BUDGET PROCEEDINGS TIME-TABLE (Motion)

3.23 p.m.

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name.

• The motion reads as follows:-

That this Assembly resolves-

(1) that notwithstanding the standing Orders the debate on the motion of the Minister for Finance on the Annual Budget Statement do stand adjourned to Tuesday, 11th June, 1963;

(2) that notwithstanding the Standings Orders the business of Supply in relation to the 1963 Estimates be continued after 8pm until twelve midnight and that the days allocated for discussion of the Estimates in Committee of Supply be, as consequence, reduced to three days, that is to say, Wednesday, 12th June, 1963, Thursday, 13th June, 1963, and Friday, 14th June, 1963;

(3) that the proceedings on the business of Supply on the 12th, 13th and 14th of June, 1963, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until twelve midnight on each day;

• (4) that notwithstanding the standing Orders the proceedings on the second and third readings of the Appropriation Bill 1963, be taken on Saturday, the 15th June, 1963; and

++ (5) that the Assembly do sit on Saturday, the 15th of June, 1963.

Sir, it was decided at the last sitting of this Assembly to adjourn to the 7th of June, i.e., today. But since then many things have happened; events have over-taken our original intention. When the decision was taken to have this present sitting beginning on the 7th of June, information as to the exact date of the Malaysia talks in London, at which Singapore will be represented, was not yet available. Neither was it then known what vital developments would ensue and how the course of our negotiations with the Federation Government regarding financial arrangements after merger would run.

Since the last sitting of this Assembly, the inter-governmental discussions between Singapore and the Federation on the financial terms of merger have gone on and vital issues have come to the fore The date of 31st of August for the establishment of Malaysia is fast approaching and there is very little time left between the Malaysia talks in London which will begin towards the end of June. Between now and that time, the financial arrangements must be finalised. It is because of this that I considered that there would not he sufficient time to do justice to the Budget debate, and on the 24th of May, I requested you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to agree that in the public interest the Assembly should be called to sit earlier than the 7th of June. I suggested that arrangements be made for the sitting of the Assembly on the 29th of May in the public interest under Standing Order No. 5. My application, however, was rejected by you. I regretted that this has happened and this has made the time available for inter-governmental discussions even more acutely short. In these circumstances, it is with regret that I move this motion and I hope that this House will bear with me in reducing the number of days set aside for the Committee of Supply. The total time for the debate, however, has not been reduced although Members will have unfortunately to put up with the inconvenience of midnight sessions. I am moving this motion on the suggestion that you, Mr Speaker, have conveyed to me in reply to my letter of the 27th of May.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Before I open up this motion for debate, I would point out that the Minister for Finance has said he regretted the ruling which I had to make without indicating how he thought the ruling was wrong. I will therefore cause my ruling* to be printed in the Official Report.

• Appendix II, cols. 595-604. BUDGET PROCEEDINGS TIME-TABLE (Cols 0595-0604)

3.25 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose most vehemently the motion before the House, and I want to register our vigorous protest against the high-handed manner in which the Government is treating the Opposition. The Government seems to forget that it no longer controls 43 seats in this House. As such, it cannot, with impunity, continue its arrogant and dictatorial attitude towards the Opposition. Today, the Opposition is stirred to unite together to teach this arrogant, this dictatorial Government a salutary lesson that the interests of the people cannot be brushed aside to suit the convenience of the Government and the P.A.P.

Budget time is Opposition time, and the Opposition will unitedly strive to zealously see that the Government is not allowed to encroach on this valuable Opposition time.

I will now proceed to give the reasons why this motion has to be opposed to the bitter end. Sir, if the Government were not arrogant, if it were not dictatorial, it would have followed common parliamentary practice. The Government, through its Leader of the House, or through its stand-in as the Leader of the House - the Leader being on a jaunt overseas - should have invited the Opposition for a discussion on the matter in an honest attempt to persuade the Opposition to accept a curtailment of their rights under the Standing Orders. If such an honest attempt had been made, we as a responsible Opposition would have signified our acceptance if the reasons advanced were legitimate and irrefutable. But no, this arrogant and dictatorial Government is above common clay. The Opposition has been bullied since the P.A.P. took office in 1959. The Opposition can and still should be bullied. Admittedly, the Opposition has gained strength in numbers to the extent of 25 against 25 (and the decisive factor is to come from Sembawang where no by-election has yet been held since the death of Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim nearly a year ago) but the Opposition is not united because of the difference in ideology. With this contention in mind, this arrogant, this dictatorial Government blunders on. I say its arrogant, its dictatorial attitude on this issue before the House is a blunder, as it will find to its cost. The Opposition will rise united on this issue and will crush this arrogant, this dictatorial attitude of the P.A.P. Government.

I now come, Sir, to the correspondence exchanged between the Speaker and the Minister for Finance. I quote the reprehensible paragraph of the letter of the Minister for Finance dated 27th May, 1963:

`In these circumstances, I am to state that the Government reserves its position on this matter and after consultation with the Prime Minister and the State Advocate-General, I may address a further communication to you.'

What arrogance! As I have said on many previous occasions, Sir, despite the fact that the Government has a Ministry of Culture, P. A. P. Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen know not the meaning of "culture". We do not care whether they have culture or not, but where their lack of culture leads to the commission of a breach of privilege, this House must take note and must not allow such a blatant breach to pass unchecked. The tone of this letter of the Minister for Finance is offensive and, to us, a clear breach of privilege. I refer to the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Ordinance, 1962, Part V of this Ordinance deals with Offences and Penalties. Section 30 reads, inter alia:

`No person shall -

(c) assault, hinder, obstruct or insult the Speaker or any member coming to or going from the Assembly on account of his conduct in the Assembly or of anything done or said by him in the Assembly;'.

I emphasise, Sir, "No person shall obstruct or insult the Speaker on account of anything done or said by him in the Assembly." Section 30, paragraph (f) reads:

`No person shall -

(f) threaten or send a threatening letter to the Speaker or a member or challenge him to a fight on account of his conduct in the Assembly or of anything done or said by him in the Assembly;'.

I emphasise again, Sir, "No person shall threaten or send a threatening letter to the Speaker on account of anything done or said by him in the Assembly". I bring this up at this time and in this speech just to show the Minister for Finance the error of his ways -

An hon. Member: Do something about it!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - and that arrogance stems from a lack of culture. We resent this obstruction, this insult, this threat to the Speaker who is the personification of this august Assembly, and unless the Minister for Finance duly sends his apologies for his detestable conduct, it shall be my bounden duty to move at the next available sitting of this Assembly a motion to have this blatant breach of privilege referred to the Committee of Privileges with a view to upholding the dignity of this House.

Mr David Marshall (Anson): Hear, hear!

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): You do not have to wait that long.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, another strong and cogent reason why we oppose this motion is this: in December 1961, this Assembly approved the Estimates containing a Vote on Account for Expenditure for the first six months of 1963 (Paper Command 39 of 1961). We took this unprecedented step because of the appeal of the Minister for Finance. We accepted his explanation in good faith given to this House on 4th December, 1961, and we now find that he has broken faith with us and we cannot allow him to continue to hoodwink us. On 4th December, 1961, he said inter alia, and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 14, col. 1176:

`It is important that we in Singapore must not allow lack of preparation to hold up the implementation of merger plans because of possible hold-ups in the administrative machinery. We must not only look at what is likely to happen in 1962, we must also try to visualise events in 1963.'

Further down:

`The Government anticipates that the preparation of a budget for 1963 will encounter numerous technical problems of details.'

Still further down:

`The preparation of the budget for the new State of Singapore, as a constituent member of the Federation, will he even more complicated and onerous.'

And at col. 1177:

To settle the details of allocation of votes and revenue between State and Central Government, additional work will devolve on Treasury officials and those Ministries affected by transfers of responsibility, and it is not likely that the 1963 Budget will be ready in time. This may well expose the Government to criticism. There might even be a loss of confidence in the administration. For this reason and in fairness to the administration, I will be asking the House to approve a vote on account for the first six months of 1963.'

And at col. 1178:

`But let me add that the Treasury will, in spite of the heavy duties which the administration would have to undertake in the coming months, try to prepare the estimates in time. If it can be done, the Government would then present these estimates to the Assembly in the normal way.' These, Sir, are the solemn words he said on 4th December, 1961. And now let us examine them in retrospect:

`The Government anticipates that the preparation of a budget for 1963 will encounter numerous technical problems of details.

The preparation of the budget for the new State of Singapore, as a constituent member of the Federation, will be even more complicated and onerous.

To settle the details of allocation of votes and revenue between State and Central Government, additional work will devolve on Treasury officials...'.

These solemn words of the Minister for Finance gave us the impression that the 1963 Budget would take on a new form because (1) it will be a Budget for the new State of Singapore as a constituent member of the Federation, and (2) it will contain details of allocation of votes and revenue between the State and the Central Government. But what do we see in Cmd. 14 of 1963? These Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the State of Singapore for the year 1953 take on no new form. In fact, they are in a less informative form. They have not encountered numerous technical problems of details, as we were led -

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are debating a motion in the name of the Minister for Finance, and it has been very clearly worded down here. The remarks which have been made by the Member for Cairnhill surely can be aptly applied when we come to the debate on the Budget statement itself.

Mr Speaker: It would appear that the Member for Cairnhill perhaps is straying away from the motion itself, which is a business motion. Those remarks, I think, would be apt when we are debating the Budget statement.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: With respect, Sir, I am trying to pin the Government down for causing the delay. If this Budget had been in the new form and if it had contained all the technical difficulties, if it had contained all those technical problems, if it had contained allocation of votes and revenue, as the Government gave a solemn assurance on 4th December, 1961, one could have understood the delay in presenting this Budget. I am trying to point out to this House that this inordinate delay is inexcusable. Because it is inexcusable, the Opposition will resist any attempt by the Government to bamboozle it.

Sir, we were led to believe, as I said, that this Budget would take on a new form because of "numerous technical problems of details". These Estimates are not more complicated and onerous as we were led to believe by the Minister for Finance on the 4th of December. 1961. They do not contain details of allocation of votes and revenue as we were led to believe by the Minister for Finance on 4th December, 1961. In short, the explanation given by the Minister for Finance on 4th December, 1961, is nothing but a tissue of falsehoods.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: As one who has had considerable and practical experience of budgetary provisions since 1948, I can say, without fear of contradiction, that these Estimates could and must have been ready at the beginning of this year. Why then did the Minister for Finance hold up their consideration until this very last minute? What kind of a game is he playing? What are the stakes?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Billiards!

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Assembly was prorogued in September 1962 and the P.A.P. Government sat on its haunches until the end of March 1963, when the Assembly was reconvened. The sitting in March came to an abrupt end at 6 a.m. on 10th April, and the Barisan Sosialis was stifled and two of their motions were pushed down to this sitting - a delay of two months. Let me recount the crimes of the P.A.P. Government. For six months there was no sitting of this Assembly -

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Ten months.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: - and the P.A.P. Government had their fun at the expense of the Opposition. Then this Assembly was reconvened at the end of March, but sittings were greatly curtailed. A further delay of two months before the next sitting, i.e., this sitting. Sir, they knew that the 1963 Budget had to be presented. They had the Budget ready at the beginning of this year. Surely they could have fixed a sitting at the end of May. They did not do this. Why? Because they are arrogant; because they are dictatorial; because they are conceited and do not see that they have decayed to such an extent that the name of the P.A.P. stinks worse than manure.

Now, let us examine the reasons why the Government feels that the motion by the Minister for Finance is necessary and in the public interest. The Minister for Finance says that he has asked you, Sir, to arrange for an earlier sitting on 29th May as against the 7th of June as originally fixed by the Government. Because his request has been turned down by the Speaker, he is now asking the Opposition to surrender their rights which are protected by the Standing Orders, so that the P.A.P. Government can go on their arrogant way without being pulled up.

Sir, we support the fully considered ruling of the Speaker. Had he ruled otherwise and allowed the arrogant P.A.P. Government to have its dictatorial way, the Opposition might have been forced to challenge the Speaker's ruling. Fortunately for this House and for Singapore, we have a Speaker whose independence is unassailable. Sir, the Minister for Finance says in his letter to the Speaker on 24th May that - and this is really laughable:

`... there have been a number of vital developments in connection with Malaysia which necessitate finalisation of the Federation/Singapore Financial Talks as soon is possible to enable the Malaysia Talks to be held in London at the end of June. The timing of these talks was unknown when the Government first arranged the Budget time-table.'

"The timing of these talks was unknown", says the Minister for Finance. Is it? We know. The people of Singapore know. In fact, the people of the whole of Malaysia know that the talks in London will have to be held at the latest in June if Malaysia is to come into being on the 31st August. But according to the Minister for Finance, the P.A P. Government do not know. Who is going to believe this? We are not. The Federation/Singapore financial talks have been protracted. All this is due to the Prime Minister playing a game of his own - to try to gain political credit for something which is not true. I wil1 not speak at length on this aspect of the financial talks as I have a motion on the Order Paper, and I do not want to anticipate a debate, which is contrary to Standing Orders. I have a question on the Order Paper on Questions for Oral Answer asking the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement today on the financial talks. The Prime Minister was not here to give the answer. Sir, it has been the practice of the P.A.P. Government -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think, in fairness to the Prime Minister, I did inform the House that my information was that he is indisposed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, it has been the practice of the P.A.P. Government to order their Parliamentary Secretaries to answer questions on behalf of their Ministers.

Mr David Marshall: And to write letters.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: But there was no statement on this question because the Parliamentary Secretary was not ordered in this particular instance. Even the Minister for Finance was silent on a very important aspect - the financial talks with the Federation.

Sir, it would seem to me that the Prime Minister is avoiding the issue, and I say that his absence from this Chamber is due to his fear of being confronted by me on this vital issue Although the P.A.P. is fond of indulging in confrontation so long as confrontation is to its credit, in this particular case, there is a lot of debit, and the Prime Minister is, therefore, suffering from a diplomatic illness. May he get well quickly and be up to his tricks again! May he be here on Monday, the 10th of June, to answer my Question postponed by me to that date under Standing Order 20, paragraph (2).

Sir, in his letter to the Speaker dated 27th May, the Minister for Finance discloses that his request for an earlier sitting is to enable the Prime Minister and him to attend the Malaysia talks in London. Is the presence of the Minister for Finance really necessary, especially as the Prime Minister has already taken upon himself to deal with financial matters as evidenced by the statements of the Prime Minister on the Federation / Singapore financial talks, and the Minister for Finance is just a silent partner in the wake of His Master's Voice, known the world over at one time as H.M.V. with a picture of a gramophone and a dog sitting silently and obediently listening to His Master's Voice? Sir, is it right for the Prime Minister to attend the talks in London as he has not yet received a mandate from this House on the details of merger? He calls it merger. But I call it nothing but a closer association in a sort of confederation. Sir, the Prime Minister did promise this House that such details will be fully debated in this House, or is this another form of P.A.P. twist and double talk?

I want it to be placed on record that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance - that is, the P.A.P Government - have no right to participate in talks in London until they get a mandate from this House to finalise details on merger, especially now that the P.A.P. Government does not have a clear majority in this House and is even afraid to fight out the decisive issue at Sembawang.

Sir, Budget time is Opposition time, and that is why the rights of the Opposition are protected by Standing Orders. Seven clear days' notice for the debate on the Budget Statement is laid down in the Standing Orders to enable the Opposition to make a detailed study of the Budget Statement and a detailed examination of the Estimates in relation to the Budget Statement. The motion of the Minister for Finance not only deprives the Opposition of this detailed study and examination of an important issue affecting the lives of the people but it also requires the Opposition to submit amendments for debate in the Committee of Supply by 12.30 p.m. tomorrow. A detailed examination of the Estimates is usually carried out in relation to the Budget Statement of the Minister for Finance, and even if we the Opposition Members burn the midnight oil tonight, we cannot adequately and effectively look after the interests of the people in so far as the 1963 Budget is concerned, and we will resist to the bitter end this arrogant and dictatorial attempt by the Minister for Finance to choke us off.

Sir, under the Standing Orders, we are to have five days allotted for the Committee of Supply. The motion limits this to three days, and while it is true, as mentioned by the Minister for Finance in his speech just now, that the extended time up to 12 midnight each day being asked for in the motion is to make up for the loss of two sitting days, this is an attempt to wear out the Opposition and to deny the Opposition proper facilities to prepare criticisms and observations on the Estimates. We do not mind sitting up to midnight every day, or even right up to 6.00 a.m., as happened during the last sitting, but what we do mind is this. We are denied the facilities to make a detailed study and to prepare our criticisms and observations on the amendments which have to be submitted for discussion in the Committee of Supply. It must not be overlooked that the adjournment at 8.00 p.m. will provide the facilities which will be denied us if the Assembly adjourns at 12.00 midnight.

Sir, in his letter to the Speaker on 24th May, the Minister for Finance is prepared to have the 17th of June as the last allotted day for the Committee of Supply, and yet in his motion now before the House, the last allotted day is fixed for the 14th of June. Why this change of mind? To me, this means that since the Minister for Finance is going to be hanged, he does not mind how he is to be hanged. The Opposition is aroused and furious, and we are out to hang the Government constitutionally and declare that they are well and truly buried.

Sir, because of this unity in the Opposition against this dictatorial and arrogant attitude of the Government, it makes it necessary for me to draw your attention to the practice of pairing off. I understand the Member for Bras Basah will not be able to attend Assembly sittings for some time, and I also can understand the feeling of the Barisan Sosialis to go to the Government and ask for a pairing off. Inasmuch as the Government will never go to the Barisan Sosialis for a pairing off, they always come to us. I, as a Member of the Opposition, feel that that enforced absence from the Assembly should be paired off by the Government. If they have had sufficient training in culture by their Minister for Culture, they would have no doubt undertaken to pair off on their own. But if the Government do not offer to pair off against the enforced absence of a Member of the Opposition, we in the Alliance give this declaration to the Government: at no time will we pair off any more with the P.A.P.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is rather curious that the Member for Cairnhill should now talk of trying to bury the P.A.P. constitutionally. If the S.P.A. had followed an anti-colonial line and consistently and persistently carried on an anti-colonial fight, there would not have been the necessity of debating this motion today. He talks of accepting the word of the Finance Minister in 1961 and says that the Minister for Finance has now broken faith with him. How? As far as I can see, it is because they both are now trying to fight for the same piece of bone. That is all. It is their own inherent contradiction, both trying to fight for the support of the masses which they do not have. After all, what does the S.P.A. think the P.A.P. will do? Does the S.P.A. think that the P.A.P. will allow the Member for Cairnhill to become a member of the Cabinet? The Member for Farrer Park might be taken in, because he has been seen to be very chummy with the Prime Minister. Anyway, Sir, it was the Member for Cairnhill who had somersaulted in the debate on the Referendum Bill thus allowing the P.A.P. to push through that Bill, rig the referendum and dishonestly and undemocratically force the people to chose the White Paper. It is always good to talk of the Opposition rising in united action, but I would like to remind the S.P.A. that it is rather late in the day to think of things like this. They should have thought of this long ago when we fought against the phoney merger and when we fought against the dishonest, sham referendum. And we might add -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, you ruled once that there should be no reference to the term "phoney merger". I think the long recess has affected the memory of the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker: I think I have ruled time and again that matters which have gone through this Assembly and have been agreed to by the Assembly cannot be referred to in disrespectful terms.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I apologise, Sir. Possibly that is because of my having been forced to stay in the Central Police Station lock-up for three days and the Remand Prison for seven days by the undemocratic P.A.P. The P.A.P. does not allow the individual any freedom in Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Affecting your mind!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I just want to remind the Member for Cairnhill that he is now attacking his own economic adviser of days gone by.

Mr Rajah: What are you doing now?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: We attack everybody who is fighting for the colonialists.

Mr Rajaratnam: You are fighting Soekarno!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The P.A.P. today, of course, is in a great hurry to rush through this Budget because it knows that there are a lot of skeletons in the cupboard that will be disclosed and it does not like and does not wish the people to see all of them. [Interruption] You can see, from the way the Minister for Finance yawns in this Chamber, the disrespect he pays to this august Assembly. But, of course, that is nothing unusual. The manners of the Minister for Finance have been adequately expressed in the letters that he sent to you, Sir,I do not think I need add anything to that. From a normal adjournment period of at least seven clear days, the P.A.P. now wants to telescope this period into one of only two days, because, if we leave out Sunday, it means only Saturday and Monday. As has already been pointed out by the Member for Cairnhill, this is unprecedented not only in the history of Singapore but also in the history of all the parliamentary institutions in the whole world. And, of course, it is only with the P.A.P. that we can get such unprecedented practice. But I will enlarge on this later. Actually, according to the suggestion put forward by you. Mr Speaker, there should have been a debate on the 17th after the Budget Statement by the Finance Minister. Now the Finance Minister wants to make it the 11th. The hours too have been similarly rushed. From the normal hours it has been extended to 12.00 midnight. That will, of course, give no facilities and time to the Opposition to carefully study and prepare for the work of the morrow. This telescoping of the Budget debate, which took 10 days in 1961, into just three days further adds to the difficulties of the Opposition in giving an effective and detailed study of the Budget in order to expose all the things which the P.A.P. hopes to hide and cover.

Let us see what the hurry is. According to the P.A.P., it is because it wants to keep a time-table, and according to what the Minister for Finance has said, many things have happened and many vital issues have cropped up. For what? In order that the P.A.P. may hand Singapore over to the Federation lock, stock and barrel, on time, ignoring completely the wishes of the people and not giving them any chance whatsoever to have a debate even on the Budget, something which concerns every person in Singapore? Why should this time-table be the end of June? The Minister for Finance talks of the 31st of August. Does he not know what is happening now as a result of the Tokyo talks? Does he not know that the Manila talks mean no 31st of August? Does he not know that?

An hon. Member: No.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: The whole world is talking of the postponement of Malaysia. However much the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation may insist on the 31st of August, it looks as if circumstances will force them to agree to a postponement, and the British themselves will similarly be forced to agree because it affects their interests too. They would rather cut their losses by postponing Malaysia. And where does the P.A.P. come in? The P.A.P. hopes to go through this so-called time-table in order to have a chance to take an extra trip to London. It has been using the money of the taxpayers for a long time, going on trips here and there! It knows that after a certain date it will not even have a chance to go to the Federation with the taxpayers' money. I do not have to refer very much, Sir, to the correspondence between you and the Minister for Finance. I think the Member for Cairnhill has already dealt with it adequately. But I wish to say this, Sir,I wish to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for not having knuckled down to the arrogance of the P.A.P. If you had been -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am getting a bit anxious about the Speaker being dragged into this debate a bit too much. I cannot prevent hon. Members from mentioning the correspondence between me and the Minister for Finance. But I would not like epithets to be thrown around and a debate entered into on my ruling.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: There was no such intention, Sir. But this correspondence serves to throw new light on the affairs of the State of Singapore. It is very rarely that you see a civil servant daring to answer back, so to speak, a Minister of the P.A.P.

The Minister for Finance talks of "crucial difficulties" and how the P.A.P. will have to iron out these difficulties in order to keep to its time-table in June. Why should the P.A.P. now try to give the impression that it is trying to serve the interests of the people of Singapore? In hoping to win the support of the people of Singapore, it now wants to play tough, and to give the appearance that it has the interests of the people at heart. But what is the use of talking of finance alone when the whole thing has been handed over to the Federation? You are talking of scratching your toes and feet when your head is already in the noose. If you want to get rid of these difficulties, the only way is to get rid of the White Paper. You will then he really going to the root of the problem and dealing with the essence of the matter. Once political control has been handed over to the Federation, all talk of financial control is mere humbug. And in spite of the Prime Minister's assurance on financial control, the Minister for Finance has already indicated that he does not want to fight for financial control and according to -

Mr Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member not going into too much detail? We do not want a debate on these financial talks yet. The debate will arise on the motion filed by the Member for Cairnhill, that is, item 20.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I merely touch on it in passing, Sir,In fact, when it comes to that motion, I will have a lot to say. Now I just want to say that all this talk about control is nonsense, because the Minister himself has already said, "What is the difference of a couple of millions between friends?" All this is a play staged for the purpose of trying to gain popular support. I do not wish to touch on a couple of points which the Member for Cairnhill has already dealt with, namely, that it is not necessary that the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister be present when we discuss the Budget Statement or debate the Budget in detail because - on a previous occasion I did mention this - the whole Government does not depend on one or two Ministers. And you yourself, Sir, have pointed out that there is collective responsibility of the Cabinet in the Government. Of course, Sir, I must also remind the Ministers opposite that we have had no sitting from the middle of July last year, except for a few-hour affair on the 5th of September, until the end of March this year, and for the P.A.P. to insist on guillotining our debate only shows what it really thinks of the Legislative Assembly. We said at that time when the Assembly was recalled that this was due to public pressure. But, of course, the Prime Minister countered and said that it was not so. It was partly due to the insistence of the Member for Cairnhill. And mainly because the Government had to endorse the constitutional agreement between Singapore and the Federation.

Sir, this proves one very important point, that the P.A.P. considers the role of the Legislative Assembly to be nothing hut a tool of the P.A.P. The Assembly is merely to serve the P.A.P. to pass and endorse motions which the P.A.P. wants to pass and nothing else. If the P.A.P. considers it not necessary to pass any law, any regulation or any motion, then the Assembly need not even he recalled. This alone proves that the P.A.P. has never really intended to practise parliamentary democracy in Singapore. In fact, in this way, the P.A.P. is doing its very best to ensure that the people of Singapore are not given the opportunities and facilities for constitutional struggle and practise parliamentary democracy. You will remember, Sir, that debate of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech was guillotined to a mere one and a half days. Our motions on the February 2nd arrests and the inhuman and barbaric treatment of political detainees were not given a chance of a full and public debate. At that time, the Prime Minister said that because he had to go to the Federation for important financial talks and that, because of the importance of those financial talks, therefore, the Assembly debate had to be cut short. But unfortunately for the Prime Minister, following the quarrel with the M.C.A., Mr Tan Siew Sin, the Finance Minister of the Federation, revealed that the Prime Minister merely went up to play golf. He had never attended any of the financial talks. Sir, this is a very important point because it means that the Prime Minister was not telling the truth. May I remind you, Sir, of this morning's newspapers? There you will see that the British Minister for War said he did not tell the truth in Parliament; and consequent on that, the comment of all the newspapers in London is that lying in the House "hits at the roots of government" and that it "reduces the public trust in Parliament". Of course, with the P.A.P. in power, with its disregard of Standing Orders and its Fascist way of going about things, there is already no trust in the Assembly. The only question I want to raise is this. Will the Prime Minister similarly have the courage to resign as the Minister for War in England has done?

Mr Speaker: Order. Is all this relevant to the motion before us? Let us come back to the motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): No more ghost writers.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is very relevant because we want the Ministers to speak the truth -

Mr Speaker: Yes, that is very desirable, but is that relevant to the Business Motion which we are debating?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It is relevant this way, Sir. That they are giving excuses again, and who is going to believe anything they say? They can say it is because of this or that. But who can ever say that he will believe the P.A.P. Ministers for what they say in this House? If the Prime Minister cannot tell the truth in this House, what can you expect from his minions? I think I might add here, Sir, that theirs is hardly a practice of parliamentary democracy. You will remember, Sir, that in the Executive Committee of the C.P.A., we, the main Opposition Party, have been denied a chance -

Mr Speaker: Order. I have always insisted that as far as the C.P.A. is concerned, it must be above politics and elections are on that basis. Although the results might prove otherwise, there can be no criticism of what the C.P.A. does on a political platform.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I will leave that then, Sir. But what are the real reasons for this motion? The Member for Cairnhill has already mentioned the whole idea of this guillotine. Telescoping of time-tables is meant to deny us in the Opposition sufficient time to deal adequately and effectively with all the points we wish to raise in the Budget. It denies us adequate time for detailed study of the Budget. Thus they hope to prevent the Opposition from further exposing the P.A.P. But in spite of all that they may do, we shall unravel and expose to the public gaze of the people of Singapore what the P.A.P. has been trying to hide from them. Budget time is Opposition time, as has been explained by the Member for Cairnhill, but the P.A.P. wants to make it Government time. It wants to give us the minimum time possible and in so doing makes a mockery of all the tenets of parliamentary democracy that we have in Singapore. There is a moral, a lesson in what has happened today, Sir, and that is, in Singapore at the present moment, there is no such thing as the rule of law. The P.A.P., in fact, is the law. As I have mentioned in the television forum, the P.A.P. is the court, is the law, is everything. Because of the arrogance -

Dr Goh Keng Swee: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Since we have not come to the Estimates and we are not discussing the provision for the Television service, perhaps the Member is anticipating future discussions. This is a motion which has nothing to do with television.

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Queenstown is just mentioning that in passing to illustrate his point, but I hope he does not go into details. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: No, Sir, I have no intention of so doing. I only wanted the House to draw a moral, a lesson, from this. The P.A.P. is always arrogant and undemocratic and always resorts to the most undemocratic methods in all that it does. The law, as it stands in Singapore, today serves only the P.A.P. If according to the Minister for Finance, it becomes an encumbrance or a hindrance, then, of course, the law goes. And the will of the P.A.P. must be imposed regardless of all the rulings and the reasonable and legitimate opposition of other people. The P.A.P., of course, thinks only of P.A.P. interests, personal and sectional interests of the P.A.P., and not of the interests of the people. This is Fascism in the raw and I would like to remind the P.A.P. Ministers that merely legalising some undemocratic act does not make that act democratic. And even if it should legally push through this motion and guillotine our debate, that does not make the motion democratic in any way. It is still Fascism and I would ask the P.A.P., before it completely gets out of the political stage in Singapore, not to further sully the good name of this House by insisting on such undemocratic ways.

4.27 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is easiest to dispose of the points brought up by the Member for Queenstown, because, for the most part, what he had to say has nothing to do with the motion before the House but reads something like the ramblings heard from the psychoanalyst's couch. I quite understand his predicament, because not having any more the experienced and intelligent ghost writers, he just had to have a rehash of the collected works of the Member for Queenstown which have been accumulating in this Assembly for the last two years.

The point is a simple one, Sir. As the Minister for Finance has indicated, we have to finish this business of the Budget within a specific time, because, through no fault of our own, the negotiations have been protracted, and it is necessary for the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister to be in Kuala Lumpur to finalise the merger talks. We did not set the dates. Negotiations went on, we could not reach agreement, and it is essential that the Minister for Finance indicate that the talks should be concluded in time for the necessary instruments to be signed in London by the end of this month. I can quite understand the Member for Queenstown relishing the prospect of something happening to delay the talks in London, because the Barisan Sosialis attitude towards these talks, towards Malaysia, is now dependent on salvation from outside. They always say yes, the international situation is going to ensure that Malaysia and merger will not come about as prescribed on 31st August. So if anything can happen in this Assembly to make that possible, to postpone or delay the signing of the terms, the federation and the signing of the instruments in London, he would be only too happy. He hopes some extraneous intervention or accident would help to postpone our reaching a settlement on the basis of the White Paper and getting Malaysia through by 31st August.

As for the Member for Cairnhill, it is quite obvious, Sir, what has been happening during the past few weeks and I was not at all surprised that he has begun his election campaign. The whole of his speech was not bent on answering the legitimate points which were brought up by the Minister for Finance. He was saying, "Dictatorial P.A.P.!" Apparently there is a funeral parlour in Cairnhill because he is talking of burying the P.A.P., and generally spreading euphoria among his own followers. Incidentally, they are a little bit despondent themselves, because, as far as I can gather, though the Grand Alliance has been formed, the Member for Cairnhill has not been able to get any entree and therefore he has decided in this Assembly to espouse the cause of certain gentlemen in the Federation who have other reasons for wanting to change the White Paper. Therefore, the plea of the Member for Cairnhill is that this Government has no moral right either to conclude talks with the Federation Government or to go to London, because he feels that he would like, in some way, to be associated with what he knows is inevitable; but he and his now united front colleague, the Member for Queenstown, have for different reasons an interest in these talks which are essential for the future security of the people of Singapore and the Federation of Malaysia. These talks are far more important and essential for the safety and welfare of Singapore, and therefore they have to get priority over any other thing. That has been the basis on which we have worked during the past two years, and because the time-table and schedule is not determined by us, we have therefore put forward a reasonable proposition. Since we have to carry on with these talks, we therefore bring forward this motion which extends the sittings up to midnight. It is true it inconveniences the Opposition but it gives them about the same length of time to discuss the Budget as they would have if they had the other proposal of extending the period by a couple of days, which would however postpone the more urgent talks over the White Paper, which the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister will have to carry out with the Federation authorities and officials if we are to meet the London date-line.

Sir, I can assure them, therefore, that though the Member for Cairnhill now echoes another gentleman outside the shores of Singapore and suggests that all this is because the Prime Minister dare not confront him, obviously the "Superman from Cairnhill", the "Tarzan from Cairnhill", suddenly from being "Mickey Mouse", thinks he has now become "Superman" -

An hon. Member: Mighty Mouse!

Mr Rajaratnam: - and therefore Ministers are afraid to confront him. I can assure him that if the Prime Minister's sore throat - and that is the real reason for his absence - has been cleared by then, there will be not only confrontation with the Member for Cairnhill but also it is more likely that the Member for Cairnhill would wish that he had not made the rather silly challenges he made here. I can assure him that the Prime Minister will be here to deal with the rather interesting motion which is here in his name. I do not wish to anticipate that debate, but I would suggest to the Member for Cairnhill that there is nothing undemocratic in asking the Opposition Members to debate until 12 midnight rather than in closing the debate at 8 p.m. and resuming it the next day.

The Member for Queenstown was also complaining that this was not democracy. The last Assembly sitting finished on a rather melodramatic note when the Member for Queenstown talked for something like twelve hours. Sir, where in the world is an Opposition Member allowed to woolgather in the Assembly for twelve hours? Yet the Members showed such great patience that, not wishing to disturb him in his flow of words, they kindly went outside the Chamber and slept it off. I say, Sir, there is considerable democracy here. Democracy means allowing anybody to say what he likes for as long as he likes. There is nothing undemocratic in this motion, though I would concede that it is inconvenient. I say, however, that that inconvenience is small compared to the more vital task before this Government of seeing that the White Paper terms are speedily concluded and that the necessary agreement is reached in time for the talks in London.

I note that the Member for Queens-town and the Member for Cairnhill have announced a new united front on the basis that if they do not hang together they are going to hang separately. So the Member for Cairnhill has called for a united front of the Opposition, much to the amusement and the consternation of the Member for Queenstown. Let me ask the Member for Cairnhill what would he say to this - we can go on debating the Budget for as long as he likes, but that would mean unnecessary delay in reaching agreement on the talks over the White Paper. Contrary to what the Member for Cairnhill has indicated, that we are somehow protracting the talks, it will he made clear, when the facts, figures and documents are produced and when we debate his own motion, where the delay is and who is responsible for it; whether they are his friends on whose behalf he speaks here today, or whether the delay is on our side. Let me assure the House, but not the Barisan Sosialis, of this, because they want to see how they can stop merger and Malaysia. If they can do something here to delay that, they will be only too happy to summon their friends outside this country who have tried very hard to postpone Malaysia. But even they have now to concede that although they still oppose Malaysia, we are not going to halt Malaysia. That is a very depressing outlook for the Barisan Sosialis. We say to the Opposition Members that though we regret, and we admit that, we have inconvenienced them by adopting this procedure, it is not because we want to or are afraid to discuss for one or two more days, but because the time-table is such that we have no choice but to proceed as indicated in the motion of the Minister for Finance. I beg therefore to support the motion.

4.40 p.m.

Mr Bani: Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of the motion which the Minister has moved is that, firstly, it will shorten the time for the study of the Budget. Secondly, it will shorten the time for the debate on the Estimates, and, thirdly, Sir, but not in the least, it will lessen adverse publicity for the Government.

Sir, so far the reasons advanced for shortening the debate on the Estimates is that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance will have to go to the financial talks and that the timing of the London talks is such that a shorter sitting of the Assembly is required.

Sir, first of all, I would like to say that these are reasons advanced merely to provide a cover, in the same fashion as various reasons have been provided for all their undemocratic and dictatorial acts. I wonder whether the Government Members realise the implications of what they say. If they are saying that because the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister have to be away, they are not able to sustain the debate on the Estimates: they are, in fact, saying that insofar as the Government is concerned, there are only two men Who are capable of sustaining the debate. Surely the Minister for Finance is not suggesting that all the other Ministers, the Parliamentary Secretaries and the hack-benchers of the P.A.P. are incompetent nincompoops! They are not suggesting that there are only two men who have to carry the burden of the Government, who have to be present here to transact Government business and that all the others are "passengers", incompetent and incapable of looking after Government affairs.

Sir, that is the simple implication of a motion of this nature. We do not believe the Government was not aware of the timing of the talks. This is yet another example of P.A.P. dishonesty. As the Member for Cairnhill has pointed out, the Government had ample opportunity to present these Estimates long before now, but they waited for no reason at all. The Estimates are being presented at this moment, according to them, two months before Malaysia; and on the pretext of hurry, urgency, they want to deny the Opposition their rightful time for a proper debate.

Sir, we oppose this motion because we know that this is yet another example of the manner in which the P.A.P. Members have been conducting themselves in the Assembly. This is just another example of the conduct of a Government which claims to defend the democratic system. If it were an exception, it would be a different matter. I am sure everybody in Singapore and every Member in this House knows that this is not the first time the Government has attempted to curb debates by introducing motions of this nature. The speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara was a good example. The debates on the Address normally lasts about a week; we had only about a day. The motion moved by the Member for Queenstown on the arrests carried out in February was forced to be debated within a short time and at a time when the publicity which had been adverse to the Government was at a minimum. There are many other examples, Sir, which we have witnessed from time to time; and far from being an exception, it has become the rule of the day for the P.A.P. They hope that by virtue of the small majority and the strength that they have in this Assembly, they could from time to time move guillotine motions - motions that will mean the Opposition has less time or no time at all to bring out the dirt of the Government, that will prevent exposures being made.

Sir, I am sure we all remember how eloquently the Prime Minister has talked about confrontation. One of his favourite acclamations is that the Government fear no open debate. I suggest that the reason why today they are trying to prevent the Opposition from sufficiently exposing them in the debate on the Estimates is that they fear open debates. Only recently there was a very good example of the P.A.P.'s courage to meet us in open debate. They turned down an invitation by the Nanyang University Social Science Society for a forum. All the P.A.P. representatives were not there. Open confrontation! They only dare have it perhaps within the confines of Radio Singapore. Even there, Sir, they do not suggest as many forums as they did once. They have turned down an invitation by the University of Malaya Socialist Club for a forum.

Sir, these are some of the recent examples. There have been examples of banning of rallies, because they fear that we will inform the people of things and acts of this Government which will be adverse to their political interest.

They have the newspapers gagged. Men who claim to welcome open debate have the newspapers gagged and have got them to play down Opposition views which are adverse to the P.A.P. interest, and play up Government views.

Sir, I suggest that the attempt which is being made now in this Assembly is in the same way motivated by fear of the Government of open debate. Sir, to them, open confrontation means, tie the giant down in chains and then they come in as heroes. We tell them to have the basic courage necessary for a man. Play the game according to the rules. If we are given the same rights and privileges that they give themselves, in no time people like the Minister for Culture will have to go back to his rubber estate somewhere in Seremban. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will have to go back to his stock-broker company business, and the Minister for Education to his insurance company business. There will be no P.A.P. then, and perhaps the Prime Minister will be at number 10-B Malacca Street.

An hon. Member: No. 10 Downing Street!

Mr Bani: No. 10-B Malacca Street, not Downing Street.

Sir, we are not given these basic rights because they know that if we are given these rights which are fundamental to us - rights and privileges which they use for themselves - their political life will be much shorter than it appears to be now.

This motion before the House, however, takes the cake! It is unprecedented for any government to deny Opposition time to debate the Estimates. The Member for Queenstown has said there are many skeletons in the cupboard, and that is why they fear. We are told that the sittings will be up to midnight and that therefore the total time will be the same. Sir, if the intention of the Government is to give the same length of time in number of hours as we would have if we followed the normal course, why does the Government not suggest sitting in the morning instead of sitting after 8 p.m.? They do not suggest - I am not suggesting they do this - sitting, say, from 8 in the morning up to 4 in the afternoon. Why do they not suggest this? There is a very good reason why they suggest that we sit from 8 p.m. up to midnight. One reason is that they want to give the impression that they are fair - they want to make up for the time: they want to give the public the impression that they are not dictatorial, that they do not want to deny the Opposition of their time. That is one of the reasons why they try to extend the time from 8 p.m. to midnight, but particularly from 8 p.m. to midnight because the Press will not publish many of the things that are said after 8 p.m. in this House.

Sir, as I have said earlier, the Government fear publicity which is adverse to them, and though they have the Press gagged, it is inevitable for the Press to carry or give the Opposition at least more coverage than they give for the normal times of a sitting.

Sir, we firmly reject this motion, for acceptance would simply mean making a farce of parliamentary practice.

We must say that any attempt by the Government to deny us sufficient time for a study of the Estimates and preparation for a proper debate of the Estimates will be rejected by us. If the Government have no confidence, if the absence of two Members will mean that they cannot sustain the debate, then the logical thing for them to do is to quit office. We are satisfied that if the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance want to go on further golfing trips, it is their business. We are further satisfied that there are sufficient Members on the Government side who should be able to manage the affairs of the Government in their absence.

I wish to end by saying this: if the P.A.P. had one achievement since 1959, it is to have thoroughly discredited the democratic system in Singapore.

Dr Goh Keng Swee rose ---

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: No, Sir. In reply.

Mr Speaker: I cannot allow that. I see that the Member for Tanglin wishes to speak. But I might remind hon. Members that we have a heavy Order Paper and they should try to keep their speeches as short as possible.

I propose to take the tea-break now. I will take this Chair again at half-past five. Order, order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.58 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have often heard the Party in power claim itself to be the champion of democratic socialism, the champion of parliamentary democracy.

Sir, this is the occasion when the Government can prove themselves to be champions of parliamentary democracy by observing democratic parliamentary procedure which seems to he a handicap to them.

Sir, in a parliamentary democracy, the rules and practices are meant to ensure fair play to both the Government and the Opposition. Very often, the rules are in favour of the Government since virtually they are in the majority, but at times the rules are meant to protect the Opposition. In the case of Budget time, the Standing Orders are laid down so that the Opposition may have adequate time to study the Budget statement and the Budget Estimates and he able to do justice to the debate.

Unfortunately, Sir, we have seen the tendency of the Party in power to honour democracy with their lips but not with deeds, and, in this particular instance, because the observance of parliamentary procedure would mean some inconvenience to the leaders, they have decided to put party interests before the interests of parliamentary democracy and they are trying to cut down on the rights of the Opposition.

Sir, in previous years, the P.A.P. tried to stifle the Opposition by smears, ridicule and the use of intimidatory language. Today, they seek to reduce the rights of the Opposition by this motion before the House. It seems to me that they are still applying the principle that as they can inflict arbitrary pay cuts on their own workers, they can therefore inflict arbitrary cuts in the time of the opposition in spite of the protection accorded us by the Standing Orders.

Sir, where are the safeguards in future if this intolerant attitude is unopposed? If the rights of a parliamentary Opposition can be reduced or ignored at will by the Party in power for its own convenience, the same thing can happen to the rights of the people. There will then be no assurance of fair play and justice because the ruling Party will then be a law unto themselves. They can rise above certain laws meant to protect the rights of other people. Of course, the Government side will say that by extending the time to midnight each day they have thereby provided sufficient time for debate. Actually, this makes matters worse from the Opposition point of view, because we know very well that the daily papers can only print so much about what happens in this house per day, and that the speeches of the Ministers must be given full play. In three days' time, more Ministers will speak with less space available, and, therefore, the speeches of Opposition Members will be either pushed out for lack of space or just a few paragraphs or a few lines are reported. So this arrangement proposed by the Minister for Finance will work badly for the Opposition.

Sir, we know very well that the Ministry of Culture with all their experts have been able to work out a strategy in the use of their radio and television, so that it becomes a fine art to them as to how best to put forward the image of the P.A.P. to the people through speeches made regularly at official functions. Here again, it seems as if this is a way by which the Government side is trying to bolster themselves up at the expense of the Opposition.

Sir, the Minister for Culture has, through experience, developed a skill in twisting the statements of Opposition Members. This time, he has managed to twist the opposition to this motion as a united front against Malaysia. I think that is totally wrong.

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of elucidation, Sir,I never said that it was a united front against Malaysia but that it was a united front of the Opposition.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad he has clarified that part because the indirect inference was that we have now become united in an unholy alliance.

When it comes to the preservation of the freedom of the rights of the people and the rights of the Opposition, naturally the Opposition Members, regardless of party affiliations, must be united, otherwise there will be no Opposition at all in the future. We on this side of the House want a responsible Opposition regardless of whichever Party is in power, and it seems to me that if the Minister for Finance was really interested in preserving the rights of the Opposition, he would have consulted the Opposition leaders and presented his case, so that if there was really no way out, I am sure the Opposition leaders would have been only too glad to accommodate him. But this is another instance of the Party in power, by virtue of its majority, trying to ride roughshod over the Opposition, and in this case of depriving the right of the Opposition to more time in debating the Budget and Estimates.

Therefore, I regret to say that I have to oppose the Government on this motion.

5.40 p.m.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in opposing the motion by the Minister for Finance I feel that I have to add some points.

The Government will not allow us sufficient time to have a debate on the Budget by resorting to very mean tactics.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the letter dated 24th May written by the Minister for Finance to you, we can see that he has suggested to hold a Legislative Assembly sitting on 29th May to discuss questions relating to the Budget. When the Minister for Finance wrote to you, could he not have expected the type of reply he would get from you? Could the Government not have known in advance the provisions of the Standing Orders? I believe that when the Minister for Finance wrote to you he already guessed what your reply would be. Therefore, the whole motive of the Government's letter to you is to create an impression that the Government intends to give sufficient time to the Opposition to debate the Budget and that it intends to hold the sittings earlier, but that, very unfortunately, the Speaker refuses to allow the Government to do so according to the Standing Orders, so that no blame will be attached to the Government. I am of the opinion that the Government is playing a political game which is rather mean. This incident is not the first one. It is a second incident, because in February this year when the Opposition Members requested an emergency sitting of this Assembly, the Leader of the Party in power, knowing very well that the Assembly was in recess, did not want to say that he would not like to convene a special sitting but he wrote a letter to you requesting for a special sitting of the Assembly so that you had to refuse the convening of a special sitting according to the Standing Orders. Therefore, this action of the Government in February was also intended to create an impression that the Government was not to be blamed for not having convened a special sitting. I feel that this kind of mean tactics by the Party in power in a parliamentary democracy should be condemned by this House.

It is not a small matter. It is not a very easy matter to discuss financial business and the Budget because the Budget provides for every item of Government expenditure in a whole year. So it is not a trifle. If the Government want to show up the merits of parliamentary democracy, then they should give the Opposition sufficient time to prepare for and debate this very important business of the Budget.

A little while ago, the Minister for Culture said that we oppose the present motion because we want to delay merger. He was not correct in saying that. We Members of the Opposition oppose the motion because we want to protect and safeguard our legitimate rights. If the motion by the Minister for Finance has not infringed upon the rights of the Opposition, then we in the Opposition will not have reason to condemn the motion irrespective of our Party affiliations.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry to say that this Legislative Assembly of Singapore has now been reduced to nothing; it is merely a rubber stamp of the P.A.P. Government. When it suits their purpose, it is convened at their pleasure.

Sir, were it not for the fact that this Government requires this Assembly by this month to supply them with the funds to carry on the government, and at other occasions to pass laws in order to carry out their administration or to repress the Opposition, I am afraid this Assembly might not even be convened once a year as provided for under the Constitution.

Sir, we have now very little left of parliamentary democracy, and what has happened here is a living mockery of the P.A.P. Government and its contempt for the parliamentary system. During the past two years, we have noticed that whenever sittings are held, the P.A.P. Government has used every means at its disposal, every contrivance it can think of, to suppress and reduce the time for the Opposition: for instance, the introduction of the 12 midnight guillotine motion at almost every sitting and all sorts of tactics which it can think of, so that the Opposition will have as little time as possible to ventilate the views of the people they represent.

Sir, we all know that every speech we make after 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. finds little space in the following morning's paper. This does not mean that speeches made before 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. find a fair representation in the papers. [Interruption] The main purpose of this 12 o'clock midnight guillotine is that it provides the Minister for Culture with a good reason to direct the Press not to give space to speeches made after 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. This has happened especially during the past one year, and that is why during the past one year we have always seen the Government moving motions to have all-night sittings and debates lasting to 12 midnight. It does not mean that we cannot stand all-night debates or sittings lasting to 12 midnight. I think we are quite experienced in these matters. [Interruption] I think we are physically stronger than the Ministers present in this building. But we know that the whole purpose of this exercise is to stifle parliamentary democracy and to repress the views of the Opposition. That is why today the Opposition are all united against this move.

Sir, why is the Government so scared? Why is it so afraid of giving a fairer and adequate period to the Opposition to express their views? What has it got to hide? What has it been guilty of? Why is it so scared of us?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Nobody is scared.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Rumours are going round the town that the Minister is shivering on account of the Member for Hong Lim and that he intended to put him away under the P.P.S.O. last time in the I.S.C. but he could not get it through. [Laughter].

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us not embark on what may be called fairy tales. Let us go back to the motion. I did suggest that speeches should be short. We have a heavy Order Paper before us.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Sir, we know that since December 1960, the Government has tried to find ways and means to reduce this Assembly, this forum - the only place left in Singapore where there is a little bit of free speech which at present they are even trying to stifle

• to nothing but a rubber stamp to suit the Government's convenience. Sir, is there any Parliament in the world where the institution of Parliament is so much held in contempt by the party in power? Even the Speaker, the guardian of this august Assembly, is now being intimidated and insulted!

Mr Speaker: Order. I did try to ask Members to keep the Speaker out of this debate, because I do not think it is correct to allege with such certainty that there has been intimidation or insult.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Sir, I am not suggesting that the P.A.P. Ministers are so inexperienced to directly and openly intimidate the guardian of this Chamber, but they are more capable of indirect suggestions.

Now, this motion moved by the Minister for Finance which consists of one, two, three, four, five parts:-

`That this Assembly resolves -

that notwithstanding the Standing Orders.'.

You can see that this Government does not pay respect to the Standing Orders. You will remember the last time when they also tried to violate the Standing Orders by moving a suspension motion against an Assemblyman, and today we also have another example of an attempt to waive the Standing Orders. Why not repeal the Standing Orders? Let us have no Standing Orders and the Government can just run this Assembly by a majority vote!

Sir, this Assembly is reduced to just a farce, to a mockery of parliamentary democracy. Today's motion by the Minister for Finance is to curb the Opposition's time on the debate on the Budget and the Estimates. It has been recognised in parliamentary democracy that Budget time is Opposition time. Today's instance shows how desperate these men are. They will make any attempt, no matter how low it is, to repress and suppress the Opposition.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Keep on talking.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I will not be long. These moves to give as little time and opportunity as possible to the Opposition to express the views of the people are additional weapons in the P.A.P.'s armoury, like the P.P.S.O. and section 55 which are meant to repress the Opposition.

Sir, the excuse given by the Government that it is because of the Malaysia talks is, I think, another excuse. The people do not believe in the Government any more. They had so many months to introduce this 1963 Budget. They could have introduced it in September, October, November, or December last year. We have had no meetings for many months. What has happened is that, as far as I know, for the first time in the history of Parliament, a Government has spent money in advance for six months and then come to this Assembly begging and saying, "Come on, do not talk so much. Just speak for three days and forget about it. Let us have the money."

5.59 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with regret that I cannot see eye to eye with the Minister for Finance on this motion. In any Session, in a parliamentary democracy, the two most important events are the speech of the Head of State and the Budget debate. The first one - the speech of Head of State - sets out the policy of the State for the ensuing year; and the Budget - the financial statement by the Minister for Finance - sets out the financial arrangements whereby the policy of the Government can be implemented.

Sir, under the Standing Orders, it is incumbent on the Government to see that the Assembly does not debate the speech of the Head of State until seven clear days have passed. Similarly with that of the financial statement by the Finance Minister, the Standing Orders impose an obligation on the part of the Government, and therefore a corresponding right to the Opposition, to see that no debate ensues on the financial statement until a lapse of seven clear days. Mr Speaker, it is for some definite specific reason that time is given to Members of the Opposition so that they might study these two important statements, one by the Head of State and the other by the Finance Minister, for seven clear days and consult among Party members and come prepared to debate those two statements in an intelligent and constructive manner that will help not only the Government, but possibly the country at large; so that what the Finance Minister is asking the Opposition to do in his motion is to give up its right in this matter. There are occasions when it is right for the Government to ask the Opposition to give up certain of its rights. But when such a request is made. I think it is only proper courtesy and fair play that the Finance Minister should give adequate reasons for so asking.

Sir, the time given in this matter is not so much a question of the Opposition trying to get the better of the Government. We are being given sufficient time under the Standing Orders, which is the sum total of human experience in parliamentary democracy, because to debate a financial statement, which is the most important thing in the financial life of a country, one has to have time to study it, think about it and then debate it.

What does the Finance Minister ask us to do in this motion? He is going to deliver his statement today, apparently, and we have to come back on Tuesday and debate it intelligently, I hope, and thereafter to debate the Budget Estimates on three successive days, and on each day sitting up to 12 o'clock midnight. No doubt, the time asked for equates to the time given under the Standing Orders. The Minister made great play about that and said, "Well, what are you complaining about? You have got the time allotted under the Standing Orders by our giving you three sittings and extending the time on each day." But he did not explain away the erosion into the seven-day period of time which is given to Members of the Opposition to study the statement of the Finance Minister. That has not been accounted for at all.

Sir, what are the reasons the Finance Minister has given in asking the House to approve this motion of his? Frankly, Sir, I was disappointed with his speech, which is very curt, and, if I might say so, Sir, somewhat arrogant and not courteous to the House at all, particularly to the Opposition. He is asking the Opposition to agree with him on a motion which is abridging the rights of the Opposition on a matter such as this, and he does not even have the courtesy to give good coherent reasons as to why he wants it. All that I understood him to say was, "I the Finance Minister want it this way; therefore, you agree to it. Otherwise you have had it." Mr Speaker, Sir, that is no way to treat the Opposition in this matter. His colleague, the Minister for Culture, tried to come to his assistance and did try to give some reasons as to why the Opposition should agree with this motion.

Apparently the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have got to go to the Federation for important discussions with the Federation Government, and after that, it would appear that both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have got to go to London and conduct talks there and conclude an agreement, all of which should happen, so it seems, before the 30th of June.

Mr Speaker, Sir, why cannot the Minister for Finance, having delivered his Budget statement today, go off with the Prime Minister to the Federation and come back eight days later and deal with the Estimates? There is nothing to prevent him from doing this; absolutely nothing. No doubt he has certain Bills. Under the Orders of the Day he has a number of Bills which he is going to move. He is going to take the Second and Third Readings of the Singapore Society of Accountants Bill standing in his name. He is also moving the Second and Third Readings of the Rubber Estates Assessment (Amendment) Bill. He is also going to take - or is he going to take, or is his deputy going to take - the Financial Procedure (Amendment) Bill (Minister for Finance) - Second Reading. Then again, the Local Government Integration Bill, Second Reading: the Planning (Amendment) Bill (Minister for Finance) - Second Reading. The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill (Minister for Finance) - Second Reading.

Now, is he going to take all these Bills in this House, or is his Parliamentary Secretary going to take them? I dare say his Parliamentary Secretary could have taken these Bills and, as his Parliamentary Secretary has done on other occasions, the Minister could have gone off to the Federation, concluded his business there and, as far as we can see from statements in the Press by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance from time to time, everything is going on swimmingly. All it needs now are a couple of meetings. That is all we hear from the Press. A couple of meetings and everything will be all right. In a couple of meetings everything will be tied up. Correct. In seven days they can hold more than a couple of meetings. And the Minister for Finance can come back fortified that he has reached financial arrangements with the Federation and face the Opposition calmly, coolly and collectedly. Instead of which he takes the other course.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not agree. I think the truth of the matter is that the Minister has made up his mind that this is what he wants and this is what he thinks he is going to get. I dare say he will push it through, but he will push it through against a joint Opposition stand.

There was another excuse on which the Minister for Finance sought to exculpate himself. He said that he had tried to get an earlier sitting, and that he had failed because an earlier sitting was not allowed on the grounds which he had suggested it could be called. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled on it and I accept your ruling. Might I ask the Minister for Finance, when he does reply to his motion, why is it that his Budget could not have been presented much earlier? There is absolutely no reason that I can find today why this Budget could not have been presented in December 1962. We gave the Government a Vote on Account for the year 1963. The reason given to the Opposition was that officials were going to be so busy on administrative matters connected with integration that it was not possible to spare them. Subsequent events proved that the Finance Minister was unduly pessimistic in his statement to the House.

We on this side of the House feel that this Budget could quite easily have been presented months and months ago. It could easily have been presented without having to ask the House to give a Vote on Account for the first six months of the year.

So far as the Opposition is concerned, we feel that this motion is completely unnecessary, and if the normal time set by the Standing Orders had been followed, the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister could have concluded their business in the places where they had wanted to go to. If they had not been in the House and if there was a suggestion that because of the equality of the number of votes of Government and Opposition, surely pairs could have been arranged for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. That has been done previously. The Prime Minister has paired off today with someone in the Opposition. And if the Opposition had been told that the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister had to be away in the Federation and in England on important State business, surely, Sir, some Members of the Opposition would have paired off with them. To my mind, Sir, this motion is completely unnecessary and all that it is intended to do and will, in fact, do is to stifle discussion on the Budget Estimates.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to dwell at length on the boisterous remarks made by the Member for Cairnhill. Obviously he is under some illusion that the position of his Party is stronger than it actually is, but he has got the time dates all mixed up in attacking the motion. Now, may I get the dates right because this is a matter of some importance? The Member for Cairnhill said that when we asked for a Vote on Account, there was an indication from me that the Budget, when it was delivered, would have contained certain provisions allowing for a division of expenditure and revenue between the State Government and the Federal Government, and he found what he termed an undertaking from me had not been carried out. I think it should be remembered that the Vote on Account was approved by this Assembly on 4th December, 1961, just after the merger terms of the White Paper had been agreed upon and we were by no means certain by what date merger with the Federation could have been achieved. At that moment, 31st August, 1963, was not on the cards. It could well have been a much earlier date, and in that event a completely different form of Estimates would have been presented to the Assembly. But events having taken their course, it is obvious that for the major part of this year Singapore will remain in its present constitutional position and therefore, under these circumstances, it was not possible to allocate revenue and expenditure between the State and Federal Governments, more particularly so as he knows that final agreement has not been reached with the Governments.

Great play has been made by the Members of the Opposition that the present difficulties in the financial talks consist largely of make-believe and play-acting. Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody would be happier than I if in fact these difficulties were not real. I can assure the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Farrer Park that we have run into real difficulties, that representatives of both Governments held genuinely and honestly to their respective stands.

The crux of the matter is this. It is not a question of Government wanting to repress or suppress the Opposition and deny them of their rights at Budget time. If that was the case, how is it that in the debate on this motion the Government speakers between themselves have occupied no more than twenty minutes and the Opposition speakers have had nearly three hours' run of time?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Guilty conscience. That is all.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It has been conceded by the Opposition that there had been no shortening of time. In fact, the total number of hours, under the Budget arrangements, is something like two hours more than the normal arrangement. I readily admit, and I conceded at the beginning, that there would be inconvenience. This inconvenience would have to be borne not only by the Opposition speakers but by the Government benches as well.

The crux of the matter is this. Is this a dodge to deny the Opposition the time and the right to speak and the right to publicity in the newspapers? The real reason is that a real urgency has been brought about by difficulties which we have run into in our financial talks with the Federation Government.

Now, perhaps, if I could give exact dates, I may be able to convince, if not other Members of the Opposition, at least the Member for Farrer Park, whose opinion is esteemed on this side of the House.

The time-table for the next constitutional process over Malaysia is to have an agreed document by the 27th of this month. If we were to continue with the original time-table, the Assembly would complete its deliberations on the Budget on the 23rd of June. Now, is it humanly possible, Mr Speaker, Sir, to clear up all outstanding issues between Singapore and the Federation in two days - the 24th and possibly the 25th? The Member for Farrer Park says that it could be done.

Mr Rajah: You said so. You said two more meetings.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I never said so.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Your Master's Voice said so.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I said nothing of the sort, Mr Speaker, Sir. Well, if he is right, then, all goes well. But supposing he is not right. The date for the initialling of the Treaty is an important one, because there again it is linked to the parliamentary time-table of the British Parliament, taking into account that in August there will be a recess, after which, of course, it is not possible to carry on with the job.

Sir, the Member for Farrer Park says, "Well, why not carry on according to the original time-table? After today's speech, then the Minister for Finance can go off tomorrow, or the day after." Well, there is not a chance, because the Chairman of the Inter-Governmental Committee, Tun Razak, who is now in Manila, will be away for perhaps a week or so. So I do wish to impress on the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the time-table is extremely tight, that vital issues are at stake, and I reject completely the suggestion that this is a dodge to deprive the Opposition of time and publicity. It was recklessly suggested by some Members of the Barisan, and I think possibly the Member for Hong Lim, that there has been in some way a breach of the rules of procedure or a flouting of parliamentary democracy. If this were the case, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that you are the person who is guilty of such breaches, because the time-table that we adopted for quickening this Budget session was at your suggestion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must not let that pass. I think all the Speaker did was to indicate a way out of a difficulty. That is all. There was no suggestion that that way should be taken.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, that is undoubtedly true, but everyone will agree that you would not have recommended a way that is unconstitutional and anti-democratic.

Question put.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 20; Absent, 3; Paired, 4. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Bani, S.T. Omar Junid. Chan Sun Wing. Byrne, K.M. Fung Yin Ching. Chan Chee Seng. Miss. Ayes-continued. Noes-continued. Chan Choy Siong. Koh, C. H. Madam Lee Siew Choh. Chor Yeok Eng. Leong Keng Seng. Goh Chew Chua. Lim Yew Hock. Goh Keng Swee. Lim You Eng. Lee Khoon Choy. Low Por Tuck. Lee Teck Him. Ng Teng Kian. Lim Cheng Lock. Ong Chang Sam. Lingam, S. V. Ong Eng Guan. Mammen, John. Rajah, A. P. Mohd. Ariff bin Seow Peck Leng, Suradi. Mrs M. Ismail Rahim. Sheng Nam Chin. Ong Pang Boon. Tan Cheng Tong. Rajaratnam, S. Tee Kim Leng. Ramaraswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan. Sahorah binte Thio Chan Bee. Ahmat, Madam. Wong Soon Fong. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohammed Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin. Paired Absent. Abdul Hamid bin Ahmad Jabri bin Haji Jumat. Mohammad Akib. Kandasamy, G. Hoe Puay Choo, Lee Kuan Yew. Madam. Mohd. Ali Bin Marshall, David. Alwi.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves -

(1) that notwithstanding the Standing Orders the debate on the motion of the Minister for Finance on the Annual Budget Statement do stand adjourned to Tuesday, 11th of June, 1963;

(2) that notwithstanding the Standing Orders the business of Supply in relation to the 1963 Estimates be continued after 8 p.m, until twelve midnight and that the days allotted for discussion of the Estimates in Committee of Supply be, as a consequence, reduced to three days, that is to say, Wednesday, 12th June. 1963. Thursday, 13th June, 1963, and Friday, 14th June, 1963;

(3) that the proceedings on the business of Supply on the 12th, 13th and 14th of June. 1963, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until twelve midnight on each day:

(4) that notwithstanding the Standing Orders the proceedings on the second and third readings of the Appropriation Bill, 1963, be taken on Saturday, the 15th of June, 1963; and

(5) that the Assembly do sit on Saturday, the 15th of June. 1963.

6.28 p.m.