The text
EXEMPTED BUSINESS - (Motion) Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 1 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight."-[The Prime Minister]
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Order read for resumed consideration in Committee. 2.32 p.m. Clause 28-(cont.)
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL We are on the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown, In page A11, to leave out lines 40 to 43 inclusive and insert- "(b) on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can he identified except the printed number on the back; (c) which is unmarked; (d) which is void for uncertainty.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate, of course, will range over the principle of the next clause 29 and the first two amendments* to that clause. * Amendment (i), standing in the name of Mr Marshall, reads as follows: In page A12, line 16, to leave out from "who" to the end of line 18, and insert "is not in favour of any of the proposals posed by the referendum or has not understood the questions or the instructions for voting". * Amendment (ii), standing in the name of Mr Ong Eng Guan, reads as follows: In page A12, line 16, to leave out "accepts or is willing" and insert "rejects or is unwilling".
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, last night when we adjourned, I was dealing with the speech of the learned Member for Farrer Park. The attitude of his Party is vital. Column : 670 Yesterday the P.A.P. was a majority Government, and abstentions would not materially affect the result. Today, the P.A.P. is a minority Government and the united Opposition can repel attempts on the part of the P.A.P. Government to deal dishonestly with the people. Today, every abstention on the part of a Member on this side of the House is, in effect, a vote for the Government. This must be recognised, Sir: that abstentions prevent the Opposition from utilising the majority of Members which it now has. The S.P.A., when it first entered this Chamber in 1959, was a subject of P.A.P. Government's bullying and crudities. We have now come full circle. Today they are the arbiters of the fate of the P.A.P. Government. Knowing that this minority Government can only act with the support of the S.P.A., where the P.A.P. acts dishonestly or in fraud of the people, the S.P.A. must take the blame. The S.P.A. must carry the odium though it does not enjoy the fruits, because it is now a fact that the assistance of the S.P.A., tacit or active, is necessary for the P.A.P. to perpetrate the threatened perfidy of a dishonest referendum upon our people. Sir, I am not urging the S.P.A. to overthrow the P.A.P. Government. All I am suggesting at this juncture is that they should be conscious, as the people of Singapore are conscious, that as from today they have the power to resist and prevent dishonest conduct on the part of the P.A.P. Government. If it abstains from the exercise of this right, it must carry the same odium as the P.A.P. Government with whose existence it is now fully associated. Mr Speaker, I want to remind you of the brave words of the Member for Cairnhill in the Select Committee less than three weeks ago. If you will be Column : 671 good enough to look at col. 332 of the 15th of May, there is a paragraph. This is what the Member for Cairnhill said: 'if the answer required in the referendum is just a yes or a no and the voter refuses to give a straightforward answer where he is given a choice of accepting or rejecting, then there may be some ground for saying that silence means consent. But where a voter is asked [and you will notice, Sir, it is where there is a yes or a no] to choose two or three things which he may not like and for which he may have great revulsion, surely he should have the right to express his disgust by not voting at all.' Mr Chairman, then if you will look at column 376 the following day - only one more paragraph, Sir, It is not my purpose to seek to embarrass but rather, if possible, to clarify. It is the final paragraph. Again the Member for Cairnhill said: Coming now to unmarked votes, votes are unmarked to indicate the strong feeling of the voters. In the referendum that is to come, a voter might be so fed up with the manner in which the questions are posed that the onlv way he feels he can show his intense disgust is to cast a blank vote; otherwise if he has views of his own, he will know what to do with it. But in order to show his disgust, he puts in a blank vote. So a voter who shows his disgust with the manipulations of the Government is to be treated like a man who is very friendly towards the Government.' You will notice particularly, Sir, the words there used: "...a voter might be so fed up with the manner in which the questions are posed...." The Member for Cairnhill had in mind that there might be several questions, and yet he says there is this possibility. He says quite truthfully, Sir, that this provision of clause 29 is not a provision to assist confused people, but is a provision to transform a "no" into a "yes". He tells you that people, who cast blank votes after the matter has been fully debated, cast those blank votes out of disgust. That means they do not want any of the alternatives. Yet by a legal fraud their disgust is transformed into partisanship for the Government proposal. They say no in fact, and the law says, "You shall be deemed to say yes." A man is physically a man, but the P.A.P. law says you are a woman or an animal. In this case, the P.A.P. makes us animals according to their own image - gadarene swine. Column : 672 Sir, finally at column 385 on the same day, the Opposition had the pleasure, on calling for a division, to have the Member for Cairnhill stand shoulder to shoulder with us in a vote of five on the Government side and four on the Opposition side, the Barisan Sosialis, the S.P.A., the U.P.P. and the Workers' Party. As I pointed out, the Member for Cairnhill had fully in mind the possibility that there might be more than one question. He knows, as every reasonable man knows, however many the questions, there are some who may not find any of them acceptable. Sir, speaking purely on principle, it is a matter of elementary decency that in a referendum which is intended to seek to ascertain the wishes of the people, they should be entitled to say "yes", to say "no", or to say, "We do not care." Sir, if the Government really want those who are confused to be assisted, let them put in a clause: "Do you want the Government to decide for you?" By all means. We will go to great lengths on the Opposition side in this tragic farce which the PAP, is seeking to perpetrate on a very decent people. 2.45 p.m. The Member for Cairnhill voted for us in Select Committee, and even in this Assembly he has uttered war-like noises towards the Government Front Bench. The Member for Cairnhill knows that the attitude of the S.P.A., through him in Select Committee towards the Referendum Bill, has attracted considerable credit for his Party and, in fact, their image both as to his activities on the Referendum Bill in Select Committee and in other matters over the past 12 months has improved to a remarkable extent as a result of their strong anti-P.A.P. stand. The learned Member for Farrer Park, Sir, would have been both surprised and delighted had he been present at a mass rally but ten days ago, when I think it was the Secretary-General of the S.P.A. who stood on the same platform as the Workers' Party, the Barisan, the Party Rakyat and the Liberal Socialists - An hon. Member: He was booed. Column : 673
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL And he would have been, I think, pleased at the friendly reception accorded the representative of the S.P.A. by some 6,000 to 7,000 people who had come from distances and stood for hours in the open to hear him - The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) rose -
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Is it a point of order?
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL On a point of information, Sir.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL If the Member will give way. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Sir, is it not true that the representative of the S.P.A. was booed at this meeting when he stood up to speak?
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Sir, he was at the beginning booed, it is true, by a small section but as he warmed up, Sir, he received both cheers and happy laughter. I remember vividly when he said, "The S.P.A. is not as dirty as the P.A.P." He had the loudest ovation that I have heard in a long time, Sir. That seemed to attract the sense of humour and enjoyment of the crowd there, that phrase - "The S.P.A. is not as dirty as the P.A.P." But if I may able to go on, Sir. Today the Singapore People's Alliance seeks to maintain the public image it has earned over the last 12 months by its warlike noises in the Assembly, with more warlike noises which are divorced from deeds. They brandish their verbal asides at the Government and then vote for the very proposals they condemn. Because, Sir, I repeat, that in the context of today, to abstain from voting on the Opposition side is, in fact, to vote for the Government because it allows them then to escape the majority verdict which we can bring to bear. Sir, with the resignation from the P.A.P. of the Member for Bras Basah, each abstention is of vital importance to enable the Government to maintain its voting superiority. Sir, just as the Member for Cairnhill was unequivocal in Select Committee in his contempt for clauses 28 and 29 - and Column : 674 seemingly, Sir, in this very Assembly - so his colleague, the learned Member for Farrer Park, seemed friendly to this clause although neither of them is going to vote against or for it. The learned Member for Farrer Park inter alia asks, "If all the possible alternatives are put, what objection is there to this clause?" Mr Speaker, I would refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister in a radio forum on the 12th of June, 1962, which was broadcast on the 14th of June. You will find it in page 3 of the official manuscript, it is a very short sentence and this is what the Prime Minister said: 'If you ask 624,000 voters, each man to write down what he wants you might well get 624,000 different answers.' So the answer to the Member for Farrer Park is to have two or three alternatives to the merger proposals. According to the Prime Minister, it is certainly not to exhaust all the possible alternatives. Sir, he knows in truth and in fact that the one acceptable alternative to the Opposition will never be put. We will come to that at a later stage. Since the learned Member for Farrer Park is impressed by precedents, Sir, I would like to draw his attention to Annexure II sent us by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly with reference to the voting in South Australia on the subject of closing hours for bars. We have gone down to this in order to find a parallel for what the Government seeks. But this is one instance which I could trace where the ballot paper did try to exhaust all reasonable proposals and the question submitted to the people if you will remember, Sir, was that the closing hours for bar rooms supplying intoxicating liquor, should he (a) 6 p.m., (b) 7 p.m., (c) 8 p.m., (d) 9 p.m., (e) 10 p.m., and (f) 11 p.m. Even here in answer to the Member for Farrer Park where all the possible reasonable alternatives seem to have been exhausted, unmarked ballot papers were treated in accordance with the requirements of the Electorate Act. 1908 to 1913; they were declared void. I would urge the learned Member for Farrer Park and his Party to consider Column : 675 the validity of the statement made in Select Committee by his colleague, the Member for Cairnhill, whether a blank paper cast on questions which have been fully debated and fully made known is in fact an indication that the voter rejects and is disgusted with the alternatives offered. I would urge that they recognise that clause 29 seeks to transform what is in effect a negative vote into a positive vote for the Government. Sir, it is axiomatic that one cannot play with filth without getting dirty. Our people are not stupid. To imitate Falstaff and to shout to the bushes that they are looking for wars does not make them a responsible Party if simultaneously they go into the shadow of those bushes and make questionable agreements to keep the P.A.P. in office and to support the P.A.P. in the very measures which they publicly condemn. To permit the deed to belie the word is not only contrary to good sense; it is, I would respectfully suggest, bad politics - though I do not speak as a successful politician. I do plead in all earnestness to the Singapore People's Alliance that at least in the patently foul clauses which are before us - clauses 28 and 29 - which go against the grain of every decent instinct at least, in those clauses, they should vote against the Government.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, today is indeed a refreshing change. For the past five days, we have seen the P.A.P. and ex-P.A.P. hammer it out without any letup. This afternoon the debate begins with the ex-Labour Front fighting in this Assembly. But there is one tribute I would like to pay, which the Barisan at least should copy. The words of the Member for Anson levelled at me are words given with proper dignity and proper observation of parliamentary practice and, for that, I thank him. It shall be my duty to reply to him in similar vein. I think the Member for Anson will remember that at the start of this debate, I did tell him - we are friends though we may be in different political Parties - that the S.P.A. will abstain on the Column : 676 vote. Therefore the defection of one P.A.P. Member last night had nothing to do with the stand of the S.P.A. and the S.P.A. is responsible enough not to change its stand now although knowing that the P.A.P. is dead. We have said that the P.A.P. is dead. We are just waiting for the day of the funeral. But it shall be the S.P.A. which shall declare the day of the funeral and not other Parties of the Opposition. We are conscious of the grave responsibility that has now been thrust upon us by this defection. But in consideration of that consciousness, we are and we will always be guided first and foremost by the interests of the people of Singapore. For all that the S.P.A. cares, the P.A.P. can be dead. buried and forgotten, and for all the S.P.A. cares too, if it means the death of the S.P.A., let it be; the people must survive. The interests of the people of Singapore must receive primary consideration. The Member for Anson yesterday did say - and he said it again today - that there is a volte face. The hon. Member read out with punch and vigour extracts of my speech against the Government Members in Select Committee. But may I ask him to try and recollect that the attack was based on the then intention of the Government to pose two questions? The alternative to the White Paper proposals is something which no man in his senses would vote for and therefore I described the attempt to pose the two questions as a dishonest attempt. I even went to the extent of saying that it was a fraudulent attempt. Therefore, I was most bitter in my criticism against the Government. Sir, other Opposition Members did also criticise in no uncertain terms clause 29, but I would not like to say that it was due to the consistent and responsible opposition of a responsible Party - the S.P.A. - that the Government has now awakened to a realisation that any attempt to impose the fraudulent questions on the electorate would make short shrift of the Government and the Party. And so they said in this Assembly that the questions would be debated and settled by the Assembly after a Column : 677 full, frank and lengthy debate, and they also went to the extent of assuring the House that the Referendum Bill, when it becomes law, would only be used once and that as soon as the referendum on merger was over, the Ordinance would be repealed. 3.00 p.m. Sir, the Government have tried to find ways and means to remove the strong opposition that has been levelled against them on clause 29. Sir, we were pleased to find that the Government have now changed their stand on this particular subject which is a matter of grave importance to the people of Singapore. We felt that the very strong objections made by me in Select Committee were met up to a point, and we maintained that any attempt by the Government to use blank votes and uncertain votes as votes meant for Cmd. Paper 33 was undemocratic; we feel it is still undemocratic. It is wrong to want to do something which is not properly and openly democratic. But, Sir, the Government gave us a reason, and as a responsible Opposition we must give full weight to the reason. The Government say that unless we have this clause in, the Communists will be up to tricks. The Communists do not want merger and any opportunity given to them to prevent merger should be denied, and clause 29 is an attempt on the part of the Government to deny the Communists the opportunity to wreck merger and thereby bring misery to the people of Singapore. That is what they think is the right way to fight the communists. We, the S.P.A., have a different view. We say that if the Communist threat is genuine and is as grave as the Government imagine, there is only one answer.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL What is that?
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Put them where they cannot give trouble. Of course, the P.A.P. Government think that will not help. Well, in a democracy one is entitled to one's view. I still maintain that the right way is this: if you have Column : 678 a toothache, pull out the offending tooth. But the P.A.P. say: if you have a toothache, leave the offending tooth in; let us try and find some legislation whereby we can make a toothache no longer a toothache. That is the P.A.P.'s view. They are entitled to have their fun if they want fun. They are, as they claim to be, fighting in the interests of the country against the Communist threat. Sir, as a responsible political Party, and myself as one who has had many occasions in the past to meet and counter this Communist threat, I find it would not be in keeping with our responsibility if we were to make the job of the Government more difficult. It would be more difficult if we were just to continue taking the same line as we took in Select Committee in spite of the fact that the Government have changed their ways and are trying to mend their ways. We feel that it is wrong of the Government to try to meet the Communist threat by clause 29. But because the interests of the country demand that it should be looked after by the government of the day, we are prepared to allow the Government to have the chance to play the game, the game that they want to play with the Communists. And therefore we abstain. We do not feel strongly against or for, especially as the reasons for objection have been removed. But we cannot vote with the Government on clause 29 because we say that that is the wrong way to meet the Communists. Because we do not agree with them that the way to meet the Communist threat is to have a cat-and-mouse game, therefore we are abstaining. Sir, the Member for Anson hopes that the S.P.A. will seek to maintain the public image of a warlike attitude towards the P.A.P. Sir, the S.P.A. will always be conscious of its duty and responsibility in maintaining the public image of a responsible political Party which is not prepared to work with the Communists to wreck merger, not prepared to work with a dead- government to perpetrate any acts that are inimical to the interests of the people. Column : 679 But so long as the Government wake up and realise that they have many sins which they have to purge if they want to remain in office, and so long as they make an honest effort to atone for their sins, the S.P.A. will not be a Party fighting shoulder to shoulder with the Communists to wreck the interests of the people of Singapore. We feel no pride, no pleasure whatsoever in fighting shoulder to shoulder with Communist and Communist front organisations just for the pleasure of killing a Party that is already dead. The P.A.P. need not be killed any more. It is dead. The S.P.A. will fix the date of the funeral.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, we have always maintained that the S.P.A. and the P.A.P. are one in many aspects, and they will work together on all the important issues that face us today.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL When you were in the Lib-Socs.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL The Member for Cairnhill talked about pulling out teeth when there is a toothache. If we should start pulling out teeth just because there are toothaches, then I do not think he will have many teeth left by the time he reaches 21. An hon. Member: Dentures, man!
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL No wonder he is wearing dentures today. All of us know that the proper treatment for any toothache is not extraction. It is something else. The Member for Anson said that the S.P.A. are incapable of making up their minds. I do not think that is a correct description. Sir. They know how to make up their minds, but they make up their minds only at a time when they find the situation favourable to themselves. I am very glad, Sir, that the Member for Anson quoted to you what the Member for Cairnhill said in col. 332. I will not quote that again. Sir, but I would like to quote col. 375 of the Select Committee's deliberations on 16th May. It is somewhere in the middle of the first paragraph. The Member for Cairnhill said: Column : 680 'Compulsory voting does not compel a citizen to do something which he does not like to do...'. That is a very reasonable attitude to take. And we admired him for that. In the next paragraph, the Member for Cairnhill again said: 'But the citizen after getting his ballot paper can still cast a blank vote to show his intense dislike of what is going on.' Here is a hero standing up for the rights -
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Of the Barisan.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL - of the voter. And we again admired him for that. Then in col. 376, somewhere between the upper third and the lower two-thirds, he said this: 'Therefore, that "Down with the PAP.!" means "Up with the P.A.P.!"' by the way the P.A.P. wanted to turn blank votes into "support P.A.P." votes. And to prove that he had been Chief Minister at one time and that he also knew something about the law, he said (further down in the second paragraph) he was quoting section 48 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance: '...it is clearly stated that the legal interpretation for uncertainty is that it is void, that which is uncertain must be void legally and morally.' Such beautiful and brave words, Sir. And in the next paragraph: 'Coming now to unmarked votes, votes are unmarked to indicate the strong feeling of the voters.' I agree with what the Member for Cairnhill said. And: '...the only way he feels he can show his intense disgust is to cast a blank vote; otherwise...'. now, these are very important words: '...otherwise if he has views of his own, he will know what to do with it. . . . So a voter who shows his disgust with the manipulations of the Government is to be treated like a man who is very friendly towards the Government.' And one more quote, Sir, from col. 378, paragraph 2. The Member for Cairnhill said: 'That would, I submit, be less heinous in the eyes of the people.' Column : 681 In other words, Sir, all the manipulations of the Government are heinous and indefensible from any angle, legally or morally. Yet you see the volte face today of the Member for Cairnhill. For the last few days, Sir, we have been attacking the Government on this side of the House for the dishonesty and non-democracy about these blank votes. There was no protest from the S.P.A. They laughed; they nodded; they agreed with whatever we said. Even their Secretary-General, Mr Lee Kim Chuan, said in the University forum, and again in a rally in Anson, that the P.A.P. is much dirtier than the S.P.A.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL The S.P.A. is never dirty.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL And the Member for Anson mentioned that Lee Kim Chuan got a great ovation for those words which he uttered. But now, see what had happened? Why this sudden change! Why? That is right, why? 3.15 p.m.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL There is no way out for you, that is why.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL If you will remember, Sir, the change occurred very soon after the announcement that there was no more a majority P.A.P. Government in the House. The S.P.A. has vested interests in keeping the P.A.P. alive and wants to make sure that the P.A.P. Government do not topple as they will if all the Members on this side of the House were to vote against them it would be 26 against 25 and the Government would be no more.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Quite right! An hon. Member: Fat hopes!
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Therefore, it would he difficult for the Member for Cairnhill to declare openly his support for the Government, especially after all those brave words that he uttered in the Select Committee and all these last few Column : 682 days. I met him on many occasions outside this Chamber, Sir, and every time he used to say to me, "Damn the P.A.P.!". [Interruption] I would like him to deny that. He said, "We must vote against them. Yes, all of us must vote against them." He said that. Dare he stand up and say that he did not say those words? [Interruption] Since he dare not -
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Sir, on a point of elucidation. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown said, "Let us fight and damn them." I said, "The P.A.P. are already damned. There is no need to damn them any more. Let us fight together." Sure we want to fight together. But I will say this: The S.P.A. will never fight together with the Communists nor with Communist front organisations so long as I am alive.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL By that he implies that the Member for Anson is a Communist or a pro-Communist, the Members of the U.P.P. are Communists or pro-Communists, and all the members of the other Parties like the liberal Socialists are Communists I am sure - he will not say that Mrs Leon Soh is a Communist or a pro-Communist - the Party Rakyat or the United Democratic Party are Communists and pro-Communists. Surely the Member for Cairnhill is not so naive. Everybody knows that he is an expert in politics. He has managed to keep himself alive after more than 14 years when he should have - like so many of the others who came and went been lost in the limbo of time long, long ago. He has managed to keep himself alive because somehow or other he has learnt what to do at the critical stage.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL You do not!
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Learn from him!
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Order. The Member for Queenstown is entitled to vent his annoyance at the action of the Member for Cairnhill. But I think we have had enough of it. Let us come back to the amendment. Column : 683
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL I was saying, Sir, that since the S.P.A. dare not support the P.A.P. openly, they want to support the P.A.P. secretly and surreptitiously and they do that by abstaining. I would not say that it is possibly because of certain orders that the Member for Cairnhill has received. I do not know, Sir, I do not have the Special Branch at my beck and call to tap telephones, but I believe there must be some message gven to him. Otherwise how could he so suddenly somersault? I never believed that he could do a thing like that, but it has happened. It is my guess that he received some message from some quarter. I leave the guessing to the public.
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL I got it from Peking!
SINGAPORE - NATIONAL REFERENDUM BILL Sir, the excuses which the Member for Cairnhill gives to justify his turnabout cannot deceive anybody. His contention is that since the questions are known, therefore, everything in clause 29 is acceptable. I might also mention that the Member for Farrer Park himself contends that if the questions were acceptable, then the blank paper clause would be democratic. If you want to know how the blank paper clause came about, you must come back to the devilish plot of the P.A.P. to pose two unacceptable questions, knowing the general reaction to those questions would mean throwing in uncertain or blank votes. Then and then only can you understand how this blank vote clause came about. Knowing the questions does not make the blank-paper clause more acceptable. Is it the contention of the Member for Cairnhill that just because unacceptable questions are made known, therefore they can be changed to acceptable questions? Is he also trying to do a turn of dialectics like the P.A.P., to turn no into yes? It is the same reasoning. Sir. The Member for Farrer Park also made great play of parliamentary democracy, saying that it is the duty of the voter to vote. Surely a person can only vote if the questions are acceptable to him and the alternatives posed to the voter are Column : 684 also acceptable. I have already quoted what the Member for Cairnhill said. Surely they are not going back on those words. When you talk of parliamentary democracy, you must remember one thing. It is not the institution that fails. It is the human material that fails. I quoted the other day from the proceedings of the London Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. There they tell us exactly why so many democracies in Asia have failed. They have failed because the people who came to power misused and abused that power to destroy the very foundations of democracy itself. In Singapore we are faced with the same danger. Let us hope that the Government Ministers may yet wake up in time to preserve for us the parliamentary democracy that we all want to preserve.