PROCEEDINGS ON SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL (Business Motion)

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker, I beg to move,

That the proceedings in Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 5th July, 1962, and that Mr Speaker shall, at that time, forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of any amendment or other matter then under consideration and in the case of any other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by any Member, Mr Speaker shall put only the question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

That the proceedings on the third reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 6th July, 1962.

Sir, there have been precedents in the past for applying the guillotine in debates in the House of Commons and, in fact, Mr Asquith, who was formerly Prime Minister in the United Kingdom and at the same time Leader of the Liberal Party, admitted that slowly and reluctantly he had come to the conclusion that "You cannot carry on legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating the time-table as part of our established procedure." More recently on the 25th January in the House of Commons two Bills were debated in the Committee of the whole House. They were the Commonwealth Immigration Bill and the Army Reserve Bill. The debate on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill had proceeded for three days without making any headway. The Army Reserve Bill had been debated for two days without similar results. The consequence of it was that the Government then moved a motion to allot a further three days' debate on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill and a further two days for the Army Reserve Bill.

Now in the case of the National Referendum Bill, we have had 12 meetings of the Select Committee discussing various amendments which had been put forward by both sides of the House. Many of these meetings had gone right up to quite late in the evening. Now we are in a Committee of the whole House and this same Bill has already seen through four midnight sittings. However, only 11 clauses to which amendments have been made have been debated. There are still 13 clauses on the Order Paper to which amendments will be moved and debate on which will still have to take place.

Mr Speaker, the arguments on the amendments in the National Referendum Bill have not only been adequately aired in Select Committee but also outside this House as well - through forums organised by Radio Singapore and other bodies outside. The notice for the motion which I am moving now was given on Friday, a few minutes before 4 o'clock and I believe that notice was shortly afterwards circulated to Members of the House. Members of the House had ample time to discuss among themselves how to allocate their times for debate on the remaining clauses to which amendments are being moved. All I am asking the House is to agree that the debate in Committee on the remaining clauses of the National Referendum Bill be brought to a conclusion on the 5th of July. That will give the House another three days of debate.

I ask the House to agree that the Third Reading of the Bill be allotted one day. The reason is that we do not wish and, in fact, it will be out of order if we were to allow the Third Reading of the Bill to become a Second Reading of the Bill. Arguments which have been put forward during the Second Reading of the Bill and during Committee will be tediously repeated once more; Members will agree that one day is quite sufficient for the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.40 p.m.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Mr Speaker, the analogy of the House of Commons given by the Deputy Prime Minister is inappropriate when we direct our minds for a moment to the size of the House in question and the extent of the business it transacts. If we compare ours, Sir, we must recognize that we are not in a similar position as regards the need for economy of time.

I am reminded of a story of the American who told a visitor, "Now let us change subways. If we take a bus and take another subway, we will get there ten minutes earlier." And the visitor said, "After having made all that effort, what are you going to do with the ten minutes?"

The House of Commons, Sir, has its work to do. This House would be defunct. My understanding is that we will be, if not defunct, at least in suspension because the sittings will be prorogued for this Session. If the Deputy Prime Minister says they need time for their own work, I must confess, Sir, we have had examples, and ample examples, of the capacity of a country to do without them for long periods of time when they are elsewhere at public expense. I think that first ground, Sir, is just a specious excuse.

The second ground is that this matter has been debated in Select Committee for 12 days. To be accurate, Sir, seven of those days were given over to representations and five for debate on the representations and the clauses of the Bill. Then let us not forget that we had to deal with the red herring of this being a general Referendum Bill from the first day to the last in Select Committee; and now we are trying to tidy up the faux pas presented to us by this Government.

Sir, the third reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister is that the arguments in respect of the Referendum Bill have been enunciated outside. Now, Mr Speaker, that is correct. But what has transpired outside is not in itself a reason why the matter should not be adumbrated in this House. The radio forum cannot replace the Assembly, Sir, It is true, Sir, that through the radio forum perhaps we get to the people directly and with less distortion, particularly when we recognise the fact that not only has the Government sought these midnight sittings in order to prevent adequate expression of the views of the people finding their way to the Press but also, Sir - I do not know if you are conscious of this - that there has been a complete change of personnel in the Press box in so far as the Chinese newspapers are concerned. We no longer have the same political reporters-

Mr Speaker: Order. I have indicated that the Press box and the Strangers' Gallery have nothing at all to do with matters debated in this Assembly. There must not be any direct reference to anybody in the Gallery, be it the Press Gallery or the Strangers' Gallery.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged for your guidance, Mr Speaker, but perhaps you will permit me to say that there has been a complete change of personnel of the representatives of the Press dealing with political matters and the context is interesting, Mr Speaker, because until, let us say, yesterday we were not unconscious (even those of us who do not read the vernacular Press) that the Nanyang Siang Pau, the Sin Chew Jit Poh, and the Utusan Melayu were three papers that were representing to some extent the Opposition points of view. As I say, my understanding is that there has been a change of personnel of two of those newspapers, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh.

Mr Speaker, the fourth reason given was that we must not permit the Third Reading to be a tedious repetition. There is a very delicate balance between the need to maintain in this House the constitutional right of Members to express their views and the need to protect the Chamber from tedium.

I do not think in fairness, Sir, that any of us can complain that in discharging your particular responsibility in that field we have suffered tedium. Surely the Government can leave it to you, Mr Speaker, to prevent tedious repetition. I would like to say for myself, Sir, that in so far as the Committee sitting up to Thursday night is concerned, I am not complaining that inadequate time is given. I do say I am unhappy at the suggestion of the guillotine in respect of the matter which indirectly affects our future, where the dishonesty of the Government has to he exposed and re-exposed, and where it is hoped that the public reaction which comes through as a result of that exposure may have some effect upon the Government's conduct. But what I am more than disturbed, Mr Speaker, is that they are limiting the Third Reading itself to one day. In effect, it may well take more, Sir, if the Second Reading ends before Thursday night. But the fact is there are two motions which, read together, suggest that they want to limit the Third Reading to one day. It may well be sufficient. But, on the other hand, this is the point where you gather all the efforts together and you try and present a coherent picture of how the provisions of this Bill are going to work in the context of a merger referendum, and how inappropriate it is and how there exists the flexibility for dishonest manoeuvre.

Sir, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there would be several Members on both sides of the House who would wish to speak at that stage. It may well be that eight hours would be adequate. But I say that these motions are un necessary. There has been no indication that there has been undue delay in dealing with the clauses so far. The Deputy Prime Minister speaks of numbers. He must also notice the gravity, apart from clause 29, Sir, which is now the major clause before us - clauses 28 and 29 - I cannot conceive that we should take very long with reference to the other clauses. In fact, Sir, I can conceive the possibility that we may well finish the Bill before Friday night. But I do say that it is unfortunate to approach us on the basis that the Government have a right to limit the freedom of speech of the Opposition because they do not like what is taking place, and they are afraid of the effect outside, which seems to be what in fact is motivating the Government in the context of this particular Bill. I would say. Mr Speaker, Sir, even now it is not too late to withdraw this motion, and if necessary, Mr Speaker, to bring it again on Thursday when the picture would be clearer.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of the excuses put up by the Deputy Prime Minister. there is no justification whatsoever for the Government to want to put a time limit on the debate on the Referendum Bill. There are only 13 more clauses to be debated. Yet we find that the Government want to limit the time of our debate on the Bill. We in the Barisan Sosialis deplore this attitude of the Government, and we consider that this is yet another attempt of the P.A.P. Government to impose their -

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Fascist!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - one-man majority parliamentary dictatorship in Singapore. Sir, considering the gravity of the Bill before us, one would have thought that, on this particular occasion at least, the Government would give us really a full and frank discussion in the House. But what has happened? The P.A.P. are now afraid that further exposures will take place, and they want to guillotine the debate. Sir, in view of the dishonesty and distortion of the P.A.P. Ministers-

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Cannot you change the record for once?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - we in the Barisan Sosialis want more time and facilities so that the people can be properly and more fully informed. You have seen how the Government rejected our amendments in clauses 6 and 13. We asked for more time for canvassing so that we could better inform the people. But the Government have unreasonably rejected our amendments, in spite of the weight of evidence that we produced and in spite of the precedents that we quoted the world over.

We must not forget also the restrictions the Government intend to impose on the Opposition in the way of facilities for canvassing in clause 41. And now while we are still debating this important Bill, there is this motion to guillotine our debate. Where then is this full, free and frank discussion which the Ministers have promised? Not only promised but repeatedly promised. In the first place, Sir, debate on the Bill has been unnecessarily pushed to the late hour of 12 midnight every night. Now, the P.A.P. want to restrict our debate to only another three days - less than three days now. It gives me the feeling that if the P.A.P. could possibly help it, there would have been no debate whatsoever on this referendum. But since the P.A.P. cannot completely shut out publicity on the Bill, they intend now to cut down publicity as much as possible. For us in the Opposition, debate in the Legislative Assembly, Sir, and its report in the papers, is one of our most important means of communication with the public. The P.A.P. have limited our rallies only to divisions where we have our Assemblymen. They have also limited our time of rallies to two hours, that is, from 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock in the afternoon. Lately, Sir, the Council of Joint Action asked to hold rallies in certain areas, but we have again been refused. The P.A.P., on the other hand, have spent large sums of public money on P.A.P. propaganda. They have also the radio, Rediffusion and other -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The motion I am moving is very simple. It relates to sittings in this Chamber. I am asking for a guillotine to be applied to the debate on the Bill in this Chamber. We are not in any way stopping the Member for Queenstown nor the Barisan Sosialis from holding their meetings outside.

Mr Speaker: I understood from the Member for Queenstown that that is exactly what he is complaining about - that the meetings are not being allowed outside. Therefore, the point made by the Member for Queenstown is that this Bill needs all the publicity it requires. Therefore, he is speaking against this guillotine motion, and one of his grounds for speaking against this guillotine motion is that in his mind there has not been sufficient publicity I think he is in order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir. they had Malaysia Week and the Grand Prix. They are putting up banners, posters, advertisements, shows-

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are jealous.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The Prime Minister even spent $39,000/- of our State money in order to publicise Malaysia to certain Afro-Asian countries.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): The same countries you were voting for before!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yet now the Deputy Prime Minister wants to guillotine the debate so that we cannot fully inform the public of the utter dishonesty and the cheating of the P.A.P. Sir, we in the Opposition do not have all these facilities which are at the disposal of the Government. We cannot even put up posters without the kind permission of the P.A.P. Ministers. The Government want to publicise their sell-out outside the country. But it looks as if we are going to be denied the right of debate inside the House.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Four days!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, when there is a debate in the Legislative Assembly, the newspapers at least will be able to inform the country of what we say - at least whatever they care to publish. But if there is no Assembly debate, even our statements to the Press are mutilated and completely suppressed. I have already related to you, Sir, how the circulation of the powerful Straits Times and the Sunday Mail was even threatened -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am watching this debate very carefully. If the hon. Member for Queenstown goes into those details, then he is straying away from the motion. He has, up to now, been relevant. But if he goes further into details of that nature, then I think he will be irrelevant.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will not touch on that part of the debate again, Sir. Then the Deputy Prime Minister talked of radio forums and discussions in other forums which certain civic organisations may organise. But I wish to say here, Sir, that this forum of Radio Singapore, Radio P.A.P., is all a sham and a humbug-

An hon. Member: You attend all of them.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -because-

The Prime Minister: You were the sham and the humbug.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -while the P.A.P. Ministers and their henchmen have been allowed full publicity over the radio to utter falsehoods day in and day out, we have been denied the same privilege of-

An hon. Member: Of what?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -giving the other side of the picture to the people.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Uttering falsehoods.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Every day there is political propaganda over the radio, blurting out falsehoods. We have already given notice of a motion to condemn the Government for maliciously distorting the stand of the Opposition on the merger issue. But the only answer to our request for radio time was a 'no'. The P.A.P. always talk of open confrontation, yet -

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order, Sir. The Member for Queenstown alleges that his request for radio time has been refused. This is a highly inaccurate misrepresentation of the Government's reply to his request.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order if voiced that way. But I was hoping that the Minister would indicate that it is irrelevant. It is, in fact, irrelevant to the motion. Now the Member for Queenstown is embarking on details which will open out a debate within a debate. It is wrong. He can just mention it in passing, and that is all.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I only mentioned it in passing, Sir, I did not go into details, The P.A.P. always talk of open confrontation; yet in this House, where there is full opportunity for open confrontation, our P.A.P. Ministers want to run away from the debate and want to stop us from talking.

In fact, even in the radio forum, the P.A.P. dare not send representatives other than the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was not here the other day, they dared not have the forum. They dare not send the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister for Health and Law, although they both were in the Select Committee on the Referendum Bill.

The Prime Minister: I thought you wanted the pleasure of my company!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I am just wondering if it is because the other Ministers cannot twist with the same agility as the Prime Minister.

Sir, I just want to say this - that we are here as elected representatives of the people.

An hon. Member: Resign!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is our duty to speak on behalf of the electorate -

An hon. Member: Shame!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - and we stand here to claim that right.

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): Shame!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Do not let the P.A.P. deny this basic right of Assemblymen in Singapore. I do not have to pay heed to those sneers from people who do not know what they are talking about, like chaps from Geylang West, if he should go back to Geylang West, he would lose his deposit.

An hon. Member: Queenstown?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. want to make it that if we speak here we speak on sufferance and by the grace of their P.A.P. lordships. If it should please their P.A.P. lordships that we sit, then we sit and be allowed to speak. If it should not please their P.A.P. lordships, then guillotine - no more talking. That is their attitude. That is their one-man dictatorship in this Singapore Parliament. I just want to ask the P.A.P. Why this hurry? Why this indecent haste? What have you got to be afraid about? Do you not like people to know what this Bill is all about?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Queenstown is too prone to lose his temper in this Chamber. He is addressing the Chair. I hope he is not losing his temper with the Chair. If he remembers that, probably he will keep his temper.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I beg your pardon, Sir. Of course, every time I say 'you' I mean the Ministers opposite. [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We are here, Sir, debating a very important Bill. This Bill, when passed into law, will be used to decide the future not only of the 1.7 million people in Singapore, but also of generations and generations to come.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Like Abraham again!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And we are here to fight constitutionally and peacefully for the interests of the people. Yet the P.A.P. want to deny us this basic and inalienable right of the people. They look as if they want to insist on this guillotine, and that they do not want the people to fight constitutionally for their rights. That is the provocation which I have mentioned many a time. Sir, even long before the debate started on this Referendum Bill, newspapers had been predicting that possibly the debate on this Bill might well last 20 days.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You are going over all that?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They definitely predicted a marathon debate, and why not?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: You want to break all records?

An hon. Member: Nobody is stopping anybody from speaking.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Should we not have the fullest possible time to discuss a Bill of the importance of the Referendum Bill? Should we not have the right, and should not Government allow us the fullest opportunity for debate? Is it not the duty of the Government to allow the fullest possible time for debate? Why are the P.A.P. Ministers afraid of debate? Of course, they know we will expose them one by one. I have already exposed their original referendum plot to pick safe seats for the P.A.P. Ministers -

Mr Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with this motion. I think probably the Member for Queenstown will have perhaps one or two opportunities more in mentioning that plot when we go into Committee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The thing is that the P.A.P. have many skeletons in the cupboard and they are afraid of exposure. That is why they want to cut short this debate.

The Prime Minister: That is why we extend it to midnight.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If the P.A.P. really had the interests of the people at heart, they would not just think of their own selves, but must give full opportunities to everybody in this Chamber to speak his fullest. All this talk of the Deputy Prime Minister about repetition and repetitious arguments is sheer nonsense. How can the P.A.P. know what the arguments will be until we come to the clause?

The Prime Minister: You have it produced one by one.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I suppose, Sir, this is typical of the P.A.P. arrogance. They want to arrogate unto themselves even the duties of the Chair. They want to tell the Chair what arguments are repetitious and what are not. Sir, we have complete faith in your judgment and-

Mr Speaker: Order. I would suggest that the Member for Queenstown does not drag the Speaker into this controversy. I do not think the Leader of the House when he said what he said meant to cast a reflection on the Chair at all. He was just expressing his own view that the debate has become tedious, which, of course, is not the view of the Speaker. Up to this extent, it has not become tedious repetition, but there has been repetition.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we contend that this guillotine which the Government wants to impose on the debate is both unreasonable and unnecessary, and is merely an attempt to shut off public gaze from the debate in this Assembly. But, Sir, there may be something more sinister than merely trying to cut off the public gaze from the debate in this Assembly. It may be that the Prime Minister is working on a set time schedule to sell out the rights of the people of Singapore. We all understand how eager and anxious the Prime Minister is to railroad merger. He has repeatedly said that the earlier merger takes place, the better.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes, of course.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, of course. Because without merger, that will be the end of the P.A.P. Ministers, and with each passing day, the fortunes of the P.A.P. will be sinking deeper and deeper-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: It is the other way round.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - into the mud and mire of shame and dishonesty.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Where do you find such phrases?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We know, Sir, that there are certain forces that are working on a set time schedule -

An hon. Member: What are the forces?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - to enslave the people of Singapore. If the P.A.P. - especially the Prime Minister - want to guillotine the debate on this Bill in order that they may time the rigging of the referendum to fit in with the colonial scheme of things and to keep their word with the colonialists to sell the rights of the people of Singapore on time -

The Prime Minister: I hear no more of neo-colonialists.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - then their crime and treachery will be the more disgusting, and the more will they earn the condemnation of this generation and the generations to come.

I urge that the P.A.P. withdraw this guillotine motion.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister moved two motions which were, in fact, unnecessary because if they were not passed, the Members sitting on our side might still enjoy two or three days more of democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. have been boasting that the purpose of their Government is to enable the people to understand parliamentary democracy. But I would like to say that they have not practised this during the present debate on the Referendum Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Back benches, there is an elderly gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. He has more than once advised the P.A.P. Government not to behave in the way they were doing - in a hot-tempered and impetuous manner.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know how this story has anything at all to do with the motion before the House. How can the advice of a Parliamentary Secretary to his Government be related at all to this guillotine motion?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): That is relevant, otherwise I would not have mentioned it. If it is not relevant, I apologise to you.

Mr Speaker: I would like to know how that is relevant.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I believe that it must be relevant to the matter under discussion because the Parliamentary Secretary did say that if one wants to snap a bamboo stick one has to burn it to such an extent that it can be easily snapped. Of course, it would he difficult to do so without using a fire to burn it first.

I hope on the question of merger and on the National Referendum Bill, the P.A.P. Government will pay heed to the moral of the story given by the elderly gentleman to them.

3.21 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson was the first one from the Opposition to stand up and criticise the Government for introducing this motion before the House. In a short but well-reasoned speech, he pointed out that there was no necessity for introducing the guillotine motion because he believed that all the remaining amendments would have been disposed of by Friday. I agree with him. I think the remaining amendments would have been disposed of by Friday. The only amendment which is very controversial out of the remaining amendments is the one that is now before the House - the amendment on the blank and uncertain votes. Many Members of the Barisan Sosialis have already spoken, and unless they want to keep on repeating what they have been saying, there would not be much time wasted. I would have supported the Member for Anson, but after listening to the lengthy speech of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis who at every step in this Assembly turns every little thing into a political issue between his Party and his ex-comrades, I find it difficult to allow any intention on the part of the Barisan Sosialis to turn this House into a death struggle between them and the P.A.P.

Sir, if the Member for Queenstown had any sense of wanting to save time for his Party to attack the P.A.P. on the important issues which he contends are at stake, he would not have wasted about 25 minutes of valuable time arguing on points that could not hold water at all, other than for the reason that if the P.A.P. want to play funny, then the Barisan Sosialis will play funny. If the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis have any monkey business, may I suggest that they take it outside this Assembly? Go and do it outside, but do not try to do it in an august Assembly whose Members have to sit here and listen to nothing but-

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Trash.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - attacks of personal vindictiveness from one side against the other side.

I would suggest, for the expeditious disposal of the business before us, that even the Government side should not try to interrupt unnecessarily any speech of the Barisan Sosialis. If they want to have as much fun as they want, let them have it, and give as much as you want to give when it comes to your turn. But do not try to prolong the debate unnecessarily by interrupting any speaker from the Barisan Sosialis or from the P.A.P. Let us get down to the serious business of the day. We still have many, many hours up to Friday and if we just sit down and leave only the leaders to fight over the matter, it could even be settled before Friday.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is of a procedural nature and no political principles are involved. Our stand, from the beginning when the National Referendum Bill was introduced, is that there are actually two very controversial issues to be fought out, namely, our amendment to clause 5, and the controversial question of blank votes. We consider the other clauses as of lesser importance and consequence.

As a matter of fact, we feel that we will have sufficient time to discuss not only the Bill but also the motion of the Member for Anson which will be debated later. However, Sir, since there are other Members of the Opposition who might have new material to bring up in the next few days, we, as Members of the Opposition, have to support them because we want them to be given more time to put forward their views.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): May I just briefly say that I think it is wrong to consider this motion as one that is essentially procedural? Sir, I think all of us realise that the purpose of having this guillotine motion is basically political. The Member for Queenstown has already stated the reason why the Government seeks to impose this guillotine. It is to make sure that not more than what is necessary is said in the shortest possible time.

Sir, we oppose this motion for the reasons that the Member for Queenstown has given, and I do not propose to go over them again. I would like to ask the Government to explain why, in fact, they want to try and stop the debate on these amendments by Friday. Sir, we are all here to discuss matters affecting our people, and I am quite certain that all of us can find sufficient time - if the Government wants to sit up till midnight, we can sit up till midnight - to discuss matters fairly so that the issues are made clearer to the people and there will be no confusion and misunderstanding.

The Deputy Prime Minister has quoted precedents - like the Minister for Law who quoted precedents of referenda held elsewhere - which are irrelevant, from my point of view, because the matter we are discussing at the moment is so grave that I think to use their majority to impose a guillotine is completely unfair to the Opposition, and it is even more unfair to the people.

Sir, we are quite prepared to play the game according to the rules. The rules are made by the P.A.P. Government. Although they have a weak majority, they are in a position to make whatever rules they want to make. But we tell them quite plainly that whatever rules they make, we will play according to them. If we op pose them, we may expose the unfair and unjust principle underlying them. Nevertheless, we will play the game according to the rules they make. We tell them, Sir, irrespective of the rules, irrespective of the extent to which the rules are unfair, the final losers are going to be none other than the P.A.P. Government themselves.

3.31 p.m.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, parliamentary democracy does not mean that all the Members in an Assembly must speak on every possible point of issue that comes before the House.

Mr Bani: It does not mean that it wants you not to talk.

Mr Rajah: No, Mr Speaker, Sir, it does not mean that one should not talk. It also does not mean that one should not be stopped from talking. What it means to the Member for Thomson is his point of view, but to my way of thinking[Interruption]-

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajah: - parliamentary democracy means this, that every possible point of view should be put to the House. And if that can only be achieved by a number of persons speaking, then it is necessary that those persons should speak. But when every possible point of view on a particular topic has been presented, Mr Speaker, Sir, does parliamentary democracy necessitate all those views to be repeated ad nauseam until everything is so clogged and befuddled that the whole House is confused?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we will have had today eight full hours of debate; tomorrow another eight, and the day after another eight. We will have had 24 hours of debate on the Referendum Bill. To my mind, the issue now before the House on the Referendum Bill is possibly the only important issue left. The rest are relatively unimportant, and I dare say could be disposed of in two or three hours. And when this issue now before the House has been disposed of one way or the other, the heat will be taken out of the debate. I predict it, Mr Speaker, Sir. And the Barisan Sosialis, their interest in this Bill will vanish after that. Mr Speaker, I have been listening to this debate. Without in any way derogating from your authority, if I may say so and if I may be so bold as to say it, every argument has been repeated. I will not say it has become tedious, but it has been repeated. Does parliamentary democracy mean that the leaders in the Opposition having spoken the rest of the Opposition get up and merely repeat ad nausea in other words what their leaders have already said? To my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not parliamentary democracy. To my way of thinking, that is a sure way to bring to an end parliamentary democracy.

Mr Bani: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr Bani: If I might ask the Member for Farrer Park whether he will agree with me that whether it is parliamentary democracy or unparliamentary democracy, it is absolutely necessary that our people are fully aware of the pros and cons of an issue, especially on an issue which affects their lives, their children's lives, and the lives of generations to come?

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I entirely agree with the Member for Thomson that these debates are debates conducted not for the sake of conducting debates but in order that as a result of these debates people outside will read the debates and come to certain conclusions on the debates, not necessarily the conclusions that we ourselves come to; but at least the facts will be before them, and they themselves can come to certain conclusions on them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the point is this: are we advancing the case any further by repeating the same arguments, and the same facts, time and time again? Parliamentary democracy, to my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a debate of this nature is not to deliver long speeches written out by somebody else and not understanding what it all means.

3.35 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with the debate on the National Referendum Bill which has been carrying on for five days - and every day the debate has been reproduced in the newspapers for the consumption of the people of Singapore - I am surprised that when I wake up in the morning I meet my friends in town and elsewhere and they tell me that they are getting fed up with the news in the newspapers about the proceedings in the Assembly, because according to them, this referendum and the merger issue have been fully considered by them, although I am not necessarily influenced by the views and opinions of people outside this Assembly. Mr Speaker, we should take into consideration the fact that we in this Assembly are duty bound to debate all issue which affects the lives of the people of Singapore, but there are other matters which should be looked after too. If we follow the debate which has been carrying on so far, it is really a matter for regret, because the standard of our debates has lowered the dignity of the House to the level of coffee-shop talk, whereas, in fact, we are the elected representatives of the people entrusted to look after their well-being. Where do we stand if our standard of debates has been reduced to that of the coffee-shop talk, as I said earlier on? Every speaker who has risen to speak has risen to speak just for the sake of speaking. So I sincerely hope that although we have parliamentary democracy in this Assembly, we should not bring into it the opinions and views of the people outside and thereby become stooges. For me and my colleagues, Mr Speaker, this motion has our support. So we can say we have exhausted all points, whether they are the Government's or the Opposition's. They have no new points to bring forth. I hope we will preserve the dignity of this House where debates are conducted according to the rules of the Assembly.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I knew that when I moved this motion I opened myself to the charge that I was trying to gag Members of the Opposition from speaking. Nonetheless, we have to bear in mind that if the business of the House is to proceed expeditiously, then it is obvious that Members who wish to speak must bear on the point and not be repetitious.

The Member for Anson has said that the House of Commons procedure is not applicable to this Assembly. He has forgotten, Mr Speaker, that a large part of our Standing Orders is based on procedure which has been in practice for years and years in the House of Commons. In fact, I could even inform the House that in the Federation Parliament, the guillotine is always applied and that there are allocated days for discussion on items on the Order Paper. That is the main reason why business is proceeded with expeditiously in the Federation Parliament.

It is not as the Member for Thomson has said that it is the P.A.P. that makes the rules. The Standing Orders are made by this House. There is the Standing Orders Committee drawn from both sides of this House, and we are just moving this motion according to the Standing Orders.

Altogether there will be a total of seven days for debate on the National Referendum Bill in Committee. Members will also be aware that in Committee stage any Member can stand up again and again to speak. There is no rule debarring a Member from standing up and repeating himself. In fact, during the past few days we have had a disgusting exhibition of the Barisan Sosialis repeating the same old tune like a gramophone record that has been so scratched that the needle has now got stuck in the groove. They have no more new tunes to sing. What I would say to the Barisan Sosialis is that they are trying to filibuster, to delay this Bill from going through. If we go through the records of the meetings in the Committee stage, I think - if I am correct - the Member for Anson must have stood up nearly thirty times during the past four days of debate.

Mr David Marshall: They were never irrelevant.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: The Members of the Barisan Sosialis side stood up more than thirty times also. Nobody has stepped them from speaking. In fact, the reason why the sitting has been extended to midnight is to permit Members of the Opposition more time to state their case. We give them more time to state their case, hut they say we are undemocratic. We allow them to hold meetings outside, but they say we are undemocratic. Such is the tortuous and crooked thinking of the Barisan Sosialis.

But finally, Mr Speaker, there must be a balance between the demand for time so that this House can proceed with its business and the demand for time for debate. There must be a balance. We agree to that. If I had sprung this motion as a surprise on the House, then I would have been guilty of the charge that we are trying to stop Members in this House from speaking. In fact, this motion provides that the debate on the National Referendum Bill will end at 12 o'clock midnight on Friday. That gives us another four days of debate, including today. The Member for Anson himself has stated that it is even possible that the debate on the Bill will come to an end long before Friday. Therefore, I do not see any reason why he opposes the motion. He himself has admitted that this motion provides that at the latest, the debate should come to a conclusion by Friday at 12 o'clock. He himself has agreed that it might end long before that time. So I see no reason why he should stand up to oppose this motion, unless, of course, it is merely that because he feels that he is on the Opposition side, so he just has to oppose anything that we propose.

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

Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am indebted to the Minister, if the Minister had listened, Sir, he would not have made it necessary for me to repeat what was said. I said that it may well be in the natural course of events that the debate would termi nate well before midnight on Friday, that in the circumstances this motion was unnecessary, and that I do not like the approach of the Government whereby they arrogate to themselves the right to indulge in a closure motion prematurely and unnecessarily in a matter of such vital importance to the people.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I am obliged to the Member for Anson for his clarification. But I have also cited precedents that took place in the House of Commons. I have cited that only recently in January this year, the House of Commons imposed a guillotine on the debate in Committee on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill and on the Army Reserve Bill, and for the very same reason - that progress was not being made on those two Bills. The Members were being repetitious. You yourself, Mr Speaker, had at one stage during the debate in Committee even suggested that a closure motion should be made. I think it was on the first amendment. I know that Members of the House like to hear themselves heard. But perhaps they could be also more forbearing to other Members. If there are new points of view being put forward and new arguments which can be advanced, then we are quite prepared to listen to them. But when they become tendentious and repetitious with abuse creeping in between arguments, I do not think it is fair to impose upon Members of this House a recital of what has been said before, again and again.

Lastly, may I point out to Members of the House that in the Committee of Supply, the Standing Orders specially provide for allocation of time. There is a time-table for debate on the items of expenditure, otherwise, Mr Speaker, you and I will not be getting our salaries and neither will Members of this House be getting their allowances. We could have debated in the Committee of Supply on and on until we cover 365 days in the year and we will never come to a conclusion. It was precisely in order that the business of Supply should come to a conclusion that we have Standing Orders which specially provide for a time-table. It may be that in our present Standing Orders, we do not have a time-table in respect of other items of business. But it is fair to the House that we should also try to be considerate to other Members of the House who have responsibilities outside. Members of the Government have their business to conduct besides attending sittings in this Chamber.

So, Mr Speaker, I really see little objection from the arguments put forward by the Member for Anson or from the Barisan Sosialis as to why we should not proceed with this motion. I think the most pertinent point that has been made in this debate has come from the Member for Farrer Park who has quite correctly pointed out that if we were to go on at this rate, it would not elevate parliamentary democracy, but it would kill parliamentary democracy. As he has replied to the Member for Thomson, parliamentary democracy does not mean permitting a Member to come back to the Chamber reading scripts prepared by somebody else Outside and these are very lengthy scripts indeed.

An hon. Member: He is on your side.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I respect a Member whether he is on this side or on the Opposition side if he is a stable man.

Mr David Marshall: Have you?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Of course, if the Member for Anson were equally stable, I would respect him. In fact, until only recently, I had great respect for the Member for Anson. But when on certain occasions he has gone into a tantrum, then I am afraid my respect for him has somewhat diminished. But if the hon. Member wishes to uphold parliamentary democracy - as I am quite sure he wants to - he should support the Member for Farrer Park.

Question put.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes. 16; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammad Akib. Miss. Buang bin Omar Lee Siew Choh. Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, D. S. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Abstentation. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Nil. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Hoe Puay Choo, Ramaswamy, S. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Koh, C. H. Mrs. Rajaratnam, S. Ayes.(contd) Noes.(contd) Tan Kia Gan. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Thio Chan Bee. Madam. Toh Chin Chye. Sheng Nam Chin. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the proceedings in Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 5th July, 1962, and that Mr Speaker shall, at that time, forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of any amendment or other matter then under consideration and in the case of any other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by any Member. Mr Speaker shall put only the question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

That the proceedings on the third reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 6th July, 1962.