REPORT OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, 1966

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [14th March, 1967],

"That this House takes note of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, presented to this House as Command Paper No. 29 of 1966, and endorses the Government's views thereon as set out in the Statement by the Minister for Law and National Development made at the sitting of this House on 21st December, 1966." [Mr E. W. Barker].

Question again proposed.

2.31 p.m.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to draw the attention of this House to Chapter III of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966. While appreciating that the Commission has gone thoroughly into the pros and cons of the setting up of the proposed Council of State, I have a few points to comment on the recommendation, as the Commission did not seem to have taken them into its consideration when deliberating on its recommendation for a Council of State.

The Commission in its Report has advanced various reasons why there should be a Council of State. The Commission also has envisaged the proposed Council of State as a purely advisory body to which the Government can look for serious and weighty advice without being subject to its control. Thinking the matter over carefully, I have serious doubts whether such a Council of State is really necessary. Singapore is an island Republic of scarcely more than 220 square miles. We are not a continent. We have a population of less than 2 million. In addition, we have a unicameral legislature whose Members are elected by secret ballot periodically. The plain fact is that no citizen of Singapore is so physically remote from his elected representative in Parliament that he cannot air his views or grievances through such elected Members. Conversely, because of the relatively small physical area of his constituency, no elected Member of Parliament has any excuse to say that he does not know what is going on within his constituency. This brings me back to the question I have posed earlier to this House, which is, what is the necessity and purpose of such a Council of State? In brief, the question is whether Singapore can afford to have such a luxury as a Council of State which, though proposed as an advisory body, performs the function of an Upper House of the Legislature. I am of the view that the proposed Council of State is a luxury, because I do not consider it to be essential or necessary for the proper government and management of the Republic of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am further strengthened in my belief that the Council of State is superfluous when it is considered that the Commission has seen fit to place certain limitations on the powers to be exercised by the proposed Council of State. One of these restrictions on the functions of the proposed Council of State is that the Council would have no power to consider any Supply Bill or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency. I do not intend to make any further comment on such restriction in so far as it concerns a Supply Bill, for I am in agreement with the Commission that it is hardly proper for such an advisory body to be in a position to comment on a Bill which merely authorises expenditure or outlay of money from the Consolidated Fund in relation to matters on which this House has voted. I am rather puzzled about the exemption of Bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency from the jurisdiction of the Council of State. It is always open to the Government to present any Bill it wishes on a Certificate of Urgency. I am not by any means implying that if this recommendation for a Council of State is accepted by this House, the Government of the day would pursue a course of action which would have the effect of by-passing such an advisory body as much as possible. Nevertheless, with the formation and establishment of such an advisory body, it is possible that a situation would arise where the members of the proposed Council of State might not see eye to eye with the Government on the subject matters contained in certain Bills. Such a situation is not that all far-fetched when it is noted that in the proposed recommendation for a Council of State. The Commission has expressed its opinion that security of tenure for the members of the proposed Council of State is a necessary element to enable the proposed Council to discharge its function without fear or favour in relation to the Government. Thus a situation would arise where persons appointed to such Council might entertain convictions or beliefs which might differ radically from the policy of the Government. When such a situation arises, it would become obvious to the Government of the day that it would be useless for the Government to submit a Bill to such Council of State which does not have consensus of opinion with the Government in respect of the subject matters contained in such Bill. And as I have stated before, it would be quite natural and logical for the Government to submit a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency in order to avoid being delayed by such Council of State. No recommendation has been made by the Commission as to how to restrict the Government from indiscriminately introducing any Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. Nor, for the reasons stated in relation to the independence of decision of such Council, can any provision be made in the Constitution of Singapore in relation to the proposed Council of State to provide for the removal of Council members who might prove to be unduly obstructive to the effective and immediate implementation of any decision by the Legislature. As I have said, such a provision would be inconsistent with the very existence of such an advisory body which is meant to function independently and freely of the executive body of the Republic.

On the other hand, if the members of the Council of State are readily amenable to the Government's view on any matter contained in any Bill, it would give rise to cynical stories and jokes that the most important qualification a person can possess to be considered for appointment to such Council is that of political sympathy with the Party in power. This would be a natural consequence even though these members have no political sympathy or affinity. In actual fact, they have no political sympathy or connection with the Party in power.

Thus, where a Council of State contains members who are obstinate in their views, the temptation is very strong for the Government to introduce a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency in order to bypass the Council. And against such temptation there is no constitutional check. But where members of the Council of State are reasonable and endorse any Bill of the Government in power, I am doubtful what useful function such Council performs as a constitutional check on the Government of the day in the exercise of its powers. Here I am using the words "obstinate" and "reasonable" in the subjective sense as seen from the Government's viewpoint.

But to return to the point, the very fact that the proposed Council of State is envisaged as an advisory body to Parliament implies that the persons who are likely to comprise such a Council are in a position to advise the elected Members of Parliament correctly. But what is the nature of advice contemplated by the Commission? As I see it, the advice is in the form of specialist and technical representation or reflection of the electorate's feelings or temper. The Commission has not shown how such Council would be more effective and efficient than the prevailing machinery or procedure for gauging public opinion or reaction to any proposed Bill by referring such Bill to a Select Committee of this House. I cannot see how a Council, comprising persons appointed for a fixed term, can provide comprehensive specialist guidance in relation to any Bill at any one time. As for gauging public reaction, Mr Speaker, Sir, I should think that the elected Members of this House are better equipped and placed than the members of the proposed Council.

I am thus of the opinion that the recommendation of the Commission in respect of the proposed Council of Stale should not be accepted by this House for these two main reasons:-

(1) Such Council is a luxury which Singapore can ill-afford, because it is not only a luxury but also a rather expensive luxury. Although in its recommendation the Commission has suggested that the Council of State should use the existing facilities that are available to Parliament and to the executive body and administrative organ of the Singapore Government, it is nonetheless necessary to make provision for new staff and new facilities to meet the requirements of such Council of State.

(2) The very concept of such a Council of State implies that the present unicameral system of our Government is inadequate and unsatisfactory in the discharge of its functions. That being the case, it is hard to believe, for reasons I have already stated, that the proposed Council of State, which consists of nominated members (Parliament is composed of elected Members), would supplement and remedy the implied deficiency of the present system of Government. The Commission has in its recommendation put forward its view that the proposed Council of State serves as an advisory body to Parliament. But it has not indicated in what way that such an advisory body would be in closer contact with an electorate which elects by secret ballot its representatives in Parliament. I do not share the optimism of the Commission that persons of respectable standing in their respective profession or community are in a better position than the elected Members of Parliament to ascertain the feelings and aspirations of members of the general public. If anything, such persons are likely to be more aloof and removed from the general members of the public. It is difficult to envisage that an eminent lawyer or a highly qualified medical specialist is more accessible to members of the public than, say, an ordinary Member of this House. If the Members of the House discharge their obligations to their respective constituencies faithfully and regularly, I think this question of a Council of State will take care of itself. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is all I have to say on the Council of State.

Coming to the recommendation of the Commission for the setting up of an Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration) as contained in Chapter IV of its Report, I have in mind the observation of the Commission that it is likely that some act or decision of Government or the administration or any statutory board or public body can give rise to complaints by citizens whose interests are affected by such acts. From my own experience as a trade unionist, I can assure this House that workers do sometimes feel frustrated and let down by laws which are expressly designed for their protection. For instance, an arbitration machinery is set up under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1960, to expedite the settlement of disputes and grievances of the workers. Circumstances, for which no provision is made in the Ordinance, have arisen where workers cannot have recourse to such arbitration machinery for the settlement of their grievances. This is all I say on the matter of the Ombudsman.

2.50 p.m.

Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am confident that the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, which is being debated in this House is a wise Report. I believe our people will accept it in good faith and with open arms, because the members of the Commission, who deliberated on the representations from individuals and from political and cultural organisations and other associations, comprise citizens of Singapore of diverse origins. If we refer to page 28 of the Report, we can see the names of members of the Commission. They come from diverse communities and they therefore represent the various communities. And it goes without saying that these members profess various religions.

Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I see that the Constitutional Commission is a non-party commission, and its members are not active in politics except for Syed Esa Bin Syed Hassan Almenoar who is the Secretary-General of U.M.N.O., Singapore. The ruling Party, the P.A.P., however, is not represented in the Commission by its Secretary-General.

After considering the memoranda which it received from individuals and political associations, the Commission drafted its Report which has been received unanimously - and this includes the Secretary-General of U.M.N.O. This goes to prove that this Report is very wise indeed and will be a very significant document in the annals of Singapore.

In connection with the recommendations of the Commission, these have been accepted unanimously by its members, as I have said earlier. Article 89 of the Constitution of Singapore provides that:

`The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.'

I would like to explain to this House that the Government has already implemented the provisions of this Article since it assumed office in 1959. For instance, the Government has been responsible for protecting, safeguarding, supporting, fostering and promoting the economic, religious, social and cultural interests of the Malays and the Malay language. Regarding political interests, the Government has not deprived the rights of the Malays who are the indigenous people, as has happened in South Africa and Rhodesia where the political rights of the majority, who are the indigenous people, have been deprived by the white minority. But in our coun try, although the non-Malays constitute a majority, the rights of the Malays, the indigenous people, are protected, safeguarded and fostered.

Relating to education, the Government has given all facilities to Malay students - free education up to University level. Similarly in religious matters, the teaching of Islam has been made a subject in schools, and every registered religious school which requires aid has been given such aid. These two privileges are not accorded to other religious schools. The Malay language has been made the national language. This has been accepted by all sections of the population.

Mr Speaker, the special position of the Malays, as recommended by the Commission, is enough to protect in all aspects the Malays as the indigenous people. It is up to the Malays themselves to make full use of this opportunity to inculcate in them the spirit of competition with the other races in our Republic. The Malays need have no fear because the Secretary-General of U.M.N.O. himself has signed the Report, and they must never allow the special position of the Malays to be used as a means to get some privileges or to threaten the Government in any way.

Therefore, the Malays should realise that the recommendation regarding the special position of the Malays is sufficient and can he an inducement to them to make progress if they are prepared to work hard. The religion of Islam, which is the religion of the Malays, has the Koran as its bible. It says that God will not help those who do not help themselves. As an example, I would like to cite here an article in page 3 of the Berita Harian of yesterday. It says that a sweeper will take his Cambridge School Certificate Examination. This is an example which the Malays as the indigenous people with a special position provided for them in the Constitution, should emulate.

Paragraph 35 of the Report makes mention of a Malay political organisation without naming it. However, I can guess that the political party is no other than U.M.N.O, led by Ahmad Haji Taff as the Chairman, Syed Esa Almenoar as the Secretary-General, and Syed Au Redha Alsagoff as Head of the Religious Section. This political organisation has urged the Commission that a definition be given to the word "Malays" in Article 89 (2) of the Constitution to be in line with the definition contained in the Constitution of Malaysia. I would like to quote:

`"Malay" means a person who professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom ...'

Mr Speaker, if this definition is accepted by the Constitutional Commission as suggested by U.M.N.O., it means that all the other races can become Malays and will enjoy the special position. Yesterday my colleague, the Minister of State for Education, stated that Mr Tan Siew Sin can become a Malay if he embraces Islam. Likewise, Mr Speaker, if an Englishman, who has lived many years in Singapore and has become a Singapore citizen, embraces Islam, speaks Malay, and conforms to Malay custom, then he can become a Malay, and will enjoy the special position of the Malays. So the Malays in future cannot be regarded as the indigenous people if this article is embodied in the Singapore Constitution. Although the Commission has not accepted the U.M.N.O. suggestion for the perpetuation of Article 89 (2) of the Constitution without any alteration, I hope the Minister for Law and National Development will seriously consider the definition of the word "Malay", because if there is a definition for the word "Malay", then there will be difficulties when it comes to the implementation of the special position of the Malays. So I wish to suggest to the Minister to have the definition of "Malay" embodied; that is, the standard definition of the word "Malay". For example, "Malay" means a person who comes from the Malay Archipelago, including the Indonesian islands, professes the Muslim religion, speaks the Malay language as used in our country, and conforms to Malay custom.

Regarding Article 11 of the Constitution of Malaysia which deals with freedom of religion and gives every person the right to profess and practise his religion, only one memorandum was received by the Commission requesting that the exception regarding the propagation of religion be left untouched. This exception permits any State in Malaysia to restrict by law the propagation of any religious doctrine amongst persons professing the Muslim religion.

Mr Speaker, our country exercises freedom of religion and gives every person the right to practise his religion. This practice has been going on satisfactorily and there has been understanding in the Inter-Religious Council in Singapore to maintain religious tolerance without any legislation. Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is better that such a state of affairs be allowed to continue without the necessity of legislation. If the suggestion put to the Commission can be used as a guide when it comes to considering the Constitution of Singapore, it will be a model Constitution for other countries to follow, because we can show that we are practising multi-racialism and we are guided by the system practised in Switzerland. However, many of them profess only Christianity. Various religions are tolerated and practised in Singapore. In Indonesia, there is a multiplicity of religions; some profess Islam, others Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism, but they are all Indonesian citizens of one nation. So if our country can practise the multi-racial concept in peace and harmony, it follows that it will be a model to the world and will show how unity among diverse peoples and diverse religions is maintained among our population.

3.08 p.m.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, allow me to thank the members of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, for their services to the State. On the whole, the Constitutional Commission's Report can be accepted but, in my opinion, there are some recommendations which are superfluous. Of course, there is a fundamental issue before the members of the Constitutional Commission. It is like this:

`If man cannot help his fellow beings to get the fundamental rights of men, then he cannot be protected from oppression.'

The Report of the Commission shows a spirit of patriotism and a love of mankind. It shows also the hatred of men towards men for perpetuating oppression as the code of life. Mr Speaker, without consideration of race or creed, we cannot allow any form of oppression regarding the fundamental rights of man which have been our responsibility to safeguard. We are prepared to shoulder any responsibility and face any difficulties to safeguard and maintain the peace and harmony of our people. But we cannot, at all times, follow the footsteps of other countries. There is a saying, Mr Speaker, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

In the Constitutional Report, 1966, it is mentioned briefly that it is desirable - it can be practised having regard to the existing conditions and also in future - to protect the common faith of our people. There is no recommendation on fundamental rights except where they are deemed necessary. I would like to congratulate the members of the Constitutional Commission on this. My reason for saying so is that we must adapt ourselves and we must envisage our future progress. We cannot quote what happened 200 years ago as an example. Tarzan did not wear any clothes; but now we see that Tarzan puts on clothes! We must forget the past and look to the future for good.

At the same time, the Constitutional Commission's Report also recommends a Council of State. In my opinion, it can be established, but perhaps because of the political questions involved, our people have not reached that stage yet. If I am not mistaken, in today's issue of the Berita Harian, the Municipality in Kuala Lumpur asked for assistance from the Selangor State Council. The application was rejected. If the Council of State exists, it is possible that laws may be passed here and submitted to the Council of State. And then a situation may arise; or, alternatively, if Bills are first referred to the Council of State and later submitted to Parliament. If we want to expedite matters, we must have only one responsible legislative body. It is not that we cannot afford to pay the allowances of the members of the Council of State. The basic issue rests on the reasons as I have outlined earlier.

Another point, Mr Speaker. In the proposed Council of State, its members are nominated by us, and although we are of the opinion that they can discharge their duties, the Opposition may say that these people are merely our tools. We must also take this into consideration. Because of the low level of political consciousness, we have not reached the stage where we can establish a Council of State. It happened in Singapore in 1958 when we had the City Council and the State Government. The City Council asked for assistance from the Minister, but the request was turned down. We do not want a recurrence of this nature. If there is, the people will be confused and will not be able to comprehend the true facts - whether the Council or the State is right.

In paragraph 17 of the Report, the Commission recommends the creation of the office of Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner). Some of my colleagues call it Ombudsman or Omboodsman, but there is no Ombudswoman which could apply to the hon. Members for Moulmein and Delta! However, whether it is Ombudsman, Omboodsman, or Ombudswoman, I say that the establishment of this office will further complicate the situation in Singapore. We should carry on with the present organisation until such time as it is necessary to consider the pros and cons of the creation of the office of Ombudsman.

Just now I have heard the hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan touching upon the definition of the word "Malays". He was thankful to the Commission for not accepting the definition as given by a neighbouring country. So I am doubtful as to his real intention. But according to the definition as contained in paragraph 35 of the Report,

'"Malay means a person who professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom", but conceded that it should be limited to citizens only.'

If this definition had been accepted by the Commission, it would have given rise to a big debate. But, like the Member for Kampong Kembangan, I wish to thank the Commission for rejecting this suggestion. In my opinion, it is not easy to define the word "Malays". For instance, take the case of an Arab who was born in Indonesia. His mother is of Arab origin and his father, also of Arab origin, was born in Indonesia. In my opinion, he is an Indonesian of Arab origin. Then this Arab migrated to Malaya and became a Malay. That really surprises me. Both his father and mother are Arabs, and when he came to Malaya he became -

Inche Mohd. Ariff rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it on a point of order or clarification?

Inche Mohd. Ariff: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Is Inche Mahmud prepared to give way?

Inche Mahmud Awang: (In Malay): No, I cannot, Mr Speaker, because I fear that he may quote Thailand, Korea and, therefore, I am not prepared to give way. So a Malay means a person who professes the Muslim religion and habitually speaks the Malay language. I am an Arab. When I speak to my father, mother, brothers - they are Arabs - I speak Arabic and I do not speak the Malay language. Take the case of the hon. Member for Kallang. He is of Boyan origin. Possibly at home he speaks Boyanese and not Malay. In my constituency there are many Boyanese, and if I am invited to dinner there will be all kinds of delicacies - Indonesian food. Likewise the clothing of the Malays and the Boyanese. The Boyanese wears a coat, the chapal, and a cap, whereas the Malay wears a Malay baju, baju kurong, a sarong, shoes, and a cap. I fail to understand how the definition of "Malays" came into being 10 years ago.

The hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan is also of Indonesian origin. If the definition of "Malays" includes Malays of Indonesian origin, then the Indonesians are Malays, and that will include the people in Thailand, the Philippines, Korea, Indo-China and the Chinese too. But when it comes to the Chinese, it stops there. According to historians, we are descendants from Yunan. From history, we can trace that we are of one stock. For instance, take the Federation of Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak. There is no longer the Malay Peninsula; it is now known as the Federation of Malaysia. As from 1963 the nation is called Malaysia. This is all the creation of man.

But we need not be too fanatic about racial origins. As mentioned in paragraph 14 of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, we must consider what fundamental rights we should recommend and what can be practised. I think this is the most important recommendation of the Commission. And my friends say that we can include Indonesians in the definition of "Malays". This is very complicated indeed. Perhaps this Malay organisation considers that the Malays should be limited to citizens only. Let us take the citizens of Brunei and Sarawak. I am a Malay. If I am not a citizen, I am not a Malay. This will be confusing and misleading. I cannot understand this definition at all.

Mr Speaker, on the whole, the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, as mentioned by the Minister for Law and National Development on the 21st December, 1966, is indeed good and coincides with the sentiments of the Constitution as contained in paragraph 14 of its Report. We must protect the interests of the people in future and the Commission cannot accept some recommendations. As I said, we should not be made victims.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Tay Boon Too (Paya Lebar): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1954 the P.A.P, had in one of its policy statements pledged the setting up of a multi-racial democratic socialist country as one of its platforms. Obviously we can see that that platform will be most appropriate for the purpose of establishing an equal multi-racial society where the people can live harmoniously together and enjoy equal rights irrespective of racial and other differences. And we have all along for the past 13 years been working for this ideal.

I feel that in a society such as ours, if we insist upon one language, one race and one religion as our national basis, then it will surely lead to chaos and perdition. Therefore, at the first Parliamentary sitting after our independence, in order to perpetuate the institution of a multi-racial society, we set up a Commission to study the provisions that should be included in Singapore's Constitution to safeguard the basic rights and interests of the minorities so as to ensure their equal position in our independent Republic. And I thank the members of the Commission for their work over the period of one year. I must also thank members of the Commission for having made the recommendations relating to the various provisions to be entrenched in the Constitution, which are very valuable to our constitutional history and our democratic institution. From the Report we can also know the background and history of Singapore.

The Commission have studied the history, geography, the ethnic composition and every other aspect of Singapore. After lengthy discussions and study, and after having taken into consideration the interests and aspirations of the various races, the Commission have arrived at this Report which will serve as a guide to our future course of action.

Sir, most of the people here, including the minority races, have taken Singapore as their homeland, and they share common sympathies and sentiments in relation to this country. They have been living together in the same milieu, whether they are the minority or the majority, and they have been working together and seeking the same objectives and enjoying equal opportunities. They have adopted an attitude in keeping with the new independent position of Singapore. In other words, at this stage of our development, we should have a new attitude and new kind of concept. In order to achieve this, we must have a new sense of national consciousness and outlook. We must discard past history and look ahead and build a better future. We can jointly help to build our country, and the people can elect their representatives to Parliament. These representatives can represent various interests - religious, racial and others. I see no reason why our country cannot do that. We should be proud of a common nationality. Although we cannot be proud of a common past heritage, we can be proud of a common nationality and a common destiny. Representation in proportion of race is a poisonous seed which we must not sow now. We must endeavour to seek further achievements. With concerted effort, we shall be able to realise our objectives in creating a better future and a new society.

Sir, the tenet of multi-racialism means mutual tolerance, co-operation and joint effort. If every citizen, irrespective of his race, creed, descent or differences of culture, language or other things, can work jointly with other citizens, discard any suspicion about others, we shall all be able to enjoy equal opportunities and live harmoniously together.. It is better, safer and more meaningful this way than to stress special privileges or a special position for any group in society.

Sir, this Report can be said to be based on the principle of multi-racialism and equality of rights. It can ensure the establishment and development of a multi-racial country where the rights and interests of the various races are safeguarded. It will not only enlighten people of other societies, but will also enable our people to understand that we have a common destiny and in the end we shall be able jointly to build up a harmonious multi-racial society in which every component will enjoy equal rights and prosperity. It helps to remove any conflicts which may exist among people of different races.

The members of the Commission have spent much energy and have undertaken much research in their work. They have spent one year on the problem and have now finalised their conclusions as presented in the Report which can serve as a model to other people. Most of the recommendations have been accepted by the Government. The comprehensiveness and the depth of this Report can be appreciated by all. The Government, in accepting certain recommendations of the Report, have, by doing so, laid a foundation to wards a better future. This goes to show that the P.A.P. Government is planning not only for the immediate 10 years, but also for the next and future generations. We can say that we now plant so that our future generations may reap the fruits of our labours.

Sir, I express my support for the motion by the Minister for Law. But I would like to raise some points relating to certain details. About the system of Ombudsman, the Government has refused to accept the recommendation on it. I can say that Government's action is judicious. Other than the opinion aired by the Prime Minister that the setting up of the Ombudsman may delay Government's administrative machinery, in addition to other disadvantages, I agree with the views expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture that the Ombudsman will be having a kind of function similar to that exercised by the Central Complaints Bureau. If any citizen has any complaints to make against the administration, he can complain to the Central Complaints Bureau to get redress. I must add that the P.A.P. Members of Parliament come from the people and they meet and mingle with the people. Because of this, they understand very well the conditions of the people. If there is anything amiss or if there is any complaint, they can serve as a bridge between the Government and the people by raising the matter with the Ministry concerned to be dealt with. At the same time, the P.A.P. Members of Parliament go to various parts of the Republic to see for themselves the actual conditions existing among the people there. If there is any complaint or anything to he improved upon, the P.A.P. Members will no doubt take care of that. Members of Parliament have been assigned to various Government departments to serve as liaison officers between the Government and the people. So if there is any malpractice or any faulty administration, Members of Parliament can, in their capacity as liaison officers, negotiate with the Ministry concerned and put it right. Therefore, I do not agree that it is necessary now to set up an Ombudsman system here. The recommendation by the Commission is that the Ombudsman should be well qualified, is a distinguished personage, and should be remunerated adequately for this specialised job. But I do not agree with this view, because if we do, it will be tantamount to paying undue respect to a person who has the wealth to get himself educated to achieve such a position. So I should say that this is an outdated idea. If any man is capable of doing such a job, he should be glad to contribute his services to the country and not just look after his own interests. If he is so capable, then, as a citizen of the country, he should contribute his bit and not be mercenary.

The Member for Punggol has advanced the reason that because the Council of State may serve the same purpose as a Select Committee of Parliament, there is no need for such a Council. I disagree with that. As the Prime Minister has said, the Council of State can save the President of making any decision which is unpleasant. I would like to add that the Council of State is merely an advisory body. It should not be something like an Upper House with all the rights and powers of an Upper House. About the composition of the Council of State, I feel that the number of members on it is rather unwieldy, and I think it is also not necessary to categorise them into different types. The term of removable members should not be three years or nine years. It should be the same; five years should be better. If they are non-political appointments or if they do not belong to any political party, then when they come to deliberate upon any matter in private, they will not be doing so with a view to publicity or for political gain and they can deliberate more frankly and constructively and arrive at conclusions more easily. At the same time, the impression that this Council of State would be serving the same purpose as that of a Select Committee may be erased. The recommendation for the Council of State seems to have arisen from the fact that there is no effective Opposition in this House. Although at present Select Committees consist of all P.A.P, members because there is no Opposition, it does not mean that in future when there is an Opposition Select Committees will not consist of the majority of members of the Party in power. So if you want to use this argument alone to justify the establishment of the Council of State, it cannot hold any water, for it will give the same impression to the people.

Finally, as regards the recommendation relating to the Public Service Commission, the Government has agreed that all members of the P.S.C, must be distinguished members of the public with high administrative ability and wide experience who can command the respect and enjoy the confidence of all sections of the society. The Government has also accepted the principle that the P.S.C, must be an absolutely independent body, in this respect, the Government has agreed to increase the membership of the P.S.C, in order to facilitate its business. I agree that this is a matter of urgency.

Mr Speaker, ever since we attained independence there has been a rapid expansion in the various Government departments and the staff required in these departments are increasing from day to day. So the existing number of seven members on the Public Service Commission have their responsibilities and duties increased manifold, and I am afraid they may not be able to cope with the increased volume of work. This may cause some delay in processing applications and the appointments of officers, thereby giving dissatisfaction all round. In my view, therefore, the immediate increase of the membership of the P.S.C, will be a very good solution to the present problem.

On the whole, many views in the Report of the Constitutional Commission are valuable and acceptable. I support the Government's endorsement of such views expressed in the Report.

Mr Teo Hup Teck (Jalan Kayu): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for the past few days many P.A.P. Members of Parliament have been discussing the Report of the Constitutional Commission in this House. Outside the House, the electorate is also paying great attention to see whether their Members of Parliament are giving any constructive criticisms to or constructive views on the Report. They want to see whether the views of the Commission have been carefully studied by Parliament. They are paying full attention to what we are saying in this House.

[Mr Tang See Chim in the Chair]

3.52 p.m.

Mr Teo Hup Teck (Jalan Kayu): Before I comment on any of the items in the Report, let me, first of all, express my thanks to the members of the Commission for their effort and their good work. Sir, since 8th January, 1966, when the Commission was appointed by the President of Singapore, every member of the Commission has been contributing his bit and doing his duty hearing representations from various quarters and considering how safeguards can be provided in the Constitution for the interests and the rights of the minorities. They have produced the Report which is now before us for discussion. In the course of their work, the Commission have also put forward reasoned arguments for their recommendations. They have also made criticisms on certain representations and have given their views on what they have accepted and what they have rejected. They have made a very careful analysis of the representations submitted to them. They have studied the pros and cons of the whole matter. They have done their duty well, and their efforts in the service of the country are laudable and deserve our admiration.

Sir, one thing that is regrettable is that certain people and certain organisations have given opinions which are contrary to the multi-racial principles and recommendations in the Report. They have put forward representations on how to safeguard the minority rights in religion, language and other matters. Their suggestions are inimical to all. These can only benefit themselves and will do no good to others. Today, what I want to touch upon is Chapter III of the Report, which is about the Council of State, and give my views and criticisms thereon.

According to the Report, the Commission have found that there is only P.A.P. representation in this House. There is no political Party which can take up the duty of an effective Opposition here. Therefore, the Commission, for the sake of public interest, have recommended the setting up of a Council of State in order that it may exercise the function of making constructive suggestions to Parliament or offering criticisms or amendments to legislation before Parliament. In so doing, any Bill which affects the interests of the minorities will be thoroughly studied before it can be passed. It is suggested that in such a situation, when there is no Opposition in the House, that the Council of State may serve a good purpose by preventing the passage of any legislation discriminating against the minorities. But I have something to say about this Council of State if the sole reason for its establishment is for that purpose alone. There are both merits and demerits in it. I can say that although we have 49 out of 51 seats in this House, the P.A.P. has its platform and principles, and we will never act in any way contrary to the interests and rights of the minorities and will not do anything that will harm the religious, cultural or racial interests of anybody. Today we have come to a situation where there is only P.A.P. representation in Parliament and no Opposition. The blame for this should not be put on the P.A.P. but on the Opposition Parties instead. It is also the choice of the electorate. It is because today the P.A.P. is working in the interest of the people. Its every action is based on the interest of the people. That is why we have so many seats in, this House, and the absence of the' Opposition in this House is because the Opposition has not done its duty as an Opposition in this House. It is also because their platform and principles are contrary to the interest of the people and they have actually done harm to the people. That is why they have been discarded by the people and today they cannot have any footing in the House. Just look at the Legislative Assembly of 1955 when the P.A.P. had only three representatives in it. Today we have 49 P.A.P. Members in this House How did we achieve this? Obviously it is because the P.A.P. has been able to represent the interest of the people and it has the support of the people. That is why we have achieved the present position. In the general elections in 1963 the Barisan Sosialis had 13 seats in this House. They could have made use of that opportunity to express the wishes of the people in this House. Yet they did not do so. Instead, they withdrew from Parliament, ignoring their constituents. From this, we can see clearly that they are not concerned with the interests of the people of Singapore. Their object of loyalty is elsewhere - China. Because of this, they cannot receive the support of the people. Therefore, if they dare to compete with the P.A.P, in the political arena they will definitely meet with defeat and disaster. Because of these various reasons, they are no longer able to represent the people today. As a result, they have no representation in this House.

As I have said, if the setting up of the Council of State is merely because of this situation, that there is an absence of the Opposition in the House, then the reason is wrong. If the setting up of the Council of State is to safeguard the rights and interests of the minorities, then it may serve a useful purpose, as we cannot guarantee that in the next I U or 20 years the P.A.P, will definitely retain the majority in this House. By that time the leadership of the P.A.P, will be getting old, and if no capable leadership has emerged then, there may be some crisis in this House, namely, there may come a day when there is no political Party which can truly represent the interests of all the people. Other political Parties in authority may then discriminate against the minorities, whether on religious, cultural, linguistic or racial grounds. For this reason, I support the principle underlying the setting up of this Council of State. But the reason for the recommendation of this Council of State has been ---

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi) rose -

Mr Tang See Chim: Would you like to give way, Mr Teo?

Mr Teo Hup Teck resumed his seat.

Mr Sim Boon Woo: The hon. Member for Jalan Kayu has said that there is no Opposition in Parliament. I still see two Front-bench seats belonging to the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Teo Hup Teck: (In Mandarin): Sir, I thank the Member for Changi for reminding me that there are two seats reserved for two absent Barisan Members. Just now I have said that the Barisan Sosialis do not care for the people. That is why the two Members have also disappeared. But I would not like to elaborate on this point.

The Commission's reason for setting up the Council of State is that the P.A.P. is the sole Party in this House. We can be proud of one fact, i.e., the P.A.P. is able to inculcate in the people a new concept and a new type of education for a multi-racial society acceptable to all the people. And the P.A.P. has continuously received their support because it has no communalistic concept or bias. It has been able to educate the people and make them aware that, though we are people of different races, yet we all belong to the same country. We enjoy equal rights and share a common destiny. We have been able to look after the interest of the various races and have respected the languages of the various races. For instance, in this House we have representatives from the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities. We can freely address the House in Malay. Chinese, Indian or English. This shows that we are treating all the races equally. We are also giving equal treatment in all the four streams of education, so that they can all develop equally. We have been able to inculcate in the people a sense of multi-racialism and a new concept for a multi-racial society. From this we can see that the P.A.P. is one political Party that represents the people and whatever candidate of whatever race we have put up in any election has always been elected to the House. The Opposition have always been defeated in any elections. It is because they are not supported by the people and some of the Opposition Parties operate on a communalistic basis. Even in non-Chinese constituencies, a P.A.P. Chinese candidate may be returned; whereas a communal Party will fail with its communal candidate in his own racial community. This clearly shows that multi-racialism is the correct proposition acceptable to all the people in Singapore. In the Report, it seems that the recommendation for the setting up of the Council of State is because the P.A.P. may become a dictatorial Party in this House. I do not agree that because of that situation there can be any discrimination against any minority. In principle I support the motion before the House.

4.09 p.m.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Sir, I will endeavour to be brief. The Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, now tabled before this House for debate, is yet another important parliamentary document that has passed through this Parliament since December 1965 when the House approved two Bills of similar importance, i.e., the Constitution (Amendment) Bill and the Republic of Singapore Independence Bill. This House must express its sincere gratitude to the Constitutional Commission and its eminent members for its distinguished work.

Many views were expressed by hon. Members in this House yesterday and the day before, and whilst associating myself with some of their views, may I be allowed. Sir, to touch a little on the setting up of the Council of State as recommended by the Constitutional Commission among other recommendations?

Firstly, the Government has, in principle, agreed to the recommendation of creating this non-elected advisory body, but differed in opinion in its composition and function. The Council of State would consist of two types of membership - the permanent members and the members who are removable. The permanent members would consist of men of distinction who either hold or have held high offices, such as Cabinet Ministers, former Chief Ministers, the Chief Justice, the Speaker and so on. Needless to say, the choice of these men as permanent members for the Council of State is certainly the most ideal one, as they are either concerned with policy making or are conversant with Government policies. As for members who are removable, it has been suggested that persons who are mature citizens and have rendered distinguished public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life, are to he appointed on the advice of the Cabinet for a term of 3 years.

Perhaps, Sir, you are aware of the existence, in every constituency in our Republic, of an advisory committee to assist Members of Parliament known as the Citizens' Consultative Committee. Some of the community leaders are men of some distinction and ability. They constantly keep in close association with the masses and I wonder if the Government would consider appointing some of them to the Council of State, for they are the persons who can really make a contribution by reflecting the views of the masses in our Republic to the Government through the Council of State.

Secondly, Sir, since the composition of the Council of State will be men of high status who will also be accorded the same immunities and privileges as enjoyed by Members of Parliament as suggested by the Commission in paragraph 52 of the Report, I suggest that, if they are to be paid any allowances, an honorarium of only a nominal sum be paid to them. This will save the Government considerable extra expenditure. Sir, our Republic, with its limited resources of incomes, cannot afford the luxury of a two-House system. In fact, the Commission has taken into consideration the financial implications once the Council of State is created.

As regards the term of office, the Commission has in its Report originally suggested that in the first Council, one-third of the members shall hold office for three years, another one-third for six years and the remaining one-third for nine years. But in the Ministerial statement by the Minister for Law and National Development made in this House on 21st December, 1966, two types of membership were suggested in place of the recommendation by the Commission, of which one is permanent.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.13 p.m.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Does this mean that the Government is not even prepared to review the position in future in case an Opposition is returned to this House? In this case, I would like to endorse the views of the hon. Member for Bukit Merah yesterday, i.e., that the recommendation of setting up the Council of State should not be embodied in the Constitution yet until it has been put to a test for five years so as to prove its practicability. This is a good suggestion, and I further wish to supplement it by suggesting that it would be wiser to commence the term of office from the year 1968 when new Members of Parliament are returned for the next Session. In other words, the Council of State will have to withstand a test for five years before such recommendation is written into the Constitution of Singapore.

Sir, there is absolutely no sign of fear expressed by the general public that the P.A.P. will turn to be dictatorial simply because there is no Opposition in Parliament. Since the P.A.P. obtained its second mandate from the electorate in 1963, the people of Singapore, not counting those who are anti-national elements, have never dissented from any major Government policies. There has been no controversial issue of any sort that irritates the masses or causes them to stage an uproar against the Government. There is no better illustration of the full confidence that the people of Singapore have in our Government and the P.A.P. than that shown by the overwhelming support in the by-election in Thomson, an area hitherto considered to be a stronghold of the Barisan Sosialis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the lack of Opposition in this Parliament, which is not our fault, does not mean that this House has not been functioning well. In fact, it has put us more on the alert and made us more conscious of the grave responsibilities and duties we have to discharge to the public.

On the recommendation of the office of Ombudsman, a lot has been said by hon. Members during the past two days. I do not wish to repeat except to say that it is not advisable to implement it at this juncture. There are ample facilities under the existing machinery whereby grievances or complaints of maladministration can be redressed. Our Ministers are being assisted by Parliamentary Secretaries, Political Secretaries, and Permanent Secretaries. Members of Parliament are also attached to the Ministries to assist the Ministers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you very well know, our Ministers and M.P.s are accessible to the public, and any grievances by the public against any department concerned can be easily lodged with the respective Ministers. And if the public so wishes, complaints can also be brought to the Central Complaints Bureau or the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau.

Sir, I would like to conclude by touching on the acquisition of land for public development. You are aware that land in Singapore is a scarcity now, and will be more so in future. In fact, we are getting more land by reclamation to cope with the ever-increasing rate of development. When the city is to be rebuilt under the Urban Renewal Scheme, more land will have to be acquired from private landowners for public development.

When Sir Stamford Raffles first landed in Singapore in 1819, he saw a need to develop the island. As a result, jungle land was offered to whoever was prepared to open it up and cultivate it and make it inhabitable by way of grants for freehold leases of 999 years during subsequent years. Ownership of this land was handed down from our forefathers to our contemporaries. Sir, you will agree that if we are to progress we must develop by acquiring land for the benefit of our future generation.

I do not see why there is so much concern about compulsory acquisition of private properties for public purpose or for purposes beneficial to the public. Compensation, reasonable and just, of course, will have to be paid for such acquisition. Sir, I am sure not all of us here in this House possess landed property. Even if they do, it is for their own occupation.

Believe me, Sir, many of our contemporaries are enjoying the good things of life on the gains or income from the sources of private properties that they have inherited from their forefathers, whilst many others have to toil hard and sweat for their daily bread. This surely is not a fair state of things in our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's policy concerning land acquisition, and I fully support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Law and National Development.

Mr Speaker: As there are no other Members wishing to speak, I will call upon the Minister for Law. Mr Barker, before you commence, there has been quite a long debate and many points have been made. If you anticipate the possibility of your speaking for more than an hour, perhaps I can obtain the consent of the House now rather than interrupt you in the middle of your speech. Would you prefer that to be done?

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): I shall be grateful if you will do so now, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Do I have the general assent of Members to permit the Minister for Law to speak for longer than the Standing Orders allow, should the necessity arise?

Hon. Members: Aye.

4.20 p.m.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate on the Report of the Constitutional Commission on Minority Rights is one of the most important, and perhaps the most important, of the many debates that have taken place in Parliament. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken and given their views.

The debate itself touches upon the protection of minority rights in our cosmopolitan city and will always be remembered in the annals of the history of Singapore. It is in this House that the debate is taking place, and I feel that it would be appropriate and instructive for us to look around this Chamber and see who and what are within the four walls of this House. I cast my eye first on you, Mr Speaker. You come from a member of the minority race. I then look at your Clerks; one is from a minority race and the other is a representative of the majority race. I look around the House and I see mostly Chinese. I see a few Indians, a few Malays, and even fewer Eurasians. As for the Members they all belong to one Party, though some sit on the Opposition Benches. They only do so because the previous occupiers chose to shirk their duties and abandon their constituencies.

An hon. Member: Shame!

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, many religions are represented here. We have Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, some free thinkers, of course, and others. If one looks up at the Gallery, one will find also a multi-racial crowd. This is fairly representative of the city.

There is a sound system in this House and every seat is supplied with an earphone so that the occupier can listen to the speeches in one of the four official languages that are spoken here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a unique situation, but we have had it for some time now and we are inclined to take things for granted. Two questions arise. First, how did all this come about? Second, how can we preserve this forever? To answer these questions, one has to go back to the history of Singapore. Sir Stamford Raffles, as we all know, came here in 1819 and founded Singapore. He called it, or it was called, Singapura or the Lion City, though there were no lions here. And even the tigers have disappeared across the Causeway! But at that time, as the Commissioners pointed out, this island was covered "with thick jungle and mangrove swamp with a few inhabitants living near the river mouths'. I believe my colleague, the Minister for Culture, can trace his history to one of the few who were then in Singapore.

The Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok): He was a pirate!

Mr Barker: Raffles Lighthouse was erected 35 years later, and on the plaque commemorating the occasion were inscribed Latin words describing Singapore as "Opportunissimo sito" - an opportune site or a well selected site. And below the Latin words appears an inscription in English, and I would like to read it to the House, Sir. It reads:

`Raffles Lighthouse, erected in the Year of our Lord 1854 by the Honourable East India Company and dedicated to the memory of Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, to whose liberal and comprehensive policy this Settlement is indebted for its free port and the unrivalled position it now holds as an emporium in the Indian Seas-Colonel Butterworth, Governor of the Prince of Wales Island, Singapore and Malacca.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, whoever wrote those words saw far into the future, and as the Commission reports, I quote:

`We find today a small island nation situated geographically at the Southern-most end of the Malay Peninsula, strategically located as a vital trade link between China, Japan and America to the East, India, Africa and Europe to the West, and Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia to the South.

We also find a nation comprising people of many races, speaking many languages and practising many religions.'

This leads me, Mr Speaker, to my second question: how can we preserve all this? It was with this object in mind that the Commission on Minority Rights was appointed. They have given us their Report, which has been debated for nearly two days. It is significant that I, as a member of one of the smallest minority racial groups in Singapore, have been given the privilege to wind up this debate. This privilege has, of course, been courteously extended to me by my colleagues, most of whom belong to the majority race in Singapore. And to them I would like to express my deep gratification.

Mr Speaker, I shall now turn to the Report itself and also deal, as far as I can in the limited time available, with some of the arguments that have been put forth in this House.

The Report is a unanimous one, though it was a non-Party Commission, and almost every minority group in Singapore was represented thereon, whether by race, religion, or language. Members of this House, however, certainly do not appear to have unanimous views. Even on the major representations of the Commission some are for the Ombudsman, like the Member for Choa Chu Kang, who has very ably put forward, I must say, arguments for commencing such an institution in Singapore. The Member for Punggol wants more than one Ombudsman. He feels that two heads are better than one and he says three are even better still. But perhaps he has forgotten that there are 49 Ombudsmen in this House. There are others who feel, of course, like the Government does, that the time has not yet come for us to have an Ombudsman.

As for the Council of State, some are in favour and they share the Government's views on the Council's composition and function. Others say, "Throw it out." And at one stage, Mr Speaker, certain Members even threatened to move an amendment to my motion before the House. They agree that we should have a Council of State, but they are afraid that it will, with the passage of time, develop and become a second Upper House. At the outset, I would like to assure Members that as long as we are the Party in power, this Council of State will not become a second Upper House - a Senate if you like. I myself would prefer to call it the President's Council and not the Council of State.

As for entrenchment, I am glad that most Members are in favour of the first two methods and against the third.

As regards land acquisition, it is satisfying to note that there are hardly any Members against Government acquisition of public property as provided for in our recent Land Acquisition Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to deal separately and in more detail with some of the four major recommendations. But before I do so, I would first like to dispose of some minor ones. As for the judges, the Prime Minister has set out Government's views that we are against a small body of men perpetuating themselves forever. I do not think I need say much more. As for our Public Service Commission, I stated in December last that the Government agrees that the Chairman and members of the Commission should be persons who can demand the respect and enjoy the confidence of all sections of the population and should not be members of any political Party.

There is one minor recommendation which I must deal with, and that is with regard to the secrecy of voting. The Commission recommended at page 12, paragraph 43, that ballot papers should not be numbered. There is a provision in the Elections Ordinance which says that each ballot paper shall have a number printed on the back, and shall have attached a counterfoil with the same number printed on the face. The Commission feels that this is inconsistent with the right of secrecy of the vote. There must be some good reasons for having numbers, and this provision has survived many a protest. The reason is obvious. If ballot papers have no numbers, there is a possibility of fraud. Who is to know how many ballot papers have been issued? If this provision is scrapped, more vigorous protests will he made to the effect that the Government rigged the elections. At present it is possible for the Government to find out who voted for whom.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): We never do that.

Mr Barker: But I can assure you, as Mr Ho See Beng has said, we do not do that.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Bras Basah. You are referring to the Member for Bras Basah.

Mr Barker: But, Sir, it is even more possible for Government to distribute to their supporters more unnumbered ballot papers than their supporters are entitled to. However honest this Government is, I would say that protests against unnumbered ballot papers would be more vociferous than those against numbered papers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that the Government's stand on the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission, which have not been accepted in toto, needs amplification. I propose to deal with these one by one.

In regard to fundamental rights, the only recommendation which is not accepted in the form recommended is the one with regard to property rights. But before I deal with property rights, I would like to touch on one recommendation which has been accepted and which appears to have upset the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The Commission has recommended that we should not define "Malays", and for good reasons. The Member for Kampong Kembangan feels that it would be better for us to define "Malays", and he has suggested a definition. I do not propose to criticise his definition. But in whatever way we define a Malay, some people must object. If you restrict the class merely to Malays born in Singapore, those born outside will object. If you take people born in the Malay Archipelago, how far do we go? Do we stop before we come to West Irian, or do we go further to Australian New Guinea? If we define a Malay, the next step would be, perhaps, that the Chinese would like to be defined, and then the Indians are not going to keep quiet. Then where do we stop? But I am glad that the Member for Kampong Kapor would like to leave things as they are.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now go on to the question of land acquisition which, in my view, was outside the terms of reference of the Commission. But since they feel so strongly about the protection of the individual, as far as his property goes, I intend to deal with their recommendations and set out Government's views which have been stated in the past but which I think are worth repeating.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at page 11, paragraphs 41 and 42, the Commission made certain recommendations. Paragraph 41 reads:

`The next fundamental right that needs to be considered by us is the right to property. This is accorded by Article 13 of the Constitution of Malaysia but, as we have said in paragraph 14 of this Report, it has not been retained as part of our constitutional law after separation from Malaysia. In the light of the fact that the Legislature has decided that this particular Article of the Constitution of Malaysia should not be so retained, we have given the most serious and detailed consideration, having regard always to our Terms of Reference, to the subject of a person's right to property. We find that all the written Constitutions we have looked at specifically provide, as a fundamental human right, the right of every person not to be deprived of his property save in accordance with law and the right to compensation whenever his property is compulsorily acquired. We find also that one of the human rights proclaimed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December, 1948, is the right of an individual not to be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

42. We are convinced that it is necessary, sound and wise and in the best interests of the people of Singapore, with the multiracial composition of its population, that its Constitution should recognise and proclaim this fundamental right. We do not propose, however, to recommend the reintroduction of Article 13 of the Constitution of Malaysia in its present form. We recognise the fact that as the population increases over the years more and more land will be required for public purposes if the needs of the general public are to be adequately served. We recognise also that, Singapore being only a small island of 225 square miles, as Singapore becomes more and more developed and more and better public amenities are provided out of public funds, land will, largely by reason of such public expenditure, increasingly become a more and more valuable commodity in the future. We therefore consider it is imperative that a just and fair balance must be struck between the public interest on the one hand and private ownership on the other, and we think that this result will best be achieved if we recommend as we now do that there should be an Article in the Constitution providing as follows -

"l4.-(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property except for a public purpose or a purpose useful or beneficial to the public and except upon just terms."'

Mr Speaker, I have with me the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Article 13 reads:

`(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

(2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.'

Sir, whilst we were in Malaysia, we desired to delete Article 13 as far as Singapore was concerned. We were not thinking of acquiring land without paying compensation. We wanted to acquire land for a public purpose with compensation, but not necessarily adequate. Having scrapped Article 13 after the separation, as pointed out by the Commission, the Commission now wants us to put in another clause. Instead of the words "adequate compensation", we have the words "upon just terms". Mr Speaker, Sir, there might be a difference between these words, but if there is one, the difference is very small. And if we were to accept the Commission's recommendations, there would be a flood of litigation in Singapore and our Courts would have to construe the meaning of "upon just terms". Acceptance of the Constitutional Commission's recommendation would mean that Government would have to pay the full market value in all cases of acquisition of land for public purposes. This would make land acquisition, which is necessary to implement the Government's economic and social programmes, exorbitant.

Government's policy on land acquisition was enunciated by the Prime Minister in the then Legislative Assembly on 16th December, 1963, [col. 653] when he stated, and I think I must repeat what he then stated:

`The first principle is that nobody should get a windfall because of development at public expense.

The second principle is that whenever land is required for a public purpose, the price to be paid for that land should not be higher than what it would have been worth had the Government not contemplated development generally in that area.'

[Hansard, 10th June, 1964, col. 25] `Land is a fixed commodity, and with mounting pressure on land as a result of population expansion and development, land values tend inevitably to rise. But for public purposes of acquisition, we attempt in this Bill to exclude the landowner from windfall gains in increases of land values as a result, first, of either public expenditure already incurred in the area, or speculative increases in the price of land in an area which has been earmarked for development.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, these principles have been embodied in the new Land Acquisition Act passed by Parliament last year. A constitutional provision requiring the payment of just terms would mean that our intentions in the Land Acquisition Act would be stifled by landowners being able to raise constitutional issues when disputes over the quantum of compensation arise. The Government's intention is to follow the provisions in the Indian Constitution which state, and I quote:

`No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.

No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of the law which provides for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned, and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given, and no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision of the Constitution of India was as a result of an amendment found necessary after considerable experience showed that an unqualified constitutional guarantee of the sanctity of property led to interminable litigation on the adequacy of compensation.

Perhaps to support my arguments, I can just cite one example. Take the case of Jurong. Five, six or seven years ago - I do not know exactly when - Jurong was just one big swamp. The price of land there was in the region of 10 to 20 cents per square foot. The Government went in and reclaimed part of the swamp. We built roads. We supplied water. We supplied electricity. Now there is a little town in Jurong with many industries around. The price of land in the surrounding areas outside the industrial complex has risen as a result of the money the Government has put into Jurong. Let us assume that industries in Jurong expand and we require more land. This means acquisition for a public purpose. If we go in today and acquire land, must we pay $1, $1.50 or $2 for a square foot of land which previously only cost 10 cents and which has risen to $1 or $2 because of our efforts? Mr Speaker, this is the argument. It has been put before by the' Prime Minister, citing the Bukit Ho Swee site. A fire comes along; land which was not vacant before becomes vacant. The land is no longer encumbered with some tenants. The price of the land goes up. If we are to acquire that fire site, is it fair that we should pay the owner for vacant possession when he never had it before the fire?

Mr Speaker, in the Select Committee on the Land Acquisition Bill, as you are well aware, several representations were made by the public and quite a few suggestions and recommendations were accepted. One was to the effect that appeals of owners dissatisfied with the amount of compensation paid to them for acquisition should be heard by someone with legal qualifications, preferably the qualifications of a Judge of the High Court, and in particular not a civil servant. They wanted someone completely independent of Government views or pressures, if you like to put it that way. It was suggested that a High Court Judge should hear these appeals. Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform this House that the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court has agreed to release two of his Judges to sit in turn and hear the backlog of appeals in cases of land acquisition which have piled up over the last two or three years.

Mr Speaker, before I go on to the Ombudsman, it might be a convenient time to adjourn.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for the indication, Mr Barker. I will suspend the sitting of the House now and resume at 5.30 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.59 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, another recommendation - regarding the creation of the office of an Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner) - was not rejected by the Government. In fact, I had stated that Government was in agreement with the thinking behind this recommendation but that the time was not opportune for the recommendation of such an office in Singapore to be accepted. That the concept is acceptable to this Government must be clear from the fact that one of the first measures taken soon after May 1959 was the setting up of the Complaints Bureau to which many Members have referred. We have somewhat the same objective of promptly investigating and remedying allegations of maladministration or abuse of power. This Bureau, which is still operating, no doubt has certainly not got the powers of the Ombudsman. But it could be said to contain the nucleus of the concept of the Ombudsman, albeit at a very much lower level than the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I say that the time is not ripe as conditions in Singapore are not yet suitable, the question is asked, why? In Singapore, parliamentary democracy is still in its infancy and our citizens have not yet developed a full civic sense and awareness of their legal rights and obligations, as is the case in the more established countries following the parliamentary form of government. In such a situation, parliamentary democracy has to be nurtured so that it can take effective root. There are doubts whether the creation at this stage of institutions like the Ombudsman might detract from the role of Members of Parliament, the Citizens' Consultative Committees and other existing channels for the communication of grievances in order to obtain redress.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is relevant to note that in the United Kingdom, the Whyatt Committee under the chairmanship of the former Chief Justice of Singapore, Sir John Whyatt, when recommending the creation of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner in the United Kingdom, considered that complaints to the Commissioner should be channelled through Members of Parliament. This was considered a necessary interim measure while Parliament and the people got used to this new institution. The Committee also considered it necessary to have reserve powers with Ministers vetoing inquiries in any particular case. As the Member for Bukit Panjang pointed out yesterday, the Parliamentary Commissioner in the United Kingdom has only powers to investigate where a written complaint is made to a Member of the House of Commons by a member of the public, and the complaint can only be referred by the Member of the House of Commons to the Parliamentary Commissioner with the consent of the complainant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this should illustrate the fact that even in an old parliamentary democracy like the United Kingdom, this institution is considered novel and there are opinions for and against it. In Singapore, we are even much younger and it is considered best to make haste slowly and learn from experience elsewhere before introducing such an office here. When we do so, it will be necessary to consider what modifications should be made to suit our society.

Some Members say it may be novel in the United Kingdom, but what about Scandinavia where this institution has existed for more than a hundred years? Mr Speaker, Sir, today in Canada a big argument is going on whether or not the Ombudsman should be introduced into that country, and I would like to quote extensively from an article in the Scottish Law Gazette on this subject.

Mr Speaker: Can you quote the date and volume number of the publication?

Mr Barker: Vol. 34, No. 3, September 1966. It says:

`It might well be that under some forms of government or constitution, some device for tempering the harsh winds of the supposedly omnipotent powers of government to the shorn lamb of the man in the street is necessary, or at least desirable...

In the Scandinavian country where the idea seems to have originated the political set-up is quite different from that operating in Canada or any of its provinces.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, if Canada is different from Scandinavia, what about Singapore?

`This perhaps is not so obvious in the case of New Zealand, where at least the form of government is in its origin the same as in Canada. . .. Probably therefore bureaucracy is much more firmly entrenched, and the need for relief of the individual far more urgent. Perhaps also the basic livestock and dairy farming economy of New Zealand may have an effect on the political needs of that dominion.'

It goes on:

`Perhaps it would be as well to take a look first of all to see what is the problem, for the solution of which it is proposed to resort to the appointment of an Ombudsman. This may not be an easy task, as there does not seem to be any degree of unanimity among those who advocate the appointment of such an official. From time to time situations arise in which it can be made to appear that some individual is being oppressively dealt with by some government agency or bureaucracy. Some enthusiastic newspaperman hears of it and seizes upon it as an excellent opportunity to ring the changes on the brand of sensationalism which is the guiding principle of the modern journalist. The man in the street rarely if ever waits to hear what the other side has to say, and indeed only does so if driven to it, and so the cry is raised for some remedial means to redress the imagined oppression. In this instance the clamour has been raised for the appointment of an official or creation of an office to be called Ombudsman as pointing the way to another utopian panacea.'

If I may go on, Sir:

`This forces the conclusion that to be effective an Ombudsman must be given real powers and to give him real powers would be a violation of the most fundamental of all the principles on which the parliamentary system of government is founded, that is, that no one shall be above the law.

Many, if not most, of the instances that are clamourously pilloried by the drama-conscious press as grievous oppressions, arise from the actions of government agencies and administrative bodies created under regulations, the power to make which the legislature has delegated to another or others. This group of vicarious authorities is generically called the bureaucracy and bureaucracy can put rabbits to shame in the ability to proliferate. The demand for an Ombudsman or its equivalent really arises from this multiplication of authorities responsible to no one, and who therefore arrogate to themselves the right to set themselves above the law. Essentially an Ombudsman would be another bureaucrat and while the proverbial principle of setting a thief to catch a thief has in certain contexts a specious merit, it has a doubtful application to the case of putting a curb on the abuses of bureaucracy. The situation falls far more nearly within the principle of the old adage about locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen. What is really needed is much more careful consideration of powers glibly handed over to people who owe, or at least consider that they owe, no responsibility to anyone, so long as they strictly obey the letter of their charter as they interpret it, and much stronger safeguards written into the relevant statutes against abuse of any powers that can conceivably be exercised arbitrarily.'

The net result, they conclude, is that:

`if the law is for the general benefit, and the attention of the legislators has been drawn to the danger and they nevertheless enact it, then the public must accept it. That is one of the hazards of the parliamentary system and the remedy, if any, is at the polls.'

I think that if the people are dissatisfied with this Government, their remedy is at the polls.

One main reason against the introduction of this institution in Singapore is the standard of literacy. No doubt every child in Singapore is educated, and perhaps when they all grow up they will need an Ombudsman. But, at the moment, quite a part of our population is not literate and the introduction of the Ombudsman would mean that this poor Ombudsman would be flooded by complaints by people who do not know what are the limits of his jurisdiction.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now go on to the Council of State. Here again, I think I must trace the history of the Council of State. The earliest of the modern constitutions of today to have a Council of State is the Constitution of Eire, 1937, where in Article 31, there is provision establishing a Council of State to aid and counsel the President in all matters on which the President may consult the Council in relation to the exercise and performance of his powers and the functions accorded to him by the Constitution. The Council of State envisaged by the Constitutional Report has its origin, however, in a Kenyan Constitution of 1958. The Kenya Council of State of 1958 was created for a purpose quite different from that in the Irish Constitution, though it was probably from that Constitution that the idea of such a Council was first inspired. The Kenyan Council of State, however, was done away with when Kenya became independent in 1963. In 1962 Dr Hastings Banda rejected outright a proposal by the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference to set up a Council of State. He regarded it as likely to perpetuate racial discrimination and undermine the responsibility of Ministers to the Legislative Assembly. Dr Banda had also objected to the suggestion that there should be an Ombudsman, or indeed any idea of a second Chamber. The Kenyan Council of State of 1958 was a multi-racial body set up to perform functions of safeguarding the rights of minorities. Apart from Kenya in its 1958 Constitution, but not in its present Constitution, and I believe, Southern Rhodesia, no other Commonwealth country has a Council of State. It may be true to say, therefore, that if we today create a Council of State we would perhaps be the only country in the Commonwealth to have such a Council. But then it was for reasons such as that of providing adequate safeguards of minority rights that the Council of State in Kenya was established, and those reasons, I understand, disappeared in Kenya and hence the Council was scrapped. But the reasons behind the creation of a Council of State, in my view, exist for us in Singapore, since the Council had proved effective in dealing with the circumstances that had been existing in Kenya when it was first established. It was then, as it is perhaps now, a promising innovation which can make for far more harmonious relations between the Government and the governed, and because it does not take the form or substance of a second Chamber, it cannot impede the Government's legislative programme in any significant degree. Indeed, given a proper relationship, such a Council could be as constructive and as helpful as an Ombudsman, though on a larger scale. The Council, as envisaged in this Report, would be no more than an advisory council to assist the Government in the drawing up of Bills and to advise on Bills that have been drawn up, and further to safeguard the rights of minority groups in Singapore. The legislative primacy of Parliament is not in any way affected. Yet its members who may not be members of the Legislature can be of assistance to Parliament. Their functions would, of course, be purely advisory, but, at the same time, minority groups can look to them to safeguard their interests so that measures that may in any way derogate from their interests may be brought to the attention of those responsible.

Mr Speaker, at this stage, I must deal with the functions of this Council. In my previous Ministerial statement, I said that though Government accepts the recommendation to create a Council of State, Government differs from the recommendations with regard to the composition and the functions. I did set out therein some particulars of the composition of the Council, but I did not say much about what its functions should be. And perhaps it would be best if I dealt with this matter by actually referring to the recommendations as they appear at page 16 in the Report, and then set out the Government's stand in respect of every detailed recommendation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at page 16, paragraph 59, the Report says:

`We recommend -

(i) the creation of a small advisory body to be called "the Council of State" consisting of 21 members of which a minimum of 15 shall always be appointed;'.

This deals with the composition and, if I may refer to my previous statement, I did say that the members would be of two types, permanent members and members who are removable. But, in any case, they would consist of men of distinction, men who are mature citizens and who have either rendered distinguished public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life regardless of race, colour or creed as recommended by the Commission. On this subject, I think the Member for Anson wants this Council to have less members and someone else also shares his views. The view of the Government is that we should be flexible and we intend to appoint a maximum of 36 and no more. We may appoint less but not beyond 36.

Secondly, the Commission says:

`all the members shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion;'.

This is not acceptable. All the members will be appointed by the President on the advice of the Cabinet.

Recommendation (iii) is acceptable. I have already referred to it.

Recommendation (iv):

`the other qualifications for membership shall be as set out in Article 28 (2) (a) , (c) , (d) , (e) and (f) , suitably modified, of the present Constitution of Singapore which provides for the qualifications for membership of Parliament;'.

This is acceptable.

`(v) the disqualifications for membership shall be -

(a) membership of any political party at the time of appointment;

(b) the disqualifications set out in Article 29, suitably modified, of the present Constitution of Singapore ...'

(a) is not acceptable, but (b) is. The Prime Minister has dealt with this point and has set out our view that just because someone has been in our Party or U.M.N.O. or the Labour Party or the People's Progressive Party, or some other party, we will not bar him from this Council. Parties come and go in Singapore. They change names except ours. But we feel that political affiliation should not be a bar to membership.

`(vi) the circumstances under which a member shall cease to be a member shall be the same as in Article 30 (2) (a) , (c) , (d) and (e) , suitably modified, . . .'.

This part is acceptable but not the second sentence which reads:

`A member shall also cease to be a member if he offers himself for election to Parliament or becomes a member of any political party.'

Just because one is a Member of Parliament does not mean one cannot be a member of the Council of State. In my previous statement, I did indicate that it was the Government's contention to appoint not only, say, the Chief Justice and you yourself, Sir, but also certain Ministers of the Government and also ex-Chief Ministers.

`(vii) the Speaker of Parliament shall be the' Chairman and shall preside at all its meetings.'

I have great pleasure in informing you, Sir, that this is acceptable.

Then it goes on:

`The Deputy Speaker of Parliament shall he the Deputy Chairman and shall preside during any absence of the Chairman.'

We feel on this that if you are the Chairman, we would rather leave it to the Council itself to elect someone from their midst to be your Deputy.

`The Speaker.... shall not be a member of the Council and shall take no part, except to preside, in the deliberations of the Council....'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you are on that Council, you will be a member.

`(viii) the Council of State shall have power to consider all proposed legislation except all Supply Bills or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency;'.

This, I have great pleasure in saying, is acceptable to the Government.

The Member for Havelock yesterday pointed out that this is a Report on minority rights, and if the Council of State is being set up to protect the minorities, then he argued - and argued logically - that only Bills that affect the minorities in any way should go to the Council of State. He suggested one method to ascertain whether a Bill does or does not affect minority rights, and he put the burden on you, Mr Speaker, Sir. He wanted you to certify whether or not any Bill affects minority rights. This indeed would be a difficult task, though not impossible. However, Sir, to save you all that trouble, we would prefer' that all Bills, whether or not they affect minority rights, except, of course, Supply Bills or Bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency, should go to the Council of State. And at this stage I must say that it is our object, in creating this Council, not merely to protect the rights of the minorities but to protect also the rights of the majority. This is not a Council merely to protect minorities. What about the others? We are not afraid that all our Bills with the exceptions mentioned should go to the Council of State, and we would be happy to receive their advice and might benefit therefrom.

(ix), Sir, deals with proceedings:

every Bill except all Supply Bills or an Urgent" Bill shall after its First reading and after the Minister in charge has made his opening speech during the Second reading hut before any debate takes place on the principle of the Bill be submitted to the Council of State;'.

Sir, this is acceptable.

`(x) the Council of State shall consider the Bill in public, regulating its own procedure, ---'.

If I may pause there, Sir, in order to avoid confusion. I have stated before -- and other Ministers have stated it -that the Council of State shall consider the Bill in private. But within thirty clays of the submission of the Bill to the Council, the Council may make a report to Parliament. The report, it goes on to say, shall be submitted within thirty days, and if no report is forthcoming, then proceedings in this House are to be no longer delayed. This means, in effect, Sir, a delay of one month.

In accepting the Council of State, we are, in fact, entrenching it into our Constitution. I say "entrenching it into our Constitution" - I will deal in more detail with this when I come to the proposed methods of entrenchment. But if I may shortly say so, Sir, at this stage, there are three methods of entrenchment recommended. But, in my view, there is a fourth method, and that is this. Some constitutions provide that some Bills cannot go through three stages unless there is a delay of 6 months or 7 months. So there is a clause in the constitution - an entrenched clause -and in accepting the Council of State, we are, in effect, accepting the fourth method of entrenchment.

`(xi) any "Urgent" Bill notwithstanding that it has been assented to shall nevertheless be submitted as soon as possible to the Council who shall consider and report on it as in the case of other Bills.'

Acceptable.

'(xii) the term of office of a member shall he nine years ---'.

I have stated earlier that we intend to appoint permanent members and members who may be removed after three years.

`(xiii) any Minister may attend all proceedings of the Council and take part in its deliberations but may not vote.'

I would add "unless he has been appointed to the Council".

Mr Speaker, Sir, having dealt with the detailed recommendations on the Council of State and Government's views of what we accept and what we do not, before I conclude the subject, I would like to make it clear - and I think this point must be made and stressed for the particular attention of some Members who are rather unhappy about this Council - when Government views the recommendations of the Commission on the Council and, in fact, on the whole Report, we are not looking at it just as members of the Government. We are also looking at it from the point of view of the people outside this House, non-Members of Parliament. In 10 or maybe 15 years, most of us will not be in this House. We may be outside and, if you are good enough, you may be on this Council of State. Perhaps a younger set will be occupying these seats here, and if we are on this Council, I think, with our experience, we can discuss their views and send them advice for what it is worth. At least when that day comes, we will still be making some contribution.

In conclusion, with regard to the functions of the Council of State which I went through just now, with the passage of time we may even consider extending the powers of the Council to look into petitions and complaints from the public. In other words, instead of appointing an Ombudsman in 5 or 10 years' time, we may invest the powers of the Ombudsman in this Council of State, as the Member for Punggol has pointed out -

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Very true.

Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park) rose -

Mr Speaker: Point of order or clarification, Mr Rajoo?

Mr Rajoo: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Barker: Gladly.

Mr Rajoo: Sir, recommendation (x) for the Council of State reads:

`the Council of State shall consider the Bill in public, regulating its own procedure, and within say thirty days of its submission to the Council make a report to Parliament. The report to Parliament shall be accompanied by a copy of the Proceedings before the Council of State. After the Council of State has submitted its report to Parliament or if it fails to do so within the specified thirty days, proceedings in Parliament on the Bill may then continue;'.

My point of clarification is this. What happens to that report submitted by the Council after the Bill is considered? What action is Parliament supposed to take on that report?

Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, once the report is tabled in this House, it will be available to all Members. Then it will be up to the Government in power to accept the recommendations in tow or in part, or to reject all recommendations. Does that satisfy the Member?

Mr Speaker: The report, once it is tabled in this House, will, of course, be available to the Press and to the public.

Mr Barker: Once it is tabled, of course, it is made public. I think it is only right that the public should know what the Council has recommended and `what the Government accepts or rejects.

If I may proceed, Sir,I now go on to the entrenched provisions. The Report mentions three methods of entrenchment. The first is to provide for an amendment of the Constitution by a Bill which specifically sets it out as an amendment Bill. This is acknowledged to be the weakest form of constitutional entrenchment. The only useful purpose that: a specific reference in an amendment Bill ensures is that there may not be any amendment of the Constitution through sheer inadvertence or by implication.

Mr Speaker: It will save the Chair and the Clerk from knowing whether a `two-thirds majority is required or not.

Mr Barker: That is very true, Sir,I have said in my earlier statement that:

`The Government has given very careful consideration to all three methods and the implications of each and has decided, in the situation now prevailing in Singapore, to adopt the second method of entrenchment.'

I have also stated that:

`All those recommendations accepted by the Government and also recommended by the Commission for entrenchment will be so entrenched.'

But after listening to the views of some Members -which is now confirmed by your view, Sir - it is considered that there is merit in the views expressed, that Government should accept the first method as well. And I am pleased to state that this method of entrenchment, however weak it is, is acceptable to Government and will find a place in our Constitution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second method referred to is where the amendment Bill, through its passage here, has to secure votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected Members of Parliament voting. This method varies from constitution to constitution. Some provide specifically that the requirement of a two-thirds majority must be obtained at the Second and the Third Readings. This method would ensure that only a Government in office which commands more than a two-thirds majority in Parliament can alter at will the provisions of the Constitution that are so entrenched. We are inclined to forget here again that today we are in a happy position of having 49 Members out of a House of 51. But we must always think of the future, and the day may come when this provision is in and we want to amend it but cannot do so. On the other hand, it might be the other way, if we form the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a third method which is mentioned in the Report, and that is where the amendment is brought about with the electors taking part. Such a provision would, in fact, provide for a referendum supporting a particular Bill so passed by the Legislature. This is by far the strictest of all the three methods suggested. Where the Constitution is to be the supreme law of the land and its status as such is to be protected, a procedure can be prescribed for a strict method of amendment and, as a result, a more rigid Constitution will result. But, as has been so rightly pointed out in the Constitutional Report, a constitution that will not bend will sooner or later break. However, one has to consider the necessity of entrenching clauses in a constitution in accordance with its importance and vary such method of entrenchment accordingly.

I have mentioned just now the fourth method, and I will say a little more on that now. This fourth method introduces the imposition of a period of delay, and this can be found in Jamaica where a Bill, seeking to amend the Constitution, cannot be debated in the House of Representatives until three months have elapsed since its introduction, and a further three months must elapse before the conclusion of the debate and the final passing of the Bill by the House. Thereafter it goes to the Senate whose consent must be obtained except when the provisions enabling the dispensation of the consent of the Senate are complied with. Again in Jamaica, Sir, specially entrenched clauses cannot be altered in any event without recourse to a referendum. In Australia, too, a referendum is necessary for certain constitutional amendments and this has led to considerable delays in the passing of such Bills, and, in fact, the postponement of immediate reforms. To mention an extreme case, Sir, one may refer to Cyprus where the provisions safeguarding the interests of the minority groups have been written into a constitution that, to all intents and purposes, cannot be amended. This has led practically to a breakdown of the constitution. In Malaysia, Nigeria, Trinidad and Uganda, the two-thirds rule is provided in all their Constitutions. And this is the method we propose to adopt.

Sir, in conclusion, in dealing with the third method of entrenchment, it is Government's view that before we write this third method into our constitution, we should have a referendum and consult the people and ask them, "Do you or do you not want to be consulted on certain matters?" This will be quite a referendum because so many questions have to be asked and I do not see how agreement will be reached, but our view is that we should not impose on our people certain responsibilities which they may not choose to bear. They might, but we do not know. We have had one referendum; we have had the 1963 elections; we have had the Barisan vacating their seats; we have had by-elections after by-elections. Somehow I feel that our people are a little tired and probably prefer to be left alone, at least for several years. So, on that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for being so patient with me.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, presented to this House as Command Paper No. 29 of 1966, and endorses the Government's views thereon as set out in the Statement by the Minister for Law and National Development made at the sitting of this House on 21st December, 1966.