SINGAPORE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

3.35 p.m.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963 (No. 7 of 1963)".

Bill read the First time.

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: Second Reading, what day?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.

Certificate of Urgency handed in.

Mr Speaker: The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Yes.

Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker: Please proceed.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, as far as the Government is concerned, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, which extended the period for the revision of the 1962 Registers of Electors until 30th June. 1962, and which was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 15th June, 1963, is a good and sufficient Ordinance for the purpose for which it was introduced. However, in view of the doubts expressed and the fears raised by some Members of the Opposition, particularly the Member for Farrer Park, that this Bill would not have the effect of validating the acts done by the Registration Officer in connection with the revision of the 1962 Electoral Registers, this short Bill has been introduced for the purpose of removing any doubt that may exist or avoiding any possible dispute in the future as regards the legality of the revised 1962 Registers.

This Bill, therefore, expressly validates all acts done by the Registration Officer in connection with the revision of the Registers of Electors for 1962, whether done before or after the coming into operation of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, and provides that such acts shall not be challenged or called in question in any court.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, it would seem that the Minister is still unrepentant. He tries to tell this House that what the Government did in June was right. If it was right, why is it necessary to table this amending Bill? It was because the opinion given to the Minister at a later stage after that debate confirmed that what the Opposition said was right. Surely the Government would not want to introduce a Bill unless it is vitally necessary to prevent any possibility of any doubts that could be legally raised as to the validity of the 1962 Electoral Registers. The Government, through the Minister's speech, is just trying to cover up this glaring example of the dictatorial P.A.P. Government trying to ride roughshod over the Opposition. I warn the Government to stop playing this kind of game or it will find itself thrown out unceremoniously -

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Fighting the elections?

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, on the 15th of June, this House debated the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which has now become law, against the objection of a united Opposition. The Government carried the day with 23 votes against 20 Opposition votes. The present Bill seeks to introduce an amendment to that Bill which was debated and forced through only last month, and this Bill is introduced on a Certificate of Urgency.

Sir, let us take our minds back to the debate on the 15th of June. My colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, was the first Opposition Member to open our guns on the dictatorial P.A.P. Government. I seek your indulgence, Sir, and the indulgence of hon. Members to quote two paragraphs of his speech which are very relevant to the matter now before the House. I quote from the Official Report of the debate of the 15th June [Unrevised Transcript, page 31- Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 11, cols. 1356-7]. This is what the Member for Farrer Park said:

`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 some time 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 all 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 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 way it is framed, any certification resulting from the steps already having been taken by the Registration Officer can make these registers valid. Thai is my view which I put forward to this House. In spite of this, if the Minister carried this Bill through, it could well be that somebody would contest the validity of these registers, and any elections which were held on the 1962 registers might all be null and void and have 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 stops are illegal at the moment) and the Bill drafted in the way that it is without further provisions which would cover the illegal steps already taken by the Registration Officer, whether this Bill would, in fact, enable a proper valid legal register for 1962 to be completed.'

Sir, I also spoke at this sitting, and I would like to quote from the same Official Report the relevant part of which deals with this legal point. That is at page 38 [Hansard, cols. 1368-9]:

`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.'

Sir, the Minister for Law was silent on this very important legal point although we had expected to hear gems of wisdom from him. But the Minister for Home Affairs replied and that is at page 38 of the unrevised transcript [Hansard, col. 1369]:

`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 elections, 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.'

We cautioned the Government. We urged it to reconsider its stand in the light of the legal point raised by us. If it had been a democratic Government giving due weight to reasons advanced by the Opposition, if it had not been an arrogant and a dictatorial Government, surely, Sir, it could have deferred the Committee stage of the Bill for just a few hours in order to give the Government time to consult the State Advocate-General on this very valid legal point raised by the Opposition. If this step had been taken, as it should have been taken, then this amending Bill would not have been necessary. All our cautioning, all our urging on the good sense of the Government, was just brushed aside by the dictatorial P.A.P. Government whose leaders consider themselves to be cleverer than anybody else. The whole Opposition fought them. We lost. But we were not dismayed. We knew we were right and we would be proved right. We lost. But we were aroused and would fight again and again and again until we delivered a knock-out blow on a dictatorial Government that sets party interests above the interests of the people of Singapore.

Sir, the Bill now before the House is a complete admission that we were right, and with right on our side we will renew our opposition and will vote against the Bill as we did last month.

3.50 p.m.

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no consolation to us to say that we were right. No, Sir. All of us have been saying for a long, long time that the P.A.P. has been arrogant and dictatorial. It is only now that the S.P.A. has chimed what we have been saying.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: I only want the Member to understand that we who sit in front are the Singapore Alliance, and not S.P.A. or the U.M.N.O. And as one united force, we will knock out the P.A.P.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: S.P.A., Singapore Alliance, Labour Party, or whatnot - they have been changing names for a long time.

This Bill before the House, from what we can see, is important from a very different aspect. It is important not in the way that the leader of the new Alliance has stated - the arrogant and dictatorial ways of the P.A.P. It is more important than that. It is important in that this is an example of the P.A.P. always doing anything and everything to turn something illegal into something legal. Anything which is wrong is turned into right. Anything which is white is turned into black, and a traitor into a so-called hero. This is exact proof of what we have been saying all along. Now that the P.A.P. realises that it has done wrong, it is trying to "legalise" that wrong. But does the legalising of that wrong make it right? However many legal phrases it uses to right this wrong afterwards, a wrong still remains a wrong. Under no circumstances will the wrong be made into a right, either morally or legally.

Sir, the Bill that was passed on 15th June should have been thrown Out. But, as usual, the Government steam-rollers through everything that it wants to push through. This is an abuse of power by the Government. We have seen this for quite some time. As it is, parliamentary democracy in Singapore has fallen into great disrepute. Who does not know that today in Singapore we have a dictatorial Government and a pocket dictator in the Prime Minister.

Mr David Marshall: Pocket emperor.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Pocket emperor? Yes, he wants to think that he is an emperor. He goes round the constituencies -

Mr Ong Pang Boon: To your dismay.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: Not to our dismay, Sir, because the way that the Prime Minister has been compelling people to pay for receptions in order to welcome the Prime Minister, forcing school children to line the streets -

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Queenstown that we are debating an amending Bill, and we are not debating the Prime Minister's visits to the constituencies.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I have no intention of touching on that aspect of the Prime Minister's activities, because the intention and the way that he has done it is now well known all over Singapore.

I want to point out that the way the Government has gone about in this Bill has, in fact, emasculated in many ways the powers of the Judiciary. It says here that any act done by such and such a person "shall be valid and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court." If anything pleases the P.A.P., it can be made unchallengeable in court, and therefore -

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: He can wait.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would suggest to Members that if there is, on the face of it, a reasonable request that some information or elucidation he given, then the Member speaking should give way. If the parliamentary practice of a Member giving way is abused, then the Member is entitled in future not to give way. Is the Member for Queenstown giving way?

Dr Lee Siew Choh: I take your advice, Sir, and give way.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I rightly heard, the Member for Queenstown said that any act, however unlawful, would be legalised under the terms of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, I would refer the Member to this particular clause that we propose to introduce into this Bill. All the acts referred to are acts which are necessary for the purpose of revising the Registers of Electors: not any acts, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew Choh: That proves my point, Sir. Any act for the purpose of revising the registers in order to suit the P.A.P. That is exactly what I have been trying to tell the Minister. Well, I do not know what sort of a skull he has got.

Mr Byrne: A very good skull!

Dr Lee Siew Choh: It takes some time to penetrate. That, Sir, only proves to you that the P.A.P. to suit the P.A.P. can do things any way, anyhow, at any time; and all not to please the people of Singapore, as the Prime Minister has been trying to tell us all along, but to please those few persons sitting on the Front Benches there, the puppets and stooges of the colonial masters in Britain. Those are the people who have been selling out the rights of the people of Singapore. It is time that they, who want to give the impression that they are working in the interests of the people, should wake up. This Bill, as far as the people of Singapore are concerned, is merely a repetition of what they have known all along, namely P.A.P. deceit.

The most important significance of this Bill as well as the Bill which was passed on 15th June, 1963, lies in the fact that it allows the P.A.P. to exclude a large number of voters from the coming elections and possibly from the 1964 elections. Whether the Government holds the general elections immediately after the elections to the 15 seats to the Central Parliament or next year, it is clear that the intention of the Government is to exclude a large number of voters from the electoral registers. The electoral registers for 1962 will be used for the elections this time, and unless the Government changes this and has the 1963 Electoral Registers ready for 1964, according to law, it will be using the 1962 Electoral Registers for the 1964 general elections.

Every year, Sir, round about 60,000 babies are born, and only about 10,000 people die. So there should be an addition of at least 50,000 people to the electoral registers every year.

We have already pointed out that the 1962 Electoral Registers have less voters than the 1961 electoral registers. We asked the Minister many questions, but somehow or other, he fought shy of answering any one of them. We must remember that this Bill serves, in effect, to exclude from the electoral registers a large number of young men and women who the P.A.P. know will be against them. That is the meaning of this Bill. We will oppose it right through all its stages, and we hope that consequent on the criticisms that we bring up, the Government will not try to shut out the huge number of voters who should, by right, have a chance to vote. They must not be denied their right.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess that I enjoy hearing the P.A.P. Minister for Home Affairs sound like Burns' - Wee little cowering mousie. He says, "We are introducing this Bill" in his most timid, smiling and frightened manner - the new Pelandok - "because the Opposition has -"

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the Member for Anson that all these epithets, descriptive phrases are completely unnecessary?

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to you for your advice, but if you will permit me, the description in pictures is worth a great deal of verbosity which would otherwise be necessary.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have not wished to over-rule the Member for Anson, but I will be forced to if he uses those descriptive phrases which can be - I do not know whether they are - offensive.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, a pelandok is a national animal.

I was referring to the terms in which the Minister introduced this Bill - "out of deference for doubts expressed by the Opposition". Sweet words - words that one expects from a constitutional government - and it is the first time I have heard these words from the P.A.P. Front benchers in all my experience here! That is the amusing part.

The other aspect that I would like to point out is that if they were capable of modesty, of the constitutional approach of giving due weight and consideration to Opposition views, they would, as has been pointed out by the Member for Cairnhill, have adjourned or sought adjournment of that debate for a day or for a few hours to clarify the position. But they were convinced they were right, and with their normal arrogance and in their traditional manner, they proceeded with it.

Sir, why have they suddenly changed their minds? There has been no representation since the Bill was passed. It is not because of the doubts that were expressed on the day that they forced through the measure, hut it is because they have learnt since then that in fact the Opposition advice is correct and the conduct of the Executive in purported pursuance of the Ordinance was illegal. But have they the courage and the decency to admit it? That is asking more than even the new facade the P.A.P. can support, that they should honestly and frankly say, "You were right. We were wrong. We would like to have an amendment." No, Sir. No possible question. God and the P.A.P. can do no wrong; or perhaps the P.A.P. and God.

Mr Rajaratnam: Only one.

Mr David Marshall: Sir, one other aspect that I would like to draw your attention to, and that is the intervention of the Minister for Law. He tells you that the Member of the Barisan Sosialis who spoke on this measure erred in saying that this clause validates all criminal acts because it says "all acts in pursance of the purposes of the revision of such registers". Well, Mr Speaker, I would suggest that if the Minister were to consult those who read the law without P.A.P. spectacles, he would find that in fact a person can, in purported pursuance of the revision of the registers, commit criminal acts and that the Registration Officer could, for example - not that I say he does - conspire with the Minister or other political Parties for the purposes of criminally refusing or admitting persons who would be entitled to be registered or who are not entitled to be registered. We could have, for example, 5,000 members of the Work Brigade registered in every one of our constituencies in purported pursuance of the powers for the purposes of the revision of such registers. This clause, Mr Speaker, does not deal merely with acts that are done bona fide. It deals with all acts - criminal and legitimate. I say that that is yet another approach, that they should seek an amendment is right, since there has been this passage of time and acts have been performed. But the spirit in which it is sought and the manner in which the amendment is placed before this House, I say to you, Mr Speaker, are wrong.

Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park): Mr Speaker. Sir, I have read the Explanatory Statement provided by the Government in support of this Bill. On page 2, it says:

`... this Bill seeks to remove any doubt that may exist as to the validity of acts done ...'.

This Explanatory Statement, I take it, is a statement being put out by the Government to persuade the whole House to agree to this Bill. Normally, the speech by the Minister in conduct of any particular Bill will be in the spirit of the Explanatory Statement. Whereas listening to the Minister's speech, he most definitely said that the Government was satisfied that the Bill as passed by the House was sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, if that is the stand of the Government, then I think it would have been completely logical if the Government had refused to bring in this amending Bill. The reason given by the Minister was that he wished to accommodate certain Opposition views, although he himself was not convinced of those views but that in order to accommodate those views even though they are incorrect this amending Bill has been introduced. Now really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask you, in all seriousness, should the Minister in his right senses get up in this House and say. "The Government is not convinced that certain sections of the Opposition are correct," and yet waste the time of the House by bringing in a useless Bill which in his view is a useless Bill? Mr Speaker, Sir, quite frankly, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, if the Minister does, in fact, think that this does not add one iota to the legality of the previous Bill that has been passed, let him withdraw this Bill. I challenge him to withdraw this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point I wish to raise is a matter which I think has been touched upon by the Member for Anson. As the clause is phrased, it could cover two aspects of all acts taken by the Registration Officer. One set of acts taken by the Registrar are procedural steps which result in the registers being compiled and certified. The second set of acts taken by the Registrar is in the nature of a quasi-judicial inquiry which affects the rights of the citizen. Now it could be that the way this clause is worded it could affect the rights of an individual on the question of his name having been left out from the register. If this is intended as a covering act for all those acts which deprive the citizen of his basic electoral rights, then I think this clause as phrased here should be objected to. But if it is merely a question of saying that all acts taken by the Registrar with a view to producing the registers after 31st December shall be deemed to have been taken before 31st December, there is some point in this amending Bill. But if it is to validate the rejection of an application to have a name put on the register, then this clause should be objected to.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Bill on the compilation of the electoral registers for 1962, today the Government has introduced another Bill for the approval of the House to validate the actions of the Registration Officer before or after the passing of the Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition has always been against this method. We oppose such actions because, as I have said on previous Bills, we want a House which practises parliamentary democracy. I hope the Government will introduce Bills into this House in a fair way. The practice is to inform the Opposition according to parliamentary democracy. Here, I do not expect it to be carried out that far, but the Government should not suddenly introduce Bills in this Assembly and give no chance to the Opposition to consider them. If we study the Explanatory Statement, it is clear that the Government wants to play down the allegation that it is acting unfairly and illegally in carrying out its objectives. In this way, the Government is obstructing us from finding out what it wants to carry out and so bringing their actions before the court. This is one of the things we are not happy about. If we live in a free country where we can practise democracy, there must be the right to bring a matter to court. This should be encouraged because it will not only smoothen our administration, but it will also give an assurance to the people that they can practise their rights. If the Government takes the opportunity to legalise the wrong that it has done, this will be bad for a healthy country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Explanatory Statement - I will read this in English. (In English) In this Bill -

Mr Speaker: Order. The difficulty we are faced with here is the simultaneous interpretation. That is why we have a Standing Order which says that once a Member commences his speech in one language, he must continue to speak in that language. So that if the Member for Southern Islands wishes to refer to the Explanatory Statement, he should just paraphrase what is in it in Malay.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw attention to the Explanatory Statement. At the end of this Explanatory Statement, there is a sentence which says that this Bill seeks to remove any doubt which may exist as to the validity of acts done by the Registration Officer for the purposes of revising the registers in question.

As I have said, Mr Speaker, we have heard doubts and rumours that the Government is carrying out a campaign to transfer their voters and supporters. This is an act which they are trying to cover up through this Bill, and which later on we cannot take to court. Lately we have heard over the radio and television that the Prime Minister made visits. This is not questioned, Mr Speaker, because we know that the Government has all the facilities, all the machinery, in their hands. The Prime Minister himself has challenged the workers in the Harbour Board and made them frightened - "We are not stupid," and so on.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Member that all that is completely irrelevant to this particular Bill.

Inche Ahmad Jabri: (In Malay): Mr Speaker, if I cannot touch on that point, I will not do so. But I would like to state here that we Members of the Opposition are not people who cannot think what is right and what is wrong. If it is good, it is our duty to support it, to allow and to approve it. But I am sorry to say, and I would like to emphasise, that if the Government carries out this practice, our hope to establish a country which practises parliamentary democracy cannot be realised.

4.25 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker. Sir, it is quite clear that we are near election time because everybody has been making a lot of fuss over what is a very simple issue. The last time I think the Opposition Members, in particular, the Member for Farrer Park, indicated that they had some doubts about the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance. They expressed some doubts that if elections were carried out, somebody could invalidate all the provisions of the Ordinance. The Government was certain, hut what we are doing, in view of the representations made, is that we are making it more certain that the provisions of the Ordinance would not be questioned later on in the courts of law. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I understand that most lawyers flourish because provisions of the law are never a hundred per cent certain. Therefore, if somebody has indicated some kind of loophole in the law, then it is our duty to bring forward an amendment to ensure that that loophole is closed. And that is what this amendment seeks to do. For all I know, Sir, if the S.P.A. or the Barisan should win the next election, then it is quite possible that somebody may query the whole validity of the elections, bring it before a court of law and invalidate the whole process. To that extent, this amendment would ensure that if the S.P.A. or the Barisan should win the next election, the whole process is not invalidated because of a loophole in the law. Therefore, probably it is quite possible that the Barisan have decided that they are not going to win the next election, so, "Let us make a fuss about this little amendment." So I suggest, Sir, that there is no question of the P.A.P. or the Government trying to pull a fast one. This Bill does not favour either the P.A.P. or the Barisan or the S.P.A. It ensures that the Ordinance is more foolproof than it is at the moment.

Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture repeats what the Government has said earlier on. If, as the Member for Farrer Park says, the Government is certain of the legality of the earlier Ordinance, then there is no necessity for it to bring in this Bill, and the Member for Farrer Park has challenged it to withdraw the Bill. If it is certain, I do not see what can prevent it from withdrawing this Bill.

Sir, the Minister tries to suggest that out of kindness to the Barisan and the S.P.A., if the Barisan or the S.P.A. should win, the P.A.P. do not want someone to go to court and invalidate the elections. And out of kindness they want to introduce this Bill. Surely, Sir, we know the P.A.P. well, and the people know the P.A.P. well. They are not going to do anything out of kindness - out of anything - for any Opposition group, be it the Right-wing S.P.A. or the Barisan or anybody else for that matter. Sir, we must call a spade a spade.

The Government seeks by this Bill to legalise illegal acts. What it seeks to do is to legalise criminal acts. Sir, we know that its intention is to legalise illegal criminal acts which can be done by a few civil servants because they would be forced to do them on instruction from the P.A.P. Sir, the conduct of the Government in the past is ample proof that it will not hesitate to stoop to any indecent level. By any standard, the Referendum Ordinance is a legal rigging, because they passed the Bill here. It was adopted, made into law and, therefore, it has legal backing. But, in effect, what happened was rigging. I do not think any man who chooses to be honest can stand up and say with a clear conscience that the results of the national referendum reflected the will and the desire of the people. Sir, having judged them by their manner of conducting the National Referendum and by various other acts, they are capable of rigging the elections. We have said this in the past. We say it again.

This particular clause, Mr Speaker, Sir, can be used to deny the Opposition certain fundamental rights. For example, we know the Government has quite an efficient security system. They are trying to find out who the Opposition candidates are going to be and so on. If they can find out the list of candidates that the Opposition may field, their names can easily be left out of the electoral registers.

Mr Byrne: Rubbish!

Mr Bani: And to stand for election, one must have one's name in the electoral register.

An hon. Member: Your name is already there.

Mr Bani: Sir, the clause says not only acts done before the coming into operation of this Ordinance, but also after the coming into operation of this Ordinance. What other revision is going to be done to the registers, we do not know. We do not even know definitely when they are going to hold the elections.

Mr Rajaratnam: You will find out.

Mr Bani: It is no use telling us that they have certified the registers. Sir, this is a very serious matter because it affects certain basic tenets of democracy. Sir, elections and the one-man-one-vote system are fundamental to the success of any democracy. It is only in an election that the people can have an opportunity to choose their representatives, to choose their leaders, to choose their Government. If the Government had wanted to be sincere in giving the people a fair opportunity, then it should have followed our earlier suggestion to set up an independent Commission for the conduct of elections. Sir, if it is confident, as it has always said it is confident, of winning the elections and that the people are on their side, why is it afraid of appointing an independent Commission which can conduct the elections as is the case in the Federation of Malaya, instead of -

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member that that is possibly irrelevant to the Bill we are discussing?

Mr Bani: Sir, I have to refer to this earlier call we made. The Government seeks to try and justify all the illegal acts it has done because it has some means of pushing through any Bill it wants to push through. We say in fairness, if the Government is sincere in this, all right, let us have it fair - set up an independent Commission and let this independent Commission conduct the elections as is the case in the Federation of Malaya.

4.32 p.m.

Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has said that the issue involved in this Bill is a simple one. Sir, if the issue is really simple, why must it go through three Readings on a Certificate of Urgency? Why cannot we let the Bill go through the ordinary parliamentary procedure of three separate Readings? The fact that the Government have seen fit to rush a Bill like this through the unusual procedure of three Readings shows that, to them, it has become a vital issue. The public must not be given a chance to know that this is being discussed in the House. Sir, we would like to ask the Government this question. Why do they consider Bills relating to elections as being so urgent at this stage? They have seen fit to postpone the Sembawang by-election for nearly a year. Their reason was that the electoral registers were not quite ready and there must be time for revision and so on. And now, all of a sudden, all Bills relating to elections must be rushed through. They know the reason why. They sought to conceal the reason, Sir. They have gone ahead electioneering in an improper manner, without giving the other Parties knowledge that an election is pending; using public funds and all the propaganda machinery under the control of the Government, which we consider improper. If they believe that they have logic and reason and any sense of fair play, how could they, without giving due notice to the runners, summon their own runners ahead, get them on the mark, get set and fire the pistol? That is what they are trying to do.

If the Party in power dare not follow the rules of the game, they are setting a bad example for future governments. Parliamentary democracy will not succeed if the rules are easily pushed aside just because it is to the advantage of the Party in power so to do. Sir, to be really fair, honest and democratic and since they claim for justice here, they should have the decency not to pass this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. To try to do that is to show that they are trying to do things in their own way and to catch the Opposition and the public by surprise.

Sir, another issue was mentioned by the Member for Anson, and that is this clause where the words "all acts" practically validate or legalise any wrong acts of the Registration Officer. It is a serious matter. "All acts" - very comprehensive. The Registration Officer surely is a human being liable to err. But under this Bill, if passed, he becomes somebody who cannot err, or if he errs, then his errors must become legal and right. Sir, it is a big issue to give all that power to a man, unless the idea, the aim, of the Government is that through this particular gentleman, they can from their bag of tricks, which have been quite plentiful, produce something which they can push through this gentleman and mislead the electorate. Sir, I am afraid this Bill involves quite a big issue and a dangerous issue which we dare not accept.

Sir, on 15th June, page 39 in the typescript, the sixth paragraph [unrevised transcript] (Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 11, col. 1370), the Minister for Home Affairs said:

`As for the revision of the 1963 pre-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 ...'.

Sir, if the revision of the 1963 registers is being carried out now, why should there be this unholy haste where everything, including mistakes made in the 1962 registers, is legalised? Sir, I venture the reason; that after giving the public the impression that there will be no Federal elections until one year after Malaysia Day, as discussed between them and the Federation Government, without the Opposition being consulted, they suddenly decided it is to their advantage to start the football match, not at the regular time of five o'clock, but at their own time, at one o'clock, while the others are having lunch. That, to them, is fair play. So, all of a sudden, thinking that that is the best way to catch the Opposition by surprise and have an unfair advantage in the elections, they have decided, "Well, we let the Prime Minister go round on his fashion parade. Do not say it is electioneering. No, say he is on his State visit. Then when we have covered enough ground, we rush through all these Bills." Sir, if what we have surmised is not true, well, the Party in power can easily do the right thing. Withdraw this Bill, let us have the 1963 registers prepared; let us have an election based on registers which cannot be regarded as being cooked; let us not have this Bill which will validate and legalise all acts of the Registration Officer.

4.40 p.m.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand how the Opposition can lead themselves into believing that we are being arrogant and being dictatorial because we introduce this Bill before the House. A point of legal difficulty was pointed out to us in the course of the debate the last time the Bill was before this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, there might be some substance in that point of legal difficulty or there might be nothing in it at all. The constitutional course open to us would have been to adjourn the Third Reading of the Bill and look into the matter further at that time, or introduce this new Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also been accused of rushing through this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. Now, this Bill provides that a new clause should be added to the previous Bill, a clause of only eight lines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the revision of the electoral registers for 1962 should have been completed on or before the 15th of September, 1962. This was not done for a variety of reasons which the Minister for Home Affairs has already explained to the House at the last sitting. The Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, extended the date of completion of the 1962 electoral registers to the 30th of June, 1963. The issue is whether notwithstanding the extension of the date of the completion of the 1962 registers, there would be legal validity for the procedural work to be carried out in the preparation of the revised registers for 1962 outside of the time limits prescribed by sections 10 (1) and 15 (1) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53). There it is provided, Mr Speaker, Sir, that every year work on the preparation of the revised registers should begin sometime after the 1st of February and be completed by the 15th of September of that same year. Surely it is not our intention to ask the House to give legal validity to criminal acts done by anybody.

The State Advocate-General is satisfied that the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance passed at the last sitting of the Assembly is sufficient in law to validate the work of the Registration Officer in preparing the revised registers for 1962 outside the limits of time prescribed by sections 10 (1) and 15 (1) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53). But to make doubly sure, we have included this new validity section in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance ex abundante cautela.

4.45 p.m.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the P.A.P. system of parliamentary democracy. When moving the Second Reading, the Minister for Home Affairs explained the reasons for this Bill. He said that the amending Bill passed on 15th June this year was sufficient for the purpose, but in order to clear the doubts of the Opposition, it was necessary to table this Bill to further amend the Ordinance.

On the 15th June, when the Minister for Home Affairs tabled the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Assembly spent some three hours debating this undemocratic Bill. At that time we pointed out to the Government that the amendment was a great departure from the system of parliamentary democracy. We said that it was the intention of the Government to legalise their illegal acts.

Today, the Minister introduces another Bill, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, only after the Government has discovered that the previous amending Bill was insufficient for a particular purpose, that is to say, although they tried to legalise their illegal acts previously, those illegal acts are still illegal and they remain illegal. That is why it is necessary for the Minister to introduce this Bill to further legalise those illegal acts. That is to say, on 15th June the P.A.P. Government "killed" 500,000 voters. But they were unable to "kill" all of them, although they "killed" some. So they are now trying to legalise their act of "murdering" these voters in this House today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a few moments ago, in reply to my question No. 8 on the Order Paper, the Minister said that the 1962 Electoral Registers have about 45,000 new voters. But in reply to my question No. 9, he said that those new electors would have their names entered in the 1963 Electoral Registers, and he finally pointed out that the 1963 Electoral Registers would be completed before 1st March next year. This accounts for the intention of this Bill before the House. It explains why the Government are unable to answer the question with regard to the number of persons who are actually entitled to vote. They know that through this Bill the 1963 Electoral Registers will not be ready and therefore the people will not be able to vote. But this is quite different from what the Minister for Culture has said - that this Bill is introduced to look after the interests of the Barisan Sosialis or the S.P.A. and to prevent anybody from going to court to get an order that the election is illegal. Mr Speaker, this is the first time that we have heard the Minister for Culture saying such kind words to Members of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, it is the intention and purpose of the Government to legalise through this Assembly all their undemocratic and dictatorial acts.

Mr Speaker, the revision of electoral registers is not difficult in so far as printing is concerned. If the Minister finds it impossible to complete the 1963 Electoral Registers because of a shortage of staff or because of financial difficulties or for some other reason, then the simple thing for him to do is to ask the Minister for Finance to put in a Supplementary Estimate with which to recruit additional staff for this particular purpose.

Mr Speaker, we have seen the Government spending thousands and thousands of dollars on expanding television programmes and the Army. If the Elections Office has not got enough money, then I believe the Government can easily put before the Assembly a Supplementary Estimate, and this will not endanger the financial position of Singapore to any substantial extent. I am certain that if the Government were to put in a Supplementary Estimate, as I have suggested, then Members on this side of the House would fully support it without any opposition. So one can very clearly see that the motive of the Government in introducing this Bill is not that they are incapable of completing the registers in time but because they want to preserve their political life.

Mr Speaker, I say that all Bills relating to elections are introduced by the Government for the purpose of ensuring their own political life. They say that the previous amending Bill was good. Of course, it is good to the P.A.P., but to the people of Singapore it is bad. It is undemocratic.

Mr Speaker, the 1962 Electoral Registers were only completed at the beginning of this month, and were put up for inspection by the public only recently. Many people who voted at the National Referendum discovered that their names do not appear in the latest Electoral Registers. In the eyes of the P.A.P. Government, these people would courageously come forward in the next elections and vote against the candidates of the P.A.P. Unfortunately their names do not appear in the 1962 Electoral Registers.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Ong Chang Sam: No. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, all these things that I have said are based on facts. I am not making allegations that cannot be substantiated. Mr Speaker, we can see very clearly that if the P.A.P. did not introduce the amending Bill on 15th June, they would have to complete the Electoral Registers within the time limit set out in the Ordinance, and I believe that those people whom I have mentioned just now would then have their names entered in the Register. But because of that amending Bill, these people do not have their names entered in the latest Electoral Registers.

Mr Speaker, whatever the People's Action Party do, and whatever Bills they bring before the House, they only show clearly that they are undemocratic and dictatorial. They have shown their true colours. Their legislation is PAP, legislation, which is oppressive and suppressive and is not aimed at promoting the interests of the people.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker. Sir, this amending Bill is not designed to deprive anybody of his electoral rights, as feared by the Member for Farrer Park. It is just to validate all procedural steps taken by the Registration Officer to compile the 1962 Registers. The Bill was drawn up by the State Advocate-General's Chambers and approved by the State Advocate-General himself. I am sure Opposition Members will agree that the S.A.G. will be the last person to approve any Bill that is specifically designed to cover any criminal act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has alleged that the Bill could conveniently leave out the names of any prospective candidates of the Barisan Sosialis. The Registers have been compiled and certified last month, and I do not see how any names could have been left out of the Registers now. I can assure the Member for Thomson that the Government took exceptional care to ensure that the names of the 14 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are in the Registers.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang has alleged just now that many people who voted at the National Referendum have found that their names have not been included in the 1962 Registers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I tried to elucidate this information from him just now, but he refused to give way. There is a Claims and Objections period during which persons who voted at the National Referendum and who found that their names were not included in the Registers could file claims to have their names restored in the Registers. Unless the Member for Choa Chu Kang can give details or particulars of these persons whom he has alleged were deliberately excluded from the Registers by the Registration Officer, then I think it is quite proper for me to call him a liar.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister must know that that word is absolutely out of order in this Assembly, whether used directly or indirectly of a Member. He must withdraw.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw that word.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think a qualified withdrawal like that would suit me or the House. The Speaker is here to uphold the dignity of the House, not only his own dignity. I want just a simple withdrawal.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that word.

5.00 p.m.

The Member for Queenstown could not understand why there have been less voters in the 1962 Registers than in the 1961 Registers -

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that the Minister will take a few more minutes. I intend therefore to suspend now. I will take this Chair again at half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now before we adjourned that the Member for Queenstown seemed not able to understand why there should be less voters in the 1962 Registers than in the 1961 Registers. If he is clearly ignorant why there should be less voters in the 1962 Registers, then I am afraid I have credited him with more intelligence than he should deserve.

Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier in the day, in answer to the Member for Choa Chu Kang, I have stated that there were more than 53,000 persons who did not vote at the National Referendum, and if he had paid attention to the answer I have given he would have understood why there should be less voters in the 1962 Registers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a straightforward amendment to remove the doubts of the Opposition Members, particularly the Member for Farrer Park, and to make the legality of the 1962 Registers doubly certain. Inasfar as the Government's position is concerned, we are satisfied that the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, is sufficient for the purpose. However, because doubts have been raised by the Opposition Members as to the legality of the procedural acts taken by the Registration Officer, this amendment is introduced today. The amendment has been introduced at the instance of the Opposition Members. If now the Opposition Members after having first cast doubts on the legality of the 1962 Registers, are unhappy about this amendment, then I wish to withdraw this Bill and in this respect I wish to seek your guidance.

Mr Speaker: At the moment, the House is seized of a motion, that is, the motion that the Bill be now read a Second time. Therefore, the first step would be for the Minister to proceed under Standing Order No. 40 which deals with withdrawal of motions. I will read the relevant part. Standing Order No. 40, paragraph (1):

`A motion ... may be withdrawn, at the request of the mover, by leave of the Assembly ... before the question is fully put thereon, provided that there is no dissentient voice ..'.

That is the position. If the Minister seeks the leave of the Assembly that the motion be withdrawn and the Assembly agrees, the motion will be withdrawn. Then there will be another step which will have to be taken to discharge the Order of the House for the Second Reading of the Bill, Will the Minister then proceed under Standing Order No. 40 in the first instance?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave of the Assembly, under Standing Order No. 40, to withdraw the motion for Second Reading.

Mr Speaker: Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be withdrawn?

Mr David Marshall: No.

Mr Speaker: The motion is not withdrawn. Does the Minister wish to say anything further?

Mr Ong Pang Boon: No.

Mr Speaker: I will put the Question then. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As many as are of that opinion, say Aye.

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: To the contrary, say

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Speaker: I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it.

An hon. Member: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Too late. There is no other further step to be taken. The motion for the Second Reading has been defeated. The Bill will remain on the Order Book until such `me as the Minister, if he so desires, wishes to replace it on the Order Paper.