Hansard, 1962-03-15

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will ascertain from the United Kingdom Government if any atomic war-heads are stored in Singapore and whether there are any atomic rocket sites in Singapore, and the extent of the potential danger to the people through accident.

Sir, I have sought the information asked for by the Member for Anson from the U.K. Commissioner. He has written to say that this question relates to matters of defence which under the Constitution is the responsibility of the British Government, and that it is not the practice in the United Kingdom, in answer to such questions to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at particular places. A point worth noting is that under the Communist proposals for full internal self-government with the Internal Security Council abolished, defence and foreign affairs will continue to be in the hands of the British. However, after independence through merger, defence will be in the hands of an elected government of the new and larger Federation, and members of the Central Parliament will be able to ask questions on matters of defence with more authority.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that it is not a question of locality, but a question of our entire State? The issue whether these atomic war-heads are in this State affects the safety and the survival of our people. Surely, from that point of view, we are entitled to have some information in order to make some preparation for possible accidents.

Order. The Member for Anson is now embarking on a debate. The Prime Minister has indicated his responsibilities, and I do not know whether he wishes to add to that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can only say that there are illustrious examples in the United Kingdom in the Committee of One Hundred. If the Member for Anson feels sufficiently strong about this matter of war heads being stored, as he suspects, either in the Naval Base or Changi, or wherever else the launching pads may be, he is not without precedent in this matter. The Government has always been more than ready and willing to allow all methods of peaceful persuasion and demonstration.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I seem to have been misunderstood. I am inquiring from the Prime Minister whether he has considered the aspects of possible accidents which will affect the safety and the survival of the people and, from that point of view, seek information of a general character indicated.

In my somewhat rudimentary knowledge of the law of nuclear physics, I am convinced that accidents arise not in the bomb accidentally being exploded in the storehouse, but more, I believe, in a war being launched accidentally through misjudgment of each other's determination to resist. In that eventuality, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson's safety and mine are similarly imperilled and I can only say that if we do not sleep well o'nights, then we shall all be very sick men indeed. It is a very sick world, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I do not wish to inflict upon the people of Singapore the deep horrors of gradual extinction in a nuclear fallout or of total annihilation in a nuclear holocaust -

What are you doing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have suggested to the Member for Anson the illustrious examples of great philosophers like Bertrand Russell and other equally eminent and philosophic gentlemen. All that is required is sufficient verve, vitality and persistence through methods of democratic persuasion to bring home the misfortunes of having to be involved with deterrent weapons of destruction.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the feasibility of Civil Defence provisions for the people in time of war.

Sir, token provision exists in the current Estimates to resuscitate the Civil Defence Corps should the necessity ever arise. Civil Defence provisions however, are only envisaged for the conventional type of warfare in what is now popularly called localised wars. I am informed that the dropping of a nuclear bomb in the megaton range on any city would wipe out the whole population and devastate the whole area. Against such a catastrophe, civil defence measures, as is understood, would be quite unrealistic. However, it is reported that some enterprising contractors in California, U.S.A., have made good sales of "fall-out" shelters. The Government understands, however, that these contractors are not sponsored by the U.S. Government.

In the light of the knowledge the Prime Minister has of the potential calamity for this area, would he indicate whether Government would give its support for an anti-nuclear movement here?

Sir, I have always been a great supporter of all movements to ensure the preservation of mankind. But I would like to draw the attention of the Member for Anson to the fact that the danger is not particularly concentrated in any particular spot in the world. I see no particular incidence of annihilation being increased as a result of our being in a somewhat obsolete military base meant for localised wars in this area of the world. I am told that from time to time the Russians send off notes to not so friendly nations of their retaliatory and complete annihilative powers, and several governments have been in receipt of them, governments such as Pakistan and Turkey, who allow American bases and launching pads to be installed in their territories. However, I note that in none of the Russian notes to the United Kingdom Government has the Russian leader, Mr Khrushchev, singled out Singapore for special attention. However, that is not to say that I am not aware of the real danger of either slow death through a nuclear fallout or complete destruction of the world in a blazing holocaust if somebody accidentally misjudges the other side's temper and presses the button at the wrong time.

Mr Speaker, could we have a reply to my question? Recognising the potential calamity for this area, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the Government would give its support for an anti-nuclear movement in this State? It is a simple question.

The first question was whether I, as Prime Minister, would support and I have indicated that I give support for all movements for the preservation and upliftment of mankind. Now, the question is whether the Government would give its support. Without having consulted my colleagues, Sir, I give the Member for Anson the full assurance that, as we are all human beings on this side of the House who would like to see the survival of the human race, including human beings on the opposite side of this House, we will support all movements which seek to preserve the human race, defective though it may be, from total annihilation. If the Member for Anson could only indicate the time and place at which his equivalent to the Committee of One Hundred would take action, we would ensure that adequate publicity is given to him through television, radio and other means.

Question No. 3 has been withdrawn. It has been answered. Question No. 4. [The following is Question No. 3:

to ask the Prime Minister when the Government anticipates appointing a Commission on the People's Association.]

asked the Minister for Labour (a) whether the joint discussions between the Government, the Unions and the employers, with the view to agreement on unemployment insurance as the first step to a more comprehensive social security scheme, have taken place, and what is the outcome thereof; and (b) whether he will make a further statement of Government's intentions with regard to the introduction of social security measures during this session.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my colleague, the Minister for Labour, to reply to this question. The reason is that the Government held a series of meetings in December 1960 and January 1961 with certain Trade Union leaders to discuss, among other things, the introduction of an unemployment insurance scheme in Singapore and I represented the Government on that occasion. In all, five meetings were held and an agreed report prepared for submission to the Cabinet. The Trade Union leaders concerned in this series of meetings were Messrs. Lim Ching Siong, S. Woodhull, D. Puthucheary and S. T. Bani. This report has not been released earlier for publication at the request of the Trade Union leaders. I intend, however, to quote the section of the report dealing with unemployment insurance, as this would give a clear indication of the Government's attitude towards the subject of unemployment insurance. That section of the report reads as follows: `Unemployment insurance The Government side pressed the case for unemployment insurance on the basis of a 1½ per cent contribution by employer and employee. With an unemployment rate of 8 per cent, this would ensure unemployment benefits of about 40 per cent of wages earned during work. If the rate of unemployment is less, the rate of benefits could be increased. The Government proposed that the unemployment scheme be introduced and be restricted, in the first instance, to those industries demarcated for stability. A tripartite committee consisting of representatives of the Government, the T.U.C. and Employers should manage the Unemployment Insurance Fund and have powers to vary the rates of benefits in accordance with the financial state of the Fund. The Government's contribution would be to pay for all benefits during the first sear of the Fund's operation to allow the Fund to accumulate sufficient money from which it could earn interest to pay for administrative expenses. A detailed administrative scheme had been prepared by the Central Provident Fund and there are no administrative policy or other barriers to the immediate implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme. The T.U.C. members supported the unemployment insurance in principle, hut requested that the matter be further considered by the T.U.C. In the course of discussion, the Government side stressed that redundancy schemes, severance pay and even unemployment insurance are no more than palliatives to a disease. These measures are intended to reduce the sharp edge of suffering caused by unemployment of workers. Further, where the worker finds it difficult to get another job, retrenchment often sparks off determined opposition from the workers, leading to strikes. The proposals considered and recommended would reduce the distress caused by unemployment. But it is not the basic solution: in fact, in themselves, they will do nothing to reduce unemployment. The only solution lies in creating conditions whereby the economy could expand at a sufficiently fast rate so that there will be more jobs than men available. When this position is reached, retrenchment and redundancy do not present any problem to the worker. Further, under such conditions, the way would he open for the worker to obtain regular increases of pay through the collective bargaining power of the unions. It was recognised that the maintenance of stability in the industrial sector would he one of the factors conducive to industrial growth and economic expansion, and for this reason, both the Government and the T.U.C, representatives in the Sub-Committee are agreed that everything that could contribute to stability should be pursued, and that any measures that are inimical to it should be refrained from.' That is part of the report. Now, Sir, although these trade unionists stated that they supported the unemployment insurance scheme in principle, they had taken no step whatsoever to obtain support from the workers for the principle of a contributory unemployment insurance scheme. In fact, in the course of discussions on the subject, they made it quite clear that they did not want such a scheme to be introduced. Hon. Members will note that these leaders had given an undertaking that they would refrain from any action which is inimical to stability and do everything to promote stability which is necessary in industrial expansion. Another section of the report puts the matter even more clearly when it says: 'It will be the responsibility of the T.U.C, to ensure that industrial peace is maintained for the period of the agreement.' It is now evident to everyone that these trade union leaders had not the slightest intention of honouring their pledge to the Government. Far from ensuring industrial peace, recent events -

On a point of order. The questions are simple and they are not being answered. Instead we are having polemics in respect of political opponents. Could the Minister be requested to confine himself to the question?

The rule governing all questions is that an answer must be within the scope of the question asked. If it goes beyond the scope of the question asked, then, of course, the Minister is always entitled to make a ministerial statement. Whether he makes it now, or after questions is a matter of convenience, I leave it entirely to him. Strictly, he should make the statement after questions so that, if he then thinks fit and the statement is controversial, he can always move the adjournment to have the statement debated.

On another point of order. May I ask whether it is permissible for a ministerial statement to include subjects which may rightly be considered to be anticipating a debate on a subject that is on the Order Paper - that is, my motion on industrial unrest?

I do not think what the Minister has said has any strict relation to the motion, mentioned, which is: `That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest and calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace...'. I think the Minister is recounting what happened at a meeting of trade unionists and indicating how they had - as alleged by him - not kept their undertaking given to Government. But as the feeling of the Assembly is such, I think I ought to apply the Standing Orders very strictly and ask the Minister either to keep strictly to an answer to the question, or bide his time and wait until after questions to continue his statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am keeping strictly to the question. Questions of this kind have been coming in regularly from the Member for Anson and I wish to dispose of this issue once and for all. What I am saying will lead to the conclusion explaining just why and how negotiations with the trade union leaders for the implementation of social insurance came to nothing. Sir,I have to go into this matter in some detail to justify the conclusion that the Government has been completely reasonable all the time, but meeting with bad faith from the other side. This is strictly relevant to the question. Now, Sir, if I may be permitted to continue. The trade union leaders say they support unemployment insurance in principle but in practice they oppose it. Exactly in the same way, they say they support merger in principle but in practice oppose it. Similarly, they support Malaysia in principle but oppose it in practice. Hon. Members are only too familiar with this kind of double-talk on the part of the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis.

P.A.P. side.

Order. I must now rule the Minister completely out of order because answers to questions must be strictly statements which do not invite debate, and the Minister is obviously making a statement which does invite debate. So if he proceeds in that strain, I must stop him if he considers that that is the answer to the question. I have indicated that if he wishes to pursue that line of statement, then he must wait and make a ministerial statement at the end.

Mr Speaker, if you had only borne with me for just two more seconds, you would have seen the relevance. As I was saying, in these circumstances, it is quite futile to have further discussions with those union leaders for the implementation of unemployment insurance, let alone a more expensive social security scheme. I may mention that I have had informal discussions with representatives of the employers' association in Singapore and they have agreed to support the contributory unemployment insurance scheme should the Government introduce such a measure. It is only certain trade union leaders who oppose this scheme. Why do they oppose it? The reason to me is quite simple. They do not want stability and progress in Singapore. They oppose unemployment insurance because this will reduce tension on the industrial front, and with a reduction of tension and discontent it will be difficult for them to foment trouble. If further evidence of their evil intentions is needed, my colleague, Mr Devan Nair, will only be too pleased to provide them. He told me of the advice which Mr Lim Ching Siong had given -

Order. I must now stop the Minister. I must rule all this out of order and if he proceeds on that line, he must stop giving his answer. I suggest that he wait till after Question Time.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, on a supplementary question. Is the Minister not aware -

Order. I understand the Minister will be making a ministerial statement. The supplementary question can come after the ministerial statement.

The whole debate can come.

And the whole debate, if necessary.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he will indicate the broad terms of settlement of the strike of the employees of the Oversea-Chinese Bank in January this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the strike arose as a result of an allegation by the Singapore Bank Employees that the management had admitted to subverting its members by offering and making payments to some clerical employees of the Bank in accordance with the Bank's own interpretation of the recent award of the Industrial Arbitration Court, although the Bank knew that the Union had challenged the correctness of the Bank's interpretation and had declined to accept such payments pending a conclusive interpretation of the award by the Industrial Arbitration Court. Negotiations for the settlement of the strike did not take place in the Ministry of Labour or in the presence of Ministry officials. A Press report indicated that there had been an expression of regret by the management of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation for the payments made to some union members against the Union's stand. My Ministry also understand that the Union successfully contended that, as the strike was a justified one, the management of the Bank should compensate the members for their loss of pay during the strike and that the Managing Director of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation, Mr Tan Chin Tuan, make a confidential payment of, a sizable sum of money to the Union for distribution to its employees in settlement of the Union's claim.

asked the Minister for Labour what is the average hourly earning for all workmen in 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the average hourly earning in 1961 for all workmen was 80 cents in accordance with a sample survey of the average earning, average hours of work and the conditions of workmen in Singapore conducted in the last week of July 1961.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that means that there has been a decrease in the wages of our wage-earners?

The question being?

That is, is he aware?

The question must not give information only. The information must lead to a question. That is giving information.

Perhaps, Sir, I can ask this. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain why there has been a drop in the earnings of our wage-earners?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know on what basis the Member for Anson alleged that there was a drop in the earnings of wage-earners. From the statistics, it would appear that for the year 1960, the average hourly earning was 81 cents. So the difference of one cent does not matter very much.

asked the, Minister for Labour what was the total number of (i) workmen, (ii) shop assistants and (iii) clerks who were in employment in March and September 1961, respectively.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in accordance with the returns submitted by employers under the Labour Ordinance, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance for the year 1961, the total number of workmen, shop assistants and clerks who were in employment on 30th March, 1961, and 30th September, 1961, were as follows: Shop Workmen Assistants Clerks March 1961 106,000 21,959 21,974 September 1961 111,450 22,798 23,325

If it please you. Mr Speaker, Sir, could I put a supplementary question?

Yes, certainly.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give any explanation why there has been a steady drop in employment of manual, workers since March 1961, which seems to have been the peak.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the statistics, it is to the contrary.

106,000.

Order.

You are referring to 1961 and 1960?

I am not interested at all. Perhaps the Member for Anson would like to elaborate on his supplementary question?

Yes, Sir, only to draw attention and to ask this question. Can he explain why in March 1956 it was 124,600, and it went down in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961 progressively to 123,000, 118,000, 114,000, 107,000, and now 106,000. 18,600 less manual workers employed in these seven years?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I require further notice of that question as I do not have all the details with me now.

asked the Minister for Culture to state the total number of Battle for Merger pamphlets published, the cost thereof, and the amount recouped by way of sales.

Mr Speaker, Sir, two editions of the book were published - the hard cover edition selling for a dollar and containing appendices not included in the soft cover edition which is distributed free. The hard cover edition was initially printed in English, and the first impression of 5,000 copies were sold. The second reprint of another 5,000 copies were issued early this month. The cost of production of the 10,000 copies is $6,623. Some 7,500 copies have been sold as from 23rd February, and the amount recovered after commission to book-sellers is $6,062. 7,500 copies of the hard cover edition in Chinese were released for sale on 6th March. The cost of this edition is $5,125. We have no returns as to the number of copies sold since they were only put on sale less than a fortnight ago. There is also a print order of 2,000 copies in Malay, costing $1,615, which will be on sale shortly. As regards the soft cover edition, there was a first print of 100,000 copies in all the four languages at a cost of $29,159. All these have now been distributed in Singapore. However, in view of the demand for this edition not only in Singapore but also from the Federation and Borneo territories, a second reprint is now under production.

Would the Minister indicate the expenditure of $30,000 in respect of 100,000 soft cover copies, as he calls it, and a further 100,000 copies, no doubt costing another $30,000 - are they coming out of the vote of the Ministry or are they specifically authorised?

They are coming out of the vote of the Ministry. They have a special vote for printing, and they are coming out of the Publicity vote.

asked the Minister for Culture what was the purpose of incorporating in the Battle Jo, Merger pamphlet photographs of (i) the P.A.P. inaugural meeting in 1954; (ii) the persons addressing that meeting; (iii) the release of detainees on 4th June, 1959; (iv) Mr Lee Kuan Yew with Mr James Puthucheary in Changi Prison Camp grounds; (v) the P.A.P. rally at the Esplanade on their victory in the general election; (vi) Mr Lee Kuan Yew addressing an election rally at Clifford Pier; (vii) P.A.P. detainees at the St. John's Island detention camp; (viii) the Prime Minister addressing the 1961 May Day Rally at the Jalan Besar Stadium; and (ix) Mr Lee Kuan Yew and some union officials in Taiping Botanic Gardens.

The photographs listed by the Member for Anson have been incorporated in the book for the same reasons as the other photographs in the book which the Member has not listed in his enquiries. The photographs either illustrate or amplify the text of the book. For example, on page 10 there is a photograph of the Member for Anson at the Baling Talks. He has quite rightly not questioned the propriety of its inclusion. Like the other photographs, it helps to illustrate or augment the main theme of the book, that is, the struggle between the non-Communist socialists on the one hand and the Communists and pro-Communists on the other to win the. hearts and minds of the people in Malaya. The Member for Anson will agree that all the photographs have been aptly chosen, including the one of himself.

The Minister for Culture is less than frank. That photograph of myself at Baling is not of my-self but Tunku Abdul Rahman and the others. Though that might be appropriate in a book about Communists, how is it appropriate to have photographs of the P.A.P. inaugural meeting, the Prime Minister having a talk with his private clients? Would the Minister please indicate?

Sir, as regards the photograph of the P.A.P. after winning the elections, in fact, I happened to look at the Annual Report which came after the Member for Anson had become the Chief Minister, and there is one there showing him having an informal luncheon in one of the big hotels here, which I think is appropriate since he was then the Chief Minister and his Party had come to power, and it is part of the history of the Island. So for the same `reason, the fact that these pictures relating to elections and so on are included in the book is that they form part of the history which led to the events and conflicts described in the book. As regards "clients", Sir, I am not quite sure to whom the Member for Anson is referring.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, at page 83: `Mr Lee had gone up to Perak to defend...'.

Order. The Member for Anson must wait until he is called, to give the Chair a chance to consider the answer. Now, Mr Marshall.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the photograph opposite page 83 where the Prime Minister is alleged to have gone to Perak to defend members of a union at a trial in Bagan Serai which arose from a transport strike. Is this part of the history of Singapore? Are we going to have memorabilia of Mr Lee Kuan Yew?

I have a feeling that the Member for Anson has only been looking at the pictures without reading the text of the book. If he had read through the text, he would have found that the gentleman referred to is mentioned in the text of the broadcast. And, therefore, it is necessary in a book of this kind not only to tell about the persons but readers would also like to know what they look like. That is the reason why that photograph is published.

Question No. 10 has been withdrawn as it has already been answered. [The following is Question No. 10:

To ask the Minister for Education when the Government anticipates appointing a Commission of Inquiry on political machinations in schools.]

3.08 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in answer to the questions asked by the Member for Anson, I spent some time in explaining the background of our relations with the pro-Communist trade union leaders. Although we had discussions with them - we spent a lot of time working out the details of this unemployment insurance scheme - I harboured the doubt at that time, a doubt which subsequently turned out to be completely justified, that these persons were not honest nor sincere in their dealings with us. I went on to say that the main consideration of Communist leaders in a trade union movement is to maintain a hold on the union leadership. From this point of view, they will stop at nothing to achieve their objective. They have tried to hot up the situation, create an atmosphere of tension and uncertainty, because it is under such conditions approaching a revolutionary situation that a combat Marxist-Leninist Party can deploy its cadres to the most effective purpose. Therefore, in their policy towards unions, the benefits that the workers would obtain are, of course, important. These are important matters because, without getting benefits, the workers will soon drift away from them. But they will never try to seek a permanent settlement with the employers on the best terms possible for the workers, because, by so doing, they will reduce discontent among workers, cause them to be satisfied, and in this manner become complacent and apathetic towards union matters. Now, Mr Devan Nair told me of the advice which Mr Lim Ching Siong had given him when they were colleagues in the T.U.C. - that Mr Lim Ching Siong advised Mr Devan Nair against fighting for salary scales. He said that with salary scales, workers would be satisfied with the conditions, lose their revolutionary fervour and thereby weaken the hold of the union upon members. Because once you have a salary scale, everyone would know that an increase in wages comes automatically year by year, and therefore there would be less and less occasion for the union to rally round its members to fight for improved conditions. Mr Lim recommended that it was better to fight for periodic salary increases and prevent the members from being fully satisfied at any time. Sir, with such a background of the policy and tactics of the trade union leaders, it would be clearly foolish to introduce a contributory unemployment insurance in the teeth of opposition by a substantial number of trade unionists. What we must do now is to tell the workers how they are being used by their leaders as so many pawns in the major political game for the benefit of the Malayan Communist Party. When workers cease to be manipulated by the pro-Communist groups as they realise the truth, then and only then can we proceed to introduce progressive social security measures for their benefit. It is a sorry state of affairs in Singapore when so-called champions of workers resist the introduction of a progressive measure such as a contributory unemployment insurance scheme.

Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I do not know if it is now open to debate, Sir.

Order. If the Opposition indicate they wish to have a debate on the statement, I am sure the Minister will move a motion for the Adjournment. If they do not, and they will be satisfied merely by asking questions, then we do not need to have a debate.

I would suggest. Sir, in view of what I consider to be a cynical and somewhat pathetic statement of policy made by the Minister, that a debate be allowed. And I call for a debate.

Will the Minister then move the motion for Adjournment?

3.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

If it please you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the question arose in all good faith as a result of a question I had asked, which was tabled and answered on the 29th November - 3½ months ago in this very House. The question then was to the Minister for Labour asking whether the Government would consider tabling a White Paper on the Report of the Committee on Minimum Standards of Livelihood (Cmd. Paper No. 5 of 1957) and the Report to the Government of Singapore on Social Security Measures (Cmd. Paper No. 56 of 1957), and whether the Minister for Labour would indicate what measures Government had in mind for the session in the fields of social security and Unemployment. We received a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary -

Order. Perhaps I had better explain the procedure because I see that the Minister for Finance is making notes. He will not have an opportunity of replying. Another Minister will have to do that. There is no opportunity to reply in a motion for the adjournment. I just want to make it quite clear.

The reply to this question was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. Sir, though we do not have the Hansard, I am taking the liberty of quoting from the preliminary draft which is sent to Members in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour on the 29th of November last said: `The unions and employers will be asked for joint discussions and the Government hopes that after a thorough exchange of views, agreement can be reached on unemployment insurance as the first step to a more comprehensive social security scheme.' In answer to a further question, he said: `Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as consultations between union leaders and the Government are concerned, they have taken place, but not discussions between Government and the employers yet.' In answer to a further supplementary question, he said: `As I have said just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government hopes, through discussions with the parties concerned, i.e., employers and unions, that it will be able to find a basis of introducing the social security scheme.' And when I inquired when it was anticipated that these discussions would be held, he said: `Of course. Mr Speaker, Sir, as soon as the Minister feels it is convenient to look into this matter.' So, Mr Speaker, it was not with a view to inviting any controversy but with a view to eliciting facts which we were legitimately entitled and led to by the replies from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. Now I gather - and I trust that it is not correct - that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour has led this House up the garden path with completely false statements. I should hate to think that was true, Mr Speaker, but in fact that is a necessary inference from the statements that you heard from the Minister ;for Finance who told you that through 1960 and January 1961, that is, up to 14 months ago, discussions had been held; but since then conscious of the attitude of the dreadful devils in the trade union movement, Government intends to take no further steps except in order to make it known to the people. The plague carrying rat was - since the Prime Minister seeks to remind me - specifically directed to a gentleman by the name of Mr Devan Nair who then assisted the Prime Minister who led a most vicious campaign of an extraordinary character, as it was unconstitutional in fact. That was the plague carrying rat. Now if we may go back to a very serious matter, Sir, the social security for [Interruption] - must the Prime Minister press me to be discourteous directly? Now, Sir, if we may go back. We are dealing with a vast number of our people, Sir, possibly a larger number - and we are entitled to have at least the facts. If the Government did in truth take a decision last year, that we are not going to pursue this matter any more, then how, Sir, I ask, is it that they authorised - because I am quite sure, knowing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, that he would not take it upon himself to make a false statement. He is incapable of evolving one of his character. How did they authorise the Parliamentary Secretary to make an extraordinary statement to this House that discussions would be held with the parties concerned, i.e, employers and unions, and Government hoped that it would be able to find a basis of introducing a social security scheme? There is an expression of a firm intention and an expression of a legitimate hope, and that it would take place as soon as the Minister finds this convenient. Sir, I am interested in the facts. I do want to know from the Minister whether, in fact, he now repudiates the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour; whether he repudiates the information that Government has any hope of achieving social security measures; whether he repudiates the suggestion that there will be discussions between the Government and employers, and whether we are in fact to give up all hope that there will be social security measures so long as this Government is in office, because as far as I can gather, he says that when we are in heaven, we can all have manna. Well, thank you very much. But what about now? Are we to give up all hope now? Sir, it is not for me to defend those who were in part responsible for some of the most agonising moments during the time when I was sitting opposite. But I would like to say this. Though I recognise that there are in truth and in fact persons in the trade union movement who are prepared to take advantage of the workers for political purposes -

The Communists.

I have never had proof, Sir. If I did, I give you my word that I would have put them into Changi Gaol without hesitation. But I never had adequate proof from those on whom I had to depend and that was my Chief Secretary who was in charge of the Police and who received the reports. I had no proof that Lim Ching Siong was a Communist at any time, and I made direct inquiries. So if the interruptions can now be left aside. Let us go back to the main issue. I consider it cynical and pathetic on the part of the Government to make the suggestion that there are trade unionists who do not seek the welfare of the workers. That I do not believe. That they may seek the wrong methods, Sir, I do believe. That there are some who seek the wrong methods, it is perfectly true. That there are some who seek to take advantage and bring about momentary chaos, it is perfectly true. But that there is any trade union at all amongst the leaders of the trade union movement, whether of individual unions or the movement as a whole, who do not seek the general welfare of the people is rubbish.

They captured your Party!

It is rubbish. They have captured my Party, but nobody can capture me!

They captured your Party in K.L.! Some hon. Members: In K.L.!

Sir, I do hope that this frivolity, which seems a disease which follows the Government everytime it is in a position of acute embarrassment.. will at least pass in order to let us discuss with gravity a very grave issue. And that is the issue of social security for our people. If in truth and in fact there is a plan whereby we can be of assistance, and the Government has a plan and there is no administrative difficulty, then I do ask the Government - why do they not present it to the Assembly and let us see for ourselves, instead of having vague allegations from the Government Benches about the evil fork-tailed gentlemen who sit opposite? Let us see them proved that they are fork-tailed gentlemen by rejecting the provisions of measures and' laws which are for the welfare of our people. It does matter to me whether, in fact, the social security measures the Government has in mind would be adequate. I say we must take a step forward now. I do plead that this issue be treated with gravity, that the internecine warfare between the husband' and the wife who have recently divorced does not obscure the welfare of our people, and that this issue be treated, on its merits. And if there are measures which can be implemented now for the welfare of the helpless unemployed, then those measures should be introduced and the Opposition and the people of Singapore be given an opportunity to indicate whether, in fact, they will support the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want briefly to deal with one or two points that the Minister for Finance has dealt with in his statement. First of all, lest there should be misunderstanding, I wish to make it clear that, as far as I myself and my colleagues in the trade union movement are concerned, we will not only support in principle any social security scheme -

Contributory.

But also in practice. As to the merits or demerits of the proposal made by the Minister for Finance during the discussions that were held early last year, I shall deal with them in due course.

When? After you have consulted the Boss?

Sir, first of all, it is necessary to understand what was the background when the discussions on the so-called social security scheme were conducted. Sir,I am sure that it is vivid in all our memory that sometime at the beginning of 1961, the Minister for Finance sent a memorandum to the then T.U.C. entitled, I believe,"Industrialisation". This memorandum was considered by the T.U.C. and the reply to it was also published in the local papers. It was in the process of a sub-committee meeting which was subsequently set up to consider these two memoranda that the question of a social security scheme was first raised by the Government. Sir, the members of this Committee, besides the four of us named who represented the trade unions, were the Minister for Finance on the Government side, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Mr James Puthucheary, the ther Manager of the Singapore Industrial Promotion Board.

Now adviser to the Barisan Sosialis!

Sir, the discussions were started primarily to agree on a stable sector, i.e., a sector where long-term collective agreements could be drawn up and where the Government thought industrial peace must prevail. To make this proposition attractive, the Minister proposed a social security scheme. The basic quality of this social security scheme' was that it should be confined only to this sector. This sector, the so-called stable sector, referred to all pioneer. industries and certain other industries which had limited export markets. Sir, we who were in the Committee were representing the T.U.C. of which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was Secretary-General and Mr Devan Nair, Mr Ow Kheng Tor and the Member for Kallang were Secretaries. Here, I would like to make it clear that if the four of us expressed our dissatisfaction with the details of the social security scheme proposed by the Minister, it was not because the Communists did not like the social security scheme, but because it was the decision of the T.U.C. in which, as I have said, there were notorious P.A.P. henchmen, like some I have mentioned. As I have said, Sir, it was in this context that the social security scheme was proposed. Our attitude was that we supported this scheme in principle. We supported the need to have a social security scheme. In the first place, we said it must be an extensive scheme so that all sectors of our economy were covered. Secondly, we said that in our view, the workers were overburdened with contributions to the C.P.F. and other local provident fund schemes which various employers were having. Therefore, if the workers were expected to contribute, then it would not be acceptable to the unions. We suggested that contributions to this scheme be made by employers and the Government. Sir, unfortunately, I do not have at the moment the records of these meetings. I do not have the papers with me, but I am sure if the Minister for Finance would like to be fair he would agree that towards the end - The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

Sir, on a point of elucidation before the Member sits down. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Could he just tell us at what particular meeting, because there were records kept of every meeting which took place, at which he made the suggestion that the Government and the employers should contribute and the workers should not. Could he indicate which meeting?

I cannot remember offhand on what date and at what time the suggestion was made, but -

You never did.

- as I have said, the Committee was composed of seven people and I am quite certain I could get six people to swear on oath and say that this was the case. The Minister for Finance knows full well that this .was one of our primary objections to the scheme that he had in mind. I am sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture refers to the minutes of the T.U.C., then he ought to get sufficient evidence to give to the Minister and the Prime Minister for checking the statement. Sir, the Minister for Finance was trying to give the impression that there was the Government - all reasonable and nice and on the side of the workers - who wanted to introduce a good scheme for the workers and that we opposed it. This, in fact, is inaccurate. At the moment, whether or not it is possible to discuss with the unions a social security scheme depends on the attitude of the Government to the unions. The discussions of this Committee were held, I believe, sometime in January 1961. As we know, a few months after January 1961, the T.U.C. was dissolved. I think it is wrong for the Minister to suggest that this Committee met and agreed to support the social security scheme in principle and that he had waited long, because the T.U.C. was not given the opportunity to sort out things and carry out the work for which it was reconstituted in early 1960. Sir, at the moment, whether it is possible or not depends on the Government. We have all the time maintained that in order to have a stable sector to work out long-term agreements and to have, in the first place proper consultations with The Government, it was necessary to have an effective central organisation, if a central organisation does not exist, or if a central organisation which is effective and has enjoyed the confidence of the majority of the unions does not exist, it is not the fault of those of us in the Barisan Sosialis and it will be wrong for the Government to say that the decisions of this Committee were not carried out. As I have said, the T.U.C., the then central organisation was not given a chance to iron out its problems. Sir, I wish to say that to have industrial peace and stability, the cooperation of the employers and the unions and a Government that is neutral in industrial relations is needed. If the government of the day is biased against the majority of the unions which do not toe the P.A.P. line and wants to seek to make political capital out of every trade dispute, I do not see how industrial stability can he brought about. Sir, those of us in the Barisan Sosialis who were members of the T.U.C. which has been dissolved made it very clear that if they wanted the Government's industrialisation programme to succeed, then they must necessarily strengthen the hands of the central organisation by providing for the unification of the trade union movement. We all know what has happened to the Trade Unions Bill that was introduced by the Government, the Bill that was supposed to have laid the basis for reunification of the trade union movement. Sir, if today the Government accuses us of not wanting industrial stability, then I say it is completely absurd. In the first place, the T.U.C. that was reconstituted was not allowed to function. In the second place, the Trade Unions Bill, which was supposed to have laid the basis for the strengthening of the trade union movement, was not allowed to become law. Thirdly, Sir, the application made by the new central organisation formed has not been considered, although, I believe, more than six months have passed. I tell the Government frankly that if they want industrial peace and stability, let them not, sit inside this House and cry "Communism!" If they want industrial peace And stability, let them, in the first place, stop playing politics in industrial disputes, and, secondly, let them be democratic enough to register the S.A.T.U, and let there be facilities provided -

For all Communist-organised movements.

- to effect the unification of the trade union movement.

Is that all?

Order. 3.40 p.m.

It was indeed a very, shocking revelation on the part of the Minister for Finance when he said in this House just now that although he held discussions with representatives of the trade unions who at that time were members of his Party, some of whom at that time were Political Secretaries drawing wages out of public funds, he harboured the doubt that these persons were not earnest and sincere in their .dealings with the Government. Yet when the Opposition on every previous Budget Day, had occasion to criticise and challenge the Government for the misuse of public funds in giving appointments to their political comrades as Political Secretaries - in fact, the person named by him, Lim Ching Siong, was the Political Secretary to him - he stood up in this House and defended him and said that he was a very good young man. Today, from his very lips, although we have been hearing that from the 12 "confessions" of the Prime Minister during the trouble they had at the time of the split in the P.A.P., he said that he harboured the doubt that they were not sincere, that they were not honest. Then why, keep on paying that particular man about whom he harboured doubts, $1,100 a month out of public funds just for the P.A.P. to play party politics? Here again, Sir, the P.A.P. in trying to play party politics thought they could capture the T.U.C. The matter of the T.U.C. has been brought up by the Member for Thomson. He repeated it many a time. He said the T.U.C. was disso1ved. If it were dissolved, how could it be in existence today? The Parliamentary Secretary has said the T.U.C. is still a registered trade union. Where is the dissolution? The secret is not far to seek. It was because the P.A.P. when it came to power tried to corner the trade union movement and change the constitution of the T.U.C. to such an extent that its Secretary-General can remain in power for five years and he has the power to appoint stooges of his Party. But now -

Order. I think the Member for Cairnhill is now embarking on quite a different debate. We are now on the topic which was raised by Question No. 4, and that is the unemployment insurance scheme.

With respect, Sir, four of the Assistant Secretaries appointed by the Secretary-General of the T.U.C. have been named by the Minister for Finance in his charges. He said that whatever plans the Government proposed for social security were damaged by these four persons. So what I am trying to point out is that - these four persons, plus another six, were the accredited agents of the P.A.P. at that time. It was because there was a split in the P.A.P. that they said the T.U.C. should be dissolved. The Minister for Labour and Law said that the amendments to the Constitution of the T.U.C. could never have been registered. So it meant that since 1960 the T.U.C. had been functioning under an amended constitution which had never been registered. That is the P.A.P. type of government. Just because it is a P.A.P. organisation, go ahead, never mind about the law. That is not the way to instil confidence in the Government or in the Party. Now, four of them have been named to be the people who were not sincere, who were not earnest, who had no desire whatsoever to work for industrial peace with justice. But hon. Members will remember that at that particular time - I mean in January 1960 - it was, if I remember rightly, the Minister for Finance who, in order to regain some of the lost prestige of the P.A.P., introduced a Four-Year Development Plan and then not -

Order. I have indicated that we must try and keep to the topic which we are discussing. I think the Member has made his point. Let us come back to the unemployment insurance scheme.

With respect, Sir, I brought this Four-Year Development Plan in because the Member for Thomson said it was as a result of the discussion on the Four-Year Development Plan that this matter was mooted with the four trade unionists. Anyway, he that as it may, we want to say to the Government that if it sincerely believes that a social security scheme is in the best interests of the workers of Singapore, then introduce it. We are for it. Do not try to make excuses and try to blame Party comrades who have defected. The Minister for Finance has always said that he has sonic sort of a scheme. I would ask him to make known his scheme in this Assembly and have a full debate. I would like to say that a social security scheme cannot be non-contributory. It has to he contributory. When the Central Provident Fund was introduced by the previous Government, the workers were up in arms because it was contributory but the workers are people who can listen to explanation. It was explained to them that the Central Provident Fund was meant for their good and then they accepted the part they had to play in contributing 5 per cent of their wages. In the same way, if it could be made known to the workers that a social security scheme is in their best interest and that, in order to run it, it has to be contributed to by the workers and the employers and subsidised by the Government, I do not think the workers will object. I would ask the Government not to delay any more. Bring a scheme to this House and the Opposition will give it their fullest support.

Sir, we have heard three speeches from the Opposition, and if everyone is looking for proof that parliamentary democracy can lead to utter confusion, we have just had it. The Member for Anson leads his from time to time allies in the Barisan Sosialis into an embarrassing position. He has just led them into on; by starting this debate which has made it necessary for the Member for Thomson to try and soft-pedal and explain away a few foolish things for which they were responsible. First, let me put the picture in perspective. Nobody in his right mind is in the least bit concerned with social insurance in the immediate present. It is not included in any resolution passed by any union. It is not on the platform of any political Party at this particular juncture. Nobody is shouting these slogans. The Member for Anson is out of tune. He ought to read the resolutions-passed by the Barisan Sosialis at a meeting of the S.G.E.U. and at other meetings, "Down with phoney merger! Down with Malaysia!" That not being successful, they go to Toa Payoh and say, "Down with the wicked landlord, namely the Housing and Development Board!" They want big emotional cries that will get the people up in a bloody frame of mind to man the barricades. Not all this soft social democratic talk of security and comfort in old age. sickness and unemployment. The Member for Anson is out of line, out of tune. The Member for Cairnhill often plays various roles at various times. But I think the role he is now playing as: the occasional jester in this Assembly is one which could amuse sometimes. It could be boring at other times. In this particular instance, I would say he is just being mischievous. First, the Member for Anson asked a question with a laugh, all this business of being sincere and honest in wanting to get information. He wants to be the champion of the workers. He wants to be the chap who gets them benefits. It is a pity he never pressed harder for equal rights for women. He would have claimed the benefit for what the Minister for Finance has been castigated for having done. But since he cannot claim it, he arrogated the credit to the Member for Mountbatten. He thinks that social insurance is a good issue - something for nothing, all got for by the Member for Anson. He gave the Minister for Finance the opportunity to put in perspective the picture regarding social insurance. If it must be unpleasant to the Member for Thomson to hear his recital of foolishness, then it cannot be helped. What the Member for Thomson and his colleagues are interested in is the line about merger and anti-merger, Malaysia and anti-Malaysia, not all this frivolous and less important issue such as social security. But, first, let me dispose of the facts. I am indebted to the Member for Anson because I think it might be useful to clear the air. He elicited for honest information and he is going to get it as honestly as we can give it to him. There is no contradiction between what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour said and what the Minister for Finance said. What the Parliamentary Secretary said is a projection into the future in expectation of what his Minister is going to do at the right time, in the right place and under the right circumstances. What the Minister for Finance undertook on behalf of the Minister for Labour to explain today is why up to now our efforts to have a comprehensive social insurance scheme have failed. It is as simple as that.

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

The assurance was given 3½ months ago. I would like to ask The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): was any effort made during these 3½ months to hold the proposed talks?

I do not know if the Member for Anson is as naive as he makes out to be in asking these questions. Perhaps he is, and on that basis, I will give him the answer. Does anybody in his right mind believe at this moment that there is any more fundamental issue to be settled than the survival of the whole of Malaya arising out of merger?

The survival of the P.A.P.

The P.A.P, can come and go, and Ministers can come and go. But the reunification of these two territories to form a stable and viable State is an absolute must. Out of that will stem stability. Out of that will stem economic girth and width. Out of that will stem development. Mr David Marshall rose -

I will give him an opportunity but let me first answer the Member for Anson's point. First, we settle the political situation and then we settle all the other things. The Member for Thomson understands that. All these discussions and all the effort made do bring about stable industrial conditions with justice to the workers. It is not going to be abandoned. Solid work has been put into it by officials, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The then Chairman of the Central Provident Fund, Mr James Puthucheary, who is, in his lucid moments, an extremely intelligent and an able exponent of in dustrial peace, stability and expansion, worked out together with the Minister a comprehensive contributory insurance scheme which was discussed and which he tried very hard to get accepted. But Mr Lim Ching Siong - and his other supporters who really do not matter; they are there because it helps the facade - represents the militant Communist group. If he says yes, it is yes; if he says no, it is no. The Member for Thomson knows that. Let us cut away this pretence. Is he really going to say to the workers, "Chin ai kok wei."? He does not know what to say to them. Who makes this appeal? Who is in a position to pull the heart strings and say, "Boys, let us gird and rush." Not Mr Sandra Woodhull, the Member for Thomson - An hon. Member: Mr Devan. Nair.

Mr Devan Nair at least does not depend on the strength of others. He believes in what he believes in and he fights with his own strength and he is prepared to die for his beliefs.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Let me finish. E will give the Member for Anson ample opportunity. I want to meet his point. First, we dispose of this mockery about social security. He was not here when I mentioned it. We are not interested in it. The Barisan Sosialis are not interested in it. There are many other more urgent problems - merger and Malaysia. That will put them in a real big - An hon. Member: Fix.

I do not know whether one calls it a fix. But anything that brings about national unity and solidarity and dilutes their strength in a larger whole is a setback for them, and this is going to be a setback of large dimensions for a long, long while. We settle the basic and fundamental issues. Having settled the basic and fundamental conditions, we will proceed with social insurance and a lot of other things which will ensure that, within the democratic processes, we can allow a great deal of ballyhoo by members of the trade union movement, because sufficient balance and sufficient raps are on to prevent the economy from being thrown out of gear. Sir, Mr James Puthucheary worked this out with the Minister for Finance - and I am now reading from the minutes of a meeting held on 30th December at 11 a.m. in the Conference Room of the Minister for Finance: `Present The Minister for Finance. The Manager, Industrial Promotion Board. The Chairman of the C.P.F. (Mr J. J. Puthucheary). Mr Lim Ching Siong. Mr Woodhull. Mr Dominic Puthucheary. Mr S. T. Bani'. An hon. Member: Year?

1960. This constituted part of a series of meetings in which we were either going to have firm and categorical lines set on industrial peace and stability or the parting of the ways. They knew it. That is why they kept minutes. That is why every word in the minutes was challenged before being agreed to.

You did not bother to correct them.

Yes, corrected often. They know that these minutes would be agreed and could be quoted, and I now quote from paragraph 7: `At that time, one of the key problems for industrial peace and stability was the question of redundancy which led to unemployment and which often became the source of strikes. Therefore, a solution must he found to resolve redundancy in a peaceful way, satisfactory both to workers and employers.'. Now on redundancy, Mr Woodhull pointed out - from that minutes now - that: `Unions accepted retrenchment if the employers could prove that such a situation existed. Agreement procedure proposed by the Singapore Trades Union Congress would serve as a framework for negotiations when redundancy materialises. The fear of unions was that employers would use redundancy us a cover for dismissing workers and subsequently taking on new hands. The Minister said that in the view of Dr Winsemius, the employer must have the right to hire and fire if maximum efficiency in industry is to be achieved. Dr Winsemius even rejected the principle of first in last out as it was not conducive to efficient production. Mr Woodhull pointed out that if it was genuinely agreed that the quality of labour in Singapore was high so that the dismissals on the grounds of inefficiency might not be justified, the Minister replied that the point made by Dr Winsemius was that any means which led to increased output and efficiency should he accepted and adopted if Singapore products were to he sold competitively on the world market. Redundancy led to strikes because unemployment was the fear. Therefore, unions that dug their toes in had to fight. Therefore, unemployment insurance [which is the heading of the next paragraph] was the cornerstone to the then issue of industrial peace. The Minister reiterated his belief that until industrial expansion took place, Unemployment insurance had to he introduced to reduce the fear of retrenchment arising out of redundancy. The Manager of the Industrial Promotion Board further pointed out that no trade union had sufficient expertise to give technical opinion on redundancy, even if unions agreed in principle that retrenchment should take place when redundancy was proved, as stated by Mr Woodhull. It was agreed that the Manager. Industrial Promotion Board, should convene a meeting between the Singapore Manufacturers' Association and the Employers' Association and the Singapore T.U.C. to discuss redundancy in industries.'. And then the Minutes go on to read: `Though the Trades Union Congress representatives' - really it was Mr Lim Ching Siong, because from my report of what took place, he set the pace. He is the open front leader. He decides the line, and the argument, of course, can be put by the Member for Thomson. The Member for Thomson is not in a position to take a firm line. But a line has to be taken. He welcomes all this on principle. But who sets the line on any issue at any particular moment? The Member will recall what Mr Lim himself told me once upon a time, "Better settle with Lim, you know, to see what he says." That is an honest to God's position, is it not? He is the open oracle of the open front. `Though the Trades Union Congress representatives supported unemployment insurance in principle, they pointed out that workers would oppose it basically because of its contributory nature. Therefore, they had suggested in the memoranda that unemployment insurance he treated separately from long-term agreements.'. They were not prepared to discuss it. That is what it came to - to be treated separately. `The Minister said that he was anxious that a start he made with unemployment insurance which would be the first benefit to a wider social insurance scheme. Sickness benefits would follow next. The Manager. Industrial Promotion Board, stated that if unions' views were agreed to by the previous Government, the Central Provident Fund would never have been started.'. That is a fact. `However, it is pointed out that unemployment insurance should not be imposed on workers.'. That is the important thing. The Member for Anson has indeed this desire to play the united front line with the Barisan. "I do not know whether they are Communists. Please let me have proof." Well, I am going to read what he said about them - the same persons. You know, they are friends, good and honest men; their methods are bad but their intentions are good. I thought he said exactly all the opposite and contrary things when I was sitting over there and listening to him, and he was delivering to me pious homilies on how to be a good democrat. Perhaps one of the reasons why I am still a democrat may be because of the exhortations that I have received from time to time from him, amongst others. They pointed out that unemployment insurance should not be imposed upon workers. There the matter rested. We can impose it. But to what purpose? To strikes, to agitation? Conditions will alter; everybody knows that. Events have been set in motion. Since the fateful meeting on July the 20th last year, when the line `was drawn between those who were prepared to dig their toes in and stand up to what they believed to be right and those who were masquerading or just did not have the guts. A chain of events have been set in motion that must find their logical and inevitable conclusion, and a new equilibrium will be established. We are now in this period of flux. Hence there is no need to get agitated about S.A.T.U. or the National Trade Union Congress. These are matters of relative unimportance, not that they are unimportant but are relatively unimportant. There are bigger issues that the Communist front organisations are more concerned with. Any -brief scanning of their mass of resolutions which they pass from time to time is really a simple way of saying, "Look, let's get excited about these things." This is one of the first things. The Member for Anson should learn. He should pick up the Chinese newspapers, If he cannot read them, he can pick up the Ministry of Culture's day-by-day Press Digests, which are supplied free of charge to all Assemblymen, and scan the resolutions. There he will find out what are the things that really agitate them. And this is not One of them. They do not want social insurance. We are now invited by the Member for Cairnhill, willfully and mischievously, to push it through so that there will be strife and trouble. The Member for Anson, of course, just does not understand these things. He does not understand the mechanics of the thinking, either the legal or the emotional mechanics, on the ground. He just thinks it is a wonderful thing to pose on behalf of the workers and say. "I ask for social insurance benefits. I ask for dissolution of the British bases, and disbandment of the bomb," quite forgetting that 40,000 workers may suddenly be unemployed and may clamour for his blood. Even Mr Sandra Woodhull goes slow on bases. These are things that require a certain amount of contemplation and the weighing of the pros and the cons. And the line on bases is "go slow". They are not worried about bases.

I do not follow their line.

That is the tragedy. That is why I only say, from lime to time they get him to follow-travel with, because there must be a consistency of intention and purpose. Erratic fellow-travellers can be a source of great embarrassment, and even danger. Sir, let me now tell the Member for Thomson that the Government is not worried about unions toeing - or not toeing the P.A.P. line. What the Government is worried about is that unions should be subverted and manipulated by a few individuals. He knows the mechanics, and so do I. Let us be frank. When it was against a lot of inept, lazy types that used to associate with the Member for Cairnhill, it was easy. We - I mean he and I - knocked out Mr Seah Peng Chuan and all his other underlings in the S.T.C. Employees Union. That is that, 100 per cent. Men got benefits; men solidly on the side of the P.A.P. But when he tried the same tactics, this time not against lazy and corrupt Seah Peng Chuan but honest men like Mahmood bin Awang, who went to prison -

He was a Communist, you know.

No, he was never a Communist.

He lost in Anson.

You are wrong. He never was a Communist. I represented him.

Order. Sometimes I do like the Speaker being ignored, but the Prime Minister should address the Chair.

The Member for Thomson is wrong. His recollection is defective on the point. Mahmood bin Awang never was, and still is not. He is a good Muslim amongst others. Mr Devan Nair was. He now is not. He is prepared to fight for his beliefs, because he thinks the Communists are wrong. When he had to meet a different situation, lie found himself far from able to manipulate the workers. He was out of the Singapore Traction Company Employees Union. It is not so simple, Mr Speaker, Sir, to go around and just tell the workers, "The P.A.P. is anti the workers." It just does not sell. It is as foolish as those slogans which we allow even today on the lamp-posts - Siau mieh hwa wen chiao yu (P.A.P. out to destroy Chinese culture) - if you do not mind. Stick it up. Who believes it? The ground is cold. They went to Toa Payoh, and an American T.V. - was it American T.V.? - went down. Here were the great revolutionary leaders. They were going to decapitate the heads of the wicked landlords, the Housing and Development Board, for exploiting the farmers. What did they get? A cold reception, was it not? 150 local residents and all the others brought in from outside - a sum total of 500 or 600. In the really united front days of 1955-56, they were fighting really stupid opponents - colonial Governors, two ex-Chief Ministers. We never called a meeting on issues like dispossession of farmers and squatters. Just minor issues, you know, like women -

Order. Could I just bring the Prime Minister back to the topic-unemployment insurance?

He loves his voice,

Order.

Sir, I had no intention of speaking, but by your ruling in making it impossible for the Minister for Finance to reply, the burden has been cast upon me. But let me explain to them - the real united front action, anywhere you went, 5,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 turned up. Real excitement, yes.

In Anson?

This is just once. [Interruption] No, we are talking of united -

Order. There seems to be a very nice conversation going on between the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Benches there. Perhaps the Prime Minister could try and come back to the subject of unemployment insurance.

The point I want to make quite simply is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. The mechanics of government mean, do not throw into your enemy's hands long big sticks to beat you with. And to push through a comprehensive contributory social insurance scheme would be to give a big stick to your enemy. First, establish the conditions - and they will be established in the not too distant future. Members on the opposite side know that. There are no pretences when we meet in the C.P.A. Room. We always commiserate with them for their misfortunes. They find our sympathies so touching that they have betaken themselves away from the C.P.A. Room. And we are not going to make that mistake. Sir, let me remind the Member for Anson of the real issues. What he said first was about plague-carrying rats. He has a facile memory when he said it was Mr Devan Nair who, of course, had the misfortune of having to deliver a report to the P.A.P. conference of what happened in Kuala Lumpur and therefore incurred the displeasure of the Member for Anson. But Mr Devan Nair is an honest man and he has got to say that the Member for Anson -

That is not true.

- did not have the guts to stand up for what he believed in, like freedom of speech, support of the P.A.P, right to put in a paper on Malaysia. The Pilot Committee kept quiet in the open session when the paper was ruled out. He absented himself when his Party voted against Malaysia, when the President voted for Malaysia. We do not mind that, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have no desire to -

These are misinterpretations - a point of order, is it not? If so, I would like to rise on one.

The Prime Minister has sat down on, a point of elucidation.

Elucidation - I am much obliged, Sir. First and foremost, it is not true that I ran away from Kuala Lumpur. I had a case in Brunei, Sir. Secondly, he himself is aware that when I referred to plague-carrying rats, he was in this Assembly and Mr Devan Nair was up there.

So was Mr Lim Ching Siong.

And Mr Lim Ching Siong, who was included. The Prime Minister himself was the leader of that plague-carrying campaign. But, Sir, can we come back to the issue? Are we to understand that when 3½ months ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour told this House that unions and employers would be asked for joint discussions, and Government hoped that after a thorough exchange of views agreement could be reached on unemployment insurance as a first step to more comprehensive social security schemes, he was actually misleading this House and there was no intention whatsoever of holding these discussions in the near future, and they may take place, if at all, in the never, never land after merger? Is that the position?

I thought there was going to be a momentous clarification. But I am sorry that we have now come back to the same thing about the Government's intention. We have every intention at the right time, in the right place and in the right circumstances to do it, and it will be done. A lot of effort has gone into this, and the Minister for Finance, who has spent a lot of time on it, has every intention to take the credit of getting through this House a comprehensive Bill for social insurance. An hon. Member: When?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already explained the moment - and that is when the situation in the unions has been clarified and settled, and that will be in due course. I have no doubts about that. Neither has the Member for Thomson any doubts about it. But now, if I may have the temerity to remind the Member for Anson of what he said. I have the privilege often of having heard him say these things and so from time to time I am reminded when he speaks in this House of the cynicism to which sometimes we are involuntarily reduced. I mean if he finds us in mirth and merriment it is because otherwise we would be in tears, tears at the utter faithlessness of man to his basic beliefs and convictions.

How about your own speeches?

Yes, I stand by them, every one of them. I ask for them to be quoted. Mr Speaker, whatever my many shortcomings, I never inflict this House with mc quoting myself. I never like to do that. It is unpleasant. It is a matter open for the Member for Nee Soon. Part of his political education, he said, was the reading of my speeches, and I am glad if he finds them of any benefit in the instruction of his political beliefs. He can quote them. But I would rather not inflict Members of this House with the virtues or defects of what I have said in the past. But this is what the Member for Anson said. You can well remember, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is from the Hansard of the First Session, Vol. 1, No. 16, dated 12th October, 1955, col. 835. There is the Member for Anson as he then was, the Chief Minister: `The only danger to trade unionism' - and I can remember those words reverberating in this Chamber, because whatever his weaknesses, a resonant voice is not one of them - `comes from the dishonest professional agitators Who have never been labourers in their lives,' - The Member for Anson had been in the coal mines or salt mines of Japan. He got four medals for it, as the Minister for Finance had said - `but take paid posts as agitators in P.A.P, trade unions. As for murdering trade unionists, Sir, I will just draw your attention to it to indicate the extent to which these plague-carrying rats' - That is plural, Sir. And then the gallery I remember, seven years ago - An hon. Member: Devan Nair.

Not Mr Devan Nair. The bossman is the Chinese, not the Indian trade unionist. Let us be frank and honest. Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan. Mr Devan Nair was the intellectual -

On a point of clarification, Sir.

Point of clarification.

Sir, there are a few more, after which I shall be happy to leave the Floor to the Member for Anson because he has a lot to clarify.

Order. It is only a question of whether the Prime Minister will give way or not. If the Prime Minister does not give way, then the Member for Anson must sit down.

I have every intention to give way, Sir, but first I want to read out two passages because he will have to clarify both of them at the same time. They need some clarification.

I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister informed this House that Mr Lim Ching Siong was in the gallery. Mr Lim Ching Siong was holding his hand by his side on the Front Bench of the Opposition. That is the Prime Minister's memory!

I am obliged and indebted to the Member for Anson: Yes, he was present. Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr Devan Nair, I think Mr Woodhull was also there. Woodhull, Fong Swee Suan, Devan Nair - yes, Mr Lim Ching Siong. He was not holding my hand. I would like to clarify for the Member for Anson a bit further. Mr Lim Ching Siong used to sit behind me-he together with a few others. I have forgotten now.. Yes, the Parliamentary Secretary to, the Deputy Prime Minister. He could not be, holding my hand. He has to have long hands! But never mind. This is what the Member for Anson said: "...plague-carrying rats can carry their falsehoods. They do not wince from lies, Sir. Lies are part of their daily bread. They will tell you that they are not pro-Communists; they are not anti-Communists; they are not Communists; whatever lies best suit them - lies every one! By lies they live, and lies have ridden the streets these past weeks!' Well, Sir, "dishonest" - now he says they are honest. "professional agitators" - now he says they honestly seek the benefit of the workers, the welfare of the workers. These are things that need clarification. Therefore, I have every intention of giving way to the Member for Anson in order to allow him to clarify. On that same occasion, at column 237 of the Hansard, Vol. 1, No. 4, on 16th of May - this is just after the Hock Lee riots -

Which you fomented!

I did not, Sir. I was listening to the radio at the height of the riots, and I heard the then Chief Minister, instead of firmly talking of law and order and the maintenance of the integrity of the democratic system, say, "Dear workers, I have telephoned Professor Arthur Lewis, the well-known West Indian economist, to come from London to help us develop the country." And look at this - a new riot, said he. I was so astounded as I listened to the radio that I did not know whether a government then existed in Singapore. This is what he said: `We have had these remarks about Government seeking to stir up anti-Communist hysteria'. These were the same honest gentlemen seeking the welfare of the workers - Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan, Mr S. Woodhull - saying that the Member for Anson was stirring up anti-Communist hysteria.

Mr Nair and Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

No. Whatever T have accused the Member for Anson of, I think "hysteria" was the operative word as far as I was concerned. I was not so much concerned about whether it was of the Communist or anti-Communist variety. But his emotional state was, I think, appropriately described by the operative word "hysteria". He said: `This is not hysteria. These are facts. Singapore is a political balancing point of Asia today.'. 1955/1956, Sir, is the hey-day of Singapore. `I love Malaya...[momentous words, Sir] as much as any man in this House, and I am working for a Malaya that will not be a satellite of England or of any other nation in the world. And I am appealing now to persons who are honest, to persons who are genuine, and to persons who are able, to open their eyes to the evils within their own camp.'. I harken to his words, Sir: `You cannot have one foot in the Communist camp and one foot in the democratic camp.'.

The P.A.P. line in 1955.

Yes, and -

Order. I think if the Member for Anson carries on with his interruptions, we will go on to 8 o'clock.

I try to oblige the Member for Anson in any way we can, in so far as it helps the democratic process in the clarification of man's mind. And this helps. Today perchance he started off on social security; a recital of the facts caused him a great deal of embarrassment and interjections leading to a debate, all of his own making, Sir. He asked the question; he got the answer; he interrupted; this led to a debate. He forced the Member for Thomson to have to make a statement, to exculpate himself, a rather weak and feeble one, but never mind. He tried his best. He gave an opportunity to the Member for Cairnhill to urge the Government to the mischievous courses of action, to ram things down the throats of the workers.

And got it cornered.

Cornered? That fortunately is not the position we are in. Others may be in tight corners at this moment. To those who lack sufficient red blood corpuscles and iron in their stomachs, well, good luck to them. But we are grateful to the Member for Anson for this opportunity. He is interested in social insurance, to the glory of the Member for Anson for having got it for the people of Singapore just by asking one question, or referring to some committee appointed in his time as Chief Minister. Fair enough. That is a fair political gambit.

It is a very cheap remark.

Order. I think the hon. Member for Anson is getting a bit excited. If he objects to a remark made by a Member, he rises on a point of order. He must not shout across the Chamber in that way.

All I wish to say now is this. Having sweated over this comprehensive social security scheme which is opposed by Mr Lim and his group of Communist unions, we are not likely just to forget about it. But to push it through right now would be an act of political folly. Other situations will emerge. This is changing in a fluid situation. The ground now is cold - cold for them. The American T.V, team that went down to Toa Payoh was disappointed, Mr Speaker, Sir. No landlords were there to be harangued, to be buried alive, to be beheaded; and the shots they wanted to take of real, fierce slogans being shouted and chaps running amok did not take place. We intend to keep it that way, by talking peaceably, acting peaceably, and persuading peaceably. But, of course, if people want to do foolish things, how can we save them from their own folly? We can only persuade them. But after it is more stabilised - and it must be - a scheme will be presented. I have every confidence that it will be the Minister for Finance and my colleague, the Minister for Labour, who will have the pleasure of presenting it to this House. At the appropriate time, we will give due acknowledgement, as we always do, to those who have helped us, like the present adviser to the Barisan Sosialis, Mr James Puthucheary, a man of considerable intelligence, as I have said, in his lucid moments. In one of his unlucid moments he got involved in the Barisan. I saw him yesterday and had a pleasant conversation with him. The Member for Queenstown saw it he got excited. He called Mr Puthucheary away. He was wondering what I was doing with Mr Puthucheary with so much bonhomie. But we will acknowledge the contribution Mr Puthucheary made to this contributory scheme: first, to cover unemployment and redundancy; next sickness; then old age; and finally, of course, the Central Provident Fund can be dissolved in this wider and bigger institution to ensure stability and security for the worker, and the absence of tension, discontent and hatred at social conditions which is so vital an element on which to mount barricades. A man who is reasonable, in a reasonable frame of mind, with a decent job, a roof over his head, with his kids going to good schools and learning for a better future, is not a man who mans the barricade and takes a stone or a stick or a match to burn up the society that he is enjoying. That is what Mr Lim Ching Siong does not want. That is what he told Mr Devan Nair. "Do not have salary scales. Have one wage increase at any one time, gather more hatred and then one, step forward and temporary satisfaction." The workers relapse into mild apathy to enjoy the fruits of their victory. Then work up more discontent. After a while - a year has passed - no increment, because there are no wage scales. If you get wage scales, you get a yearly increment. A chap is on good conduct in order that he can jump bars on the wage scale. So, after one year, because there is no wage scale, you come back for more. It is an annual return. The union's annual return is to talk, at least have a token strike. Even if the employer wants to settle, have a showdown, so that there will be a militant spirit of hatred. I have gone through all this. The Member for Anson is not all that naive. He may not have, as I fortunately have, personal knowledge of the manipulation of human emotions, because I had to run around underground and understand these things. But he knew what was happening. I was explaining all this to him when he was Chief Minister. He was grateful to me and shook me warmly by the hand. Has he forgotten Hock Lee? I went to his flat in Meyer Mansions. He plied me with champagne out of gratitude for my helping him to resolve all these troubles which in the end Mr Fong Swee Suan stymied by refusing to allow the settlement to go through, and riots eventually took place. That is the real trouble with trade unionism in Singapore today, that the S.A.T.U. group led by - let us make no mistake about it - I estimate at the most 70 or 80 chaps in about 30 unions, not 85. I mean 85 unions were the sum total they got together for the first inaugural meeting -

Order. Those remarks will come in very appropriately on item 2 of the agenda.

Thank you. Sir, this is a point which perhaps the Member for Thomson can take instructions on. I like to be fair to my debating opponents. It started off with 85 unions, 14 of which were the City Council Labour Unions Federation. They have dissociated themselves from S.A.T.U. So that number has been reduced. Several others melted away when they discovered what it was all about. I notice lately that all the joint statements have only about five or six unions at any one time. The sum total of unions is really about 20 or 30. The real trouble is these few cadres, and I give them credit for their ability to work hard and manipulate the unions - thousands of workers - against industrial peace against industrial stability, against industrial expansion on principle. After one year, we suspected that was what Mr Lim Ching Siong was up to. A series of meetings, of which faithful records were kept, were designed to force an issue - either the line of industrial stability and expansion was accepted and faithfully implemented or the break must come, as it came. The Member for Thomson knew that. That was why we kept minutes. That was why he challenged every single word in the minutes when we came to confirming them. Since he has chosen to follow the group that persists in selling the Communist Party line in the class struggle and class hatred at all costs, then I say the solution to it does not lie in passing legislation in this Chamber. The solution lies in a basic resolution of the ground position, the remoulding of men's minds in a bigger society, and then the building up of checks and safeguards within the democratic system to ensure that at a later stage no more such reckless adventurers are allowed to assume positions of importance in the trade union movement or in any other organisations within the State. It is as simple as that. First things first. And the first thing is the resolution of the political situation. Then we will resolve all this social security and all the other matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask leave to withdraw. Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [14th March, 1962], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 4.36 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we adjourned last night, I was drawing attention to the fact that the principle of the Bill itself is pure gold, and the unhappy tradition of the PAP, to transmute gold into mud. We have had an exhibition of that in the past hour of the endless gramophone. I pointed out also that the Minister for Home Affairs himself seemed to be so deeply ashamed of the provisions of this Bill that he ignored them and pretended they did not exist. I must say, Mr Speaker, I sympathise with the Minister, if, in fact, these provisions do not have his approval, but are part of the P.A.P, traditions which are forced on him. I drew attention to the pathetic provisions which the Government seek to incorporate in this Bill providing, in effect, that unmarked and uncertain ballot papers should be counted as Government votes. These people who are so capable of sneering, these masters of the sneer, should recognise that there is hardly any piece of legislation or any provision on our statute book which is so worthy of contempt as that provision which they seek - the votes of blind chickens - because it is only blind chickens who would be voting for them. Those capable of understanding and marking their ballot papers correctly would not, as they correctly anticipated, be casting their votes for the Government. Sir, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance with their usual sneering approach sought to pin the Opposition down to chapter and verse in the precedents of other territories for measures which we seek. They themselves, in fact, have no precedents at all. They themselves cannot point, even in the cheapest country in the world - we do not reproduce a P.A.P. government twice - to any provision similar to this thing of contempt which they seek to introduce. Another provision, Sir, a matter that is startling and dreadful, is the provision that if on polling day you are to be seen entering more than two premises in the same polling district, you would be prima facie guilty of a criminal offence. Is it believable, Sir, that a responsible Government of decent human beings should go so low as to seek that kind of muck? I take it, Sir, that only non-P.A.P, members would be arrested under those provisions. In respect of the original and really evil provision of this Bill, i.e., preventing any effort by political Parties to advise the electorate and to inform them of the issues - clause 40 - the Minister for Home Affairs has assured us that now canvassing will be permitted except on polling day. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has not introduced any amendments to that shameless clause 40, but I take it that he will be accepting the amendment of the Member for Queenstown. Another curious provision which adds up to the contemptible approach by the Government to the principle of this Bill is to he found in the provision that evidence can be submitted or documents can be submitted by the State Advocate-General before the Referendum Judge, not on oath, without indication of sources, and in fact parts Thereof which may be marked secret will then be withheld from other parties who are interested. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have personally known of cases where, under the P.P.S.O., documents have been marked secret which you can buy at 10 cents a time or 15 cents a time on the newsstands; they are actually chopped secret, dozens of them chopped secret by some peon to whom that responsibility is assigned and presented. Copies of the Min Pao, Sir, which were readily available were marked secret and submitted to the P.P.S.O. tribunal. That is the kind of tribunal we are supposed to be having. There can be no doubt, Sir, that if the P.A.P. were to remain much longer in office, there would be no rule of law. It would only exist in the breach with all the holes introduced by the P.A.P. by way of exceptions to a great tradition which we have inherited in order to transform it into P.A.P. justice for P.A.P. members. It is not my intention, Mr Speaker, to take up the time of this House nor to ramble. Perhaps because I have not got the ability to ramble in such an extraordinary fashion as the leader of the Front bench of the Government. But I do say that I do ask the Government to recognise that this Bill is for the future, not merely their future, that the principle is a thing of value, which today we should have been celebrating instead of pouring scorn on, as scorn it deserves, and that the amendments from this side of the House seek to restore dignity and integrity to a principle that is basically of considerable worth. It is true, Sir, that some of the amendments we have tabled spring from a deep suspicion of P.A.P. motives, but I ask you to recognise that our suspicion is well founded. I ask you to take a look at the Bill, Mr Speaker. The original Bill had no provision whatsoever for setting aside a referendum dishonestly conducted, no provision at all for upsetting any report by the Superintendent even though all know that it was false. I ask you, Sir, whether it is possible to imagine that there is a draftsman in existence who would be so incompetent as not to provide for a Referendum Judge and for referendum petitions. If there is no such incompetent draftsman, then was the omission intentional in order to provide for an eventuality when this Government would require a dishonest report? The Minister asked you also, Sir, to look at the provision in the original Bill whereby canvassing was precluded throughout the period of referendum so that their Minister for Culture could pour his mess through their P.A.P. Radio but no others could even intelligently discuss or seek to assess what it is that is being asked. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Australia under the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, 1906-1936, there are provisions whereby the exact measure that it is being sought to introduce may be attached to the question. Here the question is going to be left in the dark. No one is to explain anything. It is to be sprung on you, and within seven days you are to vote. That is the original measure. I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether this measure, obviously intended for the blind chickens that the P.A.P. think our people are, should not be rightly viewed with the gravest suspicion by this side and every aspect scrutinised and treated from the point of view that the P.A.P. would, where it can, abuse the provisions for their own party political ends. I would say that it is unfortunate that a measure which I have no doubt every Member in this House welcomes in principle, should have been dressed up in such fashion for purely political ends that we should have to deal with it with acrimony instead of welcoming it with delight. I say to the Government Benches - or such of them as have the courtesy to remain to hear - that we mean well by our amendments and I challenge the Minister for Home Affairs to prove that any single amendment is, as he alleges, obstructive or would cause delay. I say that every one of those amendments is intended to tidy up the Bill and is perfectly bona fide. Sir, we have had a marathon debate on the merger issue. It is my hope that the symptoms of a marathon debate on the Third Reading will not eventuate and that the Government will have adequate sense, if not adequate decency, to cooperate in cleaning up this mess which they have made of an honest principle. 4.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a referendum is a good thing, for it provides for the consultation of the people on constitutional and other issues of national importance. To that extent, we welcome the Singapore National Referendum Bill. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with a deep sense of regret that we see the Government using cunning tactics to delay this Bill. This Bill should have been read and passed two months ago. We on this side of the House do not feel that it should be delayed any further. We are therefore not asking this Bill to be committed to Select Committee, for we do not wish to be associated with any further delaying tactics of the Government. Sir, there have been strong rumours in town - for a long time too - that the Government had intended to railroad merger through without having a referendum. There was genuine fear that there might be no referendum at all, despite the talks of the P.A.P. leaders that the final decision would rest with the people. We are glad that the Minister for Home Affairs, when introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, has given a categorical assurance that there will be a referendum. Therefore, we consider that an open discussion of the pros and cons of the various clauses of the Bill will enable the people of Singapore to have a better insight of what is to come. Sir, like all good things in life, the Referendum Bill can be used for evil intentions. We all know that when Nobel invented the procedure for the taming of T.N.T. not so long ago, it served as a great industrial advance; but later the very same invention was used to cause unaccountable misery. All of us in this House will remember with disgust the bombs that fell in Singapore during 1941/42 - no thanks to Nobel indeed for his good invention. As the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy, it is our duty and our responsibility to see that sufficient safeguards are entered into the Singapore National Referendum Bill so that the possibilities of its abuse by a discredited government may be reduced to the very minimum. It is with this noble and honourable intention that the Opposition had filed the amendments. Instead of acknowledging the good intentions, the Minister for Home Affairs had seen fit to slander some of our amendments as, according to the Straits Tunes of today, page 11: `The amendments were apparently designed for and would have the effect of creating delay and obstruction and mischief and trouble at polling stations or inviting of intimidation or generally creating chaos and confusion to the voters.'. Sir, all our amendments were made after a careful study of this Bill in relation to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. I wonder whether the Minister for Home Affairs really meant to have his slanderous words apply to the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. If not, he would certainly do well to withdraw his slanderous remarks at a later stage. Sir, we have seen the Government playing dirty political games in this House too often. We all remember the Government's jubilance when they thought they had us in the Barisan Sosialis cornered on a matter concerning the privilege of a Member of this House to come to this House unobstructed and unhindered. We in the Barisan Sosialis have played the parliamentary game honestly and honorably, but the Government laughed like Mad Hatters - to borrow a phrase from the Deputy Prime Minister, it was as if they had expected us to play the game in some other fashion and not in accordance with the parliamentary rules. I do not know, Sir, what inspired them to think evil of others - "Honi soit qui mal y pense." I am not surprised. But whatever it is, Sir, we do not want them to spring their dirty surprises on the people of Singapore. Sir, to all honest people, a referendum means the submission to the electors of a matter of grave national importance; but to the P.A.P. it is not so. A referendum to the P.A.P. is something rigged up to salvage its political bankruptcy and doom. Sometime ago, the Prime Minister said in this very House that if things got too hot for the P.A.P. the P.A.P. would duck. I think it was the Member for Tanglin - I stand to be corrected - who remarked that if ever the P.A.P. did duck, it would certainly become a dead duck!

It was the Member for Cairnhill.

It was a good passing remark. The Prime Minister has very evidently and obviously understood the wisdom of that passing remark.

He said you will be a cooked goose!

Understanding the reality of what will happen to them if they really ducked, the P.A.P. have steadfastly and stubbornly refused to duck. But some way must be found for the P.A.P. to get out of the "ducking" they had at the hands of the Barisan Sosialis. What could be better than a renewal of its mandate by a sham referendum? Nothing could be better than that strategy, and therefore this strategy was fixed and there would be a referendum. That was towards the end of last year. The Bill was introduced and, all of a sudden, the P.A.P. was confronted with some snags which could be overcome and resolved in quick time. The Second Reading of the Bill was therefore delayed to save its face. What are the snags that gave the Prime Minister and his colleagues cold feet? I venture to suggest, Sir, that there are two important ones. Firstly, the Government had taken a look at the results of the referenda conducted in other places and had found, to their discomfiture, that most referenda had ended in disaster. In Australia, from 1906 to 1935, they had conducted 16 referenda. I quote, Sir, from the Commonwealth Acts 1901 to 1935, Volume One, A to E, and Constitution. Of the 16 referenda conducted between the period 1906 and 1935, only three were approved by the people and 13 were rejected by the people. That must have given the Government cold feet. This fact alone, Sir, would have prevented the Government from toying with the idea of a renewal of its mandate by way of a referendum. Far from having its mandate renewed, the Government would be obliged to resign, for their constitutional proposals posed in a referendum would be surely and certainly rejected by the people. However, judging by past performances, it is not impossible that the Government will not resign even after their sell-out proposals had been rejected by the people.

Order. We are now on the general merits and principle of the Bill. The remarks of the Member for Nee Soon are straying very far from the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Sir, in coming to the general merits and principle of the Bill, I was seeking to explain why it was that the Bill had been postponed for two months. I will not go very far, Sir, but just touching a little bit on it. Having had their proposals rejected by the people, I can foresee the Government not resigning. But then the Prime Minister could not get away very lightly with that, for there are still honest people and decent people in the P.A.P. I am looking at the Deputy Prime Minister, for I have a great regard for his honesty, and as a scientist of no mean repute -

Order. I do not know whether the Member for Nee Soon is suggesting an amendment to the Referendum Bill in mentioning the Deputy Prime Minister as an honest politician. We are on the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir,I thought I should give a bouquet when it is due. [Interruption] I might disagree with the Member for Anson on that score, Sir. I am confident, Sir, that there are few people in the P.A.P. who have some decency left, and that should the referendum on merger be rejected by the people, it would be an eye-opener to these people. That is why the P.A.P. Government is so keen to delay this as long as possible, so that some form of compromise can be arrived at and that there will be no loss of face after the referendum. The P.A.P. is perching on a precarious political position today.

Order. I must call the Member back now to the general merits and principle of the Bill.

The second reason why the Bill was delayed was the lack of a good issue to pose to the people. The P.A.P. had imagined that if they posed a national issue to the people, it would gain wide acceptance, approval and support. But then the Tunku, the Prime Minister -

Order. We are not debating why the Bill was delayed. Members are entitled, of course, to mention it in passing. But I think the hon. Member for Nee Soon is going too much into details on that particular aspect. He is entitled to criticise the Government because of the delay. But he is not entitled to raise a debate on that issue.

Can I, Sir, just briefly mention the two reasons which I have given this House that led to the delay of the Bill? The first was that they had cold feet after they had had a look at the results of referenda held elsewhere. The second was the absence of a good issue which could gain wide support from the people. They thought the merger issue would be a good one; but then the Tunku put obstructions in their way, so that the merger proposals now have become unacceptable to the people. They are now shifting from the merger proposals to the glorification of Malaysia.

Order. The Member for Nee Soon is still out of order. Will be please come back to the general merits and principle of the Bill?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in so far as the National Referendum Bill provides for the consultation of the people on matters of grave national importance, we welcome it in principle.

Order. Will the Member take much longer?

About ten minutes.

Perhaps we could suspend for tea. I suspend this Assembly. I will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we broke off for suspension just now, I was saying that in so far as the National Referendum Bill provides for the consultation of the people on matters of grave national importance, we in the Barisan Sosialis welcome it. But as I have said before, the P.A.P. has other intentions about this Bill. The P.A.P. has sought to use this Bill to give it an artificial span of life. But those who invoke the supernatural to live an unnatural span of life must be prepared to pay the price of the devil. Let the P.A.P. state here categorically in this House that it will stand or fall on its merger proposals. Let the P.A.P. state categorically in this House that it will resign if the people reject the P.A.P. proposals in the referendum.

Order. I did pull up the Member for Nee Soon, indicating that he was going away from the debate, and that is on the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the sitting of the Assembly on 15th January, the Minister for Home Affairs moved the postponement of the Second Reading of this Bill on the excuse that Government wanted time to study the Opposition's amendments. But what has Government done with those amendments? It has compromised on matters of lesser importance and has introduced more rigid amendments to the Bill which denigrate not only the principles of democracy but also the rule of law as we understand it. The Government is so fearful that its flimsy propaganda on the merger proposals would be so easily and effectively torn apart that it seeks virtually to impose a curfew on polling day. During the period of the referendum, nobody but the Government may present its views. The Minister for Home Affairs said so in so many words. I refer to the Straits Times of today, when the Minister said that he would seek to limit the prohibition of flags, banners, symbols, etc, only to the period from the date of issue of the referendum order of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara up to and including the day fixed for the taking of a referendum; that is to say, during the whole period of the referendum, there would be a complete prohibition of flags, banners, symbols, and mass rallies.

Read it again.

It is not necessary for me to read it again. Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister can clarify it when he replies. Another amendment of the Government virtually transmutes all unmarked and spoilt ballot papers or uncertain ballot papers into a vote of confidence for the Government. It is indeed ironical that the once arrogant P.A.P. Government should seek a vote of confidence from the unwary and from the unenlightened, not to speak of those who had intended to boycott the P.A.P. by not marking their ballot paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, if a member of the electorate wishes to show his disgust at the P.A.P. Government -

He should vote against it.

- and marks or draws something that symbolises obscenity on the ballot paper, will the P.A.P. accept such a symbol as an expression of support for the P.A.P.?

Yellow culture.

Let the Minister for Home Affairs say so, and say that they are in such a plight today that even obscene symbols will be interpreted as support for the Government.

How will you demonstrate?

Sir, yet another amendment of Government, the amendment to clause 4, does away with the concept that one is innocent unless proved otherwise. Instead of putting the onus on the Government to prove the accused's guilt, the amendment seeks to put the onus on the victim to prove his innocence.

That is what is done with crime.

That is not justice as we know it. Sub-clause (5) of New Clause (B) reminds us of trial under the P.P.S.O. where only the Judge and the Government know the facts. Sir, it is not that I have any doubts about the integrity of our Judges. On the contrary, I have full confidence in their integrity and their ability to pass judgment on the evidence presented. What I am saying, Sir, is that I have grave doubts about the evidence, because it is not allowed to be examined by the other parties. The main drawbacks of the Bill have been mentioned by my leader, the Member for Queenstown. It is only necessary here for me to stress that, in view of the desperate position in which the P.A.P. Government finds itself -

You have been saying that for the last ten months.

- it is of the utmost importance that the framing and the wording of the question should be left with the Assembly. We all know that the P.A.P. Government is quite capable of asking in a referendum whether one would like to have independence through merger or prosperity through Malaysia. I say that such questions are grossly unfair and dishonest. If the P.A.P. is really so shamefacedly determined to exact a positive answer from the people, it may do well to ask whether the people prefer to live in the midst of peace and plenty and prosperity. Even then the people may have grave doubts because the credentials of the Government are questionable. We all remember that the slogans of the S.P.A, in the 1959 elections promised the people food and work for all. But the people knew what empty promises they were and they showed in a very positive manner how such fake promises should be dealt with. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must insist that in a matter of such grave national importance, the question posed in a referendum must be framed in this House so as to leave no doubts unanswered as to the question and to the possibility of bias. I submit that in no other place in Singapore can the question be discussed and debated more fairly than in this House. Under normal circumstances, we will always support a referendum because it is a mechanism for consultation with the people. Furthermore, a referendum will always ascertain that the wishes of the people will be respected and that it is the people who will, in the final analysis, decide their future. But in the present circumstances, we feel that the Government, in pursuing its Rightist deviation, and in trying to utilise the referendum for a second lease of life in a most shameful manner, has lost its mandate from the people. It is only right that there should be a general election instead of a referendum.

Why do you not resign?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would gladly resign if any one Member of the Front Bench or, for that matter, any Back Bencher would resign with me and fight. If the Government Members are prepared to give me that assurance, and are prepared to honour it, I will resign right now. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Resign!

Of course, the Government will not give such an assurance. They fight shy of giving such an assurance because they do not want to meet and face the people. I hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs shouting that I should resign first. If only he would honour his word and say in this House that he would resign immediately after I resign, I shall gladly resign.

Order. Now both sides of the House are out of order. We are now dealing with the general merits and principle of the Bill. Let us go on with that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to please you, I will say in conclusion that, knowing that the referendum is but a political stunt of the P.A.P. we still support it. The people will know what is good for them and the people will vote what is good for them. They have seen enough of the somersaults, political and otherwise, of the P.A.P. to ever again place their faith and their future in the hands of such discredited leaders. 5.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the idea of a referendum to ascertain the desire of the people, I think it is only right for me to point out also the special difficulties we face in the Singapore context by using this procedure to ascertain that desire. Sir, we must remember that democracy in Singapore is comparatively young. Before we introduced elections, we had rehearsals and mock elections in schools. Even then people were scared about voting, not knowing what they were in for. And we had to legislate to make voting compulsory. They have got over it, and I think they will learn to vote more wisely next time. This referendum is a new procedure. The aim is to ascertain the will of the people on a specific issue. Whereas in most countries the issue is stated plainly in written language, here the issue is represented by a symbol, and that is going to be our first difficulty - the choice of a proper, symbol that will represent that particular issue without implying other issues. At an election, of course, the symbol represents a political Party or a political candidate. People holding even different views would still vote for a political Party or for a particular candidate. But in a referendum they have to come down to one particular issue. We must not allow their reasoning or their thinking to be coloured or prejudiced by other irrelevant issues. I am afraid in the Singapore context a referendum on a very important issue might become involved because of political propaganda and agitation with other issues not connected with the specific issue. It could be in connection with race. It could be in connection with language. It could be in connection with other emotional issues, such as the Toa Payoh issue. We are thinking in terms of a referendum on the Greater Malaysia idea. It is going to be difficult to find a symbol that reflects, and reflects fully, that idea. I hope that before the symbol is really chosen, many people will have put their minds on to it so that the particular idea rightly represents the Federation of Malaysia idea. I am not very sure whether the people will be able to see it. But I give them my best wishes. Also it is stated that when it comes to voting, we should just be voting for one symbol, one political issue, so that the answer could be yes or no. Now on the merger issue, Sir, there are various alternatives. Some want the Penang type of merger; some want the Singapore type of merger; some want another type. Which particular symbol is to be chosen to represent which particular type? Sir, it is always wise to find out from other countries and benefit by their experience. Australia has been mentioned. Although time was short, I happened to have a book lent to me entitled "The Government of the Australian States" edited by S. R. Davies. It mentions here, Sir, that over the past 50 years the Australian States have tried out this method of referendum. The Barisan Member for Nee Soon has frightened the Government side by telling them that out of 16 referenda 13 were in the negative. The idea is that people naturally are negative and obstinate when it comes to anything they are not sure about; so the answer is usually no. So if doubts can be aroused about any important issue, any doubt of any kind, no matter how good the thing is, the answer will most likely be no, unless care is taken to present the idea clearly so that doubts cannot be aroused easily and extraneous ideas are not brought in. Sir, I would like to read a very brief extract to show that if in Australia they have experienced these difficulties, we in Singapore are going to experience these difficulties even more. In page 708, in the last five lines or so: `Certainly it is very doubtful whether at any time in the past 50 years the issues have been put and explained to the people in such a way that their answer of yes or no in referenda could reveal their feelings.' The writer must have been shaking his head over this: `For this reason, referenda statistics are barely more than placings which can give little or no insight to the complex mind of the people.' Then he said this, which is especially good for us in Singapore: `Granted that it is really the voice of their party that most electors hear in a referendum, what would they say to the same question if the party voices were silent? Undoubtedly it would vary profoundly.' Sir, the danger is that the people would not be expressing their own views but, because of various reasons, they would be expressing their party views, and they would express their likes or dislikes in terms of whether they like a party or do not like a party; not whether, they approve of that particular issue or not. That was the difficulty encountered in Australia and which, I can see, will be encountered over here. Of course, we might train our people to vote regardless of party affiliation or party support on specific issues. Perhaps if there is time and the Government have the means, we could have a trial or a rehearsal on a particular issue that is quite clear. For instance, - An hon. Member: Confidence in the P.A.P.!

- equal pay for men and women. You would say a hundred per cent would be in favour. Now we say that should be the view of the people. Try it out and I venture to say that we will not get a unanimous vote on that from the people. But we will get a unanimous vote from every Member of this House. Now if the people have tried out voting at a referendum several times, so that they learn to think above emotion or antipathy to a party or to any individual, then they can see what is right for the country; they will know how to vote. I am afraid, Sir, at this particular juncture, if a referendum is carried out and merger is brought in, there will be a great deal of confusion. The reports of our debate here confuse people. Can we be sure, in the confusion of a campaign on an issue, submitted for referendum, there would be clarity? In the amendments proposed by the Member for Anson and by the Government, the question of spoilt votes and uncertain votes came out. Each one claimed that these votes should be assumed to mean voting for one side. Naturally people would say that if the votes were uncertain or blank, they were voting for nothing. They had not decided on anything. That is what the ordinary man would say, Sir. But the politicians may not want it that way. I therefore agree with the Member for Hong Lim when he suggested that all these amendments should be put before a Select Committee and carefully studied in an atmosphere not charged with emotion or political bias, with a view to ascertaining truly and honestly the views of the people on any particular issue submitted to them through a referendum. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I wish to bring the debate back to the rails as members of the Opposition in the course of the debate have wandered off considerably from the aims and purposes of a referendum. We ought to clarify in our minds why a referendum is conducted. A referendum is conducted by the government of the day in order to settle a certain question on which it probably feels that by itself it cannot decide. Let us take an example. Sometime ago in New Zealand a referendum was conducted to find out the views of the electorate as to whether beer, brandy and other alcoholic drinks should be served after 6 p.m. in bars and hotels. That apparently was a very touchy question for the Government side as well as for the Opposition side. The New Zealand Parliament felt that neither the Government nor the Opposition would want to decide upon a simple question like this, whether alcoholic drinks should be served in hotels and bars after 6 p.m. Therefore, the matter was referred to the electorate, although I was told that Members on both sides of the House, particularly the male Members, were definitely in favour that alcoholic drinks should be served after 6 p.m. But when the referendum was carried out, it turned out that the electorate did not want alcoholic drinks to be served after 6 p.m. What does that prove? Does it mean that the electorate have lost confidence in the Government? Does it mean they have also lost confidence in the Opposition benches? Neither the Government nor the Opposition Members resigned from their seats. Parliament just went on merrily and up to date alcoholic drinks in New Zealand are not served after 6 p.m. Therefore, a referendum cannot be won or lost. It is wrong to say that a referendum is won by the Government or lost by the Government; or whether it is won by the Opposition or lost by the Opposition. A referendum is conducted on a simple question to, be asked of the electorate: "Do you wish to have this? Do you wish to have that?" Therefore, a referendum is quite different from a general election in which groups of bodies or political Parties take issue over certain matters, and, therefore, the electorate vote according to the political platform of the Parties which are standing for election. The Member for Tanglin and the Member for Nee Soon have just mentioned the specific instance of Australia where 16 referenda have been carried out since the Australian Parliament passed the Referendum Bill. The Member for Nee Soon has mentioned that only three proposals put to the electorate were accepted. Rut the important thing that he has forgotten to tell the House is this, that at no time did the Australian Government resign, or considered that it was an indication of no confidence in the Australian government of that day; neither was the Australian Parliament dissolved. There is another example which we may cite here. It is a very recent example indeed of a referendum conducted in the West Indies. The question put to the people was whether Jamaica should continue with the Federation of the West Indies or should it opt to quit the Federation. The people, by a very narrow majority, decided to quit the Federation of the West Indies. But the present Government in the West Indies has a very large majority. The Government never considered that it was a vote of confidence against it. So it is important that in this debate we should very clearly come back to the aims and objectives of a referendum and that, therefore, our discussions should be centred on what would be the best way of conducting such a referendum on any question that may be put to the people, either in the near future or at some other date. The point made by the Member for Queenstown was that the question for the referendum should be decided by the House. I put it that it is not possible for the Assembly to decide on the question for the referendum. In the Australian Constitution it is the Government which decides on the question for the referendum. It is the Government which decides on the date for the referendum. It is pretty obvious why an Assembly or a Parliament cannot decide on the question for a referendum. As we have seen it here in this very Chamber, the reason is obvious. When we had a debate on the question of merger and on a number of other problems, it was not possible for both sides of the House, or for five political Parties, to come to an agreement. Even the Opposition Members among themselves are not in agreement on the referendum. The United People's Party and the S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance have asked that the Referendum Bill should be submitted to a Select Committee. The Member for Nee Soon has just announced the stand of his Party, that they do not want the Bill to go to Select Committee. On the simple question whether or not the Bill ought to go to Select Committee, we find that even the Opposition themselves cannot agree. How then can Members on the opposite side come forward with the proposal and say that all can agree on such a major question like the question for a referendum? It is pretty obvious that the responsibility for the execution of the referendum falls upon the Government. It is, in fact, the first time in the history of Singapore that a referendum will be held. But we have precedents elsewhere that it is the government of the day that decides the question for the referendum and the date when it will be held. The Member for Nee Soon has accused the Government of delaying the passage of the Referendum Bill. I put it to him simply that if we had not decided that the Second Reading of this Bill would be held yesterday, the Barisan Sosialis would never have been in a position to insert the number of amendments that they have. Similarly, the Member for Anson would not have been able to insert that number of amendments. Far from having any intentions to delay the passage of this Bill, it is our desire that it should pass through the Assembly smoothly and as rapidly as possible. But now the Government is faced with the proposal by some Members of the Opposition that this Bill should now go to Select Committee, where it can be examined probably in more detail and more coolly. Therefore, we have to consider whether it would be in the interests of the people to allow this Bill to be considered in Select Committee. If the passage of this Bill is delayed by its being referred to Select Committee, the blame for that delay will not fall upon the shoulders of the Government. I must remind the House that if it does go to Select Committee, it will be at the wish of the Opposition. The difficulty with the Member for Anson is this, that any proposal which he puts forward, if not accepted by the Government, brings out from him always a tirade of abuse and a dysentery of abusive epithets. He pretends that he is a knight in shining armour fighting for the people. But if only the Member for Anson were to look at himself in the mirror or come over to this side of the House where he can look at his other self on the other side, he would realise the muck in which he wallows. In the course of the debate, he has tried to forget what the purpose of this referendum is. Like the Barisan Sosialis, he pretends that the question for the referendum is similar to issues which are put forward during a general election. But as I have explained very clearly indeed, a referendum is simply conducted on a question which is being put to the people for their views, and it does not reflect in any way whether it is a matter of confidence in either the Government side or the Opposition side. Therefore, in order to find out the views of the electorate, this Bill has been introduced, and the clauses in this Bill outline very specifically how the referendum is to be carried out. In this way, the clauses in this Referendum Bill differ to some extent from what you ordinarily have at a general election. The Member for Tanglin has quite correctly pointed out that the question should be put succinctly and clearly to the people and that there should be no confusion when the electorate are asked to express their opinions. It is not a question of picking any political Party's symbol. This is not a party issue. The question for a referendum is put to the people when the gravity of the matter is so great that the Assembly by itself cannot decide either way. 6.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. This debate is on a very important Bill because this Bill is closely related to the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation. When it is passed and becomes law, it will, firstly, be used for the purpose of asking the people of Singapore to decide by ballot the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation in accordance with the heads of agreement as contained in the White Paper. When the Minister for Home Affairs made his speech yesterday, I was very glad to note that he was willing to drop certain undemocratic provisions of the Bill. For example, he promised that during the period of referendum all political Parties could canvass. Is this good? Yes, I will say it is. Is it democratic? Well, apparently it seems to be so, but, in actual fact, I will say that it is not democratic enough. He also made a promise that he would relax certain provisions such as all-owing the Chairmen of the various political Parties the right to appoint polling agents who could attach their seals to the ballot boxes. He also promised that if the period of the referendum was too short, he was prepared to extend it. He also indicated that he was prepared to appoint a High Court Judge to supervise and examine papers and documents relating to the referendum. Are these promises all good? Well, my answer is that they are. But are they democratic? I will say again that apparently they appear to be democratic, but they are not actually democratic. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few years when I was in the P.A.P. not only did I come into close contact with the Prime Minister but I also had the opportunity of working with him and, as a result of this, I have come to know the manner of his thinking. At that time, I lived together with the Minister for Finance. Not only was I a student of economics under him, but I also played chess with him. So from these experiences, I know that when the Prime Minister - or for that matter the Minister for Finance - says, "Well, go ahead. I give way. If you like this, I will give it to you," that is when we have to be very, very careful. We can see that the Minister for Home Affairs has in many respects pretended to be very democratic in regard to the Bill under discussion. He has said that he is prepared to relax the provisions contained in the Bill. We want to ask this question: Are the leaders of the P.A.P. really so kind-hearted? The answer is no. The reason for the P.A.P. giving way lies in the proposed New Clause (A) to be inserted after clause 28 of the Bill. The addition of this new clause provides that any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or is uncertain shall be deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Government. This new clause makes us understand why the P.A.P. is prepared to come to a compromise on other minor questions. This is the main issue. This new clause has a bearing on clause 13 of the Bill, that is, the right given to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara as to how and when the questions can be put up. These two clauses - New Clause (A) and clause 13 - are closely related. The few leaders of the P.A.P. have thought of a wonderful method of doing this in this manner; that is to say, if they can so word the question to be posed to the people that in any way the votes of the electorate will amount to saying that they support the Government, then they will be able to stand on solid ground. That is why they propose this new clause so as to ensure that when the people do not want to express whether they are against or for the question, then their votes will be counted in favour of the Government, I would say that this is really a wonderful plan indeed! Yesterday, our Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, indicated in no uncertain terms the importance of the wording of the question. The Member for Anson also clearly stressed the implications of the New Clause (A) which provides that unmarked and uncertain votes are deemed to be in support of the Government. The Member for Hong Lim also stated clearly that the whole issue lies in how the Government words the question. He was very right when he reminded the people of Singapore of this very important point. The Member for Anson stated that it was very unreasonable to treat unmarked and uncertain votes as those in support of the P.A.P. He deserves credit for reminding the people of Singapore of this important point. We would like to point out that we can imagine - in fact, we can see quite clearly - that from these two clauses, the P.A.P. is going to depend on the wording of the question to play its game. The latest issue of the P.A.P. organ contains an article to remind us that in future, when the P.A.P. brings up a question for the people to decide, it will be something like this: a 20-cent coin and a 50-cent coin will be given to the people and they are to decide whether they want heads or tails. The editorial reminds us of this: "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." So you can decide for yourself from this "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." If the question to be posed to the people is on these lines, then, Mr Speaker, if you are a voter, which way are you going to vote? You may be very angry and may want to refrain from voting. But the Government will be very happy, because they will say, "Oh, such a vote will be taken as support for the Government." Now, if you are angry and draw a tortoise or a bird on the ballot paper, then the Government will be very happy because "You will be supporting me too." The Government have nothing to lose either way. Now, if you are even angrier still and tears the ballot paper, then it is just too bad, because in the Bill under discussion, there is clause 31 (1) (a) which provides that any person who intentionally destroys any ballot paper will be fined or sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years. And more important still, you will be deprived of the right to vote for a period of seven years. So, Mr Speaker, you see how well the Government thought of these things. If you do not want to vote, your vote will go to them. If you draw a tortoise or a bird on the ballot paper, your vote will go to them too. If you destroy the ballot paper, you are just inviting trouble for yourself. Mr Speaker, Sir, can you say this National Referendum Bill is a democratic one? I would very much like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to give us precedents as to which countries in the world deem blank votes to be votes in support of the Government. This provision concerning unmarked ballot papers is a very dangerous provision and is detrimental to the interests of the Opposition Parties. At present there are people already carrying out propaganda work in the city that if you are afraid of trouble in future you can go to a polling station, get a ballot paper, and just drop it into the ballot box unmarked. If these people could go round and tell the not quite intelligent voters to do this, then, by virtue of this provision, such votes cast will have been cast in a very unjust manner as far as the Opposition Parties are concerned. So I say this provision should be cancelled. Otherwise, it is against the whole spirit of a national referendum. Just now I have touched on the results and consequences of destroying a ballot paper. We are of the opinion that it is necessary to endorse the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson, i.e., in page 11, line 40, to insert certain words to ensure that when a person does not know what to mark on the ballot paper or when he wants to show his disgust at the Government's provision, he should not be deprived of the right to vote for a period of seven years or be sent to gaol for two years. If the Party in power agrees to this, then we can be rest assured that the Government has no intention of taking advantage of the wording of the question posed to the people to play out the Parties in the Opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already said, the National Referendum Bill has been introduced to ascertain the attitude of the people towards the question of merger. On the question of merger, if the people are invited to decide, there is one simple way to do it, and that is to ask them whether they agree or oppose the motion and the White Paper on merger passed in this House. It is not a question of asking the people which type of merger they want. It is only in this way that the people can confirm the decision of this House on the question of merger. The main question now is to ask the people to decide whether they want the White Paper proposals on merger. It is not a question of asking the people which type of merger they want, because when we were debating the question of merger in this House, the various political Parties brought up various forms of merger. They talked of constitutional progress and the courses it could take. But the White Paper passed in this House does not say which type of merger the people should choose. It is whether or not the people should accept the proposals of merger as contained in the White Paper. So in order to implement truly parliamentary democracy and to enhance the spirit of a national referendum, the Government should not bring up various questions and consult the people on their views. The Government should accept the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson, i.e. in page 3, line 38, to change the word "questions" to "question", from a plural to a singular number. I pointed out just now why the P.A.P. was prepared to relax certain provisions to show that they were democratic. I said that they did so because they wanted to play on the wording of the question to be posed to the people. From this we can see that before the government thought of this method, they were very undemocratic in prohibiting canvassing and campaigning. It was only after the Government had thought of the method which I described that it appeared to be generous, saying, "I have accepted many of your amendments. So how can you say that I am undemocratic?" I say that this show of democracy is hypocrisy and insincerity. In any ease, the wonderful way discovered by the Government is the best they could find. All of us know that on the eve of a national referendum on merger, the P.A.P. has done and is doing all sorts of things, such as equal pay for equal work, increasing social relief and public assistance, building more houses, just to catch more votes. We are not actually against such acts at all. We support such acts, the building of more houses, the giving of equal pay for equal work. We are all for this because we have full confidence in the people of Singapore. We know they are politically aware and awakened. We have full confidence in their political consciousness. We know for sure that they will not, because of the provision of better accommodation, abandon the struggle against colonialism. We believe they will not exchange their right to vote for certain benefits. Just now when I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister, I could gather from his speech that there was good news for us, because he indicated that the Government had no confidence in a national referendum and that is why he stressed and listed examples in Australia and New Zealand where, in spite of the adverse decision of the people, the Government in Australia and in New Zealand did not resign. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to compare an important issue such as merger with the question of the sale of liquor after 6.00 p.m. This is improper. I would like to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that on essential issues - we can take Australia, for example; a national referendum was held there and when the Government lost, they resigned. We can find such examples. I am telling him now, and more important still I would like to draw the attention of the Party in power to this question of selling liquor after 6.00 p.m. Let us put it another way. If the Government should lose and did not resign, but it carried out the decision of the people as expressed in the national referendum on the sale of liquor after 6.00 p.m. Now, I would like to ask the P.A.P. whether they are prepared to abide by the decision of the electorate in the event of the people refusing the White Paper on merger. That is to say, are the Government going to stop all activities in regard to merger when the people refuse their White Paper? If you want to take other countries as examples, then you must also follow the examples to the full as far as democracy is concerned. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now my colleague, the Member for Nee Soon, has more or less expressed our attitude towards the national referendum. We are of the opinion that in a country which practises parliamentary democracy, the decision to put important affairs of state and important political issues to the electorate to decide is a very good method, so that the Government can always abide by the decision and opinions of the people. This is a very good way to practise parliamentary democracy. But if this method of resorting to a national referendum is used to achieve the purpose of enhancing one's own party prestige and to continue in office, then that is bad and it is entirely wrong. If the Government are prepared to accept the decision of the people in a national referendum, then it is a good way to exercise it. But now, the question is whether the Government are really sincere in seeking the opinions of the people. It would appear that the Government are resorting to a referendum in order to achieve their purpose of continuing in office. In history there have been many precedents. For instance, Syngman Rhee, Ngo Dinh Diem and Chang Kai-Shek. At every election they were always elected. If the P.A.P. is willing to follow their example to maintain power so as to remain in office, then I believe that under the circumstances, when the people do not like them to continue in office, they will never have a good ending to their political career. Here I would like to remind the Party in power. If the electorate refuse to accept the P.A.P. type of merger -

Order. I have allowed the Member to carry on up till now. I suppose he is entitled to criticise the Government on that line for a little bit. I have pulled up the Member for Nee Soon for being out of order in going on that tack. We are now on the general merits and principle of the Bill. I think the hon. Member has made his point. Let us come back to the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not say much on this. I would like only to express my opinion of what the Deputy Prime Minister has said. He has raised several issues, one of which is that even should the Government lose in a national referendum, they could still carry on in office. But I would say that this is entirely different from the real issue, because the P.A.P. Government today tell the people that if there is no merger, then the problem of unemployment cannot be resolved. If there is no industrial development, then the people will not have any more houses to live in. In other words, if the people reject the White Paper on merger, the present P.A.P. Government will not have the ability to seek out new paths for the development of Singapore. They will not be able to resolve the problem of unemployment and to carry out industrialisation.

Order. The hon. Member must have regard for the Chair. The Deputy Prime Minister was forced into irrelevancies because he was replying to irrelevant arguments. I do not want these irrelevancies to carry on. Let us come back to the general merits and principle of the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to what I have just mentioned, there are other undemocratic and unreasonable provisions as well. For instance, there is clause 27 (6). The Member for Anson has proposed an amendment to this sub-clause (6). I wish to say something about the Member for Anson's amendment in regard to impersonated votes. The provision in the Bill says that if a person goes to a polling station to cast his vote, the presiding officer may perhaps tell him that there have just now been certain persons who have cast votes on his behalf. Then he could be given a new ballot paper with a different colour. And this vote could be described as an impersonated vote. But according to the draft of this Bill -

Order. Any comments on the amendments proposed are in order if they have some relation to the general merits and principle of the Bill. But if they are only in support of an amendment or against a proposed amendment, then I think the proper time for the hon. Member to enlarge on his views is in Committee. But if, as I say, a comment on an amendment has really some bearing on the general merits, then the Member is entitled in passing to mention that, but not to debate the desirability of that amendment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, our criticism and opinion of this amendment will be raised in Committee. Now, I would like to stress one point. With the addition of this provision which acts as a safeguard, there will be no fraud in casting votes, because the impersonated votes will be counted.

On a point of elucidation. Mr Chan Sun Wing resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, it would appear that the Member for Upper Serangoon is casting aspersions on the civil servants who will be in charge of all these election procedures. So far as I know from past experience in the last few elections -

The point of elucidation being?

It is an unfair allegation against the civil servants who have no chance to refute it.

That is not a point of elucidation. That is a point which the Hon. Minister will probably emphasise when he replies to the debate.

(In Mandarin): I was not accusing the civil servants. I was only saying that any Party in power could make use of any loophole in that sub-clause to profit itself.

The Barisan Sosialis.

(In Mandarin): Therefore, if we want to talk about democracy, it is better that this amendment should be made to this sub-clause. That is what I want to stress. On the question of canvassing and campaigning, there is something bad in the provision because the police are being given very great powers. For instance, in clause 42, the Minister for Home Affairs has proposed a new amendment to prove whether any person has committed any offence relating to canvassing. It is not for the police to prove that the person concerned is guilty of any offence, but it is for the person who is accused to prove that he is innocent. That is really against democracy. The Government have thought it all out after two months and they are now introducing this amendment into the Bill. It shows that they want to make use of this provision perhaps to deal with the campaigning work carried out by the Opposition Parties. This is something which is undemocratic and unreasonable. As to the other unreasonable and undemocratic provisions. I have already said my piece. Now, I will let my colleague, the Member for Choa Chu Kang, supplement what I have not touched upon just now.

I do not know whether the Member for Upper Serangoon is conducting this sitting by calling upon the Member for Choa Chu Kang to supplement his speech. I propose to turn a blind eye to the left for the time being. Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

Well, I am persuaded now to see the Member for Choa Chu Kang. I hope there will not be any repetition of arguments. 7.03 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Minister for Home Affairs in concluding his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, said this. I will now quote today's Sin Chew Jit Poh which has reported on what he said on that occasion. The Minister said that under the provisions of this Bill, the first question the people of Singapore have to decide in a referendum is the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. We have in the past already debated this question over the radio and at Press conferences. We have also debated this question at several Assembly sittings in the past. There are many things which are necessary to be said before June 1963. But now it is for the people of Singapore to decide on the inevitable form of merger between the two territories. That is what the Minister for Home Affairs said in concluding his speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly in the past nine months the people of Singapore have closely watched the merger arrangement which was conducted solely by the P.A.P. They are concerned over the question whether the P.A.P. would let the people have a chance to decide on this question of merger. I would like to say this. If there is no general election or no new election, at least there is a National Referendum because the people and the Press request this; also because the P.A.P. has made certain promises under pressure; and also because of the debate today in this Assembly on the National Referendum Bill. That is why the Bill is now proposed under these circumstances. Now what the people want to know is whether the Singapore National Referendum Bill is introduced under democratic and reasonable circumstances, and whether there are any loopholes in this Bill. Or perhaps this Bill is intended only to meet the interests of the present minority Party which is now in power. What question do the Government intend to put before the electorate to seek their decision? And on what basis will the question be put to the people for a decision? Mr Speaker, Sir, all these doubts and questions are very prevalent among the people. This House has the duty to elucidate and to tell the whole truth about the Bill to the people. As Opposition Members in the Barisan Sosialis, we have the unselfish duty of exposing certain unreasonable and undemocratic provisions in this Bill. We have the duty of criticising this Bill and of proposing reasonable and democratic amendments and suggestions. We hope that the Party in power will have the courage to accept such correct amendments proposed by the Opposition. If the Party in power will only insist on carrying on as it has been doing in the past, then we can be very certain that a national referendum will lose its true meaning following the passage of this Bill. For this then, the Government will have to bear all the consequences. The Minister for Home Affairs made a certain explanation when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. He used certain cunning words and sophisticated arguments; but all those words and arguments could not cover up the false and undemocratic provisions in the Bill. He thinks perhaps he has carried out the work by propagating the P.A.P.'s idea. If the P.A.P. can try to impress the people that they are democratic, then the people will not have the impression that the P.A.P. is dictatorial. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. is of the opinion that by just coming to a compromise on certain minor points, that is tantamount to accepting the suggestions of the Opposition. But I would like to tell the Minister for Home Affairs that this kind of tactics and thinking cannot fool us. Why did the Minister for Home Affairs not reply to the Opposition Members' suggestions and amendments? Why did the Government not explain why they have now put up new clauses and new amendments? Why should the Government -

Order. That comment is procedurally wrong. Amendments are argued for or against in detail in Committee, amendments are only mentioned if they have some relevance to the general merit's and principle of the Bill. When the Member for Choa Chu Kang asks the question why the Minister for Home Affairs has not explained his amendments in detail, he is procedurally wrong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say is that the Minister for Home Affairs in his speech divided the amendments of both the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown into three categories. On the first and the second categories, the Minister for Home Affairs quite clearly explained the Government's reasons; but as regards the third category and the new amendments, he only promised to bring up his explanations in Committee. Therefore, we on the Opposition side have come to the conclusion that the Minister for Home Affairs did not give any explanation because he was trying to evade giving an explanation and evading our questions. That is the most important point he was trying to evade -

I must remind the hon. Member that we are on the general merits and principle of the Bill. We are not debating the amendments. He can only mention the amendments in passing if -they have relevance to the general merits and principle of the Bill. If he has further criticisms to make about the amendments, he must wait until we go into Committee.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we shall definitely raise all these points in the Committee stage. I had raised those points just now because I wanted to show that the Government's attitude was only to try to reduce the criticisms that could he levelled by the Opposition at the Government; so that they think the people will not then be able to understand clearly that there are some provisions in the Bill which are unreasonable and undemocratic. The Minister for Home Affairs said that judging from the sum of money spent in the last general election, the cost of holding a national referendum would amount to $400,000. He also stated many times that certain provisions in the Singapore National Referendum Bill are similar to those in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Cap. 53). We have spent a long time comparing the Singapore National Re ferendum Bill with the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance to find out the differences. The Government have now decided that polling day should be a public holiday, that voting would be compulsory, that the provisions in respect of the expenses for a national referendum would be the same as those for a general election, and that we should have adequate time to enable us to carry out our work. But the Minister for Home Affairs has only orally agreed that the period for canvassing can be lengthened. He has not mentioned specifically whether it will be lengthened from the original seven days to 12 days. Flags and symbols will only he allowed from the date the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issues an order for the holding of a referendum up to polling day. On this question, the consequences will be just the same, as there has been no amendment to this effect: firstly, before the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issues an order to hold a national referendum, the Opposition can never know when he will do so; secondly, before he issues an order to hold a national referendum, the Opposition can never have the chance to decide on certain symbols, banners and posters. This is also the case in a general election. Before nomination day is announced, the Opposition Parties cannot put up flags, symbols and posters. Thirdly, the Superintendent can issue the symbols, banners and posters in respect of a referendum three days after the order is issued. For instance, when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara issues an order to say that there will be a national referendum 20 days from today, the Superintendent must abide by the order of the Minister for Home Affairs, that is to say, after one week from today, he can then announce the symbols, banners, posters and the question for the referendum. In that case, how can the Opposition Parties know all this in advance? How can they know when the Superintendent will announce the question and the symbols for a national referendum? Therefore, the oral amendments stated by the Minister for Home Affairs are only superficial amendments. In fact, they are just the same provisions as those in the original Bill. The amendments are more apparent than real. For example, you prohibit a person from eating and then you amend the rule by saying that he can only eat before the rice is cooked. I suggest that the Minister for Home Affairs should give up all these deceiving tactics. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and the Superintendent will make an announcement after they have received an order from the Cabinet. Therefore, the Opposition Parties will have no chance to carry out their propaganda work, whereas the Government can make use of the radio and the Press to carry out their propaganda work. Can the P.A.P. say that this is in accordance with the spirit of democracy? Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P.'s attitude today is different from what it was in July last year. Outwardly it appears to be democratic. In the debate on this Referendum Bill, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance are no longer arrogant and they should be praised by us. However, we must not forget the conspiracy that lies behind their sweet words. The Minister for Home Affairs has superficially accepted many of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. It can be said that the Government have accepted contain amendments after having considered them for two months. However, Sir, we must not forget that the amendments proposed by the Government are really the important ones and these are the new clauses proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs. He said that he would be moving certain amendments in the Committee stage and that he would be explaining them. Sir, I do not intend to discuss all the new clauses, but I would like to add to what my colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, has said in connection with certain amendments, especially the New Clause (A). Sir, we can see that this new clause is a very absurd clause. If the elected representatives in this House support it, then we will only ridicule ourselves by becoming the laughing stock of the world. Sir, why do the P.A.P. want to include in the Bill this provision which is not found in other countries? If they want to carry out a referendum on merger between Singapore and the Federation in a democratic and just way, we are sure that 100 per cent of the people will oppose it. There can be no doubt about this. Even the P.A.P. know this very well. Even the S.P.A, have made statements pointing out that in the coming referendum the P.A.P. will suffer a crushing defeat. Therefore, the Government have introduced this new clause in order to salvage its political fortunes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. is trying to make use of some questions which are detrimental to the people and which cannot be easily decided by the people. In the coming referendum I believe the P.A.P. will do this; for example, the people should express their views on the question posed by the Government. And the P.A.P. can pose the question this way: "Do you want independence through Malaysia?" The second question could be this: "Do you want to achieve independence through merger between Singapore and the Federation?" Under these circumstances, the electorate will find it very difficult to make a clear-cut decision on these questions. Although these two questions are not the same, the content is the same, that is to say, "Do you accept the merger proposals as contained in the White Paper?" The people cannot make a decision on this question, because even if they make their decision, they will fall into the trap of the Government; whichever way they vote, they will all the same fall into the trap. The result is that they may abstain. Following the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, if we abstain, then our votes will be considered as spoilt votes. However, in the Bill we are now debating, abstention votes cannot be regarded as spoilt votes but as votes in support of the Government.

Order. I wish to draw the attention of this House that this argument has been repeated about three times. It has been repeated by the Barisan Sosialis speakers and by other Members. I just wish to draw the attention of hon. Members to that fact, and the repetition is beginning to be tedious.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I agree to your ruling. But as far as our Party is concerned, we are trying to avoid repetition, but we feel that this is a very important principle. But I am only mentioning it in passing. Just now the Deputy Prime Minister has said that it is impossible for the question to be brought to the House for discussion and debate. The reason given by him is that the Opposition Parties are not unanimous on whether this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. His reason is not convincing at all. You may recall that in the past, when debating the question of merger and Malaysia, the Government tried to make use of the debate to sound the views of Members of this House. Therefore, on the question of the referendum, the Government have the duty to introduce the question to this House to be discussed so as to get it passed by this House. Otherwise we cannot say that this is in keeping with parliamentary democracy. I have mentioned just now that New Clause (A) proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs provides that: `(1) Any person whose ballot paper -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill in principle. We have had a very lengthy debate in this Assembly on the question of merger. The Assembly debated it fully and exhaustively over a period of time, and it was carried, if I remember rightly, Mr Speaker, Sir, unanimously. In those circumstances, it becomes necessary - if some other form of consultation with the people is necessary - to determine on what method is available to the Government for such consultation. To my mind, there are only two possible ways of doing it. One is through a referendum, and the other is, in my opinion, a wholly unacceptable one which has been suggested by the Barisan Sosialis for a long time, and that is for the Government to resign and go for a general election. That is no way of consulting the people on a national issue, because, as I have previously indicated to the House, if it is an election that is to be used for purposes of determining a national issue whereby the Government and the whole Assembly resign and go to the electorate, in such an election there is not one single issue before the electorate but several issues. Therefore, if a particular result ensues in favour of a political Party, it could well be that the national issue which is before the electorate would be lost sight of. Therefore, the only possible way to do this is through a referendum. If that is accepted, Mr Speaker, Sir, then under our statute laws we have no provision for a referendum in Singapore at the moment. Therefore, it becomes necessary to table a Bill before the House which will enable this referendum to be held properly and legally, and the Government are entitled to incur expenditure for such a procedure. That is what the Government. I hope, is seeking to do in this Bill. Nobody from the Opposition side, as far as I can see from the Barisan Sosialis, has criticised the Bill from the procedural point of view. I think what the Bill tries to effect is a set procedure for consultation with the people. Instead of which a lot of under-currents, which I personally am not aware of, have been introduced and the whole debate has centred on these under-currents which seem to be known both-to the P.A.P. and to the Barisan Sosialis. But we in the Alliance, being innocent people in these matters, have not understood the point and purpose of all these discussions up till now. An hon. Member: Is that so?

The Member for Upper Serangoon says, "We are fully convinced that the people of Singapore are politically alive." He also says, "We are fully convinced that the people of Singapore are politically conscious." He has also said, "We are fully convinced that they will not sell their rights to vote on P.A.P. propaganda." If the Member for Upper Serangoon is not speaking with his tongue in his cheek, what then is he afraid of? The P.A.P. might pose questions to say, "Heads, I win; tails, you lose." But the politically conscious and the politically educated people of Singapore surely can see through that. What then is the Barisan Sosialis afraid of? The Member for Choa Chu Kang says that telling the Assembly about the Referendum Bill is not a sufficient telling to the people of Singapore. He wants some other form whereby you can tell the people of Singapore about the Referendum Bill. It is a very interesting proposition made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang, when the whole attack by the Barisan Sosialis on the Government up till now has been that this is something which is not in keeping with parliamentary democracy. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis seem to me to be the greatest defenders of parliamentary democracy. The accent is on parliamentary democracy. Now if they are not again talking with their tongue in their cheek, what is the best way of consultation with the people in a parliamentary democracy except through this Assembly? That is parliamentary democracy as I understand it. If they are defending parliamentary democracy, then it is consultation with the people through this Assembly and not a mass rally. That was possible in the City State of Athens some thousands of years ago. But it is not possible these days. If every time a Bill has to be put through in a parliamentary democracy, and the people have to be consulted, and the Bill has to be taken outside the Assembly and debated in public, then government in a parliamentary democracy would be impossible. But in some other form of democracy that may be possible. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to take too much time of the House. But I support the principle of the Bill. The procedure is necessary and the Bill seeks to lay down the procedure. Since the Bill was formulated on the first occasion, a number of amendments have been moved by Members of the Opposition, and now further amendments have been moved by the Government. Mr Speaker, I was not present in the House when the Member for Hong Lim made the proposal that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. In the circumstances, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am entirely in agreement with him, and I do hope that, at the appropriate moment, he will take the appropriate step to have it committed to a Select Committee. But I do wish to say that in the light of the opposition that has been raised both to the Bill and to the merger proposals - this Bill is something which merely seeks to lay down the procedure to consult the people on the merger proposals - it is important that this Bill be given a thorough ventilation. To that extent, I will agree with the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the best way of telling the whole truth to the people in a parliamentary democracy is to commit it to a Select Committee. I repeat this again for the benefit of the Members of the Barisan Sosialis, that the best way in a parliamentary democracy to consult the people is through a Select Committee, because procedurally it is laid down that an advertisement be put out in the papers inviting members of the public to send in their comments to the Select Committee; and, if necessary, those submitting representations will be invited by the Select Committee to give oral evidence. That is the only possible way by which all the people of Singapore can be consulted. As for my friends in the Barisan Sosialis who are not talking with their tongue in their cheek when they talk about parliamentary democracy, I hope that at the appropriate moment they will support the reference of this Bill to Select Committee. 7.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to comment on the arguments put forward by Members of the Barisan Sosialis on the debate on this Bill. I shall divide my comments into two classes. First, on the question of matters of detail, and, secondly, on matters of some fundamental importance. By that I mean what the Member for Farrer Park has just referred to as the under-currents of tension that are passing between the Barisan Sosialis and us. As regards the first class of comments. I was rather astonished to hear from the Member for Queenstown a complete denial of his statement made at the radio forum that he had no confidence in the people's intelligence. He denied ever making such a statement, and he even went so far as to say that it is the P.A.P. who has no confidence in the ability of the electorate to decide on important issues. I therefore propose to read out before hon. Members a part of the verbatim report on the radio forum held at Radio Singapore on Thursday, 21st September, 1961. This is what the Member for Queenstown said on the referendum: `As regards the referendum, I don't think it is suitable because a referendum is something new to Malaya. As you know, the whole democratic process at the present moment is not very conversant. People are not very conversant with the whole democratic process and it takes a long time before people realise what it is all about.' In other words, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis does not believe that the people are able to make up their minds in a rational way; that they cannot understand the issues put to them; and, therefore, a referendum is completely unnecessary. The Member for Farrer Park rather seems to agree with that point of view. I infer from his comments on the meaning of parliamentary democracy that the best possible way to consult the people is through the representatives elected by the people to this Assembly. That being the case, if the people's representatives have decided on the issue of merger that a certain course of action is the proper course of action, then it is up to the Government to implement that course of action. More specifically on the issue of merger, this Assembly, which was elected in a democratic manner at the last general election, has passed and approved the White Paper. And, therefore, it satisfies the highest principle of democracy to get on with the work of implementing the White Paper proposals with all the constitutional processes that are necessary to merge Singapore with the Federation. I agree with the Member for Farrer Park, on a point of constitutional law and on a point of constitutional principle that the Government would be completely correct, completely democratic, if it proceeded with the constitutional arrangements to merge Singapore with the Federation on the basis of the White Paper without further ado. It would be absolutely democratic in so doing.

Chiang Kai-shek!

Absolutely democratic, and if the Member for Queenstown disagrees, I can recommend him the best textbooks on constitutional theory. I would recommend him to read, for instance, Ivor Jennings Cabinet Government, wherein this theory is propounded in detail. Why does he bring in Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem? I am not quite clear. Neither of these two gentlemen was elected to power on the basis of democratic elections. The Barisan Sosialis think that we are the P.A.P. dictators like Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem. Every child knows that if that were the case, hon. Members in the Barisan Sosialis would not only be in Changi gaol, but they would be six feet underground. That is the way Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem deal with their political opponents. They are really like spoilt children that need a jolly good spanking. And I have no doubt -

Order. I think the Chair is entitled to draw a line there and to ask the Minister to withdraw that expression. I do not think the Minister can call Members of this Assembly "spoilt children" and suggest that they should have a spanking. Will the Minister please withdraw that expression?

Certainly I withdraw, Mr Speaker. I do not for one moment intend that my remarks should be taken literally. The Member for Queenstown was a rugger player of some eminence and I think it would take possibly a judo expert to put him under reasonable control and give him a spanking. I would just say that the correct and proper democratic processes would be satisfied if, on the basis of the debate on merger when all the Members present at the end of the debate voted in favour of the White Paper - 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.

Mr Speaker, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 19th of February, a fire broke out in Eu Tong Sen Street which is in my constituency. Several houses were destroyed and about 150 people were rendered homeless. Being the Assemblyman for that constituency. it was my duty to see that help be rendered to these unfortunate victims, Accordingly, I applied for a police permit to collect funds for the fire victims but to my surprise, I received a reply from the police which said that permission could not be granted because it was supposed to be "against the standing policy" to do so. Sir, I wish to record my protest in the strongest terms against this utterly heartless and discriminating policy of the P.A.P. Government towards the question of relief for the fire victims-[Laughter]. Laugh, huh? The P.A.P. today has descended to the utterly contemptible depths of trying to play party politics with the suffering of human beings during time of disaster. Even on this purely humanitarian effort of trying to seek help for the fire victims, the P.A.P. is trying to make political capital. Never in the history of Singapore have we seen a government more desperate and more lacking in moral principles than today.

Hear, hear!

I wish to point out that never in the past, even in the times of the colonial government and of the previous government -

Hear, hear!

- which the P.A.P. at that time also regarded as a reactionary government, had the authorities refused well-meaning organisations the chance to render help to human beings in time of disasters like fires and floods. When the P.A.P. was in the opposition, everybody knew how enthusiastic the P.A.P. was in trying to organise help for victims of fire and flood disasters. Sir,I was in the P.A.P. before and I can go on enumerating example after example of instances when the P.A.P. as an Opposition Party, was allowed by the authorities to participate in relief work. In 1958, during the huge fire in Kampong Koo Chye, we spared no efforts to do whatever we could to bring relief to the thousands of victims. No effort was made by the previous Government to prevent us from doing this humanitarian work. Again, Sir, in 1959, during the big fire in Tiong Bahru and 1961, during the fire in Upper Chin Chew Street, I had the honour and privilege to organise relief work for the unfortunate victims. Moreover, Sir, as an elected Assemblyman for Havelock constituency, I had to deal with three fires in that area, and on each of those occasions, I organised the collection of funds and other forms of aid for the victims. I am relating all this merely to demonstrate that in the past, it was always a commonly accepted practice to allow Assemblymen to respond to the sufferings of the people and to rush to their help. No attempts were ever made by the authorities to prevent us from carrying out what was essentially our duty. As leaders of the people, it is Indeed our duty to render whatever help we can to our people in times of disaster and need. Besides, it is only humane that everyone must do whatever they can to help our fellow human beings in time of need. It is indeed unthinkable that anyone would be so utterly heartless and debased as to try and prevent others from sincerely trying to render relief to victims of natural disasters. Thus, Sir, I was most shocked when I received the letter from the police refusing me permission to raise funds for the people in my own constituency and to help the victims of the recent fire. Today, the P.A.P. leaders are so desperate for power that they are prepared to sink low enough - An hon. Member: How low?

- to prevent Opposition Assemblymen from helping people of their own constituencies in times of need. As their Assemblyman, I believe I can raise more funds from people of my own constituency for our fire victims. I have, in fact, done so before; not once, but many times - An hon. Member: How many times?

- when I was in the P.A.P. Now that I have left the P.A.P.the Government tries to give the impression to the people of my constituency that I have no more interest in their troubles, by preventing me from doing relief work for them. To the desperate P.A.P. politicians today, it is far more important playing politics than genuinely seeking aid for fire victims - An hon. Member: Did you give any yourself?

They are even prepared to exploit the sufferings of human beings for political gain. They now wish to monopolise completely all relief work and to prevent other political and civic organisations from participating in such work. The aim is obvious. They want to give the impression that they are a good Government -

Why not?

- whereas others are bad and irresponsible. Is this fair? An hon. Member: No.

I can quite understand, Sir, why the P.A.P. leaders are now trying to impress the people. They are not really concerned about the people's welfare; for having sold out the people's basic democratic rights of equal citizenship rights and proportional representation in the so-called merger arrangements, they have to find ways and means of covering up their betrayal of the people. Sir, we would not mind this monopoly if the P.A.P. as an organisation could really inspire enough confidence from the people in their relief work. But we know, Sir, the P.A.P. organisation today is an empty shell; neither has it the manpower nor the dedication to really help the people. The rank and file of the P.A.P., those who really have contact with the people, have already walked out of the P.A.P. We know that the P.A.P. as an organisation is now incapable of rendering maximum relief for the victims of fire or other disasters. Very often, Sir, for anyone to be really able to rally the people to help those victims of natural disasters, one must have the confidence and support of the people, otherwise it is often difficult for him to obtain the maximum response from the people. And for the P.A.P. to try and prevent the elected representatives of the people from participating in relief work, especially in their own constituencies, is, to say the least, utterly contemptible. I wish to urge the P.A.P. Government not to play party politics with the sufferings of human beings. Do not try to monopolise relief work in an attempt to bluff the people. It is useless for the P.A.P. Government to try to bluff the people. We all know exactly what the P.A.P. Government is today. I wish to urge the P.A.P. Government not to grudge other organisations playing their part in helping the people. Where the welfare of the people is concerned, we must all co-operate to do our best. 8.10 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I thought the Member for Havelock would criticise or blame the Government for not doing enough for the victims in this fire. But instead he comes to this Chamber and cries that the Barisan Sosialis is again being denied another opportunity to exploit human sufferings. Mr Speaker, Sir, you can imagine that in a fire the victims themselves are very anxious to retrieve whatever they can at that moment. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is only fair that the police will prevent those who are not affected, other than the Social Welfare Department and those who are assisting in the fire fighting, from moving in or around the vicinity. In fact, in past experience, fire fighting was hampered because an unnecessary and undue number of persons were allowed to mingle at the fire site. But the most important thing is this, Mr Speaker. There are unscrupulous persons around and they often cash in and loot the properties of the poor victims. With regard to a police permit to collect funds, here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very simple. Anyone who wants to assist in collecting funds to relieve the fire victims can apply to the Social Services Council. The Social Services Council is the proper authority in the State of Singapore which has been recognised for giving relief to fire victims. If the Member for Havelock had been sincere in wanting to help the poor and unfortunate fire victims and not to exploit them, he could have just simply approached the Singapore Social Services Council and they would have helped him with the necessary receipts and he could have collected whatever amount he could to help the poor unfortunate fire victims. But he had no intention to do this. What he wanted was to get a permit in order that his Party could put up the Barisan Star and they could go about and mix around with the fire victims and hamper the relief work rather than assist the Welfare Department in relieving the fire victims. On the question of collections, the Social Welfare Department has on various occasions received complaints from the public that funds have been mishandled and that there has been a criminal breach of trust. If the Member for Havelock wants it, I can show him all the complaints. They have been referred to the Police Department for investigation. Therefore, in order that no unscrupulous person can cash in on these occasions, we have therefore decided that only persons who really want to help can obtain permission from the Social Services Council and, with their receipts, they can go round to collect money. Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of this House, the Government had done what it could for the unfortunate fire victims in Eu Tong Sen Street. In this fire there were 32 families affected and they totalled 150 persons. All these persons have been given the necessary financial assistance. They have all been offered accommodation by the Housing Board and they are now being accommodated in: Tiong Bahru - 11 families: Old Kallang Airport - 3 families; Delta/Ganges - 6 families; Bukit Ho Swee 3 - families. Therefore, as far as the victims are concerned, the Government have looked after them properly and did what could be done. There is therefore no cause for complaint by the Member for Havelock. The Opposition complaint this evening is that they were not given an opportunity to exploit another misfortune for their own political purposes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not our asking to exploit anybody at any time. In fact, on that particular evening when the fire broke out in the Havelock constituency, we went along to the Havelock Community Centre and there we saw P.A.P. members with arm-bands lined up right inside the Centre. Now the P.A.P. have always wanted to tell people that politics should not be brought in. Yet on this particular occasion they were all there with arm-bands showing the people that only the P.A.P. were doing good work for the people. We are not saying that they have not done anything for the fire victims. We know that they have -

That is good.

- but what we want and to point out is this. What they have done is not enough. They are preventing other people from doing more to help the fire victims. Why should they prevent other people from helping? That is the point. An hon. Member: Because you are in the Barisan Sosialis!

And I want to bring up this very important point. Nowadays, there is always one law for the P.A.P. and one law for the non-P.A.P. I think I can relate the instance of my being charged in court. I was fined $40 on that occasion simply because - An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Yes, and I am glad I was fined because the people in Singapore now know that there is one law for the P.A.P. and one law for other people. Sir, I might just add a few words on this. I was merely doing the very same thing which we had all the time been doing in the P.A.P., not only in my constituency but in other branches as well. On one occasion, the Prime Minister himself was addressing the crowd. The same loudspeaker system was put outside the premises. The police never dared murmur a single word. There were no complaints. They never dared take action. On another occasion, the Minister for Culture was directed there by the police. Fully conversant with the whole process of the law, knowing full well that the loudspeaker system was also put outside the building and that they were private meetings which could have been construed to be public meetings by the police, the police nevertheless never dared raise a finger. An hon. Member: But you were in the Party.

They never complained and, of course, they would not dare proceed with a court action. But see what has happened now that we are no more in the P.A.P.! An hon. Member: You were attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Not so very long ago during the fire in Bukit Ho Swee a great number of organisations had helped. Now just because we happen to be no more in the P.A.P. we cannot help. It was the same story with the fire in Siglap. Why are we not allowed to help? Why cannot the fire victims get a chance to receive more aid as a result of other people coming in to help? Is the offer of aid a monopoly of the P.A.P.? Do they have to monopolise everything?

Send your $500 to the social welfare. We will give you a medal for it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour talked about the Barisan Sosialis star. What is all this talk about political differences when we are trying to help? As the Member for Havelock has just mentioned, "Do not play party politics where the suffering of the people is concerned." Make sure that everyone of us can put in his little bit of effort. That is the main thing. We want to help to make sure that the victims get a fair share - not just a share - of whatever help they can get from all sources. By the P.A.P. Government monopolising all the work they are only making sure that the fire victims will not get the maximum help that is available.

We will give you a receipt. Sir, that is an astonishing remark from the Member for Queenstown. The complaint Is not that the fire victims have not been looked after but that -

They have not got the maximum possible help.

- had only the Barisan Sosialis been allowed to go around with the "Red Star" of the Barisan, they might either have exhorted or otherwise persuaded people to part with their money and more might have been given. Sir, nobody was going to stop them from doing humanitarian work.

The police.

No, I think the Member for Nee Soon did not listen to the Parliamentary Secretary.

On a point of clarification.

Let me finish. All that was required was, go to the Social Welfare Department, clear with the Council for Social Welfare the receipts that you were going to issue.

Order. I do not think I was doing any collection, Mr Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has forgotten the Chair.

I was speaking figuratively, Sir. All they need have done was to collect the proper receipts so that there would be a proper accounting of the money. After all, only recently we had a lot of fuss and bother about stolen furniture, sewing machines and all the rest of it. We know that Members opposite are men not beneath making a claim outside court, but when they arrive in court they are afraid to substantiate on oath. The best thing is to ensure that there is proper accounting. Now, the point of elucidation. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

In fact, the refusal of the permit came from the police. I wrote officially to the Superintendent of the C.I.D. and was advised by the Officer in charge of the Central Police Station. The reply from the Superintendent of the C.I.D. was: 'A licence under the house to house and street collection Ordinance cannot be granted as it is against standing policy.'

It is against standing policy to allow any Assemblyman or any political Party for some genuine or bogus cause to go from house to house with a receipt of that political Party. We have had enough experience of all this. An hon. Member: Yet you did it before.

That was the time when the Government was inept and stupid enough not first to have carried out its duties as a Government to ensure adequate relief for fire victims, and, second, to be stupid enough to allow political competition to do relief.

There you are - an admission of political competition.

That is the whole issue. When a big fire took place in Bukit Ho Swee, the Member for Queenstown was there. So was I and so were lots of other people. As I have said, Sir, we have the supreme advantage of having jointly done all kinds of public acts. As I have said, one was tied up, put in a suitcase and locked up. Then after a while, hey presto, the suitcase was opened and the man came out free. The next time when he gets locked up. I am not quite sure whether he will come out free or not, but that is another matter. The point I want to make is this. Do not try the old tricks any more because they are known, and we know that to do these tricks you need certain props, and it is our duty, as a Government in full knowledge of how these confidence tricks are done, to prevent such operations from being foisted upon the people. [Interruption] What I am saying to the Member for Queenstown is that if the former Government was stupid enough to try and go into political competition for relief work, well this Government is not. The fire that took place in Bukit Ho Swee was of great magnitude. Of course, there was a genuine well of sympathy and of course there were a lot of C.P, elements running around - the Rural Dwellers' Association, the Country People's Association, the Old Boys' Associations. An hon. Member: Old Girls.

Not yet old girls. The masculine includes the feminine, and equality of sexes has been going on for so long in these sectors that they have not bothered about setting up special organisations for Old Girls' Associations. But having had that experience, we ensured that there was a channelisation for maximum benefits -

To the P.A.P.

- to the people. The P.A.P. did not get one single dollar of the nearly $700,000 or $800,000 that was collected for the Bukit Ho Swee fire victims. They were all rehoused at public expense. It was not the P.A.P.'s money. We gave whatever was received.

You hoped to get their goodwill.

We discharged our duty effectively and efficiently as a Government, as is the bounden duty of any government. It is also the duty of any government to prevent the exploitation of public misery, be it on a small or on a large scale, be it in the name of an Assemblyman or in the name of a political Party, or of the Rural Dwellers' Association, the Country People's Association or the Old Boys' Associations be it Communist or non-Communist. There will be no exploitation of public misery as long as there is an efficient government to ensure that public misery is dealt with on a proper and national basis. Sir, the last point I think worth making and one upon which perhaps the Member for Havelock could well ponder. His complaint really amounts to this. Either through a lack of alacrity or for some other reason he was absent at the moment of the calamity. He therefore came under some kind of criticism for not having evinced the right kind of sympathetic public spiritedness required of an Assemblyman. So he has to make some noise. We sympathise with him and we have given him ample opportunity to make the necessary kind of noise. But it is his misfortune for having made the noise in the wrong way. Nobody is getting any benefit out of the noise he is making today other than he himself. The fire victims are not going to get one cent more from him. In fact, as I have said, the Council for Social Welfare receipts are waiting in the C.P.A. Room and a collection is ready to be had from all the 13 Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis - An hon. Member: Not one cent.

- each of whom is entitled to $500 per month tax free. If there is any sincerity about all this and if they really want to help, we have proper receipts to ensure proper collection and proper distribution and we take no credit for it. All credit goes to the giver. It is as simple as that. The test is, are they prepared to cough up? Or is it their intention to go around, exploit public misery, shake a can in the public face either by social blackmail or other means of persuasion or coercion, extract lucre out of the people, part of which may go to the victims and part of which may not? The Parliamentary Secretary is quite prepared to recite all those instances where the police have more than a suspicion that large sums collected never went to the victims. As I have said, when dealing with people who are not above pocketing what does not belong to them, one has to be very careful in these matters. The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half-past Eight p.m.) having arrived, Mr Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.