Hansard, 1962-07-03

Resolved, "That the proceedings on the items of business set down for today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight," -.[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the proceedings in Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 5th July, 1962, and that Mr Speaker shall, at that time, forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of any amendment or other matter then under consideration and in the case of any other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by any Member, Mr Speaker shall put only the question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. That the proceedings on the third reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 6th July, 1962. Sir, there have been precedents in the past for applying the guillotine in debates in the House of Commons and, in fact, Mr Asquith, who was formerly Prime Minister in the United Kingdom and at the same time Leader of the Liberal Party, admitted that slowly and reluctantly he had come to the conclusion that "You cannot carry on legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating the time-table as part of our established procedure." More recently on the 25th January in the House of Commons two Bills were debated in the Committee of the whole House. They were the Commonwealth Immigration Bill and the Army Reserve Bill. The debate on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill had proceeded for three days without making any headway. The Army Reserve Bill had been debated for Column : 546 two days without similar results. The consequence of it was that the Government then moved a motion to allot a further three days' debate on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill and a further two days for the Army Reserve Bill. Now in the case of the National Referendum Bill, we have had 12 meetings of the Select Committee discussing various amendments which had been put forward by both sides of the House. Many of these meetings had gone right up to quite late in the evening. Now we are in a Committee of the whole House and this same Bill has already seen through four midnight sittings. However, only 11 clauses to which amendments have been made have been debated. There are still 13 clauses on the Order Paper to which amendments will be moved and debate on which will still have to take place. Mr Speaker, the arguments on the amendments in the National Referendum Bill have not only been adequately aired in Select Committee but also outside this House as well - through forums organised by Radio Singapore and other bodies outside. The notice for the motion which I am moving now was given on Friday, a few minutes before 4 o'clock and I believe that notice was shortly afterwards circulated to Members of the House. Members of the House had ample time to discuss among themselves how to allocate their times for debate on the remaining clauses to which amendments are being moved. All I am asking the House is to agree that the debate in Committee on the remaining clauses of the National Referendum Bill be brought to a conclusion on the 5th of July. That will give the House another three days of debate. I ask the House to agree that the Third Reading of the Bill be allotted one day. The reason is that we do not wish and, in fact, it will be out of order if we were to allow the Third Reading of the Bill to become a Second Reading of the Bill. Arguments which have been put forward during the Second Reading of the Bill and during Committee will be tediously repeated once more; Members Column : 547 will agree that one day is quite sufficient for the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the analogy of the House of Commons given by the Deputy Prime Minister is inappropriate when we direct our minds for a moment to the size of the House in question and the extent of the business it transacts. If we compare ours, Sir, we must recognize that we are not in a similar position as regards the need for economy of time. I am reminded of a story of the American who told a visitor, "Now let us change subways. If we take a bus and take another subway, we will get there ten minutes earlier." And the visitor said, "After having made all that effort, what are you going to do with the ten minutes?" The House of Commons, Sir, has its work to do. This House would be defunct. My understanding is that we will be, if not defunct, at least in suspension because the sittings will be prorogued for this Session. If the Deputy Prime Minister says they need time for their own work, I must confess, Sir, we have had examples, and ample examples, of the capacity of a country to do without them for long periods of time when they are elsewhere at public expense. I think that first ground, Sir, is just a specious excuse. The second ground is that this matter has been debated in Select Committee for 12 days. To be accurate, Sir, seven of those days were given over to representations and five for debate on the representations and the clauses of the Bill. Then let us not forget that we had to deal with the red herring of this being a general Referendum Bill from the first day to the last in Select Committee; and now we are trying to tidy up the faux pas presented to us by this Government. Column : 548 Sir, the third reason given by the Deputy Prime Minister is that the arguments in respect of the Referendum Bill have been enunciated outside. Now, Mr Speaker, that is correct. But what has transpired outside is not in itself a reason why the matter should not be adumbrated in this House. The radio forum cannot replace the Assembly, Sir, It is true, Sir, that through the radio forum perhaps we get to the people directly and with less distortion, particularly when we recognise the fact that not only has the Government sought these midnight sittings in order to prevent adequate expression of the views of the people finding their way to the Press but also, Sir - I do not know if you are conscious of this - that there has been a complete change of personnel in the Press box in so far as the Chinese newspapers are concerned. We no longer have the same political reporters-

Order. I have indicated that the Press box and the Strangers' Gallery have nothing at all to do with matters debated in this Assembly. There must not be any direct reference to anybody in the Gallery, be it the Press Gallery or the Strangers' Gallery.

I am obliged for your guidance, Mr Speaker, but perhaps you will permit me to say that there has been a complete change of personnel of the representatives of the Press dealing with political matters and the context is interesting, Mr Speaker, because until, let us say, yesterday we were not unconscious (even those of us who do not read the vernacular Press) that the Nanyang Siang Pau, the Sin Chew Jit Poh, and the Utusan Melayu were three papers that were representing to some extent the Opposition points of view. As I say, my understanding is that there has been a change of personnel of two of those newspapers, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh. Mr Speaker, the fourth reason given was that we must not permit the Third Reading to be a tedious repetition. There is a very delicate balance between the need to maintain in this House the constitutional right of Members to express their views and the need to protect the Chamber from tedium. Column : 549 I do not think in fairness, Sir, that any of us can complain that in discharging your particular responsibility in that field we have suffered tedium. Surely the Government can leave it to you, Mr Speaker, to prevent tedious repetition. I would like to say for myself, Sir, that in so far as the Committee sitting up to Thursday night is concerned, I am not complaining that inadequate time is given. I do say I am unhappy at the suggestion of the guillotine in respect of the matter which indirectly affects our future, where the dishonesty of the Government has to he exposed and re-exposed, and where it is hoped that the public reaction which comes through as a result of that exposure may have some effect upon the Government's conduct. But what I am more than disturbed, Mr Speaker, is that they are limiting the Third Reading itself to one day. In effect, it may well take more, Sir, if the Second Reading ends before Thursday night. But the fact is there are two motions which, read together, suggest that they want to limit the Third Reading to one day. It may well be sufficient. But, on the other hand, this is the point where you gather all the efforts together and you try and present a coherent picture of how the provisions of this Bill are going to work in the context of a merger referendum, and how inappropriate it is and how there exists the flexibility for dishonest manoeuvre. Sir, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there would be several Members on both sides of the House who would wish to speak at that stage. It may well be that eight hours would be adequate. But I say that these motions are un necessary. There has been no indication that there has been undue delay in dealing with the clauses so far. The Deputy Prime Minister speaks of numbers. He must also notice the gravity, apart from clause 29, Sir, which is now the major clause before us - clauses 28 and 29 - I cannot conceive that we should take very long with reference to the other clauses. In fact, Sir, I can conceive the possibility that we may well finish the Bill before Friday night. But I do say that it is unfortunate to approach us on the basis that the Government have a right to limit the freedom of speech of the Opposition because they do not like what is taking place, and they are afraid of the effect outside, which seems to be what in fact is motivating the Government in the context of this particular Bill. I would say. Mr Speaker, Sir, even now it is not too late to withdraw this motion, and if necessary, Mr Speaker, to bring it again on Thursday when the picture would be clearer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of the excuses put up by the Deputy Prime Minister. there is no justification whatsoever for the Government to want to put a time limit on the debate on the Referendum Bill. There are only 13 more clauses to be debated. Yet we find that the Government want to limit the time of our debate on the Bill. We in the Barisan Sosialis deplore this attitude of the Government, and we consider that this is yet another attempt of the P.A.P. Government to impose their -

Fascist!

- one-man majority parliamentary dictatorship in Singapore. Sir, considering the gravity of the Bill before us, one would have thought that, on this particular occasion at least, the Government would give us really a full and frank discussion in the House. But what has happened? The P.A.P. are now afraid that further exposures will take place, and they want to guillotine the debate. Sir, in view of the dishonesty and distortion of the P.A.P. Ministers-

Cannot you change the record for once?

- we in the Barisan Sosialis want more time and facilities so that the people can be properly and more fully informed. You have seen how the Government rejected our amendments in clauses 6 and 13. We asked for more time for canvassing Column : 551 so that we could better inform the people. But the Government have unreasonably rejected our amendments, in spite of the weight of evidence that we produced and in spite of the precedents that we quoted the world over. We must not forget also the restrictions the Government intend to impose on the Opposition in the way of facilities for canvassing in clause 41. And now while we are still debating this important Bill, there is this motion to guillotine our debate. Where then is this full, free and frank discussion which the Ministers have promised? Not only promised but repeatedly promised. In the first place, Sir, debate on the Bill has been unnecessarily pushed to the late hour of 12 midnight every night. Now, the P.A.P. want to restrict our debate to only another three days - less than three days now. It gives me the feeling that if the P.A.P. could possibly help it, there would have been no debate whatsoever on this referendum. But since the P.A.P. cannot completely shut out publicity on the Bill, they intend now to cut down publicity as much as possible. For us in the Opposition, debate in the Legislative Assembly, Sir, and its report in the papers, is one of our most important means of communication with the public. The P.A.P. have limited our rallies only to divisions where we have our Assemblymen. They have also limited our time of rallies to two hours, that is, from 5 o'clock to 7 o'clock in the afternoon. Lately, Sir, the Council of Joint Action asked to hold rallies in certain areas, but we have again been refused. The P.A.P., on the other hand, have spent large sums of public money on P.A.P. propaganda. They have also the radio, Rediffusion and other -

On a point of order.

Point of order.

The motion I am moving is very simple. It relates to sittings in this Chamber. I am asking for a guillotine to be applied to the debate on the Bill in this Chamber. We are not in any way stopping the Member for Queenstown nor the Barisan Sosialis from holding their meetings outside. Column : 552

I understood from the Member for Queenstown that that is exactly what he is complaining about - that the meetings are not being allowed outside. Therefore, the point made by the Member for Queenstown is that this Bill needs all the publicity it requires. Therefore, he is speaking against this guillotine motion, and one of his grounds for speaking against this guillotine motion is that in his mind there has not been sufficient publicity I think he is in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir. they had Malaysia Week and the Grand Prix. They are putting up banners, posters, advertisements, shows-

You are jealous.

The Prime Minister even spent $39,000/- of our State money in order to publicise Malaysia to certain Afro-Asian countries.

The same countries you were voting for before!

Yet now the Deputy Prime Minister wants to guillotine the debate so that we cannot fully inform the public of the utter dishonesty and the cheating of the P.A.P. Sir, we in the Opposition do not have all these facilities which are at the disposal of the Government. We cannot even put up posters without the kind permission of the P.A.P. Ministers. The Government want to publicise their sell-out outside the country. But it looks as if we are going to be denied the right of debate inside the House.

Four days!

Sir, when there is a debate in the Legislative Assembly, the newspapers at least will be able to inform the country of what we say - at least whatever they care to publish. But if there is no Assembly debate, even our statements to the Press are mutilated and completely suppressed. I have already related to you, Sir, how the circulation of the powerful Straits Times and the Sunday Mail was even threatened - Column : 553

Order. I am watching this debate very carefully. If the hon. Member for Queenstown goes into those details, then he is straying away from the motion. He has, up to now, been relevant. But if he goes further into details of that nature, then I think he will be irrelevant.

I will not touch on that part of the debate again, Sir. Then the Deputy Prime Minister talked of radio forums and discussions in other forums which certain civic organisations may organise. But I wish to say here, Sir, that this forum of Radio Singapore, Radio P.A.P., is all a sham and a humbug- An hon. Member: You attend all of them.

-because-

You were the sham and the humbug.

-while the P.A.P. Ministers and their henchmen have been allowed full publicity over the radio to utter falsehoods day in and day out, we have been denied the same privilege of- An hon. Member: Of what?

-giving the other side of the picture to the people.

Uttering falsehoods.

Every day there is political propaganda over the radio, blurting out falsehoods. We have already given notice of a motion to condemn the Government for maliciously distorting the stand of the Opposition on the merger issue. But the only answer to our request for radio time was a 'no'. The P.A.P. always talk of open confrontation, yet - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of order, Sir. The Member for Queenstown alleges that his request for radio time has Column : 554 been refused. This is a highly inaccurate misrepresentation of the Government's reply to his request.

That is not a point of order if voiced that way. But I was hoping that the Minister would indicate that it is irrelevant. It is, in fact, irrelevant to the motion. Now the Member for Queenstown is embarking on details which will open out a debate within a debate. It is wrong. He can just mention it in passing, and that is all.

I only mentioned it in passing, Sir, I did not go into details, The P.A.P. always talk of open confrontation; yet in this House, where there is full opportunity for open confrontation, our P.A.P. Ministers want to run away from the debate and want to stop us from talking. In fact, even in the radio forum, the P.A.P. dare not send representatives other than the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister was not here the other day, they dared not have the forum. They dare not send the Minister for Home Affairs or the Minister for Health and Law, although they both were in the Select Committee on the Referendum Bill.

I thought you wanted the pleasure of my company!

I am just wondering if it is because the other Ministers cannot twist with the same agility as the Prime Minister. Sir, I just want to say this - that we are here as elected representatives of the people. An hon. Member: Resign!

It is our duty to speak on behalf of the electorate - An hon. Member: Shame!

- and we stand here to claim that right.

Shame!

Do not let the P.A.P. deny this basic right of Assemblymen in Singapore. I do not have to pay heed to those sneers from people who do not know what they are talking about, Column : 555 like chaps from Geylang West, if he should go back to Geylang West, he would lose his deposit. An hon. Member: Queenstown?

The P.A.P. want to make it that if we speak here we speak on sufferance and by the grace of their P.A.P. lordships. If it should please their P.A.P. lordships that we sit, then we sit and be allowed to speak. If it should not please their P.A.P. lordships, then guillotine - no more talking. That is their attitude. That is their one-man dictatorship in this Singapore Parliament. I just want to ask the P.A.P. Why this hurry? Why this indecent haste? What have you got to be afraid about? Do you not like people to know what this Bill is all about?

Order. The Member for Queenstown is too prone to lose his temper in this Chamber. He is addressing the Chair. I hope he is not losing his temper with the Chair. If he remembers that, probably he will keep his temper.

I beg your pardon, Sir. Of course, every time I say 'you' I mean the Ministers opposite. [Laughter]

Order.

We are here, Sir, debating a very important Bill. This Bill, when passed into law, will be used to decide the future not only of the 1.7 million people in Singapore, but also of generations and generations to come.

Like Abraham again!

And we are here to fight constitutionally and peacefully for the interests of the people. Yet the P.A.P. want to deny us this basic and inalienable right of the people. They look as if they want to insist on this guillotine, and that they do not want the people to fight constitutionally for their rights. That is the provocation which I have mentioned many a time. Sir, even long before the debate started on this Referendum Bill, newspapers had been predicting that possibly the debate on this Bill might well last 20 days. Column : 556

You are going over all that?

They definitely predicted a marathon debate, and why not?

You want to break all records? An hon. Member: Nobody is stopping anybody from speaking.

Should we not have the fullest possible time to discuss a Bill of the importance of the Referendum Bill? Should we not have the right, and should not Government allow us the fullest opportunity for debate? Is it not the duty of the Government to allow the fullest possible time for debate? Why are the P.A.P. Ministers afraid of debate? Of course, they know we will expose them one by one. I have already exposed their original referendum plot to pick safe seats for the P.A.P. Ministers -

Order. That has nothing to do with this motion. I think probably the Member for Queenstown will have perhaps one or two opportunities more in mentioning that plot when we go into Committee.

The thing is that the P.A.P. have many skeletons in the cupboard and they are afraid of exposure. That is why they want to cut short this debate.

That is why we extend it to midnight.

If the P.A.P. really had the interests of the people at heart, they would not just think of their own selves, but must give full opportunities to everybody in this Chamber to speak his fullest. All this talk of the Deputy Prime Minister about repetition and repetitious arguments is sheer nonsense. How can the P.A.P. know what the arguments will be until we come to the clause?

You have it produced one by one.

I suppose, Sir, this is typical of the P.A.P. arrogance. They want to arrogate unto themselves even the duties of the Chair. They want Column : 557 to tell the Chair what arguments are repetitious and what are not. Sir, we have complete faith in your judgment and-

Order. I would suggest that the Member for Queenstown does not drag the Speaker into this controversy. I do not think the Leader of the House when he said what he said meant to cast a reflection on the Chair at all. He was just expressing his own view that the debate has become tedious, which, of course, is not the view of the Speaker. Up to this extent, it has not become tedious repetition, but there has been repetition.

Sir, we contend that this guillotine which the Government wants to impose on the debate is both unreasonable and unnecessary, and is merely an attempt to shut off public gaze from the debate in this Assembly. But, Sir, there may be something more sinister than merely trying to cut off the public gaze from the debate in this Assembly. It may be that the Prime Minister is working on a set time schedule to sell out the rights of the people of Singapore. We all understand how eager and anxious the Prime Minister is to railroad merger. He has repeatedly said that the earlier merger takes place, the better.

Yes, of course.

Yes, of course. Because without merger, that will be the end of the P.A.P. Ministers, and with each passing day, the fortunes of the P.A.P. will be sinking deeper and deeper-

It is the other way round.

- into the mud and mire of shame and dishonesty.

Where do you find such phrases?

We know, Sir, that there are certain forces that are working on a set time schedule - An hon. Member: What are the forces? Column : 558

- to enslave the people of Singapore. If the P.A.P. - especially the Prime Minister - want to guillotine the debate on this Bill in order that they may time the rigging of the referendum to fit in with the colonial scheme of things and to keep their word with the colonialists to sell the rights of the people of Singapore on time -

I hear no more of neo-colonialists.

- then their crime and treachery will be the more disgusting, and the more will they earn the condemnation of this generation and the generations to come. I urge that the P.A.P. withdraw this guillotine motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister moved two motions which were, in fact, unnecessary because if they were not passed, the Members sitting on our side might still enjoy two or three days more of democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. have been boasting that the purpose of their Government is to enable the people to understand parliamentary democracy. But I would like to say that they have not practised this during the present debate on the Referendum Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Back benches, there is an elderly gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. He has more than once advised the P.A.P. Government not to behave in the way they were doing - in a hot-tempered and impetuous manner.

Order. I do not know how this story has anything at all to do with the motion before the House. How can the advice of a Parliamentary Secretary to his Government be related at all to this guillotine motion?

(In Mandarin): That is relevant, otherwise I would not have mentioned it. If it is not relevant, I apologise to you.

I would like to know how that is relevant. Column : 559

(In Mandarin): I believe that it must be relevant to the matter under discussion because the Parliamentary Secretary did say that if one wants to snap a bamboo stick one has to burn it to such an extent that it can be easily snapped. Of course, it would he difficult to do so without using a fire to burn it first. I hope on the question of merger and on the National Referendum Bill, the P.A.P. Government will pay heed to the moral of the story given by the elderly gentleman to them. 3.21 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson was the first one from the Opposition to stand up and criticise the Government for introducing this motion before the House. In a short but well-reasoned speech, he pointed out that there was no necessity for introducing the guillotine motion because he believed that all the remaining amendments would have been disposed of by Friday. I agree with him. I think the remaining amendments would have been disposed of by Friday. The only amendment which is very controversial out of the remaining amendments is the one that is now before the House - the amendment on the blank and uncertain votes. Many Members of the Barisan Sosialis have already spoken, and unless they want to keep on repeating what they have been saying, there would not be much time wasted. I would have supported the Member for Anson, but after listening to the lengthy speech of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis who at every step in this Assembly turns every little thing into a political issue between his Party and his ex-comrades, I find it difficult to allow any intention on the part of the Barisan Sosialis to turn this House into a death struggle between them and the P.A.P. Sir, if the Member for Queenstown had any sense of wanting to save time for his Party to attack the P.A.P. on the important issues which he contends are at stake, he would not have wasted about 25 minutes of valuable time arguing on points that could not hold water at all, other than for the reason that if the P.A.P. want to play funny, then the Column : 560 Barisan Sosialis will play funny. If the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis have any monkey business, may I suggest that they take it outside this Assembly? Go and do it outside, but do not try to do it in an august Assembly whose Members have to sit here and listen to nothing but-

Trash.

- attacks of personal vindictiveness from one side against the other side. I would suggest, for the expeditious disposal of the business before us, that even the Government side should not try to interrupt unnecessarily any speech of the Barisan Sosialis. If they want to have as much fun as they want, let them have it, and give as much as you want to give when it comes to your turn. But do not try to prolong the debate unnecessarily by interrupting any speaker from the Barisan Sosialis or from the P.A.P. Let us get down to the serious business of the day. We still have many, many hours up to Friday and if we just sit down and leave only the leaders to fight over the matter, it could even be settled before Friday.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is of a procedural nature and no political principles are involved. Our stand, from the beginning when the National Referendum Bill was introduced, is that there are actually two very controversial issues to be fought out, namely, our amendment to clause 5, and the controversial question of blank votes. We consider the other clauses as of lesser importance and consequence. As a matter of fact, we feel that we will have sufficient time to discuss not only the Bill but also the motion of the Member for Anson which will be debated later. However, Sir, since there are other Members of the Opposition who might have new material to bring up in the next few days, we, as Members of the Opposition, have to support them because we want them to be given more time to put forward their views.

May I just briefly say that I think it is wrong to consider this motion as one that is essentially procedural? Sir, I think all of us realise that the purpose of having this Column : 561 guillotine motion is basically political. The Member for Queenstown has already stated the reason why the Government seeks to impose this guillotine. It is to make sure that not more than what is necessary is said in the shortest possible time. Sir, we oppose this motion for the reasons that the Member for Queenstown has given, and I do not propose to go over them again. I would like to ask the Government to explain why, in fact, they want to try and stop the debate on these amendments by Friday. Sir, we are all here to discuss matters affecting our people, and I am quite certain that all of us can find sufficient time - if the Government wants to sit up till midnight, we can sit up till midnight - to discuss matters fairly so that the issues are made clearer to the people and there will be no confusion and misunderstanding. The Deputy Prime Minister has quoted precedents - like the Minister for Law who quoted precedents of referenda held elsewhere - which are irrelevant, from my point of view, because the matter we are discussing at the moment is so grave that I think to use their majority to impose a guillotine is completely unfair to the Opposition, and it is even more unfair to the people. Sir, we are quite prepared to play the game according to the rules. The rules are made by the P.A.P. Government. Although they have a weak majority, they are in a position to make whatever rules they want to make. But we tell them quite plainly that whatever rules they make, we will play according to them. If we op pose them, we may expose the unfair and unjust principle underlying them. Nevertheless, we will play the game according to the rules they make. We tell them, Sir, irrespective of the rules, irrespective of the extent to which the rules are unfair, the final losers are going to be none other than the P.A.P. Government themselves. 3.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to my mind, parliamentary democracy does not mean that all the Members in an Assembly must speak on every possible point of issue that comes before the House. Column : 562

It does not mean that it wants you not to talk.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir, it does not mean that one should not talk. It also does not mean that one should not be stopped from talking. What it means to the Member for Thomson is his point of view, but to my way of thinking[Interruption]-

Order.

- parliamentary democracy means this, that every possible point of view should be put to the House. And if that can only be achieved by a number of persons speaking, then it is necessary that those persons should speak. But when every possible point of view on a particular topic has been presented, Mr Speaker, Sir, does parliamentary democracy necessitate all those views to be repeated ad nauseam until everything is so clogged and befuddled that the whole House is confused? Mr Speaker, Sir, we will have had today eight full hours of debate; tomorrow another eight, and the day after another eight. We will have had 24 hours of debate on the Referendum Bill. To my mind, the issue now before the House on the Referendum Bill is possibly the only important issue left. The rest are relatively unimportant, and I dare say could be disposed of in two or three hours. And when this issue now before the House has been disposed of one way or the other, the heat will be taken out of the debate. I predict it, Mr Speaker, Sir. And the Barisan Sosialis, their interest in this Bill will vanish after that. Mr Speaker, I have been listening to this debate. Without in any way derogating from your authority, if I may say so and if I may be so bold as to say it, every argument has been repeated. I will not say it has become tedious, but it has been repeated. Does parliamentary democracy mean that the leaders in the Opposition having spoken the rest of the Opposition get up and merely repeat ad nausea in other words what their leaders have already said? To my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not parliamentary democracy. To my way of thinking, that is a sure way to bring to an end parliamentary democracy.

On a point of elucidation. Column : 563 Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

If I might ask the Member for Farrer Park whether he will agree with me that whether it is parliamentary democracy or unparliamentary democracy, it is absolutely necessary that our people are fully aware of the pros and cons of an issue, especially on an issue which affects their lives, their children's lives, and the lives of generations to come?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I entirely agree with the Member for Thomson that these debates are debates conducted not for the sake of conducting debates but in order that as a result of these debates people outside will read the debates and come to certain conclusions on the debates, not necessarily the conclusions that we ourselves come to; but at least the facts will be before them, and they themselves can come to certain conclusions on them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the point is this: are we advancing the case any further by repeating the same arguments, and the same facts, time and time again? Parliamentary democracy, to my mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a debate of this nature is not to deliver long speeches written out by somebody else and not understanding what it all means. 3.35 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, in connection with the debate on the National Referendum Bill which has been carrying on for five days - and every day the debate has been reproduced in the newspapers for the consumption of the people of Singapore - I am surprised that when I wake up in the morning I meet my friends in town and elsewhere and they tell me that they are getting fed up with the news in the newspapers about the proceedings in the Assembly, because according to them, this referendum and the merger issue have been fully considered by them, although I am not necessarily influenced by the views and opinions of people outside this Assembly. Mr Speaker, we should take into consideration the fact that we in Column : 564 this Assembly are duty bound to debate all issue which affects the lives of the people of Singapore, but there are other matters which should be looked after too. If we follow the debate which has been carrying on so far, it is really a matter for regret, because the standard of our debates has lowered the dignity of the House to the level of coffee-shop talk, whereas, in fact, we are the elected representatives of the people entrusted to look after their well-being. Where do we stand if our standard of debates has been reduced to that of the coffee-shop talk, as I said earlier on? Every speaker who has risen to speak has risen to speak just for the sake of speaking. So I sincerely hope that although we have parliamentary democracy in this Assembly, we should not bring into it the opinions and views of the people outside and thereby become stooges. For me and my colleagues, Mr Speaker, this motion has our support. So we can say we have exhausted all points, whether they are the Government's or the Opposition's. They have no new points to bring forth. I hope we will preserve the dignity of this House where debates are conducted according to the rules of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, I knew that when I moved this motion I opened myself to the charge that I was trying to gag Members of the Opposition from speaking. Nonetheless, we have to bear in mind that if the business of the House is to proceed expeditiously, then it is obvious that Members who wish to speak must bear on the point and not be repetitious. The Member for Anson has said that the House of Commons procedure is not applicable to this Assembly. He has forgotten, Mr Speaker, that a large part of our Standing Orders is based on procedure which has been in practice for years and years in the House of Commons. In fact, I could even inform the House that in the Federation Parliament, the guillotine is always applied and that there are allocated days for discussion on items on the Order Paper. That is the main reason why business is proceeded with expeditiously in the Federation Parliament. Column : 565 It is not as the Member for Thomson has said that it is the P.A.P. that makes the rules. The Standing Orders are made by this House. There is the Standing Orders Committee drawn from both sides of this House, and we are just moving this motion according to the Standing Orders. Altogether there will be a total of seven days for debate on the National Referendum Bill in Committee. Members will also be aware that in Committee stage any Member can stand up again and again to speak. There is no rule debarring a Member from standing up and repeating himself. In fact, during the past few days we have had a disgusting exhibition of the Barisan Sosialis repeating the same old tune like a gramophone record that has been so scratched that the needle has now got stuck in the groove. They have no more new tunes to sing. What I would say to the Barisan Sosialis is that they are trying to filibuster, to delay this Bill from going through. If we go through the records of the meetings in the Committee stage, I think - if I am correct - the Member for Anson must have stood up nearly thirty times during the past four days of debate.

They were never irrelevant.

The Members of the Barisan Sosialis side stood up more than thirty times also. Nobody has stepped them from speaking. In fact, the reason why the sitting has been extended to midnight is to permit Members of the Opposition more time to state their case. We give them more time to state their case, hut they say we are undemocratic. We allow them to hold meetings outside, but they say we are undemocratic. Such is the tortuous and crooked thinking of the Barisan Sosialis. But finally, Mr Speaker, there must be a balance between the demand for time so that this House can proceed with its business and the demand for time for debate. There must be a balance. We agree to that. If I had sprung Column : 566 this motion as a surprise on the House, then I would have been guilty of the charge that we are trying to stop Members in this House from speaking. In fact, this motion provides that the debate on the National Referendum Bill will end at 12 o'clock midnight on Friday. That gives us another four days of debate, including today. The Member for Anson himself has stated that it is even possible that the debate on the Bill will come to an end long before Friday. Therefore, I do not see any reason why he opposes the motion. He himself has admitted that this motion provides that at the latest, the debate should come to a conclusion by Friday at 12 o'clock. He himself has agreed that it might end long before that time. So I see no reason why he should stand up to oppose this motion, unless, of course, it is merely that because he feels that he is on the Opposition side, so he just has to oppose anything that we propose.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

I am indebted to the Minister, if the Minister had listened, Sir, he would not have made it necessary for me to repeat what was said. I said that it may well be in the natural course of events that the debate would termi nate well before midnight on Friday, that in the circumstances this motion was unnecessary, and that I do not like the approach of the Government whereby they arrogate to themselves the right to indulge in a closure motion prematurely and unnecessarily in a matter of such vital importance to the people.

I am obliged to the Member for Anson for his clarification. But I have also cited precedents that took place in the House of Commons. I have cited that only recently in January this year, the House of Commons imposed a guillotine on the debate in Committee on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill and on the Army Reserve Bill, and for the very same reason - that progress was not being made on those two Bills. The Members were being repetitious. You yourself, Mr Speaker, had at one stage during the debate in Committee Column : 567 even suggested that a closure motion should be made. I think it was on the first amendment. I know that Members of the House like to hear themselves heard. But perhaps they could be also more forbearing to other Members. If there are new points of view being put forward and new arguments which can be advanced, then we are quite prepared to listen to them. But when they become tendentious and repetitious with abuse creeping in between arguments, I do not think it is fair to impose upon Members of this House a recital of what has been said before, again and again. Lastly, may I point out to Members of the House that in the Committee of Supply, the Standing Orders specially provide for allocation of time. There is a time-table for debate on the items of expenditure, otherwise, Mr Speaker, you and I will not be getting our salaries and neither will Members of this House be getting their allowances. We could have debated in the Committee of Supply on and on until we cover 365 days in the year and we will never come to a conclusion. It was precisely in order that the business of Supply should come to a conclusion that we have Standing Orders which specially provide for a time-table. It may be that in our present Standing Orders, we do not have a time-table in respect of other items of business. But it is fair to the House that we should also try to be considerate to other Members of the House who have responsibilities outside. Members of the Government have their business to conduct besides attending sittings in this Chamber. So, Mr Speaker, I really see little objection from the arguments put forward by the Member for Anson or from the Barisan Sosialis as to why we should not proceed with this motion. I think the most pertinent point that has been made in this debate has come from the Member for Farrer Park who has quite correctly pointed out that if we were to go on at this rate, it would not elevate parliamentary democracy, but it would kill parliamentary democracy. As he has replied to the Member for Thomson, parliamentary democracy does not mean permitting a Member to Column : 568 come back to the Chamber reading scripts prepared by somebody else Outside and these are very lengthy scripts indeed. An hon. Member: He is on your side.

I respect a Member whether he is on this side or on the Opposition side if he is a stable man.

Have you?

Of course, if the Member for Anson were equally stable, I would respect him. In fact, until only recently, I had great respect for the Member for Anson. But when on certain occasions he has gone into a tantrum, then I am afraid my respect for him has somewhat diminished. But if the hon. Member wishes to uphold parliamentary democracy - as I am quite sure he wants to - he should support the Member for Farrer Park. Question put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes. 16; Abstention, Nil; Absent, 6. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammad Akib. Miss. Buang bin Omar Lee Siew Choh. Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Chee Seng. Lingam, S. V. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, D. S. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Kuan Yew. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Abstentation. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Nil. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Rajah, A. P. Hoe Puay Choo, Ramaswamy, S. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Koh, C. H. Mrs. Rajaratnam, S. Ayes.

(contd) Noes.

(contd) Tan Kia Gan. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Thio Chan Bee. Madam. Toh Chin Chye. Sheng Nam Chin. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed Yong Nyuk Lin. Motion accordingly agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings in Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 5th July, 1962, and that Mr Speaker shall, at that time, forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of any amendment or other matter then under consideration and in the case of any other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by any Member. Mr Speaker shall put only the question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill. That the proceedings on the third reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at 12 o'clock midnight on the 6th July, 1962.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee. 4.03 p.m. Clause 28-(contd.)

We are on clause 28. An amendment has been moved, 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." As I have indicated, this opens out a debate on what has been called the "blank votes" clause, that is the next clause, clause 29, and the debate will also extend over the first two amendments to that clause - one in 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". Column : 570 And the other amendment is 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, since the debate yesterday on the blank and uncertain votes, I would like to tell the Government Members that although they have raised many points, they have not been able to give reasons to justify the provisions for blank and uncertain votes. If they want to do this without considering any of our amendments, then this referendum has lost its meaning. At the same time, this referendum is a democratic way of doing things. We all know in our society - that is, one elector, one vote - many unconstitutional things can be done in the name of democracy. We can say that the P.A.P. are guilty of this. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, the P.A.P. was elected as a democratic Party. Today, the referendum is put forward as a democratic measure. But is this a genuine or a false democratic measure that now confronts us? We see that there are many clauses in the Referendum Bill which are undemocratic. But the democratic measures of the P.A.P. have the support of only 26 elected representatives in this Assembly. Mr Speaker, Sir, some people who have a bigger force ask those people who have a smaller force to vote for them; such a democracy is just like the Lim Yew Hock Government's democracy. The democracy practised by the P.A.P. nowadays is no more different. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say this. The P.A.P. put up their merger proposals and use this Referendum Bill to force the people to vote for them. Mr Speaker, let me quote the Nanyang Siang Pau of 26th April, 1962, regarding the Prime Minister's radio forum. It was reported in page 5 of the local news page. The Prime Minister, replying to a reporter's question on merger, said, "At the moment, we are only concerned with an All-Party discussion. If there are any plans, then the societies can raise such problems and discuss them." This was on merger. The Prime Column : 571 Minister said that this was a very good proposition. Of course, all the societies and associations should have an opportunity to raise problems if it was necessary, and then they could send their memoranda on the Referendum Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Prime Minister said seemed very democratic. Many societies and associations sent in their memoranda on this Referendum Bill. Now because time is pressing, I am not going to speak at length on this. I am going to speak on just a few cultural societies. The memoranda sent in by such bodies as the Nanyang University Students' Union, and economic and political societies, have three points which are worth considering. The first point is that the undemocratic provisions, especially clause 29, should be abolished. Secondly, there should only be one question posed-

Order. I think all Members of the Assembly have received this memorandum. All the Member should say, I think, is that the memorandum urges this, that and the other, but not to read from the memorandum. I do not think we should be inflicted with that. 4.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will not quote it then. I am sure the Ministers have received the memorandum. About this Referendum Bill, the provision for unmarked votes and blank votes which are deemed to be in favour of the Government is very dangerous. Let me quote an example. In the past the Lim Yew Hock Government sold Christmas Island. If Lim Yew Hock had been as smart as the P.A.P., he would have posed two questions: "Do you want to sell Christmas Island," or "ho you want to sell Singapore?" Both questions would have been a sell-out. Of course, there would be people who would have neither of these questions and therefore would cast blank votes. Lim Yew Hock then could have utilised this provision and would have taken these votes as in support of the question. Column : 572 Today the P.A.P. has shown itself to be undemocratic. The people of Singapore do not trust the Party any more. For instance, the fox, which is a cunning animal, is hated by all its kind and they do not want to befriend him. And this fox put on a sheep's clothing to deceive the other animals, but he did not succeed. In the course of the debate over the past few days the P.A.P. said that they wanted to pose two questions to the people for them to decide. But both these questions are in opposition to the wishes and interests of the peo ple. The people, therefore, might cast blank votes or abstain from voting. And they now say that such votes are to be taken as votes in favour of the Government. This is not democracy. The Member for Delta, who is the wife of the Minister for Home Affairs, quoted an article in the local news-page of the Nanyang Siang Pau of today's date. She quoted: 'They have no way out. They have become the compradores of the colonialists.' br>Mr Speaker, Sir, if we were to unite all the people of Singapore and get them to oppose the Government's sell-out, then they could accuse us of such behaviour. But in the past when Lim Yew Hock succeeded in a partial -

Order. The Member must know that he must not refer to a Member of this House by his name but by his constituency.

(In Mandarin): I am sorry. I am grateful for your ruling. In the past when the Labour Front Government had a Chief Minister in Mr Marshall, i.e. the Member for Anson now, he organised an All-Party Delegation on the Constitutional Talks. At that time all Parties represented in the Assembly were included in the delegation, because the interests of the people of Singapore had to be protected irrespective of the views of political Parties. And so we must all unite together to oppose this sell-out.

Order. Can the hon. Member indicate what he means by a "sell-out"? Column : 573

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the talk that is going on in coffee-shops and market places, the talk that the P.A.P. is selling out the country and the people by merger and that this merger is detrimental to the interests of the people of Singapore.

Order. Can the hon. Member explain how all that is relevant to the blank votes?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, it appears to be unconnected with the blank votes, but if you will allow me to go a little bit deeper, I shall be able to show the relevance. Let me quote an example, padi planting. If you do not sow seeds, you cannot get padi. That is why there is a connection. The connection comes here: if there was no Paper Cmd. 33, there would not be a National Referendum Bill, and so there would not be so much debate now. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just mentioned to you what the Member for Delta has said. She has accused us of this and that. It may be that we have political differences with the Government Benches, but if a fire should break out on their side we would carry water over and put out the fire. Therefore, if the basis of the Government's policy is in the interests of the people, we will support the Government, but not otherwise. If the P.A.P. were to introduce measures in the interests of the people, then they should face realities. And if they were democratic, then they should change their attitude towards these blank votes. If a voter is very dissatisfied with their attitude, then he might just draw a line across the voting paper or he might even draw a tortoise on it. This action, therefore, reflects the attitude of the people towards this provision. The Government should face realities and not waste any time. They are afraid of being exposed. But we, being representatives of the people, struggle for the interests of the people and relay the opinions of the people in this House. I believe democracy means just this. I should emphasise that if the Government were to practise real democracy, Column : 574 then blank votes and uncertain votes should be considered void. If the Government insist on such votes as being in favour of merger, then it is not right. 4.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): During these last few days we have been debating the National Referendum Bill, in the course of which everybody can see clearly that the provisions in the Bill are undemocratic as well as unreasonable, barbaric and dictatorial. The P.A.P. wants to adulterate the views of the people by means of the passage of this Bill and also by means of carrying out its phoney merger. Mr Mammen, everybody can see the exposure of the P.A.P.'s undemocratic National Referendum Bill. The undemocratic provisions have appeared glaringly in the eyes of the people. After the heated debates, the P.A.P. Government cannot explain and cannot advance any arguments to substantiate their points. They cannot justify themselves, especially on the clause which provides for blank and uncertain votes. Yesterday in the Assembly the Ministers and Members of the Government were not able to explain, to substantiate and to justify such undemocratic provisions. Now, let me quote what they said. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs said that blank votes belong to the category which support the decision of the Assembly. When people cast blank votes it means that they support the decision of the Assembly. Now that is not very democratic. He said that this was so, but what were the reasons advanced by him? He was unable to give any reasons to substantiate his arguments. How could he convince the people? The Minister for Health and Law said - let me quote his words: "To let the voter choose from two or more questions and if he cannot make up his mind, then he will be deemed to accept the opinion of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred in the referendum. This is not undemocratic." Column : 575 Now, what were his reasons? He was also unable to give any reason. The Government are only trying to turn things upside down. When something is black, they say it is white, and when it is white, they say it is black. Mr Mammen, we all know and all the people of Singapore know that there have never been such provisions in the world which provide that blank votes and uncertain votes are to be construed as votes in support of the Government's phoney merger, because everybody knows that such blank votes and uncertain votes should be construed as void votes or votes not in support of any measure. We all know that in democratic countries, when people are faced with two unreasonable or unacceptable questions, the people will have the democratic right to abstain from voting. Mr Mammen, I believe you also know that there were trade unions, rural organisations, hawkers' organisations and students' associations which gave their representations to the Select Committee, but their views were not accepted by the P.A.P. Ministers. They also know that in the streets, in the coffee-shops, everywhere and at every corner, people have been talking about this undemocratic Bill. They all hate the dictatorship of the P.A.P. We also know that outside this House there are five political Parties - the Workers' Party, the United People's Party, the Liberal Socialist Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the United Democratic Party. They form the Council of Joint Action against the P.A.P.'s undemocratic National Referendum Bill in order to check the P.A.P.'s evil actions, to explode the myth of the P.A.P.'s accusation that all those who oppose the P.A.P. are Communists or pro-Communists or their stooges, and also to protest against the Government's other acts, such as pushing through their National Referendum Bill and their phoney merger. Mr Mammen, you will also remember that on the 24th of June, the Workers' Party at an All-Party mass rally at Anson, the Secretary-General of the S.P.A., Mr Lim Kim Chuan, talked Column : 576 about the undemocratic ways of the P.A.P. in regard to the National Referendum Bill and about certain undemocratic provisions in the Bill. Mr Lim Kim Chuan said that the S.P.A. were not as stinking as the P.A.P. It would appear that he was also not satisfied with such a provision in the Bill. Those S.P.A. Members in this House - after you have heard the words of your Secretary-General, what reflections do you have on those words? You have clearly understood that this Bill is not democratic. Why then do you keep silent and do not want to speak out, or dare to stand up to reflect the feelings and the opinions of your Party which has expressed its dissatisfaction with such pro visions as contained in this Bill. Mr Mammen, since the P.A.P. have said that the White Paper merger is in the best interests of the people, why then do the Government not want to pose only one question, specifically on the merger issue for the people to decide? Why should the Government provide such undemocratic provisions here and try to pose two unreasonable questions to let the people make their choice? When the people do not want these two unwanted things, they can only cast blank votes or abstain from voting. Then the P.A.P. would try to construe such votes as votes in support of them, as though they want to win both ways. In the past the Prime Minister has said that the P.A.P. come from the people and will go back to the people and be with them; but he has now forgotten such words. Were the P.A.P. not elected by the people in the past to become Ministers today? Now they are riding on the heads of the people, doing things their own way and disregarding the views of the people. Before I conclude, I will quote the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. He says there are three factors which go into the making of laws. First is usage; second is the objective circumstances; and, third, the actual effect. I can explain thus: what is the use of this Bill if it is to deceive the people and to pretend democracy? Now what Column : 577 are the circumstances and situations prevailing now? That means that at present the P.A.P. will no longer get the support of the people. They dare not face the people any more. They can only resort to these undemocratic and illegal provisions to suppress the people. Then the first point -what is the effect of this kind of law? It is to adulterate the views of the people in order to force through the P.A.P.'s phoney merger. Finally, let me quote the Member for Tiong Bahru, who said something yesterday. I quote from today's Sin Chew Jit Poh,, page 8, local news. He said: "The merger of the peoples of the two territories, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, is opposed by them. When the British sometime ago divided us, we all rose against them hut now when the people want to merge, they try to oppose it. The provision of blank votes is to encourage the people to vote. These people who oppose it can cast votes to show their opposition, and those who agree to the question can cast votes in support of it. Is it not democratic? The success of the merger is the will of the people and the failure to achieve merger is also the will of the people. Do you mean to say that the people do not know what is right and what is wrong?" Now I will ask: Do you not allow the people to cast votes against the P.A.P.'s White Paper merger proposals? Since he has said so, perhaps he means that they have the intention to allow the people to do so. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Mammen, on this question of unmarked and uncertain votes, I think it is necessary to go back to the history of this clause and the justification for it. Mr Mammen, when the Bill was tabled for First Reading, there was no such provision in the Bill. Soon after we saw amendments moved by the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson for the right of the voters to destroy and deface their ballot papers. They also demanded that such unprecedented and provocative action should go unpunished, as can be seen in their amendments. Column : 578 These amendments were clear documentary evidence confirming the information that the Government have had earlier, that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis-

Point of order, Mr Mammen. I believe, Sir, that there is a Standing Order about people reading from written speeches. The Minister should be able to deliver a speech.

The Standing Order, as the Member for Anson knows, forbids a Member from reading his speech, but he can make occasional reference to his notes. Mr Ong Pang Boon.

At least I am reading my speech, unlike some Members opposite whose speeches have to be given to them. Mr Mammen, as I was saying just now, these amendments were clear documentary evidence confirming what information the Government have had earlier that the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis were out to wreck the referendum on merger. Therefore, the Second Reading of the Bill was postponed mainly in order to think of ways and means to frustrate this Communist intention and to ensure that the genuine wishes of the people are ascertained. The postponement of the Second Reading of the Bill was also to provide machinery for the referendum petition raised by the Member for Anson. Now, this evil design of the Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis to wreck the merger referendum became as clear as daylight during the Select Committee debate. The Memoranda from the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions, Old Boys' Associations, Hawkers and Rural organisations only confirmed this sinister intention. I shall elaborate on this a bit further. First, the Barisan Sosialis demanded that only one question can be posed in a referendum. Now this was contrary to the pro-Communist unions' original line that there should be two questions. Now, the pro-Communists' original stand was that it would be unfair to put only the White Paper proposals to the people, Column : 579 because since everybody was in favour of merger, they would naturally vote for the White Paper. To be fair, they argued that their stand of full and complete merger, like Penang and Malacca, should also be put to the people. Soon after it was decided in Djakarta by the P.K.I. that Malaysia was an imperialist plot to bring neo-colonialism to this part of the world. The only way to frustrate Malaysia in Singapore was to wreck the merger. Thereafter, the original line of two questions, "Do you want the White Paper merger" or "Do you want full and complete merger like Penang and Malacca" was switched in favour of one question on the White Paper only. The purpose of a national referendum-

Point of clarification. Would the Minister be good enough to indicate where in any of the considerable debates in this House there is the slightest mention that any Member of the Opposition - Barisan Sosialis or otherwise - requested that there should be an alternative merger like Penang or Malacca? He has got the Hansards up till this morning's. Can he indicate support for that statement?

I said that this was the original line of the pro-Communist unions. It was circulated amongst the members and the cadres in the unions that that should be the case. I do not propose to waste my time further. The purpose of a national referendum is to ascertain the majority view of the people on a matter of national importance. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

When it was demonstrated beyond all doubt in the Select Committee by means of illustrations and actual examples that more than one question in the form of alternative choice is sometimes necessary if the majority views of the people are to be ascertained, the Barisan Sosiahis then stated that there must be the right to say "No" to any number of questions posed. Their purpose is obvious. The Barisan Sosialis hope thereby they could instigate the people by means of malicious rumours and falsehoods and Column : 580 fear of intimidation to vote "No" to all the questions posed, thereby frustrating the object of the referendum. To make sure that they would succeed, they demanded the unprecedented right to destroy ballot papers legally. They thought that in securing this right the Communists and their stooges in the unions could mount a campaign by exploiting communal fears and chauvinistic sentiments to get innocent people to protest against the referendum by destroying and defacing ballot papers. Not satisfied with this, to make their success doubly sure, they asked that the people should be able to cast blank votes so that the true wishes of the people cannot be ascertained. Now, having understood what the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis were up to, it is only right and proper for a responsible Government to take counter measures to frustrate this Communist attempt to wreck the referendum. Therefore, on the Second Reading of the Bill, an amendment was moved to clause 29, sub-clause (1) which reads: 'Any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or is uncertain shall he deemed to be a person who accepts or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred for the referendum.' Now, why should the Barisan Sosialis want the right to organise a campaign to instigate the voters into casting blank votes? One has always to remember that in any discussion on matters that affect the future of the people, one should not lose sight of the political reality. It is useless to seek an ideal that exists only in fantasy or in the mind of the Member for Anson. In this particular issue of merger, the basic factor which everyone must not lose sight of in the heat of the argument is that no one in the Opposition, least of all the Barisan Sosialis, is against merger, or at least that is what they say publicly. All agree that there should be merger between Singapore and the Federation, but what the Barisan Sosialis are against is that the P.A.P. Government have not gone far enough to demand for a complete merger, so that Singapore should become a constituent State like Penang or Malacca. Column : 581 Now, since all are agreed that there should be merger, the difference is in the mode and manner of effecting such a merger. Obviously, the best and only way to ascertain the majority view of the people is to put to them the alternative as in the case of the Cameroons. The right to say "No" is inherent in the choice that one makes. If the Barisan Sosialis and their supporters think that the White Paper is unacceptable, what they need do is to vote for their brand of merger, which means "No" to the White Paper. There is no need, Mr Mammen, to cast blank votes. The Barisan Sosialis have claimed again and again that they represent the people of Singapore. Now, if the Barisan Sosialis believe that they have the full support of the people, not just their support on paper, then why not ask the people to vote for their proposition, and secure their objective? Why ask the people to cast blank votes? Are they not so sure of the support of the people, 38 trade unions and rural organisations notwithstanding? If the pro-Communists and the Barisan Sosialis have the full support of the people, as they claim, why should there be 40 per cent blank votes in the example given by the Member for Thomson yesterday? Those 40 per cent blank votes should have gone to the Barisan Sosialis proposition. The question of 40 per cent blank votes should not have arisen at all. The acts of the Barisan Sosialis lead one to the logical conclusion that the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis, in fact, do not want merger in any form, other than merger with Indonesia or when perhaps there is a Communist or pro-Communist Government in the Federation of Malaya. However, having made the first error of declaring for full and complete merger like Penang or Malacca, the Barisan Sosialis could not publicly repudiate their stand; and even if they want to, they dare not for they realise that they cannot stem the tide of history and go against the wishes of the people. However, they did not then expect the Government to take their proposition seriously, and that the Federation, in Column : 582 any case, would not accept it. Here, we see how dishonest and unfaithful the Barisan Sosialis are. Mr Mammen, the reunification of Singapore and the Federation - The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order, it is time to suspend. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of tile Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

The sitting is suspended until 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 moved by the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before the House adjourned just now, I was trying to analyse the reason why the Barisan Sosialis want this right to cast blank votes when they in fact are in favour of merger on the basis of the Penang and Malacca type, and I went on to give the reason, that although that was their stand taken publicly, but privately in effect they do not want any merger. That is why they want to have this right to cast blank votes. Now, Mr Speaker Sir, the reunification of Singapore and the Federation has been a long cherished aspiration of all nationalist and progressive organisa tions in Malaya, ever since the British colonialists divided the country in 1946. Since that time, the merger of the two territories has never been lost sight of by all anti-colonialists in their fight against colonial rule. However, when merger is around the corner, and no longer just wishful thinking, the self-styled anti-colonial Barisan Sosialis have done a somersault and become anti-merger. They do not wish to be independent by merging with the Federation. Instead, Column : 583 they prefer to retain colonial rule by their demand for internal self-government under the British. They would rather our country and our people remain divided. In perpetuating the division of our country and our people and in prolonging the colonial rule, the barisan Sosialis and their Communist masters are the real enemies of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the anti-merger stand taken by the Barisan Sosialis as evidenced by their strenuous effort to wriggle out of their complete merger stand is understandable because it is an open front organisation through which the Communists seek to expand their influence and to co-ordinate their other front organisations and also to open a new front on the political plane. No one therefore need be surprised if he reads in the newspaper that a Joint Action Committee of the Barisan Sosialis and the pro-colonial capitalist Party, the Liberal Socialists, has been formed. The history and experience of Communist parties elsewhere have shown that the Communists are prepared at any time, if it is in their ultimate interest, to sacrifice their lofty principles and join forces with the most reactionary of political forces. No doubt, the pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis are well trained in the Communist tactics of the united front and have sacrificed whatever socialist principles that they professed publicly to join forces with a Party that is noted for its pro-colonial, pro-capitalist and reactionary interests. It has been said, Mr Speaker, Sir, by the Barisan Sosialis that we have distorted their stand on merger, that the Penang and Malacca type of merger was a concoction of the P.A.P. Now, it is an honourable practice of the Communists to tell a bare-faced lie if they are cornered. Similarly, I see this same tactic being practised to its perfection by the Barisan Sosialis. I do not intend to go into details on this. What the Barisan Sosialis stand on merger is will be the subject of a debate later on. But it is necessary in discussing this amendment to clause 29 to touch briefly on this point because their argument is that the people will be given two unacceptable alternatives and one of the unacceptable alternatives is our interpretation of what the Barisan Sosialis stand on merger was. Now, I Column : 584 have here with me a copy of the manifesto of the Barisan Sosialis dated 3rd September, 1961, which states their stand on merger. I will quote the relevant portion: 'The Barisan Sosialis stand for a united Malayan State comprising the territories now known as Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The reunification of the Federation and Singapore is inevitable.' It is inevitable, and we are glad that there is now universal recognition of this fact. Then they went on to say: 'The way ahead therefore for a real reunification of our people and our country is in one of two directions: (a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang or Malacca,'

On a point of order, Sir, I would like him to quote the whole text, Sir.

Order. I do not think that is a point of order. I think the Member will have an opportunity of answering.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is wrongly put, he may correct me later on when I sit down. I still maintain that it is not a distortion of what was stated in their manifesto. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was no mention whatsoever of automatic citizenship rights. It is a categorical statement of the Barisan Sosialis stand on merger announced publicly to the people and published in the newspapers as well. Subsequent to this, they have also written to the Deputy Prime Minister on similar lines; also in a radio forum attended by the Member for Queenstown. Perhaps these are embarrassing statements to be reminded of. However, we have no doubt that they made their stand on merger with all sincerity at that time. Mr Speaker, Sir, the fundamental democratic right to vote is safeguarded in this Bill. No one is deprived of this right, be he a Barisan Sosialis, a Workers' Party, or a United People's Party member or even a Communist. Now no one believes that this fundamental democratic right to a secret vote is practised in a fascist country. Is this fundamental democratic right available in Communist countries which no doubt the Barisan Sosialis regard as democratic? Is the fundamental democratic Column : 585 right of a secret vote available to every adult in the so-called People's Democracy? The answer is "No". 5.45 p.m. The right to vote is only accorded to the "people" and the people are those who support the Communist ideology and accept the leadership of the Communist Party. All the others who do not share the ideology of the Communists or refuse to accept the Communist Party leadership are classified as enemies of the people, and as enemies of the people they have no rights whatsoever. All fundamental human rights, including the right to vote, are deprived from the so-called enemies of the people. And judged by the standards set in the People's Democracy, the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen would be classified as enemies of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are genuinely interested in the fundamental democratic right of the people may I suggest that they attempt it in the People's Democracy? In the People's Democracy, even where elections are held and the people are allowed to vote, they can only vote from an approved list of candidates, all belonging to the same Party. There is no choice for the voter. An hon. Member: They can put in blank votes.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to repeat that the fundamental democratic right of a secret vote is not denied to any voter. He is at liberty to make his choice. The purpose of a referendum is to ascertain the wishes of the people. It is only right and proper that he should go and vote properly. If he is confused by the malicious rumours and lies spread by the Barisan Sosialis and not able to make up his mind either way and would like to leave the choice to his elected representative in the Assembly, I see nothing wrong in it. In fact, it is a wise thing to do.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the amendment on the blank votes, I have this to Column : 586 say. At present everyone in Singapore is concerned with the question of citizenship. Citizenship right means the right to vote, a right which is sought by every person. A citizen is entitled to say "Yes" or "No" to any policy or measure to be adopted by the Government. Therefore, it should be made clear under what circumstances can the people abstain and so give up their right to say "Yes" or "No". We know very well that when the people are faced with no choice but to say "No", then they will abstain. Everybody agrees that in a normal general election or by-election, there will not be many abstaining votes. Therefore, the Government now has realised this and is worried if there will be a lot of abstention votes. It also realises that blank votes and abstention votes will mean a protest by the people, and it is their only way of expressing their dissatisfaction. From the new clause to be proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs, we see that this National Referendum Bill will be repealed after the holding of the national referendum on merger. From this we can see that the Government realises that. The present National Referendum Bill, especially the provision regarding the blank votes, is contrary to normal reason and decency. Mr Speaker, Sir, normally we should follow common sense whenever we want to do a thing. However, on this grave question which affects the future of Singapore, we see that the Government have made use of certain measure which are contrary to common sense and decency. How can this behaviour bring about good results? Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development mentioned that when we make a law we should take into consideration three factors. Firstly, when a law is drafted we must consider the uses and functions of the law. Secondly, the making of that law should be in keeping with the circumstances and situation prevailing. Thirdly, the making of that law should have regard to this - that is, what result will it achieve? Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out to you that the P.A.P. has this purpose in mind when introducing Column : 587 this National Referendum Bill, especially clause 5 and clause 29 which we are debating now. According to the speeches made by the P.A.P. Ministers, the purpose is to make use of this Bill to fix the Barisan Sosialis. From this we can see that the method of the P.A.P. in dealing with the question of merger is not in accordance with the interests of the broad masses. It is solely motivated by the desire to deal a blow at their political opponents. As regards the present circumstances under which this Bill is brought up, we all know what are the circumstances and situation. The situation is that people from various strata of society and people who are holding various political views are all opposed to the P.A.P. Government. Under these circumstances, in drafting this National Referendum Bill which embodies the provision about blank votes - now, what will be the result of the introduction of this Bill? I think not only can they not appease the hatred and hostility of the people, but it may anger them the more against the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. want to fix the Barisan Sosialis and they try to use all sorts of means, even to sacrificing the rights of the people outside the Barisan Sosialis, in order just to achieve this purpose. I would like to tell them that the result of their effort will result in more people supporting the Barisan Sosialis. It will result in more people opposing the Government and hating the Government, because the Government are going to sacrifice their interests. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see that if the country is run on this basis, any government will not last for long. 6.00 p.m. Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister in his speech gave certain examples which are illogical and inappropriate. To compare the Government posing several questions to parents asking their children whether they want to eat meat or whether they want to eat fish is not proper. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you will know that a wise parent will know that under certain circumstances he can satisfy the request of his children. He can give them vegetables Column : 588 in the morning and in the afternoon give them meat and at night give them fish. But under the present constitutional arrangements, can we carry out the White Paper proposals today; and tomorrow can we carry out the confederation proposals; and the day after tomorrow can we carry out the White Paper proposals again? Then, after that, complete merger? Can we do that? The Member for Delta gave some examples which are not appropriate. She said the Government asked the people to decide certain questions, which is just like a maiden falling in love with two men. She said that under these circumstances, one man is glamorous and the other is more suitable and so she cannot make up her mind which one to accept. Therefore, she leaves it to her parents or her grand-parents to decide. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether her experience is like this. But to compare merger to this sort of affair is totally inappropriate. Because I remember the original Women's Charter Bill which stresses that before marriage the couple must be in a healthy condition and they should have a medical certificate from a doctor before they can be married. Therefore, in the examples given by the Member for Delta, if the maiden cannot make up her mind, she should not consult her mother or her grandmother. She should consult a doctor to see which one is stronger and more healthy. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Home Affairs has accused us by saying that there is no question of citizenship or question of equality in our merger stand. He has also quoted our Party's manifesto. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would remind him and other Government Ministers that this manifesto was published on the 3rd September, 1961, and before this, that is, on 28th August, 1961, a few days before the publication of this manifesto, we had published a statement on our stand on merger which clearly pointed out the question of automatic citizenship and the question of proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. This article was quoted by me when I spoke a few days ago. Therefore, when the Government said that we did not demand equal citizenship, it is not correct to say so. Column : 589 Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs a while ago also mentioned the fact that we formed a Joint Action Council with the other political Parties. I would like to remind the Government that before the 26th of July, 1961, the founder of the Barisan Sosialis published a statement, and in it we pointed out that the stand of the new Party is as follows: 'First, we should govern our country in consultation with the people and not through order and command. Second, we should restore the basic democratic rights of the people. Third, in the future constitutional talks we should safeguard the interests of the various sections of the community.' One and a half months after that, on 17th September, 1961, at the inaugural meeting of the Barisan Sosialis, our Secretary-General, in his speech, also gave the same view, that on the question of reunification we have to shoulder our responsibilities and these responsibilities are not a question of political issues but are a matter of national importance. Therefore, the various political Parties, the mass organizations and other shades of public opinion should come to an understanding on this question of national importance. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to remind the P.A.P. Government that they should realise why, before they formed the government, when they were a minor Opposition Party in this House, the British had constitutional talks with the representatives. They also advocated that the views of the Opposition Parties should be respected in the Legislative Assembly, because the British people, who are clever people, know that any Opposition Party might one day become the government of tomorrow. If they had a talk with the present Government without the Opposition Parties and when an Opposition Party was voted into power by the people, the previous constitutional arrangements would have to be reviewed and altered. 6.15 p.m. On questions of grave importance it is important that we should get the unanimous views of the people. But the merger proposals as outlined in the White Paper will not bring about harmony Column : 590 and unity among the various races in Malaya. I hope the P.A.P. Ministers will soberly and calmly consider the example of the United Arab Republic. In the United Arab Republic the merger conditions were not as unreasonable as ours. However, eventually Syria had to part from Egypt. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government Ministers have told us that the Barisan Sosialis will be finished when this National Referendum Bill has been passed and after merger takes place. They also stress that the provision regarding blank votes which allow people to accept but not to reject is intended to deal with the Communists. I want to remind them that during the colonial era the Emergency Regulations were also intended to deal with the Communists. However, we have seen that the P.A.P., which advocated the repeal of the Emergency Regulations, were returned by the people and they have now resorted to the same tactics. Today they also say they want to make use of these provisions of the P.P.S.O. to deal with the Communists. But will the Barisan Sosialis be finished? I think the governing Party's effort will prove to be futile. I believe that even if the deceptive merger proposals are carried out, if in future any Party advocates the abolition of this merger, this Party will get the support of the people, and will be returned to power. They will become the Government and the objective conditions will be such. Although we in the Barisan Sosialis are facing great pressure from the Government which have adopted all sorts of measures to suppress us, yet we are confident of our future. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a matter for regret that the Prime Minister is not here. However, I hope his colleagues will convey my message to him. If the P.A.P. Government introduce a fair and reasonable National Referendum Bill to ascertain the wishes of the people and allow them to say `yes' or 'no' to the merger proposals, and when the Prime Minister resigns and he meets the ordinary people on the road, they will greet him, "How are you, Mr Lee?" But if he is trying to make use of so arbitrary a method to carry out his measures, then when he resigns and he is out of office and he meets the people, the people will heap abuses on him. The Column : 591 Prime Minister is a bright student in the study of law. His tactics of ruling are based on legal juggling. For example, he tries to equate citizenship with nationality and says that the Penang and Malacca type of merger will deprive half of our population of their citizenship rights under the present National Referendum Bill. This all goes to show that the Prime Minister carries out his rule depending on his legal juggling. Yesterday I told him that he should not use laws to deceive or bully the people and the Opposition. There is one Chinese saying, "Those who can climb mountains will fall to death and those who can swim well will also be drowned finally." Therefore, I hope that our Prime Minister, who is so well versed in law, should not bury his own future with his legal ingenuity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis contend that in opposing clause 29 they are acting in the highest interest of democracy. They say it is a fundamental and inalienable human right to say no, and they say this basic right has been withdrawn by clause 29. Sir, are they as democratic as they pretend to be? Only the most gullible political innocents will take the Barisan Sosialis' statements at their face value. I want to go into some details into the real nature of the Barisan Sosialis stand on blank votes. To do this I shall have to refer to the views which the other Communist open front organisations submitted to the Select Committee. The organisations in question are the group of 40 Old Boys' Associations, a group of 38 trade unions and a group of the Rural Residents, the Country People's and Hawkers' Associations. On the question of blank votes, these three bodies play much the same tune. It is the same as having three separate orchestras, each responding to the direction of one maestro. The Select Committee had the ad vantage of examining under oath witnesses from the trade unIons and the Rural and Hawkers' Associations.

Not on oath.

I beg your pardon, not on oath. The Old Boys' Associations displayed a degree of prudence not found in the other two groups, and stated that they did not wish to present Column : 592 themselves before the Committee. Hence, they escaped the searching examination in Select Committee which brought to light the dishonest motive behind the representations of the other two groups. On 24th April, 1962, the Select Committee examined representatives of the Rural and Hawkers' Associations, and on the 27th of April the trade union representatives gave their evidence. Before I proceed to give the Assembly an account of the examination of witnesses in the Select Committee, I should first outline the common stand of blank votes which these three groups of Communist front organisations took. The objection to the blank votes must be related to two important points which they raised in their memoranda to the Select Committee. First, they wanted the referendum to contain only one question with a 'yes' or 'no' answer. This, of course, is in line with the Barisan Sosialis' amendment to clause 5 which was debated and defeated in the House last week. Now, the second point is that even with a 'yes' or 'no' one question type of referendum, they said that the referendum should be considered carried only if a certain minimum percentage of affirmative votes is cast. The Rural and Hawkers' Associations placed this minimum level at sixty per cent of the electorate. I repeat, Sir, sixty per cent of the electorate, and not sixty per cent of the total votes cast. This means, in effect, that the votes are dead men - there are some 8,000 of them on the electoral register. Those who are away from Singapore on Polling Day, their votes will be counted as anti-merger. I would have thought that that in itself is sufficient to expose the nefarious intentions of the gentlemen and to disqualify them immediately from any hypocritical statement made on behalf of the democratic system. Now, the trade unions wanted a minimum of 60 per cent affirmative votes of the total votes cast; in other words, they are prepared to forgo the votes of dead men. 6.30 p.m. Now, the Rural Residents and Hawkers' representatives claim in all innocence that they want blank votes to mean that those who cast them are neutral in respect of the proposition put in the referendum. May I quote from column 163 Column : 593 of the Minutes of Evidence and this is what the representatives said [L.A. of 1962]; 'If I am clear about the issue, of course, I can express my opinion direct by voting on it "yes" or "no". But if I am not clear about the question posed, then, of course, there should be another way out for me, by letting me become neutral in respect of this question before me. What I mean is this. There should be an opportunity for expression by those who are in favour of certain questions and those who are against certain questions put to them. There should also be an opportunity for the neutrals to express their opinions to show that they are neutrals in respect of the questions put to them. If the proposed amendment were to be incorporated and become law, then it means in the world there would not be neutral countries and the people would he deprived of their opportunities.' Now, Sir, you will recollect that it was put to these gentlemen that if they wanted a minimum of sixty per cent affirmative votes for the referendum to be carried, then it automatically followed that blank votes and negative votes would be excluded from this sixty per cent. In other words, blank votes for practical purposes are counted as negative votes. To take a simple example, if fifty-five per cent voted yes, the referendum will not be carried and it does not matter whether the other forty-five per cent all voted no or all cast blank votes or some voted no or some cast blank votes. This proposition was put to them and explained by you, Mr Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee. They were provided with pencils and paper; numerous arithmetical examples were set out. There was much cogitation and wrinkling of brows but in the end neither the country bumpkins nor the so-called hawkers' representatives could grasp this elementary proposition. When it came to the turn of the trade unions, we witnessed a similar debacle. May I refer you to Questions Nos. 757 to 761, column 242 of the Minutes of Evidence? I asked the trade union representatives as follows: 'They [that is, the trade unions] said just now that the blank votes, uncertain votes, are not considered as yes or no, is that true? Do they affirm that?' Mr Tan Teck Wah on behalf of the unions answered yes. I then asked: 'They also said that the blank votes or undecided votes should not be considered as being in support of the proposition, is that true?' He again said yes. I then asked: 'Do they also not say that the blank votes or undecided votes should not be considered as opposing the proposition? - Yes. They should not be construed as opposing a certain proposition.' Then I asked: 'Therefore, in the calculation of the results of the referendum, blank votes should not be counted together with the "noes", is that right? - (All witnesses) Yes.' Then I asked: 'Now, under the 60 per cent affirmative requirement, does it not follow that blank votes and unmarked votes would be considered together with the negative votes?- (Mr Tan Teck Wah) No.' And so the Select Committee went into further arithmetic and finally convinced the trade unionists in the end that under any requirement of a minimum percent age of affirmative votes - whether it is 60 per cent or 51 per cent or any other percentage - the blank votes count as negative votes, and they agreed with this proposition. In Question No. 767 of the Minutes of Evidence you asked, Sir: 'The neutral votes are out completely? - (All witnesses) Yes.' Now, towards the end of the examination of these witnesses, the Member for Queenstown gave yet another example. He said, suppose out of 100,000 voters, 50,000 voters said yes, 10,000 voters said no and 40,000 voters abstained, he pointed out that according to what they agreed, the referendum would then be carried. Now, the thought of the referendum being successful was too much for the trade unionists and they immediately went back to their original stand and maintained that blank votes should be counted with negative votes. This drew upon them a severe castigation from the Member for Anson and he said at column 265: 'Forgive me, Sir, I must put it with respect; must be quite clear myself. Do the witnesses appreciate then that they are completely contrary to the logic of the position that they took of the principle that blank votes, undecided votes, ambiguous votes, should not be counted "aye" and should not be counted Column : 595 "nay" - they said that. But now with 60 per cent of the total votes cast, it means that the blank votes, the ambiguous votes, are all "nay".' Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Member for Nee Soon has just arrived because yesterday he denied that the Barisan Sosialis had any intention at all of hijacking blank votes in their favour and here with this evidence quoting the opinion of the illustrious Member for Anson, that is precisely what the Barisan Sosialis is attempting to do.

That is a parliamentary-

Call him a weather-cock!

Order.

Call you the -

Order. I do not know why the Minister for Law excites interjections when he ought not to. This is not the time. We have not got to that heat yet. I think the Minister for Finance used quite a parliamentary word when he said that the Member for Anson is illustrious.

That is quite appropriate.

Now, Sir, I hope what I said is sinking into the mind of the Member for Nee Soon and that he will before long realise what utterly foolish things he said yesterday. Sir, what conclusion can we draw from this? First, all this talk about neutrality, the right to abstain, is sheer eye-wash and hypocrisy. What the Barisan Sosialis want is to defeat the referendum at all costs. They are prepared to go to the extent that blank votes should be counted as anti-merger votes. So you see that all this pretence of defending human rights, this appeal to the human conscience and to democratic principles is so much humbug. The real purpose is to frustrate merger and they will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. Now, the second significant point is that they openly envisage the possibility of large numbers of people casting blank votes, even in a one-question referendum with a yes or no answer. The estimate of 40 per cent blank votes was decided by the Member for Queenstown. What does all this prove? It proves beyond Column : 596 any shadow of doubt their evil intentions. The Member is not following me in a single sense; I do not think I want to waste the time of the House to assist people who have been inattentive. Now, in normal elections, blank votes will not amount to .01 per cent. Why then this sudden concern for such a tiny minority? The answer, of course, is that the Barisan Sosialis have every intention to jam the referendum process by deceiving and confusing the people into casting blank votes which they claim are votes for them. So the Barisan Sosialis are quite happy to "hijack", to use their own word, and grab blank votes for their own cause and they do so without feeling any moral indignation about the wrongness of this. They want to deny on moral principles others from doing what they themselves wish to do. So all their objections on grounds of propriety, moral principles, democratic procedure, in so far as they are advanced by the Barisan Sosialis - the Government is completely and morally justified in rejecting their submissions. Now, Sir, in the course of the debate, the Barisan Sosialis attempted certain intellectual justification of their proposals, but on the intellectual plane their case is hardly any better. Firstly, they object to clause 29 on two grounds. They say that this clause denies the citizens the freedom to choose. Secondly, they say that the choices to be offered in the referendum would be unacceptable alternatives. Now, Sir, let us examine these two arguments closely. First on the freedom to choose, they not only complain that the freedom of choice is seriously restricted, but they go further and say that the fundamental human right to say no has been taken away from our citizens. Sir, this is the first time that I have heard that there is in human affairs any fundamental human right to say no, and I find this constant harping on the right to say no both fallacious in reasoning and dishonest in presentation. From this repeated assertion of the so-called right to say no, one would think that the Barisan Sosialis are composed of bashful virgins in the act of being seduced and nothing can be more absurd than this proposition. When they talk of the right to say no, they mean they want freedom for themselves to prevent merger at any Column : 597 cost. Nor are they on firmer when they base their argument more general principle of the right to freedom of choice. 6.45 p.m. So, we have heard political dissertations of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of the Press. Now, a new freedom is being conjured up - freedom of choice. Let us examine what these words mean. Freedom of choice in the literature is a concept which originated in the laissez-faire economic theories of the Victorian Age. It is in fact the central dogma of the ideology of capitalism. How strange it is to find the Member for Thomson whose admiration is for a regimented form of society to be in the company of the great Victorian exponents of free enterprise, for free choice is at the root of the free enterprise system. It means the freedom to buy the goods with the money you have, freedom to buy and choose without Government interference - without a Government system for rationing. It means the freedom to choose your work and not to be allotted your work by some central authority. It also means, for the boss, freedom to hire and fire his workers. This is the real meaning of the freedom of choice in the literature of economics. But even in the realm of economic theory whence this concept arose, freedom of choice is limited by certain objective factors. A man's freedom to choose what he wishes to buy is limited in the first instance by the goods that are available in the market and at second remove by what his income is. Now, there are all sorts of things in the market in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, Rolls Royces or Daimlers, and you may say that every Member of the Assembly has the freedom to buy a $40,000 Rolls Royce. But this freedom, in fact, does not exist for persons who do not have the income or the wealth to make such a purchase. Similarly, freedom to choose an occupation is limited by the number of jobs going and Column : 598 the person's ability and qualification. And today even in economic theory the concept of the freedom of choice has been relegated to a very secondary role, for we no longer have in any part of the established world today the freebooting free enterprise system that you had in the Victorian era. There are controls, if not in detail, certainly in the aggregate which are exercised by any government of a modern State to ensure that the economy is kept going on an even keel, that the balance of payments problem does not get out of hand, and that a fairly high level of employment is sustained; but I am not going into this. My point is this, that freedom of choice is not, therefore, an absolute concept, and when we discuss political affairs and borrow this concept from the economists, similar limitations apply, and these limitations may well apply to a more severe degree, for politics is essentially the art of what is possible. Freedom of choice, therefore, means freedom to choose from what is possible in any given situation. Now, what are the choices possible to the electorate in Singapore at the present moment in respect of merger? Let me answer this question. I may answer this question more easily by stating what is not possible, it is obvious even to the meanest intelligence, and I would include the Barisan in this category, that complete merger on terms superior to those enjoyed by any existing State in the Federation is not possible. And if this, in fact, is the choice that the Barisan wants to present to the electorate in a referendum, then the choice must clearly be ruled out for two reasons. First, on the simple ground that it is not possible. Second, more to the point, because the Barisan Sosialis knows that it is not possible and therefore dishonestly asks for it in an effort to prevent merger. There is therefore no breach in the principle of the freedom of choice if the Barisan's claim for super merger is not offered to the electorate. Indeed, to offer something impossible of achievement would be to perpetrate a fraud upon the electorate. Column : 599 The other matter for consideration is whether the electorate should be free to accept or reject each and every type of merger offered for its choice, and the Member for Anson insists that human decency demands that the electorate should have the right to accept or reject any form of merger offered to it in a referendum. Sir, it can be argued that in the 1959 general elections, all Parties put merger on their platform, and therefore when the candidates were elected -in a sense it can be said that the electorate had made up its mind and had committed: itself to a policy of merger with the Federation. It can therefore be argued that it is not necessary to sound the electorate on this particular point again. Now, for myself I do not find this argument completely convincing, and I am prepared to go a long way with the Member for Anson to understand his point of view. Now, if this were the only consideration, then I would say that the electorate should be given the option once again to decide whether on not they want merger in any of the forms put to it at the referendum.

Hear, hear!

But, Sir, there is a more decisive consideration and it is this. The Barisan Sosialis are fully committed to complete merger on the basis of equality with any of the States of the Federation. They have said so openly. They have committed themselves in writing and in speeches in this Assembly. It is only when they found out the real consequence of such a type of merger that they tried to, back out of this commitment, and then added further conditions such as automatic conversion, immediate general elections in the Federation and in Singapore after merger, and so on and so forth. Sir, I say that if the Barisan Sosialis are really honest in their desire for more merger than the P.A.P., then I say the citizens should be given the right to opt out of merger if they so want. I go further and say if the Barisan Sosialis will campaign honestly and vigorously for complete merger on an Column : 600 equal basis with any of the 11 States of the Federation, then I admit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this clause on blank votes is unnecessary. And I will go further and say that the electorate should then have a choice to say "yes" or "no" to any merger proposal - any form of merger proposals - submitted in the referendum, In these circumstances then, if we all agree we shall have a completely honest referendum. Sir, in the referendum where many Parties participate, to have an honest referendum means having honesty observed in respect of each and every participant. When one of the Parties is dishonest, then you no longer can have an honest referendum. When the Barisan Sosialis say they want complete merger and, on the other hand, their ground level propaganda incites and encourages people to oppose merger in any shape or form, then I say you will not have an honest referendum, and the dishonesty lies fairly and squarely with the Barisan Sosialis. How can they, on the one hand, pretend to want complete merger? True, they have added this rider of automatic conversion, this, that and the other, but we will regard this as dishonest appendages to the original and, real and genuine proposal. How can they claim to be honest? How can they expect an honest referendum to be carried out when they themselves behave in such an outrageously dishonest manner? And we say it is precisely because the Barisan Sosialis have no intention to honour their word that the special precautions embodied in clause 29 are necessary, but if the Banisan Sosialis are prepared to honour their word and campaign genuinely and honestly to get people to accept complete merger on terms of complete, absolute, unconditional equality with any of the 11 States, then I say we can have second thoughts on this clause.

Before the tea-break, I drew the attention of the Deputy Speaker to the fact that the Minister for Home Affairs was reading his speech from a prepared document. It was not intended in any way to embarrass the Deputy Speaker who fielded it, if I may Column : 601 say with respect, rather well. But it was intended to highlight certain facts which are also pertinent to the speech of the Minister for Finance, and it is this, that these prepared speeches are not really intended for our education or edification; that they proceed, before they are in fact delivered here, to the Ministry of Culture, and the purpose of reading them here is to obtain the Legislative Assembly's immunity seal so that they can be issued by the Ministry of Culture to all the Press with full immunity. I understand that instructions have been issued that the Press are to give 70 per cent of all political space for the Government and not more thin 30 per cent for the Opposition. Apart from this, Sir, it will interest you to know that the Chinese Press is treated to a special delicacy in the form of statements issued by the P.A.P. in respect of matters which they might have forgotten here or are too absurd for us even to entertain - issued by the P.A.P. Propaganda Bureau, and the poor Chinese Press is to carry all this nonsense every day. Sir, when we consider clause 28 and clause 29, we must consider them in the context of two basic facts. One is clause 21, Sir, which provides for compulsory voting and punishes a man who does not vote by taking his name off the electoral register and leaving his name off the electoral register until at least to the next revision. That is a heavy punishment. Sir. 7.00 p.m. The second basic fact is the rejection by the Government of my amendment to clause 20. It is very brief, Sir, If I might refer you to it - 'and the voter shall record his vote in respect of each question by marking a cross in one of two squares against each question marked respectively "Yes" and "No".'. Now Sir, if there was no compulsory voting or - and I do not say 'and', I say 'or' - if there was provision that each question could be answered with a yes or no, the Government would not have sought to dredge the depths of infamy to Column : 602 produce a clause which blatantly makes a man into a woman - because that is what this clause seeks to do - it would not be necessary. Blank votes are normally minimal. Sir, I have drawn the attention of the House earlier and I will show you - I shall not read the provisions, but I shall merely refer to the countries where there have been referenda held and where it has always been the rule that blank votes and ambiguous ballot papers are void. They do not count. Sir, first and foremost, I have read the Hansard of last night and I understand that the West Samoa ballot paper was read to you which provided that these should be what they call informal votes, as we say, void. Jamaica, West Australia, South Australia and New South Wales where they have ad hoc legislation. Australian Referendum Act. New Zealand - by the way, Sir. Samoa had its referendum provisions under the New Zealand Order in Council. British Columbia, Newfoundland, Canada, Switzerland, France and, Sir, this will interest you. An infamous individual who fought an election on the basis that he was saving the country from the Communists. Hitler's 1932 Referendum Act. Even Hitler accepted the basic fundamental issue that a referendum, as has been repeatedly stated by the Government Benches, is a way to ascertain the wishes of the people. And if it is blank, it is void. If it is ambiguous, it is void. Last but not least, Sir, may I refer you to section 48 (1) of our Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which was promulgated by an imperial Government through its colonial masters in 1954? Sir, section 48 (1) refers to the void ballot papers and the amendment of the Member for Queenstown seeks to restore to clause 28 the provisions which have been deleted from it. It is a curious thing to recognise that our own people, our own citizens, our own elected Government can be more dishonest, can be more unjust than the imperial government. But, Sir, the injustice of the imperial government is never shown in direct dishonesty. The P.A.P. have reached a stage where it no longer matters if the people are fully conscious. Column : 603 of their basic, their radical and their absolute dishonesty. I ask you to look at section 48 (1) (c) and compare it with the amendment we have. Sir, in the Elections Ordinance the following is a void paper "on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the back", if you look at clause 28 (1) (b) of the Referendum Bill, "on which the voter has indicated his vote and has written or marked anything by which he can be identified". Sir, why that additional element? You will appreciate now that if the voter has written anything or marked anything by which he can be identified, that vote will count as a P.A.P. vote. I do urge Members, I do plead because I do not think this has really been brought out. The Government has not shown why it has changed. Section 48 (1) (c) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance in this manner as it reads now in clause 28 (1) (b) of the Referendum Bill, and it means this, Sir. That if a man writes on a voting paper, "I believe in the P.A.P." and signs his name, that will count as a P.A.P. voting paper and no doubt, in due course, he will receive his reward because he has not marked the vote. "I believe in the P.A.P. I am a P.A.P. member. My P.A.P. number is such and such." There is nothing to prevent those people from doing it. I do ask the Government, since they have made this radical change, why have they made no explanation of this change at all? Mr Speaker, I do ask your Indulgence that if the Member opposite wants to mumble and grumble, could he do it outside because it is disturbing?

How stupid.

Order. It is also the business of the Chair. I think the Hon. the Minister for Law should contain himself. He has an opportunity of answering.

Why this additional element so that a person who has written or marked anything by which he can be identified can still have his vote in favour of the P.A.P.? I mean, supposing somebody writes, "I do not Column : 604 like the P.A.P. I do not like any of these proposals." All this will count for the P.A.P. because he has not marked his vote. Before that document can be voided, he must first mark his vote and then put some means whereby he is identified. The two are not the same, Sir, but that is the least. It is nevertheless the point which no other Member seems to have noticed and which the Government has completely glossed over today. Sir, the other paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of section 48 (1) are the identical provisions which the Member for Queenstown seeks to reintroduce into clause 28 (1) of the Referendum Bill. That is to say, he wants to make void all ballot papers which are unmarked and which are void for uncertainty. The Government tell you, and tell you quite rightly, that in the original Bill as introduced in November, the provisions of section 48 (1) (c) and (d) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, were, in fact, incorporated in clause 28 of the Referendum Bill and ballot papers were to be void if they had written or marked on them anything by which a man could be identified, or if they were blank, or if they were ambiguous. The mystery of the change in the first one has not been explained. But as regards the other two they suddenly awakened to the danger of the Communists mounting a campaign. And what awakened them to the danger was that there was an amendment moved to give the people the right to deface and destroy their ballot papers. Therefore, when these amendments were moved by the Barisan - no, the phrase is "pro-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Anson" - The P.A.P. were suddenly awakened to the fact that there would be a campaign mounted to tell the people to cast blank votes. Mr Speaker, I have asked for - and I trust you have it before you - Supplement No. 11 of the Legislative Assembly of the Third Session, and you will notice that the so-called arch-Communist who introduced the provision, whereby persons need not be punished for defacing their ballot Column : 605 papers or for destroying their individual ballot papers, is none other than myself. I am the person, and I would ask you to look at clause 31, at page 110 of Supplement No. 11. You will notice that no other person was at that stage associated with me in that amendment. It was sent in by me. The Member for Queenstown had sent in several amendments. He did not notice my amendment and it stood in my name alone. I seem to be the arch-Communist who had awakened them to a Communist plot. Let me first explain why I did it. I would not like to take special credit, Sir - and certainly not the Barisan at that stage - but most of us by then were conscious from the speeches of the Government (the way it inflated and distorted the Barisan's stand about the constituent state), we were conscious that it was going to try and use the Barisan's stand as an alternative. And although I had not worked it out at that stage exactly how it would happen, nevertheless, it occurred to me that some voter, in accordance with his conscience, might want to say nothing or just deface his ballot paper. And there was nothing more Machiavellian than that, that a man should be entitled to deface his paper if he was offered a dishonest alternative. I will say to you frankly, Sir, that in one election I wrote across my ballot paper, "I do not like my choice." I cannot see that could, or should, call for criminal penalties of the nature indicated. 7.15 p.m. Surely I was exercising a legitimate right to express my regret and frustration that the choice offered to me of candidates was not of a character which pleased me and that I was not going to vote for anybody. That was the arch-Communist scheme to mount a campaign to confuse the people into casting blank votes. And I want to say this to you, Sir. The arch-Communists must be awfully stupid - I am happy to note, remarkably stupid - to concentrate on the question of casting blank votes, because if a hundred people go to vote, Column : 606 ten say 'P.A.P.'. three say 'Penang and Malacca', and 87 cast blank votes, you do appreciate, Mr Speaker, that the ten who voted for the P.A.P. proposals will be deemed to be the majority. There is no question about that. How stupid it is to mount a campaign that persons should cast blank votes, when the blank votes do not count, even though there is a moral indication of defeat of the two propositions. From that point of view, they have some significance, but they have no legal significance, because the majority vote is, by virtue of the fact that ten out of that hundred voted for the P.A.P. proposals, therefore the P.A.P. proposals are accepted ten to three. Sir, the whole crux of any effort under this referendum is to give the people the right to say yes or no. But why then is this Government seeking to dredge from the depths of infamy this extraordinary constitutional but infamous approach of, "We by law declare that a man is a woman. "You can, Sir - legally and constitutionally, and completely inhumanly. You bring the law, the process of making laws, and the process by which the law-makers are elected, all into contempt. The merger proposals, that is to say, Command Paper No. 33 of 1961, according to the Government Benches, have been debated ad nauseam, and I will agree at least to the extent that they have been fully debated in this Assembly. And there has been a vote of 33 to 18 walking out. If persons are so confused that they want to say to the Legislative Assembly, "We want you to make up our minds for us," Mr Speaker, is it not their duty to mark yes against Command Paper No. 33 of 1961? "We want the Legislative Assembly to make up its mind for us." Well, it has made up its mind. The Legislative Assembly by 33 to 18 walking out has decided that Command Paper No. 33 of 1961 is good. Therefore, those who want the Legislative Assembly to guide them, according to the Minister for Home Affairs, who, very patronisingly, said, "Of course, those people would be quite right in seeking our guidance." But the guidance is already there. Why Column : 607 do they not say yes? What other guidance? For a change, silence is eloquence.

Order. I would suggest to the Member for Anson that when he asks a rhetorical question he invites interjections. If interjections are forthcoming, then of course disorder results eventually.

Mr Chairman, it is a rhetorical question, if you will, but it is a question which none of them will seek to answer. It is a question that goes to the root of all the smokescreen and hypocrisy about wanting to make provision for the poor confused voter who does not know how to vote and wants the Legislative Assembly to help him. I repeat, if he wants to follow what the Legislative Assembly wants, why does he not vote for the P.A.P. proposals? He does not vote for the P.A.P. proposals because he does not want them. Sir, why does the Government want to introduce this question of blank votes? Because it has recognised that if it leaves it at one question, which is the only question passed by this Assembly, then you cannot say that the people have had an alternative, or have had the right to reject. You have got to leave it to yes or no, and there is a chance that the merger proposals would be rejected. So what are they to do? They have mounted this dishonest campaign of distortion about Penang and Malacca, constituent States, being in accordance with constitutional provisions. If Singapore came in on the same terms, Singapore citizens, or half of them, would not obtain citizenship. They then fixed it on the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, they claim the right not only to have their own dictionary of English words, but to create a dictionary for the Opposition. The Opposition, in the Hansard on the 21st of November, 1961, at column 406, made clear their stand by moving an amendment to say that we want to go in as a constituent State with complete merger and with Federal citizenship to all Singapore citizens. Column : 608 That was our understanding of complete merger as a State. Mr Speaker, I should imagine that even the distorted mentality of the P.A.P. understood their own phrase, "struggle for independence through merger" in the same light. And it is interesting to notice that in their "The Tasks Ahead" there is nothing said about merger but just their original constitution where they will struggle for independence through merger with the Federation. Sir, did they not at that time conceive merger in the same way that we on this side, and I gather all of us on this side, did, because the S.P.A. has actually stated what its view on merger is? Was it not the view of the P.A.P. that complete merger means identity of citizenship? That is what we all understood. But no. They would have it that the Barisan Sosialis meant that it was going to deprive the people of 341,000 citizens. That is what the Barisan Sosialis wanted. Therefore, they are going to put the Barisan Sosialis proposal. Why this tenderness for the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker? Why this solicitude for the Barisan Sosialis, Mr Speaker? Why this sudden kindness to the Barisan Sosialis when they have repeatedly said that they are not a philanthropic organization, that the Barisan Sosialis are a Communist front organization, and they are not going to help the Barisan Sosialis? Because, Mr Speaker, it is necessary to have some excuse to have an alternative question which would not be acceptable. That is the smoke-screen. And then they will say to the people, "Well, we have given you a chance to reject the P.A.P. proposals, you can accept the other one." And then they realise that there will be a lot who may want neither. It is true that blank votes have no legal effect, Sir. But can you not see the moral implications of a majority of blank votes cast at this referendum? So my amendment about defaced ballot papers has nothing to do with it, my amendment which they stuck on the poor Barisan Sosialis who have to carry my sins as well as their own. That has nothing to do with it, Sir. It is the recognition that giving two alternatives would then force the people into the position where their Column : 609 conscience did not permit them to accept either, to cast blank votes, and if the total of the blank votes counted indicated that there was a majority of the people who cast blank votes, it would be obvious that the majority of the people did not want the merger proposals. So we had in March the amendment of the Government to introduce the provision which, according to their own Minister for Finance, is based on neither constitutional nor legal principles. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs spoke touchingly about inducing innocent people to cast blank votes and to wreck the referendum. Because the Opposition asks for the right to say no, we have the curious spectacle of a Minister of an allegedly democratic Government, the Minister for Finance, saying that the concept of freedom of choice is not basic to democracy. No. We understand more and more how these Fascists in thought and in their way of life have camouflaged themselves and utilised the democratic process to get into government. Because. Sir, the concept of freedom of choice is basic and is the very cornerstone of democracy - the right to choose a candidate or not to vote for any of the candidates on a list, and in a referendum, as has been repeatedly said to you; the right to accept or reject any proposal. To say that the concept of freedom of choice is one that has no place in human society is for the P.A.P. to condemn themselves publicly as essentially a Fascist, a dictatorial organization, whether Fascist or Communist. Sir, what is it that they fear in the right to say no? (And the right to say no implies the right to say yes.) They talk about "confusing the citizens"; if in fact the Barisan Sosialis are capable of confusing the citizens to the extent of getting all of them, or the vast majority, against the merger proposals, Mr Speaker, democratically they are entitled to benefit by that in the same way as the P.A.P. when it came to office. The reason why a man casts his vote is not for this Assembly. This Assembly gives Column : 610 him a choice. We know there are people who do not understand the choice. We know there are people who half understand the choice. We know there are some who fully understand the choice. We know that in accordance with the democratic principle, on balance, this is a healthy procedure and usually the answer is normally right, in the same way as you have juries, which the Front Bench so hates, in respect of grave offences, Sir. There may be some jurors who really do not understand the issue, but, on balance, it has been found that the jury system is a wonderful protection for the rights of the individual. In the same way, the democratic principle whereby a man, no matter how stupid, no matter how confused, and no matter how humble, has the same right to say yes or no as the arrogant Prime Minister himself. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has asked, why does the Barisan Sosialis not want us to ask the citizens of Singapore to vote for their form of merger? But surely the answer, Sir, is because they will not do it. Because the P.A.P. Government will not put that alternative. Immediately following the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Finance stood up and told you that if the Barisan Sosialis insisted on putting their own interpretation of their requirement to the voters, that would be dishonest. Because they know that they cannot get it. They know they cannot get merger with the Federation with Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. Therefore, they are dishonest in putting it. Sir, the position is this. [Interruption]

Obviously right.

Order. The Minister for Law is getting very disorderly. If he wishes to rise on a point of order or elucidation, he should do so. 7.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. put as one of their principal grounds in their Constitution that they would struggle for merdeka through merger. Sir, did they think they could get merdeka or merger at that stage? Column : 611 But it seems that on the interpretation of the Minister for Finance, you ask for something which you know temporarily you cannot get is dishonest. We have got to have it and we have got to have it now. Anything that you seek which you cannot get now is dishonest. So, were the P.A.P., on that definition, Sir, dishonest during election time in saying we will fight for merdeka? They were dishonest in 1954 and 1955 when they said they would struggle for independence because they knew they could not get it. They were dishonest, as they allege the Barisan Sosialis are dishonest, in saying that the basic minimum for the healthy development of Singapore is that there should be a common citizenship of the people of Singapore and the people of the Federation both for our welfare and for the common welfare. Maybe we cannot get it today. If we cannot get it today, we will wait until we get it. That, according to the Minister for Finance, is dishonest. That according to the Minister for Home Affairs is dishonest, as the Barisan Sosialis do not want it put. Sir, it is true that the two written speeches will find their way into the Press and into Radio P.A.P. What we have to say in reply will not. It is true that their votes, with the support of the Front Bench of the Opposition, will carry this most dishonest measure that has ever seen the light of day in this country, to my knowledge. It is unhappy but true, but I say, Sir, that we who seek to battle for recognition of basic decency should not, therefore, keep quiet. I ask you to notice that this legal rigging has drawn the courteous but passionate denunciation of the intellectual youth of Singapore. You know, Sir, apart from the circular we all received, there have been statements issued in the name of the University Law Society, the Singapore University, and you yourself are aware of the passionate unhappy denunciation by another group of intellectual youth, the Nanyang University Graduates Guild, the Nanyang University Students' Union, the Polytechnic Political Society, the Singapore University Socialist Club, and the Nanyang University Political Science Society. I am not going to read passages from them, Sir. Column : 612 They do express acute unhappiness at the dangers to respect for the democratic process of our people, if perfidy of a character so blatant, of which all must be conscious, is permitted to be perpetrated. We have been told by the Minister for Finance of an extraordinarily large number of Communist front organisations, although I gathered from the Government that there were allegedly 300 Communists in Singapore. But he tells us that the 40 Old Boys' Associations are all Communist front organisations, the 38 trade unions are all Communist front organisations, the Country People, whom he calls country bumpkins, and I hope that for a change the Press, which is so kind to the P.A.P., will carry at least that part of his message and his contempt for the country people. The country bumpkins, according to him, and the Hawkers' Association are all Communist front organisations. You know, Sir, these people whom he contemptuously refers to as country bumpkins today were the people he assiduously cultivated not so long ago in order to be elected. He tells us that they are all Communist front organisations, and that they have asked for a nefarious 60 per cent majority in order to render valid a decision of the people. You know, Mr Speaker, and in fairness he was quite fair there, he indicated that I was against that provision, and very strongly against it - to me it is illogical - but the fact that these organisations, to our mind, want something illogical does not make what he is doing logical. Two wrongs do not make a right, Sir. Because the Communists, assuming they are Communists, do not like clause 28, it does not mean it is good. I have no doubt the Communists do not like to drink poison. The fact that they do not like poison does not make poison good. We must be careful, Sir, because this is a specious piece of logic to which people can fall prey. Because we do not like the Communists, therefore anything the Communists want is wrong. Therefore, everything that the Communists do not want is right. That sort of logic, Sir, would land us in an Column : 613 awful mess. I have no doubt whatsoever that there can be occasions when what the Communists do not want, I do not want either, as an honest democrat; and there can be occasions when what they want I want too, but for different reasons, as an honest democrat. In this case, Sir, the only excuse the Minister for Finance has to justify what he himself admits is a clause based on neither legal nor con stitutional principles is the fact that the Communists do not like it; therefore it must be good. Sir, he said if the Barisan Sosialis would fight for a merger in accordance with the constituent States of the Federation, then he would agree that everybody would have the right to say 'yes' or 'no', and that there should not be this nefarious clause. Is it not fair to ask the Minister for Finance: Are we running this country for the Barisan Sosialis? If we are, why do we not hand it over to them? If we are not, why then not approach the referendum on the basis that you agree is just. I cannot see how it can matter whether the Barisan Sosialis are or are not in favour of merger on the basis of a constituent State. The trouble about a constituent State, Sir, is that the P.A.P. themselves have so sullied and distorted it that, though it may at one time have been acceptable, by virtue of the interpretation which the P.A.P. have put, it is one which they know nobody now can accept. But what I cannot understand from the Minister is what kind of assurance he wants which would enable us to have an honest referendum. He says, and says truly, where one party to a referendum is dishonest, you cannot have an honest referendum. Sir, I say truly, with this modification, where a party to a referendum, which is the Government Party, is dishonest, you cannot have an honest referendum. Because it is the Government's dishonesty which permeates and controls the entire machinery of this referendum. The way the question is put, the way the people are compelled to answer it, and even the shameless way whereby the true results are hidden, whereby the people are not allowed to know what is the number of blank votes, what is the number of ambiguous votes. It is the Government which is seeking flexibility for dishonest maneuvre and seeking a specious excuse that the Barisan Sosialis might confuse the people. No, Sir, it is not the Barisan; it is not the Member for Anson; it is none of us who are seeking to confuse the people. If we could have an impartial commission - and it is my prayer that in the not too distant future, when matters are still topical, there will be an impartial commission to recognise dishonesty in high places and to punish it - I say if there was an impartial commission, it would be clearly seen that it is the P.A.P. that have been acting dishonestly in the distortion which they have put forward, that the P.A.P. are ruthlessly intent on forcing through their proposals irrespective of what the people of Singapore want. They are not interested. They prefer that the people of Singapore should want it, but if the people of Singapore do not want it, "Well, we are in power and we are jolly well going to see it through." Sir, no words are adequate to express the deep revulsion at this public exhibition of treacherous perfidy by trusted people. I have sought to expose the blatant falsehoods of some of the specious arguments urged which will find their way into the newspapers, not because I have any hope that any argument, however valid, would have any effect upon this Government, or, unfortunately, any effect on the Front Benches of the Opposition. They have made up their minds. I stand as one who has seen the tragedy that is approaching. I refer to the tragedy of concretization of perfidy in the referendum, because I want to leave apart the merger issue for the moment - its merits and demerits - and deal with the perfidy of the referendum. It is a tragedy, Sir, that 624,000 people, the majority of whom are new citizens for whose minds and for whose hearts we have struggled, and I have been part of that struggle, in sincerity, through dreary Committee meetings, through mass Column : 615 rallies, through corner street talks, through house-to-house visits. For 7 years and more, Sir, we have struggled to awaken in them a recognition of the glory of the parliamentary democratic process and its validity for the healthy development of the human individual. That they should now be able to point to this as the culmination of that glory is a tragedy which unfortunately it will be our successors who will reap. 7.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, the Members in the Opposition have advanced their arguments clearly on the National Referendum Bill. We are of the opinion that there should be only one question posed so that the people can decide. But from what has happened, we can see that the Government is bent on posing two unacceptable questions to the people and thereby the Government hope that the people may not have any choice to cast blank votes or abstain. The P.A.P. Government now want to provide that such votes be deemed to be votes in support of the Government. Mr Mammen, Sir, the purpose of our amending this provision is to expose the P.A.P's dictatorship. The P.A.P.'s phoney parliamentary democracy will be a laughing stock of the world. In all the countries in the world, wherever there is a national referendum Ordinance there has never been such a provision. Even arch dictator Hitler never provided such a provision. Mr Mammen, Sir, that the electors would cast blank votes or uncertain votes means that there must be various reasons. For instance, they may have no choice at all. Perhaps they may not understand the questions posed. Perhaps they may not want to express their views. So those blank votes and uncertain votes, as a result, should in no circumstances be construed as votes Column : 616 in support of the Government's proposition. The P.A.P. have exposed themselves very clearly as regards their intention. They have used the Communist bogey as their pretext and, at the same time, they are trying to suppress the people. The oligarchy of the P.A.P. has made use of the propaganda machinery, such as the radio and so on. The oligarchy of the P.A.P. has raised the bogey of Communists saying that they want to wreck the national referendum and induce the people to cast blank votes and uncertain votes. In fact, Mr Mammen, are the Communists so strong that they wield so much influence over the people? According to the Prime Minister, there are only 300 Communist cadres in Singapore. At the South-East Asia Correspondents' meeting the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, said that the Communists in South-East Asia have never been so isolated in this region. Mr Mammen, Sir, in view of the assertion made by the Prime Minister that the Communists are so very isolated and that there are very few Communists in Singapore, how can the P.A.P. justify their argument that the provision is introduced because the Communists are inciting the people to cast blank votes in order to wreck the national referendum? What is the true picture? The P.A.P., has raised this bogey of Communists in order to pass this Bill. I think the P.A.P. oligarchy should express their thanks to the Communists because they hope to save themselves by raising the Communist bogey as a pretext. We know that people in all walks of life have expressed their dissatisfaction with this Bill, but the P.A.P. still have the temerity to use the Communist threat as an excuse for the most undemocratic provision in the world. If the provision is passed as it stands, then the people will have no right to express their free views and make their choice at the national referendum. The result of such a national referendum - irrespective of what the result will be and how the P.A.P. may claim to have the support of the people - cannot represent the true views of the people. Column : 617 The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. The Member has finished his speech. It seems that there are no other speakers on this very important clause.

Sir, on a point of order. I wonder whether there is a quorum here? Notice taken that thirteen Members were not present, Members summoned as if for a division pursuant to the Standing Order, and meeting resumed upon a quorum being then present.

Mr Mammen, Sir, first let me explain to the House why and how this clause has to be introduced. Members of this House will notice that the original Bill did not have this clause. It was only put in after the Communists gave us indirect notice of their evil intentions. First, you will remember the Member for Anson gave notice of an amendment to make it lawful to destroy or deface ballot papers. Now, nowhere in the world is there a precedent for this. The Member for Anson is fond of quoting precedents. Just now he quoted a lot of precedents in respect of the law on referendum. Can he quote us an instance where it is lawful to deface or destroy ballot papers? Is this the kind of democracy that the Member for Anson and the Barisan Sosialis want? The Communists and those who oppose merger know that they are in a fix.

You are in a fix. 8.00 p.m.

They have no way out. Therefore, they want to destroy or deface the ballot papers or to induce the people to cast blank votes. In other words, they want to frustrate the democratic process and frustrate the referendum. We are indeed thankful to them for giving us notice of their evil intentions. So the issue is this. Do we allow them to defeat the democratic process by defacing and destroying ballot papers and casting blank votes? Therefore, it falls upon us, that is, the Government, to make suitable amendments in order to make it worth their while to try and frustrate the democratic Column : 618 process. This is very simple. That is why and how this new clause has to be introduced. If they had not tried to frustrate the democratic process, we also would not have done this. Another point is this. The Barisan Sosialis themselves want these blank votes in their favour. That is, they want us to treat these blank votes as against the White Paper proposals. It has been said time and again by the Barisan Sosialis that they regard this amendment as an attempt at vote pinching - deplorable, disgraceful and several other adjectives. They think it is wrong for the Government to regard undecided votes as being in favour of the proposition accepted by this Assembly. But this does not prevent them from claiming that the blank votes should he regarded as opposing the Assembly decision. Mr Mammen, Sir, during the Select Committee hearing of witnesses, we put this question to the 38 trade union representatives: If you require the referendum to be supported by a certain percentage of affirmative votes cast, it follows automatically that blank votes and uncertain votes are counted as negative votes. So, although the Barisan Sosialis say that it is wrong for the Government to treat these votes as supporting the Assembly decision, it is honourable for the Barisan Sosialis Opposition to engage in vote hijacking. That is in the words of the Barisan Sosialis leader, the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Mammen, Sir, let me first debunk once again this so-called mandate which the P.A.P. was supposed to have received from the people. They keep on repeating it. And we have already debunked it on many occasions. But it bears repeating. They were never given a mandate specifically on merger, because during the general elections every Party had merger on its platform. Amongst the Parties that were strongest for merger was the S.P.A. In fact, the S.P.A. had, as its slogan, "If you want merger, vote S.P.A.". The fact that the S.P.A. was so overwhelmingly defeated showed that when the people elected the P.A.P. to Column : 619 power, merger was not in their minds. In fact, as has already been pointed out by the Member for Anson, and also pointed out by me during the merger debate in November 1961, merger had never been the target of the P.A.P. It was never mentioned in the bible of the P.A.P. - "The Five-Year Plan." If you run through it, Sir, you will not find a word of merger. Merger was only mentioned as a distant possibility. Even in the policy statement of the first year - to an equal and just society - and that of the second year - the year of so-called construction - no mention was ever made of merger. The P.A.P. has publicised so much about Malaysia. But Malaysia was never even mentioned, Sir, in any of the declarations of the P.A.P. I do not think I need go into greater detail. But if they want to talk of the mode and manner, let us remind them that if they had really wanted to consult the people on the mode and manner of merger, then the proper consultation should have been done before the fair accompli was foisted on the people. That is, before the White Paper merger proposals were agreed to between the two Governments. If I may bring your mind back, Sir; at that time, there was a split in the Party. We had asked for a voice in the mode and manner of merger. It was because of that that there was this split. Immediately after the split, and because the merger proposals and the merger question were coming up to the forefront, we suggested to the Government that since it would be proper to get the views of the people on this most important question, a general election would have been the most suitable in order that the people of Singapore might elect a government more representative of their views. Following that, if you will remember, Sir, after the Government had refused to accept our suggestion, we asked for an All-Party Conference in order that we might have a voice in deciding on the mode and manner of merger. And see now what choice is being offered to the people! It is not a case of mode and manner choice. It is something already fixed; something which says, "Take it or leave it." That is what is happening. Column : 620 Sir, many examples have been quoted to you about marriage. When you talk of marriage in principle, you must remember that you just do not marry any old girl who comes along or marry any old man you happen to meet. There is always the matter of finding the suitable partner, the proper timing and place for all this. Similarly, to use another analogy, if you are asked to cook food, it does not mean that you are going to take arsenic or caustic soda served up to you. However, I will not labour on this. I would now like to answer a couple of questions raised by the Minister for Health and Law and the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance came up with his prepared statement and admitted that clause 29 could have been unnecessary. He tried to justify the dishonesty of the P.A.P. in putting in clause 29 by linking it with the one-question amendment and the 51 per cent amendment. The Member for Anson has already drawn your attention to the fact that there is compulsory voting and the fact that the P.A.P. has already rejected our amendment of one question to be posed to the people - the question that requires a simple answer of "yes" or "no". The Minister for Finance very rightly linked this up with this question, because if it was only one question that was going to be posed to the people, then this blank paper clause would not have arisen. It is only when there are two questions and when these two questions are unacceptable that this blank clause comes in. We can see from this the plot which is in the minds of the Ministers. They want to grab votes which do not rightly belong to them. As I have repeatedly told you, their plot is to pose two questions, both unacceptable, and with the expected reaction of the voter putting in a blank vote, they want to grab this blank vote and call it the P.A.P. vote. But the Minister for Finance tries to justify this blank vote clause by saying that since the Opposition have claimed blank votes as negative votes, therefore, Column : 621 the Government have every justification to claim these blank votes as so-called positive votes. Sir, let us say very categorically that blank votes do not mean positive or negative votes. They just mean non-supporting votes. They do not support the propositions "a", "b" or "c" that may be put before them. The argument of the P.A.P. is that since there is this provision of 51 per cent, therefore, all the blank votes would work out to be negative votes. This 51 per cent provision is a principle by itself. I will go into detail on this 51 per cent provision when we come to the debate on the amendment of the 51 per cent. But to counter this argument of negative votes, let us take them on, for the sake of argument, that blank votes are negative votes. They say that just because these blank votes are not supporting the Government votes, therefore, they are negative votes. We have always maintained that they are non-supporting votes. If the P.A.P. calls these blank votes negative votes to the White Paper, say, for example, proposition "a", similarly, they can be called negative votes to propositions "b", "c" or "d". 8.15 p.m. For example, at the present moment, the P.A.P. are offering two alternatives - one alternative is the White Paper merger proposals and the other alternative is the so-called complete unconditional merger or whatever type it is. If these blank votes are supposed to be anti-White Paper votes, similarly they can be considered to be anti-unconditional complete merger votes. So how does that argument fit in with the P.A.P. contention that we are claiming that these votes are anti-P.A.P.? They can similarly be anti-anything if they want to consider it that way. They can be anti a, b, c, d, e, f, or g, if as many alternatives are put before the people. So they are not negative votes or positive votes as the P.A.P. claim. They are just non-supporting votes because when a person is faced with two or more unacceptable Column : 622 alternatives, the natural reaction is to cast a blank vote. And it is because they themselves know this to be the natural reaction that the P.A.P. intentionally want to pose to the people two unacceptable alternatives and thereby hope to get the blank votes and call them P.A.P. votes. Another argument against their claim that blanks are so-called negative votes is this. You will remember, Sir, that the P.A.P. said the blank votes were put in because certain people claimed 51 per cent. If you trace the events historically, you will find that this blank-votes clause was put in before the Second Reading of the Bill. The Second Reading was on the 14th or 15th of March, and these amendments were put in two or three days before, whereas the unions suggested their 60 per cent only in Select Committee, and that was in April, fully one month later. My own amendment of 51 per cent was put in in May. So if they want to argue that it was because of the claim of the 51 per cent amendment that they put in the blank votes clause then historically their argument falls flat. The P.A.P., through the Minister for Health and Law and the Minister for Finance, keep on harping on the same old theme that the clause on blank votes had been put in to prevent the Communists from mounting a campaign to, get people to put in blank votes or to incite and confuse the people to put in blank votes. First of all, Sir, this presupposes that the voter is a fool. I am sure nobody in his right senses will listen to any person - be he Communist or non-Communist - to do something which is against his own conscience. If the Communists were to ask you to put your hands into filthy matter and rub it on your face, I am sure you will not do anything like that. It is only when you feel that it is a natural and right thing to do that you do what you want to do. Moreover, as has already been repeatedly pointed out, there are only 300 odd Communists in Singapore. In Indonesia, there are more than two million. They have not given any trouble to the Indonesian Government. Column : 623 Just 300 of them here and it is causing sleepless nights to our Prime Minister. Therefore, the real reason for this blank-votes clause is to pinch votes, that is, to pose to the voter two unacceptable questions and then to cash in on the natural reaction to put in blank and uncertain votes and to pinch those blank votes which the voters put in. Today, Sir, every person in Singapore, in coffee-shops, villages and buses - the hawkers, workers, farmers, office workers and the intelligentsia - all are aghast at the undemocratic and dishonest way in which the P.A.P. Government are going about with this Bill. Whether they are Chinese-educated or English-educated all are aghast at the P.A.P. Even foreigners, who pass through Singapore, have expressed surprise that Singapore should want to introduce such an undemocratic and unheard of unconstitutional provision. The P.A.P. themselves, of course, know it, and hence their trying to grab votes through this provision. All the political Parties on the Opposition Benches - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party and even the S.P.A. - are against the provision. And outside the Assembly, there is the Council of Joint Action, which includes the Liberal Socialists, the Party Rakyat, and the United Democratic Party. Is it the suggestion of the Government that all these organisations are pro-Communist? The excuse they give is a very dishonest one. They say that since the Communists may encourage people to put in blank votes, so they must prevent this by grabbing those blank votes first. It amounts to a robber robbing a bank on the excuse that another person is going to rob the bank; or to use another analogy, it amounts to a person wanting to set fire to a house on the excuse that another person may want to set fire to it. That does not make the action of this robber or this arsonist democratic and right. Then the Minister for Health and Law says that it is nothing undemocratic to offer the voters two honest alternatives. The point is this: are they really Column : 624 honest alternatives? We have repeatedly said that they have distorted our stand of full and complete merger. Our stand of merger means automatic conversion to Federation citizenship and proportional representation in the Central Parliament. That is our stand of full and complete merger and any distortion of that stand cannot be called honest. Now they are asking people to become second-class citizens, or to lose half their citizenship. That is completely dishonest. I will go into further details on this when I come to the motion standing in my name, condemning the Government for malicious distortion of our stand. But one word now to counter what the Minister for Finance said. He says again that automatic Federal citizenship is not possible. I have already proved it in this House that it is possible. It is possible under Article 22 of the Federation Constitution. But I will go into that later on. Even the Tunku himself admitted that it is possible. So there is no such thing as "impossible". We went to great lengths in the merger debate in November to explain this. Now they say that they want to put the distorted version of the Opposition merger stand to the people. That is a very silly excuse to justify their wanting to pose two questions in the referendum because on national matters you never consider the view of only one or two Parties concerned. If it is a national matter, you must make sure that the alternatives and propositions you put to the people are truly national in character. I will close by just commenting on one sentence of the Minister for Health and Law. He said that clause 29 is both democratic and necessary. Democratic? I think everybody in Singapore knows that it is not democratic. Necessary? Yes, it may be necessary to the P.A.P. because without this clause they will not be able to push and railroad through their merger proposals. But it definitely is not necessary to the people of Singapore. Column : 625

Perhaps it is convenient to suspend. Mr Deputy Speaker 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-(contd.)

An amendment by the Member for Queenstown.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson said that further debate on the Referendum Bill would be useless because he thought that whatever arguments we may put forward will not move the P.A.P. But now, Sir, we see that it has not been useless after all. We see, Sir, that now the Government is no more a majority Government. If the Minister - all the Ministers are not here except one - were to look around he would soon find nobody left. We are happy, Sir, that at least the Member for Bras Basah realises the importance of and is willing to stand up and fight for the truth and for the right-

Order. I think we had better wait for the Member for Bras Basah to say her piece. The Member has made his point. He has indicated that the Member for Bras Basah has walked across the Floor and that is enough. We must now come back to the debate on this Bill.

I will not mention any more, Sir, about this new development except to say that this merely confirms my observation the other day when I said that they had long drawn faces and that all the Ministers and their Back benches looked crestfallen. Column : 626 Today at least we are happy that someone from the Government Back benches is standing up for the rights of the people of Singapore and we hope that more of them will stand up for the rights of the people of Singapore.

Hear, hear!

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch upon what the Government Front benches and Back benches said yesterday. The Member for Delta said yesterday in this House that the Singapore General Employees Union requested the ether trade unions to sign the draft memorandum without any meetings being held by the trade unions so that they are rubber stamps of the Singapore General Employees Union. Such an accusation was also made by other Government benches. They all alleged that these organisations, trade unions and cultural organisations are Communist front organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not surprised at this distortion by the P.A.P. When these organisations supported the P.A.P., they were not considered to be Communist front organisations.

On a point of clarification.

The Member will not give way.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that the 33 Old Boys' Associations submitted their representation (dated 5th April, 1962) to the Select Committee giving their views on the National Referendum Bill. The Select Committee also heard evidence from the representatives of these 33 Old Boys' Associations.

On a point of order. The Member for Choa Chu Kang said that we in the Select Committee heard evidence from 33 Old Boys' Associations. We did not call their representatives to the Select Committee.

That is not really a point of order, but it is well taken. I do not think we heard evidence from the Column : 627 33 Old Boys' Associations. We had their written representations but no evidence.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Rural Residents' Association, the Country Peoples' Association, the Singapore Hawkers' Union, and the Singapore Itinerant Hawkers' Association on 5th April presented their joint memorandum to the Select Committee. 38 trade unions also presented their memorandum dated 6th April to the Select Committee. In these memoranda they clearly and fairly presented their views on this undemocratic National Referendum Bill. At the same time, the Select Committee also heard their views. But their just and reasonable views were not accepted by the P.A.P. in the Select Committee. Therefore, when the Official Reports of the Minutes and Proceedings of the Select Committee were published, these organisations and unions were very dissatisfied. That is why they have presented their views to Members of this House. Mr Speaker, on the 25th of June, 40 trade unions presented a memorandum to all Members of this House. In this memorandum they pointed out the portions which were undemocratic in clause 29. Because of clause 29 and other provisions in the Bill, they intended to convene a conference of all organisations. But this conference was prevented from being held by the Special Branch. Let me disclose that the Chairman of the Singapore All Trade Unions Working Committee - this is a notice to all Singapore trade unions which were going to attend the conference which was to be held.

On a point of order, Sir. The Member is reading from the memorandum of the 38 trade unions which would be the subject for debate when we come to the motion moved by the Member for Thomson. I do not think it is relevant for him to quote now.

The Speaker has not even heard the Member quote. I have already indicated that opinions of a Column : 628 trade union should not just be read out. If the Member accepts those opinions, then he can paraphrase them as though they are his own. I do not know what he wishes to read.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to say is that they have clearly pointed out something in regard to the contents in clause 29. Let me paraphrase the memorandum from the Chairman of the Working Committee to representatives of the various organisations. This is the passage concerning the provision relating to blank votes and uncertain votes to be in support of the Government and to be included with those votes in support of the Government. What the representatives of the various trade unions wanted to discuss is clause 29, which we are now discussing. 9.45 p.m. On the 9th of June, when the representatives of the various trade unions wanted to go to the Singapore Motor Workers' Union's premises to attend the meeting, they were prevented from doing so by policemen. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can clearly see these trade unions represent all their members. They are also important members of our society. On something which will affect their democratic right, they have the responsibility and right to voice their opinions and air their views. But the Government has prevented them from doing such a thing. This action of the Government is not at all surprising to us. What is surprising is that -

The Member is perhaps drifting too far away from the amendment. In fact, he is anticipating the motion standing in the name of the Member for Thomson. He can reserve all those remarks when we come to the motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, I accept your advice. When we debate the motion by the Member for Thomson, I will give my views thereon. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me paraphrase what the 33 Old Boys' Associations presented to the Select Column : 629 Committee on the 27th of June. The 33 Old Boys' Associations gave three points of advice to Members of this House, and not to the Select Committee. One of them touches on clause 29, which is under discussion. Let me paraphrase their suggestions in relation to clause 29. They say, "We would like to suggest to the Legislative Assembly that all unreasonable provisions, especially clause 29, should be abolished." These cultural organisations and trade unions, whose executive members are elected from among their members, have full right to represent their members on views relating to the National Referendum Bill. The Government have alleged that these trade unions did not hold meetings to obtain approval for sending their representatives to the said conference. I now challenge the Government to say whether they consider these trade unions, cultural organisations, rural organisations and hawkers' associations cannot represent the views of their respective members, in spite of the fact that they willingly wanted to hold a rally to examine the contents of the Bill. But the Government said that I cannot be a spokesman for them. But if the Government have the guts, let them hold rallies and meetings just to see whether the members of these organisations support the views of their leaders. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministers of the Government have made unprincipled accusations which are contrary to the will of the members of these organisations and which are also a sort of smear. You will remember that in 1956 there was a Committee on Human Rights Convention. One of the leaders of the P.A.P., Mr Devan Nair, was an important member of this Convention. The Prime Minister had a very close connection with this Convention. This Human Rights Convention also comprised organisations of Singapore. Will the Minister for Home Affairs or the Prime Minister say that this Human Rights Convention was a Communist organisation? Would the Prime Minister say that the actions, the work and the Column : 630 views of this Human Rights Convention did not represent the views of its component parts?

On a point of order, Sir. What has the Human Rights Convention got to do with it?

Yes. I would like to know that myself. I am wondering when the hon. Member will come to the point. How is this relevant to what we are discussing?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out to you that the Government's accusation that these organisations representations to the Select Committee were illegal were, in fact, not so. Because they were pin-pointing clause 29 of the Bill-

On a point of order, Sir, Is the Member for Choa Chu Kang allowed to read out memoranda from various organisations?

I have not noticed the Member reading a memorandum for the last five minutes. I have stopped him from merely reading the memorandum of the other organisations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education was asleep.

I have made my ruling. The ruling is such that the Member for Choa Chu Kang is not at the moment out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. Today, when this House is discussing clause 29, which will determine the democratic rights of the people, therefore, as members of society, these organisations have the right to oppose such a provision. We cannot tolerate the Government's attempts to smear their views as Communist. If the Government persist in their smear campaign, then they should shoulder all the consequences. Column : 631

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard a great deal from the so-called champions of parliamentary democracy and human rights during the debate. Are they really the champions of parliamentary democracy?

The P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember one of the leading unions wanted to put up a play called "A Bunch Of Monkeys".

The P.A.P. leaders.

The General Employees Union.

Not the P.A.P.?

"A Bunch of Monkeys" in Chinese is Chin Ho. This play was written by a Communist in China. This play is to ridicule the whole democratic process of one man one vote.

What has that got to do with the referendum?

That is the backbone of the Barisan Sosialis. The unions, the political Party and their leaders profess to be champions of parliamentary democracy. But here we have a union which is the backbone of the Party which intended to put up a play at the Victoria Theatre called "A Bunch of Monkeys", ridiculing the whole process of the one man one vote system. Are they the real champions of parliamentary democracy? Let us not forget how innocent students were prevented by force to say no to the boycott.

Order. I think the Member is going too far away from the memorandum. I think he has made his point. 10.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard over and over again that they want to protect parliamentary democracy. That is why I have to bring up examples to show that those who support unconstitutional actions are now describing themselves as protectors of parliamentary democracy. Just one Column : 632 more instance; can you really believe that these people are champions of parliamentary democracy when they are led by a leader who has sworn an oath of allegiance to Joe Stalin? An hon. Member: Khrushchev!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard of parliamentary democracy[Interruption]-

Order.

I believe that history has proved that parliamentary democracy has failed in this part of the world. You can look around our neighbouring countries [Interruption]-

Order.

We have guided democracy in Indonesia. Here we have the champions of parliamentary democracy wanting to merge with Indonesia. Are they really the champions of parliamentary democracy? Mr Speaker, Sir, human rights, the right to say 'no'. There is a Chinese saying, "Do not expect ivory to grow from a dog's mouth."

How rightly you have said that.

We have heard of examples - drain water, urine, beating the wife, or the mother, prostitutes, concubines - what is all this? I would say the best example is, "Do you want to eat curry rice, chop suey or chapati?" When a person is hungry, he has a right, of course, to choose to starve, but it is the responsibility of the Government to persuade him not to do so. We were elected into this Assembly on a merger mandate. This House has approved the motion on merger. The question is, what type of merger do we want? A person has a human right, the right to starve himself to death. Everyone knows that whether you like it or not there is going to be Malaysia. It is the duty of a responsible government to see that Singapore is not isolated. We have decided on one thing, i.e. merger. The Barisan Sosialis have no guts to say, "We do not want merger." So what are they complaining about? Column : 633 It is a matter of whether we want the White Paper merger or a complete merger, it is like asking whether you want to eat rice or chop suey. Of course, you have the right to starve to death. [Interruption]

Order. I have pulled up Opposition Members for being disorderly time and again. It seems to me that they are verging on being disrespectful to the Chair, which I will not tolerate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition Parties had their opportunity to voice their opinions. At least they should show respect to the Chair and give a chance to others to speak. Mr Speaker, Sir, the failure of parliamentary democracy in this part of the world is because certain countries think that wholesale transplanting of parliamentary democracy in their country would work. History has proved that we have to adapt parliamentary democracy according to the conditions and environments of our country, and with the conditions in Singapore we have to adapt our system according to local conditions. This talk of parliamentary democracy by the Barisan Sosialis is all eye-wash. What they really want is a 'yes' or 'no' to the White Paper. If you say 'no' to the White Paper, i.e. no merger, that is what they want. They broke away from us over this issue of merger. It is quite clear when their leaders went round to the branches after the split that they were arguing against merger. The Member for Thomson, if he could remember, told his Branch Executive Committee that he should have the right of choice in the marriage and the Federation Government is not the right choice because it is a Right-wing Government.

On a point of elucidation, Sir, I should be very much obliged if the Hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education could quote what he said I said. I do not remember ever having said this, but if he alleges that I have said things that he Column : 634 says I have said, surely I am entitled to hear at least my own words.

I could even quote the person who said all this. He was a member of the Executive of the Thomson Branch, Mr Lai Chong Ming. An hon. Member: Subject him to cross-examination!

He cannot deny, Mr Speaker, that the whole idea is to sabotage the referendum and merger. it is the duty of a responsible government to see that merger goes through.

An old gramophone record.

Order.

As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, there may be others who still think that Singapore can stand on its own feet, whether under the United Nations or otherwise. But everyone knows that Malaysia is inevitable and it is our duty to see that the Barisan Sosialis do not engineer a campaign to have blank votes to block merger.

Mr Speaker, Sir, once again so many heated words have been exchanged between P.A.P. and ex-P.A.P. that one is beginning to wonder whether the whole of this Assembly is to be confined to this struggle between them. Sir, I would ask Members of this Assembly to give serious thought to the matter under discussion and in order to have a proper appreciation of the move that the Government is making and why the Government considers it is necessary to make such a move, may I have your indulgence, Sir, if I endeavour to go briefly over the history of this referendum that necessitates the present stand of the Government? Sir, it was the original intention of the Government to pose one question to the electorate. They knew that they were going to lose because the electorate would just vote against the White Paper merger proposals not because they do not want merger but because they want to see the end of the P.A.P. Column : 635 - the sooner the better. Therefore they got frightened and they tried to cook up two questions and in their cleverness they thought it would be better if they could put them in such a way that there could be only one possible answer. When I heard of such dishonest manoeuvring, Sir, I was aghast, and I was naturally up in arms against any attempt by the Government to impose on the electorate any dishonest referendum. Therefore, I was very, very much against any move by the Government - to put it mildly - to cheat the electorate. When the Government found that right thinking people would just throw in blank votes in protest, the P.A.P. began to see the error of their ways. At the time when they proposed this particular clause, they had in mind two questions: "Do you want the White Paper merger with autonomy in education and labour?" Or. "Do you want Penang/Malacca type merger with 340,000 non-local born citizens losing their citizenship rights?" We were naturally up in arms. We spoke vigorously and without pulling punches; we called the P.A.P. dishonest and we were ready to tear into them, to expose them for what evil they meant to do. But, Sir, as a result of the debate over the past four days, the Government has agreed, through pressure from us and from other Members of the Assembly, that the questions must be straightforward and honest questions and that the questions to be posed in a referendum must first of all be fully debated in this Assembly. They have accepted that. Therefore the charge that dishonest questions would be put - thereby calling upon us to put in protest votes - is now remote. The questions will be fully debated in this House. The Prime Minister has given notice of a motion whereby two questions will be posed and the first question of course will be Cmd. Paper No. 33 of 1961. The other question is going to be com plete and unconditional merger. That is a straightforward and honest presentation. There is no presentation of a Penang or Malacca type merger with 340,000 non-local born citizens losing their citizenship rights. I have said in my speeches on this debate that there could be a third question. The third Column : 636 question could be "Do the electorate want Singapore to enter the new Malaysia on terms no less favourable than any one of the Borneo territories?" I propose to move an amendment along that line when the motion is debated in due course. 10.15 p.m. Now, Sir, if honest and straightforward questions are posed to the electorate to get their verdict, there can be little protest at all. In fact it would be right and proper to ask the electorate to cast their verdict. They are totally free to reject Command Paper No. 33, but in the rejection of Command Paper No. 33 they would have considered which of the other two alternatives would be in the best interest of the people of Singapore. In deciding in their minds as to which form of closer association would be more in the interest of the people of Singapore, the political Parties represented in this Assembly would be given every opportunity at referendum meetings to try and sell their ideas to the electorate. Those of us who are against Command Paper No. 33 - the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United Peoples Party, and the S.P.A. - could go out and tell the electorate that in their minds complete merger is more desirable and is more in the interest of the people of Singapore. Or if they like to take the line that what is offered to the Borneo territories should also be offered to Singapore, they are free to do so, and all the political Parties should rest content to leave it to the electorate to pass judgment. Now, the P.A.P. say that they are aware that the Communists will be up to their tricks and that in an attempt to damage merger they would be working on the people of Singapore to mislead them into casting blank votes. Sir, I, as one who had been in the Government previously and had to contend with the Communists and their subversive activities, have this to say. The P.A.P. have worked with them; the P.A.P. have given them legal cover and the P.A.P. have helped them to grow into what they are now, and having Column : 637 worked with them, perhaps the P.A.P. are in a better position to know the way they would work to wreck anything that the Government propose, in fact, the P.A.P. had helped them to try to wreck me. Now I would not like to say that I am having the last laugh because they are trying to wreck the P.A.P., but in all our deliberations in respect of accusations by the Government of Communist activities and Communist attempts to wreck merger, one must be guided by the first principle - the interests of the country. As a political Party in the Opposition, it would be a grand opportunity today to kick as hard as we can against the P.A.P. and to call them all sorts of names. In fact, they deserve those things. But is all this going to help the country? I doubt very much. There is already sufficient confusion over this issue, and as the days go by there will be more and more confusion added if we do not try to bring sanity to the debate on a very important national issue. I have said to the P.A.P. many a time that if they really fear that their erstwhile Communist comrades will be up to tricks to damage the interests of the people of Singapore, there is only one thing that they should do. But they do not want to do it. An hon. Member: What is that?

They should see to it that the opportunities are not given to them. Sir, they feel that it would be difficult or maybe they consider it undemocratic to use the P.P.S.O. and so they prefer this method - an undemocratic method of playing the same game. It would seem, Sir, that on this very important national issue the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis are trying to play a game - not chess - but a game for the existence of their own political Parties; a game to win the hearts and minds of the people of Singapore. At least in this particular instance, I can say that the P.A.P. are playing the game in the way that they think they should play in the interests of the people of Singapore. I cannot say the same thing for their Column : 638 erstwhile comrades who have been described by them as Communists and Communist front leaders. We do not like to see undemocratic methods being employed, but as the P.A.P. have said, this is something which they want to use to beat the Communists at their own game. As the Government have agreed that the questions to be posed will be fully debated in this Assembly and as an assurance has been given by the Minister for Home Affairs that this Referendum Bill will be repealed after the merger referendum, therefore, we feel that, in the interests of the people of Singapore, we will abstain. Much as we like to shout and shout and shout at the P.A.P., much as we like to try and gain as much political credit as we can out of this dilemma of the Government - An hon. Member: You want it?

New orders.

Yes. As I have said on many occasions, as I have said even during the time when I was in the Government, the interests of the country come above everything else - the individual as well as the Party - and because of that, we are abstaining. Sir, if the questions are straightforward questions, where then is the fear that the people will cast protest votes? There will be very, very few protest votes, and if there are very few protest votes, why are we wasting our time going hammer and tongs at one another? The fact that the Barisan are feeling so strongly about this is that they intend to try and damage merger by calling on the electorate of Singapore to cast blank votes. Sir, a question has been asked. The S.P.A. will be on the side of the people of Singapore against the Communists, against the subversives, against those people who are out to wreck the interests of the people of Singapore, no matter what Party they belong to. Sir, as has been said, blank votes and uncertain votes during election time amounted to only one per cent. Let the Government have that one per cent. I will not grudge them, but I feel it is Column : 639 wrong. But the fact that there has been so much heat generated by the Barisan against this attempt by the Government to stump them in what they want to do makes us feel that if the P.A.P. and ex-P.A.P. want to have their game, well, go on, have it. The sooner they have that game, and the sooner one of the Parties gets knocked out, the better. It will be better still if both Parties get knocked out. And it shall be our constant hope that both will get knocked out-

Your friends!

- but if both do not get knocked out, it shall be our duty and our pleasure to knock them out. An hon. Member: High hopes!

We knock the Barisan first.

The P.A.P. is dead. It cannot be more dead than what it was at 9.15 p.m. tonight. It may become more dead, but I will wait for the day when the funeral takes place. That will be the greatest rejoicing to the people of Singapore. The mess that we are in today is because of the mis take, the misdeeds and the evil deeds of the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P. Let there be an end to this misrule.

10.30 p.m.

Sir, since the days of the colonial government, never have we seen a law more undemocratic and unreasonable than clause 29 which concerns the question of blank votes in the Referendum Bill. It is difficult to find a parallel in any other law. The Government, despite its present majority of 25 seats, can still pass any legislation by virtue of abstained votes in the Opposition. But, Sir, for a law to be acceptable, it must receive the consent and express the popular will of the people. Mr Mammen, Sir, the question of blank votes has received much adverse Column : 640 criticism from every section of our society, even from those who supported the White Paper proposals. The Government's proposal to consider blank votes as supporting the Government's constitutional proposals is most absurd. The Government want the people to vote for the White Paper. They have given no choice to the people to say "no" to the White Paper. The people can only vote for an alternative which will be worse than the White Paper. Sir, those who accept the White Paper can put a cross in the appropriate column in the ballot paper. Those who reject the White Paper cannot put any cross anywhere, except to leave the ballot paper blank. There will be few abstained votes. Few will vote for the second alternative, because the second alternative will be worse than the White Paper. It therefore boils down to this. The voter actually has two choices. If he supports the White Paper, well and good. He puts a cross in the appropriate column. But if he rejects the White Paper, he will have no alternative but to throw in a blank ballot paper. In other words, all those voters who throw in blank ballot papers would, in our analysis, be opposing the White Paper and not merely being neutral or having no opinion at all. In the coming merger referendum, the situation is different from an election where there are few blank votes. In an election the reason for blank votes is that a few of the voters do not know how to vote. Therefore, in an election we would agree that blank votes should be treated as void votes supporting none of the candidates. But in the coming referendum, we are faced with an entirely different position because the voters who wish to vote against the White Paper have no alternative but to throw in blank votes. They are not void votes. They are not votes which are neutral. They are votes which are against the Government's White Paper proposals. That is why we have to move an amendment to make the votes as anti-Government votes. Sir, here we have a Government which is prepared to legislate anti-Government votes into becoming pro-Government votes. Sir, I do not want to repeat old Column : 641 and stale arguments in this Chamber and waste the time of Members. The people of Singapore have understood full well the undemocratic and disgraceful nature of clause 29. What they now require is not a further explanation of clause 29 but an answer, a solution, a counter move, to Government's shameful manipulation in the coming referendum. The amendments to clause 5 and clause 29 are the two vital issues in the coming referendum. We have not wanted to side-track issues of lesser importance in the Referendum Bill. It was our intention to highlight the importance and the far-reaching consequences of the two vital amendments to clause 5 and clause 29. The effect of clause 29, i.e. the blank votes, is that the Government could have a 99 per cent or even a 100 per cent victory. The result of such an undemocratic referendum is a foregone conclusion. If this Government are prepared to enact legislation such as clause 29, there is little left that they dare not do. What is left for us, Sir, is to seek an answer to this shameful and disgraceful manipulation of Government in the referendum which is to come-.

Mr Mammen, Sir, we have had in this House some hon. Members who have posed to be great pillars of parliamentary democracy. Sir, I think we have had enough Members standing up and claiming to be exponents of parliamentary democracy, so much so that I do not wish to claim to be one who champions in any way parliamentary democracy; in any case champions more than-

You do not believe in it.

- others do in parliamentary democracy. Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, while he was speaking just now, accused us of being people who are out to wreck the parliamentary system but who claim to defend parliamentary democracy. Column : 642 Sir, if you can recall. I am sure you will agree that the people who have been saying that they are democrats, that they are here to defend democracy, to make democracy tick in this part of the world, and that they are here to fight forces which are anti-democratic, are, in fact, those people who today sit on the opposite Benches. Sir, I do not remember having claimed to be ever a champion of parliamentary democracy. This does not mean I am anti-parliamentary democracy. But I do not want to be a hypocrite.

You believe in democratic centralism. That is what you said.

Sir, I am quite used to listening to names and I do not mind what I am called. You can call me a Fascist, a Communist, or what have you. But the point I want to make is this: it is not people in the Barisan Sosialis who have hitherto claimed to fight evil forces, subversive elements, elements which want to wreck the democratic system. It is the people who are in the P.A.P. now. The very reason why the Government Members say they have included clause 29 in the Referendum Bill is, according to them, to fight the Communists; the Communists are out to wreck the parliamentary system. I think it is not only hypocritical but it is equally naive for Members on the Government Benches to seriously suggest that they are the people who are going to defend the democratic system in this part of the world. As I said, Sir, I am a very simple man. I do not claim to be one of the pillars of parliamentary democracy. For the information of Members on the Government side, I will read to them what their own master has said in the past of parliamentary democracy. I am sure nobody on the Government Benches would say that their Prime Minister was a pro-Communist or a Fascist or was a man who was wrecking the parliamentary system. And later on, perhaps, if I might quote some interesting bits which the Prime Minister himself has said about democracy. And we can judge this talk of democracy- Column : 643 that the P.A.P. Government want to practise by the standards which the Prime Minister himself has set and preached about. It is a pity the Minister for Finance is not here. I must really congratulate him on having made a coherent speech, a very eloquent speech in which the arguments have been coherently made; but, unfortunately, very neatly fabricated also. Sir, this is the problem with the Minister for Finance. He is basically a theoretician and an economist. Therefore, he is more often in the habit of putting forward highflown theoretical arguments and is inclined to forget the practical side of the theoretical arguments he puts forward. He referred to what I had said on freedom of choice, and went on to talk of the concept of free democratic choice in the Victorian age. Sir, I have no intention whatsoever of taking Members of this House to a few hundred years back, the Victorian age, nor are Members of the Government Benches seriously interested in, I think, the Victorian age and their concept of freedom of choice, etc. Sir, the Minister said that we were asking for a negative "no right". Sir, he has had sufficient time to have his speech thought out carefully with the help and assistance given to him by able civil servants. I unfortunately do not have the facilities of using Government paid stenographers and typists to prepare a speech. If the Minister was able to put forward today an apparently coherent argument, it is because he has had the time to work out a speech well thought out and well written, and with sufficient command of the English language he sought to say all that we in the Opposition seek is a negative right to say "no". And he said that in the affairs of men the negative right is not in human affairs; that is what he said. Sir, we are saying that they want to pose two alternatives, two totally unacceptable alternatives. This has been admitted by the Government Members themselves. The Prime Minister himself Column : 644 has already given notice of a motion. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Government want to pose two alternatives to the people. And we feel that if two alternatives are to be put to the people, then the people must be given the right to accept or reject them. Unlike the P.A.P. we do not start from the premise that the people of Singapore must necessarily choose one of the two alternatives they put forward, 10.45 p.m. They are trying to distort the Barisan Sosialis stand and say that the second alternative is, in fact, the Barisan Sosialis stand. That, Mr Mammen, is not correct, and at the appropriate moment we will restate what the Barisan Sosialis stand is on the merger issue. But briefly, Sir, if they are going to say, "You choose unconditional complete merger or the White Paper type of merger," it does not take too much of imagination that this is a distortion of the Opposition's stand. We in the Barisan Sosialis have never at any time suggested that we want unconditional merger. I will be obliged if the Government Members can quote any relevant documents where we say we want unconditional merger. Sir, you will know that the term "super merger" is one that is only recently coined. It has only been coined after we have started harping on the fact that they are going to pose two unacceptable alternatives. However, Sir, in the context where they are going to pose two unacceptable alternatives, surely the people must be given the right to either accept or reject or, if necessary, to abstain. This to me does not seem to be something unusual. There is absolutely nothing unusual about asking the Government to guarantee these rights in the legislation. This has nothing to do with the Communists, nothing to do with the wrecking of the parliamentary system, and it has nothing to do with frustrating merger. It has been suggested that clause 29 is included in the Bill because the Barisan Sosialis want to frustrate merger. Why should we want to frustrate merger? Column : 645 Sir, some of the Members from the Government Front Bench know for a fact that merger or no merger, nothing affects the democratic movement of the people in this country. So long as the Barisan Sosialis is confident that it represents the democratic movement of the people in Singapore, there is nothing to be concerned about whether merger of the P.A.P. type is going to materialise or not. The Government's theory has been that because the Barisan Sosialis is afraid of merger, because the Barisan Sosialis thinks that it will be dissolved perhaps, because the Barisan Sosialis leaders believe that they may be arrested if there is merger, that we want to frustrate merger. Sir, I tell them once and for all that our concentration is not on the dissolution of the Barisan Sosialis or cn the arrests of the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis. We are not a political organisation that is dependent on Government machinery for its survival. We are not a po1itical organisation that is dependent on individuals. We derive our strength from the people. We say, Barisan Sosialis or no Barisan Sosialis, the people's movement goes on. And all the P.A.P.s in the world will not check the people's movement. We have no desire to frustrate merger in any way. But if the Government means that our wanting to frustrate merger is in fact our opposition to the White Paper merger, then we say that is true. We have stated openly that we oppose the White Paper merger. We have stated our reasons for our opposition. Quite rightly, we expect the people to oppose the White Paper merger. It is our obligation to ask the people to oppose the White Paper merger. Sir, we have put forward our stand on merger as complete merger where all Singapore citizens automatically will be converted into Federal citizens on merger day and where we will get proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. I tell them what I have already stated once before. If the Government is sincere in wanting to put forward the Column : 646 Barisan Sosialis type of merger to the people, then the obvious thing is to put forward our official stand on merger. There can be no distortion about it. We moved an amendment here in this House last year. We stated our stand in clear categorical terms, with no ambiguity and with no uncertainty. If the Government is serious in wanting to put forward the Barisan type of merger, then the obvious thing to do is to say: "(1) Do you support the White Paper merger?; (2) Do you support complete merger where all Singapore citizens automatically become Federal citizens and where Singapore would have proportional representation in the Federal Parliament?" We say that we expect a government with some decency left at least to do this and nothing else. But, Sir obviously the P.A.P. has degenerated to the position where it does not even show the common decency of allowing us to define our own stand, it just wants to put forward a distorted version of our stand so as to make the proposition totally unacceptable to the people. We say that no matter what question is posed to the people - whether it is one question or two questions; whether it is to be two alternatives - the free choice of the people must still be uninterfered with. We say that even if the Government is going to put forward the Barisan stand in just one simple question, because it is our stand, we are not going to tell the Government to count all the blank votes as votes for our proposition. We tell them to put forward our proposition requiring a simple "yes" or "no" answer, and blank votes are blank votes, and they cannot be recorded. This is because we believe in the inherent right of the people to have an uninterfered free choice. I am not saying that this is not a negative right that we are seeking from the people. It is in fact a positive right. It is a positive right because what is going to be posed to the people in the referendum are to be just two alternatives. The people are not going to be given 640,000 versions of merger to choose from. They are not going to be given a proposition for them to decide after having, in fact, Column : 647 ascertained whether the people are in fact in favour of the proposition. The P.A.P.'s whole object is to pose two unacceptable alternatives and have clause 29 in the Referendum Bill so that they could produce the result at the end and say, "So many per cent of the people have supported the Government's proposition." They know full well that if they pose just one question, asking the people to choose whether they want the White Paper merger or not, then the majority of the people are bound to oppose it. It is because they are aware of this that they want to pose two alternatives - not only two unacceptable alternatives but in addition, they want to have blank votes counted as votes for the Government proposition. Sir, this perhaps is the appropriate moment to examine what in fact blank votes would mean in a situation where two unacceptable alternatives are posed to the people. In an election normally the blank votes are negligible. But here the situation is quite different from what would prevail in an election where the choice is between a number of candidates. If two unacceptable alternatives are posed, then there are bound to be people who are going to find both unacceptable. And if both propositions are unacceptable, one has either the opportunity of putting in a blank vote or of putting in a vote which could be spoiled. Now, in this case, Mr Mammen, Sir, a blank vote is something that will be cast because one is uncertain to choose between two alternatives. The chances are that if the government pushes through its arrangement for a referendum on the basis of its utterances so far, it will be posing, in our view, two unacceptable alternatives, and in our view the majority of the people are going to find both unacceptable. Therefore, they are going to be unwilling to choose between two unacceptable alternatives.

You want complete merger!

Sir, if such votes are to be counted as votes for the Government proposition, then the least I could say, at least in the diction of the Barisan Column : 648 Sosialis, is that it is definitely not democratic. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has suggested that the S.P.A. is going to abstain. The Member for Cairnhill always interests me because he seems to think that if he has a few S.P.A. speakers outside the Assembly attending forums, making fiery speeches condemning the Referendum Bill and attacking clause 29 and so on and so forth, and yet still have their Assemblymen supporting the Government or, if necessary, conveniently abstaining while ensuring that the Government would still have a majority to carry the decision, they could easily cheat the people. The Member for Cairnhill must be very naive. 11.00 p.m. Sir, the people are not so simple as to be so easily cheated. Today the people of Singapore are watching the proceedings of this Assembly and the conduct of every Member of this Assembly is subject to public scrutiny. One can in his speech condemn the Barisan Sosialis or condemn the P.A.P.; yet what counts is in which way he votes. The S.P.A. stereo abstaining in this particular case is merely to save face because they have been openly committed to opposing clause 29 of the Bill. Here in this Chamber at the moment, particularly when the Government has only 25 Members left if the S.P.A. joins the rest of the Opposition and votes against clause 29, then clause 29 will indeed drop, and the amendment to clause 29 made by the Opposition will be carried. Therefore, even for political expediency if they want to oppose clause 29, they cannot do it because the very survival of the Government depends on their support. But then, Mr Mammen, Sir, to support clause 29 openly will be a very embarrassing thing because they have openly stated outside the Chamber that clause 29 is undemocratic. So the obvious thing is to abstain, and by abstaining, the Government is, in fact, ensured of a majority against this amendment. Sir, this is a cheap political trick and it does not take a man of great intelligence Column : 649 to understand such trickery. The people of Singapore are politically very sophisticated indeed, and if one could have bluffed like this in the past, then the first one to try it would have been the S.P.A. But whatever little effort they have made in trying to bluff the people along similar lines has, in fact, been of no avail, and for them to do it at the moment or for them to try it in the future, I think, would equally be fruitless. Sir, the arguments on clause 29 have already been stated quite clearly by Members of the Barisan Sosialis. I do not want to go into the details of the arguments except to sum up what has been said of parliamentary democracy and democracy and so on in this Chamber. As I said when I started off, it is not my intention to claim to be a guardian of parliamentary democracy; it is not my intention to claim to be a pillar of parliamentary democracy. Sir, I am not an exponent in these matters. Perhaps the Minister for Finance who says that his life is dedicated to preserving the democratic system could be a greater exponent. But then as I have said. the tragedy of the Minister for Finance is that he is more an economist and a theoretician and, therefore, every time he thinks of political problems he cannot divorce them from the ABC of economics that he has learnt; and every time he talks theoretically on a political basis he forgets conveniently the practical side. Sir, I wish to just answer one or two points on this talk of democracy and parliamentary democracy and so on. Sir, the Minister for Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education have all said that democracy must be adapted to suit local conditions. Their suggestion has been, in fact, that democracy must be accepted conditionally. Sir, we know the sort of democracy that prevails in Singapore. We are not talking of individual rights to go to the cabaret and dance, to go to a bar and have a beer. We are talking of the fundamental human right of the people to decide their future themselves. We are saying that merger is a matter that will affect the lives of all our people, that it will affect the lives of all Column : 650 their children and generations to come, and we say that in a matter of this magnitude and of this significance, the right of the people to freely choose must be guaranteed by whatever legislation this House passes and not be deprived of consciously. Sir, the Minister for Finance has also said that in a regimented society there is no talk of the right to say no, etc. I do not think, Sir, any Member from the Barisan Sosialis has ever suggested that the P.A.P. must bring about a regimented society. I do not know what particular society or what political system he was having in his mind when he was talking of a regimented society. But knowing his inner thinking, I think it will be safe to assume that by a regimented society perhaps he means a Communist society or a society as existed in Nazi Germany. Sir, I just briefly want to say this, that even in a Communist society, in Communist China and in the Soviet Union, the right of the people to say 'no' is guaranteed in an election, and this I am sure will be ipse dixit, if the Members on the opposite benches choose to be honest, they will accept.

That is what you said.

Sir, we are not advocating a regimented type of society. We are not saying you bring about a Fascist society tomorrow. But the irony is that these men who talk of democracy and so on do not realise that even in Hitler's Germany, the right to say no was given in a referendum. What moral justification can these men have in wanting to criticise the Barisan Sosialis for asking the people to be given this basic right? Sir, as I have said, we are aware of the type of democracy that has been in existence in Singapore for the past 130 years. We are fully aware of the type of democracy the P.A.P. wants to practise. We are not, as I have said, thinking of the individual right to go to attend a social here or a social there. We are not thinking of individual rights to buy a blue car or a red car or a white car. We are thinking of more serious matters. We do not claim, Sir, to be the pillars of parliamentary democracy. We say we are what we are and we go by standards of fairness and reasonableness. We say the Column : 651 Referendum Bill is unfair because it is unfair. It denies the people the right of free choice. We say clause 29 is unfair because it seeks to interfere with the right of the people to have a free choice. But these men who claim to be champions of democracy do not practise democracy - simple things like unions wanting to hold meetings to discuss the Referendum Bill. Sir, more than 90 per cent of the population of Singapore is composed of workers and their dependants. If trade unions which are legally registered organisations which represent these workers are not allowed to discuss a Bill which is going to affect their own future, then what sort of democracy do we have? Sir, we are not allowed to hold meetings freely. What sort of democracy do we have? We are not allowed to hold meetings outside the 13 constituencies in which the 13 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen represent. [Interruption]. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order.

The democracy that the hon. Members on the Government side are preaching, as I have said, is conditional democracy.Sir, I just want to end up by reading a few interesting passages of a great exponent of democracy, the Prime Minister himself. Sir, if I attempt to try and expound on democracy, then the Government Members will come and say that I am preaching Communist democracy. I have already said that I have no intention whatsoever of claiming to be an exponent of democracy, or in any way attempting to expound democracy. Sir, this is very relevant to the arguments put forward. Sir, the one big mistake the P.A.P. Members make is that they always forget what their master has said. If I were a good student of a master, who is taught to say 'aye' when the master says 'aye', and 'nay' when the master says 'nay', then I will at least read His Master's Voice, His Master's sayings, His Master's utterances. This is very unfortunate. Sir, I quote col. 59 of Hansard, Vol. 1, of 27th April, 1955-

A long time ago.

Yes, a long time ago. When the Prime Minister was the - Column : 652 An hon. Member: You were carrying his bag then, were you?

No. I was still teaching at that time, and had nothing to do with this thing. Sir, to men who preach conditional democracy, it must be refreshing to remember this. This is what Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the then Member for Tanjong Pagar, said: 'But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically, without qualification, that no restraint from any democratic process, other than the ordinary law of the land, should be allowed. If a man chooses to carry a hand grenade or a revolver, or some other lethal weapon, in times when the Governor and the High Commissioner have proclaimed a statement of emergency, then he takes the supreme penalty the law has laid down for him. But if a political party wants to hold at election meeting or even a post-election meeting after 7 o'clock, they are told: "We do not believe in democracy after the election. We only believe in democracy once in four years, for one month." That is not the kind of democracy that you can inspire men with, to fight for and die for. That is not the kind of democracy that is going to make it tick in South-East Asia, if you tell us that we can hold a public meeting in the heat of the sun at four o'clock or five o'clock when nobody would come to listen to us, when therefore there would be no real danger of any democratic movement starting, but that we cannot hold a public meeting after 7 o'clock. when by the habits of the workers they would have returned from work, the earth has got cooler, the walls have got cooler, the night is getting mellow and warm speeches can be made. But, no! That is not allowed. And yet, we are asked to believe that this is democracy.' 11.15 p.m. Sir, even today the P.A.P. does not allow Opposition Parties to hold meetings after 7 o'clock. In 1955 the Prime Minister criticised the Labour Front Govern ment for not allowing the P.A.P. to hold meetings after 7 o'clock. And today, we are not only denied the right to hold meetings after 7 p.m. but also the right to hold meetings where we choose to hold. Sir, at col. 60 there is one line - Mr Lee Kuan Yew again: 'If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally.' Column : 653 And one more line in continuation: 'If you believe that men should be free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication...'. Sir, if Members in the Government Benches make it a point at least to try and read up their master, then they would not come here and say that we are dangerous elements and that we want to wreck democracy because we ask for a fundamental right of the people - a right to freely say yes or no or abstain. Sir, we are told that Government thinks it necessary to have clause 29 because the Communists want to wreck merger. I ask the Government Members: why do the people whom the Government call Communists want to wreck merger, and why do they want to frustrate merger? Sir, I have already dealt with this before. As far as the Barisan Sosialis are concerned, if a simple question is posed to the people and if the people are given a free choice for them to freely decide whether they want to accept merger on whatever terms, then there is no need for anybody to go round frustrating merger of one type or another. 11.20 p.m.

Sir, it is because today the Government has clearly stated that it wants to pose two totally unacceptable alternatives, and it is because today the Government has stated clearly that it wants to have blank votes recorded as votes for the Government proposition that there is this resistance to the Referendum Bill. If it were not for that, the Barisan Sosialis would have nothing against merger in principle, or the Referendum Bill in principle, and we would have no necessity to go round canvassing people to vote one way or the other. Sir, we are told that clause 29 is necessary because of the Communists. We are told that it is necessary to deprive the people of the fundamental right to have free choice because of people whom they call Communists. Sir, we are seriously asked to believe that over 600,000 voters are going to be denied the right to freely accept, reject, or abstain from any proposition Column : 654 because of the Communists. In brief, what we are told is that the people should not have democracy because there are Communists and, as I have already said a number of times in this House, and the Prime Minister himself has also said, there are only 300 Communists in Singapore. In other words, on the P.A.P. logic, because there are 300 dangerous Communists the 1.7 million people are to be denied their fundamental democratic right. Sir, I wish to end by again quoting the great exponent of democracy, the great exponent of parliamentary democracy - the Prime Minister himself.

You were his good student.

I was never a good student, but I got facts. I only wish, Sir, that devoted followers of the Prime Minister read these things as often as I read them. They are very inspiring indeed. This is from col. 215 of 16th May, 1955 [Hansard], towards the middle of the last paragraph. He was addressing you, Sir: 'It is no use, Mr Speaker, Sir, to tell the people: "You cannot have Democracy. You are not fit for it. You will be devoured by the Communists. Let us first fight the Communists." It does not work.' This is exactly what we are being told at the moment. The people of Singapore are not fit to have democracy because there are 300 Communists. The people of Singapore are to be denied their basic right to have a free choice because the Government has worked out this Communist move.

Order. May I suggest to the Member for Thomson that he has, in fact, been repeating himself time and time again? Perhaps he will come back and wind up.

I have nothing more to say, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, listening to the debate that has been going on on this particular clause, I was reminded of the trite saying that if you look at any cloud however dark it may be, and look hard enough, you will find a silver lining.

You will find a golden lining. Column : 655

The silver lining that seems to arise out of the darkness of clause 29, Mr Speaker, to my mind, is a reassurance that all Parties in this House are united as one in the defence of democracy, the precepts of democracy, and the basic principles on which we think democracy should be worked.

Not the P.A.P.

This year of grace 1962 (July) in Singapore is a very reassuring one indeed, Mr Speaker. Listening to the Member for Anson, whose belief in democracy nobody has ever doubted ever since he got into politics, there is this reassurance although some might say that others who are more adept at political machinations sometimes use him. But so far as the Member for Anson himself is concerned, nobody can doubt, nobody has doubted, and I hope nobody will ever doubt, his entire belief in and support of the democratic creed, faith and in the particular form in which we try to administer democracy in this country. But of the others, there have been serious doubts, and listening to today's debate one is seriously tempted to believe that whatever doubts one might have had are all misconceived. It would appear, Mr Speaker, that the basic objection to clause 29 is this: that the fundamental inalienable right of every democratic citizen to say "no" to any proposition has been denied, and that this clause seeks to deny that fundamental inherent right which every citizen in a democracy should possess. Now, while subscribing to that theory, I wonder whether in every circumstance and in every manifestation of the democratic workings of a parliamentary democracy, that is always so. Democracy is practised in Europe, in Canada, in Australia, and in various parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, where I was about a month ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had the opportunity to meet Parliamentarians from the House of Commons who are not quite so familiar with the workings of democracy in our country. When I mentioned to one of them that in Singapore it was not merely a question of a right to vote but a duty to vote, that the right to vote in Singapore has been converted into a duty, an inescapable duty Column : 656 to vote he was horrified. "Oh, that is not right," he said. "How could you do that? How could you force anybody to go to the polls if he does not want to?" That is a point of view, Mr Speaker, which has to be respected. And perhaps in the context of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom, it is correct. Now, no Member of the United Kingdom Parliament could say that the Australian Parliamentarians are less democratic than the United Kingdom Parliamentarians. And yet in Australia the right to vote has been converted into a duty to vote. And we here in Singapore started off by saying that there could only be a right to vote and not a duty to vote. Now, because of the political conditions that prevail here and of the various reasons which, if not looked after, would have wrecked the parliamentary democratic system, the right to vote was converted into a duty to vote. I mention this, Mr Speaker, Sir, to show that sometimes what one conceives to be a democratic right has to be converted into a democratic duty in order to save the democratic system. 11.30 p.m. If it is a duty, Mr Speaker. Sir, then no question of a right to abstain arises. You simply have to do it, because society in its own interest has decreed that to preserve itself each citizen must be called upon to do certain things. In those circumstances, it is right to impose a duty on each citizen, and if that citizen does not perform the duty, then he has to pay the consequences. Now this is one instance which I can cite to the Member for Thomson where a right has been converted into a duty. Let me cite another case to the learned Member for Anson. I think this would appeal to him. Jury service, Mr Speaker, Sir, It is the right of every adult citizen in the United Kingdom to serve on a jury. When he is called for jury service, that right is converted into a duty. He has to do it, unless he has very good reasons. He cannot, when he is called upon by the Registrar of the Court to serve as a juror, say, "No, no, I do not want to serve." If he does that, then he has to pay the penalty. If he is chosen as a member of the jury and sits on the jury, Column : 657 and the Judge poses certain questions to the members of the jury q uestion A, question B, question C; all facts are in the hands of the jury - it is not the inalienable right of the juryman to say, "I do not know. I cannot make up my mind." He has to make up his mind one way or the other on the questions that are posed to him. That is his duty. If the jury return, and the foreman of the jury tells the Judge, "None of us have been able to make up our minds on the questions that have been posed to us," .the Judge will send them back until such time as they have made up their minds. If they are difficult, the jury will be dismissed and another jury will be empanelled and the same questions will be posed to them until the answers are given. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see the situation in this light. An attempt has been made by Members of the Barisan Sosialis and by the Member for Anson to draw an analogy between an election and a referendum. It is contended, and quite rightly, that in an election the citizens have the right to cast a blank ballot paper. Mr Speaker, Sir, in my contention, this is a:; it should be, because the manner in which the ballot paper is devised, the manner in which the elector is called upon to cast his vote is such that he can only say "no" to a candidate or by saying "yes" to another candidate. If there are four candidates, and if an elector wants to say "no" to every one of the four candidates, he does so by putting in a blank ballot paper to show that he does not like any of the four candidates. In those circumstances, it is his right to reject all four candidates. Is the position the same in a referendum? A referendum, to my mind, is an entirely different matter. It is on a matter of grave national importance on which the Government go to the electorate. The government of the day cannot make up its mind. Although it might have ideas about a matter, it is not quite sure of public reaction. Therefore, it might on its own put the questions to the electorate. And again it might come to the Assembly or the House, as the case may be, and consult it. Column : 658 Mr Speaker, let us now therefore come nearer home on the question of merger with the Federation. As far as I can make out, no single individual in Singapore can or does in fact deny that there should be merger with the Federation. No single individual has denied that this merger should be brought about at the quickest possible opportunity. We might each of us or some of us have differences of opinion as to the type of merger, or if I may put it that way, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the quantum of merger. But on the basic and vital question whether there should be merger with the Federation there is no difference of opinion at all. In those circumstances. I ask the Member for Thomson and the Member for Anson to try and look at this, for the moment at least, objectively. If the Member for Thomson will bear with me for a moment, his objection to clause 29, Mr Speaker, is, it seems to me, a completely objective one: that this clause 29 is not democratic. Never mind the purposes to which it is being put. But the clause in itself is undemocratic and as such unacceptable. That is his argument. His basic objection to this clause is this. I have listened to the Member for Thomson with great interest. Time and again he said this: 'If there are unacceptable alternatives posed, then there will be blank votes.' In other words, he is suggesting that if the alternatives posed to the electorate are unacceptable, then this clause becomes undemocratic, because it then denies the right of the voter to say "No" to all the unacceptable alternatives. Now, I ask the Member for Thomson in all seriousness: if it were possible to devise acceptable alternatives - I repeat it again - if it were possible to devise acceptable alternatives, would the objection to clause 29 disappear on the arguments-

On a point of clarification. Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

Sir, I think we have made it very clear that whether there is to be one question, two questions or two alternatives or two unacceptable alternatives, the right to say "yes" or "no" or to abstain must be there. We have stated quite clearly that the objection is because, in the first place, the extent of choice is limited, and, in the second place, the Column : 659 right of free choice is interfered with by clause 29. Our objection to that clause is not just because there are going to be two unacceptable alternatives.

Sir, I believe the Member for Thomson and I are getting closer to each other on this particular issue. I think we are nearing the point of agreement on this particular issue, Sir, if not on the other issues. On this particular issue of clause 29, it appears that we are getting closer to understanding each other than was possible two days ago. It seems, therefore, that if it were possible by some skill to devise some acceptable alternatives, then it appears to me that the objections, of the Member for Thomson at least - I do not know about the Member for Queenstown - but certainly those of the Member for Thomson would appear not to be so violent-

Clause 29 - what will come of it?

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you see the difficulties we get into. Because of this perpetual contest between the P.A.P. and the Barisan Sosialis, nothing is ever looked at objectively or on its merits. The Barisan Sosialis are asking, what is behind clause 29? And the P.A.P. are asking, what is behind the Barisan amendment? Each one in an attempt to outwit the other produces clauses which sometimes astound the rest of us.

Leading Machiavellian in front of us!

Order. The Member for Queenstown has been very quiet until he suddenly wakes up! I am wondering whether he is following the speech.

Sir, possibly this is the moment for me to answer the Member for Thomson on certain matters raised by him. He attacked my colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, as being somewhat Machiavellian in his speech. He also attacked the Singapore People's Alliance for what they had said outside this Assembly in its attack on clause 29 and what the Member for Cairnhill Column : 660 has now said vis-a-vis clause 29. Perhaps the Member for Thomson will forgive me if I use his own argument. Once the Member for Thomson is satisfied that the questions posed are acceptable, then the objections to clause 29, from his own point of view, disappear. Now, if that were correct in his own case, I think he should concede that that should be correct even with the S.P.A. What the Singapore People's Alliance were worried about a week ago or before this debate commenced was whether the questions that were to be posed would be brought to this Assembly and whether, in the view of the Singapore People's Alliance, the questions would be fair and reasonable. If, in the opinion of the Singapore People's Alliance, the questions were exhaustive, fair and reasonable, naturally their objections to clause 29 would disappear, in the same way as the objection of the Member for Thomson to the clause would disappear. So why then-

On a point of clarification.

Order. I think the Member for Thomson should try to restrain himself. He will be given another opportunity, if not today, then tomorrow, to expand on what he means.

Even the Member for Thomson will admit that. If the arguments are cogent so far as he is concerned, I think the same argument must logically and reasonably apply to us. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today. The Government have now made a statement - in fact, they have put in a motion - to the effect that they are going to pose two alternatives. I think the Member for Cairnhill has given notice that he thinks a third one should be posed. At the appropriate time, Mr Speaker, Sir, we will move the amendment to the motion. We hope that the Government will accept it. If the Government accept that motion, from the point of view of the Singapore People's Alliance, all the possible acceptable alternatives which should go to the electorate will be there. It could be that from the Barisan Sosialis point of view it might not be acceptable. Then it is up to them to pose the alternatives Column : 661 which they think are acceptable. If all the possible alternatives that could be agreed upon by the Assembly are then posed to the electorate, then I do not see why the electorate should not answer "yes" to one of the questions posed.

He is not allowed to.

If all the possible acceptable alternatives have been posed, Mr Speaker, Sir - I would remind the Member for Anson of this phrase which is familiar to all of us - we have to cater for a reasonable man, Mr Speaker, Sir, not to a weak and vacillating man that cannot make up his mind. That is all that one can reasonably be expected to do. The questions must be posed in such a way that a reasonable man will understand them and will not be puzzled by them. That is all the obligation that exists on the person who poses any question or questions. If the questions are posed in that reasonable manner, three, four, five or six - as many as the Assembly thinks are necessary - and if those are the only possible alternatives to this question of merger, surely there can he and must be one answer. There cannot be six "noes", Mr Speaker, Sir, It could then be completely unreasonable. That is assuming that the six possible alternatives have been posed. If the only possible alternatives have been posed, surely one must be in a position to answer. 11.45 p.m. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is as I see the problem. I do not say that this should normally apply in every referendum. But in this particular referendum we are in the happy position of all political Parties and all Singaporeans saying we must have merger. For if we had not reached this position, a solution by way of a referendum might have been extremely difficult, because then you would have had to pose the different types of association which one could want with the Federation. The attempt Column : 662 to get an answer to that,and having got an answer to that to go on from that to other matters would have become practically impossible on a referendum. So having agreed that merger is the base to which we all are firmly anchored, from that base we then go on to all the possible acceptable alternatives which could be put; and if all such possible alternatives are put, Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself, as a reasonable man, do not see why one of those should not be picked.

Mr Speaker, I intend to be brief. But I cannot let the impression of undoubted ability in advocacy give one a completely false view of the basic facts. We have witnessed an exquisite piece of special pleading done with charm, if I may say so with respect, Sir. Now, let us come to the meat of what the Member for Farrer Park says. He says that when the right to vote becomes a duty to vote, then the right to abstain ceases to exist. Fortunately, Sir, he saw the fallacy of it and tried to cover up what he knows are the provisions of section 41, subsection (1) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which provide, in the words of his own leader, the Member for Cairnhill, though you are compelled to go to the booth you are not required to mark your voting paper. That is nothing illegal or improper. He says he does recognise that in an election there is a right to reject because you are only given four or five alternative candidates. Then he refers us to a jury. Here, if you will permit me, Mr Speaker, he says in a jury, the jurymen have no right to abstain. I would like to tell you a little story, and a perfectly true one. Around the year 1934, the first and only time that I served as a juror, I happened to be foreman of the jury in a case of acid throwing where the accused had thrown acid on his wife's lover and burnt his nose and his fingers. Well, we got into the jury room and I said, "It should be very simple. Are we all agreed he is guilty?" and one man started on a religious track. It sounded like a religious track, Sir. He said, "The Lord sayeth, 'Judge not and thou shall not be judged,' and it is not for us to Column : 663 judge." I got rather angry about that and I said, "You are on the jury." So I went back to the court and asked of the Judge what was I to do with this person's vote? How would I record him, because he had not said 'aye' and he had not said 'nay'. The direction of the Court was that where there was a juror who refused to come down on the side of "guilty" he must be deemed to be voting "not guilty". That was the only jury on which I served, and that was a case of a man who refused to vote because it turned out he had religious scruples - 'Judge not, and thou shall not be judged.' The Member for Farrer Park pleaded that we should look at this clause objectively. By all means, Sir. He says that if all the acceptable alternatives could possibly be posed after having been debated in the Assembly, then objectively is it not right? If the voter having heard all the possible alternatives discussed in the Assembly, having understood all the alternatives, does not want any of them, that is why he puts in a blank paper, and to suggest - and this is what the Member for Farrer Park glossed over - that after having heard all the arguments, and particularly the Government's arguments, when a man casts a blank paper it shall be deemed to be in favour of the Government, that is the crux of the dishonesty; because, forgive me for making a very short repetition, if he did want the Government proposal, there was nothing simpler than to mark his cross against it, or if he is not allowed a cross, to do whatever tortuous act the Government seeks that we should do. Sir, there is a great deal of merit in the Member for Hong Lim's proposal that those who cast blank papers shall be deemed to be unwilling to accept; it goes against the grain for me though to permit a blank paper, however unusual the circumstances, to have any value at all. If you will see my amendment, I have said that the proposals are either unacceptable or he does not understand the instructions. Because, Sir, nowhere in the world, and that is one of the answers to the Member for Column : 664 Farrer Park, nowhere in any of the legislation into which we have researched - and we have ransacked the legislation of some 13 countries, Sir; - we have sought and obtained the assistance of the Diplomatic Corps to a very considerable extent - can you find a provision like this clause which permits the Government to reap votes which are cast because they do not want the proposals that are before them, in essence, although some of them, because of their ignorance, may well be unaware of the exact means of voting. It is not a question, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has said, of a child who does not know whether he wants meat and does not know whether he wants fish and so he says, "Papa, you decide for me." That is fair enough. But here he has heard the virtues of meat extolled, the virtues of fish extolled, and he could have chosen. But he does not want either, Sir. Maybe he is an incipient vegetarian. That is the answer. Now, in order to make his very smooth argument to cover the unhappy volte-face of the S.P.A. from their vigorous and manly words in Select Committee, when we had the Member for Cairnhill fighting shoulder to shoulder with us in the cause of decency, and their present incapacity to make up their minds they will abstain. There is a delightful book by Peter Ustinov in which he ticks off a Russian diplomat. He says, "I am in two minds - one mind says 'yes' and the other mind says 'no', and the two minds are equally strong and in between I abstain." This responsible Party of strong-minded, public-spirited gentlemen and lady - and in fairness to the lady, I would say that I have, in fact, found her very often on the side of fairness and decency - but let us go on to the boast of the leader of this Party. He says they are a responsible Party. His colleague says this is a very good clause. He himself voted against it and now I understand the entire Party is going to abstain. I cannot but express deep regret that in the field of politics we should have these changes which confuse the public image. However, to go back to the merits. May I remind the Member for Farrer Park Column : 665 - the Prime Minister being present; it is all the more appropriate - that the Prime Minister has repeatedly told us that if we ask each individual voter of the 624,000 voters in Singapore what kind of merger he wants, we will get 624,000 different types of merger. According to the Prime Minister himself, not one or two or three or four. So if we are to get 624,000 types of merger and it is hardly appropriate for us to conceive or attempt to conceive of a plan whereby all these types can be put to the electorate, is it not fair to leave a provision whereby they can say yes or no? That is the crux, that having been defeated, all the rest is sham. But it is more than sham here it is parti cularly horrible, Sir, because if in fact the questions have been discussed and decided in the Assembly, the voter should know whether he wants it, and if he wants it he can vote for it. But the Member for Farrer Park refuses to face it. He says that in putting blank papers in, the majority of those voters, in fact, are saying, "We do not like these options." "Where is the logic of it?", he asks. Now, let us look at the two questions posed by the Prime Minister. The Member for Farrer Park says that if all the acceptable alternatives are put - it is a very large "if"; if we count all the grains of sand in the world - what objection can there be? But here we have got two already. Will the Member for Farrer Park not recognise that the way they are posed leaves a very unhappy lacuna and leaves the question open as to what those alternatives Column : 666 mean? We have had one alternative - the P.A.P. proposals - spelt out, but the Prime Minister respelt it out by putting in education and labour. Then we have had another proposal which is as a constituent State under the constitutional documents - whatever that might mean - but it leaves completely blank the issue as to citizenship, it leaves completely unfilled the picture. The Member for Farrer Park must be conscious that if questions are posed in a manner where different people may understand different things, that question is not acceptable and can never be acceptable. I will say, Sir, that if, in fact, there is precision in the amendment to the motion suggested by the Member for Cairnhill, he will have my support that a further proposal will be as indicated by the Member for Cairnhill, that the terms should be no less favourable-

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

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

Tomorrow it will be.

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