Hansard, 1962-07-02

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

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee.

2.33 p.m. Clause 27-(cont.)

We are on clause 27 - an amendment in the name of the Member for Queenstown, In page All, line 13, to leave out "declare" and insert "announce the result of the voting in detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares".

Dr Lee Siew Choh (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose last Friday night, I was explaining why I moved the amendment and that was in order that we might have an honest record of the result of voting. I explained to you, Sir, how the original intention of the referendum immediately after Hong Lim was to test public opinion as to whether or not it still supported the P.A.P. and, what was more important to the P.A.P. Ministers at that time, to allow the P.A.P. to find out the actual strength of the various electoral divisions because, if the result of certain divisions came back showing a heavy majority margin in favour of the P.A.P., those were the seats that would be considered very "safe" seats and those with a not so clear majority margin for the P.A.P. would be less "safe" seats and those with an uncertain majority margin would be considered third-class "unsafe" seats. Consequent on that, I also mentioned the fact that the original intention of the P.A.P. was to pose one question to the people - namely, "Do you support the P.A.P. or do you support the P.A.P. Government?" and the answer was supposed to come back with a simple yes or no. After some time when there was widespread opposition to the sell-out that we had exposed, the P.A.P. switched their original intention and decided to pose two questions to the people instead. I pointed out that that switch occurred before the National Referendum Bill had its First Reading in the House. At that time, Sir, as I have already said, the intention was to have a snap referendum posing two unacceptable questions to the people with complete prohibition of can vassing. But since then, the P.A.P. had realised that the posing of two unaccept able questions to the people would result in a certain reaction and that reac tion would be translated into the return of blank or uncertain votes. And since the P.A.P. did not like the people to know the exact number of those blank votes, it was the intention of the P.A.P. not to let them know how they voted. Therefore, the intention was to hide the shame of the P.A.P. from the eyes of the people. At that stage of my speech, I was tracing the arguments which appear in column 388 of the Official Report of the Select Committee of 16th May, 1962, and I wish to resume from where I left off. I was tracing the arguments that the Ministers gave in defence of not wanting the people to know the truth. If you will remember, Sir, at column 388, the Minister for Home Affairs gave various excuses. First of all, he said: '...because the result, according to the proposed Schedule, would be declared division by division whereas, as I think I have said earlier in this Select Committee, the result o the referendum would be declared for Singapore as a whole.' That was the first excuse, Sir. The second excuse given was that the details of the Form were not in order. Then the third excuse given was that it was a general Referendum Bill. The fourth excuse given was: 'The declaration of the result of the poll is an administrative matter, and it is for the Superintendent to compile the statement in the form best suited for a particular referendum.' The last excuse given by the Minister for Home Affairs was again that it is a general Referendum Bill. I asked whether they accepted the principle that the truth and the result should be clearly presented to the people, and in column 389, the Minister for Home Affairs again said that it is a general Referendum Bill and he gave me the assurance "that whatever form the statement takes, it will be clear and understandable to the people". Sir, all these piddling objections were overcome in spite of the Minister for Home Affairs repeating in column 392: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally think it is impossible. In fact, I consulted my officials on this matter and they advised against it, because no one can anticipate what type of referendum or what kind of question will be posed in future, and it is difficult to design a set Form in the Schedule to this Bill.' Sir, all these excuses of it being impossible, difficult and unnecessary and leaving the matter to the Superintendent can be summarised in one neat sentence which was used by the Member for Cairnhill, namely, "It allows flexibility for dishonest manoeuvres." In fact, Sir, all these excuses came to nothing. We accepted the legitimate excuse of the details of the statement not being correct. If you will remember, Sir, even you, as Chairman, thought that there was no political undercurrent. I refer you to column 391, Sir, where you said: 'If that is the only point of difference - I take it there is no political undercurrent in this because if there is any political undercurrent, then I -' The Minister for Finance then said: 'I am quite sure that both sides of the House are -'. Then you said: 'At one. Can I suggest then that possibly instead of saying "number of ballot papers cast in the affirmative or negative," just say "number of ballot papers cast in respect of each question," and then the Member for Anson's amendment to the amendment to clause 29 will take care of how that is to be worded.' Sir, the present amendment which I have moved to this clause embodies all the suggestions made in Select Committee. If the Government were really sincere in those objections appearing in the pages of the Official Report, then they cannot say that they do not want to accept our amendment today. But of course we must always remember that there is in the background this P.A.P. referendum plot - the plot of stealing the votes of the people and calling those votes as "supporting the P.A.P.". Alt this can be revealed in the words of the Minister for Finance. When we pressed for the result to be known, he said in column 393 - somewhere in the middle: "...we are absolutely going to give no undertaking on the manner in which the results will be announced.' Of course, he gave his reasons, but they have all been rebutted. 2.45 p.m. Sir, in the present Bill clause 29, sub-clause (2) says: 'The number of such ballot papers shall be included by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum.' I mentioned that the word "included" was very vague. But, of course, we have learnt since that it was meant to be vague. The fact that I did not know that the actual detailed results would not he announced did not show that we were the only people to have been bluffed. I must mention the Straits Times editorial of 4th June, 1962. The editorial referred to the Referendum Bill. The last sentence of the second paragraph in the third column reads: 'These "votes" [that is, the blank and uncertain votes] will be declared by the Superintendent of the referendum in a category of their own.' That shows, Sir, that even the Straits Times editorial writer was confused; the Straits Times editorial writer did not know the intention of the Government really was not to reveal the exact details of the voting of the referendum to the people. Of course, the true intention is as I will now outline. I refer you, Sir, to the Plebeian of 8th June, 1962 (that is our official Party Paper), at page 4, col. 6, where I said: 'To ensure that no one will even know the exact number of blank and uncertain ballot papers, there will be no provision for blank and uncertain votes to be counted separately.'

Order. I have been following Members who have read extracts from certain documents, and I think a line must be drawn somewhere. If, in fact, this statement which is now being read is the Member's own statement, I do not think he ought to read it from any document. He should now tell the Assembly what his own view is of the whole matter and not something which he has himself written down on paper.

I will, therefore, not quote from the Plebeian, but instead tell you the plot of the P.A.P. which has been exposed by us. Sir, when they talk of declaration of the result of the referendum, there was no intention of letting the people know the exact number of votes that have been cast for the P.A.P. nor the number of votes that are blank, nor the number of votes that are uncertain or other votes. They intend to mix all the blank and uncertain votes from the various divisions, together with the votes supporting the P.A.P. merger proposals and then in the end make one single announcement saying, "So many hundreds of thousands of votes have been cast in favour of the P.A.P. merger proposals." In this way, Sir, even if only 10 per cent of the people really vote for the P.A.P. and 90 per cent cast uncertain votes, the P.A.P. will be able to announce to the world that 100 per cent of voters have voted in favour of the P.A.P.'s merger proposals. Then no one will be able to lodge any objection or complaint of unfairness because of lack of evidence, because nobody will know the true state of affairs and also because nobody will know how many blank votes there actually are. This explains why the perfectly legitimate amendment moved by me to introduce a Form in the Schedule for a statement of the results of the referendum was rejected by the Government. Sir, in any election, there is a statement of the poll after the counting of the ballots. There is such a form - Form Election 17 - in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53). There are similar forms for a statement of the results of the poll in other countries. And any government with nothing to hide need have no fear about publishing the results after counting the ballots. In fact, as I have already indicated, it is the duty of all honest governments to disclose everything there is to disclose to the scrutiny of the people. In this amendment, we merely ask for a statement to show the exact number of votes supporting propositions A, B, C or D; the number of blank votes; the number of uncertain votes; and the number of tendered votes. The people of Singapore have the right to know the true position - good or bad, favourable or otherwise - so that anyone dissatisfied with the results of the referendum can proceed to petition the Referendum Judge against the result of the poll. Now there is provision for referendum petitions, but the true and honest results of the count will be kept secret - conveniently kept secret-so that no one will be able to complain to the Referendum Judge for lack of evidence. And, with this provision - the discovery that came after nights of secret meetings with Machiavelli - the P.A.P. Ministers are now satisfied that the loophole of blank votes is plugged. The arguments put forward by the Ministers in Select Committee only show the Fascist thinking of their whole makeup. The Minister for Finance under pressure had to say that he would not be wil ling to reveal the manner in which the results would be announced. When we pressed him further, he said that he would not only not reveal the results of the voting but also reserve the right to disclose or not to disclose the results of the voting. I refer you, Sir, to col. 471 [Official Report of Select Committee of 17th May, 1962], where you said: 'The point made by the Minister for Finance is that the Government, I think, reserves to itself the right either to disclose or not to disclose the number of uncertain and unmarked votes. That is a fair statement of what the Minister for Finance says. That is all.' And the Minister for Finance heartily agreed. He said, "Yes". No Government if it calls itself democratic will ever reserve to itself the right to disclose or not to disclose the result of the voting. Only dictators will do that. This is a concrete example of the Fascist streak in our Ministers. And yet the Minister for Health and Law had earlier on said - on the first day, I think - that he wanted to base our Referendum Bill on the general parliamentary Practice of the British system. Which British system ever says that the government reserves its right to disclose or not to disclose? Which British system says that the results of the voting must not be disclosed to the people? Can the Minister quote any precedent? Can he give any example of such a state of affairs? I see that he cannot even answer. He cannot even look up, because -

Who told you that?

Order. I have already said time and again that Members are addressing the Chair and not Ministers on the Opposite Benches. Whether they are looking down or looking up makes no difference. It is the Chair the Member is addressing. 3.00 p.m.

This was a shameful state of affairs, Sir. So shameful that even the Member for Cairnhill suddenly woke up. At column 472, in the last two lines, the Member for Cairnhill said: "...if it is going to be an embarrassment to the Government, they will not declare. If it is not so, then they will declare.' And to add to the shameful record, the Minister for Finance said: 'For the record, there is nothing for the Government to be embarrassed about.' Of course, they have nothing to be embarrassed about. They are now so thick-skinned that they will do anything. They have no more principles left. The Minister for Finance himself admitted that all these provisions were based on unconstitutional and illegal principles. What else have they got to say?

If you are not thick-skinned, you should have resigned!

All these shameful revelations, Sir, only prove one point. The PA.P. Ministers have always contended that it is the Communists who want to destroy democracy. They call on the Communist bogey and hope to frighten the people of Singapore. But this Bill has proved to the hilt that it is not the Communist bogey that is destroying democracy in Singapore, it is those Fascists who hold power and who do not know how to practise democracy who are destroying the very foundations of democracy in Singapore. At the present moment, Sir, there is widespread apprehension in the whole of Singapore. There is already the Council of Joint Action of Opposition Parties both inside and outside the Assembly. The Council of Joint Action have already mapped out a programme of action, but it looks as if the Government may want to put obstacles in the way of the Council of Joint Action. Let them not prevent legitimate and constitutional means of opposition from the people. If the people are denied their peaceful and constitutional means of expression, then all the P.A.P. Ministers as well as the Back Benchers will have to bear full responsibility for their provocative action.

What action?

I do not think I need explain further, Sir, except to give one final quotation to remind the Minister for Home Affairs of what he said on the 14th of March. 1962, during the Second Reading of the Bill. On page 2, at the third paragraph [Vol. 17, No. I col. 68]: 'With regard to the procedure for the holding of a referendum, the procedure has been largely based and modelled on the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance ...'. I have moved the amendment, Sir, entirely based and modelled on the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Then at the fifth line from the end of the same paragraph [col. 69]: '...the Superintendent shall declare the result of the referendum and in accordance with clause 29 he shall forthwith, after the result has been declared by him, compile a statement of the referendum and shall cause the said statement to be published in the Gazette.' That statement, Sir, is in the amendment which I have moved in the Schedule. May I quote you again, Sir, on page 3, paragraph 3 [col. 70]? The Minister at that time was talking about amendments moved by the Opposition. He said at the third sentence of the third paragraph on page 3 [col. 70]: 'Firstly, those amendments which intend ostensibly to ensure propriety in the conduct of the referendum, the Government is prepared to accept.' I do not think the Minister can ever contest that my amendment is entirely meant to ensure propriety in the conduct of the referendum. Further on, Sir, somewhere in the middle of the same paragraph, he said: 'However, in order that there can he no doubt about the propriety of the conduct of the referendum, the Government accepts the amendments [of puffing things like polling agents, and allowing polling agents to affix their seals] -'

Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Member was quoting. I cannot see "puffling" mentioned in the Hansard. I think he ought to quote and then say that they are puffling, if he thinks they are puffling.

I quote, Sir, somewhere in the middle of the paragraph: 'However, in order that there can be no doubt about the propriety of the conduct of the referendum, the Government accepts the amendments of the Member for Queenstown...'. Then he went on to say that he would accept the amendments with regard to polling agents, to allow polling agents to affix their seals. And the final quotation from the Minister for Home Affairs. On page 4 [col. 71], in the first paragraph, somewhere in the lower third paragraph: "...the Government has accepted the amendment of the Member for Queenstown so that no one can question the propriety of the referendum.' Sir, if they do not want to declare the result in detail to the people, then everyone will query the propriety of the referendum. I have already challenged them to produce any precedents where other countries do not let the people know the result of the voting. I do not think they will be able to produce a single one. We have repeatedly said, Sir, that we want an honest, a just and a fair referendum. Let the people know exactly what happens, it looks as if the P.A.P. want to steal the votes of the people and not want the people to know, because they fear the temper of the people against them. If only ten per cent of the votes support the P.A.P. and if 90 per cent of the votes are blank or uncertain votes, as a result of two unacceptable questions posed in the referendum, then the P.A.P. hope to declare to the world that a hundred per cent of the people support their merger proposals. 'The only snag is that they just do not want the people to know that they have pinched 90 per cent of the people's votes. That is the dishonesty in the P.A.P. It shows up everywhere. For the Back Benches, I would tell them this. If the Front Benches persist in this dishonesty, and the Back Benches abide by this dishonesty and support them in this dishonesty -

Order. I must stop this intimidation of the Back Benchers. The Back Benchers are there to decide according to their conscience what they should do, and I do not think it is right for any Opposition Member to voice any veiled threats or indicate any veiled intimidation in their speeches.

There is no intention to intimidate, Sir. I just want to remind them of their responsibility to the people. That is all. Nothing else, Sir. Anyway, I will close now by saying one thing: that the result of the referendum in detail must be divulged. The Government have a duty to inform the people and the people have a right to know. If the Government want to show that they are responsible in this respect, then there is no reason why they cannot accept the amendment.

It has been moved as an amendment: In page A11, line 13, to leave out "declare" and insert "announce the result of the voting in detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares". As indicated the other day, the debate may range over the suggested amendment to clause 30: In page A12, line 25, at end, to add "Such statement shall be, as near as may be, in the Form in the Second Schedule to this Ordinance.". The debate will then range over the proposed Second Schedule.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the opinion of the Members of this side of the House has already been made known to the people at various meetings, rallies and forums in regard to the matter under debate in this House. What I want to say now is that democracy does not mean that everybody must make a noise. We have also heard the arguments from Members of the Opposition, especially the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. It would appear that the argument of every Member is the same. They are just like repeating gramophones, so much so that many people would not even turn to look at the newspapers. That was why I said just now that I would not add too much to that. 3.15 p.m. The Member for Queenstown mentioned at the meeting of Parliamentary Secretaries that there was a secret discussion between the Parliamentary Secretaries and the Prime Minister relating to certain safe seats. That is why I avail myself of this opportunity to tell the House something of that. Of course, the Prime Minister used to have an exchange of views with the Ministers and sometimes with the Parliamentary Secretaries. Sometimes we had a cup of tea together and, sometimes, when we were hungry, of course, we would take some food. But these occasions were termed by those turncoats now in the Barisan Sosialis as certain secret dealings. That is a most shameful way of saying things. We can all remember that during the Hong Lim by-election those so-called heroes opposite us were all P.A.P. Members. They used to say that they were 100 per cent loyal to the P.A.P. They also said that the P.A.P. was a 100 per cent good and honest Government. In the Hong Lim by-election, the question we were faced with was whether we should resign because at that time many sections of the people were of the opinion that the P.A.P. should resign. But certain other sections of the people were of the opinion that we should not resign. The Prime Minister then consulted the opinions of all the Parliamentary Secretaries. You all remember that at that time there was no such concept as Malaysia. At that time, the P.A.P. leadership was of the opinion that there was only a meagre hope of merger. We did not see much possibility of having a merger and we thought that if we were to continue to govern, it would be difficult for us to justify ourselves to the people. Everybody understood that. Certain of those people who are now opposite did not want to resign. I myself also did not know why certain Parliamentary Secretaries did not want to resign at that time. We also discussed at that time certain things, but they were not relevant to the holding of the national referendum, because Tunku Abdul Rahman only mentioned the Malaysia concept at the foreign correspondents' luncheon. The Parliament gave support in principle. During the Hong Lim by-election, we disclosed officially our principles relating to merger, education and labour. But the holding of a national referendum was something that originated later on, and, therefore, it was wrong to say that we were trying to make use of this national referendum for our own purposes. The impression I got from the meeting was that it was a secret meeting of Parliamentary Secretaries and the Prime Minister. It was held at the Prime Minister's Office. I also attended the meeting. The atmosphere was that certain Parliamentary Secretaries, especially the Member for Queenstown, were of the opinion that if the Prime Minister resigned, then the Parliamentary Secretaries should take over the reins of government. I was shocked to hear that. The leaders of our Party -

Order. I do not know how this is relevant to the amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has made his point. He has answered the allegation that there was talk about a referendum being held to gain safe seats. I think he has answered that point. Now he is going into details which will open out a debate which is completely irrelevant.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not prepared to go into details to disclose the details of that meeting. What I want to say is that at that time there was already a plot underway to take over the reins of government. Therefore, the Member for Queenstown mentioned that we had a meeting for the purpose of finding out safe seats for the Ministers and to say that this had something to do with the holding of the national referendum. But I will rebut it as nonsense. If what he had said was true, then why from the Anson by-election up to now did he never mention it? Mr Speaker, Sir, the result of this national referendum is based on one or two questions posed to the people and is, of course, different from a general election. Because during a general election the people may want to elect individuals and may not elect a Party. Because, perhaps, some political Parties may be strong, then people in certain constituencies may want to vote such political Parties. But others may want to vote individuals. That is why we cannot mix these two issues together. We cannot mix a national referendum with a general election together. That is why the general result of a national referendum can reflect generally the views of the general populace. On this I would add that the Barisan Sosialis have been in the habit of accusing us of not willing to let the people have a chance of freedom, i.e., to express their opinions and views. We should know that everybody here, including everyone outside, and all political Parties have agreed that we should have a merger. Now, if we ask only one question, whether they want the White Paper merger, then, according to the Barisan, they will say no; then it will mean there will be no merger. That is why -

Order. The hon. Member has gone away from the amendment. The amendment merely seeks to suggest that the Superintendent should make a declaration of the result of the referendum in detail electoral division by electoral division. We have completed the debate on whether there should be a yes or no.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned that I wanted only to add something more. I did not intend to carry on with details. The Member for Queenstown a little while ago said I mentioned a certain so-called Tripartite Joint Action Council. We never thought the Barisan could have been of such stuff without a stand of its own. Because during the Hong Lim by-election, Mr Ong Eng Guan also criticised that the Liberal Socialists were a pro-Western, capitalist and colonialist Party. But today, for the purpose of making use of a political Party, they do not care whether a Party is pro-capitalist or pro-colonialist. They now want to co-operate with such political Parties. All those who have read stories relating to Hitler and Fascists in Germany can understand what is meant by Fascism, it is strange that the words and phrases used and the meanings in relation to those phrases could only be found in their dictionaries. If we were Fascists, I believe the Member for Queenstown and the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis would not be so free nowadays to hold rallies and conduct meetings and shout here and there. Perhaps they might have vanished without a trace. If they want to talk about democracy and if they want to show that they really want to preserve and uphold parliamentary democracy, I believe they will not have given aid secretly to students to prevent other students from going into the examination centres to sit for their examination, if that is their kind of democracy -

Now, that is irrelevant. Let us come back to the amendment.

Mr Lee Khoon Choy(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was just mentioning those points in passing in order to re fute their accusation that we are dictatorial. To sum up, I am of the opinion that the Member for Queenstown is trying to avail himself of this opportunity in this House to create trouble and to accuse us of using this national referendum to prepare to secure safe seats for Ministers. All this talk from him is nonsense.

Mr Speaker, Sir, quite frankly I do not understand this amendment. If I may read it. It says: 'to leave out "declare" and insert "announce the result of the voting in detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares".' 3.30 p.m. Now the general effect is that if the amendment is carried, you get this position. There are 51 electoral divisions in Singapore. One could reach this position - 26 divisions in favour of the proposition, 25 divisions against the proposition, and yet the votes cast in favour of the proposition in 26 divisions could be less than those cast in the 25 divisions. And vice versa it could hap pen the other way, Mr Speaker. So that you could get the position where 26 divisions favour, from a division point of view, the proposition; yet the number of votes cast in those 26 divisions could be very much less; and the votes cast in the 25 divisions could be very much more. Surely the position is an absurd one. Now, this is a referendum, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is to ascertain how many people - counting heads - are for a proposition and how many are against a proposition. It may be that in one division 90 per cent of the electorate might be against it and only 10 per cent for it. And yet on a count of the electoral population throughout Singapore the majority of the population might be for it, so that the exercise here is not to ascertain division by division which division is in favour of the proposition, but to find out how many more people favour the proposition than are against it. So on that basis it seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, the effect of this amendment could mean that we might get to a situation where 26 divisions are against it and 25 are for it, and yet on votes counted, the result could be otherwise. I do not know what the intention of the Member for Queenstown was - whether the whole purpose of this amendment was merely to force the Government into categorising votes. I suppose what he wanted was to know the number of blank papers. He wanted a count on that. He wanted to know the number of spoilt papers. He wanted a count on that. He wanted a count on votes "for". He wanted a count on votes "against". But the way he has moved the amendment merely brings about a situation where we get the position as I have delineated, and that position would be most undesirable.

You will see, Sir, that the P.A.P. Ministers dare not answer our points and it has to be left to the Member for Farrer Park to answer for the P.A.P. We have already said - Mr Rajah rose -

Point of order?

I am not a Member of the Government -

Is it on a point of order?

- so how can I answer for the Government?

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of order, yes, Mr Speaker. Is it proper for the Member for Queenstown to accuse me of being in the Government when I am not?

I do not think the Member for Queenstown has accused the Member for Farrer Park of being in the Government. I think he alleges that the Member for Farrer Park is, in fact, speaking on behalf of the Government which can, of course, be controverted by the Member for Farrer Park.

That was my point, Sir. The Member for Farrer Park is now speaking on behalf of the Government, and the Ministers of the Government dare not even get up to speak on their own behalf.

Order. Surely that is a misrepresentation. We are in Committee and if the Member for Queenstown had been patient, I am sure that perhaps two or three Ministers might have stood up. I do not know. But he Cannot say that the Ministers dare not get up. We are in Committee.

However, Sir, I think the Member for Farrer Park did not hear any explanation the other night of how the P.A.P. intended to get the safe seats for the Ministers. Since he was not present and since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education is also querying, let me explain again, Sir, how this plot came into being. As I said, at that particular time - Mr Lee Khoon Choy rose -

Is it a point of order?

If you allow that -

Order. I was under the impression that Members of this Assembly at least know the Standing Orders well enough, if a Member rises on a point of order, he cannot speak unless the Speaker sees that no other Member is on his feet. So if the Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a point of order, he just says "On a point of order," and the Member for Queenstown must sit down. Is it a point of order? Mr Lee Khoon Choy indicated assent.

The point of order being?

The Member for Queenstown has already explained in detail the so-called reasons even though the Member for Farrer Park was not here. I ask you, Sir, whether it is right to repeat the same thing.

The Standing Order, of course, says that there shall be no re petition if that repetition is tedious, and I do not know whether the tedium carries on from Friday night. I am not quite certain. But I ask the Member for Queenstown to spare the Assembly any repetition which is unnecessary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the objection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education shows how sore they are on this particular point -

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly entitled to rise on a point of order. Whether he is sore or not makes no difference. I think we have had enough of this "plot" which really is irrelevant. This part of the "plot", I think, is irrelevant to the motion we are now discussing, which is whether or not, in fact, details of the returns should be published by the Superintendent. I think I have indicated that the debate can range over the amendment proposed to' clause 30 which sets out the details required in the pro posed Second Schedule. That is all.

I do not intend to repeat the story in toto, Sir, but just to let the Member for Farrer Park understand because he seems to be under a misapprehension.

I have heard it all, Mr Speaker, I -

He was giving examples of certain divisions. He was giving - I cannot remember the figures - 30 against 25, or something like that, But he has missed the point. What we want are the detailed results in order to show the actual strength of the voting. What we want to know is how many people in every division have supported the P.A.P.? How many people have cast uncertain votes? How many people have cast blank votes? And how many people have supported the alternative which the Government is proposing to the people? That is all we want, Sir,It makes no difference. It does not say that we want to know which division is won and which division is lost. All we want is a declaration of the results in detail. That is all. And that explains how the P.A.P. hopes to get the safe seats for the Ministers. Because depending on the majority margin, they will know which are the strongholds of the P.A.P. and which are the weak supports. And, mind you, the plot about this is that only the Government Ministers will know and no one else will know, not even the Back Benchers of the other side. Only the Ministers will know. That is the nub of my story and I can see that none of them has dared to deny it.

Why do you not give us a chance to speak?

I just want to mention one thing, Sir, because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education has jibed at the Barisan Sosialis for joining the other political Parties in Singapore. Let me explain. It is a very important principle. It is not that we have changed our stand. It is that all of us in Singapore, irrespective of our political stand, have to fight for the survival of democracy in Singapore. It is because of that - let me read to you, Sir, a small section of the Common Declaration by the Liberal-Socialist Party, the Barisan Sosialis, the Party Raayat, the United Democratic Party and the Workers' Party.

Towkay Party of -

I can table this afterwards. It says: - 'A call to the citizens of Singapore. We the Liberal-Socialist Party, Barisan Sosialis, Party Raayat, the United Democratic Party and the Workers' Party, now comprising the Council of Joint Action, being fully aware of the desperate efforts of the P.A.P. Government to force through the undemocratic Referendum Bill, hereby declare our common objects. One, to channelise all Opposition views on matters of national importance. Two, to demolish once and for all the P.A.P. smear that all those opposing the P.A.P. Government are Communists, Communist stooges or racialists.'

Order. I do not think I can allow the whole document to be read. It is completely irrelevant to what the Member is doing. I am sure he will have the opportunity on some other occasion to inform Members of this House of the contents of that document, but I think he has made his point. Let us come back to the amendment.

If you will allow me, Sir, there is only one paragraph and it is the vital paragraph which has got to be got across to the Ministers.

Is it relevant?

It is very relevant to the question that he put, Sir. And the third objective - it is only a few lines - to prove to the people of Singapore that political Parties in Singapore are conscious of their duty, to sink their individual political differences in times of national crisis in order to preserve the basic human democratic rights of all citizens and to counteract constitutionally and peacefully all the facets of Government actions to mislead and to force through the undemocratic Referendum Bill and the White Paper proposals.

Order. We are now dealing with detailed announcements by the Superintendent. I do not know how the hon. Member can say that what he reads is relevant to the issue whether or not the Superintendent is to make detailed announcements as shown in the proposed Schedule. Number of ballot papers issued. Number of ballot papers cast. Number of unmarked ballot papers cast. Number of uncertain ballot papers cast. Number of tendered ballot papers. And those numbers are asked for each electoral division.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the last bit that I read out to you was in direct answer to the query from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. That is all, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we heard stories of plots behind this Referendum Bill as given by the Member for Queenstown last Friday and also this afternoon, And in view of what he has said about this plot, this evil plot behind this Referendum Bill, I think you will permit me a few minutes to run briefly through this so-called plot. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown alleged last Friday and also this afternoon that the threat to resign by the P.A.P. Government was not sincere. 3.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, how can he say that this intention to resign was not serious when he, more than anyone of the 13 present Barisan Assemblymen, came kneeling to us and begged us not to resign? Further, all the 38 trade unions of the SATU group appealed through the Press and their couriers to persuade us not to resign. If the threat was not real or serious, then why all this bother? All the P.A.P. traitors now in the Barisan Sosialis said, with one voice at that time, that we as a Government should ignore public opinion. They said that so long as we were working sincerely for the people we should proceed with the business of government in spite of some dissatisfaction expressed by the people because of malicious rumour and unfounded criticisms spread by our opposition. They said that the people would understand in time that what we were doing was for the long-term interests of the people. So, far from our being afraid to go to the people, the 13 traitors now in the Barisan Sosialis were genuinely anxious about their political future and fearful of the prospects of losing their status as Parliamentary Secretaries and Assemblymen. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown alleged that if the number of unmarked and uncertain ballot papers is not announced, then the referendum is improper. The Member for Queenstown is only specifically interested in the number of unmarked and uncertain ballot papers. Obviously the Member for Queenstown has failed to notice that it has been specifically provided for in the Bill that unmarked or uncertain ballot papers shall be deemed to be in support of the decision of the Assembly on the matter referred for the referen dum. This is found in clause 29. It is also provided that the number of ballot papers shall be included by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum. All these are in black and white for the public to see. There is nothing secret about it. The meaning of unmarked and uncertain ballot papers is known beforehand. If there are people who still persist in casting their votes in this manner, then they should be well aware of the way in which their votes will be treated. Where is the unfairness of it all? How can the Member for Queenstown call these Fascist methods? Mr Speaker, Sir, in calling us Fascists, the Member for Queenstown evidently understands very little of the behaviour of Fascists. I have no doubt that in a very short while he will swallow back this term, just as he had swallowed back the term "neo-colonialist". We have not heard the term "neo-colonialist" being used again. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Fascists do not do things in public. They believe in secret trials. The Fascists are not in the habit of talking with their opponents across the Floor. They have a simple way of dealing with their opponents, and that is to line up all the opponents against the wall and shoot them. How can the Member for Queenstown call us Fascists when we are talking with them across the Floor? And which shows how democratic we are! We allowed him to speak for 7½ hours in this Assembly.

You cannot stop him.

Then the Member for Queenstown talked of the Council of Joint Action. Mr Speaker, it is quite typical of the pro-Communists to steal the name of some respectable organisation and claim it to be their own. Mr Speaker, Sir, probably you are well aware that the Council of Joint Action, 20 years ago, was a combination of progressive elements and progressive parties. They had one specific objective, and that was to fight against colonialism. But today we see the kind of Council of Joint Action that they have. They have among them a pro-colonial Right-wing reactionary Party, in the name of the Liberal-Socialists. But it is quite common, Mr Speaker, Sir, for all pro-Communists or phoney socialists to sacrifice whatever lofty principles they have for the ultimate interests, even to the extent of joining up with a pro-colonial Right-wing reactionary Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have said that there is a difference between a national referendum and a general election. In the case of a national referendum, no candidates are involved; only national issues are concerned. In the case of a general election, I can see the necessity of announcing the results, division by division, because there will be several candidates competing with one another in each of the electoral divisions. But I fail to see the necessity in the case of a national referendum to announce the results division by division, because the issue involved is a national issue, not an issue concerning any particular elec toral division. It is the total results that count and not the results of each particular division. Let us look at the Second Schedule that was designed by the Member for Queenstown. As I have said in Select Committee, this Form is not suitable for a national referendum.

Why?

In this particular Schedule designed by the Member for Queenstown, rejected ballot papers are not mentioned in the statement. Is the Member for Queenstown thinking that the rejected ballot papers should not be announced?

By "rejected" ballot papers, does the Minister mean spoiled ballot papers?

Yes, rejected by the Superintendent.

Spoiled ballot papers?

They will be spoiled.

There is a line there "Number of spoiled ballot papers". I do not know whether -

There is a slight difference.

Yes, I just want to put the record straight. That is all.

After a lot of arguments, we all agreed that tendered ballot papers should not be counted. But here we see in the Schedule that tendered ballot papers are to be included in the statement. As I have said just now, clause 29 states that all unmarked and uncertain votes will be regarded as willing to accept the Assembly's decision on the matter referred for the referendum and therefore they will be included amongst the votes in favour of the decision of the Assembly. So I see no necessity of having a separate item for unmarked ballot papers and uncertain ballot papers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have this afternoon received from the Office of the Attorney-General of Western Samoa a letter and certain documents which may be of assistance to this House. I will read two very brief passages, and then the document which particularly affects the amendment now being discussed. It was dated 25th June (last week): 'A plebiscite was held under the authority of the Western Samoan Plebiscite Order, 1961.'

Order. May I again remind the Member that that is being translated?

'A plebiscite was held under the authority of the Western Samoan Plebiscite Order, 1961, a New Zealand Order-in-Council which was drafted in New Zealand, but, perused in some respects and amended in the office. The head of the United Nations group that came here for some weeks to report on the manner in which it was conducted was quite satisfied that the people had been given every chance to express their true feelings in the matter.' Sir, I shall be tabling this because I think the documents may be of interest. Sir, the Acting Attorney-General, Mr Penlington, was good enough to send me a document "Plebiscite Form 20 - Instructions to Plebiscite Returning Officers, Deputy Returning Officers, and Polling Clerks on the conduct of the poll pursuant to Western Samoan Plebiscite Order, 1961". I want to read only one paragraph, Sir, that is, paragraph 31 - "Results of the Poll": 'As soon as the number of votes recorded for and against each proposal has been ascertained, the Deputy Returning Officer shall announce the results of the vote counted at his polling booth, and then fill in the card "Preliminary Results" included in your booth supplies. Pin tip "Preliminary Results" card in a prominent place outside the polling booth for the general information of the public.' So you see, Sir, not only were the results declared division by division, but also booth by booth. And finally what were the details? 'Returning Officers who have received instructions to radio the results to the Chief Returning Officer need only state in the radiogram the booth number, the number of votes recorded for or against each proposal, and the number of informal votes recorded for each proposal. Specimen telegram is shown hereunder :- 'Chief Returning Officer, APIA [that is the town, Sir], Booth No.... Proposal 1 For ..................... Against ................. Proposal 2 For ..................... Against ................. Informal [that is to say, void papers] ..... Total Voting Papers counted ................ (Signed) SMITH' Mr Speaker, the Member for Farrer Park is a little concerned at the theoretical possibility. But I indicated that the fact that the majority of the divisions - shall we say, the majority of the divisions are against the White Paper; but the majority of the citizens are in favour - are against the White Paper would have no legal effect. It is a question of the majority of the people. 4.00 p.m. The importance of having the results - and this would concern, shall we say, Sir, the major Parties in this House rather than those of us at the back of this side of the House - is that 'lie Government being in possession through its Superintendent of information which would indicate the divisions which may be favourable to them, such information should also be available to the other major Parties who may wish to plan their election campaigns which would be coming after the polling with reference to the merger referendum. That seems to me the entire issue, Sir. It is not vital in itself. What is important, Sir, is that you have referred us, and permitted us to refer, to the Second Schedule. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs, whose pathetic ineptitude was so classically displayed in this Assembly last Friday afternoon, has forgotten that before the Select Committee, he protested vehemently that that Schedule was inappropriate because this was a general Referendum Bill. Today he puts up another equally pathetic effort at saying that it is not applicable because he wants to delete one line and insert another. Sir, I would like to say this. I am not associated with this particular Schedule. If the Government were to indicate that they accept an amendment to the amendment to delete "Number of tendered ballot papers" and therefore to substitute "Number of rejected ballot papers", I would be very happy to offer such an amendment. Only, Sir, by now I will not waste my breath on the Government. I know their dishonesty. I know their lack of sincerity. I know that they merely want to find specious excuses. If that is all they wanted they could have done it themselves. That is just a piece of humbug - another smokescreen. Sir, it has now been made clear that it is not acceptable to the Government to have the unmarked or uncertain ballot papers numbered. They say that the Superintendent must be allowed to count them surreptitiously and add them to whichever he thinks is the Assembly decision. It is a curious position. The Superintendent is the one who is to decide where all the blank and uncertain ballot papers go; no doubt under the direct controlled supervision and guidance of the Minister. Are we to understand that in this particular instance the Minister will have his finger in the pie and tell him where to attach those blank and uncertain votes? He tells you, "How can I be a Fascist?" In the classic words of the gentleman who says that his Party is not racialist, our Prime Minister, and who publicly in the University said. "If I were a Fascist, the final solution to David Marshall would have been achieved long ago."; using, Sir, the classic words of Hitler with reference to the Jewish people. That is the non-racialist Prime Minister who complains of others being racialist. Now the answer to the Prime Minister is not that he has a kind heart. The very fact that he can conceive of so obscene a parallel and would wish to lust for Hitler's powers is an indication that he is far from having any decency left. It is merely that he has a lack of power because Singapore still works under a constitution, and under that constitution the powers of the Prime Minister and of our pathetic Minister for Home Affairs are limited - not too limited, but limited in certain respects. They cannot, for example, prevent us in the Opposition, if there are two of us who want to debate a motion, from debating a motion. It is no thanks to their kind hearts that they are listening to us here. They are compelled to, by virtue of the constitution. But I want you to notice when he says, "How can we be Fascists? The people know, and if they insist that they want to cast blank votes, they know in advance that they will count for the Government P.A.P. proposals. So how can we be Fascists?" Mr Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. pass a law that anybody who wears spectacles shall go to prison. Does that make it legitimate, a democratic law that people shall not wear spectacles because they know in advance that if they do wear spectacles, they will go to prison? That makes them no Fascists. If they pass a law to say that anybody who worships in a Confucian temple shall go to prison. Is that any the less Fascist because people know in advance that they will go to prison if they seek to discharge their obligation to their Maker in accordance with their conscience? Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue here is not a particular amendment of the Member for Queenstown which has no vital importance. Frankly, I could not care less, as a very minor Party, whether I know the power strength of the different Parties in the different divisions or not. I do not think that even if I have the honour of being a member of a major Party, I would really care. That is a matter for tacticians. That is a matter which surely the Front Benches of the Opposition should be particularly interested. No, Sir, the importance of this part of the debate is centred round the Second Schedule. If you will remember, Sir, the entire, exclusive objection to that Schedule from the Minister for Law, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Home Affairs in the Select Committee, was directed to the fact that this is a general Referendum Bill, which has now been completely given the lie to and given a quietus with a most inelegant provision. Now that that has been disposed of, we have got something new. They do not like "Number of tendered ballot papers". They want the number of rejected ballot papers. That is very easy, Sir. When we come to clause 30, if there is any indication that they would rather not move an amendment to it themselves, I am happy to move it. Let us have it right now. Would they accept the Schedule if that amendment is made? It is a simple question. I sit down for a simple, not a P.A.P. corkscrew, answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to a lot of "cock" from the Member for Anson, I do not propose -

Order. I am wondering whether the word "cock" is parliamentary or not. An hon. Member: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Order. If the Minister will explain what he means by "cock" then I will decide whether or not it is parliamentary or unparliamentary.

That is a lot of "hooey" if you will allow me to associate "cock" with "hooey".

Order. "Hooey" is not the same as "chop suey", is it? Let us forget all those words and get on with the business of the day.

Mr Chairman, the Member for Queenstown has made the astonishing charge that the absence of a direction to the Superintendent in sub-clause (7) of clause 27 of the Bill that he should announce the result of the voting in detail electoral division by electoral division before he declares the result of the referendum, serves to confirm certain inside knowledge he has of a P.A.P. plot to use the referendum to find out where the Party is popular and to reserve the popular seats for Ministers in a future general election, and the less popular seats for Parliamentary Secretaries and others. He claims that the Party wants this information to be suppressed. Hence the absence of a direction to the Superintendent so that it can hide this information from the public and place the Ministers in constituencies where the returns are most favourable to the Party, leaving the rest of the Party candidates to fend for themselves in the less favourable areas. I have so often heard him say in the Assembly that the P.A.P. is doomed and has no following at all, having been completely eclipsed by the Barisan Sosialis, that it is strange to hear from the lips of the Member for Queenstown himself an admission that there is still so much life in the Party as to make it worth while and possible for this plot to be sustained by the ruling clique in the Party. The Member for Queenstown also asked, how could there be a recount if the results were not announced electoral division by electoral division before the result was declared by the Superintendent? Sir, in the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, this point was taken and the Member for Anson said this in column 292, Official Report of the Select Committee No. 5 dated 15th of May: '... any recount can only refer to a particular division by virtue of the preceding provisions of clause 27.' The Member for Anson later moved an amendment to restrict the recount to electoral divisions only before the Superintendent makes the declaration in case the counting agent proved to be difficult and demanded a recount of the entire 51 electoral divisions for no apparent reason. The Member for Cairnhill disagreed that there should be an announcement of the result of voting electoral division by electoral division, as counting stations were set up in the Bill each embracing a number of electoral divisions, and the Superintendent may want to announce the results for each of the counting stations before declaring the final result of the referendum. The Member for Anson also agreed that detailed results are never announced. The Minister for Home Affairs said that this question of a recount should be left to the good sense of the political Parties, and the Member for Anson withdrew his amendment stating that he was happy if the Government was satisfied. Sir, as to the Second Schedule proposed by the Member for Queenstown, this is an adaptation of the statement of the poll in Form Elections 17 in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, it is obvious that in a general election or a by-election, as there is a contest among candidates in constituencies, a statement of the poll in the Form Elections 17 is necessary to show the number of votes cast in respect of each candidate for each of the electoral divisions -

There is some difficulty in the translation. Will the Minister be a bit slower?

In a referendum there is no such contest and it is only necessary for the Superintendent to show the total results of the referendum in respect of the questions put to the electorate and any other details which he considers to be necessary in the statement which he is obliged to publish in the Gazette under the provisions of clause 30 of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at Form Elections 17 of the Singapore Legisla tive Assembly Elections Ordinance, the statement of the poll is given, electoral division by electoral division, and the Form provides for the number of ballot papers which are issued to be indicated, and the number of ballot papers cast for each candidate in the particular constituency: also the number of rejected ballot papers are shown: the total number of ballot papers found in the box; the number of unused ballot papers undetached from the books; and the number of spoiled ballot papers. An indication is given in this Form of what a rejected ballot is: 'A Rejected ballot paper means a ballot paper which has been handed by the presiding officer to an elector to cast his vote but which at the close of the poll, has been found in the ballot box unmarked or so improperly marked it cannot he counted.' Now, a spoiled ballot paper is indicated on the Form: 'A Spoiled ballot paper means a ballot paper which, on polling day, has not been deposited in the ballot box, but has been found by the presiding officer to be spoiled or improperly printed or which has been handed by the presiding officer to an elector to cast his vote, and (a) has been spoiled in marking by the elector, and (b) has been handed back to the presiding officer and exchanged for another.' 4.15 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a referendum the issue before the electorate is the issue of the question or questions. And as there is no political contest amongst candidates in constituencies, there is no reason why the return should be declared division by division. It is sufficient for the Superintendent of the referendum to publish a statement at the close of the referendum giving the information which he is required to do under clause 30 of the Bill.

Mr Bani (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health and Law has very conveniently forgotten to deal with the amendment moved to clause 30. He has been talking about the amendment to clause 27. Sir, as the Member for Anson has stated, comparatively speaking, the amendment to clause 30 is far more important than the one to clause 27. I merely wish to say a few words on the amendment to clause 30. I remember the Prime Minister once said that blank votes and uncertain votes would only constitute a negligible percentage. That is not going to be necessarily true in the case of a referendum, particularly in the case where the P.A.P. type of referendum is going to be held. In the general elections and by-elections in the past it is true that blank votes, uncertain votes, spoilt votes, votes recorded to be declared void, were negligible. But in the referendum which the P.A.P. is proposing, where two unacceptable alternatives are going to be posed, by their own admission, where the people are not going to be given their basic right to reject or abstain, the chances are that the un marked votes are going to be predominant. Sir, this is not because a voter does not want to exercise his right of voting for one of the propositions; it is because he is going to be faced with two propositions that he does not want to choose from.

Order. I was wondering whether the Member for Thomson would like to reserve those remarks, which are in detail, until we come to the proposed amendments to clause 29 themselves. It is the Member for Anson who suggests that in page A12, line 19, after "be", to insert "counted and shall be separately". So that sub-clause (2) of clause 29 will read: 'The number of such ballot papers [i.e., the unmarked and uncertain ballot papers] shall he counted and shall he separately included by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum.' Again the Member for Hong Lim has suggested an amendment, in page A12, line 19, to leave out "included" and insert "announced". So that that sub-clause will read: 'The number of such ballot papers shall he announced by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum.' I was wondering whether all those remarks could not properly be passed when we come to those amendments.

I was, in fact, Mr Speaker, not causing any argument in favour of the amendments that you have mentioned. I was leading up to the point to show actually why the Government is objecting to the amendment moved to clause 30, in effect, why they are objecting to the Second Schedule. Sir, the Second Schedule here is merely to let the people know how many voters have voted for proposition 1, proposition 2 or 3, or what have they, and to show how many people have put in unmarked ballot papers. The reason why the Government is objecting to this Second Schedule is that they know in their heart of hearts -

Have they got any?

- if the referendum is held along the lines they suggest they want to hold, the number of votes the Government proposition is going to get is going to be negligible. Sir, if we take a concrete example, that in the event the Government are doing what they have already indicated that they will do, if the Government proposition - the Government White Paper - gets 10 per cent of the votes, and if the second proposition gets 40 per cent of the votes, and if 50 per cent of the votes are unmarked, then the Government will probably come out and say, "There you are, the people of Singapore have supported the White Paper merger. 60 per cent of the people have supported it." True, 60 per cent as declared by the Superintendent. But that 60 per cent will contain only 10 per cent positive votes for the Government proposition and 50 per cent blank votes, not because 50 per cent of the people are unable to decide or uncertain to decide, but because they are unwilling to decide between one of two unacceptable propositions. That, briefly, is the reason why the Government is objecting to this Schedule. If the Government have any decency left, then the natural thing for them to do is to accept this Schedule. If they are confident that the people of Singapore, in fact, support the White Paper proposals, if they are confident that all this talk of second-class citizenship, all this talk of unfair merger arrangement is Communist talk and Communist propaganda and there are only 300 Communists - why are they afraid to accept this amendment? Sir, we are not asking for something that is unfair. As I have said, if these men have even a little decency left, they have no other alternative than to accept this. And as I have said all that the Schedule seeks to do is to specify the number of ballot papers issued, the number of ballot papers cast in respect of proposition 1, proposition 2, etc., the number of unmarked ballot papers, the number of uncertain ballot papers and the number of tendered ballot papers. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis fully realise that if the Government want to, they can push through their merger arrangements irrespective of the views of the people. But we tell them, Sir, that if they want outwardly to appear to consult the people, then let them consult the people in an honest and sincere way. If it is going to be such that they only get 10 per cent for the Government pro position and, in fact, they want to push through the merger arrangement, let them accept the Schedule and say only 10 per cent have voted for the Government proposition, while 40 per cent have voted against it, and 50 per cent have abstained. Let them say that, and then show their courage and push through the merger arrangements. And then, Sir, the people will respect them for showing at least a little bit of honesty; otherwise what they do is absolutely dishonest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned the fact that they do not want to discuss this because they also have in mind the fact that it could serve them as a means to mark out the safe and unsafe seats. That is not the real intention in this particular case. The real intention here is that they just do not want the people to know the actual number of blank votes and the actual number of uncertain votes, votes which indisputably demonstrate that they cannot support the White Paper merger proposals of the P.A.P. There is hardly any life in the Party, unlike what the Minister for Health and Law is trying to imply. The story of the safe seats relates to a different period. It relates to the period immediately after Hong Lim; not today. But, nevertheless, they would also like to know things that can be of advantage to them and possibly to the disadvantage of the Opposition Parties. That will not help them today though I bring out the story merely to show you the original intention of the referendum; not to show that today the same thing applies. If today they go to any seat, Sir, they will probably find they will lose their deposit.

Why not arrange to call a contest?

Order. It seems very strange for the Speaker to pull up the Deputy Speaker for being disorderly.

I will just answer one other point which I forgot to men tion and which was touched on by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. He was trying to tell you there was already a plot to take over the Government by the Parliamentary Secretaries. Let me tell him, Sir, that that was a blatant falsehood. Let him come and face me and tell me there was talk of the Parliamentary Secretaries wanting to take over the Government. There was never at any stage talk of the Parliamentary Secretaries wanting to take over the Government. You see, the defeat in Hong Lim was such a devastating blow to the ego of the Prime Minister that we had to devise ways and means of trying to raise his prestige, in fact, Sir, I spoke to the Member for Upper Serangoon. I said, "Kuan Yew habits! We must try and devise some form of petition or something to let him get back some self-respect. Possibly then he might want to carry on."

Order. I do not know who started these irrelevancies. As I have said before, irrelevance breeds ir relevance. Let us try, as far as possible, merely to touch on the fringe of these things and come back to the amendment.

I will not touch on any further irrelevancies, Sir, except to say that I repeated the same story to the Prime Minister himself and he said, "Oh, I wish I had known of it earlier." That is what he said, Sir, I am sure he would not deny it. 4.30 p.m. Well, about the Council of Joint Action again. I read out to you just now, Sir, the third section -

Order. I think it is about time I stopped this reference to the Council of Joint Action. I do not think that has any relevance to the amendment. I think enough has been said up to now about the Council of Joint Action. There may be other opportunities. So I think, for the purpose of this debate, enough has been said.

You see, Sir, if I may refer you to column 293 from where I started my speech on the amendment. Somewhere just below the middle, I asked how they would announce the results, and the Minister for Finance said "45; 45; 10." When I further pressed him, giving another example, the Minister for Health and Law said 48, 47, 5, Yes. In other words, Sir, he was trying to tell us that the actual detailed results of the votes in respect of marked votes, unmarked votes or blank votes, or uncertain votes, or votes in support of the White Paper would be announced. That is a clear implication, Sir; otherwise how can he give the respective figures of 45, 45, 10 or 48, 47, 5? The implication is that the detailed results would be announced and he was deliberately, I think, trying to deceive us by saying that those results would be announced. See what has happened today? We countered and accepted the objections - the genuine objections of the unsuitability of the wording and now we have asked for a Schedule which says "as near as may be". In other words, if the Government think the wording is incorrect, they can easily amend it to suit the actual conditions, and I am sure all of us would be only too happy to accept the amendment. All we want to know is whether or not they want to accept in principle that the result of the voting should be divulged to the people in detail, so that everybody will be able to know how many people have voted for the P.A.P., how many have cast blank votes and how many have cast uncertain votes. It is as simple as that. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has said that the number of votes according to clause 29 is known beforehand. Very good, that is what he has just said, Sir. A little while back he said that the number of votes, that is, blank votes, uncertain votes and votes in relation to clause 29, is known beforehand. If that is so, they should be known to the people, not only to the Government Ministers. That is all we ask for.

Sir, I think that was a misquotation - a distortion of what I said. I have said the provision regarding unmarked and uncertain votes and the way in which these votes will he treated has been provided for in the Bill, and therefore is known beforehand. It is not that the number of blank votes is known beforehand. If the number of blank votes is known beforehand, even before the referendum has been conducted, I think the Member for Oueenstown must he a prophet. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Member for Thomson has said that a large number of blank votes would arise if the alternatives posed were both unacceptable to the people. I submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is not a question of unacceptable alternatives but a question of an organised attempt by malicious rumour and intimidation to influence the voters into casting blank votes. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, why should the people cast blank votes?

Order. Could we reserve that part of the debate until we come to clause 29? I am sure the Minister will have the opportunity to say what he wishes to say.

Mr Speaker, I am repeating the question again. It seems to fall on deaf ears. The Minister for Home Affairs says the Schedule to clause 30 is unacceptable because it provides for the number of tendered ballot papers to he declared and it does not provide for the number of rejected ballot papers to be declared. I have asked him a very simple question. If I move an amendment which would remedy that, would the Government accept it? Can we have a simple answer, not a P.A.P. corkscrew answer? Can we have an answer?

I think either the Member for Anson is unable to understand what I have spoken just now or he has missed the point I have made. I have said just now that there k provision in clause 29 for the way these unmarked and uncertain votes will be treated, and that is, these votes will he deemed to be in support of the decision made in the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred to referendum. In his declaration, the Superintendent will include these unmarked and uncertain votes in the results, so there is no necessity for providing separate items for unmarked and uncertain votes. Question put, "That the word proposed to be left out, be left out." An hon. Member: Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 15; Noes, 29; Absent, 6; Abstention, 1. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Omar Leong Keng Seng. Jund. Lin You Eng. Byrne, K. M. Lingam S. V. Chan Chee Seng. Low Por Tuck. Chan Choy Siong, Ng Teng Kian. Madam. Ong Chang Sam. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Chew Chua. Tan Cheng Tong. Goh Keng Swee. Tee Kim Leng. Hoe Puay Choo, Teo Hock Guan. Madam. Wong Soon Fong. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Absent. Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Teck Him. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lim Cheng Lock. Koh, C. H. Lim Yew Hock. Rajaratnam, S. Mammen, John. Ramaswamy, S. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Mohd. Ariff bin Madam. Suradi. Sheng Nam Chin. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Rajah A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstention. Marshall, David. Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28-

Clause 28. An amendment standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown, In page A11, to leave out lines 40 to 43 inclusive and insert- "(b) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the back; (c) which is unmarked; (d) which is void for uncertainty.". There is also an amendment in the name of the Member for Anson, In page All, line 43, at end, to add - "(c) which is unmarked: (d) which is void for uncertainty.". I will first call the amendment to be proposed by the Member for Queenstown which will open up the whole issue as to what is to be done with unmarked and uncertain votes. The debate will then, of necessity, have to range over the principle of sub-clause (1) of clause 29 which tells you what is proposed to be done to unmarked and uncertain votes as is provided for in the Bill, and that debate, of necessity, will also range over amendments (i) and (ii) of clause 29. The first amendment in the name of the Member for Anson reads, In page A12, line 16, to leave out from "who" to the end of line 18, and insert "is not in favour of any of the proposals posed by the referendum or has not understood the questions or the instructions for voting". Amendment (ii) is an amendment in the name of the member for Hong Lim, In page A12, line 16, to leave out "accepts or is willing" and insert "rejects or is unwilling." The effect of that ruling is that when we come to clause 29, the amendments I. have just quoted - amendments (i) and (ii) to clause 29 - will be dealt with simpliciter,' without any further debate. When we come to the question that clause 29 stand part of the Bill, there should be no further debate on the prin ciple of the clause. This will be apart from my powers under Standing Order 71, paragraph (2), which reads: 'Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Standing Order, if, during the consideration of a Bill in a Committee of the whole Assembly, the Chairman is of opinion that the principle of a clause and any matters arising thereon have been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the, amendments proposed thereto, he may, after the last amendment has been disposed of: state that he is of this opinion and shall then forthwith put the question that the clause (or, the clause as amended) stand part of the Bill.' I trust I have made myself clear. Mr Marshall.

Having read amendment (i) in the name of the Member for Queenstown, I will be happy to withdraw mine because I support his amendment, Sir. So could you treat that as being deleted until such time as I ask formal leave for its deletion?

- for its withdrawal.

I will not move it, Sir.

A note will be made that amendment (ii) to clause 28 will not be moved. Dr Lee. 4.53 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you will note that in the last general elections, the blank votes amounted to less than one per cent of the total, and these blank and uncertain votes were treated as rejected votes. In the Anson by-election, the same thing happened - the uncertain and blank votes were treated as rejected votes, and these votes only amounted to a very small number. Why then do the P.A.P. Government want to introduce this unique clause unheard of in world history and based on, according to the words of the Minister for Finance, illegal and unconstitutional principles?

On a point of order. The Member for Oueenstown is deliberately misquoting me in the most dishonest and fraudulent manner. May I ask him to refer to chapter and verse where I said those actual words'?

With pleasure, I will quote, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir. May I remind the House that what he has said just now in quoting me is that I said this law is based on illegal principles, I challenge him to quote those words from any statement I made, either in this Assembly or outside - illegal principles. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. The Member for Queenstown has indicated that he is going to come to the point. Dr Lee.

You see, I want to quote from the "bible" of the P.A.P. - the "Petir" of the 28th of April, 1962. There on page 4 in the middle column, second paragraph, the title reads: "DR GOH KENG SWEE TELLS ASSEMBLY OF BARISAN'S LAST GAMBLE" And the quotation I want to read to you is this, and I hope it will convince the Minister for Finance: 'Why was this Clause on blank ballot paper introduced? The reason does not rest on am constitutional or legal principle.' Black and white.

Sir, on a point of order. The Member for Queenstown is guilty of a deliberate and mischievous distortion. Where are the words "illegal principles"?

Sir, I am surprised at the way the Minister for Finance has come up to answer what I have said. It is a sore spot; it hurts him a lot and he does not want to admit these words. It says here "does not rest on any constitutional or legal principles" - in other words, it says it rests on unconstitutional and illegal principles. [Laughter]

Order.

It is as clear as that.

On a point of order. Can We allow the Member for Queenstown to distort what I said and after I have pointed out the error, he continues with his malicious and mendacious distortions?

Order. I think the Minister for Finance has raised a point of order and the Member for Queens-town has quoted from a paper the exact wording of which is a matter for interpretation whether the words used by the Member for Queenstown are illegal. Dr Lee.

Very simple, Sir. An hon. Member: That is what he thinks.

Order.

When the time comes, he can tell us how constitutional and how legal these clauses are and on what constitutional and legal principles they are based. If he cannot prove that this clause is based on a constitutional or legal principle, then he will have to admit that this clause is based on an illegal and unconstitutional principle. That is as clear as daylight. [Laughter] You see, Sir, the Minister for Finance used to play chess with me before and he knew when he would get into a zugzwang. For the last few days he has been pulling a long face, but today he tries to laugh it off. I do not know what mirth he can find in all this when the whole of Singapore knows that the P.A.P. -

Order. What have all these personalities on chess-playing in the past got to do with the amendment? Dr Lee.

Sir, we will come back to the amendment. As I said, Sir, this clause is unique in that it is not based on any accepted principle, legally or constitutionally. And the fact that it was introduced only as an afterthought after the First Reading of the Bill shows that it was not based on any constitutional precedent.

Order. Time for suspension. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The debate will be resumed at half-past five. 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 28-(contd.)

Clause 28 - an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown. I take it he is, in fact, moving. The Member for Queenstown has not moved his amendment yet.

I beg to move, Sir, the amendment standing in my name, In page A11, to leave out lines 40 to 43 inclusive and insert - "(b) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the back; (c) which is unmarked; (d) which is void for uncertainty.". When we broke for tea, Sir, I was saying that this clause was put in as an afterthought by the P.A.P. and thereby hangs a tale. Let us see the motivation behind this new clause. The Minister for Health and Law said, at the bottom of column 102 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore Na tional Referendum Bill of 8th May, 1962, that this Bill which we have before the House now is a general Referendum Bill. And in this particular case, he was referring to clause 5, but he was also referring to this as a general Referendum Bill following on the pattern of the British parliamentary system. I wish to point out to you, Sir, that in no place in the British parliamentary system is there such a clause called "a blank paper clause" which says that a voter who puts in an unmarked or uncertain paper is deemed to accept or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly. I wish, Sir, to bring your mind back to the historical background in the light of what the Prime Minister said in the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill. I quote, Sir, from the "Petir", page -

Order. If it is a speech on the Second Reading, then I think the Member should find the place in our Official Report, a copy of which is with him.

I will try and locate it, Sir. I refer, Sir, to the revised transcript of Official Report dated 16th March, 1962, page 32 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 285]. There the Prime Minister said in the first paragraph: 'Sir, if there was the slightest risk of merger being frustrated and the country plunged into disaster by the activities of the Communists manipulating a referendum, let me say that it would he criminal folly on the part of the Government to hold a referendum and allow the future of Malaya and Malaysia to be imperilled.' Sir, this very vital passage means that if the P.A.P. merger proposals were ever in danger of being rejected, then the P.A.P. would not hold a referendum. Which again means, in effect, that in any referendum there would be no pos sibility of the P.A.P. losing, and from there we can see the diabolical plot - the diabolical P.A.P. referendum plot - as we go into the clauses of the Referendum Bill. This little passage also explains, Sir, why the editorial of the Petir says "Heads we win, tails they lose." This little passage also explains why the Prime Minister has repeatedly talked of the inevitability and certainty of merger and Malaysia before June 1963 or even by the end of 1962, when even the Tunku dare not categorically say that Malaysia is going to be a certainty. And, this explains also, Sir, why the P.A.P. leaders always talk with such immodest conviction of certainty, even before a referendum has been held, even before the results of the referendum are known. Sir, they can be certain only on one condition, and that is the referendum must be so rigged that they know the result even before it is held. This involves the plot of this clause on blank votes. Of course, Sir, in past general elections and by-elections, the number of blank votes only comes to a very small percentage. On this particular occasion the P.A.P. intend not to claim a small percentage of such votes - like one per cent - but to claim a large percentage of the votes. For example, if only 10 per cent of the people vote for the P.A.P. and 90 per cent of them put in blank votes, then the P.A.P. intend to take in these 90 per cent blank votes and call them P.A.P. votes. Therefore, the plot of the P.A.P. is to ensure that the people put in blank votes in order that the P.A.P. can claim them as pro-P.A.P. votes. Let me explain, Sir. As we already know by now, the original intention of the P.A.P. was to pose only one question to the people that requires a simple answer of yes or no. Then, when the plot of the merger proposals based on inequality was exposed, or perhaps through their sixth sense derived from information from the Special Branch, they realised that their own merger proposals would not be acceptable to the people and, therefore, to pose their own proposals to the people in a one question referendum would amount to committing suicide. Therefore, it was decided that a snap referendum posing two unacceptable questions would be held with complete prohibition of canvassing. That was the first switch in plan and it occurred before the First Reading of the National Referendum Bill on 27th November, 1962. Now, Sir, this is to keep you in perspective so that you will follow exactly what is happening. After this, came this period of indecision and hesitation. 5.45 p.m. Because they realised that the people could protest against two unacceptable questions by putting in uncertain votes and blank votes. If, in actual fact, only 10 per cent of the people vote for the P.A.P. and 90 per cent of the people put in blank and uncertain votes, it would become very difficult for the P.A.P. to claim that they have won. Under those circumstances, the original switch, namely, the plot of a snap referendum with two unacceptable alternatives and with no canvassing allowed, would be frustrated. And the solution that occurred to them was that since the reaction to two unacceptable alternatives would be to put in blank and uncertain votes, why then not grab those blank and uncertain votes and make them P.A.P. votes? Sir, you will remember the period of uncertainty that was characterised by the postponement of the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill. It was during this period that the Prime Minister gave his historic answer in the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. When asked whether the P.A.P. would abide by the result of a referendum, his reply was that history would decide. And the fears of the people were further heightened by the fact that on 15th January, 1962, the Second Reading of the Referendum Bill was postponed for two months. Now, what was the real reason that caused this hesitancy, indecision and doubt in the P.A.P.? Originally, it was supposed to have been a perfect plot. It was meant to get the people to cast votes for the P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals as these proposals were supposed to have been the lesser of the two evils. But realising that the reaction to two unacceptable alternatives and two unacceptable evils could be blank votes, the P.A.P. had to make sure that these same blank votes belonged to the P.A.P. And having found the answer, they had to make sure that they did not make another mistake. They had to make sure that they could provide all the answers. They had to sleep on them and go over them before they felt confident enough to put this blank vote clause into the Bill. After sitting on it for two months, they finally pounced it on the Legislative Assembly two days before the Second Reading of the Bill. And having gone that far only strengthened their determination to ensure that all the blank votes belong to the Government. That is why, although we quoted precedents, although we argued them down, and although they could not produce any more arguments to justify their blank vote clause, they still refuse to accept our contention that in a referendum it should be a case of one question requiring a simple answer of yes or no and, in fact, it should be the endorsement of what has been passed in the Assembly, that is, Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh. And that is why also in spite of their past promises, they still stick on to their new switch, new plan, and new plot. The only snag in this plot is that if they were to announce the result to the people in detail, and if the people were to find out that 80 or 90 per cent of the votes cast were blank votes, then it would be very difficult for the P.A.P. to claim that the people supported their White Paper merger proposals. Hence all this unwillingness of the P.A.P. to accept our amendment to the previous clause. Now, Sir, it is their intention to frame and word two alternatives which are unacceptable to the people - the White Paper proposals and the complete merger proposals of the Penang type or whatever type they can think of. On the one hand they are asking the people of Singapore to accept second-class citizenship, and on the other hand they are asking half the people of Singapore to lose their citizenship in their so-called Penang type or whatever type of complete merger which is a complete fabrication of the Opposition stand. In the circumstances, it is just like offering the people alternatives of whether they want to be cows or whether they want to be horses. We have previously quoted examples of dying by hanging or dying by tire, but if that seems to be a bit too severe, I could give lighter examples; like their asking people whether they want to take sulphuric acid or caustic soda. So many examples can be given to you. Sir. Under those circumstances, when unacceptable alternatives are posed to the people, how do we expect the voters to react? They may be confused, they may be disgusted, and they may show their disgust by making crosses all over the ballot paper, drawing birds or just putting in blank votes. And now, according to the provision, if the voter throws in such a vote, then that vote is deemed to belong to the P.A.P. Sir, if unacceptable alternatives are offered to the people and the people want to reject these alternatives, how else can they register their protest? If they had the P.A.P. Ministers in front of them, I would not be surprised if they spat at them. But they will be inside the booths and the P.A.P. Ministers will not be there in front of them. The only logical way for them to show their silent protest and to register their protest at the injustice done to them in the way the questions are posed to them, is either to put in a blank vote or an uncertain vote. Yet, Sir, such disgust by the voters is going to mean ironically support for the P.A.P. This only shows that the real plot of the P.A.P. is to pinch and, as I said, hijack votes in this dis honest and unheard of Referendum Bill, it reminds us of election rigging in South Vietnam and in South Korea, the only difference being that in the case of South Korea and South Vietnam they rigged the election openly without any legal cover. Whereas in Singapore it is going to be referendum rigging under legal cover. That is the only difference between our Prime Minister and Syngman Rhee and Ngo Dinh Diem. The P.A.P. have always boasted that their merger proposals have the support of the masses. Then why are they afraid to pose the proposals to the people for acceptance or rejection? Why introduce this unique clause? It is neither found in the Elections Ordinance nor is it found in any of the election Ordinances of countries all over the world. Have the P.A.P. no more principles? So bankrupt that they have to take "disgust", "nonsupport" and "protest" votes to mean "support" votes'? Are they so bankrupt of support that even obscene and blank votes are deemed to support the P.A.P.? Is the referendum going to be a mere ritual for the P.A.P. to push through their merger proposals? Of course. Sir, as has been stressed vigorously by Members of the Opposition, the real reason for this blank paper clause is to convert certain defeat into certain victory for the P.A.P. in the referendum. The only thing is that the P.A.P. want to steal those votes and are afraid to let people know the actual number of votes they steal. 6.00 p.m. Let us also ask, Sir, if it is fair to the voters in this particular clause. In the radio forum we repeatedly stressed that democracy means allowing a person the opportunity to say 'no'. If you pose unacceptable alternatives to the people, then you must allow a person to say 'no' to these unacceptable alter natives, otherwise you are actually infringing on the basic right of the in dividual. Every individual has the right to refuse to answer a question or to say 'no' if it is unacceptable to him. But now it looks as if the P.A.P. want to deny the individual the right to say 'no'. They are just afraid and they are assuming that the voter has no mind of his own or that he is either an idiot, a fool or an imbecile, and that only the P.A.P. can make up his mind for him. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs have repeatedly said that the referendum is to ascertain the will of the majority of the people. Do you think a blank vote will determine the will of the voter? How will blank votes give a true indication of the majority will of the people? If you really want to know the will of the people, then the proper and correct thing to do is to make sure that there is a means for the voter to indicate his views and state of mind. In which case, if they really want to live up to their words, then, of course, they would have to go back to clause 5 and accept our amendment that there should be only one question that requires a simple answer of 'yes' or 'no'. Sir, I do not intend to quote many precedents. All this. I think, I will leave to the Member for Anson, but I might inform the House that such blank crosses have never been used by any government to mean support for Government measures. Let me refer you, Sir, to column 116 of the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 3, 8th May, 1962, somewhere in the middle and it refers to the New Zealand Military Training Poll Act and the operative words here are: 'If the voter strikes out both lines or fails to strike out one of the lines, the voting paper will he void and his vote will not be recorded.' In other words, Sir, if anybody throws in an uncertain or a blank vote it means that he does not support the proposals put down in the ballot paper and his vote will be considered void. Then in the next column 117, the same thing applies in the New Zealand Licensing Act of 1949. The procedure is as follows: 'The voter must strike out two proposals. The vote will he recorded in favour of the proposal not struck out.' Now, these are the operative words: 'If the voter strikes out all or only one or none of the three proposals, the voting paper will he void and his vote will not he recorded.' All this tells us that uncertain or unmarked votes are considered void votes and are never meant to support any government proposal. Then, Sir, in column 338 [Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill, Official Report No. 5, 15th May, 1962] there is the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act, 1906-36. Section 21 (1), Sir, says here: 'A ballot paper shall he informal if -

You are saying that not legal means illegal.

Let us remind the Minister for Health and Law, who is such a legal luminary, that Hitler also made the murder of millions of Jews in Germany "legal", and in Europe, but such a legal cover for his unconstitutional act did not make him a democrat, and did not make him a constitutional leader. It only showed him up as a Fascist and he deserved his fate in the end. I would not like to say that our Ministers should get a similar type of destruction -

You are talking rot.

- but when the time comes when they have to go back to the people, then the verdict of the people will be a terrible thing. Let me end here, Sir, by quoting from Hansard, Volume 1, column 60, of 27th April, 1955. The Prime Minister at that time was a great believer in democracy. He put up that pretence all right. He deceived many people, and all of us thought he was really going to fight for the liberty and the rights of the people. This is what he said in the first paragraph of column 60: 'If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. [Very brave words, Sir.] If you believe that men should he free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then no law should permit those - democratic processes to he set at naught, and no excuse, whether of security, inconvenience to the traffic, or inconvenience to police officers, should allow a Government to he deterred from doing what it knows to be right, and what it must know to be right.' I urge the Ministers of the P.A.P. to pay heed to what the Prime Minister said only some years ago. Let them live tip to their words which had given in spiration to many of us in Singapore. I once told the Prime Minister when there was a possibility of a split in the Party that I admired him when he was fighting for the rights of the people and I was surprised at the turn he was taking and was leading, and the way he was getting away from the people. I told him that he was leading us up the garden path. I wish the Prime Minister - if he is not here, the words can be passed on to him - will remember what he said, all solemn words, and according to the Minister for Labour and Law, with perfect co-ordination between the brain and the tongue. Let him think of the support he had from the people at one time. Let him think of the rights and interests of the people whom he pretended to serve at one time and at least not let his own name as well as the names of his other Ministers be condemned and cursed for years and generations to come. Because if they want to railroad these merger proposals of theirs by means of this shame and humbug of a referendum, if they want to bamboozle people with this dishonest referendum, if they want to go against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Singapore, then there can only be one ending for such leaders. They will earn not only the curse of the present generation hut the curse of many generations to come.

You sound like Abraham!

Clause 28. It has been moved as an amendment - Tun Lim Yew Hock (Cairnhill) rose -

On a point of order?

Point of order, Sir. The amendment has not been moved yet, as far as I know.

The Member for Cairnhill was not here as far as I know. It has been moved as an amendment. In page All, to leave out lines 40 to 43 inclusive and insert - "(b) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the hack: (c) which is unmarked; (d) which is void for uncertainty.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," and the debate may range over sub-clause (1) of clause 29 and the first two amendments of clause 29, one under the name of the Member for Anson: In page A12 line 16, to leave out from "who" to the end of line 18, and insert "is not in favour of any of the proposals posed by the referendum or has not understood the questions or the instructions for voting.". And the other amendment in the name of the Member for Hong Lim: In page A12, line 16, to leave out "accepts or is willing" and insert "rejects or is unwilling".

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a while ago I have been hearing about the matter of red herrings from the Member for Queenstown, which was rather long. The mode of presentation of his speech is just like what we usually observe at Clifford Pier - a woman of some age accusing the Government and scolding someone else in this street. 6.30 p.m. From that, we can see that he is a man with a very bad temper. I think I can use a term in chess to describe the situation in which the Barisan Sosialis are in. We can say that they are being forced into a zugzwang position, so that there will be no way for them to wriggle out. And so they cannot counter our merger plan, which is for the welfare of the people. The Member for Queenstown has accused us of many things. He quoted the arguments advanced by other Members of this House. He repeated them again and again. He touched on the blank votes provision. He said that these votes should be considered as negative votes. He meant that.

On a point of order, Sir. I did not say the words which the Member has just quoted, Sir.

On a point of elucidation? The words being?

What were the last few words that he said? He said that I said that blank votes were negative votes. I did not say that.

That is not a point of order. It is a point of elucidation. [Interruption] Order. The Hon, the Parliamentary Secretary has been interpreted as having said that the Member for Queenstown suggested that those votes should be negative votes. The Member has indicated that he had never said that.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it is very clear. If these blank votes are not deemed to be in support of the decision of the Legislative Assembly, then they are anti-Government votes. Of course, that is their argument. Is it not very clear?

The Parliamentary Secretary has alleged that the Member for Queenstown said so. He never said so. It is the Parliamentary Secretary's understanding of what he said - that then is in order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think they want to distort clear facts. They are very clever at playing this kind of game. We remember that at the time when Members of the Barisan Sosialis left the P.A.P., they shouted that they were anti-colonialists. But on this important issue of merger, they do not appear to be very clever anti-colonialists. I can give two examples to show that the Members of the Barisan Sosialis are pro-colonialists. The first example is this: what they want is not full independence; they want full self-government.

Order. We are now in a debate as to whether or not this clause 29 should stand, that is, unmarked and uncertain votes, etc, should count for a decision of the Legislative Assembly. I am not interested for the moment in what the Barisan Sosialis want in regard to merger. That can come later probably; I do not know.

(In Mandarin): I gave that example because it is connected with the matter under discussion. They said that the P.A.P. are bent on selling out the people. They accused us of being pro-British colonialists. That is why I have to refute those arguments.

Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can show I am wrong, I have not heard the Member for Oueenstown in this particular debate on this particular amendment allege that they are pro-colonialists. As far as I can make out, the Member for Queenstown had been very relevant in what he had said in regard to this amendment. So let us try to be relevant.

(In Mandarin): Since these points raised by me have been ruled by you, Sir, to be irrelevant, then I will not touch on them any more. Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Members of the Barisan Sosialis were repeating their platitudes and phrases over and over again and making very lengthy speeches, all of us, even some Members on the opposite side, felt very sleepy. If, in the course of the debate, they could push through their amendments, then they would have benefited by these lengthy speeches. But we know that the Barisan Sosialis have political plots. They are bent on describing us as Fascists and dictators. They think if they could hoodwink the people into believing their arguments, then they would have gained something. But what is the true fact? We know that we the P.A.P. are not what they have described. We have incorporated the blank votes provision because the House arrived at a certain resolution or decision, and if the people cast unmarked or uncertain votes, then these votes should be deemed to be in support of the decision arrived at by the Legislative Assembly. That is very fair. But the Member for Queenstown raised many points and arguments which were very contradictory. He said that the P.A.P. would pose two questions to the people. One is the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger; the other is the one proposed by the Barisan Sosialis based on Penang and Malacca. He said that the two propositions were originally very bad.

On a point of order, Sir. Did he say that the other alternative was suggested by the Banisan Sosialis?

I have not heard anything at all. The Member must realise that this speech is being translated. Will the Member for Queenstown now repeat his point of order, if in fact it is a point of order?

Distortion again, Sir,I never said anything about the Barisan Sosialis putting up any stand of complete merger which he is now suggesting.

That is not a point of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he cannot deny such an allegation, because, during the radio forum he had mentioned such an example. He said that he wanted a Penang and Malacca type of merger, and so he cannot now evade what he has said previously. It is very fair for our Government to pose two questions to the people, so that they can make a choice. Nobody up to now has opposed merger. All have agreed on merger. If the people choose the Government's White Paper, then, of course, it shows that they reject the Barisan Sosialis' merger of the Penang and Malacca type. How can they say that by posing such questions, the holding of the national referendum will be unfair? We all know that they have deserted us, but we have not yet taken any disciplinary action against them. They have been sabotaging us inside and outside the House. But we have not taken any steps to deal with them. So how can they say that we are Fascists?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Bible there is such a saying as when God wants a person to die, He must make him mad. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home' Affairs has spoken a lot of nonsense. I believe you yourself do not know what he was speaking about.

I do not think the Speaker ought to be dragged into this debate in that manner. The Speaker is here to listen, to try and understand. Even if he does not understand, he can still try to understand and pretend that he understands not only the Government side but also the Opposition side. I ask Members not to drag the Speaker into controversies of that nature.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs has not been able to prove and justify his stand that blank votes should be deemed as votes in support of the Government. I do not know why he has mentioned anti-colonialism and affairs in the P.A.P., because this has nothing to do with the blank votes provision. We can say that his speech is void of any substance and meaning. Mr Speaker, Sir, the acceptance of this amendment will decide the basic human rights of the people of Singapore. 6.45 p.m. The various classes of society in Singapore are widely dissatisfied with these provisions proposed by the Government, and this widespread dissatisfaction has led to the formation by the Opposition Parties of a Five-Party Council of Joint Action to protect the human rights of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of this House, I believe, have received a memorandum sent by the various cultural organisations and trade unions protesting against this provision. These organisations and the rural organisations, the hawkers' organisations also strongly protested against this unfair provision made in the Select Committee. Even the Liberal-Socialists and the P.M.I.P. in Select Committee also strongly protested against this unreasonable provision. But the views of the majority of the people have not been heeded by the P.A.P. leadership or ruling clique. Obviously the P.A.P. have thrown the views of the people to the wind. The purpose of setting up a Select Committee on the National Referendum Bill is to hear the views of the public on the Bill. But their views have not been accepted by the P.A.P. On the contrary, they have accepted only the views submitted by their colleagues. The views of these few persons cannot reflect the views of the majority of the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore say that this clause 29 will decide what basic democratic rights the people of Singapore have. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill and in the proceedings in the Select Committee, the Government was not able to quote examples from any country in the world which provides that these blank and uncertain votes are to he taken as support for the Government. The Government has cited examples of referenda held in New Zealand, Australia, and Jamaica. Then why is the Government afraid to accept the provision that the people have the right to abstain or not to reflect their views, or to say "no"? Why cannot the Government cite examples to show that uncertain votes should be taken as support for the Government? A national referendum was held in Algeria yesterday. Let me quote the Nanyang Siang Pau. The front page article reads: 'A national referendum was held in Algeria for the people to answer this question: "Do you want Algeria to become an independent country according to or on the basis of an agreement signed on the 19th March, 1962?" The said agreement signed on the 19th of March provided for the ceasefire between France and the Algerian nationalist movement.' There is only one question posed to the Algerians and they were asked to decide "yes" or "no" to the question. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now quote the Nayang Evening Post on the result of the national referendum held in Algeria. It appears on the first page and reads as follows: 'Algeria National Referendum. According to an estimate made last night, the votes in favour of the motion were 1,300,000, and the votes against were 6,500. Here are the details of the results of the voting, and the number of rejected votes...'. and so on. For the record, let me read a news report regarding the national referendum. The second paragraph reads as follows: 'The affirmative votes amounted to 1,290,360, and the negative votes 6,510. The rest were rejected votes.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I can cite many examples to show that no country in the world has provided that blank votes should be taken as support for the Government. Although President De Gaulle is undemocratic and criticised by his people (the bloodshed over the past ten years has caused much suffering to the Algerian people), his Government's national referendum in Algeria is not as undemocratic as the P.A.P.'s Referendum Bill. There was no such provision as that provided in the National Referendum Bill proposed by the P.A.P. Government. In a radio forum held on 29th June, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance completely rejected a question raised at the radio forum, and that is this: "In this national referendum, will the Government allow the people to reject questions proposed by the Government?" The Minister for Finance and the Prime Minister evaded the question. We can clearly see that in the coming national referendum, the P.A.P. will pose two unacceptable questions to the people. The P.A.P. Ministers also know that under those circumstances the people are not in a position to choose. And when they have no freedom of choice, they will be forced to cast blank and uncertain votes. In other words, the Government by this provision is forcing the people into casting blank votes which will be taken as support for the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers have been talking of democracy all day long. I want to point out to them that the people do not have any opportunity to reflect on to air their views. What democratic night have they got? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Law always talk about respecting the law. I want to quote a statement issued by the Law Society of the University of Singapore.

They are men who do not know the law.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law said that these people do not know the law, and that they know nothing about law. If these people do not know the law, how then could the graduates of the University of Singapore be recruited into the Law Department by the Government? To say that these people do not know law is to slap their faces. 7.00 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few days ago the Minister for Law proposed an amendment to allow the graduates of the Law Faculty of the University of Singapore to practise law in Singapore. Is this not contradictory to what the Minister for Law said a few days ago? Now let me quote the Nanyang Siang Pau of 2nd July. On page 7, a statement issued by the Law Society of the University of Singapore. Paragraph 5 of this statement reads as follows: 'In view of the majority of the Government in the Assembly House, the provision in clause 29 will be that all blank votes and uncertain votes arc deemed as votes in support of the Government or are deemed as in support of any actions taken by the Government. No matter what reasons they advance in this provision, we are of the opinion that this provision should be objected to. It should he opposed, because it is incompatible with the concept of democracy and justice and any national referendum based on this provision will not correctly and accurately reflect the views of the people on a particular matter.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the last paragraph reads as follows:- 'If a person casts a blank vote, the right of abstention should be respected and it should not be deemed as in support or against any motion. This is the sober analysis made by the Law Society of the University of Singapore. We hope this view will he taken heed of by the authority.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legislative Assembly is a body which makes laws and is the highest law-making body. The views propounded by the Law Society should be respected by us. They are the Law Society and they have sufficient reasons to argue against this provision. They also understand that clause 29 is infringing upon the rights of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read the statement issued by the members of the Law Society. They merely state that this clause is undemocratic. Could the Member for Choa Chu Kang indicate whether they have given any reasons why this clause is undemocratic?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government do not advance any reasons to justify the draft ing of this clause 29.

I wish to indicate that mere opinions expressed outside this Assembly should not interest us. If an hon. Member agrees with this opinion, he expresses it as his own opinion. But if there has been, an authoritative exposition of the law, then, of course, the authority could be quoted in the Assembly to enforce or to illustrate the Member's own point of view. But I do not think the Assembly should be troubled or should be inflicted with mere opinions of people outside this Assembly. I think the Member for Jalan Kayu was guilty of doing the same thing when he mentioned the opinion of a Malay gentleman outside this Assembly and I pulled him up. That, briefly, is a parliamentary rule which I think Members ought to observe.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. in debating this Bill has adopted a certain line of action. It is that this Bill is a general Bill, but when they have exhausted their arguments they have to concede that this Bill is a specific Bill on the merger question. The Minister for Home Affairs has even said that this Bill will be repealed by the Government after the holding of the national referendum on merger. Therefore, it is clear that the Government has admitted that this Bill is undemocratic and unjust. If this Bill is based on democratic principles, I believe the Minister for Home Affairs, will have no reason to repeal it after the holding of the national referendum. When they cannot explain it away, they resort to their last weapon. That weapon is one which goes against the Communists and their bogies. Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the P.A.P. Political Bureau published a statement. As a matter of fact, this Political Bureau is a bureau for their desperate struggle. The last paragraph of the statement as reported in the Nanyang Siang Pau on the 2nd July reads: 'If the democratic institution in Singapore laces a danger and crisis, this crisis does not come from the P.A.P. It comes from the subversive actions of the Communists. If the people do not see clearly this fact, it will be tragic mistake.' Mr Speaker, Sir, now the P.A.P. has made use of this undemocratic national referendum as a weapon against the Communists and their activities, but let us see what is meant by "subversive actions". Let us see what the P.A.P. has said on the definition of "subversive activities". Mr Speaker, Sir, Part I, Volume 2, Hansard 1956, column 498, the Member for Sembawang, namely the present Minister for Labour, said in support of a motion moved by the Prime Minister, that is to condemn the Government for making use of the P.P.S.O.: 'What constitutes subversion? Is militant trade unionism subversion? Are systematic and constitutional efforts to bring about the downfall of colonialism and the local groups associated with it subversion? Is constitutional action, however embarrassing to Government and the colonial powers, subversion?' Mr Speaker, Sir, this was what they said in 1956 when they were in the Opposition. However, the P.A.P. strongly opposed the Fascist methods adopted by the Labour Front Government, but today the P.A.P. utilise the same methods used by the Labour Front Coalition Government. 7.15 p.m. As far as I know, there will be a delegates' conference to be held during this week by the various trade union organisations and other civic organisations. This delegates' conference will discuss the undemocratic National Referendum Bill, especially clause 29. At present, at every corner in Singapore, the people and their organisation are rising up to oppose the P.A.P. National Referendum Bill. They have expressed their strong aversion to this undemocratic Bill. They have also voiced their strong opposition to the White Paper merger proposals. The fact that they are united in their opposition shows that the present P.A.P. line of action is more dictatorial and more undemocratic than the Lim Yew Hock regime. They are now united to oppose the Government on this Bill. Can you say they are subversive? Can you say they are engaged in subversive activities? Mr Speaker, Sir, we, the Barisan Sosialis, are being described as "Communists". But the Council of Joint Action is composed of various political Parties as well as sonic Right-wing organisations. How then can the Minister for Home Affairs say that all these Right-wing Parties have now become subversive and Communist? Mr Speaker, Sir, all the arguments advanced by the Government cannot convince the people. We can clearly see that this unprecedented National Referendum Bill as proposed by the P.A.P. Government will infringe on the basic democratic rights of the people. Since Members or this House are shouting all day long about upholding the principles of democracy, we must then be united and oppose clause 29 in this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been debating this Referendum Bill for several days. Now, I want to talk about the drafting of the Bill. I believe everybody will agree that when we introduce a Bill it will have its effect pa the people. We must take into account the circumstances of our time. We must consider what effect it will have on the people. If we disregard all these factors, then the implementation of the Dill will be completely useless. In this Bill, the "Singapore National Referendum Bill" is put down as the title. This is for the purpose of deciding the subject of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that when we were debating the White Paper on merger, there was not a Party in this House which opposed the principle of merger. The only question to be resolved is the mode and manner of merger. The Barisan Sosialis, however, has been turning round and round and wavering about merger. Nobody can understand what they have been trying to say. Just now the Member for Queenstown mentioned that in the previous elections the percentage of void votes was vory small. Since it is so small, why are they spending so much time trying to win over the small percentage of void votes? This is their plot. In their recent propaganda effort, they have been trying to encourage people everywhere to cast blank votes. Their representatives also have gone from, house to house saying that the void or blank votes cannot be regarded as being in support of the decision by the House on the White Paper. Regarding this point it also explains the effect of the intention on this Bill. Since we want to have a referendum, we know the reason for these provisions in the Bill. We know there are certain people who, hiding under the cloak of democracy, are trying to reach another objective. Mr Speaker, Sir, here I want to say further. We often find in history that some people claimed themselves to be the defenders of certain causes. In fact, their aim was to destroy the very thing for which they were defending. The Barisan Sosialis are now trying to use this method of deceiving the people in order to achieve their policy. Next, I want to talk about the local situation. I feel that the Barisan Sosilias have been quite worried in the past few days' debate. [Interruption]

There is a great deal of amusement going on in the Assembly. But I am afraid I have lost this wonderful opportunity of even laughing. I ask the Opposition not to interject (in Mandarin) because the interjections are lost completely on the Chair.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speeches expressed by them just now we can see what type of attitude they adopt in treating parliamentary democracy. Whenever they make a speech we remain quiet and listen to their nonsensical speeches. But now, when we are making a speech, they laugh and make all sorts of grimaces. That is how they want to destroy parliamentary democracy. [Interruption] I understand better than you.

This must stop from the Opposition. I ask the Opposition not to interject any further.

(In Mandarin): At least we have not put on the cloak of democracy and do things which are against democracy. We do not do that. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe you also agree that there must be two aspects of everything. Some people may oppose and some people may agree to a point. But when people have different stands, they have their own theories about things. They then use all sorts of means to smear the other side. The method itself will also win the praise of those who advocate it. Whether a thing is good or bad, whether it is black or white, whether it is right or wrong, will depend on history. Time will prove. If they do things which are not right, the true facts will defeat their argument in the end. Truth will show. Members of this House have done a lot of thinking behind the scenes and have made use of all sorts of means and all sorts of speeches to advance their arguments. When the time comes, history will show the truth. 7.30 p.m.

Sir, if you want to do a thing, no matter what it is, there must be a use for it. For example, the Assembly is used for debate and for the drafting and passing of legislation. The building of a house offers shelter and warmth and it enables the people living in it to have a normal life. If you make a chair, it is clearly for the purpose of sitting. This Referendum Bill should be regarded in the light of the use to which it can be put. If this cannot be regarded as so, then why should we waste our time debating this Bill for several days? [Interruption] It seems that my speech is annoying the Member for Nee Soon. If he is a true political worker, he should have a magnanimous attitude and not the attitude of a small man making all sorts of actions and saying a lot of unnecessary words. This will not raise his prestige; it will be a blot on his own character. In the course of the debate during the last few days, we have seen how they have tried to show themselves as defenders of democracy. Some Members of the Barisan Sosialis have referred to us as Fascists and that our actions are anti-democratic, if it is true that we are Fascists, then they would not be so safely seated opposite us now. They would not have been in this House and they would not have been leading a free life in Singapore all this time. They are now very free to do whatever they like. Nobody interferes with them. They can say whatever they want to say, but it is another matter whether the people believe what they say. There is still a lot to be said but I do not want to waste the time of this Assembly. It is not necessary for me to be used by people who think for me behind the scenes. [Interruption] I am not a repeating mechanism. They are not shouldering the responsibility which they should have for their constituencies. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. We are in Committee. If there are any points, the Opposition can take down notes and make any number of speeches. They can even rise on a point of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, regarding the accusation made these few days in the House by the Barisan Sosialis about our being Fascists and autocrats, we have already given some answers just now. I believe that the situation in Singapore is not like this. Every time they try to emphasise that there should be democracy, and so on. From my point of view, freedom and democracy is like this. A person who claims to enjoy freedom should not interfere with other people. But from the attitude they have adopted and expressed, if they are real fighters of freedom, why should they make all sorts of noises when a person is making a speech in order to prevent him from doing so? Is it not stepping on other people's freedom? Why do they not understand the definition of freedom? If they want to advocate freedom, and yet act in such a degrading manner, I feel that it is most improper.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, just now the previous speaker talked a lot. I did not know what he said. He talked about the so-called freedom, democracy, and other things. I feel very ashamed of the Parliamentary Secretary for having said such things. He did not speak on the clause but he concentrated on throwing abuses at us. Mr Mammen, from the debate which took place these few days, I feel that the Government Party leadership does not seriously accept the criticisms and opinions of the Opposition. The governing Party's leadership is autocratic and it is trying to force through this undemocratic Referendum Bill. Mr Mamnen, the Minister for Home Affairs asked me, "What is there in the Referendum Bill that is undemocratic?" He must be sleeping because we have already talked a lot and he is still not conscious of what we said. Mr Mamnen, you can see that the governing Party now wants to force through this Referendum Bill to ensure their political longevity. The blank and uncertain votes which are to be regarded as votes in favour of the Government is really a joke. Yet the Government is holding on to this provision as a last straw in order to prolong its political life. Mr Mammen, I can clearly tell the governing Party that they cannot go about in this way to save their future. No matter how they try to be obstinate and unreasonable, the end of their political life is a certain thing. They can never avoid this fate. We see that the Government can provide undemocratic provisions and undemocratic laws here in this House, but when they go outside they know what they will get. We are not afraid of the barbarity and unreasonable actions of the Government. We in the Opposition want to maintain the decorum and dignity of this House. We do not want an undemocratic Referendum Bill as it will make a laughing stock of us in the eyes of the people of the world. It is our responsibility to see that no such thing happens in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have already said that the provision to regard blank and uncertain votes as votes in support of the Government is a very shameful provision. We have already said that the Government is more Fascist than the Fascists. But the Party in power dare not face our accusations and they cannot reply to them. They can only say that if they were Fascists we would have lost our freedom long ago and that I would not be sitting here now. A little while ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education said that if the Party in power were Fascists, then the Barisan Sosialis would not have been able to make their lengthy speeches so freely here and perhaps the Members of the Barisan Sosialis would have disappeared without a trace. Mr Mammen, Sir, I could quote a few things. 7.45 p.m. The Party in power has come to an impasse and has landed in a pitiful situation. Yet they are still very haughty, and try to show that they are very demo cratic. They pretend that they have given us freedom, and so we are free. Mr Mammen, this is a report in the Nanyang Siang Pau of 18th June. In this report a statement by Mr Jek Yuen Thong is published in reply to the Barisan Sosialis. He said: 'As to the question of Fascists and Fascism, the Barisan Sosialis up to now have not explained to us. If the P.A.P. is a Fascist Government, why then have the important big shots of the Barisan Sosialis up to now not lost their hair? And they are so free that everyday they could hold rallies and do whatever they like? So facts are more convincing than arguments. That the Barisan Sosialis can carry on all kinds of political activities clearly shows that the P.A.P. is a democratic party. In fact, those in the Barisan Sosialis should he thankful to the P.A.P. because in the past they were all under the protection of the P.A.P. while carrying out their activities. And certain people had at the request of the P.A.P. been released from prison. I would like to ask: where can you find people who having been protected and benefited by a Party, turn around and accuse it of so many things?' Sir, from this it can be seen that the P.A.P. are unable to amend their ways and turn back. The P.A.P. are bent on this line of making blank votes and un certain votes to be votes in support of the Government. By doing so they deprive the people of their basic democratic rights. Yet they feel proud and haughty at this act and pretend that they are more democratic than the Fascists. We can only see how pitiful they are. If Hitler were alive, I believe he would take tuition from the P.A.P., because under his undemocratic rule he had not done such things as the P.A.P. is now doing, i.e. depriving the people of their basic democratic rights by refusing them the right to say "no". [Interruption] Sir, we want to point out to the Party in power that in the course of the anti-colonial struggle, in the process of con stitutional advancement, and in the struggle for national independence, freedom and sovereignty for the people, democracy is the most important.

Order. If the hon. Member will try to avoid these small interjections perhaps she can continue with her speech. So in her address will the hon. Member face the Chair? Please avoid interjections during the speech.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, these interruptions were from the Minister for Home Affairs. We should not forget that the only democracy we have now has been achieved through our past struggle. Democracy is not a gift. If we do not insist on our democracy, then in future we may not have a democratic country. If we do not try to achieve independence, eliminate colonialism and to secure safeguards for the democratic rights of the people, then we should be doing something wrong. Any government elected by the people should not do things to deprive the people of such rights and democracy. I hope the Party in power will be very clear in their minds that the little democracy we have today is not a gift from the Party in power, but is the result of our struggle in the past and we should endeavour to protect and preserve it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whatever problems the P.A.P. have and which they cannot solve, they will lay them at the door of the Communists. That is very preposterous and very nonsensical. I quote from the Sin Chew Jit Poh of the 12th of this month. Here is an article by the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Jek Yuen Thong, taken from his radio broadcast. He said, "I have said that the Communists have tried to wreck the national referendum. They want to persuade the people to cast blank votes or to prevent them from casting votes. According to them, blank votes and uncertain votes should he negative votes. They are rather naive in their way of thinking. They want to think that the votes of dead men should be the votes against merger." Mr Mammen, Sir, from this quotation of his, we can see the way they argue, distorting the meanings which they should have. They distort our arguments. The Barisan Sosialis has never wanted blank votes and uncertain votes to be construed as against the decision of the Legislative Assembly, but they have dis torted our arguments and they have shifted all problems and blame on to the Communists and the people in the Barisan Sosialis. I would say that the situa tion is created by the Party in power and I will also refute the saying that the Barisan Sosialis is Communist. Mr Mammen, Sir, outside the House there are certain people who have given an analogy to the Bill. They say this National Referendum Bill is like a robbery Bill. In fact, it is truly so because if, say, there are several robbers and rogues and they are well armed and they want to carry out illegal acts, what can the people do against them? The present P.A.P. Government are doing just the same thing. They have all the Government organisations under their control and they are now carrying out political robbery. Mr Mammen, Sir, I have said that if there is a debate today, it is because clause 30 has been proposed. The question whether the proposition of a certain clause is democratic or not directly affects the voting rights of the people. The Government know that if they pose unacceptable questions, the people will have no choice and they will cast blank votes as a show of protest. In such a case the Government should solve the problem in a proper way and not try to blame the Barisan Sosialis as extremists or reactionaries, or to shift the blame on to the shoulders of the Communists. We hope the Party in power will think properly and mend their ways and not try to muddle along their present way.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, I believe you and I and Members of this House have clearly listened to all sorts of facts and all sorts of threatening terms. There are people who want to resign. There are people who say they have formed a delegates' conference to oppose this Bill. 8.00 p.m. All this clearly shows why they have adopted such an attitude against the National Referendum Bill. This is not a question of non-democracy. It is also clear to the people of Singapore that there is a minority who will feel frust rated when this National Referendum Bill is accepted by them. The National Referendum Bill was drafted by the government. What is the purpose and nature of this Bill? It is to enable the people to decide their future. Because of their fear of the National Referendum Bill and because they fear that their interests will he endangered and their future activities curbed, the Opposition are defiantly carrying out all sorts of campaigns to stop or block the passage of this Bill, if they want to stop the passage of this Bill, what are the methods open to them? If they say they oppose it, that will not do, because the reunification of Malaya and Singapore and the concept of Malaysia have been accepted by them and they cannot deny this, if they want to oppose this concept, then they will be doing something which is contradictory to what they have said. Therefore, they have switched on to the minor points in the Bill to say this is not democratic and that is not democratic. They say the provision regarding the blank votes in the Bill is not democratic. If the blank votes are to he regarded in favour of them, then they say it is 100 per cent democratic. If they like it, then they term it as democratic, if they do not like it, then they term it as undemocratic. Let me say something about this. The Opposition have been shouting about democracy all day long. They say the Government has frightened them about this matter and has forced them into a blind alley. They try to make use of this Assembly to show that the P.A.P. is bad and not worth a cent. They have been saying in this House since the beginning of this debate that the P.A.P. government is not democratic and that ii has become a Fascist Government. The Member for Stamford has said that we are a Fascist Government. If that were so, then the Opposition would not he sitting in this House. If we are not democratic, how is it that the Opposition Parties are able to hold mass rallies and carry out house-to-house campaigns?

On a point of information? Madam Chan Choy Siong resumed her seat.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Delta has just said that the Opposition Parties can hold mass rallies every day. Does she mean to say that we can hold mass rallies at any place and at any time? Does she mean to say that?

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not the Minister for Home Affairs. How do I know that they hold mass rallies? They even paste their posters in the latrines saying that on certain days the Barisan Sosialis will hold mass rallies. How can they say that they cannot hold them? If they want to hold them every day they can apply to the Minister for Home Affairs. As I am not directed to do so, I cannot give directions. We can see their attitude. I think if it is judged by the people in the gallery - [Interruption]

Sir, the hon. Member is attacking the Chair. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): The Chair has been following closely the translation from Mandarin into English, and if I hear an hon. Member attacking the Chair, I naturally will have to pull her up as out of order. So far I have not heard, and I have not caught it. The Member for Nee Soon understands Mandarin whereas the Chairman is in a difficult position as he has to depend on the interpretation. Madam Chan Choy Siong.

(In Mandarin): If the hon. Member wants to interrupt, I will let him do so. I am not afraid of his interruption. He can go home and sleep and ponder over the fact as to whether he is right or wrong today. From this, the people can clearly see that if the representatives of the people want to expose their bad conduct, then they will try to interrupt us in every way, if they can do this sort of thing here, then they can do the same thing outside the House. They try to make all sorts of strange noises and gestures in order to interrupt me because they fear that I will expose them in this House. Now, nobody can tolerate their conduct. They have been accusing the Government of being undemocratic this whole afternoon. It is not that I want to accuse them, but this is clearly seen by the people of Singapore. They have been trying to propagate their views on the merger question and on this Bill. The Government is a tolerant one, if they want to talk, they can carry on talking and if they want to propagate their views, they can do so. But the truth will emerge one day. We are not afraid of being consumed by fire. Why should we be afraid? It is those people who run here and there to carry out their propaganda that are afraid and they are trying to save their political fortunes. Mr Mammen, Sir, they have said that the P.A.P. Government is not democratic. How much democracy do they have? When they ask the General Employees Union, which is controlled by them, to publish a statement, they hope that the other trade union organisations will also support them. Do they consult the members of the trade union organisations? Their method is to issue a statement without first consulting the people. This is their definition of democracy. This is their rubber-stamp method. Is this democracy? Is this why they say that the P.A.P. is not democratic and that they are democratic - more democratic than other countries? It is a matter of regret that we have this present state of affairs. If they say that the provision regarding the blank votes in this Bill is un precedented, then the fault lies with the Opposition Parties. The blame should he on them. Everybody is agreed on a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and the formation of a Federation of Malaysia. The question remains as to what form and method should be adopted to effect a merger of the two territories. 8.15 p.m. The P.A.P. propose the White Paper merger, and the Opposition Parties also put forward their own merger proposals. On this question, I say that we are of the opinion that in 1959 the people gave us a mandate on merger. But we still feel that we have to ask the people for their decision on this matter. And so, therefore, we have drafted this National Referendum Bill. Coming to the provision regarding blank votes, it means that if the people could not decide on the two questions, they are prepared to leave the matter to the decision of the Legislative Assembly. This matter could be likened to a maiden who has two lovers. These two lovers are very much liked by her [!interruption, but one of them is superior to the other who may be on more intimate terms. So she finds it difficult to decide and, therefore, says that she is willing to allow her parents to decide for her. And these two lovers, although they like her, do not want to force her [Interruption]. Therefore -

Order. Cannot Members contain themselves when they listen to love stories? If they are to continue interjecting, may I suggest that it is completely out of order, and I hope the Opposition Members could contain themselves.

(In Mandarin): Their conduct is always like that. Anyway, this girl asks her parents to decide for her. This example clearly shows the Members opposite the need for someone to make the decision. Is this undemocratic?

Feudalistic.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, how can you say this is undemocratic? Let me tell you, Sir, why they want to force us to delete the provision for blank votes. It is because they have been carrying out their propaganda on a house-to-house campaign. What have they told the people? No doubt they have aired their views on the merger issue - the Penang and Malacca type of merger. Have they tried their best to, win the support of the people? They have not done so because they are not sincere and because they know that the proposals propounded by them will be inimical to them. Therefore, the only way left for them would be to oppose this Referendum Bill by saying that the people have the right to tear their ballot papers. What is the motive for putting forward such a suggestion? The people of Singapore can think for themselves. Why should the people have the right to tear their ballot papers? What is the motive? That is what I have been trying to tell Members, Mr Deputy Speaker. In their house-to-house visits, their effort was especially directed to the housewives. They told them that they should not support the merger proposals. If they supported the merger proposals, then their posterity and future generations will condemn them as being wicked. They also told the housewives this, "Auntie, will you please sign your name on this list of names saying that you are against the merger proposals?" By doing this, they thought they could be successful in the initial stages. But they did not get any support from anybody. Maybe there are a few people in the Barisan Sosialis who might support them. But how can they say the people of Singapore are against the merger proposals?

On a point of clarification.

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

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, they are not patient. That is why they want to interrupt my speech. If they want to clarify, they can do so after I have finished my speech. Therefore, when they were not successful in their first phase, they carried out their second method. That is, they make use of the provisions in the National Referendum Bill. They hope that on the day when the national referendum is held they will be able to persuade the people to tear the ballot papers or to cast in blank votes. Then if there are a great number of blank votes, they will be able to say that they are victorious, the national referendum is not valid, and the people of Singapore are against [he merger proposals. This is clearly understood by everybody. This will expose the Barisan Sosialis. They have been saying that they are very much concerned with the future generation of the people of Singapore. Actually what they mean is that they are very much concerned with their own interest and with their own selfish ends. Just now the Member for Choa Chu Kang quoted a news report on the national referendum held in Algeria as an example. But he has forgotten that the people in Algeria decided on whether they wanted a colonial government or an independent country. If the Barisan Sosialis try to compare our national referendum with a national referendum held in another country, it merely shows that they are trying to maintain a colonial government. If you want to maintain this colonial government, then you are worse off. We have not been able to see who are the colonial agents. They are accusing us of being colonial agents. Will they openly accuse the Federation Government of being colonial agents? Mr Mammen, Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang has quoted speeches made by the P.A.P. representatives in 1956. All that time we were defending those who were about to be banished. They will realise that in those days they were struggling against the colonial government. But today. Singapore is a self-governing country. We want to enlarge our territory so that Singapore and the Federation of Malaya can be united so as to give more rights to the people residing in these territories. I any person tries to sabotage this campaign, they are pro-colonialists, because they are trying to wreck something which is of vital interest to the people. The quotation made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang is not appropriate in this context - Mr Ong Chang Sam rose -

The hon. Lady will not give way.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, no matter how the Barisan Sosialis make use of the question of merger or the question of the National Referendum Bill to accuse the Government of being worse than the former Lim Yew Hock regime and that we have degenerated and are desperately struggling for our survival, all this should be judged by the people in Singapore. They should not be decided by what they say. Have I not told you just now about the blank votes -

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

I suspend the 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 28-(cont.)

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of blank ballot papers, the Opposition accused us of being undemocratic. Earlier on, I have explained that this provision is not undemocratic. It is because the Opposition are afraid that if merger materialises, their hopes will vanish. So we can account for their behaviour over the past few months. We have exposed their true colours. They did not get any response from the people to their mass rallies. They even carried out a house-to-house campaign in every constituency hoping to deceive the housewives and the town folks, but they flopped in this too. Now they say that the P.A.P. is a Right-wing Government. From their recent conduct, it can be clearly seen that when they are cornered and they find themselves in a blind alley, they even resort to joining up with the Liberal-Socialists and other Right-wing Parties and take part in the so-called Council of Joint Action. This Council of Joint Action is composed of all the political "trash" in Singapore. They want to hold a mass rally to oppose the National Referendum Bill. They say that they will try to prove that they are not Communists because they have now joined hands with the Liberal-Socialists and other Right-wing Parties. This is an attempt to salvage their political future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to waste your time and impede the work of the people in this House. However. I want to stress that the P.A.P. Government must shoulder its responsibilities and honour its promises to the people in 1959. We believe that we can work hard to create a socialist and united Malaya for the benefit of the people.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since we began the debate on the National Referendum Bill, there has been opposition from every quarter against the undemocratic and unreasonable attitude of the Government. The people of Singapore cannot bear to see their rights deprived by other people. We can see no reason why the P.A.P. Government should deem blank votes as votes supporting the Government. They have advanced all sorts of unreasonable arguments and referred to the propaganda launched by the Barisan Sosialis and other subversive actions. Talking about propaganda and publicity, the Government are in a more advantageous position because they have all sorts of propaganda machinery at their disposal. They have the radio and Rediffusion to assist them in their propaganda. They can order the Press to publish their news on the front page. In the field of propaganda, they are in a more advantageous position than any other political Party. I see no reason why they should say that the people should support their referendum. If the White Paper proposals are acceptable to the people, the P.A.P. should not be afraid of other people distorting their stand, because the people have the ability to judge. Their arguments are an insult to the intelligence of the people. Are the people in Singapore so foolish as not to be able in distinguish between right and wrong? In the 1959 election, the Lim Yew Hock Government also carried put their propaganda saying that the P.A.P. was had, and so on. At that time, I was still in the P.A.P. At that time, the P.A.P. said that the people were intelligent and I see no reason why they should regard our people in a different light today. They are afraid because they do not have the support of the people. The membership of their Party has dwindled to almost nothing. The Hong Lim and the Anson by-elections have taught them a very good lesson. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, visited the Afro-Asian countries. If he had gone there for a pleasure trip, I would not have minded, but he went there to sell his merger proposals. This is something which I do not like because his Government did not have the support of the people. He had no right to represent our people when he met the leaders of those countries. I think he was wrong there. If he wants to learn something which is undemocratic, then he should go to America, or Formosa, or Vietnam or South Korea. 9.45 p.m. On this question of blank votes. I have heard all sorts of complaints and dissatisfaction expressed from all quarters. The P.A.P. Government must know of these complaints and dissatisfaction. But the P.A.P. Government are riot sincere. They do not want to give the people an opportunity to air their views. Now, how can they say that this is democratic? I am of the opinion that we have wasted a lot of time. The Ministers work only for half a day, and we have spent a lot of time debating this Bill. My colleague, the Member for Hong Lim, has given them very reasonable conditions for not passing this Bill before 1st July. He said that there should be a by-election. We also understand the difficulties of the Government. We do not want them to resign first. We are not acting on the spur of the moment. Our action is motivated in the interests of the people. Our judges, that is, the people, will give a very fair verdict.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment seeks to prevent the P.A.P. from committing an act of political dishonesty. It ensures that the people can enjoy the right of abstention in the referendum. Sir, the Referendum Bill has now become a special weapon of the P.A.P. to suppress the people's opinion. This Bill is now a P.A.P. Bill that will enable the P.A.P. with a must-be-won referendum. Sir, when this Bill was first brought to this Assembly, the P.A.P. soon found out that the people did not want the P.A.P. type of merger. Such a referendum would then become a "must be lost" referendum if the referendum was held. Sir, knowing that the referendum will be lost - and this will bring about a total collapse of the P.A.P. Government - they therefore quickly introduced certain unusual and unprecedented clauses to this Bill which is going to become a notorious Bill. Sir, the Government adds the clause that blank and uncertain votes shall be the votes supporting the P.A.P. type of merger. This is one of the illegal clauses added by this notorious P.A.P. Government in order to please the colonialists and their colonial stooges.

Colonial masters.

Sir, in order to deceive the people, the Government try in this way to get the support of the people. Since the P.A.P. want to introduce this "must-be-won" referendum, why do they bring this "must-be-won" referendum to this Assembly for debate? Sir, they are attempting to legalise all their illegal clauses so as to legalise all the illegal actions that they are going to take. Sir, our stand is that all blank and uncertain votes shall be counted as spoilt votes. Sir, we do not want these votes to be counted as Government votes. We also do not want these votes to be counted as votes against the P.A.P. Sir, our amendment is honest and sincere. Never in this world have we seen a Government with such a "must-be-won" referendum that it allows the people no choice but to vote for the P.A.P. Sir, we in this Assembly have the right to say yes or no or even to abstain. We also have the right to be absent from voting. Sir, all these rights that we enjoy as Assemblymen are provided by law passed in this Assembly. Why should the Government not allow the people to abstain by casting blank votes? Are they sitting here to serve the people or to suppress them? Sir, the Government Ministers have stated their anti-people stand. We hope that the Government Back Benches will also state their stand. Sir, when we were in this Assembly debating the merger issue last year, we saw the twists and turns of the P.A.P. leaders in this Assembly, over Radio Singapore and in their smearing campaign against opposition Parties outside the Assembly. The twists and turns of their smearing campaign still continue.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, since we debated this National Referendum Bill, the Assemblymen from the Barisan Sosialis have constantly accused the P.A.P. of being undemocratic and of being dictators. Perhaps. Mr Speaker, you will remember - so will other Members of this Assembly - that when we debated the merger issue, the Barisan Sosialis put forward their views for complete merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca, but since then they have realised that they committed a blunder. The Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen then launched a house-to-house campaign and adopted their usual deceptive tactics to mislead the people by stirring up communalism in order to hoodwink them to their side. Mr Speaker, we have been accused by the Barisan Sosialis of being un democratic and of suppressing freedom. I cannot understand what kind of freedom the Barisan Sosialis want. There is a poem which says if a man walks naked in the street we merely stare at him. We must safeguard freedom for the peace and prosperity of the people. Freedom is not to he controlled at one's whims and fancies. Mr Speaker, the Barisan Sosialis - especially the Member for Queenstown - on 29th June tried to intimidate the Government side, so much so that you, Mr Speaker, had to issue a warning. How worse will be their attitude to the people? in addition to their tactics of persuasion, they will also adopt a threatening attitude. Mr Speaker, since we discussed the merger issue, the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis have shown from their appearance and outlook that they realise that they can no longer hoodwink the people and that their evil manipulations have been exposed to the people. We can see from their faces that they are more like sick people. They moved an amendment which they claimed to be in accordance with the wishes of the people and threatened that if it was rejected by the Government the people would accuse the P.A.P. of being undemocratic and dictatorial. But Mr Speaker, this is a manipulation of the Barisan Sosialis to salvage their political fortunes. In order to restore their own prestige, they keep harping on "the people", "the people", because their propaganda and tactics have now been well understood by the people in our country. In order to save themselves, they have put up many amendments so that merger will not be achieved. Mr Speaker, we have tabled this Referendum Bill in the Assembly so that the Opposition can debate it thoroughly. The people know that we will continue to debate this Referendum Hill. Is this undemocratic? We have given every opportunity to the Opposition to debate the Bill. 10.00 p.m. In addition, Mr Speaker, the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. charged Radio Singapore as Radio P.A.P. putting out P.A.P. propaganda, but it may he that the representatives, of the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. have forgotten that we gave every political Party an opportunity to air their views over the radio. Can this be considered undemocratic? What kind of democracy are you asking for? Is this the type of democracy you are asking for - that you require a man to walk naked in the street? I think the democracy required by the Barisan Sosialis is a Communist democracy, but not a socialist democracy. Yes, Mr Speaker, it is good that we have a thorough discussion of this Bill in this Assembly so that the people will not be misled by the representatives of the Barisan Sosialis and the other Opposition Members who support the Barisan Sosialis or who are the frontline of the Communist forces. Mr Speaker, I think this is not the end of the matter. I am confident that the Barisan Sosialis will adopt other tactics in order to wreck or frustrate our merger. However, we, the Government of the P.A.P., will continue to fight and overcome all obstacles now and in the future.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have proposed this amendment and Members in the Opposition have given various reasons and examples to substantiate that it is justified and to show that if the Government could carry out an honest and democratic national referendum, it would get an honest and democratic answer. But we have not heard any substantive arguments from the Government Ministers and their Back-Benchers to refute our arguments. The undemocratic provisions in this Bill are known to all the people of Singapore and have been disclosed in this House. If we go out to the rural areas to listen to the farmers, or go to the factories to listen to the workers; or if we go and meet merchants and people in other walks of life, you will find that they all accuse the P.A.P. Government, which insist on the blank votes provision to save their political life, of being dishonest and undemocratic in having such provisions in the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. Government dare to say that they can put a straightforward question on their White Paper merger to a straightforward answer by the people, then they can say that our amendment is not necessary. But the Government do not want to let their White Paper merger proposals be decided by the people in a democratic way. Therefore, they have no alternative but to depend on means which are not democratic to get the answer they want. That is why today they insist that all blank votes should be deemed to be votes in support of them. My colleagues have advanced many arguments to refute such a proposition. We have also mentioned that there has been no precedent in all the countries in the world which can show that any government can have such a provision as the P.A.P. Government now would want to have in this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers and their Members are unable to advance their reasons and arguments to prove their case. They have also advanced something which cannot he substantiated, something which is not based on reason. For instance, when we oppose the undemocratic provisions of the Bill, all the Members from the Government side try to explain that the opposition to the undemocratic provisions has been provoked by the Com munists. They say that today in Singapore the most isolated ones are the Communists. According to them, there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. Why then have we been hearing from them all the time that all those who oppose these undemocratic provisions are Communists? Are not their arguments contradictory? Do the Government mean to say that when we oppose these undemocratic provisions, it will affect many people in future and many people will cast blank votes when two unacceptable questions are advanced in the future national referendum? It only goes to show that the P.A.P. Government have no confidence in their own White Paper merger. It also proves that no matter how the Government can make use of all propaganda machinery to spread their point of view to the people, it will be of no avail to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment by us will not be accepted by the Government. This goes to show that they are not sincere in having a national referendum. They intend to force through this national referendum in order to salvage their political fortunes. Mr Speaker, Sir, we as representatives of the people have received repre sentations from many organisations which are representatives of the people. All those representations have given their arguments and attacked those undemocratic provisions in the Bill. We therefore want to point out clearly here that when the P.A.P. came into power, it did so with the support of the broad masses of the people, the labouring classes, 'farmers, and others. Today every Member of this House here has received such representations asking the Government to abolish those undemocratic provisions. But the P.A.P. Government today seem to want only to stay inside air-conditioned rooms and are oblivious to the views of the people outside. That is why today we are unable to hear the answers from the leaders of the P.A.P., especially the Ministers. They have been saying that the P.A.P. came from the people and they will go among the people. I would say that they have already thrown the people overboard. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must point out to the P.A.P. that today people in all walks of life in Singapore strongly oppose the undemocratic provisions that all blank votes and uncertain votes are deemed to be in support of the Government. If the P.A.P. want to achieve their purpose by Fascist means, they cannot do so by just passing this Bill, which will not save their political future. The Prime Minister has said that the judgment of history is very cruel, and I would remind them of this, that history will give a very correct record of the whole events and things to come.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in debating the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, the Opposition Members have said a lot about the terms "democracy" and "undemocracy". There is a popular Malay saying that the person who shoulders the responsibility knows best the position. 10.15 p.m. Mr Speaker, many of the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are single, I think. These people have not yet had the experience of being a father whose responsibility is to look after the welfare of his children. Indeed, Mr Speaker, implementing a proposal cannot satisfy all sections of the community. However heavy the downpour of rain, there must be a spot where the land is dry. This is the natural course of events. As I have said earlier on, I have heard much being said about democracy and undemocracy. I say if we are undemocratic, this Referendum Bill will not be tabled in the Assembly, because the Government have the unfettered right to carry through their proposals without a referendum, but it is on the basis of democratic principles that they have brought in this Referendum Bill, so that these may be discussed fully by each and every responsible Member of the Assembly who is answerable to the people and to the State. Mr Speaker, let me give a simple example, so that even if it is heard by young children, they may be able to understand it, as it is very easy. For instance, a father is responsible for his children, and when the time comes for dinner or lunch, all the children rise to have their food. The question is what kind of food will they take, or what kind of food shall we take? Then the father asks the children, "Awang," for instance, "what would you like?" And Awang replies, "I like meat." Then he asks Ali, "Ali, what about you, what will you have?" And he says, "I prefer fish." Then again the father asks Mohamed, "What will you take?" Mohamed says he likes vegetables. And so on. Then there are so many questions posed to the children. One child prefers fish, because he thinks that it is better than vegetables. Another child prefers meat to vegetables. As a responsible father, whose duty it is to look after the welfare of the children, he is obliged to determine what he can afford, if he has twelve children, and if he is a working-class man, he has to spend according to his means, on food containing vitamins which are necessary for his children's health. Then he arrives at a decision. If the children are asked, there may he one or two among them who are confused because they cannot make up their minds which is the better food, whether it is vegetables, meat, or fish. They then remain silent. They leave it to their father's discretion as to what he thinks best. In other words, they give a blank vote to the father, so that the discretion is left to the father to decide what is best. Mr Speaker, I have just quoted the simplest example so that it can be understood by all. This is not a Government nominated by the colonialists. This is a Government elected by the people and is responsible to the people. One day when the time comes we will return to the people. It is suggested that we have betrayed their interests, hut we have to face them one day. If we have done so, it will not only be we but our children too who will be condemned by the people. We realise that as elected representatives we are responsible to the people and we think this is best for the people. The people may he confused by the tactics adopted by the Barisan Sosialis on the question of merger as set out in the White Paper, because complete merger as required by the Barisan Sosialis (which they subsequently denied) is merger on the basis of Penang or Malacca. When the people are in such a confused state, they will naturally cast a blank vote. It is the duty of the Government to protect the people. The Member for Toa Payoh said just now that if we were to go to the people, we would hear them condemning the Government. If we were to listen to the merchants, we would also hear the same views. But, Mr Speaker, they are responsible for planting the seeds of hatred. We never go to the people just for the sake of misleading them. We are unlike the Barisan Sosialis whose main job is to confuse and mislead the people. Therefore, in a democratic way, we put it to the people and tell them that this is one of the best ways in which we can ensure their future, it is up to them to choose. So, Mr Speaker, I think the blank votes are the result of their being confused by disruptive elements and that they have given their mandate to the Government to look after their welfare. It is appropriate, therefore, that the blank votes should be used to look after their welfare.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that even in the 19th century, there was no provision of this kind. I believe the people in this House too have never heard of this provision. Under the system of one man one vote, there have never been such things as blank votes being treated as in support of the Government's proposition. There is also no such provision in dictatorship countries. There are no such things as blank votes being counted in support of a dictatorship. In Singapore we are in a special position, because we are under a dictatorial P.A.P. Government, but they have very subtly shouted their slogan of 'service to the people'. They pretend by saying that they want to let the people decide their destiny themselves. That is to say, let the constitutional arrangement of the future of Singapore be decided by the people of Singapore. But the P.A.P. Government already know that the constitutional arrangements by them have been discarded by the people. Therefore, they know that in a national referendum they will be defeated, and in order to save their faces, they, in a thick-skinned manner, unashamedly want the blank votes to be counted as in favour of the Government's proposition. Therefore, they can deceive the people and say that they are very democratic because they let the people decide and the people use their votes to decide in their favour. Therefore, in the Referendum Bill this plot has come out. Where is the origin of the plot? It is like this. The P.A.P. Government know that the people of Singapore do not want the constitutional arrangements, that is, the White Paper on merger. 10.30 p.m. They say that the people are given a choice of two alternatives - the White Paper type of merger and the Penang/ Malacca type of merger. This means that the people are forced into selecting one of two unacceptable propositions. This is just like conditions in a feudalistic society. The parents want their son to choose one of two brides. One of the brides is a leper and the other a T.B. patient. Whichever bride the son chooses, it will only mean calamity. The previous speaker said that the Government is something like a father. This father is something like the father in the example I have just quoted. Is it good for a father to force his son to take morphine? Suppose you say that the people should take morphine. Can you force the people to take it? Or is it right for them to take it? Mr Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. Members had gone to the coffee shops they would have heard from the talk among businessmen and trishaw pullers that they object to the Government's dictatorial method used in the National Referendum Bill. To liken the Government to a father of the people in the example given, who regards the blank votes as supporting the Government, is not right. I think the P.A.P. Members have not been to the people, otherwise they would have heard of these conversations. The P.A.P. Government are just like prostitutes who regard those people who do not speak to them as no good. This is a shameful act. If the P.A.P. Government puts forward two questions, one on the White Paper and the other on the so-called Penang and Malacca type of merger, with the condition that blank votes are counted in favour of the Government, then in an electorate of 500 people, if 200 votes are in favour of the White Paper, 200 in favour of the Penang type, then the 100 blank or uncertain votes will under this clause mean that the Government is winning when, in fact, it is losing. That is a way of misinterpreting the will of the people. Why do the Government want to have the blank votes provision? The arguments are that the purpose is to frustrate the Barisan Sosialis' intent to wreck the national referendum. Are you treating the people as blind people or people with out brains? When they elected you to form the Government, were they blind?

Order. The Member must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. therefore is near the point of collapse, just like the time when the Lim Yew Hock Government used to say that the people of Singapore were ignorant. The P.A.P. say the Barisan Sosialis are provoking the people into wrecking the national referendum. But today, Sir, the political knowledge of the people of Singapore is far greater than that in 1959. They have made much progress and they cannot now be fooled by politicians. If a thing is good, correct and advantageous to them, they will fully support it. But if ii is bad or inimical to them and detrimental to their future or their generations, they will strongly oppose it. That is why up to now the PAP. Government are unable to and cannot quote precedents in any country in the world that adopts such a provision as this one, providing for blank votes to be in support of the Government. If the Government are really sincere in preserving the democratic rights of the people, then they should abide by the will of the people and should accept the views of the people and let the people have the right to say "yes" or "no" and should not try to adulterate the views of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago certain terms such as "democracy" and others were used by the Government. They argued that democracy has the connotation which should be interpreted in relation to the prevailing circumstances and objective surroundings. But if they really mean democracy, then the Government should not prevent the people from having democratic rights. And if you want to have democracy you should not only exercise democracy in this House but also let the people have the right to democracy outside. That is only democratic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these protestations of concern, for what the Barisan Sosialis choose to call the basic democratic right to organise a campaign for the recording of blank votes in order to frustrate the referendum on merger, can be dismissed with the contempt that they deserve. These protestations sound hollow and hypocritical coming from the lips of those whose manipulators outside the Assembly have very little regard for democratic forms and practices. There is nothing undemocratic in giving the voter the right to choose between two or more honest proposals in a referendum, and say to him that if he cannot make up his mind, then he is deemed to accept or be willing to accept the Legislative Assembly decision on the matter referred. Sir, there is nothing eternal or immutable about the principles underlying electoral procedures, nor is there any such concept as the fundamental human right to ascertain. Electoral procedures are primarily designed to ensure that elections and matters put to the electorate are fairly and honestly conducted and fairly and honestly put. And if there is a threat of abuse, then these proce dures must be amended to check the possibility of such abuse. In an election or a by-election there is no temptation to organise a campaign for the purpose of recording blank votes, and experience of general elections and by-elections has shown that blank votes form a negligible percentage of the total votes cast. If it becomes apparent that a move is afoot to organise a campaign for the purpose of recording blank votes to frustrate the referendum, then it would be foolish on the part of the Government not to introduce this counter measure.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Can the Minister explain that if an honest referendum is held where the question posed to the people is simple and where the people can easily answer, why should anybody want to organise a campaign to put in blank votes?

They will be recorded, that is why.

If it was an honest referendum -

Order.

Then, Sir, it would he foolish on the part of Government not to introduce counter measures to nullify such a campaign while, at the same time, ensuring the voter his freedom to make a democratic choice. If, in effect a no-merger proposal in the disguise of the Barisan Sosialis proposal for complete merger with automatic conversion of citizenship and proportionate representation is put to the electorate, it would be a fraud on the electorate. The Member for Anson has been challenged to publish the Tunku's reply to his Party's proposal on merger, but he has not dared to publish it as it will expose the deception by which the Barisan Sosialis have sought to conceal their bogus complete merger proposal. The publication of this reply will convince the public that the Barisan Sosialis have deliberately made claims for a merger which they know are totally unacceptable to the Tunku and the Federation Government. It takes two parties to make an agreement, and an uncompromising demand is made only when it is the intention not to reach any agreement at all. The argument of the Barisan Sosialis is that if neither of the questions put to the electorate in the referendum on merger is acceptable from their point of view, clause 29 should include a provision to enable the voter to abstain by recording a blank vote, and that his blank vote should be rejected so that they can mount their campaign for the recording of blank votes to frustrate the referendum. If, however, their bogus proposal for complete merger intending that there should be no merger is put to the electorate along with any other question including the White Paper proposals, then clause 29 in its present form does not become any problem to them as they could mount a campaign in favour of their bogus proposal.

Do you seriously believe all this?

I cannot see anything undemocratic in putting the Barisan Sosialis' first proposal for a merger of the Penang and Malacca type, which is a genuine merger proposal, as against their later dishonest and faked no-merger proposal to the electorate, and asking the electorate to choose between this proposal and the White Paper proposals; or between their proposal of the Penang and Malacca type of merger or any other proposal which their leaders in this Assembly have also suggested, and the White Paper proposals. Nor is it undemocratic to say to the voter that if he is unable to make a choice of one of these proposals, he is deemed to have accepted or to be willing to accept the Legislative Assembly decision on the matter referred. 10.45 p.m. There is no reason why we should lend the Barisan Sosialis a helping hand to mount a campaign for the recording of blank votes by omitting this provision from clause 29 to enable the Barisan Sosialis to frustrate the referendum on merger when these questions are put to the electorate in the referendum. Clause 29 is both democratic and necessary. The Banisan Sosialis in their amendment want to make it not an offence for the voter to destroy or deface his own or another person's ballot paper. They have clearly manifested their intention to frustrate and defeat this referendum on merger. There is no reason why we should help them to achieve their evil purpose. This new clause, which was not in the original Bill, was inserted only after their plan became apparent, and it will ensure that they will not be able to achieve their disreputable aim. Sir, the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Thomson accused the Government of wanting to grab blank votes and to steal blank votes. They do not want to remember what the 38 trade unions and the Country People's Association said before the Select Committee. Their friends and supporters in those trade unions wanted it enacted in the Bill that the affirmative of a question put to the electorate should be given effect to only if it received 60 per cent of the votes cast. A case like this was put to the unions. Suppose there were 100,000 electors in a referendum who voted: 49,000 voted for the affirmative and 40,000 against; and there were 11,000 blank votes. They were asked on which side the 11,000 blank votes should be counted. The reply was that the 11,000 blank votes should be counted on the negative side. In other words, they made a claim to these 11,000 blank votes. Why then do the Member for Thomson and the Member for Queenstown accuse the Government of wanting to steal these blank votes? All that the Government propose is that voters who cannot make up their minds on the question or questions put to them should be deemed to have accepted and to be willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred. How then can the Government be accused of wanting to grab the blank votes and to steal the blank votes? It looks as if the thieves are on the Barisan side.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an atmosphere of shyness pervades the Chamber tonight on this debate on the amendment to clause 29 of the Bill. The Government Front-Benches have suddenly become bashful. Like young maidens of bygone days, they think that to be silent is to be more discreet. We expected that the Government Front-Benches would come in to defend their indefensible position.

Obviously they know that discretion is the better part of valour. We have waited for a very long time, Mr Speaker, Sir, and we have not heard any new arguments except repetitions of the old falsehoods.

From your point of view!

Obviously the Government Front-benches are fully aware that to defend an indefensible position is hopeless. They have left this onerous task to the Back-benches. It does not give me very much pleasure to reply to Back-benchers, nor to rebut their silly arguments. But in the absence of more positive statements and more solid argu ments from the Government Front-benches, it leaves me no choice but to understand that what the Back-Benches say represent what the Government think, and that the Front-Benches do not have enough courage to say the things them selves. 10.50 p.m.

The Back-Benches, Mr Mammen, Sir, are therefore left with this baby and they have carried it in the most awkward manner. They have defended their indefen sible stand with contradictory statements. They have even slapped the faces and reprimanded the conduct of their own Government Front-benches. [Interruption] Am I kidding myself, Mr Mammen, Sir? I will take the Back-benches one by one, although most of them said the same things and repeated the same falsehoods. Earlier in the evening, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development, in the course of his arguments, made three points. The first was the attempt to give a comical - no, tragical, if I may say - discourse on the meaning and practice of democracy. Secondly, he demonstrated very clearly a guilty conscience when he tried to defend democracy. Lastly, he went to great lengths to reprimand the Opposition for interjections which, by the way, are parliamentary and which, in so far as I personally am concerned, I have learnt from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. One can remember the days not so long ago, even just a few hours ago perhaps, how the Prime Minister, whenever he gets piqued by a point raised by the Member for Queenstown, laughs like a horse, and certain Ministers chatter like gibbons.

He is acting just like a miniature Member for Anson!

And some with marble-headed stupidity, I am told.

You have confirmed what I said. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order.

So I see no reason why such antics which are permissible for the Government Front-Benches are not permissible for the Opposition Benches. In fact, in a democracy, it is always the Opposition that has more leeway and enjoys more flexibility in debate -

Where did you read that?

- than the Government Benches. The Minister for Finance seems not to have read it. If he wants to read it, I can give him a few references so that he may be able to acquaint himself with the actual processes of democracy. It will be my pleasure, Sir, to give him the references as soon as I have finished. If he will come with me to the Library, I will show him the books.

On a point of information. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

I do not want general references on the democratic processes. I have heard an extraordinary statement that in a democracy the opposition has greater opportunity and greater leeway than the Government. This is a most astounding innovation to me. The Member for Nee Soon claims that there are books and authorities to back up his statement. Please produce them now. I am all agog to listen to this extra ordinary theory.

Dr Sheng Nam Chin: Certainly, Mr Mammen, Sir. It shall be a great pleasure on my part to show him those books.

No, now.

Order. The Member for Nee Soon has promised to give the Minister for Finance the necessary books. The Minister for Finance should be satisfied with that.

On a point of clarification, Sir. An hon. Member: He is too anxious to learn!

Please proceed, Dr Sheng.

I have indicated that in a parliamentary democracy, in so far as debates in the House are concerned, the Opposition always has more leeway and flexibility than the Government.

Rubbish!

What does the Minister mean by "rubbish"?

Order. The Member for Nee Soon has made his point clear. There is no need to go into this subject again. Please come back to the amendment.

With respect, Sir, I will certainly do that. But allow me to back my contention that in a parliamentary democracy the Opposition is given more leeway. I would ask the Minister for Finance to cast his mind back to some five years ago and imagine the time when the Prime Minister was on the Opposition and the advantage he took over the Government, the amount of flexibility and leeway he allowed himself - An hon. Member: A lot of falsehoods!

True, too, he said a lot of falsehoods. If the Minister for Finance is seriously suggesting that what the then Member for Tanjong Pagar and also the now Member for Tanjong Pagar did was something that was against parliamentary democracy - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of elucidation. He asked -

Order. I have made my ruling very clear. We are not debating here what is democracy and what is not democracy. We are now debating the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. So far I have allowed the Member for Nee Soon to continue with his reply to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. And the Member for Nee Soon has made his point very clear. It would be better if he could come back to the amendment which has been moved by the Member for Queenstown.

Thank you, Mr Mammen, Sir. I will adhere to your advice. As I was saying, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development gave a comical and farcical discourse on the meaning and practice of democracy. He said that the Opposition was wearing a cloak of democracy and practising all things that were undemocratic. He tried to tell us that just because we are able to stand here in this Chamber and speak from the Opposition Benches it is by the grace of the P.A.P. Have they arrogated unto themselves the rights of the people? Let me tell them, Mr Mammen, Sir, that we are here not by their grace. We are here because of our rights. We have been elected by the people to speak here.

On a point of order. The Member is trying to intimidate the Front Benches.

Order. I do not think it is a point of order. I think the Minister for Finance is not being intimidated by the Member for Nee Soon. Dr Sheng.

Surely Mr Mammen, Sir, I had expected the Minister for Finance to be made of sterner stuff. After all, he is second in command in the Government today. Once I remember I read in Time Magazine that his views were considered to be almost as independent as those of the Prime Minister. [Interruption] Oh, yes. Mr Mammen. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs is hardly the man to speak of medical practice to me, as I am a doctor.

Order. This debate is getting out of hand. I have ruled that the Member for Nee Soon should come back to the amendment and not speak on the person of the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Home Affairs, and so on.

Thank you, Sir, for your guidance again. I have to keep on coming back to what I was saying because I am being interrupted. I would try very much, Sir, to look at you when I speak so that -

That is good.

- the picture of the comical "horse opera" opposite will not detract me from what I am saying. 11.00 p.m. The Hon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development also said that the very fact that we have been having mass rallies and canvassing and newspaper statements and political Party newspapers are all attributed to the leniency and the grace of the P.A.P. But let me tell him that it is not so. We enjoy this right by virtue of the Constitution, and even if the P.A.P. would like to suspend the Constitution, it is not within their powers to do so. That is the sadness of the P.A.P. So they try to tell us that what we are allowed to do under the constitution is by their grace. It goes to show how hope less the Government Bench is in that, in trying to defend an indefensible position, they have to give falsehoods, half-truths and untruths to back up their arguments.

I feel that I am going to sleep.

Go and sleep!

Mr Mammen, Sir, I understood from Mr Speaker one day that it is perfectly parliamentary for Members to scoot or to walk out and if Members find it very sleepy here, I see no reason why they should not go out and sleep -

It is not interesting now.

We are now on the most important part of this National Referendum Bill - clause 29. And it is astounding to hear the Government Benches maintaining that what they are doing is democratic. What is democracy? Democracy is, in essence, the power of the citizen to exercise his right, the right to elect and the right to ultimately form the Government in the country. But that is a right which has two aspects. One has a right to say 'yes' and one has the right to say 'no'. If a man is given a right and that right is limited to only saying 'yes', that right can be very, very dangerous. It is much better that one is deprived of the right to say 'yes' rather than be compelled to say 'yes'. Not so long ago, I remember seeing a picture, I think it was "Trial at Nuremburg". Those Germans during the time when Hitler was just coming to power were compelled by Hitler's Government to say 'yes' to certain of the legal constitutional changes introduced by the Nazi regime. I remember one of the democrats in that picture was trying to defend his democratic stand. When he was asked by the prosecution how it was that he said 'yes' to Hitler's constitutional changes in the legal field, he said, "But everybody had to say 'yes'. Nobody was allowed to say 'no'." Therefore, he said 'yes' because everybody had to say 'yes'. The P.A.P. have gone one step further than Hitler. They say you only say 'yes'; you do not say 'no'; and even you say nothing, it means 'yes'. Where is democracy now? You only have the right to say 'yes' but not the right to say 'no' or 'abstain'. And yet we see sensible and intelligent Government Front Ben ches seriously standing up to defend this situation. How far can one go in trying to deceive oneself and in trying to deceive the people? All the arguments of the Government hinge on one thing, i.e., the Opposition is likely to pinch, as the Minister for Health and Law said, the abstaining votes. Just because it is contended that the Opposition might pinch the unmarked and blank votes, the Government justify themselves by stealing those votes.

I did not say that.

Where is the moral? Where is the decency of the move?

You mean it is all right for you to pinch votes?

No. I never said so. Mr Mammen, Sir, I say it is contended by the Government. If it is contended by the Government that the Opposition want to pinch the votes, the Government therefore justify themselves by stealing votes. I never said that it was our intention to ask for the blank votes. We have never stated that blank votes are Barisan votes or Opposition votes.

Come, come!

We have never stated that. It is because of a twist in logic that they say we have stated - Mr Byrne rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Dr Sheng Nam Chin resumed his seat.

I did not accuse them of wanting to pinch votes or anything like that. We were accused and I was explaining to them that we were the innocent people and we were accused. So if they call us thieves, they show they have those thievish intentions in their own minds. Is that not fair?

Mr Mammen, Sir, the Minister is either marble-headed or is half asleep. My argument was that just because it was their contention that we wanted to pinch them, they justify themselves by stealing the votes. They do not seem to understand it. Let me come to the point. Why is the Government making such a big fuss about blank votes? Is it because the Government think that more than half the people of Singapore will be casting blank votes? In that case, Mr Mammen, Sir, it is an open admission that the Barisan is able to swing the views and opinions of more than half the people in Singa pore. If that contention is not in the minds of the Government Benches, if they feel that with Radio P.A.P., with all the newspapers, with all the Ministry of Culture vans going around they should easily be able to out-propaganda us; wherein lies the fear that the people will be confused, as I heard one of the Back benchers mutter? If the people are confused, it is because they have been confused by the Government. If it is contended that the Opposition have confused the people, surely, Mr Mammen, Sir, the right thing is for the Government to go and unconfuse the people, so that when it comes to a matter of such national importance as the referendum on merger, the people should be able to make their decision with clear and open minds. Are the Government so sure that despite all their propaganda apparatus they have no chance of winning the hearts and minds of the people, that they must resort to legal looting in order to have one over the people? If that is an open admission, then we will have less to grouse about. Even then, standing here as representatives of the people, we have to stand up to protect the people's rights. The Government keep on harping that if they are a Fascist Government the Barisan Sosialis would not be here. They forgot the time when they themselves were over the other side, in 1958 and the beginning of 1959, when there was a serous move from the then S.P.A. Coalition Government, in conjunction with the then Director of Special Branch, to ban the P.A.P. I believe in one of his sparring episodes with the Member for Anson, the Minister for Health and Law did mention in his open letter to the Straits Times where I became involved. In the period 1958/1959, the greatest danger the P.A.P. faced was proscription by the S.P.A. Government. That was written by the Minister for Health and Law himself. I presume it is an accurate statement, and I presume, being the Minister for Law, he has a lot of evidence and a lot of grounds before he makes such a categorical statement in the Press. Why then, Mr Mammen, Sir, was the P.A.P. not proscribed in 1958/1959? Why was it not banned despite the strong move by the then Government to ban it? Because it is known that under the Constitution, the then Government could do only certain things and could go only that far. I put it to you, Mr Mammen, Sir, that the P.A.P. Government are suffering from the same limitations, although they try to persuade the people that the correct way to fix the Barisan is not to lock them up, as the Member for Cairnhill has frequently challenged them to do so. They contend that in the fight for the hearts and minds of the people of the electorate, to ban the Barisan, to lock up the Barisan leaders is not the right move. That is the strategy they have advocated and that is the reply they have always given to the Member for Cairnhill whenever the hon. Member for Cairnhill, the ex-Hon. Chief Minister, challenges them to lock up a certain portion of the Barisan Sosialis leadership. They have established that fact and today they come and tell us they are not banning the Barisan Sosialis or that they are not limiting the activities of the Barisan Sosialis because they are democratic. They are by no means democratic. We are here, firstly, because we have the right to he here and, secondly, be cause they are trying to avoid a fiasco in the battle for the hearts and minds of the people and they know that the surest way of losing the battle is to close up the Barisan. Surely it is not by their kind-heartedness or good-heartedness that we are here. It is that small light that shines at the edge of the window that inspires them - Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley) rose -

Is it a point of order?

Point of order. Can we come back to the blank and uncertain votes?

I think the hon. Member for Nee Soon has the right to reply to certain points made by the Government Back benches. So far he has made the point clear. If he goes beyond that, I will rule him out of order.

Thank you, Mr Mammen, Sir. As I was saying, there was a little light coming from the corner of the window and the P.A.P. looks at that light -

Where is the light? An hon. Member: Behind you.

Order.

Mr Mammen, Sir, they say some can see the light and some will not see the light -

I see lots of light. [Laughter].

Order.

That is the trouble with the Minister for Health and Law, Sir, He does not understand what is the meaning of seeing the light. So they think that -

You want it to be dark here. 11.15 p.m.

If I wanted darkness to pervade this Chamber, I would not be speaking of light. I am speaking of light because I thought and I hope some sense would permeate into the skulls of some of the Front Benches.

Order. I have made it very clear to the Member for Nee Soon that he has made his point, So far as Members of the Government Benches are concerned. But if he is going into too many details, then he is completely out of order.

Can I just sum up what I meant, because I meant to go slightly further? All I wish to say, Mr Mammen, Sir, is that we are allowed certain flexibilities and certain leeways, certainly not because of the Govern ment's love for democracy. If they loved anything at all, they would love to see the end of the Barisan Sosialis, but certainly not by proscribing it.

Lots of rope to hang yourself.

Ah, ha! Mr Mammen, Sir, when one has lots of rope and the rope is slightly longer than necessary to hang oneself, one can use that rope to tie other people into knots.

Barisan's logic.

If the P.A.P. is seriously thinking that the Barisan Sosialis is tying itself into knots, it would not be so worried about the Barisan. Mr Mammen, Sir, not so very long ago in this Chamber we saw the P.A.P.'s demonstration of how dead duck politicians should be treated; as the Prime Minister used to say, that during the Japanese regime he saw Japanese soldiers practising bayoneting on gunny sacks.

Order. Will the Member for Nec Soon indicate how all this fits in with the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown? I have already said that so far as the Members of the Government are concerned, he has made his point. So would he be good, enough to come back to the amendment so that we can carry on with our debate?

Mr Mammen, Sir, if you will just bear with me. I only meant to say that in the early days of this Session of the Assembly the P.A.P. used to say that the correct way of dealing with has-been political forces or spent political forces was to consider them like gunny bags suspended from crossbars and being bayoneted by Japanese soldiers in the early dawn. But have they been treating the Barisan Sosialis in that manner, Sir? No, they have not. And they try to tell us that the Barisan is in a zugzwang. If the Barisan Sosialis were really in a zugzwang, the Government Benches should just sit down quietly and feel confident and smug about it, and not be worried and extend Assembly sittings till 12 midnight when there is no Press coverage after 8 p.m.

It will be in the papers tomorrow.

Of course, it will not be in the papers tomorrow. When I was speaking from that side, it always got into the papers. That is the essence of parliamentary democracy as practised by the P.A.P. When I was speaking from that side - Mr Mammen, Sir, you must forgive me for being unduly sensitive to your nods and the movements of your head. We who practise the art of medicine detect signs more acutely than the average layman.

Order. I have made my point very clear to the Member for Nee Soon, and if he continues on this line I have to rule him completely out of order.

Thank you, Mr Mammen, Sir. The Hon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister likened the Gov ernment to a father and the electorate as sons. That is a fair enough simile. I will acknowledge it. But then when he went on to justify that blank votes and spoilt votes are votes in favour of the Government, he went a bit too far to suggest the simile of a father asking his children what food they liked. He was saying that if the father was uncertain whether to give his children fish, meat or vegetables, he would ask the Sons whether they should have what particular type of food on the table. Mr Mammen, Sir, I say that if he did that, he would be a very stupid father because children naturally like tasty food, sweetstuff, foods that are full of calories and carbohydrates, but of very little nutritious value. If you let kids have a say in what they should take, they will be sucking sweets all day. A responsible father will not ask his children whether they like this or that, but he will just give that to them. [Interruption.] If the Minister for Home Affairs will bear with me - a responsible government will not go round asking the electorate whether they want to smoke cigarettes, or pipe tobacco, or cigars, because those things should be decided by sensible people. It is only when issues of grave im portance come into the question that it is necessary to have a referendum. After all, we all know that a referendum will cost some $400,000 in this part of the world. So, for the Hon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to suggest similes that are absurd would indicate the absurdity and the bankruptcy of the stand of the Government in that, they have to divert intelligent people into some silly argument. Now, the last speaker from the Government Benches, the Minister for Health and Law, contended that clause 29 is both democratic -

And necessary.

- and necessary. We know that one of the strongest arguments of the Government is that this Bill is a general Referendum Bill meant for general referenda. Today, Sir, when I came into the Chamber I was surprised to find an amendment tabled by the Minister for Home Affairs - to be known as Part VI under the sub-title "DURATION": 'This Ordinance shall cease to have effect on the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.' They now come and tell us that it is a general Referendum Bill. It is a general referendum all right. As soon as the referendum on merger is over, the Bill - it will be an Ordinance then - will also be finished. So is not this Bill a specific Bill produced for a specific purpose as defined by the Hon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development? He remarked just now that any sensible person must always have a motive when he does a thing. He said that in the case of this Bill the motive is to bring about merger with the Federation of Malaya. They go to great lengths to demonstrate to this House that the Bill is a specific referendum Bill. And this amendment here, Mr Mammen, Sir, is concrete proof that the Bill is specific. Yet they keep on repeating their false hood that this is a general Bill. But never mind about that. The merits of the arguments have been recorded in Hansard, and it will be futile for me to repeat those arguments when, as I have said, there is so much schizoid tendency on the Government Front Benches. But let us see why it is necessary to introduce this amendment in relation to clause 29. I venture to suggest, Sir, that the Tunku, who has a lot of say fn these things, has suggested to the P.A.P. Government that clause 29 is unacceptable by the Federation, and that he will only have anything to do with the Bill if that clause is deleted. He has made no pretensions about his views on this clause. He has said so openly. He has at least implied that it is undemocratic. I mean clause 29, Mr Mammen, Sir. And this is but a compromise between the P.A.P. and the Tunku.

Order. All these arguments on Part VI, which is an amendment to be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs, can well be reserved when we come to that particular item.

With due respect, Mr Mammen, Sir, I have made it very clear that I am speaking in relation to clause 29, and I am just touching on this as I am anticipating it. I venture to suggest that the Tunku will have nothing to do with an undemocratic Bill which, after the passage of the Third Reading, will become an Ordinance. And if there is any compromise at all, this Ordinance will be revoked immediately after merger. So that in so far as the Tunku is concerned, he has nothing to do with it. That goes to show, Mr Mammen, Sir, that even the Tunku does not want clause 29. The Tunku is sensible enough to know, that the people should not be cheated, because once they are cheated they lose faith in the whole parliamentary machine.

(In Malay): On a point of order, Sir. Is it reasonable for the Member for Nee Soon to bring up arguments that the Tunku has a part in this referendum Bill, especially in regard to clause 29?

I think before the Member for Nee Soon makes an allegation against a friendly Prime Minister, it is better he is able to produce in this House any concrete evidence to substantiate whether, in fact, the Tunku has dictated to this Government to introduce a new clause. Otherwise he should not. 11.30 p.m.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I had come to the conclusion that the Tunku felt that this Bill was undemocratic -

Order. A point of order has been raised. The hon. Member cannot make a statement imputing that the Federation Prime Minister had a hand in drafting the amendment proposed to be moved by the Minister for Home Affairs.

With great respect, Mr Mammen, Sir, I would not dream of rebuking the Federation Prime Minister. I have never said anything that sounds like a rebuke for the Federation Prime Minister. 11.31 p.m.

(In Malay): If the Barisan Sosialis Member for Nee Soon cannot bring forward reasonable arguments to oppose clause 29, I think it is better that he should not refer to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya in this debate. This is a matter which is coming near to involving the Prime Minister of the Federation in the politics of Singapore.

I have been following this debate. I do agree that it is wrong to involve the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya in this debate. He should be left completely out of this debate.

With great respect, Sir, could I just clarify how I got involved in this, because I do not want any misunderstanding -

Order. The Member has been ruled out of order. I suggest that he go on to another aspect of the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could I have your indulgence to record just one statement? In my speech. I have never rebuked the Tunku.

Order. I think the Member has made that point. He has not rebuked the Tunku. But the most important part of the whole thing is that the Prime Minister of the Federation should never be dragged into a debate of this nature, unless there is specific proof that he has intervened.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that from the amendment proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs, one is able to anticipate that there is some disagreement in some quarters on the whole context of the Bill. The most likely place where disagreement can be recorded would obviously be in clause 29. if one is acute enough politically in one's thinking. Since clause 29 is likely to be the most offending clause, this little bit of amendment could very well be a compromise between negotiating parties so as to put on record -

Order. If the hon. Member is still trying to insinuate what he has insinuated, then I must pull him up and be very serious about it and ask him to cease speaking. I have indicated that that insinuation is wrong, completely out of order, and therefore he must not persist in being out of order.

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me say, in conclusion, that we have built up a fine tradition of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world, seeing that we have only had such a short time to develop it, when other countries have taken centuries. It is my fervent hope. Mr Speaker, Sir, that what we have gained must not be too easily given up. What we have gained so gloriously in the past must not be allowed to be thrown away in order that certain people can sustain their political longevity. Let us not anger the people. Let us not make the people lose faith in the machinery of one man one vote. Let us try to nurture this very sensible form of political ideology to its full growth. In all sincerity, Mr Speaker, Sir, I urge the Government to have second thoughts on clause 29 of the Bill and to consider accepting the amendment moved by our leader.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, it is most democratic to pose the question in a referendum to the people for their decision. But the Opposition are accusing us of being like Hitler. What are they saying? They say that the P.A.P. is no good. Mr Speaker. Sir, we know that Members of the Barisan Sosialis were on very good terms with the P.A.P. not very long ago. But today they say that the P.A.P. is no good. How can they say that? Are they not slapping their own faces? They are deceiving the people and cheating the people when they say that we are not sincere and loyal. It is they who are not loyal to the Party. How then can they he loyal to the people? To be loyal they must not waver. But now they have gone over to the side of the Communists. Maybe in the very near future they may come back. Now a really devoted wife is not married to two husbands. So therefore these people, to be loyal, must be loyal to the Party forever. They must serve the Party loyally, just like a woman who cannot he married to two husbands. Now the Barisan Sosialis is married to the Communists. In the very near future, to whom will they be married? All of them are suspicious of one another. I think they will perish in the near future. Yet they say that we the P.A.P. are going to perish. Is this not nonsense? Is this not deceiving the people? Now the people of Singapore and the Federation want merger. Yet the Barisan Sosialis want to oppose this merger. What is their reason for opposing this? A few years ago, when the British divided Singapore and the Federation, the people in both territories were opposed to the divide-and-rule tactics of the British at that time. Now the people want to be united again. But the Barisan Sosialis want to oppose this merger. What is their reason for this? We know that this is because they want to compete with us for political power and leadership. We are now going to put the question of merger to a referendum. The provisions concerning the blank votes are meant to encourage the people to go and vote. If they want merger, they must cast their vote for merger. If they do not want merger, then they cast their vote for non-merger. How can they say that this is not democratic? If merger materializes, then the people will benefit from it. If merger fails, then it is the people who will fail -

Order. It is getting late, and the Member starts shouting very close to me. He must try to modulate his voice.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I abide by your ruling. If merger fails, then it is the people who will fail. It has nothing to do with the P.A.P., because this is the view of the people. Whether it is right or not will be judged by the people. The people can give their final decision. The Barisan Sosialis is disregarding the intelligence of the people. The mass rallies organised by the Member for Queenstown were attended by only a few people, just like those rallies held by the Lim Yew Hock Government. They did not receive the support of the people. We can say that the mass rallies organised by the Member for Queenstown were a flop. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to rebut the Member for Anson who, speaking a few days ago, accused us of not being loyal and not sincere. It is a matter for re gret that he is not here. But I still want to say that he criticises the P.A.P. Of course, it is right and proper for him to criticise us. The Member for Anson said that he advocated that Singapore should be given to the United Nations as a trust territory.

Point of order.

The point of order being?

Mr Ong Chang Sam: The Member for Tiong Bahru says something about the question of a trust territory by the United Nations. This has nothing to do with clause 29. 11.45 p.m.

I think the point of order is well taken. Unless the Member can indicate how the United Nations has crept into clause 29, if he can satisfy me, he can carry on. If he cannot satis fy me, then perhaps it is irrelevant.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that to you, because the other day he accused us of being insincere and not loyal. But when our country is given to other people to govern, then all our properties will be stolen by others. Therefore, he is not fit to be our representative here. Will you allow me to continue with my speech, Mr Speaker?

Order. I certainly will permit the Member to continue with his speech if he continues to be relevant. I think he has made his point about the United Nations. Let us turn to another point now.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like you to allow me to continue because the Member for Anson has accused us of so many things which are not true. Therefore, I have to rebut or to reply to these accusations. At one time in the Tanjong Pagar by-election, he challenged our Prime Minister to resign from Tanjong Pagan, but later on he backed out. He deceived the people. Yet he said that we the P.A.P. deceived the people. Therefore, it is the Member for Anson who is insincere and not loyal.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in these few days, we have had a very heated debate on the question which is of interest to the whole of the people of Singapore. We can see that not only our benches, but even all the gallery seats are full. Not only this -

Order. I have indicated in the past that in so far as the gallery is concerned, Members should make no direct reference to the gallery. The Member is speaking to the House through the Speaker. That is all.

(In Mandarin): According to the report, in these few days, all the people of Singapore are focusing their attention on the Assembly where the Referendum Bill is being discussed, and not only within this House, as to how the decision will be made on the question which affects the politics of the whole of Singapore. Singapore's record of democracy will also be affected. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Bill there are many clauses which are against the principles of democracy. My Party Chairman and comrades and the majority of the Opposition Members have made very clear remarks that there is no precedent like the provision made by the P.A.P. Government -

Order. I must ask the Member to do what I have just asked the Member for Tiong Bahru to do, that is, to modulate his voice and speak a little softer.

(In Mandarin): On this question, my Party and the majority of the Opposition Members have already said that the Referendum Bill proposed by the P.A.P. Government has no precedent throughout the world. This does not mean that there are many pro visions in this Bill which are against the interests of the people. There are many pseudo democratic expressions here. On the question of the referendum under discussion, the P.A.P. want to have a false merger. They want to cause the realisation of a pseudo merger. We on this side, the majority of our Opposition Members, i.e. the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party, when the Government brought up the White Paper Command Paper 33, we protested very vehemently. At that time, they got the support of the S.P.A. They got their victory in the first round. But what about the people of Singapore? Can they be deceived repeatedly under such circumstances? All the people in Singapore consider the P.A.P. type of merger as a sell-out. Now -

Order. I take it that the Memebr is referring to the White Paper merger proposals when he refers to the P.A.P. sell-out merger. I have already indicated that to refer to the White Paper as a sell-out merger is completely out of order, because it is a reflection on a vote of the House. Therefore, it cannot be referred to as a sell-out.

(In Mandarin): I want to strengthen my point on this present Bill on referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of the whole world today have the right to have democracy. At this time the P.A.P. have arranged for a merger which will be against the interests of the people. They try to put this referendum to test the people's opinion. They use this method "Do you want it? We will let you vote on it and we call it a referendum." And they claim that by doing so it is already a gesture of democracy. But in the Referendum Bill, this type of democracy is not a true one. In clause 5, we have proposed that we should only allow one question to be posed in the referendum instead of two, i.e. whether the people support the White Paper proposals as published in Command Paper 33. The P.A.P. Government have already taken Radio Singapore as their propaganda machinery and they have already said that this type of P.A.P. White Paper merger proposals gives us autonomy in labour and education. They feel that this is already something to be very proud of. They have deprived many citizens of their citizenship right. They mention as an example the Penang/Malacca type of merger by which Singapore citizens will lose their citizenship. Now the P.A.P. Government's attitude can be judged by us, especially in the light of what we have published. We have pub lished the pamphlet called "The Tasks of our present struggle". In page 9, we have described the platform of our policy, which says that the citizens should automatically become citizens of the Federation. There should be proportionate representation in the Central Parliament and Singapore. There should be a general election to let the people decide openly whether there should be a merger with the Federation of Malaya. In other words, before deciding the question, that is, on the date of merger, all Singapore citizens should become citizens of the Federation and at the same time there should be a general election to decide the question -

Order. The Member is now being irrelevant. It is 12 o'clock and I propose to adjourn. 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.