"GUILLOTINE" MOTION

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, as the House is aware, the results of the poll taken on the referendum have already been made known. However, under the law the Assembly must decide on the blank votes and on the uncertain votes that have been cast. It is necessary that a final decision should be made on the uncertain and blank ballot papers so that a formal result of the poll can be conveyed to the Government of the Federation of Malaya, the United Kingdom Government, and the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism. It is for this reason that I have requested you, Mr Speaker, to summon this one-day sitting of the Assembly so that the House can decide on the fate of the uncertain and blank ballot papers. It is my hope, Mr Speaker, that a decision will be quickly arrived at by this House. I therefore move,

That the proceedings on item 2 of the Order Paper for this day shall be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 p.m. today.

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, we are summoned to an emergency sitting of this Assembly to enact yet another scene of the tragedy of destruction of respect and goodwill for democracy and the democratic process. This Assembly has now become a public plaything of the P.A.P. Even the time allocated for consideration of vital matters of public importance, as alleged by the Leader of the House, is now to be limited to meet the convenience of the social activities of our Prime Minister.

If there is need for an emergency session of this Assembly, why limit it to five hours? Is it because the Prime Minister has a party at 6.30 this evening? Is it because he has decided to leave late tonight on another of his many trips, and cannot trust his colleagues to carry on without him? Is this Assembly then the Prime Minister's toy, like a yo-yo to be twisted on his finger as and when he pleases? Was it not anticipated last week by the Leader of the House that there would be published a Referendum Report by the Superintendent of the Referendum? Why could he not have used some intelligent anticipation and given notice to suit the Prime Minister's convenience and his social activities for the holding of this special sitting last Monday, Sir? We could then have had a full day's hearing at least, or yesterday when the Prime Minister would have been there to guide his cohorts in the methods of dishonesty now so eminently and publicly known as the principal instrument of P.A.P policy. Why was this notice not given last week for the convening of this Assembly earlier if we had to suit the Prime Minister's convenience? Was it because, Mr Speaker, had the results of the referendum been other than they are, there would have been no sitting of this Assembly? That they waited to make quite sure that there would be no question about the blank votes and they could publish the blank votes before they could have the courage to give notice of the convening of this Assembly? The notice of sitting was given last Monday after the referendum results were known.

The Leader of the House must have been fully conscious that there must be a sitting of this Assembly whatever the results of the referendum. Why did he not give his notice earlier?

The motion standing in the Prime Minister's name is a motion of shameless dishonesty as well as one, in my submission, that is illegal. It is my intention, subject to your ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir, to rise on a point of order when it is called in order to draw attention to its illegality and its being ultra vires the provisions of the Referendum Ordinance, and an attempt by the Government to pass on the dirt of its own section 29 to the Opposition which has been consistently fighting it.

It may be, Mr Speaker, you will over-rule me, in which event it will be my desire to draw attention to the perfidy of the main motion in the Prime Minister's name, to quote from Select Committee proceedings and Assembly debates to show that it is the Government, not the Opposition, that is responsible for section 29. The Opposition consistently resisted it. It is the Government that must take the decision of the Assembly, not-

Mr Speaker: Order. Is not all this relevant to the second item and not to the first item on the Order Paper?

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, I will draw attention to the various aspects which need time, and I promise you I shall merely briefly pass through them so that the Assembly can assess the amount of time necessary for the consideration of some of the salient issues raised.

Sir, it is the Government that forced through section 29, and it is my intention to show this, and it is hoped that others will also seek to discuss this theme. Though the Government can pass a Bill to make a man into a woman, it cannot say the Opposition says that a man is a woman when the Opposition votes against it. But above all, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my intention to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it has the opportunity to be honest and yet have its cake, have what it wants. And whatever its tradition of dishonesty, whatever its corkscrew incapacity to go straight, here is one chance to be honest, here is one chance to act constitutionally like other civilised human beings, and here is one chance where, without costing them anything, we can so gracefully avoid utilising the dishonest provisions which they prepared. We should allow the people of Singapore to go into this merger which they want with clean hands.

I have no doubt, Mr Speaker, that every Member of the Opposition - certainly many of them - would wish to develop some of these themes. I can see no reason why this Assembly should be treated in such arrogant fashion to suit the social engagements of the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, I have a three-day case in Malacca. I cancelled it in order to be here. The Prime Minister can cancel his social engagement at 6.30 p.m. and allow us adequate time for debate. I will vote against the motion limiting the time to 6.00 p.m. We are not a P.A.P. plaything.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this so-called urgent Assembly sitting was made known to us on Monday afternoon. We were informed late Monday afternoon that there was going to be a sitting on Wednesday to discuss a matter of very urgent public importance. And this is what it is about.

Now, if this matter, which is to be debated later, is of such urgent public importance as the Government has deemed it, then it should not limit the time of the House to its discussion. How could a matter of urgent public importance be debated and thrashed out fully within as short a time as 4½ hours?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this "guillotine" motion is being forced through by Government's majority, it would convey the impression to the public that today's Assembly sitting has been called not to discuss a matter of urgent public importance but to put forward nothing but just plain, pure P.A.P. propaganda.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, we realise that opposing this guillotine motion will not get us very far because the Government, by virtue of the fact that it has a majority in this House, is in position to carry it through. We merely wish to register our strongest protest against this guillotine motion.

Sir, we have abstained from voting in this Chamber on guillotine motions in the past. It appears to us that guillotine motions have become the order of the day for the P.A.P. We register our strongest protest and we hope that at least in the future the Government will try to refrain from abusing its powers.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not my intention to speak on this motion in reply to the hon. Members about the time for the main debate. However, the Member for Anson in his usual manner has launched into a tirade which has brought in my social engagements and other activities, and I feel that in fairness, I should say: yes, the matter was anticipated and it was duly discussed by us in Cabinet.

As you know, the Leader of the House consulted the officials of the Assembly about the relevant provisions and we did this as a calculated and deliberate move, and we believe it is the correct move. The campaign was going on right to its end on Saturday, and we did not want to throw anything into the scales that would have just been another straw which might have disturbed the course of events. That being so, we had to wait until the votes had been registered. Saturday was a holiday; Sunday was a holiday; and we required one clear day's notice. Notice had either to be given on Friday, which would have been before the referendum results, or immediately after the referendum results, which was on Monday.

It is true that in so calculating, I anticipated that it would interfere with certain engagements to which I have committed myself, such as attending a conference of Commonwealth socialist leaders in London, many of whom will perhaps have fond memories of the Member for Anson. I do not intend to break this engagement as I think it is useful to the country. The people should know that the Communist line of a reactionary, corrupt, effete and decadent Government should be debunked and utterly exploded.

We have decided on the time - a full five hours without a tea-break. It was carefully calculated to give a full day's sitting. One p.m. to 6.00 p.m. is equivalent to 2.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. minus half an hour tea-break. It is as simple as that arithmetically. Having decided that it would be at 6.00 p.m. and discovering that I had some time to spare, I decided this evening to thank publicly the many social and civic organisations which took a stand and helped to break the Communist myth of the masses supporting whatever balderdash, the tirades of abuse that they heaped on this Assembly. I make no apologies for this either to Members of this House or to the public. What we have done is in the best interests of the country. And what we, intend to do is in the best interests of the country.

Sir, the Member for Anson makes the mistake of confusing his propaganda line. He accuses me of another joy jaunt, it is a mistake which Mr Woodhull and other Members of the Barisan Sosialis bitterly paid for when they appeared before the United Nations Committee of Seventeen. The P.A.P., of which I am proud to have been a member all this time, does not change its colours and its habits. We move in a deliberate and calculated manner in the interests of the people, regardless of abuse and regardless of tirades. They leave us completely unmoved, and I am glad to say they leave the people completely unmoved too.

Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Mr Speaker: Dr Toh, in reply.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, it is utterly dishonest of the Opposition to say that they did not have time to decide on the future of the blank votes when the whole of Singapore know that they have been campaigning for blank votes ever since April 1962. Surely when they campaigned for blank votes, they knew what was the purpose of the blank votes. Do they mean to say that now they want more time to consider the future of these blank votes? Do they mean to say that they never knew what the blank votes, which they asked the voters to cast, were meant for? That is a piece of utter dishonesty and insincerity which is very obviously shown here by the Opposition. We have called a full day's sitting of this House so that the House can utilise five hours to decide on the future of these blank votes. In particular, Members of the U.P.P., the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party should have decided long ago why they ever called for blank votes to be cast. Having called for blank votes for the past few months, they now have the audacity to come to this House and say that they want more time to debate on these blank votes.

Question put, "That the proceedings on item 2 of. the Order Paper for this day shall be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. today."

Mr Speaker: As many as are of that opinion, say aye.

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: To the contrary, say no.

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Speaker: I think the :Ayes" have it? The Ayes have it.

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: It is too late.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on item 2 of the Order Paper for this day shall be brought to a conclusion at 6 p.m. today.