Hansard, 1957-07-18

asked the Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing whether steps are being or will be taken to supply more public water standpipes for the residents in Kampong Tiong Bahru, Kampong Silat and Kampong Henderson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these kampongs fall within the City Council area and the provision of water standpipes is a matter for the City Council for which I am not in a position to answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us who is the elected representative in the City Council for that area?

That is a different question.

Electioneering!

Order.

The Minister for Labour and Welfare (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, as Minister for Labour and Welfare, I have set up under section 6 of the Industrial Courts Ordinance a Court of Inquiry consisting of a Chairman and two members with the following terms of reference: "1. To enquire-

Hon. Members will notice of course that that has reference to item 2 on the Order Paper and if any hon. Member thinks fit to ask questions, he can do so now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister prepared to direct the Court of Inquiry to make recommendations to contain the dispute pending the final recommendations for a settlement?

Sir, under the Industrial Courts Ordinance, there does not appear to be a dispute but I have set up the Court because there may be a dispute that is coming up and therefore it is to apprehend a dispute that the Court of Inquiry was set up.

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there is no dispute in being in the Singapore Harbour Board?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the go-slow, as far as I know, has been the result of the withdrawal of a pass. Since then, there has been talk of demands being sent in to the Singapore Harbour Board but according to what I know from later information, no such demands have been submitted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not an appropriate time to debate the merits of the dispute but does not the Minister for Labour and Welfare agree that it is in the interests of everybody in Singapore, of the Singapore Harbour Board and of the union concerned to prevent the dispute from becoming a much larger one?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is for that very reason that I have appointed a Court of Inquiry.

The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, 25th July, 1957.

I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at its rising at the termination of business this day, the Assembly do stand adjourned to Thursday, 25th July, 1957.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on motion (17th July, 1957), "That this Assembly, pursuant to section 174 of the Labour Ordinance, 1955 (No. 40 of 1955), resolves that the Labour (Procedure - Reciprocal Provisions) Regulations, 1957, published as Notification No. S 166 in the Gazette Supplement No. 48 of 28th June, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 13 of 1957, be approved."-(The Minister for Labour and Welfare). Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 174 of the Labour Ordinance. 1955 (No. 40 of 1955), resolves that the Labour (Procedure - Reciprocal Provisions) Regulations, 1957, published as Notification No. S 166 in the Gazette Supplement No. 48 of 28th June, 1957, as contained in Sessional Paper No. S.L. 13 of 1957, be approved.

10.09 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was my intention yesterday to add a further limb to my motion. Unfortunately because of the announcement made yesterday afternoon and repeated this morning in this House that a Court of Inquiry has been set up, I am prevented from going on with this motion. I would like to make this statement before I formally beg leave to withdraw this motion, namely, that I think the Minister-

Order. I do not think that the hon. Member is in order. If the motion is not to be moved, nothing more can be said about it. I did indicate - I thought quite clearly - that if the hon. Member had something to say about it, he had the opportunity during Question time. I take it that the motion is not being moved?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did try to say what I wanted to say earlier but I was unfortunately blocked. However, I beg leave to withdraw the motion. [That this House is of the opinion that a Court of Inquiry be set up to investigate the dispute in the Singapore Harbour Board between the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association and the Board, and to make recommendations for a settlement of the Singapore Harbour Board Staff Association's claim for recognition that they represent all classes of monthly and daily-rated employees of the Board, and of all other matters in dispute between the Association and the Board which has resulted in a "go-slow" in the work of the Singapore Harbour Board.]

The motion is not being moved.

10.10 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion which stands in my name reads as follows: That this House is of the opinion that the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry on corrupt practices be extended so that inquiry can also be made into corrupt and improper practices by candidates for elections and their confederates, with a view to making recommendations as to how such malpractices can be effectively detected, punished and suppressed. Mr Speaker, Sir, what happened in the two by-elections which we have just witnessed in Singapore can happen and probably will happen 25 times in magnitude in the general elections next year, and if in those general elections some of the practices which we have already seen in these by-elections are repeated on that scale, then the democratic system will collapse. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most disturbing features of these elections is that allegations of improper and corrupt practices are not only being bandied about in coffee-shops or bars in the privacy of conversations between intimate friends, but are actually being published in national daily newspapers. Everybody knows about what is going on and nothing is being done about it. This is partly because the law with regard to corrupt practices, as laid down in our Elections Ordinance, is copied from the English law. Although those laws would adequately protect society from the corrupt politician under English social conditions, they are completely inadequate to deal with the totally different social conditions obtaining in Singapore. The by-elections led to a great number of charges and counter-charges of strong-arm methods, illegal methods, corrupt methods, but no election candidate has filed an election petition against his opponents, nor indeed has anyone made any serious complaint to the police. All this adds up to the fact that unless we radically alter our approach to corrupt practices, then in the next elections and the elections succeeding we will find all these high-handed methods getting completely out of hand. When the by-elections opened, a luncheon was thrown at a fashionable hotel in Singapore at which the two candidates of the Liberal-Socialist Party addressed certain journalists who were invited specifically for the purpose of boosting the election campaign of these two candidates. This is what the Straits Times of Saturday, June the 8th - a paper well-advised as to the law of libel because one of its directors is a senior member of the Bar, and therefore very careful not to publish anything that would have made them liable to damages, and if this is not true, it definitely is defamatory - said: "At a by-election campaign luncheon in Singapore which will not figure on the candidate's expense sheet, the talk turned to the value of public meetings and a candidate's speeches. 'Don't bother about meetings and speeches', said the candidate's adviser. 'They'll get you nowwhere.' 'I know', said the candidate. 'Get the secret society boys out', said the adviser. 'They'll do it.' 'I know', said the candidate. Everybody at the lunch heard. Everybody would deny it if names were mentioned. Or they might say it was all a joke. But it wasn't a joke, and the secret society boys have been called out. Mr 'X' isn't the first budding politician to summon the secret societies' aid. He may get in. But not if voters keep their heads. The Elections Ordinance provides penalties for the person who directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss in order to influence an elector in voting. Words, words, almost meaningless words to the average voter. All he need remember is that no one will ever know how he votes. There has been talk of corruption. Not one complaint of corruption, however, has been made to the police, by a candidate or by anyone else." Now, Sir, there are some witnesses in this House who were present at that particular luncheon. The adviser who said these things was also a candidate in the last general elections. He said openly, albeit in jest, that he spent no less than $60,000 in the last elections. He calculated that by the number of votes he collected, it cost him no less than $600 per vote. Now, Sir, certain things one can jest about, but when things come to a stage where one openly calls a press conference and bandies these ideas about, then something must be done about it or we will perish. There is no law which says that a corrupt man cannot stand for election. If a man is prepared to adopt corrupt practices to get into the Assembly, it is more than likely that he will continue his corrupt practices after he has been elected, and nothing is more certain to destroy the democratic system of government than corrupt politicians. If your Minister is corrupt, your Permanent Secretary will also be corrupt in a very short while. Your Principal Assistant Secretary will also take something for himself. Your clerks will take something for themselves and finally the peon may not want to deliver a letter unless you give him 50 cents with every letter. When that comes about, the whole administrative system on which the democratic machinery rests will sag and collapse. That would be the end of the works. Sir, Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet wrote one of the greatest tragedies in the world, but if you get Hamlet enacted by the kind of actors we have seen in the last elections, then it is going to be a farce. However good the democratic system, if the dramatis personae consist of clowns, buffoons and nincompoops, it must fail. Now, Sir, I would like Members on the other side of the House not to be so jubilant because I may have something to say about one or two of their colleagues. In case it is said that I am now becoming pro-Labour Front, let me read about what one of the Members opposite may have been responsible for. "The Mak Brothers" says the Straits Times. They are from Singapore and not from Hollywood. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is one of the more delightful aspects of improper practices but this is not against the law and if people want to resort to such tactics to their own detriment, it is entirely their business. I would not like to repeat what I know happened because that might be considered to be biased but the Straits Times of June 27 reported it in these words: "Mr C. H. Koh ('I seek to kill a giant') yesterday held his first by-election meeting and nearly 4,000 Tanjong Pagar residents gave him a big hand. The Mak brothers - Mr Mak Pak Shee, the Assistant Minister for Labour, and his younger brother, Mr Mak Fee Hong - were there too -".

Order. I think I ought to remind hon. Members of Standing Order 31 (9) which reads: "The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given this particular Standing Order careful attention and what I have to say is completely within the Standing Orders. I am reading a report, Mr Speaker, which concerns the Mak brothers and is more concerned with the younger of the Mak brothers who does not happen to be the Assistant Minister for Labour although he is so closely related.

Order. I did think that I heard the name of Mr Mak Pak Shee.

That was just in-

In passing?

Yes, en passant, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is where we come from the sublime down to the earth: "The younger Mr Mak, before addressing the gathering in Cantonese, Malay, Hindi and English, entertained his listeners for about 10 minutes by playing popular Chinese tunes on his harmonica [a most worthwile occupation]. The crowd, in a happy mood, then gave Mr Koh a tremendous ovation when he told them...". Then there is another bit about Mr Mak Pak Shee (the Member for Geylang) explaining why he was there and what he was doing. We are not interested in that but all this is quite delightful. One person watching this man playing the accordion said: "Thank God he can only squeeze the concertina!" Mr Speaker, Sir, that was not illegal. But when we are told that some of the voters were offered seven dollars and five dollars for a vote, that becomes very serious. Our law, as I have said, is copied from the English law which is effective under English social conditions where people will give evidence and denounce others in open court. Here it is impossible. Unless we give witnesses a guarantee of secrecy, it is impossible to get these people to come forward in court. For instance, I have a little account book here which has a very close connection with one of the Mak brothers. It records the tea drunk and the cigarettes smoked by about 10 or 12 so-called helpers during the election at the expense of this hon. gentleman. I can prove it but I cannot prove the connection between Mr C. H. Koh and one of these Mak brothers. Therefore I cannot prove that an offence has been committed by Mr C. H. Koh. But if an Inquiry Commission were set up which is not confined to the technicalities of the criminal law of corruption, then some astonishing disclosures could take place. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the middle of the by-election campaign, a canvasser who was going round singing the democratic virtues of the Liberal-Socialist candidate in Cairnhill - i hope justifiably - was stabbed at the Esplanade. That is not by itself a very serious thing because canvassers may have made mortal enemies on issues other than the by-election, but says this canvasser who was stabbed, as reported in the Straits Times of 18th June: "'MY ASSAILANTS WARNED ME NOT TO WORK FOR SOH' TIP ON MEN WHO BEAT LIB-SOC 'KNOWN GANGSTER' LED THE FOUR THUGS WHO HIT BY-ELECTION CANVASSER ON HEAD A known Singapore secret society gangster is said to have led the four-man gang which assaulted a Liberal-Socialist vote canvasser, Mr Rahim Sattar, early on Saturday morning. Police yesterday received information about the gang - two Chinese, an Indian and a Malay. No arrests have been made. Police investigators are working on a report by Mr Sattar that he was assaulted because he was canvassing votes for Mr Soh Ghee Soon. At the General Hospital, Mr Sattar, who is recovering from head injuries believed to have been inflicted by a hockey stick, said: 'I know my assailants. They had warned me to stop working for Mr Soh.' Mr Sattar is waiting to get out of hospital to identify his assailants. He was attacked by the gang at 12.30 a.m. on Saturday on the padang... Mr Sattar told the police that the gang removed $63 from his trouser pockets and some election papers." Now, Sir, all this was being published in the Press for public consumption! And this is what the President of the Labour Front (the Hon. the Minister for Education) said in reply. He is a man not without his strong qualities but the ability to make a sharp retort is not one of them. Here is a serious allegation made against canvassers of his Party and he says: "We much regret to hear that one of Mr Soh's by-election workers has been attacked and injured. We extend to him our sympathy and good wishes for a speedy recovery." What is going on? Does he accept responsibility for this?

No.

It goes on to read: "The reason for the assault on Mr Sattar is not yet known. If it is connected with Mr Soh's campaign, it constitutes a most serious attack on the whole democratic process." Quite right! "We hope the police will be able to complete their investigations rapidly and bring an appropriate charge against those who attacked Mr Sattar." But nothing more has been heard about this including Mr Sattar. Every lawyer in town who meets the police in court knows that there is a deeper story behind this. I am glad to report that according to this story the Labour Front is exonerated: it appears that far from Mr Sattar being attacked by a rival gang-

On a point of order, Sir. Is the case sub-judice?

No, there is no case whatsoever. It is part of my complaint that there has been no case All these allegations have been made-

On a point of order. It is my impression that at least one man is standing trial arising out of that stabbing incident.

Can we have confirmation of that?

There is a prosecution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am able to say this, that there is a prosecution pending which is connected with this incident. I cannot without notice say whether the prosecution arises out of this incident. There is certainly a very close connection.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is a close connection, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Attorney-General and I will say no more. But if nothing is done, then - we will not say as the Secretary-General of the Liberal-Socialist Party said: "We had better pack up and go home" because that seems to me to be quite defeatist and effete. I say we had better shake up the Criminal Investigation Department. That much for Mr Sattar and we all wish him a speedy recovery. But if I were the President of the Labour Front and somebody had the audacity to suggest that we the P.A.P. have set our thugs to beat a man, then he is jolly well going to prove it in a court of law or pay us damages for it. I am sending no condolences to anybody who makes such allegations. But that is not all. On Thursday, June 27, an analytical account of the whole by-elections was written up by a serious political commentator in the Straits Times. He said this: "But by and large the electors of Cairnhill have been apathetic. At one meeting in Cairnhill a sizeable proportion of the small crowd was made up of young men sporting gay trousers, shirts and Tony Curtis hair-cuts. Half-way through the meeting I witnessed the arrival of some eight or nine cases of soft drinks which were liberally passed around to these gay young men who by their demeanour showed that they appreciated the drinks more than they did the trickle of oratory." Now Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a law about giving people, voters and others drinks. And in Tanjong Pagar, they had the audacity not only to give soft drinks but cakes as well to accompany the drinks, at a public meeting! There were hundreds of witnesses. But at a public forum I could not get anyone to give evidence who could establish the link between the candidate and the drinks and the cakes. It is not because we have been successful in Tanjong Pagar that we have done nothing about it. We are against this on principle. Either we stamp out these practices or there will be bedlam. In the cloistered atmosphere of a court such as the Commission on Corruption, or a court of enquiry or some tribunal not hamstrung by the strict rules of the law of evidence, a great deal of corrupt and improper practices can be brought to light. Mr Speaker, Sir, we in this Assembly, to be quite honest and frank with every Member of this House, are just a flash in the pan in the evolution of the constitutional process in Singapore and in Malaya. If in the next elections all that we succeed in doing is to multiply 25 elected English-educated opportunists, buccaneers and adventurers by two, to make 51, not only English-educated, but Chinese-educated, Malay-educated and Indian-educated buccaneers, adventurers and crooks, then the outcome must be the end of the democratic system as we intend it to be. I do not think it is possible in Singapore, or in Malaya, to adopt Western values and practice wholesale. We can adopt certain principles which are good, but the mechanics have to be altered. For instance, no candidate in England is allowed to put a symbol besides his name. No candidate is allowed to put his party emblem. If a man is a candidate he offers himself to his electorate. Here we have had to adopt a different method; we allow party symbols by the side of a candidate's name. The whole of the law relating to corrupt and improper practices is completely unsuitable to our conditions, and we cannot bring the crooks to book with these laws. A commission must be set up to think out ways and means by which we can prevent the democratic system from being subverted by these political adventurers. We have a few ideas as to how they can be effectively detected, punished and suppressed but this is not perhaps the forum for giving these ideas. However, if a proper tribunal is set up, we will have some recommendations to put forward as to how in future we can stop these things. In conclusion, Sir, I think I shall be safe in saying that all hon. Members in this House will support this motion on principle because being all honourable men, they will not want to see dishonourable men come and join them through dishonourable methods. I understand that Members on my side of the House and on the other side will have other ideas to contribute to the theme I have chosen for debate today, but I ask them to remember that if they are serious about the future of the democratic system in Singapore, in Malaya - and I repeat - you can have the best system in the world but if you put the lousiest of men to work that system, it will collapse! If you get Mr Mak Pak Shee to play the Prince of Denmark then even Shakespeare's "Hamlet" will become a farce! 10.35 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later stage. Question proposed. 10.37 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion and I know there will be enthusiastic support from all other Members of this House for this motion. This is only to be expected, Sir, since the elections efforts of all of us should be able to stand the enquiry of the Commission on Corrupt Practices. I shall be most surprised if they do not. We should not overlook the fact, Sir, that both during and after elections there are strong allegations about the conduct of a number of successful candidates and unsuccessful ones. These rumours may be unfounded, but on the other hand they may be true. Some of these stories, Sir, are still persistent and universally known, and they merit investigation. I am particularly struck by the fact that the names of certain local politicians crop up whenever stories of corruption are recounted. There may be good reasons why these names are almost universally associated with corruption. No doubt, Sir, these gentlemen may be unjustly accused. Their association with secret society gangsters may be quite simple to explain. They may be mixing with such shady characters with the good intention of rescuing them from crime. But investigation of these stories will do much to clear the good name or confirm the bad reputation of some political leaders. If these rumours are true or even half true, then the conditions of honest democratic government are being seriously threatened. We are at the moment, Sir, conducting investigations into allegations of corruption in Government departments. These are only allegations, yet the Government has quite rightly taken the view that the integrity of the Civil Service is so vital to good government that even allegations are worth investigating. So if there are stories and persistent allegations of improper practices by election candidates and their camp followers, the Government should be no less ready to allow the Commission on Corrupt Practices to enquire into the suspicious behaviour of those who aspire to seize the government. Every election brings its quota of improper practices. For example, Sir, it is not unusual for a candidate to claim that either he or his helpers have been set upon by thugs. I believe such claims were made in the latest by-election and also in the last general election. It is also true, Sir, that some candidates call to their assistance helpers who look like thugs. Until the election campaign starts, these people never show an interest in politics or in the fate of democracy. Suddenly they are found signing the pages of democracy, or rather that of candidates who presumably claimed to personify democracy. Some of these gentlemen who failed were the desperate-looking candidates who enjoyed an island-wide reputation of knowing gangsters who for a price would let loose their strong-arm boys among the electors. In fact a Colonial Officer, Mr Blythe, who is an expert on secret societies, not so long ago warned of the real danger of secret society thugs being used by politicians for election purposes. In view of all this, Sir, I maintain that it will be in the public interest and in the interest of good government if the terms of the Commission were extended to include political corruption. 10.41 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allegations of malpractices have always been made after all elections, and especially so after the recent by-elections. I have observed that whenever a candidate in an election finds things not going his way, he makes a lot of allegations against other candidates. In the recent by-election, I was not involved personally, and I can therefore speak with less bias. We have heard persistent charges of malpractices. At election rallies, bottles of "Green Spot" were given out freely by students or people who should be students. But nobody will say who were these people who passed the drinks around. Nobody would say so because they were afraid of retaliation; there is insidious intimidation. We know, too, Sir, that before a political rally takes place some Parties usually staged "picnics"; the gatherings would then move on to the rally. Who paid for those "picnics" which were so greatly enjoyed by those who attended and at which political speeches with a lot of flame and fire were made?

No lion dancing?

Not as yet. That is connected with the Mak brothers. You could see that these "picnics" were not genuine social events but indoctrination and electioneering gatherings at which the virtues of the candidate of one Party were extolled and mud thrown at other Parties. The accounts of such picnics are many and we ourselves have witnessed lorry-loads of youths going to such quiet places as Tampenis.

There were no elections in Tampenis.

There were no elections there, but invariably all those who attended the "picnics" in those places were later brought to election rallies. The by-elections were in Cairnhill and Tanjong Pagar but it seemed all the people in Singapore were involved; we found youths coming in from Jurong, Bukit Panjang, Tampenis, Changi and other places.

And Serangoon!

And Serangoon too. These are very serious allegations. I will instance a few more cases for this House to consider. In an election rally which is democratic, every candidate should be allowed his say, and the people should be allowed to listen to what he has to tell and offer them. I was present at one rally but half-way through it I heard a loud noise coming from a side street with shouts like, "Oom-pah! Merdeka!" The voices were in unison, Sir, - in unison. And I saw about a thousand-strong young people approaching the election rally, which was in Smith Street, apparently with the intention of breaking it up. Was that not force, Sir? Was that not intimidation? Was that not a very undemocratic way of preventing a rival candidate from having his say? I deplore this. Of course the leader of the People's Action Party, the one well versed in law and who has had a great deal of political education, will say, "Oh, but these boys were not connected with us. It only so happens they were there." Sir, that is just another way of saying it but all the same it amounts to the same thing - there was force. Then when election day came round we found that the voters brought in cars, instead of being allowed to enter the voting stations peacefully, were surrounded by hundreds of youths. They opened the car doors for the voters, escorted them inside the polling stations and told them, "Vote for so and so; you must." This, Sir, is the use of force. I would say that the limits of the polling stations should be extended in future so that only voters can enter them peacefully and will not be subjected to this subtle form of intimidation which is much more serious and lasting than an open show of force. And of course again at these polling stations we find soft drinks being passed around, by whom we do not know, but all those who were there in the hot sun greatly enjoyed the drinks. Sir, another malpractice takes the form of "persuading" voters to come out and vote. Groups of young people - five, six, seven and eight in each - march up and down staircases telling the people, "You have to come down to vote" and so on. I can imagine the poor voters, not able to withstand such presure or daring to say anything, come down sheepishly to do what they were asked to do. This is the type of "persuasion" we have heard of in iron curtain countries. There are yet other types of malpractice. I will just mention one. I understand from my colleague the Member for Tiong Bahru that in Craig Road a boy named Lee was caught red-handed tearing down election posters. His explanation was, "I have no job and am paid $5 a day to do this. If I do not take the job where am I to get money?" Here is one case where money is unlawfully used. All in all, Sir, I would say with regret that the elections system here is far from perfect. If the allegations are true that candidates spend more than $60,000 for an election when legally he can only spend $6,000 or $7,000, then I think that elections will be a farce.

He was a Democratic candidate.

He may be one from the P.A.P. I have heard of many instances of this malpractice of spending money and they are not confined to one Party alone but to all political Parties. Sir, we must put a stop to this practice in which a lot of money can be thrown about by candidates and the honest man cannot come forward. I think all show of force, all types of "persuasion", and all forms of expenditure which is not legal, like paying for picnics and other entertainment, should also be stopped. It may be difficult to provide the necessary laws but I think we should consider ways and means of combating all these malpractices. I say, Sir, that the person by bringing up the motion charging these malpractices cannot thereby prove that he himself is clean. This motion can be brought up by any person. I remember -

Why did you not bring it up?

-when I was a young boy noticing that whenever two boys quarrel it was the one who started the quarrel who would always complain to the mother that the other boy had beaten him up. We are grown-ups but that can be repeated here. However, the motion is good in principle and we should find ways and means of having cleaner elections and giving a chance to all those who are good, able and honest, to come forward to serve Singapore. We do not want corrupt people who use gangsters, make use of boys or let loose peace doves after winning the elections to rule Singapore. 10.54 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commission which is at present looking into corruption in the public service and in other public bodies should have its terms of reference expanded to include the investigation of corrupt practices which are known to have taken place during the by-elections in Cairnhill and Tanjong Pagar. Sir, it is no use our trying to keep our public service and public bodies free from corruption if we do nothing to stamp out corrupt practices during elections. Sir, if candidates are allowed to resort to corrupt practices during elections, this will reduce democracy to a farce, and if action is not taken now to put a stop to these malpractices, the unscrupulous and the ambitious will be led to believe that it is quite lawful for them to use these despicable means in an attempt to seize power. The support which certain candidates have received from shady elements in the population during the last by-elections has been reported in the local Press. The newspapers have also mentioned that at certain election rallies those who attended were more interested in bottles of soft drinks which were distributed free to all and sundry, than in what the candidates were trying to say. This may speak well, Sir, for the manufacturers of the soft drinks, but those responsible should still be requested to explain why they had to rely more on the quality of those drinks than on what they were trying to say. Again, Sir, in Tanjong Pagar a certain candidate used women of doubtful virtue to parade in his cars to tempt voters to ride with them to the polling booths. All this shows, Sir, to what limits candidates were prepared to go to gain their political ends. The terms of reference of the Commission, Sir, should therefore be extended to enable it to investigate and report on all the corrupt practices which were known to have taken place during the recent by-elections in Cairnhill and Tanjong Pagar. It is only in this way, Sir, that public attention can be drawn to the need for keeping our elections clean if democracy in Singapore is to have a fair chance to succeed. No one can deny that the stamping out of corrupt practices from our election procedure is even more important to the well-being of Singapore than is the work on which the Commission is now engaged. If the House believes in democracy as thoroughly as my Party does, it will without any hesitation support this motion. 11.00 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a person who has very close dealings with elections ever since they started in 1948, I quite agree with the Member for Tanjong Pagar that there are illegal practices and corruption prevalent during election time. Sir, I think the problem is not so easy. Illegal and corrupt practices are very difficult to detect, and while attempting to tidy the law, I doubt very much whether the Commission of Inquiry on corrupt practices is the proper body to look into this matter. I should have thought that probably the hon. Member would have suggested that an All-Party Committee would be the most appropriate body to advise the Government to draft suitable legislation. I say this, Sir, because no member of the Commission would be so fully aware of the corrupt practices which are prevalent during election time than the political Parties themselves. But I think, Sir, all these are temporary measures. My own view is that none of these laws could prevent corruption or corrupt practices. What we do need in Singapore today is political education among the masses. The way to do this is not to say, during election time, "I will do this or I will do that" or "My Party is the best Party in Singapore"; but to educate the masses on how elections can be held in the most democratic manner. I also feel, Sir, that Parties are putting party interests first rather than the national interests, with a view to seeking power. I suggest that the national interests should be stressed first and foremost during election time rather than party interests. I would like to ask all the Parties in Singapore to get together and try to work out a solution - first, to suggest to Government some sort of legislation to end illegal and corrupt practices; and second, that all Parties should take a keener interest in political education among the masses. 11.03 a.m. The Chief Minister (Mr Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry under Mr Justice Chua are: To inquire into allegations of corruption against Members of the Legislative Assembly or of the public service or against members or employees of the City Council or other statutory bodies in Singapore in connection with their official or public duties; To examine whether there is any justification for such allegations and, if so, in what circumstances any corrupt transactions took place and what persons were involved therein. This Commission, Sir, was appointed for a specific purpose, the importance of which can be gauged from the terms of reference. I do not consider, Sir, that this Commission should be saddled with additional terms of reference which have no connection with their original appointment. I gather, Sir, from the speech of the hon. mover that what he aims to achieve by his motion is to have a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into allegations of corrupt and improper practices with a view to making recommendations as to how such malpractices can be effectively detected, punished and suppressed. The elections law, Sir, as the hon. Member has stated, is quite clear on this, but it is based on Western lines. But I think there is indeed room for improvement in the machinery whereby such offenders can be brought to book. It is vital that our parliamentary system should be kept above any corrupt practices, and that elections should be kept clean so that candidates who are returned to the Assembly or to the local councils will be men and women of integrity and honesty. To this end, Sir, I move an amendment. Amendment handed in.

The Chief Minister's amendment, as I understand it, is for the appointment of a separate Commission of Inquiry on the same terms of reference as suggested by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Is that correct?

It is a little different, Sir, in that it is to be an inquiry into allegations and not into corrupt and improper practices.

Yes, but the substance is still there. As hon. Members know, amendments must be relevant to the motion before the House. Now the motion before the House is merely to extend the terms of reference of an existing Commission of Inquiry. The Chief Minister's amendment, in my view, is not strictly relevant as it takes the matter completely outside the present motion. I would suggest that the proper procedure would be for the Member for Tanjong Pagar, at the end of the debate, to ask leave for his motion to be withdrawn, and leave could be given on an undertaking by the Chief Minister that a Commission of Inquiry will be appointed with these terms of reference. The debate of course can carry on.

With respect, Sir, as I said just now, the aim of the motion is to see that there is an inquiry into allegations of corrupt and improper practices. The hon. mover of the motion, I believe, thought that since we have a Commission of Inquiry into corrupt practices it would be a simpler method of just extending the terms of reference, but his main purpose is not, may I submit, Sir, to load this present Commission of Inquiry with this additional duty. What he hopes to achieve is to see that there is a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of corrupt and improper practices, and if that submission is correct, Sir, may I respectfully beg leave to move my amendment?

I have over-ruled that amendment as being irrelevant. It is not relevant to the motion which, as I say, merely asks for an extension of the terms of reference of an existing Commission of Inquiry. If a separate Commission of Inquiry is to be appointed, it must be appointed in a different manner.

That would mean, Sir, that if the hon, mover of the motion would not withdraw his motion on my undertaking that I would move a motion to achieve what he wants to achieve, the Government would be placed in the position of having to vote against his motion. We feel, Sir, that while agreeing in principle that there should be an inquiry into allegations of corrupt and improper practices, this Commission of Inquiry under Mr Justice Chua should not be saddled with this additional work, which is, I submit, going to take a long time. Sir, I have said that the Government is in sympathy with the principle of the motion and will support it, and it is now left for me to suggest to the hon. mover of the motion that if he would just withdraw his motion, I would give him the assurance that I will move a motion which will achieve his objective, but which will bring in a new Commission of Inquiry, which Commission will not be tied to any other terms of reference.

Can I perhaps make it a little clearer? It is not necessary for the Government to vote against this motion. They may abstain, the understanding being that they accept the principle underlying the motion and then later on proceed to give effect to the undertaking given by the Chief Minister.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir. We will abstain.

The debate, of course, can go on. 11.12 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I may not be a man with qualities attributed to me by the Member for Tanjong Pagar and I may not have the ability to give a sharp retort, but at that time at least the Labour Front would not and did not rush around accusing people or pretending to interest ourselves in something in which we were not implicated. We were clean and we knew, when that gentleman Sattar, who may be a gangster -

Order. I think we have decided that the matter is sub judice and I do not think any reference to the case directly or indirectly should be allowed.

I beg to withdraw my remark. As I said, Sir, the Labour Front fought the elections clean. We never heard people accusing us of making use of young people or students to come into the open. We never resorted to the use of secret societies. Although we lost the by-election in Cairnhill, we lost it honourably. In Cairnhill there were five candidates representing three Parties and two Independents. Therefore when certain allegations were made against us, we did not try to defend ourselves but we left it to the police to carry out their investigations. We will know later on the results of their investigations. We as a political Party support the intention behind this motion, that is, to make an inquiry into the malpractices that went on in the last by-elections and that will go on in later elections; but as the Chief Minister has said, we rather think that it should be a different Commission, entirely divorced from the present Commission on corrupt practices in government offices. 11.15 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Member for Tanjong Pagar on the principle involved in his motion. We feel on this side that the present Commission should not be saddled with this additional work and that a new Commission should be appointed, but I entirely agree with him on the principle. Sir, we have seen the plight of some countries where politics have become so corrupt that the whole administrative machinery of those countries has broken down, with chaotic results for the population. Sir, as every election goes by, decent, honest men, who could give something to this country, look around and are aghast at the way things are going on in elections, at the amount of money that is being spent, at the corruption of the youth - Chinese youth by some Party, English-speaking youth by another Party - and at other ways of corruption which have been brought to light but which cannot be proved in a court of law. And these decent men ask themselves, "Why should I get involved in these things?" Sir, in the world there is a sense of values. You cannot get something for nothing. If a man has to spend $50,000 to $60,000 to fight an election and if he wins and becomes a Minister, you can be sure that he will try to recover four or five times as much - he will be a corrupt Minister. If you want honest Ministers, if you want honest politicians, you cannot expect them to spend $50,000, or $60,000 or $80,000 on an election. If they do, you can be sure what the result is going to be. This is a warning which I am giving to this country; when I see how things are moving - we are following the line of many countries where such malpractices prevail, and it is going to be a sad day for us if we cannot preserve decency and honesty in our politics. There is another form of corruption which no Member has referred to, and that is the "gentle persuasion" of Independents to stand for election in order to split votes. That also, Sir, is a form of corruption, though it is not covered by the provision of corrupt practices in the Ordinance; but that does happen. 11.18 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Minister for Commerce and Industry when he said that he was very grateful indeed to the mover of the motion for introducing such an important motion, coming as it does on the eve of the coming general elections. I agree with the picture painted by the Member for Tanjong Pagar - and indeed it is not new to me - that when our neighbouring countries have got rid of colonialism, the people suffer because of the practice of corruption. And now on the dawn of independence, colonialism still has its followers. Sooner or later, Mr Speaker, Sir, we will achieve complete independence, and if corrupt practices still prevail, will they benefit the people of this country? Our public service should at all times be deserving of applause by having no charges of corrupt practice levelled at it, but if it is led by corrupt elected Ministers, then its integrity will be severely jeopardised. Therefore this motion by the Member for Tanjong Pagar has been introduced in time to check any malpractice which, according to many hon. Members who have spoken, was practised in the recent by-elections. It has been said that malpractice assumed two forms in the recent by-elections: one, money; and the other, "gentle persuasion". It was a shock to me when the Member for Serangoon denounced in very clear tones the malpractice actually carried out by all the political Parties. Sir, I am much worried whether we can depend on the public to help Mr Justice Chua carry out his work on, the Commission of Inquiry on corrupt practices. I heard him appeal over Radio Malaya to the public to come forward to give evidence. We know that corrupt practice is always coupled with bribery. If there is no bribery, there is no corruption; but unfortunately in this so-called entrepot centre of Singapore where many business transactions take place, there are many ways to make quick money. That is why I say that bribery is the twin brother of corruption and why Mr Justice Chua can hardly carry on his work smoothly. But now, Sir, it is to be an inquiry into corrupt practice in the election. It involves hundreds of thousands of voters. It will be much easier for the Commission of Inquiry to carry out its work if the Government sincerely support this motion in principal. The Chief Minister and the Chairman of the Labour Front have stated that they do support this motion. Sir, we should make full use of the Department of Information Services and ask them to stop printing Ministers' pictures and sending them out everywhere. They should go to every nook and corner of Singapore Island and inform the public about this Commission of Inquiry. Top priority should be given to this Commission. The public should be told that it is of vital importance for them to come forward and give evidence to this Commission which is to investigate malpractices in the election. If the people want an incorruptible government, if they want their representatives to work honestly for them, they must come forward and give evidence. They should not be expected to have "Green Spot" [a soft drink] offered to them or beautiful ladies to entertain them if they want a clean election and a clean government. They should be conscious of their civic responsibilities. So I think this is the time for the Department of Information Services, led by Mr Thomson, to co-operate sincerely and make this Commission of Inquiry a top priority job to investigate corrupt practices, and invite the public to come forward with evidence. Then this Commission will really mean something to the people of Singapore and will prevent the collapse of the democratic system. 11.25 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really surprised at the accusation levelled by the Minister for Commerce and Industry that Independent candidates who cause a split in the votes are corrupted. The question of causing a split between the candidates is in no way connected with corruption or malpractices and I cannot see how it has anything to do with this motion.

On a point of explanation, Sir.

If the hon. Member will give way. Mr Lee Choon Eng resumed his seat.

There are genuine Independents and there are those who are put up by "gentle persuasion".

That explanation will not carry much weight, Sir. As a citizen of this colony. I think everyone is eligible to stand as a candidate and it is wrong to say that an Independent candidate who causes a split in the votes is put up by "gentle persuasion", and furthermore it has no connection with this motion. It may be that the Labour Front lost the by-election in the Cairnhill Division and that is why, in the mind of the Minister for Commerce and Industry, it amounts to corruption when an Independent candidate causes a split. The resort to malpractice, Sir, during an election is widely known. As the Member for Seletar has stated, malpractice and corruption have occurred ever since the general elections in 1948 - everybody knows that. They can never get out of existence. That is an open secret not only to political Parties but also to voters and non-voters as well. I have come across allegations of non-voters receiving money. If you give money to a voter, it is at least a corrupt practice, but what is the idea of giving money to a non-voter who has no right to vote? It is rather fortunate that I myself was not involved in the by-elections and I did not support any candidate at all. An hon. Member: Very lucky!

Yes, or else some accusations might have been made against me.

And proved!

And proved, thank you! I actually attended a number of election rallies and, as the Member for Tanjong Pagar has correctly said, soft drinks were distributed to those who went to these rallies not for the purpose of listening to the election speeches but for the purpose of enjoying a nice drink. But apart from these soft drinks, I also saw lorry-loads of people not connected with the by-election in that particular division brought to the rallies. What was the purpose of bringing a man from Serangoon or Tampenis to Cairnhill or Tanjong Pagar to listen to the speeches? What good did it make? Can that man vote? An hon. Member: Queenstown.

Yes, there were a few from Queenstown. I doubt if you could make a man from another division, coming to these two particular divisions, vote. All these accusations have been made every time after an election. What has the Government done? What have the political Parties done? It is not only because of the by-elections that corruption and malpractices have occurred ever since 1948. Why then does the Government not do something about it, or the political Parties do something about it? Is there much purpose in setting up a Commission of Inquiry into corrupt practices? It will serve no purpose. The most that you can get out of it is a Report from the Commission that such and such practices have occurred. But where will all this end? When the general elections come next year, again such accusations will be made; but what could be done about that? Cannot the Government or any political Party do something about it? The setting up of a Commission of Inquiry will not get us very far, although we may be able to find out something from the Report of the Commission. What I think should be done is this: the Government through the Information Services should set up civic centres and teach the people that they should not be corrupted in any election and how to vote. It is a question of the civic course that we give the people. It is not a question of just having a Commission of Inquiry and to say, "Oh, yes. So and so is corrupted and so and so has offered money for a vote or so." Like the Democratic Party in the last general elections which spent as much as $60,000 as the Member for Tanjong Pagar said - I am sorry he did not refer to that particular Party. I am sorry: in some cases-

Quite right. Against you.

Against me?

Order.

I am afraid that I have not spent $60,000. I cannot afford to spend such a sum.

On a point of explanation?

If the hon. Member will give way. Mr Lee Choon Eng resumed his seat.

I am sure that at that time the Member for Queenstown did not have $60,000 to spend and would not have spent it. I was referring to one of his opponents and I was therefore vindicating his character.

I thank the Member for Tanjong Pagar very much for the compliment. Now, where is that candidate who spent $60,000 against me? He is not in this Assembly today. That clearly indicates that money could get him nowhere. It is not a question that by offering money and bribes, you could get yourself into this Assembly. It is your service to the public; it is your sincerity to the public. So I feel that the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry will get us nowhere. The Hon. the Chief Minister has said that the Government is going to abstain from voting and I think I will abstain with them not because I do not support the motion in principle - the motion in itself is good and I will join the Minister for Commerce and Industry to congratulate the Member for Tanjong Pagar in introducing such a motion - but because as the Chief Minister has said that the present Commission of Inquiry is burdened with a heavy job and that in spite of all his appeals only 24 were prepared to come forward and give evidence. Now if you were to burden him with an extra job, it will extend the time of his Commission and where does he land? It might take another year for him to submit a report to this Assembly or to the Government or to the public and by the time when that year comes around all of us may not be here. So why should we extend the time limit of that Commission? Either set up a new Commission to inquire into this particular case or have nothing at all and then give a policy or directive to the Information Services to start civic courses, teach the public civic consciousness, the right to vote and how to vote and that they should not be subject to corruption. 11.37 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. the Minister for Education has mentioned that his Party lost honourably. I do not challenge that statement but I must say that allegations of corrupt practices have also been made against his Party. When these elections were fought, allegations have been made against every Party and not against one Party only. In one way or another, every Party was alleged to have committed these corrupt practices or used force to persuade people to vote for them. So much so that many of my friends and acquaintances - responsible people with limited means - have told me that they are going to eschew politics and will not stand for election because it is too dirty a game. Because of this, I do welcome this inquiry in principle and we shall support it. To my mind, such evil practices are bound to occur at the start of any new political development because some people always think that by the use of money or the might of power, they can force people to vote for them and thus make them support a system of government against the people's wishes. But from what I can see as a result of the last two elections, I think all the money that has been spent or alleged to have been spent and all the practices of using gangsters, school boys and school girls have not resulted in the way those people who encouraged corruption have wished. I think the voters are now learning the fact that their vote is secret and that their vote cannot be bought; even if they do fall into the temptation of accepting five or ten dollars, they can still go and vote in secret and nobody can touch them. That, to my mind, is the only practical way of getting our people to go and vote as they think fit. 11.39 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I formerly felt rather shy as a Member of this House because I hold my seat by nomination: but the trend of the debate has apparently been in the direction that it is more honourable and cleaner to be nominated into the Assembly than it is to be elected. That is a conclusion which I cannot accept. The Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck) mentioned just now that people are saying nowadays that politics are too dirty and corrupt to go into. Well I heard that back in early 1948. A friend of mine said that to me himself: "Local politics will be so dirty that no decent man will go into them." When I heard that, I said, "Well, if that is so, then I think I will go into them and find out for myself to see whether I can do anything about it." And I did go in with the Labour Party which was formed at the initiative of the gentleman who was at the bottom of the poll and lost his deposit in the Cairnhill by-election. Since 1948, I have seen a good deal of the dirty side of politics. I have mixed with some dirty people; some of them are out of politics now and others are still with us. It has not always been pleasant but I could not see any alternative. But I have also mixed with some very decent and very good people indeed and I have not much doubt that it is possible always for a decent poor man to beat a corrupt rich man in a straight fight. The high cost of votes has been referred to: it is usually a high cost of votes to the losing candidate. The winning candidate, if he is a decent candidate, does not necessarily have to spend money in that way. I do not think we can accept the view that "anything you can do, I can do dirtier". I feel pretty sure that there are quite a number of things wrong but I am also sure that there are a great many things right. We should not in this Assembly or elsewhere take it that Singapore is tottering on the brink of collapse into a sea of corruption and filth. The standard of living is high in Singapore as compared with many other countries. The standard of public conduct and public life is also high as compared with many other places. Neither the standard of living nor the standard of conduct is perfectly satisfactory. There are certainly things that could be and must be improved but we should not regard ourselves as isolated from decency by bottomless pits of corruption all around us. I do not think that the civil service is in danger of being corrupted and that the Permanent Secretaries would become corrupted because they got a Minister who is not all that he should be. I think they would bring the Minister up to their level if necessary; or at least see that he did not exercise his position in any wrongful way. What is needed, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that good and decent men of principle and character should come forward into politics and take a leading part. Inquiries may show where the dirt exists and laws may do something to clean up the dirt, but no law, no inquiry, indeed nothing, can take the place of high principles and high standards of conduct amongst the leadership of the country. If that is lacking, the laws will not be enforceable. If that is there, the laws in this matter will not make a great deal of difference because they will not be required and that is the word which I want to leave with the House. It is my firm opinion that we have in Singapore an enormous reserve of good and decent people who should be taking part in political life; who hitherto have not taken enough part; and they are the people whom we have got to bring into politics because they are the salvation and the future of this country. I hope that this proposal to examine political life and put it under a microscope will do something to show them that they can come in. They will see that the bad side is not going to get away with things. They will see that there is a future for a clean and decent man to come into political life and serve his country and meet the needs of the people. 11.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a lot has been said about corrupt practices being held at the last by-elections. I must say that in my experience of contesting several elections, the last election was the dirtiest I have ever gone through. Posters put up were immediately torn down. Banners were cut into two or smeared with oil. Helpers, apart from Mr Rahim Sattar who is not a gangster, were also assaulted although they may not have reported to the police. In many respects, I think an inquiry is very useful. I am also glad to hear the Hon. the Minister for Communications and Works mentioning that decent men do not require a lot of money to fight an election and I therefore strongly support the motion put up by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. 11.43 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although it has been depressing hearing the speeches on malpractices during the last by-elections, as a Member of the union of nominated Members of four in this Assembly, I do like to associate myself with what the Minister for Communications and Works has said. In spite of many depressing speeches, Singapore is still hopeful of finding good honest men standing for election and winning the election through sheer honesty and not by means of malpractices. Sir, there have been expressions of a desire to stop the malpractices and I think in answer to that we should all agree that a Commission of Inquiry be established to operate immediately so that before the next City Council and District Councils elections we shall have that report which will deter people going for election in future from applying practices that are not lawful. Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

In reply? 11.44 a.m.

Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, every time we have one of these tricky motions in the House, we find that everybody supports the motion for different reasons because anybody who does not support it, Mr Speaker, Sir, is ex-hypothesi suspect. Therefore, we are not at all surprised (indeed I am not) to receive such unanimous support from all sections of the House, not least from the Member for Cairnhill (Mr Soh Ghee Soon) who has succeeded the ex-Chief Minister. Now, Sir, what was most interesting was the fact that three experienced post-Emergency politicians, the Member for Seletar (Mr Nair), the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng) and the present Member for Cairnhill (Mr Soh Ghee Soon) who have participated in politics since 1948 have now publicly declared that since 1948 there has been a lot of dirtiness going on. Sir, we are glad to say that the People's Action Party was formed only in November 1954 and that we have not been responsible for any dirt since November 1954.

It is dirtier, I think.

Now, Sir, I was somewhat intrigued by the Liberal-Socialist Party putting forward the Member for Serangoon (Mr Lim Choon Mong) to speak on their behalf, because he said, "I am not involved." By implication, I assume that some others must have been involved, and therefore it would have been disgusting for them to have spoken on behalf of the Liberal-Socialist Party. He recited a few things like: we broke up one of the Liberal-Socialist meetings. He went on to say - one of his wisecracks today - that he caught a boy named Lee who was tearing down posters at the rate of five dollars per day. Now, Sir, any Party that can afford to pay five dollars per day just to tear down posters must have a lot of reserves and the People's Action Party have not got such financial backing. So I assume that this boy must have been employed by somebody who does have such financial backing. Be that as it may, I am surprised to hear from the Member for Serangoon that the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan) caught a boy who confessed to him that he was paid five dollars a day for doing something illegal and that he had never sought to bring this matter to a police station. Now, Sir, on the other hand, one of our boys was slapped at Duxton Hill corner for sticking up our posters. I will say this for the Singapore Police Force, that they traced the man and we are prosecuting him. That is the way to do it. It is no use alleging that illegal acts were committed and doing nothing about it. As I said just now. I can prove the connection between this little account book with one of the Mak brothers but I cannot prove the connection between the Mak boy and the candidate, otherwise this thing would go to a court of law for a proper adjudication to be made on it. However, I think we should clearly understand that what we are debating today - although it has got its funny aspects, its lighter moments - is a very sober and, in my opinion, a very decisive factor in whether or not next year we are going to see a fairly clean Legislature with a clean, honest and effective government. If we do not see it, then I say that the chances of it happening in the subsequent election are even less. In which case, I say that the battle for the democratic system is lost. If you want the democratic system, certain conditions must be established, otherwise the way is open for dictatorship. My appraisal of the situation is that we have two more tries in Singapore and in the Federation, which will take us about ten years. If by that time the conditions have not been established, time has run out and either a military junta of the nature of Colonel Nasser or a monarchy of the nature of King Hussein of Jordan will emerge as the alternative to a dictatorship of the Malayan Communist Party. I am interested to hear today from the Minister for Commerce and Industry, the Minister for Communications and Works, and even from the Member for Paya Lebar that the attitude is: "Why should I get involved? This is all a dirty business." I think the people of Singapore and the people of Malaya had better understand this: we are all involved in this. That is the first thing we must understand. If this system collapses, not only will the Member for Paya Lebar lose his Sembawang Hill Estate with 1,000 housing units, but he will lose it without compensation, and he will lose a few other physical things besides, all of a sudden. It is no use to say, "Why should I be involved in this? I am going to concentrate on architecture and 7� per cent. I am not interested in this. I can find honest ways of earning a living. Let us leave this business of being a politician to the rogues, the scallywags, the vagabonds and the adventurers." If that happens, let me say this: the democratic system cannot work. A dictatorship must emerge. That dictatorship will probably make things worse, and armed revolution will be its final consummation. It is inevitable. We must bring home to the people that everybody is involved in it. There is no such thing as 'I am not involved,' not even if you are a civil servant with your pension guaranteed. That is the first thing we should tell our civil servants. They are involved; they have got to make the system work or we all perish. This is one of those side-effects of paternal colonialism: paternal only to a small section, i.e., the English-educated upper class - I mean the Member for Serangoon, the Member for Stamford, and the Minister for Communications and Works who were speaking of their friends and acquaintances. These friends and acquaintances are the English-educated middle class, a fairly comfortably set up class who are honest up to a point, in the sense that they would not do anything dishonest. But they are lacking in moral fibre in that they are shutting their eyes and they are saying, "Well, you do that. Keep the system going. I make money the honest way." But you cannot make it the honest way when the system collapses. Everybody will collapse. The paternal colonial government has bred this attitude of 'You look after politics for me. I mind my own business, namely, to make money.' That has got to stop and it will stop. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I raised this motion, I knew that there would be the charges and counter-charges vis-a-vis Parties, but let me say this to every Party in this Assembly and every Party that believes in democratic competition. They have a stake in this system and have to see that it works. It is not going to work once you start introducing other than straightforward competition of political ideals and political ideas. Once you introduce soft drinks, girls in motor cars to take you to the polls, money for votes and strong-arm methods, then I say a dictatorship may be a better alternative to a corrupt, subverted democracy. But I will say one lesson for all of us which all of us must learn. It is not good enough to say, "Let us find honest men to come forward and lead." Honest men will come forward and find that nobody wants them to lead. You must first be honest. You must next have idealism. You must have convictions. Finally you must organise to bring home your convictions to the people. If you just sit back and say, "I am an honest man," and do nothing about it, that is the end of the matter. Nobody will know that you are an honest man. Not only must you be honest and have convictions but you must bring home the fact that you are honest and have convictions and that those convictions are in the public interest before you can win. I will say this to the Member for Serangoon who has sought to make charges against my Party. My Party may have a lot of faults, but there is one fault that it has not got - too much money. We have not got the money to use, but we have drive, talent and the ability to organise. I will say this to the Independents. They are the bane of Singapore politics. For God's sake, get together, do something and stand for something other than yourselves, because in the next election the stakes are higher. In 1948 the stakes were low. All you could hope to be was the Hon. Mr So and So in the Legislative Council. Then you get invited to a Government House party which is what the English-educated middle class wanted - birthday parties, the Queen's Birthday, and meet the Governor. Either that kind of politician or the other type who gets into the City Council and sits on the Transport Committee, the Hawkers Committee. The stakes were low - chicken-feed. Therefore one does not stick out one's neck too much. Today we have heard from three authoritative sources - three gentlemen who ought to know - if there is anybody in Singapore who ought to know at all - that it has been a dirty business. With the Rendel Constitution, the stakes increased. Now, one could be a Minister, and if one could be a Minister, one could be in charge of A.P. forms, import and export permits, immigration permits, in or out at $500 or $50 per time. One could be in charge of contracts and tenders. The stakes are going up. In the next election, the stakes go up higher because we are taking over the whole internal machinery. Let me put it to these small-time politicians in this way: they are after chicken-feed, $5,000 per bus licence or $50 for a hawker's pitch, and all these little things. One takes a long time to get rich that way, and every time you take a risk, there is a risk of being caught. But if you could be a Minister for Commerce and Industry in a completely internally self-governing administration-

A Prime Minister.

- and it you could also be a Prime Minister and everybody set up nicely, you could by just a few book deals swipe a few million dollars very quickly. Now that is worth it. Therefore in the next election, if we allow these types to win, then I say within five years you either knock them out completely and start a revolution before they do damage, or within five years the damage that they would have done would be of such a permanent nature that you would never get the people to believe in a democratic system. We are not dealing with a highly educated political electorate, not at the moment. But like electorates anywhere in the world, they judge institutions by the results they produce. It is no use arguing the theory of democracy, the right of freedom of speech, the right of freedom of association, etc. If it does not provide benefits to him as an individual, it has no meaning. If internal self-government next year means that this beautiful Assembly building renovated at a high cost with red plushed leather seats and foam cushions and all the dignity and the paraphernalia of a parliament with wealthy Ministers and junior Ministers - that the people associate this institution with corruption and oppression, and after five years, if that is their attitude to this institution, then I say that we cannot start going at all. Next year, we can start a fresh page. We can say, "The past was because of colonialism. We down it." We shove all the rubbish to one corner and say, "There you are, this evil, the white men did it." If after five years there is a lot of rubbish, we have got to decide where to shove it to, and then they will say of the corrupt politicians that they were the agents of colonialism. Then where do you go from there? But the third time it is all over. Before I conclude, I say that it is our duty as constitutional political Parties to preserve and improve the conditions on which democracy must be hoisted before it can hope to flourish. I am asking for a division on my motion but on this understanding, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the technical difficulties involved, that if this motion is carried, it means that the Government will appoint a separate Court of Inquiry. I am quite satisfied to have a separate Court provided that there is sufficient protection given for it to make a complete and thorough inquiry. There must be complete privilege, sympathy if necessary, and extra judicial powers in the sense that it can hear evidence which would not otherwise be received, and can hear second-hand evidence if necessary. On that understanding, I would ask not only this side of the House to vote for it, but also the Government side to vote for it.

On that understanding, the Government will vote for the motion. Question put.

Division, Sir.

Clear the lobbies. The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, nil; Abstentions, nil. Ayes. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Nair, M. P. D. Jumat. Ong Piah Teng. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Seah Peng Chuan. Braga, A. J. Shanks, E. P. Chew Swee Kee. Soh Ghee Soon. Goh Chew Chua. Sutherland, G. A. P. Goh Tong Liang. Tan Theng Chiang. Goode, W. A. C. Tan, William Hart, T. M. Thomas, Francis. Jumabhoy, J. M. Wong Foo Nam. Jumabhoy, R. Lee Choon Eng. Noes. Lee Kuan Yew. Nil. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Abstentions. Lim, R. C. H. Nil. Lim Koon Teck. Lim Yew Hock. Absent. Mak Pak Shee. Ede, John. Lazarous, A. R. Lim Ching Siong. Resolved, That this House is of the opinion that the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry on corrupt practices be extended so that inquiry can also be made into corrupt and improper practices by candidates for elections and their confederates, with a view to making recommendations as to how such malpractices can be effectively detected, punished and suppressed.

Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly do now adjourn.

Sir, I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o'clock p.m.