SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR 1962

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted day].

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

2.59 p.m.

The Chairman: Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Supplementary Estimates?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I so signify.

The Chairman: The Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 as contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1963. The summary is at the back page. On Head 4 - Legislature - there is no notice of amendment.

The sum of $26,018 for Head 4 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962.

Head 45 -

The Chairman: There is an amendment+ standing in the name of the Member for Choa Chu Kang in relation to subhead 1, New Item - Deputy President.

+The amendment reads as follows:

That the sum to be allocated for Head 45 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new item - Deputy President, Grade G ($1,520) - of subhead 1.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: I am not moving, Sir.

The sum of 537,561 for Head 45 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962.

3.00 p.m.

Head 50 -

The Chairman: Head 50 -Ministry of Home Affairs. There is an amendment standing in the names of the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Upper Serangoon in relation to the new subhead.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new subhead - National Referendum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under this item, the Government asks for $436,001 to be paid for the shameful National Referendum conducted on the 1st of September last year. Mr Speaker, Sir, to the people of Singapore, the 1st of September last year was a dark day. It was a day when parliamentary democracy died. Throughout the whole proxies of the National Referendum, the people in Singapore were able to see that the P.A.P., in order to prolong their political life, did all sorts of shameful things and utilised all means of the propaganda machinery to intimidate the people of Singapore. This is only for the sake of a few leaders in the oligarchy of the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, we saw that on that day the Government used all police vans with loud-speakers. They went to every housing estate, every lane, every street and every village to intimidate people, to coerce them into voting for the Government's proposal as otherwise they would lose their citizenship rights. We were able to see that officers in the Ministry of Health went to the coffee shops, laundry shops and canteens. Now, if the licences of these shops had to be approved by the officers in the Ministry, then the officers went and pasted up Government posters about the National Referendum on the walls of these shops and intimidated the people into voting for proposal A, otherwise they would find difficulty in carrying on their business.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you could also see that the Prime Minister in the mass meeting at Fullerton Square uttered his threats through Radio Singapore, thereby forcing the people to vote for the P.A.P.'s proposal. From all these propaganda activities conducted by the Government, we can see their main object was to salvage their political life and not for the national interest or for the interest of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you could also see that on National Referendum Day, when the voting came to an end, the various political Parties were not able to enjoy all the facilities. They were not allowed to send representatives to supervise the counting of the votes. We also saw that the ballot box in every division was not carefully examined and the representatives were not able to know where these ballot boxes came from. However, only the P.A.P. people knew to which electoral divisions these boxes belonged.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is very important. All the people in Singapore knew that the P.A.P. would make use of the National Referendum to find out the extent of the people's support for them. The Government also knew that if they openly disclosed the electoral boxes to the Opposition Parties, that would be to their disadvantage. Because of this, the whole National Referendum was conducted under undemocratic conditions.

About three weeks ago when the Prime Minister paid a visit to Sembawang, he said during the course of the National Referendum that many people in the rural areas put in blank votes. That was because the Government was not doing enough in the field of propaganda in the rural areas. The Prime Minister also pointed out that during the course of the National Referendum, the number of blank votes in the Jurong area was very high. It was the highest throughout the whole of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, all these speeches by the Prime Minister very clearly exposed their political aims in conducting this National Referendum. In other words, the Ministers in the P.A.P. were trying to seek out the safe seats in a future general election. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is why the Government spent the people's money for their own political objectives and they have no reason to ask the House to approve the $436,001 as ---

The Chairman: The hon. Member is interpreted as saying that the amount to be voted is $436,001. The amount is $372,422.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government ask this House to approve the sum of $372,422 for the purpose of the National Referendum. What I have said just now very clearly shows that we the people in Singapore have no obligations to pay out this sum of money because the people of Singapore were not able to know the detailed results of the voting in each electoral division except the P.A.P. In view of this, therefore, the Government have no reason to ask the people to defray this amount of expenditure. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is why I think this sum of money should not be approved by this House.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum ---

The Chairman: Order. This amendment has already been moved by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. But the Member for Upper Serangoon can, of course, speak.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I deem it necessary to add to what my colleague has said just now. This is a question of principle. No matter what amount of money was spent on the National Referendum, it should not be paid by the people in Singapore, because in the 51 electoral divisions, how many people voted for proposal A, how many people voted for proposal B, how many people voted for proposal C, how many people cast blank votes, how many spoilt votes were there, and how many people did not turn up at the polling stations? All this information about the voting was turned into a political secret by the P.A.P. and was known only to the P.A.P. Therefore, this amount of money should be defrayed by the P.A.P. and not paid by the taxpayers because the Members in this House are all elected by the people. Therefore, if the expenses were to be borne by the people, then the representatives in this House should be entitled to know the results of the referendum. But we are not able to know the detailed results of each electoral division, and if the P.A.P. kept this information as their political secret, then they should pay for it.

3.15 p.m.

We know that if they want to buy political secrets, they have to pay more. Therefore, they should pay a sum which doubles this amount if they want to buy political secrets. We are not objecting to their buying these political secrets. So they have to pay for this and not ask the people to pay for it. The crux of the problem is not whether the amount is great or small but whether or not the result of the referendum should be made known to the people. Therefore, the people in Singapore have no obligation to pay for this amount of money.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, you will have doubtless noted that when the Member for Choa Chu Kang rose to speak against this particular Head in the Supplementary Estimates, his arguments were completely political in nature. There was no discussion of financial or economic merits of this item of expenditure. Since he chose to raise his objections on purely political grounds. I feel that in defence of the Supplementary Estimates before the House I must meet him on the same grounds. And so I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I should ---

The Chairman: Order. It is, of course, perfectly in order for any hon. Member to attack an item on political grounds. The Minister can reply on similar lines, of course.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, I do not dispute that, Mr Speaker, Sir. But it does occur to me that in the course of my rebuttal, I may have to go over very tedious arguments which have been belaboured in this House so often and much to your discomfiture and perhaps tedium. So in advance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do crave your indulgence if I have to ---

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Make a two-hour speech?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: One hour really. Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang said that the 1st of September last year was really a dark day for democracy and that, in fact, he saw the referendum was an exercise of such evil dimensions that it was a very gloomy day for democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot at all subscribe to this sentiment. Far from 1st September being a dark day for democracy, it was the brightest day, it was the turning point for democracy in Singapore, for it was on that day that the Communists, pro-Communists and their sympathisers working in the open front organisations were completely exposed. Until then, they had tried to build a myth of invincibility - that they control the masses, that they control the trade unions, and that anybody who stood up against them would be destroyed politically through the democratic processes. But eventually when they take over the organs of State, the destruction will be more than just a question of electoral constitutions; it will be physical elimination and liquidation. That was the fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they would spread through all their multifarious open front organisations from the time they broke away from the P.A.P. in May 1961. These are the weak men who themselves were for the most part not believers in Marxism-Leninism as a revolutionary philosophy; but when the parting of ways took place between the non-Communist socialists in the P.A.P. and the Communists and pro-Communists in the P.A.P., these men and women were made of straw. Subjected to a tremendous amount of persuasion and intimidation, they decided to "play with the Communists". That was the only reason why they weakened and went over to the other side, thinking that, with all the panoply of open front organisations which we have allowed the Communists to organise, it was only a matter of time when they could seize power and break us up. And we took up this challenge, and on 1st September last year the battle was joined. What was the result? We allowed them all the constitutional freedoms - they could have all the mass meetings provided they observed the laws, which they did. I must pay them a tribute, Mr Speaker, Sir. The mass meetings were held in accordance with the conditions of the licences stated for the conduct of such mass meetings, and they thought that they were winning. And this is the curious thing - almost to the end the Communists and their running dogs in the Barisan Sosialis believed that they were going to win. Never for one moment, until perhaps a day before polling day, did they entertain any doubt at all as to the outcome of the referendum; so certain were they!

Now, Sir, why were they routed? Why was there such a tremendous defeat for these people?

Sir, if you will bear with me for a moment, I will try to analyse the position. As I said, I have got to go back to basic historical processes when the Communists broke with us. Their No. 1 mistake was to break with the P.A.P. on a national issue. We said that we wanted merger with Malaya and that we were in favour of Malaysia, as indeed all genuine nationalists in this country must support. They oppose `merger and Malaysia for obvious reasons which have been explained adnauseam in this House. They oppose merger and Malaysia simply because after merger and Malaysia the Internal Security Council will be in the hands of the Federation Government who have a less delicate regard for constitutional niceties and rights that can be afforded to Communists and their fellow-travellers. The Federation Government have got clear views on them. We, on the other hand, say we will always give them an opportunity for the legal open confrontation so long as they observe the laws and the constitution of the country. But I am afraid opinion in Kuala Lumpur differs from ours on that point. Therefore, because they feel that after merger and Malaysia they will be conscribed, they oppose it purely for their own selfish political interests. That is their No. 1 error which led to their defeat on 1st September.

Their No. 2 mistake, which combined with their No. 1 mistake proved fatal, was that they said they wanted more merger than the P.A.P. They wanted complete merger. Therefore, since we wanted merger on special terms and they wanted complete merger, the issue that had to be posed in this referendum was not whether you wanted merger or you did not want merger, but what type of merger did you want. Our type of merger was Alternative A; complete merger Alternative B; or the Borneo/Sarawak type of merger Alternative C. Those were the three honest issues that were posed to the electorate for their choice. I do not want to go through the merits of each of the three alternative choices; but suffice it to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the electorate of Singapore listened to all points of view. We never stopped the Barisan from having mass meetings. They were completely free to disseminate their views any time they liked, in any way they liked, provided they observed the law. And they went pretty close to the brink. For instance, carrying out this phoney Gallup Poll in Tanjong Pagar and Kreta Ayer - strictly speaking, according to the Municipal bye-laws and a few local laws, these exercises were illegal. But we said. "Well, it does not matter." They wanted radio time and we offered them radio time. We wrote to them, "Please come to Radio Singapore and let us discuss matters in a human and adult manner." Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sad to relate that after about ten days of the open confrontation before the radio microphone, the Barisan decided that they had enough of it and would not appear before Radio Singapore.

The people knew exactly what was fought for, Mr Speaker, Sir. No amount of sophistry, of half-cooked Marxism-Leninism or what-have-you on the other side can deceive the people that the best interest in the near future is to have a limited conditional form of merger whereby Singapore will have a considerable measure of local autonomy. And because the Barisan were foolish enough to try to outbid the P.A.P. in wanting more merger than we did, they failed in the result because the people of Singapore at the present moment are prepared to go only so far and no further in a merger with the Federation of Malaya. The Barisan Sosialis thought that complete merger was out of the question. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may let the House into the secret for the first time as to the reason why the Barisan Sosialis tried to outbid the P.A.P. in demanding complete merger. Mr James Puthucheary was an old colleague of ours. In 1959 we unlocked the gates of Changi Gaol and released him and placed him in a position of responsibility. When the fight between the P.A.P. and the pro-Communists developed into a crisis, I could see Mr James Puthucheary - he was working in my Ministry - weakening from day to day. Eventually he told me that he was going over to the other side as he found his position as a supporter of the P.A.P. intolerable. And he said they were going to wreck merger, "This is absolutely on the cards." I said to him, "James, why do you say so?" Then he did some calculations on a piece of paper. He said, "There are 105 seats in the Federal Parliament. The Alliance has 60 votes; the Opposition has 40 votes; a margin of 20. If Singapore were to go in on full merger, Singapore would get anything between 20 and 25 votes, the majority of which would be anti-Alliance votes. Therefore, under no circumstances will the Federation Government contemplate complete merger." Complete merger, of course, means proportionate representation. Therefore, he said, "We are going to outbid you, and that will put you in a fix."

That was the No. 1 reason. I do not know if that was the No. 1 or No. 2 reason - the strategist in the Barisan Sosialis who led them up the garden path. It was absolutely a basic error in political strategy. If at that time in May or June 1961 they had said, "Nonsense with merger. Absolutely nothing. We want an independent Singapore, come what may", then, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we had a referendum, the choice must be either merger with the Federation on those terms or complete independence. And if the alternative posed in the referendum was either merger with the Federation or complete independence for Singapore, the result could have been one way or the other. But given a choice of limited and conditional merger, and complete merger, we had no doubt at all what the result would be - a shattering defeat for the pro-Communists who on that occasion were trying to be too clever.

3.30 p.m.

Now, Sir, although we had no doubt as to the outcome, we took the precaution of ensuring that the electorate understood all the basic issues involved in the referendum. The Barisan accused us of using the radio to put forward these views. What is so wrong about it? What is the radio for but to explain to the people the nature of the decisive choice which they had to make on 1st September? It was quite proper. We had to do it. We have no apologies at all. We are not at all ashamed. In. fact, we are very proud and we are very glad that they found out how the use of the radio was so effective. That is why we have advanced the time for starting Television. It is going to be even more effective - not only sound, but audio-visual aids!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not really enjoy tormenting the young men and women on the other side, but I think it is about time they listened to a few home-truths, having wandered, like the lost tribes, through the desert and not being able to come out. Now, Sir, not oily did we use the radio but we made sure - after all, not every family in Singapore owns a radio set - that there had to be a face-to-face explanation. The Member for Choa Chu Kang complained about the use of police cars. We used police cars simply because - I have forgotten the exact number; I think there were about eight or nine police cars - we could commandeer them at the time for use to explain to the people, face to face. We told them what this was all about. We used police cars because some of them have loud-speaker equipment. If the Barisan Sosialis think that the whole of our field propaganda outfit consists of police cars, they are absolutely wrong. The police cars amounted to more than 10 per cent of the loud-speaker vehicles which we sent out. We sent out 75 such vehicles equipped with radio, loud-speaker and tape-recorder. On the average, each of these teams carried out between 30 and 50 �-hour meetings per day, bringing a total, during the referendum period, of between 6,000 and 8,000 meetings throughout the towns, streets and villages. Let them not believe that this is just a matter of half a dozen police cars. We arranged the referendum publicity campaign with all the thoroughness and energy that we could command. There is absolutely no apology for what we did.

Now, the broadcasting of Fullerton Square speeches. What is wrong with that? I do not know why they even raised that subject. But on the fourth point which they raised, that is, the result of the referendum was not known to the Barisan. Sosialis, they complained, saying, "You must know what the results are."

Mr Speaker, Sir, the referendum was conducted on the 1st of September. I thought the result was published on the 2nd of September last year. I am surprised that they do not know the result. The result was that they had a hell of a whacking.

An hon. Member: Not by constituency.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Ah, they want to know the result constituency by constituency. I would have thought that for their peace of mind, it is better that they do not know. To these two particular Assemblymen, for their own peace of mind, I say, the less said, the better. They want to know! Why should they know? The law does not say that they must know. No referendum results in any democratic country, or even in any undemocratic country, are published constituency by constituency. You will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, we went through all this in Select Committee. We challenged the representors in Select Committee to produce any precedent, and they were completely unable to do so.

The Member for Upper Serangoon said that the P.A.P. know the result and that therefore we should pay for it. This really brings into the proceedings of this Assembly a somewhat mercenary element which we do not quite like. But I say to the Member for Upper Serangoon, whether or not the Barisan want to pay for it, they will still not know what the detailed results are. There is absolutely no reason why they should know. In fact, for their own peace of mind, it is better that they should not know.

The Chairman: The Question is,

"That the sum to be allocated for Head 50 be reduced by the whole sum in respect of new subhead-National Referendum."

As many as are of that opinion, say Aye.

Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chairman: To the contrary, say No. I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it.

Mr Teo Hock Guan (Changi): Division.

The Chairman: It is too late. I have declared the result.

The sum of $372,422 for Head 50 ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962.

Question, "That the sum of $436,001 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11, of 1963", put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

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

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution.

Resolution reported -

"That the sum of $436,001 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1963.".

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution accordingly agreed to.

3.40 p.m.