REPORT ON SINGAPORE NATIONAL REFERENDUM (CMD. 18 OF 1962) UNCERTAIN AND UNMARKED BALLOT PAPERS

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving this motion, we are formally bringing to an end a decisive phase of our history. I hope I did the right thing in doing this House the courtesy of staying behind personally to move this motion. The constitutional struggle for merger and Malaysia is over. The struggle began with a special sitting of this Assembly on 22nd of July last year, when the lines were drawn between the sides for and against merger and the issues were joined. It went on for a full, grim and relentless 14 months. On the constitutional plane, the Communists, fighting through their united front organisations like the Barisan Sosialis, the Communist-led trade unions, the Old Boys' Associations, the Rural Dwellers and Country People's Associations, have all lost. Whether they will start an unconstitutional struggle is a matter for them. Suffice it to say that they embark on unconstitutional actions at their own peril.

My Party colleagues, who have experience of the ways of the Malayan Communist Party and its subsidiary organisations-

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would it be appropriate at this juncture to take the point of order that the motion which I understand the Prime Minister will be moving is ultra vires?

Mr Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, if we hear the Prime Minister. He will probably touch on that aspect in his speech. I do not know. But it may be more convenient for the Prime Minister to complete his speech and then I will allow the Member to raise his point of order.

The Prime Minister: My Party colleagues, who have experience of the ways of the Malayan Communist Party and its subsidiary organisations, tell me that there will be a great deal of criticism and self-criticism amongst leaders of every rank of the underground and open-front Communist organisations. Errors will be analysed and the perpetrators of these errors chastised, general rectification instituted and the scapegoats quietly found and sacrificed in the hope of some eventual victory. This is the moment of bitter truth for them and many aspiring young, up and coming Marxist theoreticians have blotted their copy-books and prejudiced their place of honour in the Communist hierarchy. Something has gone wrong somewhere and socialist realism was brought home with bitter unpleasantness in the early hours of Sunday, 2nd September. Of course, the revolution will go on, and they will try to whip things up again. But we are prepared to meet them on any issue.

It does not really require erudition in Marxism-Leninism to see why and where they went wrong, and where they invited disaster. The simple lesson of the last 14 months is that, however ruthless, however clever, and however organised the steel framework of Communist-trained cadres can be, the attack on the enemy will fail if the basic analysis is wrong. The most fundamental analysis is to define who are the people, and who are the enemies of the people. To fight nationalist groups even if they are decried in Communist dogma as bourgeois democratic elements, at a time when the common enemy is in Communist theory also still Colonial Imperialism and its reactionary supporters, is to invite disaster. The obvious objective for any socialist party, whether of the Communist or non-Communist variety, is the solidarity of the nation through merger, and the achievement of freedom. The right thing was co-operation with all patriotic nationalist groups, however bourgeois or wavering social democrats they may be. But to choose, as the Communists and their front organisations did, to fight against the national solidarity of the races, against merger, and against freedom consequent with merger was a fatal error. Worse still, to choose to fight patriotic nationalists and to seek as allies in a united front, opportunists, adventurers and reactionary Right-wing elements was to invite humiliation and inevitable disaster.

Socialist realism demands the accurate appraisal of persons and groups and to name them accurately. All their skilful tactics of abuse and vilification cannot turn a nationalist Party into a pro-colonialist, and having failed, to turn it into a neo-colonialist, and that having failed, to make it into a Fascist Party. This is a practice of futile self-deception, trying to mould facts into their preconceived theories, believing that the Government of the P.A.P. has become effete and decadent, turned pro-colonialist and then turned neo-colonialist and then fascist.

In calling for blank votes those Members of the Opposition called for votes against merger, against the national unity of our people, and against freedom through merger. Had they had the courage to go through with their line of complete merger, they might have at least saved themselves this final humiliation and they might at least have been defeated doing the honourable thing. But they were caught by their own dishonest propaganda lines. Publicly they called for complete merger. Privately they said merger was a sell-out of the Chinese in Singapore to the Malays in the Federation. So the more complete the merger, the more the sell-out.

Had the "B" votes been more than the "A" votes, as a result of the blank ballots that they called for, it would have been the duty of this House to take note of the majority of "B" votes. However, over 71 per cent voted "A". In these circumstances, under section 29 of the Referendum Ordinance, I - move that those Opposition Members who did not support the - White Paper and called for blank votes should now be asked to declare publicly whether they wish the blank votes to be allocated to Alternative A or B or C. This is the constitutional process. The unconditional rejoinder, of course, is to take direct action outside. That is a, matter for them to decide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*.

*The motion reads as follows:

That this Assembly takes note of the Report of the Superintendent of the Singapore National Referendum as contained in Paper Cmd.18 of 1962 and in accordance with section 29 of the Singapore National Referendum Ordinance, 1962, that the House decides-

(1) that 2,370 uncertain ballot papers should be deemed to be votes for Alternatives A as indicated in the ballot paper; and

(2) that 144,077 unmarked ballot papers should be decided in accordance with the wishes of those Opposition Assemblymen who opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and calls upon them to decide to which of the Alternatives A, B and C the blank votes should be allocated.

Mr Speaker: Before I propose the Question, the Member for Anson has, indicated that he wishes to rise on a point of order.

Mr David Marshall: The point of order is a very simple one, Sir. That the second part of this motion is ultra vires, and I will be very brief. What I refer to is one which is curious in any other country but anticipated from the corkscrew P.A.P.,. that the 144,077 unmarked ballot papers, should be decided in accordance with, the wishes of those Opposition Assemblymen who opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and who are called upon to decide to which of the Alternatives A, B and C the blank votes should be allocated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I draw your attention to the provisions of section 29:

`Any person whose ballot paper-

(a) is unmarked; or

(b) is uncertain

shall be deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum.

Mr Speaker, it must be clear that the authority given by this statute is to the Assembly - abide by "the decision of the Assembly". I say that the second part is ultra vires in that it does not seek the decision of the Assembly, but seeks from the Opposition a decision by the request of the Assembly. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that we are fortunate here that you yourself are legally trained, that you appreciate the existence of the legal maxim known as "delegatus non potest delegate." The agent cannot delegate his powers. This applies to the Assembly as well as to any other both which has statutory authority. I say that this Assembly cannot delegate the authority given by section 29 to take a decision itself on the provisions of section 29 as to what is to be done with the blank votes. Above all, it cannot seek to pass it on to any group whether within or without the Assembly, quite apart from the dishonesty and the absurdity of asking people, who say they do not want section 29, to say, "Now, you work it," which I can see from the grin on the face of the Minister for Education just suits his corkscrew temperament.

Mr Speaker, I ask for a ruling that that part of the motion of the Prime Minister which calls upon the Assembly to request the Opposition to make a decision, is ultra vires the powers of this Assembly, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of section 29.

Mr Speaker: Would the Prime Minister like to assist the Chair?

1.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Yes, if I may, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had anticipated quite wrongly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the learned treatises and dissertations on constitutional procedures and processes. All I heard is one tag of dog Latin - delegatus non potest delegare. Well, we are doing nothing of the sort. We are not saying delegatus delegare. What we are saying is that we in this Assembly have the right to decide, and we are deciding that we shall abstain and allow the Opposition to decide. Whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional to abstain depends upon the rules of this Assembly. There are Assemblies and Legislative Chambers where the right to abstain does not exist; where when you are present at the time a division is called, you will vote. If we had an Assembly of that nature, perhaps the Member for Anson might be on firmer ground. But I am sorry that he has not devoted more time and care before taking up this question of the propriety of the motion. I think he should at least credit us with having investigated the constitutional niceties of the point, and the constitutional nicety in this case is simply this: Is it proper or improper for those who voted for the White Paper to abstain from deciding on unmarked and uncertain votes?

Mr David Marshall: It is not a question of abstaining.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson is a little bit slow this morning. If he will forgive me, I will take him through the processes.

Mr David Marshall: Afternoon.

The Prime Minister: Afternoon - sorry, I beg his pardon.

In spite of daylight saving and all that, we started in the morning - never mind. I would like to take the Member for Anson through the simple mental process - I mean he could picture. He is very good at vivid pictures - lurid, sombre, horrifying colours in his pictures. But this is quite simple. According to section 29 (1) of the Ordinance - "the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for referendum" - the matter referred for the referendum was the motion that was moved in this House. Therefore, the blank votes have to be decided now, in accordance with section 29. In other words, this whole Assembly will vote. I will give a simple illustration. Had there been more B votes than A votes, then it would have been open-

Mr David Marshall: We never had an honest referendum.

Mr Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: Well, he is very fortunate, Mr Speaker, Sir, in having us campaign so vigorously for A. But supposing we had let it go by default - and even C was considered attractive by no less than 7,000 people - then it would have been quite open for all of us, and indeed I think it would be deemed our duty to follow the express wish of the majority and vote for B. However, that did not take place and the decisive vote was for A. In this particular case, it does not matter in the end result whether the blank votes will go to A, B or C. We therefore deem it our pleasure and privilege that, on deciding this particular question when the votes are counted and a division is called for, we should vote for the White Paper - I understand the Leader of the House has settled this with Members of the Opposition who agreed un the White Paper - but we shall abstain and give the privilege of deciding on the blank votes to those who called for it. There is nothing unconstitutional. There is propriety within the four corners of the law. It is absolutely pristine in its purity as a constitutional nicety. I think the Member for Anson's objection is spurious.

Mr Speaker: I must thank the Member for Anson for giving me some hint that he was going to raise this point. I have looked at the matter very carefully and it seems to me that there is an argument as to what is the interpretation of section 29. The motion itself requests this House to make certain decisions in accordance with section 29 and, therefore, it is not for me to decide whether the resolutions sought in (1) and (2) or both would be in accordance with section 29. In other words, it is not for me to decide as to what interpretation this Assembly chooses to put on section 29. Some Members may consider that they are being asked to make a resolution which is ultra vires the section. They are at liberty to say so and, for that reason, to vote against the resolution. Therefore I over-rule the objection of the Member for Anson.

Question proposed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion asks that the House decides that the uncertain votes be deemed to be votes for Alternative A and that the unmarked ballot papers be left to the decision of the opposition Assemblymen who opposed the White Paper merger proposals. But let me say from the very beginning - and as the Member for Anson has partially pointed out to you this motion is as farcical as the counting of the ballot papers in the Badminton Hall and the whole referendum itself. I do not intend to go into details as to what happened during the counting of the ballot papers in the Badminton Hall. But I might just say a few words in passing, that although the counting was supposed to have been done division by division, we as counting agents had no means of checking whether the counting was, in fact, done division by division. All we could see was that the boxes were apparently haphazardly placed on the steps of the Badminton Hall - I am sure according to a certain pre-arranged plan - and then, apparently haphazardly again, dumped all over the tables. There were 51 tables in the Badminton Hall used for the counting of ballot papers, with a couple of extra tables that were not used. All the boxes, according to the information given to us by the Superintendent of the National Referendum, were placed as they came in. But we could see that all of them had tags on them that had code numbers which were known only to the Government. And when these boxes were taken for counting to the tables, they were taken not to the tables nearest to where the boxes were originally placed, but in some pre-arranged pattern - some here and some there - known only to the Government. We tried our best to find out which boxes came from which division and which boxes went to which table, but I regret to say that we were not able to find out. We managed to find out to a certain extent about certain divisions-

An hon. Member: Queenstown.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - but we were not able to find out all. Therefore, there was no actual indication given to us counting agents as to which division was counted and when or where. Even the pouring out of the ballot papers was done in a very irregular manner. If you remember, Sir, according to law, all the ballot boxes are supposed to be assembled, inspected, emptied of contents at the same time and the ballot papers mixed together, before counting. But this was never done. Some of the ballot papers were poured out from boxes on to the table and while counting was done halfway, further boxes were added and emptied. In addition, with all these boxes placed so close to one another, we counting agents had no opportunity whatsoever of finding out whether or not there was a mistake or a mixing up of the boxes. There was no possibility whatsoever of finding out as far as the counting agents were concerned.

What was more reprehensible was that when counting was done and when instructions were given to the counting clerks by the person who sat at the head of the table I suppose the Presiding Officers - they were all done surreptitiously and secretively; all in whispers. Nobody could hear anything. Only the person who went round - I suppose the group leader - handing out instructions from the Superintendent to the Presiding Officers telling them what and how to do things. Mind you, although in normal practice nobody is supposed to have any pencil or pen on the person, yet these Presiding Officers, as far as we could see, were making surreptitious marks on secret pieces of paper which they handed over to the group leader who went round, I suppose, on the orders of the Prime Minister-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not quite certain whether the Member for Queenstown is alleging that there were illegalities in the counting of these votes. If he is alleging that there were illegalities, then, of course, his remedy is by way of a referendum petition. I do not think the time of this House should be taken up with those matters.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, I am only trying to tell you what actually happened. I have no intention of going into details on the matter since the time allotted to us is for a debate on the motion. But these are a few things - I do not want to go any further - which the general public of Singapore should know something about.

Sir, section 29 of the Referendum Ordinance lays down that the persons whose ballot papers are uncertain or unmarked are deemed to be persons who accept or are willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum. I say, Sir, that the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum - that is, as has been so often referred to by the Prime Minister and all the P.A.P. Ministers, on the mode and manner of merger - is the White Paper, Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. The Legislative Assembly decision in November 1961, was 33 for the White Paper with 17 Assemblymen walking out. The P.A.P. never forgot to mention this over their propaganda network, the P.A.P. Radio and Rediffusion, and all the time they had tried to boost support for the White Paper merger proposals in this manner by saying that 33 supported-

Mr David Marshall: And none against.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Yes, and none against. Over the radio, Rediffusion and in speeches, the P.A.P. kept hammering this point home, that their merger proposals had the support of the majority in the Assembly, and that because of this majority support in the Legislative Assembly, they had the legal and constitutional right to push through their merger proposals. Therefore, their propaganda says that this referendum was something which the Government was now giving as a special privilege and favour to the people.

Sir, may I remind the House that all through the debate on the Referendum Bill, both in Select Committee and in the Legislative Assembly on recommittal, the P.A.P. had taken the stand that the blank votes should become votes for the White Paper of the Government, that is for Alternative A, as put forward in the referendum? All the P.A.P. arguments were based on this line and they rejected all our arguments and contentions that the blank votes meant non-support of any of the questions posed in the referendum. They still did this not so very long ago, only in July, when the questions for the referendum were debated. They still maintained that stand then. But now the P.A.P. say that uncertain and unmarked votes are votes not for the P.A.P. but for the Assembly.

Of course, Sir, we realise that the letter of the law says "the decision of the Assembly". But everybody knows that the "decision of the Assembly" on any important matter is the decision of the Government. And the decision of the Government is the decision of the P.A.P. So what are they grumbling about? Why are they trying to tell the people all this nonsense about blank votes meaning B? Why did they want to start this scare propaganda?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): What are you grumbling about?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: In the debate on clause 29 of the Referendum Bill, we had all along maintained that blank and uncertain votes did not mean support for any of the alternatives to be posed to the people in the referendum. As I have already indicated, the P.A.P. kept on insisting that those who cast blank and uncertain votes meant an indecision in their minds on the matter, and that therefore they would be ready to accept the decision of the Assembly on the matter. The P.A.P. brought in their so-called trump card of common Malaysian citizenship just before the announcement of the date of the referendum. But even this did not improve matters very much for them. Not until the P.A.P. initiated their final move, the scare propaganda which as many have confirmed turned out to be the genuine trump card of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. trump card was not the so-called common Malaysian citizenship. The trump card was the scare propaganda initiated by the Prime Minister and his cronies all over Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, on a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to Members of this Assembly as cronies? I think there is a derogatory connotation to the word "crony".

Mr Speaker: I have no idea whether or not the Member for Queenstown intended to include other Members of this Assembly under the term "cronies". He might have excluded Members of this Assembly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, there are so many cronies in the P.A.P. that I am sure the Minister for Finance realises that he himself must be one.

Mr Speaker: Order. In that case, since objection has been taken to the word "cronies", that word must be withdrawn if it has any reference to Members of this Assembly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention of applying that word to any Member of this Assembly, Sir.

As I was saying, the scare propaganda initiated by the P.A.P. spread with the rapidity of a prairie fire. In no time, the talk of the town was (1) that if you cast blank votes, you will lose your citizenship; (2) that if you cast blank votes you will be found out, because there is a number on the back of the ballot paper and the P.A.P. will then deal with you; (3) that if you cast blank votes and if, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, there should be more B votes than A votes, then the blank votes might become B votes, and therefore that would entail the loss of citizenship for half the people of Singapore.

Sir, these rumours were started by the P.A.P. and, as I have already indicated, were given official impetus by the Prime Minister in his speech in Fullerton Square on Thursday, 23rd August, 1962. This speech of the Prime Minister which said that blank votes might be turned into votes for B was, of course, specially aimed at the 340,000 non-local born Singapore citizens. The speech was viewed with such importance by the P.A.P. that they had Radio P.A.P. record the speech and had it broadcast and rebroadcast. I think the speech of the Prime Minister on that particular occasion was broadcast four times. I cannot remember the exact number, but I definitely know that it was broadcast twice and there was a last time which makes it definitely three times. It might have been more, I do not know; unless you keep listening in, you will not know. So day in and day out, they harped on this so-called danger of casting blank votes. This blatant falsehood was drummed into the ears and minds of the people through Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion. Not only that, Sir, In addition, they had cinema slides which told of the danger of casting blank votes and that if you did cast blank votes you would lose all your rights. They also had special police jeeps going around from place to place telling the people of the danger of casting blank votes, namely, that they might lose their citizenship, and that they must cast their votes for A. I had occasion to protest to the Commissioner of Police, and he said, "That is a surprising thing." I quoted the time, place and the occasion, and he said, "I have no evidence." I do not know what sort of police work they do nowadays. Police jeeps are not used to look after the welfare of the people but instead to boost the P.A.P. propaganda machine!

The Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin): You should have gone to Woodbridge Hospital.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not think I want to read lengthy details to you, Sir, although I have the newspapers here. I will just read to you the headlines that they splashed in the newspapers. On the 25th of August: "LEE: 400,000 Citizens would be affected - Danger of blank votes". Of course, I do not need to read further on. Then "Lee" again - all the time you see Lee Kuan Yew's pictures everywhere.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I thought "Lee" meant "Lee Siew Choh".

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Then "Blank can be turned into B - Loss of Citizenship". And again in headlines: "Blank votes warning by Lee Kuan Yew". These were only meant for the English-speaking. But more important, Sir, were those headlines meant for the Chinese-speaking. They were worse. The evil genius of the P.A.P. had grasped the most vital point, the weakest point, the Achilles heel of those Chinese who were non-locally born. The Chinese Press had a special section given to the Prime Minister's speech about the danger of blank votes. Prominence all over the place. I think this can be referred to as the pride of the P.A.P. Then again headlines: "If you cast blank votes, you lose citizenship." Worse headlines, Sir. Sir, I got them from the Nanyang Siang Pau of 26th August, page 5. And then again in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 28th August, page 5, again about the loss of citizenship. And on the 29th at page 14, this time it says Lee Khoon Choy telling the people of Singapore: "Unless you vote for A you will lose your citizenship rights." All in headlines, Sir. And then on 31st August, the Prime Minister in his analysis said, "If you cast blank votes, you will lose your citizenship rights." All this in big headlines, Sir, and all done with special emphasis and directed towards only one section of the population of Singapore, namely, the non-local born Singapore citizens.

Thus, an atmosphere of doubt and uncertainty, anxiety and suspense was created deliberately over the whole of Singapore by these blatant falsehoods which came from the evil propaganda machine of the P.A.P. And the P.A.P. kept up the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty by making no mention whatsoever of the secrecy of the vote in their radio broadcasts. You see, Sir, the people were so scared about the number on the back of the ballot paper. They were all afraid that if they were found out, they would lose their jobs, they would lose facilities for their school children, they would lose welfare aid, they would lose facilities for application for Housing Board flats - all sorts of things. This rumour started by the P.A.P. went round all over Singapore. As I said, this fear was heightened by the fact that the P.A.P. made no mention of the fact that the vote was secret in their radio broadcasts.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Why did you not mention it at the forum?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On election day, it is customary for the Superintendent of Elections to say that the vote is compulsory; but what is more important, he also says that the vote is secret. But on this occasion, Sir (I have not got the actual words, but it can be confirmed, and they can deny it if they like), the Superintendent made broadcasts saying that voting was compulsory, but not a word was said by him about the secrecy of the vote - in other words, adding to this fear that was already in the hearts of a lot of people. Even today. Sir, a lot of people are still asking, "Was the referendum voting really secret?" I wish the Prime Minister - if he is not here, let somebody tell him - would reassure the people, especially those who cast blank votes, because a lot of people are still worried that their jobs might be taken away from them, that their flats might be taken away from them, that social welfare aid might be taken away from them, and that their citizenship might be taken away from them. Let the Prime Minister in his reply give an assurance on this point, and let it be categorical, in order to remove the fear which was instilled into the hearts of the people by the P.A.P. themselves. All those threatening and intimidatory speeches of the Prime Minister and of the Minister for Culture were broadcast and rebroadcast - all telling the people of the danger of blank votes. Of course, the Prime Minister now says that he never said that the blank votes were votes for the Government. He said that - I saw it in the papers the other day - and according to his interpretation, the Legislative Assembly had to be reconvened to decide what the blank votes should stand for. And he has even passed the buck on to the Opposition Assemblymen. I would say this. Sir. It might have been that the Prime Minister did not say that the blank votes were Government votes. I have not the time to look through all the files and speeches made by the Prime Minister or what he said on the Second Reading or the Third Reading of the Bill. Anyway, the Prime Minister did not take much part in the debate on the Referendum Bill, and he could not be expected to know very much of what was said in the debate on the Referendum Bill. He never took part in the detailed clause by clause debate on the Referendum Bill, both in Select Committee and in the Legislative Assembly on recommittal.

The Minister for Finance was the P.A.P.'s chief spokesman. This is what he said in the Select Committee on the 15th of May, 1962. May I refer you, Sir, to the Official Report No. 5 of the Select Committee on the National Referendum Bill of 15th May, 1962? Column 308, at the bottom. The Minister for Finance said that all those who cast blank votes are those who [fourth line from the bottom, Sir]:

'...are prepared to accept the decision which their elected representatives in the Assembly had already made on the main merger issue.'

May I draw your attention to the words "had already made"? What was the decision that the Assembly had already made on the main merger issue? It is the White Paper passed in November 1961 - Command Paper 33 - and exactly as put to the people now as question A in the referendum. So what is all this nonsense about a new decision having to be made again by the Legislative Assembly? Is that not proof enough that the P.A.P. have already said that the blank votes are P.A.P. votes? Then, Sir, in the petition from the Prime Minister to the United Nations, in reply to the petition from the 19 Opposition Assemblymen and from the Council of Joint Action, the Prime Minister did not deny the facts as stated in paragraph 14 of our petition. This is from the petition from Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of Singapore, concerning Singapore, dated 26th July, 1962, from the United Nations. It is only a few lines. Paragraph 14, from the memorandum by 19 Singapore Opposition Legislative Assemblymen. It reads as follows:

`The voters of Singapore will be required to put a mark against one of the two alternatives offered, and in the referendum law which has been passed, if a blank vote is cast or if the vote is ambiguous by having both alternatives struck out or both alternatives marked, then all such votes will be deemed to be votes in support of Command Paper 33 of 1961 and such votes will not be declared separately but will be added to the votes in favour of Command Paper 33 of 1961 when declared.'

Sir, this is a statement from the petition of the 19 Assemblymen to the United Nations, and in the reply of the Prime Minister, there is not a single denial of the fact which is stated here. Not a single denial! In other words, they have accepted that this is a position of fact. So what is all this about a decision to be made again by the Assembly? The only answer the Prime Minister gave was a weak defence of why the P.A.P. resorted to the notorious and obnoxious section 29. Again, Sir, in the United Nations, when the Prime Minister obviously did not feel competent enough to speak on the Referendum Ordinance, the Minister for Finance said this. May I quote the verbatim report of the 87th meeting in the United Nations? It is on page 67. The heading is listed "Dr Goh". Dr Goh said this - he was referring to the blank votes. It is just a few lines.

`In these circumstances, the Government of Singapore make no apology for the provision in the Referendum Ordinance whereby blank votes are considered to indicate a state of uncertainty on the part of the electorate, and therefore, in such circumstances, the vote must be considered as acceptance of what the elected representatives in the Assembly have decided on the issue of merger.'

May I draw your attention again, Sir, to the words "have decided on the issue of merger." ". . . what the elected representatives in the Assembly have decided . . ." The only issue that the Legislative Assemblymen have decided on is the White Paper, Command Paper 33 of 1961. All these are very solemn words, made on solemn occasions, words carefully weighed according to the Minister for Finance himself, uttered with proper co-ordination between the brain and the tongue, according to the Minister for Health. Has all this been forgotten? This is clear proof, Sir, that they themselves have admitted that the decision of the Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum is the White Paper - now, of course, amended with the addition of their so-called Malaysian citizenship. So what is all this farce about asking the Assembly for a decision on the blank votes, when the decision has already been made? Sir, the reason, of course, is not far to seek. It is simply this. The Prime Minister has brought forward this motion with two obvious reasons. One is to cover the falsehood which the Prime Minister himself has uttered, that blank votes might mean support for Alternative B. Of course, now they say, bring it to the Assembly and let the Assembly decide. Second, what I suppose would be more important to the propaganda machine of the P.A.P., is that the P.A.P. want to create the illusion that the decision of the Legislative Assembly may not be the decision of the Government, and therefore, of the P.A.P., because now they say, "We abstain. You decide." Therefore, under those circumstances, on important matters the decision of the Assembly may not necessarily be the decision of the governing Party. That is the impression and the illusion which the P.A.P. have to create in the minds of the people. If that impression and illusion should be created, then the Prime Minister can go back and say, "There you are. I have spoken the truth. I have told you exactly what was the true position." But in actual fact, the Prime Minister has been telling falsehoods right from the word go - all the time. They have given out this falsehood with the deliberate intention to frighten and intimidate people into supporting A.

Therefore, Sir, just as the referendum is merely to provide a facade of democracy and a facade for so-called consultation with the people, this motion is a cover for the falsehoods that were uttered by the P.A.P., and the Prime Minister in particular, during this present referendum campaign. If the P.A.P. had any real intention of letting the blank votes to be decided by the Opposition Assemblymen, the P.A.P. should have so stated from the very beginning. They should have said so in the beginning that if you cast blank votes, the blank votes would be decided by the Opposition Assemblymen. Why did they not say so? Again, Sir, if there was such intention, the P.A.P. need not have debated so hotly against us and contested every amendment we made concerning section 29. If you will remember, Sir, we debated very hotly clause 29, both in the Select Committee and on recommittal in the Assembly. And when we moved that the whole clause 29 be deleted, the P.A.P. rejected our amendment. Thus clause 29 was all a P.A.P. show. Again if they had really intended that the blank votes be left to the decision of the Opposition Assemblymen, then the P.A.P. need not have been so secretive and so surreptitious in the way they counted those blank votes. There was no decision to count those blank votes separately until, I think, round about 4.00 a.m. Of course, the P.A.P. chaps had earlier been going around recording the number of votes for the various categories and going back to tell the P.A.P. bosses. But there was no indication of how the counting was to be done until the very last minute. And the Prime Minister himself was directing operations at every stage of the show. The Superintendent was merely his page boy. He handed my letter over to the Prime Minister. The Superintendent never made the decisions. The Prime Minister made the decisions and directed every stage of the operations.

Sir, since this motion now centres on section 29, it is necessary for me to mention a few relevant facts in order to place this motion in its proper perspective. As I have already indicated, Sir, in the first place, it was the P.A.P. who put in clause 29 - now section 29. It was the P.A.P. that railroaded, pushed through this section 29 to make it law, in spite of all the protests from not only Assemblymen here but also civic organisations, professional bodies and everybody in Singapore. Everybody knows that it is the P.A.P. that is completely responsible for section 29. We have repeatedly stated that this sham referendum held under such a sham, ridiculous and undemocratic way would not reflect the true will and desire of the people of Singapore. It is because of this, Sir, that we also brought the matter up to the Committee of Seventeen on Colonialism in the United Nations. All we have asked for is a fair, honest and just referendum. But what we have just witnessed was something which had already been rigged to give a sure win to the P.A.P. heads the P.A.P. win, tails the people lose. A sure win referendum for the P.A.P. If it had been an honest referendum, with the people having the right of dissent, with the people having the right to say "no", and with absolutely no fear whatsoever that the dissenting votes would be construed to mean support for Alternative A or Alternative B as put up by the P.A.P., we would have willingly accepted the result as truly reflecting the free will and desire of the people. But such is not the case. Even if the result had shown a majority of only 51 per cent, we would still have accepted it and we would have done our best to help work it, however we may feel against the whole result. But when we know only too well that the referendum is dishonest right to the core, to recognise the result of such a dishonest referendum would be tantamount to condoning dishonesty and, what is worse, to encouraging a future repetition of such dishonesty. Sir, we fully recognise and accept the fact that amongst those who voted for Alternative A in the referendum, there were many who did so in the sincere belief that Alternative A was to their interests. To these people, we say that we respect their belief and their choice, and if they had comprised the majority in an honest referendum carried out without section 29 intimidating the people, we would have willingly abided by the decision. But it must be admitted that in this sham referendum there were those who voted for Alternative A, not because they supported Alternative A, but because they feared Alternative B and because they feared their loss of citizenship, loss of their means of livelihood, loss of welfare aid and housing accommodation. This fear of Alternative B, together with the other fear of loss of citizenship with consequent loss of livelihood, was entirely due to the scare propaganda initiated by the P.A.P. helped by the existence of section 29 in the Referendum Ordinance. Section 29, though originally created by the P.A.P. as an ultimate weapon to ensure definite victory for the White Paper merger proposals, should the White Paper merger proposals fail to get popular support, has now turned out to be even more useful to the P.A.P. as a weapon in the referendum campaign to coerce non-local born citizens into supporting Alternative A because of their fear of Alternative B winning, according to the words of the Prime Minister, "by default".

But I would like to add a few words more, Sir, about the rumours which the P.A.P. have been spreading around and it is this - the Prime Minister himself can check. To frighten people into supporting "A", the Prime Minister said that there were a lot of Malays in Singapore who were going to vote for Alternative B. This put more fear into the hearts of those non-local born Chinese. They could not possibly allow such a thing to happen. Sir, it is very important that we remember this fear of loss of citizenship. The Chinese in this country, those who were not born here, have fought many years for this right, and any fear that such citizenship rights might be taken away from them, will make them fight and do anything possible to retain that citizenship. I here condemn the Prime Minister for initiating such a communal argument in the propaganda campaign for support of Alternative A. This is a most dangerous line. The P.A.P. had all along been trying to frighten certain sections of the people with arguments which are completely communal. I hope that the P.A.P. will realise that such arguments are not conducive to the welfare of the people and, therefore, they should immediately take steps to refrain from further use of such communal arguments in their propaganda.

Sir, there is still another fear which I might add, and it is this; a lot of people in Singapore, although unwilling to support Alternative A, but because of the fact that there are numbers on the back of the ballot papers, nevertheless fear that if they should cast votes for Alternative B or Alternative C or blank, i.e. against Alternative A, then they might be found out; and they know that whether they cast blank votes or votes for Alternative A, all these votes would still become Government votes and the P.A.P. would still be the Government. Everybody fears the P.A.P. nowadays. Everybody knows how ruthless the P.A.P. can be. We feel that is why some people have put discretion as the better part of valour. They say, "Well, let it be this time," just to avoid possible retaliatory action and possible vengeance that can be initiated by ruthless P.A.P. Ministers.

Sir, now that the P.A.P. have made full use of section 29 to achieve their aims, they want to appear as innocent angels and hope to wash their hands of something of their own creation. The motion now asks the Opposition Assemblymen to decide on the fate of the unmarked ballot papers. We in the Barisan Sosialis have all along maintained that all those who cast uncertain or blank ballot papers are those who do not support any one of the alternatives posed to the people in the referendum. In fact, all those who have cast blank votes have cast them in protest-

An hon. Member: Anti-merger.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: - against the undemocratic P.A.P., against the dishonest referendum and as non-recognition and total rejection of the result of the referendum.

In deference to, and in accordance with, the wishes of all those who cast blank votes in the recent referendum, I accordingly move an amendment to the motion moved by the Prime Minister. I move,

In line 6, to leave out from "decides" to the end and add:

"that the unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes and all the unmarked and uncertain ballot papers be not counted as supporting any of the Alternatives A. B or C".

Mr Speaker: May I have the amendment in writing please?

Amendment handed in.

Mr Speaker: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, the Government has asked that the Opposition Assemblymen decide. I have moved an amendment and we have decided. If the Government really mean what they say, let them accept my amendment and let us proceed, otherwise the mask-

Mr Rajaratnam: Masses.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: -will be removed and they will again be exposed as they have all along been exposed. [Laughter]

The jackals laughing! Let them make sure that the wishes of the Opposition be respected as stated in the motion.

Mr Speaker: The Original Question was,

`That this Assembly takes note of the Report of the Superintendent of the Singapore National Referendum as contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1962 and in accordance with section 29 of the Singapore National Referendum Ordinance, 1962, that the House decides-

(1) that 2,370 uncertain ballot papers should be deemed to be votes for Alternative A as indicated in the ballot paper; and

(2) that 144,077 unmarked ballot papers should be decided in accordance with the wishes of those Opposition Assemblymen who opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and calls upon them to decide to which of the Alternatives A. B and C the blank votes should be allocated."

Since which an amendment has been moved,

In line 6, to leave out from "decides" to the end and add:

"that the unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes and all the unmarked and uncertain ballot papers be not counted as supporting any of the Alternatives A, B or C".

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

I might draw the attention of hon. Members to Standing Order 39, paragraph (4), which reads:

`If the Speaker or Chairman, before putting a question to leave out certain words, is informed that a Member wishes to move an amendment to leave out part only of those words and if he is of opinion that the proposed amendment of which he is so informed is substantially a new amendment, he shall, if possible, put the question to leave out only so much of the original amendment as is unaffected by the second amendment; but if that question is agreed to, the whole of the words proposed in the original amendment to be left out shall be deemed to have been ordered to be left out.'

Paragraph (5) reads:

`When two or more amendments are proposed to be moved to the same motion, the Speaker or Chairman shall call upon the movers in the order in which their amendments relate to the text of the motion, or in cases of doubt in such order as the Chair shall decide; provided that no amendment may be moved which relates to any words which the Assembly or Committee has decided shall not be left out of the motion.'

The position now, of course, is the Question before the Assembly which is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," that is to say, all the words contained in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the motion. If the Assembly decides against that amendment, then all those words remain, and there is no opportunity then of amending them.

But if a Member wishes to leave out only a certain part of those words, then he should inform me, so that those parts can be saved for another amendment.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, today the P.A.P. have the opportunity to act decently, to be clean and to wash itself of some of the filth it has perpetrated in the past few months. We have learnt that if you put a pig in a marble palace, he will be uncomfortable until he can wallow in the dirt he creates. Instead of taking advantage of the miraculous changes, the P.A.P. have brought in yet another disgraceful motion, so typical of their tortuous mind.

Let us recognise, Mr Speaker, Sir, that as a result of the conference in London not more than a month ago, we now have genuine merger proposals with automatic citizenship - that spring chicken which the Prime Minister said was not available on the menu, and which the P.A.P. pooh-poohed and derided when it was asked for by the Opposition. Even though the proposals as they now stand are not completely fair to Singapore, nevertheless, Mr Speaker, they do constitute genuine merger and a workable proposition. This was a miracle in itself. You remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, how hard we fought for automatic citizenship and for how long, and how we were sneered at by the Front Bench and called "anti-national", "pro-Communist" and "anti-merger" because we asked for automatic citizenship which they said they would not even negotiate with the Federation since it was impossible! The Opposition asked for the impossible! The Opposition was anti-national because we asked for automatic citizenship! The Opposition was pro-Communist because we asked for automatic citizenship! The Opposition was anti-merger and was asking for the impossible because we asked for automatic citizenship! Now we have automatic citizenship. And, Sir, we have genuine merger surely a miracle which should be recognised and respected to the extent that the P.A.P. should take advantage of it to produce a clean motion before this Assembly.

Not only was there one miracle, Mr Speaker, but we had a second miracle, the miracle that the people of Singapore swallowed the filthy, immoral referendum, and the majority of them despite their recognition of its disgraceful character, despite their disgust, nevertheless voted in favour of Alternative A. 397,626 citizens cast their votes in favour of Alternative A out of a total electorate of 624,000. Even assuming every one of the 624,000 voters was alive on Referendum Day, and even assuming that they were all in Singapore, which is absurd, nevertheless that makes a total in favour of Alternative A of a clear 64 per cent of the entire electorate.

I am reminded in this context, Mr Speaker, to draw attention to another aspect in view of the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown on the recommittal of the Bill to this House on 5th July, which appears at page 41 of the unrevised transcript [Vol. 18, No. 7, col. 851]. He moved a new clause:

`The result of the referendum shall not be valid unless a proposition is supported in the affirmative by not less than fifty-one per cent of the total votes cast.'

Not "of the total electorate". Mr Speaker, but "of the total votes cast". Now if you take the total of the votes cast, that is 561,559, there is, in fact, a clear majority of 71 per cent in favour; 20 per cent more than the Member for Queenstown asked for on the 5th of July.

These two miracles have made it unnecessary for the perpetuation of the dishonesty for which the foundation was laid by this Government in the Referendum Ordinance. Why do we pursue those tactics, Mr Speaker? Why can we not go cleanly and peacefully into this merger? Why must we follow this tortuous P.A.P. path? We know that the Government expected that the majority of the people would vote against the merger proposals, and that is why we have this farcical Referendum Ordinance and the farcical referendum whereby only Alternative A had any meaning. Alternative B, according to an opinion, Mr Speaker, which I would be happy to table, obtained from Mr Dingle Foot, Queen's Counsel and Member of Parliament, a constitutional lawyer, was meaningless as regards citizenship. Alternative C was admitted by the Prime Minister himself to be ambiguous. Let me read it to you. I read from the transcript of the United Nations meeting of the Special Committee of 17 Nations on Colonialism in New York on 26th July, 1962, at 3.00 p.m. The Prime Minister of Singapore was speaking then:

`I admit that the third Alternative - "on terms no less favourable than Borneo" - is vague because the Borneo terms, although part of them have been discussed publicly, have not been crystallized in the White Paper in proper form, as has Alternative A, hut they will be. I would have thought that my political opponents would at least have given me the credit of possessing some generosity [I am glad he did not say integrity] and some good sense in not putting the referendum questions until Alternative C has been published and clarified.'

Have we had a White Paper, Mr Speaker? No.

Then finally, Sir, this provision in the Ordinance, that blank votes are to be added to the total votes for A without being separately declared. I think it is important to recognise this dishonesty and the lack of their utilisation at present. I draw attention to page 32 of the proceedings of this Assembly on 4th July, 1962, [Vol. 18, No. 6, col. 712] in which I moved an amendment to clause 29:

`So that the sub-clause will now read:

"The number of such ballot papers shall be counted and shall be separately included by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum."

Mr Speaker, I then urged that we should publish the number of blank ballot papers separately so that the people should know what the voting was like. This was strongly resisted and the Government, assisted by the Front Bench of the Opposition, negatived it by 24 votes to 17 Opposition votes. They refused to permit the separate publication of the number of blank votes. Let us remember that. And it was made clear that these would not be published unless the votes in favour of Alternative A well exceeded the blank votes, which has happened fortunately.

Sir, as a result of the voting of the people, all this dishonesty is now unnecessary. The vote is clear. The acceptance of the merger proposals, as amended, is unequivocal by 71 per cent majority of the votes cast, 64 per cent majority of the total number of citizens on the electoral roll. The Barisan Sosialis, through the Member for Queenstown, suggest - and suggest, Sir, not without reason - that there has been dishonest conduct on the part of the Prime Minister and dishonest intimidation by the Prime Minister through false statements - I make this knowingly. Sir, and I am prepared to support it - to the Chamber of Commerce and Radio Singapore-

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point order.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister should first hear what is being said. He was not here when certain allegations were being made. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: - and it is plain that these false statements may have materially affected the voting. It is also claimed - although I could not quite follow it - that there were various rumours of an intimidatory character spread by the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, I think the position in this Assembly is very simple, and it is this. I am particularly delighted, in the context of the allegations made by the Member for Queenstown, to remember that it was I who was responsible for drawing attention to the lacuna in the Referendum Ordinance of any provision for the Referendum Judge. We now have provisions for the Referendum Judge. And if, in fact, the Barisan Sosialis are satisfied that there have been not dishonest statements and intimidation which I accept - but that those statements and intimidation have materially affected the result of the referendum which, frankly, Sir, I doubt, then I say that it is their duty to put these matters before the Referendum Judge.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

Mr David Marshall: And until the decision of the Referendum Judge nullifying the returns is made, the returns must be accepted without question. It must be accepted, Sir.

I am unhappy to hear a "Hear, hear!" from the Prime Minister. I always wonder how wrong I am when he agrees with me.

But, Mr Speaker, let us go back to the fundamental issue that in a democracy we accept the will of the majority. The will of the majority has been indicated in a clear vote in the referendum. There is an allegation that this referendum result was brought about by intimidation. As you yourself have indicated earlier, the proper place for that allegation is before the Referendum Court and the Referendum Judge, and until the Referendum Judge accepts that contention and nullifies the returns, we as democrats should not say, as I was rather unhappy to hear the Member for Queenstown say, "We do not accept the returns because they were the result of intimidation." We accept the returns as we accept the judgment of the Court of first instance, until you have appealed it and only after the appeal has been upheld. Here I have not heard of any appeal to the Referendum Judge and I have not heard of any suggestion of an appeal to the Referendum Judge. In the circumstances, I would suggest to my friend, the Member for Queenstown, that the statement he has made is wholly inappropriate in the context of his stand in support of the democratic principle of the majority will being respected. I recognise that that does not mean, though we accept the majority will, that, in fact, the majority are necessarily happy with some of the injustices which the White Paper perpetrates, albeit of an incidental character. I for one would certainly do what I can within my competence to seek amelioration of those conditions, either now or after their incorporation in the Constitution of Malaysia, in order to obtain full justice and equality for the people of Singapore.

The P.A.P. today, I repeat, have the opportunity to act honestly yet to obtain what it seeks. There was no need to invoke the rubbish, the dirt of section 29, it affects nothing at all. No one will look at it. Certainly least of all the Federation Prime Minister who is concerned. I think, Mr Speaker, it is most unfair to suggest that the 144,000 votes which were blank were, in the words of the Prime Minister, "anti-merger". The Prime Minister knows full well that my Party and I made it plain after the announcement of the changed citizenship proposals that we accepted the White Paper as amended.

An hon. Member: Public statement! [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Are all these interjections really necessary? They seem to me to be out of context. Mr David Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: We made it plain in public announcements, in the Press, over the radio, in so far as we were permitted space by the Prime Minister. We made it equally plain that we advised the people to cast blank votes as a protest against the referendum provisions, not against the White Paper. That is why I am particularly happy to see that my friend, the Member for Queenstown, has not suggested in his amendment that the 144,000 blank votes should be deemed to reject proposals A, B or C, but that they should be deemed to be cast in protest, as protest votes, because, Sir, I for one tell you frankly, I cast a blank vote not because I am against A. I support A fully. But because I was against that disgraceful referendum and I refused to participate in it more than the law compelled me to. The law compelled me to go to the voting booth. It compelled me to take that ballot paper. But nowhere in the law was I required to put a mark on it, and I would not participate more than I could. But let us recognise, Mr Speaker, that had there been an honest referendum, I am satisfied that there would have been a greater number of votes cast for A than in fact there were. It is totally unfair to speak of the 144,000 votes that were blank as being anti-merger.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: On a point of order, yes.

The Prime Minister: May I say that I am sincerely sorry if I had misunderstood the Member for Anson previously, and I unreservedly withdraw my contention that the l44,000 blank votes were against merger. As I understand it, a percentage, which is claimed by the Workers' Party of the 144,000, did it only under protest against the mode and manner of the referendum, not against the mode and manner of merger as such. I willingly accept the explanation. I tender my most heartfelt apologies.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister has got away on a point of order which is not a point of order. But I am sure the Member for Anson is agreeable to that elucidation.

Mr David Marshall: The Prime Minister would have had his opportunity to do things decently, but he will not and cannot. Nevertheless, I thank him for that assurance. It is not a question of pride with us. But I think it is a question of legitimately recognising that there were a lot - I know personally, Sir, not merely myself, but I know of others with whom I have spoken and from whom I have heard-quite a number (I will not seek to assess the number even in percentage) but an appreciable number did honestly cast blank votes because they were against the manner of the referendum and not against the White Paper proposals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we come to the motion, the first part of which asks that 2,370 uncertain ballot papers should be deemed to be votes for Alternative A as indicated in the ballot paper. Mr Speaker, they have 397,000 and they go begging for 2,300 votes that in every civilised country in the world are recognised as null and void, recognised even the original clause 28, if I might remind you, of the Bill published in September. You will remember, Sir, the original Bill (No. 156) published last year. May I draw your attention to clause 28? Clause 28, sub-clause (1) :

`The Superintendent shall reject as invalid the following papers only, namely, any ballot paper [look at (c) and (d) ] which is unmarked, which is void or uncertain.'

They recognised it. That is the position in civilised countries; in fact, in all countries, civilised or uncivilised.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is probably going back to the debate we did have on clauses 28 and 29. He should just mention it in passing and should not now debate as to what clause 29 should have been or clause 28 should have been.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is what I am doing. I am pointing out that the Government did recognise that that was the procedure in every country in which there had been any voting at all, whether for a referendum or for an election. In fact, Sir, we have it in our Elections Ordinance which is still in force, in section 41(d) and (e) . Unfortunately, we had the story then in Select Committee that there was going to be a Communist-mounted campaign, and as a result, they wanted to have the right that unmarked and blank ballot papers should also count with A, as was read out to you by the Member for Queenstown. That was approved by 5 to 4, Mr Speaker - 5 Government against 4 Opposition - including, at that time, the Member for Cairnhill. On recommittal to this House, the Member for Queenstown moved an amendment to clause 28, which would have made blank and uncertain ballot papers void and invalid, and in that I fully supported him. It is material, when they seek to throw on us the onus of deciding on working section 29, to see that it was we who consistently rejected section 29. Finally, Sir, let us look at section 29. You will remember, Sir, that it took three days of debate in the Assembly, apart from the lengthy debate in the Select Committee, in which the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. and the Workers' Party consistently maintained that blank and uncertain ballot papers should not count. That amendment of the Member for Queenstown, which I supported, was negatived by 25 votes to 18. Government votes, Sir, In respect of section 29, I moved an amendment, trying to do the best we could of a bad job, that an unmarked and uncertain ballot paper shall be deemed to be of a person who is not in favour of any of the proposals posed by the referendum or has not understood the question or the instructions for voting. Again this was negatived by the Government and the Front Bench Opposition by a total of 25 votes to 18.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Something wrong with your arithmetic!

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, had the referendum been the other way, had there been 144,000 votes for A and 397,000 blank, we would have been told that the Assembly having already decided in favour of the White Paper proposals, Command Paper 33 of 1961, we should not know, and the totals must be added together, and there were 95 per cent in favour. As the Member for Queenstown has already indicated from the statements made by the Minister for Finance, it was intended that the blank votes should be added to A. In fact, this was clearly indicated to us by the Government and accepted by the Government as the true position when it was submitted to the United Nations. Now, Sir, they are in the happy position of being able to publish the number of the blank votes. They are in the happy position of being able to point to the fact that, despite the dishonesty which they had prepared in anticipation of losing the referendum for making dishonest returns, there was no need to make dishonest returns. Then, Sir, why this disgraceful provision about wanting the 2,000 votes, going a begging for 2,000 votes that are uncertain, which in civilised countries are naturally accepted as void? And why this provision about calling upon the Opposition Members to put it to A, B or C? Why should we take the orders of the Government as to what we are to do?

Mr Speaker, I know you have overruled my objection, and I shall not refer to it from the legal point of view. But I think I am entitled to refer to it from the point of view of plain common sense and decency. How can this Assembly, by virtue of the majority which the Government has working with the Opposition Front Bench, call upon the Opposition to do anything which the Opposition does not want to do? By what right?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You do not have to do!

Mr David Marshall: I notice that the Member for Queenstown, instead of merely voting against it and letting them vote in favour, says, "Let us forget this dirty Government." I would like to get them to make me put a value to a blank vote and say a blank vote means A, B or C. I would like to see the Government try it. All of it. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, because I do respect the constructive character of the amendment made by the Member for Queenstown, he says, "Let us forget this dirty Government." Here we have got - at least he has not said it, but I take it that is the way his mind works - the Opposition has got a chance to clean up the filth that the Government has left in the marble palace of democracy. We will clean it up. We will declare that blank and uncertain votes are null and void, and with that sentiment I wholly concur. But I do say, Sir, that it is unfortunate and tragic that the Government, which has the opportunity as a result of the generosity of the people to be clean and honest at no expense to itself, should seek yet another filthy way of perpetrating its own tortuous brand of politics and political propaganda.

I would be happy, Mr Speaker, to support in the context the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown on the clear understanding that by "protest votes" I do not mean votes that reject or protest against the White Paper proposals as amended. But by protest votes, I understand they protest against the manner in which the referendum was conducted. I think it is only right and proper and common sense and common decency that these votes, whether ambiguous or blank, should count for nothing and let those who have no respect for decency abstain.

3.16 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, not only the referendum is a sham referendum, but the counting procedure on Referendum Day, to say the least of it, is strange and unique. Today we have in front of this House the amusing spectacle of reading the Report of the Superintendent of the Singapore National Referendum which gives us two separate sets of figures in two separate counts, Annex A and Annex B. Sir, this is one of the greatest jokes of all time. How can the people trust the result of the counting? How can the people believe in the referendum?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we look at the Report of the Superintendent, we will notice that there are two counts. In the first count, the total number of ballot papers found in boxes was 561,467; in the second count the total number of ballot papers found in boxes was 561,559. Two different sets of figures! Where did they discover, may I ask the Government, the extra ballot papers in the second count? The people will wonder whether there are any more ballot papers in the boxes!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Some more!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: The U.P.P. was only allowed two counting agents for 51 counting tables. How can two counting agents supervise or even look at the counting and the adjudication of the doubtful votes? Sir, the counting procedure was a serious departure from the normal counting procedure in previous pollings. It was physically impossible to check the seals and look into the 1057 ballot boxes to see whether any more ballot papers were still in the boxes, a practice allowed in every election. We were invited by the Government to go to the Badminton Hall not to supervise the counting, but to give a pretence of democracy to the whole referendum procedure. Two times of counting gave two different sets of figures. What will happen if there are three times counting, four times counting, five times counting? Sir, as far as my memory can stretch, I have never heard at any time in the history of polling in Singapore that two sets of figures were yielded in two separate counts. But from the mystery surrounding the counting, from the denial to Opposition Members to have sufficient counting agents, these two separate lists of results yielded in two separate counts, come as no surprise to us. It is no surprise to the people. Anyhow, the people have considered the whole matter, not only as a farce, but as a joke.

Another thing I have noticed in this Report is the absence of the total number of votes cast. Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of votes cast is not published in this Report. Why is the figure not published in this Report? Why is the figure missing? Was there a difference-

Mr Rajaratnam: Yes, in the first one.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - between the total number of votes cast and the total number of ballot papers found in the ballot boxes? You see, Mr Speaker, in the usual polling, the Superintendent gives us the figure of the total number of votes cast which he obtains from the butts of the ballot papers. He gives us the figure of the total number of ballot papers found in the boxes. It is vital for us to know the total number of votes cast. If we did not know the total number of votes cast and if we could not compare it with the total number of ballot papers which were found at the Badminton Hall, how could we ensure that no ballot paper had flown away, possibly had landed itself in Venus-

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the same question of the hon. Member as I asked of the Member for Queenstown, that is, whether or not he is now alleging that there were illegalities in the referendum counting? If he alleges that there were, in fact, illegalities, then I think his remedy is by way of a referendum petition. The time of the Assembly should not be taken up in this manner.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I deal with it because the Assembly has been asked to take note of this Report, and as I see there are inconsistencies in the figures, I think it is my duty as an Assemblyman to go into the results of the referendum in respect of the two separate counts.

Sir, even long before polling day, I said in this Assembly that the result of this referendum was a foregone conclusion. I predicted a 98 per cent or a 99 per cent victory for the Government, because the Government had said during the debate on clause 29 that it would include all blank votes as White Paper votes and this is what has happened. Anyhow, to us, this referendum is only a victory in name.

May I refer to the Assembly debate on the 10th of July, 1962, page 52? During the debate on the Referendum Bill, I made very briefly my assessment of the position, and what I said in those days had come true. It is at page 52, about the 14th or 15th line from the top [Vol. 19, No. 2, col. 214]:

`Nothing arising from this debate could alter the Government's basic tactical position, which is to put proposals or alternatives more unacceptable than the White Paper proposals. And you have no better proof than from the horse's mouth of the Minister for Finance. Any genuine alternative could not be accepted by the Government. Therefore, Sir, by putting in more alternatives, more proposals or amendments which are acceptable to the Government, they would only be serving to confuse the issue at stake. The issue is that the people should be asked to accept or reject the White Paper. If that is the question to be posed, there would be no doubt about the outcome. But as things are, the Government would push through this sham referendum and steam-roller its White Paper proposal through.

What should the people do in the circumstances? If the voter does not go and vote, he loses his vote in future elections. If he tears his vote or defaces it, he will go to gaol. If he writes his name and address, he is afraid of being intimidated. Sir, if he throws in a blank vote it would be considered a pro-Government vote. But faced with these possible courses of action, our stand is that the people should throw in blank votes, which is the least of the evils. If the blank votes are more than the votes for the White Paper, then the Government would keep quiet. But if the votes for the White Paper exceed the blank votes, not for any reason but merely because the voter is faced with impossible alternatives. and in desperation throws his vote for the White Paper proposals, then we may be giving Government the opportunity to announce separately the number of votes supporting the White Paper and thereby mount a propaganda campaign to convince the world that the majority of Singapore citizens have supported the White Paper and have done so without counting the blank votes.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is exactly what has happened today. This is the reason why we are having an emergency sitting today, so that the P.A.P. Government can go and blast it off in the United Nations to people who do not know the true situation here. With these unacceptable alternatives put in the referendum ballot papers, and with section 29, with undemocratic restrictions placed on Opposition Parties during the referendum campaign, and to culminate it all, the last-minute intimidation and trick by the Government, propagated through the radio and Rediffusion, conveying to voters the impression that they will lose their citizenship, thereby resulting in the loss of other benefits like schooling, medical aid, housing and social welfare and so on, it is heartening to us to note that there are so many people who are prepared to face all these dire consequences, and cast blank votes in protest against the White Paper. In our view, these were mostly the people who had, during the short campaign fixed by the Government, attended the rallies and the street meetings of the Opposition Parties where the bluff of the P.A.P. Government could be effectively exposed. But, Sir, due to all sorts of restrictions imposed by the Government, the Opposition was unable to organise more effectively during the few days of the campaign, to counter the Government's intensive propaganda and intimidatory tricks over the radio and Rediffusion, that if the citizens cast blank votes they would lose their citizenship and consequently other benefits would be lost.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take this opportunity to describe to you the importance of the radio and Rediffusion in this short campaign? The object lesson we have learnt from this referendum campaign is the influence of these two means of propaganda, namely, the radio and Rediffusion, and the extent to which the Government is prepared to make use of these means of propaganda in order to achieve its nefarious ends. I have in front of me today's Straits Times. There is a column on the front page which says:

"TV QUAKE ALARM A `CRUEL HOAX'"

This happened in Teheran, Persia.

Mr Rajaratnam: Radio forum.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Because the Government's radio forum was not conducted in a fair manner.

`The transmission over the local U.S. armed forces radio-television network was seen and heard here last night and set off a wave of confusion and panic among 2,000,000 inhabitants, who spilled into the streets and open spaces.'

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You had an earthquake.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: - just a short announcement over the radio is capable of driving 2,000,000 people from Teheran into the streets, not to say the flashes we had every few minutes over the radio in Singapore in all the languages, in all the dialects. When I heard it, it gave me the impression that if we cast blank votes we were likely to lose our citizenship and thereby lose all rights of citizenship. We would not be able to send our children to school; there would be no medical aid, no housing flats, no social welfare and other such things.

On the subject of the influence of the radio, I remember having read that on a certain day in the United States, where most of the people have attended secondary schools, the radio put over a mock programme announcing a Martian invasion of the world.

Mr Rajaratnam: A Marshall invasion!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: There was panic immediately among the people. Millions rushed from their houses to safety. And this is what happened in Singapore during the last few days of the referendum campaign. Every few minutes over the radio, the Government impressed on the people that if they cast blank votes they would lose their citizenship. And there was panic among the people. And because of all sorts of restrictions imposed on the Opposition Parties, we could not paste posters announcing our rallies. Section 42 of the Referendum Ordinance was interpreted in such a way that we could not paste posters announcing our rallies. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's radio campaign was so effective that it created a panic. And we, the Opposition Parties, who have no access to the radio, were not given an opportunity to expose the bluff, within so short a time of as during the last three to four days.

Sir, it is therefore our contention that the results published in the Report do not reflect the true wishes of the people. In a letter dated 12th October, 1961, the Prime Minister gave the following assurance to the Opposition Parties:

`It is the intention of the Government, when all the details have been worked out, to publish a Paper and table it in the Legislative Assembly for debate. Then the people can accept or reject them.'

Subsequently, the Government broke its promise and changed its mind over putting the White Paper to the people in a yes or no referendum because it started realising that the White Paper would receive an overwhelming defeat. A way out was thought of and worse alternatives than the White Paper were found and placed on the ballot paper. If the people wanted to protest in those circumstances, they could only put in blank votes, and the putting in of blank votes was something new to the electorate of Singapore.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, we were given only two short weeks. During those two short weeks, it was not possible for us to explain to the 600,000 voters of Singapore how to cast blank votes. Moreover, the P.A.P. Government countered the blank vote campaign in two ways. Firstly, by the notorious section 29 of the Referendum Ordinance. And this is important: rightly or wrongly, many voters thought that if they threw in blank votes, their citizenship would be taken away. The voter felt that there was a possibility of the Government knowing his identity as there was a number on the back of the ballot paper. In a democratic system, the number is actually meant to protect the interests of the Opposition, to minimise the possibility of Government-rigging, but certain misinformed though perhaps well-intentioned people campaigned in the beginning against the number on the back of the ballot paper. Although the campaign was withdrawn towards the later stages when the mistake was realised, the impression of a number on the back of the ballot paper stuck in the minds of the voters. Therefore, many voters were afraid that through the numbers they could be identified by the Government and therefore be deprived of their citizenship.

Now, Sir, the second cunning stroke of the P.A.P. Government - and due credit must be given to our famous Minister for Culture - was to compel all voters on polling day to go into the polling booths even if they wanted to cast blank votes Many voters who wanted to cast blank votes by walking straight up to the ballot boxes were caught by surprise when they were compelled by the polling clerks - on orders from the Government, I am sure - to go into the polling booths. Mr Speaker, Sir, many of the voters had the impression that they had to put a cross against any one of the three Alternatives A, B or C. And having gone through an intensive propaganda campaign which was carried out by the Government over the radio and Rediffusion, they knew that of the three alternatives, A was the least evil and therefore, consciously or unconsciously, they voted for A.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of the radio and Rediffusion could be seen most clearly during the counting of the votes. It was apparent from the counting that in places like the rural areas, where there is no Rediffusion or radio because of a lack of electricity supply, there were more blank votes than in areas in Chinatown where almost every household has either a radio or a Rediffusion set.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: What does that prove?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: They have get transistor sets.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is brought up today because the Government considers that it has won a so-called victory. It is nothing but just a means of gaining publicity and to mount a propaganda campaign to show that the majority of the people are not against the White Paper proposals. We feel that the purpose of this motion before the House is to wash the dirty hands of the Government of the notorious section 29 by pushing on to the Opposition the responsibility of deciding how the blank votes should be allocated. During the debate on clause 29, I remember that many Government Assemblymen said that blank votes would be considered as pro-White Paper votes. But today, as on many other previous occasions, they have changed their stand.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, today, the Government want to appear to be fair and reasonable. They have convened this sitting to ask the Opposition to decide what should be done with the unmarked and uncertain votes. They want to give the impression that they are fair, that they do not want to take the decision, although the law allows them to do so, but that they want the Opposition to do so.

Sir, it is strange that the Government, which in the past have consistently ignored consultations and disregarded the views of the Opposition, now come to this House and ask us to decide what we want to do with the blank votes. Incidentally, Mr Speaker, even when the counting started in the Badminton Stadium, until the very last moment, the decision to count the blank votes was not taken. The decision to count the blank votes was only taken at the last moment after experts like the Minister for Finance had made a careful assessment and knew beyond doubt that if they counted the blank votes the number would not exceed the number of A votes.

Today, they come here - having declared the results showing 71 per cent in favour of A - asking us to decide what we should do with the blank votes. I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the declared results had been 71 per cent blank votes, the Government would not have come here and asked us to decide what we should do with these blank votes. In the first place, they would not have counted the blank votes separately under section 29 of the Ordinance. They would have counted the blank votes together with the votes for A, and declared only the results in respect of A. B, C, and the rejected votes.

However, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis is grateful that the Government have convened this sitting because whatever is the outcome of this sitting it will afford the Opposition the opportunity of recording our views officially.

Sir, we have said in the past, long before the 1st of September, long before the voting on the referendum took place, that we regarded the referendum as a sham referendum. It will be remembered, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of the debate on the Referendum Bill that practically every speaker from the Barisan Sosialis in the Assembly spoke against the Referendum Bill. Practically every speaker said that a referendum held under the provisions of that Bill would not enable the Government to ascertain correctly the views of the people. We said in the past that the referendum was a sham. We say now that the referendum was a sham. A dishonest Referendum Ordinance deliberately tailored to give the Government a favourable result cannot produce an honest and decent referendum. We said that the Referendum Ordinance was a sham; we said that the referendum itself was a sham. We say that the result produced as a result of this referendum was equally a sham.

Sir, we notice that the Prime Minister has been very careful in pointing out that the result of the referendum does not mean a Party victory. But, Sir, lest there be in the future the temptation to regard this 71 per cent as votes for the Government. I wish to say that if the Government want to regard this as a victory for them, I say it is a victory for intimidation. It is a victory for deceit and dishonesty. In that we concede that we in the Barisan Sosialis have been defeated. Unlike the P.A.P., we do not attempt to deceive the people for temporary gains. Our struggle is a long-term struggle. We do not believe that the use of the police and the radio, the use of the Press and other intimidating tactics purely for the purpose of making temporary gains will make any difference in the ultimate struggle of all socialists for a better tomorrow.

The significance of the result has already been pointed out by the Member for Queenstown. The political situation arising from this, to our minds, appears to be unchanged as it was before the 1st of September. A vote recorded in favour of Alternative A cannot be said to be a vote in favour of the P.A.P., the S.P.A. or any other Party. The voting was not on the basis of pro one Party or anti another Party.

Sir, we are asked to decide on the blank votes. We say that blank votes are blank votes; unmarked votes are unmarked votes; and they cannot be taken to be in support of any of the three alternatives. We said during the session on the Referendum Bill that we were opposed to counting blank votes as votes for any of the propositions. Our position remains the same. I am a bit puzzled at the things that the Member for Anson has said. On the one hand, he says that the referendum was a sham referendum. He says it was an unfair referendum. Therefore, a blank vote is a blank vote in protest against the referendum. On the other hand, he says he accepts the result of the referendum. Sir, our contention, as I have said, is very simple. If we are satisfied that the referendum held under the provisions of the Referendum Ordinance is a sham referendum, it cannot produce a result which is reflective of the views of the people. It is not necessary for me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to go into the details of the P.A.P. tactics at the counting of the referendum, because this has been dealt with by the Member for Queenstown.

I wish to say in conclusion that the Government can interpret the result in one of two ways. It could say that this is a victory for the Government, for the deceit, for the dishonesty, for the intimidation and all that went with them. In that case. Mr Speaker, Sir, they will become bolder in the future. They will become bolder so that they are firmer in their repression of the expression of the people. The Prime Minister ended up by saying that whether we want to continue a constitutional or an unconstitutional fight will depend on us. We wish to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have no intention whatsoever to indulge in anything that is unconstitutional. Whether the Government are going to be more repressive or not will depend on them. But if they wrongly interpret the result to mean support for their undemocratic acts in the past, then no doubt they are bound to take a bolder and more repressive attitude. Sir, yesterday one of the prominent P.A.P. leaders said that they will land us two blows to one. We tell them that we will give them three blows to two.

Sir, the other manner in which the result can be interpreted by the Government is to say that the Government have scored a victory in the constitutional fight. And we tell them, Sir, that we welcome that interpretation. If the Government honestly and sincerely feel that they have scored a victory, then it is a victory for parliamentary democracy, then it is a victory for the constitutional fight of the various political forces, and we say we are prepared to take them on at any time in the future. But the Government must make up their minds. They cannot, on the one hand, advocate constitutional means of political struggle and at the same time indulge in repression and make sure that the Opposition is not given the opportunity of expressing its views.

3.50 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, not so long ago, there was an election in the Philippines where a certain former President - Mr Garcia - lost the election. He, having lost the election, decided the whole thing was a phoney. But with this difference. Garcia, believing that it was phoney and the whole thing was dishonest, had the courage to take legal proceedings to declare the election null and void. But here we have today the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P.-

Mr Ong Eng Guan: On a point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not say now that this is a sham referendum. We said it long ago.

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member for Queenstown went into some details, enough to draw your attention to the fact that he was implying that there was something irregular about the whole referendum, including the counting. If they are not trying to cheat the people once more, let them believe in what they say. At least be sincere in what they are saying. If they really believe that there was some monkey business on Saturday, bring up a petition and take it to the Referendum Judge and let him decide. But if they are only finding a pretext, a save-face for men who always talk about the masses behind them - they have been talking for years that we are frightened to face the people - today they have been exposed, as our Party says, dwarfs with feet of clay. And of the 25 per cent who cast blank votes, as far as I can gather, there is argument. How should the 25 per cent be shared out? After all, who are the people who campaigned for blank votes? There is the Party led by the Member for Hong Lim, the U.P.P., the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the Liberal Socialists. They should have their share of the 25 per cent. I understand the Member for Hong Lim did say that half the blank votes should go to him because he thinks that he wields the biggest influence-

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker. Sir, I ask the Minister to give me the quote.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the Minister has not given way, the Member for Hong Lim is out of order if he speaks. I am sure the Minister will give way. Now, Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Minister to produce the quote.

Mr Rajaratnam: I have heard that the Member for Hong Lim did suggest that half the blank votes should go to him. But maybe he is a very modest man. Maybe it was not 50 per cent. It was only 5 per cent. I am quite sure some of us who were there that day when the votes were being counted suddenly did not find the Member for Hong Lim very ebullient. When the Barisan Sosialis were persuading him to join in declaring the result constituency by constituency, we all noticed that the Member for Hong Lim was not very anxious to declare the voting constituency by constituency because he had one of the biggest shocks of his life. Therefore. Sir, it may be that he did not say 50 per cent. If that is the case, the rumour was false. Maybe it was a much lower figure. It may be 30 per cent. But whatever it is, let us be quite clear, Sir -

Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of elucidation.

Mr Speaker: If the Minister will give way.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I do not know what the Minister for "Kultur" was talking about our persuading the Member for Hong Lim-

Mr Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Member for Queenstown say "the Minister for Kultur"? If he did, I do not think there is such an animal in this Assembly.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We have had two weeks of vigorous campaigning when we went round speaking everywhere, every night and every day, and sometimes our enunciation of words can be a little off. The Minister for Culture was saying that we persuaded the Member for Hong Lim to come along and join us in asking for a division by division counting. We never did it. I think the Minister-

Mr Speaker: Order. That probably is the elucidation.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot of things have been said about how they feel, that the referendum was dishonest, or, at least by implication, that something fishy had been going on. Let me say that round about 6 o'clock, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis were peacefully asleep, confident that the counting was honest, that it was proceeding nicely, and they were satisfied. Not only the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis, but Mr Lim Ching Siong and their legal advisers. One of their legal advisers was always in a state of tension. He was jumping around from place to place. Apart from him, they were peacefully asleep. That is not the conduct of men -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Sir, we were just fed up with what was going on. He has not denied the irregularities that we have mentioned, and on top of that all our complaints were ignored. Until-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member has said enough in elucidation. He was not asleep Mr Rajaratnam. And I ask the Minister perhaps to come straightaway to the amendment, which is what was are debating, and to remind him that there is a guillotine motion which was proposed by the Government side.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had to stress this point because a lot of play has been made of the fact that this referendum was dishonest or the word "dishonest" had been interpreted to mean something else. The whole procedure was something that was not quite above-board.

Now, coming to the amendment to the motion. The contention by the Barisan Sosialis is that the hundred thousand odd votes were protest votes. They were protest votes of varying degrees. In the case of the Member for Anson, as far as he is concerned, it was a protest vote against the manner in which the referendum was conducted. Though he says he is very satisfied that the merger proposals are genuine, his Party comes out and says they are phoney. He says he is quite satisfied with the results of the referendum. His Party comes forward and says the whole thing is a phoney and it does not accept the result of the referendum. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to understand whether it is a case of the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog. Sir, I am inclined to half agree with the Member for Anson as the Member for Anson, and totally disagree with the Member for Anson in so far as he is a member of the Workers' Party. I think that more or less defines the quality of our relationship.

Let us come to the question of the blank votes. I did say, I think in this Assembly, that the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis have made a blunder, one of the biggest blunders for the second time, in pinning their hopes on the blank votes to indicate the measure of the Communist influence in Singapore. That is what they did. By asking people to come out and put blank votes as protest votes, they were doing something which the Communists have always avoided. They have always fought elections never on their own strength, but as part of a united front. If the united front wins, they say it is due to "our strength". If it loses, then they blame the weaklings, the waverers and other people who are part of the united front. That has now been endorsed in the latest issue of the Malaya,: Monitor, which is the mouthpiece of the Communist International, in so far as they give directives to the Communists here. They have come out because of those who blundered by asking for the blank votes now. As in the case of Stalin, when he made a blunder, his bones were removed from the Kremlin and buried elsewhere. I am afraid that a lot of the sergeant majors who conducted this campaign for the Communist Party are going to have their bones disinterred from within the Kremlin walls and buried outside. The Malayan Monitor has come out and branded them as shaky and confused elements who did the wrong thing by campaigning for blank votes and, therefore, putting the M.C.P. in the predicament of being exposed as a Party which has not the masses behind it. Today we know that the united front, not only with the Barisan or the Communist Party Ra'ayat, but even with the Liberal Socialists, the U.D.P., the U.P.P., the Workers' Party, could only summon 25 per cent. To that extent, the myth that the Communists have the masses behind them has been exposed. The latest issue, in anticipating this, brands these people as shaky and confused elements who should not have done this. In fact, it goes on to say in so many words that all these people are campaigning because they say, "Well, we want to preserve citizenship and electoral rights." The Malayan Monitor says, do not worry about electoral rights. If the people must lose their citizenship, let it be so; do not pay heed to what they call "colonial legality". So the indications are that if they lose the constitutional struggle, after having discovered their electoral stand is not all that big, they might have to resort to unconstitutional methods, and we know that during the campaign hints about this have been thrown. Lim Ching Siong said so; top men have to resort to other means. There have been threats by Mr Lim Ching Siong against certain Chinese community leaders who came out openly in support of Alternative A. He said the Chinese people will know how to deal with such leaders. In fact, I heard the same people say, "Here is a Party which is not yet in power already talking of liquidating and murdering people even before they are in power. What will happen if ever they are in power?"

One of the reasons we can tell them why 71 per cent of the people came and voted is not because, as they have said, the people were deluded and frightened. The Member for Queenstown has said that we swooped ballot papers with crosses which were shaky. The people were not shaky, Sir, It was the Barisan Sosialis who were shaky that day. These same people told me once upon a time, before this exposure on the 1st of September, "The people's eyes are crystal clear; you must trust the people." Today they are telling us that the people are half-blind. The same people who say, "Trust the people. Their eyes are clear," now say 71 per cent of the people have been deluded and frightened by radio propaganda, by intimidation. I can tell why the crosses were shaky. Some of the people were very old. They were holding the pencil and trembling in any case. Not because of our propaganda, but because they were old. As you know, Sir, for people who are frightened, they say we are using the radio. If they really believe that we were spreading falsehoods and misleading the people, we offered them time over the radio. Come and expose us. When the P.A.P. says this and that, it is all a lie. We asked them to come. The Member for Hong Lim, after the first forum, turned round and said, "I am fed up. It is a waste of time. I am not coming." The second forum, the Member for Queenstown said, "No, I am not coming." The third one - I must say the Member for Anson came for two of them, and one special interview where I thought he was the most reasonable man. In fact, our relationship was almost cordial, friendly. Now he sees me, he looks through me. But I will say this much for him. At least he is prepared to argue. Sometimes he says the wrong things at lunchtime rallies, but that is a different proposition. But the Member for Queenstown? Here they keep on saying Radio P.A.P., suppression of the voice of the people. We say, "All right, please come along. Expose us." One of the points which I think should be made is that they are afraid of the open encounter. One of the reasons why they have lost heavily is that far from suppressing them, we have allowed them to have their say. Every time they open their mouths in public, their falsehoods can be challenged, and they lose out. That is why they do not want to. As you know, they cut Rediffusion wires. Why? People who believe in free speech go around cutting Rediffusion wires. People who believe in free speech put on loudspeakers to disturb other people's meetings.

Some hon. Members: Shame, shame!

Mr Rajaratnam: We have made it quite clear, Sir. This is not a P.A.P. victory. The first time we want to be proved between the democratic elements, the Malayan elements, the loyal elements and the party of people who have been exposed as a negligible force. If we were to decide on the 25 per cent, I would say give half to the Member for Anson, the Member for Hong Lim and to Mrs Leon-Soh. The other half are people whom you have misled. Of the remaining 12 per cent, I would say 5 per cent are the hard core. Whether the Member for Queenstown and everybody likes it or not, obviously a new directive is to come - tough methods. If the leaders of the revolution want to fight it in a tough way, I hope the Member for Queenstown - I am told he is a good rugby player, a good chess player and I am also told he is a good gambler, but one thing we know, he is a bad loser. Whatever it is, to be a good revolutionary in the new phase, in 1947 and 1948 when the Communist Party took arms, it was an anti-colonial struggle. Now, if you take up arms, you are definitely going to meet with 71 per cent of the people, and I am quite sure the 25 per cent who voted blank votes - that is a different thing - but they are not going to vote for violent revolution. If the Communist directive comes for the Barisan Sosialis to resort to direct action, the Prime Minister has already warned that there will be direct action on the part of the Government, not because we are the Government, but because the 71 per cent of the people have given us a mandate to see merger through. If the Barisan Sosialis or their fellow travellers stand in the way under the directive of gentlemen who are not going to come back to the Assembly - it is all very well for Lim Hong Bee to give directives for direct action; he is not going to have his head broken; but he will obviously give a directive to lots of gentlemen who do not know what they are up to - let us give this warning, that we are ready for them. If they really want to play it the constitutional way, then let them, at least in their own minds, whatever they might say here, accept the fact that this is the verdict of the people, not of the P.A.P., not of the S.P.A., not of U.M.N.O. The verdict of 71 per cent of the electorate, who were not deluded or cheated or anything. They are intelligent people. They are not all that foolish. As the Barisan Sosialis have said, the people's eyes are crystal clear. Let them remember that. The people knew what they were doing and they voted for Alternative A because they believed that was the best. In fact, I think during the last few months the behaviour of the Barisan Sosialis made it quite clear to the ordinary people who were fed up with its half-dead revolutionaries, sergeant majors who did not know what they were up to. These people were not interested in giving constructive leadership. They were out to destroy. In one year they have shown they know nothing but only to destroy and create trouble. The ordinary man is not all that foolish. He walks around Raffles Place. He sees these gentlemen going around putting burning cigarettes on the backs of people's necks. These are things which people are not blind to. People who want to leave the Party pinch every bit of furniture - cups, broken kettles. These people are not the people who can be trusted with power and therefore-

An hon. Member: The P.A.P.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is the reason. Let them be quite clear. They may fool themselves, Sir. We cannot stop that. But people are not being fooled.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: They will not be.

Mr Rajaratnam: That is why they voted overwhelmingly for merger, Alternative A, because they believed that is good for them and good for the people of Singapore.

One final point is that - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: In fact, the note refers to the Member for Anson. I am very glad of the interjection, as it has helped me to get my notes much quicker.

May I also remind the gentlemen who do not know what it is all about and who tag along on to the tail of a dog, that so long as they remain appendages of a dog, they can never hope to wag a dog. Let us make it quite simple, it is physically impossible by all the laws of physics. I am told that sometimes it is better to snip the tail off. Thereby hangs another "tail".

The Member for Anson - though I disagree with him, yet I have some regard for him as I know in some respects he is not altogether without political intelligence - will I hope please take my advice: that his Workers' Party gentlemen are leading him up the garden path, that they are up to no good, and that they are doing him a great deal-

Mr David Marshall: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are on a motion with a time limit. For ones I am not interested in the advice of the Minister for Culture. But much more important, as a Member of this Assembly, I take strong exception to the waste of time of this Assembly by complete irrelevancy of a personal character.

Mr Speaker: I have always allowed exordiums and perorations which more often than not have been completely irrelevant. My impression is that the Minister for Culture is on a peroration.

Mr David Marshall: There is nothing-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member for Anson must accept the ruling of the Chair, and keep quiet.

Mr Rajaratnam: Since the Member for Anson does not wish to be helped. Sir, may I therefore say that I did my best to give him good advice? If he does not want to pay heed to it, it is his own business. But may I tell the Barisan Sosialis and their Communist friends that the verdict of the people is here - not in favour of the P.A.P. or anybody else.

An hon. Member: It is a sham.

Mr Rajaratnam: They participated in a sham, right up to 8 o'clock. When the votes were sorted out, and when they saw that the number of the blank votes was getting smaller and smaller, they thought out new reasons. They got hold of legal advisers to lodge this and that protest. The Member for Queenstown was as pale as the dawn that was coming across Badminton Hall. So if they really believed that it was a sham, they participated in the sham from Saturday evening at 8 o'clock to Sunday morning. There was no sham. The sham came when they got the shock of their lives when the people gave their verdict. It was the Barisan Sosialis which fled and ran away from the people.

4.18 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had hoped that when the Assembly finished its sitting last July, we would have some peace of mind and that we would not have to come to the Assembly for a long, long time to hear political comrades tearing one another to pieces.

Sir, so far all the speeches made this afternoon, apart from the Member for Anson's, were speeches made by Members belonging to one political Party sitting on one side of the House when they were returned to power. At that particular time all the activities that the P.A.P. indulged in, such as the P.A.P. radio, the P.A.P. newspaper, suppression of newspapers. intimidation of the people, all those activities were indulged in by everyone of them. In fact, when all of them were there, they said, "We are good, clean and honest," when everyone of them was dishonest it seems funny that for the whole of this afternoon Party comrades are now calling one another dishonest. Sir, from their claim of being clean, honest and good, they have become dishonest, unclean and very bad. So much so that each side is trying to destroy the other. In fact, the word "sham" has been used many times by both sides of the P.A.P - I still call them "both sides of the P.A.P."

Sir, is it a sham fight between both sides of the P.A.P. to get out of their responsibility for the mess that they have left to the country? I hope not. But if it is a fight between democratic forces and Communist forces in the camp of the P.A.P., let it be a fight that will give a decisive answer. Sir, we do not like to hear Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, saying, as just now the Minister for Culture stood up and said, "Ah, we now have 71 per cent. Barisan Sosialis, you watch out! If you want to fight constitutionally, we will fight you constitutionally. If you want to fight unconstitutionally, we will fight you unconstitutionally." That is not the way to utter that kind of warning. If the Government honestly believes that the Barisan Sosialis are controlled by the Communists, then the Government has one duty to perform. There is no need for the Government to stand here and utter a warning, so much so that it makes me feel that all this warning from either side of the House is becoming a sham. Let there be action. 71 per cent of the people have given their verdict in regard to merger; 71 per cent of those who voted are for A. And it is the duty, not only of the Government but also of this Assembly, to see that the decision of the electorate is carried out despite any attempt that the Communists and their stooges may wish to employ.

Sir, it seems that this party warfare between ex-comrades is to continue for some more months to come. It may carry on right up to the next general elections. During the referendum, when referendum meetings were held by the P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis, and the U.P.P., what they did was not to tell the people or to explain to them the forms of merger that were open to them, or to advise them to choose what they felt was the better form of merger for the people of Singapore. No. They made use of the referendum meetings just to carry on their political fight. There was the Barisan Sosialis calling the P.A.P. cheats, and all sorts of things. And there was the P.A.P. calling the Barisan Sosialis Communists. That was not the way to get the people to come to a proper appreciation of the forms of merger that were posed in the referendum. The people have voted. A decision has been reached. It should not therefore be necessary for this party warfare to continue again in this House this afternoon. By the very terms of the motion, it would seem that the P.A.P. want to have one at the Barisan Sosialis, and by the amendment proposed by the Barisan Sosialis, it seems that they want to have one at the P.A.P. What is all this about?

Why cannot uncertain votes remain uncertain? Why cannot blank votes remain blank? Why must it again be the focal point of warfare between comrades who have fallen out? Let uncertain votes be uncertain. Let blank votes be blank, because they have no effect whatsoever on those known votes of A, B, or C. If they have an effect on the result of the voting, whether it should be A, B or C, then this Assembly should be called upon to decide in the most honest manner what those blank votes were meant to mean. But now there is no need for us to give it an interpretation and say blank votes were the Communists who were trying their best and, therefore, those were the 25 per cent the Communists could muster. We should not try to give an interpretation in that way, because out of the 25 per cent who put in blank votes, there was still a large number of people who would at any price vote out the P.A.P., out of hatred and out of anger, and not because they were misled by the Communists. Of course, there are some there who were misled by the Communists. I do not know how many per cent. Let us not give an interpretation. Let the Barisan Sosialis not try to claim that these were protest votes.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Why did you not speak up in the debate?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, I only hope that the Member for Queenstown could just walk to the other side and face me. I do not quite like sniping from the back. If he would just walk over there and go back and shake hands, perhaps there could be peace in this Assembly. There need not be a sham fight, one side calling the other Communists, and the other side calling the other side dishonest, whereas both of them are dishonest. If there were Communists, then both of them had been sleeping with the Communists for three years. Sir, it is true, as has been brought out by the Member for Queenstown, wild rumours were going on, and a lot of people were misled into believing that those who cast blank votes would have their citizenship papers taken away. The Member for Queenstown, of course, wanted the Government to give an assurance that such things should not happen. But we know quite well that that cannot happen. But if it would make the Member for Queenstown happier, since obviously he had put in a blank vote, the Prime Minister or a Minister of the Government could assure him that, in spite of the fact that he had put in a blank vote, without even having to go through the number on the back of the counterfoil of the ballot paper, his citizenship would not be taken away, unless, of course, he tries to be funny and plays the unconstitutional line in this political arena.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What are you preaching, somersaulter?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, there is no need for the Member for Queenstown to say that the trump card of the P.A.P. was this, the trump card of the P.A.P. was that. We all know, Sir, that in this battle for merger, both of them - I mean the P.A.P. and the Barisan - having graduated from the same school of distortion, were doing their best. In fact, if credit is to be given to one or the other. I would rather say that the P.A.P. have learnt very, very well from their Communist mentors and they have outplayed the Communists at their own game.

4.30 p.m.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, 1st September, 1962, will surely go down as a historic day, for on that day we saw the final battle taking place between the Communists, their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis and the open front organisations against merger and against Malaysia. The fight did not begin when the Superintendent of the National Referendum announced polling day sometime in August. The fight started some 14 months ago. Since then, the anti-nationalist Left threw everything they had into the battle to frustrate merger and Malaysia. We know that on the 1st of September, they suffered a disastrous trouncing. As one newspaper had it, they were whipped. They were hit for six on the 1st of September. With all their propaganda apparatus, through their mass organisations which they had disciplined and in command, they could not muster more than a quarter of the support of the electorate. Even of the 144,000 persons whom they had persuaded to cast blank votes, only a portion were real supporters. We, who have been campaigning on the ground, came across numerous instances where people welcomed us into their homes and said, "Yes, we are going to support Alternative A. We are going to cast blank votes." So we asked them, "Who told you that?" They said, "Well, the Barisan Sosialis says the P.A.P. is a good Party. If you want to support the Government, you cast a blank vote." Therefore, on 1st September, the real strength they could muster in the constitutional fight was revealed. Their pretensions to being an invincible political force were shattered once and for all. As my colleague, the Minister for Culture, has pointed out, it has always been their slogan that the eyes of the people are crystal clear - clear and bright as snow. Now faced with this clear verdict of the people, how did these half-baked revolutionaries of the anti-nationalist Left behave? Was there any dignity in their acceptance of the verdict of the people? Did they search their hearts as to where they went wrong? No, Sir. Their behaviour reminded me of little schoolboys. You will remember, Sir, perhaps when we were very young, perhaps in Standard I, II or III, we came across the spoiled child who, when he got the worst of any encounter, would scream out, "Teacher, he beat me." Or, "Sir, unfair." This is the way these people who claim to be adults, who claim to be leaders of the people, who claim to represent the electorate in this Assembly, behave. When they get the worse of the encounter, they behave just like little schoolboys, like spoilt children. When we say that the law requires that the Assembly decides how the blank votes were cast, they are not satisfied.

Sir, you, as Chairman of the Select Committee, will remember that on several occasions they said that the Government intended to hijack - "hijack" in the words of the Member for Queenstown - the blank votes. Now we say, "You choose." If we were to choose, they say, "Well, there you are. It just proves what we said."

Dr Lee Siew Choh: What did you say?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: So we say, you choose what the blank votes mean.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: You should have the guts to say.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Guts to say what?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister must not talk across the Table. Perhaps I could take that as an application for elucidation. Perhaps Dr Lee would like elucidation. I do not know.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: If they had wanted to talk about the blank votes not being taken by the Government, they should have said so in the debate and accepted our amendment. Why did they insist on railroading clause 29?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: They are difficult to please. When they said they did not like the White Paper merger proposals because there was no automatic citizenship, we got automatic citizenship. Were they satisfied? No.

Mr David Marshall: Spring chicken.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: A spring chicken? I thought he said spring chicken with arsenic sauce. Now the arsenic sauce has been taken away, and still he is not satisfied. Now, we say, please decide. So they say they protest. What is the meaning of all this, Mr Speaker, Sir? I say I do not place much importance on what the Member for Queenstown says. He is a very minor operator in the scheme of things. These are not only minor but ineffective open front operators and bring disgrace to the cause. But may I say the real meaning of this is that, for the first time, the Communists and their open front organisations have been outmanoeuvred, outwitted, trapped and massacred.

Let us see what happened in 1955 and 1958. In 1955, the first Chief Minister was there. Much to his surprise, he won the elections and within a few months they opened fire on him and he ran around like a half-witted chicken, not knowing whether he was standing on his feet or on his heels or on his head. Now, the second Chief Minister was made of sterner stuff. That I give him credit for. He tried to put up a fight, but it was an unequal struggle, between a green belt judo man and a rookie. The rookie came along and was thrown down, in the end, dazed and prostrate on the floor. The green belt judo man takes us on, but we have been schooled in this revolutionary struggle and we have good men who know the real meaning, who can read the signs. So this green belt judo man meets a black belt judo man and, on the 1st of September, he was there, groaning in agony.

Mr Rajaratnam: No belt.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: What is the use of pretending that the referendum is a sham, that, in fact, it was not a defeat, that, in fact, the people did not want merger and Malaysia? What is the use of making all this pretence? Who in heaven's name will believe all the nonsense that they are trying to put out? The plain fact is that the people have decided. The plain fact is that for the first time they have met their equals and more than their equals. They were beaten to a frazzle on the 1st September. I say this is just the beginning. Let no one believe that this is the end of the struggle. This is the beginning. I say we have the measure of them and we will continue in the weeks and months to come to turn the heat on them.

4.40 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I speak on the amendment?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

The Prime Minister: Sir, first, there is the dubious legality of the amendment. If there is any question of legality and propriety, I think here is one which really calls into question the wisdom of allowing the amendment to stand on the Order Paper at all or be recorded in the proceedings. The amendment as I understand it reads:

"that the unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes and all the unmarked and uncertain ballot papers be not counted as supporting any of the Alternatives A, B or C".

Sir, the Ordinance which was passed by this Assembly specifically says unmarked and uncertain votes shall be deemed "accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum." He must accept or be deemed to accept. If you will read the words of the section, Mr Speaker:

`shall be deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum.'

If the decision of the Legislative Assembly is that unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes and that all the unmarked and uncertain votes be not counted as supporting any of the Alternatives A, B and C, then the Assembly would be contradicting the motion that is passed, that the people be called upon to decide upon the Alternatives A, B and C. Where is the blatant contradiction? The law says any uncertain or unmarked vote shall be that of a person who is deemed to accept or is willing to accept the decision of the Assembly, and the decision of the Assembly was that it shall either be A, B or C, not that it shall be nothing at all. That was the decision of the Assembly. I therefore say, as a preliminary submission ex abundante cautela, nothing to do with delegatus non potest delegare that this amendment is contrary to the provisions of section 29, read in conjunction with the motion of the Assembly which said that the people shall be called upon to decide whether it is A or B or C. However, since you have allowed the debate to go on to this stage, I shall not press my point, Mr Speaker, Sir.

However, I think the more interesting aspect of this debate was the very fortuitous intervention of the Member for Anson. I am grateful to him from time to time. He is not quite sure, when the line was drawn, which side of the line he was on. It is like Schleswig-Holstein, sometimes this side, Denmark, sometimes the other side. From time to time he battles forth. Or like Stalingrad, an even more vivid example of how the battle line went backwards and forwards. In the end, of course, Stalingrad was reduced to rubble. But the Russians were made of sterner stuff and they rebuilt it. I hope with the help of all the modern methods of psychotherapy a new person can be rebuilt out of all this tremendous battle for minds.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson decided sometime in the course of this debate at the University of Singapore forum that he would play the line of the reasonable man, just willing to be fair, willing to see the other side; and in a moment of fervour in the argument, he went on without the permission of his Central Executive Committee to say that 15 representatives was fair, acceptable-

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is misrepresentation. Misrepresentation in that anything I said in connection with the acceptance of the 15 members was not with the permission of my Executive Council-

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of elucidation. I am sure the Prime Minister would have given way on a point of elucidation.

Mr David Marshall: That is a false statement.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, now we have got it on record from the Chairman of the Workers' Party that his Party agree that 15 was a fair representation in the Federation Parliament.

Mr David Marshall rose -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

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

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: You see the distortion. I did not use the word "fair". I said the Party accepted the 15 representatives. Let us not have distortion.

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure the people who painted those banners saying false merger as "phoney merger" - Chia heh ping - they were all in Chinese. The Member for Anson was not responsible. Obviously the artist who did that had sabotaged the Central Executive Committee of the Workers' Party. However, what was interesting was he said that, and suddenly he came to the side of the reasonable man. Then in the course of the denouement during the last few weeks, bits and pieces were falling into place. He found himself the victim of his own reasonableness. Logically he moved step by step into a position where he had to say he supported the White Paper, as amended. I say he was an honourable man in saying that. He went far to try and honour his word, to get his Committee to agree. Well, the Committee either did not agree or he did not try hard enough. An impasse was reached. He said, "Yes, support it. It is fair and just. However, cast blank ballots." Being a lawyer of no mean repute, the whole matter was rationalised after the 18th of August. On the 18th of August he said he was going to ask his Committee to support it. Revise this blank ballot thing. The same rationalisation Ex post facto - that is another Latin tag. It means after the event. After the failure, an explanation is put on. The White Paper password is right, but the referendum is not right. However, I accept that. Now I say I was wrong in saying that all those who voted against the White Paper, who cast protest votes, intended to be against merger. In fact, we are sure now, after the very frank and honest admission of the Member for Anson, that there is at least one unmarked ballot paper that was in favour of merger. That was the Member for Anson, Mr Speaker, Sir. There may be more. You will have to use psychotherapy on the 144,077 - I beg your pardon, we have already explained away one; it is 144,076. The others we can go through one by one and discover whether they were like the Member for Anson, or the Member for Queenstown, or the Member for Hong Lim. I mean there are gradations in all these things. But I thought he did us the greatest service today. I did not want to say this in my opening because I thought if it came from the other side, so much the more effective would it be. All this villainy that is now heaped upon us - of threats, intimidation, rigging - we could have answered.

There was a referendum petition provision put in by the Member for Anson which provides for a complete re-scrutiny of the whole process, of every iota of evidence being put under the microscope. But having come from me, they would have said, "Ah, that is what the Government says. The Government will fix the witnesses, intimidate them. The police will threaten the Referendum Judge." All kinds of other allegations will come. I thank the Member for Anson. He did the country a service. He shot the ball into the Barisan goal when he said that. But if they believe it is dishonest, it is their duty to bring up a referendum petition and let us go through the whole of it. Let us find out who intimidate whom. Let him listen tonight to Radio Singapore and hear what the Chamber of Commerce said to me, their own voices on the tape, in Hokkien and in Mandarin; and what the Barisan said in their rallies. They who were genuinely intimidated, ching suan. "ching" means clear, "suan" means count. That means the settling of accounts. "We will settle with you." That is what it means, ching suan. And they are men who took it seriously. They came and discussed the matter with me this morning. I told them that as long as we the Government of Singapore and as long as there is an honest Government here, there will be no ching suan according to the rules of the game. If anybody is in danger of being ching suan-ed, well, let them listen to what was said by the Chamber of Commerce. [Interruption] Intimidation? Let them bring up a referendum petition and we will prove it. All the threats, all the smears, all the vilifications, all the lies. Let me explain to the Member for Anson why we did not do things the simple direct way. He is not an unintelligent man. In fact, I once remembered Lord Lennox-Boyd, the former Colonial Secretary, paid him a tribute, that he was a very intelligent Chief Minister; a great tribute from a very intelligent man. Lord Lennox-Boyd, undoubtedly a man of tremendous intellectual capacity, paid a tribute to the ex-Chief Minister, that he was an intelligent man. Now, I say, exercise a little bit of that intelligence in this respect. Why did we not say honestly, "Yes, we will count the blank votes"? Why did we not give notice last week that we were going to hold a meeting this week? Let us all be simple and straightforward. Sir, I do not usually think in terms of pictures because it so happens that I like to be more precise, if somewhat less vivid, in my forms of thought. But my colleague, the Minister for Finance, once said that the Member for Anson from time to time behaves as if he is a vestal virgin who wanders through a brothel area crying out for the brotherhood and freedom of men and women. And I say to him, as a result of that foolish exercise in human decency, he wound up a political whore.

Let me explain, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Woodhull was dead right - 1956, a famous occasion. I am grateful to the Member for Anson and I am grateful to the Member for Cairnhill. They paid for the lessons from which I profited. I say that without any reservation and with no malice. I say if it had been my misfortune to become Chief Minister in 1955, I think I would have perished. And I say that sincerely.

I saw the Member for Anson hold out his hand in friendship to Mr Lim Ching Siong. Thirteen of us went to London and Mr Lim Ching Siong pumped his hand vigorously and told him to fight for absolute independence. The Member was a reasonable man. He wanted to fight for absolute independence and give back defence and external affairs under treaty. Then he could still go to the United Nations, an ambition now fulfilled. Yet Lord Lennox-Boyd would get what he wanted. So both sides were happy. He is always trying to be the reasonable broker, find a happy mean and settle. He did not understand that young master Lim had no intention of settling. He was just egging him on, and every time it looked like reaching a settlement, he was pushed a little hit further; the same tactics as used by the Member for Queenstown. I mean he is surely not that naive. The Member for Queenstown says merger is a complete merger, twelve States, all Singapore citizens automatically Federal citizens. The Member for Anson says, "Agreed, all right. Move Alternative D." We rejected that because the real Alternative D was what the Member for Queenstown meant. After that, if you say you are, to that, then proportional representation. The Member for Anson never demanded that. You will remember the forum? When I said that was not mentioned in Alternative D, the Member for Queenstown said, no, no, no, proportional representation also. And if we agreed to proportional representation, then the next condition - dissolve Singapore and Federation Governments; general elections all round; then see what turned up. And this young man pumped his hand so hard. The Member for Anson thought it was a test of friendship, the grip of friendship. The young man was a green belt judo kan. The next thing he found himself on the floor, prostrate- fallen. I did not trip him up, Mr Speaker, Sir; young master Lim did, young master Lim did.

Next I saw the Member for Cairnhill. True he was made of sterner stuff. Yes, he was, not now. He got such a pulverizing experience he never quite recovered from it. It is like one of those mincing machines, Mr Speaker, Sir. You put something in and get a shake-up. At the end of it, you never put the molecules together again. He lost all his teeth.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, Is this the time for bed-time stories? We have got only one hour.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister has indicated how all this is relevant; why he was (I think the expression used was) "playing the soft pedal" before the 1st of September.

The Prime Minister: Not at all. I never used that expression, Sir. Why we did not have the simple vestal virgin approaching a brothel area. We knew we were in a brothel area and what we did. I do not know if the Member for Anson has read this newspaper. In some parts of an American town, it seems there were lots of women being coshed very early at night. So the police sent out men dressed as women. The cosher came out, he got coshed. Now, Sir, there were some pictures recently.

However, to come back to the Member for Cairnhill, he was a brave man. He came out with a policeman's baton and one bayonet looking for them. Young master Lim, green belt, waited. The next thing the Member for Cairnhill knew his baton was parted from him, the bayonet was dropped from a limp and lifeless hand. The man kicked in the groin, arms twisted; man lying still on the floor. Inert for months and years afterwards; and after recovery not quite the same. And I say I am really and genuinely, without any malice, grateful for that experience. I saw it and I told him then, when it took place, that he was a brave man because he did not know what he was tackling. But I saw it and I learned from it. And when the green belt rookies came out with new, even greener ones to assist them-

Dr Lee Siew Choh: And you hit them below the belt!

The Prime Minister: No, no, we consulted. That is true. What the Member for Cairnhill said is absolutely true. But for the dedication of some of my Party colleagues who knew the Communists and their methods, who either corrected or confirmed our judgments, we may well have been like the Member for Cairnhill, prostrate on the ground, not knowing what has hit us, but knowing what is going to happen. We took training from a black belt judo kan. When the green belts met the black belts - not one black belt, many black belts - that is where the green belts made their first error. They have always, in their simplicity of propaganda, personalised the defects and the weaknesses of the Government all in me. If the Government was as weak or as strong as I am, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would have perished. My weaknesses are made up by the strength of my colleagues. Their weaknesses are made up by the strength of others. So we have a fairly tight strong front which cannot be pierced. One fought on until death. I think Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim would have had a great deal of satisfaction that night, 2nd of September; that morning if only he was alive, he would have found it worthwhile suffering because he believed absolutely and utterly in what we are doing and he was with us. And the green belts found that they were not taking an innocent young lady to the bushes to do her in and take her purse. They found themselves in the police station charge-room. That is where they are now, and you have to have a proper legal defence, employ a good lawyer and argue the case out. It was a fair cop. Of course, we wanted to count the blank votes from the very beginning. But are we so stupid as to tell them? Why should we tell them? That is the tragedy of the Member for Anson. A man comes out and tells you the first time we moved that Bill in January 1962 that there was no provision to count blank votes as according to the decision of the Assembly. Then the fellow tells you that he wants people to tear ballot papers and you still go on, having received the first wolf call and you know that you are entering the danger area, you gaily swing your hips and saunter through. That is silly. We took the Bill back, thought it over, dressed it up nicely with rubber foam and a couple of good, quick-shooting ones. And true enough they came out. They came out like the green belts they were. That is a fact. It was - and I say this without the slightest sense of moral embarrassment - we were meeting card sharps and we were not going to go in like chickens, whether they are spring or old ones.

Mr David Marshall: A crook for a crook.

The Prime Minister: A blow for a blow - one intelligent move against another.

Mr David Marshall: Bravo, crooks!

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the Member for Anson that he is not at a gathering perhaps in Fullerton Square?

The Prime Minister: But even there, I prayed silence for him. My point is simply this. Having been alerted that they were up to no good, we took it back and put it in another form. They never did the calculation. The battle could never be lost. If they did a proper computation and calculation, they would know that the P.A.P. with everything in the last election got 53 per cent - that was with their complete support - and for them to win, they must capture 51 per cent out of that 53 per cent. They did not do it. They never could have done it. But we wanted to: cut them down to size, and that was what happened - and I said it immediately after the break - in a straight fight between them, not against the P.A.P. We have our weaknesses; we have our party problems, part of which we inherited because we had them in our midst. We admit that. We have learnt the hard way and we do not intend ever to be taken for a ride again, or to be done in the way the Member for Cairnhill was done in or the Member for Anson was done in. We knew exactly what they were up to, and the green belt put his hand out to twist the hand, of the black belt and he found himself prostrate on the ground. It is as simple as that.

I say to the Member for Anson - and I keep on saying this to him, because from time to time it is worth saying this to him because he changes sides - he thought that when the lines were drawn he was in between; it cut right through him. Then when he felt that the other side was better, he joined and dribbled with the other side to shoot the ball at our goal. But every now and again, it was our good fortune in the course of this referendum, just as the ball was being placed near their goal post, he shot one. He did a right about turn and shot it into their goal. And I say I thank him for this, because if any Member on our side had said, "Put up a referendum petition," we would have thought it was a fixed job, but it was not. The Member for Anson claims credit for it. He moved those provisions. I agree - absolutely and utterly. He discovered a lacuna in the law and said, "Have a Referendum Judge," and we agreed. Furthermore, we got our S.A.G. to tighten up and elaborate on his provision and he was good enough to pay us a compliment that that was so. A good chap, to see whether it was done according to the rules, and coming from him it must be so. And I say this: let him at least in the last stage of this phase have the gumption to turn round to these gentlemen whom he knows to be Communists and pro-Communists, that they have no intention of playing it the democratic way, they have no intention of checking the democratic process by democratic methods, as he has suggested, that they are really toughies at heart. What Dr Lim Hock Siew said - he wrote a letter to the Straits Times - after the battle was over, he said, "I do not mean that we will resort to other means. I say that other people will have to resort to other means." Very strange, these chaps. If other people were to resort to other means, why encourage them? That is what I want to know. They keep on telling us, "If you do this, people will resort to other means." Mr Lim Ching Siong said, "There are tough men around who will do nasty things. But I am not so tough, so I want to be gentle and correct." I say, "Wolf in sheep's clothing and the sheep's clothing got ripped off." and I think the Member for Anson should be careful, because when the chicken's feathers are peeled off, it is very painful.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment seeks to bring about a situation that the unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes, and all the unmarked and uncertain ballot papers be not counted as supporting any of the Alternatives A, B, or C.

Sir, if I may deal with the amendment under these two heads. First of all, that unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes. Sir, the phrase "protest votes" there could mean a number of things. The Member for Anson has given an indication that it could mean protest votes against a sham referendum. That is the interpretation he seeks to give to the words "protest votes". The Barisan Sosialis not only give that interpretation but they take it further and say that they are protest votes because the White Paper is completely unacceptable to them. Yet again the protest votes, from the point of view of the Barisan Sosialis, could mean that the questions posed on the paper which went on the referendum were dishonest questions - the third possibility. The fourth possibility they have also suggested to the House is that the manner in which the Government conducted the election campaign was thoroughly dishonest. The fifth possibility of the protest votes is that the referendum machinery was rigged, the count was false, the Superintendent was not true to the Referendum Ordinance.

So you see, Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Member for Anson supports the proposition that the unmarked ballot papers be recognised as protest votes for one reason, and one reason only, the Barisan Sosialis have put in that amendment, I suggest, in order that they might go out later on and tell the people that the Assembly admitted that B should be protest votes because of A, B, C, D, E and F. Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot subscribe to that view.

First of all, let me deal with the question of whether the White Paper is a phoney one. We have always taken the view on this side of the House - the Front Bench of the Opposition - that the White Paper was the best possible thing that could have been obtained in the existing circumstances.

Mr David Marshall: It has been improved.

Mr Rajah: That is a matter of opinion. The Member for Anson has said, "The result of the change is more than a mere change in nomenclature; be satisfied." Well, if he is satisfied, so much the better. So far as I am concerned, the change in nomenclature has made no difference to the legal position of citizenship or to the rights which we will get under the change in nomenclature. So far as I am concerned, Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, there has been no change. If the Member for Anson has interpreted it to mean something else, I am sure that Singapore is grateful to him, because no doubt the fact that he has changed his mind on that has helped a number of people to make up their minds to vote for A. I am sure of that.

The second, Sir, that the referendum paper did not contain fair alternatives. I do not subscribe to that. I subscr1be to the proposition that the referendum paper contained all the possible alternatives in the circumstances. Therefore. I do not agree with the Member for Anson that it was a "dirty paper". He has all along maintained that the referendum paper was a "dirty paper" because it posed impossible alternatives. Now, I have never understood the Member for Anson on this point, and I would be glad to have an explanation from him. Sir, as I understood the Member for Anson in this House, he has always maintained that the referendum was a "dirty paper" because not one of the three Alternatives posed on the paper was acceptable to him or his Party. On that basis, he contended that it was unfair to put them to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, although I did not say that they were unfair, I could agree with that position taken up by the Member for Anson, on the basis that he felt that the White Paper - Alternative A - was not what he wanted. On that basis, I could understand that the three Alternatives posed to the electorate were unacceptable and therefore it was a "dirty paper". That is correct and logical. But after the amendment which has been effected subsequent to the return of the Prime Minister from London, the Member for Anson conceded that the White Paper was everything he could hope for as a result of that amendment. Now, if the Member for Anson honestly believed that Alternative A was acceptable, how does the referendum paper still continue to be dirty?

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

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: The answer is a very simple one. The Workers' Party has accepted A as amended in the light of assurances and explanation. There is no question about it. But we say, "It is not a referendum, because it does not give the people any opportunity to indicate their choice. All they can say is yes to A. They cannot say no to A. B is meaningless; C is meaningless. And where a paper compels you just to one and no choice to say yes or no, it is thereby a dishonest and an immoral referendum."

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of elucidation on the point of explanation.

Mr Speaker: I am afraid not. Mr Rajah.

Mr Rajah: This is the point I am trying to get across to the Member for Anson and to the House. The main objection to the referendum being held was that the referendum paper did not contain fair questions to the people. Fair questions, mind you. "fair" is not a word on which everybody agrees. What is fair to the Member for Anson might not be fair to me. I consider the alternatives fair. The Member for Anson did not consider them fair because none of those alternatives were acceptable to him. On that basis, I saw sense in his contention that the referendum paper was a "dirty paper".

Let me assume, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the citizenship proposals which were subsequently altered had been there present when the White Paper proposals were being discussed in this House. I must, therefore, assume that on those conditions the Member for Anson would have accepted the White Paper, and the first alternative was Alternative A. He would then not have objected to the paper on the basis that not one of the alternatives was unacceptable either to him or to his Party. At the conclusion of that debate, it was a fair position he held, but two weeks before the referendum took place, his position had altered and I could not therefore understand the Member for Anson saying, "I accept the White Paper proposal Alternative A - the right proposition: it is a fair proposition but cast a blank vote." I have not yet understood that. Therefore, the Member for Anson's statement says, "Because the referendum paper is unfair, those votes must be treated as protest votes," Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not accept.

One of the other points made was that the Government in the referendum rallies was unfair and that it told a number of lies. A number of things were said about marked ballot papers, about numbers being behind ballot papers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fairly experienced at the game of politics. I have been in at every single election that has taken place. If I have not participated in them personally, I have been interested in the participants, and I remember the complaints of all the defeated Parties. The complaints of all defeated Parties are that the other side is unfair. It is a human weakness which people exploit in their moments of defeat. When the Progressive Party was defeated, some of them said, "Unfair. The Labour Front was unfair." When the Labour Front was defeated by the P.A.P., the Labour Front said, "The P.A.P. was unfair: the P.A.P. threatened the people; the P.A.P. did this thing and that thing." It is curious, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of what has happened, that the same objections to the referendum should be brought up by the Barisan Sosialis. The objections which the Barisan Sosialis are now bringing up with reference to the referendum proceedings are exactly the same sort of objections that the defeated Parties raised with reference to the P.A.P. At that time, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hong Lim was on their side. The Member for Queenstown was on their side. Everything seemed fair to them then. The numbers on the backs of the ballot papers did not then worry the voters, hut apparently for the last two weeks or so they have been worrying the voters. So, where is the truth in all these allegations? I do not accept them. It may be that you can frighten a hundred or two hundred people, but you cannot frighten three hundred thousand or four hundred thousand people with these stories, Mr Speaker, Sir. You can intimidate one or two; you can intimidate a few, but you cannot intimidate people in the mass on the basis that there will be numbers on the back of ballot papers and that the Government will see them and will come to know that you have voted the wrong way. After this, the Government is going to imprison you, take your citizenship away, send you back to China or India or Ceylon, or wherever you came from originally. I do not accept that, Mr Speaker. It does not work out like that.

The last proposition which the Barisan Sosialis put forward, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that the counting was all phoney. It is a very unfair thing to say that, Mr Speaker, because a number of officials were involved in this. I was present at the Singapore Badminton Hall from 9 o'clock. I saw the ballot boxes arrive. Nothing happened to them. They were under proper guard. Everything was done properly. When the last ballot boxes arrived - I think it was at about half-past eleven or thereabouts - the Superintendent offered every single Member there an opportunity of inspecting all the boxes to see that the seals were intact, and after all the Members who were entitled to inspect the boxes were satisfied that they were intact, the count then began. I think the count began soon after twelve, if I remember correctly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am revealing no secret, but within half an hour of the count starting, one knew the verdict of the people. One did not have to wait for the whole of the count. Within half an hour of the count, it was quite obvious which way the voting was going. It was obvious that Alternative A was going to win and win handsomely. There was no question of anything being rigged. Let us assume that there had been rigging in the voting. Rigging of how many votes - thousands upon thousands upon thousands without being known? Impossible! If it had been a close one, if Alternative A had got 45 and the blank votes had got 44, all these accusations might have been relevant. But in the circumstances when the blank papers only had 25 per cent and Alternative A had 71 per cent, the leeway was so wide. And when the position became quite apparent after half an hour of the count to anybody who was present around the 51 tables, I cannot accept the accusation that the count on the referendum was rigged. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, on all those counts, I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the, Member for Queenstown. I have sympathy for him in the latter part of the amendment where it says, "unmarked and uncertain ballot papers be not counted as supporting any of the Alternatives A. B or C". In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, Sir, it really does not matter what, in fact, happens to those unmarked ballot papers.

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

An hon. Member: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes. 31; Absent, 3; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Hoe Puay Choo, Byrne, K. M. Madam. Chan Chee Seng. Ayes(contd.) Noes(contd.) Lee Siew Choh. Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lin You Eng. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Goh Chew Chua. Marshall, David. Goh Keng Swee. Ng Teng Kian. Kandaswamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Teck Him. Sheng Nam Chin. Lim Cheng Lock. Tan Cheng Tong. Lim Yew Hock. Teo Hock Guan. Lingam, S. V. Wong Soon Fong. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Absent. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad Jabri bin Rajah, A. P. Mohammad Akib. Rajaratnam, S. Koh, C. H. Ramaswamy, S. Tee Kim Leng. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Abstention. Yaacob bin Nil. Mohammed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: The original motion as appears in item 2 on the Order Paper is before the House. I wonder if there are any Members who wish to speak.

At this stage, Members of the Barisan Sosialis left the Chamber.

Mr David Marshall: I do, Sir. If it please you, Mr Speaker, I can understand the disgust that the Barisan Sosialis feel. You will forgive me, Sir, if I do make a note of the fact that they are walking out of this Chamber for the record. I can understand their disgust, because not only has decency now fled, but even logic and sanity have fled by the action taken by the Government with the Front Bench of the Opposition. Because what has transpired is this. The Government did not want to clean its dirty stables. We offered to clean it for them. There was no need to be dishonest about the blank votes. They said, "Oh, yes, now we agree there was no need. We were playing cat and mouse, or pseudo-prostitutes, just to draw out the Barisan." They have drawn them out, according to them. But at this juncture, Sir, why continue with the farce? We were prepared to clean up their mess and bring back some sanity to these proceedings by declaring these blank votes to be void. Now they want to proceed with the motion. What is the sense of the motion? Mr Speaker, in all your experience, in all the history of democratic institutions. I ask you in all seriousness, have you come across a provision whereby the majority seek to compel the minority to vote in a specific fashion? It says the Opposition Assemblymen opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and calls upon them to decide. And then, where do we go from there? We have told them that in our view blank votes and uncertain votes should not be counted, should be null and void. We have told them that it is immoral to give any value to blank votes and uncertain votes. They say, "No, you fix a value." Where do we go from there? That is the imbecility - if you will forgive the expression - of this extraordinary conduct. What is the rationale? Where is the logic? Let us forget decency, Sir, because it seems decency belongs only to chickens. We are in a house of black belts and green belts and dirty belts - so dirty that they are black with dirt, stinking with filth.

What is the meaning of this present resolution? I ask particularly. Sir, of the Opposition Front Bench which did not have to dirty its hands - why? Why does it proceed with the illogical absurdity of compelling Opposition Members to vote? How are they going to do it? What is the coercive power they have? Supposing they pass it. Sir, they have called upon us, so what? Is there time for us to produce a motion, Mr Speaker, in answer to this absurd and illogical call of the Assembly! There is a horrible phrase in the English language which could be applied to the People's Action Party at this juncture and it should be most appropriate. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, I do not think I could hope to have your attention adequately diverted for a sufficient period in order to permit me to enunciate it. But I say, why did the Front Bench of the Opposition have to put their hands to this filth? Why?

All right, so they are going to force us who did not agree with the merger proposals in November, to say whether the 144,000 votes plus the 2,000 votes shall belong anywhere.

First, Mr Speaker, they will have to pass - and I remind the Front Bench of the Opposition - the first part, that the 2,370 uncertain ballot papers belong to A. Oh, surely they are sufficiently proud of the result of A without seeking to sully and dirty that result by this cheap stealing of 2,000 uncertain votes. Why do they want to make themselves party to that disgraceful act? And then they are asking us, the Back-benches, compelling us, uniquely in history, Mr Speaker, the tyranny of the majority - not a question of democracy any more - this is what we have learnt from the People's Action Party, that democracy can, in fact, be a tyranny - a tyranny in between elections - a disgraceful Fascist tyranny. And now, even Fascists would not consider it appropriate to say not merely that they will rule, but to force you to make a choice which yon do not want to make, that you think is immoral and dishonest. Immoral and dishonest because they are not asking us to say what we would do, but they are asking us to put a value on blank votes. [Laughter] It is a curious mentality and it seems that there are many of them. It is a curious mentality, which I confess at this stage is beyond my understanding, that can permit itself laughter at this stage. which is the peak of contempt for the democratic process. The democratic process allows the majority to rule; it does not allow the majority to bully, to brow-beat and insult those who are in opposition. We, and I felt the Member - where was it, Sir, where the gentleman from the Singapore People's Alliance said that-

An hon. Member: Farrer Park.

Mr David Marshall: Farrer Park, thank you. The Member for Farrer Park, I thought he said he understood our repugnance to giving any value to the 144,000 votes. And yet, I would remind the Front Bench of the Opposition, that is what they are asking for. They are asking that those blank votes should be given a value.

Sir, I notice that the United People's Party is still here. It has not walked out in disgust. For myself the extraordinary lesson of this afternoon is not the continued dishonesty of the People's Action Party - I think it has shown through all its rationalisations that it is inherently dishonest in heart and in soul. It is in truth and in fact a corkscrew, but what surprises me is that those on the Front Bench of the Opposition who have a not unreasonable hope of being the next Government should be dragged into this P.A.P. well of filth, should plunge in merrily and be party to one of the crudest and most shameless and disgraceful exhibitions of the tyranny of democracy between elections when the majority has no respect for democratic traditions, no respect for public opinion, no respect for decency, no respect for logic, no respect even for sanity.

Mr Yong Nyuk Lin: Go on!

Mr David Marshall: Well, Sir, we have heard a squeak out of the Minister for Education. He has got a voice? I am glad it hurt that much. I thought he was dead.

Mr Speaker, I shall not take long because this is not a filibuster. This is merely a protest in the strongest terms a human being can put in constitutional and parliamentary language against the disgraceful conduct of the Government and the Front Bench of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr David Marshall: I shall give them time to answer it, but I shall tell you this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall watch with interest the continuation of this shameless, disgraceful and bullying farce of the Front Bench of the Opposition in harmony with the Government. I shall vote against it and then, Sir, they having won. I shall sit here and see how they can make me, how they can compel me to transform 144,000 votes which are blank into votes with any meaning.

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear! Well done!

Mr Speaker: Order. Are there any other Members wishing to speak?

An hon. Member: The Prime Minister has very little time to reply.

Mr Speaker: No doubt the Member for Tanglin will give the Prime Minister time to reply.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the opinion that the battle for blank votes is really over and that to attempt to carry it beyond this point means to create more trouble for the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore have already given their decision in no uncertain terms that they are for Malaysia, and the numbers in which they voted are such that it does not really matter now as to how the blank votes are to be interpreted. But our stand has always been that blank votes are blank. They should mean nothing. They are not protest votes, Sir. We opposed the amendment just now because they asked for an interpretation so that blank votes could be regarded as protest votes. Sir, that was wrong. We also do not believe that they should be regarded as yes votes, although the Member for Anson has so interpreted it that he was for Alternative A and yet he would protest by casting a blank vote. Sir, to people like myself - ordinary folks - we are confused, because if we are for Alternative A, we must be voting for Alternative A. The blank vote means nothing and it should mean nothing.

Sir, our stand is that from the start there should not have been this manoeuvre and counter-manoeuvre between the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. Let the people decide and the people have now decided. Let the blank votes be counted as blank, as having no value whatsoever; that has been our stand, Sir.

We believe that after the people have decided in no uncertain terms for Malaysia, we should now co-operate to make Malaysia a success. We should not carry on this bitter fight over blank votes for another few years, making it an election issue. We have already said - and Members of different Parties have said too - that this is not a party issue, this is not a political issue and that the victory would not be a party victory for the Government or for any other Party. On that basis, Sir, the people have expressed their wishes; we have to accept their will and we should try to implement that will. We have already heard the Prime Minister. The Minister for Culture says here that they do not regard it as a P.A.P. victory. Therefore, the Barisan should not regard it as a Barisan defeat. It is the will of the people. However, Sir, maybe the Press have an interest in keeping up the fight for the sake of publicity purposes and they have said again and again that this is a P.A.P. victory and so on. Only yesterday they had a big headline "P.A.P. - How we won". That might have irritated the Barisan people, but in the interests of the people of Malaya, Singapore and Malaysia we believe that we should stop this fight over blank votes. Blank votes mean nothing, neither "yes" votes nor "no" votes. Well, if they are blank, let them be blank, let them not be counted. But the people have decided by 70 per cent that they want Malaysia on the lines of Alternative A and that is the most important thing for us in Singapore and Malaysia.

Mr Speaker: I might indicate what is in my mind. We have only 15 minutes left and I will call the Member for Hong Lim if he will take not more than five minutes. Mr Ong Eng Guan.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not take long. I accept your decision.

There is a law passed which compels all voters to vote in the referendum for the alternatives being posed to them - A, B or C - and if they do not accept any of these alternatives, they have the liberty to put in a protest vote which is a blank vote. Mr Speaker, Sir, today this law is introduced into this Assembly to be applied to Assemblymen. We have been asked to cast our votes for Alternatives A, B or C, and I would like your advice, if we cast blank votes here also today by abstaining, which means a protest vote against this motion, is there a Standing Order like section 29 which would make blank votes or "abstain" votes of Assemblymen pro-White Paper votes?

Mr Speaker: I do not know what the Member for Hong Lim wants. But if he wants guidance, I think if he skims through the Standing Orders, he will get all the guidance he needs. Mr Prime Minister, in reply.

The Prime Minister: In reply. Sir, I am really grateful for this afternoon session for another object lesson for the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Cairnhill. The Member for Anson - the former Member for Cairnhill - is a really intelligent man. I grant him that. He asked the really pertinent question, "If we carry (2), the second limb, what can the Government in this Assembly do?" Force him to vote A, B or C, when he refuses to do so? He is going to stay here and watch. Mr Speaker, Sir. He reminds me of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. He is Dr Watson, and I got a friend who is Sherlock Holmes and he told me, "Do this and the Barisan will be embarrassed: their tails will be twisted and they will run away," and that is exactly what they did.

The Member for Tanglin says, "What a pity: everybody has agreed on merger and Malaysia. Why are we quarrelling about blank votes? Let us all be friends. Let us stop this for peace, for friendship, for moral rearmament." There are some people who believe in real armaments, not moral rearmament, and they have walked out. The simple rules work, Mr Speaker. I do not have to say this; this is not ex post facto rationalization. This was a properly thought-out plan.

The Member for Cairnhill knows that the Government intends to abstain on the second limb of this motion, to give, not to compel, voluntarily those Members of the Opposition who opposed the White Paper a democratic opportunity, even at this last moment, to save themselves altogether from blank minds and indecision. Let them make up their minds even at this late hour, hold out the hand of friendship to the Federation amid to Borneo, which, if they were clever and magnanimous people, having lost the battle and if they were honest democrats willing to accept the verdict of the people, they would do. This is what I would do if I were in their position, Mr Speaker, Sir, having lost the fight. I called for blank votes and I lost. I say. "Well, all right, you said I was against merger and Malaysia. I shall show you now. I vote for A." The Government intended to abstain right from the beginning on the second limb.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, but he is not asking us to vote for A. He is asking us to transform 144,000 people's votes which we have no right to misread. That is what he is doing. He is not asking us to vote for A. He is asking us to say that we should twist the protest vows of 144,000 people and that we who are the trustees should be dishonest and transform those votes into A. How can we?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the Member for Anson. He is the trustee of a portion of the 144,077 votes.

An hon. Member: Mr Ong Eng Guan said that his Party polled 55 per cent.

The Prime Minister: I beg your pardon. 55 per cent belongs to the United People's Party, 45 per cent is to be distributed between 14 Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson. But whatever it is, he has got one, his own vote. I say to him, all right, if he feels really so terribly touched at the thought of a breach of trust, having asked the people to throw protest votes at the mode of the referendum, not at the White Paper, not at Alternative A, but in the manner of the referendum. But had we offered, he says, spring chicken, yes or no on the menu, he would have said, "Yes, spring chicken." But we were fools, Mr Speaker, Sir. Like faithful servants, we turned out and put spring chicken, roast beef, and lamb cutlet. He said, "Take them all away, I am on a hunger strike; blank votes." Where is the logic of it? I said, "Never mind, I will cut off from the menu right now, at the eleventh hour, roast beef and lamb cutlet. We will leave only spring chicken."

An hon. Member: Sold out!

The Prime Minister: No, no, no, one vote, one last spring chicken for the Member for Anson. Hold out his hand in friendship to the people of Borneo.

Mr David Marshall: Right.

The Prime Minister: Again I am grateful, Mr Speaker, Sir. From time to time the Member for Anson wants to be a reasonable man. I must again consult my Sherlock Holmes on this - the black belt fellow - and he said this to me, the whole of the Government and the whole of the Opposition Front Bench abstain on the second limb of (2). We are abstaining; we are not compelling anybody to vote. We are giving the choice and I say, let the Member for Anson state that he is for A, his one vote alone.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of explanation, Sir, I am much obliged. Would the Prime Minister in that case amend 144,000 to 1, and say Alternative A and I will accept it. [Applause].

Mr Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has been guilty of disorder by applauding. I ask him to set an example.

The Prime Minister: I agree, Mr, speaker, Sir, I am even prepared to make it three to other Members. If there are takers I will make-

Mr David Marshall: Good.

Mr Speaker: Can I pull the House up to order? The House has already decided these words shall remain, there can be no further amendment.

The Prime Minister: No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I must plead. There are moments for jest, but this is not the moment for jest. I say this in all seriousness, that it does make a difference. The Member for Anson says he cast a blank vote because he protested against the mode and manner of merger. He is not prepared, logically, as the trustee of the portion of the 144,000 who voted with him against the mode and manner of merger, to utilise in any way their blank votes for supporting A, but he is prepared to use his vote openly here to support A. I am saying, in all seriousness, at the end of these proceedings, this Report and the votes will be read in the Federation and in the Borneo territories. I am not saying this in jest, Sir, It is not meant to bring this House into a disorderly Chamber. May I Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, seek leave of this House to amend 144,077 to 1 ?

Mr Speaker: Is that the only amendment, Mr Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: To change the figure "144,077" to "1". Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: To decide?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and to decide for Alternative A.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you, allocated to Alternative A.

The Prime Minister: All right allocated to Alternative A. [Laughter]. No, no, do not laugh.

Mr Speaker: I think the Speaker must be very dull, but it seems to me that if the Prime Minister's amendments are to be allowed, the motion will read "that one unmarked ballot paper should be decided in accordance with the wishes of those Opposition Assemblymen who opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and calls upon them to allocate that vote to Alternative A."

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed.

Mr Speaker: I am in the hands of the House, but it seems to be a farcical suggestion.

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I must- [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not as yet ruled. The relevant Standing Order. Standing Order 39 - I have read these paragraphs before - paragraph (5) is the relevant paragraph, the last part, which says:

`provided that no amendment may be moved which relates to any words which the Assembly or Committee has decided shall not be left out of the motion.' That is under that Standing Order, but, as I say, I am in the hands of the Assembly. Under Standing Order 99:

`A question the object or effect of which may be to suspend any Standing Order of the Assembly shall be proposed only either after notice given or after the expression of the general assent of the Assembly.'

So that the way to do that, I suppose, is for the Prime Minister to ask for leave - that notwithstanding Standing Order 39 paragraph (5), he begs leave of the House to move his amendment.

The Prime Minister: I so request in the terms you have stated.

Mr Speaker: If it is the pleasure of hon. Members that the amendment be moved?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Could I make a statement?

Mr Speaker: Is the Member against the motion being moved?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes.

Mr Speaker: Well, that is all. The amendment cannot be moved and there can be no debate about it.

The Prime Minister: It was a useful intervention, we thought, at the time the Member for Anson moved. That is a lesson to be learnt. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are people who do not want it at all costs and will fight it. If it were not blank ballots, they would fight about blank minds. They will fight for the sake of lighting until they establish a Communist State. That is what they are after. I say this. This afternoon the House has many moods. It is a serious session, Mr Speaker, Sir. We had a solemn moment when we paid a tribute to our lost friend. We were moved to laughter and mirth and merriment partly because we did not laugh or cry at the stupidity and the tinge of lunacy of it all. This is a sparring ring where there are Members inside who do not play according to the rules. So we did it in the way we did - the simple straightforward approach - even at the last moment to allow the Member for Anson one vote to make his stand, the Member for Hong Lim on a technical procedural point, not because we can win the democracy of the Member for Hong Lim in preventing the Member for Anson at this last-

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is out of order. He is criticising a Member who has not given his assent.

The Prime Minister: Never mind, but that is what it really amounts to. Sir, this House has Members who have not the slightest intention to fight according to the constitutional rules of the game, and let us never forget this. As we go into recess, when we meet again in the next few months, let us gird ourselves for new struggles ahead. I am sorry to say this to the Member for Tanglin, but his hope of a peaceful future is not on the cards with the absent Members running around outside.

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it then that it is the wish of the House that there should be a separate vote on (1) and a separate vote on (2) ?

The Prime Minister: That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Well then, I will put the Question on the first part. The Question is.

"That this Assembly takes note of the Report of the Superintendent of the Singapore National Referendum as contained in Paper Cmd.18 of 1962 and in accordance with section 29 of the Singapore National Referendum Ordinance, 1962, that the House decides that 2,370 uncertain ballot papers should be deemed to be votes for Alternative A as indicated in the ballot paper.".

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes. 25; Noes. 3; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 16. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Omar Marshall, David. Junid. Ng Teng Kian. Byrne, K. M. Ong Eng Guan. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Chor Yeok Eng Goh Chew Chua Goh Keng Swee. Absent. Kandasamy, G. Ahmad Jabri bin Lee Khoon Choy. Mohammad Akib. Lee Kuan Yew. Bani, S. T. Lee Teck Him. Ayes (contd.) Absent (contd.) Lim Cheng Lock. Chan Sun Wing. Lingam, S. V. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Mammen, John. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Mohd. Ariff bin Koh, C. H. Suradi. Lee Siew Choh. M.Ismail Rahim. Leong Keng Seng. Ong Pang Boon. Lin You Eng. Rajaratnam, S. Low Por Tuck. Ramaswamy, S. Ong Chang Sam. Sahorah binte Sheng Nam Chin. Ahmat, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Lim Yew Hock. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajah. A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Thio Chan Bee.

Question on the first part of the motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question new is:

"That this Assembly takes note of the Report of the Superintendent of the Singapore National Referendum as contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1962 and in accordance with section 29 of the Singapore National Referendum Ordinance, 1962, that the House decides that 144,077 unmarked ballot papers should be decided in accordance with the wishes of those Opposition Assemblymen who opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and calls upon them to decide to which of the Alternatives A, B and C the blank votes should be allocated.".

The Prime Minister: On a point of elucidation,

Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: As I have said, we intend to abstain on this part of the motion. Could I ask you, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Member for Anson would by abstaining on this, indicate that he would have liked his one vote to go to A?

Mr Speaker: I do not think I could ask the Member for Anson to do that, but I think it will be in the Official Report. As many as are of that opinion, say aye? To the contrary, say no?

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, If there is not a single voice saying aye, Sir, the proposition is lost.

Mr Speaker: Certainly not. I think the Member for Anson is wrong there. I have asked, "As many as are of that opinion, say aye," and there was no response. As many as are of that opinion, say no?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: No.

Mr Speaker: I think the "Noes" have it.

The Prime Minister: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Take a division.

(At this stage, the Member for Anson rose.)

Mr Speaker: Order. This is the time when no Member may go out.

(The Member for Anson took a seat.)

Mr Speaker: I have to apologise to the Member for Anson. The doors have not yet been locked. He is entitled to walk out.

Mr David Marshall: Thank you, Sir. Good-night, Sir.

(The Member for Anson left the Chamber.)

Mr Speaker: Mr Serjeant-at-Arms, please lock the doors. This is the time when no Member is permitted to walk out or come in.

Question again put, "That the House decides that 144,077 unmarked ballot papers should be decided in accordance with the wishes of those Opposition Assemblymen, who opposed the amended White Paper merger proposals and calls upon them to decide to which of the Alternatives A, B and C the blank votes, should be allocated."

The Prime Minister: Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, Nil; Noes, 2; Absentions, 31; Absent, 17. Ayes. Noes. Nil Ng Teng Kian. Ong Eng Guan. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Chor Yeok Eng. Absent. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Ahmad Jabri bin Kandasamy, G. Mohammad Akib. Lee Khoon Choy. Bani, S. T. Lee Kuan Yew. Chan Sun Wing. Lee Teck Him. Fung Yin Ching, Lim Cheng Lock. Miss. Lim Yew Hock. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Lingam, S. V. Koh, C. H. Mammen, John. Lee Siew Choh. Mohd. Ali bin Leong Keng Seng. Alwi. Lin You Eng. Mohd. Ariff bin Low Por Tuck. Suradi. Marshall, David. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Pang Boon. Sheng Nam Chin. Rajah, A. P. Tan Cheng Tong. Rajaratnam, S. Tee Kim Leng. Ramaswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan. Sahorah binte Wong Soon Fong. Ahmat, Madam. Abstentions (cont.) Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin.

Question on the second part of the motion accordingly negatived.

Motion, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly takes note of the Respect of the Superintendent of the Singapore National Referendum as contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1962 and in accordance with section 29 of the Singapore National Referendum Ordinance, 1962, that the House decides that 2,370 uncertain ballot papers should be deemed to be votes for Alternative A as indicated in the ballot paper.

The business having concluded, Mr Speaker, adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly sine die at sixteen minutes past Six o'clock p.m.