Hansard, 1962-03-16

The following Member has, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Education - from 29th March to 2nd May, 1962.

asked the Minister for Finance what is the position with reference to Government accommodation available for Revenue Officers and Marine Staff of the Customs and Excise Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Customs and Excise Department there are at present 376 Revenue officers of all grades and 115 Marine Staff. Under their terms of service, the Revenue Officers may be required to reside in institutional quarters, and 207 of them are occupying Government quarters. Although the terms of service of the Marine Staff do not require them to stay in institutional quarters, 58 of them are, however, occupying quarters. The remaining 56 quarters Out of a total of 321 under the control of the Customs and Excise Department are occupied by other grades.

Would the Minister indicate whether any assistance would be given by Government, or any contemplated provision by Government, for increasing the accommodation for both the Revenue Officers and the Marine Staff?

Expansion of quarters is being provided for in the State Development Plan. This year another 24 Division III quarters would be built for the accommodation of Revenue Officers, and another 32 quarters next year.

asked the Minister for Finance whether it is the Government's intention to table (a) the Schereschewsky Report on Steel Mills and (b) the Winsemius Report on Industrial Development, and when will they be tabled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the intention of the Government to publish these two Reports. Both Reports were made to the Government on a confidential basis and cannot be published without the consent of the U.N, agencies to which the experts belong. The Schereschewsky Mission made recommendations on the establishment of a steel industry in Singapore which could be carried out in three phases. The first phase is to start immediately. The second phase is to be implemented when conditions are favourable and after certain technical studies have been completed. No time has been lost in carrying out the recommendations of the steel mission in respect of the first phase. The steel plant is in the course of establishment at Jurong. The Winsemius Mission made recommendations on the establishment of certain specific industries in various fields. In addition, they made recommendations on general economic policy as well as a review on present potential strength and sources and weaknesses. The expert missions sent by the United Nations are of value only if they are able to make recommendations to the best of their judgement and ability. They must not be inhibited by any possibility that their analysis of the problem and recommendations as to solutions would be the subject of public political controversy. For this reason the Government cannot publish the Reports of the two expert missions. The technical details of the Winsemius Report, such as the type of industries that could be established, the scale of plant, manufacturing processes suitable to Singapore, and other technical details are being made available to investors who are contemplating setting up a factory in Singapore. This work is carried out by the Economic Development Board.

The Minister seems to have given two reasons. I do not know whether they are exclusive or supplementary. Do I understand that the Report is not confidential to the Singapore Government but confidential to the United Nations agency which made it? Or do I understand that, in fact, the reason is that it is a policy of the Singapore Government not to make public reports by United Nations agencies? If it is the second, is the Minister aware that there has been publication of United Nations agencies' reports on other topics?

Basically it is a decision of the Singapore Government not to publish this Report. If we decided to publish them or if we wanted to publish them, we would have to obtain the agreement of the United Nations. They may or may not have any objections, but we have never reached that stage because no such application has been made. Reports of United Nations missions that have been published are generally studies made by experts in broad fields where either no issues arise which could lead to public or political controversy, or else do not contain information or data or policy guidance which would be in the interests of the Government concerned to keep confidential at least for the time being.

Does the Minister not consider that it would be helpful to inform interested industrialists of the contents of this Report by making it available so that they should know the data and the position as indicated by an impartial world body?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said in my reply, technical data on industries and economic appraisals on potential development are being made available to industries. But broad recommendations on policies or strategies that the Government should follow - that part of it we should keep confidential.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has made reference to the steel plant that will soon be coming up. Can the Minister please inform this House of the extent of aid which the Government has granted to this steel plant, in terms of percentage of capital?

We are assisting the plant in two ways. First, by speeding up work at the Jurong sindustrial site. It is a pity the Member for Cairnhill was not in the party that visited the site last Sunday, but the Member for Anson was, and he could testify that work is being vigorously carried out to level the site and make it ready for occupation. The second way is by share participation. This is not done by the Government directly but by the Economic Development Board and, subject, of course, to correction, my recollection is that the Economic Development Board is participating to the extent of 20 per cent of the total paid-up capital.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether Government will consider introducing legislation in this Session (a) to counterbalance, for the protection of dependants, the complete freedom of disposal of estates by Will; and (b) to meet the position whereby part of an intestate's estates is taken by the State where the deceased leaves only a widow and no next-of-kin.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Bills to curtail the complete freedom of disposal of estates by Will by making statutory provision for the protection of the families and dependants of deceased status, and to make changes in the law regulating intestates' succession and the right of the State to bona vacantia where the deceased leaves only a widow with no next-of-kin, have been drafted and have been sent to the Singapore Bar Committee for their comments. These Bills will be introduced in the Legislative Assembly after the views of the Singapore Bar Committee have been obtained. But I cannot assure the House that these Bills will be introduced during this Session.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether Government has any plans for implementation of the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 1956, for legal assistance in criminal matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. It is not considered that the time is opportune for the implementation of the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance, 1956, for legal assistance in criminal matters. The need at the moment is for the raising of the standard of prosecution in criminal cases. No request has been received from the Singapore Bar Committee for the implementation of the provisions of the Ordinance for legal assistance in criminal cases.

Does the Minister really consider it necessary that the Bar Committee, the economics of whose individual members would be affected by the implementation, would seek implementation of those provisions? Is he going to wait till the Bar Committee asks for the implementation of the provisions of Part II which were passed six years ago?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not really a case of our waiting for a request from the Singapore Bar Committee. I know that a prosperous lawyer with a lucrative practice like the Member for Anson is not interested in the workings of the Legal Aid Bureau. But there are other counsel who are prepared to accept briefs from the Legal Aid Bureau. So I think it is unfair to insinuate that the reason why the Bar Committee has made no request for the implementation of the extension of the Ordinance to criminal cases is that it has vested interest in not making this application.

I am asking the Minister: will he indicate the reason why provisions which were passed six years ago are not considered appropriate for implementation today?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was prepared for this question. Under the provisions of the Ordinance regarding legal aid assistance in criminal cases which are not in force, a Judge is obliged to grant free legal aid if he is satisfied that the applicant is without adequate means and that it is in the interests of justice that he should be assisted. It is also provided that any doubts with regard to these matters must be resolved in favour of the applicant. The system also provides for legal assistance in bringing appeals against convictions, and in resisting appeals brought by the Public Prosecutor. Excluding the State Advocate-General and the Solicitor-General, there are 10 Crown Counsel fully employed in the State Advocate-General's Chambers in criminal work, and 5 legal officers in the Legal Aid Department to deal with purely civil matters. If the State were to provide for what amounts to free legal aid in nearly all criminal cases by virtue of that presumption which I have referred to, Mr Speaker, Sir, the size of the Legal Aid Department would have to be expanded considerably, and the State would he obliged, in effect, to undertake the defence of all those whom it prosecutes. A substantial amount of the work in the Lower Criminal Courts is concerned with private prosecutions for offences against the Penal Code and the Minor Offences Ordinance for which no assistance is provided by the State. If legal aid were to be extended to criminal cases, these cases could also be brought and defended at public expense. At present free legal assistance is granted to all persons accused of capital offences. The duty of Government should be to improve the standard of prosecution before introducing legal aid in criminal cases. There is provision in the Estimates for the recruitment of an experienced officer to undertake the prosecution of more important criminal cases so that we can have a prosecutor to match the Member for Anson. But up to date we have not been able to get a suitable person to fill this appointment.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted for your indulgence. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would not consider, in the light of the number of graduates now being turned out by the Faculty of Law of the University of Singapore, whether this is in fact an appropriate time to consider the implementation of provisions which would, it is true, require the enlargement of both the State Advocate-General's Chambers and the free Legal Aid Department.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this will take time. These graduates are very junior. They have to be trained in the work. I think when the time is opportune - it may not be within this Session - we will be able to do something in that direction.

asked the Minister for Health and Law what is the number of staff nurses who have left Government Service since 1st June, 1959, and the general reason therefor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total number of staff and student nurses who have left the service since 1st June, 1959, is 228. They resigned for the following reasons:- 26 resigned on marriage; 52 left to go to the United Kingdom; 49 returned to their families in the Federation; 29 went on oversea study courses and resigned when they were either in England or Australia; 22 resigned for personal reasons; 10 to improve their prospects; 1 died; 7 were medically boarded out of the service; 10 went abroad to Borneo, Jesselton and Japan to settle down there, and 22 gave no reasons for leaving the service. In the same period, 617 student nurses and staff nurses were recruited. The approved number of posts for staff nurses and student nurses as at February, 1962, is 1,319. The actual strength is 1,060, leaving 259 vacancies still to be filled.

I would ask the Minister whether the number given of 228 is abnormal, and if so, whether the rate of remuneration is more favourable in the Federation, thereby attracting our nurses to the Federation service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that the rate of remuneration was better in the Federation until recently when the variable allowance was restored. The position has reversed since. The terms of employment are better now in Singapore than they are in the Federation. Those who left the service to go back to the Federation did so for family reasons. They wished to join their families there.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he would make a statement as to the retention of remuneration by Medical Practitioners in Government Service in respect of private consultations and operations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Government medical officers and specialists do not retain consultation fees or operation fees. Consultation fees and operation fees earned by Government medical officers are paid to revenue. A consultation fee is $25, but is $35 if a consultant has to make a home visit. Operation fees ranged from $25 to $500, and the fee payable depends on the nature of the operation and the accommodation provided to the patient. In lieu of the fees previously earned by Government medical officers, Government specialists are paid specialist allowances. These specialist allowances vary from $200 to $500 according to the grade of specialist post the officer holds and whether the appointment is a clinical or an administrative one. Certain miscellaneous fees earned by Government medical officers, such as attendance at court, preparation of medical reports and medical certification of workmen's compensation claims, may be retained by Government medical officers up to a maximum of $250 a month. Anything above this is paid to Government revenue. The fees charged for attendance at court are based on a schedule of charges approved by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. These fees are applied to the High Court but are used as a guide by Heads of Departments for determining fees for the lower courts.

I would inquire whether the Minister would consider giving these specialists the incentive of retaining or receiving part of the fee, because most of the consultations are done outside their normal time in addition to their very heavy work. Does the Minister not consider that an incentive would be helpful in respect of private work from which Government benefit financially?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there was a lot of abuse with regard to these consultation and operation fees prior to 1958, and as a result a Committee was appointed to look into the whole question. A new procedure has been evolved whereby clinical specialists get a higher allowance in lieu of fees, and non-clinical specialists get a lower allowance, and yet a lower allowance for administrative medical officers. This system has been operating well, and in view of our past experience, it would be most in-advisable to reintroduce conditions which led to such abuse before.

Do I understand the Minister then to indicate that, in fact, the specialists are satisfied with these new terms and, if not, would he be prepared to consider representations?

Up to date I have inquired into the position and I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with these specialist allowances. As far as specialists employed by the University are concerned, they have the option of either receiving consultation fees, as Government medical officers did before, or, if not, negotiating separately with the University for a higher pay. The provisions of the Government circular with regard to specialist allowances do not apply to specialist medical officers employed on teaching work in the University.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of persons who, to the knowledge of the police, have complained of police brutality since 1st June, 1959; and (b) whether he would consider making arrangements that, in cases of such complaints, the complainants should be given an early opportunity to identify the alleged assailants and to make a note of their names and ranks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been 268 cases of complaints of assault by police officers since 1st June, 1959. Of this number, the vast majority, that is, a total of 205 cases, were completely unsubstantiated. They include cases where complaints were investigated and found to be completely false and malicious, and cases which were subsequently withdrawn by the complainants. Of the other 63 cases, 34 cases resulted in appropriate disciplinary action taken against the officers concerned. In seven of the cases, the officers found guilty were dismissed or discharged from the Force. Nine cases resulted in court summonses issued against the officers concerned. In three cases the summonses were subsequently withdrawn, and in three cases the officers charged were acquitted by the court. The balance of 20 cases are still under investigation. With regard to the second part of the question, it has been the practice for the police to afford complainants every opportunity of identifying their alleged assailants in all cases where the cornplainants have stated that they either could or might be able to identify them. Where any police officer has been so identified, there is no objection to his name and rank being supplied to the complainants concerned for the purpose of instituting court action where required.

Do I understand the Minister to give us an assurance that, in fact, at every such identification parade the name of the officer identified will be given to the complainant?

Yes, it will be supplied.

Would the Minister consider whether it is appropriate for complaints against police officers to be investigated by some separate body rather than by the police themselves?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a question which I have been toying for the last two and a half years. In view of the fact that the police is a disciplined force, professional advice is that it is most unwise to do so.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he has received an application from the Saturday Post, a Malayan weekly, for circulation in Singapore, and what action he has taken or proposes to take thereon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an application was received on 24th January, 1962, from Mr James S. David of Kuala Lumpur for a permit for the distribution in Singapore of the Saturday Post. Mr David has been informed that the application could not be approved.

Would the Minister care to enlighten us on the reasons for the refusal of a permit to circulate in Singapore a publication that is accepted in the Federation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the application was refused because of the background of the applicant and the scurrilous nature of the previous Saturday Post in the past.

Has the Minister read the Saturday Post of the present, and would be reconsider his decision?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been reading the Saturday Post since it reappeared, and I would say that there is not only no reason to reverse decision but I think it is most justified that the permit should not be issued.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will consider making study grants in the field of legal education to police officers showing special aptitude for conducting prosecutions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a post of Legal Officer was created in the Police Force in the 1961 Estimates with the duty, among others, of giving advanced training in law to prospective police prosecuting officers. A legal officer was seconded from the State Advocate-General's Chambers to fill this post in May 1961. But as a result of an acute shortage of legal officers, it became necessary recently for the secondment to be terminated temporarily. We hope, however, to fill the post in the near future.

In the light of the statement made by the Minister for Law of the importance of strengthening the prosecution aspect, would the Minister for Home Affairs consider granting leave and assistance for officers who show special aptitude to study at the Faculty of Law at the University of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we shall consider this suggestion.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many of the detainees referred to in the Statement submitted by the Singapore Government to the Internal Security Council dated 12th August, 1959, and tabled in this Assembly on 20th July, 1961, are still under detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, of the 61 persons under detention at the time when the P.A.P took office, 17 are still under detention.

I would refer the Minister to the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister and ask whether of the 18 he then referred to as being still under detention and who were to be released forthwith, there are, in fact, still 17. May I expand it, Mr Speaker, since he does not perhaps remember?

Order. There is Standing Order No. 19 (1) (d) which reads: `a question shall not refer to debates or answers to questions in the current session;'. I do not know whether this refers to a debate or an answer in the current session.

No, Sir. It was in 1961, a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that there were 18 detainees left from the Government's two purges, and his words were: `Notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council, the Singapore Government will issue orders for the release of the detainees in hatches from time to time in accordance with the original proposal of the Singapore Government...'. I did refer to it in my question in Hansard, col.1683.

In the previous Session?

That is so, Sir.

Will the Minister accord the Member a reply?

I shall inform the Member for Anson in due course.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Home Affairs tell this House how many of these detainees are ex-officials of the P.A.P. and how many of them have supported the P.A.P. before?

Mr Speaker, I am unable to recollect offhand, but I do know at least one who was an expelled member of the P.A.P.

Would the Minister inform the House why there should still be so many detained by the Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised that the Member for Queenstown still fails to understand the constitutional set-up of Singapore. He should know by now that there is an Internal Security Council consisting of three parties, and that although it is the Government's intention to release by batches all those detainees detained by the former Government, consent from the other two parties is necessary. We may advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to release the detainees, but it is up to the other parties to give their consent as well.

Has any attempt been made to get these people released?

Mr Speaker, Sir, although I cannot recollect offhand how many have been released. I can assure the Member for Queenstown that not less than three batches have been released since the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement in the last Session of the Assembly.

Does the Minister mean to say that in three batches the Government has released only one detainee? Because the figure given in 1960 was 18, and now the figure given to us is 17. Only one person has been released in three batches.

Unfortunately I do not have the copy of the statement referred to, so I am not in a position to know what this figure 18 referred to. But as far as I could recollect, not less than five have been released. In fact, I would imagine more than five were released since the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement in the last Session.

I wonder if you will permit me, Sir, to help the Minister with the figures given by the Deputy Prime Minister. If it will please you, Sir, I would like to ask this question. Do we understand that despite the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister that, notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council, the Government will issue orders for the release of the detainees in batches, there has, in fact, been no attempt to obtain their release against the wishes of the British Government?

Mr Speaker, Sir, far from it. In the last few releases, the Government in fact, made the decision first. If the Member for Anson will only read the statements that were released by the Internal Security Council, I think he will get the meaning there.

I will allow one more question. Dr Lee.

How much longer does the Government intend to keep the other detainees in, and if it is not an inhumanitarian act to keep detainees for longer than five years without trial?

It is a matter of opinion. Mr David Marshall.

asked the Minister for Education whether persons trained as teachers for Primary Schools are teaching in `Government Secondary Schools, and what is the number of such persons.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to answer the question as put by the Member for Anson whether persons trained as teachers for primary schools are teaching in Government secondary schools, a short answer would be "no". But I think that would not be a fair answer. So may I explain a little for the information of the Member for Anson? Persons wishing to take up teaching as a career are expected to have certain basic educational qualifications. After appointment, they are expected to undergo a training course at the Teachers' Training College and thus become trained teachers. Persons so trained at the T.T.C. are not classified as being either trained for primary schools or being trained for secondary schools. They are just trained teachers. As a general rule, however, if College or University graduates are available they will be posted to teach in secondary schools. Out of a total of 1,740 teachers in secondary schools, excluding those in full schools - I may also explain that a "full" school means an elementary and secondary school combined into one, and they do not supply figures as to how many are in the primary section and how many in the secondary section - more than 1,098 are in Government secondary schools as at 30th of September last year. Those are the last available statistics.

Do I understand the Minister to say then, in fact, that there is no such thing as a primary school teacher trained to teach in primary schools? Is that correct?

I have explained that we do not call them trained primary teachers. They are teachers posted to primary schools or teachers posted to secondary schools.

asked the Minister for National Development whether and to what extent arrangements are being made for the export of monkeys from the Botanic Gardens, and the reasons therefor.

Sir, there are no arrangements for the export of monkeys from the Botanic Gardens. All the monkeys exported from Singapore are not of Singapore origin and have come in from either the Federation of Malaya or Indonesia.

Am I to understand from the Minister that, in fact, the monkeys in the Botanic Gardens are not being trapped and removed from the State?

Sir, that is an entirely different question. He asks whether -

It is a different question. Notice is required for that question. Mr David Marshall.

Sir, what is the difference between exporting -

It is a different question. Notice is required.

May I explain?

Yes.

The Member asked about arrangements made for the export of monkeys. He did not ask whether they were trapped.

Could the Minister assist us in telling us whether, in fact, (1) there are monkeys from the Botanic Gardens being officially trapped: and (2) whether they are being sent out of the State?

Sir, there are monkeys being trapped in the Botanic Gardens because they are pests and they are not trapped for export purposes.

Are they being sent out of the State? Would the Minister please tell us?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he intends to seek action either criminal or civil in respect of those responsible for the design and supervision of the construction of the gable wall which recently collapsed in Block 91 Kallang Airport Flats, and for the cost of remedying similar defects in respect of other walls.

Sir, the contract in respect of these blocks was completed in 1958 and the six months' maintenance period during which the contractor could have been held responsible for defects has expired. It will, therefore, not be feasible to take legal action against the contractor. However, this contractor is now being debarred from doing any work for the City Council and the Housing and Development Board for a period of five years. The architect in charge of the project left the service of the S.I.T. at the end of 1959 and it is not considered practical to take legal action against him in a case of this nature. The estimated cost of remedying the defect in respect of the 12 similar blocks that are affected is $96,000. Tenders have been called contractors selected and remedial work will be taken within the next few days.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [14th March, 1962], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 3.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday at the moment of interruption I was developing the point, made in passing by the Member for Farrer Park, that the full requirements of parliamentary democracy would be completely satisfied if the Government were to proceed with merger and complete the constitutional arrangements for it with the Government of the Federation without further ado and without submitting the matter to a referendum. On the issue of merger, this holds particularly true as this Government was elected on a platform in which merger with the Federation was a basic issue. We are therefore completely justified if we proceed forthwith with merger arrangements. Indeed it has been represented to my colleagues and to me that we should do so. The people have asked, "Why have a referendum at all when the Government was elected with a full mandate for merger?" Though in constitutional principle our position would be unassailable if we proceeded in this manner, politically such a move is unsound. The reason is that we would then be evading the challenge mounted by the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis who claim that the people are against merger. It must, therefore, be demonstrated beyond all doubt that the majority of the people want merger and it must be shown that the efforts of the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis to fight merger will come to nought. We cannot evade the challenge of the Communists on this vital issue. The Member for Farrer Park referred to the under-currents which he detected in the course of the debate between the Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the Members of the P.A.P. He was puzzled by these under-currents. I shall refer to this at a later stage because it is important that the whole position should be fully explained both to this Assembly and to the public at large. First, I want to deal with some issues raised by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. There are two points of some importance. I will not deal with the trivial and carping criticisms of various clauses of the Bill. These will be disposed of in the Committee stage or in the final address by my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs. The first point relates to the interval of time between the issue of the referendum notice and the actual holding of the referendum itself. Members of the Barisan Sosialis have said that the period allowed is short. They want a long referendum campaign. Everybody knows that this referendum will be on merger, and merger has been the outstanding political issue before the country, even many months before the publication of the White Paper which was debated in this Assembly last November. In fact, merger was the issue on which the Communists decided to part company with the P.A.P. We wanted merger and they opposed it for reasons of their own physical survival. So for nearly a year now since the Communists parted company with us, the issue of merger has been put before the electorate. In other words, the political campaign on the issue on which a referendum is to take place has been running for nearly one year. This being the case, the argument that a referendum campaign is unduly restricted in time is sheer nonsense. The second point relates to blank and uncertain ballot papers. The Government view is that such ballot papers should be considered to indicate a state of mind in which the voter himself is undecided and will therefore be content to leave the issue to be decided in a manner in which the elected representatives in the Assembly had already decided. Some Members complain that this is undemocratic, since there is no precedent for a procedure of this kind in the referendum practice of other countries. This does not prevent the same hon. Members from making a proposal which itself has no precedent in the referendum laws of the countries they mention. That is to say, they want Opposition Members to have a voice in the framing of the questions submitted to the referendum. The detailed arrangements of the referendum are a matter for the Government and not for the Opposition in Singapore as in other countries. Now why was the clause on blank ballot papers introduced? The reason does not rest on any constitutional or legal principle. This clause is necessary to safeguard against the possibility of abuse of the referendum by the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. Let me explain what I mean by this. These persons have been campaigning against merger ever since the idea was mooted at the Anson by-election. The Communists know that they cannot oppose merger because it is historically inevitable and is in accordance with the wishes of the people. So they try to confuse the people by saying that they want more merger than the P.A.P. They resort to all manner of deceit and duplicity in their public statements, at mass rallies and in the newspapers. The lies that they have spread in their propaganda campaign are now coming home to roost on them as the Government is tracking down each one of them and explaining to the public the malicious falsehoods of the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. The position of the Communists on the merger issue is a completely false one. They are opposed to merger but they pretend that they want more merger than the P.A.P. They have therefore not been able to get people to oppose merger or to get excited over the P.A.P. merger proposals. The series of mass meetings that they have been carrying on for the last five or six months to fight merger has been a series of complete flops.

Order. Can the Minister indicate how this particular part of his speech has any reference to the general merits and principle of the Bill?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am trying to explain why the clause on blank votes is necessary. It is because of the Government's anticipation of what the Communists will do during referendum week. The Communists have succeeded to some small extent in confusing some people. We expect that, during the referendum campaign proper, they will try to mount a sharp and intensive effort in confusing the minds of the voters, and their capacity to do so is quite considerable. We have never under-estimated the strength of their ground propaganda organisation. This last-minute campaign which they will mount will not succeed in bringing the majority of voters against merger, but it may confuse many people to such an extent that they may easily be led into thinking that the best course of action for them is to send in a blank paper since they are uncertain of the merits or demerits of the issues placed before them. They will certainly be encouraged by the Communists to do so, and then the Communists will claim that this blank paper shows support for the anti-merger campaign. The truth, of course, is that it shows nothing of the sort. It merely shows that the people who send in blank ballot papers are reduced to a state of indecision and that they are unable to make up their minds. This being the case, it logically follows that they are prepared to accept the decision which their elected representatives in the Assembly had made on the main merger issue. There is nothing morally wrong or constitutionally wrong in this treatment of blank papers. It closes a vital loophole which the Communists can exploit. Now the Member for Nee Soon, in this connection, stated that if a person were to draw an obscene marking on a ballot paper, it would be wrong to count this as support for the Government. I heartily agree with him. The remedy is for him to propose an amendment whereby obscene markings on ballot papers can be considered as support for the Barisan Sosialis' point of view. Should he proceed with this amendment, I would be gratified if he would indicate just what kind of obscene symbol he considers most appropriate to the Bansan Sosialis anti-merger point of view. The Deputy Prime Minister pointed out yesterday the differences between a referendum and a general election. He pointed that in general the issues before a referendum are such that a decision one way or another cannot be construed as victory or defeat for the Government and, consequently, the Government does not resign on the result of a referendum. He has quoted examples - New Zealand and the West Indies. This remark has been distorted by the Barisan Sosialis in the most mischievous way. They say that the Government has stated that one of the reasons why they wished to resign after Hong Lim was that the prospects of merger and the possibility of solving the basic problems of Singapore were then remote. Consequently they claim that the Government should resign when the referendum on merger is lost. They even went further to insinuate that the Government has lost confidence in itself and that we are merely trying to hang on to power at all costs.

How true!

This is a tireless repetition of a falsehood that will deceive nobody.

We can prove it too.

The people of Singapore do not believe that we achieve any personal benefit by staying on in power. Everybody knows -a nd this includes Members of the Opposition - that this is an incorruptible Government. [Interruption] I think we hear some asinine laughter across the Floor and I am not quite sure about the meaning of this laughter.

Corruption can be in many forms. Political corruption is one of them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we gave the Barisan Sosialis full opportunity to make allegations of corruption - nepotism or any form of mismanagement by this Government - provided they were prepared to repeat under oath the allegations they made under privilege in this House. What was the result, Sir? There was not a pip-squeak from these people. Let us have none of this nonsense. Everybody knows that this is an incorruptible Government. We do not make a cent through our official positions. Our only income is from the salaries we receive and these are declared in the annual Estimates. Most of us can earn much more outside our ministerial positions. We remain in office not for any personal benefit, nor do we relish the sensation of power as one ex-Chief Minister of Singapore has stated that that was what he wanted to enjoy. We remain in office to carry out the pledge we made to the electorate, that we will reunify Singapore with the mainland. This is the basic political objective of the nationalist movement, and as nationalists we see the great objective on the verge of realisation. So we shall see merger through. The Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis dread the moment of merger. What misfortunes merger will bring upon their heads is a matter that is now exercising their minds. The brightest among them have a pretty good idea of what lies ahead, and even the duffers are waking up to the fact that something has gone awry with their original expectations. Here, I return to the subject of the under-currents in this debate which have puzzled the Member for Farrer Park. The hon. Member is not a fool. In fact, he is, I understand, eminently successful in his profession, and this calls for some measure of ability. So if the Member for Farrer Park is puzzled, then it follows that many other people may be puzzled. It is important, therefore, that the position be clarified. One of the reasons why the Member for Farrer Park is unable to comprehend the position is that he takes too legalistic a view of what this Assembly stands for and what it does and how it should do it. The constitutional fiction is that this Assembly is a group of honourable Members elected by the people to deliberate on issues facing the country and to arrive at the wisest decision in the interests of all. So the Member for Farrer Park regards Members of this Assembly as a body of experts and laymen seriously addressing their minds to a legal document, i.e, the Bill before the House. He expected rational arguments, legal analysis and honest debates. When he found that this was not what was forthcoming, he was naturally puzzled. But if he will for one moment disregard the constitutional fiction which I have described and instead look upon the present proceedings in this House as another step in the fight between the nationalist forces wanting merger and the anti-nationalists - the anti-merger forces - represented by the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis, then the reason for the under-currents becomes obvious and very clear. The anti-nationalist forces fight merger to save their own skins. But, as I have explained before, they dare not oppose merger directly. Therefore, they have to resort to duplicity such as pretending they want more merger. Hence, the enormous output of double talk which may confuse people who accept what the Communists say at their face value. The simple fact of the matter is that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis have been fighting a losing battle against merger. They have tried to undermine the Government through all kinds of ways. I have already referred to Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in which they suffered ignominous defeat in each and every round. The Barisan Sosialis are now reduced to such a state that they suspect a trap in each and every move of the Government. The speech of the Member for Queenstown clearly shows his apprehensive state of mind. He sees poison even in the most innocuous clauses of the Bill. The Barisan Sosialis is now like a frightened dog that is afraid even of its own shadow. This explains the querulous, nervous and petulant approach to the Bill before the House. The Member for Farrer Park should, therefore, not be misled by the Barisan Sosialis.

Nor by the P.A.P.

He will have noted that the bouncing confidence of the early days when they spoke of the October Revolution has completely vanished, and we can hardly expect the position to be otherwise, for the Barisan Sosialis have blundered from one debacle to another. At the referendum that is to be held after this Bill is passed, we may see them make their last gamble, and thus plunge into the final cataclysm. 3.36 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in discussing the National Referendum Bill today, I propose to make four suggestions which are also my four hopes. I hope that the Government can at least show the minimum democratic spirit. The Minister for Finance has made two points about this, and I regret it. I would like to touch on the reason and motive of the Government in introducing this Bill. We all know that the reason for the Bill is that it is a development from the P.A.P. type of merger, because the P.A.P. type of merger has been strongly opposed by Opposition Parties in this House, in form, the P.A.P. type of merger has been approved by this House. The Minister for Finance made his speech on this Bill in a tone of regret. He also quoted the Member for Farrer Park who spoke yesterday, saying that the Member for Farrer Park had said that even without putting the question to the people in a referendum, the Government had the right to carry on with merger, since the Assembly had approved it. He also said that that showed the courage of the Government in the face of a Communist challenge. I would say that it is wrong, because as soon as the Government introduced the White Paper proposals on merger and asked for them to be approved in the Assembly, the Government were faced with criticism and pressure and opposition from all sides. The Government found it rather difficult to get the White Paper passed. That is why the Government have thought of a new method, by bringing up this Bill to inform the people and to let them make the final decision on this question. That is the motive for bringing up this Bill today, that is, to let the people decide whether they want the P.A.P. type of merger or whether they do not want it. Therefore, the Government should not ask the people too many questions. That is the true spirit of this Bill.

On a point of information, Sir. Miss Fung Yin Ching resumed her seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Member for Stamford whether she is afraid to be judged by the people, and whether she is afraid that the people will judge the Barisan type of merger.

(In Mandarin): Since the Prime Minister has asked me this question, I think he ought to answer it himself, because the Bill has been introduced to let the people decide on this question. It is not for the people to decide on other things. The main purpose of the Bill is to ask the people whether or not they want the P.A.P. type of merger, and the Prime Minister should not introduce other issues. Now that we can well understand the motive and spirit of this Bill, I would like to propose four suggestions, or four hopes. The first is that I hope the Government will respect the spirit and principle of this Bill. In other words, the Bill is for the purpose of letting the people decide whether or not they like the P.A.P. type of merger, and the question should not include any irrelevancies. If they try to include other matters irrelevant to the issue, then it will be contrary to the Bill, in other words, they will be trying to confuse the people, i.e., they will be making things difficult for the people, so that the people will find it difficult to choose. The second hope is that Government will withdraw one of the amendments introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs. The amendment says: `Any person whose ballot paper -

Order. The difficulty is the interpretation. I ask the Prime Minister not to interrupt if he can help it.

(In Mandarin): The Minister for Finance also says that any person who leaves his ballot paper unmarked or marks it in an uncertain manner shows that he cannot decide for himself and that he leaves it to the Government to decide. By his argument this type of ballot paper will count in favour of the Government. That will amount to two-thirds of the total votes cast. So for the sake of democracy - and I think the Prime Minister is very concerned about true democracy - I hope the Minister for Home Affairs will withdraw this amendment. My third hope is that the Government can specifically provide that the Opposition Parties be given every chance and freedom of campaigning and propaganda work, and canvassing, and be given facilities in their applications for permission to campaign. According to the Bill, seven days' notice should be given.

Order. I have reminded hon. Members that there has been a certain amount of repetition, and the hon. Lady is doing just that. She is repeating all the arguments that have already been advanced by the Opposition. If she has anything new to contribute, she may do so. But I suggest she should not repeat what has already been said. What she can do later on is to vote in favour of what has been said.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. But I feel that certain questions are important and rather inimical to us. That is why I find it necessary to stress this point. I did not like to analyse in detail. The fourth point is my last point. It is my last suggestion too. My colleagues have also touched on that, but I have something to stress. I hope the Government will give the Opposition Parties enough time to canvass, because, according to the provisions of the Bill, the seven day period is actually too short a time. I can give a very short example to show that this kind of provision is unreasonable.

Order. I would suggest to the hon. Lady that if she wants to give examples, she can do so in Committee when we come to deal with that clause.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that what I want to say is not much. If you will not allow me to continue, then I will make my speech during the Committee stage.

Order. It is not a question of not allowing the hon. Member to continue. I was suggesting that the hon. Member need not give examples now. 3.49 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the U.P.P, supports the Referendum Bill in principle. There are several undemocratic provisions in the Bill which could be fought out if the Bill goes to Select Committee. Sir, it is important to distinguish between these two issues. Firstly, the question to be put before the voter, and, secondly, the referendum machinery. We should not waste too much time in discussing the details of the Referendum Bill because that will only help the P.A.P, to confuse the people. The undemocratic provisions of the Referendum Bill can be fought out in Select Committee. We should put all our energies into pressing the Government to set up an All-Party Committee to decide on the question to be put before the people. The vital issue is, what is the question to be put before the people? If the people are asked by the Government to choose whether they like a rotten duck egg or a rotten chicken egg, what is the difference if the Opposition is allowed not one week to canvass but even one year to canvass? That is why my colleague, the Member for Hong Lim, has asked for two things. First, an All-Party meeting to decide on the question to be put before the people, and, second, the details of the Referendum Bill can be thrashed out in Select Committee. We can spend two weeks seeking publicity and, therefore, arguing on the details of the referendum machinery. But if it is the Government which decides the question to be put before the people for a vote, what is the use even if we have the most democratic machinery in the world? Are Members of the Opposition going to tell the people at mass meetings, over the radio and to the Press, and by house-to-house canvassing that they prefer a rotten chicken egg to a rotten duck egg? The only provision in the Referendum Bill which requires our present attention is the amendment pro posed by the Government to consider all people who abstain from voting for either a rotten duck egg or a rotten chicken egg as people who have voted for a rotten egg, just because the Government prefers a rotten duck egg. This is not only absurd but stupid. Sir, the Bill should be sent to Select Committee so that we do not help the P.A.P. to confuse the real issue. The real issue is, what is the question? 3.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before us is a Bill of vital importance. It is so important that it affects everyone living in the State. It affects the lives of the people in all fields, such as our economic problems, our labour problems, our educational problems and the problems of our national culture. This is the first point I want to make clear. This referendum is proposed for the people to decide whether they want the phoney merger proposed by the P.A.P. or the -

Order. I take it that the phoney merger referred to is the merger proposal accepted by this Assembly? If that is so, the hon. Member is completely out of order in calling the merger a phoney merger.

Sir, as I have said just now, this referendum is proposed for the people to decide whether they want merger or not. It is the same as the referendum. Merger affects everyone in Singapore.

Most of all the Communists!

It is therefore clear that a referendum is far more important than a general election, because in a general election, the people can elect a government and can overthrow it within five years. This is the second point I want to make clear. Sir, having made these two points clear, I shall now criticise the faults of the Bill. Since my comrades have touched on all the important points, I would like to stress certain important points for the people to know. Sir, as you know, in a general election, we have four to five weeks to canvass for votes and to campaign -

Why did you not start last year?

In the Hong Lim and Anson by-elections, the P.A.P. had seven weeks to canvass for votes, whereas in this national referendum, we are only allowed one week to explain to the people what is a national referendum. Sir, in addition to this, there are many restrictions imposed on us within this week. Sir, the P.A.P. leaders in their desperate mood, still think this is not enough. They add another new clause. That is New Clause (A) to be inserted after clause 28. Sir, this new clause says: `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 Legislative Assembly...'. Sir, the words "Legislative Assembly" mean the P.A.P. Government.

Why do you want to question?

Order. I trust the hon. Member for Changi is not now embarking on a repetition of an argument which has been made by every speaker of his Party so far.

Mr Speaker, to me this is very important.

Order. I think every Member in this Assembly realises how important it is to the Barisan Sosialis as well as to other Members of the Opposition. But the point has been made, and it is up to the hon. Member to vote against that clause when we deal with it in Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a blank cheque is not valid. Therefore, a blank ballot paper must be declared null and void. But the P.A.P. Government says that such a ballot paper must be deemed -

Order. I would ask the hon. Member to turn his page.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the general election I saw one ballot paper on which these words were written: "Down with the Lim Yew Hock Government." That ballot was put aside and cancelled. Suppose if such things happen again, the people write -

Order. I will read Standing Order 54 once again: `The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.' I do not intend at the moment to ask the hon. Member to discontinue his speech. But I ask him not to be guilty of repetition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in drafting this Bill, the P.A.P. is trying to deceive the people that it is democratic enough to allow the people to decide whether they want merger or not. But, in actual fact, the Bill is so worded that it forces the people to accept the P.A.P. merger. They have no other choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have all the time seen the P.A.P. Government doing things in a very undemocratic manner, both inside and outside the Assembly. All this has shown the insincerity and hypocrisy of the P.A.P. Government in the way they settle matters concerning the interest of the State. Desperate politicians in the P.A.P. are now doing desperate things which are very dangerous and harmful to the people of Singapore. But we cannot let bygones be bygones. We want the P.A.P. leaders to face the people, and the wrong things they have done in the past must be answered.

Order. Can the hon. Member indicate how those remarks have any relation to the general merits and principle of the Bill which we are now discussing?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Deputy Prime Minister said -

Order. I would like the hon. Member to answer my question as to how his remarks are relevant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have cancelled that portion of my speech.

Please continue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that the Bill was postponed in order to allow the Opposition to submit their amendments. That is not true, Sir, because all the amendments of the Opposition were submitted before the postponement. He also said that the P.A.P. is not going to bear the responsibility for any delay in passing this Bill. That is a very irresponsible remark, because the P.A.P. has already delayed the Bill for two months and is now trying to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Now they say they want the Bill to go to a Select Committee. That shows they are democratic enough. But the important point is not whether the Bill is going to a Select Committee or not. The important point is whether the views of the public will be accepted in the Select Committee. As we have seen before, the views of the public submitted to the Government are not accepted. The Minister for Finance says the P.A.P. can go on with its proposed merger. But he must remember that the people of Singapore want a true merger and not the P.A.P. type of merger. They want a merger whereby all the citizens of Singapore can become citizens of the Federation. But in the P.A.P. type of merger it is not so. Sir, during the last general election the people elected the P.A.P. but not because they supported the P.A.P. merger alone. They supported the P.A.P. in many things. Sir, it is just like two eggs, one good and one rotten. During the general election the P.A.P. gave a good egg and sold to the people, saying, "I'll give you the good egg." After they were elected, they gave a rotten egg to the people, and the people certainly refused it. If I had a rotten egg here, I would throw it over to that side and ask them to taste -

Order. The Member for Changi is now becoming very disorderly, desiring to throw rotten eggs across the Chamber. I hope that will never happen. Let us carry on with the general merits and principle of the Bill. I think this is about the third time I have said that to the Member for Changi.

Sir, I am going to conclude my speech in a few words. What the P.A.P. wants in this Bill is this. If the people fail to go and vote, they will be fined. If they go and vote, they must vote for the P.A.P. because the question is such - whether they vote A or B; if they vote A, they will die; and if they vote B, they will also die. So tile people might choose to put a blank ballot paper in the box. But once they put blank ballot papers into the box that also will support the P.A.P. But if they are so angry that they tear the ballot paper into two parts, they will be fined or imprisoned for two years. From this we can see how undemocratic the P.A.P. Government is. 4.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill in principle. But you will agree, Sir, from what we have beard, that there are many matters and clauses which have not been acceptable to the Opposition. The Barisan Sosialis has shown disagreement in a number of things and we too disagree with two amendments, in spite of the Minister for Finance's attempt to prove to us, in respect of the blank votes, that they are to prevent abuse of the referendum by the Communists and, to quote him also, by the stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. We feel that whatever the excuses, it will not justify Government introducing undemocratic means of carrying out the referendum. We have other objections, Sir, which we will raise when the time comes, but I would like to remind the House that this Referendum Bill will become the machinery not only in respect of the merger and Malaysia questions, but also as the machinery to find out the views of the public on other important national matters. Therefore, we must see that this Referendum Bill, when it becomes an Ordinance, will be a democratic machinery dealing out justice for all concerned. We have our chance here. We sat for two months or three months the last time, debating merger and airing our views. We can debate this Referendum Bill thoroughly. Sir, the public too have their objections and their views. They too want to have a say in this matter which is of national importance and which is going to affect the lives of everyone in Singapore. Therefore, I do not see why the Barisan Sosialis is against the idea of referring this Bill to a Select Committee in order that the public may have a chance to air their views. I will repeat, we have our chance here, but the public are not entitled to come here and air their views unless we refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, it is normal parliamentary practice that Bills of an important and far-reaching character are referred to Select Committees. I cannot understand why the Barisan Sosialis should be against this, especially when they are not satisfied with the Bill. Could it be that they feel that the public should not be given a chance to air their views, or have their views considered by the Select Committee? Or is it that by referring the Bill to a Select Committee, there is very restricted opportunity of playing politics? I am sorry to have to say that, Sir, but from what we have seen last night, there have been attempts made to exploit the plight of fire victims for political propaganda. I am not surprised, Sir. The Barisan Sosialis, as I have said before, is a splinter P.A.P. They have got their training from the P.A.P. Therefore, they play the same game. Whatever it is, no matter how important a national problem it is, there will always be party politics first. The Barisan Sosialis say that if we have a Select Committee, what is the use? Is the Government going to implement or give consideration to the opinions of the public? If the public give their opinions, would the Government give them any consideration? Sir, the point is to give the public a chance to air their views. When they have aired their views, those views will be published in the report of the Select Committee. If the Government dare to ignore the opinions of the public, let them do it at their own peril, Sir. The point is to give the public a chance to air their views. Sir, because the Government anticipate what the Barisan will do, they have introduced certain amendments which, in my opinion, are most undemocratic. Because the Barisan Sosialis anticipates that the Government are going to ignore the opinions of the public, they say we must not have a Select Committee. Because the Barisan Sosialis thinks that the public are to be deprived of an opportunity of airing their views - Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Point of order?

Point of explanation, if I may be allowed. Mrs Seow Peck Leng resumed her seat.

The Barisan Sosialis is not opposed to the Bill going to a Select Committee, but we do not think a Select Committee for this Bill is suitable, because the Government has delayed this Bill for some considerable time and the `Government also wants to blame the Opposition for any further `delay on the Bill. We want to make it very clear that we will not be associated in any way with any possible delay in the passing of this Bill, and -

Order. I do not think the Member for Queenstown is entitled to make another speech. But I might say something procedurally. If the Ban-san Sosialis have those fears, all they have to do is to abstain when the motion, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee" is proposed. Procedurally, that is the way.

That is our intention, Sir,If ever it is put to the vote, we will abstain. We consider it is more suitable that all the pros and cons be aired and ventilated in the Assembly now So that all the people will know exactly the pros and cons. If further explanations are given in the Select Committee -

Order. I think the Member for Queenstown is now embarking on a speech. He has made his point. Mrs Seow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to hear the Member for Queenstown, a Member of the Barisan Sosialis, who claims to represent the people, say that in regard to this matter which is, we all agree, of national importance and which is going to affect everybody in Singapore, it is not suitable for the public to air their views. I do not understand, Sir. It really puzzles me to hear him say here. I am surprised!

Point of clarification, Sir. There seems to be a misinterpretation of what I want -

Order. Will the Member give way?

Carry on!

Can I continue, Sir?

The Member will not give way?

No, Sir. The other point he made was a matter of delay. Sir, it is true. But if you look at the Order Paper, we have a motion in the name of the Member for Anson dealing with this, to ensure that the Government ascertain the wishes of the people before a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya is implemented. I am just giving a precis of it. Well, there is the safeguard, Sir, which means that the referendum must be carried out before merger and that is what the Barisan Sosialis -

Order. I take it the hon. Member is anticipating that the motion will be carried. Perhaps she will preface her remarks and say, if the motion is carried. I think the Member for Anson will be delighted to know that he is receiving support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not anticipating that the motion will be carried, but it answers the question of delay. The question of delay will be settled one way or the other. Sir, I feel that every Member in this House should support the motion - as it has already been suggested by the Member for Hong Lim - that this Bill be referred to Select Committee and I hope the Government will accept it. In the event of the Government turning it down, Members can resume the attack more vigorously and more effectively on the Third Reading of the Bill. 4.16 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore National Referendum Bill concerns people in all walks of life and their economic and political future. That being so, I have to air my own views on this matter. In the course of the debate during the past few days. I have discovered that many representatives in this Assembly have attacked the unreasonable provisions in this Bill. They have torn these unreasonable provisions into pieces. This fact is not only ridiculous in this House but it will make the people outside this House angry. I think even you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have the feeling that the amendments are really unreasonable.

Order. The hon. Member is not justified at all in saying that. He must not drag the Speaker into any controversy. The Speaker is here just to listen to the speeches, get impatient sometimes and see that order is maintained. He has no views whatsoever on the amendments.

(In Mandarin): Thank you for your indication, Sir. I personally feel that the debate on this Bill over the past few days has produced two facts. Firstly, the political principles of the P.A.P. have gone bankrupt. Secondly, the P.A.P. is trying to adopt cunning political tactics again to deceive the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, in order to substantiate these two facts, I feel obliged to quote passages from the speeches made by Members in this House in the past few days. In the first place, I would like to say that the political principles of the P.A.P. have al, ready gone bankrupt. How can I prove this? Well, I would like to quote from the Sin Chew Jit Poh as reported in page 1 concerning the amendments to be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs: `The main point of these amendments is that if a blank vote is cast by a voter, or if there is any uncertainty about the vote itself, or if there is an uncertain mark on the vote, then the P.A.P. Government will deem it to be a vote in support of the Government.'. From this point, we can safely say that we must do what is right to get the support of the people and that we cannot deceive them with irrational arguments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that the political principles of the P.A.P. have gone bankrupt. Furthermore, the P.A.P. have come to know that their speeches in regard to merger and other deceitful activities relating thereto are really unreasonable and cannot stand up to argument. So I feel that it is necessary for me to remind the P.A.P. Members, especially the leaders, that their unreasonable theories and reactionary arguments have already estranged them from the people. I would like to advise them that they should stop their political manoeuvres. Mr Speaker, Sir, to expand my second point, I would like to quote the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. He raised certain points to show that the Government were trying to play a game in order to achieve merger. He replied directly to the Chairman of my Party who said that when he was closely related to the P.A.P. leaders he knew of their hypocrisy, and that was why he was keeping a close eye on their behaviour. The Deputy Prime Minister raised certain points in reply to the doubts raised by my Party Chairman. He did this in order to divert attention from the real issue. My Party Chairman wanted to know the basis of the question to be posed to the people: whether there would be one, two or three questions. He said that it would be ideal for the House to study the wording of the question to be put to the people in order to satisfy all the Parties concerned and to hold a just referendum for the people. But the Deputy Prime Minister refused to agree to our request. Instead he quoted examples from other countries to show that there had been no precedent where the wording of the question was the responsibility of the Opposition Parties. He said it has always been the responsibility of the Government to word the question that is to be posed to the people. I say that this is not right. It has been pointed out by the Member for Hong Lim that two questions may be posed to the people: "Do the people want the P.A.P. type of merger? Or do the people want a merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca?". If these questions are to be posed, it will mean that the P.A.P. will be placed in a very advantageous position over the other Parties. If the people are to be asked to choose between these two questions, they will very likely want to put in blank votes because, no matter how they vote, they will be supporting the P.A.P. type of merger. So it is important for me to expose this intrigue. Sir, I have noticed that there is an issue arising out of the two points raised by the Member for Hong Lim. At the last sitting, I learned from a conversation between some Members of the Party in power and myself that it was most likely that the questions would be framed in this manner. The people would be asked whether they want to have the P.A.P. type of merger or a merger in which Singapore would be going in on the basis of Penang or Malacca. I say that in whatever form these two questions are put, they mean the same thing. So I told them that they would be deceiving the people. In reply, I was told that the Barisan Sosialis themselves raised the question of Singapore going in on the basis of Penang or Malacca. Then I told them that it is our Party stand to have a type of merger in which all Singapore citizens will automatically become Federal citizens after Merger Day. I even told them that there is some difference between the merger we have in mind and merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca. I feel it necessary to persuade the leaders of the P.A.P. to perform more good deeds for the people so that they can have a good name later on. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to deal with the points raised by the Minister for Finance. Two of my colleagues have dealt with certain points he raised, but I feel it is necessary that I should deal with his other points. The Minister for Finance touched on two points which were more or less similar to those raised by the Deputy Prime Minister. I would say that the Deputy Prime Minister is a more honest and a less cunning person than the Minister for Finance, because the latter said that there were Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. This was actually irrelevant to the Bill, and I could see that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, were quite impatient with what he was saying and you even had occasion to pull him up. He is very cunning but he can only fool the people once, and not all the time. If any Member is successful in fooling anybody once, then the other people will be keeping an eye on him in future. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has greatly exaggerated certain details. He says he is an expert in law and he knows all about parliamentary democracy. From my point of view, and from the point of view of the people, I say it is all a bluff. Although it is true that a lawyer should know law, he should not play with the law. I can point out here that yesterday when the Member for Farrer Park made his speech, he attacked the Barisan Sosialis and distorted the worries of the Barisan Sosialis as a sort of under-current between us and the P.A.P. He even levelled criticisms against our representatives, especially the Member for Upper Serangoon who said that the people were awakened politic, ally and so there should be no fear on our part about the national referendum. But we are here to point out the Undemocratic provisions of the National Referendum Bill. We feel it is the duty of the people's representatives to do so in this House. The Member for Mount-batten also agrees with us that there are certain undemocratic provisions in the Bill. From this we can see that the Member for Farrer Park has the same attitude as most reactionary people in the P.A.P, have. I would like to prove my point in this manner. The year before last I was still in the P.A.P. At that time the Member for Cairnhill was trying to get us around -

Order. I have, in fact, been very patient. But could the Member indicate to the Chair how the so-called reactionary conduct of the Member for Farrer Park has anything to do with the general merits and principle of the Bill? We are debating the general merits and principle of the Bill.

He has his notes!

Order.

(In Mandarin): I know this has hardly anything to do with the Bill. But in order to prevent the Minister for Finance from confusing the people, I will say that when he was making his speech he was just rambling on about the Communists, this and that, in order to confuse the people. So I was just trying to explain his intention so that the people will not fall into his trap. At this juncture I had to mention the Member for Farrer Park because the manner of his speech was the same as that of a P.A.P. Member, because they have already become allies. We can see they always agree on major issues in this House. So I was just bringing up these facts to prove my point.

Order. Up to that point, the Member for Jalan Kayu is probably just about in order. But if he goes into instances of how, to his mind, the Member for Farrer Park is reactionary, then he is going completely far away from the Bill. I think the Member has made his point. Will he please now come back to the general merits and principle of the Bill?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will accept your ruling not to elaborate on this point. In any case, I feel I should explain certain points raised by the Minister for Finance, when he talked about the under-currents between the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. Let us now view it the other way round. These so-called under-currents between the P.A.P. and the Barisan is a term used by the Member for Farrer Park. I say there are no under-currents whatsoever existing between these two Parties. It is a question of whether or not we have the real intention of serving the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis were formerly in the P.A.P. We were elected by the people on the same platform and we made many election pledges during the general elections. We talked about how to serve the people in their best interest. All these are the pledges we made. But since the P.A.P. came to power, they have entirely forgotten about their election pledges. So if there are any under-currents at all, these will be the under-currents. The question is whether or not we want to serve the people. If you want to serve the people, there should not be any unnecessary dispute or argument. But the leaders of the P.A.P. have no intention to serve the people. That is why there was all this trouble, and we had to part with them. So we have to go to extremes. When we wanted to do something, they said we could not.

Order. Can I remind the hon. Member that he has been speaking from a quarter past four - for 20 minutes - and he has not as yet touched on the general merits and principle of the Bill?

Kosong! [Interruption].

Order. May the Speaker share in the joke?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you want to know, let me tell you. The Minister for Education said it is all nonsense. So I told him it is not nonsense.

On a point of order, Sir,I see the Member has been fiddling with the earphone, and I am not quite sure whether it will wreck the whole sound system.

I do not know whether it is a point of order or a point of disorder. But I think that is quite in order because he will find the Speaker doing that sometimes, and I do not think that will damage the earphone.

Nervous.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, please excuse me for taking up more time of the House. Just now the Member for Mountbatten said that we are opposed to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. She pointed out clearly why we in the Barisan Sosialis oppose that move. But actually we are not opposing the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. What we would like to clarify is that if the Bill is referred to a Select Committee, there are certain ulterior motives connected therewith. First, you yourself can see that when the Prime Minister was replying to the Member for Hong Lim, there was a condition imposed. So we can see from this that the discussion and examination of the Bill in the Select Committee and the composition of the Select Committee will not be disclosed to other people. Very often the views of Members of the Opposition are not entertained.

Order. May I correct a procedural error? I think the hon. Member has been interpreted as saying that the names of Members of the Select Committee will not be disclosed. That is completely wrong. The names of Members of the Select Committee, if a Select Committee is appointed, will be published.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know the Member for Mountbatten said that reference of the Bill to a Select Committee will enable members of the public to submit their views for consideration. But in my experience, there are many views which it is very difficult to submit. So we feel this point has to be clarified. If it is clarified, then we will not oppose the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.

Order. This is a procedural point which the Member has raised. Perhaps I might just read the relevant Standing Order which provides for advertisements and an invitation to the public to send in their representations. Standing Order 75 reads: `Unless the Assembly otherwise orders, up on a Bill being committed to a Select Committee, the Clerk shall as soon as practicable thereafter advertise in such newspapers as the Speaker may direct, inviting written representations on the Bill to be sent to him within not less than a period of fifteen days from the date of the advertisement and requesting the representors to state whether they are prepared, if invited, to appear before the Select Committee to give evidence in support of or supplementary to their written representations.' This is the position under our Standing Orders.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, that being the case, I will not dwell on it any more. When the Bill is being discussed in Committee, I shall bring up the matter again. Just now the Minister for Finance also said that he is a nationalist, and that is why he continues to stay in office. He even went to the extent of saying that by being Ministers they were losing economically, because they could make more money outside. I will tell him that he should not praise himself. Self-praise is no praise. He must allow other people to praise him. It is not proper for him to praise himself, and his praise will not be accepted by outsiders. For example, -

On a point of order. I think the Member is still talking things which are irrelevant to the Bill.

Order. The impression the Chair has is exactly the same as that of the Parliamentary Secretary. But I suppose the Member for Jalan Kayu is entitled to take - to use a colloquialism - one crack at the Minister for Finance in his speech, and I think he has taken that crack!

(In Mandarin): This was mentioned by the Minister for Finance, so I was just making a reply to his points. Since you do not want me to reply to him at length, I will stop at that in order to save the time of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for the information of the Barisan Sosialis, a referendum is a constitutional device by which a controversial issue of public importance can be put by the Government to the people for their consideration and decision. There must be a proper organisation provided by law to enable the Government to put the issue to the electorate and there must be adequate safeguards provided by the law to ensure that the vote of the people is taken in a fair and just manner. This is exactly what the Bill before the House sets out to do. Machinery is being provided by this Bill to enable the referendum on merger to be held in a fair and just manner. But the Barisan Sosialis are accusing the Government of wanting to wreck the machinery of the referendum, to set booby-traps for them and for the electorate. They have demanded that the issue of the referendum on merger should be set not by the Government but by the Legislative Assembly. The issue of merger has already been debated at very great length in this Assembly. On the Government's motion asking the House to affirm and declare that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of the two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, the Barisan Sosialis moved an amendment calling for a genuine merger for Singapore with the Federation of Malaya with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day. On the 6th of December last year, as all Members will remember, after the amendment of the Barisan Sosialis was defeated in the House, the Member for Anson moved for the adjournment of the debate on the original motion. When this was refused, the Barisan Sosialis walked out of the Legislative Assembly with the Member for Anson and the Members of the United People's Party. They walked out of the Assembly in the knowledge that there was also on the Order Paper for debate the motion of the Prime Minister on the Federation of Malaysia and on the White Paper on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. I am mentioning all this, Sir, to show to the Barisan Sosialis that they have had more than ample opportunity to say all that they had wanted to say on the issue of merger in this Assembly. It is now the duty of the Government to put the issue of merger to the people as clearly and simply as possible and to ask them to make up their minds. Surely the Barisan Sosialis are not now demanding that there should be yet a more lengthy debate on the issue of merger in this House. I do not understand why they should now seek to press their claims for a further debate on this issue in this Assembly when they themselves walked out when the motion which I have just referred to was before the House. It is now quite obvious that the Barisan Sosialis have worked themselves into such a frame of mind that they see booby-traps where none, in fact, exists. The Member for Hong Lim, who is a very astute politician, has reminded the House that the Barisan Sosialis, in one of their many shifting stands on the issue of merger, have advocated that there should be merger on the same terms as for Penang and Malacca, and that if they were to be held to this stand, the consequences in the referendum held on this issue might be rather unfortunate for them. This may or may not be so. However, they cannot, in all fairness, claim that where such stands were made of their own volition on the merger issue, the Government have laid traps for them. What is the logic and sense in such imputations? In framing the issue of merger, it is quite legitimate for the Government to draw the attention of the electorate in very simple terms to what the implications would be for themselves if they voted in a particular way. There is nothing unconstitutional in providing for this. I should like to deal with the objections of the Member for Anson and the Barisan Sosialis to the two new provisions of the Bill, on the counting of unmarked and uncertain ballots tendered by voters in the referendum, and on the presumption of law that persons entering or seen to enter more than two houses or places of work of electors in the same polling district other than their own homes or places of work on polling day, shall, unless they prove to the contrary, be presumed to have been guilty of canvassing on polling day. In the Singapore Legislative Elections Ordinance, compulsory voting has been provided for. The name of a person whose name is in the electoral register and who fails to' vote on polling day is taken out of the electoral register and put in a separate list. He has then to apply for restoration of his name on to the electoral register. If he has a good reason for not voting in the general election, his name is put back on the electoral register after inquiry. But if he has no good reason for having failed to vote, he must first pay a fine of $5 before his name is restored to the electoral register. Sir, compulsory voting as such is against the grain in the liberal tradition of democratic parliamentary procedures. But yet it has had to be introduced locally. In the same way, the Government would be failing in their duty to the people and would be acting foolishly if they did not take the elementary precaution of preventing the referendum from being manipulated by what would amount to a boycott of the referendum through the tendering of blank and unmarked ballot papers which can be organised to serve the ends of those Communists and pro-Communist groups who are hostile to merger. This issue of merger is of vital concern to every citizen of Singapore, and on such a vital issue it is reasonable to provide that those who cannot make up their minds will be deemed to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum. Sir, all voters are completely free agents to make up their minds as they please. They are free to go to the polling station to vote if they want to or to keep away. They will not be pressured into voting in any particular way. But when they cast their vote, they must make up their minds. It would be making a mockery of the referendum procedure on such a vital issue if a citizen were to tender a ballot paper indicating that he had no views of the issue or that his views were uncertain. If that were truly his state of mind, there is nothing to prevent him from keeping away from the polling station. Sir, the presumption of law, to which the Member for Anson has taken exception, is just a legal presumption to ensure that there can be proper enforcement of the law against canvassing on polling day. Without such a legal presumption, it would be more difficult to enforce the law against canvassing on polling day. Sir, there is no intention on the part of the Government to lay booby-traps for anybody. I commend this Bill to the House as a reasonable and fair measure providing the machinery whereby the views of the electorate can be ascertained, in a just and proper manner when the referendum on merger is held. 4.55 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues have explained at great length about the undemocratic provisions in this Bill and I am not going to touch on them again. Just now the Member for Mountbatten has mentioned that we object to this Bill being committed to a Select Committee. I feel she has misunderstood us. Our feeling is that if this Bill is committed to a Select Committee, we will be blamed for delaying its passage, because it was introduced two months ago. Why was it not referred to a Select Committee two months ago? It has been delayed for two months. We do not want the people to say that we are the cause of the delay of this Bill being passed in this House. Secondly, we are debating the merits and demerits of this Bill so that the people could understand the undemocratic provisions therein. There are provisions in this Bill which are meant to deceive the people. If we refer this Bill to a Select Committee, the people will not be able to see the true picture of this Bill and the debate in this House as to who is wrong. We know that if this Bill is committed to a Select Committee, it means we will have to waste a lot of time. If this Bill is committed to a Select Committee, there will be a very thick report and the people do not have the time to study the defects and the undemocratic provisions of this Bill, and the suggestions and Opinions advanced by the people's representatives in this House. We welcome reference of this Bill to a Select Committee so as to allow the people to air their views on it provided the Government can assure us that the views put forward by the people will be accepted by the Select Committee. Why did the Government delay this Bill for more than two months? Why did the Government not refer this Bill to a Select Committee earlier? In debating this Bill, we want the people to know what will happen to their future if this Bill is passed, and to make sure that they are not being sold out by the Government. In principle, we do not oppose this Bill being committed to a Select Committee. I feel the Select Committee should ascertain the views of the people as soon as possible so that the passage of the Bill will not be delayed. However, our Party Chairman has said that we will abstain from voting when the motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee is put to the vote. From talking about the merits and demerits of this Bill, we know that the Government did not originally want to introduce this Bill because the members of the Party in power had conflicts among themselves. Some of the Back-benchers have been criticised by the people. Therefore, they had to urge their leadership to bring out this Bill.

Order. The whole argument should be in relation to the general merits and principle of the Bill. I think the hon. Member has already made his point that the passage of the Bill has been delayed and he has criticised that delay. Whether he supports the Government or not is a different question. If he has anything to say now on the general merits and principle of the Bill as contained in the Bill, he can carry on.

(In Mandarin): This National Referendum Bill was introduced because the leadership were pressed by the people to do so and because they were under pressure from some of the Backbenchers. Having introduced this Bill, they thought out all sorts of cunning techniques to ensure that -

Order. The Member is now repeating what has been said by several Members of his own Party. That line still has nothing to do with the general merits and principle of the Bill. There are 50 clauses in the Bill. Let us try and concentrate on the Bill and not on the question of delay. We have dealt with that aspect.

(In Mandarin): I just want to sum up briefly my speech. The Government want the people to choose between two bad things - one way is leading to the tiger and the other way is leading to the lion which is waiting to eat us up. If we are not going to follow either of these two paths and go backwards, then the P.A.P, will eat us up. That is the meaning of the blank vote.

Order. We will meet again at 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.15 p.m, until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed. 5.36 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the Singapore National Referendum Bill. This ought to be a simple and meaningful Bill. Its purpose is to reunite Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. This Bill, laying down the procedure for holding a national referendum, can be said to have been introduced for the first time in the history of Singapore. If the Bill is passed, we can use it as a means of getting the views of the people. We can say it is a very good means of testing the views and sounding the opinions of the people. We can say that the P.A.P. is an open-minded and responsible Government. If there is anything important which will affect the interests of the people, we will let them decide. That is why today we have brought this Bill to this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech made by the Minister for Home Affairs, we can see that the Government have accepted various amendments by the Opposition Parties. The Member for Queenstown is rather worried, uncertain and unsafe when he finds that the P.A.P. Government have introduced this Bill. He will cast doubts and suspicions on anything which is introduced by us for the good of the people. Actually this Bill is quite different from the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Because of his worries and his disposition, he has found it necessary to propose some amendments in order to console his own spirit and soul. He has raised the point that polling agents and counting agents should be nominated by the political Parties. As polling agents and counting agents are rather important people in a referendum, the Government have accepted the amendments to effect this. The political Parties will have a chance to nominate such people to be stationed at the various polling stations so that they can be rest assured that there will not be any foul play. The Member for Queenstown has also suggested that the sealing of ballot boxes should also be done by the agents with their party seals. The Government have also accepted this suggestion. But the language used by certain Opposition Members in criticising the Bill is rather clever. They can give very eloquent speeches in this House, but if we analyse what they have said, we can see that they are merely shouting empty slogans. They hope to confuse the people on the question which will gradually affect the livelihood and future of the people. They try to create the impression that the P.A.P. Government is an undemocratic Government, in order to cause misunderstanding among the people. Mr Speaker, I remember there was a story prevailing among the Chinese folks. It tells of two painters. On a certain occasion they went to a temple to try and compete with each other to see who could draw a snake faster and more like a snake. This was to show who was better than the other. That was the chief purpose of the competition. They invited the elders of the village and many others to witness their competition. One of the artists was an impetuous and hot-tempered youth. The other was rather dispassionate and more rational in his thinking. When the youth had completed drawing a snake on the wall, he found that the other painter had not completed his drawing. He found there was ample time to add four legs to the snake to show that he could do better and that he had done it much faster than the other chap. The Barisan Sosialis similarly are also trying to show they are better than the P.A.P. Government by doing unnecessary things. Their attitude is just as what I have just now described. They are like the impetuous youth. However they may try to argue and to make speeches, they cannot hope to confuse and mislead the people. They will never succeed. They brag about theories and principles. They say they support the Bill in principle, but certain provisions therein are undemocratic. They have misunderstood the purpose of the introduction of this Bill. If parliamentary democracy is to be interpreted by the Barisan Sosialis, they will say, "We are the masters and you are our subjects. We shall rule over you." That is their concept of parliamentary democracy. They say the P.A.P. is limiting the people's freedom of speech. This is a very strange argument. How can this be possible? If this were so, the Barisan Sosialis would not have been able to speak in the many rallies that they have held. There are many instances to show how they have acted. The property of some P.A.P. branches have been taken away and yet they say the P.A.P. is undemocratic.

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is in danger of going off the rails. Let us come back to the general merits and principle of the Bill.

(In Mandarin): I was only trying to touch on what the Barisan Sosialis have said. They have described us as undemocratic. At a radio forum, the Member for Queenstown said that the people were not intelligent enough to see what is right and what is wrong. This fact was brought out by the Minister for Finance in his speech, that the Member for Queenstown had taken the people to be fools who could not see what is right and what is wrong. The Barisan Sosialis think that the people can be fooled by their lies. I think this has something to do with principle. Before they stood for election at the last general elections, they took an oath to serve the P.A.P. loyally.

Order. I do not think that can come under "principle" at all. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he now come to the general principles of the Bill and not carry on in this manner which is completely irrelevant.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since you have ruled that it is not relevant to touch on the points raised by them, I will talk about something else. Yesterday, the Member for Queenstown said that the Bill provides for a short period of only seven days from the date when the order is issued to the day when the national referendum is held. Sir, we know that the debate on the merger motion took quite a long time. Many people outside the House were confused by the lengthy debate which took place in this House so that in the end they were not clear about the whole picture. In addition to the criticism that the Government will be giving the Opposition Parties insufficient time, the Member for Queenstown says that his Party will be restricted in their propaganda campaign to prepare for the national referendum. I believe they are trying to show that they are supporting the principle, but in fact they are opposing many things. They have accused the P.A.P. of selling out the rights of the people. The strange thing is that the Barisan Sosialis Members speak in the same fashion as Mao Tse-tung who is thousands of miles away. Even Chairman Mao who had sworn under the picture of Stalin has never dared to criticise certain things. That is their actual attitude.

Order. I was wondering how criticism of Stalin has anything to do with the Referendum Bill. Shall we come back to the general merits and principles of the Bill?

(In Mandarin): Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to build a strong nation. We hope we can bring about a strong united nation through this Bill so that we can resolve all the problems affecting our people in a united Greater Malaya. But the Barisan Sosialis hope to destroy everything that is in the interest of the people in order to achieve their own purpose. 5.55 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before us was originally brought up in January but the debate on it was postponed subsequently because the P.A.P. wanted to resort to delaying tactics in order to include unnecessary provisions in the Bill. That is why the debate on this Bill has taken two days and it is likely to take some more time. According to the Minister for Home Affairs, the contents of this Bill have been drafted in accordance with the spirit of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. We have looked through this Bill and we have found the majority of the provisions to be quite different from those in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. We can see there are many undemocratic principles in the Bill before us today. These provisions seek to restrict further the freedom of speech of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, a national referendum is generally taken as a good thing in other countries. There have been instances where national referenda have been held. A referendum is held when a resolution has been passed in Parliament whose Members themselves are not sure whether they represent the people's opinion. That is why the question passed in Parliament is referred to the people for a final decision. Clause 5 of this Bill reads: `Whenever the Yang di-Pertuan Negara considers that it is in the public interest to do so he may by order direct that any matter he submitted to the electors for a referendum.' From this we are unable to know what is actually meant by "public interest". Does the phrase refer to what is passed in this House or to a question to be posed by the Government for the decision of the people? So from this, we can see there has been a great departure from the spirit of a true national referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, there are provisions in the laws of other countries to the effect that if a resolution is passed in Parliament and the people themselves feel that its passage is not truly representative of their opinions and desires, they have the right to request the Governments to hold a national referendum. But this provision is not included in this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is trying to include a very serious provision in this Bill, namely, the new clause which provides that unmarked or uncertain ballot papers shall be deemed to be in support of the Government. You cannot find such a provision in law in any part of the world.

Order. Before the hon. Member continues in that strain, may I remind him that every speaker from his Party has criticised the same point in so many words? Will the hon. Member now try not to repeat what his own Party Members have said?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see that this Bill is detrimental to the true spirit of democracy in a national referendum. I believe you know that in the history of Singapore a Bill concerning a national referendum is unprecedented. It is the first of its type before this House. That is because we are an infant in the history of democracy. The people are just beginning to experience a national referendum. There is a provision in the Bill saying that within a period of seven days, a decision must be taken by the people. I say this provision is unreasonable. Let me give an example. Under the Rendel Constitution the people were given the first opportunity to vote their own representatives and they knew their sacred duty. But at that time there were still some people who were not aware of the significance and the effect of their votes. So there was the necessity for an explanation to be given to the people over a long period of time - telling them the importance and significance of the votes they were going to cast, and which might affect their destiny. So I say that this provision of seven days is far too short. There is no other provision as to whether there is any allowance for meetings to be held. This is very undemocratic because it does not enable the people to understand and grasp the real state of affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past three days, from the speeches made by Members of the Government and Ministers, we are unable to say whether the Government have any intention of withdrawing these unnecessary and undemocratic provisions contained in their amendments. If the Government have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing these unreasonable provisions, then I will say that this show of democracy by ascertaining the views of the people outside this House will not lead us anywhere. It does no good at all. If the Government insist on including the unnecessary and unreasonable provisions in this Bill, it only goes to show that they are just having a show of democracy by saying that they want to ascertain the views of the people before they do anything decisive. I say this attempt is just made to prolong the democratic process and to force the people to choose a thing which they do not like. So I ardently hope that the Government will give a clear-cut indication whether they are prepared to withdraw such undemocratic provisions which you can never find in other democratic countries in the world. In the meantime, the Government should shoulder all the consequences as a result of the delay of this Bill. 6.07 p.m.

Sir, at the last sitting in this Assembly, there has been a great deal of hypocritical exhortation about democracy and the democratic process made by the Barisan Sosialis, people who are the least qualified to talk about democracy. They have invoked democracy to establish the right of Communists to cause confusion, spread falsehoods, and try to prevent merger. They are the very people who are furthest removed from the ideal of government by the free will of the people. Perhaps the Member for Thomson has forgotten that during the P.A.P. conference in May last year, after the Hong Lim by-election, he was the strongest advocate for taking the Cuban line. Like Fidel Castro, he strongly advocated the abolition of all future elections as being unnecessary and stupid. The Member for Upper Serangoon was then trying to dissuade my colleagues and I from ever contemplating resignation and returning the mandate to the people. At that time, with no merger and no common commodity market in view, we saw no political solution to our basic problems of economic expansion. The Member for Upper Serangoon went so far as to say that what was important was not whether the people knew that we were doing good for them, but whether, in fact, what we were doing was good for them. He capped his argument by saying that if Mao Tse-tung, the Chairman of the People's Republic of China, had to stand for election after the hardships of the Chinese communes, he would probably have lost his deposit. This Referendum Bill has been brought in to determine the wish of the majority of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of these two territories. To put it in proper perspective, let me remind the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson that the Government are under no obligation, morally or legally, to hold a referendum. We had a mandate from the people in June 1959 in clear and categorical terms to implement merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In fact, all the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen were elected on the P.A.P. platform, the main plank of which was merger. They had all signed solemn pledges that they would resign if they departed from the Party programme and were expelled from the Party. Next we have a mandate from this Assembly, of 33 unanimous votes with no Assemblymen being bold enough to be present to vote against the proposals of merger contained in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961. Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Communist front leader who is manipulating and coordinating Communist policies in the Barisan Sosialis and the Communist front unions, has openly told a meeting of Committee members of several union officials, who taxed him on this point, that the Government have full legal and constitutional rights once these proposals have been passed in the Assembly, to carry out the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, let us be clear in our minds that the Government are under no compulsion to have this referendum and that there is no necessity to resort to trickery, as the Member for Queenstown has suggested. Later, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will explain the considerations which have led the Government firmly to the view that a referendum on merger is both desirable and in the long-term interests of peaceful and stable conditions in Singapore. Let me at the outset make public the position of the P.A.P. and of the Opposition Parties on the question of merger and this referendum. Sir, the UMNO-SPA Alliance have openly said here that they want this merger to go through without any hitch. What they have stated openly here is honest and consistent with what they have said privately, that this referendum is an unnecessary risk. Two of their Members, the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Tanglin, have stated here publicly that they consider the Government have a right and should go through with merger without the bother of a referendum. The Member for Hong Lim and his United People's Party, the inaugural meeting of which has yet to be held and a proper Committee has yet to be elected, privately want merger established and the Communists curbed by a strong Central Government. He sees very clearly where his interests lie. He has openly rejected any call for general elections made by the Barisan Sosialis. The last thing he wants is a general election before the Communists have been dealt with. It is open knowledge - and he has admitted it to quite a number of Members on this side of the House - that he has lost most of his kaki or runners to the Communists in the unions and the Barisan Sosialis. He has not got the wherewithal to contest and win a general election now. He has lost these runners and kaki partly through persuasion that the Barisan Sosialis were on the point of forming the next government and partly through intimidation. Under present circumstances, he therefore does not want a general election. He wants to ensure merger, when he knows that the Communists will be removed from the scene. And he continually encourages Members on this side of the House to expose and attack the Communists in and outside the Barisan Sosialis. But, at the same time, he hopes to ensure that the P.A.P. would be weakened by the smears and false charges of the Communists, which he is helping to propagate, that we are going to sell out the rights of the people. All these smears for the purpose that when the Communists are contained, he hopes to emerge as the strongest single Party. Therefore, he opposes a general election now. But he is also hoping that the Government will take the odium for the Communist smear of selling out a Chinese Singapore to a Malay Federation. He would be quite happy to see the Government carry through merger without a referendum. Of course, since the Government have decided on a referendum, he has also attempted to claim that the referendum has been forced upon the Government because he has demanded it. Now, Sir, the Member for Anson, the Chairman of the Workers' Party. He made an astonishing remark yesterday which admitted that although his Party has been captured, he has not been captured. His private view is that the Government should go through with merger and not bother about a referendum. But loudly and publicly he demands guarantees for a referendum. What game is all this about? I suggest it is a transparent one, Mr Speaker, Sir. Unlike the more subtle Member for Hong Lim, he blatantly seeks to identify himself with the Communist popular causes. I wonder often whether it could be that he is hoping that when their political front organisations become defunct, he would inherit the support of their remnant branch organisations. He has admitted to the Minister for Health and Law in a moment of frankness, after what I thought was a mere threat to indulge in fisticuffs outside this Chamber between the Member for Anson and the Member for Crawford, in a moment of remorse - he felt so sorry - he said, "Imagine two men with grey hairs boxing each other!" And he said anyway he knew his fate was at the mercy of the Communists and that they could pull the carpet on which he stands and he would be finished. That is what he said. He has no organisation of his own. Nor is he in a position to make any appeal to the people on his own without Communist support, which support includes the translation of what he says before it can be understood by the Chinese, Malay and Indian masses. He makes a hue and cry about democracy. He has talked rashly of "blind chickens" and the "canvassing of the dead". He also wants merger. He knows full well that without merger the country would be ruined and lie would have no place in this society, both in his profession and by virtue of his race. I used to believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that perhaps he has the courage of his convictions. But after his debacle at the Kuala Lumpur Communist front conference in January, I am somewhat hesitant in this belief. In the Malaysia debate in this House, he parted with the Communists on the issue of Malaysia. Here in this Chamber he supported it. He went to Kuala Lumpur and, in the Steering Committee concealed from public gaze, he told them that he was for Malaysia and would have nothing to do with merging with Indonesia as the heartland of Malaysia. He has told us in this House that for professional reasons he left for Brunei before the resolution opposing Malaysia was passed by the conference. So it was that lie was saved the final humiliation of being present when his Party disavowed him and voted with the other Communist front delegates opposing Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis, on the other hand, do not want a referendum. What they wanted was to capture the Government by either seducing or intimidating 26 Assemblymen into supporting them. That having failed, they want general elections, to destroy any government that seeks to establish merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, which would be fatal to their plans. The Member for Queenstown repeated his futile cry for general elections when he made his speech on the Referendum Bill the day before yesterday. He said at the radio forum last year that the people of Singapore were politically immature for such advanced democratic processes like a referendum, and that general elections were far better, in order that there can be no single Party emerging with a mandate to carry out merger. Since he has lost the argument and since his plea for general elections has not found any support from either the Member for Hong Lim or, for that matter at that time, from the Member for Anson - I do not know now, because, as you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson from time to time changes his mind - or from the U.M.N.O./S.P.A. Alliance, he now has to try his luck to create mischief in the referendum. He has asked whether the Government would resign if they lose the referendum. Sir, it is my unpleasant task to disabuse his mind of the very silly notion that there is such a thing as the Government winning or losing a referendum. A referendum is a process - these are carefully chosen words for the benefit of the Member for Queenstown - by which we ascertain the wishes of the majority of the people, since there can never be any unanimity, however imperfect the method may be. The people's representatives in this Assembly have already endorsed the heads of agreements for merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. I am reasonably confident that this accords with wishes of the majority of the people as being the best terms and conditions to suit our circumstances. But if it SO happens that the majority of the people want a different mode and manner of achieving the inevitable reunification of the two territories - by way of illustration, if, for instance, they do not wish to have local autonomy in education and labour - then, of course, it will be the duty of the Government to fulfill their wishes. And so the question of winning or losing a referendum does not arise. Sir, if there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists manipulating a referendum, let me say that it would be criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold a referendum and allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled. If that were the position, if the risk existed, then, regardless of what benefit the Member for Hong Lim or the Member for Anson may reap by the Government having to carry the odium of living down the Communist smear of trying to sell out a Chinese Singapore to a Malay Federation, it would still be the duty of the Government to go through with it to ensure that the peace, security and happiness of the people, not just of Singapore but of Malaya and of Malaysia, are not jeopardised. But we are in the happier position of not embarking on any such risks, and there would be no risk of the Communists, partly by their being too clever by half, being able to frustrate merger and Malaysia whatever they do in a referendum. Sir, it is because we are confident of this that we could consider whether the overall position would be better if we carried through merger without a referendum than with a referendum. The conclusion we have come to is that in the long term, it would be foolish to help the Communists in their smear campaign that merger between Singapore and the Federation is a sell-out of Singapore, where the Chinese are in the majority, to a Malaya, where the Malays are in the majority. It is needless for me to refute the absurdity of this pro, position other than to point out that the Communists themselves have stressed time and time again that the Tunku and the Federation Government do not want merger with Singapore without Malaysia and merger with the Borneo territories at the same time. All I need say is that it is strange indeed that if, in fact, Singapore were being sold or given away, that the Federation is not anxious to take a gift. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a sane and rational analysis of Command Paper 33 of 1961 indicates beyond any doubt the fair measure of political influence that Singapore, as one of the twelve States in the Federation and the third largest represented in the Central Federation Parliament, will bear on the political policies of the whole of the Federation of Malaya. Sir, there may be certain groups of people who may be influenced by these reckless communal smears and lies. To implement the heads of agreement for a merger without giving them the ultimate choice of the mode and mariner of the inevitable reunification would be to assist the Communists in spreading this evil lie by lending credence to these rumours. The final position which we want to achieve is not just merger but a merger under which the various races in Malaya will live in peace and harmony. If the Chinese in Singapore, through news reporting of the Chinese Press by pan-Malaysian newspapers like the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh, which circulate throughout Malaya and Malaysia, from Perlis in the North to Borneo in the East, are infected through lies and falsehoods into believing that in merger and Malaysia the Chinese are being sold out to a Malay-dominated Federation, then an unpleasant situation will arise in the Federation and in Singapore. Let us never forget that there are, after all, about three million Chinese in the Federation. However politically immature the people may be - a point which has been made by the Member for Queenstown - they will have to face the realities of life in Singapore, in Malaysia and indeed in South-East Asia. They will have to make the choice of either having merger peacefully by consent, or not so peacefully with unpleasantness caused by the relentless logic of military, economic, geographical and historical forces. It is the duty of the Government to try and bring merger and Malaysia about peacefully by consent, with the maximum of goodwill and of give and take. As for the small percentage who are unable to understand the issues because it is beyond them or because the Communists have deliberately distorted and twisted the issues, they can abide by any decision made in this Assembly. This percentage, Sir, was less than one per cent of the votes cast in the last general elections. The Member for Anson has said that this Assembly means the Government. Sir, if that were completely so, why do he and the Member for Queenstown propose amendments in the Referendum Bill which seeks to let the questions to be posed be decided in this Assembly and not by the Government? Obviously, Sir, there is a qualitative difference. We -

On a point of explanation if the Prime Minister will permit. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

The answer is that the questions would then be fully debated here. The meaning of the questions would be made known through the Press to the people, and it may well be that we could even persuade the Government under pressure of public opinion to have fair questions. That is the answer.

I would suggest to the Member for Anson that he should cease to be SC) naive, that even the Speaker of this Assembly is now well seasoned to the harangues of the Barisan Sosialis, and that the net result -

Order. I must ask the Prime Minister not to drag the Speaker into this controversy. The Speaker is endeavouring to be as patient as he can he. He has been, I hope, up till now.

Sir, since you do not wish it, I need not commiserate with you when from time to time you SC) politely beseech Members of the Ban-san Sosialis not to repeat themselves. But I think nobody in his right mind is in the slightest doubt that the net result is not that the Government will he swayed by public opinion, and better questions will be put, hut that the Barisan Sosialis will hope to achieve complete and utter confusion of the issues and SO defeat any achievement which the referendum would give of popular approval to the reunification of these two territories. The Member for Anson is not that naive. Sir, we are not able to accept his proposal that this Assembly of 51 Members, who are most unlikely to reach any unanimity or any agreement since they all have opposing objectives, should put the questions. Sir, the Member was not here when I described what those opposing objectives were, but I hope he will have the pleasure of reading them sometime in the Hansard.

In tomorrow's paper?

I hope. Sir, one simple point I have made to the Member for Hong Lim and I now make it to the Member for Anson. Give us one single precedent of a referendum statute or an enactment in any democratic country - Australia, Switzerland, anywhere you like - where the questions to be posed are determined by a body which, ex hypothesi, includes the Opposition, which, ex hypothesi, cannot have unanimity. If a precedent could be produced, consideration would be given to it. But I could produce precedents here of legislation in countries, which the Member for Hong Lim has said are democratic, where the questions to be put are decided by the Government. Sir, it would be silly to allow the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis to try and wreck the referendum by causing confusion in the framing of the questions. But I suggest that it is logical and rational that those who are unable to make up their minds shall be deemed to abide by the decision of the people's representatives in this Assembly. Sir, this amendment has been proposed after careful consideration of the amendments that have been put in by Members of the Opposition, and in this particular case an amendment by the Member for Anson one of them, Sir, seeks to allow voters intentionally to deface and mess up ballot papers. An amendment to clause 31 of the National Referendum Bill, i.e., after "or" where it secondly occurs, to insert "being a person other than a voter in respect of his own ballot paper". Sir, under the present legislation - and one under which all previous elections have been held with proper decorum and fairness - no person shall deface or destroy his ballot paper. Now it is suggested that a man should be fully permitted to frustrate the purposes of the referendum by intentionally defacing or otherwise destroying his ballot paper. The Opposition wants this. Maybe the Member for Anson does not know the wider implications. Not unnaturally the conclusion `that we or any rational person must come to is that this is one of the tactics to counter the referendum, to cause confusion by tricking or intimidating people into spoiling or defacing the ballot paper. This may reach sufficient proportions so that the objectives of the referendum can be, in the public mind, frustrated. Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of elucidation?

Point of explanation if the Prime Minister will permit.

Surely [and resumed his seat].

If you will see, Sir, clause 31, page 11, line 40, it makes it a criminal offence for any person who "intentionally defaces or intentionally destroys any ballot paper or the official mark on any ballot paper....'. And it carries a liability of two years' imprisonment maximum and 7 years, from the date of his conviction, being unable to vote. If the Prime Minister would direct his mind to that - the point was that the person should be free, if he did not want to vote, to destroy his paper without making him liable to conviction.

I am grateful to the Member for Anson for repeating my explanation. That is exactly the point. Under the present legislation no man is entitled to deface or destroy even his own ballot paper. There is a reason for it, and I suggest to him particularly now, in view of the fact that the Member for Changi has also stressed this point. It is a pity that we wish to punish anybody for defacing his ballot paper; and if he now returns a blank ballot, it will be deemed that he will leave the decision to this Assembly. The Member for Anson may be still naive, Sir. I have a feeling that it is a long while ago since he was a vestal virgin in political matters. I have the unhappy feeling that he knows full well, having seen, having felt, and having heard of the activities of the Communists through the Barisan, through the unions and through the manipulations of some of his own members of the Workers' Party, with one of whom I had the occasion to discuss -

His Party has been captured. He has admitted that.

Yes. I had to describe the activities of the one of his members in my series of broadcasts which unfortunately had to bring his Party in. Let us not be squeamish about these things. He himself admitted yesterday that although his Party may have been captured, he has not been captured. Well, I say, God bless him. Perhaps he is not worth the capture. I do not know. I would suggest that it is contrary to the interests of this country to allow the Communists and their open front organisation an opportunity to manipulate, by lies, trickery and smears, people to destroy or leave blank ballot papers. One could achieve that result by any number of lies. For instance, there are a lot of ignorant people who, for some reason or the other, may believe that since they were not born here, for them to put a cross for or against a proposition might mean the loss of their citizenship. They would really readily believe such a proposition, and if sufficiently large numbers can be persuaded to believe such a proposition, they might be dissuaded from making a choice and leaving a blank ballot. This provision does not prevent anybody from making his choice, but it makes it unprofitable for the Communists to dissuade people from exercising their choice. That is the purpose of the amendment which has arisen out of the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson, which he may or may not know may be very useful for the Communists. So the provision we have made, that unmarked or blank ballot papers shall be deemed to accept the decision .on the matter by the Assembly, will prevent any such mischievous campaign, can look after the less than one per cent in the last general elections of those groups who, the Member for Queenstown said, are not politically mature enough to understand the issues in a referendum. Sir, we have been accused in January of wanting to delay the passage of this Bill and thereby avoiding the holding of a referendum. We at that time directed our attention to the Barisan Sosialis. But they, of course, from time to time, in order that they will not be spotlighted in their stark nakedness, their ugly features revealed, bring in a few aides to try and blend into a wider and a bigger background. They brought in the Member for Anson who foolishly supported the statement that we were trying to abscond from a referendum. So did the Member for Hong Lim. Now, however, the Member for Hong Lim has asked that more time be given to him so that he could find out if other democratic countries like Australia have referendum laws which provide for the determination of the issues by the Government and by the Opposition also. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was grateful for his suggestion. Now he wants the Bill to go to Select Committee. In order that we shall not be accused of wishing to delay its passage, we have stated that it can go to Select Committee if it is the wish of the Opposition. In other words, the Government will abstain. Sir, the Member for Anson was so moved by this gesture of the Government that he exclaimed, "Very fair! Very fair!" Of course, we must press that the Bill should be reported to this House by the end of April. There are various reasons for it, Mr Speaker, Sir. A Select Committee is a matter on which the Members of the Opposition can please themselves. The Barisan Sosialis denounced this yesterday. The Member for Anson praised it yesterday. I am now told the Member for Anson praised it the day before, but denounced it yesterday when he was approached by Members of the U.P.P. and the S.P.A./U.M.N.O. Alliance. He went over to the Barisan side and opposed a Select Committee. I am now told in my few minutes' absence out of this Chamber - I do not know whether the Member for Anson was here - that there has been a reversal of line. The Barisan - their appendages in this Assembly - have made the wrong decision, it seems; or perhaps this was an impromptu one which again may have to be reversed. But they also are not against a Select Committee and they will abstain now. Well, Sir, so be it. The Opposition can have it any way they like. Sir, as for the complaint of lack of time to consider the amendments, may I point out that all these amendments are as a result of the amendments proposed by the Opposition? In nearly all cases, the Government could have moved these amendments in Committee without giving the Opposition any notice whatsoever. That is so. We gave them notice last Monday. If the Bill were not to go to Select Committee, it would have been next week before the Committee stage is arrived at. I am therefore completely unmoved by all these charges made by the Member for Anson and by the Member for Queenstown of unfair practice and of not giving them enough time. If they really wish to consider the amendments - as the Member for Farrer Park has said - they can vote for the motion by the Member for Hong Lim to refer the Bill to Select Committee. But as I say, whether in Select Committee or in this Chamber or in any other public forum, we defend what is fair, what is just and what is right. We shall not be deterred from doing what we know is necessary. What is really necessary is to disabuse the minds of the people of Singapore - or any section of the people of Singapore; in this particular case, principally the Chinese - that there is any sell-out to any Malays in the Federation. Merger will take place whether we go through a referendum or without a referendum. The Seeretary-Genera1 of the Barisan Sosialis has admitted that to a meeting of his union officials recently. He knows it. The game is up. They fought the wrong issue. In fact they acted as the catalyst for merger. The issue is not whether merger takes place or not, but whether after it has taken place you have a happy society composed of three principal races. Let us be frank about it - two principal races and one minor race the Chinese and the Malays, about equal in number; the Indians, about 15 per cent. If one community believes that another has deprived it of its rights or that somebody has sold it out and carries a chip on its shoulder, that is the kind of bitterness and hatred upon which the Communists hope to feed and grow after Malaysia. It is our duty not just to plan for merger - for that phase is over - but to ensure that after merger only those who sought trouble and who now have got it coming to them will be left embittered, namely, the Communists and their stooges in the front organisations, it must be brought home to the majority of the Chinese - whether they are Chinese-speaking, non-Chinese speaking, born here or born in China - that merger is inevitable and is in their own interest of survival, and that nobody sold anybody to anyone else-let alone Singapore to the Federation. For if that were the case, as I said, the gift would have been taken a long time ago. It is because of certain other basic considerations, of maintaining the overall proportions between the various races and communities, of the imbalance that Singapore alone in the Federation would introduce, that Malaysia has been timed to coincide with merger. That in itself is an admission that Singapore wields a fair proportionate measure of influence in the new Federation. That point will sink home when the people make their choice. As I put it to the Member for Stamford, is she afraid to put the Barisan Sosialis proposition - complete merger like Penang and Malacca - to a vote of the people?

Mr Minister, in reply. 6.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the unfounded charges and insinuations made by the Member for Queenstown and other Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen regarding the intention of the Government in this Bill, I wish to reiterate what I said when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The modifications which the Government have made to the Bill with regard to the procedure for holding a referendum were made because no individual candidate or political Parties were involved as in the case of elections, and also in order to simplify the procedure at polling stations and to save time. These modifications were made to suit the different requirements of a referendum. However, in order that there can be no doubt whatsoever about the propriety of the conduct of the referendum, the Government accept several amendments of the Member for Queenstown relating to the appointment of polling agents and counting agents by political Parties represented in the Assembly, the affixing of seals by polling agents or counting agents, the opening of ballot boxes in their presence, and the provision for the recounting of votes. The Government also accept with some modifications the Opposition amendments on the prohibition of flags, banners, symbols, advertisements, etc, and canvassing in a referendum. For the information of the Member for Queenstown, the period of time in respect of certain statutory notifications will also be extended by Government. I wish to reiterate once again that canvassing will be prohibited only on polling day, just as in the case of any elections in the past. Also the prohibition on the displaying of flags, banners, symbols, etc, is to be confined only to the period of the referendum. The provision of referendum petitions too has been spelt out in a comprehensive form under the new Part V of the Bill. The Government therefore have met most of the criticisms contained in the speech of the Member for Queenstown. However, in spite of the fact that the Government had conceded to the amendments of the Opposition, the Member for Queenstown deemed fit to carry on a long tirade fighting shadows of his own making. Nevertheless, the speeches of the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues showed how absurd they had become after closely associating with Communist front leaders in the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of a referendum on merger was raised by the Party even before the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members left the P.A.P. in the hope of becoming Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. It is equally absurd for the Member for Hong Lim to suggest that the proposal to hold a referendum was forced upon the Government through his pressure. The Member for Nee Soon made a fantastic suggestion that the purpose of the referendum is to give the Government another lease of life. If he is not dishonest, he will remember that in May 1961, soon after the Hong Lim by-election, the Government were prepared to hold a referendum as to whether they should continue in office. However, it was the 13 Barisan Sosialis Members now sitting on the opposite side of the House who came out most strongly against this move. They were horrified at the prospect of not being in office either as Parliamentary Secretaries or Assemblymen. If the P.A.P. leadership wanted to hang on to office at whatever cost, we would not have put the future of the Government in the hands of the people then. There was also the criticism that the Opposition had not been given adequate time to campaign during the referendum. This again is far from the truth. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the provisions of this Bill, the first matter to be committed to the electorate for a referendum will be the terms and conditions of merger of Singapore with the Federation. Much has already been said about this merger during the past few months through the radio forums, meetings, discussions and in this Assembly: The Barisan Sosialis, in fact, have held a considerable number of mass meetings in the last few months on the merger issue, of course, not with a view to clarifying the facts as contained in the White Paper but in order to create fear and confusion in the minds of the people. The fact that their so-called mass meetings are being attended by fewer and fewer people is already an indication to them as to which way the wind of public opinion is blowing. However, one cannot expect a political Party founded on double talk and petty ambitions to stir up enthusiasm among the people. The Member for Hong Lim yesterday went to considerable lengths to criticise the Government for not calling an All-Party Conference to discuss the Referendum Bill and to agree on the question to be put to the people. Although he mentioned the Referendum Ordinance in Australia, he was unable to quote any provision in the Australian Referendum Ordinance where there was provision for an All-Party Conference to decide on the question to be put before the people. From what the Member for Hong Lim said regarding the All-Party Conference and the fact that the Member for Anson sought to allow the Assembly to decide on the question, I am beginning to wonder whether they understand the cabinet system of government. The Government is elected by, and is responsible to, the people. It is the business of the Government to govern in the best interest of the people. Surely these two gentlemen are not suggesting that the Government should abdicate their powers and responsibility? If an executive matter is to be referred to the Assembly for a decision, then there might as well not be a Cabinet. Perhaps that is what they want. Mr Speaker, Sir, one can imagine what the position would be like should this happen. The issue for a referendum would be so confused that the whole purpose of the referendum would be defeated. Mr Speaker, the purpose of a referendum is to ascertain the views of the people on a certain national issue, which the Government consider to be of such magnitude and importance that direct consultation with the people is necessary. Since the Member for Upper Serangoon says he has full confidence in the political consciousness of the people and in their ability to see clearly the issue before them, I fail to see any reason why they should be afraid of a referendum. On the other hand, the Member for Queenstown, his Party Chairman, seems to think otherwise. According to him, the people are ignorant fools and have such a low political consciousness that they are unable to distinguish between the good and the bad, and therefore a refrendum is most unsuitable. If then this is the view of the Barisan Sosialis, that the people are politically immature and have such a low political consciousness and the same degree of sanity as the Member for Anson, then it should -

On a point of order, Sir. This is misrepresentation of what I said in the Assembly. He said that I called the people fools and things like that. That is entirely wrong.

Order. I do not know whether the Minister has alleged that the Member for Queenstown called the people fools. But may I suggest to the Minister for Home Affairs that the expression used of the Member for Anson is completely improper? I ask him to withdraw that expression.

As you wish, Sir, I withdraw my expression in respect of the Member for Anson. Nevertheless, what the Member for Queenstown said at the raido forum amounts to the same thing. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon has also suggested that the question for the referendum should be whether the White Paper on merger should be accepted, and not what type of merger the people would like. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am beginning to wonder whether the Member for Upper Serangoon has second thoughts about the implications of his Party's own merger proposal on the basis of Penang and Malacca, and that he now realises that his Party's type of merger is not acceptable to the people, because it is a sell-out of more than half of the citizens' rights and privileges. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Upper Serangoon made an unfair allegation against the integrity of the civil servants who will be in charge of the referendum. Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon) rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. I never accused the civil servants yesterday.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the implication is clear enough. According to him, the clause on tendered votes will enable the Government to indulge in irregular practices. How this could be done he did not explain, and I hope he will do so when it comes to the Committee stage. But I only wish to say at this stage that the whole referendum machinery is run by the civil servants, including the issue of ballot papers to the voters. The Ministers, the Parliamentary Secre taries, and Government Assemblymen have no hand in running the polling stations. Apart from the presiding officer who is normally a responsible civil servant to see that a `ballot paper is issued only to the person entitled to it, there are also the polling agents appointed by the various political Parties themselves to see that the polling is conducted in an honest and fair manner. Is he then suggesting that the civil servants, numbering more than 10,000 in charge of the polling stations, will indulge in irregular practices, and that they are even so bold as to do it under the close scrutiny of the polling agents appointed by the political Parties? Elections have been held many times in the past, and I have yet to hear of such a fantastic charge being made against the polling staff. If I may point out, the Member for Upper Serangoon took part in at least four elections and I failed to hear from him any complaint of irregularity committed under this clause. You will recollect, Mr Speaker, Sir, not so long ago his Party Chairman, the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Thomson, and many others in the Barisan Sosialis, praised the integrity of the civil service to high heaven. But today we hear the Member for Upper Serangoon making this fantastic presumption that the civil servants in charge of the referendum machinery is politically corrupt. Is it because they think that the praise they have showered on the civil servants in the not too distant past has fallen on barren soil that they have now decided to change their views? Mr Speaker, Sir, great play has been made of the amendment regarding unmarked and uncertain votes. In this respect, the Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister have already given an adequate explanation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in their campaign to oppose merger and Malaysia, the Communists and their stooges have resorted to unprincipled tactics of deceit and duplicity even to the extent of stabbing their comrades and pilfering properties from P.A.P. branches. Ever since the issue of merger was raised, the communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis have been earnestly going about confusing the illiterate people, especially in the rural areas, by spreading rumours that they should oppose merger because merger would mean the domination of the Chinese by the Malays; special privileges and licence would be granted to the Malays; and Chinese culture and education would be eliminated. Since the Government have decided to refer this important national issue to the people, they have decided that the referendum should be exploited to their advantage. Without the amendment proposed by the Government regarding uncertain and unmarked votes, the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis could go round and mislead the electorate to cast blink votes or deface the ballot papers by giving all kinds of false interpretation to the White Paper. For example, a vote for merger will entail the loss of citizenship or a taxi licence or the opportunity to be educated in a Chinese school. It is to ensure that the right of the voters to express their views is not prevented or confused by the falsehoods and rumour-mongering of the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis that the amendment has been introduced so that the genuine views of the people may be ascertained and that the referendum will not be turned into a farce. The House may note that in the last general elections in 1959 the number of rejected votes, which included the unmarked or uncertain or defaced votes, etc., only amounted to 6,650, which was about one per cent of the total votes cast. Mr Speaker, Sir, charges of parliamentary dictatorship were levelled against the P.A.P. Government by the Member for Queenstown in connection with this Bill. The Members for Queenstown, Nee Soon, and Upper Serangoon seemed unable to grasp the simple truth put to them in simple language. The Government could have implemented the merger plan after the Assembly gave its approval to the White Paper, Cmd. 33 of 1961, without holding a referendum. The fact that the Government are prepared to put the issue of merger before the people even after the Assembly gave its approval proves conclusively that the P.A.P. Government is far from being dictatorial. Indeed the Government consider merger a national issue affecting the future of 1.7 million people, and it is therefore a matter important enough for the people to decide on the manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories. If the Government wanted to be dictatorial, like Chiang Kai-shek and Syngman Rhee, not only would this Bill not be before this House today, but most probably the Member for Queenstown and his political cronies would not be present in this Assembly, but, as suggested by the Minister for Finance, they would be six feet underground.

Elope.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. 7.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection."

I propose to take the motion in two parts. Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, nil; Abstentions, 38; Absent, 4. Ayes. Abstentions. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat Buang bin Ahmad Jabri bin Omar Junid Mohammad Akib Byrne, K. M. Lim Yew Hock Chan Chee Seng Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong Ng Teng Kian Madam. Ong Eng Guan Chan Sun Wing Rajah, A. P. Chor Yeok Eng Seow Peck Leng, Fung Yin Ching Mrs Miss. Thio Chan Bee Goh Keng Swee Hoe Puay Choo Madam Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Siew Choh Lee Teck Him Leong Keng Seng Lim Cheng Lock Lin You Eng Low Por Tuck Marshall, David Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi M. Ismail Rahim Ong Chang Sam Ong Pang Boon Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam Sheng Nam Chin Tan Cheng Tong Tan Kia Gan Tee Kim Leng Teo Hock Guan Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Wong Soon Fong Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin Noes. Absent. Nil Ahmad bin Ibrahim Koh, C.H. Mammen, John Mohamed Ali bin Aiwi Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the Select Committee do consist of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection," put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name, * The same motion also stood in the name of A. P. Rajah. 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 with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore. First and foremost, Sir, I would like to say in unequivocal terms that this motion introduced by me is not a political move to embarrass the Government or to condemn the two political Parties, that is, the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis, for fighting it out in the trade union arena as to who are the true champions of the workers in Singapore. The fight is the more bitter because it is a fight of Party comrades who have irreconciliably fallen out. Both have graduated from the same school of the art of using the workers' movement to achieve their own political ends. Sir, I do not wish my motion for the present to get involved in the mischief created by the two political Parties. It is a motion in plain and simple language. The first part of my motion, that is, "That this House views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" does not require me to say much to convince hon. Members. Facts and figures speak for themselves. The economic well-being of the people is the first and sacred task of the elected representatives of the people, the Government as well as the Opposition, and such being the case, this House cannot but view with grave concern the mounting industrial unrest. In the words of the Minister for Labour and Law, when he moved the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill on 10th February, 1960, and I quote Hansard, Vol. 2, No. 3, col. 151: `Strikes and lockouts and other traditional forms of direct action cause suffering and hardship to those involved, and economic loss to the community as a whole on a scale which a progressive society, aiming at a happier life and higher economic standards for all, cannot tolerate and cannot afford.' Whether there has been mounting industrial unrest or not, hon. Members can evaluate from newspaper reports and statistics issued by the Labour Department. Official figures released last January showed that last year, with 113 strikes and four lock-outs involving 43,764 workmen, and resulting in the loss of 426,127 man-days, was the worst year of industrial unrest in the life of the present Government. In 1960, there were 45 strikes. In the last five months of last year, there was an average of one strike every two days, against an average of five a month in the first seven months. Of last year's 113 strikes, 78 occurred in the last five months, August to December, giving an average of 15 strikes a month. The number of disputes dealt with by the Industrial Section of the Labour Department last year was 1,225. The worst strike month was November with 20 strikes involving 32,304 workmen and costing 300,842 man-days lost. Moreover, Sir, many new strikes have already taken place this year and there do not appear to be indications of an easing off on the strike front. From these facts and figures, hon Members cannot ignore the fact that industrial unrest has been on the increase and, as elected representatives of the people, we cannot but view this with grave concern. Sir, while on the question of strikes, I want to take this opportunity to refer to the recent strike of the Singapore Bank Employees' Union at the Oversea-Chinese Bank which has not been amicably settled. Hon. Members will remember that during the debate on the Second Reading of the Banking Bill which was taken through all its stages last January, I had occasion to refer to this Union as a P.A.P. union. This reference drew forth a Press statement from the Acting Secretary of the Union declaring that his Union did not owe allegiance to any political Party, nor did it profess any political ideology. The statement went on to express the hope that I would withdraw my allegation. Well, well, I am glad, Sir, that this Union has made its stand clear vis-a-vis its allegiance to any political Party. I accept this statement and I would like to congratulate the Union for the wisdom of its stand. Its members should be proud that the Union will not allow itself to be geared to the machine of any political Party. Having paid all this highly deserving praise to the Singapore Bank Employees' Union, Sir, I do not think I was wrong in describing it as a P.A.P. union in my speech referred to earlier. Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has described unions which have Barisan Sosialis leaders associated with them as Barisan Sosialis unions and as Communist front unions, I have described the Singapore Bank Employees' Union as a P.A.P. union because it has Mr Devan Nair and also, mind you, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture closely associated with the union. If the Prime Minister is right, then I am right. In fact, Sir, I am more right because a Parliamentary Secretary, a representative of the P.A.P. Government, is connected with the union. Therefore, I am more right than the Prime Minister when I described the Singapore Bank Employees' Union as a P.A.P. union -

You are a capitalist.

Sir, having viewed with grave concern the mounting industrial unrest, this House cannot leave it at that. The second part of my motion, therefore, comes in, and that is: `That this House...calls on the Government to take all reasonable steps to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore.' Sir, the Industrial Relations Ordinance is a reasonable step in this direction. When the Bill was read a Second time in February 1960, I think it was the Prime Minister who said that this was the first attempt made by the Legislature to bring the rule of law into industrial relations where the rule of the jungle had prevailed previously. The Bill as drafted by the Austrian expert brought in specially for this purpose was a good Bill, and the Opposition quite frankly informed the House that they were in complete agreement with the principle involved in the Bill when it was read a Second time in February 1960. Unfortunately, Sir, during the Committee stage, there were rush amendments introduced by the Government which were forced through with the Government's strength then of 43 Members in spite of very strong objections from the Opposition. 50 amendments were introduced by the Government, and some of these mutilated the Bill and took the essence out of the genuine effort to promote industrial peace. However, the Minister did assure the House during his speech on the Second Reading that the Government would give very careful consideration to the Annual Reports of the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court required under section 83 of the Ordinance and that the Government would not hesitate to introduce amending legislation if the need to do so was shown. At long last, Sir, the President of the Industrial Arbitration Court has submitted his first Annual Report and this has been in the hands of hon. Members since last January. It is clear, Sir, from the Report and, in fact, it has been clear to us for some time, that the Court has been working at a feverish pace and I would ask the Government not to hesitate to give the additional staff asked for by the President in his Report. Certain suggested amendments have also been brought up by the President of the Arbitration Court with the Minister. I take it that these suggested amendments are aimed at improving the operation of this legislation as a result of experience gained over the past 15 months. I would ask the Minister to introduce, without delay, amending legislation as recommended by the President of the Arbitration Court. The present unhealthy situation in Singapore demands immediate action. Sir, Table 4 of the Report discloses a sorry state of affairs and the Government cannot afford to be complacent about this. Table 4 shows that there are 8 cases pending before the Court. One case is being heard, while the other seven cases are still awaiting hearing two of which were submitted to the Court as far back as September 1961, that is, they have been in cold storage for many, many months and are still awaiting hearing. I can now understand, Sir, why it was that the Minister had been found to be hesitant in directing trade disputes to arbitration. It would be manifestly unfair to require the disputants, particularly workers' trade unions, to shelve settlement of their claims for many, many months awaiting the convenience of the Industrial Arbitration Court; for it must not be overlooked that once a trade dispute has been submitted by the Minister to the Court for arbitration, strike action must cease. The Minister for Labour and Law in his speech on the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill in February 1960, said (Hansard, 10th February, 1960, Vol. 12, col. 154): `As the system develops, it could be that we may have to have more than one Court to deal with matters in the first instance.' Table 4 clearly shows that one Court is grossly inadequate. Moreover, Sir, let us look at section 29 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which reads: `Subject to the provisions of section 30 of this Ordinance the Court shall carefully and expeditiously hear, inquire into and investigate every trade dispute of which it has cognizance and all matters affecting the trade dispute and the just settlement of the dispute and shall determine the dispute by arbitration.' I repeat, Sir, "the Court shall carefully and expeditiously hear, inquire into and investigate ...". The fact that there have been cases pending hearing for months and months is, to say the least, defeating the object of this special legislation. It is now evidently clear that the Government must set up more than one Court to do justice. I would like to receive an assurance from the Government that this will be done forthwith. Sir, I will now refer to Part VII of the Industrial Relations Bill. This deals with boards of inquiry. This provision in the law has not been brought into play by the Minister. There must be a purpose for such provision, and it is my submission that the Minister should have exercised his power under this Part in regard to the recent strike at the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation. Ltd, in this particular strike, the union claimed that the employers had done some act injurious to the union and demanded an apology. The employers were adamant and refuted the union's claims. As a result, the workers were called out on strike, which lasted more than a week before it was amicably settled. But the workers would not have to suffer some loss to achieve their ends and the public would not have to suffer inconvenience if the Minister had only exercised his power under this Ordinance. The Minister should have appointed a board of inquiry to inquire into who was right and who was wrong, and public opinion would be brought to bear on the culprits. I would ask the Minister not to hesitate to use this power when the occasion demands it and thus put a check on unnecessary industrial strife. As I have pointed out earlier, one Court of Arbitration has been found to be ineffective to cope with the spate of trade disputes. More courts have to be established, and once this is done, the Minister should have no hesitation to direct trade disputes to be submitted to the Court of arbitration. Once a strike takes place, it is the duty of the Labour Ministry officials, including the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, if they are not overburdened with work, to step in straightaway and try to bring about an amicable settlement. But if these efforts proved futile after a reasonable time, the Minister should without hesitation direct that the trade dispute be submitted to the Court for arbitration if the Industrial Relations Ordinance is meant to be a serious piece of legislation to promote industrial peace with justice, and the rule of law must be made to replace the rule of the jungle which, in the words of the Minister for Labour and Law uttered in February 1960, causes "suffering and hardship to those involved, and economic loss to the community as a whole on a scale which a progressive society, aiming at a happier life and higher economic standards for all, cannot tolerate and cannot afford". Conciliation is the biggest factor in promoting industrial peace, and it is therefore vital that the Labour Department should have a full complement of trained conciliators. I do not know whether or not there is a strong and effective team of trained conciliators in the Labour Department, but if the Minister wants additional staff, we will give him all support. Not very long ago in this House, the Prime Minister waxed eloquent. He said in vitriolic language that it was the policy of the Government not to allow non-citizens to play an active part in the industrial relations field. If he meant what he said and said what he meant, may I ask the Government when it proposes to introduce amending legislation to this effect? In the Industrial Relations Ordinance, non-citizens are not entitled to be appointed to serve on the panel of employers or of employees. Sir, in view of section 83 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, a number of secret ballots have been undertaken by the Labour Department to ascertain the workers' choice of a particular trade union to represent their interests. I cannot understand, Sir, how, after such secret balloting had disclosed the choice of the majority of workers in a particular place of employment, a rival trade union which lost in the secret balloting was allowed, to continue to function, in one particular case, it was even allowed to call and carry out a strike of the minority of workers. Does this not make a farce of the procedure of secret ballot undertaken by the Labour Department? Why go through this rigmarole as it will only bring the Labour Department into disrepute and contempt? If a secret ballot undertaken by the Labour Department does not settle the question, why should the Government waste public funds? Sir, when the Industrial Relations Bill was read a Second and a Third time in February 1960, the Government quite rightly claimed that this legislation would bring the rule of law into industrial relations where previously the rule of the jungle had prevailed. The Bill which was assented to on 25th February, 1960, came into operation on 15th September, 1960 - a delay of seven months - and the Industrial Arbitration Court was officially opened on 24th October, 1960. All this happened in 1960 and yet, Sir, in 1961, there were 113 strikes more than in previous years. Has this piece of legislation achieved the object - that is, to bring the rule of law into industrial relations where previously the rule of the jungle had prevailed? To a lesser degree than in 1961, it has failed. Why and where it has failed, I have endeavoured in my speech to quote a few instances. This law, if it is meant to be a serious piece of legislation to promote industrial peace with justice, must be made to work, and it can be made to work, and I call on the Government to take all necessary steps to make it work. Sir, I am sure the Government is no less anxious than we are to promote industrial peace with justice so that the industrialisation plans for the benefit of the people of Singapore can be assured of some measure of success. The P.A.P. have leaders who are very close to the trade unions. They are therefore in a position to know what reasonable steps other than the ones I have touched upon, the Government can take to ensure industrial peace with justice in the interests of the economic well-being of the people of Singapore. Sir, on this note, my motion rests.

Before I propose the Question, may I enquire from the Member for Anson whether he intends moving his amendment?

Yes, Sir.

In that case, may I suggest that the mover of the motion, if he wishes to deal with that amendment, can do so now so that the device which we have adopted on other occasions could be adopted - that is, the debate could range over the motion and the amendment, and then at the end of the debate the Question could be put first on the amendment and then on the motion.

I seek your indulgence, Sir,I shall be unavoidably away in Penang on Monday. I have but a few minutes to deal with my amendment and if the Member for Cairnhill continues to speak, of course, I will be even unable to deal with that.

It is not my choice. It is the choice of the Member for Cairnhill. Perhaps he can just indicate whether he accepts that or not.

Sir, I do not know what has prompted the Member for Anson to move an amendment to a very simple motion. I must listen to his views before I can even decide whether I support it or not.

Of course, the Member for Cairnhill has the right to reply at the end of the debate. At that stage, he can indicate his views on the amendment. But the point is that I would like the assent of Members to the device that the debate should proceed not only on the motion but also on the amendment, and that will save time. Is there any objection to that?

May I suggest that the amendment be disposed of, because, depending on what the Member for Anson has to say, I may have a lot to speak against or for the amendment. If I support it, it will be all right, but I may speak against it.

The Member for Cairnhill does not understand. He will have the opportunity at the end of the debate to say whether he supports or rejects the amendment. This is a device to save time. Well, there is a dissenting voice. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill speaks like a born capitalist. I congratulate him. It must be a comfortable position. He has so well hidden the antecedents of the days when he was a trade union agitator. Sir, there is a touch of hysteria a little reminiscent of the Straits Tunes in this motion, and that is why I have sought to bring a sense of balance to it by my amendment. Let us recognise that in a free competitive society, the worker is naked and defenceless in the face of the power of capital and his only real protection is the unity he gets from the trade union movement; and by the very nature of the structure of our economy, a trade unionist and a capitalist must carry on a constant struggle which is perfectly healthy, as healthy as hunger and the satisfaction of it. Sir, the law can help to some extent, but the law cannot replace self-help in the industrial field any more than it can replace self-help in the individual field. This alarm displayed by the motion - grave concern; mounting industrial unrest - forgets that there are other countries, for instance, England, a land of democracy. I was just reading the other day a book and I noticed that in 1912, there were 40 million man-days lost by strikes, and there were far more in 1921 and in 1926. If we take our minds to Australia and America and to other democratic countries, there are far more man-days lost and, when they are compared to the population, there is far from cause for alarm. I would say, with respect to you, Mr Speaker. Sir, but for the malice of our newspapers, we would be conscious of the restraint and the dignity of our workers, Sir, let us not lose sense of the value of a strike to the worker. I speak as one who has suffered from unfortunate strikes when the Member for Cairnhill was himself the Minister for Labour, but even in spite of some strikes which were politically motivated and completely malicious and not intended for the welfare of the worker, in that one year in 1955, Sir, the standard of living of the worker was raised by 11 per cent; the industrial workers' wages rose from 65 cents to 74 cents in one year - an increase of 9 cents - and in the whole of the six years since 1955, it has increased by 6 cents. That year compared to last year was a year of turmoil, and last year was a year of comparative peace. The Member for Cairnhill refers to the strike in the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation which seems to touch his heart rather closely. Sir, of all the strikes I have heard of, that would be hardly the one I would consider compelling the worker to go to arbitration. May I remind the hon. Member that when I pleaded with him, as the Minister for Labour, to introduce provisions for arbitration, he said, "Marshall, not now. The workers do not like to be forced into arbitration. It is much better to have voluntary negotiations." There is nothing confidential about that. That was the advice of one Minister to his Chief Minister who was very much a tyro in these matters. The Minister was the experienced labour man and it was advice which I found to be good - and, frankly, Sir,I believe still is good - that compulsion in the field of industrial relations is by and large unwise. Although I cannot but agree that it is, I hope that greater advantage will be taken of arbitration proceedings. I do move the amendment that stands in my name in order to bring a sense of balance to this debate, to recognise that there is industrial unrest - but this is natural and healthy - to recognise that that Government should do something but that it cannot take the entire burden to seek to repress all strikes; and because Mr Tan Chin Tuan does not like an O.C.B.C. strike, therefore, the Government should intervene, is really an unbalanced approach to an extremely important problem. What I am particularly disturbed about is that Government, I understand, has issued orders which have encouraged a small section of the trade union movement to indulge in excesses, orders to the police not to take action in respect of criminal offences without reference to a Labour officer. I say that the Government has acted in a grossly improper fashion.

Order. If the hon. Member wishes his amendment to go on, he must end his speech - this is near the moment of interruption.

I move my amendment*, Mr Speaker, Sir. * The amendment reads as follows:- In lines 1 and 2, to leave out "views with grave concern the mounting of industrial unrest" and insert "takes note of the public manifestations of industrial dissatisfaction".

This is the moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.