Hansard, 1962-04-17

The following Members have, 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 Teo Hock Guan (Changi) - 26th March, 1962. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Labour - from 1st to 30th April, 1962. Mr A. P. Rajah (Farrer Park) - from 26th April to 22nd June, 1962.

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the days stated, he assented to the following Bills:- 30th March, 1962. Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill. Singapore Overseas Telecommunication Board Bill. 31st March, 1962. Income Tax (Amendment) Bill. Life Assurance Companies (Compulsory Liquidation) Bill.

asked the Prime Minister what was the purpose of his latest trip to Ipoh and the Cameron Highlands.

Sir, as the Member for Queenstown may have read in the newspapers, I went to Ipoh and the Cameron Highlands for a holiday.

Since there was also an A.S.A. meeting and since the Prime Minister was there, could the Prime Minister inform us whether his visit had any connection with A.S.A.?

Sir, I had the privilege to be in Cameron Highlands a few days before the Federation Prime Minister and his party arrived. For that reason my friends and I had acclimatised ourselves to the Cameron Highlands' climate and the grass there. As a consequence, we won the golf match.

asked the Prime Minister when will electricity supply reach the people of Zehnder Road in Pasir Panjang.

Sir, a scheme for the supply of electricity to the houses at Zehnder Road, Pasir Panjang, was considered by the Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee in 1961. This was the provision of electricity supply to 58 houses at an estimated cost of $37,720. The monthly revenue from these houses was estimated at $22,620 for a five-year period - in fact, amounting to a subsidy of $15,100 or $260 per house. The Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee received requests for the provision of such amenities from all over the island. As the funds available are limited, the Committee has to afford priority to schemes which it considers would benefit the greatest number at the lowest cost. This scheme was not included in the immediate programme for the provision of electricity supply to kampongs because of the small number of houses involved and the high rate of subsidy per house. It will, with all other schemes that did not get priority last year, be considered again later in the year to reassess its priority rating.

asked the Minister for Finance (1) what is the total number of female employees in the Singapore Government Service; (ii) how many of them are monthly rated; how many are daily rated; and (iii) how many of them have benefited from the recent decision of Government to implement its policy of equal pay for equal work.

The total number of female employees in the Singapore Government service is approximately 7,275. Of these, 105 are daily-rated and the rest are monthly-rated. Practically everyone will benefit in one way or the other from the policy of equal treatment for women. There are a small number of women in professional grades and in certain other occupations where they already enjoy equal pay. Even they will get other benefits such as permanency of status after marriage and similar retirement benefits as men.

Would the Minister tell us how many have actually benefited to date?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Treasury circular to give effect to this proposal has been drafted and at the present moment, it is being examined by me. When it is passed, all these benefits will be made available to women employees with effect from 1st March this year.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he has any information as to the amount of revenue collected by the Government in respect of the duty on lottery tickets sold to non-members of the Singapore turf Club.

Sir, this information is not available as the sellers do not distinguish non-members from members.

Would the Minister indicate what is the revenue collected on lottery tickets of the Singapore Turf Club and what, in his view, would be the proportion between those sold within the Turf Club and those outside?

I cannot recollect the figures off-hand and I am not very familiar with Turf Club sales of lottery tickets. I require notice of the question.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will make a statement as to what progress has been made with regard to the achievement of a proposed Common Market with the Federation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the two Governments have submitted a request to the United Nations to despatch a high-powered team to Malaya and Singapore. The Governments propose that the mission should be headed by a certain distinguished international figure who was one of the principal architects of the European Economic Community. This person, however, has found difficulty in accepting this invitation because of his other international commitments. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, Tun Abdul Razak, has written a personal letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, requesting his intercession on behalf of the two Governments.

The Minister informed this House five months ago on the 17th of November of this request. Are we to understand that in fact there have been no developments in the past five months?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already indicated that this international dignitary had been approached and that there was some difficulty in arranging a suitable timetable for him to come here. Without going into details, the present position is that the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation Government has himself appealed directly to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make it possible for this person to come here.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will consider sending an exploratory Trade Mission to New Delhi and/or Peking and whether he would indicate the probable cost of such mission to either capital.

Sir, if the Member for Anson will set Out the reasons therefor and the advantages accruing to the people of Singapore, I will certainly consider any exploratory Trade Mission whether to New Delhi and/or Peking and/or Casablanca and or the centre of any Western, Eastern or neutral bloc of nations.

Are we to understand from the Minister that he sees no advantage in such an exploratory Mission?

Sir, since the Member for Anson last raised this subject sometime last year, I have been waiting for a submission from him to inform me of the advantages to the people of Singapore of the course of action he is suggesting.

Would the Minister indicate his reply to the second part of the question?

The second part does not arise.

asked the Minister for Health and Law (i) what is the procedure adopted by Magistrates when a complaint is laid before them alleging criminal misconduct on the part of named and/or unnamed police officers; and (ii) between 1st June, 1959, and 31st March, 1962, what is (a) the number of such complaints made, (b) the number of such complaints referred by the Magistrates to the police for investigation, (c) the average length of time between the date of the request by the Magistrate to the police for investigation and the date of reply by the police to the Magistrate, and (d) the number of summonses and/or warrants issued by the Magistrates on such complaints.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will break it up into parts. [Interruption] The first part -

Order. I do not know whether the Minister is threatening us with a long statement. If he is, then perhaps he can make a ministerial statement at the end of Question time.

I shall make the statement brief.

Yes, it should be short. Mr Byrne.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the first part of the question asked: what is the procedure adopted by Magistrates when a complaint is laid before them alleging criminal misconduct on the part of named and/or unnamed police officers? The answer to this question is as follows. The procedure adopted is that laid down in section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code which the Member for Anson knows quite well. The assistance of the Commissioner of Police sought in the following circumstances:-

Would the Minister agree that referring complaints about the police to the police for investigation brings about considerable dilatoriness and has he any suggestions for future legislation on that aspect?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the whole list of names of complainants and matters which were referred for investigation. There were 19 complaints which were referred to the police for investigation. There were 12 complaints which were not referred to the police for investigation. The Magistrate has the power to deal with such complaints if the offence disclosed is a serious offence and needs investigation. In such cases, the Magistrate always refers them to the police for investigation. But where the complaints are trivial, he deals with them himself.

Would the Minister be good enough to direct his mind to the question which seeks to inquire whether the Government is conscious of the frustrating procedure whereby complaints about the police are referred to the police for investigation, and whether they have in mind any legislation to deal with that aspect?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson very well knows what the procedure is. It is true that some complaints are referred to the police for investigation. Before any action can be taken, the investigation papers go to the State Advocate-General's Department, and it is the S.A.G. who has the right under the Constitution to decide whether action should be brought or not. The Member for Anson understands the procedure quite well.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he has any information as to the dangers to health of cigarette smoking, and what action does the Government propose to take.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. This information is contained in a publication entitled "Smoking and Health" which is a report of the Royal College of Physicians of London on smoking in relation to cancer of the lung and other diseases, published by Pitman Medical Publishing Co. Ltd. this year. If the Member for Anson is interested, I have the publication here and will let him read it if he likes to. But I would like to mention here that I know that the Member for Anson is a regular pipe smoker and it would be of interest to him if I quote a paragraph from this report which was -

The Minister is here to give information on the question of dangers to health of cigarette smoking and not pipe smoking.

Mr Speaker. Sir, this report deals with pipe smoking as well as cigarette smoking.

Order. I cannot allow that, unless the Minister wishes a debate on the question of pipe smoking. An hon. Member: Pipe down!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the following figures of interest for Singapore. Of deaths from lung cancer in 1959, there were 108 deaths. In 1960, there were 131 deaths from lung cancer, and in 1961 there were 138. All deaths from all cancers - in 1959, there were 1,055; in 1960, 1,067; and I have not got the figure for 1961 as it is too early to get them. The total of all deaths in Singapore for 1959 was 10,175; in 1960, 10,210; and in 1961, 10,025. The death rate from lung cancer in Singapore is about ten per cent of the total cancer deaths, and the total of cancer deaths is about one-tenth of all deaths. The position in Singapore does not warrant any immediate action. However, my Ministry is watching developments abroad on the investigation and prevention of lung cancer and smoking and will take whatever steps are proved necessary and beneficial.

In the light of the gravity of the effect of cigarette smoking on health as indicated by the report which the Minister has referred to, would he recommend to the Ministry of Culture that Radio Singapore should not carry advertisements on cigarettes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it would be advisable if the Member for Anson reads the book I have referred to because it is stated there that it has been proved that advertisements on tobacco do no initiate new smokers. They focus attention on the brands of smokes and they cause smokers to switch their smokes. So I think before he asks these questions, he should first read this book.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he would make a statement as to the mosquito nuisance in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to preface my remarks by informing the House that, in my opinion, mosquitoes are not the only nuisance that we have in Singapore.

What is the other nuisance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the complaints that we have received over the past three months of this year do not show any apparent increase compared with the corresponding months last year. For example, in March this year there were 62 complaints as compared with 72 in March last year. These complaints are dealt with by the Department which has 16 checkers in the city area and a mobile squad of 14 men in the rural area. As mosquito breeding has often been caused by choked drains - and it is known that hawkers are responsible for this - field officers have on their rounds advised hawkers not to throw rubbish indiscriminately into the drains, and have taken action to clear choked drains.

Are we to understand that the only criterion of the Ministry of the extent of the nuisance is the number of complaints received? Is there no detailed examination by staff of the areas where mosquitoes breed?

That is regularly done, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister is aware that complaints do not come in anymore, because the people are fed up as conditions have not improved. And can he ascertain whether complaints have not come in because the situation has improved?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the hon. Lady will come to my office I can show her piles of complaints that I have received. Every month I receive about 10 or 15 complaints.

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he would consider publishing in pamphlet form, in Malay and Chinese, the Government's policy as regards hawkers and the plan of alternative sites being offered.

The Government's hawker policy aims at registering and licensing all hawkers who are not itinerant with a view to accommodating them in suitable pitches. These pitches are being measured out in selected streets by the Hawkers Department. This work has to be done street by street and will take some time. Before the hawkers are re-sited in the newly marked out pitches. The aims and objects of this exercise are clearly explained to them and their co-operation is sought. Most of the hawkers will be permitted to carry on their trade in the places where they are at present. Some may have to be resited. The bases for resiting will be:-

Does the Minister not consider that it would be fair for the hawkers and helpful to the Government if, in fact, there were pamphlets in the languages which the hawkers could understand showing plans of the sites and the exact policy and period for change, instead of depending on individual inspectors?

I do not agree because there would have to be a pamphlet for each street.

On the question of when a street is to be allocated for sites for hawkers, could the Minister inform the House whether the traffic police are con sulted before a particular street is allocated for such use?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. We have what is known as the Hawkers Advisory Committee. We have Legislative Assemblymen and Assemblywomen, the Commissioner of Police, the Fire Brigade and the P.W.D. Road Department represented on that Committee.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell us when is the time to carry out the hawker policy and whether there is any representative of the hawkers in that Committee?

Will the Member for Pasir Panjang repeat that question?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister tell this House when will his hawker policy be carried out within a specific time? The other question is, can the Minister tell this House whether hawkers are represented in this Hawkers Advisory Committee?

The hawker policy is being carried out now and the work is done on the basis of street by street. What was the next question?

The next question was whether the hawkers are represented in the Committee.

No, Sir. There are so many hawkers' associations that we feel it would not be right to invite, say, any particular association to be represented in the Committee, if we did, we would have to include representatives of all associations.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if there are no representatives of the hawkers in the Committee, then the Committee will not be able to understand the hawkers well. This is disadvantageous to the hawkers.

That is a different question. Mr David Marshall.

asked the Minister for Culture what is the amount of revenue collected by Radio Singapore from advertising (a) of cigarettes, and (b) of other products.

The amount of revenue collected from advertising by Radio Singapore since August 1960 is (a) from cigarettes: $240,441 and (b) from other products: $2,634,527.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Government will consider introducing legislation requiring civil servants and Assemblymen to make annual returns to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau of all their assets and all their income from whatever source and wheresoever arising, and whether in trust or otherwise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Ministers of the Government have already on their appointment declared a return of all their assets and sources of income to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Parliamentary Secretaries have made similar returns to the Prime Minister. If the House desires, Government can introduce legislation to require all Members of the Assembly to submit a return of their assets and sources of income to the C.P.I.B. As regards civil servants, there are already in existence regulations embodied in General Orders 152 and 153 and other relevant General Orders and circulars governing their conduct and personal activities.

What are the mysterious General Orders 152 and 153 and do they provide for annual returns of assets?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on appointment, civil servants will have to submit a return of their assets and sources of income. I think there are also wide powers given to the Public Prosecutor under the Prevention of Corruption Ordinance, No. 39 of 1960, more particularly under sections 17, 18 and 19, with regard to investigating and obtaining information of assets not only of civil servants but also of other persons should the circumstances so warrant.

Are we then to understand that the precautionary measure of requiring by law annual returns of increments in income and assets in respect of civil servants and Assemblymen is not being considered by the Government?

As I have already indicated earlier, if the House so desires, the Government can introduce legislation.

For civil servants too?

No.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the average length of time that an applicant has to wait at the Registry of Persons in order to obtain a change of Identity Card.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the average length of time that an applicant has to wait at the Registry of Persons in order to obtain a change of identity card is about half an hour. The procedure entails a number of checks in order to ensure that the card to be replaced belongs to the applicant and that details on the card are correct and brought up to date.

Is the Minister aware of a complaint that on the 4th of April, one lady waited from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. to obtain a change of identity card?

Order. I cannot allow that type of question which merely offers information. Perhaps if the Member for Anson would give prior notice to the Minister, he would get an answer.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the Government's policy in respect of birth certificates which contain the names of the parents but not of the child and which are supported by Statutory Declarations with photographs identifying the child.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is presumed that the question is in connection with applications for Singapore citizenship and, if so, the position is as follows: A birth certificate with the name of the parents but without the name of the child is acceptable as documentary evidence of the child's birth in Singapore if it is supported by a statutory declaration and other corroborative evidence; for example, School Leaving Certificate, Birth Certificates of brothers and sisters or vaccination notice or certificate. The statutory declaration, whether or not a photograph of the child is affixed, should be made by a responsible person who is in a position to testify to the child's birth; for example, a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or an elder brother or sister who is at least seven years older than the child in question.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what was the number of persons detained under the provisions of section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance as on 31st March, 1962; (b) how many of these persons have been detained for more than 3 years; (c) how many have been detained for more than two years; and (d) how many persons detained under the Ordinance are detained (i) in Changi Gaol, and (ii) in Pulau Senang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of persons detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance as on 31st March, 1962, is 804. Of the 804 under detention, 85 persons have been detained for more than three years; 235 have been detained for more than two years. Of those detained, 375 are in Changi Prison and 423 in Pulau Senang. Up to date, a total of 135 detainees have been released from Pulau Senang.

Does the Minister envisage the danger that constant companionship and common hardship over a long period of time of detained suspected gangsters may result in coalescing anti-social forces to the detriment of the country?

Order. That is a question which puts forward the Member's own point of view and cannot be asked at Question Time. He can raise it by way of an adjournment speech or any other way open to him, but not during Question Time.

May I inquire whether the Minister envisages any danger in having these people together?

Mr Speaker, Sir, from our experience of Pulau Senang, the result is just the opposite of what the Member for Anson is afraid of.

May we know the result, Sir, and the policy of the Government in connection with the release of these people or their treatment?

That is a different question.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he would indicate Government's policy with reference to suspected secret society gangsters detained under the provisions of section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question suggests that persons are being detained on suspicion of being secret society gangster. This is not correct. Under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1955, the Minister making the order has to be satisfied that the person against whom the order is made has been associated with activities of a criminal nature. In every case where an order has been made, there is ample evidence that the person concerned has been associated with activities of a criminal nature. Although there is a definite improvement in the crime situation involving secret societies, as evidenced by the drop in cases of attempted murder, acid throwing, abduction and assault and stabbing in the last two years, the danger, however, is by no means over. Members of the House will agree that if one of the major weapons in the battle against secret societies, as provided for under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, is no longer available, a large section of the population, particularly, hawkers, petty traders, trishaw riders and taxi-drivers, etc, will be terrorised and held to ransom.

I am glad the Minister has made that statement. Would he give a reply to my question as to Government's policy with reference to the treatment of these people?

Will the hon. Member repeat that question?

Indeed, Sir. The question is to ask the Minister whether he would indicate Government's policy with reference to secret society gangsters detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance. What is the policy as regards rehabilitation or release? These are the matters I am interested in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the policy is to rehabilitate these secret society members, and when they are rehabilitated, they are released into society.

Would the Minister indicate to what extent that policy is successful?

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the setting up of the Pulau Senang rehabilitation scheme, 135 secret society members have been released.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs to state (i) the number of applications made for permits to publish periodicals, magazines or any other daily, weekly, fortnightly or monthly, half-yearly or yearly publications for the year 1961 and the first quarter of 1962 respectively; (ii) the number of such applications approved by the Government; (iii) the number of applications rejected by the Government and the reasons given for the rejection; and (iv) the number of applications for renewal for 1962 which has not been approved, what they are and the reasons for refusing renewal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the information asked for is as follows: (a) The number of applications made for permits to publish periodicals, magazines and other publications was 333 for the year 1961 and 79 for the first quarter of 1962. The number of such applications approved by the Government in 1961 was 316 and in the first quarter of 1962, 63. The number of applications rejected by the Government in 1961 was 17 and in the first quarter of 1962, 6. In the majority of these cases, the applications were refused because the persons concerned were not considered to be proper persons to whom permits should be issued. In other cases, the reasons for refusal included contravention by the applicants of the conditions of previous permits issued and the unsuitability of the contents of the proposed publications. Applications for renewal for 1962 of the permits for the following two publications have been refused: The Movies Weekly Press and the Sin Tao Pao. Both these publications have the same proprietor who has breached the conditions of the permit issued to him for the publication of the Sin Tao Pao by hiring out the permit to two other persons with adverse security records. These two persons took over publication of the paper for a short period, during which time political articles of a provocative nature appeared in the publication, although according to the permit issued the contents were to be confined to news, comments and photographs on constructional projects, trade and commerce in Singapore and in the Federation and other parts of the world with a little amusement such as cinemas and stage shows.

Would the Minister explain what he means by "not the proper person"? I do not understand what that means.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already quoted an example just now in my answer; that in the case of Sin Tao Pao the editor had hired out his permit to two other persons with adverse security records and on top of that the contents were radically different from what the newspaper was supposed to print.

Is a person who writes things which are not liked by the Government considered to be not a proper person?

That is a matter for argument. Question 18.

asked the Minister for Education (i) what was the number of Chinese Middle and Primary School teachers employed by Government during the period 1st June, 1959, to 31st March, 1962; (ii) how many of these are Nanyang University Graduates; (iii) how many were recruited from Taiwan; and (iv) how many were recruited from Hong Kong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by the Minister to reply. 350 secondary and primary school teachers were employed during the period in Government schools and 2,086 in aided schools; 280 were Nanyang University graduates; none were recruited from Taiwan and none from Hong Kong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many Nantah graduates are employed by the Government this year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I had given that in my reply.

asked the Minister for Education (i) how many Chinese Middle School graduates were employed by the Government in 1962 to teach in both Government and Government-aided schools; (ii) how many of these newly-employed teachers hold the Senior Middle III certificate and how many the Junior Middle IV certificate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 143 Chinese Middle School graduates were employed to teach in Government schools and 144 in Government-aided schools this year. 114 of those in Government schools and 141 of those in aided schools hold the Senior Middle III certificate. As far as I know, there is no such thing as Junior Middle IV qualification.

asked the Minister for National Development (i) how many Housing Board shop-houses are at present vacant; (ii) what is the loss of revenue to the Housing Board accruing from the non-occupancy of these vacant shop-houses; and (iii) what is the annual cost of maintenance of these vacant shop-houses.

There are 43 Housing and Development Board shop-houses vacant at present. This represents 4.3 per cent of the total number of shop premises under the Board's management. When the Housing and Development Board took over from the Singapore Improvement Trust in February 1960, 137 shop premises were vacant. This amounted to 15.4 per cent of the shops under management at that time. Some of the shops had not been let since the completion of the buildings. The Housing Board took positive steps to bring down vacancies by introducing the "rising rent" principle. Under this system, properties which remain vacant for more than four months are rented out at 70 per cent of the minimum rent for the first year, 80 per cent for the second year and 90 per cent for the third year. Thus, if the minimum rental for a shop-house is $200, the rentals payable in the first, second and third year would be $140, $160 and $180 per month; in the fourth year, the full rental of $200 is charged. This encourages shop-keepers who pay lower rentals at the beginning when they are establishing business and goodwill in the locality. All the 43 shops vacant were built by the former Singapore Improvement Trust. No vacancy exists among shops built by the Housing Board since it was formed in February 1960. The Board has succeeded in reducing the percentage of vacancies from 15.4 per cent to 4.3 per cent. This is a reasonable figure considering that the Board has 1,000 shop properties under its management. Casual vacancies are bound to crop up from time to time as some shop-keepers give up their tenancies and the properties have to be let again to new tenants. In cases where it was clear that there was little hope of letting out the shops, the Board has taken action to convert such shop premises into living units. Eight such units in Stirling Road were converted into living accommodation in August 1960. Four units were likewise converted in Winstedt Court. The position is constantly reviewed and, as and when necessary, conversion will take place. In the planning and designing of shops, the Board, since it took over, has paid particular attention to the locality in which shop premises are placed plus the provision of living accommodation so that the shops are attractive to shop-keepers and the results are clearly seen in that none of the shop premises constructed by the Board are vacant. The answer to the second part of the question is:-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, has the Minister considered the question as to how he would take action to enable the shop-houses to be occupied by the tenants?

The Board has been looking into this question of either converting the shop-houses into living units or applying the "rising rental" principle. Up to this moment, we have been able to let out 94 of these 137 shops. I am sure in time we will be able to reduce this figure.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to constitute the Singapore Society of Accountants and to, provide for the registration and control of accountants." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

The first available sitting day to be named after the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill has completed its Report.

The Minister is aware that when the Assembly is adjourned after the completion of business, the adjournment must be either to a certain date or by resolution of the House to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House. Therefore, it would be necessary for a motion to be moved that this Assembly do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House, and that motion then, of course, is debatable.

3.27 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill be ordered to be read a third time. Members will recall that this Bill was read a Second time on 15th January, 1962, and was committed to Committee. Upon a division that clause 2 stand part of the Bill, the votes of Members were equally divided. The motion was accordingly declared lost in accordance with the provisions of section 53 (1) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958. Clause 2 was accordingly negatived. Sir, this occurrence was without precedent in this House and I am accordingly much obliged to you for having given advice on this matter. With your permission, I shall now take the liberty to quote liberally from your advice so that the House may be aware of the procedural principles involved. In paragraph 5 of your note, you said: `The Bill was reported to the Assembly in the usual way, and on being reported the Bill was deemed to have been ordered to be read the Third time. No motion, however, was made for the Third Reading nor was a future sitting day named for the Third Reading. The order for the Third Reading of the Bill therefore became a dropped order.'. Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. Sir, the Minister is reading from a document. Is that document to be tabled for use by other Members as well?

I will certainly make copies of my ruling available to all Members.

Sir, you then went on to consider what effect this has on the Bill and your observations were as follows: `The Committee, having negatived the only effective or essential Clause, virtually destroyed the Bill. The decision of the Committee is, of course, not binding on the Assembly. The Bill itself, therefore, has not, as a Bill, been negatived albeit it is now a mere "shell". A Bill can only be negatived by the Assembly at the Second Reading if the Assembly agrees to any of the two amendments to the question, "That the Bill he now read a Second time", as described in paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 67. It is therefore open to the Assembly to take steps as indicated... below to restore the provision of law which was negatived by the Committee. Before such a move is initiated, consideration would no doubt be given to the principle "that parliamentary government requires the majority to abide by a decision regularly come to, however unexpected, and that it is unfair to resort to methods, whether direct or indirect, to reverse such a decision. The practice, resulting from this feeling, is essentially a safeguard for the rights of minority, and a contrary practice is normally not resorted to, unless in the circumstances of a particular case those rights are in no way threatened".'. You were then quoting from Erskine May, page 417. You went on to observe: `The principle is a principle applicable to decisions of the House, but the Assembly might consider that the spirit behind the principle could equally apply to decisions of a Committee of the whole Assembly.'. You then went on to observe: `Nevertheless, the fact that the Clause was negatived by reason of the Committee being equally divided would no doubt be borne in mind when arriving at a decision as to whether any further step should be taken in the matter.'. As regards the steps which may be taken in the present Session of the Assembly, your advice was as follows: `If thought fit, therefore, steps could be taken firstly to replace the dropped order for the third reading of the Bill on the Order Paper and secondly, to give notice, before a Member rises to move the third reading of the Bill, that it is proposed to introduce a new clause (i.e, a clause similar to the clause which was negatived by the Committee of the whole Assembly or a clause substantively the same) on recommittal of the Bill to a Committee of the whole Assembly under the provisions of Standing Order No. 73.'. You went on to say: `The Committee of the whole Assembly in considering the new clause would of course be at liberty to ignore the decision of the former Committee of the whole Assembly which negatived the clause - a decision o one Committee is not binding on another Committee. If the new clause is accepted, the Bill as amended by the addition of the new clause is reported and read the third time under the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 73 (8) and 72.'. Sir, I have now dealt with the procedural aspect of this matter as advised by you. I shall reserve my arguments for reintroducing the negatived clause at a later stage when this matter goes into Committee.

The Question is, "That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill be ordered to be read a third time." I might add, on a procedural note, that hon. Members will have noticed that item 6 on the Order Paper deals with the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill (Minister for Finance) - Third Reading, but that item is printed in italics, which indicates that it will not be called unless and until the motion now being debated is accepted by the House. 3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, it is startling to those of us who have strenuously sought for many years to spread the concept of democracy in this area to find the Government treating the traditions of democracy with such little respect as is indicated in this motion. The Minister for Finance has quoted from an advice from you to him where May, the authority on parliamentary procedure, speaks of respect for the majority decision, however unexpected it may have been. The Minister has drawn your attention to the fact that on 15th January last the Bill was committed to Committee and clause 2, which is the whole body of the Bill, was negatived constitutionally. As you yourself put it at that time - and I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the arrangement whereby you made available to us copies of the verbatim proceedings of that day - the Bill became meaningless and was in fact a defeated Bill. I say, Sir, rightly defeated. This was only three months ago; 23 votes against this provision. Now the Government, with complete disregard to a decision constitutionally arrived at though disadvantageous to itself, no doubt having made arrangements which it thinks will guarantee it a majority, has brought in word for word the same clause which was defeated four months ago except, if my memory serves me right, Sir, there is an explanation. The last time the Government said that this will cost the Government nothing; this time we are told that this will cost the Government $39,000 a year, which will be a loss of revenue on licences. If you remember, it was pointed out to them that it could not mean no loss at all. Mr Speaker, it is, to my mind, not only an unhappy day from the point of view of a Bill which I regret is legalising gambling in a manner ruinous -

Order. I suggest to the Member for Anson that those remarks would be applicable if and when the Bill is debated. At the moment, we are on a procedural point.

I am touching incidentally on my regrets, as I say not merely because it is a Bill which was rightly defeated for good reason, but because it is indicative of a completely Fascist approach. The idea of democracy of this Government is a Fascist dictatorship between elections. At election time, we are all democrats. Once you are in office, then the steamroller of the majority is to be utilised irrespective of democratic traditions. Mr Speaker, am I to understand that on a motion for committal of this Bill for a Third Reading the objects and the merits of the Bill are not to be debated? I seek your guidance, Sir, so as to proceed.

Does the Member mean on this particular motion?

Yes.

No. On this particular motion, the merits of the Bill are not relevant.

In those circumstances, I would urge this House - both those who voted in favour and those who voted against - respecting the traditions of democracy and a decision constitutionally arrived at but three months ago, should unite unanimously in condemning an effort, however legal in the technical sense, which seeks to reopen that issue.

Dr Goh, in reply.

Sir, the Government needs no lecture on traditions of democracy from the Member for Anson. Sir, one of the most elementary principles of parliamentary democracy is that it is basically a debate on the two-party system - the party returned as the government in power and the party in opposition. It is fundamental to the working of parliamentary democracy that we must have a loyal Opposition. Sir, in the Member for Anson we can see - I for one can see - there is no trace of loyalty to the country, to democracy -

Order. Could the Minister indicate how that is relevant to the motion? The motion is on a procedural point. I do not think what the Member for Anson has said has invited those personal remarks.

The Member for Anson has sought to call this Government a Fascist dictatorship and I say that that allegation needs rebuttal. We have seen the Member for Anson when he formed the Government. It was a lamentable and pathetic performance. We had a Chief Minister who was constantly - and in his own words - acting as a prima donna. Sir, if you want to raise respect for democratic institutions among the ordinary masses who are not accustomed to them and who have never had the opportunity to operate the system, it is necessary that the political leadership conducts itself with dignity. I say that the Member for Anson, in his role as a political leader from a dismal beginning of his Chief Ministership to his present role as a supporter, as a stooge of the Malayan Communist Party - I say, Sir, that a man of this description -

On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, Sir. A supporter of the Malayan Communist Party is a criminal. I ask you to take notice of a breach of privilege.

As Chairman of this particular Assembly, I have heard allegations of supporters of Communists thrown across this Chamber. I do not propose to take any action on the question of privilege as Speaker. But, of course, the Member for Anson is at liberty in the usual way to file a notice of motion, should he so choose. Dr Goh.

Sir, I do not intend to waste the valuable time of this House in answering the contemptible allegations of the Member for Anson. I have already explained, and I have quoted you as an authority, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the procedure adopted by the Government is quite constitutional and in keeping with the traditions of parliamentary democracy. Question put. "That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill he ordered to be read a third time."

Division, Sir 3.45 p.m. The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 17; Absent, 4; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani S. T. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Miss Buang bin Koh, C. H. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Lingam, S. V. Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Abstentions. Mammen, John. Nil Mohd Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M.Ismail Rahim. Ahmad bin Ong Pang Boon. Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Ahmad Jabri bin Rajaratnam, S. Mohammad Akib. Ramaswamy, S. Chan Sun Wing. Sahorah binte Yong Nyuk Lin. Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan. Thin Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Motion accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That on this Assembly proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill be ordered to he read a third time.

Order for Second Reading read. 3.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions in respect of causes of action which survive against the estate of a deceased person. Section 7 (3) of the Civil Law Ordinance at present provides as follows: `(3) No proceedings shall be maintainable in respect of a cause of action in tort which by virtue of this section has survived against the estate of a deceased person unless either -

I appreciate the desire of the Minister to maintain conformity in matters of general principles both of the Federation and the United Kingdom. But what exercises my mind, Sir, is the difficulty of the estate of the deceased to defend an action in respect of a tort which may be four or five or six years old, at the time they receive notice of it. I am not aware, Sir - it may well be because I have not assiduously perused the newspapers - that there had been any important number of cases where there is indication of injustice in this protection of the estate of a dead man against proceedings not in contract, Sir, as has been pointed out, but in tort for misconduct alleged to have been committed more than six months before his death. I am sure the Minister and all of us certainly appreciate that when a man is alive, he can defend himself in respect of these matters to a degree that possibly his representatives cannot. And I would ask the Minister to indicate, apart from the perfectly legitimate desire to keep in line with the Federation and the United Kingdom -have there, in fact, been any cases of hardship and, if so, to what extent have they been caused by the existing law? And whether the Minister has really directed his mind to the dangers which would arise to the dead man's estate if his name could be maligned? The point is, it is impossible to prevent fraudulent and false claims being made. It is extremely difficult for his estate to defend him if the allegation is five or six years ago he did something in respect of which no action has been taken until six months after his death. These are matters of some importance on which I would appreciate clarification from the Minister.

Is there any other Member who wishes to speak? No. Mr Byrne.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all this was considered by the Bar Committee at the time it made its recommendation that this amendment be introduced. And for this reason, this Bill has been introduced.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

4.02 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Under section 8 of the Motor Vehicles (Third-party Risks and Compensation) Ordinance, 1960, it is provided that Where judgment is obtained in respect of any liability which is required to be covered by third party insurance, insurers shall, subject to the provisions of the section, pay the Public Trustee, as trustee for the persons entitled thereto, any sum payable in respect of such liability. Where the insurer admits the liability, there is no problem, as then the money is paid to the Public Trustee who will administer it for the benefit of the persons entitled thereto. Whenever, however, the insurer does not admit liability, it is necessary to sue the insurer. Under the present provisions, the proper person to sue is the Public Trustee, but the Public Trustee is unwilling to run the risk of losing the action and therefore having to pay the cost. The persons entitled to the benefit of the award would naturally want to bring action against the insurer but they have to do so in the name of the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee has, however, to ask for indemnity for costs and it may not always be possible for the parties to give this undertaking and it is doubtful whether the solicitors for the parties can give such an undertaking. It is therefore proposed to amend the Ordinance to provide that notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section 8 of the Ordinance, the right of action under the judgment shall vest with the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment. This will enable the persons entitled to take action without joining the Public Trustee in the action. The Bill has been referred to the Singapore Bar Committee which supports the proposed amendment. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

4.08 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of certain developments in the Federation where the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel has been refused, the Government would like an opportunity to reconsider certain clauses of the Bill, and I will therefore name another sitting day. You have ruled just now, Mr Speaker, Sir, that on the adjournment, the Leader of the House will move for a new sitting day, and the date that is decided by the House will be the new sitting day for this Bill.

The next available sitting day after the disposal of the Business on the Order Paper.

4.09 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation that the Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, our entrepot trade has brought prosperity to Singapore and will continue to do so. But the expansion of this sector of the economy is not expected to be large enough to give jobs for all our unemployed. There arises, therefore, an urgent need for industrialisation in Singapore to create employment opportunities for our rapidly growing population. This need is generally accepted. In order to industrialise, sufficient incentives have to be made available to induce local and overseas capital to flow into manufacturing industries. The Government have done much to provide these incentives: first, in the development of adequate public utilities, roads and other facilities to make possible rapid industrial expansion; second, in the establishment of the Economic Development Board which will actively encourage industries and assist businessmen with technical, industrial and financial assistance; third, in providing industrial estates and sites for factories to be constructed and purchased on an extended payment basis and at reasonable rates of interest; fourth, in providing tax exemption on profit for five years for new industries through the Pioneer Industries Ordinance, 1959; fifth, through technical advice and assistance; sixth, through an expanded vocational training in the Polytechnic, trade schools, secondary technical schools to create sufficient numbers of skilled workmen needed in industry. There is, however, one other field which has not up till now been fully exploited. This is the levelling of tariff duties on a selective basis on imported goods to protect the local industries in order to allow for their expansion and to encourage the establishment of new ones in Singapore. The reason for the agitation against the use of tariff protection is mainly that of the possible unfavourable effects they have on our entrepot trade. However, our brief experience in protective tariff has shown that the effects could be reduced to a minimum or even be eliminated if tariff duties are imposed with due care on selected com modities only. There should not be an indiscriminate or general imposition of tariff duties. So far, the Government have accorded tariff protection to two imported articles, namely, soap and paint, and this action has not caused any unfavourable effect on our commercial interest, nor has it reduced or adversely affected our entrepot trade, The decision to impose tariff duties on soap and paint was made after considering the reports of the respective committees appointed under section 11 of the Customs Ordinance. However, both committees encountered difficulties in obtaining information, and it was clear that the machinery as provided in the Customs Ordinance has serious weaknesses. One over-riding difficulty was that of obtaining accurate and reliable information. The committee did not have the power to compel interested parties to divulge such information. The delay in submitting their findings has been due, in a large measure, to this, and in particular to the difficulty encountered in ascertaining specific information on prices of imported goods. It is essential, if the development of manufacturing industries is not to be delayed, for a proper Tariff Advisory Commission to be set up with the necessary authority to obtain whatever information it needs to assess whether any particular industry requires tariff protection. Without this authority, the Commission will not be able to function quickly and effectively and the Government will not have the necessary data on which to reach a proper evaluation. The purpose of the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill now before the House is to overcome the weaknesses that now exist in operating section 11 of the Customs Ordinance, and to vest the required statutory powers to obtain the necessary information in the Tariff Advisory Commission to be established under this Bill. When such information is available, the Government would be able to make decisions on the basis of properly ascertained facts. The provisions of the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill are mainly procedural and can be briefly stated as follows: 1. The Tariff Advisory Commission will consist of a Chairman and between two and four other members. The Commission can also co-opt on an ad hoc basis one or more persons with special knowledge of the matter under inquiry. 2. The Minister may refer to the Commission to inquire and report on any of the following matters relating to:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, we support the principle of the Bill, but we must point out to the Government that while it is a good thing to consider the imposition of a protective tariff to help the industrialisation programme of the Government, they must not lose sight of the fact that the biggest factor to encourage the inflow of foreign capital for industrialisation is the political climate and the industrial atmosphere. The political climate in Singapore today is most unhealthy. We have a Government which is so fond and so proud of telling the world that it is -

Order. We are now on the general merits and principle of the Bill. I cannot see how what the Member for Cairnhill is saying has anything to do with the general merits and principle of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the motion, the Minister did give an account of the various factors which he considered would induce foreign capital to flow into Singapore for industrialisation. I was just trying to point out to him that he had overlooked one most important factor, and that is the political climate and the industrial relations climate, both of which are most unhealthy and very discouraging, so much so that no matter what plans the Government may have to encourage the inflow of foreign capital, they have failed miserably. Sir, there is one point on which I would like to congratulate the Government. For the first time since they came to power in 1959, they have come to realise that the members of a board or a commission shall not be Members of the Assembly. Previously, when they had 43 Members on their side, they insisted that Members of the Assembly should have a right to sit on a board or commission, and every time it was a P.A.P. Assemblyman and nobody else. While it is a good thing, Sir, that Members of the Assembly are now not permitted to be appointed to the Tariff Advisory Commission, may I ask the Government to remember this too; that they should not continue with their evil practice of loading commissions with men who will only play the P.A.P. game? In order to make this Tariff Advisory Commission a success, I hope the Minister will appoint men of integrity, men who will work with the interests of the country at heart, and not men who will only work for the P.A.P. Sir, in clause 6, the Commission has powers to co-opt one or more members who possesses special knowledge of any matter relevant to any inquiry. But if a person is so appointed because of his special knowledge, he will come up against clause 8. He will have either a direct or an indirect pecuniary interest. How is that going to operate? To appoint on an ad hoc basis a person with special knowledge of a particular subject and yet to say that if he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest he should not be present - perhaps the Minister can explain that. Perhaps the Government will, in full realisation of their past mistakes and the folly of their industrialisation programme, come to an awakening that the only way to solve the unemployment problem is to see that their industrialisation plan succeed; and the only way to make it succeed is to see that the political climate is healthy and that the industrial relations field is conducive to the inflow of foreign capital. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a Bill to assist in nibbling away at the free port status of Singapore. If we can accept the principle that individual Ministers can have vast powers to place tariffs on articles, then, of course, we can say that the Bill is helpful in that they have the assistance of a Commission, though itself appointed by the Minister. What I rise to sound a note of warning on, Sir, is that there does not seem to be adequate appreciation of the long-term danger of nibbling away at our free port traditions. The Minister for Finance has told you that for the past few months, we have had a duty on soap and a duty on paint. The one on soap, Sir, I think, is a matter of one month, and he says there has been no adverse effect on our economy. He shows very little regard, Sir, either for the intelligence of this House or he himself has very little understanding of the factors to imagine that one or two' duties over an extremely limited period of weeks could affect the picture sufficiently to prejudice more than a, century of tradition of free port for Singapore. But the matter of these individual tariffs is cumulative in effect, Sir, and as we add tariffs, then the information will seep through and the knowledge will expand that Singapore is no longer a free port. It is that, Sir, that can and seriously adversely affect our entrepot economy. The Minister pays passing tribute to our entrepot economy, but seems to think of it as no more than secondary to his industrialisation baby. Sir, I accept that industrialisation can become an important element in this State's economy. But I do say that it cannot replace our entrepot economy which must at all times be the cornerstone of any financial policy. An economy so little understood by the Minister that he seeks with derision to inquire what purpose there could be in an exploratory mission to such vast areas of potential commercial activity as India and China. With that attitude, Sir, one can destroy, not in the next two years, but one can lay the basis for the destruction of our economy. I am not unaware of the possible importance of what the Minister calls selected cases of tariffs. Those selected cases must be of a character which really bring in a considerable amount of employment and have little international repercussions or at least repercussions on our international trade. I would be far happier, Sir, if the provisions which seek to amend the Customs Ordinance, which are coming after this Bill, were of a character which would permit this House to pass judgment on the tariffs recommended by the Tariff Advisory Commission. But that is not to be, and I rise in opposition to the general principle of nibbling away by individual Ministers at the free port reputation of this island. 4.30 p.m.

No one from our side, Sir, can quarrel with the intention of the Bill to provide an edifice for an industrial complex unless he believes that Singapore can survive on entrepot trade alone. The need for necessary tariff protection for Singapore's industries is obvious. Industries cannot grow in the teeth of formidable competition with foreign goods that come into the Singapore market through the free port and across the Johore Causeway. What appears to be undesirable in this Bill is the absence of any provision that makes it incumbent on the proposed Tariff Advisory Commission to keep the people informed. Clause 15 (2) of the Bill confers on the Commission unwarrantable powers of secrecy with regard to the proceedings of the Commission. Furthermore, there is no provision to publish the reports of the Commission upon which the Government's decision of protection for industry is based. The people therefore are deprived of the right of access to the necessary information and documents without which sound judgment may not be possible. We do not like to see a repetition of what happened recently when the Government took a decision to give protection to the paint manufacturing industry in Singapore. The Government did not publish the report of the Advisory Committee although action was taken. We are not unaware of the necessity for the maintenance of trading secrets in individual firms in the industry, but we are of the view that the proceedings of the Commission should, as far as possible, be open to the public unless and until the Commission decides otherwise. We would like the people to have free access to the findings and recommendations of the Commission. We are also puzzled, Sir, over the timing of this Bill. It is common knowledge that an early realisation of the common commodity market is out of the question whatever the Outcome of the political schemings and machinations as regards Malaysia and the P.A.P. merger. The last time we heard about the common commodity market was the joint communique announcing the plan to appoint a team of international experts to study the problem. We would like the Minister to inform the people of Singapore whether such a team has been appointed. If not, is there any likelihood of one being appointed, and when?

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

To the question from the Member for Queenstown, I have already explained the latest developments with regard to the appointment of these experts.

The Minister can amplify, Sir.

Order. It is not a question of amplification. I think the Minister has pointed out that he has made a statement, and if the Member for Queenstown is not satisfied, he can say how he is not satisfied.

It is possible that I did not hear him when he gave the explanation, but he can always repeat it for the benefit of all of us. Anyway, we would like to know whether the government-to-government talks on the common commodity market between Singapore and the Federation are still going on. What we cannot understand is, how does the P.A.P. Government reconcile its contention that Singapore will not be able to survive without a larger economic unit with what is implied in the present Bill which pre-supposes the viability of Singapore's industrial development? We believe that the economy of Singapore is viable and, as such, any measure that Government wants to take to strengthen this viability will be welcome.

Mr Minister, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, three Members of the Opposition from three different Parties have given three different versions of the intention .of this Bill and of what it hopes to achieve. In a sense, of course, their criticisms have cancelled out one another, as I will shortly explain. First, the Member for Cairnhill says that the political climate is unhealthy and that industrial relations are at the present moment not conducive to investment of capital in industries. Now, Sir, I would agree with the second proposition, but certainly not with the first. I would have thought that the political climate is eminently healthy to attract capital. The Government is carrying on with its long-term plans for merger and Malaysia. We see the Barisan Sosialis, who only a year ago predicted the October Revolution, now in despair sending troops of little kids down the desolate streets of Singapore each Sunday. I would have thought that the political situation is extremely healthy other than, of course, for the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis. We have debated the matter of industrial relations in this Assembly, and I do not think I want to say much more about it except that this Bill is intended as a long-term measure and we must not be dissuaded by temporary inconveniences. We are certainly not going to wait until the industrial scene is as peaceful as it can be. I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that will come about after merger and Malaysia. Now one nagging criticism which the Member for Cairnhill always brings up in this Assembly is that the P.A.P. always appoint P.A.P. men to P.A.P. Boards, as if this is a thoroughly reprehensible practice. May I suggest that this practice is carried out in every democratic country? When Mr Churchill was the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government was the government of the day, they appointed Conservatives to important posts in the Boards. There is nothing wrong with that. The Member for Cairnhill can hardly expect the P.A.P. to appoint `his cronies to important positions. May I suggest, Sir, that the persons that we have appointed to important positions are doing a very good job of work? For example, Mr Lim Kim San, who is the Chairman of the Housing Board, has really done a magnificent piece of work, building low-cost houses at all-time record in Singapore. He does it for free. He is not taking any money.

Is he P.A.P.?

He is not P.A.P. But unlike the Member for Anson, he can see a good Party and he can respect good men when he sees them. Sir, I do not think I will dwell at length on what the Member for Cairnhill says on the conflict between a man with special knowledge and the same man having a direct interest in the industry concerned. The sort of special knowledge which the Tariff Advisory Commission might want would be purely on account of technical knowledge of some kind or other. For instance, in the investigation into qualities of toothpaste and so on, they may find that they need the services of a chemist or they may want the services of a special type of accountant for analysing the import prices of certain things. Insofar as a general knowledge of any particular industry is concerned, the Tariff Advisory Commission will have men who have some knowledge of such an industry. But as I say, in assessing and evaluating data, they often do require experts of one sort - chemists, physicists, accountants or even mathematicians, for all I know. That is the purpose of this particular clause. The reason is that when the Minister is making the initial appointment, he cannot foresee the types of problems which the Tariff Advisory Commission may encounter. Sir, you will recall that the Member for Anson started his ministerial career as Singapore's first Minister for Trade. Therefore, one would have thought that he had benefited from his experience in his first ministerial post. But his speech has given me quite a contrary impression. He says that one of the damaging long-term effects of the Bill would be that people would know - that knowledge would seep through, in his own words - that Singapore is no longer a free port, and that this would eventually, if not immediately, affect our entrepot trade adversely. With due respect, Sir, I suggest that it is utter and complete nonsense. Singapore's entrepot trade is done by businessmen. There is no mystic about it. Perhaps I had better explain the simple economic fundamentals of this so-called entrepot trade. It looks very nice if you talk about entrepot trade or international trade, but the basic element is quite simple. Singapore is in the centre of South-East Asia. It has sea communications with hundreds of little ports along the coast of central and south Sumatra, Borneo, the east coast of the Malay Peninsula, good rail and road communications with southern Malaya. It is because of these excellent sea, road and rail communications that we are best equipped to supply these people with goods that they want at the lowest possible cost. Secondly, because of a highly developed transportation system, we are best equipped to buy from them the goods that they produce. It is as simple as that. It does not depend on subjective or psychological attitudes.. It does not depend on whether knowledge seeps upwards or downwards or backwards. So long as our port is sufficient and so long as steamship lines and railways operate sufficiently, it will continue to serve as a supply base and as a market for our neighbouring territories. Sir, I must congratulate the Member for Queenstown on some of his words. He shows a spark of understanding which I never suspected existed in his mind. He puts the position very, nicely when he says this: that we must support tariffs unless we believe that Singapore can live on trade alone. The Member for Anson is opposed to tariffs because he thinks it will damage the entrepot trade. Quite unlike the Member for Queenstown, he believes that we can live on tirade alone. Any man who can believe in such an absurd proposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, is beyond convincing by rational methods, so I will not attempt that. The Member for Queenstown says the secrecy provisions of this Bill are regrettable, although he acknowledges that there are instances where trade secrets have to be preserved. But he thinks that the sittings of the Commission should be in public, unless the Commission decides otherwise. Sir, clause 15 (2) of the Bill says that the sittings of the Commission shall be in private unless the Commission decides otherwise. So I do not see any real issue between the Member for Queenstown and myself. There may be a subtle difference, but it is beyond my mind to comprehend it. Then the Member for Queenstown winds up with a discourse on the viability of Singapore's economy to flourish in isolation. I have no doubt that in saying these words he has in mind what Tunku Abdul Rahman said recently about closing the Causeway.

You encouraged the Tunku.

I encouraged the Tunku, Mr Speaker, Sir? On the one hand, they say, "Why don't we have a common commodity market?" If I could encourage Tunku Abdul Rahman to such an extent, may I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we would have got a common commodity market. No, Sir. These people have been doing things and frightening everybody. They do not know. They may not know it. And they have already brought upon themselves a foretaste of what will happen to Singapore should there be no merger. Then they will bring upon themselves far greater misfortunes which we will not dwell upon at this stage.

False hopes of the P.A.P.

Sir, they always accuse us of hoping that retribution or disaster will befall them, and we keep on saying that our only purpose in drawing their attention to a future disaster is to tell them, "Please don't do these foolish things. You only bring disaster upon yourselves." Sir, all our admonitions have always been greeted with scepticism perhaps, but I suspect that inwardly they are becoming more and more convinced that what we say will happen and is truer than they would like to admit. Now, Sir, viability of Singapore's economy in isolation - to me this question is a purely academic one, because if you were to deliver a lecture on this subject to, say, a group of professional economists you must define various things: what do you mean by isolation? Do you mean that the people of Singapore (1,700,000 of them) should live in isolation as, say, Robinson Crusoe did in the past? That sort of isolation, I say, is not possible because you cannot grow enough food to feed 1,700,000 people. Therefore, what degree of isolation do you mean? And this presupposes all kinds of political relationship with our neighbours. A friendly Federation would be of immense economic benefit to Singapore. They can even help us to bring about a common commodity market without any further trouble. On the other hand, a hostile Federation can not only cause acute discomfort to Singapore but tremendous loss. This proposition is so obvious that I do not think any sane main will argue the case out. But I raise this point because I think there may be an impression among some Members that with merger and Malaysia, why have this? Will it no longer be necessary? When you have a common commodity market, why do you want a separate Tariff Advisory Commission? I would say that whether there is a common commodity market or not, there is need for this Tariff Advisory Commission. If there is no common commodity market, then we have, of course, a tariff against the rest of the world, including the Federation of Malaya, since the Federation are not prepared to co-operate with us and have a joint industrialisation programme. Then we go it alone and must impose a tariff on products manufactured in the Federation of Malaya and exported to Singapore. But even if there were a common commodity market, obviously from time to time there would be instances when the Government would consider whether this industry should be established and, if so, would the imposition of a protective duty assist the position of the industry? If you have a tariff duty and you have this industry, how do you gauge the value of the new industry and employment against consumers having to pay slightly higher prices? As I have said, the same problem will confront the Government whether we have a common commodity market with the Federation of Malaya or within Greater Malaysia or whether we go it alone. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this is a basic departure from the laissez-faire policy of the State. It is for this reason that we are committing this Bill to a Select Committee so that all interested parties can ventilate their opinions before the Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and five Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]

Is it convenient to suspend?

Yes.

I suspend this sitting. I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.56 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's recommendation that the Customs (Amendment) Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Tariff Advisory Commission Bill has been read a Second time a little while ago. The setting up of this Commission under the Bill will require an amendment to section 11 of the Customs Ordinance, 1960. This amendment is necessary because the Tariff Advisory Commission will replace the Committee consisting of three persons appointed by the Minister. The Bill now before the House is to effect this consequential amendment. Sir, I beg to move, Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not seen fit to draw attention to a major aspect of this Bill, and that is the transfer of the power from the Cabinet to the individual Minister; that is to say, deleting the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and substituting therefor the Minister as the person authorised to impose these duties and, to vary them. Mr Speaker, I think you will find somewhere in Chaucer a rather delightful story of a young man who seeks to bang his head against the wall of ignorance. The curious thing is that Chaucer never recognised that perhaps the greatest bar to recognition of logic and reason is personal malice. I sought, in speaking on the previous Bill, to draw attention to the fact that there was a danger in these tariffs nibbling away and nullifying our tradition as an entrepot port, a free port. I made the point, Sir, that I recognised there would be cases where individual industries could have the potential for employment of a considerable number of people, and in those individual cases it may be appropriate to grant tariff protection; but that any such breach in the tradition of the free port of Singapore should be made by this Assembly after full debate. I was represented by the Minister as being against all tariffs. I also pointed out, Mr Speaker, Sir, that an entrepot port does live on its reputation. There is mystique in reputation. The point, Mr Speaker, is that where a country needs supplies, it comes to Singapore now because it knows it can obtain its supplies duty free. But if the time comes when some of the goods will be duty free and some will not, and it is a question of differentiation and different ordering, then such countries may find it much more convenient to go to an alternative port. There is one very handy as a centre of supply, and that is Hong Kong. Sir, my point is this. I do not like the idea of an individual having the power to bring about grave breaches in our tradition as a free port, and it is that aspect of the Bill to which I take exception.

Dr Gob, in reply.

The Member for Anson considers, that before import duties are to be levied in Singapore, they must be approved by the Assembly. An hon. Member: Not by the Assembly.

Sir, the Member for Anson was Singapore's first Minister of Trade, and I am really aghast that a ludicrous proposition such as this should come from him. Sir, the decision to impose an import duty has many and serious implications. First, the timing. Second, the amount of such duties. It is obvious that if you want to have duties levied on goods, it must be done quickly and with the utmost secrecy. Otherwise, before duties are raised, the market will be brought to disorder by hoarding by speculators and by all sorts of malpractices. This point should be obvious to the Member for Anson. And I cannot understand how so obvious a point has not occurred to him. When you want to impose a duty, it is not possible to have a debate in the Assembly. You have to give notice of such debate, by which time there will be hoarding. Goods will have disappeared from the market, and the entrepot trade which the Member seeks to safeguard will be reduced to utter chaos the moment people know that Government is contemplating imposing a tariff On a particular day. If this is left to the decision of the Government to do so, the scope for speculative activity and manipulation in the market will be considerably reduced, although I grant that it cannot be eliminated in all cases. As for the change, the amendment to delegate the powers which are now exercised by the Cabinet to the Minister, I do not know why this should cause so much concern to the Member for Anson. This amendment is in accordance with the practice in the Federation, and there are excellent reasons for so doing, one of which is security of information, security of the secret, or the timing or the amount of such duty. These are important considerations. I do not think I need reply to the other points raised by him.

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

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

As the two Bills are related, I do not know whether the Minister would agree to this Bill going to the Select Committee which has been appointed to consider the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill. Dr Goh Keng Swee indicated assent.

The motion then would be, That the Bill be committed to the Select Committee to be appointed in relation to the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Bill be committed, to the Select Committee to, be appointed in relation to the Tariff Advisory Commission Bill.

5.39 p.m. Order for Third Reading read.

Notice has been given by the Minister for Finance that he desires to introduce a new clause in the Bill as appears in the, Order Paper Supplement. The Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole Assembly in respect of the new clause. Committee stage, what day?

Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee.

5.40 p.m. New clause - `Amendment Section 2 of the Rubber Dealers ofSection 2. Ordinance, is hereby amended by inserting immediately before the definition of "rubber plant" appearing therein the following new definition:- ""purchase" means purchase of specific rubber pursuant to any contract or agreement pro- viding for completion by delivery of such rubber but does not include purchase of unascertained rubber by description by means of a forward contract;".'. -[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Speaker, I move, "That the clause be read a Second time." This clause is substantially the same clause which was negatived by the Committee of the whole Assembly on 15th January, 1962, and it is the only single clause of the Rubber Dealers (Amendment) Bill. Hon. Members will recall that this Bill seeks to amend section 2 of the Rubber Dealers Ordinance by providing a definition of the word "purchase", for the purpose of removing uncertainty prevailing in the rubber market as to the validity of rubber contracts. This uncertainty arose from the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mizrahie versus Stanton Nelson Company Ltd., details of which were given in the speech of the Second Reading of the Bill. The Government considers it necessary to restore this clause in view of a recent Federation of Malaya appeal allowed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the ground that the currency was not licensed under the Rubber Dealers Ordinance to purchase rubber. Singapore's economy is largely founded on the rubber trade. Today she is the world's largest rubber market. Forward dealings are carried out in all major commodity markets of the world. It is absurd in the world's largest rubber market that there should be a legal ambiguity whether or not forward contracts are enforceable in law. Yet this is the effect of the Rubber Dealers Ordinance as it stands, and the effect is clearly not the intention. The proposed definition makes it clear that only purchases of specific rubber completed by delivery need be covered by a licence and that all contracts in purchase of unascertained rubber by description do not require a licence on the part of the purchaser. Thus it would ensure that legitimate hedging operations could be carried out without fear that such contracts would be declared void and the gambling - reckless speculation - would be curbed as the contract becomes enforceable in law. I understand corresponding amending legislation is being considered in the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the clause be read a Second time." We debate now on the principle of the clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has told you that this clause is necessary in order to protect legitimate hedging operations. Sir, what is a hedging operation? A genuine dealer in rubber undertakes to deliver, let us say, a hundred tons of rubber to a consignee in Germany. The delivery is in June. Then he goes round purchasing that physical rubber and projects himself against a fall by making some purchases now, some purchases in May and the final purchases in time for delivery in Germany. These are the genuine dealers in rubber. These are the backbone of the rubber trade. These are the people who, irrespective of whether the amendment is passed or not, must take out licences. Sir, the obnoxious part of this Bill is that it seeks not to protect hedging as is alleged, but to protect pure gamblers - those who have not the slightest intention or interest in receiving or supplying physical rubber. The Minister himself in the debate on the 15th of January spoke of paper rubber dealings. He wants to legalise paper rubber dealings without the requirement of a licence. It is not the question of hedging purchases or hedging sales. Those people who make deliveries must take out licences under the Rubber Dealers Ordinance. It is not they whom he seeks to protect. What is sought, in the words of the Minister for Finance, is to legalise dealings in paper rubber. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are gambling deals. I say to you the approach of this House should be that we deplore gambling. We recognise that stock exchange gambling is one of the diseases which seem inherent in a free economy and we will interfere insofar as is necessary to minimise the vicious effects of such gambling upon the small man. In this case, a ruling of the Court of Appeal has indicated that in order to gamble in rubber, the person who makes those purchases should take out a licence. It is no more serious than that, Sir. All you have to do is to take out a licence. The Minister must admit that there is not the slightest impediment to anybody taking out a licence. His character is not investigated. He is not asked his political affiliations. There is no enquiry as to what publications he has been associated with. You put down $600 a year; you put down a deposit of $1,000; you take out your licence to deal in rubber; you go ahead and gamble to your heart's content. Sir, it is alleged that this amendment is vital to the economy of Singapore. But, Mr Speaker, have those people who deal in a manner that is material to the economy of Singapore in matters of rubber not got $600 a year for a licence or a $1,000 refundable deposit? That is all. What I say is that anyone whom it is sought to inveigle into buying or selling paper rubber should be sufficiently conscious of the gravity of his action and that this mild impediment of a $600 licence plus a deposit would be at least some deterrent. It is no more than that. I ask this House to consider what is wrong with this very minimal protection that is now available. Mr Speaker, you are not unconscious that there is in times of boom or depression a large flux in prices of commodities like tin and rubber in this island when hopes of golden fortunes are held out to small men if they would come in and gamble on the stock exchange. It is to this silent voice of temptation to large-scale and ruinous gambling that I urge we leave the existing protection which says that if you, Mr Clerk, who earns only $400 a month, are going to lend yourself to this plan to make vast fortunes or incur great losses, at least you must first of all put down $600 for a licence. In Monte Carlo you need no licence. In Singapore we do not ban large-scale gambling. We only ban gambling for the small man. The Chee Fah and the Fantan participants are criminals. The gentlemen of the rubber exchange who gamble in vast sums are essential for our economy. But all we ask is that they pay $600 a month for a licence. Paper rubber gambling is not essential and is no part of the healthy development of our economy. The anxiety indicated by this Government behind this move is a recognition by the rubber brokers that the small man in Singapore and in Malaya who has a little money and who is beginning to understand a little about investing can be tempted to participate in a gamble to buy and sell future paper rubber - to indulge in paper transactions in which he can make money, it is true, and he can also lose sums beyond his capacity to meet. The need for a licence that exists today checks these small investors from entering too freely and too rashly on the road to ruin. I ask, Sir, why in the name of sanity, if not of decency, do we have to encourage the little man with little money to lend himself - and his family - to being a victim of rubber brokers and paper rubber gambling? Sir, what is our interest? Is it the protection of the people of Singapore, or is it the protection of the capitalists and the greater glory of the rubber brokers? What is this P.A.P. Government - a gambling society? Or has the Minister so much imbibed of the heavy wine of capitalist hospitality that he has no more feeling for the little man and the little man's needs? Mr Speaker, it is stated in the Explanatory Note to this Bill that we will be losing $39,000 a year in licence fees. That means $39,000 from persons who should be taking out licences today to gamble in paper rubber. But these are definitely persons who do not engage in the honest sale or honest purchase of physical rubber because, if they did, they would still have to obtain licences. There are therefore these gamblers who even now take out licences. But if you divide $39,000 by 600, Mr Speaker, you will find fortunately that the number today of those who gamble in paper rubber is not great, not great enough to meet the insatiate greed of the capitalist friends of this capitalist Government. I do plead for a rational answer. What is the objection to the existing system whereby those who want to indulge in this roulette in the golden El Dorado should be required to pay $600 entrance fee a year?

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the Member for Anson speaking on this particular section, it seems to me that if the point to his objection is one of a permit to gamble, then he has missed the boat. He should have taken objection when the amendment to the Civil Law Ordinance was moved and that was the time when the objection should have been taken. As far as I can remember, the Member for Anson was present in the House on that occasion when the amendment was moved to the Civil Law Ordinance which at that time forbade gambling contracts to be entered into. But subsequent to that amendment, gambling contracts which have been declared illegal or unenforceable under the Civil Law Ordinance now can be enforced in a court of law. If that is the correct position and if it was the Civil Law Ordinance that dealt with the gambling aspect of any particular contract, why then is the Member for Anson raising that particular problem which should have been discussed on that particular amendment in respect of the Rubber Dealers Ordinance, which does not deal with the gambling side of a rubber transaction? Mr Speaker, Sir, so far as I am concerned, this clause which seeks to define the word "purchase" has become necessary as a result of the amendment to the Civil Law Ordinance. We on this side of the House voted for the amendment to the Civil Law Ordinance and we would have voted with the Government on this. I will now inform the Minister for Finance why we voted against it. On that occasion, when a number of questions were being asked by Members of the Opposition with regard to the operation of this clause, they were treated cavalierly; no proper answers were given. It was for that reason that we did not vote with the Government on that occasion. I mention this because, having voted with the Government on the Civil Law Ordinance, we could not object to this amendment in principle. 6.00 p.m. But we voted against the Government on that occasion to show our displeasure at the manner in which the Government was treating the Opposition when it was raising what we thought were legitimate queries on how this particular section would operate. Now if the Government is prepared to give all the proper explanations on this particular section in a manner which it did not think fit to give on the last occasion, we will certainly vote for the Bill on this occasion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one would have thought that the subject of a rubber market is a serious one. It is not a subject which one can embark on with wild fanciful oratory. Yet we have been treated by the Member for Anson to another prima donna exhibition. Sir, I have explained to Members that Singapore is the world's largest rubber market. It has achieved its unique position not by the gambling propensities of rubber brokers. A rubber market of such eminence takes many decades to build up, and to dismiss all dealings in paper rubber as sheer gambling, roulette gambling, is fantastic nonsense which I do not think any sane man with knowledge of affairs would waste time to rebut. But to give the Member for Anson his fair chance, I am unable to swallow the logic of his submission. First he says, "It is all right if they pay $600 a year." That is the admission charge to the "casino", as he calls the rubber market. But he wants to protect the class of small men who he thinks go in the rubber market for an occasional flutter. Then he castigates the group of people who would be contributing some $39,000 a year to Government revenue by taking up licences for dealings in paper rubber. I cannot reconcile his two objections and I will not try to swallow his arguments. I only want to say something about the purposes for which the Rubber Dealers Ordinance was introduced in this country and in the Federation. The Bill goes back to 1910, soon after the development of the rubber industry. In its original form, it was just for the purposes of administration. But after the First World War, in 1921, the Federation of Malaya and Singapore considered it necessary to restrict the production of rubber in order to raise its price. This was the first scheme. Then after the great depression in 1930, an international restriction scheme was established between the Governments of the Federation and Singapore, the then Netherlands East Indies, Thailand, Ceylon and other major rubber producing countries. Therefore, this Rubber Dealers Ordinance provides in the Federation and in Singapore for various administrative measures which are necessary to operate a restriction scheme to provide for the inspection of licensed places, the proper and accurate accounting of purchases, dealers' stocks, and so on. We had no connection whatsoever with the operation of the rubber market as such. If it is the intention of the Member for Anson that stock exchange hedging operations are legitimate provided a fee is paid, then may I suggest that he has missed the point? He himself has admitted that under the existing Ordinance anyone can get a licence by paying a $1,000 deposit and a $600 annual fee. That is no way to ensure that those who operate the rubber market are men of some financial worth. To ensure that the market consists of businessmen of repute, the Stock Exchange itself will have to make rules regulating the conduct of its members. This is what is being done by the rubber trade associations and the Singapore Chamber of Commerce. They are there to ensure that a certain standard of integrity is maintained in the rubber industry without which it would not have been possible for Singapore to achieve the distinction of being the world's largest rubber market. As I have explained at some length, one handicap which the rubber business suffers from today is the ambiguity of the law in regard to the enforceability of contracts and it is this ambiguity which the Bill before the House seeks to remove.

Mr Speaker, can I speak again?

Yes, we are in Committee. The Member can speak as many times as he wishes.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. The Minister speaks of an ambiguity in the law that it is necessary for the welfare of our economy to clarify. Mr Speaker, he has not told you that the ambiguity is nothing more serious than should you have a licence or need you have a licence? That is all the ambiguity which he considers so vital to remove for the enforcement of contracts. But a much easier way and a healthier way for the people is that the ambiguity should be resolved by saying that all purchases whether in paper rubber or in physical rubber require a licence, and let them pay their $600 a month. What is the difficulty of the ambiguity that exists today? The people who are paying $39,000 a year are people who have resolved it by making sure and taking out licences. Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park has made a speech that does him least credit of all the speeches I have ever heard from him. It was based on inaccuracies to justify a change of stand - awkward and embarrassing! I would not wish to turn the knife in the wound. He is sufficiently sensitive to know what he is doing. But I must draw attention to two major inaccuracies. His whole thesis is, "I do not like you as I am on the Opposition side. We voted against you because you were rude to the Opposition in the questions that were asked about this Bill." Mr Speaker, earlier, I expressed appreciation of your foresight in making available to Members the unrevised transcript of the proceedings of 15th January, 1962, which dealt with this Bill and nowhere were there any questions at all. There were speeches by the Parliamentary Secretary, followed by me, the Minister for Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary. That was all in Committee. I spoke and nobody even cared to reply; and a division was called. Though I am in complete accord with the Member for Farrer Park that the arrogance of the Government side is of such a character that it will sometimes provoke the Opposition to deal out of fashion with their proposals, I do not think we should accept that in fact the S.P.A. negated a provision which they considered essential for the welfare of this country because they considered the Government was rude about mythical questions which did not exist in respect o rude answers that for a change had not materialised. The other inaccuracy is: the Member is wrong in thinking that I was in the Chamber at the time the Civil Law Ordinance was passed. But that is not material as I trust I can point out to him. My interest is this. I have sought, I thought in my speech on the Second Reading, to point out that we must recognise that in a free economy a certain amount of gambling of a large-scale character by big financiers is inevitable. It was not gambling contracts in rubber as a whole that I sought to make illegal. My desire is the protection not of the large financier but of the small man. The Civil Law Ordinance made these gambling contracts legal. That is so. I feel, Sir, much as I dislike that provision. I am not sufficiently satisfied that to make those contracts illegal would not, in fact, in some measure prejudice the rubber trade which we have. What I sought and what I seek in resisting this present proposal is to leave the mild impediment that exists today in requiring the small man to take a very big hurdle in that $600 licence. That is the simple logic. The Minister says I castigate those who pay that revenue to the State. Not at all. They are gamblers and those who pay that $600 are gamblers too. The transaction is legitimate. I know it is legitimate. I do not like it, Mr Speaker. I am not, however, adequately satisfied that one can safely eliminate all that gambling, but I am satisfied that it is essential one should protect the small man from gambling and that the existing law which requires him to take a $600 licence before he can indulge in paper rubber transactions is some impediment, some protection, thought not complete. Mr Speaker, I am not so naive that I can believe speeches in this House in the context of today have any material effect in changing minds. I am somewhat reminded of a biblical passage, "And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh." It is so true these days. But I do ask the S.P.A., who valiantly supported a reasonable resistance to the removal of a mild protection of the small man from indulging in paper gambling, to reconsider their stand. 6.15 p.m. You will remember, Mr Speaker, I was almost prophetic when I rose on the motion to commit this Bill for a Third Reading earlier this afternoon and suggested that obviously the Government had behind the scenes so manoeuvred that it was now satisfied that it could obtain a majority. I did not know then what we know now of the arrangement for voting which has transpired in the speech of the Member for Farrer Park. But I would urge that the reason and the justice of the position should prevail against any political consideration, association and undertaking.

I fully realise, Mr Speaker, that on that last occasion when there was an equality of votes and, therefore, the provision was negatived, the Member for Anson was the only speaker. So far as the Members of the Front Bench of the Opposition were concerned, they did not partake in that opposition. Then when the Member for Anson was getting such a rough time from the Government Benches, and he was not given proper replies to what we thought were legitimate questions, we decided to vote against the Government because, although it was the Member for Anson who was at the wrong end of the stick, we thought that the questions raised by him were legitimate questions to which reasonable answers should have been given. But as they were not provided and as from the Assembly point of view satisfactory answers were not given, we voted against the Bill. The only question I raised on this matter was this. The Member for Anson made his speech on this clause which he should have made on the amendment to the Civil Law Ordinance. The main part of his speech on this particular section of this clause was that it had something to do with gambling. Now, if it was gambling that the Member for Anson was against, then he should have opposed it on the amendment to the Civil Law Ordinance. It was the Civil Law Ordinance that opened the gates to gambling. Having willingly opened the gates to gambling, then the Member for Anson says, "By all means, let us open the gates to gambling. But if the poor man wants to gamble as a result of my having opened the gates, I will charge him $600 a year."

Sir, the Member in his question asks, "Why not let these chaps pay $600 per year?" Sir, I have explained the origins of the Rubber Dealers Ordinance and its connections with the physical control over rubber movements that are necessary to enforce the two rubber restriction schemes - one in 1921 and the other one in the 1930's. There the Ordinance was never intended to apply to rubber brokers and those who dealt in paper rubber. It was only after this case before the Court of Appeal that rubber brokers thought they should attempt to regularise the position by taking out these licences. That is the position. It is absurd to fall back on an unintended levy on the rubber market in a state which the Member for Anson thinks would be healthy. Sir, all produce markets have some sections on paper commodities. There is not a single commodity market in which the vast majority of such sections are not covered by the physical product. That is so in rubber, copper, tin, or any other commodity. And before we start fiddling around and imposing restrictions on the commodity exchange, particularly on one in which Singapore is the world's largest, i would say we have a duty to make a proper and thorough examination of the system of produce marketing. I suggest that the Member for Anson has made no such study. He is blatantly trying to appeal to people's emotions on a very technical matter. I say this is completely wrong for any Member of the House to do Question put. "That the clause be read a Second time."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 15; Abstentions, Nil; Absent, 7. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Fung Yin Ching, Omar Junid Miss Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh Chan Chee Seng Leong Keng Seng Chan Choy Siong Lin You Eng Madam Lingam S. V. Ayes.(contd.) Noes.(contd.) Chor Yeok Eng Low Por Tuck Goh Chew Chua Marshall, David Goh Keng Swee Ng Teng Kian Hoe Puay Choo Ong Chang Sam Mdm Ong Eng Guan Kandasamy, G Sheng Nam Chin Koh, C. H. Tan Cheng Tong Lee Khoon Choy Tee Kim Leng Lee Teck Him Teo Hock Guan Lim Cheng Lock Wong Soon Fong Lim Yew Hock Mammen, John. Abstentions. Mohamed Ali bin Nil Alwi Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Absent. M. Ismail Rahim Abdul Hamid bin Ong Pang Boon Haji Jumat Rajah, A. P. Ahmad bin Ibrahim Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad Jabri Bin Ramaswamy, S. Mohammad Akib Sahorah binte Bani, S. T. Ahmat, Madam Chan Sun Wing Seow Peck Leng, Lee Kuan Yew Mrs Yong Nyuk Lin Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Clause accordingly read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported, with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That with effect from 26th April, 1962, Mr A. P. Rajah be discharged from the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill and that Tun Lim Yew Hock be added to the Committee. The reason for the discharge of Mr Rajah is that I understand he will be attending the C.P.A. Conference in May.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That with effect from 26th April, 1962, Mr A. P. Rajah be discharged from the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill and that Tun Lim Yew Hock be added to the Committee.

6.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I rise to move, That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed. Mr Speaker, in the last seven years our efforts to bring about an understanding of the value of the democratic process has had far more effect than is generally recognised. Although at times our efforts seem to be like water that disappears from the earth leaving no trace, nevertheless, Sir, that water has irrigated the subsoil and there is to those of us who seek to keep in touch with the common man of Singapore. of the different communities, the realisation of a very real feeling by the people that there is strength in the democratic process and in the power to appoint a government and to reject a Party. It is true that recently our citizens have been increasingly puzzled by the capacity of the democratic process to produce a dictatorship government between general elections. It is true that there is at the moment, Sir, an incipient sense of frustration and fear that the people's own representatives whom the people trusted and whom they elected will seek to destroy it. It is principally to allay this fear, a genuine fear in many circles, that this motion is brought in. It has been said, Mr Speaker, that there is no need for this motion, that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, in their addresses to this Assembly on the Referendum Bill, have given assurances that the people will be consulted before the proposals for a closer relationship with the Federation, which they call a merger, are put into effect. I would draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to the unhappy nature of the statement of the Prime Minister which itself gave impetus to the misgivings of our people. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether your memory can go that far to the 16th of March - it is only last month - when the Prime Minister in his address on the Referendum Bill said. "The question of winning or losing a referendum does not arise. If there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists, let me say that it would be criminal folly on the part of Government to hold a referendum and to allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled. If that were the position, if a risk existed; then it is 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 Malaysia are not jeopardised." Shorn of its frills, this statement of the Prime Minister means two things. One; all those who are against the White Paper proposals are, by official definition, Communists. Two, if there is any risk that those against the White Paper proposals could negative a referendum, no referendum will be held. That is the democracy of the Prime Minister: "I believe in democracy as long as it is advantageous to me. But when democracy does not support me, then democracy is a criminal activity, a criminal folly which must be suppressed. My will is the will of the people, but if the will of the people differs from my will, the people are criminals and I shall do what I think is good for them, not what they think is good for them." Mr Speaker, there is a couplet by Matthew Arnold: `Thoughts in hours of insight willed, Can he in hours of gloom fulfilled,' Those of us who seek to pursue, not only for ourselves, the road of democracy, but to help others not only to understand it and appreciate it but to make it a reality for this country and other countries which today suffer the rule of Communist dictatorship, we say that there is a need to go back to first principles and to give a solemn assurance to the people from the Assembly. Mr Speaker, whatever the ultimate result, the ultimate action on the White Paper proposals, an important segment of Singapore would be deeply embittered and it is important that the `division created should be healed as quickly as possible. If a referendum is held, giving an honest opportunity to the `people to express their views, however strongly the minority may feel, they must accept the will of the majority. It is on the basis of this democratic principle of acceptance of the will of .the majority that we can call upon the minority to accept with good grace and without lasting bitterness the decision o, the majority. It is in this way that I hope and I believe we can avoid a permanent and very dangerous cleavage within our own citizens, whichever way the decision goes. Mr Speaker, apart from the normal obvious reasons for a referendum in a matter of such gravity, I ask this House to note that the people of the Federation would themselves wish to be quite certain that despite the opposition indicated in Singapore, if there is to be .a closer relationship in pursuance of the White Paper agreement, such closer relationship is in fact voluntarily entered into by Singapore with the express approval of the majority of its adult citizens. I am disturbed, as very many others have been, by recent unfriendly pronouncements of the Federation Prime Minister and these, to my mind ill-timed threats, are causing a feeling of anxiety and suspicion that the Federation has decided to annex Singapore whether with or without our permission. This is imperialism whatever the excuse. The pages of English colonial history are full of annexations on the excuse of expediency. Whatever may be the truth about the attitude of the Federation Government, Sir, I am convinced that the people of the Federation as a whole would feel far happier if there is a referendum whereby the people of Singapore could have an `honest opportunity to express their views so that no question could possibly arise of domination imposed in imperialist fashion against the will of the people of Singapore. It is these considerations which impel me to urge this House-I plead by a unanimous vote-to allay the fears `oth of the people of Singapore and the people of Federation in giving this assurance in solemn form: that on a matter of gravity, the transfer of sovereignty of Singapore, the will of the people will be ascertained by process of direct democracy and will be complied with. We have all of us, I trust, in different ways sought to bring about an appreciation of the value of the democratic process. I ask that through this motion we reaffirm not only our faith in what we preach but our intention to abide by what we preach. I would ask. Mr Speaker, that the bitterness of the different reactions and views in respect of the merits and demerits of the White Paper be not introduced into the debate on this motion. I would urge that the principle it seeks to enunciate should be the one that should engage the exclusive attention of the House during the debate. If there is any amendment which can better bring out the spirit that I seek to enunciate, I would only be too happy to consider it and to accept it. Question proposed. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Members of this House will recollect that during the debate on merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya which lasted from the 20th of November to the 6th of December, 1961, everybody in this House accepted the desirability of merger and nobody denied that merger was inevitable. At the end of that debate on the 6th of December, this House resolved, `That as an immediate practical step towards the ideal goal of complete merger this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 agreed to between the Governments of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories.'. Now, although the Government had the mandate in the 1959 general elections to settle the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation, nevertheless, we felt it desirable that the electorate should be given the opportunity to express their views on the mode and manner of the reunification of Singapore and the Federation. Accordingly, on the 27th of November last year, the Minister for Home Affairs introduced the Singapore National Referendum Bill. This Bill is now in Select Committee and at some future date after the Bill has passed through its Third Reading, the referendum will be held. The responsibility for executing this referendum will be the responsibility of the Government. The administration of the referendum will be in accordance with the clauses of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. In the Bill itself, provision is made for political Parties to be given the opportunity to inform the electorate of the terms of the referendum.

Order. I do not like to interrupt the Hon, the Deputy Prime Minister, but he has mentioned that the Bill is now before a Select Committee. Therefore, he must not assume that the clauses in the Bill will be accepted. As far as possible, we should avoid referring to the details of the Bill.

I am just touching upon the Bill in passing, Mr Speaker. I have no intention to specify any particular clause of the Bill itself. Although this Bill is still in Select Committee and has not yet been reported to the House, the Barisan Sosialis have already jumped the gun, and, as far as they are concerned, the campaign for referendum has already started. The Barisan Sosialis, in fact, began their campaign against merger and Malaysia on 1st of April. The Barisan Sosialis have sought to represent that the proposals as contained in Cmd. Paper 33 are proposals which have been put forward only by the P.A.P. As a matter of fact, Members of this House are aware that Cmd. Paper 33 also contains letters exchanged between the Prime Ministers of the Federation and the Singapore Governments. These state quite clearly that these proposals have been arrived at after discussion between the two Governments, in other words, these proposals are not merely P.A.P. proposals, but also proposals of the Federation Government. It is therefore utterly absurd of the Barisan Sosialis to propagate the view that the proposals for Singapore/Federation merger, which include autonomy in education and labour for Singapore, are simply P.A.P. proposals. In fact, this House on the 6th of December accepted Cmd. Paper 33, which had been agreed to between the Singapore and Federation Governments, as a working basis for the reunification of the two territories. This exposes the deceit of the Barisan Sosialis. As I have said, the Barisan Sosialis have already started their referendum campaign. For this purpose, they have issued a pamphlet against merger and Malaysia. About Malaysia, it has this to say -

Order. The Deputy Prime Minister will be perfectly in order if he mentions this campaign in passing. But if he goes into details, I am of the opinion that those details might take him far away from the motion itself, unless, of course, he can satisfy me that they will not do so. We are now debating a motion which ask for an assurance that this matter of merger - I am paraphrasing, of course - be referred to the people of Singapore by way of a referendum.

Mr Speaker, since I have already stated that the Barisan Sosialis have already started a referendum campaign, it is necessary that this House should also be acquainted with the propaganda that they have put out in the campaign. On previous occasions, the Prime Minister and I had given assurances that this referendum would be held. The provisions for the holding of this referendum are contained in the National Referendum Bill, which itself is in Select Committee. Therefore, while the Bill is in Select Committee, for the Barisan Sosialis to go out and start a referendum campaign is just jumping the gun. Hence I would like to be given the opportunity to explain to the House what the Barisan Sosialis have stated in their campaign on the referendum.

Order. I think the Deputy Prime Minister must satisfy himself, satisfy me and satisfy the House that what the Barisan Sosialis are now doing has some reference to the motion we are now discussing.

Mr Speaker, if you will refer to the motion put forward by the Member for Anson, you will see a sentence there which is pertinent to what I would like to bring out: `That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum...'. Now, it is assumed in this motion that there will be a closer relationship between the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo territories. This motion implicitly states so. In the campaign which the Barisan Sosialis have conducted, a contrary attitude has been assumed. In fact, the stand they take in their campaign is against a closer relationship between Singapore, the Federation of Malaya and the `Borneo territories, and it is precisely this point which I would like to deal with. Sir, in this pamphlet which they have issued entitled "Everyone must know the whole truth about merger and Malaysia", there are two versions of the propaganda. One version is printed in Chinese and the other version is printed in' English. Referring to Malaysia, this is what the pamphlet has to say in Chinese. May I read it out? (In Mandarin): `At the same time imperialism will be able to suppress more people in more territories in the Far East, and to suppress nationalist movements and progressive forces. This is the conspiracy of imperialism.' This means Malaysia is a conspiracy for imperialism to suppress more people, more territories in the Far East and to suppress nationalist movements and progressive forces.

Order. I must rule that that is completely away from the motion. The Hon, the Deputy Prime Minister may have another opportunity of bringing these facts forward. We are now debating a motion and the Deputy Prime Minister must indicate whether he is in favour of or against the motion. What the Barisan Sosialis have done has got nothing to do with the motion at the moment. I think the Deputy Prime Minister should find another opportunity to bring forward these facts, but not in this debate.

Mr Speaker, I was just trying to prove to you that the motion put forward by the Member for Anson states implicitly or implies that there would be a closer relationship between the five territories. It is necessary for me, therefore, to inform the Assembly of the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. It is quite relevant to the motion which the Member for Anson has put forward.

Order. I think the Deputy Prime Minister is arrogating unto himself the job of the Barisan Sosialis. If what the Deputy Prime Minister has said is correct, the Barisan Sosialis probably would attack this motion on those lines. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to do that. He is entitled to say whether or not he agrees with this motion: and if he does not, to say why he does not. He cannot persuade the Chair that because the Barisan Sosialis will not agree with the motion, the motion should be lost or won.

I will accept your ruling. Mr Speaker. The Member for Anson in his speech just now, in one of his more lucid and more sober moments, appealed to the House not to refer to the merits or demerits of the proposals in Cmd. Paper No. 33. I think it would indeed elevate the standing of the Member for Anson if he had also appealed to the House that no Member in this House should use the opportunity of this debate or the opportunity of the referendum campaign to incite feelings of race against race. The Member for Anson - better known now as the Pied Piper of Anson - himself is fully aware that as a result of the propaganda put forward by the Barisan Sosialis, there is indeed a rising tension between the different communities in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis started their referendum campaign on 1st April, which is also known as April Fool's Day. There may be fools in the Barisan Sosialis, but we do not think the Barisan Sosialis are going to fool the people of Singapore with their childish and stupid propaganda nor are they going to fool the Tunku, the Prime Minister of the Federation, with their mystery letter delivered at Federation House. I do not know whether there was a tea party at Federation House, or whether there was a secret tea party which the Barisan bosses had with the British imperialists at Eden Hall: but nonetheless the Prime Minister of the Federation gave the Barisan Sosialis a very courteous reply indeed. That was admitted by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Lim Ching Siong himself, in a Press interview. In return for that courtesy, the Barisan Sosialis have referred to the Tunku, the Prime Minister of the Federation, in the following terms: 'Why is Malaysia a British plot? Why do the British choose the Tunku?'. The answer given in this pamphlet is: `This will allow the Tunku to look after the British interests both economically -'.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy Prime Minister, but I am sure he must realise that what he is saying is completely irrelevant to the motion. If he can satisfy me that what he is saying about the Barisan Sosialis has anything to do with the motion, then I will allow him to carry on, but I cannot see it at the moment.

Very well, Sir,I will proceed. I referred just now. Sir, to the dangers which would arise if any Member in this Chamber were to use the referendum campaign or the opportunity of debate in this House to play up communal feelings. The Barisan Sosialis in their propaganda have said that there would be different classes of Singapore citizenship according to whether a person was born in Singapore, in the Federation, in China, in India and whether a person is a Malay. It is a tragedy indeed that the Barisan Sosialis in their desperation should seek to divide the people of Singapore and thereby hope that enough suspicion and distrust be whipped up among the different communities in Singapore so that merger would not be brought about. Such a stunt is not only contemptible and infantile but it is also dangerous.

Order. I propose to read the motion and if the Deputy Prime Minister can indicate what part of this motion relates to what he has said, then I will allow him to carry on. The motion is: `That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.'. If the Deputy Prime Minister by his speech is indicating that because of the Barisan Sosialis propaganda it is not wise to go to referendum, then perhaps he is in order but I cannot imagine that that is so.

Sir, as I have already explained, the Minister for Home Affairs last year, during the debate on merger, introduced the Singapore National Referendum Bill with one prospect, and that was to enable the people of Singapore in their own interest to go to a referendum to state specifically how the reunification of Singapore and the Federation should be brought about. It was with a sincere desire to conduct the referendum that the Minister for Home Affairs introduced this Bill. At the same time, he has even agreed with Members of the Opposition that this Bill should be discussed in Select Committee so that the views on how the referendum would be conducted could also be considered. Therefore, as I have previously said, since the responsibility for the administration of this referendum is the responsibility of the Government, I would like to introduce an amendment to the motion put forward by the Member for Anson: To leave out, after the word "That", the words "this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories,", and insert "in view of the Govern ment's clearly stated stand on the question `of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised". To leave out after the words "Federation of Malaya or Malaysia",",the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed". the amended motion will read as follows: `That in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia.'

May I have a copy?

Yes. Copy of amendment handed in.

The amendment in substance is in order, but the format should be: To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end, and insert "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". That covers the amendment? Dr Toh Chin Chye indicated assent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.

Yes.

May I draw your attention to the fact that the motion seeks an assurance? The amendment merely welcomes a Bill, but gives no assurance, and therefore it negates my motion.

I have satisfied myself that the substance of the amendment is in order. On the point raised by the Member for Anson - he will get a copy of this amendment - he will note that the relevant words insofar as the assurance is concerned are these - `in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill'. These are the operative words - 'in order to hold a referendum'.

Forgive me. Mr Speaker, I just want to draw this to your attention. They say the Bill is welcomed because it is a Bill brought in order to hold a referendum. But they give no assurance that that Bill will be implemented for the purposes of holding a referendum. That is the purpose of my motion, to seek an assurance that they will.

That, of course, is an argument against the amendment. The Member for Anson is entitled to amend the amendment. Has the Deputy Prime Minister completed his speech?

Not yet.

While copies of the amendment are being distributed, the Deputy Prime Minister may move a business motion.

7.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper this day he exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until twelve midnight. Question put.

Division. `The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 17; Absent, 5; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Noes Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing Haji Jumat Fung Yin Ching Buang bin Miss Omar Junid Koh, C.H. Byrne. K. M. Lee Siew Choh Chan Chee Seng Leong Keng Seng Chan Chov Siong, Madam Lin You Eng Chor Yeok Eng Lingam, S. V. Goh Chew Chua Low Por Tuck Goh Keng Swee Marshall, David Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Ng Teng Kian Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam Lee Khoon Choy Ong Eng Guan Lee Teck Him Sheng Nam Chin Lim Cheng Lock Tang Cheng Tong Lim Yew Hock Tee Kim Leng Mammen, John. Teo Hock Guan Mohamed Al bin Wong Soon Fong Alwi Mohd. Ariff bin Abstentions Suradi Nil M, Ismail Rahim Ong Pang Boon Rajah, A. P. Absent Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad bin Ibrahim Ramaswamy, S. Ahmad Jabri bin Akib Sahorah binte Bani, S. T. Ahmat, Madam Lee Kuan Yew Seow Peck Leng, Yong Nyuk Lin Mrs Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed Motion accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper this day he exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until twelve midnight.

Sir, I beg to move, That at the conclusion of the business set down on the Order Paper, this Assembly do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House, Sir, the explanation is this. Members of the House are aware that during the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill, we expressed the hope that this Bill would go through a Select Committee before the end of April, so that it could come up before this House for its Third Reading. It is our desire that at the next sitting of this Assembly, this Referendum Bill will be debated on the Third Reading. Members of the House are also aware that today only one Bill has been introduced by the Government for Second Reading at a future sitting. That being so, we would like to include the Singapore National Referendum Bill in the business for the next sitting of the Assembly. Mr Speaker, since you are the Chairman of the Select Committee, on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, and therefore responsible for the passage of this Bill through Select Committee, we will have to await the Report of the Select Committee on the Bill before we can fix a date for the next sitting.

Just to correct a point made by the Deputy Prime Minister procedurally. I think the Deputy Prime Minister has asserted that the Speaker will be responsible for the passage of the Referendum Bill through Select Committee. That is not strictly correct. The time of the Select Committee is at the disposal of Members of the Select Committee. I have no doubt the three Ministers on the Select Committee will see that the Bill is considered as expeditiously as possible. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen today an exhibition of the discourtesy of the Leader of the House which is a shining example of the reason why we have no confidence in him whatsoever. It is a matter of normal parliamentary procedure for a Leader worth his salt to consult Members of the opposition, or to advise them in advance, when he seeks to lift Standing Orders for any special reason.

Order. The Member for Anson is completely out of order. He is not permitted to debate that particular motion. That motion just goes to the vote without amendment or debate. We are now on this particular motion which is, That at the conclusion of the business set down on the Order Paper, this Assembly do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am explaining the reason why I am voting against the motion and why the others should vote against it. And the reason is to express strong disapproval and lack of confidence in the Leader.

Any other Member who wishes to speak on the motion? No? Dr Toh, in reply.

Sir, I am not usually a virulent man, which fact probably a majority of the Members of this House will admit. But as the Member for Anson has expressed in so vigorous terms his disapproval of my conduct, I am afraid I have to reply to him. Personally I would say this to the Member for Anson: that the time of the Government and the time of the Assembly is not at the behest of the Member for Anson. When we had the motion which we are supposed to debate this evening, he was absent. When we had the amendment moved by the Member for Anson on Malaysia, where was he? He was in Brunei attending to his business, and probably getting a handsome income for it. I see no reason why I should ever consult him, seeing that he has shown his disrespect to this House, and consecutively running away from voting on all amendment -

Order. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to say that the Member for Anson or any Member has run away from voting.

Absconded!

Order. I am afraid I did not hear that word. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can now pull himself together and, let us get on with the business of the day.

As I have pointed out to this House, we are under no obligation to consult the Member for Anson, because the time of the Government, which is responsible for the administration of the country, and the time of this Assembly, which is responsible for legislation, will be wasted upon him: or to adapt our time so that he can fit it in with his business appointments. Therefore, if the Member for Anson disapproves of me and has no confidence in me, let him correct his behaviour, and probably we may hope one day that the Pied Piper of Anson may be a person who can also be believed or trusted.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That at the conclusion of the business set down on the Order Paper, this Assembly to stand adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House.

Debate resumed.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.". Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode an manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore -".

Ha, ha!

I think the Minister owes an apology to the House for that interruption.

I beg your pardon.

The amendment is to insert the following words, "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia." Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

On a point of order, Sir, I wish to seek your advice on this, Sir. I am not certain about it. According to the amendment here, it says, "on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification", "mode and manner", Sir. Those are the things which will be discussed in the Referendum Bill which, at the present moment, is sub-judice. Some of our amendments to the Bill are couched in terms to make sure that when a referendum is held, the mode and manner of the referendum will be fixed. Under those circumstances, I would ask your advice whether or not this amendment of the Leader of the House is in order. I think it is not in order because it anticipates the Referendum Bill which is still in Select Committee.

I am afraid I have difficulty in following the Member for Queenstown. The words are, "this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". No detail as to what "the mode and manner" is given. That, as the Member for Queenstown has rightly stated, will eventually emerge from the National Referendum Bill, if so amended in, Select Committee.

May I make an explanation? Sir, I think the Member for Queenstown has missed the context of the amendment - "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification". It makes no mention of the mode and manner of the referendum.

It is a matter for debate. The amendment is now before the House. 7.40 p.m.

When this motion was printed, I do not think that it could possibly find anybody who would object to it, and I learned with considerable surprise from the seconder of the motion and the supporter of the manoeuvres on the part of certain Members of the Government to persuade him to drop the motion. I could understand why. I see this extraordinary mess which the Deputy Prime Minister has achieved in order to hide the fact that Government, in truth, do not want to give an assurance to the people of Singapore that they will have an honest referendum and that the Government will act in accordance with their wishes. We have now this smokescreen of the Government patting itself on its own back and no doubt having the S.P.A. to pat it too, about welcoming Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. I do not care, Sir, if they pat themselves on the back. I am not interested.

What about your back?

My back is broad enough to carry and has been broad enough to carry the filth, the spite and the malice that the entire Front Bench have sought to throw upon me. It will survive it and it will outlive them, and I hope one day it will bury them.

That is what you think.

Let us go back to this motion. It is with genuine sorrow that I have to speak in tones of anger of this Machiavellian manoeuvre to camouflage the naked intention of the Government, now so obvious that there will be no referendum on the real issue but only on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification. "Do you want the White Paper proposals to come into force at midnight on the 31st of August? Or would you rather have it for breakfast on Christmas Day?" That is, in effect, Sir, their so-called referendum according to this. That is what we are going to have. "Do you prefer to die by drowning? Or would you rather be burnt alive?" The mode and manner of the inevitable reunification. So this is it. This is naked power dictatorship. Sir, at one time it used to irritate me to hear the hollow laughter from the Front Benches. I now accept it as a tribute to the fact that the shaft has hit home, and they squirmed.

No. It was comical. That is why we laughed.

So we are to have a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people, not whether they want the arrangements arrived at, the proposals, according to the Prime Minister, of the Federation and the P.A.P. incorporated in Command Paper 33. No, Sir. The people will not have the opportunity to say whether they want it or not. They are going to be asked the mode and manner of the introduction of this policy, the mode and manner. Sir, you have held - and I must respect your decision - that this is not, at least technically, a negation of my motion which seeks an assurance from this House, a solemn assurance that the people will have an honest opportunity to express their wishes in a referendum before the measures affecting our entire future and affecting our children are brought into force. That is all it sought. That was supposed to be the purpose of the Referendum Bill, that there should be direct democracy, and that this Government, as one last gracious act in an extremely discredited career, should at least for once show some grace and accept the people's will. Now, Sir, we must recognise that obviously the Referendum Bill was introduced by mistake. It was promised and they had to go through with the promise. But they are going to see that it is so distorted that nothing Machiavelli ever did could equal the fraud which it is proposed to be perpetrated on the people of Singapore. This is a fraud. They are not to be given an opportunity to say whether they want a referendum or not. I repeat this, Sir - let it be clear enough, not that the Minister for Culture's Radio P.A.P. will ever carry it, but at least some of the newspapers will print it; some of the people will realise the meaning of the shabby performance and the shabby amendment, the shabby smokescreen to hide the naked power politics of this Fascist Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move an amendment to this amendment. To leave out from the word "That" up to and including "question of merger"; to leave out "the Government's introduction of"; and to leave out "mode and manner of the inevitable". So that the amendment now reads: `That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia.'. I am sorry I have been rather quick. Sir, and I have no copy. You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that we have just received it and we have just seen it.

Will the Member produce that amendment to the amendment in writing?

Certainly, Sir. Amendment to the amendment handed in.

The amendment to the amendment is to leave out from the very beginning" in view" to the word "reunification" and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the". So that the amended motion will read: `That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia.'.

I am not proud of this as it stands now, Sir,It is a far cry from the solemn assurance of a decent act of respect to the people and the concept of democracy to this present welcome of a Bill which we may hope will bring about a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people. This is not the solemn assurance I seek. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a practical man. The vilifications to which I have been subjected repeatedly are an indication of the extent of the weakness of the Opposition before the Fascist's steamroller majority on the Government Benches. These are the people whose leader, the Prime Minister, said, "Mao Tse-tung says power is in the barrel of the gun." That is not the power I have; it is not the power I seek; and it is not the power I hope anybody in Singapore will seek. Those who, like the Prime Minister, seek it, I trust they will find it in a sustained absence away from these shores. Sir, it is because of the recognition of our numerical weakness that I seek to bring about at least some semblance of decency to this' smokescreen and this camouflage, to bring about something for which a man may vote without feeling dirty. It is a recognition of the fact, so heavily demonstrated today, of the dictatorship of the majority who have now made certain by a firm alliance with the S.P.A. that no matter what the feelings of the people and the feelings of the Opposition, they will always have the 30 votes. Yes, Sir, it is because of these reasons, and not because I expect even to impress them, nor even do I expect having failed in what was a far more reasonable motion that I would obtain their consent to this much more mild version. It is in order to bring out starkly and clearly the reprehensible reality of the Government's intention to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people willy-nilly. No wonder the Prime Minister said it would be criminal folly if there was a risk of losing the referendum. He believes in playing two-up, the Australian game with both sides of the coin on his side - heads I win, tails you lose attitude. To make quite certain, that is democracy, the democracy that loads the dice. Let them pour their filth, Sir. A time comes when the contempt of the people for this Government is such that those on whom they seek to pour scorn become heroes. Sir, rarely in the history of any democracy have I ever known, certainly in modern times, such a transparent, such a disgraceful act of contempt for democracy and for the people who elected them, a naked act of sheer abuse of majority power. An act of -

You are an enigma.

- clear notice of treachery to the people, of an intention to destroy them as they fear; the intention is certainly to treat their wishes with complete contempt. Now we can see. Sir, that this incipient democracy which started seven years ago and which feared Communism as the enemy which would put an end to its existence must now recognise that it is this P.A.P. Government which will put an end to democracy in this country. I believe that here today we see a naked intention on the part of these gentlemen never again to stand for election and to make sure that there will never again be elections, for they are too ambitious to give up power and will see to it that they will continue in office. [Interruption] This, Sir, is now clear; not from the hands of the Communists, not by the hands of the Communists, it is a dagger used in the hands of these so-called socialist democrats, to stab democracy as they have stabbed socialism. Now we have it. Some of us have seen the signs. We have feared it; we have suspected it. But for the first time now, we see it in all its filthy nakedness, this conspiracy to practise a major fraud upon the people of Singapore. No wonder they want to suspend Standing Orders in order to go up to midnight. They want to rush this shame quickly behind them, the shame that is branded on them now and forever as the brand of Cain. No wonder they hate me, Mr Speaker. They hate me, I think even more than they hate the Communists. For in me they see -

A Messiah.

Sometimes, Sir, they recognise the voice of a conscience they may once have had. They recognise that here at least - The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) walked into the Chamber.

Ah, here comes the great Prime Minister! [Laughter] And we welcome him, Mr Speaker!

Order. The Member for Anson has been on the verge of being disorderly. It is completely disorderly for any Member to comment on any other Member walking into this Chamber. The other Member is entitled to walk with decorum and to take his seat with decorum. He must not in any way be excited into becoming disorderly. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was on this major act of perfidy which is now nakedly apparent in the amendment brought by the Deputy Prime Minister, disclosing that the Government have no intention whatsoever to put a referendum to the people as to whether or not they want the arrangements of Cmd. Paper No. 33. This referendum introduced with so much fanfare is intended no more and no less than to ask them for the mode and manner of implementing the White Paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of my amendment is to delete the sycophantic and the obvious, and furthermore to delete the mode and manner and to leave at least possible for a subsequent motion that there will be a referendum giving the people an honest opportunity whether or not they want these arrangements. Criminal folly it may be insofar as the survival of the P.A.P. is concerned, but that criminal folly they have indulged in already. It is a question of, "Is democracy criminal folly because it is not advantageous to the Prime Minister and his colleagues?" This is criminal folly? Then, Sir, what is the distinction between their dictatorship and the Communist dictatorship?

You won't be here.

The Minister for Culture says, "I won't be here," and I have no doubt that in time when thin dictatorship has consolidated itself, I will not be here. I have not the slightest doubt about it.

Then what are you here for?

He can let off gas here!

Yes, I am glad to see them squirm and hear them squirm, Mr Speaker. These interruptions will in no way stay me. It was a tragic day, -

Hear, hear!

- a tragic day for all the people, a tragic day when decent people trusted these men opposite. No doubt some of those on the Back Benches must have started with sincerity, dedication and without the megalomania and bitterness of some on the Front Benches, but now that they have been led up the garden path of dictatorship, I ask those on the Back Benches, "How does it feel?" [Interruption] Is there a conscience? For the Front Bench, we can expect power corrupts and power deadens the conscience. What about the Back Benches? How does it feel? Is your loyalty to your leaders greater than your loyalty to the people?

Order. The Member for Anson should remember that he is addressing the Chair and my loyalties are here.

I appreciate your correction. You are fortunate enough. Being an elected Member today, Sir, and suffering a sense of being dirtied, of being associated with others who have been equally trusted, who have been believed in, in whom these people had faith, and who today tell you not bluntly but in all the camouflage of the absurdity of this amendment that they intend to handcuff these very people and hand them bound hand and foot. These are the representatives whom the people trusted. I happen to be one in this Chamber. at this most unhappy moment in this Chamber in seven years. So, Mr Speaker, our Prime Minister's riddle about - what were the words, Sir?

"mode and manner."

The words were: 'So the question of winning or losing a referendum does not arise. If there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists, let me say it will be criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold the referendum and to allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled.' Now, the mystery is solved and the "criminal folly" explained. They do not intend to have a referendum. They do not intend to ask the people whether they want these arrangements of the P.A.P. or not. They do not intend to do so. The P.A.P. will be saved, and only the "mode and manner". Such contempt for a really decent population! I think, Sir, despite the abuse from both sides of the House about our people - and I say this as one who has travelled a fair amount - I know no place in the world where you can find as peaceable, as law-abiding and as decent a people as are in Singapore today, and I mean solemnly and in all sincerity every word I am saying. It is these people who have elected them and who are now to be betrayed. I can sit till midnight. I would sit till midnight next year if I thought for a moment that I could, like the bugler, blow down the walls of Jericho, but I cannot and I know that I cannot, Sir. Now we find the tragedy of democracy - the tragedy of democracy, Mr Speaker, is that between general elections you can with a group of arrogant people in the majority have as complete a dictatorship as under any Fascist or Communist regime, that you can between general elections tie the people hand and foot, put them in a gunny sack and dump them in the river. That is constitutional and there is nothing the people can do. Sir, some weeks ago, I had occasion to be involved in a discussion about starting an anti-nuclear group in Singapore and I asked my Secretary, "Do you think we can achieve anything? Would the voice of 1� million people here be able to change the view of the stubborn nuclear powers?" She said, "If we must die, let us at least die shouting." That is what I say to this House. If we must die, then I shall shout. I shall shout till the people know. I shall shout to the people of the Federation who themselves, being decent people, will be ashamed of condoning this fraud that is being perpetrated upon the people by the Government of Singapore. I appeal now not to the Front Benches -

Order. The Member for Anson is forgetting the ruling I made some time ago, that voices should as far as possible not be raised in this Assembly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sorry for having inconvenienced you. I am appealing in the name of decency as brothers of those in the Federation to the citizens of the Federation not to condone an act of perfidy on the part of the P.A.P. Government that is being perpetrated upon the people of Singapore.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.". Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end, and insert - "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". Since which an amendment to the amendment has been moved, To leave out from the beginning of the amendment in line 1 to "reunification" and insert - "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." We are now debating the amendment to the amendment.

Mr Speaker, perhaps we could have a break for mealtime?

I propose to do that if it is the wish of the majority of Members. Perhaps it is a convenient time to suspend for three-quarters of an hour? Hon. Members: Yes.

I will take the Chair then at 9 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.15 p.m. until 9 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9 p.m.

Debate resumed.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.". Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert- "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". Since then an amendment to the amendment has been moved, To leave out from the beginning in line 1 to "reunification" and there to insert- "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate is on the amendment to the amendment by the Member for Anson.

Can we have the actual amendment before as, Sir?

There are no copies available. The debate is open. Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson? 9.05 p.m.

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis share the anger expressed by the Member for Anson. In the past the P.A.P. have shown to the House how dictatorial they have been. What we witness today, Sir, is not parliamentary democracy but parliamentary dictatorship; a dictatorship imposed on us and on the House by a group of discredited politicians who have no more capital to sustain themselves but the force of numbers.

Order. It seems to me that it would be convenient if both the amendment of the Government and the amendment to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson could be debated together. I personally think it is convenient if the amendment of the Government and the amendment to the amendment of the Member for Anson are debated together, and at the end of the debate those two amendments can be disposed of.

I would rather speak on the amendment to the amendment alone, Sir.

In that case, I must ask the Member for Queenstown to confine himself to reasons why the words suggested to be left out by the Member for Anson should be left out, i.e., the words, "in view of the Government's dearly stated stand on the question of merger", the words "the Government's introduction", and the words "mode and manner of the inevitable".

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion as amended asks this House to welcome the Singapore National Referendum Bill - May I get this straight first, Sir?

Order. The amendment of the Deputy Prime Minister is to insert these words, "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". The Member for Anson has moved an amendment to the amendment, To leave out the words "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger - I am paraphrasing the amendment. The Member for Anson suggests that those words should come out. He also suggests that the words, "the Government's introduction of", and "mode and manner of the inevitable" should come out. So that his amendment to the first part of the Government's amendment would, if carried, read: "That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wisbes of the people on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised", etc.

Sir, I wish to inform you that we will move an amendment to the amendment.

Oh God!

An amendment to the amendment to the amendment of the Member for Anson, or an amendment to the amendment of the Deputy Prime Minister?

I wish to move an amendment to the amendment to the, amendment of the Member for Anson. After the word "people", to delete all the words and to add, `as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33) before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". The whole amended motion will read: "That this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33) before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia."

The effect of that is that the Member for Queenstown desires to leave out from the Government's amendment all the words from the very beginning, that is, "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand" etc. down to the words "Federation of Malaya", and there to insert the words he has suggested. That is, that "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33)". If I am correct in my reading, the rest of the words follow the amendment moved by the Government. Is that correct?

I am amending the Member for Anson's amendment.

To start off with, instead of leaving out, as the Member for Anson has suggested, from the beginning to "reunification", the Member for Queenstown seeks to leave out from the beginning to the words "before arrangements". Once that is accepted, then we go to the second limb of the amendment; that is, to discuss whether or not the words suggested to be inserted, should be inserted.

Sir, the reason for my amendment to the amendment to the amendment is very clear. The White Paper has been presented by the P.A.P. Government to the House. The P.A.P. Government have taken great pains to explain their merger proposals to the people through Radio P.A.P., the Ministry of Culture pamphlets, Malaysia Week, Malaysia racing vehicles - the Grand Prix - and, of course, the newspapers. They have spent a lot of money on it. They have also sent touring teams over to the Borneo territories and to the Federation in the guise of playing football, basketball, and table tennis matches to publicise the P.A.P. type of merger to the people. The P.A.P. merger proposals are concrete proposals which have been suggested and accepted by the two Governments. They had spent considerable time to get the White Paper ready so that they could present the heads of agreement as embodied in the White Paper (Command Paper 33) to the House. Under those circumstances, Sir, the P.A.P. should be very proud of those proposals. They should have nothing to worry about and nothing to fear. They should under no circumstances be ashamed of putting those proposals before the people. If the proposals are so good, as they have all the time claimed them to be, then there is no reason why the P.A.P. Government should now be afraid to put them before the people as the real test as to whether or not they are acceptable to the people. In fact, they should be very happy to ask for a simple yes or no to the proposals which they have taken such great pains to get ready. It had been the Government's intention to bring these White Paper proposals to the people for endorsement. But, Sir, it is generally known outside that these proposals of the P.A.P. are not such good things as they are made out to be. The P.A.P. too know that the White Paper proposals are completely unacceptable to the people.

To you.

If, as the Member for Tampines thinks, it is only unacceptable to me, then here is a clear chance for the Government to put them before the people.

Certainly.

Hear, hear!

That is what they should do. Therefore, under those circumstances, we see no reason why the Government Benches cannot accept our amendment. Since the grand old man of this House and of the Party has given the word, I hope the Front Benches, as they are much younger will listen to his wisdom and put these proposals before the people. I only hope the P.A.P. will live up to their word of always accepting the will of the people. The Member for Anson has already given you an indication of the intentions of the Government. It is clear that the Government probably have no intention of even holding a referendum: and if they hold a referendum, they want to make sure that it is a case of heads the P.A.P. win, and tails the people of Singapore lose. Under any circumstances, the P.A.P. ensure they must win. That, of course, Sir, is a clear indication of what confidence they have in their own White Paper proposals. It is strongly rumoured outside -

Why do you believe in rumours? An hon. Member: Barisan rumours.

- that the P.A.P. Government, fearing that their White Paper proposals will not be acceptable to the people, will probably pose two questions instead. That is why there is "the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification", according to the words of the original amendment of the Government. The mode and manner has been amply explained by the Member for Anson, and I think we can all see the Machiavellian machinations behind those two wonderful words. Mode and manner! As the Member for Anson puts it, it is almost a case of whether you want the people to die by hanging or to die by drowning. What we are interested in is not dying. Why do we not allow the people a chance to live? Give them a chance to live and not a chance to die. If they are only given a chance to die - if that is the intention of the P.A.P. Government, then that is the end of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world. It is common knowledge, Sir, that the P.A.P. Government intend to ask two questions on merger. As so well shown by those two words, "mode" and "manner", they will probably ask the people whether they want the P.A.P. White Paper merger or some form of merger which is inferior -

Barisan Sosialis.

- to the White Paper merger. Everybody knows that the Government have all the time been harping on the Penang and Malacca type. That is the point, Sir, and it is such a distortion of our stand. If they should present truthfully our views and. the type of merger that the Barisan Sosialis stand' for, then the people will be given an honest picture and will understand. Now they are telling the whole world that the Barisan Sosialis stand for the Penang type of merger. This is a complete fabrication and a lie. The true type of merger which we in the Barisan Sosialis stand for is complete merger with all the citizens of Singapore becoming citizens of the Federation. In other words, all the 624,000 citizens of Singapore must on merger automatically become 624,000 Federation citizens, with Singapore having proportional representation in the Central Parliament. But no, Sir. This is not the true picture which the P.A.P. contortionists and culture experts are presenting to the people. They only know how to twist and turn.

That is a new dance!

They want to make sure that they give distorted versions of the Barisan Sosialis stand to the people. I would ask the P.A.P. Government not to trick the people in such a silly fashion. Let them be honest. They were elected by the people and they have a duty to the people to be honest with them. They have all the time claimed that they are the representatives of the people. Let them prove that they listen to the will of the people, and not try to cheat them.

Honour your pledge!

The fact that the leader of the House in his amendment asks to leave out "the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum -".

Order. That illustrates my point. The Member for Queenstown is now debating the Government's amendment. I suggested that that would be an easier course, but he is now going out of order by debating the Government's amendment. He can only debate that part of the Government's amendment which the Member for Anson has suggested should be left out.

Sir, the amendment I have moved will definitely give a chance to the P.A.P. Government to prove whether or not they can keep their word at least this time. They have repeatedly said that the final outcome of any form of merger will be decided by the people. They have gone to great lengths to bring about agreement with the Federation on their White Paper. Now that they have come to an agreement with the Federation Government, it is time that they brought these proposals before the people and ask them whether or not they are acceptable to them. I hope the P.A.P. will be able to accept the amendment I have put forward.

The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed." Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert- "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". Since which an amendment to the amendment has been moved, To leave out from the beginning to "reunification" and there to insert - "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the". Since which an amendment to the amendment to the amendment has been moved, To leave out from the Government amendment, from the beginning to the words "before arrangements", and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33)". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." I would indicate to hon. Members that the debate must of necessity range over not only the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown, but also the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson; the reason being that if the proposals to leave out the words from the Government amendment are defeated, then it follows that the amendment of the Member for Queenstown will be defeated, and so will the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. The first Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

As I understand it, the words to be left out proposed by the amendment to my amendment are up to the seventh line; mine is up to the sixth; and in the circumstances, surely any negativing of that amendment does not necessarily imply negativing of mine which is of a more limited character. I would like to understand this, when it comes to the question of voting, surely the amendments will be put individually to the House.

The difficulty is that both the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson desire that certain words up to the word "reunification" in the Government's amendment be left out. But the Member for Queenstown goes a little further. He suggests that the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" also be left out. So that the first Question is, "That all the words proposed by the Member for Queenstown to be left out, be left out." If that amendment is defeated, then, of course, the whole amendment is defeated. I cannot see any other convenient way of putting it to Members. Is there any other point?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the amendment is negatived, it may well be that Members do not want to delete the additional line which involves the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Surely. Sir, then the other amendment should be put as to the deletion of the first six lines "mode and manner of the inevitable", to ascertain whether the rest would be acceptable. As I understand the normal procedure, an amendment to an amendment is taken first. It has priority. Then the amendment itself, if the amendment to it is defeated, is put to the House.

The Member for Anson then suggests that Members might wish to retain the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" as well as the other words proposed by the Member for Anson himself. Well, in that case, the first Question which I will put then is, "That the words `reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya' proposed to be left out, be left out." Mr Rajaratnam rose -

Mr Rajaratnam, on the amendments?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, I presume I am talking on the amendment to the amendment to the amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, personally I do not think there is much difference in intent between the amendment by the Member for Anson and the amendment by the Member for Queenstown, because during the three-quarters of an hour recess that we had, obviously there have been second thoughts on the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. So as far as intention is concerned, there is really no basic difference except that the Barisan Sosialis have gone further and revealed their hand. One of the omissions is the word "reunification" which is obviously a retrogression from the amendment made by the Member for Anson who at least makes a semblance of believing in merger. But the Barisan Sosialis have obviously come to the conclusion that what they really want is an independent Singapore. Now they want a way out to prepare the ground for the next phase of their propaganda, that what they really want is an independent Singapore. Sir, as an indication of the deliberate attempt on the part of the Barisan Sosialis, to mislead the House, part of their technique is to accuse other people of distortion: of falsehoods. As regards the statement made just a few minutes ago by the Member for Queenstown wherein he denied that the Barisan Sosialis had ever suggested that they wanted merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, that was one of the slips they made. Those of us who read their publications know that they are now trying to wriggle out of it by saying, never said these things. That is a complete distortion of our stand by the Government." Sir, by a stroke of good luck, we have here copies of the letters sent by all the political Parties to the Deputy Prime Minister when he asked them to state their stand on merger. There is one from the S.P.A., one from the Workers' Party and one from the Barisan Sosialis. A few minutes ago, Sir, for the record the Member for Queenstown said that that was a complete distortion. I want to say that it is just as well for us to bear in mind that the Barisan Sosialis have now come to a point where they are prepared to tell falsehoods in the belief that they cannot be challenged. One of the reasons why the Member for Queenstown and his friends avoid coming to a debate over the radio is that they can be challenged. Sir, I have here a copy of the letter which their Party sent officially to the Deputy Prime Minister stating the terms and conditions of their merger. This is what they said: `The way ahead for reunification of our country and our people is in one of two directions - an immediate full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent state like Penang and Malacca.' Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Yet, a few minutes ago, Sir, he said that that was a complete distortion by the P.A.P. Government. This is a warning that any statement made by the Barisan in their desperate moments must be taken with not only a pinch of salt, but a handful of salt. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Point of order?

Point of order and clarification at the same time, Sir.

The Member must make up his mind.

Point of order, Sir. It is a complete distortion of facts and a telling of lies.

Order. The hon. Member is out of order by mentioning the word "lies". I will not call him. Mr Rajaratnam.

Sir, I am prepared for clarification if the -

Please continue.

Yes. This is a copy of the letter wherein they said the way ahead for reunification - a word which they left out in the amendment because obviously it has become an awkward thing. It is on record - "and the way ahead for reunification is...". This is an exact copy of the letter. It is not only a copy of the letter, it is also a copy of the programme of the inaugural meeting of the Barisan Sosialis. The same thing was circulated. There it states quite specifically: `an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca. (b) an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible.' This is a typical example -

On a point of order, Sir. The Minister has been misquoting. If he wishes to quote, I will ask him to quote the whole text and not just one or two sentences.

It is not a point of order.

Sir,I was quoting the relevant bits. If I were to read the whole text, it would probably be more embarrassing to the Barisan Sosialis Members, because they conceded all sorts of things from which they want to wriggle out now. I am very sorry to say, Sir, that the Member for Anson has also the habit, which he has learnt from the Barisan Sosialis, of coming forward - since the word "lie" is prohibited - and telling a bare-faced falsehood, because he quoted something else from the Prime Minister earlier on; but I shall come to that when we deal with his amendment. This is part of the technique, if you will remember. Sir -

On a point of order, Sir. An allegation is being made. Surely, it, should be substantiated now, Mr Speaker, Sir.

If the Minister substantiates that statement now, I think he will be out of order. We are now dealing with the amendment. He has stated in so many words that he will come to it at the proper time.

If you will remember, Sir, at the last sitting I did say that one of the tenets of the Communist doctrine - at that time they laughed it off - is that a Communist should be prepared to tell falsehoods and lies and distort facts if necessary for the cause. When we say the Barisan Sosialis are pro-Communist, they not only substantiate it by what they do but also by their method and manner of conducting debates.

Order. I would suggest to the Minister that if he must point, he points at the Chair.

Anyway, Sir, we have said enough to show that the Barisan Sosialis Communists have now come to a stage where their word is not worth the paper they wrote on to the Deputy Prime Minister, because earlier on they repudiated it. I think it is now necessary for us and for the people of Singapore to take the Barisan Sosialis not as a body of men whose words can be trusted hut as men who are prepared to twist and turn and even prepared to spit at their own words. Take the document that they sent officially to the Deputy Prime Minister who asked them to state their stand on merger. They are prepared to spit on what they themselves have written in black and white, just as they are prepared to spit on their undertaking that if they were expelled from the Party they would resign. They have now come to be real full-fledged Communists who, as one of the Communist tenets says, must be prepared to lie and distort facts so as to serve the cause for which they stand. Sir, as regards the amendment, apart from the careful precaution of leaving out "reunification", it means that the Barisan Sosialis are now taking the next step - which we have predicted - of fighting for an independent Singapore, which is what they want. As their logic has driven them to spout communal and racial propaganda, so they must now take the next step to fight for an independent Singapore, and that, Sir, is one reason why it is necessary for them to leave out the word "reunification". As regards the latter part of the amendment, it is quite clear that it has nothing to do with the spirit and intent of the motion, which is to get an assurance from the Government that a referendum will be held.

On what basis?

But this amendment goes a bit further than that. They are now trying to commit the House to state beforehand the terms of the referendum. That is a matter outside the scope of the motion. What they are saying is that now the Government should state, "Oh, this is how we should set the question." When the Referendum Bill is before this House, then it will be decided as to who sets the question and how it will be set. Therefore, this amendment is an attempt - obviously during the three-quarters of an hour break some of the bright boys thought it out - to commit the House to state beforehand the terms of the referendum. By the deletion of the words "mode and manner", they are again substantiating our contention that they are no longer interested in merger. The words "mode and manner" were introduced because all of us - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party - believe in merger. We believe in merger in principle. We believe in the concept of merger in the abstract. Therefore, we say, "That is right. Everybody believes in merger. Nobody disagrees with merger." So what we want to find out is the "mode and manner": what kind of merger do we want? That is a matter which will be decided when the referendum is framed. Therefore, this amendment to the amendment to the amendment is an attempt to go beyond the original spirit and intent of the motion to commit the House to decide beforehand on how the referendum should be framed. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to get an assurance from this House and from the Government that a referendum will be held. Sir, the Member for Queenstown quoted the Member for Anson - I am always very intrigued to note how they quote each other. The Member for Anson uses phrases like "majority dictatorship". Obviously he believes in minority dictatorship. The Member for Queenstown is only a tenderfoot in this business. He talks about parliamentary dictatorship. Sin, I have never seen such a term as "parliamentary dictatorship" in any political science textbook. I would have thought that "parliamentary" was a negation of "dictatorship", but obviously in the logic of the Barisan Sosialis, two and two make five: black is white; you put out a written statement saying that you believe in merger like Penang and Malacca, and three months later you say that you never said such a thing; and when copies of such a statement are presented to them, they say. "Oh, read the whole text - 12 pages of text." Therefore, when the Member for Queenstown says, "Oh, the Member for Anson has said that the Government is going to frame the question for referendum asking whether one would like to die by drowning or by hanging," I can give him the assurance here and now that such a question is not going to be submitted for the consideration by the people of Singapore. If there is going to be any hanging, the hanging will be done by the Members concerned; but as far as we are concerned, I can give the same assurance to the Member for Anson who is always caught in his own metaphors. He starts off with a metaphor, which, for him, becomes a fact, so much so that the Member for Queenstown gets also worked up and says, "Oh, the people want to live. They do not want to die." But I can assure him that that is not going to be one of the questions. The people are not going to be asked whether they want to die by hanging or by drowning or by any other means. The questions are going to be far more serious than that though it might result in Members of the Barisan Sosialis, who have already started on a suicidal course, probably being driven to that extreme as a way out of their difficulties. Sir, I therefore submit that this amendment is, firstly, an attempt to go beyond the scope of the original motion - and even of the amended motion by the Government - to more or less commit this Assembly to framing the questions for the referendum. I can quite understand the anxiety that the Barisan Sosialis feel about the type of questions that are going to be put to the people. Because of their own blunders, they committed themselves first to merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. They then committed themselves to merger as a concept; and they finally committed themselves to internal self-government for Singapore. Therefore, they cannot reconcile all these contradictions. The fate and future of the Barisan Sosialis and of the Communists who direct them is now dependent on one, or two, or three, or five or ten crosses that are going to be put on the ballot paper. That will seal the fate of the Malayan Communist Party who for 30 years have struggled for something which is now going to be lost as a result of the voting on the referendum. All the work of 30 years has now to go by the board. Therefore, it is a life and death battle for the Malayan Communists who are directing the gentlemen in the Barisan Sosialis. During a war, if you want to find out whether there is a land mine, you send the sheep first; and that is the role the Barisan Sosialis are playing. They are now in the minefield. A sheep is in the minefield. They know that the mines are there and that they will be detonated and exploded the day the people of Singapore go and vote on the question that will be put to them by the Government. I do not want to digress,, but it is necessary for me to explain why it is important to frame the questions for the referendum in such a way as to ensure that the people understand what, they are voting for, because the Barisan Sosialis have twisted and turned this question of merger so much so that today everybody is confused about it. Today they have come back to their last weapon - "This is a Chinese versus Malays issue." They have made such a `statement and they have now descended to using the lowliest weapon. Therefore, it is necessary for us to see that, when the questions for the referendum are framed, they will not be put in such a way as to confuse the people but that it will be made quite clear to the people what the real issues involved in merger are, so that they will be able to vote in an intelligent fashion, because the questions will be posed in an intelligent way and not in the way that the Barisan Sosialis want. They want them to be put in such a way that they can go round telling the people, "There you are. The Malays will come and rule this place, it is a sell-out to the Malays." That is a dangerous weapon. Let me tell them, Sir, that in India also the Communists tried it. In Ceylon too they tried it. And the ones who were destroyed were the Communist Party elements, and not the non-Communist elements. So those who take up the communal weapon will be destroyed by the communal weapon. We are not afraid of that, Sir. They are afraid. That is why they are now trying to oppose this motion so that they can ensure that the questions for the referendum are framed in the way they want them to be framed. We are not such saps. For nine months we have struggled not with the Barisan Sosialis but with the boys behind them. They know that today they have come to a dead end. They see a blank wall and now have no choice but either to climb it or retreat. Sir, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First, it is an attempt to inveigle the House into voting for something which has nothing to do with the real intent and purpose of this motion. Second, it is an indication of the thinking of the Barisan Sosialis. Today they have come to point that what they really want to start, as the next phase of their battle, is the fight for an independent Singapore. It is quite well known, Sir, that at the last meeting of the Singapore General Employees' Union, Mr Lim Ching Siong did say openly at this meeting of the cadres that they should fight for an independent Singapore. I think the Member for Anson would be very relieved to hear that, because that was what he had been pressing for. We are passing him a tip so that he may enter into negotiations with Mr Lim Ching Siong.

Where was this?

Then, Sir, at the annual meeting of the Singapore General Employees' Union at the Victoria Memorial Hall, Mr Lim Ching Siong said, "We must fight for an independent Singapore. The masses are now fighting a desperate battle." When they say "masses", we know it means the Barisan Sosialis. We are passing a friendly tip to the Member for Anson who has been more or less running them down, saying that while he is prepared for an independent Singapore the Barisan Sosialis want only an internally self-governing Singapore. Let him therefore stop all this pretence of being two different people. Let them all come together, because if they are in the same boat, Sir, when the boat goes down, they will all go down. 10.04 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the crux of all the amendments is not whether it is the Government that has introduced the National Referendum Bill or whether the Government has clearly stated its stand on merger, but on the mode and manner of the merger that is going to be brought about. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is fully committed to holding a referendum on merger, and there is no way for them to pull out of it. The only way left for it is to carry out successfully its White Paper proposals on merger, and, as we have said in the last Assembly debate, to put out an alternative, as what the Minister for Culture has said just now, a Penang and Malacca type of merger, which the Opposition Parties in this Assembly did not vote for, at least not we in the U.P.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, on 12th October, 1961, the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Opposition Parties in the Assembly. The Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis, and the U.P.P. asked the Leader of the House to convene an emergency sitting of the Assembly to discuss the P.A.P.'s merger proposals. The contents of the letter addressed to the leaders of the Opposition Parties were released to the Straits Times on 15th October, 1961. I shall quote extracts from the Straits Times of 15th October, 1961. The Prime Minister wrote: '"Not only you as Members of the Opposition but also the whole of the people of Singapore should be fully informed of the agreement in principle that has been reached between the two Governments." He added: "Every step forward made should be communicated to you as Members of the Opposition and also to the people of Singapore. It is the intention of the Government when all the details have been worked out to publish a paper and table it in the Legislative Assembly for debate. The people can accept or reject them."' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has been honourable in putting up all his proposals which are embodied in Command Paper 33, and this Paper has been tabled in the Legislative Assembly for debate and has been supported by the P.A.P. and the S.P.A. in this Assembly.

U.M.N.O. too.

Yes, U.M.N.O. too which has now joined the S.P.A. Alliance. But there is this last sentence which the Prime Minister wrote to the leaders of the Opposition Parties. "The people can accept or reject them." That means that a referendum will be held and the people can accept or reject the White Paper proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, not only is the Government committed to a referendum in this letter of 12th October, 1961, addressed to all leaders of the Opposition Parties, but it is further committed in that the question posed in the referendum will be whether the people accept or reject the White Paper proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, the last referendum held in the world was the one held in France on Algerian independence. The people of France were asked either "oui" or "non" (yes or no) to whether they agree (yes or no) to giving Algeria independence. I shall also quote a book which shows the referendum process held in Australia in 1951. The book is entitled Communism and Democracy in Australia, and is written by Webb. Page 50: `The form of the ballot paper for a referendum is set out in a schedule to the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, and the ballot paper itself gives the following instructions on how to vote. "If you approve of the proposed law, place the number 1 in the square opposite the word "Yes", and the number 2 in the square opposite the word "No". If you do not approve of the proposed law, place the number 1 in the square opposite the word "No", and the number 2 in the square opposite the word "Yes"."'. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is described in this book that in the Australian Referendum Act, the wording of the referendum is contained in the Act itself, and no government in power can play the fool in a referendum. In the 1951 referendum, the question asked was this - I shall quote page 51: `In the 1951 referendum the question asked on the ballot paper was: Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled Constitution (A Iteration Powers) to deal with Communists and Communism, 1951?' Mr Speaker, Sir, in all referendum processes in the world, the question posed before the voters always asks the voter yes or no'. If we accept this democratic process practised in other countries and which the Prime Minister has promised Members of the Opposition, then the question which the Government should pose is: "Do you approve of the White Paper proposals or not?" Mr Speaker, Sir, it will not be fair and it will be undemocratic if the workers are asked whether they prefer which manner and mode of merger - the P.A.P. merger proposals as contained in Paper Cmd. 33, or the Penang and Malacca type of merger which none of the Opposition Parties in this Assembly has supported. The Opposition Parties in this Assembly never voted for a Penang/Malacca type of merger. If the worst comes to the worst and the people were asked what type of merger they would prefer, then the ballot paper should put forward the two alternatives which the two groups of Parties in this Assembly have supported. One alternative was the White Paper merger proposals, and the other is complete merger with automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens. 10.12 p.m.

Sir, whenever the question of merger or a form of close association with the Federation is considered, we always reach a stage where we break records in this Assembly! The last time we debated merger, I think the debate went on for 12 days. This time when it comes close to merger or something related to merger, we have three amendments on an original motion. To my knowledge, Mr Speaker, that has never happened in the history of this Assembly or of any other Assembly since elections were introduced into Singapore. The position seems to be a very curious one. Whenever merger or anything connected with it is discussed in this august Chamber, everybody is agreed on merger. Not a soul dissents from it. The Member for Anson possibly had some doubts whether any form of merger was the best thing and whether it might not be better for Singapore to be independent. He certainly voiced that doubt. But other than him, every single Member in this House, whether he belonged to a Party or not, supported merger and supported a closer form of association with the Federation. So that when we had completed the previous debate on merger, two clear issues seemed to emerge at the conclusion of that debate. The first one was the merger proposals as set out in the White Paper which the House eventually approved. The second was the merger proposal as set out by the Barisan Sosialis, which was, at least in so far as the debate related itself to the motion, that Singapore should come in as the twelfth State (thirteenth or fourteenth, as the case may be), and exactly like Johore or any other State. That was the way it was put. Malacca and Penang were studiously avoided from that debate, as far as I can remember. So that, Mr Speaker, as far as I can make out, the position today is this: all the political Parties are agreed on merger. But each of them has different views as to what merger should be, or how merger should be effected, or the complete ramification which must logically ensue on such a merger, whatever type of merger it may be. On that, there are differences of opinion in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult for me to understand why we are arguing more about a referendum than about the positions taken up by the various Parties in the debate on merger. As far as I can make out - I hope I am not dumb in this - the Government have accepted the position that before any form of association or merger, as the case may be, is accepted in the Federation, there will be consultation with the people. The Government have expressly said so, and in this debate, at least from the statements made by the Minister for Culture and the Deputy Prime Minister, that seems to emerge quite clearly. So far as the Alliance is concerned, there must be a merger. We accept that. The Government have committed themselves to it and they will carry it out. Why then did the Member for Anson move this motion? I myself find it very difficult to understand why he moved it. If he had any doubts in this matter, he could have easily written to the Hon. the Prime Minister and told him this. "Look, this is what I hear in town. Is this correct or not?" And a suitable reply from the Prime Minister would have saved us all this trouble. This is a complete waste of time of the House and, to some extent, the Government are encouraging it, if I may put it that way. A short and simple answer to the Member for Anson could well have been, "Of course, we are going to have a referendum." That might well have been the end of the matter. But no. There are undertones and overtones to this which it is very difficult to understand and appreciate. The undertones and the overtones are getting even more subtle than they were at the time of the merger debate. Everybody knows there must be a referendum. I think the Barisan Sosialis know there is going to be a referendum. The Workers' Party know there is going to be a referendum. The Alliance know it and the Government know it. What then are we arguing about, Mr Speaker? I will tell you what the argument is about. It is about whether it is going to be in the form of one question or two questions or three questions. That is really what is agitating the minds of the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party. From the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, we can see the fear of the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party emerging quite clearly and basically. Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, a referendum is a device used by a parliamentary democracy for direct consultation with the people. Normally a parliamentary democracy does not consult the people. But this is a device which Australia and Canada, and America for that matter, have adopted from the continental countries. But as far as I know, the English type of democracy does not favour a direct referendum to the people. This is practised in Australia particularly and in Canada, and in the younger democracies it is certainly a very useful device to consult the wishes of the people. The governing words, Mr Speaker, Sir, are "to consult the wishes of the people to ascertain what is in their minds." Now if all of us then are agreed on merger, but if all of us are not agreed on the exact type of merger, what then should be the form of the referendum? How should the consultation with the people take place? If the consultation is going to be a genuine consultation, the question must be framed in such a way that the people can, as nearly as possible through this advice, express their views in order that the Government and the Assembly might be guided by their views. Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be an absolute waste of time to go to a referendum if the whole Assembly knew exactly what was in the minds of the people of Singapore. A referendum is only justified if we have some doubts on the matter on which we are going to the country on a referendum. What is the doubt to be resolved? The doubt to be resolved, Mr Speaker, is not whether there should be a merger. There is no doubt about that. We are all agreed on it. But there is a great deal of doubt as to what type of merger should be, how merger should be effected and possibly when merger should be effected. Those are the matters on which we are not agreed, and on which some of us are doubtful. I know what I want, but it could well be that I may be wrong. And therefore it becomes imperative to consult the people on that issue. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, if that is a correct appreciation of the situation, how then can we determine - by just putting one question to the people? "Do you accept the White Paper proposals or not?" Right. Supposing that was the only question posed to the electorate and the answer was a no, shall we say. Where is the Assembly? Does the Assembly know exactly what is in the minds of the people? We are not very much forrader, Mr Speaker. The people might be in favour of the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis. Should they not be given an opportunity to express their views on it? I think, in fairness, they should. Or they might be in favour of the original proposal of the Member for Anson, that we should be an independent territory, completely divorced from the Commonwealth maybe, or working within the Commonwealth or within the Security Council. These are matters on which some advice should be sought from the people. And if advice is to be sought from the people along `those lines, how are you going to achieve it? By acceding to the amendment of the Member for Queenstown? It would be a practical impossibility. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not really interested - at least some of us are not really interested - in seeking a solution to this problem. I think we are interested in jamming up the works. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is done in that spirit and we cannot support it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the Opposition have moved an amendment which I think should not have been brought up at all. The real fact is that the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party are opposed to Malaysia and merger. Let us take the Barisan Sosialis, it is a Party which is opposed to merger. The motive of this Party is to come forward and oppose Malaysia by way of opposing merger. So this amendment which they have moved is actually unnecessary. But they come to this House to bring up all sorts of questions and excuses to confuse the vision of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard the Member for Anson saying just now that the P.A.P. is a dictatorial Party. I will tell the Member for Anson this. If we were dictatorial, then he would have been in the gas chamber instead of in the Legislative Assembly Chamber. I repeat, he would have been in the gas chamber instead of in the Legislative Assembly Chamber. The Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, also says that we are dictatorial. He further accuses us of making full use of the facilities of Radio Singapore and the table-tennis team and all sorts of travelling missions to propagate our Malaysia concept. What I do not understand is this. If we are prepared to explain our stand to the people, then how can we be called dictatorial? If we are dictatorial, why should we go and explain to the people? We can very well tell them that we want this and they must follow. So I was quite surprised that the Member for Queenstown should, have brought up this kind of unreasonable argument to convince the people This is very difficult for him to do. The people will not be convinced of his argument. Although this may be beside the point, I will explain why many Party branches of the P.A.P. have sent out basket-ball and table-tennis teams to places connected with Malaysia. The reason is very simple. In the past, there were some narrow-minded people in our Party who were pro-Communist and who' monopolised the work of the Party, thereby undermining the Party in the eyes of the people. Now we have taken a new step in order to extend the activities of the Party. The Member for Queenstown also says that a lot of rumours have been flying about in Singapore. But in the past he never said anything about rumours. So 1 believe they started their rumour campaign on the 1st of April, which is April Fool's Day, on a house-to-house visit. That is how the rumours started. I can tell this House of their visits to the people. Actually they did not go and explain to the people. When they visited the people at their houses, they wished them good-morning or called them uncles, and before the people could ask them any question, they would tell them that they should not accept merger or Malaysia. If they did, then the Chinese would be sold to the Malays. If they visited Malay family, they would say Malaysia was bad. If they visited an Indian family, they would say that after merger Singapore's economy would deteriorate. They have brought up all sorts of questions and excuses just to whip up racial emotions to confuse the vision of the people and to undermine the materialisation of Malaysia. So after their campaign and house-to-house visits, starting from the 1st of April, they come and tell us that there are rumours flying about in Singapore about Malaysia and merger. Actually these rumours have been started by them. They have been started as a result of what they have told the people. So the rumours which they have started are ringing in their own ears. Then they come and tell the House that the whole of Singapore is full of rumours. I believe that as Chairman of the Party, the Member for Queenstown, who is unable to reflect the views and opinions of the people, should not come to this House and say that there are a lot of rumours in town. They also say that the Barisan do not want the people to die. The P.A.P.'s Malaysia plan and the merger plan do not want the people to die. Instead these two plans want the people to live, because we know that if the Malaysia plan materialises, then, territorially speaking, we become bigger. We can expand. Economically, we can provide more jobs for our young people. So in all respects, Malaysia will bring a new and better life to the people of Singapore.

Order. The Member is now going into too many details. In fact, he is debating Malaysia. He can just mention Malaysia in passing, but he should not debate Malaysia now. We have done that already.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to take up too much of the Assembly's time. I am coming to the end of my speech. What I am trying to say is that, as Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown should not have said what he has said. That is why I stand up to reply. He says that if the people accept the Malaysia plan, then they will be confronted with death. Now, we do not have to bother with which Party is able to bring about Malaysia. We have to look ahead and ask this: With the success of Malaysia, will there be a greater nation? This is an important question. Now, if we can have a greater nation with a larger piece of land, then there will be greater opportunities for jobs for the people. So, for a Party Chairman to advance such arguments is very bad indeed. 10.32 p.m.

We will now dispose of the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.". Since which an amendment has been moved by the Deputy Prime Minister to leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end and there to insert "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". Since which an amendment has been moved by the Member for Anson to the amendment, to leave out from the very beginning to the word "reunification" and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the". Since which the Member for Queenstown has moved an amendment to the amendment to the amendment, to leave out from the beginning of the Deputy Prime Minister's amendment to `the words, "before arrangements" and there to insert "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people as to whether or not they are prepared to accept the proposals as embodied in the White Paper on Merger (Command Paper 33)". The Question I put is a Question which is necessitated by reason of the fact that the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson are desirous that certain words in the Deputy Prime Minister's amendment be omitted. The Member for Queenstown desires that the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" should be omitted: whereas the Member for An-son has not suggested that those words be omitted. So, the first Question I would like an answer to is that the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya" proposed to be left out, be left out." I might add that if the voting is against those words being left out, then the whole amendment of the Member for Queenstown falls. I will put the Question then. 10.37 p.m. Question put, "That the words `reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya' proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 16; Noes, 24; Abstentions, 6; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Fung Yin Ching, Omar Junid Miss Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh Chan Chee Seng Leong Keng Seng Chan Choy Siong, Madam Lin You Eng Chor Yeok Eng Lingam, S. V. Goh Chew Chua Low Por Tuck Goh Keng Swee Marshall, David Hoe Puay Choo, Madam Ng Teng Kian Kandasamy, G Ong Chang Sam Lee Khoon Choy Ong Eng Guan Lee Kuan Yew Sheng Nam Chin Lee Teck Him Tan Cheng Tong Lim Cheng Lock Tee Kim Leng Mammen, John Teo Hock Guan Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Wong Soon Fong M. Ismail Rahim Ong Pang Boon Abstentions. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Ahmad Jabri bin Sahorah binte Mohammad Akib Ahmat, Madam Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan Lim Yew Hock Toh Chin Chye Rajah, A. P. Wee Toon Boon Seow Peck Leng, Yaacob bin Mohamed Mrs Thio Chan Bee Absent. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat Ahmad bin Ibrahim Bani, S. T. Mohd, Ali bin Alwi Yong Nyuk Lin

The result of the voting is that the whole of the amendment of the Member for Queenstown is defeated. We are now back to the amendment moved by the Member for Anson, which is in relation to the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendment is to leave out from the beginning of that amendment to "reunification", that is to say, to leave out the words "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable", and there to insert, "this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker. Sir, I am speaking now on the amendment to the amendment. The Member for Anson has accused the S.P.A. of forming an alliance with the P.A.P. It is indeed a matter which I can only laugh off, because if the record of the debates in this House were to show correctly - as I am sure Hansard will show it correctly - it was first the S.P.A. and now the Alliance that have provided the most responsible opposition to the P.A.P. Government. We do not believe in irresponsible opposition. We believe that the interest of the country should come first and not the Party. Sir, in the debate on the Government agreement with the Government of the Federation of Malaya (Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961), it was very clear that the Parties represented in this Assembly, apart from the Alliance, were playing party politics. Although each and every Party did say that they were for a closer relationship, for reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, there were different views as to the manner in which this reunification should take place. On the question of the referendum, I think everyone has agreed that it will have to be conducted, to consult the electorate on the constitutional proposals vis a vis the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Here again, unfortunately, all the Parties represented in this Assembly, apart from the Alliance, still continue to play party politics. We who are a responsible Opposition sometimes can be said to be amused at the play of party politics. We have here the Member for Anson who moved an amendment to the amendment, and he has voted with the Barisan Sosialis in defeating his own amendment! If the amendment to the amendment to the amendment had succeeded, his own amendment would have been defeated. He voted with the Barisan Sosialis because it is popular, since the Workers' Party has -

On a point of order, Sir. Surely that is wrong and it should be corrected.

Is the Member indicating that his vote has been recorded wrongly? The Member for Anson voted `aye' in favour of the deletion of the words "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". Is that his complains?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the deletion was for the purpose of clarification of the word "reunification". A man can accept an amendment to his amendment without in any way denying an amendment to his motion.

It is a point of argument. Tun Lim.

It could be that the lateness of the hour must be having some effect on some of us who have been sitting here since 2.30 p.m. But the record will show that the Member for Anson voted for an amendment to defeat his own amendment. Perhaps, Sir, the Member for Anson did not know what he was doing and we can feel sorry for his state of mind. An hon. Member: Woodbridge Hospital!

The amendment proposed by the Member for Anson says that this House welcomes the Singapore National Referendum Bill. If I remember rightly, when the Singapore National Referendum Bill was read a Second time, there was much opposition from the Member for Anson. He has forgotten how he spoke very strongly against the Bill, but he is now prepared to welcome it.

On a point of order, Sir. I welcomed the principle of the Bill and voted in favour of it.

It is not a point of order. It is a point of the Member being misrepresented.

Sir, all we want to say, as a responsible Opposition, is that a referendum is necessary, the Government is committed to it, and the introduction of the Referendum Bill is a clear indication that a referendum is to be conducted. But we will not play party politics on an issue that concerns the very livelihood of the people of Singapore. The Alliance will abstain on all amendments to the amendment as well as on the amendment to the original motion.

We are on the amendment of the Member for Anson - the amendment to the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. The first Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," - that is to say, the words: `in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable'. Amendment to the amendment negatived.

We are back to the amendment proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. The original Question was, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore that before arrangements are finalised for a closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya and/or the Borneo territories, and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia, the wishes of the voters of Singapore will be ascertained by referendum and the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed.". Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out from "That" in line 1 to the end, and insert- "in view of the Government's clearly stated stand on the question of merger, this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya before arrangements are finalised and before any request is made by the Government of Singapore to the British Government for transfer of territorial sovereignty over Singapore to the Federation of Malaya or Malaysia". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 10.55 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Government. From the Government's intention of deleting the words from the motion of the Member for Anson, we can clearly see their motive. In the Government amendment, there is a word which has caught my attention. This word is "reunification" in the phrase "reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya". In this amendment of the Government, they have not used the word "merger", which means that the Government clearly understand that the people of Singapore have already seen through the P.A.P. type of merger. Therefore, they do not dare mention now the word merger". Now they use another word, namely, "reunification" in its stead, in order to deceive the people of Singapore. It was because of this that we moved our amendment to delete that word "reunification". 10.59 p.m.

From the Government's amendment, we see that they intend to delete the last part of the motion proposed by the Member for Anson - that is, the words "the Government will act in accordance with the views of our citizens so expressed". Why should the Government want to delete such a phrase? This is because the P.A.P. Government are not prepared to accept the views of the people. It also goes to show that they are now under pressure to hold such a national referendum unwillingly. The Government's intention of deleting such a phrase shows that they have no confidence in the result of the coming national referendum. From this, it can also be seen what purpose is the national referendum if the Government are not sincere about the so-called national referendum. They want to play the political game. Mr Deputy Speaker, this question of a national referendum is one which touches on merger and which affects our people. The original motion of the Member for Anson states "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore...". This wording clearly shows that the mover of this motion is taking this issue above party politics. But the Government have another attitude towards it. From the amendment moved by the Government, we can see that the holding of a nationa1 referendum is to play party politics and it will be conducted on that line. If the Government are not trying to play party politics, why cannot they accept the original motion, that is to say, "That this Assembly solemnly assures the citizens of Singapore" of certain things? Mr Deputy Speaker, another reason why we cannot accept the amendment by the Government is that before the National Referendum Bill is passed we must get an assurance that it will accept the views of the Opposition Parties to delete certain unreasonable provisions in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed): On a point of order, Sir. (In Malay): The translation system is out of order. The Malay translation is not coming through. Or is it that my earphone only is affected?

Come over and have mine!

Order. It appears that the whole row is affected. I suggest that we suspend for ten minutes. I suspend this sitting until a quarter-past eleven o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 11.06 p.m. until 11.15 p.m. Sitting resumed at 11.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now that the amendment moved by the Government was intended to use the word "reunification" to replace the word "merger". This is the type of constitutional relationship envisaged in the White Paper. They now dare not use the word "merger", because the word "merger" has already been seen through by the people for what it means. Can the proposals in the White Paper, which outlines the plan for merger between Singapore and Malaya, be truly called a kind of reunification? Can the proposals in the White Paper achieve a reunification or merger? The answer is no. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, also did not use the word "reunification" to describe the proposals in the White Paper. What he said was a type of closer relationship. Only this and nothing more. From this, it can be seen that the P.A.P. Government are now trying to use another term to deceive the people so that an unequal type of merger, as in the White Paper, can be accepted. Mr Speaker, in the amendment moved by the Government, there is another term used. That is, the "mode and manner," which refers to the mode and manner of merger. Why do the Government not dare to express clearly, by their wording in the White Paper, the merger proposed by them? Why should they use this new term in its stead? Just now the Member for Hong Lim, in the course of his speech, also correctly pointed out what the Prime Minister said on the 12th of October last year. In answer to the leaders of all the political Parties, he said in his letter that the people would' be consulted on whether they accepted or rejected the White Paper proposals on merger. But from the amendment of the Government, we can see that they intend to eat their own words. The Government have the intention of evading what the Prime Minister promised or guaranteed to the leaders of the political Parties represented in this Assembly. From the terms of the Government's amendment, we can see that not only have the Government no confidence in the national referendum, but they have also no confidence in their own merger proposals as contained in the White Paper. The Government have also no confidence in the parliamentary system of consulting the people for their opinions. If the Government do not like the people to freely express their views; if the Government will not allow the people to fully express their views; and if also the Government want the people to accept their type of merger as outlined in the White Paper, then it would be better that the Government should not waste so many thousands of dollars to carry out this type of national referendum. I would like to point out that if the Government are determined not to abide by the opinions of the people; if they are not prepared to act according to the will of the people; if they will not allow the people to express freely and correctly their own views; and if they like to use deceiving methods to carry through their type of merger, then it will cause very serious consequences to our State. If this misfortune should happen, the Government should bear all the responsibilities. 11.25 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, there are times when democracy cannot be practised. There are places where we can see that parliamentary democracy is not successful, and there is a scrambling for power by the military in order to safeguard the security of the State. This is necessary when the lives of the people are in difficulties, or when the machinations of irresponsible leaders who have no sense of responsibility to their country, or of a group of men who have no real interest in the country in which they are staying, have to be dealt with. Mr Speaker, we consider a referendum to be a good device for the purpose of consulting the people. But, as has been explained by my colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, this issue which we are discussing is being played about in some irresponsible quarters. 11.26 p.m.

We have followed the debate on merger in this Assembly. I believe the people of Singapore, who did not understand the debate, could see clearly the good and the bad points about the matters discussed in this Assembly. But there are some quarters in this Assembly who carry out irresponsible activities. They are not responsible to this country and they do not wish the people to have a prosperous and peaceful country. I believe the type of merger they demand today is something in which they themselves do not believe, because what they really want is that there should not be any merger. However, they are not disposed to; state clearly that they do not want merger. They only hide behind the issue of the referendum and so on. Some have raised this issue as a matter of party politics. What they really want, in my view, if they can achieve it is a large field wherein they can gather all the people in order to arrive at a decision on an issue. What we are now discussing seems to be producing no results. In this respect, it appears that the Barisan Sosialis are actively carrying out a dangerous line of propaganda which has given rise to communalism. If they continue to persist in this line, it will create an undesirable situation for the people of Singapore. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that every Member of this Assembly will discuss our problem sanely, because there is no other way to improve the situation. We have hoped there should be a merger. But now, the means of achieving merger is through a referendum, and we see this issue being played about. As emphasised by my colleague, we on our part will not take part in the voting because we regard this matter as a part of party politics. 11.33 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this motion which the Member for Anson is raising, and which affects our future generation and their future, seeks to - [Interruption]

I can hear quite clearly.

I am afraid for the last minute or two I have not heard anything, but I will continue, Sir.

This line.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not quite hear what the Member for Anson said just now. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was saying that the intention of the motion brought forward by the Member for Anson is to assure that the people can express their views on the question of merger and the question of Malaysia. However, unfortunately, when the motion was amended by the Government, it has caused an unnecessary debate. If both sides of the House believe that democracy can be practised in this State, then I think the question is very simple.

Hear, hear!

(In Mandarin): The debate arising from the amendment by the Government is unnecessary. For example, in the amendment by the Government, there is one sentence which says that the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya is inevitable. My point is that since we all eat rice, if the P.A.P. Government put some poison in the rice and if they want us to eat it, then, of course, we will refuse to eat it. When the Government put forward their White Paper merger proposals, some of them are not acceptable to the Opposition. We support the concept of merger. We do not want to give the Government the excuse to say that we are opposed to merger and the concept of Malaysia. This has been our stand. But the behaviour of the P.A.P. reminds me of the Japanese occupation in Singapore. During that period the Japanese troops committed atrocities in this country which were very similar to what the P.A.P. are doing today. There is no point in opposing a national referendum. Let me quote some incidents. During the Japanese occupation, the atrocities and barbarities committed by the Japanese troops could be likened to what the P.A.P. are doing today. At that time there were many gambling dens in Singapore. There was a kind of gambling by the Chinese known as "fan tan". This kind of gambling - Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed rose -

On a point of order?

(In Malay): On a point of order. This is not relevant to the amendment.

It is not a point of order. The hon. Member is just giving a comparison. If he goes into details and is out of order, then I will pull him up.

(In Mandarin): In this kind of gambling the figures 1, 2, 3, 4 are written. At one time the Japanese Army went to gamble in these gambling dens. The result was that they lost all their money. The next day they thought of a scheme and went and gambled again. They used only chips on the table, no actual money. Then the chips would be counted in fours, and if there was only one chip remaining at the end, that would be No. 1; if there were two chips remaining, that would be No. 2; if there were three chips remaining, then it would be No. 3; and if there were four remaining at the end, it would be No. 4. But the unreasonable and barbaric Japanese soldiers on this particular day forcibly asked the gambling den operators not to count in fours but in twos, so that they could stake on No. 1 and No. 2, because then the result would be either 1 or 2. So they were in a very advantageous position to win the game. The method of referendum gives me the impression that it is quite similar to how the Japanese soldiers behaved in the gambling dens. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because of the debate arising out of the question of merger, the friendship which has existed between Singapore and the Federation for a long time has now become very unstable. This is regrettable because we in the Opposition and the Government both are quite unanimous in supporting the concept of merger. But because we do not agree with the Government on the method and form of merger, there is the question of closing down the causeway, which has given rise to fear among the people of Singapore. So we would urge the Government, if they do believe in parliamentary democracy, to do this simple thing - let the people of Singapore choose either of these two alternatives - one, whether the people of Singapore are prepared to accept the merger proposals as contained in the White Paper, or whether they are opposed to those proposals. It is as simple as that. There is no need for any argument or debate. Now, if the P.A.P. do not do this, then, in my opinion, they do not dare to face the people. That is why they are thinking of the method which I have already described, and which the Japanese soldiers used in the gambling dens. This behaviour of the P.A.P. has given me the opportunity to recollect that incident.

Hear, hear! 11.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today the Government has moved an amendment to the motion tabled by the Member for Anson. We can see clearly that the present P.A.P. Government is quite similar to Hitler's Government in the past. There is only this difference between them. Hitler was able to mobilise all his military forces to suppress nearly all the people of the world whereas the P.A.P. cannot do so. If the P.A.P. were to have such military forces at its disposal, I believe that it would not hesitate to make use of them to force the people of Singapore into accepting the retrogressive constitutional arrangements; but because it does not have the military forces that Hitler had, it has attempted to introduce all sorts of devices to achieve constitutional arrangements which are not in the interest of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, some Government Members have contradicted their own statements. For example, the Minister for Culture, when touching on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, said that the Government cannot put only one question - the question of the White Paper on merger - in the referendum because, if the Government should do so, then the Assembly would be involved and committed to the framing of the question in the referendum. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the White Paper on the merger proposals was debated in a motion moved by the Government in this House. Since then, the Ministers of the Government have stressed in the newspapers, at Press interviews and radio forums, and through all forms of publicity facilities, the point that the future constitutional arrangements would be referred to the people for a final decision. In other words, Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961 would be referred to the people for a decision as to whether they accept the merger proposals agreed between the P.A.P, and the Federation Government. So we can clearly see today in this House that there is a very simple question to be answered by the people of Singapore. This question is one where a yes or no is required to the White Paper proposals on merger. It is not a matter of putting various questions to the people for a decision. The P.A.P. knows this very well. It also knows that, as far as the people of Singapore are concerned, the White Paper proposals on merger are not acceptable. That is why the Government has not got the guts to put down the White Paper proposals on merger in the ballot paper. If the Government is sincere in wanting to refer this issue in a referendum -

Order. I would like to remind the hon. Member that at the present moment we are debating the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. If he wanted to debate the White Paper, the proper time would have been when the Member for Queenstown moved an amendment to Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am now trying to make you understand this, that the amendment of the Government concerns the "mode and manner" of reunification of Singapore and the Federation. The House has discussed this question of the "mode and manner" as contained in the White Paper. Where is the other "mode and manner" for the decision of the people? If the Government has the courage, then I will challenge it to amend the motion of the Member for Anson `by using the words "White Paper" therein, and then refer the matter to the people in a referendum. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question before this House and before the people is very simple. The amendment of the Government has indicated to the people of Singapore that more than one question will be put in the national referendum for a decision, because the P.A.P. knows that the people of Singapore treat the White Paper like poison. If the P.A.P. were to ask the people whether they wanted to drink poison - that is to say, whether they wanted the White Paper proposals on merger - I am quite sure that 100 per cent of the people in Singapore would reject them; but because the Prime Minister on many occasions has promised to refer this matter to the people for a decision, the Government has to make use of a democratic device and take advantage of democratic forms to deceive the people of Singapore into believing that their future is to be decided by themselves and not by the P.A.P. The P.A.P. is cunningly trying to make use of more than one question for a decision by the people. If the P.A.P. has the confidence of the people and if it has given publicity to the advantages of the White Paper on merger and Malaysia, then I believe the people of Singapore, who are reasonable and rational, will consider carefully the speeches and arguments of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. has said that the White Paper on merger is good and advantageous to the people of Singapore, which is tantamount to saying that the P.A.P. has confidence in the people. If that is so, then there is every reason to believe that the P.A.P, should put one question to the people in a referendum, and that is whether the White Paper on merger is acceptable to them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill says the Alliance has never indulged in party politics. He claims that his Party is looking after the interests of the whole country. I do not understand what he means by "the interest of the country". I do not know whether he has in mind the interest of the people. By the interest of the country, does he mean the interest of the minority leadership of the P.A.P. and the leaders of the Alliance? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. and the Alliance held different political views in the past, but now they seem to have come to some agreement. The Member for Cairnhill wants to convey the impression that the amendment moved by the Barisan Sosialis is only in the interest of an individual Party instead of in the national interest. I wish to inform him that we look after not only the interest of the country, but also the interest of the people of Singapore, including the interest of their children. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the coming national referendum and the proposed constitutional arrangements cannot be conducted on a basis of equality, then, as the Member for Southern Islands has said, suspicions and fears will inevitably arise in the minds of the various communities.

Order. It is midnight.

12.00 midnight

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think I need apologise to this House for keeping it for another few minutes, since the people of whom I have to speak have been kept waiting for several years. I want to speak to you tonight of 14 people, whom I have never met, whose names I do not know and whom I do not know personally in any way whatsoever, who languish in prison and have languished in prison for five to six years without trial by executive order renewed from time to time. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the year 1955, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance was passed against P.A.P. opposition in this Assembly, and vicious and malicious P.A.P. propaganda out side this Assembly was led by the present Prime Minister and his henchmen, Mr Lim Ching Siong and Mr Devan Nair. At that time, the present Minister for Health condemned what he called the undemocratic Preservation of Public Security Ordinance in no uncertain terms. During 1955, despite considerable teething troubles in Singapore, the provisions of this Ordinance were so sparingly and so fairly used - all the detainees were released as soon as conditions had settled - that no criticism was levelled against its use in that period. Then came 1956 and 1957 when there was unrest, and the provisions of the Ordinance were extensively used and a large number of persons were detained. It is not the purpose of this motion to seek to reopen either the issue of the need for the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance today or the propriety or otherwise of the detentions of 1956 and 1957. The purpose of this motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, is to draw the attention of hon. Members of this Assembly to the fact that human beings who have not been found guilty by any Court are imprisoned for five and six years during a period when there is no question of an emergency. Even serious offences under our Penal Code are very rarely met with such extensive terms of actual imprisonment, for it is recognised that imprisonment has a deleterious effect upon a human being, and unless a man is beyond the hope of redemption the Courts will not impose sentences which will destroy his personality completely. How do we justify the continued detention of these forgotten men of 1956 and 1957? Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting to note that on the night of 20th/2lst July last year - that unhappy all-night sitting which started a curious P.A.P. circus - the Deputy Prime Minister said, and I quote from col. 1682: 'There were altogether 61 persons detained on 2nd June, 1959. From the day the P.A.P, assumed office on 3rd June, 1959, to date. 35 persons have been released. Of those who were detained by the previous Government in the two purges of 1956 and 1957, there are now only 18 persons still under detention.'. Those are the persons of whom I am speaking, Mr Deputy Speaker. `It is vital that the continued detention of these 18 detainees should not be allowed to obscure the main issue in the minds of the people, and that is the political future of Singapore - whether we are to attain independence through merger with the Federation in 1963 either with or without the Borneo territories, or whether, as has been suggested by Mr Lim Ching Siong's group, the next step should not be merger hut an internally self-governing Singapore without the Internal Security Council.'. He added: `I would like to lay on the Table the Singapore Government's Paper to the Internal Security Council dated 12th August, 1959, for the information of the House.' At a later stage, Mr Deputy Speaker, he said [col.1683]: `... in the light of recent developments which have been outlined by the Prime Minister to the House, to remove all doubts and any vestige of suspicion about the sincerity of the P.A.P. Government in wanting to release these detainees, we have no alternative but feel compelled that the whole truth should be made known to the people.'. "... the sincerity of the P.A.P. Government in wanting to release these detainees..."! This was nine months ago. Let me continue. This is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in ending up: `The importance of the question of merger so outweighs all other considerations that we are anxious that this side issue of continued detention of the detainees should be immediately resolved [note the words, Mr Deputy Speaker, "immediately resolved"] and not be allowed to be used as an argument against merger. Notwithstanding the stand of the British Government in the Internal Security Council,'- "Notwithstanding the stand" - brave words, Mr Deputy Speaker: `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 to the Internal- Security Council. In doing so, I would like to clarify that it is not the desire of the Singapore Government to precipitate any conflict or crisis with the Federation Government with whom it has always been our policy to maintain amicable and brotherly relationship in the interest of the people of both territories.'. Now, Sir, that is an unequivocal assurance that having considered fully the interest of the Federation and having considered fully the opposition of the British Government, the P.A.P. Government was going to proceed with its firm intention to release the detainees whom it had wanted to release from 12th August, 1959. This was said two years after 1959. We are today in 1962 - nine months after those words were said. Mr Deputy Speaker, despite this formal assurance of the Deputy Prime Minister, I have to inform you that on 2nd April, 1962, I received an intimation from the Ministry of Home Affairs that only four of these 18 persons detained during the 1956/1957 purges were released between 20th July and 2nd April. I am not guaranteeing the accuracy of the figure given by the Ministry, but I will be happy to table the letter itself, Sir. I shall table it at the end of my speech. You will remember that I sought this information by a Written Question. Maybe the Minister misunderstood its purport, but let us give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did. In any event, he was not ready and so I had to write him a fairly lengthy letter spelling out what I required. And after two weeks, I did get a reply - unequivocal for a change - stating categorically that four persons of these 18 whom they had promised to release nine months ago have now been released. Mr Deputy Speaker, I cannot see how persons who have spent more than five to six years in gaol can really continue to be effective agents of subversive organisations if, in fact, they belong to such organisations. After being five to six years out of circulation, it is not unreasonable to assume, unless they are particularly prominent personalities, that their release cannot materially affect the security position. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am heartened in this view - not that I need any support from the P.A.P. but just in case they wish to indulge in arguments which belie their own documents - let me remind them, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the paper which they tabled in this House on the night of 20th July, 1961, being their ISC.59 of 12th August, 1959, Secret, and this is what it says: `Once he is released [that is, Mr Lim Ching Siong is released], it makes very little difference from the point of view of subversion whether the remaining 40-odd detainees are released or not, because they cannot materially affect the security position.'. This was written in 1959 - almost three years ago - in respect of these persons who had then been two to three years in gaol and who are still today in gaol. Why are they still detained? Is it because since 20th July the P.A.P. has suddenly awakened to the fact that these former P.A.P. members would not return to the P.A.P. fold? Why the change of position from three years ago? Why this additional broken promise? Sir, one of the bitter lessons I have learned and relearned in the nine months I have been here is that an appeal to the Government on the grounds of reason and on the grounds of humanity will more often than not be met with raucous laughter more appropriate to a different institution. The only logic to which the P.A.P. Government is open is the logic of power. But I would ask the P.A.P. and those who sleep behind the Front Bench: what of these comrades of theirs who five to six years ago were detained and whose release they promised to obtain when they took office? How do you justify, Mr Deputy Speaker, these 14 human beings in prison for five to six years by executive order at a time of peace in the face of Government's own promise to release them and the Government's official recognition that their release - in the words of the letter of 12th August, 1959 - "cannot materially affect the security position"? How do you justify their continued detention? 00.15 a.m. (18th April, 1962)

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I go on to show for whom the Member for Anson is acting as proxy, let me dispose of his allegation that the Government has broken its promise made on its behalf by the Deputy Prime Minister on 20th July, 1961. It is necessary to get our facts straight. As those who have followed recent correspondence between the Member for Anson and the Minister for Health and Law in the Chinese Press will appreciate, the Member for Anson is strong on fiction and weak on facts. What was the promise made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 20th July in this Assembly? Let me quote the relevant portions in Hansard, Vol. 14, No. 23, col. 1683: `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 batches from time to time in accordance with the original proposal of the Singapore Government to the Internal Security Council.'. There was no pledge of unconditional release within a specified time. We could not have done so for obvious reasons. This was made clear in the sentence that immediately followed the quotation I have just made. This reads as follows: `In doing so, I would like to clarify that it is not the desire of the Singapore Government to precipitate any conflict or crisis with the Federation Government with whom it has always been our policy to maintain amicable and brotherly relationship in the interest of the people of both territories.'. In other words, since the Federation is a member of the Internal Security Council, it is necessary to convince the Federation representative that the release of a detainee does not constitute a security risk. In this connection, may I quote an authority whom the Member for Anson can disregard only at his own peril? The authority is none other than the Member for Upper Serangoon. He made this pronouncement on 21st September, 1960, when the Member for Hong Lim brought a motion asking for the unconditional release of detainees. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 9, col. 707. This is what the Member for Upper Serangoon said: `But, if among those who are now detained there are some who do not believe in peaceful constitutional struggle and who harbour the design of replacing the democratic parliamentary system with a Communist regime, then the P.A.P. has no obligation to fight for their release and their freedom.'. Needless to say, the Member for Upper Serangoon voted against the unconditional release of political detainees. The strictures that the Member for Nee Soon made on the Member for Hong Lim for bringing the detainee issue were so spirited that the Speaker had to call upon him to withdraw some telling nouns and adjectives directed against the Member for Hong Lim. But one sentence which was not ruled out of order may be of some interest to the Member for Anson. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 9, col. 716: `Running through this motion, we are able to read in and between the lines the false premises messed-up with paranoic tendencies of a persecution complex.'. And in col. 717, the Member for Nee Soon also had this to say: `I [that is the Member for Nee Soon] might add, Sir, that the original motion was worded to make it appear that the Singapore Government had never fought for the release of the detainees. Nothing can be further from the truth. Even before the P.A.P. formed Government the wheels were set in motion for the release of political detainees by the collective leadership of the Party.'. He went on to say: `Since then we have unrelentingly fought for the release of the remaining political detainees, and will continue to fight for their release.'. And in col. 718, he continued: `If he [that is, the Member for Hong Lim] agrees that the creation of a democratic, socialist, non-Communist Malaya is in the best interest of this country, then surely he must agree with us, Mr Speaker, Sir, that any power that seeks to overthrow this democratic system by subversion and by violence must be squarely met and boldly dealt with.'. The Member for Havelock was no less hard on the Member for Hong Lim for bringing this motion. He thought that the Member for Hong Lim brought the motion to revive his fading political prestige. In the end, all the Barisan Sosialis Members approved the amended motion which reads as follows: `That this Assembly urges the Government to continue to fight in the Internal Security Council for the release of all political detainees who were detained by the Lim Yew Hock Government and this Assembly endorses the Government's view that the detainees should assist the Government in its efforts to secure their release by sincerely repudiating the methods and aims of political forces dedicated to the overthrow of the democratic system by subversion and violence.'. In the context of the debate, what this meant was clear. These detainees can help the Government to secure their release by categorically and decisively repudiating Communism and allegiance to Communist objectives. As the Member for Upper Serangoon observed, the P.A.P. has no obligation to fight for the release of Communists or their willing henchmen. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement of July 1961 was not a promise of unconditional release of the 17 persons still detained, 14 of whom were detained during the 1956/57 purges. An hon. Member: Eighteen.

No. We have 17 left. Since the Deputy Prime Minister made his speech in the Assembly in July 1961, 9 further detainees have been released, and out of these nine, 4 were from the 1956 and 1957 purges. So there arc 17 left.

On a point of clarification.

If the Minister will give way. The Minister does not give way.

Out of these 17, 14 were detained during the 1956 and 1957 purges. The P.A.P. made a pledge of unconditional release only in regard to the 8 P.A.P. members who were intimately connected with the leadership of the Party. These included Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Fong Swee Suan and Mr Woodhull among others. We secured their release as promised just before we assumed office on 5th June, 1959. As regards the others who were members of the Party, we agreed to press for their release to the best of our ability and having regard to the tripartite nature of the Internal Security Council. Of the 61 persons under detention when the P.A.P. assumed office, only 17 are still under detention. The Government would like to secure their release, as it has secured the release of the others. To do this, we must convince the Federation Government that these persons are not security risks, and the best way to do this is - as was stated in the resolutions of September 1960 and approved by those who now call themselves the Barisan Sosialis - for the detainees to categorically and sincerely repudiate Communism. I do not know whether the Member for Anson, unlike the Member for Nee Soon and the Member for Upper Serangoon, is suggesting that we should press for the release of detainees who are not prepared to disavow Communist ambitions as he has admitted in this Assembly that his Party has been captured by the Communists.

That is not true.

Order.

But if he himself has not been captured by the Communists who run his Party, then he will do better to exhort the detainees to categorically repudiate Communism and thus make it easier to secure their release. To ask for the release of those who are not prepared to repudiate Communism would be to act as proxy for Communist designs at a time when the Communists are not only looking for stooges but also for much needed cadres for the coming battle.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, time is very short and I will not be long about this. These people have been detained for seven years, from 1955 to 1962, and all on what? It was on the advice of informers, agents provocateurs and spies who tail people and make up stories. These detainees are spending the best years of their lives in detention. What crimes have they committed? Robbery? Kidnapping? Murder? Even people who have committed such crimes, Sir, have only limited periods of detention and they know when they can expect to be out. What future have the detainees now? Their future now depends on whether or not they get into the good books of the P.A.P. If the P.A.P. leaders in their whims and fancies should want to release them, they come out, otherwise they will continue to be detained.

Repudiate Communism.

All at the whims and fancies of the P.A.P. leaders! The Prime Minister himself said long ago that he would consider all detainees -

On their merits.

Not on their merits but that if at any time certain of the detainees were to be released, he would consider all detainees as belonging to the same class - all put together. No separation has been -

Order. The Question having been proposed at Twelve o'clock midnight on 17th April, 1962, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock a.m. (18th April, 1962)