Hansard, 1959-01-27

Order read for resumption of debate on Question-[26th January, 1959]: "That the Bill be now read the Third time." Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, continuing my speech made yesterday, I wish to give the first reason why I advocate compulsory voting. It is because I believe that compulsory voting would rectify the not fully representative nature of Government, which arises from optional voting. Sir, as an ironical example, there is the so-called popularly elected City Council in Singapore. Here is a news cutting from the Sunday Times of 22nd December, 1957. "The People's Action Party have 13 seats; the Liberal Socialist Party have seven seats; the Labour Front - four seats; Workers' Party - four seats; UMNO - two seats; and Independents - two seats." I beg your pardon for having to bring out the names of the particular wards from which the candidates were returned. But it will show and prove to the House what type of City Council we have today. Does it really fully represent the wishes of the people? Do the Councillors really gain popular support? People these days are very busy and they tend to forget the past quickly. Therefore, it would be nice if I were to bring back their memories. Mr Wee Swee Hong (Liberal Socialist Party) was returned in the Aljunied Ward with a percentage of 27.3 per cent of the total votes polled; Mr John Mammen (P.A.P.). (Member for Anson), 33.3 per cent; Mr Sze Lih Hwa (P.A.P.). Member for Bras Basah, 32.3 per cent; Mr G. Govindasamy (Independent), Member for Bukit Merah, 21.1 per cent; Mr O. S. Rengasamy (Workers' Party), Member for Cairnhill, 29.4 per cent; Inche Baharudin Bin Mohamed Ariff (P.A.P.), Member for Crawford, 42.11 per cent; Mr J. C. Corera (Workers' Party), Member for Delta, 37.1 per cent; Mr N. Karuppiah (Independent), Member for Farrer Park, 33 per cent; Mr Kum Teng Hock (P.A.P.), Member for Geylang East, 33.2 per cent; Mr Low Por Tuck (P.A.P.), Member for Geylang West, 41.5 per cent; Mr Lee Hwee Yiow (Labour Front), Member for Havelock, 35.6 per cent; Mr Ong Eng Guan (P.A.P.), Member for Hong Lim, who is now our Mayor, 36.4 per cent; Mr Chan Chee Seng (P.A.P.), Member for Jalan Besar, 34.9 per cent; Mr Chang Yuen Tong (Workers' Party), Member for Kallang, 46.3 per cent; Madam Hoe Puay Choo (P.A.P.), Member for Kampong Glam, 38.3 per cent; Mr Wee Toon Boon (P.A.P.), Member for Kampong Kapor, 39.4 per cent; Miss Chan Choy Siong (P.A.P.), Member for Kreta Ayer, 15.5 per cent; Mr Lim Choo Sye (Liberal Socialist Party), Member for Moulmein, 28.1 per cent; Our heroine of the City Council, Mrs Felice Leon-Soh (Liberal Socialist Party), Member for Mountbatten, 24.6 per cent. Now she is leading the Katong Council or something like that. Mr Ong Say Yeo (Liberal Socialist Party). Member for Pasir Panjang, 39.7 per cent; Mr Tang Peng Yeu (Labour Front), Member for Queenstown, 33.2 per cent. Mr William Tan rose -

Point of order?

Sir, is the Member allowed to read out the results of the last election? He is taking up the time of the hon. Members in this House.

I do not know what the point of order is. But I think the hon. Member is perfectly in order if he wishes to inform the hon. Members of the results of the City Council election.

Sir, it is quite a lengthy result. We all know the results of the last election. He need not waste our time.

It is not a point of order. Mr Lim Cher Kheng.

Well, well, that is the type of Assemblymen we have -

Order.

Sir, if the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru is so impatient, he can go out and have a-

Order.

All right, Sir, I beg your pardon. Now, I come back to the results. Mr Ho Kok Hoe (Labour Front), Member for River Valley, 28.18 per cent; Mr Lin You Eng (P.A.P.), Member for Rochore, 41.1 per cent; Mr S. M. Vasagar (Liberal-Socialist Party), Member for Sepoy Lines, 35.9 per cent; Mr G. B. Armstrong (Labour Front), Member for Stamford, 15.78 per cent; Inche Mohamed Shariff bin Dollah (UMNO), Member for Tanglin, 25.1 per cent; Mr Ong Pang Boon (P.A.P.), Member for Tanjong Pagar, 32.2 per cent; Mr Wang Tsun Hao (Workers' Party), Member for Telok Ayer, 47.9 per cent; Inche Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff (UMNO), Member for Telok Blangah, 37.2 per cent; Mr Lee Bah Chee (Liberal-Socialist Party), Member for Tiong Bahru, who is the friend of our hon. Member for Tiong Bahru, was returned with the marvellous result of 32.4 per cent; Mr Wong Soon Fong (P.A.P.), Member for Toa Payoh, 42.1 per cent; Mr Chua Kim Kee (Liberal-Socialist Party), Member for Ulu Pandan, 33.2 per cent. Sir, I am sorry to have taken up so much valuable time of the Assembly, especially of the Member for Tiong Bahru. But the point I would like to emphasise is that these election results give an ironical proof that we have to rectify the not fully representative nature of a Government or any authority which arises from optional voting. We are going to get this kind of result if we say to the people, "You can go or you can stay at home." There is one sad thing in the Singapore City Council affairs. The debate that is going on in the City Council, whether it is on a big thing or a small matter, is so well-known that it may be known all over the world by now. Regarding the decisions made by the City Council, are they fully and popularly supported by the people? These City Councillors were returned on a small margin of votes polled, some as low as 15 per cent. Where were those 85 per cent voters? Where was their voice? What was their stand? Do they approve every action taken and every issue raised in the City Council? Therefore, any decision or legislation passed will not represent the wishes of the people as a whole, unless all the eligible voters take part in it. Then will the democratic process be secured. The second reason why I support compulsory voting is that I believe it would bring to the polls many voters who are in favour of a stable form of government. The right of suffrage and democracy can be preserved only through the exercise of that right. Are the people of Singapore fully aware of our political aspirations? From time to time I have been confronted by foreign visitors and they seem to think that our political status is rather peculiar. They say that we are not a Colony because we are going to have a Head of State (maybe we will have to address him as His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Negara), and yet we are under the control of the Colonial Office in London. Therefore, we are neither a Colony nor an independent state. Why has Singapore been thrown into such a peculiar situation? I wonder how many people know this exactly. From time to time I have not only advocated a merger, which is popularly supported by our Chief Minister, Tun Lim Yew Hock, or even our most respected-

Order. I think the hon. Member should stop at "Chief Minister", and not give him a name.

Even if these two nationalist leaders, our Chief Minister and the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, decide on a merger, I do not think Whitehall or even the White House will allow Singapore and Malaya to merge so easily. It is because Singapore has been outlined as a most important strategic port by the Western bloc. They just do not trust the people of Malaya and Singapore. In this respect, I would like to recall the remarks I made in this House about two years ago. We must think this: without Gen. Tojo in Japan and Hitler in Germany, I do not think we will ever have this so-called constitutional advancement or a Rendel Constitution even. In other words, Sir, -

Order. I am just wondering how Gen. Tojo has anything to do with compulsory voting in Singapore. Perhaps the hon. Member would like to relate Gen. Tojo to compulsory voting?

Sir, we cannot afford to have any radical change. If there is any radical change we must wait for the whole of Asia or the whole world to have a change. Therefore, we need a moderate and stable Government. We do not want any pink party (not red but pink). They try to mislead the masses. They want to have land reforms; they want to "down with the capitalists!"; and they want us to be ruled by the workers and farmers in this country. Therefore, Sir, it is only by compulsory voting that we can settle it. We need a moderate and stable Government. We are going to force the middle-aged people and the middle-class to exercise their right. The right of suffrage and democracy can be preserved only through the exercise of that right. It is no use of their crying, "We want to be citizens of Singapore," and when it comes to voting they remain at home. Therefore, the new citizens and new voters of today are of vital importance and I shall term it a potential force to this country. It is only through these middle-aged and middle-class people that Singapore is as prosperous as it is today. Yet their wishes and their views are never represented in the Legislative Assembly or the City Council. Today, nobody dares to disregard or ignore the danger which lies ahead of us, of the great tendency of the people of Singapore who either suffer from political apathy or fall into the hands of what we call the unscrupulous politicians who lure either with power or through the mind. I have a newspaper cutting which shows why we need a moderate and stable government. Here is a picture in the Straits Times of 23rd December, 1958, the day after the mayoral election result was announced. Sir, I show the picture here. The captions read: "P.A.P. Cheers", "Clenched fists", "Victory proves people back us - Mayor," "Ong re-elected Mayor for new term." Sir, what I would like to show you are these two pictures, one showing the newly re-elected Mayor being chaired by P.A.P. supporters with clenched fists, and another one showing T. T. Rajah, with a clenched fist. I invite every hon. Member here to have a close look and study these pictures. Why are these faces so youthful? In some instances, their mouths are opened as if they were shouting during some big festival. Why cannot we get more varieties of age groups? See this picture - where are the parents, teachers and employers? Why cannot Mayor Ong Eng Guan be supported by all races, all classes and all age groups? They are not in this group here in the picture. A moderate estimate shows that the majority of them are below 25. A closer look may reveal that they are even below 20. Is this country going to be influenced by this crowd who turned up at the City Council Mayoral election? I am sure that every genuine nationalist leader here, including our People's Action Party leader, will not be satisfied if their Party were to be supported by youngsters only. They only belong to a certain group-workers, students, farmers. They are only the Chinese-speaking group. Sir, from this picture, the question is posed. Where was the middle-aged group who was interested in the City Council elections? The third reason why I am in favour of compulsory voting is that I believe compulsory voting would tend to produce a better type of candidates for election. It is only by compulsory voting that you can produce a more suitable type of candidates. Sir, there is a queer belief among our people in these last few years that you must vote for the Party. Do not care about the candidates. Even how unpopular the Member for Tanjong Pagar is, never mind about him. The People's Action Party is the best. Do not care for the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He is nothing. But the Party is important. There is no more individuality, but collective regimental organisation. That is the picture we are going to see. Tom and Harry can be put up as candidates for the election as long as they stand for a particular party. They do not care what kind of personality or ability they have. Sir, I believe that by compulsory voting, the middle-aged group and the middle class people, who are mature and experienced, will be able to give a better lead. If we can force those people to go to the polls, they will be able to influence others around them to go too. I give a particular example. If I go to the polls, my wife will naturally follow me. But if I do not go, my wife will not be bothered to go. She will say: "Even my husband does not care about voting, so why should I go to the polls?" So if I am the one who goes to the polls, I can at least bring one voter more. No matter whether or not it is decisive, we can at least cast our vote with conscience and knowledge. We will be able to know how to choose the suitable candidate that is going to represent the best interests of the people of that particular division. It is my belief that only by compulsory voting can we encourage persons of good character and ability, who are not interested in getting any Ministerial appointment or have any axe to grind, to reflect genuine public opinion by fearlessly speaking out their minds. This will tend to force any political Party to pick its candidates most carefully. The fourth reason why I am in favour of compulsory voting is that it tends to reduce corruption and malpractices. I believe that compulsory voting can at least eradicate part of the corruption and malpractices. Let us refer for a moment to the famous Elias Commission Report. Although this Report was bitterly criticized by the People's Action Party, it has opened the eyes of the people of Singapore and made known to them how the elections are actually run, who controls them and who influences them. I want to relate a personal story which I experienced on my way home from abroad in a liner just two days before the Kallang by-election to the City Council. A stranger knowing that I was from Singapore, asked me, "Is it true that Singapore politics are in the hands of students and gangsters and the fight in Singapore is caused by the students and gangsters?" Sir, is it not a shame for an elected representative of Singapore to hear such stories? The stranger did not know who I was. He only knew that I was a Singaporean. Sir, it is a well-known fact that in past elections - this is actually referred to in the Elias Commission Report - undemocratic and unscrupulous elements had infiltrated into our ranks. What are we then going to do about the coming elections? Sir, the definition of "corruption" in the public mind is still not very clear. The act of giving two bottles of brandy or an ang pow of $100 is called corruption. Sir, that, in fact, is not true. In politics, the definition of "corruption' should include power corruption and moral corruption, besides material corruption. Let our people understand clearly in their minds that there are politicians without any morals thirsting for power. They are as equally corrupt as the gangsters in the streets. The gangsters intimidate the innocent public by the use of force. There are unscrupulous and selfish politicians who influence ignorant youngsters, workers and farmers with their irresponsible promises. Sir, these politicians are equally guilty of corruption. Sir, to those extremist politicians who know too well that Singapore will remain a Colony for some time and also that Singapore's livelihood is dependent, not only politically but also economically, on Her Majesty's pleasure, I would like to ask the Member for Sembawang who is not here, that should the Naval Base authorities decide to close down the Naval Base in Singapore, how he would be able to look after the welfare of the tens of thousands of workers who are employed in the Naval Base. Sir, I am the Member for Changi and I know how much the livelihood of the people of Changi is dependent on the Changi Airport. If because of international repercussions or Commonwealth implications Singapore cannot get its freedom, how can we promise our people unrealistic, impractical and even impossible changes to this country? Sir, I pray to God that Singapore will never have a Government with such an outlook. If I have a durian, you might say, it is shit "because Mr Lim Cher Kheng's durian must be shit". But if it was the durian of, say, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, then it would be a durian. Sir, the public may have come to believe that the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance passed by the Labour Front Coalition Government is undemocratic, but had the Ordinance been passed by the P.A.P. Government, it would have been made to appear that it would serve to bring Singapore nearer to the Federation. Sir, all these irresponsible, unrealistic and selfish political promises can be countered only by compulsory voting which will open the eyes of the people to the existence of these morally corrupt politicians. They are equally as bad as corrupt gangsters.

Order. The hon. Member is addressing the Chair and the Chair is, I think, today being very much intimidated. I would ask the hon. Member to modulate his voice and perhaps be a little calmer about the whole matter.

I beg your pardon, Sir, I cannot help it because I am so sorry at the thought that the people of Singapore only understand the definition of corruption as merely the receiving of bottles of brandy and cash. They do not know that there is such a thing as power and moral corruption. Sir, I therefore strongly advocate compulsory voting because I believe that through compulsory voting we can get rid of corruption, including moral and power corruption, and malpractices. In the past, we have seen how the regimented students of a Party were ordered to get ready to start a meeting, if Mr So and So were to stand up on the stage, they clapped their hands. Only a few persons at first would start clapping their hands. Sir, you know our masses here; if a few start to clap hands, then immediately everybody starts clapping hands too. These students are regimented and well trained. The students and the workers are told, "Our Party is going to have a political meeting at a certain place." A group of people will then be given the front seats and when the leaders have spoken there is loud clapping. The reporters quickly send out this message, "This Party is very well supported. The attendance is wonderful and the Party has the genuine support of the people of Singapore." Sir, to me that is also a kind of corruption - the kind of corruption which misleads our public into believing that such and such a Party is genuinely supported and is beyond corruption. This sort of a Party is corrupted and very irresponsible. Sir, the last reason why I am in favour of compulsory voting is that it would stimulate the interest of the people in the elections and in political issues. Sir, if I want my children to learn, I must compel them to go to school. They will be able to concentrate and learn quickly. It is human nature that if you compel people to do anything, they will show some concern, but if you do not compel them to do anything, they will not show any concern. I will quote another practical example, Sir. Today, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, a Queen's Scholar, has to learn the Chinese language most diligently. Sir, why does the Member for Tanjong Pagar have to devote so much of his precious time to study Chinese most diligently? It is because the circumstances compel him to do so. If he wants to become a popularly supported leader of the Chinese-speaking students and workers, he must be able to speak Mandarin, Sir. Therefore, we should induce our people to be more politically conscious and to be more interested in public affairs. We must force them to understand the issues at stake in the next elections. Sir, in conclusion, those people who claim that compulsory voting is undemocratic, impractical and useless should bear in mind that unless compulsory voting is introduced, Singapore cannot be safe against the insidious attempt to seize power by morally corrupted extremists thirsting for power and by gangsters. It is only by compulsory voting that we can get rid of this danger. Only compulsory voting can ensure for Singapore a government which is popularly supported by and is truly representative of all races in Singapore. Singapore today needs a government with such popular support. We should never allow Singapore to fall into the hands of a government which is only supported by a section of the people - workers, farmers or any racial group. We want a government which can provide for our welfare and prosperity - a government which has the confidence of the people and which is popularly supported by all races in all age groups. 10.42 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must rise to congratulate the Member for Changi on his most coherent and perhaps the best speech in the whole of his career in this House. Sir, I do so because I am amazed at the growth of his political maturity. I recall the time when he first crossed my path during the first general elections. He stood at the platform of my opponent in Paya Lebar Airport and there he made a speech saying, "Mr Lim Koon Teck is the Chairman of the Appeals Board in the Singapore Improvement Trust and, as Chairman, he is responsible for all the evictions." I must say that possibly the information was falsely passed to him and I bear him no malice for saying that, although at that time I had a writ ready to unseat him from this Assembly. Sir, those were the things which we had to face when we fought the first elections to the Legislative Assembly under the Rendel Constitution. I have been sold that political elections is a dirty game and I found, to my cost, that nothing is more dirty than that in Singapore. We who fought the elections know how much we suffered and how many home truths on corruption there are in the Elias Commission Report. So much so, Sir, that very many responsible people refuse to come forward as candidates because they are afraid to be slandered, defamed and have all the mud thrown at them on the election platform. The idea of compulsion in anything, particularly in using one's sacred right to vote, must be repugnant to most of us, but when we consider and reflect on what has happened during the past few elections we have had in Singapore, I think we must strike a balance and say that under no other system than the compulsory system of voting will Singapore be able to produce a truly representative government for the people of Singapore. We have seen on election day how troops of boys and young men and gangsters having all sorts of emblems tied around their foreheads, on their shirts and on their cars, rushing about from house to house telling lies sometimes to the extent that where there are old people in a house, they tell them, "You must come and vote for us," and then, when they are in the car, they are told, "Now you must vote for a certain Party and if you do not do so, we shall be able to find out for whom you voted, and dire consequences will happen to you if you do not vote for us." Sir, all these things must be stopped. We must stop the use of all cars. This costs a large sum of money and entails an obligation to the person who lends the candidate his car which sometimes gets damaged. We must, in every respect, try to make it possible so that a candidate can contest the polls without having to contravene the law by spending more than what is allowed under the Local Government Elections Ordinance. Sir, let us make it possible for the people of Singapore on voting day to reflect calmly, without being oppressed and without being dragged into motor cars, on the candidate whom he wants and whom he thinks will serve him best. Let us have a calm appraisal on that day and do not let us have all the hurly-burly, rough-and-tumble activities on election day as we have had during the previous years. On these grounds, Sir, I support compulsory voting. 10.50 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, several hon. Members of this Assembly have already expressed their views on the advantages of compulsory voting. I would also like to support it by pointing out that it will allow many good and honest people, who do not have much money, to stand for election since there is no more need for canvassers on polling day. Furthermore, now that Government has granted to Chinese citizens and others who have stayed here for more than eight years the right to vote, they must do so if they have the interest of the State at heart. Previously, parents with children not born in Singapore were considered aliens, no matter how long they resided here and they had no right to vote. To get naturalisation, they have had to spend a lot of money and they have had to go through a tedious procedure. Since we have given them the easy method of being Singapore citizens, we want them to participate actively in the elections. 10.52 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, participation in elections to the Legislature is a privilege of democracy. Every enlightened citizen of a democratic country should know the kind of government he wants. Merely going to the polling booth does not solve the problem. He must also take a keen interest in all social and political matters. He must be able to understand the various policies that are being advocated by politicians and Parties, and he must be able to choose the personalities accordingly. Just getting a person to the polling booth is not going to solve the problem. In fact, we will be deliberately leaving the fate of the government of the country to be decided by voters who are indifferent and unenlightened. Sir, in England - the home of parliamentary government - the machinery of elections has been in motion for the last 130 years without a break, and I am going to quote certain figures from a very keenly contested election, Sir, I am quoting from page 329 of Whitaker's Almanack. These figures I am quoting are for one whole constituency. I have heard the hon. Mr Lim Cher Kheng quoting the figures for Singapore.

Order. The hon. Member must not refer to a Member by name.

I am sorry, Sir. This hon. Member was quoting-

Order. It is the Member for Changi.

I am sorry, Sir. The Member for Changi was quoting the number of votes which particular individuals managed to get, but that is not the correct way of going about it. Now I stood for the Farrer Park Division. There were five candidates in all and, if I remember correctly, I got over 3,700 votes out of a total of over 9,000 votes. Altogether there were over 12,000 people registered as voters for the Farrer Park Division, and 40 per cent of these 12,000 voters could never be found at all. The Members who stood for elections will agree with me that at least from 35 to 40 per cent of the voters could never be found. They were either not found at their addresses or they were found at the wrong addresses. So it would be more correct to say that the number of voters was 60 per cent of those registered. In my Ward, 70 to 75 per cent of the total number of voters went to the polls. I am quoting figures of the elections in England: Rt. Hon. Macmillan - out of 47,000 voters for the constituency, 40,000 voted. Rt. Hon. Gaitskell - out of 57,000 voters, 38,000 voted. Rt. Hon. Attlee - out of 42,000 voters 34,000 voted. Rt. Hon. Lennox-Boyd - out of 49,000 voters, 33,000 voted. Rt. Hon. Lyttleton - out of 50,000 voters, 40,000 voted. Sir Winston Churchill - out of 72,000 voters, 62,000 voted. When I quote "Sir Winston Churchill - out of 72,000 voters, 62,000 voted", it does not mean that 62,000 people voted for Sir Winston Churchill. It means that 62,000 people of the whole constituency went to vote. So this works out to about 60 to 70 per cent of the total number of voters who went to vote. Sir, we all admit that the election registers of Singapore are absolutely inaccurate. You could put it at literally 60 per cent of the voters, if you are lucky to get them. Of this 60 per cent of the voters, 70 to 75 per cent went to vote. So I do not understand how it can be said, "Ah, the people are not coming to vote. Therefore, we must have an Ordinance to compel the people to come and vote." Sir, in England, as I said, the election machinery has been in motion for the last 130 years, but in Singapore the elections started only from 1948. How can it be said, "The people of Singapore are just going to be indifferent. They are not enlightened. They are not intelligent enough to take part in the elections."? So when you take 60 per cent of those registered as voters to be the accurate figure due to the fact that 40 per cent of those registered as voters are untraceable, the response of the voters in Singapore is excellent comparing our election results with those of England where elections have been going on without a break for the last 130 years. Sir, this Government has brought up this Bill with the purpose of getting indifferent and unenlightened people to come to vote. My point is that there is no need for us to compel such people to come and vote. If you say that there are quite a number of indifferent voters in Singapore, there are also people in other countries who are equally indifferent and who do not want to vote and if you are going to compel these people to vote, there must be something wrong. Sir, I oppose the particular clause which compels the people to vote.

rose-

In reply?

In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, for 11 years have I sat in the Legislatures of this country. During the course of my career in the service of the people of Singapore, I have at times been discouraged and saddened but never have I felt so sick as I felt yesterday. I would have thought that as we are getting into an era of self-government, politicians in Singapore would be more mature, responsible and fully aware of their duty in the service of the people of Singapore. But it would appear, Sir, that from the performance of the members of the People's Action Party in this Chamber yesterday, and as we get more and more towards self-government, as D-day gets nearer and nearer, then is the time to become most irresponsible, then is the time to practise the art of distortion as -

Order. I ask the Chief Minister to choose his words carefully, because the word "distortion" is obviously unparliamentary with reference to a Member of the Assembly.

I withdraw the word "distortion", Sir, I will try to find a more parliamentary word - the art of misleading the public through the propaganda machinery of the Party by trying to inform the public that they, and they alone, are the best Party to serve them, and that all other Parties are not there to serve them, are self-seeking and inept, dishonest, and useless. And any move made by any man, any political Party other than the People's Action Party, is a move aimed at the welfare and interests of the people of Singapore. I would like, with your permission, Sir, to quote an illustration of this irresponsibility and of this art of presenting to the public something that is not true, something that is politically advantageous to them and politically disadvantageous to their opponents. While we were in this House last Thursday, Sir, I received a telephone call from the Chairman of the Constitution Exposition Committee informing me that the Committee felt that they did not consider it advisable to open the Exposition on the 21st of this month as fixed, because the ground was not firm, and because of the incessant rain, the ground was so muddy that it would cause great inconvenience to the public and that it would deter the public from visiting the Exposition. Would I be good enough to agree to a postponement? When that question was posed to me, Sir, in all humility I must say that, with my experience in the political field, I knew that this postponement would be caught hold of by the People's Action Party to turn it to their political advantage. I thought to myself whether it would be better for me to tell them, "Go ahead with the opening. I do not care about the comforts of the public!" and thereby save the Government from any odious remarks from the members of the People's Action Party. But, Sir, having been in the service of the people of Singapore, having loved them, as I still love them and think of their welfare more than the welfare of my Party and myself and my Government, I felt that it was right and proper that if the grounds were not ready for them to attend the exhibition, I had no objection. Therefore, the opening of the Exposition was postponed and, as expected by me, it was twisted and twisted in such a way that the Government pavilions were not ready, that the Government machinery is not good, that only the P.A.P., which is now running the City Council, can deliver the goods in time, can do what they say they would do at a certain date. Never have I been so sick! And never have I felt so much compassion for the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar then. Oh! how corrupt can power be!

True!

Sir, then there is another art of throwing back at the Government by saying that we were delaying the District Council elections because of the disaster we met at the City Council elections in 1957.

That is true, is it not?

I happened to be away at the time, Sir, when there was an electoral understanding being discussed between the People's Action Party and the Labour Front. But I must admit that I was aware that there had been some such discussions going on. As a result of those discussions, there was an understanding that certain seats should be contested by the People's Action Party and certain seats should be contested by the Labour Front, and certain seats by the U.M.N.O./M.C.A. Alliance. And there was a clearer understanding that, in order to have a victory over the Liberal-Socialists, both sides should help each other, work for each other, so that there can be better things to come. We, Sir, in the Labour Front, kept our bargain, and -

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Minister will sit down.

Just to -

The Minister will not sit down. Order.

Sir, I can understand how conscience can prick sometimes, and I really sympathise with the hon. Member if his conscience pricks him.

He has none!

Sir, as I said, we kept our bargain. Therefore the P.A.P.-

What about the Labour Front?

- came into the City Council. It was mentioned, Sir, yesterday by the hon. Mr R. C. H. Lim that the disaster was the result of, shall we say, a trick that was played on the Labour Front. So they won, and so we lost. We lost but we were not dismayed. We lost but we became wiser. We know that in political life, one must be quite prepared to accept political trickery! Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar then says: it is the result of our defeat in the City Council elections that we delayed the District Council elections. The hon. Member will remember that it was he who tabled a motion for the appointment of a Commission, resulting in the appointment of the Elias Commission. That was in July 1957. The Commission was appointed in September 1957, I remember, and the Report was submitted and tabled in this House in April 1958. The recommendations of that Report received commendation even from the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, although I can still remember he did try to move a motion to censure certain parts of the Report, and he failed miserably. It was because the recommendations of the Elias Commission were felt stupid that, in the best interests of clean elections, amendments had to be made to incorporate those recommendations, so that all future elections can have a chance of being clean. At that time, Sir, there was the All-Party Constitution delegation to London; again to finalise the drafting of the Orders in Council. So it was felt by the Government, even with the knowledge of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, that the quickest way to set about implementing these recommendations was to introduce an amending Bill to the Local Government Elections Ordinance, so that whatever is decided by this Legislative Assembly could be incorporated into the amending Bill to amend the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. The amending Bill was introduced for First Reading a few days ago, and whatever is decided on this Bill decides the fate of that amending Bill. The amending Bill was introduced in July last year. After its Second Reading, a Select Committee was appointed. All Parties were represented in Select Committee. Deliberations had been protracted because there had to be discussions on various lines of approach and the feasibility of introducing compulsory voting. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to this Assembly on 29th November, 1958. Now, Sir, coming to the accusation that it is the Government who seeks to introduce compulsory voting in order to try their luck at getting back into the Government again. I would like hon. Members to refresh their minds that when the amending Bill was introduced in July 1958, there was no clause on compulsory voting. There was none. It was not in the Bill because I felt, as I said yesterday, that as compulsory voting a matter of great importance to all political Parties, it should be discussed in Select Committee, and if accepted, it could be introduced into the Bill. Where then is the accusation that the Government deliberately introduced compulsory voting in order to stage a comeback? Sir, I myself did not think that compulsory voting would help the Government because of the experience I have gained over the past years - this move, as in every other move of the Government, can be twisted about in such a way as to cause the voters of Singapore simply to cast their vote against the Government out of spite! It could happen that way. In fact, it is a great danger to the Government to accept compulsory voting. It is not something that we introduce in order to put us in. I am sure the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and his Party, while having dreams of becoming the next Government of Singapore and while most of their leaders have gone out on a witch-hunt, are already saying what they will do and what they will not do to those that are with them and to those that are not with them. I have felt that the burden of Government is indeed a heavy one. It has weighed heavily upon me, but I am not doing all I can through the machinery of the Government in any way whatsoever to say that I am staging a comeback through compulsory voting, and to tell the people, "Unless you vote for us, watch out!" We do not do that, Sir,It is up to the people of Singapore. The fate of Singapore is in their hands. If they want us to serve, we will gladly serve. If they do not want us to serve, we will take it. But we do not go out of our way to try to corrupt the minds of the public by matters that are most irresponsible, by actions that are not not right. If we do get into the Government, we get in to serve the people of Singapore. But I feel that through the activities, the actions, the words and deeds of a different political Party which is seeking power today - they are seeking it because they want to say, "We, the P.A.P., are the Party. We are here to serve the P.A.P. We are not here to serve you!" And once they get in, "My God! Watch out! I'll twist your necks if you do not wake up!" Sir, if there are suggestions, or any kind of activities or any kind of legislation that is introduced, but not by the P.A.P., therefore they are not right. In this way, they say that because this amendment cannot be implemented during the lifetime of this Assembly, therefore, it is just-

A waste of time!

- a waste of time. Whereas the hon. Member himself knows, Sir, that the purpose of amending this Bill first, instead of awaiting an amendment to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, is just to put it on the Statute Book. I am sure the hon. Member does not mean, when he said it was a sheer waste of time, that he would prefer to have no amendments in this Local Government Elections Ordinance, and that the recommendations of the Elias Commission, which he praises so much, should not be introduced into this Local Government Elections Ordinance. I think, Sir, I really am sick, and will not talk any more about this. I would rather talk about something that is more healthy, something that is more in the interest and the welfare of the people of Singapore by replying to certain of the points made by leaders of Singapore, who know how to be responsible, whose first aim is to serve Singapore, and not the political machine. The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru has said -

Is he one of the great leaders?

Order!

Thank you, Sir. The hon. Member for Tiong Bahru brought up the difficulties which he himself encountered in his own Electoral Division, Tiong Bahru. He said that people living on one side of the street have now been transferred to the Division of Delta. Sir, I would like to inform him that this is the division of Singapore into 51 electorates, as a result of the Delimitation Committee on which all political Parties are represented. Sir, I do not think I could say much more on this than to repeat again that in the case of compulsory voting, if it is introduced, it will help to correct the electoral register inaccuracies that have been pointed out by the hon. Member for Farrer Park. We will then have electoral registers which will correctly reflect the voting strength in every constituency. I said in my opening speech that the Hon. Minister for Local Government, Lands and Housing and the Assistant Minister for Education have received my permission to state the stand of their Party against compulsory voting, and they have, therefore, left this sitting in order not to participate in it.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

11.24 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That the Report of the Select Committee on the Control of Manufacture Bill, as contained in Sessional Paper No. L.A. 2 of 1959, be adopted, subject to the recommittal of the Bill in respect of Clauses 5 and 12 to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Sir, when the Bill was considered in Select Committee, representations were heard from the Chambers of Commerce, the Manufacturers' Association, and certain individuals connected with manufacturing in Singapore. The main objections were jointly from the Chambers of Commerce, and the grounds for the main opposition were as follows. First, they objected to the licensing of manufacture of almost every type, because they considered that that was too rigorous a requirement and created a state of uncertainty. Secondly, they considered that the 15-year life of the licence was too short and that there was no certainty that the licences would be renewed by a different government. They also considered that the power vested in the Minister was too excessive, and that there were no checks on the Minister in the form of any machinery for appeals. They considered that there was no safeguard for those who were in the course of setting up industrial projects. And finally some of them were opposed to the granting of monopolies to any one manufacturer. These points, Sir, were considered by the Government, and amendments were moved by me in the Select Committee to remedy these main grounds of opposition. The amended Bill, Sir, meets this opposition by the following methods: licensing has been abolished and registration has been substituted. The 15-year period has now been removed so that registration is for an indefinite period. Manufacture of every type is now not required to be registered; instead only the manufacture of those items specified in the Schedules is required to be registered. A Registrar has been provided for to administer the requirements of the Ordinance, and an appeal to the Minister over the Registrar has been provided for. Additions and variations to the Schedules are to be made by the Minister, but an appeal to the Assembly is provided for in the form of a provision whereby the Assembly can, by a motion, overrule the Minister. Projects already set up and are manufacturing cannot be refused registration. Projects in the course of being set up are safeguarded by a provision that registration for such projects cannot be refused except for those in the Second Schedule. The granting of monopolies by the Registrar will still be possible, but will now have to be gazetted so that the public are informed and they could make representations to the Minister, and therefore this granting of monopolies is subject to appeal to the Minister. These are the salient features of the amended Bill as it has emerged from the Select Committee. I have nothing further to add, Sir, and I beg to move.

I second the motion.

The remarks which I passed yesterday in regard to item 1 on the Order Paper apply with equal force to this item. Briefly, if honourable Members wish to discuss or vote against any specific clauses in this Bill in Committee, this is the time to move an amendment to the motion providing that the Bill may also be recommitted in regard to those specific clauses. Bill accordingly recommitted to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Bill considered in Committee.

11.30 a.m. Clause 5-

Sir, I move, In page 18, line 35, to leave out "and Second Schedules" and insert "Schedule". Sir, the purpose of this amendment is to bring it into line with the amendment of which I have given notice earlier in regard to clause 12 and to remove the protection to the Second Schedule. A parallel amendment is to be moved to leave out the powers of the Minister over the Second Schedule and to allow the Minister to have powers over the First Schedule only. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I move, In page 18, lines 39 and 40, to leave out "in the case of any goods or class of goods specified in the First Schedule to this Ordinance". This is now redundant in view of my earlier amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12-

Sir, I move, In page 21, lines 28 and 29, to leave out "or Second". I have already mentioned, Sir, the idea behind this amendment in moving the earlier amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, with Amendments.

Third reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Sir, I move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I second it. Question proposed.

Sir. The Minister for Commerce and Industry now holds the record of having introduced a Bill which underwent the most drastic transformation of any Bill in Select Committee. You will remember, Sir, when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, before it was committed to Select Committee, that he considered any move to send the Bill to Select Committee as an attempt to block and stymie him. Sir, he might well be right in guessing the motives of those who wanted to send this Bill to Select Committee, but certainly by the amendments which he has accepted and introduced into this Bill, he has confessed that, in fact, his first thoughts were not his best thoughts. He prided himself for having made a speech on one occasion when he uttered famous words to a famous gathering which included the Secretary of State for the United States of America without first having committed it to paper. He regaled us with the privilege of hearing it after it had been committed to paper. Sir, the experience which he has undergone as a result of this Bill should be a constant reminder to him that bright ideas should first be put on paper. They should be carefully considered not only by himself but by all his experts, and should receive further consideration after everybody has given their contributions as to what was right and wrong in the Bill. He would then have saved himself the embarrassment of having been the Minister who put in a Bill which received the most number of amendments in Select Committee. The Bill, as it is now passed, still enables him to pursue his pet topic, because I notice that cigarettes and matches are put in a special Second Schedule. I do not want, Sir, to join in this speculation as to the profits which can be milched out of the cigarette industry, but I can assure the Minister of this: nobody is going to make any commitment involving millions of dollars on the basis of a Government whose term of office will last for approximately another eight weeks. 11.36 a.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy that I am an Independent Member, and I am not seeking any political capital in the coming elections this year. Therefore, I have no axe to grind and do not care whether this Bill is passed too early or too late, and whether it is practicable or impracticable. Of course, one point we are in common agreement with is that we have to remind the Minister to explain to us how he is going to make this Bill work, as the statement he has just made fails again to mention the importance of Pan Malayan economic development. He has not told us whether he has any confidence that the implementation of this Bill can cope with the further industrial development in the Federation or not, and whether this Bill will not mislead the Federation industry into believing that we are going to challenge the industry which is opening up in the Federation. Sir, I wish to touch on a point which I suggested in the last Budget debate, and that is, we must get together - Singapore and the Federation - and sit down and try to outline a plan as to what type of industry we are opening up and what type of goods we are going to manufacture, both in Singapore and Malaya. The interests of both territories are inter-related and a loss suffered in Singapore will also mean an equal loss to the Federation. For example, if our Minister advocates the manufacture of cigarettes in Singapore, and, at the same time, Malaya also decide to open up a tobacco factory, then we would have, in a territory which is so small - Singapore and Malaya - two tobacco factories, subsidized and supported by the Government. To me this seems a waste of our resources and our strength. If we can manufacture cigarettes and the Federation can manufacture matches, then we can achieve wonderful results. Sir, this is the principal point which I wish the Minister to clarify more fully to the House. Any legislation which he introduces in connection with the encouragement of industrial expansion must be on a Pan Malayan basis, because the interests of Malaya and Singapore must always be taken as a whole, especially in view of our common economic interests. In any case, Sir, this Bill deserves our congratulations because it is a good Bill. The timing, however, I regret, is rather late. But we do hope that the Minister for Commerce and Industry will be returned to office in the next Government, so that he will be able to see the implementation of this Bill carried through smoothly. Sir, this Bill will definitely encourage local industry. It will definitely give an assurance to the local industry that they will have a certain security, and they will feel confident that the money they have invested here is going to be repaid. My second point is that we have many business houses which are not keen to open up factories here. Through this Bill, we are going to force, indirectly, foreign companies to set up factories here. Otherwise, if we go along, the business houses, especially the European business houses, thinking that we must maintain our free port status, just could not care less about manufacturing our own goods here. I will quote an example. I strongly oppose the monopoly which the Shipping Conference has in Singapore. If you want to export copra to Europe, the freight is lower and the space can always be reserved. But if you want to export coconut oil, the freight is much higher, and from time to time they will say that there is no more space available for the export of coconut oil. That shows that the European business houses have a control over our local trade. Through this Bill we are going to force the European business houses to open up factories and to manufacture goods which they are used to handling here. My third point is this. I am sure this Bill will serve a good purpose in that it can regulate our trade and investment. To me, industry and trade are twins. As you know, Sir, all the big ports in the world today, like London, New York and Tokyo (the three biggest ports in the world today) are also known as the big industrial centres of their country, especially New York and Tokyo-although we can consider Osaka as an industrial centre too. But you cannot deny that Tokyo and New York produce many manufactured goods in order that they can export their manufactured products. Therefore, the entrepot position of Singapore will never be jeopardized by the boosting of industry here. Sir, I heartily support this Bill. Before I sit down, I wonder whether the Minister can clarify an article which appeared in this morning's paper about Mr Hosgood's criticism of the Minister's plan to open up factories to manufacture cigarettes. Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose -

Mr Jumabhoy, in reply?

Yes, Sir. First, the Member for Tanjong Pagar said that I would have saved a lot of embarrassment to myself. There is no embarrassment to myself. I am not embarrassed in the least. Why should I be embarrassed, Sir, when I have moved these amendments myself? He says that this will create a record for a Bill that has undergone the most drastic transformation. No thanks to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Out of nine meetings of the Select Committee, he attended only one meeting. The transformation that the Bill has undergone is entirely voluntary on my part. It still fits in with the policy that I laid down and announced in the Assembly. Hon. Members will see that the power of the Minister to add or vary to the First Schedule remains intact. It is immaterial whether the Bill should be as it originally was which said that everyone has got to apply to the Minister before he starts a factory; or whether the Bill is in this form, so that the Minister can still make anyone, whom he feels he wants to get under control, apply to him by putting that item on the Schedule. The point is that the power of the Minister is still there, as far as the First Schedule is concerned. I have always said that so long as I am allowed to carry out the policies that the Government have formulated, if more safeguards can be put into the legislation, I am not going to stand in the way. It is a perfectly democratic procedure, if you do it in Select Committee or even outside the Committee when you get reasonable objections. It is perfectly democratic to try and meet those objections by changing the wording in the law so long as the basic requirement of the government being able to carry out its policy remains intact. I can well understand, Sir, that such a procedure would not appeal to the Member for Tanjong Pagar who is well versed in a dictatorial form of administration, as is now going on in the City Council. Therefore, if he puts up legislation, one may well expect he will not change it, even though it could very well be changed without affecting the powers that the legislation should have. Sir, the Member for Changi has asked me to clarify the reply which one big cigarette organisation has given to my clarification in the Assembly on the profit factor. I do not know, Sir, what he wants me to clarify, but -

He wants to know whether an investment of $500 will bring in a profit of $500!

Sir, I can say that this reply in no way says that I am wrong in my calculation of the profit factor. The only place where it says that I am wrong is about the cheaper brands. Sir, I have taken that into calculation and when I said in this House last week that I had estimated the profit factor would be about 60 per cent based on the sale of two million cigarettes, I was, in fact, only estimating the profit on the medium type of cigarettes and not on the lower type. Singapore smokes 6 million cigarettes a day, out of which 5 million are imported. I was estimating my profit of 60 per cent only on the sale of 2 million, not on the sale of 6 million cigarettes. Sir, I have therefore taken this factor into consideration when I said I estimate the profit factor would be 60 per cent of the capital. [Laughter.] It is no use, Sir, the Member for Tanjong Pagar laughing it off, because these are hard facts. These are calculated figures which the Member for Tanjong Pagar may try to belittle, but he cannot get over them. I only wish the people of Singapore know of these facts. Then again, Sir, Mr Hosgood said the Minister spoke in terms of 150 million cigarettes monthly, but the profit depended upon whether every smoker would accept the new brand and that no cigarettes would be smuggled into Singapore. Sir, I said 150 million cigarettes was the number imported, but my profit factor was calculated only on 60 million cigarettes a month-two million a day. However, on the question whether every smoker will accept the new brand, I also indicated in this House that probably there would be no reason to have new brands because we are negotiating with the existing trade to try and bring a big firm into partnership on a 49 : 51 per cent basis, Singapore holding the 51 per cent. If so, then most of the popular brands could be manufactured here. Therefore, there is no question of new brands being rammed down the throats of the people. But if we come to the stage where, because nobody will make any commitments before the election results are known - the Member for Tanjong Pagar is sure about this, and I do not know why he is so sure, but it is possible that he may have got into contact with them and offered them "instead of Jumabhoy 49 per cent, the P.A.P. will give you 51 per cent - and complete control, if possible." (that is why he is so sure he can stymie the progress of these negotiations) - if it comes to that, and if we are forced to have a factory entirely capitalised by Singapore capital, then the factory will have to make new brands. I can assure this House, Sir, that even if it comes to that, we can manufacture cigarettes as good as the imported ones. There is no question that we cannot. Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, practically all Asian countries are manufacturing cigarettes - cigarettes that are considered as good as imported cigarettes. Japan and Vietnam also manufacture cigarettes as good as the imported ones. The only thing is that foreign interests will make a lot of propaganda and probably they will be assisted in this by the ex-extreme Left - at present the extreme Right - the Member for Tanjong Pagar in order to stymie the efforts of this Government to benefit the people of Singapore. It is curious, Sir, how out of the ashes of the passionate fires of class hatred aroused in 1955 and 1956 by members of the People's Action Party, there now arises an extreme Right-wing personality-the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who would go to outside interest and undercut what is beneficial to Singapore

Order. I cannot see how this is relevant to the Bill.

Sir, what is relevant is that it is in reply to the Member for Tanjong Pagar who states that nobody will make any commitments, and I am trying to find the reason why the Member for Tanjong Pagar is so sure in making such a statement. I have a strong suspicion that something along the lines I have indicated is going on behind the scenes.

Sir, on a point of clarification.

If the Minister will give way.

No, Sir, I will not give way. Anyone, Sir, -

I must answer this allegation

Order.

Anyhow, Sir, I have finished with my reply to the debate, and I have nothing further to add, except that I still think that this Bill will be useful to the present Government and to any future government. I have never drafted any legislation with a view to making political propaganda at all. The legislation that has been brought in has always been objective, with a view to helping Singapore as a whole, whichever government is in power. Sir, I beg to move the Third Reading.

Perhaps I could remind the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar of the Standing Order I did read out, that is Standing Order 30, paragraph (4) of which says: "A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he shall not introduce new matter." If the hon. Member claims that he has been misunderstood, then he will be allowed to speak.

Sir, I have been misunderstood by the Hon. Minister for Commerce and Industry. In fact, I have been deliberately misconstrued. What I said was that nobody would make commitments involving millions of dollars on the basis of promises held out by a Government which can only honour them for eight weeks. If the Minister chooses to read into that a plot to try and down him, then he must be becoming a paranoic. He fondly believes that people would bother to spend their time to negate his efforts, when he has placed himself in a position where his protestations are worthless.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn"-[Mr J. M. Jumabhoy]. Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes to Twelve noon to 11th February, 1959.