CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [24th July, 1984],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time.". - (Prime Minister.

Question again proposed.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in September 1966, the National Geographic magazine called Singapore a "reluctant nation". But in August 1981, the Fortune magazine euphemistically described Singapore as "one of the four industrial little dragons of Asia." What makes us to be more proud of ourselves is that throughout the world there are not many countries which could boast of enjoying both political stability under a democratic system and economic prosperity under a free enterprise system. Ours is one of the few. This achievement is chiefly attributable to the excellent and effective leadership, coupled with the diligence and the survival mentality of our people.

Singapore's success is not achieved in one day and it is not accidental, nor is it to be taken for granted. In view of our unique economic and geopolitical factors, in order to ensure our future political stability, economic prosperity and social progress, our people must continue to elect a farsighted, clean, fair, effective, strong and good government. This is the natural choice of the majority of our people, particularly those of the older generation who have experienced tumultuous years. However, our younger generation who are growing up have not experienced the struggle, turmoil and the difficult years of the early stage of our nation building. They might not have any knowledge of the past. Perhaps they might have some inkling of something of the past through reading or radio or TV programmes but they have not got any personal experience. Therefore, they could not have any personal feelings. Knowledge is one thing, feeling from personal experience is another thing.

There is another trend in the field of education. In view of our universal education, there are more and more people who are educated year after year, while the percentage of those who have English education is increasing even more rapidly every year. Among them, there are not a few who think that we should follow the Western political system in having two parties confronting each other, or at least in Parliament, where there should be some Opposition members so that they might exercise the duties of supervising and watching over the government. There are more and more of this type of voters, whose characteristics are: young, having secondary and tertiary education, but without having gone through the so called "baptism of fire". To a certain degree, they have accepted the Western democratic system and they also have the inborn idealism of youth. When casting a vote, they might face a dilemma, not knowing what to do. They would not know what to choose. On the one hand, they hope to have a strong, effective, pragmatic and good government in order to ensure prosperity and progress. On the other hand, they also want to have some Opposition members to question and criticise the government, to supervise government in the implementing of its policies and legislation so that it would listen more to the wishes and feelings of the people and would relax somewhat the tough and paternal style of the PAP Government in the past. They are more willing to accept such style from the real 'parents', but if younger Ministers talk like the Senior Ministers, they may think that the younger Ministers are riding over their heads ( ).

Idealism is a stream of force. It is just like water in the ocean. It can carry a boat and can also overturn a boat. Let me give three examples. One is an historical lesson and the other two are my personal experiences. The Member for Anson yesterday said that the Prime Minister was living in the past. To reminisce the past and to seek lessons from the historical past is not living in the past, but to learn something so that our future generation may build a better future.

The first example is an historical event from the record of books, ie the May 4th Movement of China. This movement was a positive achievement of the idealism of the young people at that time. They had not only changed the form of Chinese language and literature but they had also emancipated the olden society of China from its feudalistic shackles.

Idealism can be constructive, but it also can be destructive. This is the second example I want to mention. In the 5Os and early 60s, our country experienced a period of political turmoil. Many secondary school students particularly those in the Chinese schools and young workers had participated in the struggle for Singapore's independence and self-government Some of them were utilized by others. In 1950, I entered the primary school. In 1961, I graduated from senior middle school; the last batch of the 3-3 system. So I know at least something of the turmoil that had taken place in that period and I was particularly sensitive to the matter of Chinese education.

But the most precious political lessons I had learned were acquired during the time when I was in America from 1966 to 1971. During that period, many idealistic young people, including my fellow students, came out of the University lecture halls and classrooms and went into the campus and streets and demonstrated. They shouted slogans against the war, against the establishment, proposing civil rights and so on. Outside the White House, they hoisted white flags with red letters saying, "LBJ, how many Americans have you killed today?" Outside the Lincoln Memorial Hall, they listened to the oratory of Martin Luther King "I have a dream."

In 1968, the sentiments of the upheavals of the young reached the peak. In the end, President Johnson sadly announced that he would not be seeking presidential nomination for another term. In the same year, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, were assassinated, one after the other. 1968 was also the year when the Democratic Party held its Convention in Chicago for electing its presidential candidate. Inside the Conference hall, it was a tumultuous scene like a circus, and Humphrey was nominated. But outside the hall, thousands of youths and students demonstrated. They clashed violently with the police and the underlings of Mayor Richard Daley, resulting in bloodshed incidents. In 1970, the National Guards went into Kent State University and opened fire at the demonstrators killing one of them. At that time, the American society was filled with an atmosphere of disappointment, anguish, fear, and insecurity. I personally experienced such events during that period. Therefore, I could personally feel that kind of sentiments. Such events and sentiments have turned a wealthy superpower like America which has prided itself as a bastion of democracy into an era of turmoil and instability, loss and trouble-bound. However, because of its vast land mass, large population, and bountiful resources, it has survived and recovered. But what about Singapore? Do we have such favourable conditions? We are limited in our land and natural resources, and even in human resource. So the hard-earned heritage that had been built up by the past generation can easily be ruined. If that happens, nobody can give us a second chance.

So, from the view point of the proper channelling of idealism of the young people, the prime motive for this Constitu- tion (Amendment) Bill is well-intentioned and well-thought out. The Bill can introduce Opposition Members into Parliament while preserving political stability and can also fulfil the political aspirations and wishes of the younger generation. In our circumstances, we cannot allow them to simulate or emulate the experiences that had taken place in America in the 1960s or in our country in the 1950s and to get lessons of such turmoil and trouble therefrom. We have no capital to pay for the cost of such experience and lessons. Moreover, this amendment does not contradict the spirit of democracy while taking the feelings and wishes of the people into consideration, and it does not have any adverse effect on the living of the people. Therefore, in principle, I support this Amendment Bill.

There are many methods and views to implement such a system of inducting Opposition members into Parliament. Different people have different opinions and ways. The system we base on must match our present circumstances at the present time and not what others say. Some people think that we must have proportional representation as practised by some countries. As the Prime Minister has said, this method is very dangerous in our circumstances because it may cause many kinds of political parties of many shades to appear. We may see a Catholic Party, a Muslim Party, a Singapore Chinese Party, a Singapore Indian Party and other political parties coming out. In our multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multi-religious society, such a move would easily lead to our social disintegration and political instability.

Some people think that the method of introducing certain Opposition candidates who have lost in the elections into Parliament as non-constituency Members is not correct. Just as Lianhe Zaobao on 19th of July in its editorial has pointed out: First, the candidate who has lost out in the general election has only 15% of votes; so it could not be representative enough. Secondly, if a non-representative member of Parliament just indiscriminately opposes everything for the sake of opposition, it will be against the original intended principle of having him in the Parliament, as it will be more destructive than constructive. On the first point, such members would be the next highest scorers of votes and may represent around 40% of votes in some constituencies. Based on the results of the 1980 elections, there were six candidates who had lost in the election but had 30% and 47% of the votes.

As regards the second point in the Zaobao editorial, we must see the,motive and the personal character of the Opposition Member. So far we have only one Opposition Member, the Member for Anson, who has come into the Parliament with a majority of 653 votes. He has been harping the same tune in Parliament these past two years. Whether the presence of such a Member is constructive or destructive, we all know in our hearts. I need not talk further on it. Whether his utterances sound like oft-repeated incantations, trashy and spooky or not ( ), we all know very well. Therefore, we cannot use the quality of the present Opposition Member as a standard to measure future Opposition Members who may come into Parliament, thinking all Opposition Members who may come into Parliament are all useless fellows ( ). So let us see. Maybe there could be some usefulness from such members. So let us wait and see their performance.

The Zaobao editorial had also in the same issue proposed that the Government should instead appoint certain people from the industrial-commercial and the cultural-educational circles as non-constituency Members. This is not practical, I would say, although the intention is good. The problem is because of the term "appointment". Those who propose that there should be Opposition Members in Parliament may regard these parliamentary Members as "officially appointed" so that they will be standing on the same front as the Government. To put it less nicely, they will be breathing through the same nostrils as the Government. They cannot or will not have their own opinion or decision or criticize Government's policies or measures. To people of such beliefs who could not even trust that Government Backbenchers could be truly effective as Opposition Members in questioning and criticizing Government's measures and policies, what is there to talk about the "officially appointed Members".

In fact, the PAP Backbenchers have all along been exercising their functions according to their conscience and sense of duty, speaking up for the people, expressing the wishes and aspirations of the people, criticizing Government's policies and measures and pointing out the Government's merits or demerits. Whether in Parliament or in the constituencies they have been playing a positive and constructive role. And because of their closeness to the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, it has helped in their suggestions and criticisms being more effective. There are numerous instances of these as evidenced in the Hansard for all to see. Those who insist on having Opposition Members in Parliament, however, are not willing to accept this fact that Backbenchers also can play a positive role. If there are PAP Backbenchers who have different views on policies or whose arguments are out of line or a bit caustic, then there would be rumours aplenty saying that they have been offensive to the Head, offending the big boss, so they would be sacked or invited to lunch at the Ministry of Defence and they would not come out to stand for election in the coming election. The perpetrators of these rumours and those who believe in such rumours have committed two errors. The first is that they presume that our leadership is made up of narrow-minded people who could not accommodate different opinions and would expel the heretics. The second error lies in the fact that they have looked down upon PAP Backbenchers, present and past, including those who have left. During their term of office, these PAP MPs have spoken up for the people and have served the people well and contributed to the country. As long as they have tried their best according to their conscience, their staying or leaving the Parliament is of no account. Personal gain or loss does not matter. But these rumours reflect a more serious problem concerning the image of the PAP Backbenchers: people believe that if they speak up they will be sacked, but if they do not speak, then they will be described as "yes-men". This question also touches on the respective roles of PAP Backbenchers and non-constituency Members in Parliament hereafter. As we all know, PAP Backbenchers have aimed at improving the good performance of a good Government to make it even boner by correcting certain faults in its implementation of policies. But non-constituency Members do not have such constraints. They may try to find faults with the Government in everything, picking bones from eggs just to embarrass the Government. So who can really serve the people well? This will have to be seen after some non-constituency Members have come into Parliament. The people can then compare and judge. This could be a political education for the voters, particularly the young voters. Thank you. 2.55 pm

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Constitution (Amendment) Bill that is before this House.

Sir, this year we celebrate 25 years of nation building, a process begun in 1959 when the People's Action Party swept into power. Twenty-five years of uninterrupted PAP Government has given Singaporeans the highest standard of living in Asia outside Japan. I am sure my colleague, the Member for Whampoa, will give you all the detailed statistics. The fact remains that we have the highest standard of living outside Japan. With all these successes, we now find a small section of the population wishing for Opposition Members in this House. This I submit, Sir, is the politics of affluence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans are rightly concerned over what I believe to be a very pleasant problem. On the one hand, the hard-headed Singaporean wants a PAP Government. On the other hand, he also wan"Opposition", however defined, to serve as a check on the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir it cannot be over-emphasized that the primary objective of a general election is concerned with the question: "Who shall govern?" And in the context of Singapore today, the answer, in the hearts of the great majority of Singaporeans, is undoubtedly the People's Action Party. The question then arises: "Is an entire PAP-filled Chamber healthy for Singapore in the long run?" I think this is what one has to examine when looking at this Constitutional Amendment which is before us in this House.

The overwhelming success or continued dominance of the People's Action Party has also given rise to certain legitimate questions. One such question is the so-called "disenfranchisement" of about 25% of the electorate, ie the voters who voted for Opposition parties in successive general elections. Under the so-called First-Past-the-Post System, the candidate with the highest number of votes is returned as the Member of Parliament for the particular constituency. Sir, consequently some people have expressed the opinion that a Proportional Representation System may be a suitable alternative system. The existing system of simple majority is one, Sir, we have inherited from the British. The simple majority formula is also used in the national elections in Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand. One half of the German Parliament is selected according to this system while the other half is elected according to a Proportional Representation formula. Most of the Western countries except Britain employ some formula of Proportional Representation.

Sir, having seen how the Proportional Representation System work in some countries, particularly France, Italy and even Sri Lanka, I would agree wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister and certainly reject this System for Singapore. Our present system results in decisive majorities, ie majorities that can govern without recourse to the coalition which, of course, is considered to be natural in any form of Proportional Representation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of an election is not to "mirror" the views of the electorate but rather to provide a strong, single-party government which can be held directly responsible for its actions at the next general election. Proportional Representation will produce coalitions and therefore diffuse responsibility.

More importantly, in an election, a nation is making a decision, a choice, and that the function of the electoral system is to achieve consensus rather than a census of opinions. More importantly, proportional representation is likely to foster ethnic, linguistic and religious cleavages and also brings out class and other racial conflicts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having noticed some of the major alternative systems being practised elsewhere, one can safely conclude that no amount of electoral engineering can ensure political stability or good and efficient government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my humble submission that the question one has to ask is this: Does the Constitutional Amendment, as proposed by the Prime Minister, help to bring about more effective government, widen political participation, enhance democracy, and reduce political alienation? At this point in time, taking note of the quality of the Opposition, I am not too convinced about the real merits of this Constitutional Amendment. The essence of democracy, I submit, is a continuous dialogue among the ruling party, the Government and the people. Thus, we have Ministerial walkabouts and talkabouts, meet-the-people sessions and the intricate network of community groups, such as the Residents' Committees and so on.

The solution, I submit, lies in widening the opportunities for political participation and debate. Inducting or grafting a few Opposition non-constituency MPs into this Chamber would, at best, be an experiment to heighten our political scene. Nevertheless, I am appreciative of the fact that we in Singapore must devise our own mechanism which best suit our circumstances and institutional framework.

In this context, I must admit that the Constitutional Amendment which is before us is an innovative device and one that has not been tried out elsewhere, and seeks to give the electorate the best of both worlds, ie Singaporeans have a PAP Government with all PAP MPs and, at the same time, have at least three non-constituency MPs. Sir, we have introduced many firsts and we have generally succeeded. This amendment, while being innovative, I feel, is also Government's genuine response to a section of the population, and the least we can do is to give it a try. After all, nothing will be lost and this is an additional appendage that we can live with.

Personally, Sir, I do not see any ploy or trickery as implied by the Member for Anson in the introduction of this Amendment Bill. The PAP has governed Singapore well and its record is there for everyone to see and there is no need to resort to any devious means.

I sincerely hope, Sir, that the Member for Anson and his party would reconsider their position on this issue. Yesterday, the Member for Anson stated that he and his party will not accept the non-constituency seats when offered. Surely, the Member for Anson has enjoyed the glamour and the limelight of being in this House since October 1981 and he would be wise not to spurn this offer. He may regret it later. 3.04 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Social Affairs (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Constitutional Amendment providing for the creation of non-constituency Members of Parliament is a new concept for us. As with anything new, it will create a feeling of awkwardness. The democratic system itself or any other system for that matter will at the beginning create a feeling of awkwardness. Most of the time, we feel that it is not perfect. And there will be efforts to improve the system all the time.

Just see how many modifications have been made to this system by the majority of the newly independent nations of the world. This is a process that is going on until now. This includes the nation that produces this parliamentary system itself ie Westminster. Their Act of Parliament of 1911 is an example of an attempt at serious reformation. It is clear that although the Preamble to the Act attempted to realize the desire for change or improvement, the political will was not apparent.

Twenty years later, ie in 1932, there was a speech at the Federal Bar Association in defence of the system in which there was admission as to its shortcomings. I quote:

'Even though counting heads is not an ideal way to govern, at least it is than breaking them.'

Fifteen years later, before the august House of Commons in 1947, Sir Winston Churchill reaffirmed his faith in the system when in a similar note he said:

'It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'

Sir, 15 years after this, ie in 1962, Clement Atlee in his book "Anatomy of Britain" appears to vent his frustration when he says:

'Democracy means government by discussion but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.'

But we all know that the characteristics of a Parliament is to discuss a debate. At times, there is too much of it. Sometimes, it is just to fill the one hour allotted time for the speaker and the speech would drag on, devoid of any substance coming from a shallow mentality or mind, not realizing that taxpayers' time and money had been wasted. The speech was just a prolonged monotony.

Of late, criticism was hurled by the British people at the moronic uproar in their House of Commons which they dubbed as "Disorderly House". I had the opportunity of being in London in March this year for about 3 weeks when I heard Speaker Weatherill defended his august Chamber, saying:

When I took this job, I took on an ancient right - the first is freedom of speech. If we don't practise it here, how on earth can we expect it to work outside this place? Our system is controversial politics and where you get controversy, you are bound to get noise. You should thank goodness they didn't have live broadcasts of Parliament in Churchill's days when fights broke loose and they actually chucked things around the Chamber. And if you open Hansard at the turn of the century, you will find whole blank pages scrawled across with "the House proceeded in indescribable disorder."

Until now, Britain has not yet solved their bicameral system - the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In a Federation, the second chamber is necessary to protect the interests of each state in the Federation. In a unitary state, it is deemed necessary in order to enable capable and experienced individuals to represent their community, religion or other minority interests.

This bicameral system provides for second thoughts in respect of policies. In Britain itself, there are sharp criticisms of this bicameral system, especially the role played by the House of Lords. Amongst them, there are criticisms which say:

'The House of Lords still will be speakers for a very small section of the community as life peerages tend to be granted as reward to Party Loyalists or as a consolation for Ministers who are no longer "measuring up to their jobs.".'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this means that they can no longer discharge their responsibilities courageously and meaningfully. They are labelled lackeys or living puppets. They can only delay a certain policy, not more than that. Abbe Sieye's gives his cynical views:

'If a second chamber dissent from the first, it is mischievous. While if it agrees, it is superfluous.'

The bicameral debate in the United Kingdom continues until today. The American Presidential system has not been left out as an alternative. It is being discussed by certain quarters. How about the other countries which accept this system? Obviously, some have failed. They failed because the Westminster model is incompatible with the background of the local political reality, time and society of the countries concerned so much so that there are countries which enshrine in their Constitutional Preamble "general agreement" in setting up the "One-Party System" because they are of the opinion that:

'Limited human resources are not to be divided into "Government" and "Opposition". Mutual brotherhood demands cooperation in one party.'

Certainly this measure is alien to the British society. Now what is the interpretation to the Constitutional Amendment of our nation today? To me, inter alia, it is a forward-looking step which is unique. It demonstrates at once the sense of responsibility and maturity of thought of a government in putting the interests of its society or citizens at the highest level. And because a country is as good as its people, it means the maturity of the society or the people of the country themselves. Even more so, bearing in mind that in the Constitution itself is embodied an organization system which is one of the absolute conditions or criteria that determines the existence of a society.

A society exists because of three criteria:

1. the individual's level of capability;

2. Esprit de corps; and

3. Organization system.

History has adduced evidence that those in power will want to cling to power aided by constitutional amendments which tighten their stranglehold on their authority, whereas our amendment provides a golden opportunity for non-constituency Members of Parliament to respect and prove the trust entrusted to them by their supporters and, at the same time, voice their representations. They should not feel like second-class Members of Parliament because those who voted them in are not second-class citizens. In our country, there are no second-class citizens. They are Class One. First Class. The decision taken in this august Chamber is not a white elephant Chamber which frustrates the people's wishes. This Chamber is not a place for playing games, as stated by our Prime Minister, and, far from becoming a gambling den. We cannot gamble with the people's lives. Our absolute task is to protect their lives. Not to destroy. For, as politicians, we all know that politics is not a place to seek power. It is a praise to humanity. It should be passed with the development of mankind and humanity. I consider that today's motion has also manifested the Government generosity which provides the following interpretation:

First, a training ground for Members of Parliament from other parties, particularly the younger generation which represents more than 60% of the voters. Consonant with that, it gives more opportunity for the younger Ministers to further upgrade their capabilities.

Their sense of dedication and acceptance by the people of their performance in Parliament will reinforce them and their parties.

Accepted by the people as Opposition parties in the next general elections.

Possibility of ruling or governing the country cannot be denied or ruled out.

The cynics allege that this motion is a ploy by the Government to preserve its government. But we must understand the extreme possibility arising out of this motion that the seats of non-constituency Members of Parliament, say 25 years hence, maybe occupied by Comrades Ong Teng Cheong, Goh Chok Tong, Tony Tan, Dhanabalan and Ahmad Mattar Junior. At that time the average age of the second generation leaders will be around 70 years. We all would have retired when this happened. Some will have met with their God. Thank you to Minister Howe Yoon Chong for his Report on the Problems of the Aged, possibly, we might still be healthy and enjoying the love showered on us by our children and grandchildren. Thank you to Minister Jayakumar for his "formula". We will not trouble our children nor the institutions for the aged. I am confident that if this extreme scenario materializes, we, as supporters of the present Government, will feel sorry. But, alas, we must accept the wishes of the people. More so, if that government proves itself to be better than ours, it has the right to govern because it is we who have provided them with such an opportunity. And any government that can defeat us democratically deserves the support of all. Long live Singapore.

At that time, that is 25 years hence, our children would have grown up and raised their own families. We, that includes me, will have several grandchildren. When we gather at Hari Raya Aidilfitri, I will relate to them, to my grandchildren, today's episode concerning the decision that we made today, particularly to my grandchildren who take great pride in their involvement in the National Service. I will tell them, "Grandchildren, do you know that the present Government is the result of the creation of grandpa's party? When grandpa's Party ruled 25 years ago, we introduced a significant Constitution (Amendment) Bill. A political Party which places the interests of the people above everything else. During its term of office, grandpa's party has propelled Singapore to a new era, from a small island to a modern city state; from living in communal compartments, Chinese, Malays, Indians, with their different religions, language and culture, to a united thought and aspirations. Harmony prevails in the midst of these divergencies."

We are Singapore citizens in the true sense of the word. Our country has inherited unemployment from its predecessor government, but it was able to eradicate the individual human stigma within a period of 10 years of its rule. They live in clean flats. The bricks are not lifeless because of the fresh green surroundings. The political climate is healthy. Stable. Together, with friends in the Pacific basin, we have achieved a GDP which is superior to the advanced countries and many others. All this was made possible because grandpa's Party had vision. It had dedication. It had conviction. We never run away from problems - far from wanting to justify ulterior motives. I hope my grandchildren know the purpose of my dissertation.

To me, the Party is synonymous with the Government psychologically. It moves in tandem with the Government that nurtures Singapore. It deserves a proper place commensurate with the sacrifices made hitherto. It deserves to govern Singapore. If this happens again, in a loud voice I will shout, "Long live Singapore."

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that we have never looked for justifications or excuses, I am reminded of what Gleanville William wrote in his book, "Learning the Law". He quoted from "Punch" to illustrate this boring attitude of looking for justifications. He quoted an instance when a student broke a window. The student came out with all sorts of justifications, but finally he had to admit it. "In the first place, Sir, the classroom has no window. In the second place, the window is not broken. In the third place, if it is broken, I did not break it. In the fourth place, Sir, - it was an accident."

This attitude of trying to justify one's action is often seen in people who claim that they represent this or that group. This includes a Member in this Chamber. And if they cannot find a way out, the glimmering eye will suddenly become dull. Lack of sincerity will be apparent. Falsehood emerges.

Mr Speaker, Sir, realising the interest of the people is above that of the Party or self, I support fully this Constitutional Amendment. Let us hope that our stand in support of our democratic system will succeed and that this genuine spirit will permeate in international politics. Today we are making history. 3.20 pm

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members who have participated in the Second Reading debate all assume that our system of one-man-one-vote will succeed, will thrive, will endure, and that perhaps tinkering with it may be a necessary evil but may be unwise. I think it is useful if we see this in perspective.

First, there is no guarantee that one-man-one-vote can continue to work in Singapore and improve beyond a PAP Government, or perhaps beyond the tenure of office of those who are today in charge. How long has the system lasted? Since 1955, partially representative government - 29 years. What was the premise based on? A British decision that decolonization must take place in an orderly way and they must have an elected legislature to which they could hand over authority. What is their system based on? How long has it lasted?

Let me sketch out very briefly how recent and how frail the system of one-man-one-vote is. Britain, as you know, prides itself as being the earliest model of democracy - Westminster, the mother of Parliaments. It is useful to remember that nobody had a vote without property qualifications up till 1918, and then only men over the age of 21 and women over the age of 30. Women over 21 got the vote only from 1928. So if you take the Singapore system which is all men and women above 21, it has worked in Britain for only 56 years. What worked before that? The landed gentry and property ownership. In 1832, with the rise of the industrial revolution and the wealthy middle class connected with manufacturing, there was the First Reform Act which redistributed some 143 seats from the worst of the rotten boroughs - they called it (it is a historical term) "rotten boroughs", you fix it, you buy your seat - to the larger manufacturing towns, including London and the counties.

In 1867, the Second Reform Act extended the vote to one million urban working men, one million for the first time, 1867. In 1872, there was a secret ballot for the first time, by the Ballot Act, just 112 years ago. In 1884, the Third Reform Act enfranchised agricultural labourers. They did not get the vote until 1884, the peasants, and the Act extended the electorate from 3 million to 5 million.

When I was a student of law in England in 1946-47, my lecturer in Constitutional Law was the leading expert of the time. He was the writer of the standard textbook called "Constitutional Law" by E.C.S. Wade. He took great pride in the British constitutional system, for it was based on so much unwritten law, on convention, on custom, on the monarchy, which gave it flexibility. He compared Britain's then political stability with the constant turmoil, tribulation, tumbling governments of France in the Fourth Republic where coalitions of governments went through a revolving door every 3-4-5 months. My fellow British students believed that it was Anglo-Saxon phlegm -the stoical, unexcitable nature and temperament of the British people that was the secret of success of the British democratic system. It did not work in France. It did not work in Germany. It did not work in Italy. It worked only in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; America - less well.

But my lecturer pointed out that the British political system, the two-party system, evolved gradually over history. It evolved through the Golden Age of the Victorian era, Britain at the height of its wealth and power, an empire. And the toss of the coin was between Whigs and Tories. Later they were known as Liberals and Conservatives. In the 1930s, it became a toss-up between Conservatives and Labour, and the Liberals were squeezed aside.

For the two-party system to work, the two main parties must share basic beliefs in the fundamentals of what the national interests are and what are the political variables over which they could contest. When leaders of both parties, Conservatives and Labour, shared common values and beliefs because these leaders had, through a common educational system, mostly the elite British public schools and Oxford and Cambridge, come from similar social and economic backgrounds, it worked. Now it is under very great stress and strain because the conditions have altered. And it is in recent times, in my active political lifetime, right up till 1964 with the first Labour government under Harold Wilson, there was Tweedledum and Tweedledee, from MacMillan to Alec Home, both from Oxford, to Hamid Wilson, Bradford Grammar School, Oxford. Polarization set in. It was apparent by the third Wilson government, 1974-1976. It became deeper under the Callaghan government, from 1976 to 1979.

By the time the Tories returned to office under Margaret Thatcher in May 1979, polarization was a fact of British political life. And when the Labour Party elected Michael Foot as leader of the opposition, despite his being an Oxford man like Mrs Thatcher, an Oxford woman, it had sharpened. Now under Neil Kinnock, neither public school nor Oxford or Cambridge but Cardiff University, as leader of the opposition, the conflict is in fundamental objectives that puts the two-party system in jeopardy.

The Conservatives believe in a separate British nuclear deterrent. The Labour Par!y is committed to, and Mr Neil Kinnock is fervently a supporter of, unilateral nuclear disarmament and the removal of all American nuclear weapons from Britain in breach of their NATO commitments. So it is a fundamental attack on who defends or how Britain is defended.

The Conservative Party is committed to privatization of nationalized industries. They want to sell off Britoil, or British Oil, in the North Sea. British Airways is losing money, inefficient. The Labour Party has threatened to renationalize them and has deterred buyers.

The Conservatives want to abolish the large city councils like the London City Council and several of the major cities as wasteful, extravagant and replicative of government functions. Labour is commined to restoring them if the Conservatives abolish them. So if Labour remains the alternative and looks like winning, the country heads for an impasse.

Sir, the US democracy. It is just over 200 years old. It is an endless fascination for all those who, like me, have to read about them because what they do affect our lives, not only what the President does but what the US Senate does, what the US House of Representatives does, with our textile quota, whether NOL ships can take freight or they are at a disadvantage because it is a State-owned company and therefore categorized together with the Communist shipping lines, and so on. (t is a miracle it has worked because there is a separation of powers, the President, the Executive, Congress, the Legislature, the Supreme Court presiding over them all. And in between are checks and balances, lobbies and pressure groups.

The Member for Kreta Ayer and I regularly read weekly reports from our man in Washington, a professional, whose job it is to keep people like us informed so that we know the political and legislative background against which the financial markets have to operate. The conclusion of Dr Goh is that any country less rich, less robust, less talented than the United States would have collapsed a long time ago with their system of government and their infinite number of power groups and lobbies, and unending compromises for every piece of legislation and every resolution, a paralysis of government in every fourth year of a presidential election. America's allies shudder each time a new President takes office and starts off on a new initiative. Helmut Schmidt, the former German Chancellor, once told me, what a burden it was that just when they had educated President Carter, they got to start all over again educating President Reagan on the facts of international politics and international finance. And even if the President is with you, they find the Senate taking initiatives, passing a resolution to withdraw or reduce NATO troops in Europe unless they increase their defence expenditure.

The American system has been tried in the Philippines. They gave the Philippines independence in 1946. It failed. By 1972, it had already failed before President Marcos declared martial law. And whatever happens, it is unlikely that it will ever be reattempted in the Philippines in its unadulterated form. The Philippines is not rich enough, not talented enough, not big enough, not robust enough, to pay the price of such a system.

Now, Sir, what about the other mature democracies? Take France. It has gone through five Republics since the French Revolution with the storming of the Bastille on 14th July 1789. In between they had Emperors, Napoleon, Napoleon 11. The Third Republic, for those young enough not to remember went down with Marshal Petain in Vichy, France, in disgrace as collaborators of the Germans. De Gaulle went back with the liberating Free French forces, and the Fourth Republic was inaugurated. He withdrew and retired to his country home. By 1958, paralysis, chaos, pandemonium. They had lost the war in Indochina, Dien Bien Phu. They were in deep trouble in Algeria and the generals were in revolt.

I was in France in 1958 for a break from my constitutional conferencing in London, and it was pandemonium. The taxi driver took me past the Nationale Assembly. I could not speak French. He pointed to the Nationale Assembly and said, "Voila, Voila, Voila, Voila." "Democracy" from a French taxi driver to a very young student of politics.

De Gaulle was summoned from his retirement. He had a referendum and instituted strong, tough presidential rule with a Fifth Republic. It only lasted 26 years, 27 really, 1959, no proof that it will go on. There were considerable doubts whether after De Gaulle apres moi la deluge, as they say.

Germany and Japan, it is uncomfortable to mention the past, but you know they were not model democracies up to 1945. Their democracies stemmed from Allied occupation of West Germany; Russian occupation of East Germany, now a people's democracy; and American Occupation of Japan. And it started in the 1950s when the Occupation forces handed over power. So it is only just over 30 years.

If you read the reports of what happens in Italy, changing governments every six months, please remember there was Mussolini. There was Marshal Badoglio who took over after Mussolini was overthrown. Then came Victor Emmanuel, again Allied occupation and this democratic system for just over 30 years.

Ask yourselves, let us be honest, let us not bluff ourselves, what are we? Anglo-Saxons with phlegmatic temperaments, not excitable? We are Chinese or Chinese ethnic descent, Malays, Indians, Punjabis, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans. Remember, for thousands of years, not just these countries but even the British, their societies were governed by tribal chiefs, kings, emperors, military commanders who made themselves kings and emperors and conquerors like the Romans. It is just not part of our history to count heads to decide who is the leader. It is not part of either Chinese, Malay or Indian culture or tradition. Indeed, it is anathema to Chinese culture that the Emperor's mandate from heaven should depend on the counting of heads. It depends on the chopping of heads and that mandate was exercised not through a rabble in a legislature but through a strictly quality-controlled Mandarinate that went through a series of Imperial examinations.

Sir, 29 years is all the practice that we have. Our attitudes, our practices, have been shaped by our history in these 29 years. How we will progress depends on how we direct our social, economic and political policies, and including how Opposition leaders or Members accept the basic parameters of what Singapore is about - the independence and sovereignty of Singapore, its multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural character. They are not for argument. We start arguing about that, we are tearing out our entrails. Any argument as to party differences must accept that these basic parameters cannot be changed.

Sir, the Member for Anson in his rambling, desultory fashion, cast doubts yesterday on whether I meant what the amendment is supposed to mean and whether the words speak for themselves. I chose my words. The amendment was crafted by the Attorney-General's Chambers. I wrote the operative part of my speech myself.

We will fight to win each and every constituency because it is in the nature of the PAP, because it is part of the history of our struggle with the communists because it is good for Singapore. If three or more constituencies choose to vote for the Opposition, and they are perfectly at liberty to do so, so be it. And the constituents will learn to live with these Opposition MPs. This is part of the learning process, a very important process which, I hope, I will contribute to whilst I am in charge. Because I think I know how to teach constituents what life is about better than my younger colleagues. I have been through a very tough school.

Sir, if the Member for Anson and his Workers' Party were really the alternative, then I have to say to Singapore, "This is a non-starter." For it is our duty to expose, demolish, and destroy the Workers' Party and him, because he does not accept the basic premise that we must defend Singapore. He does not accept the SAF; he does not believe in the sovereignty, in the integrity of Singapore. His first platform in 1972 was a Re-Merger of Singapore and Malaysia. And because of that, we moved in this Chamber an amendment ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister: There will be plenty of time for him. Please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where is this statement? Have you got our policy for 1972?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is so tiresome. It is not a point of order. It is a point of information and the information was brought out when the Minister of Defence picked it up in the Budget debate. I passed it on to him. Because I noted the fact at that time and I had the Constitution amended to entrench ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Have you got the programme?

The Prime Minister: --- to entrench in the Constitution ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Misleading.

The Prime Minister: --- that any surrender of sovereignty will require a referendum. There was a Black Ops on at that time, with many agents around like Leong Mun Kwai, and they were peddling Re-Merger.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is that why you broadcast that lie?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, he has gone through the courts, and he has been thrown out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did you broadcast that lie?

The Prime Minister: I did not broadcast. I do not have to broadcast a lie, because telling the truth is the most damaging thing to the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did you direct Radio Singapore to broadcast that lie?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is something pathetic about the way proceedings in this House are debased, demeaned by an unequal, inadequate appreciation of the significance of the debate, of the occasion.

Sir, the British have granted 38 now constitutions for their former colonies. I had the Foreign Affairs Ministry count them up. Apart from a few like Barbados and Fiji, they have not fared very well. And those who have travelled on CPA Conferences, you know, I know, what happens. In Africa, they have all become one-party states or are under military dictatorships. In the Caribbean, several have become presidential systems with one-party dominance.

In South Asia, take India, politicking on language and religious issues has caused serious deterioration in the administration and in public order. So much so that the Prime Minister Mrs Gandhi had to proclaim a state of emergency in 1975-77. Now, it is facing a grave crisis in the Punjab over Sikhism. It is facing enormous problems in Nagaland with the influx of refugees from Bangladesh.

Take Pakistan. It had a series of military rulers and had only one spell of constitutional government, in 1972-77, after East Pakistan was lost in a war with India and Bangladesh was established. The only elected President, Mr Bhuno, was hanged. And martial law was re-proclaimed.

In Sri Lanka, dismal succession of failures led them to change the name from Ceylon to Sri Lanka. Some Asian societies, they do that. They think that if you change the name, bad luck will follow the old name. And they changed the constitution from Parliamentary to presidential government. You know, after the riots it is in a parlous condition.

Let us look closer home. Let us take South-east Asia. The French have left lndoChina. They gave constitutions to Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam. Now they are all people's republics. And the prospects of reasonable standards of life and political freedoms are grim.

The US left the Philippines with a US-model constitution. It has collapsed. The Philippines is now part-parliamentary, part-presidential. It is under serious economic and political stress.

The Dutch bequeathed Indonesia with independence and an inadequate administrative machinery and it ended up with a multi-party constitution. In the first 10 years of Sukarno, one party rotated after another in a coalition. He decided on "guided democracy" for the next 10 years. It left the country prostrate and in debt. After 18 years of Suhano and the Now Order, and they have just improved conditions, not completely recovered from the wreck of the first 20 years. It is a very hard climb back to law and order and steady economic development. Then,, there are no doubts that whatever the difficulties, it is infinitely better than "guided democracy" under Sukarno. The problems are large but they are less serious than what the Western media or Amnesty International has made out or depicted.

Now, the British left Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei with different legacies. We have all managed after our own fashion and developed our own political forms.

The Singapore experience is very recent history. It has worked. Whether it will continue to work depends on getting able, honest and dedicated men to run the system, able to produce, able to achieve effective goals and make economic progress. It also depends on our ability to expose and keep irresponsible Opposition in check, so that no ideas of social welfare give-aways, dismantling of the SAF, reducing our defence expenditure and generally weakening the State, is allowed to permeate public consciousness.

Thailand was never under colonial rule but it has regular, very orderly, coups and a periodic review of the Constitution, and new coalition governments formed every one, two, three years. Those Members of this House who are AIPO Members (The Asian Inter-Parliamentary Organization) meet regularly. Singapore MPs can hold up their heads, just like the others. Singapore citizens travel, so they can compare and contrast. I think their political freedoms and liberties, the quality of the Singapore press and TV, standards of government, quality of life, they pass muster.

I ask the Member for Anson to ask himself: Would he be better off, first as a citizen, next as a lawyer, third as an aspiring leader of the Opposition, if he had stayed on in Johore Bahru and were a Malaysian citizen? It is just across the Causeway and he has his siblings there. He visits them, I presume. That was where he was brought up, he was schooled. He can throw away his Singapore passport and walk off.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That would suit you, won't it?

The Prime Minister: Wait, vote with his feet. Let us imagine him in the Dewan Rakyat in Kuala Lumpur. He would question the Prime Minister of Malaysia and make allegations about him, as he has in this Chamber, corruption, nepotism, giving banking licences to my brother for which he went to court and swore on the Bible that he never intended to mean what the words, the judge decided, meant. Sir, would he have been better off? Ask himself as citizen, as lawyer, and as potential leader of the Opposition, if he had never left Jaffna for Malaysia? He had been born and brought up in Jaffna. He might be the leader of the TULF or the leader of the Tigers! Sir, if Singapore were an evil, bad, vicious country, I assure him there is no law whatsoever which requires him to stay in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But I am staying.

The Prime Minister: I think the Member suffers from an irrepressible instinct to utter the truth at the wrong moment.

Sir, this young man who wrote in the Straits Times, I read today, he thanked God that he was not in Lebanon. I thought Lebanon, strange, Kannan Chandran. I said, "Chock up." No Lebanese. I understand he is a Malayalee. His father came from Kerala. I do not know if he has been to Kerala. I have. It is not so bad as Lebanon and there will be more newspapers to write for in Kerala. There is more press competition. But ask himself where does he enjoy greater freedom, a better quality of life, a better future for himself and his family? Kerala or Singapore?

The foundations of this political superstructure - Houses of Parliament, one chamber, two chambers, Houses of Congress, House of Representatives, Senate - they are founded on the infrastructure, the foundations of a society, the state of economic, social and cultural development of a people. You do not just transfer a Congress and a Constitution and give you a Speaker's Chair and a mace and you have got a Parliament. It depends on a people's history - their traditions, their national cohesiveness or lack thereof their educational levels, their professional knowledge their industrial skills - whether they feei that they are a nation that they belong to each other, that they are prepared to fight for each other, work with each other, share one destiny.

The rest, the superstructure without this foundation, the infrastructure, are just so much bric-a-brac, like Lego bricks. When the European powers and the Americans transferred these superstructures modelled on their forms, like the Belgian to the Congo, they failed in the Third World. The foundations were not there. Missing. In Africa, the loyalties are tribal. I read in the Listener recently of a very talented Nigerian woman journalist recounting the travail of Nigeria, and she ended up by saying, "But in the end, I felt closest to my village and my tribe." And African loyalties are tribal.

When Alan Lennox Boyd, Lord Boyd, was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he once told me, "You know what they call the leader of the opposition in Africa? Chief Enemy." That is right, Chief Enemy. Because there is no such concept as the leader of a loyal opposition. You are the chief, the man hopes to be chief, he must be the chief enemy. It is as simple as that. Hence, to maintain law and order - never mind law, just to maintain order - they established one-party states. Some of them become military dictatorships or under revolutionary juntas. It is like the economic side of Marshall Plan. When aid was given to develop societies to Europe, and in a different way to Japan, the foundations were there - the national cohesiveness, the skills, the discipline, the knowledge, the know-how, the social organization - and the societies flourished. When aid was transferred - machines, lecturers, polytechnics - to Third World countries, they asked for more aid. It is the infrastructure that is lacking.

Sir, I played a little part in shaping our Constitution. Earlier - in 1959 - I attended three Constitutional Conferences - 1956, 1957, 1958 - the 1959 Constitution. In 1956, for eight weeks, under the leadership of the then Chief Minister Mr David Marshall, we had Sir Ivor Jennings, the leading British constitutional law expert of his generation, and for many years Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ceylon - and it was a renowned institution of excellence - and he was legal adviser to the delegation, and we became friends. I used to visit him subsequently when he was Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He taught me, amongst other things, the difference between political realities and constitutional theory. But I think my best teacher was not Sir lvor Jennings or the British Commonwealth experts. It was the Tunku. He tossed it to me in a chit-chat once. This was late in 1962 in his drawing room in the Residency. I looked at the beautiful leather-bound green cover volume Constitution, and there were some Arabic letters on it. So I said, "Tunku, what is this?" He said it was given to him by President Ayub Khan. It was his now Constitution. I said that it looked splendid. I was looking at its inscription. He said, "But you know, Kuan Yew, they make very good constitutions. They have many brilliant lawyers. With every new leader they have to make a new one."

Sir, I remember that. So in 1970, our Constitution was in a mess - part State Constitution, part Federal, part amendments after separation. Untidy. So I asked the British High Commissioner, Sir Arthur de La Mare, in 1970, I said, "You have got a lot of legal experts. I remember them from my Constitutional talks. They draft so many. They become experts. Polish it up for me." And he did me a great service. They polished it up. It came back in April 1971. I had forgotten the date. This is just looked up. I thought perhaps I ought to tell the House how careful I am about fiddling around with constitutions. I looked it up. The FCO had done a first-rate job. The Attorney-General pencilled in his comments. I read the draft through, and I paused. I paused for several months and read it again, and I reflected on the matter for several weeks more. I decided that the experts just had no idea why we had made certain basic alterations, like when an MP leaves his party and crosses the Chamber he loses his seat and he re-contests an election. He thought that was unusual and said, "Refer back to British practice." I said, "No, no. We stay put." I have paid an awful price for it in 1961. I have not forgotten that lesson. And please do not forget that the price may yet be paid again. I may not be here, but Singapore and Singaporeans may have to pay for it if I allow a constitutional perfectionist to alter what he thought was a little unusual mote in the Singapore Constitution. I decided to leave the Constitution as it is, just incorporate all the amendments, publish a clean copy. Never regretted it.

Sir, I learned my constitutional law not so much from my lecturers and my textbooks or my association with people like Sir Ivor Jennings. They taught me the theory. I learned it in real life, hands-on experience, and from watching the Malaysian Constitution being amended, over 100 amendments, in just under three years since it was promulgated and it has gone through many more since, as Members will know. I suggest we stick to the Singapore Constitution because it works and I am suggesting this minor amendment in the hope that it will work better.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson says, "Postpone it until after the elections." This is rather disingenuous. If he loses, then we can pass it and he can come in. He did not say so. He said, "I am going back to the electorate. There is no such thing as a non-constituency seat." The House needs an Opposition. That is him. But of course if he loses it, there is nothing to prevent us from passing it for him. But passing it now, I will refuse. We shall see.

I think he fails to understand that we are passing this amendment not to please him or to do him a favour. It is not designed for him. Its main purpose is to encourage the serious contenders who are now on the sidelines and are thinking of waiting for the old guards to pass on before they contest. I am saying to them, "Come out. Take advantage of the next four to five years of exposure. Build up." And if we find that they accept our parameters, we may well develop a two-party system.

By way of an aside, in Mr A P Rajah I found somebody who accepted our parameters. I invited him to open the constituency's community centre at Farrer Park. It was then his constituency. He accepted that these were the interests of Singaporeans. He disagreed with me and the PAP on how it should be brought about, how it could be improved, but that Singapore should be defended and the interests should be preserved, that it should be multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious. Do not tamper with it. We were "ad idem". Pity he lost Farrer Park. We invited him to be Speaker of this House. We are not partisan. To run the system, we must be bigger than ourselves. We must do our job.

Sir, just a few points to dispose of the Member for Anson's various complaints. He says there is a ban on political parties. There is no ban on him. He can have a party meeting any time in any covered hall. That has been the law. It is part of our history. The PAP abided by that law all the years it was in opposition, before it was the government. It abides by the law even today. There are wilder and fiercer men than him. We are not worried about his Workers' Party mounting a rally of 100,000. I do not think we should dismiss this, and those of us who went through the mangle with the communists do not dismiss them lightly. I know that the Plen is still alive, last heard of in Malaysia. The organization is still there. The rules to prevent any resurgence must stay in place. They have not given up and the Malaysians take them seriously, and they take very seriously China's moral support for the CPM. I think we should do well to take our position seriously and take the CPM seriously too. They look weak today. I hope they will continue to be weak. You have street corner meetings, open air night markets. We had running fights with Barisan. Endless.

Sir, he wants access to the media. The SBC, and the RTS before that, gives every party air time at the elections. They give more time per candidate to the Opposition than to the PAP. He wants more coverage so that it is not to his disadvantage. It is not our fault. I promise him - the moment Japanese technology in video cameras is good enough for this House without extra lights, he will be seen live. Because I think no pressman in the Gallery can convey the sloppy, slovenly, ill-prepared, thoroughly confused presentation, I agree with the Members who sit in the Backbenches and complained bitterly that the press makes sense out of his nonsense, because when I read him today, it made some sense. While I was listening to him yesterday, he felt he had to speak for one hour because that is his right. What he had to say could have been said in 15 minutes, and he could have said it well. But he wanted to show what a great, eloquent speaker he was. So he rambled on for one hour, and the press rescued him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What about yourself?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not a man with conceit. I usually prepare my work, got my thoughts together before I expound. Hence, he will see careful notation. If he wants his Workers' Party programme published, and he has got a great five-year plan, there is nothing to prevent him from buying advertising space. People do that regularly. I read it in the International Herald Tribune. I am sure the Straits Times and Monitor will publish it.

Then he wants an Elections Commission in which the Opposition will take part. That is a red-herring. No Opposition takes part in any Elections Commission. It is appointed by the government. President Marcos has appointed an Elections Commission, and' the Opposition in the Philippines say that he rigged it. The Member for Anson wants me, of course, to appoint him on to the Elections Commission. But if I appoint an Elections Commission without him, then he says I have rigged it. Is he suggesting for one moment that the elections had been rigged? We fought, we won, under the same rules. The last Government was in charge. They ran it. We fought them. We won it. And if he has got support, he will win it. Let us not have red-herrings.

MPs should keep their seats. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the virtues of going through traumatic experiences, I am told, is that neuropeptides are released and they forge such a deep impression on the mind (the RNA that is forged in the neurons) that for many, many years they remain.

We had 43 Assemblymen in this House in 1959. Came 1961, we lost three : Ong Eng Guan and two others. That was early 1961. Middle 1961, 13 more went across with Barisan. We had 27, the balance on the other side. One died, Baharuddin - Anson. We lost Anson; David Marshall won. 26-25. Ahmad Ibrahim died - Sembawang. 25-25. They were exciting times. The Gallery was really full then, because it was for real. It was not simulated. If the Government fell, there was a serious constitutional crisis; there was going to be big trouble. We never lost our nerve. But we decided, whatever way we fall, it should not be by people changing minds and swopping sides. Anybody who wants to swop sides stands on his own platform. We are not in favour of Independents. 4.20 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has addressed the House for an hour. I shall accept the motion from the Floor that the hour allowed to the Prime Minister for his speech be extended by another 15 minutes.

The Prime Minister: Yes, please. I have to complete.