SINGAPORE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.35 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the extension of time for the revision of the registers of electors for the year 1962.

As the House is aware, under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, the Registration Officer shall in each year complete a revision of the registers of electors on or before the 15th day of September or such later date in that year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette.

However, the revision of the 1962 registers of electors was not completed last year as required by the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance for two main reasons. Firstly, to prevent confusion among the electorate during the year of the national referendum and, secondly, to enable the electors who did not vote at the national referendum to get their names restored in the 1962 registers of electors.

If the national referendum for which the 1961 electoral registers were used had been held during the period of publication of the 1962 List B and the submission of claims and objections and adjudications in connection with the 1962 revision of the registers, there were bound to be doubts and misunderstanding in the minds of a large proportion of electors as to their entitlement to vote or their places of voting at the national referendum.

Again, if the 1962 revised registers were certified and published in 1962, those who failed to vote at the national referendum on September 1st, 1962, would not be able to get their names restored in the 1962 registers of electors, since the preparation and publication of lists of non-voters could only be completed towards the end of January 1963. They would have to wait until the revision of the 1963 registers to get their names restored to the registers.

As the House is now aware, the various procedural steps with regard to the public inspection of Lists A and B, the submissions of claims and objections and the adjudication of claims and objections as well as the publication of the lists of non-voters have already been completed. The certification and publication of the registers of electors for 1962 will be made before 30th June.

Sir, I beg to move.

4.37 p.m.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen) in the Chair]

Question proposed.

Mr Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel unable to support this Bill for reasons which I will now give to the House. The reasons given by the Minister for Home Affairs that the 1962 registers were not able to be completed in time was because of the Referendum and the desire of the Government to see that those who had not voted in the Referendum to have their names inserted in the 1962 registers. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Referendum was held on the 1st September, 1962. Under section 15, subsection (1) , the obligation on the Registration Officer is as follows:

`The Registration Officer shall in each year following the year 1958 complete a revision of the registers on or before the 15th day of September or such later date in that year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette.'

If the Government were sincere in its desire to see that those who had not voted in the Referendum should have their names registered, the procedure should have been such that the defaulting voters would be enabled to get their names on to the 1962 registers. The Minister could quite easily have extended the date after the 15th of September to some time before the 31st December for certification. As far as I can remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, nothing was done for the compilation of the 1962 registers until after the lapse of the year 1962 and sometime in February 1963. That is the factual position. Nothing was done. Nothing was done before December, and the Minister had plenty of time from the 1st of September to the 31st December, 1962. The total time for the compilation of the electoral register required under the Ordinance, I think, is about two to three months. Within two months the certification can take place, having regard to the time limits set by the various sections in the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. I rather think, at least the most charitable construction that one can put on this matter, is that either the Minister forgot about the 1962 registers or his officials, who should have reminded him of it, forgot to remind him of it. That is about the most charitable construction that I can put on this matter, because it is certainly a lapse. A statutory obligation imposed on the Registration Officer has not been complied with. He is in dereliction of his duty and if the Registration Officer does not give a satisfactory explanation to the Minister, I think he should be up for severe disciplinary action.

The Minister now seeks to rectify the position by this Bill, and he has told the House, in the most categorical terms, that the registers will be ready before the 30th June this year. That is, in about fifteen days' time. But Mr Deputy Speaker, you will notice that the provisions of the Bill are these:

`Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance the revision of the registers of electors for the year 1962 shall be completed on or before the 30th day of June, 1963'.

As promised by the Minister in this House. But here again, in case either he forgets or his Registration Officer forgets, he wants to be on the safe side, he puts in a clause "or such later date in the year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette." So what the Minister is now asking the House to do is to give him complete carte blanche so that he can extend the date right up to the 31st December, 1963, and yet be within the provisions of the law.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is one difficulty which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister in charge of this Bill and the Minister for Law. Under this Ordinance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the whole of the registration process must be completed within the year of registration. What the Minister wants to do now, what the Minister is asking the House to do rather, is to extend the time to the 30th June in order to enable the 1962 registers to be completed. I understand that steps have already been taken by the Registration Officer sometime towards the end of February this year to start the compilation of the 1962 registers. To my mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all those steps which he has now taken are ultra vires, null and void, of no legal effect, so that all the claims and objections which have been registered, all the tentative registers which he has put up (Lists A and B) are illegal and have no effect. That is the present position. All that the Minister is asking the House to do is to extend the time for the certification of the registers. The certification of the registers on the steps now taken, to my mind, will be an illegality without the sanction of the law. I do not see how, even if this Assembly passes the Bill in the form in which it is framed, any certification resulting from the steps already taken by the Registration Officer can make these registers valid. That is my view which I put forward to this House. If the Minister carried this Bill through, it could well be that somebody could contest the validity of these registers, and elections held on the 1962 registers might well be null and void and of no effect.

I would ask the Minister whether he has taken the advice of the State Advocate-General on the present position on this specific proposition - that steps already having been taken to compile the registers (which steps are illegal at the moment) and the Bill drafted in the way that it is without further provisions to cover the illegal steps already taken by the Registration Officer, whether this Bill would, in law, enable a proper valid legal register for 1962 to be completed.

The last point I wish to raise is this. The 1963 registers must be compiled. I wonder whether the Registration Officer is doing anything about that. If he is, in fact, going to bring out the 1963 registers before the 15th of September, 1963, he should be taking steps now which, in fact, he has not done. Is the Minister then going to extend the date for the 1963 Registers to beyond the 15th of September? If the Minister is going to keep to the statutory date provided in section 15, then the first steps should have been taken by the Registration Officer by now. But they, in fact, have not been taken.

4.47 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are now only three matters which will stop the people of Singapore from having a new government and which will restore the confidence of this country. They are, firstly, the Elections Office, secondly, the Police, and thirdly, the Ministry of Culture.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member is completely out of order in straying away from the Bill. We are debating the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs, i.e. the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to explain this Bill in greater detail so that the people can better understand this amending Bill. I believe that if there has been no interference by the P.A.P. Government and the civil service is allowed to take its own course, today's amending Bill is not necessary. We could have had the 1962 Registers by 15th September, 1962. Now, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, the Election Officer would be busy not with the 1962 Registers, but the 1963 registers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the 1963 Registers should have been almost ready by now.

All these are tricks of the P.A.P. Government to have a snap election, giving us as short a notice as possible. For instance, in clause 3, what is the necessity of this date "30th day of June, 1963"? We are told that the register "shall be completed on or before the 30th day of June, 1963", in other words, another two weeks. It is a "shall" assurance given by the Government in this amending Bill, but there is an a1ternative "or". The "or" is "or such later date in the year as the Minister may appoint for the purpose by notification published in the Gazette". In other words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government is still not sure; when it changes its mind it can defer the 1962 Registers to, as the Member for Farrer Park has said, the 31st of December, 1962, at 12 midnight. This is another scheme by the P.A.P. Government to hoodwink the people and to try to stage a comeback by dishonest means.

4.49 p.m.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, this amending Bill, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, has raised many queries. It coincides with the manner in which the Government enforces the provisions of the Bill. We have had many reasons given by the Government, one of them being that it cannot be implemented because of this and that. We are prepared to accept the arguments advanced by the Government if it does not mean losing confidence in the present Government.

This is a very important Bill, as it means upholding a democratic government. Let not the Government exploit its tenure of office by indulging in unhealthy practices. As has been pointed out by the Member for Farrer Park, the year 1962 has passed and we are now in the middle of 1963, and we are still faced with problems. It is the duty of 1hz Government to have the registers prepared, or to take steps for the preparation of the electoral registers for 1963. Over six months have passed and many events have taken place and constituents have changed their places of abode - and in the year 1964 we shall be faced with another general election under our Constitution. If the preparation of the 1963 registers is linked up with the 1964 registers, and if the 1963 electoral registers are not ready, then it may be that when elections are due, a motion may be moved for the purpose of using the 1962 electoral registers. Therefore, it is proper that this question of registers of electors, as has been said by the Member for Tanglin, be put under the jurisdiction of an independent commission. I think it is a good move, so that there will be no grounds for suspicion. For instance, in the past we heard allegations that certain political Parties had caused some voters to be transferred from one constituency to another. It was done with such secrecy that it was impossible for this allegation to be proved. But the time has now come for matters relating to elections to be put under the control of an independent commission, as has been done in the Federation of Malaya. This independent commission will he free from control, pressure or influence of the Government. I would like the Minister in charge to declare his stand and further clarify the points raised by Opposition Members.

4.51 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is another case of Government trying to rig the elections. They legally rigged the Referendum Bill the last time, and now they hope to rig tie elections. I will explain to you, Sir. Why do they seek the passing of this Bill? The Member for Farrer Park has already pointed out that the whole thing is illegal, and I am sure the Minister himself knows that it is illegal. But they still persist in it. Why? You see, when the National Referendum was held on 1st September, 1962, the registers for that referendum were based on the registers for 1961.

If you will remember, Sir, at that time a lot of people complained of their names being not in the electoral registers. Offhand, I can recall that those who had not voted in the Hong Lim by-election had not got their names restored in the 1961 electoral registers. Then there were those who did not vote in Anson and had their names deleted from the 1961 registers. Then those who did not vote in the General Elections in 1959 and have not as yet got their names restored to the registers, and those who had come of age and having reached 21 years of age, were already citizens.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member take some time on this subject?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: A little while more. These people had applied for their names to be inserted in the electoral registers, but their names had not been inserted in the electoral registers. If you will remember, Sir, the Referendum was held on the 1st of September, whereas by the 15th of September if only the Government had extended the date for another two weeks, those who had come of age and would have been certified by the 15th of September, 1962 would have become voters. I list all this to tell you that the total number who should have voted in the referendum but had not been given the vote, exceeded many tens of thousands. Every year about 60,000 babies are born. Let us go back 20 years and assume that the figure is just half that, 30,000 say. Therefore, in 1962 at least 30,000 names would have been added to the registers if only the Government had allowed those names to be inserted in the 1962 electoral registers. Added to that, you have 1,000 voters in Hong Lim, another 1,000 voters in Anson, plus more than 20,000 voters who did not vote in 1959. The total number that did not have a chance to vote in the referendum therefore exceeded 60,000. It might even be 100,000.

This Referendum on the 1st of September, according to the P.A.P., was favourable to them and, therefore, they think that if they wanted to hold an election in future, they would prefer to have the election based on those same registers. But now they are forced to include the 1962 lot of people who have come of age, that is age 21, and automatically becoming voters by the 15th of February. 1962, and who should have been certified by 15th September, 1962, as electoral voters. The figure is fairly high. These citizens are young men. The P.A.P. today is very afraid of young men because all the young people of Singapore, especially those who come from Chinese schools, are very much against the P.A.P. Therefore, if a new batch of would be voters of 1963 could be excluded from the electoral registers, then, of course, it would be more advantageous to the P.A.P.

That is the very reason why we are asked to allow the Government to fix a date as and when the P.A.P. likes for the certification of the electoral registers. They want to exclude the 1963 lot of new citizens and voters who constitute a very big number. This number together with the new voters of 1962 can easily knock the P.A.P. out. The P.A.P. would prefer not to give this large number of young men their opportunity to vote in the forthcoming elections.

Sir, we do not trust the P.A.P. at all. They rigged the referendum and they hope to rig a future election. That is why they have refused to agree to the proposals from the Opposition - that there should be a neutral commission to look after the elections. We oppose this new rigging of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suspend this sitting until 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

Dr Thio Chan Bee: Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I stressed the need for an independent Elections Commission for Singapore. Today, Sir, this Bill has confirmed that need. If we had had an independent Elections Commission, the electoral registers for 1961 would have been ready in time, because nobody would have told them that they must slow down for this or that event. And if they had seen the need for a slowing down, they would have approached the Government to have some Bill here so that it could be done legally. Sir, all of a sudden the Party in power decides that it wants to speed up the thing. And they have put forward a Bill to legalise the completion of the Registers of Electors on or before the 30th day of June. Not only that, Sir, they give to themselves even wider powers. If they see fit, they can extend the date to the end of this year, or such later date in the year as the Minister may appoint. They are asking really for very wide powers. An independent Elections Commission would make sure that the conditions for an election should be fair to all parties concerned. But here, I am sorry to say, the Party in power want to make sure that they win and to make sure also that they win with handicaps given to themselves. Sir, what is the significance of the "30th day of June"? We used to think that the former Mayor of Singapore, the present Member for Hong Lim, was exaggerating when he said that he had a great deal to do with the training of men of the P.A.P. top cadre. Now, Sir, we must give him credit for having been able to see that the Federal elections, instead of, as had been expected before, being held after 31st August, 1963, may be rushed through very much earlier, after this magic date of 30th June, 1963. This, of course, is to make sure that all the other Parties are caught by surprise. Why the long postponement of the by-election for Sembawang? Now why the sudden rush?

That is why we say, Sir, the Party in power are so keen on their winning a victory that at times national interests become secondary. I am sure if they say they have no intention of playing any trickery, why cannot they say they agree to an independent officer being the Supervisor of Elections so that there can be no suspicion that they are going to indulge in anything that would be improper? Sir, we feel that this Bill is unnecessary, that the registers for 1963 can be completed according to the present Ordinance by 15th September, 1963, and if this Bill is not necessary, then why push it through at this time?

5.38 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government have been boasting that they are the champions of parliamentary democracy. But the amendment moved by the Minister for Home Affairs has disclosed their face, and has exposed them as trying to destroy parliamentary democracy. The amendment, although it consists of three short clauses, nevertheless has greatly affected parliamentary democracy, and its content. The explanation of the Minister for Home Affairs cannot cover up their intention of trying to play party politics and cannot cover up their wrong doings. According to the Elections Ordinance, the 1962 Registers of Electors should have been completed by the 15th September. But the Government has wasted a lot of time without being able to complete the revision and printing of the Registers of Electors. Does this mean that the vote in the 1961 Estimates for the revision has been reduced, or is it because the staff of that Department has been reduced, so that this job has not been completed? In the 1961 as well as the 1962 Budgets, we can see that the expenditure for the Elections Office for each year is the same. How is it that this Office has not been able to complete its work of revising the 1962 Registers of Electors? The Minister a little while ago has said that it is because of the National Referendum. On this Referendum the Government spent about $400,000. Therefore, this cannot be a good reason for not having been able to complete the revision of the Registers. From the facts we can see clearly that the inability to complete the work is not due to the inefficiency of the Elections Office but to the fact that the whole P.A.P. Government intend to delay this work in order to take advantage of it to benefit themselves in the future elections.

Mr Speaker, in the beginning of 1963 I visited the Elections Commissioner on three occasions regarding the revision of registers of voters. He told me that the work was about to complete and that on completion the Government would notify the public. At that time, I told him that according to the Elections Ordinance every political Party has a right to receive a set of copies of the Registers of Voters for the 51 constituencies. On 18th March, on behalf of the Barisan Sosialis, I wrote a letter to the Elections Commissioner requesting him to send us quickly the whole set of the 1962 registers of voters. After two weeks, I received a very short reply from him saying that the present registers had not been completed and that on completion of this work he would be sending to the Barisan Sosialis a complete set of the registers of voters for the 51 constituencies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are very concerned about the printing of the registers of voters, because the existence of parliamentary democracy depends on the registers of voters. It is the backbone of parliamentary democracy. Without them, it is impossible to elect the 51 Members of this House. In other words, it will mean the collapse of parliamentary democracy. Let us see what the P.A.P. is doing today. The Minister for Home Affairs has now come to this House to legalise their illegal act. The intention of the Government is very obvious. The Government is trying to exclude those who should be included in the Registers by the 15th of February, 1963. By this amendment of the Government, we can see clearly that for the 1964 general elections the registers will not be based on the 1963 registers but on the registers for 1962. What is the difference? The difference is this: in 1963, there will be at least 40,000 new citizens of Singapore who will have the right to vote in 1964 and to be included in the registers for 1964, but after this amending Bill is passed by the Government, these 40 000 odd citizens will be deprived of their voting rights. Why is the Government afraid of an increase in the number of voters? If the Government is really sincere in protecting parliamentary democracy, it should allow more citizens to exercise their rights and duties to cast their votes. But the Government is now intentionally depriving them of their legal rights.

Mr Speaker, these citizens of 1963 who should have the right to vote were born in 1941 or 1942. These are young men who have just left school. According to the Labour Department Annual Report and according to the census of population. We can see clearly that the youths who have left school are all unemployed. In 1959 during the general elections, these youths pinned high hopes on the P.A.P. to solve their unemployment problem. But from this amending bill of the Government, we can see that, in fact, the Government is unable to solve their unemployment problem. That is why these people are not contented with the P.A.P. I am sure that in the 1964 general elections these people will not vote for the P.A.P. Therefore, in order to reduce the strength of forces against it, the Government is now seeking to pass this amending Bill in order to deprive these people of their voting rights. This is the first reason to explain why the Government is now trying to introduce this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's past actions are causing the people much anxiety, worry, and doubt. If the Government wants this House to pass this Bill, then, undoubtedly, it will be telling the people that the system of parliamentary democracy is, in fact, intended for the interest and purpose of the Party in power and not for the interest and welfare of the people. This will only give the impression to the people that in the future general elections the Government will be able to transfer a group of pro-P.A.P. people to certain constituencies in order to elect certain Members. That is obviously the Government's intention. If the Government's intention to introduce this Bill is not based on these two motives, then I believe it would not have introduced this Bill into this House today.

I believe that the staff in the Elections Office are very efficient. But the Government is now trying to put the blame on them for not having completed the registers earlier.

If the Government wants to push through this Bill on the strength of its majority, it will only show the people of Singapore that it is destroying parliamentary democracy.

5.55 p.m.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are against this Bill, and my colleagues have explained the reasons why we are against it. They are not on political grounds but on legal grounds.

Sir, the Minister, in moving the Bill, drew attention to section 15 (1) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. He did say that the date of the revision could be extended beyond 15th September if the Minister so appoints. But he was rather quiet, deliberately so; he did not tell us why he did not so appoint when he considered that the revision of the electoral registers by the 15th September was not suitable or was not in the interest of the electorate. Perhaps he overlooked it, or perhaps his officers in the Elections Office overlooked it. We do not like to be uncharitable and say that perhaps this is a deliberate political manoeuvre, but the Government, of course, cannot avoid criticism even on that ground.

Now, the Minister says that it was because of the Referendum on 1st September and of the desire of the Government not to confuse the electorate and because those electors who did not vote at the referendum could have their names deleted, that the revision did not take place in accordance with the law. If it had been his intention not to bring confusion into the minds of the electorate in that the electors who did not vote at the referendum could have their names deleted from the revision, surely he could have appointed a date in 1962 for the revision. The Referendum took place on 1st September. He could have chosen 31st December, 1962, as the date so appointed by the Minister under the law. He was silent, and no doubt he will explain now why he was silent.

Sir, there is this opposition on political grounds because of the by-election that should have taken place in Sembawang. The late Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim died in August 1962, and while the referendum meetings were going on, this by-election was also the topic of the day. So when the Prime Minister was questioned as to when the by-election in Sembawang would be held, he said, "Oh, after the revision of the electoral registers." Even that answer was given .a few days back to a question by the Member for Anson: When would the Government hold the by-election in Sembawang? "Oh, after the revision of the electoral registers." When they knew that there could not be any legal revision until this amending Bill is approved by the Assembly, surely the Prime Minister could have said - and if there had been no intention to play a political game in this thing, "Sorry, it could have been held as early as March, but because the revision of the electoral registers is all wrong in accordance with the law, we cannot do it and that is why we have tabled an amending Bill. We will have the thing adjusted, and as soon as that is adjusted, we can hold a by-election." But now, boldly he said, "Until the revision of the electoral registers" when he knew that the revision of the electoral registers could not be legal until this amending Bill is passed.

Sir, even making the referendum as an excuse for the delay in the revision of the 1962 registers is rather weak. If the Elections Office or the Registration Officer had taken due note of the law and had properly discharged his duty, he would have set in operation as early as June 1962 the revision of the 1962 registers in order to get them ready by the 15th of September. At that time, no doubt there was a lot of hot exchanges of harsh words on merger, but because the Elections Office was tied to ministerial control, that is why the Elections Office too got confused. That is why I would like to bring up again the fact that it is desirable that an independent Elections Commission should be set up. I do not urge this on the ground that what had been done before was wrong and that elections had been rigged and all sorts of other unfair criticism. Elections have been done in the best manner. No possibility of rigging, everything was clean and honest. But the fact that the Elections Officer or the Office comes under the control of the Executive Government makes people wonder as to the honesty of that particular department. Therefore. I would urge upon the Government to give serious consideration to setting up an independent Elections Commission. If this Elections Office had been an independent commission, it would have done its duty soberly and without taking into its calculation the exchange of political warfare. It would have just carried on its work - June, all right. They would have started the thing going without worrying whether the Barisan had been trying to shoot down the P.A.P. or the P.A.P. wanted another three months to shoot down the Barisan. All that would not have taken place.

Sir, a very important point brought up by my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, is this. Under the law, the 1963 revision will have to be completed by the 15th of September, or at the latest by the 31st of December, if the Minister so appoints. But if it is the intention of the Elections Office - I do not say the Government - to have the 1963 revision completed by the 15th of September, that Office would have to begin work right now. And if it has to begin work right now, what is the value of legalising this 1962 revision? It will be just a waste of time, a waste of effort, and will cause a lot of heartburn. Forget this one. Leave it. In fact, if the criticism is levelled at the Government that in this way they need not have to hold the by-election in Sembawang, they could hold it on the 1961 electoral registers. If there had been no revision in 1962, all right, let us use the 1961 registers. If there had been accusations levelled that the Government is doing this now, in order to say, "Well, we want to have the Sembawang by-election quickly; therefore, we must have it by the 30th June," go ahead, we can have a by-election in July. "Without this, there could be no by-election." I say they still can. You can use the 1961 electoral registers. Let us not waste time. Let us not waste money. Let the Elections Office go ahead with the 1963 revision because of the imminent general elections in 1964. There should be no further delay in the 1963 revision. I do not know. I hope the Government will give serious thought to this very important issue. Do not press on with something that might turn out to be a legal problem, as pointed out by the Member for Farrer Park. Let us say we have the by-election in Sembawang based on these 1962 electoral registers. What is to prevent any candidate who lost in the by-election to file a petition on the ground that the 1962 electoral registers are illegal and not in accordance with the law? I would urge upon the Government to reconsider its stand on this issue.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply?

6.08 p.m.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a temporary provisions Bill seeking the Assembly's approval to extend the time for the revision of the registers of electors which should have been completed in 1962. This Bill was drafted and vetted by the State Advocate-General, and so far as I can see, the legal aspect of it would have been taken care of by the State Advocate-General's Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1962 registers could have been completed in 1962 but for the two reasons I mentioned earlier when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. Firstly, it is to avoid confusion. Because it is not possible for the 1962 registers to be completed and certified in time for the national referendum, and so the 1961 registers will have to be used. If we were to exhibit Lists A and B for public inspection round about the time of the referendum, it would give rise to confusion on polling day, because many of the persons eligible to become voters in 1962 would feel that they were entitled to vote during the referendum, and they would go to the polling stations, and that would create a lot of difficulties for the polling staff. Therefore, in order not to confuse the people, we decided that the inspection of these Lists A and B should be held after the referendum.

The second reason is that we want to give those who did not vote in the Referendum a chance to have their names restored in the 1962 registers. If we proceeded with the certification of the 1962 registers after the Referendum, then those non-voters would not have a chance to have their names restored in the registers, because the next revision would be in 1963. It is for these two reasons that we decided that the best thing was to defer the revision of the registers until early 1963 when the list of non-voters could be compiled and exhibited for public inspection, allowing a reasonable period for the non-voters to apply for restoration of their names in the registers. The lists of non-voters were completed only towards the end of January. So it was exhibited for inspection together with List A and List B.

It is provided in the Amendment Bill that the registers of electors for the year 1962 shall be completed on or before the 30th day of June or such later date in the year. But I have already indicated to the House just now that the 1962 electoral registers will be certified before 30th June, and I can give an undertaking to the Opposition that the 1962 registers, in fact, will be certified before June 1962.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: June 1962?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: I am sorry. June 1963. Just now the Member for Cairnhill said, why waste all the time and effort on the 1962 registers when we should proceed with 1963? 1 wish to inform the Member for Cairnhill that time and effort has already been wasted. They are all ready and waiting for this Bill to be approved before certification.

As for the revision of the 1963 electoral registers, I wish to inform the House that work has already been set in motion. In fact, revision of the 1963 registers is being carried out now, because normally revision of registers in any particular year would have to take place from about the month of March onwards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with Malaysia, except for the first election to the Central Parliament, future elections to the Central Parliament will come under the Federal Elections Commission. As far as State election is concerned, it is provided in the White Paper that it will be a State Government matter. With our existing machinery of elections and the manner in which elections are carried out, there is no possibility of any rigging of elections. So I do not see that it is necessary to have an independent commission for elections.

Just now the Member for Queenstown mentioned that many of the non-voters in the 1959 elections, the Hong Lim by-election and the Referendum - many of the non-voters in these elections - have not had their names restored in the registers. Now, if the non-voters refused to take any step to have their names restored in the electoral registers, what could the Government do? It is their right, and they should take some interest in looking after their rights and their own interest.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang just now argued that the Government should withdraw this Bill as otherwise the Government would be guilty of destroying democracy. I just fail to see how the withdrawal of this Bill would destroy democracy. Does it mean that by excluding those voters who would be eligible to have their names entered in the 1962 registers democracy will be preserved or strengthened? If the Government were to withdraw this Bill, it would mean that those who are eligible to have their names entered in the 1962 electoral registers would be deprived of their right as voters.

The Member for Queenstown has said that he has no confidence in the elections conducted by the Government, and that he believes that elections were rigged. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no doubt that the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues do not believe in elections. If they had a chance, should they be in a position to capture power, not only would there be no elections, but there would be no parliamentary democracy. In place of that, what we would have is dictatorship of the minority. Naturally we have no doubt that they have no confidence in any election.

6.20 p.m.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Low Por Tuck: Division.

The House divided: Ayes 23; Noes, 20; Paired, 2; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Omar Junid Ahmad Jabri bin Byrne, K. M. Mohammad Akib Chan Chee Seng Bani, S. T. Chan Choy Siong, Fung Ying Ching Madam Miss Chor Yeok Eng Lee Siew Choh Goh Chew Chua Leong Keng Seng Goh Keng Swee Lim Yew Hock Lee Khoon Choy Lin You Eng Lee Teck Him Low Por Tuck Lim Cheng Lock Mohd. Ali bin Alwi Lingam, S. V. Ng Teng Kian Mammen, John Ong Chang Sam Mohd. Ariff bin Ong Eng Guan Suradi Rajah, A. P. M. Ismail Rahim Seow Peck Leng Ong Pang Boon Mrs Rajaratnam, S Sheng Nam Chin Ramaswamy, S Tan Cheng Tong Sohorah binte Tee Kim Leng Ahmat, Madam Toe Hock Guan Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wong Soon Fong Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Absent. Mohamed Al-Haj Chan sun Wing Yong Nyuk Lin Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Paired Kandasamy, G Abdul Hamid bin Koh, C. H. Haji Jumat Marshall, David Lee Kuan Yew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[Mr Ong Pang Boon]

Bill considered in Committee.

6.23 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: I propose to take all three clauses en bloc unless there is any Member who wishes to say anything further.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I would like to speak on clause 3, just to seek an assurance.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 -

Question proposed, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, could the Minister give a categorical assurance that the 1963 revision will be completed on or before 15th September, 1963?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: We will try our level best. As we all know, the 1962 registers had been delayed, but nevertheless we will make sure that the staff in the Elections Department work as hard as they can.

Mr Rajah: Overtime.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Overtime. Incidentally, the Minister for Finance has just informed me that he is trying to get an electronic machine for this work. I think that with the arrival of the machine, work on revising the electoral registers will be speeded up.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.