Hansard, 1962-06-28

I have found the time to read through the Memorandum addressed to all Honourable Members by the Chairman of the Singapore Trade Unions Working Committee (Committee of Liaison Officers of Trade Unions) and dated the 25th June, 1962. Although I have as yet received no complaint by any Member of a breach of privilege, it is my duty as Speaker and guardian of the privileges of Honourable Members and of this House to sound a note of warning to all who wish to address Honourablc Members in any matter. It is well established that it is a breach of privilege for any person to do anything which tends to impair, impede or fetter the free judgment or actions of any Member in the services he gives to this Assembly. The Memorandum contains certain passages which may well be construed to be an attempt to influence by veiled threats Government Back Benchers in their free judgment and conduct in relation to the Referendum Bill and matters connected therewith. If that is so, then there has been a grave breach of privilege and the offenders, if found guilty, would be liable to heavy penalties laid down in the Legislative Assembly (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Ordinance, 1962.

asked the Prime Minister (a) when it is anticipated that the proposed Constitution implementing Paper Command 33 of 1961 will be published: and (b) whether he will consider putting the issue of closer relations with the Federation to a referen dum after the publication of the proposed Constitution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the constitutional provisions to give effect to Paper Command 33 of 1961 will be published for implementation after the people have expressed their choice on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. If the people's choice is for a merger with local autonomy for Singapore, particularly in respect of education and labour, then the implementation of Paper Command No. 33 of 1961 will be proceeded with. Sir, the suggestion of the Member for Anson appears to be reversing the or dinary chronological order of events, for in the unlikely event of the majority of the people supporting the complete merger proposals like Penang or Malacca, US has been proposed by the Barisan Sosialis, or like Johore as has been pro posed by the United People's Party, or like one of the States in the present Federation in complete and unconditional merger as proposed by the Workers' Party, the task would then be a relatively easy one of Simply including Singapore in the present framework of the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya.

Does the Prime Minister not consider that the publication of the draft Constitution spelling out the agreement would assist the people in understanding exactly what is intended and help them in making up their minds for the purpose of voting at the referendum poll?

With great respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would say that there is no surer way of adding confusion than to put in formal constitutional language the provision& which have been spelled out in ordinary simple language in the heads of agreement contained in Command Paper No 33 of 1961. I think the Member for Anson will remember that the constitutional arrangements that he arrived at in 1956 although uncompleted certainly made easier reading and easier understanding than the ultimate Order in Council which embodied nearly all the provisions to which he agreed in 1956 other than the articles or sections for the Internal Security Council.

Would the Prime Minister not consider that in the light of experience and procedure in Australia and Switzerland among other countries, that the mode should be to call for a referendum after the proposals in precise form have had the approval of Parliament?

The Prime Minister has answered it.

I think it is necessary so far as I can that I should leave the Member for Anson under no misapprehension on this matter. I would say that it is the duty of any Government to ensure that things are presented simply and clearly to the people. As the Member for Anson himself knows, eminent legislators like the Member for Queenstown can make grave errors as to the meaning of merger like Penang and Malacca. The Member for Anson has had occasion to withdraw on behalf of the Member for Queenstown the proposals set out by the Member for Queenstown, all because he misconstrued the Federation Constitution to mean what he thought he could make it mean. I do not know about the comprehension range of the people of Australia or New Zealand on the English language, particularly for legal forms and precedents, but in our circumstances and in our clime, I suggest that we had better speak in simple, precise amid easy language - monosyllabic if possible - so that everybody can understand what is intended, and let the lawyers who are men trained for these jobs, legal draftsmen and parliamentary draftsmen to execute our intentions.

asked the Minister for Labour whether Government will consider applying the Labour Ordinance to domestic servants.

the Minister for Labour): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asked to reply. This matter has been receiving attention for a considerable time in view of the need to be sure that no unrealistic or impracticable measures are introduced whose immediate effect would be to deprive thousands of these workers of their livelihood and thereby further aggravate the present unemployment situation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the circumlocution, there is no intention of applying the Ordinance to domestic servants. But would the Par liamentary Secretary consider at least issuing regulations for guidance of good employer relations in respect of domestic servants so that the employers may have a model with which to apply.

Come, come, Mr Marshall.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in that respect, the Member for Anson can rest assured that though employers arc not obliged to give certain benefits to the employees under this Ordinance, but nevertheless when domestic employees are aggrieved because they are not given sufficient notice of termination of their service or -

Or otherwise maltreated.

- maltreated they always consult and seek the assistance of the Labour Ministry. We have always assisted them in getting sufficient compensation or adequate notice of termination of their service.

I had in mind rather the question of whether the Government would assist employers to recognise the limitation of hours and conditions of work, and if it does not wish to apply the provisions whether it would issue some regulations for guidance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, domestic servants are different from factory workers. Therefore, it has to be left to the conscience of the employers to impose fair working conditions on their domestic servants. I hope that the Member for Anson will set the example.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) what is the policy of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the exercise of his discretion in respect of the imposition of the 5 per cent penalty for late payments of income tax during the currency of the year of taxation; and (b) whether the Minister has any information as to the policy of the Comptroller of Income Tax of the Federation of Malaya in respect of similar statutory discretion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, late payment of income tax is not a problem to wage earners and salary earners who can arrange for monthly deductions to be made from their pay to the Income Tax Office, lt is a question lacing businessmen and capitalists. It is therefore refreshing to note that the Workers' Party is taking up the cudgels for the capitalists. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has discretion to remit penalty or extend the date of payment where there are good reasons to do so. Normally a seven days' grace is given before the fine is sent and penalty imposed. Where a taxpayer is able to de monstrate that he cannot meet payment by the due date because of his absence From Malaya or sickness or other reasonable cause, remission of penalty may be granted on the individual :merits of the case. Deferred payment is also allowed in the case of a company which has commenced trading and instalments of payment are allowed on the second year of tax as a matter of practice. The amount received by way of penalty in 1961 was $285,000 in Singapore. the amount in the Federation was about $259,000. I have no exact information as to the policy of the Comptroller of Income Tax in the Federation of Malaya in the exercise of statutory discretion in respect of the imposition of penalty. However, to judge by the amount of penalty imposed in the two territories, I would say that one territory is not very much out of line with the other.

The Workers' Party is interested in justice for all. The workers or capitalists would inquire whether the Minister would consider remission of penalty where there is payment within the year of taxation. Where, for example, the taxpayer pays the 1962 tax during 1962.

Such cases would arise when new companies are being established. As I mentioned in my answer, instalments and deferred payments are allowed as a matter of practice.

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted day].

Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds?

I so signify.

Cmd. Paper 11 of 1962. The summary is at page 3. Head 49-

Head 49, Ministry of Culture. There are amendments standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin and the Member for Havelock.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Temporary Staff for Television Service".* * The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck. Sir, in the list of posts under Schedule A, I notice a very important omission: that whereas for the Broadcasting Division there are three posts for Programme Assistants in the Budget Estimates for 1962, looking after school programmes and such like educational items, here I see no provision for a similar post. Sir, we know that as an educational medium, television is far superior to radio broadcasting or the cinema. In fact, television will reach a larger number of young people in their homes,, whereas in the case of a cinema theatre, they must go to the theatre and buy tickets. In the case of television, children can just press certain buttons or turn certain knobs and there the film will be brought to their own homes. If, therefore, in a television programme the films shown are not suitable for our young people, then I am afraid the object of the Government in helping the young people will be defeated. In view of the fact that more than half of the people of Singapore are young people, I should think that posts similar to those provided for the Broadcasting Division should also be provided here. Very likely it may be due to an oversight because there are three phases, and this being only the first phase, maybe the thought was that it was not necessary to include it since there will be just a three-hour programme and only one hour will be for the news and the rest will be for films. But the selection of the films then becomes a very important thing unless the Government is going to invite the Programme Assistants in charge of Schools from the Broadcasting Division to assist also in the Television Section until such time as they are able to provide for separate posts for Programme Assistants in charge of Schools. Sir, I draw attention to this omission so that the Government will remedy it so as to prevent the wrong type of films from being televised with harmful effects to the young.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether the Government would advertise all these posts in Schedule A, or whether in fact they are at present working.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to inquire whether Government would consider allocating one channel of television for use by an independent nonprofit authority to be appointed in accordance with statutory provisions so that the people of Singapore can have the opportunity of at least one channel where they can get honest news and views. We are conscious that the philosophy of the Government with reference to Radio Singapore is that they are perfectly entitled to utilise it for biased propaganda purposes and, in fact, for party purposes. All we ask at this juncture - recognising that it is too much to ask that an organisation of such vital importance to the nation for the dissemination of news and views should be in independent hands - we wish to inquire whether they will permit one channel, not depriving themselves of anything, but to permit one channel to be used and paid for by a non-profit independent authority appointed in accordance with provisions of a statute to that effect.

Mr Speaker, I fully share the fears expressed by the Member for Tanglin that care should be taken to see that morally undesirable films are not transmitted over the television network.

What about news?

I will come to that in due course. The Member for Anson must really learn to contain his impatience. Then there might be a better co-ordination between his tongue and his mind. Now, as I say, I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Tanglin. But I think he is technically wrong in saying that there has been an omission in respect of the establishment of a television station. Broadcasting is broadcasting, and television is completely a different activity. Also one must not he too hypnotised by words. We may call in the broadcasting service a grade of officers, programme assistants. In the television service they may be doing similar duties but under different names. May I refer the hon. Member for Tanglin to the grade of producers - 10 producers? An hon. Member: What do they produce? Lux Soap?

They are Division I posts and none of them are programme assistants. Also there is the Chief Executive (Services), Grade F, and the Chief, Production Facilities and Films. In this hierarchy there will be officers whose responsibility it is to vet and arrange programmes to ensure certain standards of taste and decency. Now as for the Member for Havelock, these posts will be advertised when men are required. In fact, two months ago some lost have been advertised and the Public Service Commission have made selections for some of those and are making selections for others. The Member for Arson now wants an independent television service. How nice, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we can afford this sort of thing. He says the authority should be independent, non-profit making. But the trouble with this sort of venture is that when you have a fairly small number of receiving audience, there may well be a loss. It is not a question of making a profit, but avoiding losses. Our calculation is that the television service will make losses of several million dollars a year for quite some time before it recoups losses through advertising revenue licensing fees. So if the Member for Anson can let me know, in my capacity as Minister for Finance, not in my capacity as Acting Minister for Culture, any philanthropic organisation which is prepared to shoulder part of the losses that we are going to incur, then I shall be delighted to receive his suggestion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Four-Year Plan of the Government can only have this part concerning T.V. materialised. We also know that in carrying out the T.V. services, the Government is trying to help itself with political propaganda and therefore, at the present juncture, the Government has stepped up its speed in setting up a temporary station in Bukit Batok in order to facilitate the propaganda work of the P.A.P. Therefore, I hope that the Acting Minister for Culture will assure this House that the T.V. service will not be taken advantage of for the purpose of political propaganda of the P.A.P. The second point I would like to find out from the Acting Minister for Culture concerns this. As far as I know, there are two surveying teams, one from New Zealand and the other from Japan. Can the Minister concerned tell the House whether in, the future T.V. service which country will be responsible for the assistance given to the T.V. service in Singapore?

Is the Minister not aware that, in fact, on television it is possible to have several channels, and an additional channel to the one proposed would not entail proportionately equal expense, and would he be prepared to consider the question of renting a channel to an independent television body? Would Government consider bringing in a Bill to create such an independent television body?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the only so-called independent television bodies who may be interested in running either the whole or part of the television service would be commercial companies who will want to make use of the facilities purely to make profits, if there is any question of renting out a studio room or television time to them, it is obvious that the only consideration between them and the Government would be just how much money they would make. I do not think that is the sort of independent television authority that the Member for Anson is thinking of. On the other hand, if he is thinking of something independent, like the British Broadcasting Corporation, then the question is: who is going to put out the money to pay for what can be fairly substantial losses in the first few years of operations? So until we get clear answers to these problems, I do not think it is worthwhile to pursue the subject here. The Member for Choa Chu Kang expresses fears that this would be used as unfair propaganda. He is entitled to his views, but we do not share them. So I do not intend to pursue this argument further. As for assistance from abroad, it is true that we have two missions; one is from Japan and that is concerned mainly with the technical aspects of setting up a television service - where should the site of the transmitting station be; how fast can it expand; and whether the cost could be covered up in the long run, and so on and so forth. The Australian experts came here to advise us on the details of setting up the service.

New Zealand.

New Zealand. The details of setting up the service were, e.g., what staff to recruit, what equipment to buy, how to tender for them, and so on and so forth. We shall, of course, get the benefit of expert assistance from whatever source is available. But we are at the same time training our own local personnel in these new techniques, and every year anything between half a dozen and a dozen technicians are being sent abroad for study and training.

I am sorry to pursue this, Mr Speaker, but it seems only to be partly understood and I do ask the indulgence of this House since it is a matter of some importance. The Minister did refer to the British Broadcasting Corporation. But, of course, he is aware, as we all are, that in the United Kingdom the potent influence of the radio and television is not in the hands of Government or of any political Party. It is, in fact, in the hands of a non-profit public body created by statute. I appreciate the Government in the circumstances it finds itself in, and I will elaborate no further their wish to maintain control of both radio and television. But could we not create an independent radio and television body by statute empowering it to rent at a rental paying the Government for a wavelength on the air and a channel in respect of television? And they could recoup themselves by power to take in advertisements. These have been tried out and have been found successful in other countries. As I have pointed out, the additional cost of a channel in television is not proportionate to the original cost of establishment, and it could easily be borne by the advertisements which would be attracted to this independent television channel. Would the Government consider, at least, and investigate the possibilities of the creation of such a body?

From time to time we are indebted to Members of the Opposition for making valuable contributions to the problems that confront us. I am quite sure if the Member for Anson will elaborate on his plan and put it on a document, it will receive proper consideration. It is one thing just striking a bright idea across the sky, but it is another thing formulating it in a coherent, practical and feasible manner. I am quite sure the Member for Anson is capable of putting it on a document, both the structural consideration of creating an independent body and the running of one channel in the same studios. I do not know myself how these things are done, how the B.B.C. and the I.T.F. do it. I am told they have two completely different outfits - one set of studios run by the B.B.C. and another one run by the commercial T.V. outfit. These are problems which I do not think either the Minister for Finance (in his capacity as Minister for Finance or otherwise) or the Minister for Culture is in a position to speak with any authority, let alone myself; but no doubt the Member for Anson has spent some time before he makes the suggestion of just hiring out one channel, and if he will spell out all the implications, I give him the undertaking that it will receive proper consideration and a proper reply.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express a hope that the Minister will give an answer to my question, i.e. that the future T.V. service should not be taken advantage of by the Government for political purposes. Next I would like to find out from the Minister concerned, from what countries will such facilities be obtained for the T.V. service?

Sir, I had said, in reply to his first question, that he is entitled to his own view, and we to ours. We deny that there is any improper use of radio facilities, and we deny that there will be any improper use of broadcasting facilities. So no assurance whatsoever is called for from us. As regards the second question, the main equipment for the transmitting station and the studios has been ordered by tender and the successful tender has been Marconi Company of Great Britain. Most of the equipment will be purchased from them, though part of the studio and outdoor service equipment will be ordered from Japan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance given to my query, may I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 he reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Malaysia Grand Prix". Mr Speaker, Sir, from the First Supplementary Estimates at page 2 we find that about $114,000 was received. And it says that "the major portion of which was derived from the sale of tickets and advertisements." Sir, I would like to know from the Minister what are the actual figures for sales of tickets and for advertisements.

I do not have the figures or the details, but I will be sending for them in due course.

Does the Member wish for a vote? Mr Low Por Tuck indicated dissent. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 49 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Malaysia Week". Mr Speaker, Sir, during Malaysia Week I think everyone of us realised that posters put up by the Government were really not to boost Malaysia Week but rather that the Government was dirtying the buildings and places all over Singapore.

What about unauthorised Barisan posters that clustered up all Singapore?

The other point is that Government restricted other Parties and organisations from putting up posters during Malaysia Week. But the Government itself - of course, that definitely is the P.A.P. - put up posters, all over Singapore. That is merely a waste of public funds. I would like the Government to ensure that such waste should not be allowed in future.

I intend to give no such assurance, Mr Speaker, Sir,I do not know what are his objections. First, it could be an objection to' Malaysia. That is fair enough. He objects to Malaysia, we like Malaysia; and if we want to propagate the idea of Malaysia, we do it. That may be one objection, and I consider that as an invalid objection. Second, he may say that if the Government puts up posters, then other people can put up posters. Well, other people can put up posters. There are laws regulating the putting up of posters, and if they make their application and conform to the laws, then posters are put up. On the other hand, if they instigate school kids to put up posters at 3 o'clock in the morning, then they are merely looking for trouble. So that may be the second objection - that if we put up posters, and they should be putting up anti-posters, then I say that there is provision for that sort of thing. Now, the third objection could be that he does not want posters to be put up at all. There is great merit in that proposal. I mean, in a well ordered and rational society, appeals through propaganda such as posters, advertisements and so on will be completely unnecessary. In fact, no country in the world has reached the stage of being completely well ordered and perfectly rational. Therefore, these appeals to human reason, to human emotion perhaps, through various media of publicity are necessary.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the money spent by the Government on Malaysia Week was merely wasted. In the so-called "Malaysia Week", I believe you can say that a good amount of money was spent on a variety concert put up on the Padang before the City Council, but which attracted only a small crowd. Moreover, the purpose of this Malaysia Week was to mislead the people of the Borneo territories. Malaysia Week was a flop.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the House will remember that when the question of Malaysia was debated in this House, the Member for Anson moved an amendment supporting the principle of Malaysia, and I believe all Parties in this Chamber also supported Malaysia except the Barisan Sosialis who were opposed to the Tunku's concept of Malaysia because they wanted Malaysia to include Indonesia. Now, since the majority of Members in this House support the principle of Malaysia, and therefore they represent the majority of the people in Singapore, it is quite right that Malaysia Week should be celebrated, and if public funds were used to celebrate Malaysia Week, it was done to good purpose. I therefore see no reason why Members of the Barisan Sosialis should today say that it was a waste of money. It might be a waste of money in their eyes because in their concept of Malaysia Indonesia is not included.

You see, some malicious lies, or falsehoods -

Order. The Member for Queenstown should take control of himself and realise that he starts off straight away on the wrong foot by using unparliamentary words. He has withdrawn the word "lies". I accept that, but perhaps he can contain himself now and start off in' a cool, collected and calm manner. Dr Lee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is typical of the P.A.P. to distort and twist the Opposition stand, and this is a typical example. They say that we want Indonesia to be part of Malaysia. We have never said that, Sir. They tried to quote instances to show that our Secretary-General had spoken to some correspondents of Bintang Timor and things like that, but this has been denied time and again. In spite of that, just because the Government has control over the propaganda machinery, just because they have the radio, just because they have rediffusion, just because they have a very friendly Press -

You are getting jealous.

- therefore they can keep on repeating and repeating the big falsehood. Everybody knows, Sir - I do not know whether "lie" could be used here, Sir; it does not apply to anybody in particular -that if a big lie is repeated long enough, some people will come to believe it. That is the whole strategy of the P.A.P. They want to keep on repeating a falsehood and they want to keep on repeating it so as to fit in with their own strategy of things. The present concept of Malaysia which makes Singapore a so-called partner and which gives Singapore unequal status is not the' form of Malaysia which we can accept. The present so-called Malaysia Week was a pure P.A.P. propaganda stunt in order to boost their merger proposals.

Sir, I am very glad to know that: the Opposition do not like money spent on Malaysia Week. Obviously it hurts them.

The Barisan Sosialis.

The Barisan Sosialis. I do beg the pardon of the Member for Anson. The Barisan Opposition do not like it. So obviously what we did in Malaysia Week has hurt them, and I regret that we did not spend more money to hurt them more. Now, the Member for Queenstown said that it was untrue to say that leading members of the Barisan Sosialis had publicly stated that they wanted merger with Indonesia. There is one honourable Gentleman in this very House - An hon. Member: Will you quote instances?

We have quoted, Mr Speaker, Sir, not once but several times, not only in this House but also in the newspapers. There has been no answer. I can give the Member for Queenstown several newspaper cuttings or statements issued by the P.A.P. Political Bureau on this very subject. An hon. Member: We do not even read them.

He reads them. He winces every time he reads them. He pretends that he does not read them.

I think the Minister has made his point. All this is completely irrelevant, of course. It started with a small irrelevancy which is becoming a major development. But I think the Minister has made his point. There will be another opportunity of discussing this very interesting subject.

I do not want to start a debate on Malaysia, Mr Speaker. Sir,I am quite certain that you would not be allowing us to do that, even if we want to, but I do not know whether the Government Benches want a renewed debate on Malaysia and if they do want it by all means, initiate it and we are quite prepared to have a long debate up to midnight on Malaysia. An hon. Member: We have had one.

Sir, we have had one and the understanding of what happened at that debate is either not accurate or they deliberately choose to distort what was in fact said. I agree that the Ministry - not the Ministry of Culture - everytime I think of the P.A.P. Political Bureau, I think of the Ministry of Culture. It is true that the P.A.P. Political Bureau has been issuing statements quoting -

Quoting you.

Order.

- not quoting me, alleging that I had said Malaysia should include Indonesia. I do not want to waste more time than is necessary. I just want to say that I never said that Malaysia should include Indonesia.

What did you say?

The word "Indonesia" was only used in the context of explaining the original context of Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am getting worried - how often they do not understand what they are saying. I remember the Member for Thomson distinctly saying - my colleague, the Minister for Law, is busy in the Library getting the relevant passage - "Indonesia is the heartland of Malaysia and any Malaysia that does not include Indonesia has not got a heart." Now, Sir, if that does not mean he is in favour of Indonesia being in Malaysia, what does it mean?

It is completely irrelevant. Perhaps the Member will have an opportunity of answering that. I think the Member for Queenstown has given notice of a motion which might let in that.

Question on the amendment put, and, negatived. The sum of $970,240 for Head 49 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962. Head 51-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 51 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Singapore Infantry Regiment - Second Battalion". Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see any necessity for having this Second Battalion. When this Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment is formed, will it do honour to the Prime Minister on ceremonial occasions only or will it be used to repress the people?

Repress you.

I would like to know from the Government the necessity for having this Second Battalion.

Sir, we have always known the Member for Havelock to be by far the least warlike of all the 13 Assemblymen who form the new Barisan Sosialis, and I am quite sure that if all the other people in the Barisan So sialis have an aversion for physical collision as we know he has, then obviously it would not be necessary to have people standing guard over essential services, like electricity, water, gas and to maintain the essentials of life which from time to time those in charge of the unions in connection with transport and other essential services can threaten the community with. But I can assure the Member for Havelock that the Second Battalion really can do no more than just augment the ordinary static guard duties and the ceremonial duties of the First Battalion. The ultimate objective when all British troops are withdrawn - as we are quite sure in due course they will have to be withdrawn - would be to maintain throughout the whole of Malaysia something in the region of 15 to 20 battalions for the defence of Malaya or Malaysia. I am quite sure he would not share the view of those who believe that the British Army should protect our shores. 3.30 p.m. After all, his counterpart in the Federation of Malaya, the Socialist Front, is, constantly passing resolutions for the withdrawal of foreign troops. Surely. Sir, those who do not want foreign troops should welcome local troops to main tain the integrity of this country from attack, either from within or without and those who have no intention of aiding either the invader from outside or, the subversive from inside should have, no fear of the martial qualities of a Second Battalion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I can see from Schedule B in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure the request by the Government for $1 million that it is intended just to increase the number of soldiers and officers by a few. I think it is a mere waste of public money to spend more than $1 million to recruit not more than 400 officers. There is no' necessity at all to have this Second Battalion. Why cannot the Government use' this sum of over $1 million to build hospitals, schools and other public utility services such as pipes, building roads and so on? From these services ,and facilities, the people can derive some benefit. But now the Government has spent one million dollars of public money on the establishment of this Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. It is not the proper way to spend public money, Mr Speaker, Sir. You will know that at present the Singapore Infantry Regiment's work is only to suppress and curb riots and violence, and perhaps to protect the P.A.P. Headquarters. This year there' was an occasion for this Infantry Regiment, combined with the Police, to protect the P.A.P. Headquarters. Mr Speaker, Sir, as representatives of the people, we have the duty to supervise over the Government's use of the money derived from the people in a proper way. We should not spend this $1,040,725 on something that is not necessary. I am of the opinion that the Government from now on should, spend public money on services for the benefit of the people and not on military Services.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can understand well the Member for Choa Chu Kang's apprehension regarding this Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. We can understand his feelings. Mr Speaker, Sir, if in Singapore there are no subversive elements who Want to sabotage Singapore, then there is no necessity to have such a military establishment, and everybody would agree that the sum could then be used to build, say, hospitals, schools and do other things to benefit the people. But under the present practical circumstances we have such a necessity. Especially judging from the present and future political situations, it is very necessary for Singapore to have this Second Battalion. We know that if the security situation in Singapore deteriorates and there is turmoil in Singapore, all construction work such as hospitals and schools will be frustrated. Of course, if we want to accept the proposition by the Vice-President of the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Woodhull, to preserve British military bases in Singapore, then it is not necessary to have a Second Battalion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of having the' Second Battalion is that Singapore will, by 1963 or before, merge with the Federation of Malaya and become in dependent. Therefore, it is necessary for us to have our own military forces to take over the responsibilities at present borne by the British Military Services.

Mr Speaker, Sir. you see how the P.A.P. always contradict themselves. The Prime Minister himself not so very long ago had preached to the whole of Singapore that it was not necessary to have troops in Singapore. Even the Civil Defence Corps, you remember, was' dissolved. It was not necessary according to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister for Home Affairs, and you see what he has said today. It is necessary to have troops. For what? To make sure that strikers and workers will be suppressed: to make sure that if they want to carry blacklegs along to break a strike, they make it a military operation. Just to make sure that if there are people sleeping inside the Work Brigade Camps, the troops can go in, all ready in battle-dress -

Wake them up!

Wake them up. And not only wake them up, make them stand in the sun for hours on end. That is what the P.A.P. intend to do. Sir, they have so lost touch with the people that when the people go along to see the -Ministers, the Ministers lock themselves up and even call special police to make sure that nobody can ever get in to see them. This is actually what is happening today. The P.A.P. dare not have rallies. For example, just to touch a little on Malaysia Week -

Order. The hon. Member is a bit too late. We do not know whether the special guards come from the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment. If they do, then the Member is in order. If they do not, then he is not in order.

I will skip that part. And see what excuses they give today for having more troops. They say they hope to keep order in Singapore after Malaysia and they need their own troops. If they talk of defending Singapore, a few hundred troops will not make any difference, Sir. The Prime Minister went to great lengths to convince us in days of old that even a few thousand troops could not look after Singapore. He said anybody who controlled the Federation could just walk into Singapore, like the Japanese troops in 1942. So what is the point of having those few hundred troops? Those troops are meant not to protect the people of Singapore but to protect the Headquarters of the P.A.P. That is what is actually happening, and the training which our local troops are having at the present moment is not the training to meet the enemy from outside Singapore, but to see how they can surround blocks and buildings and to ensure that nobody escapes the cordon. That is what is happening, Sir,It is well known in Singapore. They time the operation to see how many minutes it, takes the troops to arrive and to see how many people can get in and get out. That is what our troops are trained for. Just to make sure that our own citizens cannot get out of their houses, is that not the P.A.P. meaning? While the whole world think of reducing armaments and troops, our Government wants to increase armaments and troops. [Laughter] They think by laughing it away the people will not notice their illogical and nonsensical way of doing things. Sir, I do not want to go into details, but you will remember the incidents we quoted of Singapore troops having been used against workers and the Work Brigade. We had already explained that it was not necessary to use troops on those occasions. Money that can be saved on such troops can be put to better purpose. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has already given you an indication as to how money could be used on schools, houses and on improving the services of the Government in general, especially the reduction of rents. The people of Singapore are complaining of the high rentals of our own houses. If the money which they want to spend on troops could be spent on facilities for the people, then at least they would have some justification. As it is, what justification have the P.A.P. to use more money. It is only meant to repress the people in stead of uplifting them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, we have seen that the Front Benches of the Government are asking this House to approve more than a million dollars and they are laughing over this matter. We cannot accept their attitude. According to the explanation given by the Minister for Home Affairs, he seems to say that in future, perhaps after 1963 when the P.A.P. collapse, they will require these troops to take over the government. Does he mean that?

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I am very impressed by the speech made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang. The Leader of the Barisan Sosiahis, the Member for Queenstown, says that the establishment of the Second Battalion of the Singapore Infantry Regiment is really to protect the P.A.P. Headquarters. 3.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, it is clear that the Barisan Sosialis intend to use violence in stead of conducting the struggle in a constitutional manner. Mr Speaker, we will not use military forces to suppress the trade union movement and other organisations, but it has been proved by the Barisan Sosialis themselves that they intend to create confusion in Singapore. Mr Speaker, we have explained that the duty of the Police is to maintain peace and order. So it is with the military, to all those who are innocent, law-abiding citizens. They need not have any fear. Only thieves and robbers need fear the police. There is no reason why we should not welcome the creation of the Second Battalion. I think we should eject all these foreign troops, but when it is time that we should increase the strength of the local troops, the Barisan oppose it. It is clear that the Barisan Sosialis prefer to see foreign troops on our soil.

From their own Back-Bencher, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister himself has come the truth of why they want the troops. The troops are going to be used, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, against people who will use unconstitutional means. Sir, we have seen how troops have been deployed in a provocative manner against the holding of union meetings. Sir, I wish the Front Benches, especially of the Government, will remember this. In the discussion on the Referendum Bill, we have been laying great stress on one particular point. That if the Government will not allow the people peaceful and constitutional means to fight for their aspirations and wishes, if the P.A.P. is not going to give the Opposition a chance to fight peacefully and constitutionally, if the people are not going to be given a chance to say 'Yes' or 'No' in a peaceful and constitutional manner, then, depending on the temper of the people if things develop, the P.A.P. will have to bear the full responsibility of all the consequences and no amount of troops will help the P.A.P. The troops will not help the P.A.P. The P.A.P. dare not go to a general election. They dare not even hold a rally. When invited to a rally, they dare not attend. If they want to make speeches to a crowd, they want to first put up a show so that other people can go to see the show and listen to them incidentally. That is all.

The passion with which the Member for Queenstown is moved at the prospect of a second infantry regiment has impressed upon me two things. First, he has an unholy fear of cordons of disciplined troops which, perhaps in his wilder moments in bed, he dreams will he enclosing upon those who are wicked: and, second, in the last resort, he has, in violent threatening language, warned the Government that a second battalion is not enough. I concede that point when I first speak on this. It has been estimated that for security purposes, maintenance of law and order, in times of insurrection, there should at least be five battalions deployed in Singapore and several more battalions in South Malaya and several other battalions in Malaysia. We have been threatened from time to time by the Member for Queenstown about the use of force: force if they cannot say "yes" or "no"; force if Malaysia is brought into being. Not unnaturally, it is the duty of the Government to ensure that, if, I hope, in the unlikely event of those behind the Member for Queenstown who not only talk force but actually use force and had occasions in the past to have met force with force, we should not fail in our duty to protect the lives and limbs of our popu lation. That is the duty of the Government. That is the duty of any government. I need hardly remind the Member for Queenstown that the Chinese People's Republic has a standing army of 5 million out of a population of 650 million, about one per cent of the population. It has a total militia of 50 million men. The Indian Army is somewhere in the region of 600,000. The Indonesian Army, which has had to appeal for volunteers, was no less than 370,000 men. This was at a time when on one occasion the Minister for Home Affairs and I had a casual conversation with an officer of the Indonesian Army who happened to pass through Singapore. I would say 817 for the first regiment is a very modest number to ensure that when dignitaries like the Member for Queenstown attend some of our ceremonial meetings, they are received with the proper decorum and courtesies. The Second Battalion would augment this panoply of protocol and courtesies extended to those who are peaceful and law-abiding. To those who are not peaceful and not law-abiding, it is obviously our duty to ensure that when this wild talk should lead to wild action, the wild men are put away.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this amendment earlier on. I gathered the impression that it was a token amendment for the purpose of raising the inappropriateness of the utilisation of our troops in the past. With that I would have been in full agreement in so far as the evidence in my possession goes. But when the issue is directed, as it seems to be directed, as to the necessity for a second battalion, frankly, Sir, I must join issue with those who deny that necessity. We are a people of one and a half million, Sir, with a large city. It cannot be doubted that though a vast majority of our people are peace-loving and decent, there have in the past been unhappy incidents where important numbers have been misled. There have been unfortunate acts which have caused damage and personal injury, and in one or two instances death. In the context of our experience, Sir, within the lifetime of this Assembly in the last seven years, we cannot deny the validity for the request for a further battalion. It is true that troops can be misused and that power can be abused. But that is another question. The real issue that should be before this Assembly is, are there adequate powers for an honest Government to deal with possible situations where crises of violence are threatened? I am in an acutely embarrassing position of finding myself in agreement with the P.A.P. on any aspect. But, Sir, I must be quite frank in this instance. I do agree with them that one battalion is inadequate and that a second battalion is necessary. Sir, I deplore the implication in the speech of the Member for Queenstown that our people could, in their despair and frustration, which is perfectly legitimate, consider the utilisation of unconstitutional methods for the expression of that frustration. I do not seek to wear a halo in this instance. I am not speaking of what is constitutional be cause professionally I am trained to respect the law. I say, Sir, as a practical human being, I face the basic fact that experience has repeatedly proved that where there is violence, only the people suffer, not those in authority. The workers suffer and the poor suffer, and any violence would react a hundred-fold to the detriment of our people. There is no way out for the people of Singapore in the frustration they suffer from P.A.P. rule except the constitutional process. In the name of the Workers' Party, Sir, and as a Member of the Opposition who feels very deeply the dishonesty of the proposed conduct of this Government, I say that we do not agree that there should ever be any question of unconstitutional conduct and violence. The thought of such action could but bring our people into grave danger and would be a retrograde step which would take us way back into the tragedies we suffered under imperial rule. I know that in the heat of anger, in the agonising position where, by virtue of the constitutional position, we are fighting a losing fight for decency, a rearguard action that we know will mean in the end defeat by virtue of their majority, but in action we must see through. I know that in that position one tends in one's frustration sometimes to indulge in sentiments which are wholly inappropriate. I would suggest that the Member for Queenstown may well utilise the opportunity to speak again in Committee to deface the unhappy implication of the possibility of unconstitutional violence as a reply to P.A.P. dishonesty. I do support the provision, Sir, for a second battalion, because I think it is legitimate for an honest Government, and this is a provision not merely for the P.A.P. Government.

I just want to say a few words, Sir. This is not merely to answer the Member for Anson. We never advocate violence but we want to warn the P.A.P. against provoking the people into violence. That is what we want to tell the P.A.P. All actions of the P.A.P. have been designed towards that end. All the time they want to provoke the people into doing something and we want to warn the P.A.P. again: Do not misuse the troops that are meant for the defence of the island against an external enemy. If you want anything for civil defence, you do not use troops. You use the police maybe, or the civil defence maybe. The P.A.P. have for a long time been advocating that school children should be trained to be policemen. They wanted the citizens of Singapore to be trained not for violence, but to respect law and order; and schoolboys had been asked to enlist as policemen or police constables in order to attend to their civic duties. Troops are never meant to be used inside their own country against the people. That is what I want to stress. That is what the P.A.P. must realise. Never provoke the people with the use of our own troops. 4.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has forgotten what he has said in the past. About one year ago, he had on occasion told Members of the Opposition that if they wanted boxing, then they must observe the Queensberry rules. We must not have Siamese boxing. But today, the Prime Minister himself wants to resort to Siamese boxing. It is not we who want to resort to Siamese boxing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has accused us of thinking of violence to destroy the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it is not we who are trying to destroy the Constitution, but the P.A.P. It is obvious that the National Referendum Bill is a measure by which they want to destroy parliamentary democracy. It is proof and evidence that they want to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore can now see clearly that the so-called democracy of the P.A.P., the so-called constitution of the P.A.P., is to resort to military force.

I think the general intention of political Parties and their leaders can often be discerned not only through their actual words, and actions, but by the manner in which those words are uttered and the emphasis with which they give to their actions. I think the Member for Queenstown, in the last attempt to score off the rugged edges of his first performance, was hard put to sound like a cat when actually he was roaring like a tiger. You cannot make a tiger mew. That is not one of the things which the Member for Queenstown, in spite of his many versatile and variegated skills, can do. As I have said, those who have no evil intentions can sleep well and nice. As the Member for Anson has said, we have a duty to ensure that those with evil intentions do not imperil the lives, the limbs and the safety of the people. The Second Battalion will only be a start. Eventually the trouble which those manipulating the Member for Queenstown face is this. Troops cannot defend a colonialist administration, be cause more than force is required to sustain the government. But when the attack is against a popularly-elected administration representing the bulk of the people, an effort by an armed organised militant minority can often be frustrated quickly, effectively and easily by the immediate and effective deployment of armed force. Let me give an example of the Work Brigade last year. It was round three in the battle between the Communists manipulating the Barisan Sosialis versus the Government. There were bicycle chains, tyres and open acts of indiscipline. Had there been hesitation; had there been fumbling, a few people would have been hurt, injured and maimed. But because of the First Battalion, because it was demonstrably clear to anybody who wanted to use bicycle chains, the axe or the iron rod that it would be unprofitable to do so, it turned out in the event that nobody used these weapons at all. And so we not only did good to society, but we also did good to the wrongdoer by protecting him by his own logic and commonsense from putting himself into an untenably vulnerable position. The Member for Queenstown has been known for his qualities to charge, often blindly, and as the Member for Anson has said, it is a losing battle. It is not only losing, but it is lost. It was lost last year in July-that night in July when they tried to capture. It failed. It set off a chain of events that brought about the White Paper, merger, Malaysia, Malaysia Week and a whole chain of inevitable consequences that will culminate in the final expurgation of all the evil forces in our society. The Member for Queenstown can only read this morning's paper. The gentleman who wrote Mr Lim Ching Siong a letter through him as the postbox. Mr Wen Lin Chen, from Sarawak. "Leading officials," said he, "of the S.U.P.P. constitutional organisation." He was on his way back on voluntary repatriation to China and he was arrested as a member of the vanishing Communist organisation. And so the process will go on. But behind the process there must always be the ultimate deterrent. Nobody wants to use any troops. Everybody wants the law to be observed. But everybody knows that if you are not in a position to enforce the law, nobody will enforce it. If everybody understands that not only will the law be enforced, but it will be enforced swiftly and effectively, then it may well be that everybody will conform to and obey the rules of the game.

Mr Chairman. Sir, the words of the Prime Minister have revealed the intention, as he has said, of his political Party. It can be seen in his words, in spite of his suave delivery, what is P.A.P. intent in the very Bill itself.

What Bill?

In the Referendum Bill itself.

We are on Supplementary Estimates.

That is only an aside, Sir. He was talking about parangs and bicycle chains -

Yes.

We know, Sir, nowadays there are agents provocateurs who have been recruited by the Government and sent to various organisations. These people are weeded out one by one whenever they are discovered. The parangs and bicycle chains belong to the gangsters recruited by the P.A.P. This is the truth, Sir, and a lot of people know about it. He was telling us that if it was a case of troops being used, it was only because a minority wanted to break the law. No minority. Sir, can break the law against the majority, and if this Govern ment had the support of the majority of the people in Singapore, the P.A.P. would not be in such a bad plight today. Let me just give the Prime Minister a last reminder. He talked about a losing battle. Sir, whether a battle is won or lost depends on the people and, to quote the Prime Minister himself on an occasion many years ago, the verdict of the people will be the final arbiter and the verdict of the people is a terrible thing to those who do not keep faith with the people. That is for you. [Laughter]

Order. I hope the Member for Queenstown is not trying to intimidate the Chair. He is trying to intimidate the Prime Minister. I do not know whether the Prime Minister has been intimidated.

Sir, part of my duty is to suffer intimidation at the hands of my political opponents from time to time. I bear up as well as I can. 1 can assure the Member for Queenstown that there will be no troops used as long as the rules are observed. The Societies Ordinance, the Trade Unions Ordinance, the Minor Offences Ordinance, they are all in the law. There are people who can interpret the law to them. But if the rules are cast aside and the stones and the iron bars and the buses are turned over, then peace-loving though we may be, the overriding interest of peace, security and well-being of the people will require the use of force to suppress force.

Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $1,040,725 for Head 51 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962. Question, "That the sum of $2,010,965 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1962", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $2,010,965 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1962 contained in Paper Cmd. 11 of 1962.".

Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

4.16 p.m. Clause 5-

We are on clause 5. It has been moved as an amendment, in page A2, line 23 - [Interruption]. I hear people talking. I am waiting for silence. 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 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.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to he added, be there added." I have indicated that the debate may range over amendment (ii) to clause 13, that is, In page A3, line 41, to leave out "questions" and insert "one question as framed by the lcgislativc Assembly"; Clause 18, amendment, In page A6, line 23, at end, to add "Every ballot paper shall he in the Form in the First Schedule to this Ordinance.". The Schedule indicating that there should be only one question with an answer yes or no, and 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, a lot of heat has been generated by the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. over referendum and merger, and it is regrettable that the public are becoming more and more confused. The more they carry on this political warfare, the more confused will the electorate be. I do net know what is the object of this deliberate intention to confuse the public by distortions, counter-distortions, smears and counter-smears. Merger is a national issue. In the words of some Members of this House, it means life and death to the people of Singapore. Yet the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. choose to make use of this national issue as a plaything for them to indulge in their political warfare, calling it round 1, round 2, round 3. I do not know how many rounds they want to have. All I say is that the sooner the rounds are ended and both of them get knocked out, the better it will be for politics in Singapore.

Better for the S.P.A., you mean.

Sir, when this Malaysia Plan was first made public by the Tunku at a foreign correspondents' luncheon in May 1961, the P.A.P. quickly jumped on the band-wagon and said, "Ah, ah, now merger is possible: we will try and regain our lost political prestige by pressing ahead with talks with the Tunku for an agreement for merger." They did that in order to claim political credit and to save themselves from the doom that was facing them. But at that time, there was great interest over this question of merger - or closer association as I choose to call it - So much so that there was a forum at which representatives of the P.A.P., the S.P.A., the U.P.P. and the Barisan Sosialis were present. The question was posed as to what was a more desirable method of ascertaining the wishes of the people in regard to closer association with the Federation of Malaya. Was it to be by means of a referendum or by means of a general election? The Barisan demanded general elections. The others, the P.A.P., the S.P.A. and the U.P.P., quite rightly stated that the proper way to ascertain the views of the electorate was through a referendum. So at that time, even before agreement was reached between the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation of Malaya, the P.A.P. Government was committed to a Referendum Bill. So they went ahead with the preparation of a Referendum Bill, and in that preparation, of course, their intention was that the Bill should be a Referendum Bill on merger. That is how it came to be that the P.A.P. is now saying that the Referendum Bill is general Bill. They thought at that time they were honest. They thought that it would be right and proper that the agreement which they hoped to reach with the Government of the Federation of Malaya would be put to the people fairly and squarely. They thought that in that way they would get the electorate to say yes to the agreement which they had reached. That was months ago. In their own words, that could be round 1 of the fight between the P.A.P. and the Communist group in the P.A.P. But when they came to round 3, when they found that if they were to pose only one question, a straightforward question, to the people in a referendum, it would turn out to be a majority vote against the White Paper, not because the people do not want closer association with the Federation of Malaya, but because the Communist group in the P.A.P. went out telling the people that the quickest way to get rid of this rotten Government was to say "No" in a referendum to the question to be posed by the Government. So they thought that it would be danger OUS to pose one question, because they knew that the Barisan Sosialis had gone out preaching hatred against the P.A.P., preaching that the only way to get the P.A.P. out of office was to vote "No" to the White Paper. The Deputy Prime Minister then had to stand up on the Second Reading of the National Referendum Bill and say - and very few people caught the meaning of the words he said - "The result of the referendum need not mean the resignation of the Government. A referendum is a referendum; it is not a vote of confidence in the Government." He had to say that in order to read just the minds of the people that had been contaminated by the smears and distortions that had been pervaded by the Barisani Sosialis. So they thought that one question would be a dangerous question, because it would not get a fair answer. It would also result in getting the electorate to cast a vote of their loss of confidence in the P.A.P. Government. Therefore, the Second Reading of the Bill was delayed. It was delayed for that reason. And sud denly, Sir, the bright boys of the P.A.P. thought, "Aha, now that we are committed to a referendum, how are we going to wriggle out of it? We must at least put up some semblance of honesty and decency." They hit upon the idea of saying, "Ah, let us put two questions: one question to the White Paper, and another question to be worse than the White Paper." Therefore, the answer can only be the White Paper, and nothing else.

What is the other one?

That was in their minds. If the Deputy Prime Minister wants to know it, it is this. He said, "There are two types of closer association with the Federation of Malaya. The first type is the White Paper where [as the P.A.P. is very fond of saying] there will be autonomy in education and labour demanded by the P.A.P. Government. The second is merger of the Penang and Malacca type where 340,000 non-local-born citizens would lose their citizenship rights." Sir, if those two questions were posed, surely the 340,000 non-local-born citizens, who are in the majority, would not vote for the second type. They would say. "This is the P.A.P. White Paper, and therefore they want to win." So the P.A.P. knew that in this game of "Heads, I win, Tails, you lose", it is easy; we go ahead." Now they had the idea of putting two questions. This may be their Round 6 against the Ban-san. Then the Barisan came out with their upper-cut or below-the-belt blow. I do not know. They said, "In that case, blank votes, blank votes, blank votes." All this, in fact, does not bring credit to the political Parties in Singapore. It is not even bringing credit to the Parties that are indulging in distortions and counter-distortions. And now all this trouble - they are going to ask more than one question. And obviously the Barisan Sosialis, very ably led by the Member for Anson, came out very strongly for "one question one issue." I can understand what is in the minds of the Barisan Sosialis - they want to wreck merger; they want to wreck every opportunity that is offered to us for closer as sociation, because it is inimical to the Communist group in Singapore. It is their death blow. But what I find it difficult to understand is: why should the Member for Anson feel it is a grand thing to lead the Barisan Sosialis on the war-path and cause more confusion in the minds of the people? 4.30 p.m. Sir, the Member for Anson was a very good colleague of mine in the previous Government. From my experience working under him and with him, I can say this: he means well. He means to serve the best interests of the people of Singapore. And he believes that, in moving this amendment, he is doing it for the best interests of the people of Singapore. But, unfortunately, he has overlooked the danger of the Communist game in this fight for existence. He has in a way been misled into providing the lead to the group that is losing the battle for merger. We are against the amendment. This is in answer to the question of the Mem ber for Anson as to why there has been no explanation given to our view that the amendment is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in this respect - and I have to stand here explaining and be misunderstood as wanting to defend the P.A.P.; to which I say that the sooner the P.A.P. get out of the Government. the better it will be for Singapore. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

It is this - because a one-question referendum will not elicit the truthful answer. We will be playing into the hands of the Communists, and we must resist it at all costs. We, as the Opposition, have no love for the P.A.P. In fact, it was because of the intrigues of the P.A.P. who slept with the Communists since they first came into existence and who, when they sat on this side of the House, loved the Communists, welcomed and praised them as their comrades and won their way into power, that they are now in this mess today. If they had played clean politics, and they should if they were a good, honest government, they would not have been in this mess and have to fight their ex-comrades whom they describe as heroes one day and denounce as Communists another day. We cannot allow a one-question referendum, because if that one question were to be posed: "Do you accept Command Paper No. 33?" - "Yes/No", I can say this : there may be 90 per cent of the people saying "No", not because they do not want closer association, but because they want to show their contempt, their disgust, and their loss of confidence in the P.A.P. Government. It would not give us the right answer and it would create a bad impression in the minds of people outside. They will be surprised as to why it is that Singapore does not want something for the good of Singapore. Malaya could misunderstand the verdict of a one-question referendum by thinking that now that they had decided to extend the hand of friendship to the people of Singapore, that friendship had been rejected. What would be the consequences? I dare not imagine. Once the hand of friendship is extended to us but cast aside by a referendum that does not give a real verdict, it will be almost impossible to resume negotiations for better terms perhaps, or for closer association. Now, Sir, what is very important to us, the S.P.A., a responsible Opposition in this Chamber, is to ensure that the questions to be posed by the Government in a referendum are questions that can allow the electorate to pass a verdict. The Minister for Finance, speaking on behalf of the Government, has given an assurance to this House that such questions shall be debated in this Assembly before they are posed in a referendum. I accept the assurance, but I do urge upon the Government to carry out that assurance by suitably amending thc Bill to' ensure that such an assurance will be carried out. I gave an indication yesterday, Sir, that when the amendment to clause 13 is under discussion, I hoped to' achieve that amendment by proposing an amendment to the amendment. I will touch on that when the time comes. Sir, today is just the second day of the debate, and I do not know what round the P.A.P. would like to call it - the 8th or 9th round. But let us make it the last round for the good of the people of Singapore. Make it the last round. Do not have any more rounds; the people are getting more and more confused. Even the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis was getting confused, so much so that his confusion was so badly apparent in the discussion in Select Committee. I think the Minister for Finance kept arguing with him on certain amendments proposed in the Select Committee. The confusion was so apparent that the Minister for Finance had to say that his skull was thick or something like that. I am trying to quote from the Official Report. Yes, here it is, Sir, column 474 of the Official Report of the Select Committee No. 7, of 17th May: 'Sir, the Minister for Health and Law has said that some people's skulls are so thick that no light can penetrate and no amount of clarification can convince them.' And what did the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis say? 'Let us assume that I have a skull that thick.' And I will therefore assume that he has a skull that thick. Sir, let us put an end to all this political warfare that is going on which is damaging the interests of the people of Singapore. Let us debate this very important piece of legislation with a calm, cool head and with only one guiding factor - and let us be guided by this one factor - the interests of the people of Singapore should come first, and not the in terests of any political Party, and in that the S.P.A. is prepared to serve the interests of the country first. We do not mind what happens to the S.P.A. So long as we have served the country, we shall die satisfied.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed very confusing to see the Member for Cairnhill once again expressing support for the Government's arguments against this clause. I thought, before the Assembly sitting, on reading the sort of statements that the S.P.A. issue or listening to none other than the Secretary-General of the S.P.A. at a forum at the University of Singapore, that the S.P.A. should come into this Chamber and say, "Down with the Referendum Bill because it is undemocratic, because it is not possible to determine the views of the people with a Bill of this nature." Even as late as, I believe, last week when the S.P.A. representative at a mass rally at Anson denounced the Bill, he gave the impression that his representatives here, namely the S.P.A. Legislative Assemblymen, would be opposing the Bill and expressing support to certain amendments that the Opposition had filed. However, Sir, today it is clear that no matter what they say outside the Assembly, inside the Assembly it is ex tremely necessary for them to support the Government because this is part of the deal. And if the S.P.A. does not support the P.A.P., then the P.A.P. will not have a majority at the moment. I believe, and as is believed by many people outside this Chamber, that part of the deal is to make sure that the S.P.A. makes all the noise that it wants to make outside in order to make political capital for itself, at the same time to ensure that the Government keeps ticking and that their scheme of things is put through quite neatly. Sir, as I said yesterday, I do not want to spend time replying to speeches made by S.P.A. Members. I will now come to the amendments before the Committee today. I wish to start off by saying this: that if the Government tells the world that the Barisan Sosialis is up to mischief, that we are undesirable social plagues, that our business is to go about wrecking peace and tranquility, and that our functions are to confuse the people, I assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are not what the P.A.P. desperadoes make us out to be. But just for the Purposes of argument, if we accept the Government statements on their face value, then we in the Barisan Sosialis are bad chaps; we go about confusing the people; and those in the P.A.P. are good chaps and they go about helping people not to get confused. 4.45 p.m. Sir, the purpose of our amendment to clause 18 of the Bill is to help the voters get used to the form of the ballot paper before they actually go to vote. It is also suggested in this ballot paper that the question to be posed should be a simple and straightforward question which will require only a "yes" or "no" answer. Sir, this is the first time that a referendum will be held in Singapore, and our literacy rate compared with, for example. New Zealand, is extremely low. And to add to this we have a multi-racial society where even the literate popula tion is not necessarily literate in English. In this context it is absolutely necessary, if we want to honestly ascertain the views of the people, to make matters as simple as possible so that the people are not confused or misled. Sir, a referendum is to ascertain the views of the people. This we are all agreed. The Government ostensibly agrees that the sole purpose of a referendum is to ascertain the views of the people, if the Government means what it says, namely, that it wants to determine the views of the people, it cannot but agree that its responsibilities and obligations are as much the Opposition's, if not more, to help the people give their views in the simplest possible manner and to ensure that the verdict of the people is unequivocal and that there is no ambiguity about it. Sir, the Government Ministers have time and again suggested that it is the Barisan Sosialis that seeks to confuse the people. This is nonsense. We are not seeking to confuse the people or mislead the people. We want to do everything possible to hold a referendum in which the issues are put clearly to the people and in which the people will be given every opportunity to vote unequivocally so that there can be no ambiguity about the verdict of the people, no matter which way the verdict goes. And these amendments before the Committee that we have moved are to minimise confusion. I think any man should be in a position to realise this. There is no hide and seek in this. The amendments are straightforward. If the Government are honest in wanting the people to decide clearly, in wanting the people to indicate their wishes clearly and in unambiguous form, then they must accept this amendment. They do not have to be afraid. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Assembly at the time when the White Paper was de bated, the Government Members repeatedly said that they were confident that the people would support their proposals when, in fact, Members of the Barisan Sosialis said that in their view the people would reject it. They were confident. They said, "When you say 'the people', you mean the Communists." They were confident. If they were confident, and if they are confident now, why are they afraid to put the question to the people in the simplest and clearest form, so that the people can give their verdict? I say that we are not interested in getting the people to vote against merger in principle. We have opposed the White Paper. If the White Paper is put to the people, and if the people oppose it, it is opposition to merger on terms contained in the White Paper. Sir, if the Government are serious in saying that they do not want the people to be confused, then I do not see, as I say, any reason why they should not accept these amendments which make things simpler and clearer for the people. Sir, this new clause that the Opposition is proposing to clause 5 of the Bill is important. It is, in fact, very important. Yet the Government reject it. They reject the amendment moved for clarity and simplicity. Yet they have the cheek to come and say that we are the people who go round wanting to confuse the people. Sir, the whole Referendum Bill will not serve its purpose if the Government reject this and the other amendments, this amendment, in particular, which will allow for the submission of only one question to the electorate in a referendum and which will make it possible for the people to vote "yes" or "no". Sir, the Government in rejecting this amendment in Select Committee revolved its argument around two central points, viz, (1) that it may be necessary to ask the electorate more than one question, and (2), that it is not unusual to have more than one question posed in one referendum, in that there are precedents elsewhere in the world. Sir, I would like to take these two points one by one. The Government's arguments are naive and hypocritical. Their arguments must be exposed for what they are worth. But before I do that, Sir, it is necessary for me to state that in the debate on this amendment we must bear in mind clauses 21 and 29 of the Bill. Clause 21 enforces compulsory voting. Clause 29 makes all unmarked and uncertain votes as votes for the Government proposition. These three clauses, Sir, viz, clauses 5, 21 and 29, put together, in fact, mean the denial of free choice to the people. It is against this background that we must consider the validity of the amendments before the House. Sir, the fundamental proposition that the Barisan Sosialis makes is that the basic human right of free choice must be guaranteed to the people, notwith standing the number of questions, the right to accept, reject or abstain must be uninterfered with. Irrespective of whatever alternatives are put to the people, the basic right of the people to accept, reject, or abstain must be guaranteed and not deprived by legislation, which is brought in by a Government which has lost the confidence of the people and which survives with one vote on its own side and with the support of a discredited political force like the S.P.A. This then, Sir, is our basic proposition. On the first point that the Government has used for its argument, I have this to say. I do not think it is that the Government by necessity has to ask the electorate more than one question at a given referendum. Whether to have one, two or more questions will entirely depend on the Government if the amendment is rejected. The framing of the question, the number of questions to be posed, etc., will all be left completely in the hands of the Government, lithe Government are thoughtful and really care for the views of the people, if not for anything else at least for the sake of clarity, they can easily pose one question in one referendum. On the other hand, if this amendment is rejected, it will also allow the Government, if they so desire, to pose more than one question. Again, Sir, if the Government so desire, they can also pose two totally unacceptable alternatives and use an unfair law to force the people to vote for one of the two unacceptable alternatives and deny the people the right to abstain. As a matter of fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government have already indicated that this is exactly what they seek to do, and it is our responsibility - it is the responsibility of all of us in this House - to ensure that there is no room in this Bill for such a dishonest referendum. If we allowed room for this, then we would, in effect, be encouraging and condoning the rigging of the referendum. Sir, because it is obvious that whether there should be one or more questions will depend entirely on the Government, we have moved these amendments. By these amendments we seek to prevent foul play. We seek to prevent a dishonest government from rigging the referendum. Sir, an argument used incidentally by the Government Members is that it will cost $400,000 to conduct a referendum. Even if it were so - I have not personally calculated it but I am prepared to take the statement of the Government on this - the Opposition cannot accept the argument that because of this cost it is necessary to have a Bill with the provision to ask for more than one question at one referendum. 5.00 p.m.

Order. I intend to suspend. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I will take this Chair again at 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed.

Clause 5 - ( contd.)

We are on clause 5, an amendment to add a new sub-clause. The Member for Thomson had the Floor. Mr Bani.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying just now, the Government Members have suggested that it will cost $400,000 to conduct a referendum. Even if this was so, the Opposition cannot accept the argument that because this is the cost, it is necessary to have in the Bill a provision to ask more than one question at any referendum, it may be that on issues of minor importance, two or three questions could be asked, provided, of course, the basic right of the people to free choice is not restricted, provided the people are not compelled by law to choose one of two totally unacceptable alternatives, and provided the people are not denied the fundamental human right to freely accept, reject or abstain. But, Sir, the Opposition, particularly the Barisan Sosialis, cannot and will not accept a position where it will give the P.A.P. Government, which has already indicated its dishonest intentions, a blank provision in this Bill - a Bill which, in fact, will deny the people a very desirable right - the democratic right to free choice. It is not the intention of the Barisan Sosialis to waste public money by asking that a few referenda held at $400,000 each. It has been suggested, Sir, in the Select Committee that there may be referenda held to determine questions like whether toddy shops should close, whether smoking should be prohibited, or whether pipe-smoking should be prohibited. I can only say, Sir, that to hold a referendum at $400,000 to determine whether the people of Singapore should smoke a pipe, a cigarette or a cigar is absurd, and any argument on these lines is only frivolous in my view. We do not for a moment believe that this National Referendum Bill is going to be used to determine frivolous issues lie that. We say quite categorically that we do not want three or four referenda held at public expense to determine such matters. But, sir, on matters of national importance, on matters which affect the lives of all our people and the lives of all our children and that of our future generations, on matters like constitutional changes, on matters like merger. I say that if it is necessary to hold more than one referendum in order to determine with clarity the issues, in order to determine with clarity the wishes of our people, it is desirable to do so even if it will cost $400000 to hold a referendum. Therefore, Sir, in thinking of the cost of a referendum, let us not disregard the importance of the issue that may be referred to the people. $400,000 or a few million dollars of public money spent in order to determine the people's own future is money worth spending. In any case, Sir, it is definitely better than going round the world and flying over the North Pole. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the second point used in the Government's arguments, namely that there are precedents for asking more than one question, I must at the outset say that there is a fundamental difference between the referendum examples quoted and the P.A.P. National Referendum Bill, and that is while in every referendum held elsewhere in the world, the people were given their basic right to freely accept, reject or abstain on any question, the P.A.P. National Referendum Bill will deny the people this right to free choice. Clause 29 of this Bill absolutely interferes with the people's right to free choice. Sir, in an endeavour to substantiate the arguments, the Government Members have tried to quote certain examples of the sort of referenda held elsewhere in the world where more than one question have been put. They have quoted, for example, New Zealand. I must point out, Sir, that the precedents quoted by the Ministers in Select committee are completely irrelevant. This is so because in the examples quoted, there has always been the right for the electorate to reject or abstain in a referendum irrespective of the number of questions posed. And this is fundamental. The Singapore National Referendum Bill is unique in that it seeks to deny the people the right to vote against or abstain from voting ii a referendum. This is completely untenable. It is no use quoting examples if we forget the fundamental position that basically the referendum that the P.A.P. Government is proposing is different from that of New Zealand, or Australia, or other referenda held in other parts of the world. I do not wish, Sir, to debate the merits or otherwise of clause 29 of this Bill at this moment. Nevertheless, I think to discuss the amendment before the House in isolation, in complete disregard of other clauses of the Bill, particularly clauses 21 and 29, is not proper. In any case, it is certainly misleading if we accept the precedents the Government Members have quoted without consideration of these clauses, namely clauses 21 and 29. Sir, because the Government has quoted the examples of referenda held in New Zealand, to argue against the amendment before the House, it is necessary to understand the fundamentals involved. The Minister for Law, in the Select Committee, quoted three New Zealand examples. The first one was on the time that hotels should close. The second one was the question on the sale of liquor, and the third one was the question on compulsory military training. These were quoted, Sir, as I have said, to substantiate the arguments that there can be more than one question. I would like to go over the examples that the Minister for Law gave. The first one, Sir, is on the 8th of May in column 116 of the Official Report No. 3. The first example, according to the Minister for Law, the ballot paper was in the following form: "I vote for closing at 6 p.m." and another line - "I vote for closing at 10 p.m." Then, Sir, the Minister gave the instructions which have been given to the voter. They are: 'The voter must strike out one line, leaving untouched the line which shows the way he wishes to vote. If the voter strikes out both lines or fails to strike Out one of the lines, the voting paper will be void and his vote will not be recorded. The voting paper so marked is to be placed by the voter in the ballot box. The voter is not allowed to take his voting paper out of the polling booth.' Now, Sir, it will be noted that in this referendum, the voter's free choice was in no way interfered with. If the voter did not support both the propositions put to him, the voter was completely at liberty to strike out both lines. Such a ballot paper would be rejected. It would be declared void and the vote will not be recorded, unlike the P.A.P. referendum where unmarked votes would be recorded as votes for the Government. In other words, Sir, in the referendum quoted by the Minister which was held in New Zealand, the fundamental right to either reject or abstain was given to the voter. This very right is being denied to the people of Singapore, and therefore, this example is completely irrelevant in the context of the Referendum Bill that we are discussing. It does not support the Government's case. Sir, in the second example which the Minister quoted, there were three pro posals put to the electorate. This is also in column 116. The three propositions put to the electorate were: (1) "I vote for national continuance", i.e. for allowing the sale of alcoholic drinks: (2) "I vote for State purchase and control", i.e. for all alcoholic liquors, and (3) "I vote for national prohibition.' In this example, Sir, the same procedure was followed. The same instructions were given to the voter, whereby if THC voter struck out all the three propositions or only one of the propositions or none at all, the voting paper would have been void and his vote would not be recorded. Here again, Sir, the fundamental right of the voter to a free choice with no limitation and with no imposition was given to him. Therefore, Sir, this example again is one that is irrelevant in the context of this Referendum Bill before the Committee. It does not again support the Government's case. Sir, in the third example given by the Minister for Health and Law, i.e. the one on compulsory military training, the ballot paper, as quoted by the Minister in column 232 [Official Report No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962], says as follows: "I vote for compulsory military training" and on the second line, "I vote against compulsory military training". In this example, Sir, the voter was given a fundamental right to reject compulsory military training or to accept it. The voter had his fundamental right to either vote for or against or, ii necessary, to abstain. If the voter put in an unmarked vote, his vote would not be counted as a vote for compulsory military training. This is not what the P.A.P. intend to do in Singapore. I repeat, Sir, this example again is irrelevant because it does not support the Government's case and it is irrelevant to the context of the Singapore National Referendum Bill. As I said earlier, Mr Chairman, we cannot accept this precedent which is quoted blindly to substantiate a case for more than one question without regard to the type of referendum that the P.A.P. Government is proposing. It is one thing for the Government to say that they do not want to accept our proposal for a simple question requiring a 'yes' or 'no' answer on the grounds that it may be necessary to pose more than one question. But it is entirely another matter for the Government to substantiate this argument by quoting precedents which are fundamentally in conflict with the Referendum Bill that is being proposed. Sir, if the Government is confident that the people are in favour of the merger arrangements that they have made, then the Ministers need not fear giving our people their basic right to choose freely. Put to the people a simple question requiring a 'yes' or 'no' answer. They do not have to be afraid. They keep telling the world that the Barisan Sosialis is up to mischief. They keep telling the world that we are out to confuse the people. I would like to know whether the Government would agree to sit down with us and work out the simplest possible procedure whereby confusion would be minimised, and whereby the people would be given every opportunity to give their verdict unequivocably. Sir, while the Liberal Socialist representatives were being examined in the Select Committee, the Minister for Law at one stage said that the voter can stay away if he did not want to accept either of the two propositions. This is on Page C.28, column 55, Sir. I will just read the last sentence of Mrs Leon-Soh's answer and then what the Minister for Law had to say: '[Mrs Leon-Soh] But, on the other hand, the question is not clearly framed; it is a question of wanting either (A) or (B), and the voter says, "I do not want (A) and I do not want (B)." We are taking it on that level, Sir. [Mr Byrne] He can stay away.' Sir, the Minister is supposed to be the Minister for Law for the State. It is his Ministry that drafted this Referendum Bill. Surely, Sir, he is not so foolish as to be unable to understand clause 21 of the Bill which seeks to make voting compulsory. I do not want to suggest - Mr Byrne rose -

Order.

On a point of information. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Yes, the Member has given way.

If the Member for Thomson will read clause 21, he will find that any elector can stay away, pay $5 and get his name back on to the electoral roll. [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, I fully understand the implications of clause 21. His name can be struck off. He can be fined five dollars, depending, of course, on who he is. For instance, if a P.A.P. enthusiast does not go and vote, perhaps, even the five dollars fine may be waived. But if it is somebody else, then quite definitely his name will be struck off. But in any case, Sir, it is not necessary for the Minister for Law to tell the people that one can stay away and pay the fine or get one's name struck off. Compulsory voting, as could be seen in the 1959 elections, is known to the people. But is the Minister seriously suggesting that one should stay away at home against the law? Is he in fact suggesting to abet an offence? Is he encouraging the breaking of a law -

On a point of information.

Will the Member give way? Mr Bani resumed his seat.

Mr Chairman, there is one, thing that the Barisan Sosialis can do. They can organise the throwing in of blank votes but they cannot organise abstentions from the polis.

Sir, if ever the Barisan Sosialis Central Executive Committee needs any advice from the Minister for Law as to how we should conduct our business, I shall always have him in mind. We would approach him with no hesitation, Sir, if we need his advice. And if we carry out his advice in practice, I only hope that the Government will not leave him unpunished if we are to be punished. Sir, the Minister, as I said, knows this. Then why did he say, "You can stay away."? Surely, Sir, it appears to me that either he was trying to bluff Mrs Leon Soh or he was just being silly for some unknown reason. The point is that, Sir, in a situation where, as the Government has indicated, two unacceptable alternatives are going to be put to the people: where the people are not going to be given the right to say 'no' and you have also compulsory voting, then the sum total of all this, as I have said, is a denial of a very desirable democratic right - the right of an individual to say 'yes' or 'no' or abstain. And pillars of parliamentary democracy; people who preach democracy, people who claim that without them democracy will die in this part of the world, are seeking to bring this about! Sir, the Prime Minister has time and again laughed it off whenever we say that the P.A.P. Government is adopting Fascist tactics. He stands up and says, 'Am I a Fascist? Look, I allow you to do this, I allow you to do that.' Sir, I must say that I have greater respect for Hitler than our Prime Minister because at least Hitler made no pretences. He had the courage and the guts to say, 'This is what I believe in - no democracy, nothing'. But the Government today have very strong Fascist tendencies and they want to camouflage them by talking of democracy and individual freedom, 'We are pillars of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world.' It has already been pointed out very many times in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the so-called democrats like them - like all the Chiang Kai-sheks and Syngman Rhees that we have - who spelt doom for democracy in this part of the world. It is not the people who are accused as Communists; it is not the people in the Barisan Sosialis who will destroy democracy. It is the men who are drunk with power and want to keep power at the expense of the people. Sir, as the Bill stands now, the Government can pose a question in any form. It can pose a number of questions. It can also ask the people to choose between two unacceptable alternatives and deny them the right to abstain. If a voter does not wish either of the alternatives, he cannot say 'no', because he is not allowed to say 'no'. He is legally expected to say 'yes' to one of them at least. So, Sir, a voter who does not desire both will be helpless. This voter, as many, many others like him, will not be uncertain as to choose which of the two alternatives.

On a point of order. It appears to me that he is speaking on the amendment to clause 29 and not on the motion to amend clause 5.

What the Member for Thomson is doing is just arguing on the premise that clause 29 will be accepted. Therefore he is just stating a fact that under clause 29 that is so. He is not arguing for or against the merits of clause 29. I think in that respect he is perfectly in order.

Thank you, Sir. He cannot put in an unmarked vote, for that will, according to the law, be a vote for the Government proposition. Sir, this is the trick formula worked out with clause 5 of the Bill as a basis, which the P.A.P. leadership has invented to get the 'support' of the people for its merger proposals, and it is with this trick formula that they feel confident. They say the Barisan Sosialis have been cornered. They say the Barisan Sosialis are desperate now; the Communists are desperate - they do not know what to do. I tell them, Sir, we are not desperate. We are not cornered and desperate, because we have great respect for the intelligence of the people, unlike the P.A.P. leadership. We do not have to go and tell the people what to do. We believe the people know themselves what they should do. So all this talk of referendum on smoking, toddy shop is just humbug. This Bill has been drawn up by the Government with the sole intention of pushing through the P.A.P merger proposals, no matter what bluff they make in this Assembly or outside it. Now, Sir, you will see why the Opposition lay so much importance in this amendment to include a new clause which will mean only one question to which the electorate can say without ambiguity, unequivocally yes or no. Who is trying to confuse the people? The Barisan Sosialis or the P.A.P. We are fighting to get the Government to put a simple yes or no question so that the people will not be confused and helpless. So that the verdict of the people whichever way it goes will be clear-cut and the irony of it is that we are accused of trying to confuse the people This is the conduct pf an absolutely dishonest Government. Sir, every single amendment that has been moved by the Opposition to this Hill is to minimise confusion, is to help the people to indicate their wishes clearly and yet the P.A.P. is opposing it. The S.P.A. talk a lot outside, but inside here they make certain that the Bill goes through. The P.A.P. to-day has no other way of surviving except by cheating the people, and that is exactly what it is seeking to do. The Government is seeking to rig the referendum. This in simple straight forward language is rigging, and I would say it is not only rigging, it is shameful rigging. To those Members of this House who sit as Back benchers of the Government, who are fully aware of the pressure of the people and who wish to believe that all this dirty work is being done by the Prime Minister and that the responsibility is his alone, I say, "You are also responsible." Sir, every dishonest act of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is also the responsibility of the Back benchers, because without their support, the Government cannot implement its crooked decisions. As I say, it is the responsibility of every one in this House to ensure that in this Bill there is no provision for rigging the referendum one way or the other. The new clause proposed to clause S of the Bill is one of the most important amendments to the whole Bill. Without this clause and with the inclusion of clauses 21 and 29, the Referendum Bill would seek to deprive the exercise of democratic rights by our people. The Government on the one hand says that a referendum is to consult the people, to ascertain the views of the people. It says that a referendum will be held in order to determine whether the people support the White Paper merger or not. On the other hand, Sir, it seeks to interfere with the people's right to free choice. The referendum that the Government has in mind would, in fact, compel the people to vote only yes. The right to say no and the right to abstain will be deprived by legislation. We in the Barisan Sosialis have been accused as people who work to wreck democracy. We are not hypocrites, Sir, like those who claim to be democrats. We are not hypocrites like those who claim to be pillars of parliamentary democracy but who are in fact destroying the very foundations of a democratic society. The argument the Government has put forward against the amendment is untenable. We are told that if a simple question requiring a yes or no answer is put, the people will be confused. The stupidity of this argument is clear. It is absolutely ridiculous for the Government to say that our amendment which will seek a yes or no answer unequivocally would confuse the people. Any man who makes a suggestion of this sort, Sir, must be insane. And whatever form the question takes in the referendum, the right to reject or abstain must be given to the people. This is denied by the Referendum Bill and any proposition which denies the people the right of free choice, the right to say freely yes or no or abstain would be in conflict with the principles of democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate on the Referendum Bill threatens to be the most dreary performance ever in this Assembly.

Oh, you are not afraid, are you?

All the points that have been made and all the arguments that have been put forward by the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party had all been set out on previous occasions. You, Mr Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Referendum Bill, would have recognized them immediately. If you had listened to the radio forums conducted by the University of Singapore and Radio Singapore, you would have come across the very same old dreary arguments used by these Members of the Opposition on these occasions. For practical purposes, if the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party had been provided with cuttings from tape-recordings of those occasions, they could have played back their previous performances, thereby saving their throats unnecessary effort and our ear-drums unnecessary tedium. It is true, Mr Speaker, Sir, that on this occasion we have so far been spared the more lurid perorations of the Member for Anson. You will recollect that on previous occasions he likened our proposed referendum to beating of wives, beating of daughters, drinking of arsenic, prostitution, concubine, etc. Perhaps sombre reflection, which I concede even the Member for Anson on occasions is capable of, has convinced him of the absurdity of these analogies. So, now, we have to put up with the gramophone record performances of some hon. Members opposite. In all these weeks and months of cogitation they have not been able to think of a single new idea. Their brains appear to have been completely dried up. One would have thought that decency requires them to spare us the dreary repetitions of half-truths and untruths, but this is not the case. These hon. Members set about their business as if they are informing the House of startling new discoveries in human affairs. So there is nothing for us to do but to meet each and every one of these arguments again. We shall try on our part to introduce, if not a completely new set of arguments, at least a more refreshing approach to a very stale subject. Now, Sir, every time the Member for Anson speaks on how questions in a referendum should be framed, he lists out referenda in other countries where one question is asked with a yes or no answer. No one denies that this is the way certain countries carry out certain types of referenda, but the Member for Anson has conveniently forgotten the two referenda most closely akin to the one that will be carried out in Singapore soon. I refer, of course, to the referendum in Newfoundland in 1948 and the referendum, carried out last year by the United Nations in the Cameroons. Both these referenda were to decide the constitutional future of the territory concerned. The analogy with Singapore is therefore close, but the matter goes even further than that. The future of these territories is to be decided along certain alternatives, one of which is merger with a larger territory. The parallel with Singapore is therefore exact. In Newfoundland, the choice was whether the country should merge with Canada or achieve independence by itself. In the Cameroons, the choice was between merger with Nigeria and merger with the French Cameroons. Here are the most apt precedents that we have, and our framing of the question follows exactly these precedents, that is to say, the choice of alternatives and not one question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson say that the right to say "no" is a basic, fundamental, inalienable human right. I find it difficult to understand this, urge of theirs to say 'no' - an urge which may be appropriate in the case of a virtuous damsel being assailed with an improper suggestion. But the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party are neither virtuous nor damsels. In constitutional affairs, I do not see where the right to say "no" is a basic human right. In the Cameroons, for instance, voters were asked to drop their ballot papers in one of two boxes; one box for Nigeria and another for Cameroons. There was no third box for voters, who did not want either of these a1ternatives. So let us not be misled by precedents selected and slanted by the Member for Anson of referenda carried out in other countries. Some referenda support his case, others do not; and I hope he will admit that too. Those which do not support his case have a more immediate similarity with our own situation in Singapore than those which do. So this disposes of international precedents. Sir, both the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown have made quite a fuss about the fact that this is a general Referendum Bill under wnich a specific referendum, that is, on merger, will be held. One accepts this, and I do not see why this should call for much excitement among these two hon. Members. Some proposed amendments are unacceptable because they are inappropriate to a general Referendum Bill, and others are because the Bill will be used to carry out a referendum on merger. So what is so extraordinary about it? [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, am I to understand from the Member for Anson that this general Referendum Bill is to remain a general Referendum Bill, but not used for any specific referendum? Is that what he wants us to understand? The hon. Member even offered the utterly preposterous suggestion that in addition to this general Referendum Bill, we should have a specific Referendum Bill on merger. Sir, I can see some point, in logic, if he maintains, that we should scrap this general Referendum Bill and in its place have one specifically for the referendum on merger. I can see some point in this. But I am unable to see how and why we should have two Bills on referendum passed at the same time, both of which would be used to regulate one referendum. Let me get down to the gist of the matter. These people want the referendum to contain only one question, which will admit only a "yes" or "no" answer. We have stated quite correctly that in a general Referendum Bill such a limitation is unnecessarily restrictive. The arguments have been set out in Select Committee Reports, and I do not wish to weary this House by repeating them. But I only want to draw attention to two points. First, I want to discuss what they hope to achieve by this amendment. Second, I want to show that even if this amendment is accepted by the Government, it is defective from their point of view and that the objectives which they had in mind can be frustrated quite easily by the Government. Let me first deal with the point as to why they want one question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. The Member for Queens-town said that the original intention was to put up the White Paper proposals for acceptance or rejection. He is quite right. That was our original intention and it still remains our present intention. But where we disagreed with the Member for Queenstown is this: he wants a rejection of the White Paper proposals to mean that there will be no merger whatsoever. We say that the rejection of the White Paper merger would mean complete merger on terms of absolute equality with any of the other 11 States of the Federation of Malaya. In other words, if the electorate does not like the White Paper proposals, then they get the type of merger which the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party had been advocating all the time in this House. What is so wrong about this? They want complete merger on terms of absolute equality with the other States. Why do they fear to put this proposition to the electorate? If they are absolutely honest in wanting complete merger, then they should insist that complete merger should be offered as an alternative to the White Paper merger in the Referendum. In fact, if the White Paper merger were the only proposition that the Government puts to the electorate, then he should rise in anger and demand that complete merger should be put as an alternative. Why have they not done so, if they really wanted complete merger? Sir, yesterday four of us, the Members for Queenstown, Anson, the Prime Minister and myself went to Radio Singapore to record the third forum on merger and the Referendum Bill. Some time was spent on which questions should we discuss. Eventually we agreed to discuss three questions, and they were: first, whether the electorate should be able to say 'no' at the referendum: the second was the question of blank votes, and the third question asked was why the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party objected, to complete merger, a proposal which they have advocated all the time, to be included in the referendum. Sir, more time was then spent on deciding how much time should be allotted to each of these questions. The two hon. Members in the Opposition said that the basic issue was the right to say 'no', and that the other two were not really very important so that half the time should be spent on discussing the basic right to say 'no', and a quarter of the time to each of the other two questions, including the question why they object to complete merger being put to the electorate. On our side we maintained that they had to explain to the people of Singapore why they had always, objected to complete merger being put in a referendum, and we considered this to be a central issue. We, therefore, proposed that half the time -

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Chairman, you have pulled up Members who have grossly misrepresented another Member in the Assembly. I would suggest that this is a gross misrepresentation of the Opposition part that we have at no time resisted any question of the position of the Opposition being put in a referendum. It has never been put to us, and it is a gross misrepresentation.

It is not really a point of order. I think the Member for Anson could raise that point in argument against the Minister for Finance.

Sir, I do not understand it. How is there misrepresentation, considering that the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown will be moving a motion later in this session to say that the question to be put to the referendum is White Paper merger? There is no mention of complete merger. What is he talking about? To continue the narrative, Mr Speaker, Sir, we said, "Give them half the time to explain why they did not want to put complete merger to the electorate." But they displayed a marked shyness in accepting this opportunity to put their case straight before the public. Eventually, Sir, we compromised and decided that each of the three questions should be given equal time. Now, their reluctance to deal with this very basic question, "Why do they not want their own proposals to be put to the electorate?" does not surprise us, for we know that whatever they pretend to say they have never wanted complete merger or any form of merger. Even now they are saying that they never really asked for complete merger like any of the 11 States. Sir, everyone knows that at the first Radio Forum, the Members for Hong Lim and Anson in public rebuked the Member for Queenstown for letting the side down in making a grave mistake when the Barisan asked for merger like Penang and Malacca. And on behalf of -

On a point of order. Mr Chairman. If this is going to go on, then you will appreciate that we will have to reopen the issue of merger, and we will be discussing Penang and Malacca. I merely ask: is this relevant to the amendment before the House? If you so consider, then I myself would like ample time to answer it.

I do not think the Minister for Finance has gone too far over the rails. He is just making a statement of fact.

He has taken 15 minutes.

Will the Member for Anson not interrupt when the Speaker is on his feet? The Minister for Finance is relating just a statement of fact. He is, in fact, not arguing as to whether or not the White Paper merger is a better proposition than the Penang Malacca type of merger or any other type of merger. If he does that, then, of course, he will be irrelevant. 6.30 p.m.

Sir, I charge the Barisan Sosialis with being downright dishonest when they said they wanted complete merger. In the first instance, they asked for complete merger like Penang or Malacca. Then, realising their error, they added a new condition which demands that the Federation Government should treat Singapore on better terms than any of the 11 States. In other words, what the Barisan Sosialis want is not complete merger for Singapore but super-merger. This is not a proposition that can be seriously entertained, except by those whose real intention is to frustrate merger.

What about Brunei?

The Member for Nee Soon says, 'What about Brunei?' If they want merger on equal terms with Brunei, we will put it to the public. There is no trouble about that. But do not ask for super-merger. That does not happen anywhere. Sir, both they and the Workers' Party are committed to a policy of complete merger. In any reasonable man's understanding of the words 'complete merger', the terms must be like those enjoyed by anyone of the 11 States of the Federation - no better than these and no worse than these. In fact, the Member for Anson has laid down his policy in no uncertain terms. I quote from Hansard Vol. 15 No. 7, dated 23rd November, 1961, column 557. He was referring to - '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 very 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..." Then he went on to say in column 562: 'I believe that if the issue were put to the people of Singapore, "Do you want unconditional merger complete, or do you want the P.A.P. White Paper?" we would have 90 per cent of the people voting for unconditional and complete merger.'

Nine nought.

Ninety, nine nought, 90 per cent of the people voting for unconditional and complete merger. This statement is remarkable for two things. First, we find that the Member for Anson has displayed on this occasion occult powers of prediction, powers which I never thought he possessed. He must, therefore, be congratulated on the astounding accuracy of prediction on what questions will be posed in this referendum. Whether he succeeded by guess or by God I do not know, but I would not grudge him praise, whichever way it is. Sir, next, the Member for Anson, at that time at any rate, believed that 90 per cent of the electorate would vote for complete and unconditional merger. Obviously, he is not in the same ebullient mood of buoyant optimism as he was on the 23rd November last year.

I would ask about P.A.P.'s dishonesty.

Sir, is it dishonest to put in the question which he finds so natural and so right? [Interruption] I beg your pardon?

Order.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

I am obliged to the Minister. If the Minister would put our position in our words. I have already offered to pay a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists. We are not running away from it; we would be very happy, but knowing the P.A.P.'s dishonesty, we know they will not. They will put our words according to their interpretation.

Sir, may I ask the Member for Anson: if we were to frame the alternatives in the way he has put it, would he be happy?

Order. I do not think we should go into details like that. The Minister for Finance has gone on record to say that these questions will be debated in this Assembly. So that that is the time to debate.

So be it, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, if he is of the same frame of mind us he was in last year, I think he would he the last person to suggest that there should be only one question with a "Yes" or "No" answer. But what strikes me as beyond comprehension is his anger that the Government should carry out the referendum in exactly the manner which he thought so natural several months ago. Why is it blatant dishonesty in June 1962 to do what was so obviously right in November 1961? That .is to put two alternatives for the people's choice - White Paper merger and complete and unconditional merger. Sir, if he wants complete and unconditional merger, to use his own words, "on an equal basis with any of the, other States", why does he object to this choice being offered to the electorate as an alternative to White Paper merger? More especially so as he is convinced that 90 per cent of the electorate will choose complete and unconditional merger. Why does he say that complete and unconditional merger is like drinking arsenic, beating one's wife, going into prostitution and other perverted forms of human conduct which his morbid imagination conjures up every now and then? Sir, this brings me to the point raised by the Member for Queenstown. He said that we had originally intended to pose the White Paper proposal for acceptance or rejection. He meant by this we wanted to put the White Paper proposal in a form of a question which only admits of a "Yes" or "No." answer. Sir, how he gets this curious notion I do not know. But he now admits that if the choice were given to the people between White Paper merger and complete merger, this would put Barisan Sosialis in a "zugzwang". At long last the awful truth has dawned upon him, and I must congratulate him on his realisation of the dire straits in which he finds himself, belated though his perception comes. But he will recollect that when I first told him that the Barisan Sosialis was in a "zugzwang", it was not this year, but well into last year that it happened. Sir, time does not permit me to check through Hansard to identify the date but this may be a useful piece of research for the hon. Member to do. So to say that there has been a recent switch in our policy on referendum is untrue. Right from the beginning we were fairly certain of the outcome of the referendum we propose to carry out. There was no hasty change of intention or design, as a result of a reappraisal of political trends. The P.A.P., Sir, makes long-term forecasts fairly accurately and, in addition, allows for the inevit able margin of error and inaccuracy for which special precautions are always available. This is the way to handle a troublesome situation. Sir, if the Member for Queenstown is still not convinced of what I say, may I refer him to the parable of the inquisitive camel, which I brought up in the Select Committee? This stupid and inquisitive camel - I am referring, of course, to the Barisan Sosialis - is led to the belief that there is a fish in the mud-hole.

Are you referring to merger?

No, I am not referring to merger. Eventually the camel, wanting to know more about the fish, goes nearer to the mud-hole and falls into it. Sir, this parable is intended to show that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis made their basic error, not in recent months or weeks, but as long ago as last July, August and September, when in complete dishonesty they claimed that they wanted full and complete merger. They think that they can get away with this dishonest pretence. Sir, the time for reckoning is not far off. The day of retribution is at hand. Once they said that they wanted complete and absolute merger, then there was no escape for them. Sir, how different the position would be if they had, right from the beginning, said that they did not want merger on any terms whatsoever. They were instructed by the Communist underground to say that the next stage of the constitutional development of Singapore should be internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government so that they can save their own skins. If they had stuck to this M.C.P. underground official line steadfastly and without deviation, they would not have been in their present predicament of having their bluff called. When you ask for complete merger, you ask for complete merger, not for super-merger. This attempt to wriggle out from complete merger by saying that you really wanted super-merger is too obvious and dishonest a maneuver to deceive anybody. So, now, Sir, the camel is in the mud-hole and there he remains until he is carried out by persons who want to take charge of naughty and inquisitive camels arid to put them in their proper places.

You are the camel, then.

Some people are trying to make a pretence of being quite jolly about the situation. I congratulate the Member for Thomson on his show of resolution. But, Sir, we were not born yesterday.

You are optimistic, you know.

We are optimistic, confident and relaxed. We face the future as Mao Tse-tung says - An hon. Member: When?

This was after -

Order. Let us hear about Mao Tse-tung [Laughter].

This was after the third annihilation campaign which the Kuomintang forces mounted against him and they were defeated and routed every time, and Mao Tse-tung said, "When your strategic position is sound and when your tactical disposition is complete, you can face the enemy with ease and' poise." That is the happy position we find ourselves in today. We face everything with complete ease and poise. We are not ruffled, even by the threats of the Member for- [Interruption].

Order. I take it that that quotation comes from a book and the book is available in the Library. 6.45 p.m.

This quotation comes from Mao Tse-tung's Selected Works. I think it is Volume 2. It is in the library. An hon. Member: Mao Tse-tung is a real Communist.

Order. Please continue.

The open front leader of the Communists in the Barisan Sosialis paid the Prime Minister and myself a most handsome compliment. He said, "These are the people who study the Communist classics and use their tactics and strategy to put them in a fix." That is a very big compliment. Why should we not do it? In a democracy, Sir, are we democrats disallowed, the freedom to read Communist classics? I am sure the Member for Thomson would not say so. An hon. Member: You had better give me a few books.

Please continue.

Sir, I now come to the second feature of the proposed amendment. I said, before that even if the Government accepted this amendment, it could still frustrate the objective which the amenders have in mind, namely, to block merger. Now. Sir, let me transfix the point that we can easily devise the question in accordance with the requirements of this amendment and still have merger, whatever the answer is. We can frame the question like this.: "Do you prefer complete merger to the White Paper merger? Answer 'yes' or 'no'." If the answer is 'yes', you get complete merger. If the answer is 'no', you get the White Paper merger. All the conditions of the clauses are followed, but the camel still remains in its mud-hole. So this amendment really is an example of inept draftsmanship, just as the amendment we discussed yesterday was clumsy and inept. They wanted to have the questions put to the referendum to be discussed in this Assembly. They dealt with the wrong clause of the Bill, amending it in such a way that it became constitutionally ridiculous. May I, therefore, suggest to them, the Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party, that they should pay more attention to the finer points of legal draftsmanship? Now, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have been so obsessed with having questions with an answer of 'yes' or 'no' that they said through their representative, Dr Lim Hock Siew, at the forum of the University of Singapore, that they did not mind whether there is one question, two' questions, or five questions put to the referendum, provided the answer is 'yes' or 'no' to each one of them. And if the electorate were given the choice to say 'no', they would, not mind whether blank votes counted one way or the other. Sir, these are very rash, bold and inadequately considered views. If we were to take Dr Lim at his own words, it does not require much ingenuity to frame the questions in such a way as to frustrate the Barisan Sosialis' attempt to wreck the merger referendum. Sir, the point is not whether there should be one question to which the answer is to be 'yes' or 'no'. This is merely a matter of legal draftsmanship on which they slipped up so badly. The real issue is this: should the Communists and their stooges be given a chance to wriggle out of their open commitment for complete merger and so wreck the referendum by dishonest and fraudulent misrepresentation of the issue? They claim that in a democratic state they have the right to use democratic privileges to jam up the democratic processes. Sir, only the most innocent of people believe that the democratic state is so feeble, so flabby, and so powerless as to provide its enemies, who wish to destroy democracy, all the facilities and encouragement to do so. They may feel that the democratic system should allow itself to be corroded and destroyed in this manner. We of the P.A.P. say that it is the duty of the democratic state to set up defences in sufficient strength to deny the enemy any opportunity to do this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the Minister preparing and reading a written speech for that tour de force of abuse and falsehoods. I will ignore the abuse. Let me come straight down to the falsehoods. He said, "The Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party have always objected to their type of merger being put to the people in a referendum", and he cannot understand our reluctance in that we do not want our proposals to be put to the electorate. Mr Speaker, every human being is expected to have a memory that lasts at least 24 hours. Not 24 hours ago, Mr Speaker, I had to meet these gentlemen across the Floor in Radio P.A.P. There was a loaded question from Utusan Melayu. Let me read it, Sir, so that you can have it accurately, from the official transcript; it is not mine: 'The Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party have in the earlier stages asked for complete merger. Why are they now objecting to this question being put to the people in the referendum?' My reply, in the hearing of the Minister, was that the first part was correct that, in so far as the Workers' Party was concerned, we believed, we believe and will continue to believe, in a complete merger. As to the second question, it was completely inaccurate to suggest that we were reluctant that that matter should be put. In fact, Mr Chairman, I have stated, in the hearing of the Minister who still repeats that falsehood, that we are reluctant to have it put to the referendum. 'Mr Marshall, they say that they will put the alternative. Do you want the P.A.P. proposals or do you want complete merger?' I say to you that I am prepared - the journalists were present - to donate a thousand dollars to the National Union of Journalists if, in fact, the alternatives are put.

Order. This is not a point of order. It is only to ask the Member to speak a little slower because of the difficulty in translation.

I am much obliged. Sir. And I said that, in fairness, the alternative should be the alternative which we proposed in all solemnity to the motion for merger on 21st November - an alternative, Sir, which you will find on the day it was proposed by the Member for Queenstown, and strongly supported by the United People's. Party and by the Workers' Party on 21st November, 1961, at col. 406 of the Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 5.

You wanted super merger.

I shall come to that falsehood in a minute - one at a time. I know it is very embarrassing. I do not know, but perhaps it is not embarrassing to him. I am feeling how I would feel if I were doing this sort of thing. Sir, this was the amendment. We sought to introduce the words: '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.' Sir, that deals with the first falsehood that we do not want our stand put to the people. Mr Speaker, I almost feel apologetic with the respect that I normally have for the traditional august nature of this Assembly, which one is apt to forget sometimes in the light of the unprecedented conduct of the Government to use the word "falsehood". But there is no other word, Sir, which could fairly and squarely pin it down in the light of the fact that it was but 30 hours ago - yesterday, between 12.30 and 2.00 p.m., this was stated in his presence, and his answer was, "This is a bribe." I said. "It is not the P.A.P. that I am offering the bribe to." The National Union of Journalists can hardly assist me in it, Sir. That is the first falsehood. They said, "Ah, yes." Now, Sir, we went right off. They did not accept the challenge. Would they put the position of the Opposition as enunciated by them after consultation and fully supported, which they defeated' with the Front Bench of the Opposition by I think it was 32 votes to 17 with two absent on 6th December. Now, Sir, let us pin this falsehood once and forever, and I am prepared to sit down to receive' the answer. Would the Government be prepared to put the alternative in the form that the Opposition want? And, Sir, I added this. You know, Mr Speaker, never I think - and you have known me for a long time - have I ever alleged that I could at most but guess at the wishes of the people. Nobody knows it. And when I expressed my own views as to the possible result, those are my own views, but I would say this that even if our proposals were put to the people, I say that they are entitled to say yes or no to each, that there should never be any question because the Opposition Parties say they believe the people want one thing and the Government say they believe the people want another thing, that the people should have no right to reject both the Government and the Opposition proposals. We are no gods. We are human beings. Some of us seek in sincerity to assess what is wanted, to assess how good it is, to assess how far it should be taken, and I, in so far as the Workers' Party is concerned, even if that were put, I would insist that the people, should have the right to reject and categorically and clearly to reject my proposals if they deem fit to do so. They should have the unequivocal right to say yes or no to either the Government proposition and/or the Opposition proposition. Now, Sir, the second falsehood - that we asked for super merger. I do not have to prepare or get prepared by one of many paid stooges any speech to answer this. The second falsehood that was perpetrated in that tour de force of abuse and falsehood is that we seek a super merger. Mr Chairman, first let us look at the terms again: "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." That was our amendment which was defeated by the P.A.P. with the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. in support. Where is its super position? 7.00 p.m. We ask for integration. Do you think that when Newfoundland entered Canada the citizens of Newfoundland did not become Canadian citizens? You know that since 1948 the Federation has had provisions whereby persons living in Penang and Malacca could have Federal citizenship. Do you think that when the eleven States joined together, the Federal citizens of Penang or Malacca did not become Federation citizens? Now, Sir, Penang did not have any Singapore citizens or Penang citizens. Malacca did not have any Singapore citizens or Malacca citizens and the issue as regards our citizens should be dealt with in the same way as the citizens who were Federal citizens and that this can be done is clearly shown: it was in the mind of the Federation parties and the Alliance which helped to formulate the Constitution whereby under Article 22 the Government of the Federation is given the power to grant citizenship to those in new territories who are citizens of the new territories which join it. So, Mr Speaker, that is the second falsehood, that we asked for a super, super merger -

Order, order. An application to move a business motion. I suspend the sitting. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

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

Debate in Committee resumed.

Mr Speaker, one other point in respect of this falsehood, that we are seeking a super merger - something that nobody has, something that the arrogant Singapore Commun.sts want and their stooges. Mr Speaker, you have been referred during a bag and unhappy sitting in November and December of last year to the widespread publicity given to polIcy statements of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya wherein he indicated in the clearest possible terms that he was prepared to take in Brunei, Borneo aid Sarawak with full Federation citizenship for the Brunei citizens and the British subjects in the other two territories. So where are we asking for this super merger? That is the secoid falsehood, Sir. Then he said - and this, Sir, but for the fact that it is tragic would make one laugh; prepared for him no doubt by somebody and I wonder if he understands the words he uses - "What would the reasonable man's understanding be of complete merger?" Yes, do they know what a reasonable man is? Can they put themselves in the position of a reasonable man? Do they really think they can? Have they made any effort to talk on an honest man-to-man basis with a reasonable man and ask of him, "What do you understand by the phrase 'complete and unconditional merger'?" Do you understand that there are going to be half our citizens who would be deprived of citizenship? Sir, to put the question is to answer it, except for those who are deaf to all logic, to all reason, to all good sense. For the P.A.P. Front Bench to talk of the reasonable man is almost blasphemy. He said, Sir. "What is wrong, that in June 1962 we should not do what the Member for Anson said we could do in November of 1961?" The Member for Anson has at no time. Mr Speaker, ever considered it proper or said that it was proper that the people should have questions put to them without being given the right to say yes or no to each question as every civilised country has offered. The Minister for Finance has offered us Newfoundland - I hope it was not done cleverly. I should like to think that he is not just that dishonest but shall we say he has glossed over the manner in which the voting took place, whether in respect of the three alternatives, they were given the chance to say yes or no in respect of each of them. But he has put forward the issue of the Cameroons. The Cameroons, and I may be wrong here in my history, Mr Chairman, were a trust territory under the United Nations and it could be, after thorough and exhaustive examination and various commissions going to the Cameroons, that they decided that there was no other alternative, because nobody wanted anything else: either the question of going into Nigeria or the question of going into the Cameroons. There was never any demand for the right to say yes or no, it was never queried by anybody within the Cameroons if you would care to look at the United Nations report in that respect. It was put very frankly, Sir. But here, what is being threatened is not that we are going to put the only two possible issues because they admit themselves through the Prime Minister - they have said ad nauseam; to talk about radio or gramophone records, Sir, nowadays is really to bring people's minds to the Prime Minister and his performances on Radio Singapore - but he has said that if you ask 624,000 citizens what type of merger you want, according to him, you will get 624,000 alternatives. So, Sir, it is not a question - unless they are going to somersault again and I must confess, Sir, that I have reached the stage where I do not believe that anything we say on this side of the House can convince them except perhaps the power to out-vote them; it does not look possible, in view of the statement made by the Member for Cairnhill - but for the record let us pin down these falsehoods. There are according to the P.A.P. 624,000 possible variations of merger - one for each citizen. So it is not that they are exhausted. Now, why do they refuse the right to say no? Why? Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance said that he missed my lurid analogies of mistress and prostitute, of beating his mother, his wife or his daughter and he asked, in sneering terms, whether calmer judgment has made me realise the inappropriateness - or perhaps he used an abusive word, I cannot remember them all - that this was not appropriate. Mr Chairman, not at all, not at all. These analogies likening the alternatives to the alternative offered of being a mistress or being a prostitute - the essential quality between all these analogies is the quality of - how shall I say it - unacceptability to the normal, decent person; giving the alternative of one unacceptable alternative and another that is even more unacceptable. And it is far from inappropriate to say that the present merger proposals are somewhat equivalent to offering us the position of a mistress coming to my home, joining my board but she cannot have the dignity and status of my bride. Nor is there so grave a discrepancy and so inappropriate that one can complain about the interpretation that they put about joining a State with the deprivation of our citizens of their citizenship being different from that of inviting us to be a prostitute. Mr Speaker, if they prefer, and it is the same to me, I have earlier said it is not fair to say to your daughter, "You must marry A or B." She should have the chance to say yes or no to either. Mr Speaker, we had the extraordinary performance - not extraordinary, one should become accustomed to this by now - of the Minister standing up and saying, "This is a specific Bill," and three sentences later saying, "This is a general Bill for a specific purpose," and then going on to say, "It is a general Bill and why should not we have a specific referendum thereunder?" Mr Speaker, we all know that general pro visions apply in individual cases but they are general provisions because they are intended for all cases that may be applicable thereafter. But he stated that this was a specific Bill and that is why it was inappropriate that there should be only one question. Mr Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to this Minister's statement on the 15th of May, 1962, to be found in column 309 of our Official Report from Select Committee, and that is to show you that though this is supposed to be a general referendum Bill he admitted that the present clause 29 was in fact for the specific purposes of dealing with the Communist threat on merger. We will come to the Communist threat. But I want to use the exact words so that I should not misquote him. Now, Mr Speaker, your question after he had quoted himself - he has a delightful habit of respecting himself and admiring himself so much that he is always quoting himself. Now, Sir, he quoted himself over the whole column and then you asked him when he drew breath: 'The Chairman: May I now ask the Minister whether he has indicated, by his reading of the extracts, that the New Clause (A) [that is, our clause 29] has, in fact, been introduced to meet a situation of that nature in regard to a referendum on merger? Dr Goh Keng Swee: I would say, Mr Chairman, not generally, but in particular reference to the present situation,...'. Now, Sir, what does the Minister for Labour and Law say in respect of that clause? I know he says all over the place - it is peppered with his protestations - that this is a general Bill. But look at the revised transcript of the Hansard of the 16th of March, 1962, Sir - [Interruption].

Order.

I am delighted to hear him turning again because he cannot open his mouth without putting his foot into it! Sir, at page 21 of the revised transcript dated 16th March, 1962 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 270], the last few lines where he stated that the New Clause (A) was introduced specifically for the purpose of a referendum on merger. I will read it. 'In the same way, the Government would be failing in their duty to the people and would be acting foolishly if they did not take the elementary precaution of preventing the referendum from being manipulated -'

Order. I think the Member is reading too fast. I am sure there is difficulty in translation.

I am so sorry. I appreciate that. I will read it again slowly: 'In the same way, the Government would be failing in their duty to the people and would be acting foolishly if they did not take the elementary precaution of preventing the referendum from being manipulated by what would amount to a boycott of the referendum through the tendering of blank and unmarked ballot papers which can be organised to serve the ends of those Communists and pro-Communist groups who are hostile to merger.' Sir, since they have introduced clause 29 - or perhaps they would like to deny it now, they have the opportunity; nobody is going to be surprised now, but if they would like to deny it they can, so long as they are on the record; I will treat it still undenied and still their policy - specifically for the purposes of the merger proposals of the P.A.P., why can they not consider introducing specific questions or question for the purpose of the merger proposals? After all, here are specific provisions in a general Bill, call it a hybrid Bill, not to use an offensive term, although a hybrid Bill is known technically as meaning something else. Let us use that term here to mean one that is a cross between a general and a specific. They have here clause 29 which is specifically for merger. Could we not have also some provisions with reference to saying 'yes' or 'no' and to the merger proposal question? Sir, I come to the Member for Cairnhill. I must confess that I am so unaccustomed in this Chamber to hearing a Member of the Assembly referring with courtesy to a political opponent with whom he is in strong disagreement that I trust that you will grant me the indulgence of expressing my surprise and my appreciation for the courteous manner in which he referred to me and his acceptance of my good intentions. Sir, he asked, why do I lead the Barisan Sosialis? Heaven forbid! I think both the Member for Queenstown and I would deny that strenuously, Sir, 1 am sure they do not like to follow that. He has suggested it, and shall we say, if I might change a little without changing the meaning. Why am I with the Barisan Sosialis on this matter of having one question one issue? I must be satisfied that that would lead to the Communists rigging the merger proposals. 1 think that is what he said, Sir. Now, the question there is a fair one and it is unfortunate that he did not elaborate on why and how the rigging would take place. Fortunately we are in Committee, and it would be helpful - very helpful, Sir - if we could know. But I would like to ask this. I told him frankly that I am associated with this amendment and with this attack on the Referendum Bill, and with his strenuous, and I do assure him, his sincere efforts for its amelioration, because we believe that it is essential for our welfare and the healthy development of democracy that the people should be honestly dealt with. It is as simple as that. And if we deal dishonestly with them - those whom we seek to attract to the democratic way - it would be a retrograde step and it would take us a long time to recover from it. I would ask him, Sir, does he think that if one Question was put to the people, the question that was accepted by this Assembly, it being that the merger proposals are the first step which are acceptable to the welfare of the people, is he then saying that he thinks they would reject it? Because he says they would wreck it. If he does think that, does he think that the majority or our 624,000 people would be acting voluntarily or under compulsion? If voluntarily, Sir, surely it is the very essence of the democratic process that a man, no matter how humble, no matter how ignorant, if he is a citizen of age and sane, should have the right to express his views. That is part of the strength and the defects that we reach a healthy balance. Does he now deny the right of the majority who do not believe in merger, according to him, to say "no"? If so, why, Sir? Because they are confused? Would the Member for Cairnhill not admit that the only confusion of which we have any evidence so far is the calculated confusion created, perpetrated and maintained by the P.A.P. with reference to' this Penang and Malacca bogey? Does he know of any other confusion? Yes, Sir, let me be fair. There is the confusion of second-class citizenship. True. There is that and I know the Barisan did not like me when I said that "second-class citizen" was an inappropriate phrase, that it was distinct citizenship. But assuming, and I accept that is a totally inaccurate way of describing it - distinct citizenship; let us say that there are people who believed that, Sir, and who are merely confused, although, in so far as I can see, the major campaign is this humbug and hypocrisy that is being manufactured by the P.A.P. in respect of Penang and Malacca. But let us say that it is the Barisan who talk of second-class citizenship. I will ask you this, Mr Speaker. Right, I am confused. I have swallowed hook, line and sinker this talk of second-class citizenship. Am I therefore not entitled to vote, because I am confused? Has a man who is confused no right to vote? Since when has democracy sought to distinguish the confused and the not confused? How many of those opposite Benches are not confused? Or on the Back Benches? The Front Benches know not what they are doing. Oh! yes, the Back Benches will begin to wriggle with embarrassment, I hope. So, Sir, I would ask the Member for Cairnhill. He has posed a fair question, and he has the chance, and I would ask him, in these cases if the people would freely vote against the White Paper, are they not entitled to do so? Surely he is not suggesting any matter of coercion or compulsion? It is the essence of democracy that no matter how confused, or humble or stupid a man may be, he is entitled to say "yes" or "no" , and to make his choice. He says, and I think he implies it, to have one question, one issue, would wreck the referendum - the merger proposals. He did not indicate either what other question he had in mind. I want to say this to you, Mr Chairman. I recognize that there can be other questions - legitimate questions - and I want to say to myself, I am not intransigent as regards one question, so long as the people have a right to say "yes" or to say "no" to each. In the context of the merger proposals, we frame this amendment because it seems to us that there was but one appropriate question, and that was the question posed by the Assembly. Mr Chairman, you are not unaware of the accepted constitutional understanding of a referendum that it puts to the people something approved of by the Legislature for their confirmation and what has been approved are the White Paper proposals. The Opposition stand has been rejected and frankly, from the constitutional standpoint, it does not seem appropriate . I do not, for one moment, believe that there is any milk of human kindness, or a sense of sportsmanship, or a sense of democracy or even a sense of decency on the Front Bench that would put the Opposition point of view to the people. You have heard the Minister for Finance last night say proudly, "What do you think the P.A.P. is? A philanthropic organization that is going to help the Barisan Sosialis with its point of view? Of course it is not." There is no understanding of these things on the part of the Front Bench. This era of the P.A.P. is an era of tragedy which the people of Singapore will remember for a long time. And we are all praying that it will end, and that it will end quietly, and without much more damage to us. The sooner we bury them, Sir, the cleaner the air will be, and the more scope there will be for democracy. So it is not the question that they are seeking to pose our question. I am Asking the Member for Cairnhill - since he posed a fair question - what question has he in mind that could probably be posed which would frustrate the machinations of the Communists? Mr Chairman I want to ask you, Sir, it is not a little Column : 228 fantastic to suggest that the Communists in Singapore could intrude and in fact, influence the voluntary act of voting of the majority of our 624,000 citizens? I would say that is an absurdity. [Interruption] Oh, let us have an end to all these falsehoods. He has been replied to. This is another Dr Goebbels - repeat and repeat like a foolish, worn-out gramophone record that is dusty, dirty, bankrupt and broken. Now, Sir, let me return to the Member for Cairnhill, who has urged me to an effort at understanding and who has put a fair question which I am trying to deal with. I do ask what further question would he like'? Would he like to indicate them? I would go so far as to say, Mr Chairman, that he has not, in fact, dealt with the last limb of our amendment. The first one was that there should be one question, the second is that there should be one issue, the last part is that every elector shall be required to answer such question. He can put each question. He can put each question with a 'yes' or 'no'. Would he like to move that amendment or would he like to deal with the question as a whole? I have not given up hope, as the Barisan seems to have given up hope, that the S.P.A. would in fact dissociate themselves from a dishonest referendum. I have heard the Member for Cairnhill in Select Committee. You will remember, Sir, that we were indebted to him for a conciliatory and constructive effort and I do hope that we will see no change of that stand in this Assembly now. I would inquire whether the Member for Cairnhill is, in fact, interested in supporting that part of the amendment which requests that there should be an answer of "yes" or "no" to the question, although he objects to the single question and the single issue aspect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, much already has been debated, discussed, argued from all parties in Singapore on whether there should be one simple straightforward question in the coming referendum. We have listened to all the twists and turns and arguments put forward by the Government and I do not wish to repeat here the same old arguments. But what I must do now is to explode one of the points raised by the Minister for Finance, which, on the face of it, looks very convincing. In his speech the Minister for Finance has said that under the Opposition's united amendment, the Government can still ask: "Do you prefer complete merger to White Paper merger?" I think, Sir, if the Government is prepared to be dishonest and to go to any lengths, however much we tie them up in Bills, Ordinances and by-laws, they still can wriggle out to suit their own convenience. However, I wish today to quote from a book written by J. F. S. Ross from the Assembly Library called "Elections and Electors". Commenting on a referendum, at page 23 of his book, Mr Ross said: 'The essence of the referendum, of course, is that it puts a question to the general body of citizens. Now, any fool can ask a question, but to ask the right question, and to ask it in the right way, is quite another matter. Experience shows that large numbers of people will misunderstand even simple questions if there is the least chance. It needs great skill and care to make questions foolproof. Moreover to ask questions on controversial issues requires, in addition, a high standard of integrity; for if the questioner is unscrupulous he may so word the question as either deliberately to mislead the answerer, or else to suggest to him a particular response that the questioner desires to receive. In short, the referendum offers too many opportunities of misunderstanding on the one hand, and of manipulation on the other, to permit of its acceptance as generally suitable for purposes of government. Further, even if we could be sure of putting impeccable questions and receiving faultless answers, we should still have to confine the use of the referendum to comparatively few and simple issues.' Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing to prevent the Government, if it so desires, from asking any question. They can have a referendum to ask such a question: "Do you prefer an S.P.A. Government to a P.A.P. Government?" I read in another book by C. S. Emden, "The People and the Constitution", that he mentions that in 1945, Churchill, at the conclusion of his Coalition Government, suggested a referendum to authorise the maintenance of the existing Parliament until the end of the war against Japan. This referendum was not held because of the opposition of the Labour and Liberal Parties. Now if Mr Churchill in those days had insisted that the referendum should be held, he had two ways out. If he wanted to hold an honest referendum he would put the question simply by asking for a simple 'yes' or 'no'. He would frame the question: "Do you agree that the present Parliament should continue until the end of the war with Japan?" What he wanted was a simple 'yes' or 'no'. But if Mr Churchill were politically bankrupt, but still wanted to cling to power and hold a dishonest referendum, he could pose two alternatives: "Do you want Churchill to govern the country?" and "Do you want Chamberlain to come back to power?", or as the Minister for Finance said just now: "Do you prefer a Hitler or a Mussolini to Mr Churchill?" Mr Speaker, Sir, this shows that a referendum can always be manipulated. That is why we have supported the amendment to clause 5 so as to minimise the risk of the referendum being manipulated. That is why we have thought that the question to be asked in the coming referendum should be a simple straightforward question requiring a simple answer - 'yes' or 'no'. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the amendment put forward by the three Opposition Parties is accepted by Government, we believe there will be less room for unscrupulous governments, not only now, but also in the future, to manipulate referenda. However, on this occasion, I doubt whether we can make this Government see some sense. It is prepared to go against the people and to dishonour its pledges. You remember, I mentioned once in this Assembly that the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Opposition Parties on 6th September, 1961, the following: 'There has not been and there will not be any secret deal between the Federation Government and the Singapore Government. The agreement in principle on the two points I have enunciated has been published. When the deliberations of the Working Party are completed and agreement is reached, they will also be published. The people can then either accept or reject them.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the words are very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. "The people can either accept or reject them", which means the White Paper proposals. To accept means to say yes and to reject is to say no. The Deputy Prime Column : 231 Minister has given a pledge to all Opposition Parties and the contents of his letter could be translated as this: Do you want the White Paper - yes or no? Now, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech yesterday and today has confirmed the pledge and he has given reasons why his Government is dis honouring the pledge. Sir, our analysis, in this instance, happens to coincide incidentally with the Member for Cairnhill's analysis just now. Why does Government want to dishonour its pledge? At yesterday's debate, the Minister for Finance remarked that it was because the Barisan Sosialis had put up proposals for a different type of merger. Now, Sir, this is merely an excuse. This type of argument does not hold ground, firstly, the Barisan Sosialis is not the only Opposition to the White Paper proposals. Secondly, it has claimed that the P.A.P. had distorted its intentions. Thirdly, when the White Paper was put up for debate, the Barisan Sosialis' stand in this Assembly was clearly one of automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens. Sir, the White Paper has been agreed between the Singapore and the Federa tion Governments as a form of constitutional proposals. As far as we have been informed, there save been no other types of merger proposals other than the White Paper merger proposals. As far as we know, no other types of merger proposals have been discussed between the two Governments. We want to ask the Government, "Has the Federation Government said that Singapore can choose any type of merger it wants?" We hope the Government will give an answer. Sir, why does the Government want to dishonour its pledge which it has given in speeches by the Prime Minister in July and August 1961, and in a letter sent to Opposition Parties by the Deputy Prime Minister? We feel that the Government has changed its mind, because in the early stages of the talks with the Federation, the P.A.P. Government was confident that its proposals could be acceptable to the majority of the people. This confidence was based on the premise that the people will swallow the Column : 232 bait of the so-called autonomy in education and labour. Therefore, the Government committed itself not only to a referendum but also to a straightforward question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. However, later, the situation developed rapidly. The people did not swallow the bait but instead asked for automatic conversion. Therefore, the Government was having second thoughts when the Referendum Bill came up for Second Reading. The people had known, and the Government had known itself that it will lose in a straightforward and honest referendum. However, the Government after having committed itself to a referendum must find a way out. This was found by the skilful and artful manipulation of putting a second alternative which will be worse than the original proposal. Faced with two bad alternatives the voters will have to abstain. Sir, there is nothing now which this Government is not prepared to do, lt is already politically bankrupt, and it makes no difference whether one is bankrupt once or bankrupt ten times. The Government can argue that it has not gone against its pledge. It can say, as it had said in the Radio forum, "You still can reject the White Paper by voting for the second alternative, and if you cannot make up your mind, don't worry, the Government will do it for you." As I said just now, it Churchill wants to be politically dishonest, he can always say, "If you don't want me to be the Prime Minister for another few years, then you can vote Chamberlain in." Mr Speaker, Sir, this is all twisted logic and dialectics. Sir, we do not feel that we should waste the time any more of this House. We have gone through and made countless arguments in debates and forums on this extremely important issue. Both the Government and Opposition Parties have more or less exhausted all the arguments and I am convinced that nothing will change the Government stand. However, it is important for us to know which side of the arguments has been more convincing and acceptable to the people. The best way, Sit, -is to decide in a by-election. I will resign from the seat of Hong Lim if Government gives us two undertakings; one, not to force through the Referendum Bill in its present form Column : 233 until the verdict of the people is obtained: two, not to delay or to postpone the by-election sine die but to have polling day on or before 31st of July, 1962. Mr, speaker, Sir, I will not try to embarrass the Front Benches of the Government by challenging them to resign one seat. Sir, we will fight on two simple issues - clause 5 and clause 29; that is the question to be put and the blank votes. If the Government wins, I say that the people agree with the Government's arguments but if the Government loses, then the Government should accept the Opposition stand. Sir, there are no personal feelings or rancour in this offer. I am not acting without due consideration and without realising my responsi bilities as an Assemblyman of this House. However, on clause 5 hinges the fate and the destiny of our political and constitutional future and, therefore, it is important that the people must give their verdict before we press on. Mr Speaker, Sir, the destiny of the country is at stake and it all hinges on clause 5 and clause 29. I ask the Government, why not let the free and true will of the people he the judge of the undemocratic clauses in the Referendum Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one outstanding feature of today's debate is that after the Opposition has put up so many meritorious arguments to back up their stand on this amendment, the Government has said nothing and made no reply whatsoever to these various arguments. All we have heard from the Government is a heap of abuse and a lot of frivolous talk about the Opposition. The Deputy Prime Minister who spoke yesterday spoke in the most lighthearted vein. The Minister for Finance who spoke today spoke with his usual cheekiness, heaping insults and sometimes talking nonsense. Sir, I shall not belabour this House by repeating the various valid, meritorious and sensible arguments to people who have schizoid tendencies and who are unable to see arguments and to listen to Column : 234 them, but who have already made up their minds that they are right and everybody else is wrong. The schizoid tendency of certain people in Government is all too well-known.

Order. May I have that word again? I do not know whether it is parliamentary or unparliamentary?

'Schizoid', Mr Speaker, Sir - S-c-h-i-z-o-i-d. I am afraid it is a medical term, describing certain mental illness in which the patient is unable to listen to reason.

Just like the case of the Member for Anson.

More like the Minister for Law.

Order. Probably it is more like most Members of this Assembly, including the Speaker. I do not know.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said throughout this debate, only two Front Benches have spoken, and neither one of them has seen fit to answer the arguments put up by the Opposition. Dr Goh Keng Swee -

Order. The Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just paying heed and attention to a circular which, I believe, was circulated by the Clerk.

Order. Perhaps the Member is suffering from schizoid. I just called the Member up for calling a Member of this House by his name, instead of saying the Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I might refer you to the circular which I find some difficulty in understanding. Part II of your circular says that in Committee of the whole Assembly and in Select Committees, the Speaker is to be referred to as Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speaker is to be referred to by name, i.e., "Mr Mammen", and any other Member by name, i.e., "Mr . . . ". Column : 235

I think the Member is probably suffering from schizoid. If he looks at the heading of that letter it is "Form of addressing the Chair," and any other Member might possibly be in this Chair. If the Deputy Speaker happens to be away, this Assembly elects a Member to the Chair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance in his speech just now spent more than half of the time heaping abuse and the other half of the time talking of things hypo thetical and unrelated to the issues that we are faced with today. According to the Minister of Finance, he says that the amendment was put in for two purposes. The first is that the Opposition hopes that by this amendment to limit or restrict the Government on its questions in the referendum, and thereby to frustrate the P.A.P. Command Paper No. 33 type of merger. Secondly, he says that even if this amendment was accepted and approved by this House, the Government would still be able to rig a referendum because he quoted that under the new circumstances - the circumstances in which the amendment applies - it would be possible for the Government to pose a question thus: "Do you prefer complete merger or Command Paper No. 33 P.A.P. type of merger?" 7.52 p.m.

Surely, Sir, this kind of attitude reflects only the machiavellian machina tions behind the brain of the Minister for Finance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we all understand that a referendum is a procedure for the ascertainment of the views of the people - the electorate - on matters of national importance. Now, we see very clearly that, insofar as the P.A.P. is concerned, a referendum is not for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the people but to sustain them in office and for that they are even prepared to go to the extent of spending $400,000 on a referendum just for the purpose of having one over the Column : 236 electorate by posing a question in which the electorate has Hobson's choice. That was the Minister for Finance. He thought he was clever, but I think that is more machiavellian machination than cleverness, that to have one over the people for the purpose of sustaining one's own political longevity is certainly not clever. It is either abusing or cheating. He then went on to quote at length the words of the Member for Anson. He said that the Opposition stand was that we were prepared to accept complete merger and in his usual machiavellian and cunning way he distorts complete merger as something akin to the Malacca or Penang type of merger. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think our stand on the matter has been very clearly put up by the Member for Anson who has gone to great lengths to quote the full part of our stand, that is, insofar as we are concerned, complete merger can mean only one thing - the genuine reunification of the territories and the people resulting in automatic conversion in citizenship and in Singapore getting proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. The Minister for Finance keeps on harping on his theme that we can get only what the other eleven States got. But the Prime Minister himself at the Radio Forum, during one of the moments when he thought he was clever, stated that the various States of the Federation of Malaya got into the Federation at different levels. For instance, he said that Pahang got in on better terms than Johore and Johore got in on better terms than Penang or Malacca. And all this business of getting in on different terms or better terms took place before Merdeka Day. The proper provision of the Federation Constitution that should apply would be the provision for these various States to get in before Merdeka. But, Sir, we are not now near Merdeka Day. We are, in fact, more than five years away from Merdeka Day, and therefore any new State that should get into the Federation of Malaya must get in under the provisions of the section of the Constitution which provides for the admission of new States, that particular section in the Federal Constitution that permits negotiations to be made between the various parties on the terms of merger. We are not asking very much, Sir. We are asking only for the safe guarding of the democratic and political rights of the people of Singapore who have already acquired them. There is no reason why they should be lost or given up; not even for saving the P.A.P. There is really no merit in the arguments put up by the Minister for Finance. If the Minister for Finance is sincere, let him put up the stand of the Barisan in the referendum. Let him not just put up something which he has not even discussed, nor a White Paper produced, nor a full debate taken place in this House, if he is really going to be sincere about giving the people a choice, and not Hobson's choice, it is for him to debate the Barisan stand and the Barisan merger in this House fully, so that in the process of that debate the people of Singapore will understand the implications of the Barisan stand, and subsequently will be persuaded by the Barisan Sosialis that the Barisan Sosialis stand is the correct stand and then they will vote for it. The Deputy Prime Minister in his speech yesterday also did not touch upon the various arguments put forward by the Opposition. He only harped on one point - that the Referendum Bill is a general Referendum Bill and therefore it is ridiculous to restrict the Government to one question. First I will deal with this aspect of his argument. It is my contention, Sir, that a referendum is only held when there is a matter of national importance. Only a feebleminded Cabinet would actually hold a referendum at the cost of $400,000 of public money simply for the ascertainment of whether one should smoke a cigarette or a pipe. If the P.A.P. Government did that, it would be an indication, not only of the P.A.P. leadership's political bankruptcy, but also of its feeble-mindedness and senility, a sure indication that it is better off in the grave. Mr Mammen, the Deputy Prime Minister, in trying to justify himself that the Assembly should not limit or restrict the Government in the posing of questions in the referendum, spoke lightly and in a light vein, and quoted, for example, that if we were all thirsty - and he suddenly became kindhearted and offered us a drink - what drink would we have? Granted if the bona fides of the Deputy Prime Minister were good, if he had offered me that drink in his private and personal capacity, I would certainly accept it from him. But, Sir, that premise cannot hold for the P.A.P. The bona fides of the P.A.P. are no good. The intention of the P.A.P. is no good. How can the people accept a drink from a Government whom they know will most certainly serve them poison? Even if they are thirsty, it is better to die of thirst, because it takes longer to die of thirst, and in the period of dying, rain might always come, than to die by poison, when one goes off like a light. And that is what the P.A.P. leadership has in mind for the people of Singapore. I would suggest, Sir, even if the P.A.P. insists upon calling this Bill, the Singapore National Referendum Bill, a general Bill, and to make provisions so that the Bill becomes not unnecessarily restrictive, it should still allow the voters a choice. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister was good and honest in his intentions, when he offered Coca Cola, or Pepsi Cola or Green Spot - Mr Mammen, I am just quoting these various trade names out of convenience. I by no means indicate that I own any shares in them. Even if the Deputy Prime Minister had good intentions to offer thirsty people drinks like that, surely he should have the same good intentions to allow people to say "no". People may be allergic to Coca cola, people may be allergic to Pepsi Cola, and if the range of drinks that is offered is unlimited, then, perhaps, one can insist on a definite "yes". But the P.A.P.'s offer is limited. It is limited down to two choices - the devil and the deep sea. Under those circumstances clause 29, which permits blank votes and uncertain votes to be in favour of the Government, will surely bring in a neat profit for the Government - a big crop of abstaining votes, because no man would choose the devil or the deep sea, when the alternative to live in prosperity and happiness is there. Since none of the other Ministers have spoken yet, it is not possible for me to remark on their exceptional performances in this House. But I notice, when the Member for Thomson was speaking earlier, the Minister for Health and Law interrupted to say that when he advised the people of Singapore not to go to the poll in order to show disgust for the P.A.P., it was something legal. Perhaps it may be considered legal in so far as income tax avoidance is legal and income tax evasion is illegal. But then the Minister for Heath and Law had much deeper implications when he gave that advice. I will only refer to this in passing, Sir. Clause 21 subclause (8) provides that anybody who has failed to vote and who, under subclause (7) is unable to give satisfactory reason for his failure to go to the poll will have his name struck off the list and his name will only reappear in the revised version of the electoral roll. I know what the Minister for Health and Law is thinking about. He is thinking that should the Barisan Sosialis advise the people to do such a thing, in one fell stroke he would be able to get the Barisan supporters and perhaps the Barisan candidates off the electoral roll and refuse to revise the electoral roll, as we have seen in Hong Lim and then subsequently having an election with the Barisan Sosialis members and supporters on the electoral roil. The Minister for Health and Law sometimes exhibits shrewdness. Perhaps it may not be shrewdness really on his part. Perhaps he was sincere when he cracked the joke. Perhaps he has not thought about this matter that the Barisan Sosialis can be fixed legally in a way like this. Now I think he understands. And now he knows -

What a clever man!

- that these things can be done. He knows also that the Barisan will not fall into that trap. Mr Chairman, Sir, in so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are quite prepared to accept the Government's posing of two questions in the referendum, provided the first question reflects the Government's merger proposals and the second question reflects the Barisan Sosialis' and the Workers' Party's merger proposals, which have been quoted so often that it is unnecessary for me to quote them in full. The essence of our stand is that all our citizens must have their citizenship automatically converted and that there must be proportional representation in Parliament. If the Government is prepared to accept that, we are prepared to go to the masses and to persuade them that our stand is the correct stand and that, having accepted that, we would want to have a general election so that the people can choose afresh a new Party to represent them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill before the House is the National Referendum Bill which has been presented to the House for the purpose of a referendum on merger. Naturally, if it is a Bill for a number of referenda, the provisions should, as far as possible, be for general application, and I therefore rise to oppose the amendment proposed by the Members for Anson, Queenstown and Hong Lim whereby they propose the insertion of a new paragraph to clause 5 of the Bill to limit the question that is to be put to electors in the referendum to just one single question so that the answers may be just a yes or a no. Now, Sir, we concede that the Opposition Members as represented by the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the United People's Party, have quoted precedents of referenda held in various countries where there was just one question that was put to the people. But that does not necessarily imply that every referendum should be with one single question. We have, in fact, on the Government side quoted good precedents of countries where referenda have been held in which more than one question was put to the electorate in the case of New Zealand and more especially in the case of Newfoundland and the Cameroons, the last of which was, in fact, conducted by an impartial world organisation - the United Nations. My colleague, the Minister for Finance, has very ably drawn the attention of this House to the fact that in connection with the proposed referendum which we shall taco in Singapore there are two cases: that is, the referenda held in Newfoundland and in the Cameroons, in these two eases, the issues were similar to the issue which we face - that of merger of one country with another. Therefore, Sir, it is possible to pose alternative questions for: the people to decide which they would prefer - A or B, or even C or D. There is no necessity for the Government to tie its hands. In case the issue that is to be decided at the referendum requires one question, so shall it be posed. But where it may be necessary to put more than one question, then it is up to the Government to put two or more questions to the electorate. Now, Sir, the last Member who spoke in this House, the Member for Nee Soon, argued against himself. The amendment wants to limit the referendum to just one question. What the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the United People's Party object to is the possibility of the Government posing more than one question and the second question would put them in a spot. Before the Member for Nee Soon sat down, he said the Barisan Sosialis would be quite happy to have more than one question, provided the second question would be framed in accord ance with their wishes. So the amendment before this House was put forward because they were afraid that the Government would put the second alternative to the people where merger is concerned. Their case for one question therefore falls flat. They will be quite happy to have the second question put in the referendum, but it should be framed in accordance with their wishes. Now that the Government will not do. 8.15 p.m. Perhaps, the statements made by the Workers' Party as represented by the Member for Anson, the statements made by the Member for Queenstown as the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis and again by the Member for Thomson - when they mentioned the two unacceptable alternatives that would be put to the people - revealed the true character of this amendment. All this while, Sir, the discussion has centred on the fact that when this Referendum Bill is passed, the first referendum to be held in Singapore would be on merger. The first question would be in respect of the motion on the White Paper passed by this Assembly nem. con. with Members of the Workers' Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party not having the courage to vote against the motion and to vote against merger, but by taking the coward's way out, by walking out of the Chamber. The White Paper on merger, Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961, will be placed before the electorate. Assuming that these proposals are unacceptable to the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party and the United People's Party, the next question which we want to put would be that of complete merger, unconditional merger, merger where Singapore would be a member of the Federation on equal terms, like any one of the other 11 States - no more and no less - with no autonomy for education and labour, and where one half of Singapore citizens would be disfranchised because they were not born in Singapore and they would therefore have to reapply before they can hope to be registered as citizens, if they qualify. Now, however much the Barisan Sosialis may say till they are blue in the face, that was what they wanted and although for this amendment, the Barisan Sosialis have the Workers' Party on the left and the United People's Party on the right, both their representatives at the radio forum told the Barisan Sosialis where the fatal mistake was and that it should have been withdrawn. But no, the P.A.P. will put that to the people, and that is what the Barisan Sosialis stood for, till they realised the catastrophic mistake made. That is why they fear question No. 2. We shall not change question No. 2 to be of the type that the Barisan Sosialis would like to have worded in the referendum paper.

You want to twist.

We do not twist, but we put you on the spot because we want you to stand by what you have said. And this is where it is most revealing - the Member for Queenstown, before he sat down yesterday, said, "the two questions that would be posed to the people" (mind you, the people) should really read as "the two questions that would be posed would amount to death and hanging not to the people or to anyone but to the Barisan Sosialis." The Member for Nee Soon used another terminology "to choose between the devil and the deep sea". Yes, the White Paper on merger would be the "death and the devil" for the Barisan Sosialis. The question on complete merger would be hanging and the deep sea for the Barisan Sosialis and not for the people and the citizens of Singapore. So the Barisan Sosialis have revealed their true nature - how the White Paper on merger would mean death and the devil to the Barisan Sosialis, and how the question for a complete merger, when put in the referendum paper, would be the hanging of the Barisan Sosialis and the deep blue sea for them to drown in. Therefore, Sir, I say that the amendment proposed holds no water; that, in fact, they have argued against themselves, and that the purpose of the amendment is a mischievous one in order that the merger issue will be confused. We only say that the true stand of the Barisan Sosialis has always been "not merger". All they want is a continuation of colonial rule under the British with internal self-government. And if the Member for Choa Chu Kang does not know what that means, it means being colonial subjects, proud to be under the British but ashamed to be independent and free Malayans. But they loudly claim toat they accept merger in principle, Malaysia in principle, everything in principle. But behind the facade, all that they are interested in is to destroy the people and the country. It is useless for the Barisan Sosialis to pretend that they stand for merger and reunification, when their heartland is in Indonesia. The Member for Thomson opened his big wide mouth and has been rapped. Supporters of the Barisan Sosialis are now quivering. We hear very little about Indonesia these days, and the inspiration that is not producing results for the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, as my colleague, the Minister for Finance, has said, the day of reckoning is close, and we shall put to the people the issues that are clear before them, and it is a foregone conclusion that the people will know what is good for them, instead of listening to a tirade of lies, distortions and perfidy committed in the name of parliamentary democracy. And all that the Barisan Sosialis stand for is just the opposite of democracy.

Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment before the House. Before I speak on the amendment, I wish to say a few words in reply to the inference which the Member for Pasir Panjang drew yesterday. Let me quote from the unrevised verbatim report of yesterday's proceedings [Hansard Vol. 18, No. 1]: 'They have clearly shown -'

I beg your pardon. Which page is that?

At page 48, 4th line of the Member's speech [col. 67]: 'They 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.' What is the inference, Sir, that all the Government Backbenchers had kept quiet and did not speak in this House? The amendment we were debating yesterday was more of a constitutional nature, and a lot of legal problems were involved. We heard what eminent lawyers in this House had to say about the amendment. Even well-known lawyers who spoke on the amendment appeared to know less than the Member for Cairnhill who is a layman. In that debate we naturally did not want to poke our noses in and utter nonsense and repetitions, as the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen did. As the Speaker himself said yesterday, parliamentary democracy does not mean that each and every Member of this House must speak and particularly repeat the same argument over and over again to all the Members of this House and bore and waste the time of the House. That is for the allegation from the Member for Pasir Panjang. Sir, to come to the present amendment. As the Member for Anson has said, in moving the amendment, there are three points. One is: not more than one question should be asked -

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

I suspend this sitting until 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 amendment (ii) to clause 5; that is, an amendment to add a new sub-clause (3) as appears in the Order Paper Supplement. Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Chairman, just now I was saying that the amendment dealt with three points. The first point is that not more than one question should be asked. Second, not more than one issue should be put to the electorate. Third, the electorate should be required to say "Yes" or "No" to the question. On the first point, Sir, it has been said by Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson that the only internationally accepted method of ascertaining the views of the people is to ask only one question. They quoted examples from the Jamaican referendum, the Australian referendum and the referenda held in Switzerland, France and so on. This was what the Member for Anson said on the 8th May in the Select Committee, [Official Report No. 3, col. 113]: 'Sir, in so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no country that I know of which does not, in fact, require that the issues in a referendum should be formed in a single question containing a single issue requiring an affirmative yes or no.' In the Select Committee, the Minister for Health and Law quoted instances where more than one question had been asked. For the record, I would like to quote the Licensing (Amendment) Act of 1948 of New Zealand, under which the referendum was held on the question of the hours for the sale of liquor. That was sometime in 1949. In that referendum, about four or five questions were asked. There are a few more instances, but to the knowledge of the Select Committee, these instances may be and actually had been considered to be on subjects of lesser importance. But let us take the case of Newfoundland where they had a similar problem such as ours, that is, a constitutional problem. This precedent is more appropriate for our purpose. There were three questions which were posed for that Referendum: (1) Do we wish to continue as we were in a Colony? (2) Do we wish the Colonial Government to be restored? (3) Do you wish to join the Canadian Confederation? Sir, there is one more instance of a referendum held in the French Cameroons. There were two ballot boxes - one box for those who wish to join Algiers and the other box for those who wish to join the French Cameroons. There was no provision for saying "No" to any of these proposals. The only thing the electorate could have done was not to have gone to the polls. Mr Speaker, Sir, we had discussed in the Select Committee a possible question in a referendum about the Malay language becoming the official language. In fact, there will be no one who will oppose the national language becoming the official language. But there may be different views as to when to make Malay the official language. There may be some people who will hold the view that we should make Malay the official language within five years. Some other people may say within 7 years, yet some others may say within 10 years. If we have different opinions as to when to make Malay the official language, how are we going to ascertain the views of the people, if we are going to pose only one question? That is the difficulty, Sir. You will remember, Sir, that this question was put to the witnesses in the Select Committee. When it was put to the P.M.I.P. representatives they said: 'It was you who posed the -'

May I have the page?

It is at col. 28, C14, dated 10th April, 1962 [L.A. 7 of 1962]. It was you, Mr Speaker, Sir, who elaborated on the question put by the Member for Anson or by the Minister. In reply to that question, they said: 'As I know, Sir, the question will have to be debated at great length in the Legislative Assembly. And the question will be so framed that the answer to the question will have to be either "Yes" or "No".' Let us assume that the Legislative Assembly arrived at a decision that it should be five years. Then this decision is put to the electorate who are asked to state whether they support it. Will we get the actual views of the people, and if we get an answer 'no', does it mean that the people do not want to make Malay the official language?

On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Ramaswamy resumed his seat.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. Suppose the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and others have indicated that this Bill is specifically for a referendum on merger, would the Member care to confine himself to the topical issue of merger and give us the examples which would be pertinent?

On a point of order.

Point of order, yes.

May I suggest that the Member for Anson grossly distorted what has been said by the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister?

I shall show him -

Order. I suppose it is the late hour that is making people excited. The Member for Anson is entitled to his opinion. He might be wrong. It is up to the Member -

He is usually wrong.

Order. The Assembly is getting a bit disorderly. I am sure either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Law can indicate how he has gone wrong.

Whatever examples the Member for Anson might have, it does not preclude me from quoting whatever examples I deem fit, Sir, I do not want to repeat the arguments over and over again. Sir, I only wish to touch on the point that the electorate should be required to answer the question with a simple yes or no. Mr Speaker, Sir, our view is this. You will see the point that if there is going to be only one question, there must be art affirmative yes or no to that question. There are precedents which have been quoted by the Opposition Members but where there are two or more questions posed to the electorate, as in the case of Newfoundland and the Cameroons, it is essential that there should be only one affirmative reply. We have to get the electors to indicate their choice. If there are three questions, they can strike out two and there is only one answer. If there are five or more questions, or six questions, they can leave one question and strike out all the others. All the precedents also establish this point. Then how can the Opposition, that is the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson, accuse us that we are undemocratic?

And the U.P.P. And the S.P.A.

And the Lib-Socs.

Order.

There is also another aspect of the argument. If two or more questions are posed, you are given a choice to say no to any question. As the Member for Anson has asked me to refer to the merger problem, we will take the merger referendum. We pose both the proposals - the White Paper proposals and the proposal of complete merger. If you do not like the White Paper proposals, you can say no and strike it out and vote for the complete merger. If you do not like complete merger, say no to the complete merger and accept the White Paper proposals. I would say in the current merger referendum what is going to be done is not the ascertainment of principle on merger because nobody has said he does not want merger. Nobody has opposed merger. Everybody has said that he accepts the principle of merger. Then the referendum is going to be on the ascertainment of the mode and manner or, in other words, the details of merger. Therefore, as we have to ascertain the views of the people on the mode and manner of, the reunification of both territories, we have no other alternative than to pose more than one question to the electorate and it is for the electorate to choose between the alternatives put before them. If they do not like one of the proposals, as I have said, they can strike it out and vote for the other one.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a few moments ago two Ministers from the Government side rose to speak against the amendment moved by this side of the House. After listening to the Minister for Education. I have the feeling that whatever he has said does not merit any reply because what he has said can be described by one proverb - he was just picking up what was said by others. The Minister for Finance seems to represent the Government when he made an important speech on the amendment we moved. However, his arguments are very strange, and I cannot in any way agree with any one of them. Now, I want to lock from several angles at the inaccurate and wrong arguments put forward by the Minister for Finance in relation to the amendment that has been moved. In the first place, our contention to have only one question during the referendum had been very clearly explained by the Member for Anson with regard to its legal aspect. He quoted examples of referenda held in various Countries. Our Party Chairman has also pointed out many points and given several examples to show that the National Referendum Bill put forward by the Government is actually intended for the matter relating to merger between Singapore and Malaya. A few moments ago the Member for Hong Lim pointed out very clearly and correctly certain examples and legal points and arguments to show that if the National Referendum does not pose one question only, but instead poses several questions, then there will be the possibility that the Government will take advantage of the multiple questions to manipulate the referendum, so that it will not achieve the objectives of finding out the actual views of the electorate as to whether or not they agree with the policy of the Government. There is one point that I wish to stress, and that is our contention that we should have only one question. This contention is being made now because the Government has all along been trying to distort the stand of the Opposition on the matter of merger. From the speech of the Minister for Finance, we come to know that the Government has not much confidence in its own White Paper merger. No matter how much publicity the Government gives and how much propaganda work it carries out regarding its form of merger, or however much it says about the merger, or however well it speaks of its merger proposals as being able to bring an independent status, the status of Federal national, Malaysian passports, and autonomy in Education and Labour for the people of Singapore, I would like to point out that, if there are actually so many good points about its proposals, how is it that it does not have the guts and courage to frame a simple question on this matter and put it to the people for their decision? The Minister for Finance talks about posing the question of complete merger as another alternative for the decision of the people. This goes to show that the P.A.P. know full well that their own constitutional arrangements are unacceptable to anybody and, therefore, they want to find a way out from their present predicament, and that is why the Minister for Finance has brought up the matter regarding the posing of complete merger as a question for the decision of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this point, I must reiterate and stress again and again that we are against the second alternative to be put to the people for a decision, because in the first place, the posing of the so-called second alternative is not in keeping with the principle. All along we have been pointing out that the matter of merger is not a question of party struggle. It is not a matter of controversy between two Parties or any number of Parties. We have also pointed out that this question of merger should not be one which should be fought between the P.A.P. and the Barisan or any other Party. The main point is: are the constitutional proposals in keeping with the interests of all the people of Singapore? That is the crux of the whole matter. If the Government wish to pose to the people the stand and contention of the Barisan Sosialis, then the P.A.P. are treating the merger issue as a party issue. It is wrong in principle. If we were in the Government dealing with the merger matter, we would not be afraid to put our stand and contention to the people for their endorsement or rejection. That is a very important principle. The Government does not have the courage to put to the people its own proposal and find out from them whether they want it or not. It would be wrong for the Government to put several questions to confuse the people. We are very much against this behaviour. The Minister for Finance has said that since the Barisan Sosialis want complete merger the question of complete merger could be posed to the people for their decision. There is nothing wrong about it, he says. What I would like to emphasise here regarding this point is that the matter regarding complete merger, as put forward by the Minister for Finance, is entirely different from the complete merger we have in our own minds. He tries to explain that the complete merger we have in mind will mean that some 324,000 citizens in Singapore will lose their citizenship rights after complete merger. He explains that our contention for compete merger will mean that we are prepared to accept the education and labour policies of the Federation Government. Such a distortion of the stand of the Barisan Sosialis is an example of the behaviour of the P.A.P. which is well-known to everybody. According to our definition, I would like to read a few passages from an article of the Barisan Sosialis regarding the meaning of complete merger.

Order. The Member should not go into too much detail because the Member for Queenstown in fact has given notice of a motion alleging that the stand of the Opposition in so far as the merger problem is concerned has been distorted. Therefore, I have allowed passing reference to these matters, but not a detailed debate on them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the quotation I am going to make here is taken from a speech which has not been made use of by the Chairman of our Party. This passage will show to the people clearly that the complete merger we are advocating does not mean that we accept the labour and education policies of the Federation Government. This is not a new line. This article was published on the 28th of August, 1961, in a booklet containing a statement on merger. Apart from dealing with the question of citizenship and proportionate representation we point out in this article, as a matter of fact, that the present Right-wing Government in the Federation has many policies which are unacceptable to us. This Government has very close relationship and association with foreign capitalists and it has signed an agreement with the British Government whereby our countries will have bases for the British military forces. This agreement in foreign affairs will try to alienate us from the other Afro-Asian countries.

Order. I cannot see for the life of me how this is relevant to what we are debating. I have indicated that in passing there can be denials of the interpretation of what the merger ideas of the Barisan Sosialis are, and I have also indicated that the Member will have an opportunity, when the right time comes - when his own Party's motion is put before the House - to bring in all these details. Let us come back to the amendment.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, if the Minister for Finance has not brought out his arguments regarding the stand of the Barisan Sosialis and suggest that our stand will be put as an alternative, then I will agree that the quotation I am making will be unnecessary, but since the Minister for Finance himself has said that he would put to the people our complete merger stand which he has tried to distort, then I would like to have your permission to take about two minutes to clear up this point regarding the definition of our complete merger concept. I would like you to give me some time to read another two sentences and then you will know the whole position and realise how the P.A.P. has distorted our stand. Our statement points out: 'In the meantime, the Federation Government is carrying out a wrong education policy. In spite of this, because of our stand on merger, we are prepared to accept and face difficulties. We will join hands with the Socialists of the Federation to establish a strong alliance of workers, intellectuals and farmers and defeat all reactionary forces in the general election.' Mr Chairman, from this quotation we can see that when we advocate complete merger it does not mean that we will accept every policy of the Federation Government, it does riot mean that we will give up the struggle against the un reasonable policies of the Federation Government. But what is the stand of the P.A.P.? I would like to point out specially that the Government has not only tried to distort our views on this point in various ways but it has also tried to whip up communal feelings to bring fear into the people so that they would not think of having a genuine merger. We are prepared to allow the Government to bring their own merger proposals before the people for a decision. The P.A.P. are against their own words when they say they wish to have a reunification of Singapore and Malaya and to have a socialist nation. The P.A.P. have gone against their words and the principles for which they stand for. They have even tried to stress the communal and racial discrimination. Since you do not read the Chinese newspapers, I would like to make a quotation from a certain Chinese newspaper to acquaint you of a certain fact. This fact is in regard to merger. The P.A.P. are trying to frighten the people in such a way that they would be afraid to have complete merger in the true sense. The Government Press releases are usually published in the Malay Press, the Chinese Press and the English Press. But we have discovered that recently certain statements on merger issued by the Political Bureau of the P.A.P. are only published in the Chinese newspapers. They are not published in the papers of other languages. I will quote a passage which is not very long. It is taken from a statement published in the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 24th June, 1962. The statement says: 'We want to ask the Barisan Sosialis to answer openly and publicly as to whether they accept the policies regarding giving special privileges to the Malays in Singapore as what the Federation of Malaya is doing.' They also asked us in this statement whether we are prepared to accept the position where Chinese students should answer in public examinations in English or Malay. They also asked us whether we are prepared to accept the ratio of 4 to 1 in the recruitment to the Civil Service. Mr Chairman, the Government has all along tried to distort our stand on merger. At the same time it has also tried to whip up communal feelings. So we say that if the Government is allowed to pose the complete merger question in the national referendum, it will be a very unfair way of doing things. Apart from the distortion and threat of the Government, we in the Opposition have also been subjected to certain restrictions in our propaganda work. Mr Chairman, let me tell you that whenever the Barisan Sosialis apply for permission to hold a mass rally we are always confronted with many unreasonable provisions and regulations.

Where the Opposition are asking for the insertion of a clause saying there should be one question and reply in the affirmative or the negative - all these details are completely irrelevant. It can always be mentioned at the right time and at the right moment. Let us get on with this amendment.

(In Mandarin): I find it necessary to make you understand that if we are given adequate freedom to explain our stand on merger to the people, then we will not be afraid to allow the Government to pose our stand to the people for their decision and judgment. Mr Chairman, the Ministers opposite claim that they are very democratic. But I will ask your permission to tell you the restrictions we have had to face concerning our application for the holding of mass rallies. When we -

Order, it seems to me that the hon. Member is anticipating the motion of the Member for Queenstown, namely, 'That this House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition stand on the merger issue whereby it seeks to mislead and confuse the people in the forthcoming referendum.' Now, that has been anticipated time and time again. I have pulled the Member up for that. He is now going on a different tack which, to me, again appears to be irrelevant to the issue. I cannot see how it is relevant to the issue.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, I do not wish to talk too much about this aspect of the matter. I am now going to talk on another aspect. The second part of our amendment says that the people when faced with the choice should have the right to say 'yes' or 'no'. We know that if the National Referendum Bill is now being condemned by the entire people of Singapore, it is because there are provisions relating to the blank and uncertain votes. I would like to point out to you. Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Government allows the people to have their basic right to negate a certain issue, in other words, if the Government allows the people to say 'no', then there should not have been so many blank votes in any national referendum, and so this question of taking blank votes as votes in support of the Government will not be embodied in the provisions contained in this Bill. Then it will also be unnecessary for the Government to have a clause regarding the penalty to be imposed on those who deface ballot papers. I would like to point out that it is in this particular clause that the Government does not allow the people to say 'no'. That is why the Government finds it necessary to make certain provisions such as clause 29 regarding blank papers and the severe penalties to be imposed on people who happen to deface ballot papers. Such provisions have made this Bill a laughing stock of the whole world because it does not allow the people so say 'no'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government says that to pose two questions to the people will enable the people to make a choice, but this is not actually a choice. If you want to buy a thing and if you are faced with two things which you do not wish to buy, then you go to another shop and find something which will suit you. It is only when you have this right that you can say you have a freedom of choice - [Interruption in Mandarin]

The unfortunate part of it is that I cannot understand the interruption. It does not seem to be offensive, but it is a bit disorderly.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, says that the P.A.P. wants the people to make a choice between the White Paper company and the complete merger company. This example is not appropriate at all. For example, we have the Housing and Development Board which has built many flats for selection by applicants. Now, the applicants can refuse the offer of flats and the right to refuse to make a choice is actually the right to have a choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government wants to deprive the basic right of the people to say "no", then to say that such behaviour is democratic is actually improper. I would like to quote the speech made by the Prime Minister in 1955 in the Kreta Ayer Constituency. He said that this type of democracy should be given to the dog for consumption.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson in his speech before the dinner break paid me an exchange of compliments and posed to me certain questions, because he felt that there was justification in my criticism of the one-question amendment proposed by him and that he would be interested to know whether we have changed our stand. We, Sir, in this Party do not change stands now and then. We have one stand and that stand is always firm. It is firm to this extent and we would ask the Parties represented in this Assembly to always bear in mind that in a national issue of this great importance, they should sink political differences and try to find out a solution for the best interest of the people of Singapore. The Member for Upper Serangoon quite rightly said that this merger referendum should not be a question for party struggle between the P.A.P. and the Barisan and the ex-P.A.P., and it should not be right and proper that the question to be posed should only be the P.A.P. White Paper and the Barisan's proposal for merger. I would not like to say what it was, but they have denounced and denied that they have ever made such a proposition, although we, as an independent and responsible Opposition, must say that we have read in the Press, a statement issued by the Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis on what their stand was at the time when this merger issue was very, very hot. The Member for Anson asked whether I do not consider it right that the people should have the right to reject any proposition put forward by the Government, the right to reject Command Paper 33. I say there should be an inherent right. There should be the right to say, "I do not like Paper Command 33." 10.30 p.m. But then let us treat this merger referendum that is tabled today calmly and soberly and not allow our minds to be poisoned by all the intrigues and distortions that have been indulged in by the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis, both of whom have graduated from the same school of the art of distortion. Let us treat this merger referendum in a manner that is befitting of men elected by the people of Singapore to represent the people of Singapore. Now you ask me this one question. If this one question of the White Paper is posed to the people, and if they reject it, would it be voluntary or compulsory? I have this to say. I said in my speech earlier this afternoon that it would be voluntary. He knows, we know and everybody on this side knows and the people of Singapore know, except the P.A.P. who refuse to admit that such is the state, anything that the P.A.P. Government does will not be accepted by the people of Singapore. If you pose that question as one question to the people of Singapore, they will cast a "no" - an emphatic "no" - not because they do not want closer association with the Federation of Malaya but because they want to see the end of P.A.P. misrule. The purpose of the merger referendum would be defeated to the extent that the answer given by the electorate given on that one question, one issue, referendum would not disclose whether or not the people of Singapore want merger. We know that they want merger. In fact, every Party represented in this Assembly and parties outside which hope to be represented in this Assembly have all clamoured for merger. This merger issue is not a new one. It is as old as the existence of all political Parties in Singapore - old political Parties, new political Parties and budding parties. But it has never been spelled out in all the platforms and constitutions and the objects of all the political Parties. All they say is "We want merger." Right, we want merger. Everybody wants merger. But what type of merger? in fact, what is meant by merger at that time was complete merger, a merger which will make Singapore a constituent State of the Federation of Malaya on the basis of any one of the other constituent States at present in the Federation. That was all in our minds. It was all that we prayed for, hoped for, worked for, struggled for, and fought for. Now suddenly the prospects of closer relationship have come upon us. The P.A.P. know it. The P.A.P. was responsible, in fact, for the cold shoulder of the Federation; government for the past two and a half years towards P.A.P. pleadings of merger. At that time, the Barisan Sosialis was sitting on that side too. They were there. They did plead and kept on pleading, "We want merger." Every time they said, "We want merger," the Tunku gave a tight slap, "Shut up. I will not have mercer." Now, the Tunku suddenly thought in his wisdom that perhaps he had been too harsh on Singapore; that perhaps it might be in the best interest of both territories that closer association should be achieved. Then he suggested that he could have Singapore in a closer association so long as he had external affairs, defence and security. That was what he said. He was prepared. In fact, he extended the hand of friendship to the people and the Government of Singapore. Unfortunately, the P.A.P. thought that it was a good thing to play party politics. And it came out with. "We want autonomy in education and labour," and never mind about other things. The Tunku had never said that he wanted education and labour. Why should the P.A.P. -

Order. Are all these details really necessary to the issue?

With respect, Sir, I am trying to explain the cause of this animosity that is being displayed by the P.A.P., the Barisan Sosialis and at times by the Workers' Party. I will cut it short. I will not touch on that any more. But because the debate took place, the P.A.P. had to come with half-merger. And they thought half-merger, and we also thought - we agreed with them - that half-merger was better than no merger. That what has been offered to us - the hand of friendship - should be welcomed and that the White Paper Command 33 embodies the agreement reached. No doubt that does not give as much as we would like to have or to see. But we must be realistic. That is the best that the P.A.P. Government can achieve at the present time under the present circumstances. So this question of merger is in the forefront. Those who are against the White Paper are for complete merger. They say that the P.A.P. has not got enough. "Therefore, we want more." They say they want merger in the way they meant merger when the Parties had that written into their objectives and written into their platforms. They want complete merger as a constituent part of the Federation of Malaya, on the same basis as any one State at present constituted in the Federation of Malaya. That is all they want. This question of citizenship and automatic citizenship right need not have arisen and would not have arisen if there had been no -

P.A.P.!

- no P.A.P. style of distortion and the Barisan style of distortion, so much so that citizenship, citizenship and citizenship happens to be the order of the day. It need not be so, Sir. Let us treat this merger referendum in a manner that is befitting responsible representatives of the people. Then the P.A.P. wanted to pose questions. In fact, they let the cat out of the bag. They wanted to pose the questions in such a way that that there could be only one possible answer. Quite rightly, Members of the Opposition, and I too, were disgusted. We said that that was not an honest way and we would resist any attempt by the P.A.P. to conduct a dishonest referendum with dishonest questions. Now the Member for Anson, says, I have explained why one question is not a wise thing, and we are going to oppose that one question. The Member for Anson asked me what alternative I had. You will remember, Sir, that in the Select Committee, when I sat down and listened to the ding-dong battle that had been going on between the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P., knowing that we could get nowhere, I thought I had found a compromise that might put an end to this bitter struggle on this one question one issue referendum. So I did suggest that if I got their permission I would like to move an amendment to ensure that there should only be one issue posed in a referendum and that there might be as many questions as the Government liked to pose under that one issue, so long as such questions required a reply in the affirmative or in the negative "yes" or "no". You will remember, Sir, that when I put forward that suggestion to the Select Committee, there was a lot of discussion on that, and it was proved to me not only by the Government but also by Members in the Opposition too that my suggestion could not hold water, because it you'd make the referendum more complicated and it would just get us nowhere. In spite of that, I begged for leave to move the amendment. The leave was not granted.

Was granted.

Was not granted. The official record will show that leave was not granted. My amendment was not moved. In fact, the Member for Anson, as usual, was quite excited at that proposition. He was for it, and later on he was not for it. Still later on he was against it. The official record will show, Sir.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

May I refer you to column 146 [Select Committee Official Report No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962], Sir, where he moved it? In fact, it went on to another day and he had my full support and clarification. You will find that it was put by you, Sir, at column 168 [Official Report No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962], and it was negatived.

May I refresh the memory of the Member for Anson? At column 161, the last paragraph, he said this: 'Now, in answer to the Member for Cairn hill. My suggestion is that in matters of grave national moment, there must be precision in the questions sought. If there are alternatives to be put, then each alternative can be put in a separate referendum with the text of the proposed constitutional changes attached. They are of considerable clarity.' So it has been proved to me that my suggestion could not be carried out because it is not clear and, therefore, I did not get leave to move the amendment. 1 agree with every Member who spoke and who said that such a propo6ecl amendment would not solve the issue. That is why I am not moving a similar amendment in this debate. But, Sir, to come back to the main point. We are opposing this more than one question referendum because the Opposition quite rightly feel that this would allow the Government to pose questions in such a way that they can have only one answer - White Paper Command 33. Such suspicion is not groundless. It is based on utterances of Ministers as well as Political Secretaries of the Government. 10.46 p.m.

Therefore, I did say here in this debate that in order to prevent such manipulation on the part of the Government, such questions must be debated in this Assembly. Whatever questions they have to pose must be debated in this Assembly and it would result in the questions being framed by this Assembly. They have given the assurance that they will allow questions to be debated in this Assembly for the decision of this Assembly before the questions are posed in a referendum. Some speakers from the Barisan sosialis did indicate that their objection to more than one question was because of their fears that the P.A.P. Government would be up to their tricks. The Member for Nee Soon has said clearly that if the Government Wants two questions, he has no objection to it, so long as the second question posed can be the Barisan question. And yet another Barisan Member, the Member for Upper Serangoon, says that it should not he a Barisan question or a P.A.P. question. We are getting more and more confused. Even I become more confused! What is it that the Barisan wants? The Barisan question or no Barisan question? Or that it should be questions based in the best interests of the people of Singapore as stated by the Member for Upper Serangoon? I think so long as we can ensure that the questions to be posed in a merger referendum are clean, honest questions, I see no objection why more than one question cannot be posed. In fact, talking about merger, as I have said earlier, Sir, when all Parties said, "Merger, merger, we want merger," what they meant was complete merger as a constituent State in the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, why are we opposing that? To my mind, I think these questions can be said to be honest, clean, straightforward questions: "Do you want White Paper 33? That is a straightforward question.

Yes or no?

Do you want Cmd. Paper 33?

Yes or no?

Do you want complete merger -

Yes or no?

as a constituent State of the Federation in the same manner as any one of the States at present in the Federation? Or, with the Cobbold Report now out, but still not yet made public, all right, another question could be posed. "Do you want Singapore to enter the Federation of Malaysia on the same terms, on terms not less favourable than those of any of the Borneo territories?" There could even be three questions and these could be honest questions that want an answer from the electorate. Now, coming to a yes or no. If you were to pose two questions or three questions like that (the three questions that I have thought out), they would. in our view, be fair and to the point. If you were to ask yes or no, yes or no, yes or no, it can be three yeses and three noes and then we will get nowhere. The choice is there. The political Parties that are for complete merger will speak at referendum meetings telling the people that they should vote for com plete merger. Those of us who axe committed to the White Paper (the 33 of us here) will have to come out and try to sell the idea to the people of Singapore. There may be some, and I am afraid there have been some, who may ask: why is it we are not entering on the same terms as North Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei? They could speak strongly at referendum meetings on why Singapore should enter the Federation of Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those of Borneo, Sarawak or Brunei. All political Parties having different ideas of merger can speak and preach to the people to their hearts' content and win the minds of the people. Therefore, the choice is there for the people of Singapore. Do you want half merger? Do you want full merger? Do you want merger like Borneo, Sarawak and Brunei? What they will be asked then is to give their choice. What do they want? In that way the referendum will be able to elicit from the electorate of Singapore the wishes of the majority of the electorate of Singapore. In regard to the assurance given by the Minister that the questions will be debated in this Assembly before posing them in a merger referendum, I have said that the proper place to write that into the law is in clause 13. The Government says that this is a general referendum Bill, which is for general application and not for merger. If it is a general Bill, I am of the view that in a general Referendum Bill, of course, the Government should have the right to pose the questions. But on a merger referendum, a matter that means life and death to the people of Singapore, a matter on which all political Parties have taken firm stands one way or the other, it is quite right that the questions to be posed should be debated in this Assembly. For all we know it might take three months before a decision could be taken. But it is worth it. It should be debated in this Assembly before it is presented to the electorate for their verdict. There have been criticisms too by other Members of the Opposition that this is a general Referendum Bill to be passed. But as we all know and if we are honest with ourselves, this Bill is introduced just to meet the merger referendum. Therefore. I would suggest to the Government that they should give an assurance here to this House - and if that assurance is given, it might take the heat off a number of other proposed amendments here - that as soon as the merger referendum has been completed, this general Referendum Bill shall be repealed. That will take the heat off, otherwise there will be so many amendments put in just to safeguard the position that a general Bill on referendum should be of a character that should be acceptable to all concerned. I would like to repeat that if the Government thinks of posing more than one question, perhaps, in our view, the three honest questions could be: "Do you want White Paper 33?" "Complete merger on the same basis as that of the other States that have joined the Federation?" "Or entering the Federation of Malaysia on terms no less favourable than those of any one of the Borneo territories?"

Mr Mammen, before the Member sits down, may I rise on a point of elucidation?

Order. The Member for Cairnhill has not finished. He has not even taken his seat.

I beg your pardon.

So, before that, if the Member for Anson jumps on the wagon, then the Chairman will be in a very difficult position. So will the Member please wait and see whether the Member for Cairnhill has finished or not, and then the Chairman will notice him and call him.

Forgive me. Mr Mammen, I rose on a point of elucidation -

If the Member gives way.

Yes. I said on a point of elucidation before the Member sits down.

If the Member gives way. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Yes, Mr Marshall.

I am obliged, Mr Mammen. I would ask if the Member has directed his mind to the procedures adopted in Switzerland and Australia where, if there is more than one question, each question is answered with a yes or no. There are instructions that all the questions can be answered with a no, but only one question may be answered with a yes. Would that not meet the situation he has in mind Where there are three questions, so that the people can have the choice of rejecting all, but they can only accept one?

Mr Mammen, Sir, the Member for Anson says you can ask three questions: you can, put two noes and say yes to one. Later on, he says you can say three noes. I really do not know what he wants. To make my stand clear, if you pose 3, 4 or 5 honest questions, free from party political content, questions framed in the best interests of the people of Singapore, then it is but right that we should seek the views of the people of Singapore as to which one they like. What will be needed, as the easier and less confusing way, would be to put a cross against the question you like in the same way as you put .a cross against the candidate to whom the voter wants to give his vote.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, only a while ago the Minister for Finance - the Deputy Speaker was not here when the Minister for Finance made his speech - said that today's sitting seemed to be irksome. I do not know if he meant that the sitting will be up to midnight, so that everybody will not sleep well when he goes home. But here I would like to tell him that the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the Minister for Finance and on the P.A.P. Government because they utilise this Assembly to play about with their phoney parliamentary democracy. We, in the Opposition, who are faced with such .a situation, have no alternative but to clear up the issues which remain to be settled because we, as representatives of the people, have to do so. 11.00 p.m. Sir, the Minister for Finance has said just now that this Bill is a general referendum Bill. Judging from the wording of the Bill, it is I think a general Bill applicable to all referenda. But we feel that this National Referendum Bill is specifically meant for merger. We have lost our faith and confidence in the P.A.P., and so have the people. Therefore, we have to explain to the people the consequences of passing this Bill. The P.A.P. are now making use of parliamentary democracy to carry out their dictatorial rule. Sir, we fully understand - and the people also understand well - that the P.A.P. have exhausted all the facilities of attack. Radio Singapore, Rediffusion, the Press, the Ministry of Culture, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Home Affairs have all been the means for them to sell their phoney merger. They have carried out this trickery for a long time but they have now come to realise that their type of merger is not acceptable to the people. That is why they have to resort to threats and trickery to cheat the people, by distorting the stand of the Barisan Sosialis which is genuine merger. They distort our stand in order to further cheat the people. That is why they have alleged that we want the Penang type of merger, and so hope that when the referendum is held they can fish in troubled waters. The purpose of our amendment to this clause is to pinpoint this fact - that the P.A.P. wants to make much use of this clause as it is the most important clause in the Bill. The meaning of this clause is rather equivocal, and they want to use this clause to enable them to play their tricks. We can see that after the publication of this Bill for the information of the people, all Opposition Parties here in this House and outside, as well as organisations, have felt strongly against this clause. But the P.A.P. are still bent on their arbitrary way and they do not heed the views and opinions of the people and other political Parties. Yet they try to show that they are democratic. From the debate since yesterday, you can see our reasons for wanting to amend this clause. We feel that they want to make use of this clause to enable them to propose two questions at the coming referendum. I will therefore give some assumptions because the Minister for Finance also gave some assumptions - I should say "parables". He said that the people would be asked the question as to whether they accept Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 which embodies the merger proposals, and that to attract the people this question would be framed in such a way as to mean that Singapore would, by this merger, be able to retain autonomy in labour, and education. He also said that the other question would very likely be framed in such a way as to ask the people this, "Do you want the Penang and Malacca type of merger, which means that about 300,000 Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship rights?"

On a point of order, Sir, I rise on a point as to whether the House has a quorum. There are only five Members on the Government Benches. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): That is enough. I think the Member for Anson should know his Standing Orders well enough that 13 Members shall form a quorum.

Yes, Sir. But as far as I can count, there are five Members on the Government Benches - oh!

I do hope the Member for Anson knows the Standing Order on quorum. It says 13 Members present in the Assembly. They need not apply only to the Government side. So there is a quorum.

(In Mandarin): Sir, from the example which I gave just now, you will know and the people will also know that the nature of These two questions is detrimental to the interests of the people. Under such circumstances, how are the people to make their choice? But let us return to the point. Some of the Members opposite who have spoken appeared to contradict their previous statements. I remember the Prime Minister telling the people a few days ago that the White Paper merger would finally he put to the people for a decision. But we know what is meant by "a final decision of the people." It means that the people have a right to accept or reject anything. But when two undesirable alternatives are put to them, how can they make their choice? From this we can see what they mean when they say "let the people choose." This is their way of cheating because the people cannot choose one or the other, and it therefore means that the people cannot make a final decision. A little while ago, my colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, said that in spite of the publicity given by the Government on how good merger is the people do not support the White Paper merger. We know that the Government have no guts to present this question to the people because the nature of the question is such that they dare not do so. There is a saying - "genuine gold dreads no lire." That is true in this case. They dare not pose only this White Paper merger in the referendum because it is had in itself. The P.A.P. have also been distorting the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. They have provided a clause saying that all blank votes are deemed to be in support of the Government.

Order. The Member for Anson appeared to be rising several times. I do not know whether he wants to rise on a point of order regarding the quorum. If that is his intention, then all he need do is to ask a few Members to absent themselves from this Chamber, upon which I will then ring the division bell for a quorum. Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please continue.

Mr Mammen. I did not hear you.

I noticed that the Member for Anson had been quite anxious to rise on a point of order to call for a quorum in this Assembly. I hope that the Member will contain himself in this Chamber. Mr Tan Cheng Tong, please -

On a point of order. Mr Mammen. Am I not entitled to call on a point of order for a quorum?

Nobody is denying the right of the Member for Anson to stand up on a point of order. At least in so far as I am concerned, I have not denied him that right, and nobody is saying that he cannot stand up on a point of order. Mr Tan Cheng Tong.

(In Mandarin): Sir, there is one clause in the Bill which provides that all blank votes and un certain votes are to be taken as support for the Government. I think they know that the White Paper merger is not desired by the people and that is why this clause has been put in to save themselves. And that is also why they have distorted our stand. That explains why they always say that we want the Penang or Malacca type of merger which means the loss of citizenship for hundreds of thousands of people. They have often repeated these platitudes over the radio and in the newspapers.

On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for a Member to repeat the arguments made by his colleagues?

Of course, if repetitions by a Member become too tedious, then the Chair will rule him out of order.

(In Mandarin): I have to say such things because I want to enlarge on the arguments put forward by my colleagues, and also to explain the attitude and behaviour of the P.A.P. to the people. They have intimidated us and have bluffed the people. That is why I say that they are trying to distort our stand on merger. 11.15 p.m. They know that by doing so, they may have a hope of salvaging their fortunes. What does the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger mean? Whose proposition was this?

Order. I think the Member for Jalan Kayu is going into too much detail on the Penang and Malacca type of merger. If I am right, the Assembly has debated the merger issue for twelve days. We are now discussing an amendment to clause 5, that is, the addition' of a sub-clause. The speech of the hon. Member is completely irrelevant to the amendment which we are discussing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, the Minister for Finance raised two principal points. First, he said that two questions should be posed. Second, he distorted our stand. That is why I want to disclose his two intentions. On the 28th of August, we published in the Press our stand on merger -

Order. I have told the hon. Member that if he wants to disclose to the public the stand of the Barisan Sosialis on the merger issue, there is a motion standing in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Upper Serangoon. So when the motion is debated in this Assembly, the hon. Member will have an opportunity to disclose to the people of Singapore how the Government has distorted the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. We are now on the amendment moved by the Member for Anson, the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Hong Lim.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, in that case, we will say something more at some other time on this point. Mr Chairman, we debated this clause and clause 13 yesterday and we arc still debating them today. Can the representatives here come to any conclusion on the amendments to this clause so that it will be properly worded to ensure that only one question will be put to the people in a referendum? The stand of Members on this amendment will expose their true nature. It will also show whether a Member wants to see our democracy becoming a laughing stock. I have already said that the main part of this Bill revolves around this clause. All political Parties, inside as well as outside this Assembly, and many organisations and individuals, have paid much attention to the provisions of clause 5. 11.20 p.m.

They have published their views and opinions on this clause. Various views on these provisions have been aired at radio forums and discussions. The object is to enable the Government to frame the provisions in such a way so that they will he acceptable to the people. But certainly there is some confusion prevailing. This is because the Party in power do not want to rule in accordance with democratic principles. I want to quote certain views aired by some eminent lawyers at certain forums. I hope the Government will pay attention to this for their benefit. I hope they will not feel that today's sitting is wearisome or irksome. Not only are we giving our views on the provisions of this Bill, but there are also other people and organisations outside this House who have given their views on these provisions. The intention is to prevent the Government from making a laughing stock of our democracy here. Let me quote the views on this Bill of the Nanyang University Graduates Guild. I think it is necessary that the Ministers' attention should be drawn to this because there are certain Ministers who do not understand Chinese, and they do not like to see the views given by the people. The Nantah Graduates Guild have given their views thus: 'We are faced with the Government's White Paper on merger. We are faced with a situation where we seek for a merger and reunification of the two territories. We have to give our stand here. Our stand is for equality on the reunification of the two territories. We want to ensure that the people of the two territories can enjoy equal rights -'

Order. That appears now to be an argument against the White Paper. We are not worried about that now. What we are worried about is whether or not there should be one question or two questions. I do not want to hear any arguments against or for the White Paper. It has been suggested that a question could be asked on the White Paper. Somebody else said a question could be asked an complete merger. I do not want to hear any argument as to whether the White Paper is good or bad. We are on a specific issue as to whether or not there should be one or two questions or more.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, even in the passage I have quoted, the last point therein continues to say that the national referendum must be held in a democratic manner. This view is also our view. It is because we feel that this opinion is the same as the one we had that we are bringing it up for the reference of Members of this House for their convenience. The second point which the statement deals with is that we must put the White Paper merger as a question for the decision of the people. By making reference to this statement, I mean to say that the National Referendum Bill is a centre of interest to the various classes of people in Singapore. Here again, I would like to make a quotation of a speech of a Member in the Opposition. This is because he is a Malay and a Malay brother of ours. He is also a representative of a political Party. This Malay brother of ours is a representative of the Party Rakyat. He says that the National Referendum Bill as brought forward by the P.A.P. is an unprecedented one. In other words, you can never find such a Bill in the world. He continues to say that the Prime Minister used to talk about democracy. But now he seems to have forgotten about democracy. Instead he goes over the radio and makes distortions of the stand of other people. This person has this to say concerning the question to be introduced in the National Referendum: 'The P.A.P. wants us to make a choice, say, for example, between this: Do you want the P.A.P. type of merger or the Penang type of merger? These two things are bad and nobody would like either of them.' He also says that this amounts to asking whether you want to beat your wife or you want to beat your daughter.

Order. I might remind the hon. Member that he is making a speech. I do not want to hear a speech made by somebody who is not a Member of this Assembly. The Member for Jalan Kayu is reading out somebody else's opinion. I Want to know his opinion. The Assembly is interested to know his opinion, not this gentleman's opinion. 11.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the opinion of this man is very good and my opinion is similar to his. That is why I am mentioning his opinion in this House. In the meantime, I mention his opinion because he is a Malay friend and in the course of getting a merger - The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob) rose -

On a point of order?

(In Malay): On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way. Mr Tan Cheng Tong resumed his seat.

(In Malay): Can the Member for Jalan Kayu say who is the person?

(In Mandarin): The meeting of the Socialists. A representative of Party Rakyat. You will know him.

Order. It is quite a valid question, I thought I missed the name. We cannot have any anonymous remarks by anonymous persons mentioned in this Assembly. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked who is this person who is being quoted and I think he is entitled to an answer.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, since you want the name I will tell you. He is the representative of the Party Rakyat, Inche Wahab. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me return to the speech of the Minister for Finance. I would like to quote a passage of his speech. He says that if we can employ our tactics in the proper manner, then we can defeat our enemies. That is what he says. I would like to remind the Members of the Government that as a result of the controversy over the National Referendum Bill, the Government is now placed in a very embarrassing position. Because it is now faced with the attack coining from the Opposition and from other angles and quarters. Even their friends in the Alliance are unhappy about some clauses in this Bill. That will mean that the P.A.P. is actually undemocratic. Even their friends are against them in some places. Let me now deal with the speech made by the Minister for Education. In his speech, the Minister concerned tried to explain why we want to bring up this amendment. Here I would like to tell the Minister that the amendment we are bringing up shows that we have no confidence in you. We have no confidence and faith in the phoney merger which you are playing with.

Order. I think, if my recollection is correct, I have already pulled the Member up as being out of order for referring to the merger proposals which have been accepted by this House as a phoney merger. He must not do that. It is a reflection on a vote of the House and is therefore completely out of order. He must be careful not to be out of order.

(In Mandarin): The Minister tried to explain the reason why we wanted to bring up this amendment. I am telling him that because we have no confidence in you, meaning the Members in the Government.

Order. The Member has been interpreted as saying he "has no confidence in you" - the Chair. I hope that is not so. I hope he retains his confidence in the Chair.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I tried to say that the amendment we wanted to bring up was brought up because we have no confidence in the Government and that is why we want to amend this clause. This particular clause is now being incorporated for the sake of merger. The Government is going all out in its publicity over the merger matter and tries to bluff the people by saying that those who are against merger are being fooled by the Communists. This is a step to bluff them. The next step will be to suppress the people. We have many trade unions and other cultural organisations which want to hold meetings over the merger issue and the Referendum Bill, but they have not been given permission. So from this we can see -

Order. The hon. Member now is anticipating the motion, a notice of which has been given by the Member for Thomson and the Member for Havelock. He is not entitled to do that and I think I might as well at this stage read the relevant Standing Order about anticipation. I have been lenient, but at this time of the night perhaps leniency is out of place. The Standing Order is Standing Order 50 (2) : 'When notice of a motion has been given, it shall be out of order to raise the subject matter of that motion in the form of an amendment to another motion or to discuss the subject matter to which the motion relates on a motion for the adjournment of the Assembly.' So I ask the Member to try not to anticipate, for he probably would like to say something on this other motion and I will permit him just to touch on it in passing, but not to go into details.

(In Mandarin): The amendment we are bringing up to this particular clause has been brought up because of their behaviour, because we have completely lost confidence in them. I was just trying to show you why we are actually bringing up this amendment to this particular clause. In short, they are very reactionary. That is why we have no alternative but to bring in an amendment to this particular clause which says that there should be only one question in a referendum. That is why the people will be able to say yes or no to any particular matter. Clause 29 deals with blank votes which will be taken as votes in support of the Government. So if the Government should pose two questions which are equally unacceptable to the people, then it is very unfair to the people, because they cannot make a choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of this, we are bringing up this amendment so that only one question will be asked at the referendum. Let me deal with the speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister. He says when a person is thirsty, he would like to drink water. That is common knowledge. When a person is thirsty, he must drink water. There is no point for him to tell us this. He makes the comparison between tea and drain water. Well, it does not matter what type of drink you have as long as you have a drink to quench your thirst. But this is a different matter. Merger is very important as far as the people are concerned. You cannot compare merger to the drinking of clean water or dirty water, because the two are different. What I will say is that the White Paper merger is as bad as dirty water. So to draw a proper analogy, I would ask our Government whether the Government is trying to force the people to drink ditty water. I think this is a more appropriate analog.

Dirty water from Jalan Kayu.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to give other examples which, I think, are necessary because they have not been published in newspapers and many people do not know about them. Perhaps some Members in the Assembly, if not all, know about this because the people concerned have sent their memorandum to various Members in this House. The representors urged that as representatives of the people, we the Members of this House must try to carry out the mandate given to us by the people. So, by bringing this up, more people will know about it. In this memorandum, it says that the people's views on Command Paper 33 are to refuse or accept the White Paper. There should be only one question in order that the correct attitude of the people may be ascertained. If there should be two questions on the White Paper merger, then it will be undemocratic because if you ask the people to choose between the Penang type of merger and the White Paper type of merger, then the people have no actual choice and this is not in keeping with the true meaning of a national referendum -

Order. That argument has been advanced in this House from the Opposition side several times. I also asked the Member to spare this House the same argument by somebody who is not in this House. We have had enough of that same argument, and I think possibly I must be a little bit more strict about this because all arguments have been exhausted, and we are going round and round in circles. If the Member can bring his speech to a conclusw4l, then perhaps we can get on faster than we have gone on.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, this argument has only been advanced by the Member for Anson, and that is why I am trying to advance the same argument again in general. Since I have already made a quotation; that ends my speech. But before I sit down, I hope the Government will not say that, as the Minister for Finance says. because of the trouble created by the Barisan Sosialis, the people are against the national referendum. As a matter of fact, the National Referendum Bill has caught the attention and interest of people of various classes. Their attention has been drawn to it because they want to be sure that in a democratic State this Bill is not implemented in an undemocratic manner.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, we are almost reaching midnight and all this time we have been led far away by some Members of the Assembly with the same old tune, a tune which sometimes gives a kind of entertainment to those who wish to go to sleep. In the debate on the amendment moved by the Opposition, we have heard many speakers touching on the subject of democracy, democracy, and democracy. But if we go deeply into the matter of democracy, which has been expounded by them as genuine democracy, we find that democracy is practised by them merely for the purpose of the next general elections, that is to say, "We want the seats." That is democracy to them. In opposing the clause before us, they pretend to be true patriots. But their words expose their true character. We have been led far field, particularly by an eminent lawyer in this Assembly, the Member for Anson, on the subject of the referendum in other countries such as Australia - from north to south, and from east to west. But they have conveniently forgotten that in those countries there is only one nationality. Here in Singapore we are living in a country comprising a multi-racial society with different religions. We must stand on solid ground and, as fighters of democracy, we must respect the views of all sections of the people who live in this country and who owe undivided allegiance to this country. This is the responsibility of fighters of democracy - to respect the views of all sections of the community and whose loyalty to this country is undivided. For this reason, Mr Speaker, in honouring the respect of these loyal people, we must be cool, calm, and perservering, and must look on a wider plane. Mr Speaker, in discussing this question, which is to be posed in the forthcoming referendum as to how many questions are to be posed and whether it will be answered by a "yes" or "no", we must be cautious so that we will not put something that is not acceptable to our community as a whole. We know that the principle of merger has been agreed upon unanimously, i.e. Singapore must merge with the Federation of Malaya. But the type of merger has been debated upon months ago, and we have also debated the White Paper Cmd. 33 which has been adopted by this Assembly. In my opinion, the basis of merger has been debated and accepted by a great majority of the population comprising a multiracial society in Singapore. But these views and opinions have been misled and confused by opportunistic leaders who play on chauvinistic feelings so as to achieve their own political ends. Nobody can deny this. I have often heard it said in this Assembly by Members opposite, particularly the Barisan Sosialis which is led by their great leader, the Member for Queenstown, that we have deceived the people and so on and so forth. I do not know the Chinese language and therefore cannot read Chinese newspapers, but until today I have not come across nor have I heard what is the type of merger that the Barisan Sosialis want. The Member who spoke just now about the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis, unfortunately spoke in Chinese. But whatever he said must be read, digested and understood by those who do not understand Chinese too. From this we can see that their opinion is limited and confined to a particular section of the community. In this way, they are playing on chauvinism for their own political future. They only pose to be genuine fighters of democracy. We Assemblymen here, on this side at least, come from all sections of the community, and we disseminate our views to the people in open confrontation, so that the people themselves may decide. So when this problem is clearly understood by all sections of the people. Mr Speaker, it means that we are figh ting for the rights of democracy, and that the people themselves can realise and assess the value of democracy according to their views and their wishes. Mr Speaker, I wish to reiterate. It is highly dangerous and highly inflam mable and will bring calamity to the country if leaders, especially those sitting in this Assembly, stir up communal passion to light the fire of communalism f or a particular section or part of the community, or for any particular Party.

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is straying away when he went on that tack. That is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant to the amendment. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is guilty of the same fault - being completely irrelevant when he talks about feelings in this particular context when we are dealing with the amendment before the House.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I do not wish to argue with you. But I have said it because that charge has been made several times when Mr Speaker retired from the Chamber for a while. So I think it is imperative that I should explain that in implementing this referendum, we must pose questions which will be acceptable by the people comprising the various races. This is my object. There is a danger if only one question were put and accepted by one section and rejected by another. So in order to safeguard democracy and thereby respect the views of all the communities, the questions to be posed should be acceptable by all sections of the people here. By this there is the hope that the basis of national unity which has been implanted in the people of Singapore who owe undivided loyalty to this country will not be disrupted.

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

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

So be it.

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