Hansard, 1962-06-27

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang), Parliamentary Secretary to The Minister for Health and Law - from 24th April to 4th May, 1962. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - from 20th April to 30th May, 1962. Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed (Bukit Timah), Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - from 20th April to 31st May, 1962. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Bukit Panjang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - from 29th April to 2nd June, 1962. Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim (Sembawang), Minister for Labour - from 1st June to 31st August, 1962. Madam Sahorah Binte Ahmat (Siglap) - from 27th June to 26th July, 1962.

I have to report that I have been informed by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara that, on the 25th of April, 1962, he assented to the following Bills: -

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a Statement as to the availability of City Council services to the residents of the Palmer Road area.

Sir, a survey of the kampong at Palmer Road was carried out some months ago. It showed that a good number of the dwellings were unauthorised sheds constructed from packing cases and other inflammable material or in a ruinous condition. The Fire Department considered it dangerous in these circumstances to allow electric lines to this kampong from the City Council mains. With regard to water, there are three existing standpipes in the area. A fourth standpipe has been approved by the Urban and Rural Services Council but it cannot yet be installed as the private landowner is strongly resisting its erection over his land. Sir, the aim is to offer these people decent low-cost accommodation now being built by the Housing Board. By the middle of next year, there should be enough $20 flats available to house all those now on the register; and with the housing programme maintaining its present momentum, there is every hope that there will be low-cost flats available for all by the end of next year for those who are now living in sub-standard tenements and huts.

I am pleased to hear the information given by the Prime Min ister. Perhaps he is aware that there are approximately 3,000 people living in this particular area. Could no temporary measures be taken to supply them with electricity and particularly with water if necessary to acquire the piece of land necessary for the erection of that standpipe?

Sir, on the first point regarding the supply of electricity, the Urban and Rural Service Council have to take the advice of the Fire Department. But as for the standpipe, I can assure the Member for Anson that we are contemplating such action to erect the standpipe despite the landowner's wishes.

asked the Prime Minister what is the extent of the average daily consumption in 1961 of water received from the catchment area occupied by the Royal Singapore Golf Club, and the average total daily consumption of water in Singapore in 1960-1961.

Sir, the average yield from the MacRitchie Catchment area of 1,890 acres, out of which about 268 acres are occupied by the Royal Singapore Golf Club, was 4,331 million gallons per day or 1,580 million gallons per annum in 1961. The average daily consumption of water in Singapore was about 67 million gallons per day for 1960-1961.

In the light of the figures given and the negligible quantity of water referable to the 268 acres occupied by the Royal Singapore Golf Club, could the Prime Minister indicate whether he has any plans in mind for more appropriate utilisation of that area for the public benefit?

May I inform the Member for Anson that on these matters I have to take the advice of the Water Engineer, and his advice in connection with the forestation of the catchment area was that no further trees should be allowed to be struck down in this catchment area. It may be of interest to the Member for Anson that I turned down a request by another club to extend their golf course, as that would imply more trees coming down. Therefore, I am unable to take what I would consider the hazardous step of allowing any more trees in the catchment area to be struck down. 4.3 million gallons per day is not a negligible amount of water, for which we should be grateful and certainly were grateful last year at the time of the drought.

I understand from the Prime Minister that 4.3 million gallons was from 1,890 acres. Of that, only 268 acres are occupied by the Royal Singa pore Golf Club, which is about one-seventh. So the 4.3 million gallons is not attributable to the Royal Singapore Golf Club. I would enquire from the Prime Minister whether, apart from any planning for the purpose of utilisation of that area to create a satellite town, he would consider transforming it into a public park?

It is an entirely different question.

May I answer it?

Yes, if the Prime Minister wishes to.

Surely if there is demand for using the land as a public park, I will not have the slightest hesitation in utilising the land as a public park. In fact, for the information of the Member for Anson, both golf courses are open to members of the public on all public holidays for their use as a place for picnicking and other uses not inconsistent with the desires of the Health Department with regard to rubbish and other sanitary conditions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his discussions with British Ministers on his recent trip to London.

Sir, in London, in May, I had discussions with the United Kingdom Prime Minister, the Commonwealth and Colonial Secretaries and the Minister of Defence on the arrangements to be made before merger for the transfer of responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security to the Central Government of the new Federation on merger. I had a useful exchange of views on a number of these subjects. As the House was not then sitting on the day of my return - 3lst May - I held a Press conference at which I think all relevant points were raised and answered. If there are any specific matters on which the Member for Anson desires further explanation, I shall enlarge on them in this House.

Would the Prime Minister indicate whether there was any discussion as to the continuation of our bases for the utilisation of SEATO powers?

Sir, I would refer the Member for Anson to the statement which was issued after the meeting of the Federation Prime Minister and the Minister for the United Kingdom at which the status of the base was sufficiently and lucidly explained. I was only interested in one particular aspect with regard to the base - namely, the question of redundancy. I had some discussions with the Minister of Defence on the possibilities of maintaining the civilian employment for some time at its present level, and later, should there be cause for redundancy, of ensuring that there are adequate redundancy terms.

Perhaps one more subject, if you will permit, Mr Speaker. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether any attempt was made to ask the United Kingdom Government to utilise its good offices in order to make more acceptable the proposed terms of our future relations with the Federation as contained in the Government's White Paper?

Sir, as I have explained before, the attitude of my Government is that merger is a matter between the peoples and the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. It has nothing to do with the United Kingdom Government other than the fact that on merger they will have to transfer all responsibility for foreign affairs, defence and security to the Central Government of the new Federation. I would consider it not only improper but politically unprecedented to ask a colonial administration to try and intervene in what I consider to be a purely family matter within the Malayan nation.

asked the Prime Minister whether Government will seek to renew negotiations on the proposed closer relations with the Federation after the Cobbold Commission Report has been published.

Sir, until the Cobbold Commission Report is published, it is not possible to answer this question.

Am I to understand, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister is unaware of the contents of the Cobbold Commission Report?

I think the Member for Anson can assume that until the Report is published, it will be inappropriate for anyone to indicate whether he does or does not know what is in the Report. But I would like to assure the hon. Member that, in my duty as the Prime Minister of Singapore, every stage in the development of the creation of Malaysia, which is gathering momentum month by month - almost week by week - is watched closed by my colleagues and myself in order to see that the interests of Singapore within this larger federation are properly safeguarded.

Mr Speaker, I was not seeking information as to the contents of the Cobbold Commission Report. I seem to have been misunderstood. I was only enquiring whether, in the light of the knowledge that he has, he would be seeking renewal of negotiations in respect of the White Paper proposals?

The answer has been given.

May I reply?

Yes.

I think the Member for Anson is on this occasion wilfully slow on the uptake. I have not indicated whether I know or do not know the Cobbold Commission Report. It would be improper for me to indicate one way or the other. All I have indicated is that my colleagues and I, as persons entrusted with the interests of Singapore, are watching with considerable interest and painstaking care developments which are, as I have said, gathering momentum week by week. I can assure the Member for Anson - as I did assure the people of Singapore - that before the Federation of Malaysia takes place, all the necessary safeguards regarding equal rights for all of us shall be written into the Constitution.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will give details of the extent of lighting required to be provided for in buses with particular reference to the entrances to buses.

Mr Speaker, the law requires that adequate artificial lighting shall be provided for the illumination of the interior of a bus at all times between sunset and sunrise when passengers are being carried. The number of lights in the interior of a bus varies according to the size of the bus. A large bus (overall length 30 ft.) has eight to ten lights, and a smaller bus (overall length 27 ft. 6 ins.) has six lights. The average spacing between these lights is four to seven feet, suitably distributed along the ceiling. The arrangement of the lights is such that invariably there are two lamps in close proximity to the entrance. Internal illumination is further augmented by the infiltration of light from illuminated rear number plate and destination box situated at the rear end of the ceiling. The lamps in the interior of the bus normally have frosted glass covers and are usually 10" long 4" wide. Voltage is 24 and wattage 36. Some buses have one light and some have two on the steps at the entrances. These lights are usually small (3" x 1") and recessed. Voltage is 24 and wattage is from 3 to 5.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that some bus companies, with an eye to economy, are in fact ignoring these regulations and cutting sometimes as much as half the required number of lights in their buses?

The supplementary question being?

Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware?

That is giving information.

Is he aware that such is the case?

That is giving information.

And would he take steps?

Mr Speaker, if the Member for Anson would patrol the streets of Singapore and take down the numbers of buses which, to his knowledge, are inadequately illuminated and inform the Registrar of Vehicles. I am quite sure action will be taken.

Am I to understand that the Registrar of Vehicles has no one to check on the adequacy or otherwise of compliance with these regulations that my assistance is sought?

Sir, although no doubt it is the function of the Registrar of Vehicles to see that the regulations are implemented, it has not come to his knowledge that buses are inadequately illuminated. This is the first complaint that I have received. This complaint comes from the Member for Anson, and if he can indicate which bus company is at fault, the Registrar of Vehicles will certainly look into the matter.

asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government would consider supplementing the Latin name with the Malay name of the design on the new postage stamps in future reprints.

Mr Speaker, it was decided to use the scientific names instead of the Malay names on the postage stamps for the following reasons: -

Mr Speaker, these are Singapore stamps, not Penang nor Trengganu. The Government has not extended that far, Sir. In the light of that information, would the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether he would consider utilising the Malay names where available of those fish which are current in Singapore?

Sir, we know that some types of fish do exist in Singapore and some types do not exist in Singapore. As I have said just now, for example, the fish on the 4-cent stamp has no known Malay name, and if the Member for Anson so desires, I do not mind calling the fish on the 4-cent stamp as Ikan Marshall!

asked the Deputy Prime Minister when it is expected that the permanent Terminal Building at Singapore Airport will be completed, and what interim provisions are being made for the comfort of transit passengers.

Mr Speaker, The permanent Terminal Building at the Singapore Airport will be completed m the early part of 1964. Transit passengers at the Singapore Airport are being accommodated in the Airport Restaurant and the Reception Room. The present Terminal Building is a temporary one built in 1955 when the Member for Anson was Chief Minister. No transit lounge was provided for by the then Government in this building and therefore transit passengers have hitherto been accommodated in the Airport Restaurant. Various proposals to put up a temporary transit lounge have been studied by a Committee consisting of Airport officials and members representing the airline operators, but these proposals were considered either not feasible or uneconomic in view of the fact that a concrete plan to build a new Terminal Building is in hand.

I see, Mr Speaker, that I am responsible for this terminal building. But I would inquire whether it is not possible to improve the accommodation because the Deputy Prime Minister must be aware that the existing accommodation is acutely uncomfortable and in some cases shabby in the extreme. There must be some way of improving it without too great a cost during the intervening 18 months.

Sir, I have already given the answer to that question. I said that a Committee had looked into the matter in detail and it had come to the conclusion that it, is not worthwhile proceeding with.

asked the Minister for Finance what is the total cost of the Prime Minister's recent trip to the various countries and to the United Kingdom; who were the persons, giving their names, who accompanied him, and in what capacity; and what expense was incurred in respect of each of such persons.

The cost of the recent tour of the Prime Minister and his party to various countries was $39,210.

62. The persons who accompanied the Prime Minister were Mrs Lee Kuan Yew, Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister), Mr Jek Yuen Thong (Political Secretary to the Prime Minister), Inche Abdul Rahim Ishak (Political Secretary to the Minister for Culture), Mr Liew Khai Yeong (Secretary to the Prime Minister), Mr K. R. S. Vass (Chief Reporter, News Division, Ministry of Culture), and Mr C. V. Devan Nair (Chairman of the Adult Education Board). The expenses incurred in respect of each person were: - $ c. The Prime Minister 8,342.01 Mrs Lee Kuan Yew Nil* Inche Yaacob bin Mohamed 4,064.65 Mr Jek Yuen Thong 5,375.84 Inche Abdul Rahim Ishak 2,639.48 Mr Liew Khai Yeong 7,676.58 Mr K. R. S. Vass 4,003.87 Mr C. V. Devan Nair 2,618.66 ---------- Total 34,721.09 ---------- *As expenses were paid by the Prime Minister on his own account. the balance of $4,489.53 being cost of postage, telegrams, and receptions for returning hospitality and other incidental expenses.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he has any further statement to make as regards the proposed Common Market with the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, a team of international experts is now being assembled to undertake the study and the Government hopes to be able to announce shortly the names of the team and the eminent international expert who will lead it. As I said before, these arrangements are being made by the Federation Government who have kept us continuously informed of progress. Any public statement will have to be timed with that of the Federation Government. In passing, I may say that the Common Market, which we all want, presupposes merger with the Federation. If by some unimaginable mischance, merger is thwarted through the machinations of the Communists and their stooges, then Singapore can say goodbye to the Common Market. The fact that this international mission will soon proceed with their work shows that there is confidence, not only in Singapore and the Federation, but also in the world outside that merger will before long be an accomplished fact.

I would ask the Minister for Finance whether he has forgotten that in 1959 in this House he promised the people of Singapore a Common Market in the near future without any reference to merger.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the European Common Market took morel than 15 years to be established. What the Member for Anson says just underlines my emphasis on the connection between Common Market and merger. In 1959, there was no prospect of merger, and consequently our discussions with the Federation got bogged down fairly soon. Now that merger is on the horizon, it becomes much easier to discuss these matters with the Federation Government. Therefore, if the Member for Anson is anxious to see a Common Market between Singapore and the Federation, then he must spend all his energies to bring about a speedy merger between the two territories.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he has any information as to the extent, and possible utilisaticn by subrogation, of customers' balances in banks unclaimed for more than seven years.

The present returns submitted by banks under the Banking Ordinance, 1962, do not indicate the number of dormant customers' accounts or the amount of unclaimed balances on such accounts which have not been operative for seven or more years. The banking legislation of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya does not specifically designate what disposition should be made of unclaimed deposits in banks. It is generally understood that these balances remain a liability of the bank until they are paid. In practice, the balances are transferred by the banks to an "Unclaimed Balances Account" and would appear together with other balances as liabilities on the bank's balance sheet. In the United States the Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act make no provisions with regard to disposal of unclaimed bank balances. The United States Supreme Court had ruled that a State should not dissolve the contracts of deposit even after 20 years and that national banks could not be required to pay to the State the amounts due. In Britain the question of unclaimed moneys in banks has been much discussed and exaggerated. A Bill entitled the Dormant Bank Balances and Unclaimed Securities Bill was referred by the British Parliament to a Select Committee which after considering it reported in December 1919 that a much longer period than six years should elapse before a state of dormancy, having legal consequences involving publicity, should be recognised. The majority opinion of the Select Committee was that an account should he deemed to be dormant only after it had not been operative for thirty years or more. The Select Committee also suggested that boxes and parcels entrusted to banks for safe keeping should be subject to legislative action for their disposal only after 70 years had elapsed. As a result of the recommendations of this Select Committee, the British Parliament took no action on the Bill. In India the practice is to require every banking company to submit within thirty days after the close of each calendar year a return of accounts which had not been operated upon for ten years or more. The return should give particulars of the deposits standing to the credit of each account but there would appear to be no provision for the disposal of any unclaimed assets. In Australia, however, there is specific legislation under the Banking Act of 1957 to provide for the disposal of "unclaimed monies" which are defined as all principals, interests, dividends, bonuses, profits and sums of money legally payable by a bank in respect of which the time for recovery had expired and includes money to the credit of an account which has not been operative either by deposit or withdrawal for a period of not less than seven years. The unclaimed monies will be paid by a bank to the Commonwealth and will be held in a Trust Fund for six years, after which it would be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If at any time a legitimate claim is established, such monies shall be paid to the bank and the bank shall thereupon pay the claimant. I give this account of some instance of international practice in this matter to show that there are wide variations in policy. So far as Singapore is concern ed, the banks are of the view that it is not a matter Of sufficient importance as to justify new legislation. I myself am inclined to leave it well alone, especially as experience and practice in other countries have not produced any unanimity in dealing with the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the recognised fact, how shall we say it, that the banks have no right to benefit by this unearned profit of unclaimed balances, would the Minister not consider advising the Government to introduce legislation analogous to the Australian legislation whereby the Government could at least utilise the money pending a claim? The use of the word "subrogation" in my original question was subrogation to rights and liabilities. There is no question of extinguishing a customer's right whether it is seven years or 15 years. But in the meanwhile the Government can use this money without interest. Will the Minister consider it? This is a Christmas present almost of fairly considerable sums which the Government could utilise, some of it permanently and some of it temporarily without interest.

In the first instance, I do not think that the sums of money involved are considerable; and, secondly, in so far as other countries have considered this proposal, the majority view is not to fellow the Australian practice. It could be that such a majority view is based on ether ancient concepts of the right of private property. As I said, I myself do not think that we should, before other countries have followed the Australian example, introduce in this country a new principle which is not accepted and followed in the majority of countries with banking systems similar to ours.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he will consider introducing legislation to treat the income of married women from all sources as being the income of single women for tax purposes.

The recent amendment to the Income Tax Ordinance to provide for separate assessment in respect of the earned income of a married woman was to adjust a longstanding inequality and to bring about a social betterment. But to extend this treatment to other sources of income would open new avenues for evading payment of tax. For one thing, a way is open for the manipulation of profits so that the husband's income can be transferred to that of his wife's so as to reduce the incidence of tax and bring about a loss to the revenue. This fact was recognised when the recent amendment was not extended to cover all kinds of professions and businesses. Moreover, an opportunity is created to bring wives into partnership which would lead to the avoidance of both income tax and estate duty. It will be appreciated that, in the absence of gift duty, which is a normal compensatory levy in place of the loss of income tax and estate duty, such loss of revenue could not be accepted. For these reasons, I do not consider the proposal of the hon. Member a good one.

Admitting the validity of that part of the objection raised by the Minister for Finance, Sir, would he rot recognise that, in fact, the reasons indicated are not applicable where a married woman had unearned income before marriage? She might have inherited property from which she was drawing income. Would he consider in that respect that there can be no question of evasion, making her unearned income prior to marriage taxable as a femme sole?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can see one immediate objection to that, and that would be the possible transfer of property from the man to his fiancee. I think this matter is not so simple as it looks. As I said, if there is in force a tax on gifts inter-vivos, then possibly the inducement to avoid income tax by distribution of property would be much less.

asked the Minister for Finance what is the present extent of investment of the Post Office Savings Bank in (a) securities outside Malaya, and (b) securities inside Malaya; and to what extent there has been profit or loss in respect of securities in both classes at the market rate.

Sir, the Singapore Post Office Savings Bank has securities in Malaya and outside Malaya valued at $37,515,318.08, according to market prices as on 31st December, 1961. Of this amount 63 per cent or $23,542,024.96 was invested in securities outside Malaya; 3 per cent or $1,184,203.12 in securities of the Federation of Malaya and 34 per cent or $12,789,090.00 in securities of Singapore. The book value of the total securities as at 1st January, 1961, was $36,903,066.48, in comparison with the market value of $37,515,318.08 on 31st December, 1961. Therefore, during the year 1961 the book value of securities held by the Singapore Post Office Savings Bank had, in fact, appreciated by $612,251.

60. The breakdown of this increase in net values of the securities is as follows: - $ c. Securities held outside Malaya had gone up by 324,056.60 Securities in the Federation of Malaya had depreciated by 25,950.00 Securities in Singapore had appreciated or gone up by 314,145.00 giving thereby a total increase therein of $612,251.60 The book value of securities fluctuated as follows in other years: - $ c. In 1958 it went up by 278,140.00 In 1959 it went down by 240,835.00 In 1960 it went up by $606,190.

00. I have given the figure for 1961. On occasions when it was necessary to sell some securities held by the Savings Bank only those securities that were nearing a few months before their maturity dates and those that had actually matured were realised. Consequently, in realising these securities, no capital gain or loss was incurred as compared with the par value of these securities.

In the light of the figures given by the Minister, he will appreciate that the investments in Singapore seem to show the best returns with twice as much profit as those overseas. In those circumstances, would he consider investing some of that 63 per cent that we invest outside Malaya within our shores?

Mr Speaker. Sir, if it is advantageous for us to do so, we will certainly do so. But there is one factor which should be taken into account, and it is this. Over the last eight or ten years, there has been a decrease in the total deposit of the Singapore Post Office Savings Bank due to the fact that most new savers prefer to bank their savings in the commercial banks which have shown a phenomenal increase in recent years. The result was that the Post Office Savings Bank had to liquidate some of its long-term assets as and when they matured. This being so, it is better to keep a fair amount of securities in the London money market where large sums of money can be realised at very short notice. If these sums are not available and if a large part of the securities are held in Singapore, it will not be easy for the Post Office to sell them at short notice without loss of capital. As I said, the increases or decreases as entered in the balance sheet of the Post Office Savings Bank are really book values. They do not reflect the actual purchases or sales.

I want to ask the Minister just one more question. The investment overseas, Sir, is over $20 million. The utilisation of that money locally would assist our own industries, or even in Malaya it would assist Malayan industries. There is an advantage, therefore, in investing locally.

Order. The Member for Anson must realise this is Question Time and not time to debate. If the Member will just ask the question, he will be permitted to do so.

In those circumstances, the Government could not itself advance such monies which the Post Office may require in respect of realisation which it is not possible to make speedily, and provide for investment of these sums in Malayan securities.

Sir, the need for investing more of local savings in Singapore must be borne in mind. Indeed, that is the reason why we in 1960 passed through this Assembly, a Bill to amend certain provisions of the Post Office Savings Bank Ordinance which allows the whole of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank to be invested in Singapore; formerly, there was a limitation of 40 per cent. But considerations of liquidity, for reasons which I will explain, for the time being, although there may be a need to increase more investments or more securities in Singapore, I do not think that we should go the whole hog, unless and until a proper money market is established in Singapore which can meet large claims for liquidation of assets. In this instance, for instance, even the Federation of Malaya, which has similar laws to ours, is keeping about half of its Post Office Savings Bank assets in London.

asked the Minister for Finance whether any private industrial organisation has leased or purchased any part of the Jurong industrial sites developed at public expense.

The answer is no. The land in Jurong is still under development and is not quite ready for alienation to private industrial organizations. The earthwork of levelling hills and reclaiming swamp lands are still under way and the work is being carried out as rapidly as possible. As such, the Economic Development Board would be in a position before very long to consider allocation of the Jurong Industrial Area to those industrialists who have applied. 38 applications for land and sites at Jurong covering a total area of 192 acres have been received by the Board. The applications are for various industries wishing to establish business in Jurong and they include the following: - Industries Number of Area Applications Required Acres Acid manufacturing 2 19 Boatbuilding, shipbuilding 4 16 Beverages 1 1 Brewing 1 20 Clay Products 1 5 Chemical 2 13 Chemical Feeds 2 7 Coconut fibre products 1 1 Electrical goods 1 2 Engineering works 1 2 Fertilisers 1 2 Food processing and manufacture 2 5 Fuel distributing 3 9 Industrial gases 1 15 Iron and steel works 1 10 Metal products 2 8 Service installations 2 3 Cinema studio 1 10 Shipbreaking and repairing 6 27 Veneer and plywood 1 7 Wood products 2 10 -- --- Total 38 192 -- --- So far, only one industrial organisation, namely, a shipbreaking yard, has been granted a temporary occupation licence for a site at the Jurong industrial area and shipbreaking is being carried on there. The steel mill has had a site of about 30 acres reserved and earthworks are almost complete. Construction will begin on the buildings that will house the steel mill next month or early in August.

Would the Minister indicate whether the terms of alienation have now been agreed upon by the Board and made known to industrialists who may seek to establish industries in the Jurong area?

These are at present under discussion between the Board and my Ministry. There are many details to be resolved, but I think the most important one is this: that we should not allow any part of Jurong to be bought under some pretence of establishing manufacturing industries with the real purpose of speculating on almost certain increased land values in Jurong. There are several ways of ensuring that this objective could be achieved. The reason is that at least in the first phase in the development of Jurong, we intend to lease out these industrial sites for fairly long terms and at the lowest possible cost, that is to say, the cost of development to the Government plus any other overheads; certainly not to make any profit on it. Therefore, it is necessary to secure a safeguard against private enterprise taking advantage of these very advantageous terms to cash in on possible profit in land speculation.

asked the Minister for Health and Law what progress has been made on the suggestion for establishing a Law Revision Committee.

The Government has decided in response to the request of the Singapore Bar Committee to set u-p a Law Revision Committee composed of persons nominated by the Chief Justice, myself, the State Advocate-General, the Singapore Bar Committee and the Law Faculty of the University of Singapore. The State Advocate-General has already written to ask for nominations for this Committee.

Hear, hear!

asked the Minister for Culture what was the total cost incurred in the sending of the 48-member Cultural Mission to Kuching, Brunei Town and Jesselton in April, 1962; and what was the amount collected in respect of the shows in each place of tour.

The total cost incurred in sending the 48-member Cultural Mission to Kuching, Brunei Town and Jesselton in April 1962 was $36,709.

50. The amounts collected from the sale of tickets at the indoor performances given by the Mission are as follows:- $ Kuching 900 Brunei Town 1,500 Jesselton 1,600

Could the Parliamentary Secretary also inform us how many of the troupe who went along were professional entertainers and how many were amateurs?

There were 39 artistes, comprising 13 musicians, 21 dancers and five singers. The actual number of professional artistes as against amateur artistes is not available. But if the Member gives me notice, I shall supply it.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Government will consider settling in Singapore some of the refugees who have recently fled from China to Hongkong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Government views with sympathy the hardship of the refugees who have recently fled from China to Hongkong, just as we sympathise with the Arab refugees who fled From Israel to Jordan and neighbouring territories. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Sympathy, however, does not alter the limited position of Singapore in terms of space and population nor the enormous size of the problem which faces Hongkong and which has led the Colonial Secretary of Hongkong to state recently that emigration is not a realistic solution to the Hongkong refugee problem. The Government does not consider allowing refugees to come into Singapore as immigrants as a practical solution, either in the context of Singapore or in the context of the countries where the refugees have come from.

Are our sympathies then to remain of zero value and no concrete solution at all is to be found to assist these people?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have open trade with Hongkong. There is no restriction on the importation of Hongkong goods and I think that, more than immigration, could contribute to the solution of Hongkong's problem.

Could the Minister inform us if any of those refugees have applied to Singapore for admission?

Mr Speaker, none has been received.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Government will consider giving financial assistance to Singapore citizens wishing to go to Mecca on pilgrimage.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore government is already assisting in meeting expenditure on account of Malaysian pilgrimage, i.e., from the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak-k, North Borneo, and Brunei, by sharing the costs of running a Pilgrimage Head Office in Penang, the Office of the Pilgrim Commissioner in Jeddah, and the cost of the Malayan Medical Mission in Mecca, according to the number of pilgrims from each State. For example, in 1960, Singapore's pilgrims numbered 225 out of a total of 5,402, and its share of the cost was $5,426.74.

I am obliged to the Minister for indicating the derisory sums involved. In view of the wealth of this country -

Order. Did I hear the epithet derisory?

Yes, Sir.

That is completely out of order especially during Question Time. It must be withdrawn.

Would the Minister indicate -

Would the Member Withdraw?

I am so sorry, Sir. I did not hear you. Certainly I withdraw. Would the Minister consider making advances to those of our people who are too poor to make the pilgrimage and who wish to make it either by contributing to the running of a pilgrim ship for one trip or by some other means that are practicable?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is considered that on principle, no government should give direct aid to persons to perform religious duties. The performance of the Haj is a personal matter for Muslims, entailing as it does sacrifices on their part.

Is the Minister aware that there is a cunning and unhealthy relationship between this question and Question No. 16, and would he not -

Order. The hon. Member is completely out of order by using those terms and insinuations, especially during Question Time. Will he please confine himself to a question?

No question.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware of any dissatisfaction, in respect of rental, by the tenants of the Housing Board flats at Kallang Estate and whether he would make a statement on the matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that there has been some dissatisfaction from new tenants who moved into the Housing Board flats at Kallang E-state after 16th March, 1961, when the Housing and Development Board introduced rationalised rentals for this Estate. A group of 28 tenants out of some 2,840 tenants in this Estate made representations that they be allowed to pay the old rents of $25, $35 and $45 to $55 for one, two and three-room units respectively at Kallang Estate. These old rentals were fixed by the previous Government and resulted in the Housing and Development Board having to meet a loss of approximately $1.5 million annually in respect of less than 3,000 units in the Kallang Estate. It would seem that these rentals were fixed with undue haste in 1958, with an eye to the general elections. The Housing and Development Board, as a nonprofit making statutory undertaking charged with the responsibility for the provision of public housing accommodation in the State, will have to depend on the Government to meet the deficit, and steps to rationalise rents have been taken in the public interest in order to reduce progressively the subsidy which has to be met from public funds. The new rents of $40, $60, and $75 for one, two and three-room units are payable only by new tenants who moved in fully aware of what they were required to pay. It should be pointed out that even these rents are well below the economic rents payable if the Housing and Development Board were to let them out without suffering too much of a deficit. I would stress that the existing tenants who moved into the Estate before 16th March, 1961, are continuing to pay the former rentals of $25, $35 and $45-$55 per month for one, two and three-room units, and these tenants number some 2,620. Those new tenants who entered into their tenancy agreements after March 1961 to occupy the flats with full knowledge of the new revised rentals they were required to pay had moved in on a voluntary basis, and I do not see the necessity or justification to take any steps to vary the rentals for which they had individually contracted to pay to the Housing and Development Board.

3.33 p.m.

"to establish a corporation to be known as the Public Utilities Board and to provide for the transfer to the corporation of the functions, services, assets and liabilities of the City Council in respect of water, gas and electricity, and for matters incidental thereto, and to repeal the Electricity (Rural Area) Ordinance, 1951, and certain provisions of the Municipal Ordinance (Chapter 133 of the 1936 Edition) and of the Local Government Ordinance, 1957 (No. 24 of 1957)", presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew); read t-he First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

"to integrate certain functions of the City Council and the Rural Board with those of the Government of the State of Singapore and to provide for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Planning Ordinance, 1959 (No. 12 of 1959)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956 (No. 22 of 1956)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Housing and Development Ordinance, 1959 (No. 11 of 1959)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

"for making Final Provision for the Public Service for the year 1961", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

"to amend the Pensions Ordinance, 1956 (No. 22 of 1956)", presented by Dr Goh Keng Swee; read the First time, to be read a Second time on Friday, 6th July, 1962, and to be printed.

3.40 p.m. Resolved, "That the proceedings on the items of business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until midnight." - [The Deputy Prime Minister-Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to defer the Second Reading of the Bill to the 6th of July.

Deferred to 6th of July.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, at the moment there is no legislation providing for the control of the accountancy profession as in the case of lawyers, architects and doctors. Qualified members of recognised bodies practising the State observe professional codes laid down by the distant parent bodies which cannot, however, exercise control here. Again, unqualified accountants in practice are not bound by bye-laws and code of ethics. Any malpractices among them are apt to bring the profession into disrepute. There is, however, a danger of having "mushroom" and "splinter" societies or associations of accountants being formed to admit persons of very low standards of accounting knowledge and skill. In these circumstances, the need for a local parent body of control is evident. In June 1961 the opportunity was taken of the presence of the Vice-President and the General Registrar of the Australian Society of Accountants in Singapore to carry out a survey of the accountancy profession. They submitted a report in which they recommended that a statutory body to register and regulate the conduct of all accountants in Singapore should be established. This Bill, Sir, is based on the recommendations of this Report. Regard is also paid to graduates who have already passed out. Briefly, the Bill provides for the establishment of the Singapore Society of Accountants and its purposes are to register accountants, to determine the qualifications of persons for admission to the Society, and to regulate the practice of the profession. Powers to enable the Society to function are also laid down. This is provided in Part II of the Bill. The Constitution of the Council of the Society with its enabling powers to carry out its functions of control are laid down in Part III. Provisions for the registration of the accountants are laid down in Part IV. Part V provides for the regulation of conduct of members and the establishment of the Investigation and Disciplinary Committee to deal with complaints from members. The powers of the Disciplinary Committee to levy punishment are laid down in clause 32. There is provision for appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Part VI consists of a list of offences and penalties that can be levied under this Ordinance. The details of the Bill are, however, explained in fuller detail in the Explanatory Statement attached to the Bill. No one will dispute the need for the regulation of professional conduct and standards of important professional groups. This Bill seeks to do this. At the same time, I must sound a word of warning against the dangers of regulation in these matters. It often happens that professional associations, under the pretext of maintaining high standards, introduce unduly restrictive measures which have the effect of creating a tight closed shop. This has undesirable effects in two ways. First, an artificially created scarcity value for their services compels society to pay high rates for them. Second, talented people are denied adequate opportunities of entry into the profession and are hence restricted in the choice of careers open to them. Members will agree that we do not want this to develop in the profession of accountancy as a result of regulation. Since this is the first time that a Bill on the control of the accountancy profession is being introduced and there are provisions of an important nature, I propose that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading. Sir, I beg to move.

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].

3.42 p.m. Order read for Motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, which reads: That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 48 acres along Upper East Coast Road from the junction of Bedok Road as delineated on the plan which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. The Prime Minister later entered the Chamber. 3.43 p.m.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir. I had forgotten that from time to time the House can get on with the business of expedition. Sir, this motion is being moved because the Housing and Development Board has estimated that it can reclaim approximately 48 acres of the foreshore and sea-bed along Upper East Coast Road, from the junction of Bedok Road to the Fisheries Department. The Board owns over 220 acres of land in Lot 41, Mukim XXVII, immediately opposite the said foreshore and sea-bed. The intention is to cut approximately 14.4 acres from the hill land and w ith the land to fill the reclaimed foreshore and sea-bed. This reclaimed land would be for open spaces, parks, recreation centres, and residential development, but the detailed use of the reclaimed site could be left open for consideration at a later date in accordance with the Master Plan proposals for the area. Sir, I think I have deposited with the Clerk of the Assembly a copy of the Plan which is now lying in the Library. Under section 4 of the Foreshore Ordin ance, no reclamation can be made without the sanction of this Assembly. This motion seeks to require authority. The Housing and Development Board will act as agents for the Government and on completion of its reclamation the land will be declared State land to be held in trust for the Board for development as I have enumerated above. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Ordinance (Chapter 246) approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed containing an area of approximately 48 acres along Upper East Coast Road from the junction of Bedok Road as delineated on the plan which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore.

Order for Third Reading read. 3.50 p.m.

Notices have been received from the Minister and Members named of amendments in respect of clauses, of the introduction of a new clause and of the introduction of new Schedules as set out in the Order Paper Supplement No. 17. Under Standing Orders, the Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole Assembly in respect of such clauses, new clause and new Schedule. Committee stage, what day?

Now. Bill considered in Committee.

3.52 p.m. Clause 2-

We are dealing with the clauses as they appear in the Order Paper Supplement No. 17, page 140. The first clause is clause 2. There is an amendment standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs. I think it would be convenient to postpone that clause as the amendment is dependent on the acceptance of the amendment to clause 41. Any objection to that? Hon. Members indicated dissent. Consideration of clause 2 postponed. Clause 5-

Mr Chairman, I move, In page A2, line 17, to leave out "considers" and insert "is advised by the Minister at the request of the Legislative Assembly".*. *The same amendment also stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh. Mr Chairman, my amendment is all the more pertinent in the light of the in formation we now have of an official character of the tragic nature of the in tended conduct of the Government as to the question it will be seeking to poll. I will first speak to the principle, Mr Chairman. It is a recognised principle in many democratic countries that where there are matters of gravity affecting the people, if the opportunity is available, their vote should be taken directly in ascertainment of their wishes rather than through the indirect method of representative government. The referendum is, in fact, as one delegation put it, an auxiliary to amend the defect in the indirect democracy of parliamentary rule, and it is not only valid where the Government may have lost the confidence of the country but also where the Government may propose an issue which a vast number of the citizens do not like. The value of the referendum, Sir, in its direct democracy is that no one can then deny that the wishes of the people have been expressed and that the majority will is known and those who accept the demo cratic process must loyally abide by the majority will, thereby helping to heal the breach between persons honestly holding different views on major issues. Mr Chairman, in Switzerland where perhaps the issue of referendum has been best perfected, we have it that the matter must be discussed in the Assembly and the question put whether they want the constitutional change proposed and to answer yes or no. In Australia, there is a constitutional requirement that in respect of any proposed constitutional change when Parliament has passed that provision, it must be submitted to the people, and it can only be effective law when it has been approved by a majority. Again you see, Sir, a Parliament coming into the formulation of a question. In Canada and New Zealand, Sir, there are ad hoc laws to deal with individual aspects which are referred to a referendum and no general provisions and in each case the issue and the question are decided and framed by the Parliament concerned. We have had an interesting recent case of Jamaica, where in the Jamaica Referendum Act of 1960, the question was framed by the Jamaican Assembly for the purposes of balloting on the basis of a reply of yes or no. You are not unaware that this issue has been resisted with considerable heat and tortuous argumentation by the Government. But there are certain aspects which make interesting reading, and I would refer you, Sir, to the Official Report No. 3, col. 83.

Order. Before the Member does that, do I understand him now to indicate that his amendment, which is to leave out "considers" in line 17 and there to insert "is advised by the Minister at the request of the Legislative Assembly", has some connection with his amendment to clause 13. In page A3, line 41, to leave out "questions" and insert "one question as framed by the Legislative Assembly". I do not know whether that is so because, on the face of it, that is not so. Clause 5 merely says 'Whenever the Yang di-Pertuan Negara considers that it is in the public interest to do so he may by order direct that any matter he submitted to the electors for a referendum.' It deals with the matter and not the question, and the hon. Member wishes that to he done on the advice of the Minister made at the request of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr Chairman, I would wish to avoid confusion, and although the two are not unrelated, they do raise distinct aspects and, with your leave, Mr Chairman, I would rather that they be debated separately.

Separately?

If it please you, Mr Chairman. I was referring to the Gov ernment's approach to the Opposition's request that the question should be decided on the advice of the Minister at the request of the Legislative Assembly that the matter should go for referendum-um, and you will notice, Sir, that the Minister for Finance in the Officini Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 3, of the 8th of May, col. 88, line 5, states: '...no government in its senses is going to have a referendum on a matter which is not of national importance. Any matter of national importance must be debated in the Assembly. It is the natural course of events.' He is followed in the opening remarks by the Minister for Home Affairs in column 89: '...everybody agrees that a referendum will be held only on matters of national importance. As my colleague has just said, matters of national importance will have to be brought up and discussed in the Assembly, because no government elected by the people would be foolish enough to ignore the views of the people.' Mr Chairman, in view of the admission by the Government of the principle involved, I find it very difficult to understand why they object to the issue being debated and formulated in this Assembly. They are conscious, and the Opposition is even more conscious, of the fact that they have the majority, and they can if they so will, and no doubt they only directly by order that any matter will so will, steamroller such question through as they please -

Order. I still cannot follow the Member for Anson. He has indicated that he would prefer that the debate on his amendment to clause 5 be separated from the debate which will arise from the amendment to clause 13. Clause 13 indicates that there should be one question to be framed by the Legislative Assembly, whereas in clause 5, all that the Member wishes is that, using the words, "the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can only direct by order that any matter be submitted to -the electors on the advice of the Minister after receiving the request of the Legislative Assembly". That is a matter and not a question. There may be several questions.

That is so, Sir. What is pinpointed in clause 13 is the question whether it is to be one or more questions. In clause 5, it is the matter that is being referred to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, through the Government for a referendum, and consequently the formulation of that matter is within the ambit of the Assembly. I am seeking to show that the Government themselves admit that the formulation should be within the ambit of the Assembly, and that, in fact, whatever intent they may have, of which we have now had so much notice, they are in a position to push through and impose their will by virtue of their number. The value of this suggestion, Mr Chairman, that the formulation should be in the hands of the Assembly, is that at least there is an opportunity to awaken the people of Singapore to the facts inherent in the proposed formulation, and also from the constitutional aspects that the Opposition should have its share in attempting to assist the Government, however deaf the Government may be to reason. I urge that whether such a vast sum of money as $400,000 is to be spent in itself is immaterial, and not the main issue. Where the issue is to be one affecting gravely the future of the people, no referendum should be held unless requested by the Legislative Assembly in the terms indicated by this Legislative Assembly.

Order. I think I must regulate this debate. I have asked the Member whether he wishes to include his amendment to clause 13 in this parti cular debate. He has said no. As far as I can make out, we are now concerned whether or not it is the Legislative Assembly which should request the Minister to invite the Yang di-Pertuan Negara by order to direct that any matter be submitted to the electorate. The matter, to my mind, would be a broad subject matter, like, for instance, merger, or, as we have indicated in the Select Committee, the issue appertaining to toddy shops. But when we come to the actual question or questions, then the debate, of course, will take the line taken by the Member for Anson, that is that he desires that there should be one question and that question should be framed by the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, I would suggest that we confine ourselves to whether or not it would be the wish of the Assembly that this order directing that any matter be submitted to the electors should be left to the Government advising the Yang diPertuan Negara, or to the Government after a request being made by the Legislative Assembly. I hope I have made the issues very clear on this particular amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment of the Member for Anson. Of course, it is not the issue so much as the question, because in a referendum it is the answer to the question that will decide the fate of the nation for genera tions to come. Sir, I have already in the Select Committee gone to great details as regards the argument why we should have the whole affair debated in the Assembly. It is because, as I pointed out, Sir, as the Bill now stands, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in actual fact means the Government, and that is the P.A.P. In fact that is the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P., as admitted by the Ministers in the Select Committee. Therefore, under those circumstances, it becomes a one-party affair. I do not want to elaborate on that, Sir, but surely we know that the referendum is a national affair and in any matter that concerns the whole nation proper airing and ventilation is abso1utely necessary so that all the-e people must know all the pros and cons, the good and the bad, the hidden meanings, the connotations and the different aspects and viewpoints so that if the people are presented with all these arguments, then they will better be able to judge the issue when the question is posed to them for their answer. I have pointed out, Sir, that discussion in the Assembly first will prevent any surprise being sprung by the Government and a snap referendum from being held. I will show you that, in fact, this provision has been put in because the Government intended to have a snap referendum and to take unfair advantage of the Opposition Parties. Let me try and give you the picture as we see it. During the Anson by-election, Sir, merger was the main issue of the various Parties placed before the people. The Prime Minister on many occasions said at rallies that a vote for the P.A.P. was a vote for the P.A.P. merger. And he said on many occasions too that the P.A.P. merger plans would be placed before the people for their final decision.

Order. I am afraid I have not made myself understood. I think this argument or this speech is working up to a debate on the second amendment which is in the name of the Member for Anson, the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Hong Lim, which seeks to add a paragraph. 'Not more than one question shall be submitted to the electors in any one referendum and such question shall contain only one issue and the electors shall only be required to answer such question in the simple affirmative or negative', and allied to that would be the amendment to clause 13, where the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown seek to leave out "questions" in page A3, line 41, and insert "one question as framed by the Legislative Assembly". I have tried to indicate that in this particular clause we are not concerned with whether there should be one question, two questions, or three questions. We are concerned with the matter in this particular case which has been referred by the Member for Queenstown-of merger. So the debate should be on whether or not any matter of merger should go to referendum on the advice of a Minister at the request of the Legislative Assembly or merely on the advice of the Cabinet. That is all the issue at the moment.

I understand that, Sir. You remember in Select Committee I had given a brief outline of the referen dum plot of the P.A.P. and I had indicated to you, Sir, that when the Bill came up for a fuller debate on recommittal, I would bring out the P.A.P. plot in each of the important clauses in the Bill. I am, only trying to draw your attention to one fact, namely, that the P.A.P. had intended to spring a snap referendum on the people. Since the intention was to spring a snap referendum, therefore, you find now in the Bill the words "Whenever the Yang di-Pertuan Negara considers. . .". Now I have indicated to you, Sir, that when the Yang di-Pertuan Negara considers, he considers on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had intended that it should be a snap referendum and there should be no proper dis cussion in the Assembly. That is the meat of my contention, that it was part of the P.A.P. plot to have a snap referendum.

Order. Is it then on the alleged plot of the Government to have a snap referendum on the matter of merger, or is it on the matter of questions connected with merger? I would like to understand the Member for Queenstown.

Of course, Sir, the matter and the question are ultimately linked up and on this particular issue as we all know, the Government have admitted that this Bill is meant for the merger issue. However, I will skip that part, Sir, since you think it is not proper to debate it right now. Our contention, Sir, is that if there is full and frank discussion in the Assembly, then it would not allow the Government to spring a surprise on the Opposition or on the people, and everybody will be able to know exactly what is forthcoming. I need only, Sir, to remind the House of the indecent haste of the Government in the presentation of Bills in 1959, in 1960 -

You were here also.

- and even in 1961. All these Bills had to be amended and reamended time and again because they were done in great haste without any full discussion. In discussion we will be able to hiring out all the complexities and hidden meanings that may be in the matter. For example, I gave an example in Select Committee about cars. But if people are informed that the getting of a car will mean the payment of a sum of $10,000 and of a few hundred dollars for its upkeep, then possibly a lot of people may not decide to have it. Similarly in talking of the White Paper on the P.A.P. type of merger, the fact, that Singapore citizens are to be made second-class citizens must be brought out. We must also bring out, for example -

On a point of order. I think, Mr Speaker, we have to bring the Committee back to the rails. There is an amendment being proposed in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson, and I think we will be able to proceed with our business more expeditiously if the proposition for the amendment is based on arguments which are relevant.

I have been trying to make myself clear, but I do not seem to have made myself clear. I think possibly the Member for Queenstown is confused because in Select Committee there was, in fact, a proposition by the Member for Anson to alter the word "matter" to read "question" and that was when all the remarks which were made by the Member for Queenstown were very relevant. But now there has been no suggestion that the word "matter" should read "question", and I have indicated that the word "matter", to my mind, could only mean one thing. It could mean- a subject matter which might import one question, two ques tions, three questions, or even four questions or more. On that aspect the Member for Queenstown will, I think, have an opportunity to put forward his views when we come to deal with the next amendment and other amendments on the Order Paper. Mr David Marshall rose-

On a point of order?

Yes. May I draw your attention, Sir, to col. 111 of the same Select Committee Official Report? It was only after we had debated this amendment that is before you that we came to the issue of matter and question. That was separately debated.

I think the Member will remember that I allowed the debate to range over that amendment as well as the amendment to clause 13. I think he will find that that is so, and that is why all these statements were allowed. The debate was allowed to range over all the subsequent amendments.

I will try and be as relevant as possible then, Sir. At the present moment, the Government has the advantage of the Radio, Rediffusion and a very friendly English Press that always presents the Government point of view. I can quite understand why the English Press is always willing to help, Sir,I understand, for example, that the circulation of the Sunday Mail was almost stopped, because they put up headlines which the P.A.P. did not like. Well, the P.A.P. can deny it if they like, but it is a fact. Again it shows how dictatorial the P.A.P. is. Just because a headline is not to the liking of the P.A.P., a paper can be called up and warned that if it does not toe the P.A.P. line, its circulation in Singapore will be stopped. It was very lucky, Sir, that on this particular occasion, there were frantic telephone calls between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore -

Order. I hate to interrupt any Member in this particular debate because I know the debate is of national importance. I am sure the Member for Queenstown will have the opportunity of putting in these little tidbits of his when we come to debate the other amendments which I have indicated. Let us now keep to the issue as to whether or not when it comes to asking the people to go to a referendum on any matter - not on a specific question - the Government should advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara only at the request of the Legislative Assembly.

It is possibly because the P.A.P. had been afraid of discussion that they did not want to have the matter discussed in the Assembly. In col. 307*, the Minister for Finance said that there was no precedent for Opposition Members to have a voice in the framing of questions. Now, I am not talking of framing a question, Sir. I just want to bring it home to you, because earlier on he had said that there was no precedent in the whole world that there should be discussion in the Assembly first. It was only later on when we *Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 5 dated 15th May, 1962. brought out the fact that there was discussion in the Assembly in Jamaica and quoted other instances too that he backed down and admitted that he made an error. I pointed out, Sir, that although the P.A.P. claim support over the matter of the White Paper, they are afraid to let all the facts be known to the people. The P.A.P. have spent large sums of money collected in taxes from the people for propaganda and for the benefit of their own pet projects like trips abroad, cultural teams, Malaysia Weeks, posters, banners, advertisements, pamph lets on the matter of merger. All the time they have been trying to publicise that merger is a very good thing. Now, we have to tell the people in the case of these merger proposals how unfair and unjust the P.A.P. have been to the people of Singapore, it is only discussion in the Assembly that will bring all these things out. The Member for Anson has already quoted to you international practice and I do not think I need go into details. For example, I just mention the New Zealand Military Training Poll Act; in Jamaica, France, Switzerland, Canada, Newfoundland, all over the world, Sir, wherever they hold referenda, the matter is first discussed in the Assembly and it is not just done by the Government alone. I need here only bring out the deceit and pretence of the P.A.P. in the whole referendum Bill. Whenever they are cornered and whenever they cannot put up any more excuses, whenever their arguments cannot face up to the logic and weight of arguments on our side, they always go back to the same old argument that this is a general Referendum Bill. It is always their pet excuse - this is a general Referendum Bill.

I have tried to indicate to the Member for Queenstown that all these choice remarks could, I think, very well be passed when we come to the right amendment. We are now on the matter of procedure actually, the matter of procedure as to whether or not when any matter is to be submitted to a referendum, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara should make his order directing that referendum on the advice of the Government alone or on the advice of the Government at the request of the Legislative Assembly. Any matter meaning any matter in general. Therefore, all these comments on what the P.A.P. are going to do about it, the particular question relating to merger - those remarks do not arise now; or rather they would arise, but whether they are proper or not is a different thing. The Chairman has to look after those remarks as he will hear only proper parliamentary remarks. But I think that trend will arise when we deal with the next amendment where there is an issue of one question yes or no.

But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that all these remarks were passed in Select Committee while we were discussing clause 5 - the first amendment. The same amendment -

Order. I have already indicated that when we were in Select Committee there was an amendment to change the word "matter" to "question" and because of that, all those remarks were relevant. I allowed the debate to range over that amendment and the amendment to clause 13, and that is why those remarks were allowed. But now no memher of the Opposition has chosen to move an amendment that the word "matter" should read "question". That being so, my duty is to channel the debate to the proper issue. The proper issue is as I have enunciated: it is simply, when there is any matter going to referendum - the matter of merger, the matter of toddy-shops, or any matter, the matter of smoking I think was mentioned in Select Committee - whenever it is considered that that matter should go to referendum, then it is the Government who will have to decide whether that matter should go, or is it the Government at the request of the Legislative Assembly? Anyway, when it comes to the detail as to what question will be asked on that particular matter, then so far as merger is concerned, the Member for Queenstown will probably be in order.

Under the circumstances, Sir, I do not wish to say anymore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, generally speaking, we can know from common knowledge that this amendment concerning whether the holding of the national referendum should be at the request of the Assembly or whether it should be at the request of the Cabinet does not make very much difference. We now feel there is the necessity to bring up this amendment purely because this Government has recently acted in such a way that there should be this necessity. That would mean that if the Opposition is faced with a Government which is fairly and sincerely practising democracy, then there would not be any necessity for us to bring up such an amendment. But now we must realise that we are in the state of experimenting with parliamentary democracy, and in the course of the past two years of such experiment, we have seen that the Party in power has not done well. It has acted in such a very immature way that we must bring up this amendment. Therefore, if the Government has not said that the Opposition can carry out canvassing during the period of national referendum, and if the Government does not give us sufficient time to carry out canvassing, we will have to bring up this amendment. Unless and until the Government indicates that sufficient time will be given to us for the purpose of canvassing, we will have to bring up this amendment. In the course of debate on this National Referendum Bill, the Government has shown that it has acted against the principles of democracy, and therefore we find the necessity to bring up this amendment. This amendment, in my personal opinion, will help us in the experiment of parliamentary democracy. If there is no evil intention on the part of the Government, then I see no reason why it should refuse this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment moved by the Member for Anson. Although this amendment is of trifling importance compared to the amendments to clause 5 and clause 29, which are decisive and would make all the difference whether the coming merger referendum is going to be an honest or a dishonest referendum, yet I think if the Government would accept this amendment, it would improve the National Referendum Bill as a general law for future referenda. Mr Speaker, Sir, the difference between the present clause and the amendment, if the Government accepts it, is that the Opposition Parties would be given a chance to ventilate their views on any matter which is of sufficient national importance and which the Government wishes to present to the people for a decision. Under the present clause, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only the Government which advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to put such an issue to the people in a referendum, and the people would be given only 14 days' notice under clause 6 to weigh the pros and cons of such an issue. But if the Government is prepared to accept the amendment, then what would happen is that such an issue, before being put to the people for a verdict, would first of all be submitted to this House for a thorough debate. This would be in the interest of the democratic system because then the people would be informed of all the pros and cons, all the aspects of the issue as seen from all angles, and I think that would be in the interest of the country. Mr Speaker, Sir, I say the request by the Opposition Parties is a fair request. We do not ask for anything more - just let the Opposition have a chance to ventilate their views for the interest of the people.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the term "national referendum" is to be interpreted into Chinese, then it should be the decision of the people. That would mean that when a matter is approved by the Assembly or any governmental organisation, it should go to the people for confirmation or rejection as to whether this decision of the Assembly or parliamentary organisation should be adopted. That is the true meaning and definition of a national referendum. Therefore, today the amendment of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown is very reasonable and-rational. It is in the interest of the people and it is in compliance with the meaning of a national referendum. When this National Referendum Bill was brought up for Second Reading, the Minister concerned told this House that the Government would have to spend some $400,000 to carry out a national referendum. Now this $400,000 has to be approved by the Legislative Assembly before it could be spent on the national referendum. Therefore, we can see clearly that since the national referendum will cost some $400,000, which is to come as a result of the approval by this House, then a national referendum must, in the first place, be approved by the Legislative Assembly before the Minister for Home Affairs advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to bring it to the people for a decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of a national referendum is usually one of national importance. That being so, we in the Legislative Assembly, which is the supreme authority in this country, must have a say in the matter before it can be referred to the people; in other words, such a matter must first be debated in the Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see that on item 3 of the Order Paper, the Prime Minister has brought up a motion concerning the reclamation of Upper East Coast Road. This is only a matter of little importance, but even so, the Prime Minister has to get the approval of the Assembly before the work can be carried out. But, comparatively speaking, a national referendum matter is far more important than this. So there is all the more reason why this matter regarding the national referendum should be debated in this House before the Minister for Home Affairs can advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to issue an order to carry out the national referendum. So, what we are requesting now is actually conducive to the true meaning of the term "national referendum". It is a very legitimate request we are making. We see no reason why the Government cannot accept this amendment which is coming from the Opposition. We must not allow a matter of national importance to be dealt with by the Government alone and in a unilateral manner. 4.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 7 of the Bill says that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has the power to postpone a national referendum. Since the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can decide the holding of a national referendum and also postpone such a national referendum, then I would say that the Government will spend a lot of money when conditions are to their favour.

Order. To put the record right, I think the hon. Member has been interpreted as having said that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has power ta postpone a referendum under clause 7. Well, clause 7 reads:- 'If at any time after the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has issued the order referred to in section 5 of this Ordinance it is shown to his satisfaction that owing to any cause whatsoever no referendum has been held in pursuance of such order, he may at any time thereafter issue another order for the same purpose.' So, it is not a question of postponing. It is a question of if the referendum has not in fact been held.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I meant to say that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, on the advice of the Cabinet, feels that if conditions during this period are unfavourable to the Government, then the Cabinet can advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to change the time for the holding of a national referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out very clearly here that since this is a mattter of a national referendum, it should be referred to the Assembly. It should not be left in the hands of the Government at a time when things are favourable to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my personal opinion that if the Government wishes to comply with the principles of democracy, then the, amendment of the Opposition must be accepted by the Government unconditionally. The Government has no reason to reject it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's arguments against the principle of this amendment in the Select Committee were somewhat childish and puerile. The Government's attitude was, in fact, such that it amounted to saying, "This is my business and you shut up!" Sir, this is very much the behaviour of an upstart child. The whole attitude of the Government seems to be governed by its belief that it can insist on its so-called rights of a government and disregard the feelings of the people. It appears to the P.A.P. that forms are all important - so important that they throw out reason and sense and forget their obligation to the people and the necessity for fair play. The way the P.A.P. Government conducts itself illustrates the extent of degeneration that has set in. They imagine that once they have been elected they have the right to play ducks and drakes with the people. I do not think it is because the P.A.P. Ministers are so dull as to lack a sense of logic. It is just that they want to ensure that our people are kept ignorant and confused on any matter put or referred to them in a referendum, and particularly on the merger issue. This is evident. They deliberately close all doors for a full, frank and free discussion. Ignorance and confusion on the referendum, particularly on the matter of merger, fits very well into the P.A.P. scheme of things, because that is the only way they can survive. Sir, in the debate on this Bill so far held in Select Committee, their argu ments were directed at clouding and confusing the issue. The Government's attitude to the principle of this amendment in the Select Committee - they have up to now kept quiet, I do not know whether they want to put forward the same arguments - can be summed up to be replies that were advanced to arguments that the Opposition had not put forward, instead of giving replies to arguments that the Opposition had, in fact, put forward. Sir, the Government rejected! the principle of the amendment in the Select Committee on three grounds, namely, one, that it would infringe upon the authority of the Government to refer a matter for referendum; two, that it would involve the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in a public controversy, and three, that certain gentlemen, namely, Mr F. Fernandez and company and' Mr Ang Kim Thye and company, had made representations to the contrary. Sir, apart from these three feeble reasons, the Government has not been able to put forward-any sound logical reasons for its rejection. Let us examine these reasons and ascertain their validity. To start with, points two and three are uncalled for, because we have not suggested that we desire to infringe upon the authority of the Government and we have not suggested that we desire to bring the Yang di-Pertuan Negara into any public controversy. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis is not asking the Government to assign to the Opposition any of its functions or rights. We are not interested. We are not anxious to drag the Head of State into a public controversy. On point one, Sir, will acceptance of this amendment infringe upon the authority of the Government to refer any matter to a referendum? The answer is a clear no. The Government has a majority in this House. Although it is an uncomfortable majority of one, nevertheless it is a majority. So long as that is the case, whatever is the decision of the Assembly it will, in effect, be a decision of the Government with or without the Opposition's support. In the present Assembly, the P.A.P. need not doubt the support of certain Opposition Parties like U.M.N.O. How will the Government lose its functions? The statement, Sir, by the Minister for Home Affairs in the last sentence of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962, col. 89, reads: 'The Government consider that the right to hold a referendum on any matter and any time, if it is in the public interest to do so, is a matter for the Executive and not the legislative power.' This is not only irrelevant but also misleading. It shows utter confusion in thought. Sir, the position will be such that the Government will have the right to decide on a referendum on any matter, because in this House the Government has a majority. The decision of the final form of the actual question to be put to the people will rest with the Government, because the Government has a majority in this House. No question can be put to the electorate against the will of the Government, because the Government has a majority in this House. As long as the Government has a majority in this Assembly, as in fact the Government should rightly have, it means that it is the Government that decides on whether to hold a referendum, when to hold (he referendum, and on what matter to hold a referendum. A thorough discussion on any subject for a referendum is a function of this Assembly. We must not confuse the issue. The Government's bluff as to losing its rights, etc., is merely meant to confuse and detract from the issue. Sir, the purpose of this amendment is clear. It is not to usurp the functions of the Government. It is to allow free and full discussion by the 51 representatives of the people on a matter to be referred t) the electorate in a referendum so that the voters are clear about the arguments for and against that matter. Sir, in rejecting this amendment - I do not know whether they want to reject it, but from their performance in the Select Committee the chances are that they would reject it - the Government would be rejecting a call to allow full and proper discussion on any question by all the elected representatives of the people before the question on that matter can be actually put to the people.

Order. It is 5 o'clock. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I shall take the Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

Before we continue, I would like to inform hon. Members that I intend to suspend for one hour for a dinner break from half-past-eight to half-past-nine. Clause 5-(contd.) Question again proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out."

I was saying, Sir, that the Government's argument against this amendment in the Select Committee had been on three grounds and I was, before the tea break, at the end of my arguments on ground one. I said that the Government's reply had solely been, in my view, to confuse the people. Point two, Sir, the Government's suggestion that if the principle of this amendment is accepted, then the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be involved in a public controversy is even more ridiculous. I wish to quote the Minister for Law who repeatedly harped on this point in the Select Committee. I refer to column 86 of the same Official Report, the last line, the last sentence in column 86: 'If it is to be now provided that the Head of State must act on the advice of the Legislative Assembly, it will follow that his acts will be brought into public controversy.' How can the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be involved in a public controversy? He will not and cannot take sides in the debates of this House. Is the Government trying to suggest that he may be politically biased one way or the other? Today, Sir, the Government is supposed to make the laws of the country, but this does not mean that it can jolly well make whatever laws it pleases without first referring to the Legislative Assembly. The Government is constitutionally required to bring the proposed laws to this Assembly for debate and adoption. Only if the Assembly passes them can they be sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his sanction. On the logic of the P.A.P. Government's argument, this must mean that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has already been involved in a public controversy. But has this been the case? Perhaps only in one instance and only one instance, and for that the P.A.P. is fully responsible. You will remember, Sir, having agreed to and supported the Trade Union Bill in this Assembly, they quietly slipped out through the Assembly backdoor and told the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to hold up the legislation. What cynicism and what hypocrisy, Sir! I cannot believe that the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Minister for Finance and the Hon. Minister for Labour could have offered this argument with any seriousness. They must be scraping the bottom of the barrel in their desperate attempt to justify their case. I repeat, Sir, today our Constitution is such that all Bills are only sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for assent after this Assembly passes them. The practice is that no Bill can be assented to by him if this Assembly does not pass it. This practice has not brought the Head of State into any public controversy, and its continuance need not necessarily bring him into one in the future. An extension of this practice to include referenda on matters of national importance, I submit, Sir, need not necessarily bring him into any public controversy. The Government's bluff once again is merely meant to mislead and confuse the people. And on the third point, I need not say very much. In fact, the names of the representatives speak for themselves. Sir, they are well-known P.A.P. enthusiasts. Their representations have the Government's blessing, so much so that the only argument the Minister for Home Affairs in the Select Committee was able to do was to quote two paragraphs. From their representations - I think it is column 90 - he said, "I think these two passages put the Government's case very clearly, and I do not think I need elaborate further on this matter." I would like to read these two paragraphs. I would like to quote from the top of the column: "If you will permit me, Mr Chairman, may I quote two short passages from the memorandum submitted by certain gentlemen? I refer to Paper No. 5, paragraph 4, which says: 'There is no precedent in the world where a section of opposition in the As sembly, which does not shoulder the responsibilities of government is given the right to decide what the Government should ask the people in a referendum. For the opposition to demand this concession is akin to asking for a share in the administration to which it is not entitled. If the Government were to give in to this demand, it might as well hand over the reins of Government to the opposition and allow the opposition to run the Referendum...'. And in paragraph 4 of Paper No. 6, I quote again: 'It is the universal practice in every democratic country for the Government in power to set the questions. There is logical reason for this. A referendum is a method whereby the Government in power wishes to test public opinion on any matter of its own choosing. It is not intended to be a vote for or against a particular Government or Party. Therefore the question on which the Government wants to ascertain public opinion is logically a matter for Government to decide.'" And after quoting this, Sir, all the Minister did say was, "I think these two passages put the Government's case very clearly, and- I do not think I need elaborate further on this matter." Sir, surely they put the Government's case quite rightly, because they are P.A.P. representations. However, these two paragraphs quoted give a distorted version of the Opposition's stand. I do not know whether the Government had deliberately told these representors that this was, in fact, the demand of the Opposition, but anyway, these two paragraphs contained in the representation give a distorted version of the stand of the Opposition. My arguments as laid down in points one and two earlier completely invalidate this distorted claim that the Opposition seeks to take over the functions of the Government. And finally, Sir, even if the Minister wished to accept the representation, he must at least show a sense of balance. This representation was made by 8 individuals who represented no one but themselves. But mass organisations like the group of 38 Trade Unions, two Hawkers' Associations, two Associations of Rural Dwellers and 32 Associations of Old Boys made representations to the contrary. Their sentiments are embodied in the amendment before the Committee. Sir, these organisations, put together, represent well over one hundred thou sand members, one hundred thousand bodies who are members of these organisations. Well, if you add their families, their number will be more than double. In addition to this, the P.M.I.P. and the Liberal Socialists both supported the sentiments expressed in the amendment. Sir, if the Government want to accept popular representation, surely the proper thing to do is to accept these amendments and not to reject them and quote the words of 8 subservient individuals to substantiate the rejection. Sir, I maintain that our request is perfectly legitimate. There are precedents and they have been quoted in the Select Committee. A referendum, particularly the forthcoming referendum on merger, is of national importance. It affects the lives of all our people and their future and that of generations to come. The conduct of such a referendum cannot be left at the hands of one political Party. They should not be left, above all, in the hands of a discredited Party whose dishonesty is evident. An Assembly decision will, in fact, meet the view of the majority, namely, that of the Government, yet the discussion and the debate will be useful to all our people. If the Government accept this amendment, it is not because they have all of a sudden become generous; it is because they are fully aware of the pressure outside; it is because they are fully aware of the resentment -of the people; and if the Government accept this amendment, then it shall be a gain for the people and not a concession given by the P.A.P. to the Opposition. But, Sir, if the Government rejects this, then the question the Government has to answer is whether it is prepared to allow a thorough discussion by all the elected representatives of the people before they are expected to decide on the matter. I hope that our Ministers will not come back and tell us that this is a Referendum Bill for merger, that the merger issue has already been discussed- in the Assembly and that therefore there is no need to have this amendment. This is something which they have already said in Select Committee and it is just a contradiction of their other argument advanced on the basis that this is a general Referendum Bill. I say to them, Sir, whether this is a merger Referendum Bill or a general Referendum Bill, our amendments and arguments state that we ask the Government to bring to this Assembly the matter - or any matter - to be referred to the people in a referendum. We ask the Government to allow the 51 elected representatives of this House to debate that matter first so that the people will know of the arguments for and against that matter. This should be done well before a referendum is held so that the people will have more time to consider the merits or otherwise of the issues put to them. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose and resumed his seat immediately afterwards.

The Minister for Finance always wants to stand up and put forward whatever arguments he has and if he is going to tell us that merger has already been decided, then I need only quote his colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, who says that this is a general Referendum Bill. My point is this, whether it is a general Referendum Bill or a merger Referendum Bill, the matter must be discussed in the Legislative Assembly. However, Sir, I will keenly await the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Finance and the most Hon. Minister for Law and their colleagues to put forward whatever arguments they have. The Minister for Law very categorically says that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be involved in a public controversy if this amendment is accepted. I would like to see the logic, Sir,I want the Minister for Law to substantiate that publicly. As I said, I keenly await the arguments, as I am sure, Sir, that since the Government have been generous enough to suspend Standing Orders for this debate to go on till midnight, we can all sit here until midnight day in and day out, but they need not be impatient - as I thought the Deputy Prime Minister was impatient - because when they found too many Barisan Sosialis speakers, they asked, "Why do you want this discuss this small matter at such great length?" But we are prepared. Let them come at the proper time and put forward their case. If the Government are not afraid to give the people every possible opportunity to know the arguments for and against an issue or a question, then they must accept the amendment. The purpose of this-amendment, as I have stated, is to allow a full, free and frank discussion on any matter that is to be put to the people before it is actually put to them. This is because, Sir, we, unlike the P.A.P., want our people to understand and consider clearly any matter before they vote on it.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today the practice of parliamentary democracy in Singapore has come to a crisis; that is to say, parliamentary democracy is now undergoing a very serious test in our country. Under parliamentary democracy, we have a Party in power and Parties in the Opposition consisting of representatives of the people who have the right to air their views on matters of national importance so that the Government can practise parliamentary democracy in the proper manner. But, unfortunately, we can see clearly today that the system of parliamentary democracy is now faced with a very serious test. The convening of sittings in this Assembly should aim at discussing matters pertaining to the political situation in the State or to the security of the nation, or the welfare of the nation. These subjects should be the topics of discussion in the Assembly. For example, on the Order Paper today, we have a motion on "Reclamation of Upper East Coast Road", but here we have a more serious matter, a matter which concerns the people of Singapore. We have this Singapore National Referendum Bill which deals with the constitutional progress and future of Singapore. Since the Government has brought up a matter concerning the whole nation for discussion, a matter concerning partly the administration of the Government, then this matter which concerns the whole interest of the people and the whole future of Singapore should not be overlooked by the Government. They seem to be trying to leave this matter out of the hands of the Assembly. In trying to do so, the practice of parliamentary democracy becomes a farce. We know that Members of the House have been elected by the people in order that the views of the people can be reflected in the Assembly. Now, since this matter concerns the entire people of Singapore, the Government should not try to take it out of the hands of the Assembly. They should not deny a full discussion in the Assembly. So we want to find out why the Government are afraid to discuss and debate this matter in the Assembly. The Government do not only try to refuse a discussion in the Assembly but they also try to stop the leaders in the civil organisations from airing their views. They even try to ask the newspapers not to publish the opinions of the civic organisations. We have received two representations from 78 civic organisations and we can see from these representations what their views are on this matter. Just now I asked why the Government was afraid to discuss the matter in the Assembly. If they are sincere, and are prepared to practise parliamentary democracy in the proper manner, then on a matter which concerns the entire people of Singapore, the Government should allow a discussion in the Assembly. If they are sincere, then I see no reason why the Government should act in an arbitrary manner on the national referendum. If they want to veto the amendment, then we can only come to one conclusion, and that is they want to destroy the system of parliamentary democracy. They should not behave in this manner, otherwise it would mean that they are indulging in a secret selling out of the people. I say that the P.A.P. Government are now in the act of destroying parliamen tary democracy. In the present situation, they have lost faith in parliamentary democracy. When the Prime Minister came back from abroad, he said at a Press conference that in Egypt there was no Opposition and, therefore, the Party in power did not allow the Opposition parties to disrupt the cordial relationship between the Government and the people. In the opinion of the Prime Minister, that system was better and it brought about quicker progress than what India could do, because in India, there are Opposition Parties whose opposition to the Government's policies slow down Government work and thereby delay progress. 6.00 p.m. Now, from these talks of the Government Ministers, we can draw a conclusion, that is, the parliamentary democracy in Singapore is now under a very serious threat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 5 (1) simply reads thus: 'Whenever the Yang di-Pertuan Negara considers that it is in the public interest to do so he may by order direct that any matter be submitted to the electors for a referendum.' Mr Speaker, Sir, a few minutes ago the Member for Upper Serangoon alleged that the Government was immature and not adhering to constitutional practice. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say if we had a more mature Opposition, this amendment would not have been brought to this Assembly for debate in the first instance. This is a procedural clause and is the practice in all democratic countries. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the constitution, as in all constitutions patterned on the British system of parliamentary democracy, the Head of State, in this case the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, is obliged to act in accordance with the advice of the Government. The Government in turn is responsible to the Legis lative Assembly for the acts of the Head of State. It is essential that in exercising his powers under legislation the acts of the Head of State should not be brought into public controversy. I am sure, as a lawyer, the Member for Anson is better informed on this aspect of the function of the Head of State than I am. He will also realise that this position is untenable if the provision is made for the Head of State to act on the advice of the Assembly. However, evidently one blunder does not make him a wiser man. The proposed amendment today does not alter the essence of the original amendment of the Member for Anson. There is an old Chinese saying for this. The soup is changed but not the medicine. I shall leave this constitutional argument in more expert hands than the Member for Anson's. In any case, this is not the significance of the amendment. The real purpose of the amendment is that the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen and the Member for Anson sought to arrogate unto themselves the right to dictate whether there should be a referendum and, if so, when. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has already been pointed out in Select Committee that in no country in the world where parliamentary democracy is practised that a section of the Opposition which does not shoulder the responsibilities of govern ment be given any executive power. The Government consider that the right to hold a referendum on any matter and at any time, if it is in the public interest to do so, is the function of the Government. The real point at issue today is whether matter of national importance will be brought before the Assembly for debate prior to a referendum being held. This, as has been explained in the Select Committee, the Government will do. All matters of national importance, for which the Government consider a national. referendum is necessary, will be brought before the Assembly for debate, so that there will be, in the words of the Member for Queenstown, a free, full and frank discussion in the Assembly. There were, as indeed the Government had done in the case of the proposed merger referendum, indeed free, full and frank discussions in the Assembly for days on end. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you remember, the Member for Queens-town nearly bored all of us to tears with his seven-and-a-half-hour speech in the Assembly on the merger issue. And previous to this Assembly debate, the merger issue had, in fact, been aired for quite sometime and subsequent to the Assembly debate there were even more discussions. Mass meetings were called by the Barisan Sosialis and house-to-house canvassing organized, unfortunately, more with a view to scaring and con fusing the people. Be that as it may, the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson cannot deny that merger, an issue of national importance, has been thoroughly ventilated in the Assembly. And, in fact, the Government is even prepared to go further, if need be. The Government is even prepared, as has been stated by the Minister for Finance, to debate the details, and that is the questions to be put in a referendum for debate in this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Referendum Bill is a very important Bill. It is important not only to the P.A.P. Government, which is nearly half dead, but it is also very important for all the people living on our little island. We do not care whether or not it is important to the P.A.P. But we do care, because it is important for all the people of Singapore. That is why we have this amendment, in order to prevent the P.A.P. from doing dishonest things which may cause disastrous events in Singapore. That is to say, this amendment is to guide the P.A.P. to do things in an honest and proper manner. Sir, the matter of the referendum to be put before the people affects the people of Singapore as a whole. It does not only affect a few P.A.P. leaders, and therefore what the P.A.P. must first do is to seek the general approval of the Legislative Assembly. Sir, for this referendum the Government can ask the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to do what the Government want him to do. Therefore, the Yang diPertuan Negara means the Government. Since all matters, important or not, have to be approved in this Assembly, there, fore, the matter of the referendum to be submitted to the people must also be approved by the Assembly. If not, the P.A.P. can close this Assembly and do things by Nazi methods. Sir, we all hope that this Bill will not become a Bill for the Fascists in Singapore. Sir, the practice of parliamentary democracy in Singapore is now in danger. It is because there are a few political beggars who are now in power, and who keep on destroying the system of parliamentary democracy. Sir, if the P.A.P. Government try to deny it, they must honestly and sincerely practise parliamentary democracy in Singapore and give the people a chance to air their views. Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers were elected by the people in 1959, when they were honest to them, but now the P.A.P. leaders will betray the people. They, therefore, dare not face the people and give them a chance to express their opinion and to choose what they want. I hope, from now onwards, all the P.A.P. leaders will behave like human beings and not like animals.

Order. I suppose by "P.A.P. leaders" the hon. Member means Members of this Assembly. He must not refer to them as animals. The expression must be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, -

The expression must be withdrawn.

I withdraw, Sir.

I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that there has been a certain amount of repetition. Four speakers have repeated one another's arguments. I would just draw the attention of the House to it at the moment. I do not say that the repetition has become tedious.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have reached an extraordinary position in this House where the P.A.P. leaders, and by that I mean Cabinet Ministers, are quite prepared to appear before intelligent, understanding people as either being totally ignorant or intentionally misleading this House. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has told you that by our amendment the Barisan Sosialis and I have sought to arrogate the right to dictate if there should be a referendum, and if so, when. May I - I know you understand it, Sir, but may I for the record: Clause 5 reads: 'Whenever the Yang di-Pertuan Negara considers that it is in the public interest to do so he may by order direct that any matter be submitted to the electors for a referendum.' And what does the amendment ask? That instead of the word "considers" it should now read: 'Whenever the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is advised by the Minister at the request of the Legislative Assembly.' 6.15 p.m. Now, Sir, the Legislative Assembly unfortunately is not the Barisan Sosialis, plus the Member for Anson, as you are fully aware. The Legislative Assembly in essence is, in fact, the majority party which is the Government. So to say that in making this amendment we arrogate to ourselves the right to dictate when a referendum should be held is. I suggest, Sir, intended merely for their friends of P.A.P. Radio and the frightened members of the Press who give them all the space which they seem to require. It is not intended to convince you or us or anybody. This argument was advanced if you will remember, in Select Com mittee - and was met in Select Committee - and whatever my personal views may be of the Minister for Home Affairs, I do not and never thought him quite so stupid as to be incapable of following a very simple and logical argument. That is how we seek to arrogate to dictate if there should be a referendum and, if so, when, by asking that the Legislative Assembly should debate it. Next he said, Sir, that he does not mind and the Government does not mind if these matters are thoroughly debated in the Assembly. But that is all it seeks. If, in fact, they do not mind, why this strenuous objection? That is all, in essence. What does the amendment seek? That the matter be fully debated before it is submitted to His Excellency for his Order. He said, "Ah His Excellency's act as Head of State should not be brought into controversy." Mr Speaker, did you notice the commencement of this Bill: 'A Bill intituled an Ordinance to provide for the holding of a national referendum and for matters connected therewith. Be it enacted by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore...' He is asking in this Bill that we should advise and consent to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara enacting this law. It is part of his constitutional function, Sir. You know, and we all know, but in order to meet this specious argument which was advanced by the Minister for Law and the highly sensitive atmosphere seemingly associated with His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, you will notice, Sir, that our amendment says that it is the Minister who should advise him but before the Minister advises him we should request the Minister. So, even if it is true - and it is not, we all know - so that the people should not be misled by any suggestion of encroachment upon the prerogative of His Excellency, we introduced the amendment whereby it is now required that the Minister should advise him. In fact, that is what is normally done. That is admitted. The Minister is still advising him. But we say that the Minister should not advise His Excellency until we request the Minister. There goes the other argument. And then, Sir, with inflated chest, "We are going to allow the questions to be debated which are going to go into this referendum." Mr Speaker, Sir, un fortunately for the P.A.P., there is a Constitution, a Constitution which they have to work under and which in this Assembly is administered by you, and there are the Standing Orders which permit the Opposition to bring up motions, and it is thanks to a motion from the Opposition that the questions which are to be posed by the referendum are going to be discussed - no thanks to the P.A.P! They never gave and never intended to give any opportunity to anybody to discuss. They have consistently avoided any suggestion of debating the questions or telling us what the questions exactly were to be. So these gentlemen who take credit for their democratic approach in allowing -

Order. The Member for Anson will remember that he is addressing the Chair and if he turns his face away from the Chair, I do not think he is in fact addressing the Chair. He must not address the Gallery.

You will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if my eyes sometimes stray away from you, and you can understand if my eyes sometimes stray away from the Government Benches. I say that these people who take credit for allowing a debate on the question should be exposed and that the debate is taking place no thanks to them but by virtue of the constitutional provisions which compel them, so long as this Assembly is sitting, to allow this Assembly's procedure to be followed. I have sought, Sir, to deal with every argument (and there are not very many) arrogation of the right to dictate which they allege of the Opposition Members with complete inaccuracy - the allegation that the amendment would infringe upon His Excellency's prerogative which is completely without foundation. The curious admission which I pointed out was made earlier, Sir, in Select Committee. I think I pointed out that they said, "Oh yes, we agree that issues in respect of which $400,000 are spent should be debated in the Assembly." Then what in the name of logic I do ask, Sir, is the reason for their rejecting the amendment which asks no more than what they say, "Oh, yes, it is perfectly logical and natural."

(In Mandarin): r Speaker, Sir, we are now discussing clause 5 of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. You know that our discussion on this Bill does not mean that a national referendum is to be introduced by the P.A.P. or by us. But I want to point out that the P.A.P. are really selling out the people of Singapore. They are trying in every way to explain their action. For instance they spoke on the citizenship and other issues. But they are trying to sell out the people of Singapore by means of these trickeries. But the people of Singapore are very discerning - they have bright eyes - and they cannot be fooled easily. The people inside and outside the House know full well that this is a phoney merger which is not welcomed by all.

The hon. Member must realise that he cannot make a speech just for the sake of making it. I would ask him to try and relate his remarks to the issue before the House and that is, as has been explained very clearly by the Member for Thomson and the Member for Anson and one or two other Members, whether or not it should be the Government who should advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to call a referendum on any matter or whether it should be the Government with the advice of the Legislative Assembly. That is the issue at the moment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept your direction. But I was only giving an example show ing you what the consequences would be after having such a Referendum Bill as this. In clause 5, the Government want to provide for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to order the holding of a national referendum. But it is not very good because the Legislative Assembly is the highest body in the State. Usually, when there is pressure on the Government, then it will decide whether or not to hold a national referendum. That means the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will order the holding of a national referendum at the discretion of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you have not read about the Chinese novel, Travels to the West, you would not understand that there is a so-called Monkey God who, according to the novel, knows all sorts of tricks and magic. When this Monkey God caused a lot of trouble in the heavenly palace - it appears from the novel that he is a hero - a war ensued between the heavenly army's guards and the Monkey God. I would say that if you do not have such tricks and magic such as the Monkey God has, you will not win a battle. But there is another God or, rather Fairy. When this Monkey God changed itself into other forms, this Fairy also changed into a form superior to that of the Monkey God, so that he could always defeat the Monkey God. Say, the Monkey God at first changed into a worm, then the other Fairy changed itself into a fish. After several changes, such as changing into a house or a temple, and what-not the Monkey God in the end was unable to change itself into any form. Then -

Can the Member tell me how that bedtime story is related to the amendment?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, now I will touch on the point at issue. I was only giving an example to show the actual situation. As I have said, perhaps under pressure the Government will hold a national referendum just as what I have said, like the Monkey God changing itself into several forms. On this point, what I mean is that the P.A.P. Government, if they want to have a clean record of having practised democracy and having recorded as having held an honest and fair national referendum, should accept the amendment. In doing so, the Government should let the Assembly have a chance to debate and discuss and advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, otherwise it is not too good. What I mean is that if the P.A.P. want honestly and sincerely to hold a national referendum, it should accept the amendment as proposed by the Member for Anson.

May I pass a comment? Parliamentary democracy does not mean that every Member of the Assembly should speak. Parties have their own Whips to decide how many speeches there should be and how relevant each speech should be. Mr Tee Kim Leng.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today this House is discussing the National Referendum Bill. I believe that all Members of the House have received from various civic organisations and trade unions copies of the memoranda. [hey have clearly shown that if this House does not abide by the practice of parliamentary democracy, then it would mean the death of parliamentary democracy. From the debate up to now, we have only heard one of the Government Members - only one. I believe they have received many criticisms and public attack. I believe they will one day be judged by the people and will be deemed to be guilty by the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, why do we want to amend the present clause 5? The purpose I think you will understand full well. Everyday you read the newspapers; the purpose is that the present P.A.P. Government's actions are more dictatorial and oppressive than the colonial government, and they can do all sorts of improper things. They can create a lot of unnecessary provisions and a lot of improper situations. That is why before the Yang di-Pertuan Negara orders the holding of a national referendum, we ask that the Assembly should be informed of it and have it discussed in the Assembly. When we say that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara orders the holding of a national referendum, we ask that the Assembly should be informed of it and have it discussed in the Assembly. When we say that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara orders the holding of a national referendum, it means that it is the Party in power which orders it. The Party in power, in the interests of itself, may, on the question of such national importance, hold a national referendum when the people are not prepared. Is this democratic? The next point perhaps is that the majority of the people of Singapore have already lost their confidence in the P.A.P. because they are always dishonest and distort their views. The present Government may, by means of the propaganda machinery which they control, publicise what they want to say to the people through Radio Singapore and Rediffusion. The Party in power can use all the machinery which they control to tell the people distorted things. At the same time, we know that when a government is in control of government machinery, it can resort to its powers to suppress freedom of expression. It can also suppress the Press, ordering the latter not to publish any news detrimental to the Government. In this way, the Government can pass any law for anything formulated, and proposed by itself, and can prevent the people from holding protest meetings. That is why they are so suspicious of the Government, and also because the Government has acted in the way I have described. The Government is also very likely to do the same thing again. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know why we want to amend this clause - to ask the Assembly to request the Minister to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to order to hold a national referendum. We know that in a democracy every law should be passed by the Legislature. Therefore, a matter of national importance should be passed by the Legislative Assembly and let the Minister be requested by the Legislative As sembly before he advises the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. On matters of national importance, if such matters are discussed in the Assembly, then the people will be better able to understand the matters and they can know better the situation. Only in this way will it comply with parliamentary democracy. I hope the Government will not put on the cloak of parliamentary democracy and at the same time destroy it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, so much heat has been generated over something so innocuous which need not even be debated at all. It is a clear indication - in fact, it is a forecast of things to come over this Referendum Bill. Why has there been so much irrelevant talk on a clause that is nothing - that does not introduce anything new? It is just a constitutional practice and procedure. It is because the Opposition has no more faith in the Government. Anything that the Government wants to do is treated with doubt and suspicion - and the Opposition, particularly the Barisan, the excomrades of the P.A.P. want to do all they can to expose and the P.A.P. to counter-expose. Nearly 3 hours of debate has been spent on exposures, counter-exposures and counter-accusations. It is indeed a pity that this august House should be turned into a free-for-all between comrades and ex-comrades, and the very useful time of Members of this Assembly has been wasted in listening to a lot of irrelevant talk. So many of the Barisan Sosialis Members have spoken on this proposed amendment, and I really find it hard to be angry with them. All I can say is that I forgive them, for they know not what they do. When it comes to the Member for Anson, a person who is very well known as a top lawyer in Singapore and who knows a lot about constitutions - for him to stand up and give a very lengthy talk in moving his motion and had to be checked on a number of occasions on points of order, is something I find it difficult to forgive. He quite rightly brought out constitutional practice. "Look at this law," he said, "any law before it can become law, has to be on the advice and with the consent of the Assembly." That is constitutional practice. That is constitutional procedure. So, in the same way, when the Government wants to carry out any kind of act under any law, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara has to do it. He does it on the advice of the Government, never on the advice of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly is there to see that any law passed, or laws that are democratic, or laws that give unreasonable powers to the Government, the Legislature, especially the Opposition, will keep a watchful eye on any acts of the Government in the administration of the laws. I can understand why the Barisan Sosialis are so strong on this. All their speeches have been on the questions, not on whether or not a referendum has to be held. Now, whether or not the referendum has to be held, the constitutional arrangements with the Federation have already been dc-bated in this Assembly on the motion introduced by the Member for Anson himself. It has been accepted by this Assembly that a referendum must be held to ascertain the views of the people as to whether or not there should be closer political and economic associations with the Federation of Malaya. And on the matter of merger itself, this Assembly had 2 days of it, if I remember rightly, with the Member for Queenstown speaking for 7� hours - he is still the champion speaker, Sir. No one has yet tried to outdo what he has done. So, what is all this talk about? "Matters", "questions", what is all this about? The Minister, in reply to the charges levelled by Members of the Opposition, has said just now that the questions will be debated in this Assembly. 6.45 p.m. Even the Member for Upper Serangoon said that this amendment does not make much difference. What he was aiming at were the questions to be posed and if the Opposition are assured that the questions to be posed will be fully debated in this Assembly, there should be an end to this unnecessary debate. The funny thing is this - the Member for Queenstown says, "If we let it go like that, it will just enable the Government to have a snap referendum." A snap referendum on what - whether or not the Barisan Sosialis should be banned? What sort of referendum can there be? Merger is the only referendum that is before the House and before the public, and everyone knows that there is going to be a referendum. How "snappier" can it be? Then we must pass this law as quickly as we can with all the proper safeguards to see that the undemocratic and unreasonable provisions are removed so that we will know sooner the views of the electorate as to whether or not the people of Singapore want closer association with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, I hope with the assurance given by the Minister that the questions to be posed in the referendum - in any referendum - will be brought before this House for open, frank and full debate, this should put an end to this unnecessary exchange of words that are bringing us nowhere other than telling the people of Singapore that there has been this vendetta that is not only fought out in public but is also fought out in this august Chamber. Let us put an end to this unnecessary debate.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I am very surprised that there should have been such a long debate on a very simple constitutional point. The question is whether legally and constitutionally, the Head of State can be advised by a Minister who receives a request from the Legislative Assembly. That is the question. Now, in all coun tries which have adopted the British parliamentary system of government, it is provided in legislation that the Head of State can do certain executive acts, and when he does them, he must act on the advice of the Government. That is the constitutional principle everywhere, and it is so in Singapore. I would refer the Assembly to section 20 (2) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council which provides that the Cabinet shall have the general direction and control of the government of Singapore and shall be collectively responsible therefore to the Assembly. Mr Chairman, Sir, the Ministers who form the Cabinet are each one, separately and collectively, responsible for the advice which they give to the Head of State. They are responsible to this Legislative Assembly for the advice which they give to the Head of State. That is the constitutional principle, known as the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. That is the doctrine which is at the root of democratic government and we will be abdicating our position as a Government it we knowingly agreed in this Legislative Assembly to the suggestion that the Head of State should be compelled to act en the advice of a single Minister who receives a request from this Legislative Assembly. That is a nonsensical proposition. Mr Chairman, Sir, I would say that the Member for Thomson is a very acute minded person. In all these matters - even in legal problems - he has a mind that can see things in a far clearer and sharper light than the Member for Anson. Remember the way the Member for Anson performed here just now? He held up a copy of the Referendum Bill and shouted, "Look at the Singapore National Referendum Bill. Look at the oreamble! What does it say? Be it enacted by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.' Therefore, the Legislative Assembly can advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara." But the Member for Thomson is a person with a more acute mind. Mr Chairman, he referred us to the Trade Union Bill and he said, "There you are, look at what happened to the Trade Union Bill." He then quoted me as saying in the Select Committee that the purpose of all this is to ensure that the Head of State is net brought into political controversy. He did that to ridicule what I had said but he saw the point, Mr Chairman, Sir. He said, "There you are, here is the case of the Head of State and a Bill. We have enacted it, but the Government got hold of him and he withdrew his assent." He recognised the position. He could see the legal point which the Member for Anson could not see, that even in the matter of assenting to the Bill, the Head of State must, under the Constitution, take the advice of the Government. Mr Chairman, Sir, the debate might go on for hours and hours. We are debating with people who have a scant knowledge of constitutional law, but in accord with democratic practice, we are quite prepared to sit here till 12 o'clock considering this clause. It is our duty to sit here and listen attentively to each and everyone of them, to the gems of ignorance that flow from their lips, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it did appear just now when the Member for Cairnhill was speaking that he was, in fact, speaking for the Government. For a moment, Sir, I thought perhaps the Government had exhausted all their arguments and had to get someone else to put forward their case. However, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill is of no consequence to the political situation in Singapore, and I am not in the least interested in him.

Then why bring it up?

Sir, up to now, the Minister for Finance has kept quiet. I thought, from his behaviour while I was speaking, that he was immediately going to stand up after me and reply to the points that I had raised, but unfortunately immediately I sat down, he scooted - [Interruption]

Order, order. Somebody has said that this debate is generating heat, but let us see that that heat does not produce unparliamentary expressions. Any Member of this Assembly is entitled to walk out whenever he wishes, perhaps to take a rest from the Assembly debate and then to come back. I do not think it is right to say a Member scoots if he walks out of the Assembly. That expression must be withdrawn.

I withdraw it. But actually, what I meant to say was that the Minister for Finance disappeared from the Chamber and what made me more sorrowful was that after the Minister for Finance had left the Chamber, the Minister for Labour after delivering his speech quickly Went out of the Chamber too.

The Minister for Home Affairs.

Sorry, the Minister for Home Affairs.

Order. These actions of Members are perfectly parliamentary, and they all conform to parliamentary democracy. I do not see how that has any relations to the matter that we are debating. Let us come back to the amendment.

I was saying these things by the way, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister for Home Affairs was, in fact, putting forward the same argument that he had advanced in Select Committee. If I were to reply him once again, I would be repeating all the things that I had said earlier. Therefore, Sir, I have no intention of replying to his statement point by point. But I do briefly want to sum up the position, Sir. He said that it was a procedure clause and that it was practised in all democratic countries. Sir, I am not a lawyer. I do not know the finer points of law. But the Member for Anson, I believe, has quoted a number of examples in Select Committee and I think he did quote countries like the United States and New Zealand where the question put to the referendum was discussed and debated by the Legislature. Sir, a basic principle is at stake. What we want to ensure is that there is a debate in this House on any matter referred for a referendum to the people. It is no use telling us that the merger issue has already been debated and, therefore, there is no need to accept this solution, because the Government's argument so far has been that this is a general Referendum Bill. Although I do not seriously believe them, it may be well be that they want to hold a referendum to decide whether one should smoke a pipe or want to smoke a cigar, as has already been debated in Select Committee. If the Government is serious in saying that this is a general Referendum Bill, then naturally it is necessary to have such an amendment. Sir, in our minds, the arguments are quite simple and clear. It appears to us that it is necessary to have this amendment to this particular clause in order to ensure that there is a debate on any matter that should be referred to the people in a referendum. It appears to us that if this amendment is not accepted, then the Government is not obliged to refer any matter to this Assembly first for a debate before it is to be put to the people. That is a fundamental point that we wish to make.

Mr Chairman, I am fascinated by the number of self-anointed experts on law in this Chamber. The Prime Minster is a self-anointed expert on jurisprudence; the Minister for Health and Law is a self-anointed expert on constitutional law. He says that it is the constitutional law that His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can only act on the advice of the Government, not the Minister, but the Government. Well, Sir, if he is quibbling about the word, I can assure him that the Opposition would be very happy if he were to move an amendment and substitute the word "Government" for "Minister" in my amendment. We would be quite content, it is not a matter of quibbling with us. The Member for Cairnhill, with round blue eyes, told us he could not understand what it was all about, but he ended up by confessing that he knew what it was all about when he asked us to accept the assurance of the Government that they would allow the Assembly to debate in future all matters before they go to a referendum. Is that the way to legislate for a country - to accept the assurance of the Government? I am not saying particularly the P.A.P. Government. I am merely saying that governments come and go, and governments are notoriously short-lived. Their memories are short - and that is hardly the way to run the country, to accept assurances for the future from the Government to the effect that those safeguards will be complied with, as they could be so easily incorporated in the provisions of this Bill.

Yes I am equally surprised at the Member for Cairnhill but for different reasons, that there should be this lengthy debate. The issue is a simple one. The principle has been accepted. You see, they give us an assurance that the matter will be debated, but they will not have it in the Bill. Why?

It is not done.

Sir, the Member for Home Affairs says it is- not done. I have a vast number of precedents but I will not weary you at this juncture, though I do not promise not to later on, Sir. The Referendum Act of 1960 of Jamaica, and here it says: 'Section (2) . For the purpose of the ascertainment of the opinion of the people of Jamaica with respect to the continuance of Jamaica as a component territory of the Federation established under the West Indies Order-in-Council a referendum shall be held. The referendum shall be held on a date to be fixed by the Governor by proclamation, being a day not earlier than six weeks after the date of the Proclamation.' They certified the date or rather tbe time. They specified the question. They specified the way of reply, and that is the direction to the Governor who is in a constitutional position analogous to our Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Sir, I have no claim at all to be a constitutional expert, self-anointed or otherwise, but it does seem to me that the Member for Anson was completely irrelevant in quoting the Jamaican Referendum Bill. That particular section says the Governor shall hold the referendum in not less than six weeks or what have you, but the Governor would have to act under the advice of the Cabinet of Jamaica, not on the advice of the Assembly. That is the point. He might use that particular section of the Jamaican Referendum Bill to say that the question to be posed in any referendum shall be debated in the Assembly. I would say that might be a relevant point to raise, but not in support of the amendment to clause 5 proposed by the hon. Member supported by the other hon. Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my interest in this clause S is not a political one, if the Member for Anson will forgive me, it is a constitutional one, that is my interest in this particular clause; and the constitutional aspect of clause 5 will affect not only the P.A.P. Government in power but perhaps even a Workers'Party government in power, or for that matter the Barisan Sosialis Party in power -

The S.P.A.!

Or for that matter the S.P.A. or the Alliance. Sir, it was my modesty. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand constitutional practice in a parlia mentary democracy, it is this: the Cabinet is formed from the majority Party returned to, the House; in Singapore it would be the Legislative Assembly. Now, that Cabinet is formed by the leader of the Party who would be called upon by the Head of State to form the Government. He then appoints his Ministers and they become the Cabinet and the Cabinet rules the country. So long as the Party in power has the confidence of the House, it continues to rule, and the business of the Government is to rule. Now, in ruling the country sometimes they have to come to the Legislative Assembly to get its assistance. If it happens that the Government wants money, it must come t the Legislative Assembly. When the Government wants to enact new laws, it must come to the Legislative Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government could run the country without money and without changing the laws of the country during its period of office, it could very well govern the country constitutionally without calling Parliament, but the difficulty in modem governments is this: governing a country is so expensive that they must come to Parliament and therefore every year and from time to time governments are forced to convene the Assembly, or the House of Representatives as the case may be. It would still be parliamentary democracy if the Government continues to rule without enacting new laws and without coming to Parliament for monies. If they continue to rule the country like that, I think we all would be very happy and praise the Government and might even possibly vote them in again, even though they do not call the House every month. Now, the constitutional responsibility of the Head of State in a parliamentary democracy, as I see it, is to accept the advice of his Ministers. Now, the responsibility of giving good advice to the Head of State is that of the Ministers, and the responsibility of the Ministers is to the House. The Negara or the Head of State as the case may be, is not responsible to the House for any of the acts he performs. Now, he can only perform acts on the advice of his Ministers. If he does anything wrong, it is the Ministers who take the rap for it, as they are responsible to the Assembly, or the House of Representatives as the case may be. The constitutional practice therefore is that the Negara or the Head of State can only act on the advice of his Ministers, and his Ministers are responsible to the House. If he gives wrong advice, the Government is chastised. If it loses the confidence of the House, it resigns. I have not yet seen any law - and I am here subject to correction by the Member for Anson or any ether Member, and if they wish to cite authorities to me, I shall be very pleased to listen to it - which says that a Head of State shall act on the advice of the Ministers at the instigation of the Assembly. I have not yet seen any section in any particular Ordinance which says that. The Member for Anson, in substantiation of his claim, did cite the preamble to two Ordinances wherein it is said, "Be it enacted by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Singapore, as follows:-". By that he intended to convey to the Assembly that the Negara acts with the advice of the Assembly. I beg to submit, with great respect to the Member for Anson, that that is not the correct position. It is merely a form of words, Mr Speaker, Sir, which is used in Ordinances and which is necessitated by our Order in Council. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will be good enough to look at Part VI of the Singapore Order in Council. "Powers and procedure of the Legislative Assembly" under the marginal note "Power to make laws" it says this: 'Subject to the provisions of this Order, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, with the advice and consent of the Assembly, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, you will note that in the Constitution, the person who can make laws is the Negara and not the Assembly. It shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Negara . . . to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Singapore' with the advice and consent of the Assembly. That is the constitutional form. But nobody in their senses contends that it is the Negara who makes the laws of Singapore, it is this Assembly that makes laws and when Bills have had their Third Reading, it goes up to the Negara, and on the advice of the appropriate Minister, he assents to them when they become law. I do suggest, with great respect to the Member for Anson, that the words in the preamble to our Ordinances are necessitated by section 47 of the Constitution to comply with the constitutional provisions of the Order in Council. So when the Member for Anson quotes them as something substantiating his point of view, I find myself unable to accept it, because I think that is not the correct constitutional position. Now, on the other aspects raised by Members of the Barisan Sosialis particularly, their political objection to this clause They say, firstly, that the Government might spring the merger issue on them unexpectedly. Mr Speaker. Sir, we have debated merger and everything connected with merger ad nausea, and I tell my friends in the Barisan Sosialis that the people in Singapore are fed up to the teeth with reading about merger, hearing about merger. They are sick to death of it. And if the Barisan think by consuming the Assembly time for the last four hours, they are going to get more reading space in the papers and more radio time, I tell them this - that when the people see the- papers reporting any thing connected with the merger they turn quickly to something else. That is what is happening today in Singapore, because we are making much too much of this. It is a national issue, of course, hut tiresome repetition. Mr Speaker. Sir, does not make the issue any more important. The other point the Barisan make is that the merger issue might be forced on the public without the Assembly being made aware of it. I think it was the Member for Anson who moved a motion to the effect that a referendum on the merger should be held, and with an amendment the motion was accepted. Sir, the two points which have been made, that the issue of merger might be put without debate in the House, cannot be sustained. That a referendum might not be held on the merger cannot be sustained, because these two issues have already been discussed in the Assembly and settled. I think debate which we have had should not have been on clause 5 of this Bill, but it should have been on clause 13. I think all the arguments advanced become quite relevant and quite pertinent and sensible if they are advocated in relation to clause 13. But in relation to clause 5, I say they do not make sense.

Sir, the Member for Farrer Park obviously hopes to become a Minister of the P.A.P., because he is speaking for the P.A.P. and riot speaking for anybody else. It is not a case of our trying to get more radio time. The mere fact that the Assembly sits until 12 o'clock every night shows the intentions behind the P.A.P. Government move. They cannot possibly cut out publicity on the debate, but they want also to limit the possibility of our debate material getting in time for the newspapers the next day. And you know, Sir, it is a very important issue. Everybody has eyes on the Referendum Bill and it is going to be a test as to whether or not we in Singapore will be given a chance to say No in a peaceful and constitutional manner.

On a point of order. The point raised by the Member - how to say no in a referendum - what has that got to do with clause 5?

I have indicated that that objection is well sustained. It is not relevant. The issue has been properly posed by several speakers. Let us confine ourselves to the issue and then reserve remarks of that nature when we come to the next amendment.

You see, Sir, arguments have been put forward by the Government, as well as by the S.P.A. for the Government, that there is already enough discussion on the matter; yet all along the Government had been trying to maintain that this is a general Re ferendum Bill, until we pinned them down in Select Committee on the third day, and they had to admit that this Bill would be on the merger issue. Everytime we pin them down on arguments, everytime they are cornered, everytime they have no arguments to put forward, they say this is a general Referendum Bill. All we are trying to get across to the Government is this: do you agree to the principle that the matter or issue should first be debated in the Assembly? Let me quote to you, Sir, the Minister for Finance in column 87* - he has been blaming me for belabouring the point. He said,". . . we will concede to him straightaway . . . that there should be free, full and frank discussion of any issue of national importance". And then further on he said, "the subject of a referendum which we are going to hold very soon" - implying merger. There was already free, full and frank discussion. Again, in column 88, the second paragraph, which has already been quoted by the Member for Anson. *Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962. The Minister for Finance again explained, "Now, no government in Its senses is going to have a referendum on a matter which is not of national importance. Any matter of national importance must be debated in the Assembly, it is the natural course of events." Let us see what he said about this. In columns 91 and 92 the Member for Anson asked, after all his arguments had been put forward, and the Government had admitted the legality and the strength of our arguments, he could not understand why - that is in column 92, Sir, - in accepting the principle the Government nevertheless rejected the amendment. They had already agreed to the principle, Sir,If the wording is not correct, let them amend the wording to make it correct. But male sure that the principle that there should be full discussion in the Assembly be accepted, in column 103 at the bottom, Sir, the Min ister for Finance said, "If the accepted practice by any government is to give the Opposition full opportunity to debate in the Assembly, then it is quite unnecessary to embody it in any law." And he further added, "I do not see any necessity at all. You might as well embody those very obvious practices which are carried out by all Governments." In other words, he admits the principle, hut he simply does not want to write it down in the law. You can understand the meaning of what he is saying. 7.15 p.m. You admit it is necessary. You admit the principle of it, yet you do not want it in the law. Why? Simply because the whole intention, as I have said, Sir, was to have a snap referendum. The P.A.P. wanted to got it done quickly without any discussion in the Assembly on that particular question.

I think we possibly have exhausted all points unless the Minister for Finance wishes to extend the debate for another half an hour. Dr Goh.

Sir, if it is the purpose of this amendment to ensure that full debate takes place on any question to be posed in the referendum, then I must say that they have tried to achieve their objective in a most inept and clumsy way. If it is their real purpose to ensure that any question put to the referendum should be debated first in the Assembly, this is not the way to do it. Because by asking that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Head of State, should act on the advice of the Assembly, either directly on the advice of the Assembly, or as the Assembly rules through a Minister, is wrong in principle. The Member for Farrer Park has given a most lucid, and, to me, a most convincing account that it cannot be done in that way. The Member for Farrer Park has given the constitutional position. May I give an account of the political reasons behind this amendment? Sir, you will remember that the debate on merger, which was to be the subject of the referendum, took place in November. In fact the first proposal that the Government would hold a referendum on merger occurred in September, I think, when the Member for Queenstown and I discussed this matter over a radio forum. At that time the Barisan Sosialis. somehow or other, came to the conclusion that we were going to have a snap referendum on merger. What led them to this conclusion I do not know, but from September onwards they turned all their guns on merger, all their publicity weapons were deployed to the limit. And after sometime when they kept on re peating themselves, people found their arguments a shade not only ridiculous. but tiresome. They shot all their bolts by, I would say, January, February. thereabouts, and there was no merger. So the purpose of this is to make sure that on the timing of the referendum precise date they would not miscalculate again. Sir, why should we give them this particular advantage? Is the P.A.P. a philanthropic organisation? Is it our purpose to assist the Barisan Sosialis? It is not our slightest intention to do that. Let us be quite frank about it. But to come back to the amendment itself. If that is what the Barisan Opposition really wants, that is, that the subject must be debated in the Assembly, they have done it in a clumsy and constitutionally wrong way by this amendment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the P.A.P. is about to be drowned, the S.P.A. has throw-n down a life buoy in order to save it. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Government Ministers and the S.P.A. speakers, we can see that the Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. What will be the result of this? The result will he that the Assembly will not have any chance to speak on any question relating to a national referendum.

Will the Member please reserve those remarks when we come to that particular issue as to whether or not the question should be framed by the Legislative Assembly? There is an amendment under clause 13. We are now on quite a different issue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only wish to point out to you that the Assembly will not have the power or the right to debate on clause 5. But the Assembly will have to shoulder the undemocratic provisions as embodied in clause 29.

How can clause 29 now come into clause 5? Clause 29 is something quite different. Let us not get away from the issues. Let us have a sense of values.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my standpoint is very simple. That is to say, the Assembly should first come to a decision on the National Referendum Bill and then the Minister can advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to order the holding of a nation al referendum. In other words, we should be given the chance and adequate time to debate the question. But from the speeches made by the Government side, it would appear that this Assembly will have no right to request a debate on any question that will be put - any matter that will be put in a national referendum. But according to clause 29 of the Bill, we will have to shoulder all the con sequences. Therefore, I say the Government, when talking about democracy, does not know how to carry it out.

We have exhausted all the arguments.

May I say a few words consequent on what the Minister for Finance has just said? What he has sad merely confirms that they had the intention to have a snap national referendum.

He cannot get away with that. It is the prerogative of the Government to decide when to hold a referendum, when to hold a general election. It is not the prerogative of the Barisan opposition. That is true in every country. Question put "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out." An hon. Member: Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 29; Absent, 5. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Dato Abdul Hamid Chan Sun Wing bin Haji Jumat Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss Mohd. Akib Lee Siew Choh Buang bin Omar Leong Keng Seng Junid Lin You Eng Byrne, K. M. Lingam, S. V. Chan Chee Seng Low Por Tuck Chan Choy Siong, David Marshall Madam Ng Teng Kian Chor Yeok Eng Ong Chang Sam Goh Chew Chua Ong Eng Guan Goh Keng Swee Sheng Nam Chin Hoe Puay Choo Tan Cheng Tong Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng Lee Khoon Choy Teo Hock Guan Lee Teck Him Wong Soon Fong Lim Cheng Lock Lim Yew Hock Absent John Mammen Mohd. Ariff bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim Suradi Koh, C. H. M. Ismail Rahim Lee Kuan Yew Ong Pang Boon Mohd. Ali bin Aiwi Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam. S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Tan Kia Gan Thio Chan Bee Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohd. Yong Nyuk Lin

The amendment falls. The next amendment which stands in the names of the Member for Anson, the Member for Queenstown, and the Member for Hong Lim, seeks to add a sub-clause (3) to clause 5, which reads: 'Not more than one question shall be submitted to the electors in any one referendum and such question shall contain only one issue and the electors shall only be required to answer such question in the simple affirmative or negative.'. Now this amendment, of course, would open up a debate on the broad is-sue as to whether there should, in fact, be one question demanding an answer "yes" or "no". And that seems to me to be raised in the amendment to clause 18 by the Member for Queenstown. It seeks to add: 'Every ballot paper shal1 be in the Form in the First Schedule to this Ordinance.' It takes in the First Schedule which indicates that his desire is that there should be one question with an answer "yes" or "no". Then the first part of the amendment which urges that there should be only one question - that is to be raised also in the amendment proposed in clause 13. The second amendment to clause 13 of the Member for An-son and the Member for Queenstown seeks in page A3, line 41, to leave out "questions" and insert "one question as framed by the Legislative Assembly". That introduces the issue as to whether that question should be framed' by the Legislative Assembly. On the issue as to whether there should be a plain yes or no, this appears to be raised in the amendment by the Member for Anson in clause 20, where he seeks, whether there should be one question or more than one question, that there should still be the request to the electors to say "yes" or "no". It appears to me to be convenient that the debate on this second amendment should range over all those amendments I have mentioned, so that there will be no repetition and time will certainly be saved. And when we reach the other amendments which I have mentioned and arguments have already been exhausted in respect of any of them, then, of course, the Member who desires to take a vote on his amendment could propose the amendment for; a vote be taken. I trust that would be acceptable, as I think it would save the time of this Assembly if we can take all these issues together. Whether there should be one question, whether that question should be framed by the Legislative Assembly, and whether the question should demand an answer "yes" or "no". The principle "yes" or "no" should also apply if, in fact, there is more than one question.

Sir, there are, in fact, three issues, as you have pointed out in our amendments. I appreciate it is necessary that we should range over these issues which are in part covered by others, but the others, for example, require framing by the Legislative Assembly of the one question and others still require a particular form of ballot paper. I would ask, Sir, in allowing us to range over these others, you would nevertheless grant us some indulgence when it comes to the specific amendment, however brief it may be, to pinpoint those particular issues, Sir, and have them clarified instead of leaving a thing inchoate with a great deal of argument on all issues.

I have not indicated that. I have indicated that when we reach the other amendments which are mentioned, if it appears that the arguments have already been exhausted in respect of them, then it is up to the Member to move simpliciter if he so desires. But if the arguments have not been exhausted, and, as the Member for Anson suggests, and if Members wish to summarise the arguments in respect of those amendments, then I cannot stop them.

I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page A2, line 23, at end, to add-'(3) Not more than one question shall be submitted to the electors in any one referendum and such question shall contain only one issue and the electors shall only be required to answer such question in the simple affirmative or negative.'. As you have pointed out, Mr Chairman, there are, in fact, three matters in that one single amendment. The first is not more than one question shall be submitted in a referendum. The second is that each question should contain only one issue, and it should not be double-headed. The third is that the people should have the right to say yes or no. Mr Chairman, this amendment arises out of the unhappy history of this Bill. Later I would crave your indulgence to refer to certain aspects of it. On the 16th of March, 1962, on the Second Reading of this Bill, at page 29 of the revised transcript [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 3; col. 280], the Prime Minister said, "This Referendum Bill has been brought in to determine the wish of the majority of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories." Now, Sir, we next heard the Deputy Prime Minister, on the 17th of April. on my motion for a referendum on the merger issue, at page 8 [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 8, col. 774]: '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 is clear, Sir, from those statements that this is a specific Referendum Bill for the issue of merger. And then to make it quite certain an amendment was moved by the Deputy Prime Minister to my motion, and this was the operative part: "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 . . .". Mr Chairman, there are, in the plainest possible terms, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister telling us that this is a specific Bill. Sir, in seeking to have the question formulated by the Assembly, the Minister for Health and Law's reply at column 110 [Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962]-midway-said, "My point here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this is a general referendum Bill. If there was before the Committee a Bill dealing with a specific referendum issue, there is nothing to prevent the Legislative Assembly from deciding the questions to be put to a referendum. But in this case, this is a general Referendum Bill and certain executive acts are to be done by the Head of State." At column 118, the same Minister, Sir, said this in a general referendum Bill: 'There might be various matters. One is the matter of smoking - whether the public should be allowed to smoke. The Member for Anson does not like smoking. One day we might hold a referendum on this. That is one matter. Merger is another matter. These matters involve all sorts of questions. For instance, the Member for Anson does not like smoking but he might agree that people should be allowed to continue pipe-smoking. A referendum on smoking could raise the following questions: Should smoking be prohibited, or should pipe-smoking or cigar-smoking be allowed?' I assure you, Mr Chairman, I am not going to read all of them, but I do want to show you how important it is now to pin this down to show you that quite shamelessly and blatantly in this Assembly they say one thing and in Select Committee they say another. There is no question of the blush of shame. There is a purely an interest in the power dynamics of the situation which does not include, Sir, respect for logic or for the people. Now, Sir, if I might refer to column 138, the same Minister: "The Member for Anson has moved an amendment that there shall be only one ques tion on one issue. Mr Chairman, I have pointed out repeatedly that this is a general Referendum Bill and there is a procedure in the Bill for the putting of questions. . . . Take the case of toddy shops. Questions could be: "Should toddy shops be closed? Or should the sale of toddy to toddy shops be prohibited?" There was the example of the Malay language: "When should Malay be the official language?" Then he goes on at column 140 to give you a few more questions that could be asked. Mr Chairman, we are in a quandary now. We are told by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, by a solemn motion passed by a Government majority in this House, the motion saying that the purpose of the Bill was to hold a referendum on merger, and we have had the Minister for Finance whose interest in finance went to the somewhat colloquial expression of, 'Let's come down to brass tacks. This Bill is for a referendum on merger." If you would like a reference, Sir, it is on the 11th May, at column 181 [Official Report of Select Committee No. 4]. We have had a gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs, who on the 16th March in the revised transcript at page 24 -

The Member for Anson is beating about the bush.

Order.

Ramming falsehoods down the throats of those who utter them is painful, I know; I can understand it. Now, Sir, if you look at the revised transcript of 16th of March at page 24 [Hansard Vol. 17 No. 3, col. 273]: 'The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng) ha Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating the Singapore National Referendum Bill. This ought to be a simple and meaningful Bill. Its purpose is to reunite Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.' Now, Mr Speaker, in every instance - and I shall be producing books; I am not talking off the cuff - where there have been specific Bills before ad hoc for specific issues for the purpose of referring them to the people the issue has been specified in the Bill; questions have been specified; and you will find that there is no ambiguity. Here the right hand and the left had of the P.A.P. not only do not agree, Sir, but the right hand sometimes disagrees with itself, as does the left hand. I have a vast number of references which I do not intend to deal with at this juncture; if provoked, I will. The purpose was to show you - and perhaps I might as well start with it now, Sir,If we are to believe the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, and the Minister for Finance who, of course, later changed his mind on the 11th of May, then this is a specific Bill to deal with the issue of merger. Why then are the questions not there? Should the questions be there, Sir? Let us ascertain. I would ask you to look at the Jamaican Ordinance, Sir - I understand you have a copy; and I have a photostat copy here, Sir - Ordinance 53 of 1960. "A law to provide for ascertainment by means of referendum of the opinion of the people of Jamaica with respect to the continued participation of Jamaica in the Federation of the West Indies." Sir, it provides, inter alia, that the date of the referendum should not be less than six weeks after the proclamation. It also provides the question: "Should Jamaica remain in the Federation of the West Indies?" And the electors are required to answer "yes" or "no". By the way, Sir, it is interesting to notice that subsection (3) says that a majority of the people voting is required. That is one. They, on the other side, are very fond of liquor licensing, Sir. Let us take British Columbia. I do not know if you have this; if you have not, I will table it. "British Columbia, Chapter 221, 1960, Liquor Control Plebiscites Act." 'The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may from time to time submit to a vote of the electors the following question on a ballot in the following form.'. and, Sir (if I might show you, and I will table it), the question is there on the ballot paper: 'Do you approve of the sale of beer by the glass in licensed premises without a bar under Government control and regulation?'. 7.59 p.m.

Then there is "Yes" with a square against it; there is "No" with a square against that. And it says: '(If you approve, mark an "X" in the square opposite the word "Yes". If you do not approve, mark an "X" in the square opposite the word "No".)'. If I might refer you to the Newfoundland Referendum Act of which they are so proud. It is the Act of 1948, No. 9 of 1948. There also it was a specific one. The questions were formulated by the National Convention and there, where there were three questions, they made specific arrangements as to how majority was to be worked out. Then, Sir, there was in 1932, as you know, a referendum in West Australia. I am indebted to the Clerk of the Assembly for the Communication of the 17th of May where Members will find this referred to, and if I might read it, Mr Chairman, this is from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Western Aus tralia about referendum procedure in Western Australia. 'In 1932, there was great agitation within the State regarding seceding from the Commonwealth. The Parliament in that year passed an Act authorising a referendum to he held on the question [and you will notice again the question was formulated by Parliament] "Are you in favour of the State of Western Australia withdrawing from the Federal Commonwealth established under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imperial)?"' And bless the Clerk of Western Australia, he even told us that the voter was required to vote "Yes" or "No". The next one, Mr Chairman, as you are probably aware, is that in New Zealand there are no general referendum provisions. But provisions do exist that are ad hoc, and in each piece of legislation with reference to a referendum in respect of a specific issue the questions are framed by Parliament. In Canada there was the Dominion Plebiscite Act. This is to be found in an annexe - annexe 2 - which we received from the Clerk of the House. It was a memorandum prepared by Dr Morose Olivier, Parliamentary Council of Canada. It tells us that in 1942 there was a Dominion Plebiscite Act wherein was formulated the following question for the decision of the people of Canada: Are you in favour of releasing the Government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service? Annexe 1, which is supplied by the Clerk of the Assembly, being a document prepared by Mr C. D. Combe of the House of Assembly of Adelaide, South Australia, will inform us that there is no general law in South Australia to provide for the taking of referenda. In the past, referenda had been held in pursuance of ad hoc legislation. I do ask, Mr Chairman, that it be appreciated that ad hoc legislation means that in each instance the legislation directs a specific question for a specific issue. Sir, let us now come to the general referendum laws. Let us take Australia, which is close to us and a Dominion of the Commonwealth. I refer you to Volume 4 of the Commonwealth Acts of Australia. At page 3565 is to be found the Referendum Constitution Alteration Act 1905-1936. Now, Section 5 of that Ordinance says that whenever "a proposed law for the alteration of the Con stitution is to be submitted to the electors, the Governor-General may issue a writ for the submission of the proposed law. There is an authority to the Governor-General "On the role of Parliament" that the Member for Farrer Park is perhaps looking for. But we will pass that. That matter is now finished. But I want him to notice that in each case the law is first passed by Parliament and then put by the Governor-General. Now, what is the form in which he puts it? Sir, the form is to be found in Section 14 (A) (1) . Here it says that the ballot papers to be used for the purposes of the referendum may be in accordance with Form C in the Schedule. The Schedule is to be found in page 3585. Mr Chairman, if I might draw your attention to it. I would be happy to table it. The question is: "Do you approve of the pro posed law for the alteration of the Constitution intituled? [Here is set out the title of the proposed law.]" There is a square for 'Yes' and a square for 'No'. Now, in fairness, Mr Chairman, I would not like to omit mentioning that there is also Section 14 (A) (3) , which says that if two or more referenda are held on the same day, it shall not be necessary for the forms of the ballot paper for each referendum to be on a separate piece of paper, but two or more forms of ballot paper which may be used by any one elector may be on one piece of paper in accordance with Form D in the Schedule. Form D, Mr Chairman, is on the same page 3585. There it has: "(1) Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution intituled [here is set out the title]" with a square for 'Yes' and a square for 'No'. Then, "(2) Do you approve of the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution intituled, [here is set out the title]" with another square for 'Yes' and a square for 'No'. You will notice that the questions proposed are carefully put because the Legislatures are conscious of the capacity not merely of a Machiavellian mentality but even of normal crooks to phrase questions which are so dishonest that no honest reply can be adduced. Now, I have not finished. I would now refer you to Switzerland, which is per haps the home of the finest form of democracy barring one matter the curious blind side that - whatever our views are as regards that particular aspect - it should not blind us to the fact that they -have achieved the highest form of expression of the democratic process in any country in the world. Let me refer first to the blind side, and that is they will not allow women to vote. They say that we vote so often, we have to vote probably every other Sunday; if women vote nobody is going to cook the Sunday joint. But that is neither here nor there. I ask you to note this Article 120 of the Swiss Constitution. "Article 120 - when one section of the Federal Assembly passes a resolution, that there be a total revision of the constitution, and the other section does not assent to it; or when 50,000 Swiss citizens entitled to vote demand total revision, then the question of whether there should be such revision shall, in the one case as in the other, be submitted to a vote of the Swiss people by aye or no." You have a law which introduces the regulations under that Article 120 and it is known as the Law of 1892. In Article 11 of that law, where the Federal Assembly formulates the separate proposal distinct from the proposal formulated by popular initiative the following two questions should be submitted for voting: "Do you accept the popular initiative proposal, or do you accept the proposal formulated by the Federal Assembly." Mr Deputy Speaker, I have here, thanks to the Swiss Representative in Singapore, the actual form of ballot paper in Switzerland, and I shall submit it to you. This one says: "Do you accept the initiative concerning the protection of the consumers, or do you accept the counter proposal of the Federal Assembly? Reply 'Yes' or 'No'. Those who reply 'Yes' to the two questions will be void." Mr Chairman, having traced what others do, let us come back to the main purposes of my amendment. I ask that there should be not more than one question. Let us step there for a moment, Mr Chairman. Why did I say that? Because we have been assured, Mr Chairman, however much we have reason to doubt assurances given by this Government: nevertheless I read to you the formal assurances of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Minister for Finance that this Bill is a Bill for a referendum in respect of the proposed closer relationship with the Federation. Sir, how many questions have been debated, connected with those proposals? Two. Which are they? The first one is the White Paper proposals in Command 33 of 1961 which were passed by the Assembly by a majority of 33, with 18 walking out, if you will remember. Sir, can you remember the other question? There have been so many millions of words by the P.A.P. Government and their machines to confuse the issue that I would not be surprised if most people in Singapore have forgotten the other question, and I ask your indulgence to refer to it. I have in mind, Mr Chair man, the Hansard of the 21st of November, 1961. I would be grateful if I could have that for a moment. Can I borrow it, Sir? A copy of the Hansard was handed over to Mr Marshall. Here we are, Sir. At column 406. You remember, the Minister for Labour moved what was called the merger motion: 'That, whereas it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achiievc the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and to remove the artificial division created by the British by their policy of "divide and rule", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.' The Member for Qucenstown then moved to delete the words "in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Melaya" and to substitute "in a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day'. So, that was the second aspect of merger that was debated - the White Paper and the Opposition view which was expressed in this amendment, "a genuine merger of Singapore with the federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day". Let us remember, Mr Chairman, when brickbats start flying about asking for pie in the sky, that these terms are terms that were offered by the Federation to the State of Brunei, Borneo and Sarawak. That was our stand and after, as you remember, the marathon debate, the Government with its allies on the Front bench of the Opposition defeated that amendment. Therefore, the question of "a genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day" was rejected by this Assembly in the name of the people of Singapore. Mr Chairman, the position then is that there is but one question and one question which has been approved by this Assembly, and that question is whether the Assembly approves Command Paper 33 of 1961 which the P.A.P. call merger. If I might for a moment, Mr Chairman, entertain you with another bed-time story of the way the P.A.P. work. I have discovered where they get their technique. It seems a long, long time ago, Mr Chairman, there was an emperor of China called Ch'n Shih Wang. Some 2,200 years ago, do not take me in respect of the accuracy of the date. He was a great emperor, Mr Chairman. He built the Great Wall of China. He unified all the provinces of China and he left a peaceful, great and prosperous country to his son. His son being young and inexperienced trusted a friend of his whom he made Prime Minister. He trusted his Prime Minister like the people of Singapore trusted the gentleman who leads the Government front bench. He trusted him. They trusted him. These are the trusted people of Singapore and this Prime Minister slowly worked himself into position until one day he felt strong enough to challenge the power of the emperor and so he got a deer from the forest and brought it into the imperial palace and before the imperial's presence, he said "Sire, is not that a beautiful horse?" The king said. "Do not be a fool. That is not a horse. That is a deer." And the Prime Minister said, "Sire, ask your courtiers." It is like the P.A.P. saying. "Ask the Assembly. Is this not merger?" And the courtiers, who knew well where their bread was buttered and who it was that put them in their offices, all said, "Sire, that is a beautiful horse." Let us go back. We in this Assembly have said that these proposals are merger proposals. Mr Chairman, the point is: why one question? One question because that is the only question which the Assembly has approved. That question - that Command Paper 33 of 1951 is good for Singapore; and it is right and proper that that question should go to the people, though, as the Member for Farrer Park has informed you, we in the Workers' Party are genuinely in doubt as to the long term value of these provisions and, in fact, hear that in the long view they would be adverse both to the Federation and to ourselves. Nevertheless, we would struggle as we are struggling today for the right of those who want those "merger proposals" as the PAP, calls them, "P.A.P. proposals" if we may, for simplicity. I would fight for their right to say "yes" to those proposals though I think that they are wrong. And, I say. Sir, surely elementary decency requires that those who themselves would like to say "yes" should recognize the riqht of those who disagree to say "no". You remember Voltaire's famous dictum "I do not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Now, Mr Chairman, shou1d there be another question posed? We of the Workers' Party are not fooled by the Government's alleged generous democratic inspiration and motivation in wanting to put the Opposition point of view. If they have said, "We want to put your point of view as enunciated in the amendment to the motion which you formerly moved," then we would say, "Yes, put it as a question if you like, but the people should be entitled to say "'We do not want this either.'" You should not force the people, however"' well-meaning you are, any more than to force a daughter you love to marry either A or B. That is not the choice at all because the one may be totally unacceptable as in this case and the other may be a question for very grave misgivings. But it is not an honest approach. as indicated, that they intend to put forward. It is not the Opposition point of view as enunciated in column 406 of Hansard of the 21st of November, 1961, where we asked for a genuine and complete merger with Singapore entering as the 12th State and with automatic conversion of citizenship. That is not what hey are going to put. They say that the Opposition want a Penang and Malacca type. You know it is a curious thing; I have in the past heard about this Goebbels' technique. I was old enough to read about it when Goebbels was alive. He said, 'If a lie is big enough, repeated often enough and loud enough, some people will believe it.' But I can see it working. I can see it working amongst honest people and there are honest people who believe that Opposition Members want a form of merger whereby a major part of our people are deprived of their citizenship. On the radio forum the Prime Minister agreed that, in fact, that was not correct. On the 11th of June, Mr Jek, another P.A.P. gentleman, earning a lucrative income by his political activities, said over Radio P.A.P. that it is the Communists who want a Penang and Malacca type of merger. Well, Mr Chairman, if it is the Communists who want a Penang and Malacca type, what have we to do with this? Are we running Singapore for the Communists? Are we holding a referendum for the Communists, or are we going to hold a referendum in conformity with the recognised principle of decency and, that is, to put the issue clearly to the people whereby they can have an opportunity to accept or reject it as was alleged by the Prime Minister. Now, Mr Chairman, you say to me that if the people do not want this Penang/Malacca type as you say why is the Government offering this as an alternative? Yes, Mr Chairman, why? On the face of it, it seems rather absurd, but if you know them, as I know them, if you have followed their twisted and tortured reasonings you will realise that they have come to the position now where they are conscious of the possibility that a straightforward referendum on the issue - Do you accept White Paper, Command Paper 33 or not, may well bring a majority of our citizens against it. Some of the majority would be entitled to believe that if this were rejected, the Federation must, in its own good sense, recognise that they have got to offer us better terms and offer them quickly. But in the meanwhile what happens to the P.A.P., Mr Chairman? What happens to the Prime Minister? What happens to the Front Bench? If there is a defeat for the referendum where do they go? That is the end of them.

Habis!

Into the limbo, and that, Mr Chairman, is not the fate that the Prime Minister or his colleagues are prepared to accept with a sense of sports manship or even with a sense of public service. Therefore, we have the formul ation of policy by this very Chamber that if there was any chance that the re ferendum would be lost, then it would he criminal folly to hold a referendum.

Order. Mr Deputy Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend the sitting and I shall resume the Chair at half-past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed.

Clause 5-(contd.)

We are on the second amendment to clause 5. Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment of the adjournment, I was draw ing your attention to the P.A.P. concept of democracy as enunciated by the Prime Minister. It is perhaps best to quote him in his own words. I refer you, Sir, to the revised transcript of Hansard, 16th March, 1962, page 32, first paragraph [Vol. 17 No. 3, col. 285]: 'Sir, if there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists manipulating a referendum, let me say that it would be criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold a referendum and allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled. If that were the position, if the risk existed, then, regardless of what benefit the Member for Hong Lim or the Member for Anson may reap by the Government having to carry the odium of living down the Communist smear of trying to sell out a Chinese Singapore to a Malay Federation, it would still be the duty of the Government to go through with it to ensure that the peace, security and happiness of the people, not just of Singapore but of Malaya and of Malaysia, are not jeopardised.' Now, Mr Speaker, those with knowledge of the P.A.P. dictionary will tell you that that means that if there was the slightest danger of this Government being overthrown, then that is the point at which democracy must end. It is all very well to have democracy, but not a democracy where the P.A.P. are not the persons in power. How, Sir, is the Prime Minister to achieve this business about "no risk that the referendum should be lost"? After all, there can be no question, but there are many people who are genuinely convinced that the White Paper proposals are inimical to our long-term future, just as there are many people, Sir, who are honestly convinced that they are valuable for our future. How are we to prevent the risk from eventuating, that those against the White Paper proposals would be more than those in favour? Quite simple, Sir - by not giving them the chance to vote against the White Paper proposals. But how do you put a referendum without giving the people a chance to vote against the proposals? Again, Sir, you do that by not having the one question which was agreed to by this House, but by having another question which was never debated, something that nobody wants-the Penang and Malacca type of merger which the Government interprets as being one that provides for 341,000 people losing their citizenship. You put that question. Then what does it matter if there are two questions and both are unpalatable, so long as one can answer "No" to both? Again, Sir, that is the question. They will not allow the people to say "no" to both. They will not allow the people to say "yes" or "no". No - you strike out the one you do not want. Now, that is fair enough to those who want the P.A.P. proposals. But what about those who do not want it and who do not want either, as nobody wants these curious proposals which they propound such as the Penang and Malacca type of merger with 341,000 citizens losing their citizenship? "Oh, well, they'll have to lump it." 9.45 p.m. There is a curious petition, Sir, which I have received today from 39 cultural associations and which refers to Hobson's choice. I shall come to that in a few minutes. Here then, we are posed with this question: that the people have got to strike out one or the other. We in the Workers' Party recognising the unhappy dilemma where decent citizens cannot accept in good conscience either P.A.P. proposals - and nobody wants the Penang and Malacca type with 341,000 citizens losing their citizenship - and not being able to choose from either, and not being able to strike out either but wanting to deface their ballot paper, we moved an amendment that that should be permissible. This was seized upon by the Government, and now even a blank vote is no longer permissible, because if you strike out both or if you put a blank vote, that shall be deemed to be a vote for the P.A.P. proposals. But that is the second instalment of this tragic story, Sir. Today, what I want to draw your attention to is that in the amendment that I seek, I bring in the experience we have of the context, and that is, the context of this Bill being allegedly a specific Bill for a referendum on a specific issue - , the merger issue - in respect of a specific position that there were specific proposals called White Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which was passed. That is the only question that can legitimately be put. And the only way to obtain a decision is to give the people a choice to say "yes" or "no" to the question. In a radio forum on 12th June, the Minister for Finance used some curious English. I do not suppose you have a transcript, Sir, but I can make it available - it is an official one. He said on page 5: Dr Lee Siew Choh says you must have a question with "yes" or "no" answer. The answer is that this is a most utterly ridiculous proposition.' A ridiculous proposition. Mr Chairman, I think we have shown earlier this evening that in some 12 democratic countries, including France, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, Jamaica, British Columbia, West Australia, every one of their specific referenda required an answer - "yes" or "no". Why do the Government resist so strenuously the right to the people to say "yes" or "no"? Let us grant them two questions that they insist on. Let us grant them a million questions that they insist on to confuse the people. It is because if you have the right to say "yes" or "no", Mr Chairman, then no matter how filthy the question, no matter how dishonest, disgraceful and indecent the alternative, you can say "no" to each of them, and you may thereby bring about the fall of the P.A.P. Government, which so strenuously seeks to maintain office, which considers that the welfare of the country is equated with the welfare of its Front Bench. Mr Chairman, on this issue with regard to the two questions. I had earlier sought to show you that the. Opposition Parties had made their stand clear from the 21st of November - and even earlier - that we wanted a genuine and complete merger, with Singapore coming in as the twelfth State and with our citizens becoming citizens of the Federation on Merger Day. Mr Chairman, I want to repeat that this is what has been offered by the Federation to Brunei, Borneo and Sarawak.

Order. I have been wondering whether these detailed arguments are not in fact anticipating the Member for Anson's own motion where he suggests that there should only be one question and that is connected with the White Paper. Of course, there must be some overlapping. But I would suggest to the Member for Anson that a detailed debate on those lines could await the debate on his motion.

I am much obliged for your guidance, Mr Chairman. I hope you appreciate that I am seeking to put forward my reasons in the context of the fact that this is supposed to be a Bill for a specific issue in accordance with the motion already passed, that in that specific issue the Prime Minister and his henchmen have, to their ill fortune, indicated the nature though not the wording of the questions. And the nature of the questions they have indicated are two questions: Do you want the P.A.P. proposals or do you want Penang and Malacca with loss of citizenship? So I have got to show why the one is right and one alone is right in the context of my motion, and the other one is wrong. Sir. But I do not wish to weary the House, and if you feel that enough has been said, Sir, I shall stop at this juncture.

It has been moved as an amendment in page A2, line 23, at end, to add - '(3) Not more than one question shall be submitted to the electors in any one referendurn and such question shall contain only one issue and the electors shall only be required to answer such question in the simple affirmative or negative.' I have indicated that the debate could range over the second amendment to clause 13, that is to say, In page A3, line 41, to leave out "questions" and insert "one question as framed by the Legislative Assembly"; the amendment to clause 18. In page A6, line 23, at end to add "Every ballot paper shall be in the Form in the First Schedule to this Ordinance."; the First Schedule itself, and the amendment to clause 20, In page A7, line 2, after "vote", to add 'and the voter shall record his vote in respect of each question by marking a cross in one of two squares against each question marked respectively "Yes" and "No"'.

Mr Speaker, Sir. there is widespread anxiety in Singapore about the coming referendum. Statements have been issued. There have been forums on the matter, memoranda have been submitted and meetings of associations and political parties have been called to discuss this Bill. Mass meetings too have been held and everybody in Singapore is wondering what the Government are going to do. The Government have already given an indication that they will pose two questions to the people, and from what we have learned, these two questions will not be acceptable to the people. You will remember, Sir, that when this Bill was sent to Select Committee, views were sought from various associations. It was thought that if various associations, organisations and individuals could submit their views on the Refe rendum Bill to this Select Committee, these views might possibly influence the Select Committee to change the Government stand on the Referendum Bill. But while we were deliberating in Select Committee, the Prime Minister was in London on the 19th of May, telling the people in London that the referendum that would be carried out in Singapore would be on the mode and manner of merger. In other words, Sir, even while we were deliberating as to whether we should have one question or two questions, the P.A.P. had already made up their minds. They had already decided to pose two unacceptable questions to the people. Otherwise how could the Prime Minister have said those words at London Airport? In other words, all the memoranda that were submitted to the Select Committee could not influence the P.A.P. Ministers in any way. In fact all the memoranda submitted to the Select Committee were treated just like wastepaper. It was a disgrace that the P.A.P. Government should so lightly treat public opinion. Their acceptance of Select Committee deliberations was merely an eyewash just to give the impression that the P.A.P. would not mind accepting views from the people. But in actual fact, when these views were presented to the P.A.P., they never accepted those views in spite of the weight of logic and argument in these memoranda. Now, what is this referendum? The Prime Minister has defined it in various ways. He says that it is a means whereby the views of the people could be as certained. Examples have been quoted to you, Sir, by the Member for Anson and from the memoranda submitted to the Select Committee for our deliberations in Select Committee that a referendum is actually a means whereby the Legis lative Assembly seeks the views of the people on a specific issue, -

Mode and manner.

- motion, resolution or Bill or law that has been passed by the majority in the Legislative Assembly. Just to prove to you thai the P.A.P. themselves have said the same thing, I will quote you the revised transcript of the Official Report dated 15th March, page 12 [Vol. 17, No. 2, col. 180], Dr Toh Chin Chye, second paragraph of his speech: 'We ought to clarify in our minds why a referendum is conducted. A referendum is conducted by the government of the day in order to settle a certain question on which it probably feels that by itself it cannot decide.' In other words, the Assembly has got to have this referendum in order to make sure that the views expressed inside this Assembly have the support of the people outside the Assembly. In fact, in the talk given by Mr Jek Yuen Thong, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, over the radio last night, he said the same thing, namely that the people's views must be sought as regards what had taken place in the Assembly. For example - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order. There has been an inaccuracy in the last quotation. Can I ask the Member for Queenstown to quote chapter and verse?

Order. That is not really a point of order. The Member should have risen on a point of elucidation. Dr Lee.

Well, it is in Chinese, Sir. I have got it here; it is from the Nan yang Slang Pau. I will read it in Chinese so that the interpreter can give it to you in the translation. (In Mandarin): 'It is necessary to know the more correct wishes of the people on certain matters, on the question decided by the Cabinet. This is a very important thing.' The implication here, Sir, that it is something put to the people in order to make sure that they endorse the views that have been accepted by the Assembly. Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

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

In the passage read out, there was no reference whatever to the Assembly.

It is a matter of interpretation, Sir. [Laughter].

Order. I heard the interpretation as the decision of the Cabinet, not the decision of the Legislative Assembly.

I will read a further extract in order to convince the Minister for Finance. It follows from where I have just stopped. (In Mandarin) : 'It seems such things usually have been discussed in the legislative Assembly.' That is the Assembly. I hope Dr Goh will understand what those words mean.

The Minister for Finance.

If I might explain, Sir, it means this. If, for example, the Assembly decide to pass a resolution to ban, say, trade unions -

Barisan Sosialis.

-- - but uncertain as to whether or not the people outside agree with the views of the P.A.P. here. They have 26 Members and therefore they are in the majority. This resolution is put to the people and the people will either endorse it or reject it. That, of course, you do by posing a simple question to the people, and they answer with a simple yes or no. If they answer yes, then the motion is carried and it shows that the people have accepted that resolution and endorse the views of the Assembly. If not, then, of course, the people reject the views of the Assembly, although the Assembly means the Government with the majority. That is why the Chinese translation of this Referendum Bill is not as has been put out by the Government - "Chyuen Min Tou Piau but "Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh". I will - The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information. Mr Chairman -

The Member has given way, has he? Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Yes, he has. Mr Prime Minister.

The Member made the same point earlier today at some other place over the radio. I want to inquire from him whether he has looked up the dictionary definition of the word "referendum" in Chinese, whether it means what he says. "Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh"?

I have explained -

Any dictionary to show that that is the meaning?

I have no dictionary, Sir. But it is the accepted meaning not only in Singapore but almost all over the world, Sir. Precedents have been given to you by the Member for Anson. And I would like to refer you, Sir, to L.A. 7 of 1962, page B20. This is stressed on this page here and I will read it out. They have suggested -

Who is "they"?

B20.

This is the representation of the -

This is the Report of the Select committee on the. Singapore National Referendum Bill.

The representation of -

Yes. It s the representation from the Rural Residents' Association, the Country People's Association, the Singapore Hawkers' Union, the Singapore Itinerant Hawkers' & Stallholders' Association. They have suggested this translation because the reasons are: 'The term Chyuen Min Tou Piau is translated from the English, 'Referendum'. It is a franchise for direct legislation by the people without their having to go through their deputies. Its actual meaning is: The putting to the vote of Bills or Constitutional Amendments passed by the legislature to the citizenry for their fresh decision. Therefore, in order that the substantive provisions of the Bill may strictly be in keeping with the principle of referendum, and also to enable the public to understand with facility the real purport of the Bill, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to change the translation of Chyuen Min Tou Pian to Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh.' Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

Order! Order! The Minister for Finance rises on a point of information. Does the Member give way? Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

I heard the Member for Queenstown say that his definition of a referendum is accepted all over the world, i.e., to say referendum is not "Chyuen Min Tou Piau" but "Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh". Is he saying that this memorandum from the Hawkers' Union, the Country People's Association and so forth - this literary exercise is world famous and world renowned?

I do not think I need answer that, Sir. May I quote you also column 95 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill [No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962]? This has already been touched on by the Member for Anson in his speech, but I might as well repeat it. "Mr David Marshall: Forgive me, Sir. The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, 1906-36, section 3: 'Referendum means the submission to the electors of a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution.'. 'Whenever a proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution is to be submitted to the electors, then the Governor in Council may issue a writ for submission.'. The proposed law is one that has already been debated by both Houses of the Australian Parliament." Sir, it has been explained why the words "Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh" are very correct and why there should be only one question to be posed to the people. The only way for the electorate to endorse any decision already taken or adopted by the Legislative Assembly is for one question to be posed to them that requires a simple answer of 'yes' or 'no'. The answer comes back clear and unequivocal, 'yes' or 'no', and there is no doubt of the mind of the voter. Mr Marshall, the Member for Anson, has quoted a number of precedents of referenda in other countries and he has pointed out that it is a law that has also been passed in the Legislative Assembly. He has pointed cut, Sir, that the question too is framed, as I have a little while ago also pointed out. He also quoted Article 120 in the Swiss Constitution which sets out the procedure where only one question is put to the electorate in the referendum and the answer required is a simple 'yes' or 'no', all clearly showing that the correct translation of referendum is "Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh". It specifies that if there is going to be a referendum, then it should be a referendum on a motion or resolution, a Bill or law that has been passed in the Legislative Assembly and that it must be posed in one question to the people for their endorsement. In Singapore, Paper Command No. 33 of 1961, has been passed by the Assembly. Simple logic therefore tells us that if the P.A.P. are honest, these proposals ought to be put to the people of Singapore to see whether or not they approve of them. They can be asked simply, "Do you approve the P.A.P. merger proposals as embodied in Paper Command No. 33 of 1961?" The question is neat and simple, and it comes back with an answer "yes" or "no". In this way, you can easily find out the views of the people on this important issue. The P.A.P. have boasted that the merger proposals have the popular support of the people and we feel that it is time they put it to the test. After all, the test of the pudding is in the eating. Let them therefore put these proposals to the people and if the answer comes back with a 'yes', then the P.A.P. can justify their claim that their merger proposals have the support of the people. But if different questions are asked, and especially if the two questions are unacceptable to the electorate, then they will be forced to cast uncertain votes or blank votes. Because if they cannot accept those two questions posed to them, then that is the only way they can show their disgust and protest against the questions put. Not only is it unfair to the voter but it also goes against the stated objective of the P.A.P. of finding out the views of the people on any issue. We have twice debated in radio forums about democratic practice. If unacceptable questions are asked, one must have the right to say 'no'. But, now, what has happened is that with the addition of clause 29, the voter is not even allowed to say 'no'. He is denied the right to say 'no', because if he should cast a blank vote, he is deemed to accept the decision o, the Assembly - that is the decision of the P.A.P. How are the P.A.P. going to claim that the true views of the people will be ascertained? So to avoid all this, the only proper thing is: pose one question on one issue to which a simple answer of 'yes' or 'no' is required. Only then can we ascertain the views of the people on any specific issue. The Member for Anson has quoted you precedents. I wish to refer to the Conscription Referendum of 1916 in Australia. The people were asked one question and they were asked to give the answer in a 'yes' or 'no' form. On another occasion in 1917, they were again asked to indicate their views on conscription. On this occasion, one question was posed which required only a simple answer of "yes" or "no". The question posed was: "Are you in favour of the proposal of the Commonwealth Government for reinforcing the Australian Forces overseas?" I do not know, Sir, whether the precedent which I am quoting has already been quoted, but for the record, may I refer you to column 115 of the same Official Report, where Mr Byrne talked about the New Zealand Military Training Poll Act. There it tells you, Sir, that it is one question which asks for a yes or a no. It says, Sir: 'Mr David Marshall: The words of the 'New Zealand Military Training Poll Act say, "I vote for/I vote against compulsory military training."' In essence, it just asks for yes or no. And then, may I also refer you to column 232 [Official Report No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962], at the bottom, 'Mr Byrne: Yes. Schedule Form of Voting-Paper.' It asks for yes or no. Then you have this Jamaican Referendum Federation Law, which I need not mention because it was covered in detail by the Member for Anson. And then there is the Commonwealth of Australia Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act 1906-1936, Form C, which is referred to in column 159 of the same Official Report. Again it says here, Sir, "yes" or "no". I refer you to the Plebeian, our Party organ of 8th June, 1962. There we have a series of questions from West Australia, Canada, France, Jamaica - all giving examples of how one question was set. In Canada, it says here, the question was on the Dominion Plebiscite Act of 1942 on which a pubic vote was taken: "Are you in favour of releasing the Government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the methods of raising men for military service?" Then there is a precedent in Western Australia in 1932. Here, again, there is one question: "Are you in favour of the State of Western Australia withdrawing from the Federal Commonwealth established under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act?" Then there was the question posed in January 1961 for the people in France to say "yes" or "no": "Do you approve the Bill submitted to the French people by the President of the Republic?" And then there was the Jamaica one which has already been quoted. Then in Switzerland, the referendum held on the 1st of April this year was on a proposal to ban the manufacture or deployment of atomic arms on Swiss soil. The people were asked to answer yes or no. But, let us see how the P.A.P. twisted and turned when it came to arguments with the Opposition in Select Committee. Let us trace the arguments from column 115. 'Mr Byrne: Sir, I am aware, that in the case of Jamaica, the question was framed by the Legislative Assembly. That is clear from the Ordinance itself. All along I have maintained that that was a specific law to deal with a specific referendum question.' In other words, the Minister for Health and Law admits that that is the normal practice but that because this is a general Referendum Bill it is no more applicable. Yet, I can quote to you many, many instances where the P.A.P. have said that this Bill is for merger. They have said more than 25 times in all that this is a general Referendum. I can quote you all the columns, Sir, but I do not think I should waste your time. But I will quote the instances where they say that this Bill is for merger. In column 87 Dr Goh said that. In column 84 Mr Byrne said that, by implication. In column 151, Dr Goh said that. In column -

Order. Even if the Member is quoting, he should refer to Members by their designations. Dr Goh is the Minister for Finance. Mr Byrne is the Minister for Health and Law.

I am sorry, I forgot. In column 87, the Minister for Finance said that. In column 84, the Minister for Health and Law said that. In column 151, the Minister for Finance said that. In column 179 [Select Committee Official Report No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962], the Minister for Home Affairs said that. In column 181, the Minister for Finance said categorically, "Let us come down to brass tacks. This Bill is for merger." Then in column 187, the Minister for Finance again said that. Then, of course, there was the amendment to the referendum motion by the Member for Anson In April which the Member for Anson has already quoted. Then in the Second Read ing of the Bill, the Minister for Home Affairs said on 14th March, at page 4, lines I and 2 [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 1, col. 70], "Sir, when the Bill was drafted, it was intended that in a referendum on merger . . .". I need not go further. Then on the same date, on page 5, the Minister for Home Affairs again said at paragraph 3 [col. 73]: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, under the provisions 01 this Bill, the first matter to be submitted to the electors for a referendum will be the terms and conditions of merger of Singapore with the Federation.' And then still on the Second Reading on 16th March, page 5, paragraph 3 [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 247], "Dr Goh Keng Swee: At the referendum that is to be held after this Bill is passed . . . ". Therefore, merger by implication. But he stated very categorically in page 2, second line [col. 241], "Everybody knows that this referendum will be on merger, and merger has been the outstanding political issue before the country...". And then on page 20 [col. 267], on the same date, somewhere in the middle, the Minister for Health and Law said. "Machinery is being provided by this Bill to enable the referendum on merger to be held in a far and just manner." "fair and just" - my eye! And then on the 16th, at page 29 [col. 280], this was said by the Prime Minister: "This Referendum Bill has been brought in to determine the wish of the majority of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of these two territories." To make sure that even the Deputy Prime Minister is not left out, on 17th April, page 4, paragraph 3 [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 8, col. 769], the whole paragraph more or less refers to merger. I quote this, Sir, merely to show how the P.A.P. have been twisting and turning. Whenever they are cornered, whenever they think this argument serves their purpose, they say. "This Bill is a general Referendum Bill." But when they find it convenient, as during discussion about the time to be allowed for canvassing, they say, "Oh! you already have been talking about merger for a long time," and they further categorically say, "This Bill is for merger." Let us go to col. 131 [Select Committee Official Report No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962] where Dr Goh Keng Swee says: 'I am in sympathy with a great deal of what the Member for Queenstown said, i.e., the questions must be simple; the issues must be made clear to the people so that they can make up their minds quite clearly...'. He says, "But whether that should apply to all referenda which may be carried out in future I am not so certain," implying again that in principle he agrees that everything we say is correct, but that since this may be a Referendum Bill for the smoking of tobacco or for drinking alcohol, therefore he cannot agree. We had all the weight of authority and commonsense on our side. Sir, but since they wanted to keep on twisting, there was nothing very much we could do about it. They accepted the validity of our arguments, hut all the time they were shielding behind the phrase, "This is a general Referendum Bill." The Minister for Health and Law also said - and this has been quoted by the Member for Anson - that if it was a specific Bill there was nothing to prevent the Legislative Assembly from deciding on the question to be put in a referendum. But then he followed up again by saying that this was a general Referendum Bill. And then the Minister for Finance again in column 134: 'Dr Goh Keng Swee: In view of the practice in other countries, I think it is unduly restrictive in the general referendum law - such as we are considering now - to limit the questions of the type which require only a yes or no answer.' In other words, implying again that it is quite right we should have only one question put to the people and that that question must be a simple one which demands an answer of 'yes' or `no'. But since this is a general Referendum Bill, we cannot have it. Then he further said in column 148 that multiple questions are very complicated. Yet he insists on more than one question now. 10.30 p.m.

I have asked the Minister for Finance why he feared posing one question to the people, and his answer was very categorical. May I refer you to column 323 [Select Committee Official Report No. 5 dated 15th May, 1962]: 'Dr Lee Siew Choh: Because of this New Clause (A). All doubts and risk of losing for the P.A.P. have at last been solved. How, I will explain further. There are two steps in this. The referendum, of course, would not he on one question, because that would mean defeat for the P.A.P.' What did the Minister for Finance say? He said, "That is what you say." In other words, he thinks that if the P.A.P. were to pose one question to the people there would still be the possibility that the P.A.P. might win. I hope they will just pose the question and settle all doubts on the issue. Then when I referred to his anxiety about the P.A.P. losing, the Minister for Finance said in the second paragraph of column 326: "Far from our anxiety growing from month to month, on the contrary, whatever anxiety we had at the beginning has been gradually dispelled." And in the next page at column 327, he further said: "So we are not at all worried about their so-called propaganda campaign to convince the people that this is a sell-out merger." He said that the crowds attending our rallies were dwindling in number and that our house-to-house campaign had been a flop. He was not worried.. Yet in spite of his anxiety having been gradually dispelled, he still dare not put one simple question to the people concerning Command Paper No. 33 of 1961. There are very good reasons, Sir, why we think that the P.A.P. should pose the White Paper merger proposals to the people. A lot of promises have been made concerning the P.A.P. merger proposals. Promises were made by the Prime Minister as early as July during the Anson by-election, in a rally at Tras Street. On 11th July, he said, "The decision rests with the people and not with the Ministers," and on 13th July in a rally held near the Traffic Police Headquarters, he again said, "It is our business to settle the conditions and then it is for the people to decide." Probably they may decide in a different manner. Then there was this radio talk which the Prime Minister gave on 27th July and this was quoted in a radio forum by the Member for Hong Lim. I have just got this from the Library and it says here in big headlines "NO SELL-OUT-LEE TELLS THE PEOPLE".

What is the date of the paper?

It is dated 27th July, 1961 - The Straits Times. It reads: 'Detail proposals for any constitutional negotiations on a merger will be presented to the Singapore Legislative Assembly for adoption and then to the people for their endorsement.' And following that, there were various statements issued by the Prime Minister on his jaunts up and down the Federation and every time he came back from Kuala Lumpur, he made statements to the Press saying that the merger proposals which he was trying to negotiate would be put before the people for their endorsement.

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

This was in July 1961, was it not?

Yes.

And therefore that quotation refers to a time before the Barisan Sosialis said they wanted cornplete merger. Is that not true?

I think is the Minister for Finance wants to argue on that particular point, we can come to it later on.

Let us hear you now.

And then on the 6th September in a letter -

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Member will give way.

On the 6th of September, the Deputy Prime Minister in a letter to the Opposition Parties said categorically that when the deliberations of the Working Party were completed and agreement reached, they would be published and that "the people can then accept or reject them". The operative words used were "the people can accept or reject them".

When was that!

September the 6th. And then there was that famous Press interview given by the Prime Minister over Radio Singapore to the Chinese Press. It was reported in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew fit Poh on the 25th September that the Prime Minister had promised that he would put the merger proposals to the people for their decision in a referendum. What is more interesting is that he explained the mechanics of the voting in the referendum. In the Press interview, he said that all the voters need do is to put a cross in the space indicating yes if they agree and a cross in the space indicating no if they do not agree. And following that on the 15th of October a letter was sent to the Opposition and a Press statement was issued. I will quote. I am reading from a Singapore Government Press Statement dated 14th October. The heading says: "The Prime Minister and Leader of the House reply to Opposition's call for a special Assembly Session." I will read it, Sir: 'The following are texts of letters written by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and the Leader of the House, Dr Toh Chin Chye, to the Chairmen of three Opposition Parties who, after a meeting on October 6th. 1961, in a joint letter called for a special Assembly session to discuss the question of merger. The three Party Chairmen to whom the letters were sent are Dr Lee Siew Choh of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Ong Eng Guan of the United People's Party, and Mr David Marshal1 of the Workers' Party.' I will now quote you the relevant paragraphs. I think it is an interesting letter, Sir, and I might as well quote the whole letter: 'Dear Chairman, Thank you for your letter of 6th October. I completely agree with you that merger is a matter of national importance. It is an issue which affects the future of all our people. Not only you as Members of the Opposition but the whole of the people of Singapore should be fully informed of the agreement in principle...' Agreement in principle! '...that has been reached between the two Governments. I am sorry that you con sider the three communiques and the three Press conferences that I have given so far as inadequate. This unfortunately is all the progress that we have made up to the moment. Every step forward made should be communicated to you as Members of the Opposition and also to the people of Singapore.' Now, these are the operative words, Sir: '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. Then the people can accept or reject.' The people can accept or reject them. Obviously, Sir, the P.A.P. idea of accept or reject means to add another alternative which is unacceptable to the people. And this is typical of the P.A.P. twist and turn. I am just wondering if the P.A.P. have forgotten all this. Mind you, Sir, these are all solemn words, written in black and white. And what did the Minister for Finance say about solemn words? The Minister for Health and Law said "perfect co-ordination between the brain and tongue". Those are the operative words of the Minister for Health and Law about words spoken by the Prime Minister, solemn words. Well, make sure that they are solemn. Make sure that they mean what they say. That is what the Minister for Finance has been trying to tell us - that the Prime Minister always chooses his words very well. Well, what have they got to say? All those proposals are now embodied in Cmd. Paper 31. 10.45 p.m.

Order. I think all the details that the Member for Queenstown are now discussing could be brought up when we come to item 5 of the Order Paper, which is a motion standing in the name of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown. All these aspects of the White Paper can be more appropriately discussed when item 5 is discussed. Of course, there will be some overlapping but I think the Member should not go into too much details.

All right, Sir, I will then skip that for the time being. Sir, this Referendum Bill must be seen in the light of the words of the Prime Minister, which the Member for Anson has already quoted. The words are, "There should be no risk of Communists being able to frustrate merger or Malaysia whatever they do in the referendum." Sir, those words mean, in actual fact, that there must be no possibility of the P.A.P. losing in a referendum. And the questions will be so posed and so framed that it is a case of heads, the P.A.P. win, and tails, the people lose.

The Barisan will lose.

According to the Minister for Finance the P.A.P. merger proposals must be pushed through at whatever cost, and to ensure that there is no risk of losing, the questions will be framed in such a way that the people will not be able to say "no" to the P.A.P. proposals. This is the zugzwang that the Minister for Finance has been talking so very much about. He is a chess player and he knows that if the people are put in such a position, then they cannot do anything. And whatever the people may do, according to the calculation of the Minister for Finance, they must lose.

The Barisan will lose, not the people.

Let me just mention a few words about what this will mean to the people of Singapore. I think the Member for Anson has already dealt with it, but it can bear repeating. What we want to say is this: that the P.A.P. must not make a mockery of democracy. If unacceptable questions are posed to the people, then it will only lead to open referendum rigging, and the present Referendum Bill is merely a legal cover for such referendum rigging. I have given examples of unacceptable questions: Do you want the voter to choose death by electrocution or by hanging? Under those circumstances, surely you do not expect the voter to choose anything. The voter wants to live, but he is offered only alternatives of dying. To give another example - he may be asked to be either a cow or a horse. Surely you do not expect the voter to choose one of these two alternatives. Of course, now their pet subject is the Penang type of merger. But this Penang type of merger is a distortion of the Opposition stand. The Member for Anson has already dealt with this adequately. But I will just repeat this. The Opposition stand on the merger issue is that all Singapore citizens must become Federation citizens on merger, and there must be adequate proportional representation. And let us tell the P.A.P. this: however much they may want to distort, however much they may go on to the radio. Redifiusion, radio talks, Press statements about the Penang type of merger, they will not deceive the people as to what is the actual stand of the Opposition.

Marshall in the forum said that you made a mistake! How can you deny that!

But I want to draw your attention, Sir, to one thing: that right through this Referendum Bill is the P.A.P. plot to make it a "sure win". And I am going to show you, stage by stage, at least up to two unacceptable questions, the evil intentions of the P.A.P. that have been the driving force behind this Referendum Bill.

Are you trying to break your record of 7� hours! Wrong file. Still wrong?

You see, Sir, it all stems from one thing - that the P.A.P. are afraid and they know that their own merger proposals are unacceptable to the people. The original intention of the P.A.P., from what I have already indicated to you, was to pose to the people one simple question requiring a simple answer of "yes" or "no" to their merger proposals. The few bits that I read out to you were clear enough. It was intended the people were to be asked to accept or reject them. That was that. But unfortunately for the P.A.P., as time went on, the P.A.P. realised that their sellout merger was completely exposed. See the way they had to reveal the information on the merger proposals - by dribs and drabs! They came out with the word "national" being equal to "citizen". Then they came out with excuses that automatic citizenship was impossible. Later they said it was unreasonable. Still later they gave excuses about residential quali fication, and so on and so forth. The mere fact that they had to reveal this bit by bit is already evidence enough that there was something which they dared not tell the people about. There was something which the P.A.P. themselves know the people will object to very much. The P.A.P. knew that the people would definitely condemn them for having negotiated for such proposals on behalf of Singapore. But then, of course, we must realise that at that time the P.A.P. was in no position to negotiate. The Prime Minister went up and down, begging the Tunku on bended knees to accept his merger proposals. You will remember, Sir, what the Tunku said in a debate in the Federation Parliament, namely that the Prime Minister of Singapore had gone along to beg of him to help him out of his troubles. Therefore, to help out the Prime Minister of Singapore, he kindly accepted the proposals put to him.

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Member for Queenstown to distort what the Federation Prime Minister said in such a blatancy dishonest and fraudulent manner?

If the Member for Queenstown is quoting the text of the Federation Prime Minister's speech, then he should produce the text.

Unfortunately I do not have the text here. But I remember -

That is no good.

Order.

But I remember the Federation Prime Minister did say that the Prime Minister of Singapore told him a lot of stories and consequently he accepted the merger proposals. I am sure the Minister will not deny that.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, Sir. It is obvious that the Member for Oueenstown is uttering falsehoods. Within the space of a few minutes, he gave two completely different versions of what Tunku Abdul Rahman said.

I see the sore spot in the P.A.P.

Order. If the Member for Queenstown cannot produce the document to prove the text, then it is best for him not to proceed along that line.

I will leave that aspect of it then. Let me go back to the exposure of this P.A.P. referendum plot. As the sell-out nature of the P.A.P. merger proposals was seen through, and especially after the debate in the House on the merger issue, the P.A.P. came to realise that if they were to put those very proposals to the people for endorsement or rejection, it would be rejection and not endorsement. Instead of a "yes" which they had hoped for, it would have been a "no". Therefore, when this Bill was put forward, they already had the intention of posing two or more questions to the electorate. Those questions, of course, would have to be framed in such a way that they would be completely unacceptable to the people. The P.A.P. proposals would be one of the alternatives, and the other alternative would be something worse. The people would be asked to choose between two evils, and it was expected, according to P.A.P. calculations, that the people would choose the lesser of two evils. Under those circumstances, it was calculated that possi bly the P.A.P. might get away with it and the P.A.P. merger proposals would be carried in the referendum. That was the plot of the P.A.P. As regards how the change came later on, I will come to that when we discuss the blank vote. But up to this stage we can see that the P.A.P. wanted to have a snap re ferendum, and that snap referendum can be seen from clauses 40, 41, and also clauses 5, 6, and 13. "No canvassing allowed" with two unacceptable questions suddenly pounced on the people. That was the plot. As we go on to the other clauses, I shall come to the other parts of the plot. I would like to touch a little on clause 18 because I have filed an amendment there, but I wonder whether I should wait until clause 18 is discussed.

Wait for clause 18.

In this clause 18 I merely ask for a form of ballot paper to be put in a Schedule. It is merely to let the voter know what to expect and also to let political Parties know in advance how to canvass.

On a point of order. We are now discussing an amendment to clause 5. Is it in order for the Member to discuss clause 18?

When the Member for Anson moved his amendment to clause 5, the debate was allowed to range over the second amendment to clause 13, i.e. "In page A3, line 41: to leave out 'questions' and insert 'one question as framed by the Legislative Assembly', and the amendment to clause 18. The Member for Queenstown is therefore perfectly in order. Dr Lee.

I want to bring this out only to show you the plot that is in the minds of the P.A.P., because of their trying to have a snap referendum without letting the people know anything until the last minute. They hope that by posing two unacceptable questions, there will he confusion in the minds of the people and they hope to make use of this confusion. That is why even a sample of a ballot paper is not made known. The P.A.P. wants to make this known only at the last minute so that the Opposition Parties will not have the opportunity or the facility to tell the people how to vote. This is all in line with the idea of a snap referendum and the fact that they have so far refused even to accept a simple amendment like this shows to what low level the thinking of the P.A.P. has sunk. I do not want now to go into the details of this ballot paper, and I think I will reserve it until we come to the clause itself. But I want to impress on you, Sir, that all these amendments that we ask for are only put in so that we can have an honest, fair, and just referendum. If the people's wishes should coincide with the wishes of the P.A.P., then there is no need to go to such lengths as to pose unacceptable questions, or to put in blank votes and other undemocratic provisions in the Bill. The Ministers opposite have repeatedly said that it should be a fair and just referendum, but so far we have proved that this Bill is very unfair, unjust and very undemocratic. The test before the people today, Sir, is whether or not the people will be given an opportunity to express their wishes and aspirations in a peaceful and constitutional manner; whether or not they will be allowed to say "no" in a peaceful and constitutional manner. If the P.A.P. insist on their Fascist behaviour, and if they insist in the way they are going about it, then it will only mean the death of parliamentary democracy. And it will prove to the world that parliamentary democracy can be destroyed by people who do not know how to make use of power when they gain it. Let me quote, Sir, from the Report of Proceedings of the Seventh Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in London in September, 1961. It is on Constitutional and Parliamentary Practice in the Commonwealth by the Hon. Shri M. A. Ayyangar, M.P. (Speaker of the Lok Sabha, India). This is what he said on page 158, paragraph 4: '...why have so many democracies tumbled? It is not only in Asia but even in Europe that this has happened. I will tell you one of the most important causes. In the democracies and in our Parliament today there is unfortunately a fight for power between one party and another, We talk of using experts in all other matters, but in parliamentary institutions, each one, whether he is capable or not, can struggle with another man for power.' And these are the operative words, Sir: 'Having obtained power, they are not able to maintain the parliamentary institution and they destroy the edifice partly for selfish ends.' And in another paragraph: 'Proper human material contributes to the success of democracy. Responsible people must come to Parliament.'

Order. May I know how all this fits in with the debate which we are now having on the Referendum Bill? We are now on an amendment moved to add a new sub-clause to clauses 5. 18, and so on.

Sir, if they insist on carrying out their plot, then it will mean the death of parliamentary democracy.

The death of the Barisan Sosialis.

The point I am trying to prove to you is this: that the practice of democracy does not lie in the preachings of men but in the practice of those who hold power; those Fascists who have been so intoxicated with power that they will carry on and do almost anything in order to maintain themselves in office. That is what I am trying to drive home to you, Sir. And that is why I quote. It is the "human material", the shortcomings in certain men -

How true!

I will just quote another little bit, Sir.

So far the Member has made his point. But if he is going too far into the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Report, I am afraid I will have to rule him out of order. Dr Lee, please proceed on the amendment.

I will just add one more sentence.

Thank God!

However good a constitution a country may have, unless the human material is good and unselfish men are in charge, the democratic system will not work. Let us hope that the P.A.P. will help in making parliamentary democracy work, and not just merely impose their will on the people simply because they have a one-man majority. Other governments would have resigned and gone back to the country and asked the people whether they wanted to accept the proposal or not. Governments have resigned on even less important issues, but now with an issue that concerns all of us in Singapore -

Which issue? Which government?

- the P.A.P. insist on railroading merger.

Mr Chairman. I think the great difficulty in our discussions in this Committee is to come back to the point - to the amendments which are being moved in the National Referendum Bill. The main contention of the Opposition is that the Bill should contain provisions for only one question to he asked. I pointed out during the debate on the motion moved by the Member for Anson on the 17th of April, 1962 [Hansard Vol. 17 No. 8], that the National Referendum Bill was a general Refe rendum Bill. In the motion moved by the Member for Anson on 17th of April, he mentioned specifically a referendum oil merger. I quite agree that the referendum on the Federation/Singapore merger is a specific referendum. But this referendum cannot be conducted until the National Referendum Bill has been passed. Therefore, when the Member for Anson earlier on quoted me and said that I was at variance with what I had said previously, it is not quite correct. I put to you a very simple question. If it is agreed that the National Referendum Bill is a general Bill for referenda that may be held in the future, it is pretty obvious that it is not possible to pre-determine the nature of the question that may be asked. There fore, allowance must be given to the fact that the question to be formulated in future years will vary according to the problem that is being put before the people.

11.15 p.m. The Opposition, in particular the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown, are specific that a simple "yes" or "no" should be given to a question in a referendum. I will give you a simple example. We are all agreed that if a person is thirsty, he must drink. That is an obvious fact which none can deny. If you are thirsty, you must drink. So it would be ridiculous for us to go along and ask Members of this House to vote "yes" or "no" to the question: "Are you going to drink if you are thirsty?" For Members of this House to be asked to answer the question by a "yes" or a "no" is the height of foolishness, if not ridicule. Having agreed that a person who is thirsty must drink, the next obvious and logical question to ask is "What sort of drink do you want? Do you want tea with or without milk? Do you want coffee black or white? Do you want your tea or coffee with or without sugar? Or do you just want plain water?" These are obvious choices. Supposing I am spending drinks on Members of this House and I ask them: "What would you drink?" Mr Marshall might not like beer. He might -

The Member for Anson.

I am sorry. The Member for Anson might not like beer. He might like - Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

Point of elucidation.

Point of elucidation.

I am indebted. Do I understand the Deputy Prime Minister is going back on what he said on 17th of April? .1 would like to, quote the exact words at page 8 of the revised transcript [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 8, col. 774]. These are the words, Sir: '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.' And then, Sir, the amendment which he introduced which was passed by this House by a Government majority reads - (It is a little lower down): '... 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...'. Do these words have any meaning at all?

Of course. I am not denying the issue. The Bill that is for discussion before this House is a general Bill for all referenda. And this National Referendum Bill has to be introduced in order that a referendum for a merger between Singapore and the Federation can be carried out. There has been no contradiction in my speech. But may I continue with my analogy'? If I were to give Members of this Chamber a treat, I will naturally ask them: "What would you like to drink?" Mr Marshall might not like beer. I do riot know what he would like to drink. Is it whisky, which he said in the radio forum? An hon. Member: Or arsenic acid!

Please continue.

He might like tea or coffee, black or white. The Minister for Law might like something else, maybe Coca-Cola.

Do not forget the Speaker!

Mr Speaker might like - An hon. Member: Green Spot!

- a less inebriating drink. Nonetheless, the choice has to be given. But we are all agreed on one basic question, in this analogy of mine, that it is necessary to drink if you are thirsty. And having agreed on that, we must decide what drink we want. Now, coming back to a more specific problem. Members of this House cannot deny that the principle of merger is accepted by all Parties. Merger has been accepted by all Parties in Singapore because it is the economic solution for Singapore. Just to prove what I have said, may I quote the Member for Anson in column 557 in the debate on merger on 23rd November, 1961, in Hansard, Volume 15, No. 7? This is what the Member for Anson said: "And, Sir, in case there is any suggestions as to when I and my Party began to believe in merger, here is a dog-eared copy of the very first and the only party platform of the Workers' Party on its formation in December of 1957, in the very first paragraph and in the first sentence, it says. 'The basis and framework of all policy must be recognition of the fact that Singapore is geographically, ethnically, and economically part of Malaya and the only healthy ultimate solution is integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other states...'" The Member for Anson accepts that there must be merger. But it must be merger on an equal basis with other States, either with Penang, Malacca, Johore, Selangor or Perak. The Member for Queenstown, during the debate on the motion moved by the Member for Anson on the 17th of April, said this at page 24 of the revised transcript dated 18th April, 1962 [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 9, col. 879]. This is what the Member for Queenstown said: 'The Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Culture say that merger is a P.A.P. pledge. Let me tell them right here and now: it is all poppycock and nonsense, because merger was on the platform of all political Parties in Singapore.' The Member for Anson accepts merger. The Member for Queenstown accepts merger. In fact, the Member for Queenstown even goes to the extent of saying that all political Parties in Singapore want merger. The Member for Hong Limb in the same debate, said this on page 36 of the revised transcript dated 17th April [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 8, col. 813]: '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.' Sir, I wish the House to confirm that all Parties in this Chamber, and in fact according to the Member for Queenstown, all Parties who stood for election in 1959 had merger as their platform. tn other words, nobody is against the principle of merger. The Workers' Party would like Singapore to be merged with the Federation on an equal basis like any of the other States in the Federation. The Member for Hong Lim goes to the extent of even accepting that it might well be that two alternatives should be placed on the ballot paper. So I say, Mr Chairman, that the fuss now kicked up by Members of the Opposition in moving this amendment that only one question should be asked in the referendum is absolutely irrelevant. What they are seeking to do is not merely to draw a red herring, but I would even charge them that they are just trying to prevent this Bill from being passed so that by filibustering they hope to delay the day of decision. Mr Chairman, under these circumstances, I can see no grounds why the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Anson and the Member for Hong Lim have insisted that only one question should be asked in the referendum on merger, and that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is required. As I have pointed out in my analogy previously, if the principle of merger is accepted, then the people must be asked on the mode and manner of merger. Just as I said, if it is accepted that it is necessary for us to drink if we are thirsty, then it must be asked what drink do you want?

Take salt water!

Well, if the Member for Queenstown likes salt water, we are surrounded by the sea and he can drink as much salt water as he likes. We are not stopping him. And if he wants the Rochore Canal water, I cannot stop him either. I will come back to one basic conclusion. The number of minutes which have been spent by the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown on this amendment refutes all that they have said in the past during the debate on merger. Under these circumstances, their amendment to this clause cannot be accepted.

Mr Chairman, yet one more blatant contradiction to emblazon on their shield. Here, Sir, we have been arguing and taking them seriously. We quoted the Prime Minister. Do I need to remind you, Sir? His words were that the purpose - since he was not here, let me quote him in fairness, so he could get it accurately; or is he embarrassed and has a conscience about the falsehood perpetrated in the name -

On a point of explanation.

On a point of explanation?

Certainly.

May I assure the Member for Ansoit that it is part of my duty, sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant, to read through all reports. whether I am present or not present in the Assembly, and to deal with them at the appropriate time? I would urge upon him not to inflict upon this Assembly unhappy repetition of arguments worn thin.

Mr Chairman, you do notice, Sir, and I trust that in future you will bear in mind if I seem a little churlish in denying the normal courtesies of a point of elucidation or explanation, when it was not utilised for the purposes of elucidating anything at all but was made for the purposes of a speech. But let me rub it in since he seems rather embarrassed with the thought that it might be. Sir, I am referring to the 16th of March, page 29 [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 280]: 'The Prime Minister: This Referendum Bill has been brought in to determine the wish of the majority of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of the two territories.' Now, Sir, if English words have any meaning, the meaning is that this Bill is specifically intended for and intended only for the purpose of a referendum in respect of the P.A.P. proposals. This was reinforced by the Deputy Prime Minister on the 17th of April, page 8 of the revised transcript [Hansard Vol. 17, No. 8, col. 774]: '...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.' If English has any meaning, what is the meaning of "one prospect"? Today he talks about drinking - I forget which canal water; Rochore Canal water; and salt water. Drinking salt water makes people mad, and it does bring about a certain aberration. And if he tells us that he has been drinking salt water, we can understand the change of stand which he so blatantly and unblushingly puts forward today. But I have not heard him admit that either he or the Prime Minister has been drinking any salt water. Apart from that, we have a solemn amendment to the motion which, by virtue of the Government majority, was passed by this House. We have no reason to doubt that this was a specific Bill for a specific purpose, and that purpose was a referendum on merger. Let me re-read it: '...this House welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill [what for, Sir?] 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.' Sir, to what depths are we to descend? What barefaced hypocrisy are we going to he guilty of, that in this very Chamber, these solemn words affirmed by the Government majority on the following day - a majority of 23 ayes to 16 noes and six abstentions and six absent. They tell us now because they find it inconvenient to agree that the question should be posed. They tell us that this is a general Referendum Bill for drinking water or ginger pop. Mr Chairman, very well. But do they recognise - and this is a simple question - that the issue of the merger proposals is vital to the welfare of the people? It is so vital to the welfare of the people that it merits a Bill all by itself. If they want this as a general Referendum Bill, would they introduce a Referendum Bill specifically for the merger? Is that so unfair? Could they not introduce one? It is a very short one. We have a form in the Jamaican one. Mr Speaker, you yourself are conscious that I sought to introduce a motion in this House for leave to introduce a Bill myself for the purpose of merger with the Federation and a referendum thereon, and you ruled it out of order because you stated, Sir - though I do not have the letter; it is your letter and I hope, if I incorrectly quote you, you will correct me - that that was out of order because there was already a Bill specifically for a referendum on the merger in accordance with this motion.

Order. I do not think the hon. Member is right when he says that I used the word "specifically".

I am sorry, Sir. You ruled that this amendment to my motion, which was finally adopted by the House, which said that this Referendum Bill which was introduced in order to put a referendum to the people for the reunification was, in fact, a Bill, was already before the House and I could not introduce another for the same purpose. I am glad, Sir, you agree that that is correct. So, to that extent, Sir, it is even accepted by the Speaker that this Bill on the showing, not merely on the word of the Government, which the Member for Cairnhill is so willing to accept whenever they are ready to give their gentle assurances and which they are so ready to dishonour whenever it suits them, but in respect of a motion in the Votes and Proceedings of this House, is for the purpose of referendum on merger. I repeat. They can take the heat off the entire operation if they want a general Referendum Bill. And I call their bluff by asking for in a very short and simple Bill specifically for the purpose of the referendum that we seek in respect of the merger proposals for the Federation. Dr Toh Chin Chye shook his head.

The Deputy Prime Minister shakes his head, and why? Have they no time? Have they no staff?

Staff of the Assembly.

Or is this not a matter of importance to the people? The Deputy Prime Minister interjects that he cannot understand -

You.

There are none, Sir, so blind as they who will not see. This is a matter of cold-blooded, calculated dishonesty where there is no question whatsoever of any desire to be anything, but playing power politics. They have the power and all the rest is nonsense. Mr Chairman, it may not he in appropriate in the context of the blatant hypocrisy now displayed to read to you certain passages from a document I have just received, curiously enough emanat ing from organisations, some of which are known and merit respect. This document has been addressed, I gather, to all Members of this Assembly, and it emanates from 39 organisations of Singapore, headed by the Guild of the Nan, yang University Graduates, the Singapore University Socialist Club, the Singapore Polytechnic Political Society, the Nan-yang University Students Union, the Nanyang University Political Science Society, the Khdng Lay Musical Association and so on. Mr Chairman, may I draw your attention to just a couple of paragraphs:- 'We the undersigned cultural organisations in Singapore humbly present to you this memorandum which expresses our opinions. At this juncture, when democracy is severely on trial, we hope this memorandum emanating from our deep concern for the future of the State and the interests of our people will induce the elected representatives of the people to consider the present problem in great fairness and to uphold justice and democracy. We are of the opinion that the proposed Referendum Bill, which is laid before the elected representatives of the people, violates the very principles of any democratic constitution. The constitutions of all democratic countries in the world define clearly the right of the people to express -'

On a point of elucidation.

Let the Member complete the sentence.

No, Sir. I will not give way. '...clearly the right of the people to express their opinions freely on political affairs and to have the final say on any vital question. No act or Bill can violate this basic right of the people. The Referendum Bills of all the democratic countries contain this common feature, that it is to confer upon the people the right to reject any Bill or Act passed by Parliament or the Legislative Assembly. Those who ignore this basic right have thereby repudiated the very spirit of referendum.' I will read only one short paragraph, Sir: 'We are also of the opinion that the proposed Referendum Bill constitutes a direct threat to the very life of Parliamentary democracy in Singapore. We believe that any Bill or Act should be regarded as unconstitutional or illegal if it violates the traditions of the basic principles of democracy. We wish to point out that the proposed Referendum Bill by its very nature would only pave the way for a tyrannical system which will dig the grave for parliamentary democracy.' Mr Speaker, Sir, they refer there to parliamentary illegalities. The Minister for Law, in an expansive moment of feeling of power, said the law can turn a man into a woman. There is nothing dishonest in suggesting that the Minister for Law is a woman. Everybody should accept it if the law says so, and there is nothing dishonest or improper. I say this to you, Mr Chairman, we are here being faced with the position where the people on the opposite Benches have neither respect for decency, nor respect for truth. In fact, they have, in one short evening, again and again turned a somersault on themselves and all they can do is titter embarrassedly.

Nonsense!

They have said repeatedly, Mr Chairman, that this is a Bill for referendum on the merger and it is on that basis that we argued and I sought to argue earlier this evening though the Deputy Prime Minister was not present to show why, in the context of what had been said and the allegations, that this was a specific Bill and that there could be only one question. He now throws the whole thing open and says that this is a general Bill. I would urge a reply to a very simple question. Will they introduce a Bill specifically for a referendum in respect of the White Paper proposals or merger, or call it what you will? Will they?

No.

No. Well, I need not sit down to obtain that answer. I only want to add one more thing, Mr Chairman. No reason is given for not putting in a Bill, and why is that? No, Sir,I fear it is more than a ques tion of physical fatigue. It is a matter of deep depression that I and fellow human beings, most of them very decent people, Sir, should have a government that is so calculatedly dishonest, so shamelessly, unblushingly dishonest as this Government seeks to be. We are told, Mr Chairman, that the people deserve the government they get and I would urge that at least in this one instance it is not true. Because, Mr Chairman, I would say this to you, and it is not any question here of seeking votes. But I would say, Mr Chairman, that you - will find it very difficult, wherever you travel in this world, if you have any contact with our people, to find any who are as gentle, as mild, as reasonable, as hardworking, and as generally decent as the citizens of Singapore. How they came to earn this motley group on the Front Bench is beyond my understanding?

Order. The hon. Member is always very fond of using extravagant phrases which are, in effect, offensive and which perhaps can be met by other offensive terms. I would suggest that he modulate his language and come back to the amendment before us.

Mr Chairman, the Deputy Prime Minister did not deal with the amendment before us except to say that this was a general Referendum Bill and consequently you could ask more than two questions. But I trust you will notice, and other Members of this House will notice, that he said not one word as to why that part of the amendment which says that the question should be answered by a yes or no, was not acceptable. Not one word was said by the Deputy Prime Minister on that aspect. He has an opportunity, perhaps he can tell us: 1. Why cannot we have a Referendum Bill specifically for the merger proposals? 2. Why cannot the questions even in a general Referendum Bill be answered by a yes or no?

Dr Toh perhaps would reply very briefly.

I want only a few minutes. Since he has asked me a specific question, then I think I have to answer it. The Member for Anson was not paying attention when I drew my analogy that if we all accept the principle, then obviously the next question which we must go to is, how do we go about implementing the principle? The example I drew upon was that if a man is thirsty, it is accepted that he must drink to quench his thirst, otherwise he will just die. Therefore, having decided that he must drink, you have to give him a choice of what he wants to drink. Now, I have pointed out examples, quotations made by the Member for Anson, the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Hong Lim, that they are all in favour of the principle of merger. They might not agree with us that the White Paper is a step forward. In fact, I think they walked out of the Chamber when the vote was hut on that occasion. The Member for Anson has stated during the debate on merger that he accepts merger as the only ultimate solution and that is by way of integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other States. Surely he is not withdraw ing that statement. It is a basic policy of his Party. He, in fact, says "If there is any suggestion as to when I and my Party began to believe in merger, we have a copy of the very first, and the only party platform of the Workers' Party on its formation in December 1959," meaning, of course, that the Workers' Party has always stood for merger.

That is so.

It is quite correct. Therefore. I see no reason. Mr Speaker, why the Bill which is before us should not be used to initiate a referendum on merger. There is no objection to it. Mr Marshall took objection because I said it was a Bill designed for referenda besides that on merger. Now assume that this is a Bill specifically designed to carry out a referendum on merger. We have all agreed in this House that merger is essential. Without merger it will be like committing hara kiri.

The P.A.P.

It will be like committing suicide. You are afraid we will ask the citizens of Singapore: "Do you want to live?" "Do you want to commit suicide?" Do the Members of the Opposition sincerely believe that we are going to put forward such an idiotic question before the people: "Do you want to live?" And ask them to answer yes or no. They all have accepted merger. And the reason, they all understand, is that it is vital to the economic life of Singapore. If Assemblymen say they represent the people of Singapore, then it must he obviously concluded that since all political Parties have accepted the principle of merger, the people also accept the principle of merger. Having agreed on that basis, we must therefore arrive upon the manner and the mode in which this merger must be carried rut. Therefore, I see no reason whatever why the Members in the Opposition should insist that there ought only be one question put in the referendum for merger or that there should be a simple answer yes or no. Now, as I have pointed out, before we can execute the referendum on Federation/Singapore merger, this Bill must be got through and this Bill is designed not only to carry out the referendum on merger, but also other referenda which may take place in the future. I see really no objection why this Bill should not be used to implement the referendum on merger. Therefore, there would be no reason whatsoever why a special Bill must be passed specially to carry out the referendum for merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we on the Front Bench here have been sitting very quietly listening to the gems of wisdom from the mouths of the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown. I did not think of joining in the debate so early, but because my name has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Anson, I think it is time that I should rise and say my piece. First of all, he said that the Member for Cairnhill is so ready to accept the assurance of the Government. May I assure the Member for Anson that the Member for Cairnhill is never so naive? In fact, if he will look at the amendment proposed by him to clause 13, it is my intention, when that clause comes up for debate, to move an amendment to ensure that the questions to be posed in a referendum should be as framed by the Legislative Assembly. That will tie the Government down to voting for it. If the Government vote against it, then it will be clear that what they say is one thing and what they mean is another, and that they cannot keep on claiming that they always mean what they say, and say what they mean. This debate is going to be like the debate on merger where a lot of unnecessarily hard words were exchanged by both sides of the House. Even the Member for Anson has said that the Minister for Law has said that the law can turn a man into a woman and, if I remember rightly, when I was in the Government with him, it was explained to me that under the law, the male always embraces the female. [Laughter] So, therefore, it means that when you say "man" under the law, it can also mean a woman. Sir, in order to understand the dingdong battle that has been waged between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., i.e., the Banisan now, and the lone voice of the Workers' Party, the Member for Anson, one must go back to the time when there was a radio forum at which the Minister for Finance, the Member for Queenstown, the Member for Farrer Park, and the Member for Hong Lim were present. A question was posed to the forum as to their view on whether it was more desirable to hold a referendum or a general election in order to ascertain the views of the electorate on merger. The Member for Queenstown insisted that there should be general elections. The Barisan Sosialis is ever fond of calling for general elections so that they can see the P.A.P. removed from office. But the Banisan Sosialis Members forget that they were returned as P.A.P. Members, and if they wish to sit on our side of the House it will be better for them to get a fresh mandate from the people. An hon. Member: That is right.

Sir, the other Members at that radio forum said quite rightly that the correct way to ascertain the views of the electorate was by means of a referendum. So in a way the Government was committed to a referendum. Therefore, the Government introduced a Bill for First Reading some months ago and I must say, well the Government can deny it, that at that particular time, what was in their minds was that they would pose one question to the electorate. In fact, the utterances of the Front Benches of the Government clearly indicated that that was their intention. They meant to put White Paper 33 to the electorate for them to pass judgment. As the days went by, Sir, the P.A.P. began to have qualms because it was then felt by them that if they were to pose that one simple question for the verdict of the electorate, the majority of the electorate would say no. They would say no, not because they do not want merger, not because they do not want closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya; they would say no just to show their disgust at the Government and their great desire that the sooner the P.A.P. Government is buried, the healthier it would be for Singapore. Therefore, the Second Reading of the Bill was postponed for a month or two. But then the bright lads of the P.A.P. suddenly thought of a wonderful scheme. You know the P.A.P. are wonderful schemers. They suddenly thought of a wonderful scheme. "Ah, ah! I think we could win this referendum if we were to pose more than one question, so long as the question in regard to Cmd. Paper 33 is going to be the only sensible, reasonable and advantageous question." So they thought it would be a good thing if they were to put two questions to the electorate such as: "Do you want the P.A.F. type merger whereby we retain autonomy in education and labour, or do you want the Barisan type of merger whereby 340,000 non-local born citizens would lose their citizenship rights?" If they were to pose those two questions to the electorate, Sir, surely the 340,000 non-local-born citizens will vote for the P.A.P. because they want to retain their citizenship rights, and 340,000 non-local-born citizens are al ready in the majority. So they said, "Ah! it is a good scheme. Go ahead with the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill - Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Point of elucidation at half a minute to 12?

They keep on insisting that these 340,000 non-local-born citizens would be deprived of their citizenship in the Penang type merger. That is not the Opposition stand. Do not help the P.A.P. to fabricate and distort this stand.

Sir, I am not supporting the questions to be proposed by the P.A.P. Government. In fact, I was trying to show why the P.A.P. government wanted to pose two questions -

Order. Midnight. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Ong Pang Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to report that the Committee has made progress on the Bill and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Tomorrow it will be. Dr Toh.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at 12 midnight.

Wednesday, 27th June, 1962 Kampong Hyderabad

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a letter dated 26th January, 1962, from the villagers of Kampong Hyderabad, off Hyderabad Road, whether and what action has been taken to prevent the blockade by the Army authorities of the only means of access of the villagers to their houses, and with what result.

I have received the letter. The letter stated that the Army Authorities intended to erect a fence along their boundary which would deprive the kampong of the use of the present access footpath running through Army land on to a War Department road called Hyderabad Road. Representations have been made to the Army Authorities for alternative access and the Army Authorities have since bulldozed and graded a road trace on their land as an alternative access for the kampong. This new access connects the kampong with Alexandra Terrace and the main Pasir Panjang Road. The Land Office is also pursuing the possibility of providing an additional pedestrian access to Alexandra Road for the kampong dwellers.