this proposal would be acceptable. The purpose of his challenge to the Prime Minister at this radio forum was to deceive the people into believing that he could get better terms for them from the Tunku than those contained in the White Paper proposals. Recently he wrote a letter to the Tunku telling him that the Workers' Party was quite prepared to accept that citizens domiciled in Singapore should vote only in Singapore and that candidates from Singapore for the Central Legislature should be citizens domiciled in Singapore. He also asked the Tunku if, in view of these acceptances, he would be prepared to consider a common citizenship for both territories. If he wishes it to be believed that it will be possible for him to get better terms from the Tunku than we have been able to get for the people of Singapore in the White Paper proposals, I challenge him to publish the Tunku's reply. I have seen the Tunku's reply and so have all my colleagues. The fact that the Tunku has given the Prime Minister a copy of his reply shows that he would not consider it a breach of confidence if the Member for Anson were to publish his reply.

I have known the Member for Anson not to be a man of courage and not to be a man of convictions at all. When clause 29 was under discussion in Select Committee, he issued what he described as a warning. This warning was not directed specifically to anybody, otherwise he would have mentioned expressly the person or persons to whom this warning was addressed. This warning was couched in rather equivocal terms. He urged the Government to recognise that if in the referendum to be held on merger a citizen was deprived of the right to vote against the Government's provisions and thereby the Government was to give a legalistic cloak to a dishonest maneuver, such a referendum would require to be condoned by both the United Kingdom Government and the Federation Government before it can be put into effect. And he said that he did not think that the U.K. Government would lend itself to a major act of perfidy in the context of the day nor would the Government of the Federation of Malaya lend itself and co-operate actively in this major act of perfidy on the people of Singapore to seek imperial dominion under a legalistic cloak. He also went on to ask the Government if it really believed that the United Nations would permit in this era an attempt at imperial annexation by the Federation of Malaya of the State of Singapore. I was anxious to know to whom he had addressed this warning, and therefore I felt it my duty to refer to this warning of his in the following terms. I would refer the House to what I said in col. 368 [No. 6] of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill dated 16th May, 1962. I quote:

'On top of all that, for added measure, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the voter was denied the right to abstain, the Member suggested that it would he necessary for him then to issue a warning to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Federation, that if fraudulent proposals on merger were put forward to the electorate and they condoned what was done, then they did so at their own peril. He has also suggested, Mr Speaker, that such fraudulent proposals would he against certain United Nations recommendations and this could also he brought to the attention of the United Nations.'

Sir, the language that he used was couched in very strong terms. He enquired whether the United Nations would permit in this era an attempt at imperial annexation by the Federation of Malay of the State of Singapore. After this very forceful warning addressed to all and sundry in very general terms, this is what the Member for Anson sheepishly said - I quote col. 370 of the same Report:

'The Minister alleged that I said I issued a warning to the United Kingdom Government and the Federation Government that they would at their peril do certain things. That is not true, Sir. My warning was to this Government to recognize that it could hardly expect an act of co-operation in a major act of perfidy, and even if they obtain that co-operation, there is still the United Nations. [he warning was directed to the Members here and relevant to the issue.'

Sir, he was one of the Members of the Select Committee on this Bill, and it is most surprising that he should address this warning to himself.

Sir, I have also discovered that the Member for Anson is a very timid sort of person. You have allowed this debate to range over the provisions of clause 20. He wanted us to believe that there was something crooked about this clause and suggested an amendment deleting the provision from this clause which required the electoral number of each elector to be marked on the counterfoil of the ballot paper as this would be a fraud on the electorate. Sir, he received considerable support from the unions for his point of view.

The Chairman: Order. I hope the Minister for Law did not misunderstand me. The debate could range over the amendment which is now on the Order Paper to be moved to clause 20, i.e.,

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

and not over the whole clause.

Mr Byrne: Sir, I have taken some trouble to study all the points that are contained in the proposition of the Member for Anson and I would say that there is no substance in any of them. I would, therefore, say that there is no ground whatsoever for the incorporation of such an amendment in this Bill so as to limit its scope.

4.15 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are getting accustomed to exhibitions by the Government, through this particular Minister, the Minister for Law, of personal attacks and personal spite, both for the pleasure of attacking an opponent who is becoming uncomfortable and as a smokescreen to cover their own dishonesty. I shall first deal with the allegation that I am "the most utterly dishonest politician" he has ever seen. Of course, Sir, he never looks at himself or at his colleagues. But let us take the one example, Sir, he has given, that I saw the Tunku and offered that if he would give us - this was not said by the Minister but these are the facts he would not deny, these are the details - give us a provision in the Constitution that within ten years if Singapore voluntarily handed back education and labour - and you will notice the words, not "before" or "after" but "within ten years" - then the citizens of Singapore would be citizens of the Federation. I said that if you would agree to that. I for one, and I hope my Party, would struggle with all our efforts to make this White Paper acceptable with that provision. Now, Sir, it is true that I failed. But I never said to anybody that I could get it. Then, Sir, it is said that I issued a challenge to the National Union. The inaccuracy is merely symptomatic of the entire inaccuracy of the inferences. He now accepts the correction of the inaccuracies. I will not call them false. Sir, because I do not think that part was intentional. But the inaccuracy affects the venue and the exact challenge. The challenge was that the Prime Minister was indicating in the radio forum that he wanted two questions because of his deep anxiety for the democratic process and respect for the Opposition views. Above all, he wanted to put the Opposition view. He was a nice Prime Minister who believed in democracy. And it was only fair to put the Opposition view. And I said if he would put the Opposition view, which was deliberately enunciated by us in our amendment of the 21st November, 1961, this is what we wanted. Now, Sir, I do ask you, could any reasonable human being suggest that because that is what I wanted I meant that is what I personally could get? Therefore, in saying that that is what the Opposition want. I am being dishonest? Sir, the charge of dishonesty has almost become so trite that it ceases to have the gravity of effect it should have in a decent society. Audi the Government have been repeatedly charged openly, frankly with being completely dishonest, and I so charge the suggestion made that because tile Opposition seek in a conciliatory effort to achieve alterations of that White Paper which could make it acceptable, we are dishonest because we know we cannot get it.

Sir, the Minister has added that I issued a warning to the Government of the United Kingdom. I would draw your attention, Sir, to column 363 [No. 6] of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, and I want to nail that falsehood to his throat. This is the last paragraph:

'But finally, I would urge the Government to recognise that even if they can get the Federation Government and the Government of the United Kingdom to lend themselves to this major act of perfidy, there is the United Nations and the Committee of Nineteen who have the duty to see that the implementation -'

The Chairman: Order. Can I remind the hon. Member that this is being translated?

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry, Sir:

'But finally, I would urge the Government to recognise that even if they can get the Federation Government and the Government of the United Kingdom to lend themselves to this major act of perfidy, there is the United Nations and the Committee of Nineteen who have the duty to see that the implementation of the Resolution 1514 of 1960 is in the spirit of that resolution, in accordance with the will of the people, and I would ask them [in the context, Sir, can there be any doubt who "them" is but this Government?] whether they genuinely believe that the United Nations would permit in this era an... imperial annexation by the Federation of Malaya of the State of Singapore,...'.

Now, Mr Speaker, he tried to suggest that I was issuing a warning to the United Kingdom even in that Select Committee. You have my answer on record.

Finally, Sir, on the subject of my representation, which seems to hurt this Government very deeply, that the Workers' Party should make attempts' improve the terms. Surely, it is nut only the right but the duty of every citizen who seeks merger to make strenuous and conciliatory efforts to inprove those terms to a point where in his view they might be acceptable to the majority.

Our second representations to the Prime Minister of the Federation should be put in their proper context. They were three in character. The first was that in the context of the majority representation in the Federation of Malaysia Parliament, with 100 in the Federation and 15 in Singapore, the possibility exists constitutionally for the Federation representatives to amend the cons titution in a manner that might adversely affect the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of Singapore. So we sought what is a normal provision in the Constitution that the rights and responsibilities of our people would not be adversely affected by future amendments of the Constitution except with the consent of the Legislative Assembly in Singapore. The Minister says he has seen my memorandum. In fact, he can have a copy if he has not.

On the second issue. Sir, we said that we recognise the fear, and accept it as being a genuine fear, of the Federation that our politicians would seek to swamp or might swamp the political activities in the Federation, and their desire to avoid that possibility, and we said we would be prepared to accept a common disability not merely for Singapore residents, but also for Federation residents. This is that those residents domiciled in one State - that is to say, taking the Federation as a State, Singapore as a State, and Brunei. Sarawak and Borneo as States - would not stand for election or vote in any of the other States. In the context -

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): On a point of information, Sir.

Mr David Marshall: If I might finish first.

The Chairman: The Member is not giving way.

Mr David Marshall: If I might finish first, Sir, because this is rather important. On the understanding that we obtained a common Federation citizenship.

Mr Byrne: On a point of elucidation.

The Chairman: Order. The Member has indicated that he would like to finish what he is saying and then he will give way.

Mr David Marshall: I would like to get this fact clear: that we would have a common Federation citizenship and then a common disability, so that there would be no question of any distinction at all. The thing that we were anxious about was the provision of a distinct status of citizenship.

Now, Sir, I know both Ministers seem to want a point of elucidation, and I trust it is indeed a point of elucidation; then by all means.

Mr Byrne: In view of the challenge that I put to the Member for Anson in this Assembly, would he say now that he accepts that challenge and that he is prepared to publish the Tunku's reply to his letter?

Mr David Marshall: Sir, the reply to the Tunku's letter was considered by the Executive Council of my Party, and it was unanimously decided not to publish it. Sir, I say this to you, that when they did so decide, it was with a feeling of pride, a feeling of deep and genuine pride - if I were a Frenchman I would have kissed every one of them - that I recognised their strong -

Mr Byrne: Homo!

The Chairman: Order.

Mr David Marshall: The porcine obscenity of the Minister is, I trust, a matter of record. I say that it is with deep pride, it was perhaps the proudest moment and the finest moment of my relationship with my colleagues on the Executive Council that, for the welfare of the country as a whole, Sir, and I trust I need say no more than this, for the continued racial harmony in this area, it was considered inadvisable to publish that reply. I will say no more than that, Mr Chairman.

Now, Sir, the Minister has said that he advises those people who do not like the alternatives offered to keep away. Mr Chairman, this matter was adumbrated in the Select Committee, and you know that by virtue of clause 21 the person who keeps away is not merely punished with a fine of $5. The very dangerous position arises that he is deprived of his right of voting or standing for election - and that is a few of them - but the vast majority are deprived of their right to vote until after the next register is compiled, and the compilation of the register, being unfortunately at the present time in the hands of the P.A.P., you can anticipate that they will be as dilatory as they were in holding by-elections. A man may expect, if he does not go to vote at this referendum, not only to pay a $5 fine to get back on the register but possibly for two years he will not be able to vote, and the P.A.P. would no doubt welcome the opportunity whereby those who arc the opponents of these merger proposals, and consequently the opponents of the P.A.P., will thereby disfranchise them selves and prevent themselves from voting at the next election, if, in fact, a next election takes place. So therein is the perfidy of that suggestion; that those persons whose conscience does not permit them to vote for the alternatives offered, who are not permitted to deface the ballot paper, and if they leave it blank will be deemed to accept the Government's view, the suggestion is that they should keep away. In truth and in fact, this is a suggestion to entrap those who feel a deep sense of resentment amounting almost to hate of this Government which, utilising their majority, seek to impose their will on them. They want their opponents to be struck off the register. Then they will only have to contend with the S.P.A. And I will say this to you, Mr Speaker, if you will permit an aside, I think the S.P.A. even will give them a thrashing.

An hon. Member: A one-man Party!

Mr David Marshall: The Minister has said that this is a general Referendum Bill and he says he cannot see why it is necessary to bring in a specific Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr Chairman, I will draw your attention not to the frivolity but to the red herring in the shape of teddy shops and zugzwangs and camels which were brought in by some gentlemen in Select Committee. But at this juncture I wish to draw your attention to the fact that neither in the past three years nor even today is there any serious suggestion even from the Government Benches that they have in mind a referendum on any other topic except proposals for closer relations with the Federation. I think, Sir, that must be admitted. If that is so, why not bring in a specific Referendum Bill for this purpose and not a general Referendum Bill? Because they want the best of two worlds. I did show you yesterday, Sir, and I do not intend to repeat it, that the Minister for Law - and, Sir, the reference in case he wants to check, because I do not cheat by saving it is there when it is not: the reference is the 16th of March, page 21 of the revised transcript [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 270] - he pointed out to you that the New Clause (A), which is now clause 29, was produced specifically for the purpose of dealing with anti-merger elements.

Sir, according to his speech on the 16th of March, it was a specific Referendum Bill. What has he since said? The lighter side of life has its value, Sir. Permit me to deal with some of these stunts. At column 108 of the Select Committee's Report [No. 3 of 8th May, 1962] of the Singapore National Referendum Bill, you, Sir, pointed out: "I must pull the Member back to the idea that this, in fact, is a general Bill, and as the Minister for Finance has indicated..." - having forgotten what his Deputy Prime Minister and his Prime Minister had said - "another matter which might go to a referendum could be the five-day week in schools." And then, this goes on:

"Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sale of toddy!

Mr Byrne: Do not forget smoking!"

Who introduced toddy and smoking?

Then, Sir, look at column 118 -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What about beating your wife?

Mr Byrne: Shooting her. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, the infantilism of the Minister concerned, so symptomatic of his Government, is a matter for contempt by the serious-minded. It is - how shall I say it, Sir - a matter for embarrassment for responsible citizens to recognise that their Ministers are unaware of the contempt which they attract by this infantilism. But it is not a matter for embarrassment to their opponents who recognise now, I think to the full, not merely the perfidy but also the shallowness and the contemptible infantilism of these Ministers.

Mr Byrne: What about you?

Mr David Marshall: Now, Sir, at column - [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry, Sir.

The Chairman: The Minister for Law had his say and, if I recollect correctly, the expression he used was such that probably the Member for Anson could have been just as disorderly as the Minister for Law is now so disorderly. Well, let us try and have some decorum in this Assembly. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you, Sir. I was referring to column 118. You see. Sir, the whole of that paragraph of Mr Byrne is that if the Member for Anson does not like smoking, for instance, he might agree to pipe-smoking or cigar-smoking. Who introduced these absurdities?

Column 139, Sir, you will see:

'For instance, there may be circumstances where it is not possible to put a single question - the Member for Anson admitted that just now. Take the case of toddy shops. Questions could be: "Should toddy shops he closed?"'

Now that is another falsehood, Sir, that I introduced these red herrings. And the real issue is this. Sir. The tragedy of this debate is not that we have failed to convince the Government. During the last six months I think all of us have grown to a full realisation of the bottomless depths of perfidy of which this Government are capable and intend to perpetrate. So it is not that there is anything new in our being unable to convince them of the validity of our arguments. The tragedy is the speech of the Member for Cairnhill.

Mr Speaker, I said yesterday, and I meant every word of it, that the action of the Member for Cairnhill in Select Committee was of a character which drew my admiration and my respect. 'No matter what our personal differences and our obvious political differences are. I respect and admire a man who will tight honestly for what he thinks is right and makes it clean. And the Member for Cairnhill made no bones about his views that some of the provisions of this Bill were filthy, were dishonest, and he said so yesterday - only there is a difference. In Select Committee, Sir, he did move amendments which had merit, but I see, and I saw yesterday, that the words will continue to he sweet. He will continue to recognise in his statement for publication that the Government are dishonest and that the Government intend to cheat the people, but he votes with them. If the Government are dishonest and the S.P.A. votes with the Government, what does that make the S.P.A.?

Mr Chairman, he said to us in his first speech that he could not understand why I should associate myself with the request for one question, and one ques tion only, when I knew that one question only would mean wrecking the referendum, wrecking the merger proposals. And he was good enough to answer a direct question with a direct reply. When I asked him whether he thought that the voting of the majority against the merger proposals would be voluntary or not, he said, "Of course, the Member for Anson knows, and we all know, that it would be voluntary. It will be because everybody hates the P.A.P. so much. They are so sick of the P.A.P. they want to bury them quickly so that Singapore may be cleaner and they will vote against the merger proposals to get rid of the P.A.P." Now, the P.A.P. say of course the merger proposals will go through because it is only the Communists who are going to vote against them. But I do ask the Member for Cairnhill, whether persons will vote against the merger proposals because they hate the P.A.P. or for any other reason they not to have a democratic right to vote against the proposals? If putting one question would wreck the merger proposals, does he mean that putting one question would give the people the right to say "No", and he does not want them to have the right to say "No"? If that is the position, then, Sir - that seems to be the logical inference - what is the difference between the stand of the S.P.A. and the stand of the P.A.P.? Granting that the S.P.A. do not have the arrogance and do things with courtesy, the position seems to be the same. We want to cheat the people for their own good! That, in essence, seems to be the common stand of these gentlemen who face each other across the Floor. As a responsible Party leader of a responsible people, which the Member for Cairnhill is so proud of, he has damned the P.A.P. up hill and down dale. And I agree with him. And yet he votes with them.

Now, Sir, he says that it would be better and would not wreck the referen dum on merger if we were to have three questions. How would that help, Sir? If we had three questions, does he mean that then the people cannot say "No" to the White Paper proposals? I am glad that we are in Committee, because I do appreciate the frustrating position where you are asked questions which are rhetorical and you cannot answer them. Here the Member for Cairnhill has the right to reply, and I mean the questions not as rhetorical questions, but as questions for his consideration. If you have three questions, would the people have the right to say "No"? If they have the right to say "No", then they would reject the P.A.P. proposals in the same way, would they not? But then that is just what he does not want.

Now, Sir, he says he is prepared to offer them the alternative of merger like one of the Borneo States or merger like a State within the Federation. Mr Speaker, we have seen how the English of this Assembly has been distorted, so that you need a special dictionary when you are dealing with a statement from the Front Bench of the Government. A dictionary of words just as you need a dictionary of words when you are in Communist China - when you hear "socialist", that means "Communist"; when you hear "democracy", that means "dictatorship". Here you hear "complete merger" and they say that means "cut your citizenship in half". That is the P.A.P. dictionary.

Now, at least the P.A.P. merger proposals have been spelt out to some extent in White Paper Command No. 33, although I notice that the Prime Minis ter is very reluctant that the real draft constitution should be disclosed to us before voting day. I do not know what more there is in store in the way of perfidy for our people from this Government in that constitution, but I do note with some anxiety that we are refused sight of the draft before referendum. But I ask, how can he then offer other alternatives which have not been spelt out and feel safe that the Government would implement the other alternatives in the spirit in which they are intended? If the other alternative is complete merger or merger like Brunei, does he know to what extent it would be distorted? Because, let us recognise that when the Barisan Sosialis first used the words "Penang and Malacca", they used them in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister's letter and they said, Mr Speaker, this is the context, "an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca". Sir, the context was "a constituent State"; the context was "an immediate, full and complete". Now, Sir, there were no Penang or Malacca citizens; so there can be no question that anybody was deprived of his citizenship in the Federation. If you want to take any State, Sir - there were, say, Johore citizens or citizens of the Sultan who immediately became citizens when, say, Johore and Negri Sembilan -

The Chairman: Order. I wonder whether the Member could not reserve those comments until we deal with the motion to be moved by the Member for Queenstown wherein he asks this House to condemn the Government for its "dishonest and malicious distortion" of the Opposition's stand on the merger issue. Otherwise we will never finish.

4.45 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Yes, indeed. I have brought it up in the context of a question to the Member for Cairnhill: how does he anticipate that the posing of another question, two questions, or a third question, that is to say, questions that have not been clearly spelt out, would be helpful in the context of this referendum? And finally, Sir, he did in Select committee move an amendment which was negatived by the Government's majority that every voter should be allowed to vote "Yes" or 'Nay" to each question. But he agreed that there should be one issue, but any number of questions. In fairness, let us get it clear, that insofar as one-third of the present amendment goes, he did not agree that there should be one question. But he agreed that each referendum should be limited to one issue and that a voter should be required to answer "Yes" or "Nay".

Mr Speaker, that is the crux, I repeat crux, of the whole exercise. If the voter has the right to put a cross for "Yes" or for "No", to say "Yes" or 'No", then, Sir, whatever the Machiavellian efforts of the Government, I think, on balance, the people would be safe. If the voter does not have the right to say "Yes" or "No" to each question and he is compelled to have a choice, then, Sir, the choice can be so presented, as the Member for Cairnhill himself said, that the only possible one, the least unacceptable one, would be the one which the Government proposes. Now, the Member for Cairnhill knows that, and it is interesting to notice his change of stand on this crucial issue. Whereas in Select Committee, he was prepared to support, and in fact, propagated a specific amendment to enable the people of Singapore to say "Yes" or "No", here we have fair words, as fair words as were in Select Committee, but shorn of the deed.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Law has the gall to say that in Australia and the Cameroons they did not have the choice to say "No". Sir, I will be happy to pass this book down. I thought I read it yesterday hut I just want to show the ballot paper. I can assure you I will not trespass on time more than necessary. Sir, Australian Commonwealth Acts 1901 to 1950, Volume IV, page 3585;

"Where there are several propositions to the people of Australia, each one must be answered with a 'Yes' or a 'No'."

Now, Sir, he says "But that is in the Constitution". Ha! I do not understand the argument, Mr Speaker, forgive me. That is so. It is in the Constitution. A constitution enunciated for the welfare of the people and for their just govern ance. He says in Singapore we have got a right to make laws for good government, and obviously for bad government, of the country. We are not bound by a constitution. Does that mean, Sir, that we have a right to be dishonest and to provide for machinery whereby in the words, the classic words now, of the Member for Cairnhill, the Government can have flexibility for dishonest manoeuvre? What is wrong with following the Australian provisions, Sir? What harm could possibly be done? We showed to you, as we sought yesterday to say - I know that the Front Bench is deaf - that the Cameroons was a trust property, that the United Nations could only give them two alternatives: there were no other alternatives available, and those two alternatives were given to the people without compulsion to vote.

Now, Sir, the cameroons were in a specific and unusual position. Our Prime Minister unfortunately has said that if you ask 624,000 of our Singapore citizens what kind of merger they want, they will get 624,000 types of merger. I do not agree with him, but let us take him at his word. It is not therefore two alternatives! There are, according to the P.A.P. Prime Minister, 624,000 alternatives you can give: therefore is it not proper at least that in our efforts to seek their opinion we should give them the opportunity to say "Yes" or "No" to each proposition which is going to affect them and their children for ever, Sir? This is not a matter of a Licensing Bill; this is not a matter of toddy-shops; this is a matter of our future. Can the Minister indicate, apart from the unusual position of the Cameroons, that, in fact, he knows very well where there was the question of a constitutional change in Switzerland. And, Sir, in Switzerland is it not provided in the constitution that they shall say "Yes" or "No"? In Switzerland there was a special law passed in 1892 to implement Article 120, and it was that law which says that every referendum must require an answer of "Yes" or "No". We have told you because we have already shown it to you - West Australia, Jamaica. Sir, why cannot we follow all these countries? "Because this is a general referendum Bill!" We now go back to the curious somersault of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am told that was unfortunate. It came about unfortunately because he did not hear the expose earlier on of how I indicated that they had all said that it was a specific provision for a specific purpose. I think he said "one prospect only", Sir; I take it whichever way you read P.A.P. English, "one prospect only" means one purpose only.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): All right, let us make it one purpose.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged to the Deputy Prime Minister if he agrees then that this Bill should be for one purpose only. His colleague on his left, the Minister for Health and Law, has said that in that case, of course, in every referendum in respect of which he has come across, you specify the question in the Ordinance and you specify that it shall be "Yes" or "No". If that is so, Sir, then I am quite happy to accept that position.

Mr Byrne: I did not say that.

Mr David Marshall: You did not say that?

Mr Byrne: No.

Mr David Marshall: Very well, no. That is an unhappy answer to the argument, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am here at this moment first to clear myself of the filthy charge brought up and to show you how filthy and unreasonable it was: and secondly, to draw the attention of the S.P.A. whom I had hoped - though strongly at variance with other Opposition Members on, the issue of the acceptability and validity of the White Paper proposals for the welfare of the two territories concerned

• were nevertheless themselves deeply concerned at the effect on parliamentary democracy and on our people generally of the dishonesty which is intended by the Government, as I have already indicated in the provisions of this Bill. I had anticipated that they would translate their words into action not to support us in our opposition to the merger proposals, but to support us in giving the people the right to say "Yes" or "No". To deny to this Government the right to cheat the people because they say if you do not cheat them, they will be robbed. So it is better that we should cheat them for their own good. That is the essential purpose for which I stand and I know, Sir, that there are many Members who have not spoken from the S.P.A. side, and I do hope to hear from them, perhaps in clarification of the position which would correct the unhappy effect I received last night. Until last night, Sir, I thought that if we go down, at least we go down as a united group, a united group which will highlight the basic dishonesty of this Government, and not - The Member for Thomson has risen, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Bani, four minutes to five o'clock.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I realise that the Minister for Health and Law has got his warring glands functioning ab normally today and I do not want to earn his displeasure, at least not more than is necessary. But he has asked me to be patient, and I believe I have been 'patient for the last twenty minutes but he has not answered. So before I proceed any further, I would like to ask him to answer the question now. If he does not like to answer - he is always at liberty not to answer - I do not have the ability to have a legislation enforced like the one the P.A.P. has for him to enforce. If he does not want to answer. I think he can indicate he does not want to answer. All that I want him to do - he was quoting precedent after precedent as he did in the Select Committee that afternoon - is to stand up and name the countries and the referenda where the voters' basic right of free choice either to accept or to reject or to abstain was restricted by legislation, whether by compulsory voting, or whereby, say, blank votes would be recorded. I shall be much obliged, Sir, if the Minister will answer this.

The Chairman: I do not propose to call any Member now, but I would like to indicate that after the tea-break, after hearing Members who have been chal lenged to speak or who desire to speak. I will then consider whether or not I will accept a closure motion, because it seems to me that we have exhausted all the arguments. The only thing that remains is to answer charges and counter charges.

Mr Bani: I just wish to say, Sir, that I have a few comments to make on what the Minister has said.

The Chairman: It is just what I have said: if there are charges and counter charges, they can be aired later. But I think we have exhausted the arguments. I now intend to suspend as it is 5 o'clock.

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

Mr Speaker: I shall take the Chair again at five-thirty. Order, order.

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

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Debate in Committee resumed.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Clause 5-(contd.)

The Chairman: We are on clause 5, an amendment to add a new sub-clause.

I might as well indicate to Members the order in which Members caught my eye - the Member for Thomson, the Minister for Finance and then the Member for Cairnhill. If the Minister for Finance wishes to speak, he speaks after the Member for Thomson.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Member for Cairnhill would like to speak after the Member for Thomson.

The Chairman: The Minister might lose his chance.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I do not mind.

The Chairman: The Minister does not mind. Mr Bani.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite certain that the Ministers would speak as little as possible because they have -

The Chairman: Order. Let us try and skip irrelevancies, shall we? Let us go ahead.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with you here that we do not want to be irrelevant. I must point out, nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the issues that we are debating at the moment are issues that affect all our people and the importance of the issues, I think, cannot be underestimated.

Sir, the Minister for Law just now did not attempt to even answer my question. This, I believe, Sir, is because he has not got an example to give.

Sir, the P.A.P. leaders are very slimy and slippery customers. They have been trying to confuse the issues by drawing red herrings across the trail.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. Did I hear the Member for Thomson referring to slimy and slippery characters with reference to the Government?

The Chairman: I am afraid I never heard that expression used with reference to Members of the Assembly. If it is used with reference to Members of this Assembly, then, of course, it is out of order. Would the Member for Thomson say whether it was with reference to Members of the Assembly?

Mr Bani: I said the leaders of the P.A.P., Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. Would it be in order for the Government Front bench to use similar lurid terms of abuse with regard to, say, the Barisan Sosialis leaders? Would that be in order?

The Chairman: Well, that has been done. It has been done in the Assembly, time and again. The Standing Order itself is a curious Standing Order. It is very flexible. I think the word "flexible" has been used in this debate. Standing Order 46 (4) reads:

'It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Assembly.'

So there is a particularity - you must be guilty of using offensive language about Members of the Assembly. But, of course, a Member does not need to have a great sense of imagination if he uses expressions generalising and not particularising.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a further point of order, Sir,I take it that so long as there is no direct reference to any Member of the Assembly, it would be in order to use phrases such as "slimy and slippery characters". Is my understanding on that point of order correct?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no intention to enter into a slugging match with the Barisan Opposition whose powers of abuse are greater, but if they want to start it, we are quite prepared to take it up.

Mr Bani: You started it first.

The Chairman: Order. I will not make any decision on anything in anticipation. All I can suggest to the Minister for Finance is that he can try, and if the Speaker, within the context of the speech, decides he is out of order, well, then, he is out of order.

Mr Bani: Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Referendum Bill before this Committee is probably the most undemocratic piece of legislation passed by a legislature of this nature in the name of parliamentary democracy in the whole world. Sir, even in Nazi Germany, as has already been pointed out a number of times by the Member for Anson, the right of the people to reject a proposition was given. I know this hurts the Ministers very much, Sir, and naturally they would like to try and ensure that the case is not put forward as clearly as possible. So far in the past, at forums and elsewhere, they have been getting away by giving apparently .a coherent argument because they have forced discussion in isolation of one clause against another.

Sir, I did say yesterday that as far as we are concerned, we do not seek to confuse anybody. We are quite prepared to sit down and argue this out as clearly and as simply as possible so that nobody would be confused, not even the most stupid of persons who live in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the examples of the New Zealand referenda quoted by the Minister for Law were already dealt with by me yesterday, and I do not want to go back and deal with them once again, but I must emphasise once again that in the New Zealand referenda, the basic and fundamental democratic right of a voter to either accept or reject or to abstain was not denied to him either by legislation or by any other force.

Today the Minister for Labour quotes the Cameroons example, and to my question as to whether there was compulsory voting, the Minister himself said that there was no compulsory voting. It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, from what I understand, in the Cameroons, the voters were asked to choose between two propositions, and in the polling booth, two boxes were put, and the voter was expected to put his vote in one of the two boxes depending on what proposition he chose. First of all. The reason why they put the boxes was that in the Cameroons the rate of literacy is very low and because they did not want to confuse the people by asking them to vote in writing or vote by marking on a ballot paper, they made it a very simple affair by making the boxes represent the propositions. Because there was no compulsory voting in the Cameroons - this does not mean we are against compulsory voting: I have already stated earlier that we have nothing against clause 21 of the Bill - a voter, if he did not like both these propositions, need not have gone to vote.

Sir, every voter wants to exercise his right to vote. No voter wants to go and put in a blank vote. No voter wants to stay away unnecessarily, and no voter wants to tear away a ballot paper. Every voter, I am quite certain, is conscious of his civic rights and he wants to exercise that voting right. But if it is sought to force him to vote one way or the other, if it is sought to indirectly compel the 624,000 voters in our electorate to vote for one of two unacceptable alternatives, then undoubtedly there is going to be a large percentage of voters who would be helpless. And if one wants to tear away a ballot paper, if one wants to put in a blank vote, it is not because he does not like to exercise his civic right, but because he finds that he cannot choose between two unacceptable alternatives.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Supposing there were four alternatives.

Mr Bani: I did say, Sir, yesterday, irrespective of the number of questions, the fundamental right of the people to choose or not to choose must be guarded by any legislation made by a House like this and not, in the name of democracy, seek to deprive this basic right of the people.

Sir, if it were people who have preached fascism - a fascism of a degree worse than the Nazi fascism - then we can understand. If the P.A.P. Ministers would stand up and say, "We seek to deny the people the fundamental right of free choice," then we at least would respect their courage. They do not have the guts to say it, but they use the name of democracy. They say they want to put the Communists in a zugzwang. Mr Speaker. Sir, I am not interested whether -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are already in a zugzwang!

Mr Bani: - the P.A.P. get the support of the people for their White Paper merger or not.

5.45 p.m.

As far as we are concerned, we have no doubt whatsoever that the people will reject it, no matter how the questions ultimately are going to he posed, no matter how many questions are going to he posed. Yesterday, I said that we have great respect for the intelligence of the people and we do not think any man - let alone the P.A.P. Ministers - can fix the people by undemocratic provisions in the undemocratic Referendum Bill. Sir, it is suggested that it is necessary to have more than two questions and it is necessary to have certain other provisions in the Bill because they want to fix the Barisan Sosialis and they want to fix the Communists. This is a very serious proposition, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Prime Minister himself - none other than the master of the P.A.P. - has said that there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. I ask then, Sir, whether they are in fact fixing the 300 Communists or if they are fixing the lives of over 1.6 million people in denying the 624,000 voters the basic right of free choice.

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that notwithstanding the number of questions, the fundamental right to choose freely, to say yes or no, or, if necessary, abstain, must be given to the people. And that is the basic proposition the Barisan Sosialis is making. We do not like two questions. We do not like three questions and we do not like four questions because we think that will confuse the people.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They do not like anything.

Mr Bani: I am sick of hearing sills and stupid remarks -

Mr Byrne: So are we.

An hon. Member: Long-winded.

Mr Bani: - of we being afraid of a referendum. It is simple for one to make an accusation. We tell them, Sir. "Be brave enough and have the decency to have a fair and proper referendum."

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You will get it.

Mr Bani: And that, is exactly what we are asking. The Minister for Finance says that we are going to get it. Let them show it by supporting this amendment. Let them show it by supporting the amendment to clause 29. It is not the Communists or the Barisan Sosialis who are going to be in a zugzwang. Those of us in the Barisan Sosialis are not worried because we know one cannot cheat the people all the time. We know what the consequences are going to be, and we know who is going to pay for this.

We are not afraid of a referendum. We do not want to block a referendum. We want a referendum. We insist that the people must be consulted, but in a fair and decent referendum. We oppose this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, not because we do not want a referendum, hut because the Bill is undemocratic and because the Bill will not bring about a fair and reasonable referendum which will ascertain the views of the people. They have said, "What is wrong with putting two questions?" I tell them, Sir, fundamentally, there is nothing wrong. But first we must not forget clauses 21 and 29. It is a very desirable democratic right of the people to choose freely. They should have an uninterfered right to choose 'yes', 'no' or to abstain. That is fundamental. That we cannot compromise. If that right is given to the people, then we say, "You want to have two questions, first question- White Paper merger; second question-you want to put the Bartizan type of merger, put the Bartizan type of merger as has been stated." At least they must have the common decency to let us tell what we mean by complete merger. It is utterly ridiculous for them to suggest, "This is what we mean by com plete merger-half the voters lose their citizenship rights." I would not venture To distort what their version of anything Is. I would have, as I said, the common decency to ask them to define what they want. What we want has already been defined in clear and in unambiguous terms in the amendment we moved to the motion sometime in November. At the right time, we shall say that once again. But let not lies and distortions cloud the issues. Today the Government want to have a referendum that would get a majority support for the White Paper merger. It is imperative. This is something on which the survival of the P.A.P. depends. And because of that, they are prepared to sacrifice the interests of the people. Because they are committed to a referendum, they have to hold one. If they hold a referendum, they must make sure that they get the majority. So under the Referendum Bill before the Committee, with the provisions as they stand now, if ten per cent of the voters vote for the Government's proposition (No. 1, White Paper merger), 30 per cent vote for proposition No. 2, and 60 per cent abstain because of the provisions of this Bill, it will in fact mean that 70 per cent support the White Paper merger. This is no zugzwang for the Barisan Sosialis. This is no zugzwang for the Communists. This is zugzwang for the people. And whoever supports this Bill, I will say in simple language he is a traitor.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson posed certain questions to me last night. E replied to them. It would seem that he was unhappy and it would seem that he read into it a change of stand, and it would seem also that he expressed some unhappiness that there should be this disunity in the Opposition which he had hoped he could see in this debate as a result of the debate in Select Committee on this Bill. Sir, the fact that the Opposition are arguing among themselves is clear. There are Opposition and Opposition. Sir. There are Opposition that are responsible and there are Opposition that are irresponsible. There are Opposition that are imbued with the desire to serve the people.

Mr David Marshall: Which I desire.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: There are Oppositions that are imbued with the desire not to serve the people but to get themselves heard, to put up a performance as great heroes fighting for the welfare of the people An hon. Member: Just like the Barisan Sosialis. [Interruption]

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - and in their desire to kill one another, there is this exchange of pleasantries between P.A.P. Members and ex-P.A.P. Members even while I am speaking to a very important charge of the Member for Anson on a very important national issue. Sir, he, quite rightly, showed surprise that I did not carry on the fight that I took in Select Committee, and I tried to explain as briefly as I could yesterday, that because I was anxious that the time of this Assembly should not be wasted unnecessarily on party politics, he misunderstood me. Now, Sir, you will remember in Select Committee there was this Government and Opposition Members-- myself excluded --going at it hammer and tongs, and I, as a responsible Opposition, thought that the best way out would be to suggest a compromise that could be acceptable to both sides. Of course in Select Committee and without notice being given. I did put up my suggestion and that caught the Members by surprise. The Member for Anson was quick and said that he liked it. He argued on my behalf. The Member for Queenstown, representing the Barisan Sosialis, said that he saw merit in it, but later on in his speech he saw no more merit in it. And there was the Member for Hong Lim who did not quite like it because he said my suggestion would open the doors wide for dishonest manoeuvring. If I can have your indulgence, Sir, I will just quote short passages from the Official Report. You will remember that at one stage the Minister for Finance said - this is at column 150 [Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill (No. 3) dated 8th May, 1962]:

'Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think the Member for Cairnhill has succeeded in confusing everybody.'

And you, Sir, said:

'I think he has . . . In fact, the Chair is confused. I must say that - definitely confused!'

So, it would seem that in order to try to make confusion less confounded, I had only succeeded in making confusion more confounded. Then the Member for Anson tried to explain. I am indeed indebted to him for trying to explain my stand. He gave his reasons. And you, Sir, said at column 152:

'The Member for Cairnhill is interpreting his amendment in that way, and I think the Member for Anson has interpreted it in a different way.'

So, my suggestion was capable of various interpretations, so much so that even when we adjourned and met on Friday, 11th of May, we discussed this matter further and this was what the Member for Hong Lim said at column 157 [Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill (No. 4)]:

'I feel that the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Cairnhill, although he is trying to bring both views to a compromise, still leaves room for manoeuvring, and as such I oppose it.'

The Member for Queenstown was quick to follow at column 158. He had this to say:

'Therefore, the amendment to the amendment again does not solve the problem and it will not achieve the objective of getting a true and correct answer from the electorate.'

And the Member for Anson, at column 161, had this to say - it was coming to the end of the debate:

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

It was clear that in the Select Committee when I was trying to be helpful it turned out that I made everybody confused, even my friends in the Opposition.

6.00 p.m.

Out of 4, 3 began to have doubts and, therefore, when I asked for leave to move that amendment, leave was not granted. Right, Sir, I crave this -

The Chairman: Order. I think we must have the record straight. Is the Member for Cairnhill suggesting that leave to move the amendment was not granted? Can the Member indicate?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: No, no, I am sorry, Sir,I mean it was defeated. Thank you, Sir, for your correction. The amendment was defeated not only on the vote of the Government, but on the vote of the Opposition in association with the Government against poor me - the S.P.A. Member in the Select Committee.

Sir, when I came to this sitting last Wednesday - two days ago - I was ready to move my amendment. I had, in fact, a gestetnered copy of a similar amendment and I thought I could move my amendment when this particular amendment was moved, but then because I saw that even on the first amendment, on a matter of constitutional practice and procedure, there was so much unnecessary heat generated and so much unnecessary talk and exchange of harsh words that I felt that it would not be right for me to try and put in an amendment that had already been defeated and not supported by some Members of the Opposition, to try and prolong this - I would not say this unnecessary - debate on a very important national issue. Therefore, I did not move it. Of course, if I were like some Members who wish to hear their own voice in this Assembly, I might have done it, but being a responsible Member of the Assembly, I felt that the time of this Assembly should be devoted to matters of importance, matters that can serve the interests of the people of Singapore.

I therefore did not send in my amendment, although I was prepared to do it. We have so far already spent fifteen hours debating this present amendment. I was indeed very glad to hear you say before the tea-break that you proposed to put the Question after all the charges levelled at certain Members of this Assembly had been answered by the Members concerned.

Now, in the Select Committee, I made it clear that I did not like the amendment of one question one issue. I did not like it and I gave my reasons in my two speeches why I could not support the amendment, and I spoke in very strong language in Select Committee because it was not refuted by the Government that I had come to know that the Government proposed to put two questions - "Do you want White Paper 33 where we have autonomy in labour and education?" Or "Do you want the Barisan type of merger where 340,000 non-local born citizens will lose their citizenship rights?" Sir, when I heard that it was suggested that these two questions should be posed, naturally I was not only very angry but I would say annoyed and gave a piece of my mind. I said I would not allow the Government to go on with this dishonest way of posing questions in a referendum on merger. I made my stand clear. The Minister for Finance has said that the Government will agree that the questions will be debated in this Assembly before they are posed in a referendum. That, I take it, is an admission that they saw the error of their ways and that they are prepared to amend their ways. Surely the Barisan Sosialis will still be able to have the opportunity to speak for days on end when the questions are being debated in this Assembly.

Now, talking of my supposed change of stand from a "yes" to a "no", what I suggested in the Select Committee was that, first, there should be one issue but there could be more than one question, but the meat of the issue should be posed first - "Do you want closer association with the Federation of Malaya'?" Yes or No. If it is "yes", then there could be 3, 4, 5, or 6 questions; everything like "Yes", "No", "Yes", "No", "Yes", "No", and it was, I think, the Member for Anson who said there could be 3 yeses and then, where would we be? Then I said we would get no answer. Surely to spend $400,000 of public money on a referendum, it is necessary that an answer in clear and certain terms should be ascertained. Therefore, I did not move my amendment and now what is this referendum to be on merger? We claim that White Paper Command 33 is not merger; it is a closer relation with the Federation of Malaya - that we do not mind - we do not want to quibble about words. It is, can we say, half merger.

All Parties, I said yesterday, are committed to merger. Everyone, even if I take my Party Constitution's objects, wants to achieve merger with the Fede ration of Malaya. The P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P., the Workers' Party and even the Parties that are not represented in the Assembly say merger, merger, merger, but no Party has defined what that term 'merger' means. Of course, it must be merger. Admitted that what is meant by that is that we want to join the Federation of Malaya as a constituent State in the Federation in the same way as other constituent States are in the Federation. We want that because we want to be free from British colonial rule. Right, so all Parties want merger. So what is wrong if the P.A.P. says, "Sorry, we cannot achieve merger. The best that we could do with the Tunku is this half merger." There are other Parties who are more bold, more brave, more militant, but unfortunately more unrealistic by demanding complete merger. Merger to the extent that they know it in the objects of their Parties, on the platforms of their Parties. They want complete and unconditional merger. So why do they not pose that question? Now because of Brunei, Sarawak and Borneo coming into the greater Federation of Malaysia, what is wrong in posing that question to the electorate, "Do you want it like Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei?" So there I say, when you pose these three questions - the first is White Paper Command 33, I call it half merger; the second is complete and unconditional merger with the Federation on the same basis as any one of the constituent States in the Federation; the third one is entering the Federation of Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those of any one of the Borneo territories - those are the three possible questions that face anyone -

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member has made this point on this amendment. 1'hat argument will arise, as I say, when the Minister for Finance tables the motion. I do not know what procedure he is adopting, but he has said that this Assembly is going to debate the questions to he put to the people. So I think all this can be reserved until we do debate these questions.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, the charge of the Member for Anson is not the posing of three questions, but my keeping firm in "yes" or "no". Yes, Sir, I am trying to answer the "yes" or "no" charge of the Member for Anson. I am not posing the three questions. So, well, I -

The Chairman: Order. But the hon. Member has gone a little further. He says what is wrong with these three questions'? That is exciting a debate. Another Member can properly stand up and say, "Oh, it is wrong." A Member in the Opposition might say the second question is wrong. Therefore, the whole debate is opened up. Let us get on with this amendment.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I am bound by your ruling, Sir. The questions I said I heard the P.A.P. were intending to pose in a referendum were dishonest, but I cannot agree to one question, because it would give us an answer that would not be the correct answer. So, let us have three questions, four questions, five questions, so long as the questions to be posed are settled by a full, frank and lengthy debate in this Assembly. Sir, everyone wants merger, that is, every Party represented here and outside wants merger. So, let us make use of this referendum and go and ascertain from the people what type they want. Do they want this half merger of the P.A.P., or do they want the full complete merger of all political Parties, or do they think now, "Maybe we have the Federation of Malaysia, we want the Borneo territories merger." On the Borneo territories, there is a lot of heat generated because of the moves and counter-moves, political moves and what not that this Bill presents. It is said that this is a general referendum Bill hut they are trying to prove that this Bill is meant only for the merger referendum.

I would urge the Government that the only way to take the heat off this unnecessary, lengthy and provocative debate is to give an assurance to this House that once the referendum is completed, the Ordinance will be repealed. Let us forget whether it is going to be a general Bill or a merger Referendum Bill. Let us get down to the serious business of the day. We want a referendum on merger. We want the questions for the referendum to be debated in this Assembly. We want the questions to be posed in an honest, straightforward manner. And we want to get an answer from the people of Singapore as to what they like.

6.15 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, to reply to certain charges made by the Member for Anson. Sir, the Member has once again accused us of dishonesty, being fraudulent and perfidious. Sir, there is a Chinese saying called "Chuo Chei Han Chei", a thief calling other people thieves. The people who are dishonest, fraudulent and perfidious accusing other people of dishonesty and perfidy. Sir, I can very well understand why the Member for Anson wanted to kiss his members of the Central Committee when they agreed not to release the text of the letter he received from the Tunku. I can well understand that because if that letter were to be published the Member for Anson would suffer the most humiliating rebuff in the history of his political career - and he has suffered many humiliating rebuffs and this will be the most humiliating of them all.

Mr David Marshall: Publish it!

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Now, Sir, just to give one example where the facts are established beyond all doubt. He has admitted that the Communists have captured his Party.

Mr David Marshall: That is false!

The Chairman: Order. I would suggest to the Minister for Finance that he is absolutely stale. He has already dealt with that part of it and perhaps he can mention it in passing and not go into details.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I only mention it in passing, Mr Speaker. I say that accusation has been completely documented and if the Member for Anson really now denies it, then, will he please say who captured his Party?

The Chairman: Order. I think I must rule that out as completely irrelevant. If the Hon. Minister wishes to pursue that, he must give notice of a substantive motion.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I only raise that point because we have been accused of being dishonest in saying that and I say that is a completely honest accusation, honest and well-founded.

Sir, I want now to come to the serious part of the debate and it is this: that they say that the referendum questions which will be posed are unacceptable because we are not going to put the Opposition's policy for the choice of the electorate. The Member for Anson says that they had already expressed the definition of the type of merger they wanted quite clearly in the resolution which was defeated in this Assembly. They maintained that if the referendum was honestly carried out, then that proposal of theirs for complete merger with 100 per cent automatic conversion of citizenship should be posed as an alternative.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: That is not correct, Sir. I have never maintained that that proposal should be any part of the referendum. I say if they want to put it in, by all means put it in, but give the people a chance to say "yes" or "no". The only proposal I suggest that should be put in is the one that has been fully spelt out and approved by the Assembly.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, we are not here to quibble over a little point. He says we are wrong in proposing to put to the electorate complete and unconditional merger in terms of, equality of other States because they say that is not what they wanted, that is only our interpretation of what they wanted. Sir, my point, is that the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party have said quite clearly and unequivocally that they want complete merger. May I read again what the Workers' Party has said about this? They believe that the ultimate solution is integration with Malaya on an equal basis with the other States. They go on to say that what they want is complete and unconditional merger with the Federation of Malaya. So does the Barisan. Now, how does this clause, this addition of automatic conversion of citizenship come about? I suggest this proviso of automatic conversion is merely their in terpretation of what complete merger means. May I quote from what the Member for Anson said during the debate on referendum? You will recollect that we said we were not prepared to support complete merger because it meant that half of the citizens of Singapore could be disfranchised. This is what the Member for Anson said [Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 7. 23rd November, 1961, column 574]:

'It is not true to say that on complete merger there is anything in the Constitution of the Federation which would permit a citizen of Singapore to be deprived of his citizenship of Singapore.'

The Chairman: Order. May I suggest to the Minister that this is an argument which he could possibly advance when the Assembly is debating the actual questions?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I agree this point could be more appropriately raised in the debate on the misrepresentation of the Opposition issue, but since they have said that we have been dishonest in misrepresenting them - there is a central objection to their amendment of clause 5 - I say what they have put forward is their own interpretation of what complete merger means, and if we put forward a proposal of complete merger we are going to put no interpretation on it. We will say complete merger on the same and equal basis as any State of the Federation of Malaya. That is a fair enough proposition. If they believe that that means automatic conversion, they are entitled to believe that that is so, but whether they are right or whether we are right is a matter to be settled by constitutional jurists. I mean the laws of citizenship are there; they apply in the Federation: they would apply in Singapore. But if their proposal is more than their interpretation of what complete merger means, then all I say is they are simply asking for super merger, merger on more favourable terms and conditions than any of the 11 States of the Federation enjoys in respect of citizenship.

Mr David Marshall: I wonder if I can ask the Minister one question.

The Chairman: If the Minister will give way.

Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged. Could the Minister say whether the Government is in possession of any jurist opinion on the issue?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the views of the Governinent's legal adviser, the State Advocate- General and he is a lawyer of some eminence, and we base our opinion on his interpretation. Now, these are matters of interpretation, Mr Speaker, Sir. We may be wrong; the State Advocate-General may be wrong; the Member for Anson, on the other hand, may be wrong: but equality in citizenship laws with any of the States of the Federation is something that is already defined in the laws of the Federation.

The Chairman: Order. I hate interrupting the Minister, but I think the Minister has made his point. The Government has been accused of being dishonest in choosing a topic of that nature. I think the Minister has rebutted that sufficiently.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Now, I just want to deal with one other point, and that is the point that I raised in my address yesterday. I said 'that this amendment of theirs is defective from the point of view of draftsmanship because even if we were to accept it, we could still frustrate the intentions that they have in mind, i.e., if they want one question with a "yes" or "no" answer, we could frame the question in the way I posed yesterday. "Do you prefer complete merger to the White Paper merger?" Answer "yes" you get complete merger; answer "no" you get the White Paper merger. So it does not carry them any further in their attempt to frustrate merger.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown) rose -

The Chairman: Dr Lee, in answer to the charges?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, Sir, he made a lot of charges yesterday.

The Chairman: Well, I hope there will be no repetitions because I am stopping repetitions.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir. Just to show how dishonest the Government have been, I need only mention a few words on how they have been twisting about this being a general Referendum Bill and this being also a Bill for merger. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, Sir, except to say that even here in this House they have been saying that this is a Referendum Bill and also a Bill for merger. There is a lot of talk about the mode and manner, Sir, and I want to debunk the argument of the Government Ministers that now our decision should be only on the mode and manner. Sir, common sense will tell us that if we want to have consultation on the mode and manner of anything, then that mode-and-manner consultation should have been carried out before that something has been fixed and placed before the people. Let me bring your mind back to the day when there was a request from us for participation in the affairs of the Party. At that time, Sir, we asked that we be given a chance to tell the Party leaders as to what form of -

The Chairman: Order. I do not think I can allow that. We are now on an amendment, one question or two questions or more than two questions. I think if the hon. Member has a specific contribution to make on that particular amendment, strictly on the amendment, I will allow him to speak. But all this, to my mind, is completely irrelevant, because we have now exhausted all arguments and all I am allowing is a winding-up more or less, and I think the Member for Queenstown is entitled to wind up because it is his amendment as well.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Very well, Sir. I come back to what I said yesterday, that the correct translation of this Referendum Bill is not "Chyuen Min Tou Piau" but "Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh". When I mentioned that, Sir, the Prime Minister jumped up and asked if I could quote references. I have the quotes, Sir, and I will show them to you now. In fact, Sir, textbooks all over the world say that the correct translation of a referendum is not "chyuen mm tou piau" but "chyuen min fu chyueh". I am now quoting, Sir, from a textbook called "On Comparative Study of Constitutions". It is a texbook of China published in 1936 and is used for the Peking University Department of Law. It is written by Hwang Shih Chieh and Chen Tuan Tseng.

6.30 p.m.

The former was once a Foreign Minister of old China. I will now read to you from page 277 where the authors talk of direct legislative rights of the citizens. I will read it in Mandarin so that it can be translated for you by the official interpreter:

[Interpreter's version]-

'A referendum means that any Bills or constitutional resolutions are put to the citizens for a decision as to whether such Bills or constitutional resolutions are to be approved. That is referendum. The citizens, of course, can express whether they want to adopt them or reject them. That is called a referendum.'

I will translate it in English, Sir, to see whether it tallies with the translation you have just heard:

'A referendum means any bill or proposed change in the constitution that has been passed in Parliament or Legislative Assembly must be taken to the people for endorsement in order to decide whether or not such bill or proposed change in the constitution is to become law of the country. This is called referendum. That is Chyuen min fu chyueh. The expression of the will of the citizens naturally can only he in the form of saying yes or no.'

I do not think the Minister for Home Affairs can contradict Professor Hwang Shih Chieh and Chen Tuan Tseng. I will quote you another two lines only. I will read it out in Mandarin. It is at page 295:

[Interpreter's version]-

'Irrespective of whether for the purpose at election or referendum the people should have the free right of voting. That is, to have free expression of their will. The freedom of voting means that the people can cast negative votes and also means that the people can form their political parties and can also freely express their views and oppose any political parties and things like that.'

I will give you my interpretation of it. Sir, in English:

'Whether it is an election or referendum, that is chyuen min fu chyueh, the people must have the right of freedom of choice, (that is of vote). It is only then that the result can be said to be the expression of the will of the people. What is meant by freedom or choice of vote not only includes the right to say no but also the right of people to organise political parties and/or other organisations in order to strengthen the opposition [that is to the issue].'.

Sir, I have only given one quotation from this book but if the Government Ministers want to challenge me on quotations I can assure them that I can give them another 10 or 20 quotations. I think this should convince the Government Ministers that we are not talking without any basis. It is the general recognition all over the world that when you talk of a referendum you mean taking the decision already arrived at and passed in the Legislative Assembly to the people so that the people outside the Assembly may accept or reject such decision on any proposed law in the country. This is very important, Sir, especially in relation to the White Paper merger proposals of the P.A.P. today. Of course they want to get out of their own zugzwang by posing two unacceptable questions in the referendum but I hope to bring that in when I move my motion condemning the Government for the distortion of our stand.

Sir, the Minister for Finance says that the real issue at stake in the whole of this Referendum Bill - and he mentioned it in relation to the amendment that is before us - is: should the Communists be allowed the chance to wreck the referendum? Sir, all their arguments do not hold water. Whenever they find themselves cornered, whenever they find that their arguments are rebutted, they always go back to the same old theme, that this is a general Referendum Bill, or when that fails, they bring up the Communist bogey. It is always the Communist bogey, Sir. Why? Because the Communists cannot answer back. Nobody defends the Communists and nobody can answer for them and therefore it is a convenient label to put on because, the Communists being illegal, none of us would speak up for them. But let us see what substance they have in their arguments. The Prime Minister in a speech before the foreign correspondents before he went to London said that the Communists were never more isolated. Similarly, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, said over the radio the same thing, that the Communists are now conscribed and isolated. Even the Minister for Finance said something to that effect, and the Prime Minister, in London, mentioned also that 99.5 per cent of the people in Singapore are neutral and that only a very small section of the people were supposed to be Communists and pro-Communists. Sir, the Minister for Finance now says that this is all a Communist threat. Of course they have been contradicting themselves all the time, but one has to pin them down some time or other and we must ask them: Who is the person who has not been speaking the truth? Was it the Prime Minister or was it Mr Jek Yuen Thong or was it the Minister for Finance? Tell us. Only one person can speak the truth in this case and they must tell us who is not speaking the truth. Sir, it is always the habit of the Government to concentrate their attack and their propaganda machine against any section of public opinion or public activity that causes them anxiety. By this, Sir, they hope to prejudice public opinion against that section of people who cause anxiety to them, and the commonest label which they can think of nowadays is the "Communist and the Red". I remember I said before in this House some time back that the label they used about 40 or 50 years ago was "Socialist" or "Labour"; that about 70 or 80 years ago, the label was "Radical", and that possibly 1,900 years ago, the label was "Christian". Nowadays, Sir, Communism has become synonymous with effective opposition and if the Prime Minister himself will remember, he also was labelled Red and a pro-Communist when he was in the Opposition. Let us see their arguments, Sir. All those who are anti-Communist claim that they are anti-Communist because the Communists are dictatorial and because they rob the individual of his freedom. But let us examine what has happened in Singapore today and ask who is dictatorial and who is robbing the individual of his freedom? Is it the Opposition? Is it the Barisian Sosialis? It is none other, Sir, than the P.A.P. The P.A.P., especially the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, are doing just that. They are not only dictatorial outside but also inside this House. I do not think I need remind you, Sir, of the many occasions of their practice of parliamentary dictatorship in this House.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think the Member should go further. I think he has made his point. Let us come back to the amendment now.

6.45 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In this Referendum Bill, for example, there is no choice offered to the people. They want to offer unacceptable questions to the people, and if the voter cannot vote "Yes" to any of the two unacceptable questions, and if he throws in a blank vote, t1me Government are going to get that vote and call it theirs. This alone, Sir, should tell us how dictatorial the Government are in everything they do.

Now, to answer again the charge that it is due to the Communists. Sir, in the world today, especially when the socialist movement is gaining strength every where, there must be Communists everywhere. There must be Communists all over the world, in Britain itself, in the United States of America. In Indonesia there are 2 million Communists. In Singapore only 300, according to the Prime Minister. So it is absurd to say that just because there are certain Communists in Singapore, therefore, we fire not supposed to have our democratic right of saying "No" and other rights of freedom. The Communists have advocated anti-colonialism. They have advocated that the wages of workers be raised. They have advocated that our standard of living should be raised. Does it mean that just because they have advocated these things, so we cannot also advocate the same' Therefore, Sir, the argument which the P.A.P. have been advancing cannot convince many people. They cannot even convince themselves, and they can only hope to deceive themselves. What we light for are the interests of the people, and if they should coincide with the interests of the Communists, then we should not be debarred from working for the same interests that serve the people. Even the Prime Minister himself said that if there are things that are good for the Communists but if they are also good for the people, then the P.A.P. would support them; but it appears that the Prime Minister only thinks of the P.A.P. these days.

The P.A.P. have repeatedly claimed that all those who are against merger are Communists. Today they have further claimed that all those who are against the Referendum Bill are also Communists or pro-Communists. I do not know, Sir, about the Workers' Party and about the Member for Anson. Nobody can say that he is a Communist. The Member for Hong Lim of the United People's Party - nobody can say that he is a Communist. There is today a Council of Joint Action to fight the Referendum Bill and the unequal provisions in the present P.A.P. merger proposals. The Lib-Socs, -

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): They are a pro-colonial Party.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - the United Democratic Party - Sir, the United Democratic Party advocates even tearing up 'of the ballot paper. Are they Communists? They are not Communists. In Borneo, for example, there is the Sarawak United People's Party. There is also the Party Rakyat of Brunei - all Malays - a hundred per cent against Malaysia, and even the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in Brunei itself shows that a hundred per cent of the people there are against Malaysia, but they dare not publicise the Report. because if they did, it would be very inconvenient and embarrassing to the Prime Minister and -

Mr Rajah: On a point of information, Sir?

The Chairman: On a point of information, yes.

Mr Rajah: What is the source of the Member's information?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I went to Brunei recently. In fact, the Press have been told to suppress the news of the Commission of Inquiry in Brunei. I can tell you some interesting stories. For example, when the Com mission of Inquiry was held, there were a few people who went up to speak for Malaysia.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. May I suggest it is not only irrelevant but it could be embarrassing to other Governments and, out of courtesy, Sir, I do think we should not pursue that matter.

The Chairman: I think the objection is well taken. It is irrelevant and it might embarrass and offend those Governments. Let us not go into details but come back to this amendment.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention of telling those stories, but for the question from the Member for Farrer Park.

Therefore, this constant harping on the Communists by the P.A.P. is nothing but a pretence and a make-believe of their own, in order that the P.A.P. may crush the effective opposition from the Opposition parties. By so doing, they hope that the Opposition will be, according to the words of the Prime Minister, contained, conscribed and rendered ineffective. Of course, when there is no more opposition to the P.A.P., then they hope to maintain themselves in office and to live and rule merrily ever after. 'The intention, Sir, is very clear. All the time they talk of the Communist bogey, but it is not because of the people of Singapore or of anything else, but because of the selfish interests of a few leaders in the P.A.P. I do not think I need go further on this, Sir, but may I be permitted to say a few words on the question which the Minister for Finance has been talking about? He said, "Do you prefer complete merger to the White Paper merger?" Sir, this is a most misleading question. What we are asking for is not a double-headed question but a simple and straightforward one. In fact, this question can he divided into two. It is not one question. There are two questions put into one. And, therefore, it is unfair to the voter and is completely misleading. That is why we stress that the question must be simple and straightforward in order that the voter in clear conscience can answer "Yes" or "No". I do not want to raise any new material now except to -

An hon. Member: There is no more.

The Chairman: Order, order. I think the Members on the Government side should also have regard to what the Chair is trying to do. The Chair has suggested that there should be a winding-up and the Member for Queenstown is probably trying to give effect to the Chair's wishes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Most of our arguments have already been given in Select Committee, Sir, and Members can always look up the arguments, but I want to correct the erroneous analysis of the Member for Cairnhill. He was saying that the P.A.P. was committed to a referendum only after the radio forum in September 1961 and it was because the Barisan Sosialis said "No, no, no" that the P.A.P. dare not have one question, and hence the delay.

Let me give you the correct picture of this referendum plot. I would also like to tell you more about how the referendum plot originated, but I think I will reserve that part of it until I come to the amendment on the announcement of details in the electoral divisions. I will just run through it quickly and tell you how the P.A.P. was committed to the holding of a referendum long before that. It was not without reason that the P.A.P. had decided on a referendum. A referendum, first of all, need not involve the resignation of the Government, and secondly, the P.A.P. Ministers' private interests would be served. But, as I say, I will come to that later on.

The original intention, as has been correctly said by the Member for Cairnhill, was that one question on the White Paper merger proposals would be put to the people and that the people would be required to give an answer of "Yes" or "No". That was clearly indicated in the many communications which the Prime Minister let out. He said that the people could reject or accept those proposals. He also gave a very graphic explanation in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh on 25th September, 1961. There he clearly indicated to the people how the people could vote. He said if the people did not like the merger proposals put before them, all they need do was to put a cross in the space indicating "no", and if they want to support those proposals, they could put a cross in the space indicating "yes". Therefore, Sir, the original intention was to put the White Paper merger proposals before the people and the people were to be asked one simple question that required the simple answer of "Yes" or "No". But since that day, Sir, there has been widespread opposition and, as correctly stated by the Member for Cairnhill, the P.A.P. quickly came to realise that their merger proposals would not be acceptable to the people. Therefore, the original plan had to be scrapped and a new one substitu ted. Since the original one-question referendum would be a risky business, more than one question would have to be submitted to the people. Therefore, the plot was to pose two or more unacceptable questions to the electorate. Hence you see, Sir, in the original Bill and even in the present clause 13 of the Bill there are "questions" to be posed. Of course, the plot was and still is to pose the two unacceptable questions - one being the White Paper, which would he the less objectionable of the two unacceptable alternatives. The people were expected to choose the lesser of two evils. This is what I want to impress on the Member for Cairnhill, if the information could be handed to him. The in tention, therefore, under those circumstances, was to have a snap referendum, blitzkrieg style, and only five days would be allowed for the referendum from the date of notification to the actual date of referendum. That was in the original Bill - clauses 6 and 13. Now they have amended the period from five to seven days and from seven to 14 days In the original clause it was only five days - to make sure that the Opposition Parties would be prevented from mobilising all their strength for canvassing. They made sure that there would be complete prohibition of canvassing. That was in the original clause 42. Of course, the whole idea was to limit and restrict the Opposition's normal means of communication with the masses. No canvassing would be allowed. It would be complete prohibition. Of course, the P.A.P., would have all the facilities of propaganda through the unrestricted use of Government machinery, including the radio and Rediffusion. That is found in clause 40. I do not intend to go further into it now, Sir.

The original plan for a referendum of only one straightforward question that required a simple answer of "yes" or "no", was, therefore, changed and switched to a referendum of two questions, which made it a choice of two evils. In the confusion so caused, and with the short period allowed to the people, the P.A.P. had hoped that the voters might vote for the White Paper merger proposals. This was the actual thinking and behind-the-scenes plotting before the merger debate. That is why the National Referendum Bill had its First Reading on the 27th of November. I will only go so far about the plot, but 1 will enlarge and go into further details later on. This is just to tell the Member for Cairnhill that when they tabled the Bill in the Assembly, the decision had already been arrived at to have two unacceptable questions to be posed to the people. They call this the National Referendum Bill. We hope that the P.A.P. will accept the amendment and really give a chance to the people to say no to the question posed. This would then make it really a National Referendum Bill and not a P.A.P. Referendum Bill.

7.00 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I just want to take up the last point made by the Member for Cairnhill as to the nature of the Bill. Considerable heat has been generated in the debate in the last few days that this is a general Bill. It would appear that all the Opposition - the S.P.A., the Workers' Party, the U.P.P. and the Barisan Sosialis - object to this Referendum Bill being called a general Bill. Mr Speaker, I take it that it is the wish of the Opposition that this Bill should not be a general Bill and that it should apply only to the refer endum on merger. Now that being the case, the Government are prepared to scrap the Bill on merger with the Federation.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir. Could we have that repeated? It may be that our understanding of English is defective. Could he elaborate and explain?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson was not listening.

Mr David Marshall: What makes you think so?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: My point is this. Since all of you are objecting to the fact -

The Chairman: All the Members, please.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Yes, Sir. I am sorry. Most of the Opposition Members object to the fact that this is a general Bill. They all say that this should be a specific Bill dealing with the issue of merger only. If this is their wish, I say that the Government are prepared to scrap it after a referendum on merger has been taken. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order.

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

An hon. Member: Division.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6-

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, though chronologically this clause comes before clause 13, the amendment therein sought is, in fact, an amendment consequential to the first amendment to clause 13*, and after consultation with the supporter of the amendment in respect of clause 6, I would inquire, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether you would defer consideration of this amendment until after consideration of clause 13. That is the material clause, Sir, once that is dealt with.

*Amendment (i) to clause 13 reads as follows:

In page A3, line 37, to leave out "seven" and insert "twenty-eight".

7.15 p.m.

The Chairman: I think it might be convenient to move the amendment and then debate both the amendments so that when we come to clause 13, we can just take a vote. That is a better idea.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker. Sir, why I sought the other way is that it might be confusing. It is not so much that we worry as to whether the Yang di-Pertuan Negara would give 28 days or 14. The material aspect is that there should be enough time for the questions to be known. We do not want this consequential matter to cloud the real issue. You see the point, Sir,I would ask, in the circumstances, that it be deferred after clause 13. There could be no argument once clause 13 is dealt with.

The Chairman: No dissentient voice to postponing? Clause 6 is therefore postponed.

Clause 7-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am not moving my amendment, Sir+.

+Dr Lee Siew Choh's amendment reads as follows:

In page A2, line 36, to leave out "his satisfaction" and insert "the satisfaction of the Legislative Assembly".

The Chairman: The Member is not moving.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12-

The Chairman: Clause 12, Dr Lee?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Actually, Sir, this is a consequential amendment to clauses 5 and 7. I am asking that symbols should be fair and should not work unfairly on the subconscious mind of the voter. If symbols are to be chosen, they should be neutral and have no religious or other unsavory significance in them. Here we are asked to put our trust in the correct judgment of the Superintendent. It may open the Superintendent to criticism of unfairness if he should make a mistake. Under those circumstances, the Superintendent would be placed in a most invidious position. To prevent all this unhappiness and possible misunder standing, we suggest that the symbols be debated in the Assembly so that although they may ultimately still have a political bias because of the P.A.P. majority in the Assembly, at least the publicity of the debate will enable the people to know exactly what the symbols are all about. I have already previously argued in the Select Committee that if the Superintendent made a mistake, we might not have an opportunity to complain to the Assembly; whereas, if it was debated in the Assembly beforehand, no such mistakes could arise. We must remember, Sir, that certain symbols need explanations, and, at the present moment, the whole of the Government propaganda machinery is in the hands of one Party and it may not allow the other Parties equal opportunity to explain to the people unless we have a debate on this in the Assembly.

The Chairman: Will the Member formally move the amendment?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page A3, lines 32 to 34, to leave out "the Superintendent may adopt such symbols as he thinks fit and such symbols shall be printed on the ballot paper" and insert "symbols as indicated by the Legislative Assembly shall be printed on the ballot paper."

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure the House that the symbols to be chosen will not have a religious significance or bear any resemblance to the symbols of any political Party. They will be fair and neutral.

Mr David Marshall: I am very interested to hear the Minister give an assurance as regards the executive act of an executive officer in whose activity he is not supposed to interfere. Would he inform this House whether, in fact, he intends to give directions himself as to the symbols?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious my assurance will be conveyed to the Superintendent.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I think we can give the House this assurance that any symbols used to indicate the questions will not have a party bias. If we were to debate on the nature of the symbols which are going to be employed, probably we will be spending another 3 midnight sittings on this debate, as you yourself, Mr Speaker, will have noticed that on a simple amendment to clause 5, the Opposition have been going on dingdong for several hours. It might well be that the Workers' Party might want the hammer, and the Barisan might want the sickle, and between them and us, we might never arrive at an agreement for a symbol at all. I think the House can rest assured, as the Minister for Home Affairs has said just now, that no symbos will be used which will have a party bias.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13-

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will notice that in clause 13 the Superintendent shall publish in the Gazette a notice specifying, inter alia, the questions to be put at the poll. He may do this on a minimum of seven days before Polling Day. Mr Speaker, the weather-cock of the P.A.P. has turned from north to south, and east to west, and back to north, so that we do not really know where we stand here as to whether this is now a general Referendum Bill or a specific Referendum Bill. I would like to suggest that they go into a huddle somewhere and make up their minds and solemnly assure us on which one it is, so that we know how to argue. If it is a general Referendum Bill, you will appreciate that to give the people seven days' notice in respect of any question is inadequate for the purposes of canvassing and explaining to them the meaning of that question. If it is a specific Referendum Bill, I would like to add this. You are aware that the Government are taking credit throughout the country, and when the Member for Cairnhill was on the radio forum, he seemed delighted at the assurance given by the Prime Minister that in respect of the questions to be asked in this referendum, the Government would permit a debate on them. I am sorry I was not present, and I gather from the Minister for Finance that the assurance was given by him. I accept the correction. I have no doubt it is accurate. An assurance was given by him that the Government would permit a debate on the questions to be asked in the referendum. That is very generous of the Government. The truth is, at the time they gave that assurance they were under a constitutional obligation to participate in the debate, because the Opposition had given notice that it would be seeking a debate on a motion as to the questions to be posed in the referendum. However, Sir, the purpose of my remark is not to deflate yet once more the pouter pigeon credit that they seek, to which they are not entitled, but merely to say this, that I am conscious of the possibility - I say no more - be cause undertakings by this Government, you have seen, can change from hour to hour. We have been told, Sir, that this is a general Referendum Bill. I have been abused in a most scurrilous fashion. They have even indulged in the impudence of introducing my wife's name. I take strong exception to obscene people using her name. On top of it now, we have the Minister for Home Affairs saying to us that he will scrap this Bill as soon as the merger referendum has been put. Are they changing their minds from minute to minute - maybe they and I do not speak the same language, Sir, - we will leave it at that. What I want you to notice is this. Assuming for the sake of argument that that part of the assur ance given by the Minister is going to be carried out, that we do not have a prorogation, let us say, before we have the motion - they can prorogue this Assembly. Now, Sir, assuming then that the people will know what the questions are; assuming furthermore that those questions will be specified by the Superintendent - because there is no legal duty on him so far according to this Bill, but let us assume it. Then we come to this position. I say that accepting this as specific for the moment, accepting the Government assurances at their full value, nevertheless we are left in this position. Though we may know the questions, we will only have a limited period for canvassing. In fairness - and I do not want to mislead anyone-assuming that they carry out all the promises made, which are not legally binding, the questions will be known, in fact, when His Excellency orders the gazetting - gazettes his orders to the Superintendent to put to the people the matter of merger by way of a referendum. The moment he says, "Order from His Excellency to the Superintendent that the matter of merger be put to the people by way of a referendum." Then we have got 14 days. In fairness, that would be correct, although we do not know the exact questions for another 7 days. Nevertheless, if they keep their word and the questions are here debated, and the same questions are put by the Superintendent, we will have 14 days. That is taking everything that is favourable. Now, Sir, 14 days. I would suggest to you, in the context of a trading and commercial community where people have to earn their livelihood, and I am talking of the common people - we in the Assembly on this side are not supposed to be earning our livelihood; the Government side is doing jolly well.

7.30 p.m.

Sir, I would say that in order to educate the people, how shall I say, Sir, to the issues during that period and for having mass meetings, and you will re member, Sir, that the Member for Hong Lim who sought a mass meeting in his own home town, on his own home ground, has been refused a licence because of some technicality which I trust

• I do not know, maybe I am trusting too much again: I withdraw that trust. But on the assumption that at election time the technicalities will be waived and we will be permitted at short notice to hold mass rallies - that gives us, Sir, a maximum of two Sundays - the Sunday immediately after His Excellency gazettes the Order and one more Sunday. It gives us two Sundays and two Saturday afternoons on which to hold mass rallies at which the people of Singapore could attend.

Sir, I say with respect that asking for four weeks is reasonable and surely, particularly in the context of the obvious insistence of the Government that several questions will be put, four weeks is not unreasonable; it is necessary. I must touch here, Sir - though it is in the Select Committee's Report - on the fact that in Jamaica where they had a special referendum law they specified - and though, Sir, in that law itself the question was clearly enunciated - that the Governor must lay down the date for polling at least six weeks - forty-two days - from the date of the proclamation. I am here asking for no more than 28 days between the gazetting of the questions and the polling date. Sir, I am at a loss to understand the vigorous resistance to a request which is supported by every possible precedent that could be thought of. I would draw your attention to the fact that the Member for Cairnhill voted in favour of this amendment in Select Committee. It is a minor thing, Sir,I know we were outvoted by the Government - five to all the Opposition four. I do say that asking for 28 days for the purpose of canvassing is the basic reasonable minimum. I will not say I trust that the Government will accept it, but I do urge that there should be unity at least on this side in insisting on it.

I formally move,

In page A3, line 37, to leave out "seven" and insert "twenty-eight"*.

• The same ammendment also stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, when we do not agree with the Member for Anson, he says that we are dictatorial, and when we do agree with him, he doubts our intentions and our sincerity. Mr Speaker, Sir, in case he is still confused over what I have said just now, and to keep his mind at peace, may I say here that I will be moving an amendment to restrict the life of the Bill to the referendum on the merger issue? I think that is clear.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I should like to come back to this allegation that the Government is not giving the Opposition time to explain to the people regarding the merger issue. Nothing is further from the truth than this ridiculous allegation. Since the Barisan Sosialis and their newly acquired mouthpiece in the Member for Anson are only interested in this specific case of merger referendum, I shall perhaps be permitted to dwell at length on this case.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of merger, if I remember correctly, was being discussed seriously ever since June 1961, following the statement made by the Federation Prime Minister in May 1961. A White Paper on merger was tabled for debate in the Legislative Assembly in November 1961. The debate went on uninterruptedly for three weeks with the Member for Queenstown making his record-breaking seven and a half-hour speech. No one can deny that there was a thorough ventilation of views on the merger issue in the Assembly. There was, indeed, a free, full and frank discussion. The issue was finally concluded at the end of three weeks with no dissenting votes on the White Paper. Since then the issue of merger has been more intensively discussed in the newspapers, at radio forums and at mass meetings. Indeed, in the last month the form in which the questions will take has begun to take shape. Surely, information on the issue for the coming referendum has been given in advance far beyond the twenty-eight days which the Barisan Sosialis and their newly acquired mouthpiece have demanded.

The Chairman: Order. I must stop the Minister referring to a Member of this House by other than his constituency. He is the Member for Anson.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, if they are only interested in this specific referendum on merger, then they have had not only just twenty-eight days, but two hundred days, if we take into account the period when the Assembly debate on merger first took place in November 1961 up till now. The charge that the Government is not democratic in not giving the Opposition sufficient time to explain to the people cannot stand, especially so when we have already given an assurance to this House that the question to be put to the people will be debated in this House.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the mover of this amendment, the Member for Anson, did in his opening remarks say that if this Bill was intended to refer to the merger referendum, then he might have different views on the time required for canvassing and for referendum meetings. It was I who suggested to the Government in my earlier speech that perhaps if they could give an assurance that this Bill would only be used once for the merger referendum, it would take the heat off on a number of succeeding proposed amendments. I am glad that the Member for Anson has given an indication that if it was meant to be used only once for the merger referendum, then we might have softer views - not so harsh - but softer views on the matter with regard to this question of time for canvassing.

Now, the other assurance given by the Government is that the questions will be fully debated in the Legislative Assembly. They will be fully debated and, therefore, the public will be able to get an idea of the pros and cons of the questions to be posed. In the light of that assurance, I wonder whether the Member for Anson will be so insistent on the time required for canvassing and for referendum meetings. But I will assure him that no matter what it is, be it 28 days or be it what he thinks is more reasonable, we will support him.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we have all the time been saying that the Government have been very dishonest. This clause proves it to the hilt because when we were debating this clause in the Select Committee, they said that since we had had so much discussion on the merger issue, there was no necessity for any further time for debate or for canvassing. They were thus implying indirectly that this Bill was meant for merger. And yet all along they have been trying to say that this is a general Referendum Bill. Therefore, you can see from this alone that if the argument suits them, they say that this Bill is for the referendum on merger. If the argument does not suit them, they say that this Bill is a general Referendum Bill.

Now, it is not the case of 200 days or 14 days for the issue. It is not the issue that we want to talk about. It is the questions which the people must know about and discuss. If the questions were given early, we would be able to have a full debate on them. But through the pressure of our arguments and through the pressure of public opinion - in truth, they are trying to give an appearance of democracy on their part - they have now given in to our insistence that the questions should be debated in the Assembly. In fact, in giving the promise now that the questions will be debated in the Assembly, they have already admitted the validity of all our arguments. I only need, Sir, to remind the House that in all other countries the period of canvassing allowed is either six weeks or two months. For example, in the referendum that is going to be carried out in Algeria, the notification was given on the 15th of May, and they announced that the referendum would be held on the 1st of July.

7.45 p.m.

The question was given to the people three or four weeks before the date of the referendum. Everybody knew what it was all about. The Government's insistence of only one week now therefore cannot be defended.

The Member for Anson referred to the Hong Lim by-election and to the Anson by-election - 7 weeks and 5 weeks. Yet the original intention was -, and I suppose it still is - that canvassing after discussion of the question will only be one week. Even the Prime Minister himself, during the Hong Lim by-election, suggested that seven weeks was not long enough for the P.A.P. to put their views across to the people. He thought at that time that if he had a longer period, possibly he might have swung the results the other way round.

The main thing about canvassing, Sir, is this: if you really intend to allow canvassing, you must allow the time and the facilities for canvassing. Gov ernment has full advantage of the propaganda material in Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion; and even the Press is under pressure. I mentioned to you the other day, Sir, that if the editors of certain newspapers do not toe the line of the P.A.P. then pressure is exerted on the newspaper and even its circulation is threatened. For example, in this particular case of the Sunday Mail, we understand that the editor has now been transferred as a result of negotiations between the people in charge of the Straits Times and the Government of Singapore. Just because a headline did not suit the purpose of the P.A.P., all this has happened. Sir, a lot of reporters have put in their reports of the day to the newspapers, but after sub-editing they just do not see their original stories anymore. All because of some frantic telephone calls from the Ministry of Culture. This is an open secret, Sir, and I think everybody knows about it. So, from this alone, we can see what pressure the Government exert on the newspapers and indirectly on the Opposition Parties. When you come to clause 4, Sir, you will see that the P.A.P. do not intend to allow Opposition Parties to put up posters. I do not intend to say very much on that now, but just to point out that they have given an undertaking that they would allow canvassing as in a general election. "As in a general election" does not mean seven days; "general election" means six or seven weeks.

Sir, although the questions that are going to be put in the referendum will be debated now in the Assembly, it will still take some time for the different meanings, and hidden meanings especially, of these questions to be placed before the people. When we ask permission for a rally, Sir, they always put difficulties in our way. They allow us to have our rallies, but they make sure that our preparation for the rally is very strictly limited. Permission is only given almost at the last minute.

Of course, Sir, this clause ties up with their original intention to have a snap referendum. But now that the questions are going to be debated, they relax the time period for canvassing to a certain extent. Even then in relaxing the canvassing period, they limit our facilities to the minimum, making sure that we cannot communicate with the people as easily as we like. I hope the Government will really live up to their promise of allowing canvassing "as in a general election", and if canvassing is to be allowed as in the general election then it is a minimum of four to six weeks.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, before this Bill went to Select Committee it provided that a notification should be published not later than five days before the date of the referendum. The Member for Anson has now agreed with the Barisan Sosialis that it should be amended to not later than 28 days. But when in Select Committee, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out to the Member for Anson that his original amendment was that five days should be amended to ten days, if I can quote from the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill of 11th May, 1962, No. 4, col. 207, Mr Speaker, Sir, his reply was "Never". And I asked:

'Could that be checked for the purposes of the record, Sir?'

And then he replied:

'Mr David Marshall: That is correct, Sir,I have since recognised, Sir, the validity of the suggestion made by the representatives who appeared before us and by my colleagues on this side of the table that 10 days would, in fact, give us only one week in which to hold rallies, and week-ends are the only times when the voter can be approached with any adequacy for purposes of clarification of the issues.'

This is to illustrate the way in which the Member for Anson keeps changing his mind from hour to hour and from day to day.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, the difficulty with the Member for Queens-town and the Member for Anson is this. When we agree with them, they say we change our stand to suit our purpose; and when we oppose them, they say we are being dictatorial. The Member for Anson has drawn particular attention to the question of whether this Bill is a general Referendum Bill or a Bill meant for a specific referendum, and I think he mentioned it several times during the course of the debate. If, as I have said, this Bill could he used for a referendum on merger, the Member for Anson also insisted that it should be employed for a referendum on merger. But when the Minister for Home Affairs agreed that if that were so he would be quite prepared to repeal the Bill, the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson said that we changed our stand to suit our purpose. On the charge of the Member for Queenstown that the Opposition do not have adequate time to campaign on the question of referendum for merger, Members of the House will remember that in the debate on a motion moved some months back, we pointed out to the House that the Ban-san had jumped the gun long ago. They started their campaign on April 1st -

An hon. Member: April fool.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: - and they had been canvassing from house to house; they went to all electoral divisions, and they had all their mass rallies. How could they say that there will not be adequate time for them to campaign in this merger referendum?

The question on merger has been debated in the Press, over the radio, at forums, and has been expounded by the Barisan Sosialis for months on end, and the public today know full well what are the issues at stake. Moreover, we have agreed that the question for the referendum will be debated in this Assembly, and, therefore, ample opportunity will he given not only to the Barisan to air their views but also for the people to know what sort of questions will be posed. Therefore, the charge of the Member for Queenstown that they do not have time to campaign and to explain to the people what merger is all about is rubbish.

Mr David Marshall: If the Minister will sit down, I will rise on a point of elucidation, Sir.

Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

The Chairman: We are in Committee.

Mr David Marshall: You mean that he can answer later?

Mr Chairman: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker. Do I understand that, in fact, they are accepting the second amendment to clause 13 -instead of "question", they want "questions as framed by the Legislative Assembly"? Are they accepting that amendment?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Which clause?

Mr David Marshall: I understood the Minister to say, Mr Speaker, that he agrees to the questions being framed in the Legislative Assembly. He says it is, going to be a specific Bill for referendum. So is there going to he a firm constitutional legal requirement that the questions specified by the Superintendent are the questions framed by the Legislative Assembly?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The answer is that he is going to move a motion to debate this question in this Assembly, and the question which will he framed by this Assembly will be used.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry, Sir, I -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I know he wants me to put this amendment. We have already debated it in Select Committee. There will be undue delay. If we were to put the question as framed by the Assembly in this clause now, then this Bill would have to go through the Assembly, and be assented to by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before it could be implemented.

The Chairman: We will come to that in the debate on the next amendment.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, we will come to that. But I do want to say - and it is very fortunate that we are getting the Official Report almost 24 hours after the speech - that I am charged with having agreed with them and, in fact, insisted that this Bill should be used for a referendum on merger. That is a falsehood, Mr Speaker - a plain falsehood. I have all along insisted that this Bill is inappropriate for a merger, that we should have a specific merger Referendum Bill. They have consistently denied it. They say that I made the issue as to whether it is specific or general - I made the issue to show with contempt their dishonesty - how if one thing suits them it is one thing and when it does not, it is another. When it was debated on the Second Reading, everybody said it was specific. Then the fantastic exhibition throughout the Select Committee - 'This is general. This is general." And when we come back here, the Deputy Prime Minister - not being here when I draw attention to it - comes in and puts his foot into it, and says, "This is general, this is general". When it is ex posed to the public gaze, to a point where nobody can miss it, they now say it is specific. I say again, the Jamaican Referendum Bill was short and simple with a few clauses. Why should we not have it? And this is pertinent because the Minister - I think I can say which Minister it was, I think it was the Minister for Law - said, "In every legislation which pro vided for a specific referendum, the question was framed in the Ordinance itself." That was said this afternoon, Sir. That is what I am seeking, and that is what is being denied, and that is what is important.

So this alleged concession is no concession at all. We knew exactly what was meant, and we pointed out that there was no other referendum in view but the idea of having a specific-cum-general Bill is merely in order to have flexibility for dishonest manoeuvre. No, Sir, they charge the Barisan, and they might as well charge me, with being hypocrites in wanting more time because the Barisan have, since April Fool's Day - April Fool's Day, was it?

An hon. Member: Yes.

Mr David Marshall: They have been canvassing. Sir, I would like you to listen to the words of the Member for Cairnhill who rammed that lie down their throats.

8.00 p.m.

I refer to the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill of 11th May, 1962, No. 4, col. 182:

'Dr Goh Keng Swee: In this instance, Sir, I say it is extremely bad, because experience in the past 12 months has shown that, if anything, the public have been informed of the views of the various political Parties on merger ad nauseam, absolutely ad nauseam -'

The Chairman: Will the Member for Anson read a little slowly?

Mr David Marshall: Yes. I am sorry.

'I say that the argument that there is inadequate time is sheer humbug. The Government will not accept it.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: It is not the issue involved that we are concerned with, but rather the questions. As it is, we do not know what questions are to be posed. Unless we know what questions are to be posed, how are we going to tell the electorate? Surely all Parties, Opposition or otherwise, must be given every opportunity to explain the implications of each question.'

Sir, that was a logical stand and, I must say, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill in his very short speech has brought a breath of parliamentary courtesy to this Assembly which is invigorating. I do recognise that in the light of the logic he expressed in his speech in Select Committee, he is entitled in this instance to say, "Now that we are going to have the questions posed, I will not support this amendment." But he has extended me the courtesy of saying that they will be prepared to support it, but they will inquire whether I am insisting on it. Sir, I am indeed appreciative, particularly in this atmosphere, of this reminder of the way things could be.

Sir, as to the actual merits, I agree with the Member for Cairnhill that if, in fact, we could be quite certain, for example, if it is incorporated in clause 13, that the questions to be specified would be questions as framed, then the main argument is met. Yet, Sir, may I remind him that in Jamaica, where the question was posed in the Act itself, the Act requires six weeks' notice? And so. Sir, you will find in Australia, several weeks are required, though the law has been discussed and passed in Parliament. What is my main anxiety in this matter? I am afraid, Sir, again the Member for Cairnhill earlier on put his finger on it - I have become deeply suspicious of the Government's potential for dishonest manceuvre and I want the maximum time possible to meet this possible manouvre. I say that look at it from the negative point of view, giving 28 days cannot possibly harm anybody. Looking from the positive point of view, Sir, 28 days may give us time to meet some dishonest manipulation that might eventuate and it would give the impetus of topicality and urgency to the canvassing that takes place. Frankly, Sir, if he was in the Government and he was suggesting some compromise, I would be inclined to cooperate completely. But in the light of the attitude indicated by the Government, I trust that we may have their continual support in respect of this motion.

Mr Lee Siew Choh rose -

The Chairman: Dr Lee? I was just wondering whether there is any further argument on the question.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I just want to remind the House, Sir, that this is the first time we are having a referendum and sufficient time must be given to the people to decide. I want to ask why they want to be in such indecent haste? Why are they afraid of people knowing the facts? $400,000 is going to be spent on this referendum and they do not want the people to know everything. They do not want the people to have sufficient time to make up their minds. Sir, they say the referendum period is going to be two weeks, and during those two weeks, according to the amendments in clause 41, posters will not be allowed. How are the political Parties going to canvass without posters? What the Government intend to have are only Government posters - P.A.P. posters all over the shop. I have learnt they have printed thousands and thousands of big posters. All for the P.A.P.

Sir, their giving way on this clause is simply because they have this foolproof provision in clause 29 of a sure win in the referendum. I do not mean to talk now very much on that aspect of it, but just to indicate to you that their giving way is because they want to put up an appearance of being democrats. But more -

The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Member alleging that the Government are agreeing to the amendment when he says they are giving way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Pardon?

The Chairman: Is the Member alleging that the Government are agreeing to the amendment when he says they are giving way? I do not quite follow?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think I had better explain, Sir. Their original intention was only five days, then it was changed to seven days, and now the question itself will be debated. So all their giving way on the question is because they want to pose themselves as democrats. We have criticised them so much, Sir, that they cannot take it any more. Public opinion is pressing them and they have to give in some way or other. All because they have a sure win referendum in their clause 29. Under those circumstances, they think they can relax, but even in relaxing they want to make sure that canvassing will only be limited to a very short period, and during that short period no posters will be allowed.

Mr Bani rose-

The Chairman: Mr Bani, on this issue?

Mr Bani: Yes. On the amendment to clause 13.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that the debate on this clause is relatively unimportant. But I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, to dismiss this as such would not be fair to the Opposition case. We have put forward to the House our views as to why we think the P.A.P. is wanting the Referendum Bill as it stands now. We asked that the matter to be put to the people be first discussed in this Assembly, so that the people can be fully aware of their arguments for and against that question, but the Government rejected it. We asked that only one question be posed in the referendum, so that the people would not become confused, but the Government rejected it. Now, Sir, we ask that the people be given more time so that they could fully understand and consider carefully the question before they vote, but the Government is once again rejecting it. Sir, it is important. It may be a bit tedious but, nevertheless, I think it is important to realise, particularly on an issue of this magnitude, why in fact the Government is behaving like this.

Sir, the reason the Government gave for rejecting this amendment in Select Committee was that if more time were given, the people would be confused. I believe it was the Minister for Home Affairs who moved this amendment. He suggested that if more time were given, it would allow unscrupulous men to confuse the people.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: It has been done.

Mr Bani: And he had one Mr Oon Peet Fong who made representation to the Select Committee on the same lines. Sir, to suggest that if the people were given more time to consider the question they would become confused is, in fact, an insult to the people. Does not the P.A.P. leadership at least have some respect for the intelligence of the people? Is the P.A.P. seriously saying that our people are so foolish that if more time were given, they would be confused?

Sir, you are aware that prior to and even during the 1959 elections the same suggestion was made by the S.P.A. There was the suggestion that the P.A.P. won the elections because they confused the people. And it was people like the Prime Minister and various others who denied this. They said, "No, our electorate is a sophisticated electorate; they are intelligent enough to choose the policies one stands for and not the individuals themselves." For example, the people of Hong Lim were given seven weeks to decide. This was longer than the time given for the general elections. Those seven weeks, Sir, were given by the P.A.P. Government. Does the P.A.P. agree that it gave seven weeks longer than the period given for the general elections?

The Prime Minister: They already got 7-plus!

Mr Bani: Longer than normal because they wanted to confuse the people? The Prime Minister says they have already had longer than seven weeks. We have had longer than seven weeks to discuss and decide in the face of restrictions on the Press, and in the face of restrictions on the availability of media to put forward our views, notwithstanding that we have had a longer time. But to discuss what? To discuss whether we want merger or not. In 1959 everybody was saying, "Yes. Merger is the next constitutional step." But, Sir, in this referendum it is not important whether one wants merger or not, but rather whether the question posed is understood. Even if they were to bring the question to this Assembly for debate, one may not fear a longer period for canvassing, or for allowing all political Parties to explain to the people their points of view. And there is no need to have this lack of confidence in the intelligence of the people to decide definitely one way or the other.

8.15 p.m.

Sir, when the elections were over, the Prime Minister suggested that had a longer time - longer than seven weeks

• been given for canvassing, perhaps the tables would have been turned on the Member for Hong Lim. Was he then, Mr Speaker, Sir, suggesting that if longer time had been given, the P.A.P. would have confused the people and won the elections? I have not heard arguments more absurd than the one the P.A.P. is putting forward in defence of this undemocratic Bill. This is because they are vulnerable and their arguments are untenable.

Sir, in opposing this amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, the Minister for Home Affairs said in Select Committee that the Government could not agree because this was a general Referendum Bill and that the Government might have to ask any number of questions. Sir, the Minister here wanted to reserve the right for the Government to pose any number of questions, 20 questions if necessary. But in opposing it, the Minister also said that in a referendum only one or just two questions would be put and that, therefore, there was no need to have a longer period given for the people to consider the issues.

On the one hand, the Government wants to preserve the right to put as many questions as they want, and on the other hand, they want not more than seven days given for the people to consider the questions. Sir, who is trying to confuse the people? Whatever the Minister says, Sir, we know for a fact that this Bill is primarily for the purpose of pushing through the unfair merger arrangements. In fact, the Minister for Finance said at col. 181 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 4, dated 11th May, 1962:

'Let us come down to brass tacks. This referendum will be about merger.'

That is admitted. That is so. We also know, Sir, that to get through this unfair merger arrangement, the Government has not only to rig the referendum hut also to confuse the people.

This is the basic P.A.P. theme that we should understand if we are to understand the P.A.P. wriggling in and out of contradictory arguments. The Government does not want to pose just one question, viz. "Are you in support of the merger arrangement on terms contained in the White Paper?", because the people's answer is going to be a categorical "No". So they want the right to pose more than one question. They want the right to pose perhaps two unacceptable alternatives in a context where the people have no right to say "no" and where they cannot abstain. The Government does not want, at the same time, to give sufficient time for canvassing, because it knows that if sufficient time is given the people will know the P.A.P.'s strategy. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill in its original form gave no opportunity for canvassing at all. Why are they afraid of facing the people and of putting forward their case and giving the right to the Opposition Parties to do the same?

Today, Sir, the Government, in effect, wants to give seven days of very restricted canvassing on the referendum. But since the Select Committee convened and up to the time of the sitting of this House, the Government wanted to prohibit completely canvassing. The reason why today the Government is willing to allow even this very restricted canvassing is because of the pressure it faces. from the people and because it finds that the resistance to the undemocratic provisions of this Bill is very strong from the people and the organisations. Because of this, they now seek to appear reasonable. But everyone knows that al lowing seven days of very restricted canvassing is not being reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 20; Noes, 23; Absent, 8. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Omar Chan Sun Wing. Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Byrne, K. M. Miss. Chan Chee Seng. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lim Yew Hock. Chor Yeok Eng. Lin You Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Lingam, S. V. Goh Keng Swee. Low Por Tuck. Hoe Puay Choo, Marshall, David. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Kuan Yew. Rajah, A. P. Lee Teck Him. Sheng Nam Chin. Lim Cheng Lock. Tan Cheng Tong. Mammen, John. Tee Kim Leng. Mohd. Ariff bin Teo Hock Guan. Suradi. Thio Chan Bee. M. Ismail Rahim. Wong Soon Fong. Ong Pang Boon. Ramasamy, S. Absent. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Abdul Hamid bin Wee Toon Boon. Haji Jumat. Yaacob bin Ahmad bin Mohamed. Ibrahim. Yong Nyuk Lin. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Absent--(contd.) Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The Chairman: The next amendment standing in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown is,

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

There appear to be two issues there. One is whether or not the word "questions" should be left out and the words "one question" should be there inserted. The second issue is whether or not the words "as framed by the Legislative Assembly" should be added. On the first issue, we have exhausted arguments, and I do not think I will be correct in allowing a further argument on whether or not there should be "questions" or "one question". Therefore, if the hon. Member for Anson wishes to take a vote on that particular aspect of the amendment, he can move separately. In other words, move 'That the word "questions" be left out, and there be inserted the words "one question".' We take a vote on that, and having disposed of that, I will permit the Member for Anson to move the insertion of the words "as framed by the Legislative Assembly." Is that convenient?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will forgive me, but I have no intention of raising again the issue already discussed, not even to take up the time of the House for a vote since the issue has been voted on. It seems to me fairly specific and it is not my intention to just waste time. I was going to address the House exclusively on the issue as to the framing of the questions by the House.

The Chairman: If the Member will just move, we will take a voice vote.

Mr David Marshall: Is it necessary, Sir?

The Chairman: It is just for the record.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

In page A3, line 41, to leave out "questions" and insert "one question."

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: Will the Member now move formally before we suspend?

Mr David Marshall: If it please you. Mr Speaker, I move,

In page A3, line 41, after "questions", to insert "as framed by the Legislative Assembly".

The Chairman: Order.

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

Mr Speaker: I suspend the sitting and I shall resume the Chair at 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 13-(contd.)

The Chairman: We are on an amendment in page A3, line 41, after "questions", to insert "as framed by the Legislative Assembly". Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, are the Ministers on the Front bench informed of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance to the people of Singapore at the radio forums that the P.A.P. Government will permit the Assembly to debate the questions to be asked in this referendum? If they are so informed, I trust they will keep that information in mind during the debate on this amendment. If they do so, they will not repeat the ugly exhibition of contradicting each other and themselves which we have witnessed on the question whether this was a general or specific Referendum Bill. In March, we had the Prime Minister, the Minister for Law, and the Minister for Finance tell us that it was a specific Bill for merger. In April, the Deputy Prime Minister in a solemn motion told us it was only for the merger. In May, we had in Select Committee the extraordinary exhibition of forgetfulness on the part of the Minister for Law, the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Minister for Finance of what they themselves and their Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister had said. To cap it all, yesterday we had the Deputy Prime Minister tell us this is a general National Referendum Bill. Well now let us come down to clause 13 of this National Referendum Bill now no longer general. In my amendment, I asked that the questions be framed by the Assembly. Now that the Minister for Home Affairs, having recognised the error of his ways, is going back to the original intention and saying that this is a specific Bill, I would remind him of some remarks he listened to with a broad and pleased countenance at the magnificent acumen of his colleague. I would refer to the 8th of May, Sir, column 110, No. 3, of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill. It is very pertinent in this context because

• need I remind you, Sir? - all I ask is that the questions be framed by the Legislative Assembly. Now, Sir, column 110, we have Mr Byrne, the Minister for Law, here. May I refer to one-third of the way down, Sir, so as not to weary you by reading too far? It is about 15 lines down, Mr Speaker, Sir.

'My point here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this is a general referendum Bill. If there was before the Committee a Bill dealing with a specific referendum issue, there is nothing to prevent the Legislative Assembly from deciding the questions to be put to a Referendum. But in this case, this is a general Referendum Bill. . . .'

So now we have it on the assurance of the Minister for Home Affairs that this is a specific Referendum Bill - you have got a somersault. Will the Minister for Law concede - and I trust his colleagues too - that there is nothing to prevent the Legislative Assembly from deciding the questions to be put? May I also remind this House that we do not have Hansard, that earlier this afternoon the Minister for Law from a prepared speech said to us that it is true in every specific referendum law he could trace, the question was framed by the legislative authority that framed the Act? Now, Sir, need I add more? That is all I seek here.

Mr Speaker, it is not the purpose of this amendment for my standing up here to do more than to point their own volte-face. I would be very happy if we could now just take a vote quietly and bury their own shame.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really surprised at the ignorance of the Member for Anson in this matter. There is no constitutional precedent anywhere in the world where it is written in the law to provide for the Legislature to do the work of the Executive. The framing of the question is an executive action of the Government, for the simple reason that if the Legislature is allowed to do executive functions of this character, then there might as well not be a Cabinet. Let me now quote what the Member for Queenstown said in the Select Committee. This is the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 3, 8th of May, 1962, column 78, the last paragraph. We were discussing whether the Head of State should be advised by the Government or the Assembly. This is the same principle. Now, this is what the Member for Queenstown said:

'The suggestion [that is, the Head of State to be advised by the Assembly] will also allow the elected representatives and political Parties to discuss the issue. Although we realise that discussion in the Assembly ultimately means that the view of the majority, namely, the Government, will still prevail, we feel that in the discussion and in the debate many good points will be brought forth,...'.

You will notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Member for Queenstown is only asking that the issue be brought up in the Assembly for debate so that the Opposition will have an opportunity to air their views. And then far from we being forgetful as alleged by the Member for Anson - may I quote what he said in Select Committee at column 94 of the same Official Report, somewhere in the middle of the column. This is what the Member for Anson said:

'We are not asking that the Opposition should have the right to dictate what the Government should ask. We are asking that we should have the right to participate in a debate whereby we [that is, the Member for Anson and the other Opposition Members] could guide the Government on the issue.'

Here it is clearly stated in black and white that he is not asking that the Opposition should have the right to dictate what the Government should ask. Now, be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are going to move immediately after the Third Reading of this Bill a motion containing the actual questions to be put to the people for debate in this Assembly. The Member for Anson will have ample opportunity to discuss the question.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we see the dishonesty of the P.A.P. Government in every clause of the Bill. In fact, Sir, I wonder if you notice it - they are so crestfallen all of a sudden. Mr Speaker, Sir, something must be happening. You will notice their faces - all of a sudden they are long, like those of horses.

The Chairman: Order. I hope the Member for Queenstown has not looked at the Speaker's face also. It has gone a bit long because he is tired.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, all along when we were discussing clause 5 in Select Committee, they have been saying, "This is a general Referendum Bill", and all for what? They say it is meant for different types of smoking, the sale of toddy. In fact, Sir, I have already marked this paragraph out for quotation and I am glad that the Member for Anson has quoted it because this is a clear admission from the Minister for Health and Law that he is the expert on whom the Minister for Finance depended. I refer you to column 107 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 3, dated 8th May, 1962, Sir:

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I give two reasons why these amendments are unacceptable. First, it contravenes, on the authority of my colleague, -' Well, this is the authority of his colleague, and what does he say in column 110? It is the same quotation which has already been read out to you. This is a clear admission by the "authority" that if this is a general Bill there is no thing to prevent the Legislative Assembly from deciding the question to be put to a referendum.

Mr Byrne: Specific Bill, yes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Now that they have admitted this Bill is meant for merger specifically, let them not eat their own words.

Mr Byrne: We are not eating our own words. We understand the constitutional position. I have made the suggestion in this Assembly that if there is a specific Referendum Bill -

An hon. Member: This afternoon.

Mr Byrne: - this afternoon rather, that if there is a specific Referendum Bill, then, as in all specific Referendum Bills, there must be a clause which sets the question. That is a fact. If it is a general Bill, questions have got to be set and it will be the Government that will have to accept the responsibility for setting those questions. But you have heard the undertaking given by the Minister for Home Affairs just now that even before the Third Reading of this Bill the questions will be brought here for discussion.

9.45 p.m.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has always accused us of having short memories. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember that in Select Committee when we were discussing certain representations made by representors, a memorandum from one of them had this to say:

'There is no precedent in the world where a section of opposition in the Assembly, which does not shoulder the responsibilities of government is given the right to decide what the Government should ask the people in a referendum.'

The Chairman: Where is that?

Mr Byrne: That is from the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill. No. 3, of 8th May, 1962, column 90. It is the same quotation that was referred to by the Minister for Home Affairs just now. He accepted that, Mr Chairman.

Mr David Marshall: What?

Mr Byrne: No, I am sorry, Sir. Mr Marshall said at column 94:

'...the absurdity of that suggestion indicates the imbecility of the person who wrote it. We are not asking that the Opposition should have the right to dictate what the Government should ask. We are asking that we should have the right to participate in a debate whereby we could guide the Government on the issue. That is a far cry from the Opposition arrogating unto itself the right of dictating when or if there should be a referendum.'

He is going to be given that opportunity very shortly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I just want to add a few more words, Sir. They still maintain that it is a general Bill for a specific issue. I do not know how they can be contradicting themselves all the time.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will remember in my earlier speeches I did make mention that when we come to the amendment to be proposed by the Member for Anson, it was my intention to propose an amendment to the amendment to ensure that the assurance given by a Minister of the Government that the questions to be posed in the merger referendum will be the subject of frank debate in this Assembly should they embody it in the law.

The Member for Anson has now moved the amendment which I had thought that I would have to move, and the reply given by the Government to us was that the Government should reserve the constitutional right to frame questions and all that and the other but he, the Minister for Home Affairs, repeated the assurance that a motion will be before this House for debate after the Third Reading of this Bill. I do not see why it should be necessary for a Minister of the Government and for some Members of the Opposition to bring in extraneous matters, try to stand on their dignity and try to tear one another down by flinging back and forth words of abuse, words of distrust and words that are bound to heat up the debate unnecessarily.

Now, what we are very concerned about is that the questions should be fully debated in this Assembly and decided upon before they are posed in a referendum. Sir, we would like to see that written into the law, but the Minister said. It could not be done. They reserve their constitutional right. The assurance given by the Minister that a motion will be before this House for debate after the Third Reading of the Bill makes me think that it might be a quicker process. Because if it were written into the law, then there would have to be more delay, and it would be necessary for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to give assent. That takes time and later on the Government will have to come to this House with a motion for the questions to be debated. That takes a longer time than the time promised by the Minister that the questions will be debated in this House. I find it very difficult, in view of the exchange of harsh words between the P.A.P., the ex-P.A.P., and the spokesman for the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Anson -

Mr David Marshall: I am not their spokesman.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: But I am, in the interest of -

Mr David Marshall rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order. Mr Speaker. I do ask, Sir, that that reference that I am the spokesman of the Barisan Sosialis be withdrawn.

The Chairman: Order. I have already indicated it is not proper to refer to a Member of this House other than by the name of his constituency or by the office he holds. All these remarks which deviate from that ruling are completely irrelevant and can be taken as offensive at times.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, in the interest of not unnecessarily prolonging the debate on this issue of national importance, I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Minister on this one condition: that if the S.P.A. does not see the notice of motion before the Third Reading of the Bill, the S.P.A. will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, so yet once more we ram one more falsehood down the throat of the P.A.P. The Minister for Home Affairs says, "We stand by the constitutional position." What constitutional position? The Minister on his left, a distance away, tells us the constitutional position is that every specific law for referendum contains the question. That is the constitutional position. He has heard his colleagues refer to the Newfoundland Referendum Act of 1948. Perhaps he thinks that is unconstitutional? He has seen the Jamaican Referendum Act of 1960. Is that unconstitutional? What constitution is he thinking of? Mr Mao Tse-tung's?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. Constitution!

Mr David Marshall: Or Hitler's, or may be Stalin's. I do not know on whom they pattern themselves. What hypocrisy is this? Are we using the same English language? Here is the Minister for Law specifically stating that where there is a specific referendum, then there is no question but that the Legislative Assembly can and should decide it. Here, he has said, in this House, not in Select Committee, that that is so in every referendum Act he has seen. What other constitutional position is the Minister for Home Affairs thinking of?

An hon. Member: You do not talk the same language!

Mr David Marshall: Thank God I do not talk the P.A.P. language, the language of hypocrisy and humbug. I wish that Member who has just opened his mouth understands one-tenth of what is taking place here. He would not merely turn pale, he would turn tail and get out of that company.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: We do not talk the same language!

The Chairman: Order, order. The Member for Anson by his extravagant language excites comments from across the Floor, and then when the comments are passed, he goes off the deep end. I would suggest that if the Member avoids these things, he will get on much quicker and there will be better decorum.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, if it does not explain, I trust it does at least ex cuse my feelings if you will recognise that it is human to feel indignation at blatant and open dishonesty and the misuse and abuse of words to mean something totally different.

Sir, we have had assurances over the radio to our people that we will be debating these questions. This is all my amendment asks. My amendment asks for it to be written into the law that the questions as debated will be the questions put. Both Ministers, who obviously do not understand English adequately, have quoted passages, Sir, wherein we have pointed out to them that we are not asking to dictate. This clause does not ask that the Opposition should dictate the question. It asks that the questions should be incorporated in the Bill, and the Government, with its majority, can always have what ques tions it will. All we ask is that in this Bill there should be a law that the questions as debated by this Assembly

• where the Government has the majority and where it can bulldoze what questions it will - will be the questions put and none other. This is not a clause which will remedy the Bill. It will improve it a little. Because, unquestionably, it still leaves it to the Government to put two or a hundred filthy alternatives to the people. But it does at least insist that the questions as debated in this Assembly will be the questions put to the people. This is what has been promised. Why the objection now to its incorporation?

I must confess, Sir, I cannot understand why the Member for Cairnhill, says that he accepts the assurances when' he has had repeated proof of their somersault? Why an assurance, when, on his own logic, it is a matter that can much more simply be written into the law? Why is he prepared to accept it?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: The Member for Anson said he could not understand why I could accent the assurance. But may I remind the House that what I said was a conditional assurance? If that assurance is not made good before the Third Reading of the Bill, we will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. That is the conditional acceptance of the assurance.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Nee Soon commented yesterday, it is difficult to make a schizoid understand what we mean and I do not intend to go further on this.

Mr David Marshall rose -

The Chairman: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. If the word "schizoid" is intended to refer to me, I take objection to it as being offensive.

The Chairman: I am afraid I still do not understand exactly what the meaning of "schizoid" is. I have not looked up the meaning in the dictionary. Perhaps the Member for Anson will let me know. I do not know the meaning of this word.

Mr David Marshall: As far as I understand, Sir, it is a psychiatric term referring to a person of mental incapacity. [Laughter]

The Chairman: Order. I suppose it really depends on what extent that mental incapacity goes to. Perhaps I should not allow the word. If it is stated by the Member for Anson that it is offensive, then it must be offensive under the meaning of the Standing Orders and, therefore, I ask that the word be withdrawn and should not be used again in this Assembly.

10.00 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw that word. The important point is - and that is what, in fact, the Member for Anson asked for - is the opportunity to debate the questions in the Assembly. That, as I have said just now, is what the Government is going to do, i.e. the questions will be brought before this House for debate. What else is he asking for? The moon?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 26; Absent, 8. Ayes. Absent. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Miss. Koh, C. H. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Kuan Yew. Leong Keng Seng. Mohd Ali bin Alwi. Lin You Eng. Rajaratnam, S. Lingam, S. V. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Seow Peck Leng, Ng Teng Kian. Mrs. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Eng Guan. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Wong Soon Fong. Noes. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Chor Yeok Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M.Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah, A. P. Ramaswamy, S. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chve. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18-

The Chairman: The next clause is clause 18 - an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Sir. Might I remind you, Sir, whether we are taking clause 6 at this stage?

The Chairman: No. Under the Standing Orders, all postponed clauses are taken right at the end.

Mr David Marshall: I beg your pardon.

The Chairman: Clause 18 - as I was saying, there is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown:

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

The First Schedule indicates that there will be one question with an answer "yes" or "no". So that the same issues are raised and, therefore, I do not propose to allow any debate on that amendment, subject to what the Member for Queenstown has to say.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have indicated, when I was speaking on the amendment to clause 5, that I will wait until clause 18 because I did not want to mix the whole thing up. If you will look at the Hansard, I hardly touched on clause 18.

The Chairman: What is the issue?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am talking about the ballot paper.

The Chairman: Order. Would the Member for Queenstown indicate on what issue he is going to speak? The issue, as far as I can make out, is: one question with an answer "yes" or "no". If the Member is thinking in terms of whether or not there should, in fact, be a ballot form, this amendment, as it stands, will not let in a debate on that issue. I would suggest to the hon. Mem ber that he reserves his speech until such time as the Member for Anson moves his reasoned amendment to the Third Reading, which alleges that in his view the Bill is inappropriate and inadequate for the purpose. So that at that stage the hon. Member could make his speech indicating that clause 18. which merely speaks about a ballot paper, is inadequate for the purposes of the merger referendum. I hope I have made myself understood.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So I have to wait until clause 13?

The Chairman: I am ruling that there can be no debate on the amendment as worded because that will only raise two issues. The issue whether or not there should be a form of ballot paper has not, been raised, but it can be touched upon - the fact that there is no form for the ballot paper can be touched upon - when we come to the reasoned amendment to be proposed by the Member for Anson. But, of course, the Member for Queenstown may ask for a vote.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes.

The Chairman: Then will the Member just move simpliciter?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I move simpliciter.

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

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 28; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Sun Wing. Mohamed Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Bryne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Lingam, S. V. Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Yew Hock. Mammen, John. Absent. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Abdul Hamid bin Mohd. Ariff bin Haji Jumat. Suradi. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. M. Ismail Rahim. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lee Kuan Yew. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramasawamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Seow Peck Leng, Madam. Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Noes-(contd.) Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20-

The Chairman: Clause 20. There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Anson,

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

Does the Member for Anson wish to move for a voice vote or a division?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I would like to point out that the distinction be tween this amendment and the one I moved in clause 5 is that this pinpoints the third limb only. Sir, those who voted against the amendment to clause 5 because of the one question aspect or the one issue aspect - that is not included here. This is just the one aspect that there should be an "Aye" or a "Nay" to the question or questions. I do move,

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

This is a crucial vote, and you will forgive me if it is not merely a voice vote.

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

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 29; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Ying Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Omar Junid. Ayes-(contd.) Noes-(contd.) Leong Keng Seng. Bryne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Loh Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Tian Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan. Hoe Puay Choo, Sheng Nam Chin. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Khoon Choy. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mohd. Ariff bin Koh, C. H. Suradi. Lee Kuan Yew. M. Ismail Rahim. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Pang Boon. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Rajah A. P. Madam. Ramaswamy, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21-

The Chairman: There are two amendments standing in the name of the Member for Anson. They seem to be connected. Will the Member for Anson move the first amendment? The debate can range over the second amendment*.

*Amendment (ii) reads as follows:

In page A8, line 25, to leave out from "(6)" to "for" in line 27 and insert "The Registration Officer shall prepare a list of the numbers, names and descriptions of such electors as he has ordered to be expunged from the register of electors and shall give notice in the Gazette that such list or copies thereof are open".

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, clause 21 is the compulsory voting clause and I would like you to notice the sub-clauses.

10.30 p.m.

The first sub-clause says, 'Every elector shall record his vote . . .' - that is compulsory. The second sub-clause says that the Superintendent will prepare a list of all those who have not voted.

10.32 p.m.

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

Mr David Marshall: We can ignore sub-clause (3) . We find sub-clause (4) says that the list prepared by the Superintendent shall be delivered to the Registration Officer, and then sub-clause (5) - the sub-clause which I seek to amend - says that the Registration Officer will delete from the register the names of all persons who have not voted. Now, what happens to those people - some of whom may be away from Singapore, some of whom may be sick on that day? What happens to them when their names are taken off the register? We then come to sub-clause (8) - they must satisfy the Registrar that they had a good reason or they must pay $5. Now, Mr Mammen, Sir, that is not onerous and that is perfectly fair and I accept it. But notice the last three lines: "Such names shall be restored to the register ... at the next ensuing revision ..." And that is the rub. These people who may, through no fault of their own, have been prevented from voting are deprived of the right to vote until after the next revision of the register and that may he two years, or three years, or four years. Sir, it can be said that this is identical with a clause introduced by the Member for Cairnhill when he was Chief Minister and made the voting compulsory. That may be so. In fact, I think it is correct. But I trust that that would not prevent him from recognising now that, as is pointed out, there is an unfortunate and uncalled for penalty on perfectly innocent people and that it could be easily remedied. Now, how do I propose to remedy it, Mr Mammen, Sir? I move,

In page A8, line 22, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 24 and insert "inform every elector on such list by notice addressed to his last known address, that he proposes to expunge the name of such elector from the register of electors unless within twenty-eight days the elector satisfies the Registration Officer that he had good and sufficient reason for not having recorded his vote, or pays to the Registration Officer a penalty of five dollars. The Registration Officer shall thereafter cause the names of such persons on the list who have not so satisfied the Registration Officer or paid the penalty, to he expunged from the register of electors".

The Chairman (Mr John Mammen): Order.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry. Am I going too fast?

The Chairman: It is too fast for the interpreters.

Mr David Marshall: I am sorry, Mr Mammen, Sir.

Well, the gist of it, Mr Mammen, is that what I ask is that before you take the man's name off the register of electors, you should send him a notice and say, "You did not vote in the national referendum on such and such a day and you must within 28 days give me an explanation or pay me $5." And if within 28 days, the man gives an explanation which is satisfactory, or if his explanation is not satisfactory and he pays the penalty of $5, then his name remains on that list. But if he does not give an explanation and he does not pay, then, by all means, Sir, take his name off that list. Sir, I know that anything that comes from me seems to be treated by the opposite side as though it would have Machiavellian intent. They see in it their own motivations. But I will ask you to recognise here, take for example, a person who is in hospital under operation. Let us say, the Member for Cairnhill, if he will forgive me. Now, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill goes to hospital to have a minor operation.

An hon. Member: The Member for Anson.

Mr David Marshall: Then the position arises that on polling day, he cannot go to the polls. Now, Sir, he is the leader of a political Party. He is vitally interested in retaining his name on the register of electors.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I will go on a stretcher.

Mr David Marshall: it is important to him. Now, what does he do?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Go on a stretcher. [Laughter].

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen, you have an advantage over me there. I must confess I did not hear the interruption. But I will gladly sit down to hear it.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Chairman (Mr John Mammen): Mr Marshall, please continue.

Mr David Marshall: I take it, Mr Mammen, they do not think their reply is worth repeating. I do not either. Mr Mammen, if I might proceed, what is he to do? You will find that in that unfortunate circumstance, the leader of a political Party who has made politics his life is deprived for a period of two to three years from either standing for election or voting either in a referendum or at an election - not merely voting, Sir, but also standing for election. This could happen to anybody. But I will ask you not to look at it merely from the point of view of the interest of the Members here, Sir, or of the interests of politicians, but of the interests of the general citizens. Take anybody, Sir. Take a humble servant who is sick. Take somebody who has gone to Hongkong or to Penang. Now, why should they be deprived of the basic rights of citizens to vote and stand for election because they were absent from Singapore on that day? I can find absolutely no answer to what seems to be a perfectly legitimate request, that before a man's name is struck off the register, he should he given the opportunity to say why he did not vote and if the answer is satisfactory, then to leave his name on the register hut if his answer is unsatisfactory, to request him to pay the $5 fine which we authorise, if he pays the $5 fine, to leave his name on the register. But if he refuses to answer, refuses to pay the $5, refuses to come, then take his name off the register. That, Mr Mammen, in essence, is what my two amendments to that clause seek to make. They seek to humanise and rationalise the provisions of this clause for compulsory voting.

The Chairman: It has been proposed as an amendment:

In pace A8, line 22, to leave out from "shall" to the end of line 24 and insert "inform every elector on such list by notice addressed to his last known address, that he proposes to expunge the name of such elector from the register of electors unless within twenty-eight days the elector satisfies the Registration Officer that he had good and sufficient reason for not having recorded his vote, or pays to the Registration Officer a penalty of five dollars. The Registration Officer shall thereafter cause the names of such persons on the list who have not so satisfied the Registration Officer or paid the penalty, to be expunged from the register of electors".

The debate may, of course, range over the second amendment*.

• In page A8, line 25, to leave out from "(6)" to "for" in line 27 and insert "The Registration Officer shall prepare a list of the numbers, names and descriptions of such electors as he has ordered to he expunged from the register of electors and shall give notice in the Gazette that such list or copies thereof are open".

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Mammen, Sir, I, am indeed very touched by the kind thoughts of the Member for Anson for my welfare. Although he has so many kind thoughts for me, yet he wished that I was in hospital. I do not know which one to take, whether he wished that I was in hospital or that if I was in hospital he would feel very sorry for me if something happened to me.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Touch wood!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Anyway, Sir, I have been asked what would happen if I was in hospital. I say if I was in hospital, I would ask for a stretcher to take me to the polls to cast my vote But in order to have a better appreciation of the implications brought forth by the Member for Anson, perhaps the Minister for Home Affairs can tell us the number of people who have been struck off the roll and the number of people who came forward and gave reasons and paid their fines. For as we know, our registers are all in a way very "cock-eyed", if I can use the term. For all we know, a man who goes away for even three years still has his name on the register, just because it is automatic. Even the name of a man who is dead, if his identity card has not been surrendered, also remains on the register. So if without knowing the implications - the number of persons who will he affected by the clauses in the Bill and the number of persons who should he protected by the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson - it will be very difficult to debate this matter. We certainly do not want to clog up the Registration Office to send notices to graveyards of people who are dead but whose names still appear on the electoral register or to people who are ho longer living in Singapore but whose names are still on the register. Perhaps the Minister can give us some facts and figures. There was a general election, after, which there was a by-election at Hong Lim and another by-election at Anson. It would be very helpful for us to have a better appreciation of the Points raised by the Member for Anson.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Mammen, it is well and good to enunciate lofty principles, but the point is whether these can be put into effect. I think in this case particularly, we should consider the practical implications of what the Member for Anson proposed. I can assure you, Mr Mammen, that the amendments suggested by the Member for Anson are an administratively impossible task.

10.45 p.m.

Clause 21 is taken out word for word from a similar section in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. I am sure that when the last Government passed the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, this section must have been fully considered and the implications fully thought out. However, I shall give some facts and figures concerning this particular clause, since we have had one general election and two by-elections over the last few years. And from the facts, hon. Members in this House will realise how impractical is the amendments of the Member for Anson.

At a general election in 1959, the non-voters numbered about 59,000, which was about ten per cent of the 'electorate. Of this number, a substantial portion represented persons who had things their addresses since the registers were certified and, therefore, did not receive the poll card which informed them of the polling station at which they were to vote. This resulted in their not going to vote at all. Among the others, a portion represented those who had left the country or had died.

Now, under the Member for Anson's amendment, notices should he sent to all such persons informing them that within 28 days they should either pay $5 or give good reasons for not voting. Mr Mammen, no one can expect such persons to reply if notices are sent to them, as the notices will not reach them. Moreover, the time taken to send out the notices will be considerable, depending upon the number of nonvoters. Assuming that all those who received the notices replied, it would take considerable time for the enquiry to be completed in respect of all these cases - extending to some months and on occasions going beyond the date due for the next revision of the electoral registers. If the number of non-voters who have replied is, e.g. 40,000, it would take 200 workers to complete the enquiry at the rate of 200 cases a day. The names o, these electors cannot be expunged from the registers until their cases have been adjudicated upon by the Registration Officer. If there should be an election in the meantime, all these persons would be able to vote as their names would still be in the registers. This, in fact, means that while on the one hand we agree on compulsory voting, on the other band, we make it so laborious and burdensome for the administrative machinery to carry out the provisions relating thereto. Further piecemeal deletions and additions to the registers resulting from prolonged enquiries are likely to cause confusion in the mechanical processes involved in the preparation of the registers. A further point is that the names of non-voters are not deleted from the registers without their knowledge, as claimed by the Member for Anson. Every elector in Singapore must by now be aware of the provisions for compulsory voting and that the initial penalty for not voting is the removal of his name from the register of electors. If an elector does not vote at an election, he must expect his name to be deleted from the register.

I shall now give the figures of nonvoters at the general elections and at the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections, and the number of applications received for the restoration of names, in the case of the general election, the number of non-voters is 58,850. The number of applications for restoration of names is 6,413. In the case of the Hong Lim by-election, the number of non-voters is 1,072, and the number of applications for restoration of names is 227. In the case of the Anson by-election, the number of non-voters is 1,384, and the number of applications for restoration of names is 32.

It will be seen that even after three years since the general elections, only 6,400 applications out of 58,000 for restoration of names were received. And the position at Hong Lim and Anson even more shows how indifferent people are with regard to the restoration of names on the electoral registers, and as I said (and probably the Member for Cairnhill is correct on this point) a large number of these voters were probably in the grave.

Mr Byrne: Mr Mammen, Sir, apart from the administrative difficulties con nected with the implementation of the procedure proposed by the Member for Anson, tinder the procedure proposed by him, the elector who has failed to record his vote will be treated with the tenderness which he does not deserve. Surely it is the duty of every citizen to record his vote where voting is compul sory. And if he fails to do so for any reason whatsoever, the onus should surely be on him to apply for the restoration of his name on the electoral register. The onus being properly placed on the elector, who has failed to vote, to apply for the restoration of his name on the electoral register, it follows that he would have to wait until the next ensuing revision of the electoral register before his name is, in fact, restored to the electoral register as such revision of the electoral register cannot be made on a piecemeal basis. Nor is there any injustice done to him if before the next ensuing revision of the register he is deprived of an opportunity of exercising his vote if a by-election, an election, or a referendum is held in the interval. Furthermore the knowledge that there is this penalty will be an added stimulus as it will serve as a deterrent to electors keeping away from the poll and will encourage a larger attendance at the polls, thereby helping to achieve the objects for which compulsory voting had been introduced. I cannot see how it can be contended that this is undemocratic.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen, it must surprise you, Sir, the extraordinary in capacity of the Government Benchers to understand elementary humanity. The Minister says that I seek exceptional tenderness towards a defaulting voter and he does not deserve to be treated tenderly. I pointed out to you, Sir, that there are people who have legitimate reasons for being unable to go to the poll. Singapore is a commercial city. Many of us travel. They could be away on perfectly legitimate business. Do they deserve added penalty? Are they criminals if they do not find their way to the polling booth on polling day? Do people seek to be sick? You know, Mr Mammen, Sir, that there is not a day in the year when each of our hospitals is not full of adult citizens, who are so ill that they cannot go to a polling booth. Do they deserve added penalty? What talk is this? When the Member for Cairnhill introduced this section, there was no thought of a penalty other than the penalty of $5. That is why there is the provision that if he satisfies the Superintendent or Registration Officer, then he does not have to pay a penalty at all if he has got a legitimate reason. That is that. That is fair enough. If he has not got a legitimate reason, he is fined $5. That was the only penalty thought of, Mr Mammen.

The P.A.P. now having discovered that, in fact, there is this added injustice

• not penalty - seek to make a penalty for those who have committed no wrong. They say that there is administrative difficulty. Mr Mammen, Sir, curiously the Minister for Home Affairs has himself admitted inferentially that at a general election they issued some 600,000 notices addressed to the electors. (I hear no dissent.) In that case where is the administrative difficulty of issuing 49,000 after the election, which is ten per cent of the difficulty originally experienced? Now, Sir, out of that 49,000, you might get 7,000 replies. Fair enough. Immediately you get the others automatically expunged from the register. And as has been indicated quite clearly, there are a number who die each year, Mr Mammen, Sir, and they would naturally not reply. But the majority of the 7,000 who do reply may have perfectly legitimate reasons. Why should we not treat them with the same respect which is due to honest citizens who have committed no wrong? Why this talk of added penalties? What is this administrative difficulty? There is nothing possible, Sir, to the man who does not want to do it; and there is nothing impossible or little to those who genuinely make an effort.

I find the excuses specious, and in one instance - not surprisingly seeing the source - inhuman.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Mammen, Sir, we all know that the Member for Anson is full of human kindness. Perhaps he will open his house to all those who are poor, and sick in heart and body.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Mammen, Sir, the difficulty with the Member for Anson is that he forgets sub-clause (8). Sub-clause (8) provides that a person whose name has been struck off from the register will be permitted to have his name restored to the register if sufficient reason has been given to the Registration Officer as to why he could not vote on that particular day. This is the vital provision of this clause which the Member for Anson has refused to look at.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Mammen, forgive me, Sir, I cannot let that pass. He knows that I referred to it and he knows my objection. It is curious that a University lecturer with his national Referendum Bill is incapable of understanding elementary argument. My point is that your name will be taken off the register willy-nilly until the next ensuing revision. That is my point.

11.00 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not the number who have applied for registration and restoration of their names that we worry about. It is the principle of the thing, Sir. What difference does it make if they have to send out tens of thousands of letters? Now, in the forthcoming referendum they are already sending out tens and hun dreds of thousands of cards. Why can they not do the same? If those cards cannot be sent out, why can they not get additional staff? What is the money for? Just only for the P.A.P. to use! So that they can go on trips round the world, hold Malaysia Week! And for the Deputy Prime Minister to go round the world!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order, Sir. Sir, I think it is grossly unfair for the Member for Queenstown to say that I have gone round the world.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: So that more of the Back Benchers can be given pleasure trips -

The Chairman: Order. I think all this has got nothing to do with this amendment here. If the Member for Queenstown thinks otherwise, he can bring a substantive motion to that effect, and we can have a nice debate on that. Will the hon. Member for Queenstown please confine himself to the amendment?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: He went to Borneo at Government expense!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I went to Borneo, Sir, at Government expense?

An hon. Member: C.P.A.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: At C.P.A. expense. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs gave some very interesting figures. 59,000 did not vote, and he said only a small section had a change of address, left the country and died. We know, Sir, that every year. round about 50,000 people die - or is it 5,000? What is the figure? Can the Min ister for Home Affairs give us those figures? He is in charge of all those figures.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: We require notice.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, even if one man applied for restoration of his name in the electoral register, that should be good enough reason why we must accept the amendment. The reasons which the Minister of Home Affairs gave are not acceptable. If they are only administrative difficulties, I am sure they can get experts to streamline the administration, and I think the P.A.P. after all the recommendations from past Assemblymen should do better than that.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 29; Absent, 5; Abstentions, 3. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Ying Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Omar Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Bryne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Marshall, David. Chan Choy Siong, Ong Chang Sam Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Chor Yeok Eng. Tan Cheng Tong. Goh Chew Chua. Tee Kim Leng. Goh Keng Swee. Teo Hock Guan. Hoe Puay Choo, Wong Soon Fong. Madam. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mohd. Ariff bin Koh, C. H. Suradi. Lee Kuan Yew. M. Ismail Rahim. Rajaratnam, S. Ong Pang Boon. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Rajah A. P. Madam. Ramaswamy, S. Seow Peck Leng, Abstentation. Mrs. Lingam S. V. Tan Kia Gan. Ng Tian Kian. Thio Chan Bee. Ong Eng Guan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Chairman, I move amendment (ii) under clause 21 standing in my name*.

• In page A8, line 25, to leave out from "(6)" to "for" in line 27 and insert "the Registration Officer shall prepare a list of the numbers, names and descriptions of such electors as he has ordered to he expunged from the register of electors and shall give notice in the Gazette that such list or copies thereof are open".

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Chairman, Sir, I move the amendment+ standing in my name. With this amendment, Sir, I want to draw attention to a very shameful page in the dishonest Referendum Bill. I refer you, Sir, to column 293 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 5 dated 15th May, 1962. We asked how the result of the Referendum would be declared.

• In page A11, line 13, to leave out "declare" and insert "announce the result of the voting its detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares".

11.15 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. The Member f or Queenstown has also filed an amendment to clause 30++. If it is convenient the debate may range over clause 30 as well as clause 27. That is, if it is convenient to the Member for Queenstown. So that at the time of moving, he could move it simpliciter.

++ The ammendment reads as follows:-

In page A12, line 25, at end, to add "Such statement shall be, as near as may be, in the Form in the Second Schedule to this Ordinance.".

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Mammen, Sir, I was saying that we want to reveal one of the most shameful deceptions practised on the people by the P.A.P. I refer you, Sir, to col. 293 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 5, of 15th May, 1962. I was asking a question with regard to the declaration of the result of the referendum. It is a very interesting piece of conversation, Sir, if you will just follow it right through:

'Dr Lee Siew Choh: I see. I would like to ask a question, Sir. What is the meaning of the result of the referendum? Can the Minister give a clarification so as to let us understand? Because in a general election, a certain candidate is declared the winner. Now, it says here. "declare the result of the referendum."'

And there was laughter from the Government Ministers on that day. It reads on:

'The Chairman: Order. Let the Member continue.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Let the Minister explain first. What is the meaning of the result of the referendum?'

Then Dr Goh Keng Swee. These are wonderful words:

'Dr Goh Keng Swee: The result means the way the people have voted in the referendum.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: For example?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You count so mans yeses, so many noes, and so on; so many as, so many b's, so many c's; and you add up.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You are merely announcing the totals then?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes. That is always the way it is done in other countries.' -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of order. It has been ruled that Members of this Assembly should be properly described. Who is Dr Lee and who is Dr Goh?

The Chairman: I think that is well taken, but the Member is quoting from the Select Committee Report. So the hon. Member for Cairnhill must have been asleep because it is late at night.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think the Member for Cairnhill would do well to listen to this -

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Why?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - because it shows up the deceit in the P.A.P. There are only a few more paragraphs:

'Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will just give you an example; A, B and C: one is 45, another is 45, and another is 10. What is the result of the referendum!'

Now, these are very important words, Sir:

'Dr Goh Keng Swee: 45: 45; 10. [Jolly good].

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Just announce it like that? So it does not say which is the one that has won or something?

Mr Byrne: No. There is no contest.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: For example, one with 48, another one with 47, and another 5. What happens? Just announce it like that?

Mr Byrne: Yes.

Now, that is all I want. I want them to announce 45, 45, 10; 48, 47, 5. That is all I want in this amendment. You see, Sir, I want to tell you how this referendum idea was first mooted. I want to tell you, Sir, that the whole idea of the referendum was to find safe seats for the Ministers of the P.A.P. That was the whole idea of the referendum.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You have found the safest seat for us.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If the Deputy Prime Minister will dare to go to Queenstown with me or if he does not want to go to Queenstown I can go down to Rochore. Say yes, and we will resign straightaway. Dare the Deputy Prime Minister do that?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You do it first.

The Chairman: Order. I think this debate is getting out of order. Of course, a little interruption i5 interesting and keeps the Members awake. But if the Member for Queenstown is going to answer all the interjections coming from the Government Bench, then I think there will be no end to this debate.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: He behaves like a small boy.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, the Little bit which I read cut to you from the Official Report o the Select Committee, col. 293, shows how the Minister for Finance had tried to mislead me when I was in Select Committee - from the figures and from the way their answers were given: 45, 45, 10, and then I said 48, 47, 5. The Minister for Health and Law then said. "Yes." From these answers given to me, I had understood that a detailed result would be revealed, But no, Sir, that is not the intention. They do not want to reveal the results of the various divisions in detail.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: National.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The counting will be done in every division, Sir. But the result of the various divisions will not he announced and nobody will know the details. Why? I want to tell you a story, Sir.

An hon. Member: Is it a bed-time story?

The Chairman: Is the story in connection with the counting of votes?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I want to tell you the inside story of the birth of the referendum idea. I tell you, Sir, it will he very revealing because many people thought the idea of the referendum came about Only after the radio forum in September 1961.

The Chairman: Order. I think it would be better for the Member for Queenstown to reserve all these arguments - why all these stories have come out, and why the Government has motivated this Referendum Bill and so on - when we come to the debate on the motion to be moved by the Member for Anson on the Third Reading of the Referendum Bill as a whole. Now, will he confine himself to this particular amendment which he has moved?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Mammen, Sir, what I am going to say is directly relevant to my amendment and I am going to prove it to you. I was telling you, Sir, that many people thought that the referendum idea was suggested late in 1961 after the radio forum in September 1961. In actual fact, the idea of the referendum was born long before that. In fact, it was in May of the same year. Let me tell you the facts as I knew them because, as you will remember, Mr Mammen, Sir, I was still in the P.A.P. then and even the Back Benches of the P.A.P. never knew this story. For example, Mr Mammen, Sir, you never knew this and it will be interesting -

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member for Queenstown is trying to get the Chair into the debate. Of course, I was then in the P.A.P. When I take the Chair, I have to act as the Chairman of the Assembly. I hope the hon. Member will bear this in mind in this debate.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention, Sir, of involving the Chair, but it would be interesting, Sir, for everyone to hear this.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Do not make it too long. I am feeling sleepy.

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You see, Sir, this is embarrassing to the P.A.P. because this is their weak spot. [Interruption]

The Chairman: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I think, Sir, everybody in Singapore would like to hear this and from this story which I am going to tell you, you will see the original intentions of this referendum which the P.A.P. want to hold. When the fortunes of the P.A.P. leaders were at a low ebb soon after the defeat in Hong Lim, the idea of the referendum was mooted with a view to ensuring the political future of the P.A.P. Ministers. You see, Sir -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order. You ruled just now that any matter relevant to the amendment can be debated and, in fact, you did ask the Member for Queenstown whether this story he was going to tell was relevant to the amendment he moved, or whether it should not be kept for same other occasion. There is a clause in the Standing Order on its relevancy. I think it is Standing Order No. 54. I would like you to apply that clause.

11.30 p.m.

The Chairman: It is Standing Order 54. I think I will read it for the information of Members:

'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.'

When the Member for Oueenstown began to tell his story, I asked him whether it had any bearing on the amendment before the House. He promised that he would prove to me that it had some bearing. I think if the Member goes on to tell his story, he is inviting an open debate on the story itself. That is why I have earlier ruled that any stories could properly be debated when we come to the motion of the Member for Anson on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Mammen, Sir, when I say "story" I do not mean a fabrication. I am telling you the facts, Sir, and I want to link this up directly with the clause.

11.31 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I was telling the Chair about the defeat that had dealt a humiliating blow to the ego of the P.A.P. leadership and that it was a bitter pill for the Prime Minister to swallow. The threat to resign at that time, Sir, was never meant to be taken seriously, and at no time was there any real intention to give up power. We in the Barisan Sosialis knew of this because we were then in the thick of it. The threat to resign was more a reaction out of pique. It was merely a ruse to muster and rally support round the once-popular, but then becoming the not-so-popular, Prime Minister.

Let me explain, Sir. The Prime Minister had been living under the illusion that he was so important a figure that he was indispensable to the Left. And this threat to resign was meant to be a test of his indispensability.

The Chairman: Order. The amendment is to clause 27:

In page A11, line 13, to leave out "declare" and insert "announce the result of the voting in detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares".

So that the sub-clause will read:

'When the counting of the votes has been completed, the Superintendent shall announce the result of the voting in detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares the result of the referendum:'.

That amendment is a' lied to the amendment which the Member for Queenstown proposes to move to clause 30,

In page A12, line 25, at end, to add "Such statement shall be, as near as may be, in the Form in the Second Schedule to this Ordinance.". The Second Schedule gives details of how the Member for Queenstown wishes the statement of the poll, after counting the votes, to be announced.

Now, I would like to understand how all that part of the speech of the Member for Queenstown has any relevance to the amendment.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, as I have said, I will prove to you the relevance of my remarks because it was the intention of the referendum to find "safe" seats for the P.A.P. Ministers. You see, Sir, I have put in this amendment to say that the exact details of the results should be made known to the people. But the P.A.P. Government want to keep it a secret because, as I go along, you will see that that secret is only meant for the P.A.P. They want to know the detailed results of the various divisions, but nobody else will know it. Then from the number of votes cast for the P.A.P. proposals, they can find out what support the P.A.P. has in the various divisions. That is the plot which I am going to reveal, and I will do so step by step.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think we should go into very many details. An allegation can be made, of course, and the Member is entitled to make that allegation. But I do not think we should go into too many deaths about that, because those details become irrelevant to the amendment itself. An allegation of that nature, I suppose, is perfectly legitimate in urging the amendment. But if the hon. Member goes into details, we will enter into a debate within a debate.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will then not go into details and I will only give you the brief outline.

Let me give you the general picture so that you may grasp exactly what it is all about. Although at that period there was talk of throwing in the sponge, there was also the fear of the Ministers that they would not be able to regain their seats should there be a general election. Hence, the idea of a referendum was mooted. At that time, immediately after the Hong Lim by-election, we had a lot of discussions, Sir, and we were asked to give our views as to whether or not the P.A.P. Government should stay in office, and whether the referendum should be held before or after Anson. There are a lot of details which many people do not know about. They are directly linked with the amendment which I have put in here.

Originally, the referendum, even from this little bit that I have told you, was meant to find "safe" seats for the P.A.P. Even at that period, the P.A.P. realised that if any referendum was going to be held, only one straightforward question was to be put to the people. The people were supposed to be asked, "Do you support the P.A.P. Government?" Yes or No? That was all. But, of course, later on, they changed their ideas.

Let me then explain how this idea of "safe" seats was to work. You see, Sir, once the votes have been cast, the constituencies which show the biggest pro P.A.P. majority margins would be the first-class "safe" seats; those with smaller majority margins would be second-class "not-so-safe" seats; and a sim majority margin would be the third-class "unsafe" seats. Of course, if there should be a general election, then the Ministers would be assigned to all the first-class "safe" seats; the Parliamentary Secretaries and some of the blue-eyed boys would be assigned to the second-class "not-so-safe" seats; and some of the other people would have to take their chances with the third-class "unsafe" seats.

We can see from this that the original intention of the P.A.P. in a referendum was not to find out whether or not the people wanted to accept their merger proposals, but to cater for the selfish interests of the P.A.P. Ministers themselves. Now in the Bill itself, the P.A.P. plot is not to reveal all these facts to the people, and depending on how the votes are cast, the P.A.P. hope to find out which seats would be safe for them. And after this referendum, if there is a general election, their Ministers - especially, I suppose, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance - would be going to those first-class "safe" seats to make sure that they come in.

I have moved this amendment, Sir, in order to ensure that there would be no secret kept from the people. If the voting tells us that so many votes support the P.A.P. merger proposals, so many votes support any proposition which they may suggest to the people as an alternative, or any other alternative, then all those detailed results must be revealed: and all the people of Singapore must know about them. Then even if they intend that certain safe seats should only be known to themselves, at least all the people in Singapore will also share the same secret.

So when the Minister for Home Affairs stated that the referendum had originally been mentioned in July, he made a slight error. He should have said "In May after Hong Lim." I can even tell you, Sir, that when the Parliamentary Secretaries were asked what the P.A.P. should do at that time, there was persuasion used in many forms. We were given dinners. They were hoping thereby to soften our jaw, so to speak, and we were expected to agree to the suggestions that were put to us with regard to the holding of a referendum after Hong Lim.

Inche Yaacob: (In Malay): On a point of order, Sir. I think all these allegations were made only to determine the attitude to a resignation from the Government.

The Chairman: I have not heard a point of order. If the Member is addressing the Chair on a point of order, then let the Chair hear it raised calmly. I would like to hear the point of order.

Inche Yaacob: (In Malay): This allegation has nothing to do with the, amendment and it is totally irrelevant..

The Chairman: I do agree that the Member for Queenstown is straying away from the amendment. I would, suggest that all this talk about dinners has nothing to do with the amendment. Let us come back to the amendment now.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will then not tell any more stories but come straight to the amendment itself.

I refer you, Sir, to the Select Committee's Report on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 5, of l5th May, col. 295 - towards the end of that column immediately after "The Chairman: Shall we proceed?" And Dr Goh Keng Swee said -

11.45 p.m.

The Chairman: Order. It is only a question of procedure. I notice that when the Member reads Hansard, he reads the name of the Member. That is strictly not correct. Even when he reads, he ought to say, "The Minister for Finance said this", or "the Minister for Law said this" or "I said this".

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In column 295, Sir, I was asking about how, a recount was going to be taken. And the Minister for Finance said:

'Therefore, if there is a recount, my guess is that it will be a recount of all the votes cast and not division by division.'

Now let us see. If there is provision for recount, how do we ask for a recount if we do not know the detailed results? If you will remember, Sir, in the general elections, the S.P.A. candidate for River Valley lost by five votes to the P.A.P. Member for River Valley. There were two recounts. They had the detailed results and they could ask for a recount. But on this occasion, Sir, there is a provision for a recount and we do not know how to ask for a recount. Surely the Government is not gong to suggest that we have to wait until the total result of the whole island is announced before we ask for a recount? Under those circumstances, bow can our counting agents know when to ask for a recount? If you read the Bill, Sir, there is provision for a request for a recount to be asked by the counting agent. But the counting agent will not be able to ask for a recount if the detailed results are not made known to him. So what happens? Sir, my amendment here also, as directed by Mr Mammen, is related to clause 30 about the statement of voting. I have moved this amendment in order to get a statement of the voting in the Schedule to the Bill in order that the people of Singapore may know exactly how they have voted in a referendum. Any honest government, Sir, will not want to hide the result of the voting. Only a government that is dishonest and wants to rig either the elections or the referendum would like to hide the result of the referendum from the public gaze. In fact, it is the duty of the Government to inform the people of the exact details of the voting. And the people have a right to know. But in the Bill the detailed results will not be made known to the people. Even in the Local Government Ordinance, and in the General Elections Ordinance, there is a form which gives the detailed result of the poll.

May I refer you, Sir, to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, section 49, subsection (2), at the last sentence:

'The Returning Officer shall forthwith after the result has been declared by him compile a statement of the poll in the Form 17 'In the First Schedule to this Ordinance and shall cause the name or names of the members so elected and also the said statement to be published in the Gazette.'

And in Form 17, Sir, you have the number of the ballot papers issued; the number of the ballot papers cast for whatever candidate it is, and the number of rejected ballot papers. And it all adds up on both sides. Similarly, in the amendment which I have moved, I seek, Sir, to have the following. I am now referring to the Schedule, Sir: 'Number of ballot papers issued Number of ballot papers cast in respect of do. do. do. do. do. do. Number of unmarked ballot papers cast Number of uncertain ballot papers cast Number of tendered ballot papers' and so on.

Sir, this amendment which I seek shows up the utter dishonesty of the P.A.P. Government in the referendum. It is a plot to hide from the eyes of the people the actual result of the voting in the referendum.

Let us trace the arguments and see how the P.A.P. Ministers argued in the Select Committee. I refer you to column 388 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 6, Sir, dated 16th May, 1962. The Minister for Home Affairs said:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot accept the amendment and the Schedule proposed by the Member for Queenstown, because the result, according to the proposed Schedule, would be declared division by division; whereas, as I think I have said earlier in this Select Committee, the result of the referendum would he declared for Singapore as a whole.'

And he followed up. It is a very interesting bit, Sir, and I think it deserves -

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Honourable mention!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - to be recorded in the Hansard. The Minister for Home Affairs said:

'Therefore, the proposed Schedule is not appropriate for a referendum.'

Then another excuse:

'Then other details in the Form; for example, the number of blank ballot papers cast - this actually should read the number of unmarked or uncertain ballot papers cast. They cannot be blank papers. As I say, if we look at the New Clause (A), you will find that unmarked and uncertain ballot papers are provided, but not blank papers.'

He was trying to make out that unmarked papers are not blank papers. These are excuses. We will read through and see:

'Then spoilt ballot papers too, I think, should not be lumped together with uncertain ballot papers.'

You will remember, Sir, that when I first moved the amendment, the wording was not very accurate and, of course, he had his legitimate objections. He further raised objections:

'They are two different things. No mention again in the Schedule, for instance, is made of rejected ballot papers which are different from spoilt ballot papers.'

I have now in the amendment, unmarked paper, rejected ballot paper - everything that he asked for. Then he said:

'Finally, one common form of statement prescribed in the Bill, which is a general referendum Bill, [general referendum Bill again!] may not be suitable for use on all occasions when a referendum is held.'

He further said:

'The declaration of the result of the poll is an administrative matter, and it is for the Superintendent to compile the statement in the form best suited for a particular referendum.'

Then he repeated again:

'It is a general referendum Bill. We should not have a Schedule which will be only suitable for a particular type of referendum.'

Tun Lim Yew Hock: M. . m. . m. . m!

The Chairman: Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill ought to know better. We are now reaching the end of this sitting and he makes unseemly noises. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Then, Sir, this is what I said in reply, in the same column 388, in the last paragraph:

'Mr Chairman, Sir, is the Minister willing to accept the principle that the statement should be clear to the people?'

That is all I ask for, Sir: whether or not the Minister is willing to accept the principle that the result of the voting should be made clear to the people. I have emphasised that it is the duty of the Government to inform the people, and the people have a right to know how they voted. But if you turn to the next page, Sir, at column 389, the Minister for Home Affairs said this in' the second paragraph:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this Bill is a general referendum Bill [I think I have said that they have mentioned it about thirty or forty times in the Select Committee] and we should not have in it a definite form of Schedule which cannot be applicable for all occasions.'

The Chairman: Order. It is 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 on Monday, 2nd of July.

Mr Speaker: So be it.