AMENDMENT OF STANDING ORDERS

4.10 p.m.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): Mr Speaker. I beg to move,

That this Assembly resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper L.A. I of 1964 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, the amendments which have been submitted for consideration in this House have been arrived at from the light of our experience during the past five years in the last Assembly. It is our hope that the changes proposed in the Standing Orders will facilitate the proceedings in this Assembly, and will also assist Mr Speaker, who is in the Chair, in the conduct of proceedings.

If there is any charge anywhere that democratic rights are being curtailed, I would like to refute it by stating quite categorically that democracy is best preserved by not reducing the proceedings in this House to those of a comic opera or a circus. Unfortunately on certain occasions in the past, this House had to endure very lengthy repetitious speeches which Mr Speaker was unable to terminate. In spite of Standing Order No. 54 relating to repetition of speeches, the Chairman had always in the past found it difficult indeed, especially when speeches were made in a language foreign to the Chairman, to terminate the repetition. The result, of course, was that 50 Members in this House had to tolerate it.

Briefly, the principal changes proposed in this Report are that in future, the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech and on the Finance Minister's Budget Speech will be limited respectively to five days. In the case of the Budget Speech, there is a one-day debate on the Speech itself and three days are allocated for debate on the Main Estimates and one day on the Development Estimates. This gives a total of five days' speaking time on the Government's Budget for the following year.

With regard to the debate on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech, it has been found from past experience - in fact, at the last sitting of the Assembly - that it took only four days. However, it is our intention to increase this period by one further day to allow Back-benchers to make their speeches.

Let me come to the time and manner of speaking as laid down in Standing Order No. 43. Speeches to questions by the Chair will now be limited to not more than one hour. However, a Member who moves a motion can extend his speech by 15 minutes if the House so allows and he is also permitted to close the debate by a speech lasting for not more than one hour. In Committee, a Member will be permitted to speak for 15 minutes. This is so, because in Committee, as Members in the House are aware, a Member can stand up again and again to raise questions or to make further points on questions that are dis cussed. Therefore, it would be tedious indeed if in Committee a Member were allowed to speak for more than 15 minutes at a stretch.

In this instance, may I also draw the attention of Members to the practice which is being carried out in other Parliaments? There is a footnote to Stand ing Order No. 43, which explains that in Nigeria a Member is permitted to speak for not more than 30 minutes on any subject, but that a mover of an original motion is entitled to 45 minutes. In Australia the times vary considerably. A Member is permitted to speak for only 25 minutes if the debate is on the Address of Thanks by the Governor-General. In moving the Second Reading of a Bill, the Minister is permitted a 45-minute period and any other Member who wishes to speak on the question is permitted only 30 minutes. In other debates, that is to say, on motions moved by any other Member of the House, the mover has only 30 minutes and other Members have only 20 minutes. Furthermore, in Committee of Supply a Member is entitled to only two periods of 10 minutes each. That, of course, means that the Member can, speak altogether for only 20 minutes.

This, I hope, Mr Speaker, will be a happy compromise which will enable as many Members in this House - 51 Members - to be allocated the time to make their speeches. Previously we have had Members standing up in this Chamber regorgitating speeches written for them by somebody else and the whole period lasting seven hours. Very often sittings had to be extended to past midnight and there were occasions when many Members of this House were absent while a Member was spouting out his speech from his script and Mr Speaker had considerable trouble even to find a quorum. Well, it is to eliminate this abuse of freedom of speech in this Chamber that we have come to this arrangement in this Standing Order No. 43. I would also add that any Member in this Chamber who has anything of real value to say should be able to find one hour quite adequate to put his point across, it is to avoid tedious repetitions and diversions that this time limit has been imposed. In fact, those who have ever been students before are aware that they can stand a teacher's lecture for at the most only one hour. While we do not consider ourselves to be still in class, I feel that the majority of us would consider that one hour is sufficiently adequate to listen to a Member's speech and if he has anything worthy of note, he could put it in within the period of one hour.

Under Standing Order No. 18 relating to questions to be answered in the House, a Member is now rationed to three questions per day. Question time will be limited altogether to one hour, so no questions will be taken after half-past 3 p.m. Again relevant to this, may I draw the attention of Members to the footnote under Standing Order No. 18 which explains the practice in other Parliaments - in the House of Commons and in the Dewan Raayat in Kuala Lumpur? The number of questions is limited to two and three to each Mem ber respectively; and furthermore Question Time is also limited to one hour. However, it does not mean that questions which have been introduced on the Order Paper for answer and which have not been disposed of will not be answered at all. On the contrary, if a Member so wishes he can inform the Clerk of the Assembly or Mr Speaker that he wishes these questions which have not been taken by 3.30 p.m. to be taken the following day. This, of course, does not mean that supplementary questions to the main question will be prohibited. Members can still ask supplementary questions to the main question.

Mr Speaker, these are the principal amendments which the Standing Orders Committee have put forward. I may end up by stating to the House that, as far as the Government is concerned, we find that we should devote more time to the administration of our duties and that the welfare of the State is better guarded if the Government were to devote more of its time to administration. I have no doubt that we will come to this House now and then for legislation or for clarification of certain policies which have been carried out, but it certainly would not be to the welfare of the State if we were to spend most of our time squatting in this cold Chamber when we could do more concrete and positive work carrying out administration.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.23 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the pretext of facilitating the Speaker's work and streamlining the proceedings of this Assembly, the present Standing Orders which have been modelled on the legislatures of other countries in the British Commonwealth have been revised and will be passed at today's sitting. From the time this Government's motion to amend the Standing Orders and adopt a new set of Standing Orders has been passed. there will be in reality an occurrence which is of fundamental importance to us. There will have happened a silent counter revolution in the nature and significance of the Singapore Legislative Assembly. It will be another crack in the political theory of democratic government which advocates a division of powers among the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no better evidence than the last few sentences in the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister where he admitted, openly and nakedly, that the Government does not wish to waste time debating in this Assembly, but wishes to concentrate all its energy and time in dealing with administration. In other words, if it is possible, the Government wishes to concentrate 365 days a year in executive work and does not bother to waste even one day in the Legislature except when it has to conic back here to pass certain laws like the Land Acquisition Ordinance and the Foreshores Ordinance on a Certificate of Urgency ---

An hon. Member: Sure, sure!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Sir, indirectly the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that their ideal is towards a system of government where the Executive will have full control of everything and will not have to waste time with Opposition Members, sometimes will crack jokes at them or shoot them in their soft parts. This will be another step forward in the creation of a one-Party State. The irony of it is that Singapore is only a State with limited powers working within the framework of a bigger Federal Constitution. Except for this last check, the transition to a totalitarian regime is not only real but imminent.

Now, that is the real reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Standing Orders Committee that we cannot proceed to a one-Party State. Not that the majority Party in power believes in the system of parliamentary democracy, but because. Sir, we cannot help it. We are bound by a bigger framework, by another bigger constitution.

Sir, sittings of this Assembly are now very rare occurrences. As a matter of fact, the cushions here ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Moth-eaten!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: --- very soon will have cobwebs. People have forgotten the existence of this Assembly. Now with the revised Standing Orders passed, whatever little remnants of democracy and free speech left will he corroded even more and more. In the days of the colonial regime, the Standing Orders of the Legislatures were admittedly more free and democratic ---

Dr Toh Chin Chye: So you prefer the colonial days?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Of course, it is admitted that the colonial masters controlled the speeches of their nominated Assemblymen, not through restrictive Standing Orders, but through nominating stooges. But now, Sir, when the Government has not yet gone over to either a guided democracy or to a totalitarian regime like some other countries, it is not yet possible for them to nominate stooges who read out speeches dictated by Government. Therefore, Sir, we have today this gross departure from the parliamentary system, the most restrictive Standing Orders yet to be found in the British Commonwealth. These Standing Orders, if adopted, will make democracy a farce. The Government cannot abolish the Assembly altogether at present because of the Federal Constitution, or either fill it with nominated Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what the Government is scared of. Is it because of the economic situation deteriorating clay by day? We can estimate more than 100,000 people unemployed cursing the Government. The Government are very scared of criticism for fear that the lid on the cauldron which they are sitting on will blow off.

Sir, coming to these amendments. They fall under several categories although the objective is the same. Having no power to abolish this Assembly, the Government have to consider what is the next best thing to do. They will be adopting revised Standing Orders. Days of notices of sittings will be drastically reduced. Times for debate on the Government's policy speech and the annual Budget are curtailed. The number of questions, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, will be rationed. Each Member will have a ration of three questions. Mr Speaker, Sir, very soon we will have to apply for coupons to speak from the Leader of the House. Every Member cannot speak for more than one hour in the House or 15 minutes in Committee stage. The majority in the Assembly, which means the Government Party, however, can do many things as it wishes. By the use of its majority vote, there will be two types of procedures, one for the majority aid one for the minority. It is in similar vein. Sir, where a Party practices Right-wing policies in Singapore hut seeks to demand Left-wing social reforms and winds of change in the Federation or like protecting expatriates in Singapore and opposing expatriates in the Federation; or like suppressing and trampling the workers' rights in Singapore and asking for more pay for the workers in the Federation; by suppressing all remnants of democracy in Singapore and asking for more democracy and more freedom of speech in the Federation. It is a similar vein, Sir, that we will have, through the majority vote, two types of democracy in this Assembly. It is the usual double-faced policy and the supreme fact for us is that Singapore is only a State within the Federal Constitution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope time is not up yet because the new Standing Orders have not et conic into force.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Please go on.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: I have not forgotten, Sir, that the new Standing Orders will not only restrict Members' freedom of speech but will stiffen the punitive provisions against Members for any breach of the Standing Orders. In one of the explanatory statements, it is stated that to punish a Member by suspension or otherwise can be moved as a matter of course and without notice. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is D-Day not forward, but backward for this Assembly.

4.32 p.m.

Mr Lim Huan Boon (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Party in power propose to amend the Standing Orders of this House for their own reasons. We have made a careful study of the amendments and we can understand the reasons advanced by them. They are meant to destroy parliamentary democracy here, and these reasons are to cover up their intentions. Their main purpose is to curb the opportunity for Opposition Members of making speeches and to prevent us from preparing our speeches. On the other hand, they try to give more time and opportunity to Ministers and Backbenchers to make speeches in order to attack Opposition Members. Those are the main reasons for making these amendments.

For instance, Standing Order 43 (8) (a) and (b) - it stipulates that any Member making a speech is limited to one hour, and in Committee the time allowed is 15 minutes for each Member. This undoubtedly threatens our opportunity to make speeches and curbs the content of our speeches. Of course, the Party in power will say that the same provision is applicable to Government Benchers so that there will not be any injustice to the Opposition. But we would point out that this kind of stipulation is contrary to parliamentary democracy, because Parliament is the highest institution where the wishes of the people can he expressed. It is a place where State affairs and important public matters can be discussed. Therefore, the Standing Orders of this House should not be amended without any good reasons. Members should be given ample time to represent the people in their speeches. Opposition Members should be given the opportunity to check the Government. But now the Government intend to limit our opportunity for making speeches. This is contrary to parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see that under certain circumstances the Ministers can make speeches without any restriction. For instance, under Standing Order 83, paragraph (2), the Minister for Finance is not bound by the provisions of Standing Order 43. And also the mover of the motion to debate the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech and the Member making a reply are given ample time to make their speeches. From these amendments we can see that the Party in power are limiting the time of the Opposition. Under Standing Order 13 the time of notice of debate of one week has been reduced to two days. This means that three days after the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has delivered his speech, the Party in power can convene a sitting to debate the speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy speech is a very important statement of the Government for the whole year. We would like to ask whether Opposition Members can gather the necessary material in such a short period of two days for a debate in this House. The Opposition thus cannot have sufficient time to study deeply the policy statement and therefore they will not be able to make effective criticisms of the policy speech.

There is another undemocratic amendment. It relates to the reduction of time for debate on the Budget Statement. Formerly the time allocated was five days, but flow the time is limited to three days' debate on the Main Estimates and one day's debate on the Development Estimates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the various items of revenue for the Government departments come from the people. Of course, the people have a right to know and to discuss the use of these monies. Therefore, the time limit on the debate on the Estimates will mean that Opposition Mem bers will be prevented from making full use of the time to criticise the Government and to study how the Government is making use of public funds. The people will then suffer. Thus the reduction of time amounts to a reduction of the right of the Opposition Members to make their speeches here. Today we represent the people in this House, and if we cannot have sufficient time to make speeches as their representatives, then it is not only a loss to us Opposition Members, but also a loss of the democratic rights of the people. As Opposition Members, we have the responsibility to safeguard the rights of the people and to prevent these rights from being abused by the Party in power.

4.40 p.m.

Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since I received the revised Standing Orders of this House, after deep thought and study of these amendments to the Standing Orders. I find that they are improper and unreasonable. I feel that they are intended to curb the freedom and opportunity to raise effective criticism against the government, thus turning these Standing Orders into something beneficial for the Government. On the other hand, they limit the Opposition from effectively criticising all the measures and policies put forward by the Government. The questions discussed in this House involve very grave State matters and other important issues and therefore the Opposition should be given ample opportunity to study and criticise these policies. The amendments to the Standing Orders, however, are contrary to the spirit of democracy. This is another sign that the Government arc becoming more and more dictatorial. They are motivated by their own selfishness.

In the revised Standing Orders, the time for giving notice has been reduced, while the time of notice required from the Opposition has been increased. This shows that the Government are making use of these provisions in order to prevent the Opposition from having ample time to study all issues. This is a grave blow to the people. It is also an insult and a smear to democratic principles. The revised Standing Orders are unreasonable and disadvantageous to the Opposition.

Let me deal with these amendments in great detail, in Standing Order 13, firstly, the time for debate on the policy speech. Previously the Government gave seven days to the Opposition to study the policy speech. But now the number of days has been reduced to two. The policy speech embodies all the important measures of the Government and other complicated problems. Therefore, we should have ample time to study the policy speech. To make matters worse, we are not able to get all the necessary data to study it. The Government have been unco-operative in this respect. We are given a very short time to make the necessary preparation for the debate on the policy speech. We are not able to devote sufficient time on important questions embodied in the policy speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on new Standing Order No. 43, paragraph (8). In the old Standing Orders, there was no limitation on the time to speak to any question. But in the new Standing Orders, provision is made to limit the time of Opposition Members to speak to any question. A Member is entitled to speak for only one hour. He can have another 15 minutes if the majority of Members give their assent. This is another example of the Government's dictatorial practice.

The Federal Parliament is bigger than our State Legislative Assembly. Yet there is no limitation on the time given to the Members there. To limit the time of the Members will not only mean a loss to them, but also a great loss to the Assembly. Because of the limitation of time. Members, especially the Opposition Members, will not be able to voice the views of the people. They will not be able to point out the faulty measures of the Government. The Opposition Parties cannot play an effective role as representatives of the people.

The amendments to the Standing Orders are disadvantageous to the Opposition Parties in that they will not allow the Opposition Parties sufficient time to criticise the wrong policies or measures of the Government. They criticise the Government because they want it to adopt correct policies and to pursue the correct line. Why should the Government curb the Opposition Parties from exercising their duties? Why should they stop the Opposition Parties from pointing out their faults and shortcomings?

In old Standing Order 63, paragraph (2), any Member who wishes to introduce a Bill should give two clear days' notice. But in the new Standing Order, a private Member should give four clear days' notice. That means he has to give two more clear days' notice. This only shows that the P.A.P. is trying to lengthen the time of notice of a motion. The Government want to deprive the Opposition of the opportunity to raise questions.

In Standing Order No. 83, paragraph (2), the Minister will not be bound by Standing Order No. 43 (8). The Standing Orders should be applied equally to the Opposition Parties as well as the Government. There should not be two standards. In the new Standing Orders, the Minister is enabled to extend the time of his speech. This dictatorial practice and attitude can only mean that there would not be any democratic spirit.

In old Standing Order 86 (2), 5 days was allotted for the debate on the Main Estimates. But now the number of days has been reduced to three. The Main Estimates are very important. They need our careful study. Thus the time provided by the new Standing Order is not sufficient.

In the amended Standing Order 87 (2), there is only one day for debate on the Development Estimates. Mr Speaker. Sir, the Development Estimates involve the economic livelihood of the people and all other constructive measures. Therefore, one day allotted to the Development Estimates will not be sufficient. If it is devoted to jesting and talking nonsense, of course, it is sufficient. But if we are really to study the Development Estimates, then one day is not sufficient.

I do not intend to talk on the details of the amendments. But from the amendment of this major Standing Order, viewed generally, we can only come to the conclusion that the Government want to control the Legislature. Freedom of speech has already been limited. But by this amendment the Government can have a hand in further curbing parliamentary democracy and freedom of speech. The real intention of this amendment is to preserve the Government's monopolistic rights, to allow themselves all the conveniences but to deny to others their rights in this House. This is a great departure from parliamentary democracy. It is an insult to the principle of democracy. These dictatorial and monopolistic tactics and intrigues of the P.A.P. should be strongly condemned. Any line taken, any policy and actions of the P.A.P. which are contrary to the interest and welfare of the people and which curb their freedom and their democratic rights, should be strongly condemned by all the people concerned. They are a detriment to democracy in Singapore.

4.58 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the speeches of the three Members from the Opposition side took in all about 20 minutes. This indicates that what the Government has tried to do, that is, to amend the Standing Orders to give Members one hour to speak is more than ample and justified. Of course, in this Assembly we are all representatives of the people. We are here to discuss the interests affecting the State. But it is not for them to make publicity for their Jakarta Press. I do not see any logic in their argument. In amending the Standing Order to limit the time of speaking to one hour, it affects both sides of the House. It does not affect only the Opposition Members. How can they say that this is undemocratic? I think they are very lucky to be able to enjoy real freedom of speech in this Assembly. If one day it should happen that this freedom of speech is lost, I think then they would not dare even to whisper among themselves, let alone debate in this House.

Mr Speaker, I fully support the amendments.

Mr Speaker: I think this appears a convenient time for me to suspend for half an hour, say, till half-past five.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the speeches bemoaning the death of democracy by the Member for Hong Lim, the Member for Bukit Merah and the Member for Paya Lebar, I am just wondering whether these people really believe in what they say. They each spent ten minutes trying to prove to us that unless Members are allowed to speak for more than one hour each, there is no democracy. The Member for Hong Lim pleaded that unless Members are allowed to speak for more than one hour, there is no democracy, and yet he was satisfied making his point within the space of ten minutes. The Member for Bukit Merah spoke in a similar vein. The exception was the Member for Paya Lebar. He decided to exercise his democratic rights by speaking for 15 minutes.

Now the gist of their arguments is this. If you speak for one hour or less, then there is less democracy. If you speak for two hours, then there is more democracy. If you can speak for three hours, then there is still more democracy. That is their measure of democracy on this earth. The longer you can speak, the more democracy there is.

I want to try to convince them that, in fact, by allowing a Member unlimited time to speak in this Assembly, they are curtailing the democratic rights of this Assembly. Their former leader, Dr Lee Siew Choh, as we all know, was in the habit of making speeches for seven or eight hours starting in the evening right through to the small hours of the next day. What happened was that for the whole day - a day and a night - only Dr Lee Siew Choh could speak in this Assembly. The other 50 Members did not have a chance to speak. And that they say is democracy! I say, Sir, that our Standing Orders by limiting the length of individual speeches to one hour or less provide more democracy, because where previously only one man could speak throughout the day, under the new Standing Orders, five, six, seven, eight or more Members in this Assembly can speak. So I say that there is more freedom of speech, because you give the right of speech to a larger number of people.

An hon. Member: That is right.

Mr Rajaratnam: Sir, I am told that the word "hypocritical" is out of order. So I say that it is insincere for people like Members of the Barisan Sosialis to shed crocodile tears over democracy here. They do not believe in democracy. There is a man whom they are supporting - their supreme leader - and if the Standing Orders of Indonesia are implemented in this Assembly, there will be only one supreme speaker!

Here, in this Assembly, freedom of speech is not measured by how long you can speak. The three Members opposite have shown that if you want to make a point effectively, you can make it within half an hour or within ten to fifteen minutes. In fact, it is my contention, Sir, that perhaps by limiting speeches to tolerable proportions, we are doing the Opposition a favour, because some of them within the course of 15 minutes speak a lot of rubbish. If they are given three hours, they will speak more rubbish and to that extent they will do more damage to their own cause. Dr Lee Siew Choh, the man who spoke for eight to ten hours, is now out of this Assembly. The only former Member of the Barisan who has survived is the man who talks least - the Member for Jalan Kayu. It proves our point that it is better to speak sense for 15 minutes or half an hour than to speak rubbish for eight or nine hours.

Sir, none of the speakers in the Opposition have indicated in what way, apart from cutting down the length of time, these Standing Orders limit freedom of speech. Does the fact that you are speaking for only one hour limit free speech? In what way is this undemocratic? I think the Member for Hong Lim said, "Oh, this is the beginning of a one-Party State." This is odd, coming from a one-man Party. And yet, under these Standing Orders, if the Member for Hong Lim is still in this Assembly, he can speak. It does not constitute a one-Party State. He is allowed to speak and make his point. He has not indicated in what way these Standing Orders make for totalitarian rule. Many of these Standing Orders have precedents in Nigeria and Australia. Is it suggested that these are undemocratic States, or is it suggested that the only democratic State which appeals to the political loyalty of the gentlemen opposite is a one-Party State like Soviet Russia or Indonesia? Are those countries their models of democracy, where you have a one-Party State and only one man can speak? Or is it in an Assembly like this or in Australia or in Nigeria or in the Federation of Malaya, where you are allowed to speak? The purpose of these Standing Orders - as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out - is to prevent abuse of the privileges accorded in this Chamber, by Members using the Assembly to prevent other Members from speaking. That was what happened. The Barisan Sosialis Members, though they constituted a small group, deliberately came into this Chamber and made long repetitious speeches. You may remember, Sir - at least I remember - that when Dr Lee Siew Choh and other Members of the Barisan Sosialis got up to speak, there used to be a relay of runners who came into this Chamber with a wad of notes to keep them fed with ideas. So much so that it became tedious, and Members in this Chamber had to seek refuge in the C.P.A. Room when Dr Lee Siew Choh was speaking. It was the same case when the other Barisan Sosialis Members were speaking - some Members went to sleep in the C.P.A. Room. Far from ensuring that there was real democracy, what happened was that by allowing Members to make tedious speeches, other Members, including the Barisan Sosialis supporters, were forced to leave the Chamber in order to escape the verbal diarrhoea of Dr Lee Siew Choh who is no longer the Chairman of the Gentlemen opposite. So it is to prevent this kind of abuse of the privileges of this Chamber that these Standing Orders are being introduced.

It is not the intention to prevent the Opposition from speaking. These Standing Orders do not prevent the Opposition Members from speaking. They only preventthe Opposition from making unnecessarily lengthy speeches.

Sir, in conclusion, may I just illustrate that the best way to make effective criticism - the Opposition we know want to make effective criticism - is by saying what you have to say in as few words as possible? This reminds me of the fishmonger who put up a sign outside his shop saying, "Fresh Fish Sold Here". A gentleman came along and asked him, "Why do you say that? You are obviously selling fresh fish; so why not cut out the word fresh'?" So the sign became "Fish Sold Here". On the second day, another chap came along and told the fishmonger, "Obviously you are not giving your fish away. You know, you are selling your fish. Cut out the Sold' and just put Fish Here'." On the third day, another chap came along and asked, "Why do you put the word here'? Obviously you can see that the fish is here. So cut out the word here'." On the fourth day, another chap came along and said, "You know, your fish smells so much after the fifth day that I can smell it down the street. So cut out the word Fish'."

Sir, it is my humble suggestion to the Members of the Barisan Sosialis opposite that there are times when it is not necessary for them to say anything.

5.43 p.m.

The Minister for Labour (Mr Jek Yeun Thong): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that making speeches is a very important aspect in the life of an Assemblyman who is the representative of the people. If we do not speak a word in this Chamber, then, of course, we will receive criticism from the people. But one must consider what kind of speeches one is going to make. We must have certain principles to govern the making of speeches in this Chamber. We cannot just come here and talk nonsense and waste time. There is a Chinese proverb which says, "To govern does not mean to speak a lot." In other words, statesmen and politicians should not resort to flowery language and lengthy speeches to deceive the people. They must resort to action. They must be judged by their deeds and not by their words. But the Members of the Opposition are complaining that they are not being given sufficient time to speak their minds and express their views as adequately as possible. I think they are not correct in making such a complaint because one cannot say that the longer he speaks the better he is. It does not mean that Members of this House must come here to compete with one another to see who can speak longer or better. My opinion is that the best policy i to speak concisely. In other words, if you can speak in fewer words and express your ideas that are constructive, then you speak correctly and well. A speech is not judged by the number of words therein but by its content. If you want to defend the democratic system, then, in my opinion, you must not resort to speaking for one, two, three or more hours. That is not the way to defend democratic rights. It does not mean that when you speak for one hour less you will have less democratic rights. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in this world, especially in such a small island as Singapore, that cannot be expressed concisely and precisely and finished off in one hour. You can, in fact, deal with any matter within the limit of one hour in this Chamber. No one can claim that they have a very comprehensive knowledge of every matter relating to every Ministry. It is impossible for one to be a know-all. So the Opposition should resort to a division of labour. This means that they should allocate topics to be dealt with in their speeches among themselves, so that one speaker will be allocated a certain section and a certain topic. So what matters is not whether you speak longer or shorter. The crux of the matter is whether you can go straight to the point of the topic under discussion.

One must not resort to the endless gossiping of an old lady. If you do so, then you will be the most unwelcomed Member in this House, and you will be considered a long-winded gossip. One must not abuse democratic privileges. By trying to safeguard these privileges and preventing them from being abused, we are actually helping the democratic system run smoothly. If you say that to cut down the time of speeches is to curtail democratic rights, then it is not correct.

The Minister for Culture has said just now that the former Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis took about seven and a half hours to make his speech in this House. But I want to ask, "Was he airing the views of the people in those days?" We know that the people elected him on a P.A.P. ticket. We also know that he went against the P.A.P. without consulting the voters in his electorate. The people elected him because he was in agreement with the principles of the P.A.P. That was why he was elected on a P.A.P. ticket. But when he went against the P.A.P., he did not go back to his electorate. Could he claim to represent his electorate? He spoke in this House for eight hours or more, but we cannot say that he was really representing them. He was actually representing himself. We can even go to the extent of saying that he was not even speaking on behalf of his own Party, because he has been thrown out by his own Party. So we can say that to speak at length will bring you to the brink of disaster. Of course, we know that Dr Lee Siew Choh was discarded by the people in the first instance, and he has now been thrown out by his own Party in the second instance. This perhaps was because of his unnecessary and lengthy speeches. We want to urge the Members opposite to take note of the fate of Dr Lee and to learn a lesson from that. You must not try to get the words of others and nuix them together with those of your own and claim that you are speaking on behalf of the people.

Mr Speaker, there is one other point. The Member for Paya Lebar has said that the restriction on the time of speeches would mean a loss to the Assembly. I do not agree with him on this point. In my view, if the Opposition can offer constructive criticisms, of course, we will welcome them. The more they can offer them, the better it will be for us. But if they want to resort to ill-founded rumours in this House in order to defame the Party in power, then the less they talk the better. In fact, if we can restrict them from going along those lines, it will ensure the maintenance of parliamentary democracy in this country. We must not allow the Members opposite to waste the time of this House which also means a waste of public funds.

There is one saying, "Your own essay is better than that of others." If you write a long essay, you expect others to read it with care, otherwise there is no point in writing it at all. Similarly if you want to speak, you must have listeners, otherwise you might as well remain silent. Democracy means that the minority must go along with the majority. It is not the other way round. If a Member wants to show off his talent in making speeches at the expense of the time of other Members, then it is not correct and democratic behaviour.

After the establishment of Malaysia, the political centre of our nation has shifted to Kuala Lumpur, namely the Central Parliament, so that the major problems now are dealt with and debated upon in the Federal House of Representatives in Kuala Lumpur. In the State Legislative Assembly, we are given autonomy in labour and education. We have been able to make spectacular progress in housing. But the main concern of the Barisan Sosialis appears to be the question of internal security. This question has been shifted to the Central Parliament. This Assembly is no longer the forum for the Barisan Sosialis to deal with the question of internal security. In view of the shifting of certain matters to the Central Parliament, our Standing Orders must be amended according to the existing circumstances. To restrict the time of making speeches is not to unduly give ourselves facilities.

The Report has mentioned that in Nigeria a Member is only allowed to speak for a maximum of 30 minutes on any subject. Nigeria is an independent country, and this is what happens in its Parliament. In Australia, where the population is greater and the Legislature has a long historical experience and standing, there is a similar limitation on the debate on the policy statement made by the Governor-General. A Member is only allowed to speak for 25 minutes on the Address of Thanks for the policy statement. On other matters such as the Second Reading of Bills, even the mover himself and the Leader of the Opposition are restricted to a limit of 45 minutes, and any other Member is allowed 30 minutes to speak. As regards the debate on other matters in the Australian Parliament, a mover is allowed 30 minutes and any other Member 20 minutes. Australia is a democratic country with a long history, and yet nobody has ever said that, because of the limitation on the time of making speeches, Australia is no longer a democratic country.

The Member for Paya Lebar has said a few moments ago that our amendments are moulded with the intention of paving the way towards a dictatorship. But we know that in his own Party there is even greater dictatorship. Their former Chairman made a complaint that he presented a long statement but this was suppressed by other Committee members and not published in their organ. We must thank our lucky stars that they have not been able to come to power, otherwise the same thing or even worse might happen in this House.

Their arguments further point out that in the Central Government there is no limitation on time. Theoretically, of course, Members of Parliament in Kuala Lumpur are allowed to speak throughout the whole year for 365 days, if they so choose, because there is no provision in the Standing Orders to curb the hours of speech-making. But in practice, I believe the Member for Jurong and the Member fo,r Bukit Merah understand that on the question of debating the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's speech only last month, two days were allotted for the debate, but there are 200 Members of Parliament and so many of them did not have a chance to speak even for one minute. So one must not make a sweeping statement in any event. Our proposed amendment ensures, at least, that any Member will be given one hour to speak on any topic. Singapore is a place where freedom of speech is allowed. There is no topic in Singapore that cannot be dealt with adequately within an hour. But if you want to repeat yourself over and over again - you may be given one hour one day or even ten days - you will still not finish your speech. From our past experience, we found that whatever the Opposition Members said was more or less stereotyped. Members repeated themselves or repeated words that had been spoken by others. But they all boiled down to the same thing. They were just like official stereotyped documents. There were no differences between them. You listened to their first sentence and you knew what was to come next. Now, are we to be entertained or burdened with such speeches? In fact, if you want to express views as they have done, a few minutes will be enough. They do not require one hour to repeat themselves. We welcome constructive criticism - that goes without saying but if they want to speak on behalf of the Indonesians about their innocence, then restriction of time will be good for the democratic system. In fact, it will be a great help to the maintenance of democracy.

6.02 p.m.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, in the debate on the amendments to the Standing Orders, the Government Members have given many reasons to defend their proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, especially on the curbing of the time allotted to Members. We know that the Assembly sits very rarely. The last sitting was in December. There are many Government policies and measures which merit the criticism of the Opposition Parties, but we are not given the opportunity to do so. If the Standing Orders limit the speaking time of Opposition Members, then they will find difficulty in having ample opportunity and time to deal with all the various aspects of Government's policies and measures.

The Minister for Labour and the Minister for Culture have said just now that the speeches of the Opposition Members last only ten to fifteen minutes; therefore, one bout- is enough. But they must not make such a comparison. It does not mean that in future Members will speak for only ten to fifteen minutes on any topic. In future Members will be restricted and limited by Standing Orders in their speeches. For example, on the question of the policy speech, it is impossible for us to air our views within one hour. Therefore, such limitation is harmful. The fact that Members have spoken for ten to fifteen minutes does show that Opposition Members have not abused their freedom of speech. We do not speak longer than is necessary. We are not, as they describe, trying to make long-winded speeches. Can the Government Ministers and Members prove with facts that in the past the Opposition Members spoke for many hours in order to delay and protract matters? Sometimes we spoke at great length, but sometimes our speeches lasted for only ten to fifteen minutes.

The Government Ministers have been looking down on us. They have been saying that our speeches have been written by others. They say that it is in insult to the spirit of democracy. But is that the actual fact? Let us look at the report of the debate which took place in December. It shows that the Government Members' speeches were written by some others or by the boss of the C.I.D. Their speeches merely praised the P.A.P.

The blame for insulting parliamentary democracy should not lie with the Opposition but with Government Meat-hers. For example, last year there was a time when there was no sitting at all because the Government was afraid that the Opposition Parties might attack them or criticise their wrong policies. This is a real insult to parliamentary democracy. When one of their Ministers died they dared not hold a by-election in Sembawang. That was a real irony of democracy. When the Government arrested Opposition Members without giving reasons, that was a real affront to the democratic principle and spirit. What we want is to have an open debate. But past experience has shown that there has been no opportunity for an open debate in Singapore. Whenever we applied for a permit to hold a mass rally or any other meeting, our application was invariably turned down. The Government controls the radio. We were deprived of the opportunity to speak over it.

Freedom of speech outside this House has become a relic in the museum, and they want to turn freedom of speech in this Assembly into another relic in the museum. That is why they are introducing these amendments to the Standing Orders. In spite of the fact that we, Opposition Members, look very young, the Government want to limit the opportunity for debate. That shows that the Government are afraid of us. They say we speak at great length. If Opposition Parties have been speaking longer than is necessary hut their speeches really expose the faults and, shortcomings of the Government, then their speeches should be welcomed. Now, if the contents of the speeches are good, of course, they are willing to listen to what we speak, and the people on our side are willing to listen to what they speak. If Dr Lee's ---

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the Member, hut the translation of his speech is not coming through. Please proceed now.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I was saying that long speeches need not be a waste of time and need not be old grandmother's tales. Whether or not the speeches are long depend on the judgment of the people outside this House. If the speeches are good, they welcome them. Of course, the Party in power would like us to talk in such a way that they themselves would be glad. They want us to shut up. As observers of the Government, we, of course, want to criticise them for any wrong deeds or mistakes, and if there is anything good done by them, we would express our thanks. So that is why we make speeches in this House.

Just now I was saying that we have been given very little opportunity for open argument and open debate. But the P.A.P., on the other hand, for instance, the Prime Minister, could go to Radio Singapore and have 12 talks over the air, thus wasting public funds. The Press was full of it. The funny talks of the P.A.P. have been broadcast over Radio Singapore almost all the time in four languages, resulting in Radio Singa pore becoming the P.A.P.'s possession. People like the Minister for Culture have been wont to talk about things such as Radio Jakarta, Communist, pro-Communist. Such speeches need not last one hour. They could be condensed into a few minutes. Still we welcome an open argument and we would like the Party in power to afford us, the Opposition Members, also the same facilities as they are enjoying themselves now.

On debating the amendments to the Standing Orders, they have nothing to talk about, no good things to mention, so they mention Dr Lee Siew Choh and other irrelevant matters in the course of the debate. This to us appears to be unnecessary and is a waste of time - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): On one thing I could give a reply. Just now the Minister for Labour has said that we do not have democracy in our Party and that we suppressed Dr Lee Siew Choh's statement. But it is his ignorance of facts which makes him utter such things. I would advise him to have a look at our Party organ so that he could be clear about the facts - [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Please allow the Member to proceed. He did not interrupt when the Government side was speaking, so I suggest they let him speak without further interruption. Please proceed, Mr Koo Young.

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): They have even quoted certain reasons for making these amendments, quoting Nigeria and Australia, and saying that there are limitations also in their Parliament on the time of making speeches. Of course, it is very easy for the Party in power to advance reasons whether rightly or wrongly. They could even cite South Vietnam as a good example where there is no freedom of speech and there is no democracy. They can even advance South Vietnam as a good example to show that since there is no parliamentary democracy, we here also should follow suit. I would like to ask the P.A.P. Government whether it has made a careful study of other examples ---

Mr Rajaratnam: Such as?

Mr Koo Young: (In Mandarin): They should compare how the Government in power and how the Opposition Parties are like in those examples quoted by them. If without comparison they merely advance these examples as their reasons, then these reasons are not sound because they do not hold water.

Sir, in these amendments, the Party in power, on the one hand, try to curb the time of the Opposition Members in making speeches. Just now my colleagues have also mentioned this. Even outside this House we have been limited in our opportunity to criticise certain measures of the Government. They try to reduce the number of days of notice to be given so as to cut down our time to study important documents issued by the Government. We have to study the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's Speech within two days instead of seven days; and this is difficult because the Speech is an important and comprehensive document of the State. But, on the other hand, they try to lengthen the notice required of the Opposition to ask any questions. So we can see that they are resorting to unfair play. I hope, Mr Speaker, that the Ministers and the Backbenches in power will actually allow an open debate and open argument in this country. But by moving these amendments they prove themselves to be deceiving the youth of the country.

6.28 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang): (In Mandarin): We have been entertained by the speeches made by the Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the one-man Party Chairman of the United People's Party, the Member for Hong Lim. Their common point boils down to this. Time limit means no democracy. The Minister for Labour and the Minister for Culture have given adequate explanations to deal with their point. I do not desire to repeat their arguments.

But there is one point which I wish to bring up in rebuttal of the speeches made by the Opposition Members. That is with regard to the by-election in Sembawang. In the speech of the last speaker, there was a reference to it. He said this was an example of an undemocratic act of the P.A.P. The by-election in Sembawang was a victory for the democratic camp. It was not a victory for the Barisan and their friends. In the last elections they were unable to retrieve the seat in Sembawang. I support the amendments to the Standing Orders because, insofar as the interests of the people and the Assembly are concerned, the amendments are good.

6.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the debate on the motion to amend the Standing Orders, I was paying attention to the time that Opposition Members took to make their points. I found that the Member for Hong Lirn took eight minutes, to be exact, the Member for Bukit Merah 10 minutes, the Member for Paya Lebar 15 minutes, and the long-winded speech was that of the Member for Thomson who took about 20 minutes.

I should think that if the principle of democracy were on the brink of collapse when the Opposition would lose their democratic rights, the Opposition Members would utilise more time in attacking the Government. But much beyond our expectations, while the old Standing orders are still in force without any new amendments being in force, the Opposition took a shorter time than expected in this debate. If they had wanted to, they could have taken up more time and even prolonged the debate to tomorrow morning, but the longest speech of the Opposition today took only 20 minutes. I was very surprised and, in fact, it is regrettable that the Barisan Sosialis have so little to say on this grave matter as they claim it to be.

Mr Speaker, the Member for Thomson has said that there is no freedom of speech. I do not want to refer to the pioneer of long-windedness, namely, the former Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, who took about 7� hours to make a speech here to break the record. Talking about freedom of speech, Dr Lee Siew Choh said that whenever he wanted to speak in his own Party he was restricted. If a socialist is courageous enough to face realities, why should the Barisan Sosialis restrict the freedom of speech of its own Chairman? They say that we do not give them enough freedom of speech when they themselves did not give freedom of speech to their own Chairman. Whatever the Chairman had to say, there was a lot of curtailment to his speech. How can they claim that they are champions of freedom of speech and champions of democracy when they themselves do not allow democratic rights to exist? The people could see for themselves that in the National Referendum, both inside and outside this House, we were confronted by the Barisan Sosialis. To what ever queries they raised, there were always adequate replies and suitable answers given, and that was why we were able to win in the National Referendum. We are not as arrogant as they claim us to be. In fact, it was because we were humble enough to expect criticism from the Barisan Sosialis that we went back to the people.

I have already indicated that every time a Member opposite speaks, I have noted the time, and the total time they have taken to speak does not amount to one hour. This is precisely the time when they have all the time in the world to speak their minds freely. They say this is a country without freedom of speech. We say that it is in Indonesia that freedom of speech does not exist, and Indonesia is the country that they look up to. If they think that by resorting to anti-national activities they can have more freedom of speech, then let me tell them that this is but a fantasy.

The Minister for Labour has likened the speeches of the Opposition Members to old grandmother's tales which are long-winded and unnecessary. Of course, he has good reasons for drawing this analogy. In fact, whatever they have said could have been said in less words than necessary. I can well take a whole day to express the points I have. I can talk about my morning ablutions, my business that I have to do every day, and go on to other trivial matters, thus wasting a lot of the time of this House. The champion who broke the record took 7� hours in this House. They could see for themselves that whatever they have said at length were actually speeches written by people outside this House. In fact, one could see for oneself that speeches were handed to Dr Lee from time to time by other members of his Party. He had nothing better to talk than to go back to what had been said. He resorted to the tactic of "fatigue" in order to deceive the people to give them the impression that he was speaking on their behalf.

Mr Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much time. The point really is that Singapore is now faced with a grave problem. The Singapore Government has to reconstruct Singapore. We want to turn Singapore into a prosperous and strong country. If we can do well in Singapore, of course, the same prosperity will be extended to Malaya. We want more people to be in employment. We want the people to judge the Government by deeds and not by words.

Mr Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary is straying away from the motion. We are not concerned with what the Singapore Government is doing outside. We are concerned with the Standing Orders. Has the Parliamentary Secretary got anything new to say? If so, please go on.

Mr Chan Chee Seng: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am pointing out that time is precious in this House. If we allow the reactionary group in the Opposition a lot of time to waste and drag on the proceedings in this Flouse, we can do the same if we want to, it does not mean that we are all dumb. We are capable of making long speeches. But the point is that since time is precious, we must make use of it to do more work for the people. If we do not work for the people and serve them well, then not only will we suffer but they will also suffer, and everybody in this House will suffer. So time being precious. we must make good use of it and must not allow anybody to bring trivial matters into this House.

6.39 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture (Mr Fong Sip Chee): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the point is not whether we allow longer time to make speeches hut rather whether we can make full use of the time given. When Members of the Opposition ask the Ministers supplementary questions, they try to drag in extraneous matters in order to waste the time of this House. So basically they do not even know the procedure of this House. When Question Time comes along, they talk rubbish. At the last sitting of this Assembly, I think the Member for Jalan Kayu was getting impatient when his Party Chairman took 7� hours of this House. As a result, they lost the general elections in spite of the lengthy speeches they made here. The idea is not in the quantity hut the quality of the speeches. Quality is more important than quantity. Lenin himself said that it is the quality of the Party that matters and not the quantity. As the Member for Jalan Besar has said, Members opposite usually resort to repeating points that are irrelevant. So one must make good use of time instead of wasting it.

Members of the Barisan Sosialis opposite talk so much about the absence of democracy in Singapore, the absence of freedom of speech. Mr Speaker, do you believe what they say? In fact, I can claim that in the whole of South East Asia there are only two countries practising parliamentary democracy, and they are the Philippines and Malaysia. Whether the system is to succeed or fail depends on how you take it. The type of democracy that the Barisan Sosialis advocate can be understood in this example. When one considers that the former member of the Central Committee of the Barisan Sosialis, namely, Mr Chok Koh Tong, asked to be repatriated to Communist China, he said ---

Mr Speaker: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is straying away from the motion. We are discussing the Standing Orders and not some person who went away to China or asked to go to China. We are not concerned with him. Please confine yourself to the debate.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just giving you an example of the type of democracy they are advocating.

I think the Opposition Parties insist on having more time, firstly, in order to seek further inspiration and, secondly, the Member for Paya Lebar in his speech sought to extend his time to enable the other Members to draft their speeches. It is well and good if Members could make constructive criticisms of the Government. We welcome the Member for Thomson who said that any good thing done by the Government should be supported by the people. If they are to look at our results with an objective mind, of course, they will see that whatever we do is right. They do not make use of the time allotted to them to make good and constructive criticisms. The Members of the Barisan Sosialis talk about the lack of democracy in Singapore. I want to make a brief reply to them. Ever since 1961, the Barisan Sosialis have been holding many mass rallies and they have given out statements. We have given them all the facilities to do so, apart from making long speeches in this House. Yet they say success or failure does not depend on whether they make long speeches in the House, but on whether they make well-intentioned criticism or evil and destructive criticism.

6.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been listening to the speeches of the Members opposite touching on the amendments to the Standing Orders. They have been saying that the amendments are dictatorial and undemocratic. We have been listening to the same speeches ever since 1961. All this belongs to the same trite speeches. Yet they have been repeating them. It is a waste of the time of this House. In my view, the amendments to the Standing Orders are made in order to guide the Opposition Parties along a better road so as to enable them to make a better contribution to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy, and not to abuse the democratic rights and freedom of speech in this House. They should make good use of their time by studying the various subjects and topics and to offer constructive views and suggestions, and not to copy speeches written by others and recite them in this House. Another spirit of these new Standing Orders is to allow every Member of this House time to speak here and not to allow only one Member to speak, thus depriving other Members of the opportunity to speak.

Mr Speaker, I support the new Standing Orders.

6.50 p.m.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I did not originally intend to speak on these amendments to the Standing Orders because several of my colleagues have given their views on this matter. But since Members on the Government Benches have talked about me - they have said that I was getting impatient when my former Party Chairman was speaking - what I want to stress is that what my Party Chairman spoke --- [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Will Members allow the Member for Jalan Kayu the privilege of speaking undisturbed? Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please proceed.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): I remember when debating the question of Malaysia, the P.A.P. then said that if the Federation of Malaya was Malaysia, then Singapore would become the New York of Malaysia. But has Singapore become the New York of Malaysia? One of the functions of the Legislature, especially under a democratic system of government, is to enable the Opposition Parties to criticise and to supervise the work of the Government. If you deprive the Opposition Parties of the time to speak in the House by limiting it to one hour, it is impossible for them to express all their views. This is especially so if the issue discussed in this House involves the problems and livelihood of the people. We should be given all the facilities and time to supervise the work of the Government. They should adopt certain of our suggestions and criticisms which are conducive to the welfare of the people. This would provide them with the opportunity to consider our views on certain issues. In the debate on the policy speech, there was no limit on the time. But now they want to limit our time in debating the policy speech because the policy speech embodies all the Government plans and policies in the coming year and all the things the Government want to do. They concern the problems of the people. If the Opposition Parties are not given ample time to study and discuss the policy speech, this will mean that the people will have very few chances to air their views on such important matters. For example, from my own experience, whatever the Government want to do, they consult among themselves. The Opposition Parties, on the other hand, are not given such an opportunity to consult among themselves. We are not in a position to know many of the things which the Government intend to do. It is only when we are given all the facilities and the time to speak that we can fulfil our role as Opposition Members. You cannot allocate the time in proportion to the number of Members on each side. If that is done, we, being in the minority Party, will be deprived of our time.

With regard to notices, whenever we want to ask questions we must give longer notice. On the other hand, whatever the Government want to do, they can do so by giving shorter notice, because all these are provided for in the amended Standing Orders. I have forgotten which particular Standing Order provides for that. Previously we were given ample tinie to study all the documents and Bills. But now that is not the case. Whenever we want to ask questions, we have to give four days' notice. But, on the other hand, when the Government want to raise any important measures in this House, they need give only short notice. They thus give us very little time to study the issue. We are not given the facilities and the time to look up the necessary material and data. Whatever we speak in this House is not meant for you but for the people outside this House. Our duty is to the people. This is also the duty of this House. I hope the Party in power will not criticise the fact that we have been too lengthy in our speeches. They should not themselves drag irrelevant matters into this House. The Party in power can consult our Party on any matters to be discussed in this House. We can have certain arrangements before matters are brought into this House. If they can have this mutual consultation in a parliamentary democracy, then there would not be any waste of time of this House. Speaking generally, I would advise the Party in power not to use dictatorial measures in this House. This House should be responsible for all the issues affecting the people.

Just now a Government Member has said that his Party was victorious in Sembawang. I would say that the victory then was quite different. Do not think that nowadays you are welcomed by the people because you were elected by them. It is not so, because the type of election conducted by you actually could not be disclosed. Under such circumstances, the people, even though they were dissatisfied, could only vote according to what the P.A.P. had devised. Now that you have come to power, the whole government machinery is in your hands. Of course, you have access to various facilities and machinery, especially in making use of them to create rumours and ---

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I think what the Member for Jalan Kayu has spoken just now has nothing to do with the subject in hand. He was relating the election results in detail.

Mr Speaker: The Member is straying away from the debate before the House. Will the Member please come back to the subject?

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I was just giving my reply to the Member for Jalan Besar who had said that whatever our representa tives had said in this House had been lacking in content anti was useless, with the result that in the end our Party was defeated. I was only making the point that the success of the election as con ducted in the past did not necessarily reflect the wishes of the people because there had been certain hidden things behind them.

Mr Speaker: The Member has made his point in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Affairs. Can he get on with the debate?

Mr Chan Chee Seng: I have never I mentioned the quality or quantity of the Barisan Sosialis. I think he was all the time sleeping. I have never made such points in my speech.

Mr Speaker: From the time we started this Assembly, I have asked Members not to make personal attacks. There have been none this afternoon until just now. If the Member for Jalan Kayu has made a mistake, it is not due to any personal attack on the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not want any personal attacks in this Assembly, and I am not allowing them. If the hon. Member has a point of order, he can make it, but I do not want him to make a speech on it, especially a personal attack on another Member. Please proceed, Mr Tan.

Mr Tan Cheng Tong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is not necessary for me to talk about the lot of irrelevancies that have been uttered in this House. Just now I touched on the fact that there has been no parlia mentary democracy in this House, and that the Government have neglected to give good answers to this criticism. Instead they bring in irrelevant things. But I would say that there has been a certain amount of democracy in this House, because there is a Speaker who supervises the proceedings in this House, and any breach of the privileges of this House or of the Standing Orders will not pass by the Speaker.

7.02 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I will be brief in my summing up. I do not think I should allow Members of the Opposition to get away with any allegation that we are stopping them from speaking in this House. On the contrary, this afternoon, we had three Bills put up for debate in this Chamber but none of the Members of the Opposition spoke a word about them - and they were very important enactments indeed. Furthermore, none of the Opposition Members can complain that they had no time to scrutinise them. Copies of the Bills had been circulated to them for some time now in order to enable them to study them.

Now, if it is any consolation to the Barisan Sosialis, or, for that matter, any Member of the Opposition, may I remind them that Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address covered less than 500 words, and it took less than ten minutes to deliver? Today it has become an immortal speech which has been cited again and again, simply be cause of the simplicity and the message contained in those 500 words.

The ex-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis made two seven-hour speeches in this Assembly, and although the newspapers may very well have carried what he had said in this Assembly, his speeches have gone into oblivion. Nobody remembers the message he was trying to drive home. Let that be a moral to the Members of the Opposition, that the main purpose of a speech is to drive home a point which can very well be done within the space of one hour - that is, if there is any content at all in the speech.

But let me deal a little with the charges made by the Members for Bukit Merah, Paya Lebar and Jalan Kayu on the procedure for debate on the Negara's Speech.

It is true that previously seven days' notice was required, after the Negara had delivered the Government's policy speech, to hold the next sitting of the Assembly so that a debate can be held in this Chamber. The revision in the Standing Orders provides for two clear days' notice. May I ask the Opposition does it really take them seven days to study a speech which takes only one hour or less to deliver? A man must be very dull indeed if he requires as many as seven days to study a one-hour speech. For that matter, in the Dewan Ra'ayat in Kuala Lumpur, the King delivered the Government's policy speech and on the very next day Parliament sat to debate it. The Member for Bukit Merah, the Member for Jurong and the Member for Paya Lebar were there. They understood what the procedure was and they did not have the audacity to challenge the ruling which they had to observe. Down here, they say that we are undemocratic and dictatorial. Yet we gave them every opportunity to raise this point this afternoon. Can we be really dictatorial and undemocratic if we allow them to accuse us of being dictatorial and un democratic?

For that matter, may I also remind the House that the arrangements for the debate on the Main Estimates were arrived at last December. It was agreed after a resolution was moved by the Minister for Finance that the debate on the Main Estimates be limited to three days. The reason given was that a large part of the Estimates had been moved over to the control of the Central Government. There were many departments whose budgets previously were the responsibility of the Singapore Government, but since Malaysia Day, many of these departments, like Civil Aviation, Post Office, Police and so on have become Pan-Malaysian departments; because they are no longer our responsibility, the budgets for these departments are no longer included in the Estimates. Therefore, whereas previously it was necessary to have five days to debate the Main Estimates, it is now no longer necessary to require that same length of time for a very much reduced Budget. We have found from past experience - as was the case last December - that three days was quite adequate. Nobody grumbled about it. None of the Barisan Members complained. But today they made a lot of noise simply because they had to make some noise. I have totted up for their benefit that all in all there will be five days to discuss the Budget - one day's debate devoted to the Finance Minister's Budget Statement, three days on the Main Estimates and one day on the Development Estimates. And for the benefit of the new Assembly Members of the Barisan Sosialis, let me inform them that in the past five years it has always been the practice of the Speaker to allocate only one day for debate on the Development Estimates. Therefore, it is absurd indeed for anyone of them to complain that one day is inadequate.

Let me end with this note. It is true that there has been no sitting of the Assembly for the last six months, hut may I remind the House that the last sittings we had in December lasted one month? It took us one month to get through the debate on the Negara's Speech and the Budget. We completed all Government business; no Bills were left in abeyance. We shall call sittings of the Assembly from time to time when the Government has business to transact or when it is in the interest of the State that the Government should deliver a policy statement for debate. But believe me, we are not going to call a sitting of the Assembly at the pleasure of the Barisan Sosialis just to hear the tripe they dish out and which we have had to endure in the past. However, they need not fear that democratic rights will be abolished. We have neither the intention to abolish elections nor the intention to abolish the Assembly. All that is impossible. The Singapore State Constitution is part of the Malaysian Constitution. If there are any changes at all in the way Malaysia is going to be run, and therefore the way the States are going to be run, the power lies not in the hands of the Singapore Government but in the hands of the Central Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper L.A. 1 of 1964 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of this Assembly.