CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

The Prime Minister: Very well, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then I would not be able to take all his points and I will have to be very brief.

Sir, may I say that I got these amendments incorporated into the Constitution when we were still under Orders-in-Council, and it was incorporated into our Constitution as part of the Constitution of Malaysia. Watch the Indian Parliament and see them swopping sides. Watch Kashmir. The Chief Minister got out, and the Chief Minister's brother now becomes Chief Minister. Sri Lanka has changed their rules to copy us. So has Thailand, to stop the musical chairs. It is a successful practice.

Sir, the media. I shall deal with this on some other occasion. But let me just add briefly. It is not our desire nor our intention that our press and TV should be a copy of the British or the American. Our model is more that of Japan - factual, serious, informed reporting where facts are presented without a slant.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell that to the marines.

The Prime Minister: No crusading, and comments are kept separate. Their role is information and feedback for consensus building. The Member should ask himself: is Singapore better off with a privately-owned press under strict rules of ownership and self-censorship? Or is it better off where the press is owned by the governing parties, as in Sri Lanka and in Malaysia?

Sir, it is difficult to imagine, having lived through a long period of calm and stability, that the Singapore as we now know it in this Parliament can be fragmented and shattered. But let me warn Members that it is not to be ruled out.

The Member for Anson wants to know why a non-constituency Member should not vote on a motion of no confidence, Money Bills and other things. There is nothing to prevent more than half the Members of this House, when they disagree with the government, to gather together, vote on a motion of no confidence and force the government out. And by the time the party gets around to expelling them, the government is already out facing a general election. There is nothing to prevent it. And I sincerely hope the next leadership, the younger generation leadership, will understand the meaning of party discipline. With the old guards in charge, there is a great deal of laxity because everybody knows that at. the end of the day the rules of survival require certain parameters to be observed. And if that were to happen, if there is a split within the leadership and one half goes with one side and the other, I do not think non-constituency Members should be sought for their votes. It is a real distinct possibility because strong men have 'strong views, and they can collide. I hate to see such an occasion occurring. But I have to make provisions for such an event.

I will give the Member for Anson my other rebuttals through the press since he does not want to give me the time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You had an hour.

The Prime Minister: Sir, if he wants my answers, I am prepared to give it to him, and in full.

Our history has shaped us, including the clownish stupidities and idiocies of people more ferocious than the Member for Anson. We have infinite patience. In the end, we track them down. We have great determination. We learnt it. There is no other way. Just contain yourself. Wait, sooner or later, the time will come when a person is thoroughly exposed and totally destroyed.

At the moment, I do not see any clear divide in political, social or economic policies that will bring about such a split. But again this is part of our history. When the PAP won in 1959, it was a Party mainly of the Left and of the Chinese educated Left. When it won in 1963, it had shed its extremist Communist and Chinese chauvinist wing, and moved on to middle ground. It carried a fair size of that middle ground, Chinese educated, English educated and Malay educated. In 1968, after he trauma of Separation, we carried more of that middle ground, Chinese and English-educated Chinese and most Indians. But I knew that we lost the Malay ground. The shock of Separation and the problems of adjustment and resettlement from Malay kampongs to HDB estates were a strain. We regained that Malay ground in 1976, eight years later. By 1980, we had at least half the Malay ground and we had expanded our support amongst the English-educated and the Chinese-educated Chinese and isolated the pro-Communist and the chauvinist Chinese. The Indians we know are equally divided between those who support the Government because they benefit from it and those who want an Opposition because it is part of Indian culture. And those of us who look at the Gallery know. There are 6% Indians in Singapore. There are invariably 40% to 50% Indians in the public Gallery. They enjoy it. It is part of Indian culture. They want an Opposition.

Sir, our development depends as much on internal factors, what we do, whether we are able to develop open styles of government, free discussion without resorting to emotive appeals which threaten national unity, the gut issues. And it also depends upon whether external threats become severe. Frankly, I do not see in the immediate future an alternative group of leaders emerging to pose an alternative Party that accepts these basic parameters and has sufficient middle ground support. And the danger to Singapore, if the PAP were to be riven by factional splits, is real. It is the breadth of support and its organizational strength which is providing Singapore with our political stability. Mr Fukuda told me why he had to take a stand to try and clean up the LDP. Without the LDP, the policies that have brought about the transformation of Japan would not have been possible. Without the PAP there is no modern Singapore. It has been so. It is a fact of life.

From each of these experiences we have learned. We made amendments to the Party Constitution and instituted cadre membership thereby preventing our being captured in 1961. So one-man-one-vote is a very difficult system to operate. And I warn both Members in this House and the people at large, that there is no reason to suppose that it will continue to function effectively, no reason, no justification, without honest, dedicated and able men willing to undertake this responsibility. It is as good as the men who are prepared to run it. And in order that it can work, we have to use powers to suppress those differences which are so fundamental that if we bring them out, we tear ourselves apart, differences based on the interests of race, language, religion, culture. They are what the Member complains of powers of detention without trial. He does not know why we locked up Shamsuddin Tung Tao Chang.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell us.

The Prime Minister: He does not read the Chinese papers. I do. Shamsuddin Tung knows what he did and so does Mr Los Eu Seng whom we locked up as the proprietor of that newspaper. And we will do it again. Let there be no doubts about it. And because people know that this Government is prepared to do it again, it has not been necessary.

Sir, we have not developed the two-party system and the reasons are, again, part of our history. When we won in 1959 we were part of a united front with the Communists. The Lib-Socs, the Alliance to the right of us, they were weak and feeble and they were decimated in 1963. After 1963, it was PAP democratic socialism against Barisan Mao's socialism. When the Barisan abdicated, and we must thank Dr Lee Siew Choh for that, they left a void which we filled.

Sir, we understand the value of Opposition and since we are all getting old, while I have a witness here with me in the House, I should tell the House that I considered Dr Lee Siew Choh an important constitutional part of Singapore's functioning. Because Dr Ismail, then Minister for Home Affairs in the Federation, was going to lock him up together with the other Barisan leaders. I hurried to KL, and separately the Member for Kreta Ayer, and told him that under no circumstances should Dr Lee be removed from the leadership in case we got a better man. And lo and behold, how right we were. He took the battle to the streets. His lines of communication with his bosses were disrupted. He issued his own statements. He ended up by giving us the whole of that middle ground and a large chunk of the non-extreme, non-lunatic Left.

Let us not forget that the Constitution, the nature of Parliaments or Congresses, the political personalities and the Parties that form that government, their role is not self-aggrandizement. Their function is to serve the interests of the people, to ensure their survival and their well-being. Rights and liberties of the Constitution are not meant to serve the interests of politicians or their conceit or conceits. At the end of every term of office of the government, every citizen of Singapore, when he goes to the vote, should ask himself this question which Mr Reagan posed to the American people when he was contesting against President Carter in 1980. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is your misery index higher or lower, rate of inflation plus rate of unemployment? Are your expectations of the future better? If the Constitution which is the system, and the men who work it make your lives and that of your children better, you would be most unwise to listen to medicine men and bomoh politicians about the principles of democratic opposition and their desire for greater publicity and influence. We are talking about life and death of peoples. I have seen a few actually disintegrate.

One last anecdote and perhaps anecdotal lessons are the ones best learned. I went to Uganda in January 1964. It was a glorious, beautiful, superb capital, 6,000 feet high, like an English spring, sunshine, stonefaced Parliament House, Supreme Court, a Sikh Speaker of Parliament who entertained me. You know what happened. Obote chased the Kabaka Buganda out. He was here in Singapore. Idi Amin took over. He was in exile. ldi Amin brought the country down.

I was in Lusaka in 1979 talking to the new President of Uganda, Sir Jeffrey Ben Esa, QC. Mrs Malcolm Fraser said to me talking over tea, "Isn't he a very educated and cultured man?" I said, "Of course. He is a QC." There is only one of him left. Most of them have been killed by ldi Amin. You cannot put the country together again. In 1981, I was in Melbourne and I met an Indian gentleman in the tea room. I asked him, "You from India?" He said, "No. Uganda." I said, "Uganda!" He said, "Yes, I am the High Commissioner in London." I said, "Ah." He said, "The Prime Minister asked me to return but I told him my children were settled in London. They were educated there. They have to continue their education. But I will serve him." I said, "What has happened to the Sikh Speaker of Parliament?" He said, "Ah, he is in Darwin now. He is a magistrate. He is coming tomorrow night. Would you like to see him?" I was so overwhelmed with the memories of that stupendous spring day in Uganda. I met Mrs Obote in Delhi at dinner last year in November and she recounted to me her travail as she went from house to house to escape Idi Amin and slipped into Kenya, and finally got to Dar-es-Salaam. And she said "The people are different now. They do not listen to orders. They do not obey the law. They rob, they steal, they shoot. It is so different."

Singapore was different. Gangsters, secret society thugs, ran in elections and killed some of my supporters in Tanjong Pagar. I swore that when we came in here, we will be rid of them. We will be rid of them, and we have got rid of them. You can bring them back very quickly. A few more medicine men selling kowyao and if bought by the people, we will go back in time. But it is different this time. You cannot go back to the attap hut and keep your chickens, dig your well, and plant some tapioca and bananas. You will have to carry your water up to your 20th storey flat without electricity. So in voting for this amendment, remember: little cautious changes for what works is best kept working. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, which is 50 Members, pursuant to Article 5 (2) Of the Constitution.

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

Division taken: Ayes, 66; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (contd.) A. Rahim Ishak Mansor Haji Sukaimi Abbas Abu Amin Ong Pang Boon Ahmad Mattar Ong Teng Cheong Ang Kok Peng Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chai Chong Yii Ow Chin Hock Chan Chee Song Phua Bah Lee Chandra Das, S. Rajaratnam, S. Chau Sik Ting Rohan bin Kamis Bernard Chen Sidi Haii Shariff Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Seah Mui Kok Chin Harn Tong Selvadurai, P. Ch'ng Jit Koon Sia Kah Hui Chua Sian Chin Sia Khoon Soong Dhanabalan, S. Sidek bin Saniff Fong Sip Ches Tan Chong Bock Goh Chee Wee Tan, Augustine H.H. Goh Chok Tong Tan Keng Yam, Tony Goh Keng Swee Tang See Chim Ho Kah Loong Tay Eng Soon Ho See Beng Teh Cheang Wan Howe Yoon Chong Too Chong Too Hwang Soo Jin Toh Chin Chye Jabbar, M.K.A. Wan Hussin Zoohri Joyakumar, S. Wan Soon Bee Jek Yeun Thong Wong Kwei Cheong Koh Lip Lin Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Lai Tha Chai Yeo Choo Kok Lau Ping Sum Yeo Ning Hong Lau Teik Soon Yeo Toon Chia Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Khoon Choy No Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Yock Suan Liew Kok Pun Abstention Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Yeoh Ghim Seng

Mr Speaker: The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [The Prime Minister].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.55 pm

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 -

Amendment made: In page 1, lines 5 and 6, to leave out "of the Republic of Singapore (referred to in this Act as the Constitution)". - [The Prime Minister].

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 2, line 39, after "force", to insert "within three months of the vacancy occurring".

Sir, if I may speak on this amendment. This amendment of the Constitution provides for the vacating of non-constituency Members, but I wish to take this opportunity now to move an amendment to the first part of this clause which deals with the filling of vacancies of Members of Parliament, not non-constituency Members, but regular Members of Parliament. Sir, I raised this at the sitting of this House on the 20th December last year when I asked the Prime Minister what were the compelling reasons for denying the electors in the constituency of Havelock their right to elect their own representative to Parliament following the vacancy created by the death of their former representative. I asked the Prime Minister then what was the reason for the amendment to the Constitution which was made in 1965 which took away the requirement that was in the Constitution that any vacancy in the House should be filled within three months of the vacancy occurring. The Prime Minister's reply was, I quote:

'Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, 1965 did not see such an amendment. He goes by what he reads. The Member for Anson, as a member of the learned profession, should not go by what he reads in the press. The legislation on elections was governed by lows which were promulgated in 1959, and I remember distinctly that when the then Member for Sembawang died in August of 1962, we did not have to hold an election because there was an evenly divided House of 25 Members on each side until we held the General Elections in September 1963.'

Sir, I am a little flattered that the Prime Minister equated the present situation in this House to the situation in August 1962 when the House was evenly divided. The suggestion is that with just myself being in the House, the House is evenly divided. I wonder whether he thought of that when he mentioned the position in August 1962.

But the point is this, Sir. The Prime Minister is clearly wrong. There was an amendment, and if he would like the reference, it is the amending Act No. 8 of 1965. The Malaysian Constitution - and it was just not the Malaysian Constitution, it was our Constitution when we went into Malaysia in 1963 - required the filling of any vacancy in the House within three months. In 1965, a Bill was introduced in Parliament to amend this provision. So there was an amendment, and the Prime Minister would appear to have not known what he was saying in this House on 20th December 1983 when he said that there was no such amendment.

Sir, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was standing the principle of parliamentary representation on its head by not calling for a bye-election in Havelock constituency and by appointing a caretaker Member of Parliament for that constituency. His reply then on 20th December 1983 was:

'I am standing no principle on any head. The lows are as set out in the Constitution. There is no reason why the people of Havelock should have a bye-election.'

Those were his words, "There is no reason why the people of Havelock should have a bye-election."

May I say, Sir, that the Prime Minister, in giving that answer, ignores the Constitution because if you look even at the present Constitution, with the amendment that was made to Article 49 in 1965, if you look at Article 66 of the Constitution, what do you find? You find that "a general election shall be called within three months after every dissolution of Parliament." So the Constitution requires that the electors in the constituencies in Singapore should not go unrepresented in Parliament for more than three months. After dissolution, you have got to call a general election within three months. You cannot govern without Parliament for more than three months.

Havelock, in point, is a constituency with its own electorate. They have as much right as the electors in all other constituen- cies to send their representative into Parliament and you cannot deny them this right. To have denied the electors in Havelock to have their own representative in Parliament, a man chosen by them is, may I say to the Prime Minister (he is not here, he has walked out) but may I say to the Government, is to deny the electors in Havelock this right which the Constitution has given to all the voters in the constituencies. I think that we should now take this opportunity to restore into Article 49 those words "within three months of the vacancy occurring" which were, as I said, a part of the Article in the Constitution from 1963 to 1965. They entrench, what I say, the constitutional right of electors, voters, in every constituency to be represented in Parliament. Why should not the electors of a constituency where the incumbent MP has died as in this case, or where his seat has been declared vacant, why should they be denied representation? They can, in theory, I suppose, object to paying any taxes imposed while their representative is not in Parliament. [Laughter]. Members may laugh at this but if you are talking about parliamentary government and parliamentary process, then you have got to work the rules of parliamentary government. And I say, Sir, that it is an abuse of the right of the voters in any constituency to deny them for more than three months their right to have their own elected representative in this Parliament.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I never like to repeat myself. We learn from experience. The Constitution would have worked worse if we had this three-month requirement. We went through a harrowing time. I stand corrected. The moment we got back into Singapore, out of Malaysia, we reverted to Singapore provisions. We were extremely grateful for the Singapore provisions, and some future government may be grateful that this Government remembered what happened in 1961. Nobody can predict how future Parliaments will behave. A changing generation has different values, different attitudes. The party in power must inevitably reflect the changing mores, values, attitudes of the populace. If there should be a repeat of 1961, I think we would be doing the Government and Singapore a disservice by instituting these words.

I do not propose to enter into the legalities of the argument that the Member has advanced. I told him the last time that if he believes in his argument, put his money where his mouth is. Go to Court.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Division, Sir.

The Chairman: Do you want a show of hands and your "Aye" will be recorded?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Sir. I will bow to you. I accept a show of hands.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." As many as are of the opinion, "Aye". Show your hands.

Mr Jeyaretnam: (hand raised) Aye.

The Chairman: To the contrary, say "No", and show your hands.

Hon. Members: (Majority hands raised): No.

The Chairman: The Noes have it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause - "Amendment Article 5 of the Constitution of of Article 5. the Republic of Singapore (referred to in this Act as the Constitution) is amended - (a) by deleting the words "Except as provided in clause (3), a" in clause (2), and substituting the word "A"; (b) by deleting clause (3); and (c) by re-numbering the existing clause (4) as clause (3).". - [The Prime Minister].

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time."

This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Articles 39 (1) of the Constitution. As I have stated earlier, Article 39 (1) would be amended to provide that the number of elected MPs would be equal to the number of constituencies. It will not change the practice in substance. The amendment will, however, obviate the heed for Parliamentary Membership Bills to be introduced in future. However, Article 5 of the Constitution has references to such parliamentary membership legislation and provides that such legislation does not require a two-thirds majority. These references in Article 5 need to be deleted. Therefore, as a consequence of the amendment to Article 39 (1), in future there will be no more Parliamentary Membership Bills.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 1. This will be done. Amendments will also be made to the numbering of clauses consequent on the addition of the new clause.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

The Prime Minister: Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

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

Mr Speaker: The procedure at the Second Reading will again be adopted here. The Clerk will ring the Division bells.

Division taken: Ayes, 66; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes A. Rahim Ishak Howe Yoon Chong Abbas Abu Amin Hwang Soo Jin Ahmad Mattar Jabbar, M.K.A. Ang Kok Peng Jayakumar, S. Chai Chong Yii Jek Yeun Thong Chan Chee Seng Koh Lip Lin Chandra Das, S. Lai Tha Chai Chau Sik Ting Lau Ping Sum Bernard Chen Lau Teik Soon Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lee Chiaw Meng Chin Harn Tong Lee Khoon Choy Ch'ng Jit Koon Lee Kuan Yew Chua Sian Chin Lee Yiok Seng Dhanabalan, S. Lee Yock Suan Fong Sip Chee Liew Kok Pun Goh Chee Wee Lim Boon Heng Goh Chok Tong Lim Chee Onn Goh Keng Swee Mansor Haji Sukaimi Ho Kah Loong Ong Pang Boon Ho See Beng Ong Teng Cheong Ayes (contd.) Ayes (contd.) Othman bin Haron Eusofe Teo Chong Tee Ow Chin Hock Toh Chin Chye Phua Bah Lee Wan Hussin Zoohri Rajaratnam, S. Wan Soon Bee Rohan bin Kami Wong Kwei Cheong Saidi Haji Shariff Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Seah Mui Kok Yeo Choo Kok Selvadurai, P. Yeo Ning Hong Sia Kah Hui Yeo Toon Chia Sia Khoon Seong Sidek bin Saniff Tan Cheng Bock No Tan, Augustine H.H. Jeyaretnam, J.B. Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tang See Chim Tay Eng Soon Abstention Teh Cheang Wan Yeoh Ghim Seng

Mr Speaker: The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total numctser of Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.50 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.20 pm until 5.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 5.50 pm