Hansard, 1962-07-04

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]

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee. 2.32 p.m. Clause 28-(cont.)

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".

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

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 -

Is it a point of order?

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Sir, is it not true that the representative of the S.P.A. was booed at this meeting when he stood up to speak?

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.

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.

What is that?

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.

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.

When you were in the Lib-Socs.

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!

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 -

Of the Barisan.

- 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.

The S.P.A. is never dirty.

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.

There is no way out for you, that is why.

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.

Quite right! An hon. Member: Fat hopes!

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 -

Sir, on a point of elucidation. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

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.

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.

You do not!

Learn from him!

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

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.

I got it from Peking!

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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether we are democratic or undemocratic in having the provisions contained in clauses 28 and 29 can he tested from first principles. First, the principle that the people should at periodic elections elect their representatives who have then the mandate to govern for a fixed number of years in accordance with their programme and policy, is generally accepted to be democratic, although of course Communist deride this form of democracy as bourgeois. Therefore, it is completely democratic for the Government within the constitutional process to carry out its mandate to bring about merger with the Federation of Malaya. In doing so, we are not obliged to and need not refer the matter to the people. Indeed, there are no constitutional provisions for such a reference back to the people; hence this Bill has become necessary. However, the Government having considered the whole situation, decided that it was in the long-term interests of the people to give them an opportunity to express their choice of the possible practical alternatives in the mode and manner of merger, either in accordance with what has been agreed to in the White Paper, or in the words of the Member for Anson "complete and unconditional merger" on the basis of a State equal to any of the eleven States of Column : 685 the Federation. In this way, any lingering doubt there may be in the mind of any voter as to whether he would have got something better by having complete merger will be dispelled. If the voter when faced with his choice is unable to make up his mind, then surely it is the duty of the Assembly to make up the mind of the voter for him. The voter has been given the right to exercise a choice between two forms of merger, one propounded by the Government and supported by 33 votes to nil in this Assembly, the other propounded by the Barisan Sosialis who talk of the Penang and Malacca type of merger, the United People's Party who talk of the Johore type, and the Workers' Party who talk of "complete and unconditional merger". How can there be anything undemocratic about asking a citizen to indicate his choice to help the Government resolve the question of the mode and manner of merger? If he does not indicate his choice, surely it is not suggested that the Government should remain undecided! Surely the Government must then proceed in accordance with the wishes of this Assembly. If a man fully understands the alternatives and indicates his choice showing which he prefers, but further wishes to indicate to the Government that his vote should not be counted, then he can write his name and address on the ballot paper and thereby invalidate his vote for the purposes of the count. Sir, the Member for Queenstown has moved an amendment to clause 28 (b). He wishes it to read: 'on which anything is written or marked by which the voter can be identified except the printed number on the back;'. as against what is in the Bill: 'on which the voter has indicated his vote and has written or marked anything by which he can be identified, except the printed number on the back;'. Sir, he could not have missed the distinction between his amendment and what is in the Bill, namely that in the Bill a person must first indicate his vote and then by writing his name and address on the ballot paper by which he can be identified he can get his vote rejected. Column : 686 This process requires that the man knows what the issues are about and also by his making the choice indicates what the Member for Anson so fears that he does not know the process of the vote. Having indicated that he knows the process of the vote, he can then proceed to identify himself and nullify it. 3.30 p.m. The State Advocate-General has advised the Government that clause 28 (b) has given expression to this intention, that those who understand the issue and have made their choice, and write or mark something by which they can be identified will have their votes rejected. The S.A.G. has further advised that in Singapore a man can identify himself only by writing his name and address. That is the intention of this section and the interpretation that will be given to it. It is one thing by rumour - false and malicious - to get people to throw in blank ballots. First, if rumours were spread around that those who exercise their choice run the risk of losing their citizenship it is not impossible to get a situation where large numbers of confused people, misled by rumours, would throw in blank votes. But it is a different matter to mount a campaign to explain to the voter rationally and logically that it is his duty to express what he decides is the better of the alternatives. Having done so and proved that he understood what it is all about, he can then put his name and address on it and have his vote rejected. If Members of the Barisan Sosialis are confident that their supporters are so enraged at the prospect of merger, either complete and unconditional or with local autonomy in education and labour, then they can prove it by using the process open to them under clause 28 (b). The fact that they have remained silent on this indicates that they know full well they cannot get the people to understand rationally the issues, fulfil their duty under the law, and then state that they do not wish to be counted. In any case, I think nobody doubts whether blank votes are counted in or counted out, the result will be the same. But if we allow blank votes to be counted out separately, then we are going to Column : 687 make it profitable for the Communists and their stooges to mount a campaign, a calumny and falsehood for blank votes, in order to pervert the democratic process and detract from the psychological victory that will be scored against them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has quite rightly pointed out that we can be defeated on this issue. I think it is as well that the position in the House is as it is today. It is not at our complete will and power to bring this about. We intend to do what is right and what is our duty by the people in the country. I say we shall see this referendum through because there is too much at stake otherwise. He, Mr Speaker, Sir-

For the P.A.P.

For the people.

For the P.A.P.

No, not for the P.A.P., Mr Speaker, Sir. The P.A.P. had an easier and softer alternative, to lead the united front at the behest of those who are now manipulating the Member for Queenstown, or another alternative, to play the other way, like the Member for Cairnhill has played, where there is no more time for humour, because the chaps who would have booed and laughed would have been absent from the mass rallies. We have taken it upon ourselves to pose the real issues to the country. Whatever else we may have done or not done, we have posed the real basic problems of the country to the people. They will be resolved either by the consent of the people, living peacefully and harmoniously, a society of many races, in what we now know as Malaya and Singapore, or willy-filly by a reunification which will take place under much greater stresses and strains. That is the price we pay for carrying this load. It is not for the P.A.P. I suggest to Members opposite that if they can bring themselves round to defeat us, we have nothing else to do but constitutionally to go back to the people. But I am confident, and so is the Member for Anson, and that is the reason why he can take this line because somebody else he thinks will carry the load and carry the can for him. But this time let me explain to people like him, Column : 688 this is the final settlement with nationalists, not with the colonial Government, and nationalists settle not only with the Communists but with their fellow-travellers.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I came over to the Opposition side because I am not satisfied with clause 29 of the Bill. I read from the newspapers this morning that the Prime Minister of Singapore had issued a statement. In the statement he said that I was under pressure, and as a result, I have lost the courage to struggle. There is another paragraph in the statement which says that it is a matter for regret that Madam Hoe Puay Choo should have lost her courage to struggle at this late hour. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to tell this House that I am not under any pressure from any quarter. I am not satisfied with clause 29 and other reasons connected with the P.A.P. If you say that is pressure, that is the pressure in the interest of the people, and the pressure of this undemocratic clause 29. As a matter of fact, I yesterday conveyed my intention to leave the P.A.P. to the Chairman of the P.A.P. I also issued a statement to the Press. I do not know whether there is enough space in the Press or not, but my statement was given only a small space in the Press. I shall give my statement to the reporters later on. I am not under pressure from any quarter. If it is for the interest of the people, I will not mind all the sacrifices. I will strongly struggle for the interest of the people. But when I discovered the undemocratic provisions of this clause 29, I suspect the scheme of the whole merger proposals and this Bill. What are they trying to scheme? It is because of these reasons that I cannot sit on the Government side and support the Government by giving it lip service while, on the other hand, I am thinking otherwise. I can say that I oppose the present policy of the P.A.P.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to make a short speech. The Member for Queenstown alleged that we changed our stand last evening when we knew of the defection of the hon. Lady who has now crossed the Floor and Column : 689 sat with us on this side of the House. But I have said in my speech just now, in reply to the Member for Anson, that I did tell him as far back as Wednesday, I think, at the beginning of the sitting of this debate, that the S.P.A. would abstain. There is another point. I did also explain the reason why we are abstaining. It is because we have received satisfaction that the questions to be posed in the referendum will be questions fully debated and accepted by this Assembly. Sir, the hon. Member for Queenstown is very fond of quoting from the Official Report. May I follow his footstep and just quote column 474 of the Official Report of Select Committee [No. 7], dated 17th May, 1962, where Dr Goh Keng Swee -

Order. Even in quoting, the Member should say "the Minister for Finance".

Yes, Sir. At column 474, the Minister for Finance said: 'Sir, the Minister for Health and Law has said that some people's skulls are so thick that no light can penetrate and no amount of clarification can convince them.' The Member for Queenstown replied: 'Let us assume that I have a skull that thick.' I shall now assume that the Member for Queenstown has a skull that thick, and I shall not waste time trying to explain to him why the S.P.A., in the interest of the country and having received satisfaction from the Government, is abstaining on this vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to trespass on the time of the House for only a few minutes. The Prime Minister has made a statement which he knows is untrue, having known me for a very long time. He has suggested that I am associated with this attack on the Referendum Bill because I know others will carry the can of supporting the Government. Sir, it is not unknown to Members of this House who have been for some time in politics, that in fact in the past, particularly on one outstanding occasion when I returned from a trip overseas, I found that the Labour Front was committed to the repeal of the Emergency Column : 690 Regulations. To our surprise - astonishment, more than surprise - we found ourselves in the Government and we met very strong representations from the Federation and our own Police and the Colonial Secretary as to the dangers of repealing the Emergency Regulations, it was put to us - the Member for Cairnhill is here to confirm it - that we could let others carry the can; we could move in this Assembly to repeal the Emergency Regulations, and the Governor, by his powers under the Constitution, would reimpose them. I was rather horrified at the suggestion that anybody could be so dishonest, so hypocritical and refused to do it. I carried the burden myself, as you may well remember. Sir, that was an unfair suggestion. I would like to say this, and I want to say it briefly because I understand there will be a no-confidence motion urged upon this House in the very near future. I honestly believe that the way the Government are proceeding now is inimical to the welfare of the people of Singapore and to the welfare of those with whom we hope ultimately to be associated - the Federation. I am aware, Sir, that at the present juncture there is a certain state of flux in politics and if there were a general election certainly the P.A.P. would be dead. That is true. I do not agree with the Barisan's confidence that they would succeed. Far from it, Sir. Unfortunately, I cannot say that the Workers' Party has any hope of leading the Government, Sir,I seek to be pragmatic in these matters, and it may well be that there will be a large number of Independents; certainly a growth in the S.P.A. and possibly some other Parties, if the S.P.A. continues as it did in the past. But I agree that there might be a certain amount of confusion. But, Sir, whatever the political picture may be, and taking it at its very worst, the possible confusion that may eventuate from an immediate general election, I say to you in all earnestness, I do not consider that it could possibly do more damage to the people of Singapore than what is being perpetrated today by the P.A.P. So let us face it. I am attacking the Referendum Bill because I sincerely believe it is wrong to cheat the people even if you think it is for their welfare. That Jesuitic casuistry, Sir, can do immense and irreparable harm to our efforts Column : 691 to bring about respect for the democratic process. I sincerely believe that it would be for the welfare of the people of Singapore in the long term if the proposals, which many want, could be put honestly and fairly. If accepted, my Party and I - and I know the minority who would then have voted against it - would accept loyally the decision and the breach would be healed by virtue of the principle that in a democracy the minority accepts the will of the majority. If the proposals are rejected, I say I do not agree with the assessment of the Member for Cairnhill that that would arouse antagonism, anger, and military conquest of Singapore as suggested by the Prime Minister. I am convinced that the Federation Government, with the experience and the wisdom it has shown in the last five years of government, will necessarily immediately reopen negotiations with the new Government of Singapore which wou1d provide a basis for an acceptable integration of this area in the Federation. It is a matter of irresistible logic. That they have now awakened to the tremendous value, not merely value, but need of Singapore as an essential part of their concept of a great, viable and balanced nation. I am convinced that that must be so, Sir. 3.45 p.m. So, let us go on now to perhaps the briefest speech which the Prime Minister has ever delivered in this Chamber. Mr Speaker, I enjoy ability wherever I find it, and strongly though I feel about our Prime Minister in many ways, not merely in his political views, I must say that I have genuine admiration for his intellectual acumen and manoeuvrability, for his intellectual flexibility and for the suavity of his presentation. But comparing last night's performance of the learned Member for Fanner Park with this afternoon's performance of the Prime Minister, I must say that the learned Member for Farrer Park comes out better. It is certainly not the most creditable performance the Prime Minister has given, and it is understandable. For whatever the ambitions, the lust for power, there cannot be absent from that much ability a modicum of human feeling and human decency which must rebel at the thought Column : 692 of prostituting his ability to the justification of something so foul as the provisions that are now under discussion. You can understand that he wanted to make the agony short and quick. He suggested to us, Sir, that the proof of the cake is in the eating and that his Government has the constitutional right to carry through its mandate for merger and that it has no duty to seek a referendum. Sir, it is unfortunate - and I trust you will forgive me here if I do make a passing reference to the fact - that the Prime Minister is not present with us during the course of the debate and does not inform himself of what transpired. He might have found it interesting to reflect on the analogy I gave of the merger proposals and the P.A.P. proposals in Command Paper 33 - the story of Chin Shi Wang and the deer and the horse. It is not a merger, and the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. who are supporting him state quite frankly and honestly, "This is a step to closer relations which we sincerely believe in. But we agree that it is not a merger. It is a step towards merger." That is a clean and straightforward approach. But the P.A.P. have not a mandate for this step, Sir, nor have they, in fact, any real mandate at all. But assuming they have, Sir, they know and we know what we understood by merger, and here, Sir, I will merely briefly touch on it because it will be debated in full. If you remember the Paid Commission's Report on the Federation Constitution, I think, Sir, it was 1956, there was a passage where they said, "We must urge that there is a common citizenship in respect of all those who have citizenship rights today in all the States." I shall be quoting, Sir, chapter and verse when we come to the issue itself. I have not got the document with me at the moment. You can understand, Sir, we all understood, and I am sorry to be repetitive, what we all understood by complete merger, which he charges the Workers' Party with and in respect of which we are not a bit ashamed - complete and unconditional merger. We all understood that was understood by the Reid Commission and what transpired during the formation of the Federation was that all those who had citizenship rights became citizens of the new central entity. To say that he is giving an alternative and yet not putting an alternative Column : 693 which the Barisan and the Workers' Party want, and yet not permitting the Barisan or the Workers' Party to word that alternative because he says the alternative is a dishonest one since it seeks a super merger and that is something we cannot get. That may or may not be true, Sir. But the point is, if he does not want to put our alternative, whether it is dishonest or honest, do not say that you are putting an alternative. He is, in fact, not putting the Opposition alternative at all. But even if he were, Sir, who are the Opposition or the Government to say that we, who have been elected, and elected by majorities, in our divisions, know what everybody wants in a matter that affects their future and posterity? It is surely a matter of elementary justice to permit a man to decide for himself, where it is so simple to permit him to do so; since you are putting a referendum give him the right to say yes or no. Do not seek to speak for him yourself. Then, Sir, he has drawn attention to clause 28 (1) (b) of the Referendum Bill. Yesterday, you will remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, I drew attention to it at some length. I ask why there was a change from section 48 (1) (c) of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance to this curious additional element that he must first mark his vote. The Prime Minister tells us because the man must first indicate which he prefers, then he can sign his name and address, and then we will be prepared to treat it as void. Mr Speaker, as it stood in the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, and as it stood originally in this very Bill, it has been stated that if a man indicates by writing his identity, surely that would have been enough and that might enable the man to say that he can say 'no' that way. But here you are asking him to vote in favour of one of the two alternatives. Mr Speaker, if he is in favour of one of the two alternatives, what does he want to go and sign his name and address in order to void his vote for? It is only when he is not in favour of either alternative that we seek for him the right to say 'no', or at the very worst, to void his vote. You will notice, Sir, and I can tell you this- Column : 694 I have been in some elections - it used to be interpreted that if a man marks anything on the ballot paper whereby he can be identified, for example if there is a handwriting, he says, "I do not like the Barisan Sosialis," well now, you do not know who wrote it. But it always used to be interpreted that any handwriting can give away a man's identity, and that is deemed to be void. Sir, not only must you write your name, according to the Prime Minister who says, "Now this is the way it is going to be interpreted", but you must also write your address and, in addition to it all, you write your name, you write your address, and then you write which of the alternatives you want. Quite apart from anything else, Sir, do you think that the people of Singapore who have struggled for and respected the secrecy of the ballot because of the protection from intimidation by those in power would be prepared, even if all other conditions were acceptable, to write their names and addresses and subject themselves to reprisals by the Government? Because if you want to say 'no' then there can be no secrecy. The essential part of a democratic vote is the secrecy. The Prime Minister asks now that we should educate the people first into casting a vote, which they want, then into signing their names, then putting their addresses; before it can be treated as void. To these depths has a great intellect descended and degenerated. He says that in this country, by rumours, large numbers of confused people may cast blank votes. Well, the P.A.P. has done its share of seeking to confuse the people. It must be recognised that it certainly has at its command far greater forces of propaganda than any other organisation, and that it has utilised those forces - Radio P.A.P. - its power of coercion of the Press, to very considerable effect for the purpose of confusing the people. But the issue, Sir, is this: Is a person whom his political opponent alleges to be confused, is such a person not entitled to vote? That is all it is, Sir. If, in fact, what the Prime Minister is propounding is that only those who are prepared to vote for the Government are entitled to vote, and everybody else Column : 695 being by definition confused is not entitled to vote, we have reached a stage not of guided democracy, but of unique dictatorship unknown even in Fascism or in Communism. 4.00 p.m. I am sorry, Sir, he is not here to explain to us wherein is the flaw of the logic I seek to propound. Maybe I am in error myself. I must confess to you, Sir, I cannot see it, and I am a little distressed that such specious arguments should be enunciated, for the man, whatever his other failings, is not lacking in acumen and understanding of logic. It has been a pathetic display of pure naked power politics, the power that is in the barrel of the gun which they love so much. Truth does not matter, logic does not matter. We have got the power, we can use the legalistic smokescreen, the Press and the radio to fool the people, as many as can be fooled; and the majority who do not like it, well, they are disorganised and they cannot do anything, and they can jolly well lump it. That is, in effect, P.A.P. democracy.

We have been labouring on the same points time anytime again. Perhaps we can begin now to wind up the debate. Dr Thio Chan Bee (Tanglin) rose -

Perhaps the Member for Tanglin will say what he wishes to say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I woud like to answer the charge that we are pro-P.A.P. I feel that there are people who would like politics to be argued along lines of being for one Party or another Party. Many would like us to be pro-Barisan. Sir, you will recall that when the pay cut issue came up in this House, the Barisan people were in the P.A.P. and they were for the pay cuts and we were against the pay cuts, against the whole P.A.P. and the Barisan. Then when the Member for Hong Lim got into trouble, Sir, if you will remember, and we felt that he was being persecuted beyond what he should, we opposed the P.A.P. Column : 696 move. So today, because we are standing for what we believe to be right for this country and what is best for the welfare of the people, and because we do not agree with the pro-Barisan line, they now say we are pro-P.A.P. Sir, our stand has been consistent. Wherever there is wrong, we oppose it. Wherever there is right, we support it. Wherever there is doubt regarding what is right and wrong. Sir, it is only right that we abstain. Sir, so many thousands of words have been poured out from this Assembly on the blank votes issue, the referendum and merger, that they have become like autumn leaves covering the ground, so much so that the public are unable to distinguish the pathways from the drains. I have tried to listen patiently and as objectively as I could. As I see it, Sir, there are three sides to the question of blank votes. Firstly, there is the side as it appears to the general public. Under normal circumstances, a blank vote is a blank piece of paper conveying no thing. Neither for nor against and in democratic practice, Sir, if out of 100 persons, 39 attend a meeting and 70 choose to be absent, the votes of the 70 are not counted. The votes of the 30 are the votes that will be counted. I say under normal circumstances. The P.A.P. have now presented another side. They claim that the circumstances are no longer normal, that in the present abnormal situation, the blank votes are loaded votes. That behind these blank votes is another side, which is dynamite, Sir. They have put out this propaganda to arouse communal fears, suspicions and illwill. Sir, if what the P.A.P. says is true and the situation is abnormal, and there is propaganda going on to make the blank votes have a twisted meaning, then it is dangerous for the future and the welfare of the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. claim that Barisan workers and supporters are organising a compaign to frighten the people so that they will cast blank votes, not to indicate whether they like this or that form of merger, but as a protest or out of fear that one community would suffer at the hands of another. Sir, if the situation is as dangerous and as abnormal as the P.A.P. have painted it out to be, and Column : 697 the blank votes become loaded votes, then they say they should have the right, as the Party in power, to frustrate such a move. That is to say, if at the traffic crossroads the traffic lights have suddenly jammed, they have the right to put on a traffic policeman to enable the traffic to move even against the red light, because the traffic lights have jammed. Sir, that is their side of the question of blank votes. Sir, the Barisan and pro-Barisan groups maintain that this interpretation of blank votes is undemocratic. It is against common sense. I agree that normally it is undemocratic and against common sense. The crux of the matter is: is the situation normal; are the circumstances normal; or is the situation abnormal, and are the circumstances abnormal? That is the crux of the matter. Sir, in 1946 and 1947, there was a Council of Joint Action called the All-Malaya Council of Joint Action for agitation against the Federation of Malaya agreement or Constitution. There was considerable fear in the hearts of the Chinese that they would suffer under a government where the Malays would be in the majority. Sir, one of the leaders practically went round the country saying we must organise the Chinese to protect their rights and so on.

Order. Are all these details relevant to the amendment? Let us not go into details. The fact that there was a Malayan Council of Joint Action can be mentioned, but only in passing. We do not want these details.

Sir, as to the earlier part of the details, the relevance is that if the loaded votes convey such propaganda, it is a dangerous line. I think it should be said to the credit of some of the leaders that they realised in time and, for the sake of the country, they said they would organise to co operate. That was the salvation for Malaya, Sir. We believe that in this House most of the leaders are responsible people and would like to find an honourable solution. So if there is this deadlock where the question of blank votes is looked at from three angles and has three different interpretations, let us Column : 698 take another look at it in a different way, a constructive way. How can we find a constructive solution? Sir, all Parties are agreed that there should be merger. They all disagree on the forms of merger. To me, Sir, as I have stated here, the different forms of merger or closer political association are good according to circumstances. A small boy requires a suit of clothes different from the one which the Minister for Health and Law is now wearing. We cannot say the small boy's suit is wrong, or that the Minister's suit is wrong or ill-fitting. So let us put the various forms of merger to the people and, according to what they like, they choose the particular form they want, and let the majority decide on the particular form of merger or closer association which they think is best for this country. The Government have agreed that instead of presenting just one or two choices, there will be three. The Member for Cairnhill will later in an amendment state the particular alternative we would like to have put before this House and paced before the people in the referendum. Sir, since that will be done and will he debated here, let the different Parties decide on what they think is the best form of merger that will be placed before the people. There would then be no question of blank votes being loaded because the blank votes would be just a small percentage. And that is what happens in every election. However, Sir, the blank votes come to a big percentage, then perhaps the view which the P.A.P. holds - that the blank votes may be loaded - may be true. But I hope it will not be true. Our stand is that we want the views of the people on the kind of merger they like best. We do not want any loaded votes. We may expect a small percentage of blank votes. We surely cannot expect a large percentage of blank votes if all the Parties which stood for election and are represented here were accurate in their assessment of the wishes of the people. All people in this country want some form of closer association with the other territories around us. Now that we are thinking in terms Column : 699 of Malaysia, I, for one, believe that, for the sake of Singapore, we must have some form of closer association in Malaysia. Even Britain at this time, Sir, finds that it cannot provide prosperity for its people unless it is part of the Common Market. We cannot think in terms of being in a small hole. I would very much like, if possible, to be in a Singapore that can live by itself, be completely independent and yet be able to provide prosperity and jobs for our peo ple and for our children. If we cannot, then in the interests of the people of Singapore, we must seek some form of closer association. And I am sure, Sir, with goodwill from all sides, not thinking in terms of party interests and party supremacy in a party struggle, we surely can find some solution that will be good and suitable for the people of Singapore. Sir, I hope that what we speak here henceforth will help our people outside to get a clearer idea of what the alternatives are. At the moment, as I said, so many things are being spoken at such a rapid rate that even educated people outside, when I ask them, say they are confused.

As I have indicated, there seems to be a great deal of repetition. So perhaps we can start winding up. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my speech yesterday I was trying to explain the position of the Government on the issue of blank votes. In my address I was trying to understand, as far as I can, the objections of the Member for Anson to our position. I was not present in this Chamber throughout his address, but fortunately we have now a copy of Hansard of his speech yesterday, from which I can judge his reaction to what I have said. I am afraid I have not gone very far in convincing him of our case. I want to spend just a few minutes to clarify certain issues which, from his statement, he is not very clear about. He said that I was trying to -

Page number? Column : 700

I beg your pardon, page 48.* He said that I was trying to justify this clause on the ground that the Communists do not like it, and therefore it must be good. Sir, that has never been my justification, and I have never made any statement that can lend itself to misinterpretation. He went on to say: *Vol. 18, No. 5, col. 613. 'Sir, he said if the Barisan Sosialis would fight for a merger in accordance with the constituent States of the Federation [of Malaya], then he would agree that everybody would have the right to say "yes" or "no", and that there should not be this nefarious clause [i.e. this clause 29].' Now, I advanced this proposition to show that while the Barisan Sosialis in this Assembly stated that they wanted merger as a constituent State with the Federation, in all their propaganda campaigns they have done everything to undermine public confidence in any possibility of merger in any form whatsoever with the Federation. That is my point. And it is because of the Barisan and the other Communist open front organisations fighting merger at that level that I am prepared to give this assurance - that if they were to campaign honestly in favour of merger as a constituent State, in a position of complete equality with any of the eleven States, then I say this clause is quite unnecessary. But because we know that they have been campaigning quite contrary to their openly declared stand in this Assembly, I say that it is this which is at the root of dishonesty in the referendum. Therefore, special precautions have to be taken to counteract the effect of the Barisan's dishonesty. The Member far Anson is not satisfied. He says, "Why pay so much attention to the Barisan?" He says: 'Are we running this country for the Barisan Sosialis?' The answer is, of course, "No." But if Barisan Sosialis are up to mischief, then I say it is the duty of the Government to prevent this mischief from having any dangerous effect in the country. If it is only a matter of the Member for Anson who is trying to create mischief, with due respect to the Member, Sir, I say we will not be greatly alarmed. Because Column : 701 without the organisational support of the Communist open front organisations, the Member for Anson would be a completely spent force. Then he raised this question of how the merger proposals should be framed at the referendum. He said: '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.' How can these words be spoken, Mr Speaker, Sir? It does matter a great deal, because if they are in favour of complete merger on an equal basis with any other State, and they publicly stated so, we have quoted innumerable documents and I do not want to repeat these quotations. Then they are committed to this line, and if they choose in their ground level campaign to do just the reverse, then they cannot blame us if we take precautions in this Referendum Bill to neutralise the effect of their mischievous dishonesty. The Member for Anson then goes on to complain that putting complete merger in the way that we intend, that is to say, to state it as complete and unconditional merger on the basis of equality with any of the States of the Federation, that is not a fair way of putting it because, in his own words: 'The trouble about a constituent State, Sir, is that the P.A.P. themselves have so sullied and distorted 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 can accept.' From this, I take it that the Member for Anson means that complete and unconditional merger on terms equal with those of any other State in the Federation would lead automatically to conversion of Singapore citizens to Federation citizens. I think that is his line. And he said that we have disputed this interpretation, and that our feeling is that if we accept complete merger on equal terms with other States, the citizenship laws of the Federation would apply and large numbers of Singapore citizens who were not born here may lose their citizenship. That is our view. The Member for Anson says that that is a wrong legal interpretation and that, in fact, Column : 702 under complete merger he is quite confident that Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for full Federal citizenship. Now, Sir-

If I might, Sir, rise on a point of elucidation.

Surely.

Thank you. I am grateful to the Minister. The Minister has correctly interpreted me, except the last portion. I mentioned nothing about legal interpretation. I said that all Parties when they spoke of complete merger understood, and so do the people of Singapore, that by complete merger we meant the integration of our territory in the Federation and that our citizens would be Federal citizens. That is my position as to the understanding of the phrase "complete and unconditional merger".

That is my point. Now, I do not want to get too much involved in this issue in this debate because I think we are debating a motion to be raised by him. I only want to say that that is his interpretation of the legal consequences of complete merger. And I say-

Not legal.

I think the Member says "not legal".

Well then, Sir, I have got it completely wrong, because if it is not a legal consequence of complete equality with any of the other eleven States, then he is, in fact, asking for more favourable treatment for Singapore than any of the other eleven States.

Order. Probably that illustrates why we should wait until we debate the questions to be posed, and then all this matter can be cleared. As I say, I am trying to direct the debate to winding up now.

Yes, Sir. Now, the question which will be put in the referendum; the Government is not putting up its own interpretation of the consequences of complete merger, its effect on the citizens. The Member for Column : 703 Anson on previous occasions said that we would put the question something like this: complete merger like Penang or Malacca in which half of the citizens would be disfranchised. We are not putting up that sort of a question, and if we did put up that sort of question, I agree that that would be dishonest because it is putting forward our point of view of what complete merger means. In the question which we shall put - the alternative to complete merger - we are making no such interpretation. And it will be quite wrong for us to say that complete merger would mean automatic conversion, because in the event that is not possible, then I would say we would have been guilty of cheating the citizens, promising them something which in the event cannot be fulfilled. In fact, we know right from now it cannot be fulfilled, although of course I see that the Member for Queenstown -

Order. I think the Minister now is exciting a debate on that. He has said enough to clear what he says is a misunderstanding by the Member for Anson of what he said.

I was just about to refer to this famous Article 22 of the Federation Constitution. If you think that that would be going beyond the debate, then I would not. Sir, to bring together my arguments in a few sentences. We say that in this referendum, two or three honest alternatives will be put to the electorate. They are honest because these alternatives are capable of realisation if the people want to accept them. They are honest because the point of basic principles is that all Parties in this Assembly want and have put forward one form or other of these three proposals. If everybody concerned in this referendum were - to use a British colloquialism - to play cricket, the Barisan say they want complete merger like any one of the eleven States (Penang, perhaps Malacca); the U.P.P., like Johore; the Workers' Party unconditional; and they all persuade the electorate to cast their votes against their choice, then obviously the percentage of blank votes will be very small, no more than in any Column : 704 general election. Now, Sir, we know that this is not going to happen, and it is not going to happen because the Barisan Sosialis have no intention whatsoever to honour their undertaking which they have given in this Assembly. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Just to wind up, Dr Lee. 4.30 p.m.

I just want to answer. Sir, some of the malicious arguments put forward by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance. The P.A.P. have always harped on first principles and that on this particular question of merger they have a mandate from the people. I think we have debunked this claim on many occasions, but they still come up with the same so-called mandate from the people. They never had this mandate from the people about merger, Sir, as I have on many occasions explained. If a person asks for food, it does not mean that he will accept arsenic, caustic soda or sulphuric acid maybe that is served up to him.

Order. I think we have heard that analogy too often. Let us now wind up the debate. It is a question of I say this, you say this; and I say this, you say this, so far. Well, then let us wind up.

I understand, Sir, but the Prime Minister chose to repeat the same falsehoods and therefore I have to rebut him again. The excuse given by the Government Ministers for the blank votes has always been that it is to prevent the mounting a campaign by the Communists and pro-Communists to defeat the referendum and to wreck merger. What does he mean by mischief? He says if the Barisan Sosialis were to give up this so-called mischief, then they would be prepared to withdraw their blank vote clause. What mischief are they talking about? Is it mischievous, Sir, to stand up to fight for the right of the common man? Is it mischievous to fight for democracy, equality, justice? Is that mischievous, Sir? Column : 705 Every self-respecting man when faced with two unacceptable alternatives will probably put in a blank paper, and it is because the P.A.P. themselves know this reaction that they have, through their ingenuity, put in this blank paper clause as a trap so that they may be able to get for the P.A.P. votes which do not support the P.A.P. do not think I need touch on this plot any more; it is common talk in the town now, and everybody knows that it is because the P.A.P. dare not pose their own merger proposals to the people in a one-question referendum that they have decided to pose two questions to the people. And to ensure that the loophole of blank votes is closed the blank votes cast will he taken by the P.A.P. under the special clause on blank papers. Their excuse, Sir, can easily-

Point of order, Sir, If the Member for Queenstown is not ready to wind up his thoughts, I suggest we adjourn for five minutes to give him time to put his thoughts together. We can then put the questions, because much as we all like to keep order, it is very difficult to do so when snatches of old refrains come back again and again. The tedium is almost inhuman to bear.

I have often asked Members to avoid repetition. Winding up does not mean to say you have to repeat your arguments in detail. I will ask the Member now to wind up.

I know, Sir, he feels very sore when anyone touches on that clause of theirs, but I have to mention this again because they keep repeating the same falsehood. If they had not, I would not have touched on it again. It is as simple as that. Just because they have the radio and Rediffusion to help them, and just because of their clamp on the Press - two-thirds space to the Government and only one-third space to the Opposition Members - so they think that by repeating the same falsehoods long and loud enough, some people might come to believe what they say. But I will just give one analogy, Sir, of their specious arguments- Column : 706

A new one?

A new one. It is like this: The P.A.P. want to rob somebody. They rob that person and give an excuse for their robbery that another person might want to rob that person.

Inhuman!

Order. The Minister for Finance excited a retort by his speech which was bordering on irrelevancy. Perhaps he could now contain himself. The Member will finish in about five minutes, I believe. Dr Lee.

You see, Sir, the Government Benches do not like this debate anyway. If they could help it, there would not be a debate on this Referendum Bill at all. They try to guillotine our debate, and I can see that they further want to guillotine other debates. I have already brought up one point about this guillotine of theirs-

Order. We have passed the guillotine motion. Let us deal with the amendment.

Sir, there has been a lot of talk of their being democratic because they are posing two honest alternatives to the people. I know we will debate this in detail when we come to debate the questions to be posed by the Government in the referendum. But at least at this point let me indicate their absolute dishonesty in the posing of these two questions. The Minister for Finance says they are honest because they are supposed to be the merger stand of the Opposition. The point is: Are they really posing the merger stand of the Opposition? If they are not, then it is clear that those questions are dishonest. If they want to pose the merger stand of the Opposition, the only honest thing for the Government to do is to let the Opposition explain their stand and to pose it themselves. The Government have no right to put their malicious and distorted interpretation on our merger stand. Day in and day out they have repeated these malicious falsehoods. It is time that we in this august Assembly put a stop to their malicious falsehoods. Our stand Column : 707 has always been that if there should be merger, then there must be automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens together with proportional representation in the Central Parliament. On this we have already repeatedly said there can be no compromise and no retreat, and if the P.A.P. were honest, then they would put our stand as enunciated by us on the question paper in the referendum. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." 4.40 p.m.

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 25; Absent, 4; Abstentions, 4. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Hoe Puay Choo, Buang bin Omar Madam. Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Lingam, S. V. Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Kandasamy, G. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Cheng Lock. Teo Hock Guan. Mammen, John. Wong Soon Fong. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ramaswamy, S. Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan. Rajaratnam, S. Toh Chin Chye. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Wee Toon Boon. Madam. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentations. Lim Yew Hock. Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee. Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column : 708 4.45 p.m. Clause 29 -

Clause 29. Does the Member for Anson wish to move simpliciter?

If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, I move, 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". So that the sub-clause will now read: 'Any person whose ballot paper (a) is unmarked; or (b) is uncertain shall be deemed to be a person who is not in favour of any of the proposals posed by the referendum or has not understood the questions or the instructions for voting.' I merely want to point out this, Mr Speaker, that though the first part seems to suggest that it should be treated as a negative, nevertheless the second limb of it makes it clear that I want the papers which are unmarked and the ballot papers which are uncertain to be treated as void, unlike the subsequent one -

Order. I think I cannot permit any further debate on that, because if the Member for Anson is allowed to make a statement, then, of course, it will excite a debate. I have indicated that the motion should be moved simpliciter, and it has been moved not quite simpliciter. The Member for Anson seeks to leave out the words from "who" in line 16 to the end of line 18, and by the second amendment, the Member for Hong Lim seeks only to leave out part of those words - that is, to leave out "accepts or is willing". Under Standing Order No. 39, paragraph (4) therefore, the first question on the amendment of the Member for Anson is that the words from "willing" in line 16 to the end of line 18 be left out. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 25; Absent, 4; Abstentions, 4. Column : 709 Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Hoe Puay Choo, Buang bin Omar Madam. Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Lingam, S. V. Madam. Low Por Tuck. Chor Yeok Eng. Marshall, David. Goh Chew Chua. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Kandasamy, G. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Cheng Lock. Teo Hock Guan. Mammen, John. Wong Soon Fong. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Absent. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Ramaswamy, S. Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan. Rajaratnam, S. Toh Chin Chye. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Wee Toon Boon. Madam. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentations. Lim Yew Hock. Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee. Amendment accordingly negatived.

Does the Member for Hong Lim wish to move his amendment?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move simpliciter my amendment. In page A12, line 16, to leave out "accepts or is willing" and insert "rejects or is unwilling". Mr Speaker, Sir, our stand is that all blank votes-

Order. Simpliciter means simpliciter. Perhaps the Member would like to read how the clause would read if his amendment is accepted, so that there is understanding of what the amendment is about? Would he do that? Column : 710

Mr Speaker, Sir, my seat is quite far from yours.

Shall I do that for the Member? The effect of the amendment would be that sub-clause (1) of clause 29 would read: 'Any person whose ballot paper -

Point of order, Sir, I was wondering how this clause would be voted on, because if a division is asked, we want to know whether it will be voted in two parts or one part. The amendment here says to leave out "accepts or is willing" and insert "rejects or is unwilling". Will it all be in one or in two parts?

I cannot see any reason why it should be separated.

Because our stand on this particular amendment is this: that if-

Order. The Member for Queenstown had his opportunity to explain his stand on this amendment. He never did so. I have ruled that the amendment should be moved siinpliciter, and I have not heard any argument up to now that this particular amendment should be put in two parts. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes. 3; Noes, 25; Absent, 4; Abstentions, 19. Column : 711 Ayes. Noes. Lingam, S. V. Abdul Hamid bin Ng Teng Kian. Haji Jumat. Ong Eng Guan. Ahmad Jabri bin Mohammad Akib. Buang bin Omar Junid. Byrne, K. M. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Chor Yeok Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Goh Keng Swee. Kandasamy, G. Absent. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Kuan Yew. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lee Teck Him. Koh, C. H. Lim Cheng Lock. Rajaratnam, S. Mammen, John. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Madam. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absentions. Bani, S. T. Chan Sun Wing. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Lee Siew Choh. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Yew Hock. Lin You Eng. Low Por Tuck. Marshall, David. Ong Chang Sam. Rajah, A. P. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Sheng Nam Chin. Tan Cheng Tong. Tee Kim Leng. Teo Hock Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Wong Soon Fong. Amendment accordingly negatived.

It is time for the tea-break. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend the sitting and will take this Chair again at 5.40 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.10 p.m. until 5.40 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.40 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed. Clause 29-(contd.)

Clause 29 - amendment (iii) in the name of the Member for Anson. In page A12, line 19, after "be", to insert "counted and shall be separately". Amendment (iv) in the name of the Member for Hong Lim, In page A12, line 19, to leave out "included' and insert "announced". I might remind hon. Members that much has been said on the principle of these two amendments when we discussed the amendments to clause 27 and clause 30. Perhaps they will try to avoid repetitions as far as possible.

Mr Speaker, I move, In page A12, line 19, after "be", to insert "counted and shall be separately". So that the sub-clause will now read: "The number of such ballot papers shall be counted and shall be separately included by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum." I am indeed happy to find myself, Sir, on this occasion supported - in principle, though not in exact words - by the Member for Hong Lim. The purpose of this amendment is at least to enable the people to know the extent of perfidy which is perpetrated on them. We ask no more than what is normally granted in every election that blank papers and ambiguous ballot papers, which are now to be counted as votes for the Government, should be counted and the number of such votes shall be declared publicly. Mr Speaker, I give you the position where a hundred people go to vote: to vote for the P.A.P. proposals; one votes for Penang and Malacca, and 89 cast blank votes. The Government will Column : 713 tell you they have got 99, but they will not tell you 10 plus 89. The Government's declaration will be through their Superintendent, "We have 99 per cent of the vote." 5.45 p.m. I ask that that vote be broken down into its realities and that it should be clearly indicated. Which are the votes for the P.A.P. proposals, and which are the protest blank votes which, by a dishonest provision that all men shall henceforth he known as women, the Government now transforms into votes for the P.A.P. proposals? That is all. This provision seeks that the people shall know the truth. It cannot legally affect the dishonesty that is sought to be perpetrated. It merely asks that the dishonesty or lack of it should be clearly proclaimed. Sir, I am happy to notice that there is at least one Member of the Opposition Front bench here to hear this part of what I have to say. In the Select Committee on the same principle, in column 395 the Member for Cairnhill voted with the Opposition group. The principle there was on the principle of the announcement to be made by the Superintendent wherein the main issue was that the number of blank and ambiguous votes should be clearly and separately indicated. Sir, the P.A.P. are seeking, like a dog hiding his dirt, to hide the truth of the results of the referendum and if that is what they seek, Sir, why do they not ask for an overall clause whereby they can say that the P.A.P. may at the end of a referendum announce that the P.A.P. proposals have obtained a 100 per cent vote? It is just as honest. What are they ashamed of? Oh, yes. We do not want to give, they say, any value to these votes. But you are not giving any value to them, Sir. By declaring them separately you are not giving any legal value to them. The P.A.P. would be merely displaying the extent of their dishonesty. And if that is the value they are afraid to disclose, I can understand. All this amendment seeks is that the number of blank and ambiguous votes Column : 714 would be clearly declared in the result of the referendum, a position which I repeat was supported by the Singapore People's Alliance in the Select Committee. It is my hope that they will continue to support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to play the same old record again and again like the Member for Anson. I just want to break the monotony. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said when we were discussing the Schedule a few days ago, this provision is not necessary. It has already been provided in clause 29 (1) that unmarked or uncertain votes will be regarded, as far as the voters are concerned, as willing to accept the decision of the Assembly. So there is no need to have this separate counting. The voters know that if they cast a blank vote it will be treated in the way as provided for in clause 29. There is nothing secret. There is nothing dishonest. It is public knowledge. I just do not see the point made by the Member for Anson.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs says it is not necessary and he has prided himself on the fact that this Bill is based on the best of parliamentary systems. Let us ask the Ministers and the Prime Minister which government, which parliamentary system and which country says that the detailed results of the voting should not he announced to the public.

Order. I trust the Member for Queenstown will not repeat his argument which he made when he moved his amendments to clause 27 and clause 30. We are now dealing with a specific request that numbers of specific votes should be declared to the people.

Mr Speaker, my argument has direct relevance to this amendment. Of course, the Government would not like to announce the result of the voting to the people because there is a plot to turn all these blank votes into Government votes. And in turning these blank votes into Government votes, they are at the same time afraid of letting the people know the Column : 715 extent of their dishonesty. It is for this particular reason that they do not want to announce the result of the voting. If the Government were honest, there should be no reason why the true results should not be presented to the people. The people have a right to know the true position in the voting. It is the duty of the Government to place all the facts before the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has said that I voted with the Opposition in the Select Committee. I would like to make my stand clear. The Singapore People's Alliance voted independently and because the other Parties in opposition happened to vote with the Singapore People's Alliance, that is just the misfortune of the Singapore People's Alliance. Sir, we took that line because it was related to the two previous clauses that had been disposed of. The fact that the questions will be fully debated in this Assembly has removed the objection that we have. As I have said, because clause 29 that has just received the approval of this Assembly is intended by the Government in its game of make-believe with the Communists, we will have nothing to do with it. If the Member for Anson is going to claim that because I voted no, and because they voted no, therefore, we were fighting shoulder to shoulder, it would make me feel that perhaps over the amendment that had just been disposed of, we were fighting shoulder to shoulder on an abstention, although I had been cleared. It has been charged that an abstention is a vote to keep the Government alive; that we are all keen to keep the Government alive over the abstention during the last clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill knows well that the difficulty with the last clause was that it sought to make the blank ballot papers - and with some validity - to count as negative votes. In the particular context of the proposed referendum, I can see very strong reasons in support, but I was so much averse to any suggestion that what is blank should count as anything at all. Lawfully that - quite naturally you can Column : 716 understand, Mr Speaker - I abstained in that context. It was not a question of supporting the Government, and he knows well it was a question of not supporting a principle with which I found myself at variance. But he has not dealt with the issue here. All we are seeking is that the dirt should be identified. There must he a distinction surely to the Member for Cairnhill, if not to the Members of the Government Front bench, between the votes specifically cast for the P.A.P. proposals and a blank ballot paper which, by this clause which turns a man into a woman, is deemed to be a vote for the P.A.P. proposals. Does the Member for Cairnhill see no distinction between those two? Does he not think that it is fair that we should have separately - Mr Ong Pang Boon gestured.

If the Minister for Home Affairs has anything to contribute, I will gladly sit down on a point of elucidation or otherwise. Sir, I am asking and I would ask it again, since it seems to hurt him: Is there no distinction between a vote cast for the P.A.P. proposals? Honestly cast? And a vote cast in disgust - blank - and which by law - a P.A.P. law - we are now transforming into a P.A.P. vote, into a vote for the P.A.P. proposals. Have the people no right to know how many really wanted the P.A.P. proposals and how many were deemed to want the P.A.P. proposals? That is all it seeks. It is not necessarily no. Nothing is hidden, says the Minister for Home Affairs. Language has no meaning, Mr Speaker, to the Minister for Home Affairs.

We do not speak the same language.

He interrupts again, Mr Speaker, to tell me we do not speak the same language. I do not speak the dishonest language of a dishonest Party and dishonest Ministers, because these dishonest Ministers [Interruption]-

What nonsense! Column : 717

Order. The Member for Anson should try to contain himself. He has answered, and if he answers in a calm manner, he will not get further interjections.

Why are you angry?

I am asked, Mr Speaker, why I am angry - [Interruption]

Order.

I will tell the hon. Lady, if I may through you, Mr Speaker, of the Back-benches. Can she not understand the natural anger that rises at the spectacle of a group that has been fully trusted by the people at a general election - trusted and now this trust, this power which has been entrusted - [Interruption]

Order.

We have the spectacle of these people standing up with poised daggers at the back of those who trusted them. Can she not understand that anger?

Poised daggers of the Barisan Sosialis.

So, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Home Affairs says there is nothing hidden. Now, this curious vocabulary of his. What does he mean by hidden, Sir? As we understand the English language, "hidden" is to cover up something like a dog covers up his dirt.

Order. I have been listening to very lurid language, very extravagant phrases and very offensive phrases. I have not been able to pull up the Member for Anson simply because those phrases were not directed at individual Members. But I think in order to save the decorum of this Assembly I should try now, henceforth, to stop phrases which in themselves are offensive.

May it please you, Mr Speaker. And I am only unhappy that you cannot stop action which is offensive to the people- Column : 718

Order. I will not have any debate about my rulings. If the Member is unhappy about the ruling he can put down a substantive motion. He must accept the ruling, no matter how much he dislikes it. 6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I do not dislike it. I will be very happy to comply with it. And I was being quite honest when I said I was unhappy that you could not as easily prevent distasteful conduct by the Government towards the people of Singapore. Let us come back to this 'hidden'. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we permit the publication separately of the numbers who vote for the P.A.P. proposals and the numbers who cast blank votes, we would know in truth who generally want the P.A.P. proposals and those who by law - this curious, dishonest law which contravenes all concepts of decency - are deemed to have voted for the P.A.P. proposals, in refusing this provision, is the Government not requiring that the fact should be hidden as to who voted for the White Paper and who was deemed to vote for the White Paper? In announcing in one single figure the total of those in favour of Command Paper 33, is the Government not, in fact, hiding the number of blank and ambiguous votes which went to that total? What language does the Minister for Home Affairs talk? Mr Ong Eng Guan rose -

Order. I was going to indicate that this debate could range over the amendment to be moved by the Member for Hong Lim because the principle seems to be the same. So that when we complete this debate, the Member for Hong Lim, if he so desires, could move his amendment simpliciter.

I accept your ruling, Sir. Under clause 29 (1) all blank votes could be considered as pro-Government votes. As I said in my speech yesterday, our stand is that these votes are not pro-Government votes. They are neither void votes nor neutral votes. They are anti-Government votes. Column : 719 Therefore, it is important, for the purpose of the record in history, even though the Government's so-called merger is being pushed down the people's throats, that the number of anti-Government votes be separately counted and announced, so that the people could know how many are really for the White Paper proposals. Mr Speaker, Sir, under the present clause, all those votes which are anti-Government would, I understand, be put in the same basket as pro-Government votes. The Government has now lost all sense of shame and decency. It has even dared come out with the result of the blank votes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important for the future that we in Singapore should know the number of blank votes which have been cast, or which will be cast in the coming merger referendum.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not like this but we can understand the motive which has impelled the Government to want to have this. We cannot be a party to it but we do not want to put the Government into greater difficulty than the difficulty which they are already facing. The Member for Anson has asked why these votes should not be disclosed. I feel that he has answered it himself when he employs the allegory that these blank votes being used by the Government is like turning a man into a woman, and the P.A.P., having turned a man into a woman, is therefore anxious to hide the woman from the gaze of the lecherous eyes of those who mean ill to them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, from the speech by the Member for Cairnhill, I feel very surprised that all his words are conflicting. The Member for Cairnhill, every time he speaks, claims himself to be acting in and not contrary to the interests of the people. However, he knows too that the statement that these blank votes are pro-Government votes is not correct and is undemocratic. Now that he knows that these blank votes are undemocratic, how come he supports the Government's proposals? Therefore, the amendment Column : 720 of the Opposition demands that the Superintendent must announce separately the result of the referendum - how many blank votes and how many votes are void. The Member for Cairnhill knows the attitude and behaviour of the Government. Then it is just like a thief who stole something from other people. If the Government is a responsible Government, then it has the responsibility to protect the basic rights of the people. The Member for Cairnhill evidently knows that this provision is undemocratic; yet, according to him, the Government can pass any law to turn a woman into a man. He contends: how can you expect the Government to announce the result of the referendum? Mr Speaker, Sir, the demand of the Member for Anson is very reasonable. The money to be spent on the referendum is equivalent to the amount of money spent in a general election. In the forthcoming referendum the Government is going to spend about $400,000 of the public money. During the general election the Returning Officer has the right to announce the figures of every polling district.

Order. That is an argument which was advanced when we were discussing the amendments to clause 27 and clause 30. The Member should not be confused. We are now on a specific request that the votes which are unmarked and uncertain be counted and be separately announced. That is all.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to point out to you that it is much easier for the Government to announce the counting of these uncertain votes and void votes than the votes cast during a general election. Therefore, I maintain that the Government has no reason to reject this amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just more than an hour ago the Government has stream-rollered through a provision in this Bill to steal and dishonestly retain the unmarked and spoilt votes in this referendum. Now they seek to hide their dishonestly acquired votes from the Column : 721 people by refusing to accede to the amendment of the Member for Anson to classify and announce the votes they have so dishonestly stolen separately. I was just looking through the Select Committee Report No. 6 of Wednesday, 16th May, 1962. In column 391, three paragraphs from the bottom, you, Mr Chairman, Sir, indicated that the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown to clause 27, and the amendment to be moved by the Member for Anson to clause 29, were almost the same thing. In column 392, fourth paragraph, you said. 'So that the amendment would be "Such statement shall he as near as may be in the Form in the Schedule to this Ordinance."'

Order. There again I think the Member for Nee Soon is going back to the debate which has been dealt with in regard to the amendment which was moved in clause 27 and the related amendment to be moved in clause 30. We are now on a specific request and I think the Member must in his speech confine himself to that specific request. 6.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just bear with me, I have mentioned this in order to come to my point: my point being, Sir, that subsequent to your comments, the Minister for Home Affairs said, in the paragraph just below Mr David Marshall: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I personally think it is impossible [that is, to have such a Schedule to the Ordinance]. In fact, I consulted my officials on this matter and they advised against it, because no one can anticipate what type of referendum or what kind of question will be posed in future...'

I am sorry. I must interrupt the Member for Nee Soon. He is going right back again to an old issue. If he has any passage in Hansard which makes specific reference to this matter, then he can quote it.

If you will bear with me for one more moment, Sir, I will come to the point. Column : 722

Order. I suggest that the Member for Nee Soon comes to the point first and then he can indicate how what he says is relevant or not.

Thank you, Sir. Yesterday we received two amendments from the Government: one by the Minister for Home Affairs which seeks to revoke this Bill after merger; another by the Prime Minister which seeks to pose the two questions to be posed in the referendum for debate in this House. My argument, Sir, is that the notice papers given by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Prime Minister invalidate what the Minister for Home Affairs said here. He said that since it was impossible to anticipate what type of questions would be posed and that since this was a general Referendum Bill -

Order. I have invited the hon. Member to come to his point which must be a point relevant to the amendment. Then he can indicate how what he says is relevant. I do not know what his point is. Let us come to the point first.

The point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is in the light of these two amendments by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs respectively, the argument by the Minister for Home Affairs in Select Committee cannot hold water any more.

Order. But that argument does not arise on this particular amendment. I cannot see how it arises on this particular amendment. It arose when the Member for Queenstown sought a Schedule. But, as I say, that has been disposed of.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just before I started quoting this particular part of Hansard, I did make mention that you yourself, Sir, have stated in column 391 the relation between the amendment to clause 29 and the amendment to clause 27 and that you have indicated that what is proposed in clause 27 could well be taken when it came to clause 29. So, in the light of these two amendments, it is my submission, Sir, that the arguments Column : 723 of the Minister for Home Affairs and also subsequently of the Minister for Finance that this is a general Referendum Bill cannot hold water.

Order. I must draw the attention of this House to the fact that the hon. Member is persisting in irrelevance. I have to do that before I can ask him to cease speaking. I will just do that for the moment. Dr Sheng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my contention that even if the Government have good reasons - although they have not - to consider abstaining votes as their votes, they have no ground whatsoever to hide the number of abstaining votes from the people. It is therefore my contention, Sir, that the amendment moved by the Member for Anson should be respected by the Government and that they should agree with it. Question put, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes. 17; Noes, 24; Absent. 7; Abstentions. 3. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Omar Leong Keng Swee. Junid. Lin You Eng. Byrne, K. M. Lingam, S. V. Chan Chee Seng. Low Por Tuck. Chan Choy Siong, Marshall, David. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Abstentions. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Lim Yew Hock. M. Ismail Rahim. Seow Peck Leng, Ong Pang Boon. Mrs. Ramaswamy, S. Thio Chan Bee. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Koh, C. H. Column : 724 Absent-

(contd) Lee Kuan Yew. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Amendment accordingly negatived. 6.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A12, line 19, to leave out "included" and insert "announced". Amendment negatived. Question put, "That clause 29 stand part of the Bill."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 17; Absent, 7; Abstentions, 3. 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, David. Chor Yeok Eng. Ng Teng Kian. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Eng Guan. Kandasamy, G. Sheng Nam Chin. Lee Khoon Choy. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Cheng Lock. Teo Hock Guan. Mammen, John. Wong Soon Fong. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Mohd. Ariff bin Abstentations. Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Lim Yew Hock. Ong Pang Boon. Seow Peck Leng, Ramaswamy, S. Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Koh, C. H. Lee Kuan Yew. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30- Column : 725

I beg to move the amendment simpliciter, In page A12, line 25, at end, to add "Such statement shall be, as near as may be, in the Form in the Second Schedule to this Ordinance," Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." An hon. Member: Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 24; Abstentions, 3; Absent, 7. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Fung Yin Ching, Ahmad Jabri bin Miss. Mohammad Akib. Lee Siew Choh. Buang bin Omar Leong Keng Swee. Junid. Lin You Eng. Byrne, K. M. Lingam, S. V. Chan Chee Seng. Low Por Tuck. Chan Choy Siong, Marshall, David. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Sheng Nam Chin. Kandasamy, G. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Khoon Choy. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Teck Him. Teo Hock Guan. Lim Cheng Lock. Wong Soon Fong. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Absent. Mohd. Ariff bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Suradi. Hoe Puay Choo, M. Ismail Rahim. Madam. Ong Pang Boon. Koh, C. H. Ramaswamy, S. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Kia Gan. Rajah, A. P. Toh Chin Chye. Rajaratnam, S. Wee Toon Boon. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Yaacob bin Mohamed. Madam. Yong Nyuk Lin. Abstentions. Lim Yew Hock. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee. Column : 726 Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.45 p.m. Clause 32-

I move respectively the amendments* standing in my name. I see that the Member for Anson is also moving substantially the same amendments+, and I will leave the detailed arguments to him. For my part, we move the amendments for very simple reasons. We feel that the penalty is too severe. It is our contention that even if you want to penalise anybody, penalise him once but not twice. Sir, our fear is that immediately after a referendum, or not so very long after, a general election may be held. At any rate, the life of the Government does - * The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh: Amendment (i) : In page A13, line 36, after "years", to insert "or a fine". Amendment (ii) : In page A13, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "shall, by such conviction, become incapable, for a period of" and insert "may, on such conviction, be declared incapable for a period of up to". Amendment (iii) : In page A13, line 38, to leave out "of seven" and insert "not exceeding three". +The following amendments stood in the name of Mr David Marshall: Amendment (iv) : In page A13, to leave out lines 37 to 44 inclusive and insert "or a fine, and may by such conviction be declared incapable, for a period of up to seven years from the date of his conviction, of being registered as an elector or of voting at any referendum under this Ordinance or of voting at any election under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance". Amendment (vi) : In page A14, line 6, to leave out from "year" to the end of line 14 and insert "or a fine".

Order. The first amendment is, In page A13, line 36, after "years", to insert "or a fine". I wonder whether the Member for Queenstown would concentrate on that amendment, dispose of that, and then come to the other amendments, unless it is convenient to deal with all the amendments together if they are related.

It will be more convenient.

Then we will do it this way. The debate will range over amendments (i)*, (ii)* and (iii). I will not say the whole of amendment (iv)+, because I think that amendment is really in two parts. So I will then allow the debate to range over amendments (ii)* and (iii)*. * The following amendments stood in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh: Amendment (i) : In page A13, line 36, after "years", to insert "or a fine". Amendment (ii) : In page A13, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "shall, by such conviction, become incapable, for a period of" and insert "may, on such conviction, be declared incapable for a period of up to". Amendment (iii) : In page A13, line 38, to leave out "of seven" and insert "not exceeding three". +The following amendments stood in the name of Mr David Marshall: Amendment (iv) : In page A13, to leave out lines 37 to 44 inclusive and insert "or a fine, and may by such conviction be declared incapable, for a period of up to seven years from the date of his conviction, of being registered as an elector or of voting at any referendum under this Ordinance or of voting at any election under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance". Amendment (vi) : In page A14, line 6, to leave out from "year" to the end of line 14 and insert "or a fine". Column : 727

Yes, Sir, our arguments are very simple. As I said, the life of the Government will not extend beyond 1964 anyway. It may topple much sooner than that since they are no more a majority in the House. If the penalty is fixed, then it will mean seven years' imprisonment - a seven years' penalty. If allowed, it will mean penalising a person twice as regards his voting rights, as there will be 2 general elections in 7 years from today. That is the reason for our amendments. Sir. A person should only be penalised once. The other part of our amendment is that we feel that discretion should be left to a High Court Judge to decide whether or not a less heavy penalty should be inflicted on the person. We feel that the option of a fine should be allowed. The period of penalty should not exceed three years, because there may be extenuating circumstances and only a Judge will be able to decide.

It has been moved as an amendment, In page A13, line 36, after "years", to insert "or a fine". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." The debate may range over the second amendment, In page A13, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "shall, by such conviction, become incapable, for a period of" and insert "may, on such conviction, be declared incapable for a period of up to". The third amendment is, In page A13, line 38, to leave out "of seven" and insert "not exceeding three" It seems to me that the Member for Queenstown wants two bites at the cherry. If his amendment (ii) fails, he would like amendment (iii)

Mr Speaker, I rise before the Government Benches reply, because I would like to clarify certain aspects. You will notice, in spirit though not in wording, the Member for Queenstown and I on this matter are rather close. I do not seek to reduce the maximum penalty to three years as he does, because I seek to highlight the discretionary power of our courts. Mr Chairman, before I come to that, I would ask you to look at this rag-bag of clause 32 (1). It has nine assorted classifications of crimes, some of them very serious, Sir, Column : 728 and some of them far from serious. For example, forges or counterfeits ballot papers in paragraph (a), I think you will agree, Sir, is a very serious matter. And the last paragraph (i): 'manufactures, constructs, imports . . . supplies . . ., or causes to be manufactured... any appliance, device or mechanism by which a ballot paper may be extracted...' which are very serious offences indeed. Then, Sir, paragraph (e): 'puts into any ballot box anything other than the ballot paper...'. If he puts in a pencil, he gets seven years' imprisonment. He is deprived of his voting right for seven years. If he is an Assemblyman, he must immediately get out of the Assembly. The next one, Sir, paragraph (f) : 'without due authority...takes out of any polling station any ballot paper... ' Now that is very particularly pertinent, Sir, because it does not require what in law is known as mens rea, the word is not "intentionally" takes out, Sir, but: 'without due authority...takes out...any ballot paper or is found in possession of any ballot paper'. Now, you will ask why I have not sought to amend it. I can understand the Government on this, Sir. This, as they will tell you, is copied from the 1954 Elections Ordinance which they tried to father on to me, Sir, but they discovered later that their history on this was somewhat rusty and that this was, in fact, a colonial provision-[Interruption]

Order. The Minister for Law is getting disorderly. He will have his opportunity of answering. Mr Marshall.

Sir, they will tell you this comes from the 1954 Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. I repeat I am very unhappy about this provision, without due authority, but if you leave it to a Judge, Sir, and if he sees, for example, here is an ignorant woman. If she goes in she is supposed to put her paper into the box. She walks out with the paper, not intending anything wrong. You can leave it to the good sense of the Judge to deal with her in accordance with the provisions of the law, exercising his discretion whether to put a heavy sentence or a light one. Unfortunately, Column : 729 Sir, in this rag-bag they have nine classifications of offences. They go right out of the normal tradition which has been found to be so valuable, of providing a maximum punishment and leaving it to a Judge to exercise his discretion within that maximum what sentence to impose. Sir, that is the entire basis of the amend ments as I understand them, amendments (i) and (ii), and certainly the first part of my amendment in (iv). All I seek is to leave the matter to the discretion of a Judge. I recognize that these offences, some of which are very grave should be severely punished, just as you severely punish attempted murder or you severely punish voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon, where you put the sentence up to ten years: but within that maximum, Sir, the Judge has a discretion in particular cases even to impose a fine or to impose a life sentence, depending upon the circumstances which brought about the offence and the motive behind it. The trust we have in our Judges has been not merely richly deserved but has worked magnificently. We must all confess that no Legislature could have succeeded so well in imposing tables of sentences as have been worked out in experience by providing a maximum and letting the Judges exercise their discretion. If the man is a second offender, if the man is a third offender, if the man is a confirmed criminal, they can then exercise their discretion within that maximum. I want to repeat, Sir, because here again I quite naturally fear distortion. I am not seeking to support the third amendment. All I am seeking is that there should be a discretion vested in the Judge to provide for a fine, to provide for imprisonment up to seven years if he thinks proper, as well as to provide for declaring him to be incapable of voting or standing for election. May I seek your guidance, Mr Chairman, as regards the second aspect, which is technical, to leave that when we come to amendment (iv)?

I take it the Member for Anson is raising a legal argument in regard to the last part of clause 32, that is, he seeks to leave out the words: Column : 730 'or of being elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and if at that date he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction'. The argument on that will be a legal argument. Is it convenient to the Minister to leave that until later for argument?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, the offences mentioned in this clause are very serious and if we wish to keep the referendum clean, it is essential that the punishment should provide a deterrent. These are offences connected with electoral procedures. It is right and proper, in view of the gravity of these offences, that the court should not be given a discretion to impose a fine. In the framing of legislation, Sir, it is the practice for the Legislature to distinguish between offences which are grave, offences which are not so grave, and offences which are minor. In the case of offences which are minor offences, it is the practice to provide that the court can only punish by way of a fine. In the case of offences which are not so grave, the court is given a discretion to impose punishment by way of imprisonment or a fine. In cases which are considered to be grave, it is usual to provide that the court can punish by way of imprisonment only or imprisonment and a fine. In the case to which the Member for Anson referred just now, paragraph (e) of clause 32 (1) he cited the case of somebody putting a pencil into the ballot box. He failed to read on. There is sub-clause (6) which provides that prosecutions for offences under this section shall not be instituted without the sanction of the State Advocate-General. In matters like that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we could leave it to the good sense of the State Advocate-General not to institute any proceedings. It will be the same with regard to offences under paragraph (f) of this sub-clause. As to the court having a discretion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I see from the text of this clause that the court is already vested with the discretion as far as the period of imprisonment is concerned. Because these offences are grave offences and they cannot be considered minor, it is essential that the only punishment that should be provided for a breach of any of these provisions should be a sentence of imprisonment, Sir. Column : 731 7.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I am indebted. In fact, the Minister is correct, and I apologise for the oversight. It is correct, Sir, that there is a discretion there "for a term not exceeding...". There is a discretion in the Court indicated by the Minister, but it is a question of refusing to permit a fine, Sir, It is very unusual because he wants the discretion to be vested in the State Advocate-General-and it is so vested - as to whether he should institute proceedings or not. Why not, Sir, have a discretion also in the Court, which is surely, from experience, even more responsible than the State Advocate-General and which can be left in its good sense to decide whether the circumstances require a fine? I would not urge it further than that, Sir, I do not know how, I must confess, I had tripped up here in thinking it was compulsory. Amendment negatived.

Is the hon. Member moving amendment (ii)?

I move amendment (ii)* simpliciter. * Amendment (ii) reads: In page A13, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "shall, by such conviction, become incapable, for a period of" and insert "may, on such conviction, be declared incapable for a period of up to".

Before I put the Question, is the Member also going to move amendment (iii)+ which is the second bite at the cherry? + Amendment (iii) reads: In page A13, line 38, to leave out "of seven" and insert "not exceeding three".

Amendments (ii) and (iii), Sir.

The Member wishes for a voice vote on that?

Yes.

In that case, I will have to put the Question differently. It has been moved: In page A13, lines 37 and 38, to leave out "shall, by such conviction, become incapable, for a period of" and insert "may, on such conviction, be declared incapable for a period of up to". Column : 732 The Question is, 'That the words "shall, by such conviction, become incapable, for a period of" proposed to be left out, be left out.'

Division, Sir.

Does the Member really want a division? There is no policy in this, is there? The hon. Member really wants a division?

Yes.

Well, I would not say it is an abuse of the rules. It is very near it. But if the Member really wants a division, he must have it, I suppose. The Committee divided: Ayes, 16; Noes 26; Absent, 9; Abstention, nil. Ayes. Noes. Chan Sun Wing. Abdul Hamid bin Fung Yin Ching, Haji Jumat. Miss. Ahmad Jabri bin Lee Siew Choh. Mohammad Akib. Leong Keng Seng. Buang bin Omar Lin You Eng. Junid. Lingam, S. V. Byrne, K. M. Low Por Tuck Chan Chee Seng. Marshall, David. Chan Choy Siong, Ng Teng Kian. Madam. Ong Chang Sam. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Eng Guan. Goh Chew Chua. Sheng Nam Chin. Goh Keng Swee. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Khoon Choy. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Teck Him. Wong Soon Fong. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Absent. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Ahmad bin Mohd. Ariff bin Ibrahim. Suradi. Bani, S. T. M. Ismail Rahim. Hoe Puay Choo, Ong Pang Boon. Madam. Ramaswamy, S. Koh, C. H. Tan Kia Gan. Lee Kuan Yew. Thio Chan Bee. Rajah, A. P. Toh Chin Chye. Raharatnam, S. Wee Toon Boon. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Yaacob bin Mohamed. Madam. Yong Nyuk Lin. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Abstentation. Nil. Amendment accordingly negatived. Column : 733

Amendment (iii).

I move amendment (iii) simpliciter, Sir, In page A13, line 38, to leave out "of seven" and insert "exceeding three". Amendment negatived.

That disposes of the first part of amendment (iv). The remaining part is really, in effect, an amendment: To leave out from "Ordinance" in line 41 to the end of line 44 [that is to say, the words] "or of being elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and if at that date he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction". Will the Member for Anson proceed on those lines?

If it please you, Sir, I move, Mr Speaker, Sir, In page A13, line 41, to leave out from "Ordinance" to the end of line of 44. Mr Speaker, we have just seen the provision passed whereby the Judge is given no discretion at all in imposing a disability for seven years. There is no discretion there. There is a discretion about the imprisonment, Sir, but no discretion with reference to a man being deprived for seven years of his right of voting or standing for election, which seems to me, Sir, in the context of some of those offences, if you permit me to say en passant, quite disproportionate. But I will go on from there, Sir, to the second part where I seek to leave out the words, "or of being elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and if at that date he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction." Sir, those are the words I ask to be deleted. But if you will forgive me, Sir, if I might say so, I would like to delete from the word "Assembly" in line 42. You see, the logic of the position is this. I say that this Assembly has no power to prevent or to require an Assemblyman to vacate his seat under the conditions pertaining, by virtue of the Constitution under which we work. It has power to prevent him from voting, and it has power to prevent him from standing for election as a Member of Column : 734 the Legislative Assembly; but it has no power to require a declaration, - "and if at that date he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction."

In that event then, is not the Member for Anson asking leave, in effect, to move another amendment to withdraw his first amendment, and then to move the second amendment which is, in effect, to leave out the words "and if at that date he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction."?

That is so, Mr Speaker. I seek your leave - Mr Speaker, there has been some confusion here - to withdraw my first amendment, because I would like to limit it exclusively to the position of Legislative Assemblyman.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the first amendment be withdrawn? That is to leave out four lines. No dissenting voice? The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment now to be proposed by the Member for Anson which raises this legal question is that the words from "Assembly" in line 42 to the end of line 44 be left out. I trust the Minister has got the position clear. Will the Member please move?

Sir, I would like to draw your attention to section 42 of-

Will the Member please move formally for the record? 7.15 p.m.

I beg your pardon, Sir, I formally move the deletion of all words from the word "Assembly" in page A13, line 42 up to the end of line 44. I draw your attention to section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, Sir, under which this Assembly works and where its powers are defined. Section 42 deals with the Column : 735 tenure of office of Members of the Assembly. Sir, section 42 (3) states: 'Subject to the provisions of the following paragraph, if any Member of the Assembly is sentenced by a court in any pant of Her Majesty's dominions to death or to imprisonment (by whatever name called) for a term of or exceeding twelve months, he shall forthwith cease to exercise any of his functions as a Member...'. Now, that is definite, Sir. ". . . and his seat in the Assembly shall become vacant at the expiration of a period of thirty days thereafter: ". So let us take it in stages, Sir. The moment he is convicted to twelve months or more, he ceases functioning as a Member but his seat does not become vacant until thirty days after. And then there is a proviso, Sir, which is a paragraph: "Provided that the Speaker may, at the request of the Member, from time to time extend that period for further periods of thirty days to enable the Member to pursue any appeal in respect of his conviction or sentence, so however that extensions of time exceeding in the aggregate three hundred and thirty days shall not be given without the approval of the Assembly signified by resolution." So the position is, Sir, first, the moment he is convicted to twelve months or more he ceases to function. After thirty lays, his seat is vacated, unless you hear from him that he is appealing, and in the exercise of your discretion you grant him an extension of thirty days. Then his appeal not having come on, you can give him another extension of thirty days for eleven months in all, Sir. That is to say, eleven months in addition to the first month. A total of one year. Mr Speaker, then you have proviso (b): "If at any time before the Member vacates his seat he is granted a free pardon or his conviction is set aside or his sentence is reduced to a term of imprisonment of less than twelve months or a punishment other than imprisonment is substituted, his seat in the Assembly shall not become vacant . . . and he may resume . . . his functions...". You see the scheme, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw your attention also to the provision of section 42 (2) (h). Subsection (2), the operative words are: "The seat of a Member shall become vacant", and under paragraph (h): "if he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in paragraphs (f), (h) and (i) of section 41 of this Order." Column : 736 Now, this is legislation by reference. Let us go to section 41, Sir. And we come to paragraph (f), under any law for the time being when he is adjudged of unsound mind. That is not valid. Paragraph (h) is the one. He is disqualified for membership of the Assembly under any law for the time being in force in Singapore relating to offences connected with elections. Now, Sir, if he is disqualified for membership under a law in connection with elections, then he must vacate his seat. I want you to notice the vital words there, Sir, - "any law for the time being in force in Singapore relating to offences connected with elections". "elections" is the operative word, not with a referendum but with "elections". I am not seeking to score over the Government here, Sir, I feel it my duty to draw the attention of this Assembly to the fact that in my view we would he acting ultra vires in making a provision for the vacation of an Assemblyman's seat contrary to the provisions of the Constitution under which we are working. I am quite sure that nobody wants to indicate - whatever their personal views - official contempt by seeking to pass laws which we know are unlawful. You know, Sir, that under section 105, we can change that provision ourselves. But under section 105, we require a two-thirds majority of all the Members in the Assembly. So I urge merely this, Sir, that we be conscious of the legal obstacle to the procedure we are seeking to adopt, that we cannot, contrary to the provisions of section 42 of the Constitution, compel a Member to vacate his seat in connection with a referendum offence, otherwise in accordance with the provisions of section 42 (3) of the Constitution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all the precedents which the Select Committee considered on the holding of national referenda have either imported the identical provisions of the electoral procedures and the laws governing the holding of general elections into the referendum legislation itself, or have specifically required that recourse should be had to the procedures set out in the laws governing the holding of Column : 737 general elections for the purpose of holding the national referendum. In the holding of national referenda, existing electoral procedures are used and the electors are invited to make a choice of issues. In a general election or by-election, the electors are invited to make a choice of candidates. Sir, I have been advised by the State Advocate-General that although in sec tion 39 of the Order in Council, Members of the Assembly are held to be persons qualified for election, in accordance with the provisions of the Order in Council and elected in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being enforced in Singapore, the disqualifications arising under sections 41 (h) and 42 (h) of the Order in Council - to which the Member for Anson has just referred - from the commission of offences connected with the elections are not technically restricted to offences connected with elections to the Assembly. Had that been the intention, this would have been spelt out by the use of such words as "offences connected with elections to the Assembly" in these sections of the Order in Council. The State Advocate-General has further indicated that if this had been the intention a definition would have been provided for the word "elections" in section 1 (1) of the Order in Council. And he draws attention to the fact that although "Assembly", "Session" and "Sitting" are provided with definitions in section 1(1) of the Order in Council, no definition has been provided for the word "elections", Sir, It would therefore appear that the disqualifications involving the vacation of seats by Members of the Assembly who are guilty of offences under clauses 32, 38 and 42 of the Bill are not ultra vires the provisions of sections 41 (h) and 42 (h) of the Order in Council. As to section 42 (3) of the Order in Council to which the Member for Anson referred just now, it deals with cases where persons are convicted of offences under the Elections Ordinance or under the Referendum Bill. In these cases, there must be time given to the Column : 738 person who is convicted to appeal. This subsection of the Order in Council gives the convicted person that opportunity.

I am sorry to pursue an academic point, Sir, which may be of no ultimate interest. And I still feel - and I am still convinced - that somewhere there is a misunderstanding between the Minister and myself, because I am convinced that in law this is ultra vires. I would like to draw his attention to the word "elections". He says quite rightly that it was not defined. But if he will remember, Sir, at the date when this Constitution was promulgated in 1958, we had at that time a City Council and elections to the City Council. We had provisions. I think, in mind for elections to other organisations. So, a provision there - and it was possibly an oversight - was specifically intended for elections. The issue of referendum had not occurred to the draftsman. It was not available. It does specifically limit the disqualification to disqualification in respect of offences in connection with elections. We cannot avoid that and say "elections" includes "referendum". To suggest that, Sir, is I say with respect an absurdity. The difficulty about the limb in clause 32 are these words: "... if at that date he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, his seat shall be vacated from the date of such conviction." It is not merely he shall cease to function, which the Article provides, but his seat shall be vacated, and this is, if you will notice, Sir, in direct contravention of the wording of section 42 (3) which 'puts the vacation of the seat at a period of 30 days and subsequent periods not exceeding 11 of additional 30 days, it means in effect, Sir - if I am right - that they cannot achieve any vacation of his seat at all by this ultra vires provision. If they would like to amend it to permit him to be dealt with, and I say, Sir, its deletion would permit him to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Article. Because the Minister has indicated earlier that there is a discretion in the Judge to convict him and sentence him to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. He might sentence him to six months. He might sentence him to one day, Sir. And Column : 739 I have known such cases to occur where there is no power of fine. Now, Sir, if you sentence him to one day, the provisions for vacation of his seat in this section are completely contrary to section 42 (3) of the Constitution. I feel I must register that point of view. I can assure you I shall not trouble the House with a division on a matter of this character.

There can be a lot of arguments on this legal question and this is not the appropriate forum for such arguments.

I suppose the only way to do it is for a Member to commit an offence and then go to the High Court.

If he defaces a ballot paper we will prosecute him.

Does the wish for a voice vote?

Yes. 7.30 p.m. Amendment negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A14, line 1, to leave out "intentionally defaces or".

Sir, when the Bill was first put before the House, we in the Barisan Sosialis missed this vital point until its importance was pointed out to us by the Member for Anson in his amendment, and the P.A.P. now says that it is because of this amendment that they have put in, the blank paper clause. They say that the person who has moved this amendment is a Communist. Well, I do not know whether or not they want to call the Member for Anson a Communist. But it does look as if when it is convenient to the P.A.P.-

Can I hear that again?

Order. Column : 740

When it is convenient to the P.A.P.

On a point of order, Sir. Mr Mammen, I have at no time in this Assembly called the Member for Anson a Communist. Can the Member for Queenstown tell me when I said it?

That is not a point of order. Dr Lee.

Nobody has ever said it.

Order.

I ask them a simple question, Sir. Now it hurts them. That is the whole trouble. They say that the person who put in this amendment has evil intentions and the person who has such evil intentions, according to historical records, is obviously the Member for Anson. Nobody else, Sir. And they say that such evil intentions were all Communist inspired. Of course, Sir, to the P.A.P., whenever it is convenient - whether it be the Member for Anson or even the Member for Cairnhill, I suppose - they will put the label on. Sir, since the discussions and debate in Select Committee, we have come to realise the importance of a point which we missed earlier on. An individual should be free to deface his own ballot paper. This clause should be linked with the P.A.P. plot of placing before the voter two unacceptable questions. Let me ask the Minister opposite whether it is a crime for him to slap his own face.

Slap yourself.

Because if you deface your own ballot paper, it amounts to slapping your own face, it is definitely no crime against society. You only want to punish any person if he has committed a crime against society. And the fact that this new sub-clause (2) of clause 31 has been introduced, is proof enough that the Government have accepted the logic of our arguments because if you will remember, Sir, this sub-clause (2) was never in the original Bill. In the original Bill, anybody who intentionally defaces or intentionally destroys a ballot paper will be Column : 741 punished according to the list of punishment on page A13. The fact that Government have now made it a lighter sentence and a lighter punishment is already proof enough that they have accepted the logic of our argument that it is not a crime against society. If you turn to the first paragraph of column 412 of the Official Report of the Select Committee dated 16th May, you will see that we had to consult the Concise Oxford Dictionary, and the definition of "deface" is as follows: 'Mar appearance or beauty of, disfigure; discredit; make illegible.' Therefore, Sir, you can see that when you say deface, you have made it exceptionally vague, and the word "deface" can be open to a great variety of interpretations. What do you mean by "deface", Sir? According to the definition, it means "to mar the appearance or beauty of". Well, any worker, any fitter or any hawker, if he should not have a good bath and wash his hands beforehand and if he should go in and dirty the ballot paper -

No, no.

- he "mars the appearance or beauty of".

The Member misunderstands intentionally.

Well, according to the definition, "deface" means that, Sir. [Interruption].

Order.

How do you say "intentionally defaces" then? If a fitter forgets to wash his hands, is it considered therefore that he has intentionally defaced-

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

May I refer the Member for Queenstown to clause 23 of the BiIl? I will read clause 23: "A voter who has inadvertently dealt with his ballot paper in such manner that it cannot be conveniently used as a ballot paper may, on delivering to the presiding officer Column : 742 the ballot paper so inadvertently dealt with, and on proving the fact of the inadvertence to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, obtain another ballot paper in place of the ballot paper so delivered up, hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as a "spoilt ballot paper", and the spoilt ballot paper shall be immediately cancelled by the presiding officer." So, if he has inadvertently spoilt his ballot paper, he can get a fresh ballot paper.

I realise that, Sir, but all the same, the word 'defaces' is a little vague and according to the definition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, mar appearance can mean deface, disfigure can mean deface, make illegible can mean deface. Therefore, it can be open to a lot of interpretation. But I want to bring your attention back to the plot of the P.A.P. If you will remember, Sir, in the Elections Ordinance, section 51, sub-section (1) says, Sir: "Every person who forges or fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys". Well, the words are: "Every person who fraudulently defaces". It does not say "intentionally defaces" and these words "intentionally defaces" have been put in to fit in with their plot of forcing the voters to go to vote and to force the voter to choose between unacceptable alternatives. The heavy penalty, of course, is to deter the voter from even showing his protest and disgust at the question posed to him by defacing the ballot paper. I am sure you can imagine the situation, Sir, where such revolting and unacceptable alternatives are presented to you and in showing your disgust you possibly may scribble all over the ballot paper, draw any picture you like, or even make the words on the ballot paper illegible, and under those circumstances, it is considered that you have intentionally defaced the ballot paper and you are supposed to be punished for this offence. We consider that if such a voter is faced with such unacceptable alternatives, there is no other way for him to show his disgust. He is already forced to go along to the voting booth and forced to write something on the ballot paper. In the circumstances, there is nothing more fitting than to scribble all over the ballot paper. Yet the Government want to consider this natural reaction criminal, if anything, it is definitely Column : 743 not criminal. I do not think I have to go further into this. But I have to expose this falsehood and lie of the P.A.P. that it was the intention of the Communists and the pro-Communists to deface the ballot paper, that the Government have to counter this so-called Communist move by putting in the blank ballot paper clause. This original amendment, as I have already pointed out, was moved by the Member for Anson. If they want to pinpoint that as a Communist or a pro-Communist move, then I suggest that they ask the Member for Anson for an explanation. 7.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen. Sir, I would like to point out briefly that because of the word "deface" and because of its multiple interpretations, therefore, we are of the opinion that this word should be deleted from this Bill, because if it is not deleted, situation will arise. Mr Mammen, you will recollect in our previous debate that I also pointed out that if the electors are faced with two unacceptable alternatives, they may draw a tortoise or a bird on the ballot paper to show their anger. Under these circumstances, if a person draws a tortoise or a bird on the paper, and this ballot paper is deemed to be in support of the Government and at the same time the Government want to punish this person, that is to say, after deeming this ballot paper as the Government's, yet at the same time they want to punish him, then that is very ridiculous and unfair. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." An hon. Member: Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 13; Noes, 23; Absent, 15; Abstention, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Chun Sun Wing. Abdul Hamid bin Fung Yin Ching, Haji Jumat. Miss. Buang bin Omar Lee Siew Choh. Junid. Leong Keng Seng. Byrne, K. M. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Marshall, David. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. Goh Chew Chua. Sheng Nam Chin. Goh Keng Swee. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Column : 744 Ayes-

(contd) Noes-

(contd) Teo Hock Guan. Lee Khoon Choy. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Absent. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Mohd. Ariff bin Ahmad Jabri bin Suradi. Mohammad Akib. M. Ismail Rahim. Bani, S. T. Ong Pang Boon. Hoe Puay Choo, Ramaswamy, S. Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Lee Kuan Yew. Toh Chin Chye. Lim Yew Hock. Wee Toon Boon. Lingam, S. V. Yaacob bin Ng Teng Kian. Mohamed. Ong Eng Guan. Yong Nyuk Lin. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Abstention. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Nil. Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee. Amnendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I move, In page A14, line 6, to leave out from "year" to the end of line 14 and insert "or a fine". I want to draw your attention to this sub-clause (2). It refers to a person who intentionally defaces or destroys a ballot paper. It makes him guilty of an offence and it gives the court a discretion to imprison him up to a year. Sir, fair enough, there is a discretion. But then it makes it a compulsion that for three years thereafter he is incapable of being registered as an elector or of voting at a referendum or of voting at any election under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, or of being elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly. If he is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, he must forthwith vacate his seat. What is the purpose of this sadistic provision, for sadistic it is, Sir? Here is a man who is destroying his own ballot paper. I say it to you, Mr Mammen, that nowhere in the world can you find the equal of this. If they tell you they have got it from section 51 of the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, let me read it to you-section 51(1) (a) - look at the scheme of that clause, the words are - 'forges or fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any nomination paper, or delivers to the Returning Officer any nomination paper knowing the same to be forged,'. Column : 745 Sir, the word 'fraudulent' is defined in the Penal Code as a fraud. A fraud is to seek to bring about loss or gain, dishonestly. I think to bring about loss or gain to any particular person. The whole scheme is there to show you that the purpose is to defraud in some way the public and the people of Singapore by an act whereby the document is forged or is so defaced that it can be deemed to be somebody else's or in favour of somebody else. There is no question where you destroy your own for purposes of negativing any vote at all. You are defrauding nobody. But look, Sir, I know that this has been argued and I have not sought to prolong the debate. If it is thought necessary to make it an offence, by all means leave it to a Judge. I say at least give him the discretion to fine. You know, Sir, that in Western Samoa where the United Nations was in control, being in possession of a ballot paper was one of the very few offences, and that was merely punishable by 50 pounds maximum. Let us be a little sober in our approach. 8.00 p.m. I say that all I am asking here is that you give a discretion to the Judge to fine or to imprison. It is nonsense that a poor man who seeks to deface his own ballot paper, because he does not like your questions, must therefore be deprived of his civic rights of voting and standing for election for three years. This intemperate vengefulness of the P.A.P. is uncalled for.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson will look at clause 32 (1) (a) he will see that any intentional defacement or intentional destruction of a ballot paper belonging to another is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and with a deprivation of civic rights up to seven years. After a lot of argument in the Select Committee, the Government agreed to make a distinction between the intentional defacement or intentional destruction of one's own ballot paper and the ballot paper belonging to another. It was as a result of the representation from Opposition Members of the Select Committee that clause 32 (2) was put into this Bill, which Column : 746 provides for a lesser penalty of imprisonment up to one year and a deprivation of civic rights up to three years. Mr Chairman, Sir, on the question of the deprivation of civic rights, it is necessary that the deprivation should be indicated by the Legislature itself, otherwise it would result in inequalities if the deprivation were to vary from person to person, should the power to deprive be left to the discretion of the Court. As I have pointed out before, these are grave offences, and it is the practice in the framing of legislation to provide penalties of imprisonment for grave offences. If they are light and trivial offences, the appropriate penalty would be a fine. As these are grave offences, they are appropriately punishable with imprisonment.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I notice that this provision has generated a lot of heat from the Member for Anson. May I suggest, Sir, that the boundless energy of the Member for Anson could be more profitably used to persuade voters not to commit such an offence?

Mr Chairman, at least I am obliged to the Minister for Home Affairs for his courtesy, even though I can find no profit in the vacuity of ideas of his statement. But to come to the Minister for Law. He says quite rightly that the Government had all of them together, whereby we would all be punished with a maximum of two years and suffer mandatory consequential punishment of deprivation of civic rights of voting for seven years. But I would like you to understand, Mr Mammen, that the Opposition did not agree that the defacement of one's own ballot paper was a matter of gravity, and I am more than surprised that the Minister should so consider it, because whom does it harm, Sir? Wherein lies the gravity of destroying your own ballot paper? The Opposition never agreed that that should be punishable with one year. We leave it alone now, Sir, and make it maximum, because after all you are leaving it to the good sense of a Judge. And I say, give him the option of a fine. But what I do object to is this unnecessary provision whereby it is mandatory. The Minister Column : 747 says quite rightly that if there is a deprivation of civic rights it should be specified. That is correct. But it can be specified as an exercise of discretion on the part of a Judge. He can be given the discretion to exercise his right to declare that the person is prohibited from participating in elections or standing for elections himself or sitting in the Assembly. But he is not even giving the Judge that discretion, Sir. The man who defaces his ballot paper will have to suffer as a matter of legal requirement. The Judge has no power. There is in fact in these clauses considerable contempt shown for judicial discretion. They will allow him to exercise the right to decide how much imprisonment the man should get, but they will not allow him to decide whether the man should be deprived of his civic rights or for how many years he should be deprived. That is mandatory. And let us recognise, Sir, that these are important rights.

Just one point, Mr Chairman. On all questions of the deprivation of civic rights, the penalties imposed should be uniform, and it is quite correct that it should be the Legislature itself which should determine the period of the deprivation. If you leave it to a judicial discretion, it would mean that varying periods of deprivation will be imposed.That is quite wrong. It is always necessary that there should be a uniform period of deprivation. That is why that period of deprivation must be set by the Legislature itself and not by the judicial tribunal. Amendment negatived. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38-

Mr Deputy Speaker, I see that the amendment of the Member for Anson is substantially the same as mine; so I will leave both my amendments to the Member for Anson.

Will the Member indicate whether he is moving or not? Column : 748

No, I am not moving my amendment*.

The Member is also not moving amendment (ii)+? * Amendments (i) reads as follows:- In page A18, line 25, to leave out "shall become incapable for a period of" and insert "may be declared incapable for a period of up to". + In page A18, line 25, to leave out "of seven" and insert "not exceeding three".

I am not moving it, Sir.

Mr Mammen, I move, In page A18, to leave out lines 25 to 32 inclusive and insert "may be declared incapable for up to a period of seven years from the date of his conviction of being registered as an elector or of voting at a referendum under this Ordinance or of voting at any election under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance". I will not take up your time, Sir. We seem to have thrashed this out and I am very sorry indeed that the Government has not seen its way to concede what is a very important principle. Let us assume, and I am not satisfied that this is correct, that a uniform period of deprivation of civic rights is necessary. Let us assume that for the moment, although no precedent has been indicated. I say, what is wrong with giving the Judge the discretion in deciding whether to apply that deprivation or not? Have we not any trust, any confidence in our Judges? Is this seriously the P.A.P. approach to the judiciary which has for so long striven and so well earned its reputation, for being balanced, for being of integrity beyond any shadow of doubt? What is the P.A.P. afraid of? I will withdraw the word "afraid". Why does the P.A.P. not wish to leave the matter to the discretion of our courts? If not the period, at least the issue whether there should or should not be disqualification, this deprivation of citizenship rights. I am not saying it is too harsh in certain circumstances, but I do urge that the principle be respected that where this Assembly sets a maximum sentence, the Judge be given discretion whether to apply it or not.

Mr Mammen, similar provisions are scattered throughout the law. There are many, many provisions laying down similar deprivations, deprivations not affecting civic rights, but Column : 749 which are nevertheless deprivations. For instance, if one uses a motor-car to commit a criminal offence, the motor-car can be forfeited. Similarly, in smuggling offences, if one uses motor-cars or other movable property for the commission of these offences, one can be deprived of that property. This provision is not something entirely new in the law and that is very well-known to the Member for Anson.

Mr Mammen, Sir, the penalty is, so severe because the offences are of a very serious nature. If you look at clause 38 (1) : 'Every person who-

Mr Mammen, Sir, I do not know if the Minister is under the impression that I am in the Barisan, but it was I who moved this amendment and the Barisan withdrew theirs, Sir. So it is hardly fair to the Barisan to say that they are seeking to undermine the basis of a fair referendum. It is true that they are suggesting that they are supporting my amendment, but the Minister must be fair, Sir, I have not said and I am Column : 750 sure they are not going to say that the punishment is necessarily too severe in this clause. It was in the previous clause, but now we are dealing with clause 38. All we say here is, why not give the Judge a discretion? It is a principle and a very important principle. But since he talks about gravity, Mr Mammen, as a curiosity, will you permit me, this will not take very long? I have before me the Australian Commonwealth Acts, 1901 to 1950, Vol. 5. For "treating", Sir, section 43 - �200 fine or imprisonment for one year. 'Any person who after the issue of a referendum supplies to any elector meat, drink or entertainment, horse or carriage hire with a view to influence his vote in connection with the referendum, shall be guilty of the offence', and the fine is �200 or one year; no disqualification.. Then, Sir, we come to bribery. "Any person who gives, confers. . ." the bribe, Sir; penalty, �200 or imprisonment for one year. That is section 44. Then, Sir, undue influence, section 46, we have penalty - �200 or imprisonment for one year; no deprivation of civic rights. Sir, they talk of wanting a clean referendum. What I should have liked to see, Sir, if I might draw your attention to it, and I know that I for one on this side of the House would be very happy to give them leave to move it even at this late stage, is the provision of section 48 (1) (b) of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act and this is how it reads, Mr Mammen: 'Every person who print, publishes or distributes any advertisement or document containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote at the referendum, shall be guilty of an offence.' It is true the penalty is only �100, in this instance, it should be more. Why have we not got that clause? Need I draw the inference, Mr Mammen?

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, just now the Minister for Home Affairs has replied to the amendment by the Member for Anson, saying Column : 751 that the reason why there is such a provision is that the Barisan Sosialis has constantly attacked the P.A.P. Just like Syngman Rhee of South Korea, the P.A.P. wants to prevent the corrupt practices during the election, as was the condition in South Korea. That is why there is such a provision to prescribe the penalty. Mr Mammen, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has been very eloquent in his argument. His argument appears to be very attractive but, in fact, the purpose of this provision is not to prevent the so-called corrupt practices as was practised by Syngman Rhee. The Member for Anson has moved this amendment, which is a very fair one, as it only requests that cases of offence should be dealt with by a Judge and not left to the Assembly to decide on the penalties. If we want to prevent corrupt practices as was practised by Syngman Rhee, then all laws will not be able to prevent such acts. In fact, clauses 5 and 29 show that the Government is actually corrupt. That also goes to show that the P.A.P. Government acts like Syngman Rhee. Mr Mammen, Sir, the reply of the Minister for Home Affairs is very in appropriate. The Member for Anson has quoted examples of the law in Australia, and I hope the Minister for Home Affairs will consider our amendment and accept it.

Mr Mammen, Sir, we are going round and round, in a merry-go-round, with the Member for Anson. There is this same provision in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. The same penalties are provided, and the discretion is not with the court. It is laid down by the Legislative Assembly. We have not introduced anything new at all to do anybody in. We are just following the same practice that there is in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Where is the wrong in that? Column : 752

Mr Mammen, Sir, I seem to have heard from the Member for Choa Chu Kang that he believes in the impartiality of our Judges and our Judiciary. If I am correct - please correct me if I am wrong - the Member For Choa Chu Kang has said all this - may I refer him to his own organ, the Barisan (especially the Chinese edition) wherein you could read how contemptuous they are of our Judiciary?

On a point of information, Sir, if the Minister will permit. Can I enquire from the Minister where and what issue that is, and what date, if he would be good enough to indicate?

Mr Mammen, Sir, I am afraid I am not able to give you the specific dates of the various copies. But, I think, since he has the Barisan Members in front of him, perhaps they will be able to supply him with the necessary information. Amendment negatived. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41-

Mr Mammen, I move, In page A20, line 13, to leave out, from "(1)" to the end of line 20 and insert "No person shall wear, use, carry or display or cause to be worn, used, carried or displayed any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard as political propaganda during the period of any referendum: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use or display of any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard on the day and at the site of a referendum meeting.". Mr Mammen, Sir, if you will agree, I think it is convenient in discussing this clause to allow the debate to range over the other amendment* standing in my name.

Could we have your guidance, Mr Mammen, Sir? Does the Minister mean the amendment that is under clause 41, amendment (iv)*? I would like precision, Sir. * Amendment (iv) reads as follows:- In page A20, line 20, at end, to add- "(2) No person other than the Superintendent shall make, print, publish, distribute, post up, wear, use, carry or display or cause to be made, printed, published, distributed, posted up, worn, used, carried or displayed any poster in connection with any referendum during the period of any referendum.". Column : 753 Mr Ong Pang Boon indicated assent.

I see. I have no objection, Sir.

Mr Mammen, if you will remember in Select Committee, the Member for Anson was of the opinion that the provision of clause 41 as at present would have the effect of prohibiting Press statements and reports of referendum meetings in the papers, and so forth. Although we disagreed with the opinion of the Member for Anson in the interpretation of this clause, nevertheless, to make the posilion less ambiguous, we promised to look into the wording of this clause again. The amendments before the House have also taken into account the views of the Opposition. The position now is that during the referendum period, badges, rosettes, favours, handbills, advertisements, and replicas of ballot papers will now be permitted during the period of any referendum except on polling day. As assured by the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill, canvassing will be prohibited only on polling day. Symbols, sets of colours, banners, flags, and placards will now be permitted on the days and sites of referendum meetings. Only posters other than those of the Superintendent will continue to be totally prohibited. The Superintendent-

I wonder if the Minister would permit, on a point of elucidation. Mr Ong Pang Boon resumed his seat.

Thank you. Mr Mammen, I would like to ask: is the intention of this clause 41 about the symbols, sets of colours, banners, placards, as political propaganda - does it mean political propaganda with reference to the referendum only? I am much obliged, Sir.

I was saying just now that only posters other than those of the Superintendent will continue Column : 754 to be totally prohibited. The Superintendent is exempted so as to enable him to put up factual or instructional posters concerning the matter under referendum. These posters are particularly important- The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. Time for suspension. Mr Deputy Speaker thereupon left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

I suspend this sitting until half-past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed. Clause 41-(cont.)

Clause 41 - an amendment in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was explaining about the prohibition of posters before the adjournment. Now, coming back to this question of posters, Mr Speaker, Sir, under this new amendment only posters other than those of the Superintendent will continue to be totally prohibited. The Superintendent is exempted so as to enable him to put up factual or instructional posters concerning a referendum. I was saying just now that these posters are particularly important as this is the first referendum to be held by the State. It is important, therefore, that the factual or instructional posters put up by the Superintendent should not be blotted out by or confused with posters of political Parties. It is also to be remembered that in a referendum only a national issue is involved and the referendum as such will be conducted on a national basis. No posters therefore will be necessary to Column : 755 advertise the candidates' pictures nor the symbols of candidates or of the respective political Parties which will be essential in the case of an election.

Before I pose the question, may I know from the Member for Anson whether he is moving his amendment (iii)* in the light of amendment (i)+ and amendment (ii)++ ? I think the Member for Anson has not heard me. + Amendment (i), in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs, reads as follows: In page A20, line 13, to leave out, from "(1)" to the end of line 20 and insert "No person shall wear, use, carry or display or cause to be worn, used, carried or displayed any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard as political propaganda during the period of any referendum: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use or display of any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard on the day and at the site of a referendum meeting.". ++ Amendment (ii), in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh, reads as follows: In page A20, line 13, to leave out from "(1)" to the end of line 20 and insert "No badge, symbol, rosette, favour, set of colours, flag, banner, advertisement, handbill, placard or poster or any replica of a ballot paper shall be worn, used, carried or displayed by any person or on any motor-car, truck, or other vehicle as political propaganda on polling day". * Amendment (iii), in the name of Mr Marshall, reads as follows: In page A20, line 19, to leave out from "paper" to the end of line 20 and insert "as political propaganda on polling day".

Yes, Mr Speaker, I am looking at the amendment. It is a little confusing. You see, Sir, if you will forgive me, amendment (iii) is distinct from amendment (i) in that it merely prohibits these matters from being utilised on Polling Day, whereas the Minister seeks to prohibit the use of political symbols, colours, flags, banners or placards during the entire referendum period. I will be moving, Sir.

Well, I did say in the light of amendment (i) and amendment (ii), where the Member for Queenstown is seeking to amend that part of the amendment to the Minister for Home Affairs. Instead of "during the period of any referendum", the Member for Queenstown suggests "on polling day" which seems to be almost the same as the amendment to be moved by the Member for Anson, unless, of course, he does not like this separation of the Superintendent from the other things. He will notice what the Superintendent should do and what any other person should do is contained in clause 41(i).

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. No, Sir, I would not weary this House at this late stage with these fine distinctions which might be appropriate at another time, and having had my attention drawn to amendment (ii), I can now state, Sir, that I shall be accepting amendment (ii) and I shall not be moving mine.

Thank you. It has been moved then as an amendment, In page A20, line 13, to leave out, from "(1)" to the end of line 20 and insert "No person shall wear, use, carry or display or cause to be worn, used, carried or displayed any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard as political propaganda during the period of any referendum: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use or display of any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard on the day and at the site of a referendum meeting.". As has been indicated, the debate may range over amendment (iv): In page A20, line 20, at end, to add "(2) No person other than the Superintendent shall make, print, publish, distribute, post up, wear, use, carry or display or cause to be made, printed. published, distributed, posted up, worn, used, carried or displayed any poster in connection with any referendum during the period of any referendum.". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." It seems to me that that is agreed in amendment (ii). So I propose to put that Question straightaway, take a vote, and then proceed to the second limb of the amendment - the insertion of the words. Is that suitable to the Member for Queenstown? Column : 757

I do not quite follow, Sir. We agreed to the deletion.

The Member for Queenstown has also asked for the deletion of words from "(1)" to the end of line 20. And so has the Minister for Home Affairs.

That is agreed.

Then I will put the Question.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put, and agreed to.

Now the Question is, "That the words proposed to be inserted [by the amendment proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs], be there inserted."

Very briefly, Sir, I am not going to speak on the principle, but to draw the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs to one aspect and to enquire whether he would consider it, before the main debate ranges over the principle. I draw his attention to the words "as political propaganda" in the amendment he has moved. Sir, if I carry this badge which I have on me now - which is the symbol of my Party - I take it that it can in law be termed political propaganda. And if I should carry it during the period of the referendum, it would technically be deemed to be the use of a badge for political propaganda. That is why I was obliged to the Minister who indicated during his speech when I rose on a point of elucidation that he and this is perfectly natural and proper did not have in mind the normal propaganda, the political Parties' issues, the utilisation of their letterheads or the utilisation of their symbols, in the normal course. He did not have that in mind at all. What he had in mind was political propaganda with reference specifically to the referendum before the people. And I ask, Sir - as I said, before the debate went under way - whether he would consider that technical aspect and Column : 758 perhaps seek to substitute the word "referendum" for "political" so that it will read "referendum propaganda".

Shall we go on with the debate? Perhaps the Minister would like to have time to consider it unless he is ready with the reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the instance quoted by the Member for Anson as to the display of party badges is permissible during the referendum period except on Polling Day. I cannot imagine that during the referendum there will be any type of political propaganda other than propaganda concerning the referendum itself.

The words are "political propaganda during the period of any referendum".

Yes, any period of the referendum. 9.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to move an amendment to the amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs. I move, To leave out-

Can I assist the Member for Queenstown? He obviously wishes to introduce the terms of his proposed amendment. Is that it?

Yes.

The Member for Anson has indicated that he will not be moving his amendment (iii). Does the Member for Queenstown wish to delete the proviso proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs? Can I have that answer first?

Yes, to leave it out.

Well then, he moves that the words proposed to be inserted by the Minister be left out, and there to insert his own words. Column : 759

I beg to move the amendment* as you have indicated. Sir, the Government have given an indication that they are going to allow canvassing. But see what kind of canvassing they are allowing the Opposition. They ask us to fight but they tie our hands behind our backs. See what the amendment the Minister for Home Affairs seeks to do? He says. "No person shall wear, use, carry or display or cause to be worn, used, carried or displayed any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard as political propagada during the period of any referendum." I leave the proviso out of it now. Sir, all these things cannot be done during the period of the referendum. What is the period of the referendum? The period of the referendum is the most vital period for canvassing. The original period of referendum was only seven days. An indication has already been given to us that the period of the referendum will be increased to two weeks. In actual fact, therefore, the Government want to extend the limitation of canvassing from one week to two weeks. Therefore, it has become worse in many respects. * To leave out: "No person shall wear, use, carry or display or cause to be worn, used, carried or displayed any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard as political propaganda during the period of any referendum: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use or display of any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard on the day and at the site of a referendum meeting." and insert: "No badge, symbol, rosette, favour, set of colours, flag, banner, advertisement, handbill, placard or posters or any replica of a ballot paper shall be worn, used, carried or displayed by any person or on any motor-car, truck, or other vehicle as political propaganda on polling day".

I cannot understand the logic.

You see, Sir, canvassing can be done in many ways. If you cannot carry any banner or placard, how can you canvass? [Interruption]

Order.

Canvassing for the birds. Well, possibly that is what the Minister for Home Affairs is thinking about. And if we should do anything of this sort, it is considered Column : 760 to be political propaganda. Anything that the P.A.P. does not like will be considered as political propaganda. Let me remind you of the promises made by the Minister for Home Affairs in Select Committee. In Select Committee the Minister gave an undertaking that he would put in the amendments early, at least one week beforehand.

I have done that.

No, Sir, unfortunately that is what he has not done. He wrote a letter to us and I will read it to you. [Interruption]

On a point of information.

On a point of information - go ahead. I will give you-

Order. This can come later.

I have brought my wrong file today, Sir. Anyway the Minister can provide us with a copy - I am sure he has a copy of it.

I do not have a copy here.

In the letter he informed me in terms of endearment, calling me "Dear Siew Choh" and all that-

Order. I do not know why without any reason whatsoever, the Member for Queenstown should now generate heat. Surely he should be thankful for the courtesy which was accorded to him by the Minister for Home Affairs and not be derisive about it? Column : 761

Sir, he informed me that he would prohibit political propaganda and that he would not allow posters. Just a few words in principle without giving us the details. The details of the amendment came to us only, I think, two days before the sitting of the Assembly.

Nonsense!

The undertaking he gave to us that he would inform us at least one week before the sitting day of the amendments has not been kept.

It was kept.

The actual wording of the amendment, not just the general principle. It is only by studying the actual wording of the amendment that we know how to amend the amendment. And unless the actual wording of the amendment has been put in, we will not know what the real intention of the Government is going to be. That is point number one. But, as usual, promises mean nothing nowadays to the P.A.P. They made a lot of promises but all of them have been forgotten. Let me now refer you to the words of the Minister for Home Affairs. On 14th March, in the Revised Transcript of the Official Report on the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill, page 13, last paragraph [Vol. 17, No. 1, col. 84], the Minister for Home Affairs said: 'On a point of information, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said in my speech earlier that canvassing is allowed except on polling day...'. That is very good, Sir. Now you see what are the words that follow: ". . . just as in the general elections.' Very good, Sir. But see what has happened? Restriction of posters as in the general elections? Nobody can wear, use, carry banners or display placards as in the general elections? Is this the promise of the Minister that we would be allowed canvassing as in the general elections? May I refer you again, Sir, to the Revised Transcript of the Official Report on the Second Reading of the Column : 762 Singapore National Referendum Bill dated 16th March, 1962, page 38 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 294]. The Minister for Home Affairs was again speaking - second paragraph, page 38:- 'I wish to reiterate once again that canvassing will be prohibited onl on polling day, just as in the case [now, these are very important words, Sir] of any elections in the past.' In other words, Sir, canvassing will be allowed as in any general election. What do we see today? Nobody will he allowed to wear, use, carry or display flags, banners or placards as political propaganda.

The hon. Member should carry on reading that paragraph.

Reading, you suggest, Sir?

The same paragraph.

- Also the prohibition on the displaying of flags, banners, symbols, etc, is to be confined only to the period of the referendum. The provision of referendum petitions too has been spelt out in a comprehensive form under the new Part V of the Bill.'

That is all.

What I want to emphasise is this: a promise has been given that canvassing will be allowed as in general elections. I can assure you, Sir, in general elections nobody, no political Party will be debarred from wearing, using, carrying or displaying flags, banners or placards.

On a point of elucidation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if the Member for Queenstown would be kind enough to let us know his interpretation of the word "canvassing"? Does "canvassing" mean carrying banners round the town?

The Minister is very impatient. Let him wait. Surely as a Minister, and as a person who has gone through three or four elections, he should know what canvassing means. The P.A.P. has been very meticulous in the copying of sections from the Elections Ordinance when it happens to suit them. Column : 763 10.00 p.m. Sir, may I refer you to our Elections Ordinance, section 72, subsection (1)? It says here, Sir: 'No badge, symbol, rosette, favour, set of colours, flag, advertisement, handbill, placard or poster or any replica of a voting paper shall be worn, used, carried or displayed by any person or on any motor-car, truck or other vehicle as political propaganda on polling day:'. Sir, since the P.A.P. have always been quoting sections from the Elections Ordinance and since we are supposed to model our Referendum Bill on the Elections Ordinance, may I suggest that they accept our amendment, because I have lifted our amendment, word for word, from section 72, sub-section (1) of this Elections Ordinance? I do not think they can have any complaints, because I only seek that they allow us canvassing as is allowed now in the Elections Ordinance. I have already touched on the fact that the referendum period is extended from seven to, as we understand, fourteen days. That means that the period in which they want to stop us from doing things will be extended. This is a period most vital for canvassing. Today the Government have full control of the radio, Rediffusion, and even the newspapers. The Opposition Parties have no opportunities of putting up even posters. They have all these facilities - printing and putting up posters and sending out pamphlets all the time. We are only asking that we be allowed to do the same. We are not asking anything extraordinary. As it is, they are already trying to limit publicity of the debate. Instances have been quoted to you of the Government trying to limit newspaper space for the Opposition Parties. I would like to quote to you again, Sir, the words of the Prime Minister himself, words which I quoted two days ago. The Prime Minister in 1955 said: '. . . we either believe in democracy or we do not.' If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought. . . '. Column : 764 Sir, these are the words of the Prime Minister himself. Yet we see the Government trying to limit these same activities on the part of the Opposition Parties. The Minister said that during the referendum period only the Superintendent should be allowed to put up posters because, according to him, only Government posters will put up a factual report of whatever they want to propagandise. The implication being, Sir, that if the Opposition Parties should put up posters, then these posters will all be on falsehoods or distortions. I venture to suggest, Sir, that the Government in fact are doing exactly that. They have put up a lot of posters, giving a distorted version of Malaysia and merger to the people. They are, in fact, using public funds for their own party propaganda. These are points which we in the Opposition have tried to bring forward and which the P.A.P. have prevented us from getting across to the public. I do not intend to speak very much more now-

Thank goodness!

But just to tell the Government that if they really intend to allow canvassing, let there be full canvassing. Let them not make a farce of this so-called canvassing.

But you are doing it now.

Because you see, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs intends that if ever political Parties should use any symbol, set of colours, flag, advertisement or placard, those things can only be used at a referendum meeting. You do not canvass by putting up placards at a referendum meeting. You canvass by going around telling people what they should know.

It depends.

Words can be put up on banners and the people can look at the banners and find out for themselves the actual state of affairs. In any issue both sides of the picture must be presented to the people. It is only after all the facts have been put before him that the voter will be able to make his own decision. Column : 765 I might mention, Sir, the difficulties that have been put in our way of rallies and meetings. In many places we have to apply for a permit first from the City Council for the use of the land, and after that a police permit. On many occasions permits were issued only at the very last minute so that preparations for such meetings and rallies were restricted and hamstrung. Again, on many occasions our requests for rallies were rejected on the poor excuse that certain playgrounds and parks could only be used during general elections. I do not know, Sir, whether or not such areas and parks and playgrounds will be allowed during the referendum period when full canvassing is supposed to be allowed and referendum meetings are permitted to be held. But this amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs makes nonsense of the original promise to allow full canvassing as in a general election. We cannot possibly canvass without the use of posters. The Minister himself should know that posters have to be put up in places to inform the people of the facts when we cannot personally deliver that message. People may be working; very few people may be in their houses; and we may not meet all the people we would like to meet when we go around canvassing. But if we are allowed posters, at least there is a possibility of people looking at the posters and seeing the other side of the picture from the Government's. As it is, only the Government have such facilities. We feel the P.A.P. are taking an unfair advantage of the Opposition Parties. Let the P.A.P. not make a farce of their promise to allow full canvassing. Before closing, I might add that it was the original intention of the P.A.P. to prohibit canvassing completely. If you remember, Sir, the original intention of the P.A.P. was to put one question, but later on when they realised that their own merger proposals would not be acceptable to the people, they conceived the two-question snap referendum plot. There is provision for the P.A.P. to take advantage of the confusion that will be caused in the minds of the people by their posing of Column : 766 two questions. Now that they have this blank paper saviour sure-win clause they have relaxed on canvassing. But in spite of their wanting to relax on canvassing, they insist on restricting canvassing to the minimum. Their present amendment seeks to do just that. They want to say that there is canvassing, and to give the appearance that they are democrats; but, in actual fact, they want to make sure that canvassing on the part of the Opposition will be limited as much as possible. Possibly, Sir, it is because the P.A.P. themselves have no more organisation to go out canvassing nowadays and have to depend on the propaganda machinery of the Government to do P.A.P. work. 10.15 p.m.

Nonsense!

The Minister says nonsense. Let him prove it by giving us full facilities for canvassing as in the general election.

Order. It has been moved as an amendment to insert after "(i) In page A20, line 13:" the following words: "No person shall wear, use, curry or display or cause to be worn, used, carried or displayed any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard as political propaganda during the period of any referendum: Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use or display of any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard on the day and at the site of a referendum meeting.". It has been moved, as an amendment to that amendment, to leave out all those words and there to insert: "No budge, symbol, rosette, favour, set of colours, flag, banner, advertisement, handbill, placard or poster or any replica of a ballot paper shall be worn, used, carried or displayed by any person or on any motor-car, truck, or other vehicle as political propaganda on polling day". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot agree to the amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs. I cannot agree to what he has said in relation to his amendment to clause 41. He has just now mentioned his so-called reasons when he says that a national referendum has nothing to Column : 767 do with a general election; and it has nothing to do with political Parties be cause there are no candidates waiting to be elected, and it is rather different from a general election. No political Parties or candidates are involved. But I am of the opinion that his reasoning is groundless, because up till now we know that the Government in the national referendum will pose two questions which will be framed according to the Government's interpretation of what the stands of the other political Parties are in relation to merger. Therefore, it is clear that during the process of holding a national referendum, there will be much significance of party politics. That also is to be seen from the form the Government is going to pose the two questions and how the Government will frame the two questions. According to the Government's explanation, one question will represent the standpoint of the Party in power; the other question will be the so-called stand of the Opposition Parties as interpreted by the Government. Therefore, what the Minister for Home Affairs has said just now, that there is no party politics in a national referendum, cannot hold water. Therefore, it is necessary to have sufficient time for the political Parties concerned to explain their stands and views. Although the controversy over the question of merger has been going on for quite a long time, the form of the questions in relation to merger has only recently become slightly clearer. One thing that should be noted especially is that we intend to move a motion to condemn the Government's distortion of our stand. Therefore, it is all the more necessary to let us have sufficient time to explain to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us assume that the Government does not distort our stand, assuming that the other question to be posed by the Government is also our stand on merger. But this House has never had sufficient time to debate our stand and our explanation in relation to our merger proposals, such as the form, the time and consequences of merger. Therefore, under these circumstances, granted that the Government does not distort our stand, it is only fair Column : 768 that it should allow us to have more time during a national referendum to do our canvassing work. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has just now said that there are many forms of canvassing, and that it is not necessary to use placards or posters. We cannot agree with him because nobody can deny that the cartoons drawn on the placards and posters will be more effective than words in explaining the various stands and views. An example can be drawn from advertising companies which advertise mainly by means of cartoons drawn on placards and posters rather than by using words. As regards the amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs that - I draw your attention to the proviso- 'Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the use or display of any symbol, set of colours, flag, banner or placard on the day and at the site of a referendum meeting.' We know the period of the national referendum is rather short. During such a short period political Parties find it impossible to have sufficient time to carry on canvasting in various parts of the island and to hold meetings. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has passed the most important provision relating to blank votes and the provision prohibiting the people to say no. Therefore, on the question of a national referendum, fundamentally the Government has already assured itself that it will never be defeated; it will never lose. Therefore, why should the Government be afraid of letting the Opposition Parties carry out canvassing, put up posters, placards and cartoons in various parts of the island to criticise the Government? Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this kind of provision by the Government enables us to see more clearly that it will not allow the people to say no to its Merger White Paper and to show their protest. The Government will also not allow the people to cast blank votes as a form of protest against it. Therefore, there remains only one form, that is, the general use of posters and placards to show their dissatisfaction and protest. Column : 769 10.30 p.m. We must know that this form of showing protest by displaying placards and posters is a peaceful way of showing our feelings. But the Government wants to prohibit even this peaceful way of showing the anger of the people. What is the motive of the Government? By so doing the Government would only make us query why it wants to have the establishment of another infantry regiment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the opinion that this kind of measure by the Government would not encourage the Opposition Parties to abide peacefully by constitutional means of expressing their wishes. This intention on the part of the Government is very vicious. The Government has now drafted this provision as such. If it wants to explain away, it is only because the P.A.P. today cannot get enough supporters to paste up its own posters and placards at the various places throughout the island.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of the debate on this Bill, especially On clause 41, in the Committee of the whole Assembly, the people of Singapore know that they are being gagged by the P.A.P. The people cannot use their own hand to write something on the ballot paper and to show whether or not they accept a certain proposition. Their eyes will also be blinded by this provision. They cannot use their eyes to read the views of the Opposition Parties on the question referred to in the referendum. We are of the opinion-

Order. There is something wrong with the interpretation. The system is out of order. (Pause) Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the people cannot air their views, they should have the right to understand what they should do and how they should vote in the referendum by looking at posters. They have also the Column : 770 right to listen and to see what the other Opposition Parties have to say on the question of national referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, we feel that this amendment is very important. The Government can use the radio and the Press to air the Government's views. They can thus influence the electors in the coming referendum as to what they should do in the national referendum. However, the Opposition Parties do not have the right to make use of the radio or Rediffusion to make known their views to the people. Under these circumstances, we, the Opposition Parties should have the full right to demand that in this National Referendum Bill we should he allowed to put up banners, posters and placards so as to enable us, in a simple and concise manner, to tell the people how they should decide in the national referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago I said that in the past one year the Government has made full use of all its propaganda machinery to propogate its policies. But we the Opposition Parties cannot do so. You will receive that my Party and some other trade unions have put up banners to oppose the phoney merger plan of the Government, however, every branch of my Party and other trade unions have received notices from the Chief Building Surveyor that we must apply for a permit before we could put up banners. It is impossible to ask us to apply for a permit, if my memory is correct, one square foot of the placard costs us about 75 cents. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not even have the right to put up banners and posters. We have been deprived of this right by the Government. However, in the P.A.P. headquarters and the commuunity centres and P.A.P. Branches the Government has put up banners pronagating the concept of Malaysia and merger.

Distortion of facts.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can see clearly that the Government has ample time to propagate their policies and their ideas. However, we the Opposition Parties cannot enjoy these benefits and these rights. Column : 771 Another point is in regard to the holding of mass rallies. What we can display is very limited in number. Mr Speaker, Sir, before a mass rally is held, we must apply to the City Council or the Public Works Department to allow us to use the particular places for the rally. Only then can we apply to the police for a permit to hold it. 10.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will realise that places belonging to the City Council and the Public Works Department are under the control of the Government. The Government can, before the National Referendum period, allot lands and places like parks and parking lots for the Government to hold mass rallies. Under these circumstances, when we apply to the City Council or the Public Works Department for permission to use these places, our applications are sure to be rejected by the Government. Therefore, we can say that in the coming national referendum, we, the Opposition Parties, will not have any opportunity to apply for permission to use lands in the urban area, because these places will have been allocated to the Government and we will be deprived of our right to use them. 10.46 p.m.

Mr Mammen, Sir, speaking about the rural areas, how does the Government control the holding of mass rallies? It is very simple. The national referendum will be conducted by the Minister for Home Affairs and permits to hold mass rallies will also have to be approved by the police who are under the control of the Minister for Home Affairs. Before we send in our applications, the Government can notify the police stations in advance that the Government wishes to hold mass rallies at certain places, in the rural areas especially, there is limited space for holding such rallies in a central position. If we Opposition Parties send in our applications, I am sure, Mr Mammen, that our applications will be rejected by the authorities concerned. Column : 772 Mr Mammen, Sir, you can see very clearly that the P.A.P. Government can make use of all the advantageous conditions, but, on the other hand, they deprive us of the right to hold mass rallies. Under these circumstances, we are not able to hold mass rallies, in the same way, we cannot display our placards, banners and posters. Mr Mammen, you can see very clearly from this that the Government's cunning policy is intended to deceive us. They think that we are inexperienced and that we do not know the plot of the Government. Mr Mammen, if the Govermnent are trying to restrict the Opposition Parties from putting up banners and posters during the national referendum period, it is clear that they are trying to restrict and prevent the Opposition Parties from conveying their opinions to the people under the name of democracy. Mr Mammen, Sir, just now my colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, has said that the question of merger has been debated for nearly a year, but the Government has completely distorted our stand on the question of merger and our views on the question of merger. Next week we shall debate a motion tabled by the Prime Minister. From this you will see very clearly that the Government have completely distorted our stand. Therefore, we the Opposition Parties have every reason to demand that during the national referendum period we should have all facilities, the minimum requirement for carrying out our propaganda work, such as putting up banners, posters and placards. If the Government are fully confident, why should they be afraid that we in the Opposition would put up posters and banners? Why do they fear us? The Government say that Communist subversive elements are trying to wreck the national referendum, but the Government Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, have said that in Singapore there are only 300 Communists. So how can these 300 Communists influence the people in the 51 constituencies? Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not be blind to the undemocratic national referendum Bill. We must not overlook this and we must not overlook the right of the Column : 773 people to air their views on the question of merger. Mr Mammen, Sir, the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is based on a provision from the Singapore Legislative Elections Ordinance. I remember the Minister for Home Affairs, when introducing the Second Reading of the Bill, said the drafting of this Bill was based on the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. If this Bill is based on the Elections Ordinance, why do the Government not give the Opposition Parties the right to put up posters, banners and placards and sufficient time to do so? Mr Mammen, Sir, we can clearly see that the P.A.P. Government are now trying to use all sorts of unfair methods and unfair provisions to prevent the people of Singapore from airing their views. Today the people of Singapore can very clearly understand that in the coming national referendum they are forced to accept poison from the P.A.P. They will not be able to express their dissatisfaction and their views. Mr Mammen, Sir, I feel that since the Government, from the provisions of this Bill, will be enjoying all sorts of facilities, our minimum demand is that in the coming national referendum they should give us ample time to put up banners, placards and posters; otherwise it will only go to show that the P.A.P. Government are not sincere and honest but are dictatorial on the question of the national referendum.

Actually, Mr Mammen, what difference does it make whether or not we can freely have political propaganda during the period of the referendum? As I have said, the result of the coming merger referendum is a foregone conclusion and we can predict the Government is going to win over 90 per cent hands down. But, Mr Mammen, the difference is this. If the Government would be more democratic, we would be able, in the course of the referendum campaign, to expose the shameful and artful manipulations of the Government in this sham referendum.

The campaign started six months ago. Column : 774

Mr Mammen, clause 41 as put up by the Government is to restrict the referendum propaganda campaign to only referendum meetings. Other than referendum meetings, we cannot display symbols, banners and flags. We are also worried that during the referendum meetings, the Government will also impose restrictions on us, the Opposition Parties. Mr Mammen, we are applying for a permit to hold a mass rally on the 15th of July, two weeks from now, and we have been told by the police that we must submit, for instance, our list of speakers, the subject matter, how many loudspeakers we are going to use - 4, 12, 100 or 200 - how many lorries, what we are going to put as our platform; and we have to send our banners to the police station to be chopped, signed and sealed. There are also many other restrictions. 11.00 p.m. Mr Mammen, these are unfair restrictions. We are not given the right to go to Hong Lim Park under the excuse of the City Council Park Rules, which do not say that nobody cannot use the Park except during by-election time. We are afraid that these restrictions will also be exercised by the Government and thereby restrict Opposition Parties from exposing the sham referendum. Mr Mammen, we know the result. It is a foregone conclusion. But we want to use every opportunity we can to expose this sham referendum.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, the main intention of the amendment introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs is to restrict canvassing during the period of the referendum. Now everybody is aware and it is an open secret that the Government is trying to suppress Press reports. Its means of suppressing these reports are rather subtle, and I believe the Member for Anson explained it yesterday. The Government has given an order to the Press that they could only publish 30 per cent of the views of the Opposition Parties, and that this is true can be seen from reading this morning's newspapers. In this morning's Sin Chew Jit Poh. Column : 775 The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. The Press reports which the Member is going to quote no doubt have been drawn from the debate here in this Assembly, and by quoting them he is merely repeating them. However, I cannot understand how all that has any relevance to the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, I have to point it out because it is connected with the political propaganda which the Government is suppressing, a suppression to stop the Opposition Parties from opening their mouths. The second point is this: at one time when the Opposition Parties wanted to hold mass rallies to raise the standard of political education of the people, they suffered suppression. This suppression is, however, more severe than that during the Lim Yew Hock Government. The third point is that the P.A.P. Government today can be regarded by the people and, in fact, the people of Malaysia, as a Party that distorts the political stand of the Opposition Parties. The Government has distorted our stand on merger by saying that we want the Penang/Malacca type of merger.

Order. May I suggest to the Member that perhaps all these details may be brought up when we come to discuss the motion standing in the names of the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Upper Serangoon?

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, I just want to give an example to prove that the P.A.P. Government is capable of distorting the stand of the Opposition Parties. The fourth point is that on the issue of merger, the P.A.P. have used words and terms of ambiguity. For instance, the P.A.P. always say that the term "national" is the same and equivalent to "citizen". You cannot find such an explanation in any dictionary. They also talk about autonomy in education and, labour which we know is useless Column : 776 without internal security, it is only a psychological way to cheat the people by the use of such terms. The P.A.P. are resorting to all kinds of means to attack the Opposition Parties. They are exerting their utmost to carry out their schemes, through their use of the radio, the Press, etc. The Ministry of Culture has also been made use of to spread their party propaganda at the expense of public funds. That is the fifth point. From these points that I have mentioned, you can see that during the period of the national referendum, political Parties of the Opposition are prohibited from campaigning and giving publicity to their stand. This restriction is therefore advantageous to the Government. But something more regrettable is that the P.A.P., since their inception, have always been boasting about educating the people and raising their political consciousness. But today we see that the P.A.P. want to stop people from carrying out political education and political campaigns to educate and to raise the political consciousness of our people. From this we can clearly see that the P.A.P., as a political Party, has lost what it stood for. Today I say that the Ministers sitting opposite are the ones who fear the people most. [Interruption]

Order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, if the Minister for Home Affairs wants to challenge me, I will at any time accept his challenge. But I believe that the P.A.P. do not have the guts to challenge me. If they have any guts to face the people, then let us ask how many mass rallies have they conducted on this important issue? They have been hiding behind radio forums and dare not face the people to explain to them their political stand on current issues of importance. Mr Mammen, if the P.A.P. is confident of its own White Paper, that it is in the interests of the people, and that it is the best obtainable in the world, then everybody will ask this: Column : 777 why is the Government afraid of allowing the Opposition Parties to carry out their political campaign during the period of the referendum? If the Government insist on prohibiting political campaigns during the referendum, we can only say that the P.A.P. is crying out "thieves" when, in actual fact, they are the thieves. Why are they afraid of the people? The Member for Bras Basah has said that if the White Paper merger of the P.A.P. is good, then-

Order. I cannot understand how all these arguments fit in with the amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown. They are completely irrelevant.

(In Mandarin): Why is the P.A.P. afraid to let the Opposition Parties carry out a political campaign during the period of the national referendum? I was saying just now that the Member for Bras Basah said that when she was a member of the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P., she was not consulted at all on the merger issue- 11.15 p.m.

Order. This is completely irrelevant to the amendment.

(In Mandarin): This amendment is to enable the political Parties to give their views and explain their stand on the various issues concerning merger so that the people will he able to decide whether or not their stand is correct and whether it is acceptable to them. If the P.A.P.'s White Paper proposals on merger are fair and above-board, why should the P.A.P. be afraid to let the people know the true facts? We can see from this that there must be something secret behind the whole thing which cannot be told to others. Mr Mammen, Sir, we regret very much that as members of a political Party they should be afraid of a political campaign and political education. Column : 778

Again we hear in this House from the mouth of an ex-P.A.P. Member that the Lim Yew Hock Government is not so bad after all. Sir, we do not require defected Members from the P.A.P. to come to this side of the House and compare us with a Party that we all know is a rotten Party. He now very strongly criticises the Government that there has been Press intimidation. When the hon. Member and his colleagues were sitting on that side of the House two and a half years ago, we stood up in this House and criticised and accused the Government of suggested intimidation of the Press. But all the Barisan Sosialis Members who were then sitting there were laughing, giggling and enjoying themselves with the P.A.P. They are now having a dose of the medicine that they gave to us. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis Members took about 90 minutes of the time of this House to say nothing except repeat, repeat and repeat. They have lost sight of what they are fighting for. They have charged that they would not be given the opportunity to go out and distort as much as they would like to distort. There is nothing in this proposed amendment moved by the Minister to say that the Barisan Members cannot go out and talk to their hearts' content. If, in all their attacks against the P.A.P., they could say that at least the Lim Yew Hock Government was not so bad, I might feel a bit delighted. What they are not allowed to carry is this. They will not be allowed to carry flags, banners or placards when they go out canvassing. They can go out and distribute their literature to the households, and they can talk as much as they want. They can carry their symbol, that is, their star - their new star that was born during a bad time. They can use their own Party symbol. They can carry their Party flag. But what they are not allowed to do is to carry a big banner and placards and what not. I do not know what restriction there is. As far as I know, there hive been elections ever since 1948, and I have not seen P.A.P. canvassers going round the houses carrying placards, banners and flags. That has never been Column : 779 done. Perhaps the Barisan is thinking of carrying banners and flags. What for? They could go to the houses and talk to the voters as much as they like. In fact, they have already done it. They can canvass as much as they want. They can go and distribute their literature. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that. They can distribute pamphlets and anything they want. The only thing they are asked not to do is to carry banners, placards and flags. If they want to carry a little flag showing their star, no one is going to prevent them. So why must they waste the time of this Assembly by talking on irrelevancies and fighting for something which no one wants? No canvasser has ever gone to houses carrying flags, banners and placards. That has never been done. Why do they want to do it now? I think I can understand why. The more they talk, the more they try to present their case, the more they try to object to things which are not objectionable, the more they are making the people of Singapore come to the realisation that the Barisan Sosialis is out to wreck merger; and the sooner the people of Singapore come to that realisation, the better it will be for all of us, for our peace, happiness and our prosperity.

I will be very brief, Mr Mammen. I myself cannot understand, I must confess, the heat which has been caused by this particular part of the provisions of the Bill. I would ask the Minister for Home Affairs this. He seems to be generally of the view that party banners and party symbols can be carried during the period of the referendum. I would urge him to look again at the clause which speaks of all symbols, sets of colour, flags, banners or placards which are political propaganda, Sir, not referendum propaganda. No political propaganda may be utilised. None of this, how shall I say it, visual propaganda may be utilised during the referendum period. It does not refer exclusively to referendum propaganda. The other question I would urge him to note is this. I cannot see, and I would like to understand - it may well be that I have missed that aspect of the Minister's explanation - what really is the Column : 780 objection to the use of colours, symbols, banners, placards as referenda propaganda? He has not given any explanation. I myself must say this, Mr Mammen. I have not got in mind the use of these articles myself, and it may well be that I will be learning something! But I cannot see what this provision is aimed at. That the Barisan is rather touthy is understandable, Sir, in the context of the conduct of the Government today, and in recent times in preventing, for example, rallies at which it has been sought to explain the Referendum Bill to the people. You are no doubt fully aware, as are most citizens of Singapore, of a legitimate group of political Parties, through a Liaison Committee, which has somewhat the grand title of the Council of Joint Action, but it is not particularly a title of which I am proud. It is a Liaison Committee nevertheless of perfectly legitimate and honest political Parties which has sought, and rightly sought to obtain from the Government permission for the holding of mass rallies to explain the dangers to which the people are about to be subjected in respect of this referendum with its reference to the merger. And you know, Mr Mammen, that the political Parties concerned have been refused permits for the holding of these rallies. In that context-

On a point of elucidation.

Yes.

Mr Mammen, I just want to clarify the point raised by the Member for Anson, namely, that we have been refusing a group of political Parties to hold rallies. The explanation is quite simple. In the case of Fullerton Square, the place there-

For the P.A.P.

Order.

- is only used for election meetings.

For P.A.P. meetings!

For election meetings. The Member for Queenstown Column : 781 applied once in the name of the Barisan Sosialis and it was turned down on that ground. Similarly, Mrs Leon-Soh, on behalf of the Singapore Congress -

K.U.R.A.

-last year also applied for the use of the place, but it was also turned down because it was not an election meeting as it was not election time. Now in the case of Colombo Court, which was to be the venue for the meeting of this group of political Parties, the explanation there is quite simple. If you will remember, there is the Minor Offences Legislative Assembly Order, 1961, which has laid down that no public assembly should be held in any public place within the precincts of the Assembly when it is in session. You are aware that the Assembly will still be sitting tomorrow, and therefore Colombo Court cannot be allowed. In the case of the proposed meeting at Dhoby Ghaut, the application was not pursued. It is not that the police refused it. The application was not pursued. An hon. Member: They gave up!

I am obliged to the Minister, Sir, I would ask him whether, in fact, we are to understand that if a request is made for Colombo Court for a Saturday or a Sunday it would be granted. Do I understand that?

The Barisan Sosialis have held no less than three meetings at that spot. I do not need to elaborate further. An hon. Member: Only two.

I am obliged, Mr Mammen. It seems to me the P.A.P. are rather touchy about Fullerton Square. They say it is reserved for election meetings. I do not know what law specially reserves it - The Chairman (Mr Mammen): I think that point has been cleared by the Minister. If the Member for Anson is going into details, he is inviting a debate on that. If he skips that part and go on with the amendment, it will be better. Column : 782

I am obliged, Mr Mammen

Dhoby Ghaut has not been mentioned.

Order.

That is fair enough. We have, I think, made the point, Sir, that rejections of applications without adequate explanation have rather disturbed the Opposition Parties who are now conditioned to expecting the very worst from the P.A.P. It is in that light that I seek to understand the arguments urged by the Barisan Sosialis to the amendment of the Minister. I really would like to hear from him if he will find time as soon as I sit down, and that will be very soon, Sir, to let us know what is the main objection to the utilisation of these articles during the referendum period. 11.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Why does the Government want to impose such severe restrictions in the Referendum Bill with regard to the use of placards and banners? From this we can see that there is something important regarding the placards, banners and flags. We can also see that the P.A.P. Government is not democratic. It has come to the stage of dictatorship. Now I will describe how undemocratic it is. I remember that in the past, the Lim Yew Hock Government was also very undemocratic. They adopted the same methods during the general election to restrict the use of banners and flags. 11.32 p.m.

I put forward my views to the P.A.P. leadership and they remarked, "Oh, the Government is undemocratic, otherwise we can put up our placards, banners and flags. So to make the best use of the restriction, we must put up placards and banners in noisy places, along the main roads, in the streets, so that this thing can be made known to Column : 783 most of the people or in a place where there are many residents." This explains the importance of banners and flags. The P.A.P. Government is now using the same experience of the Lim Yew Hock Government to impose more restrictive provisions. Mr Speaker, you can see that the P.A.P. Government is using many Government departments, not only the Ministry of Culture, the radio, but also the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Home Affairs to intimidate. They make use of the post to convey messages and views to the people, but they want to restrict the Opposition from using placards and banners. The Government enjoy such facilities as the radio and Rediffusion to propagate and paint beautiful pictures about Malaysia and merger. They have already launched a widespread propaganda campaign. Our position is different from that of the Government. We on the Opposition only want to put across our views to the people and let them consider and make up their own minds. The Government postcard says how beautiful and how good merger is, but we on our side have to show to the people how ugly and distasteful it is. For instance, a Government placard or slogan may enthusiastically support the merger of Singapore with the Federation. Now this placard of the Government appears to be very pleasant, but to us, it is only a means of cheating the people. We have to put up another slogan to counter such a Government action. We have to make it known that this is a phoney merger and we have to counter it. The people can make their own decision on these two conflicting views. In the past, we talked about merger and the reunification of the two countries. We have already done this and left a very deep impression in the minds of the people. Now the people may ask why is it that in the past, the Opposition Parties used to give them reasons as to why they were against merger, but have not done the same thing now? The Government on their part can make use of the Ministry of Culture and other machinery to paste posters and banners everywhere. When Column : 784 the people look at them, they may feel disgusted and want the Opposition Parties also to put up posters and other things to explain to them their views. I am only trying to explain this to show that the Government should let the Opposition Parties carry out their publicity work because there is great merit in political publicity, e.g., educating the people and infusing political consciousness in them. Now, let me talk about banners and the like. I am of the opinion that during the national referendum period, people should be allowed to put up banners and such things. Let me give an example. The P.A.P. Government asks their members to go out and do publicity work to sell their merger plan to the people. But if the people are not agreeable to these proposals, they may turn away when the P.A.P. members come with banners and such things. They may be very confusing to the people who may doubt their intentions. When faced with such a situation, the people may sometimes feel it unpleasant to rebut, or show their disgust to such people. So an opportunity should be given to the political Parties to put up their banners, placards and other things to express their views on merger and Malaysia, that is to say, to give a fair chance to all.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown alleged a few minutes ago that the Government has not kept its promise to the Opposition regarding its intention of what to do with this clause which was postponed in the Select Committee. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, this allegation is very far from the truth. I remember that - unfortunately I have not got a copy of the letter with me - letters stating the Government's intention to the various points raised in the Select Committee, were sent to all the Opposition Members as promised, a week before the Assembly meeting. I remember that in the Select Committee I only promised to indicate the Government's intention to the Opposition Members. I do not remember that I ever said that we would send the exact amendment of the clause to Opposition Column : 785 Members. But far from the Government breaking its promise, the Member for Queenstown raised the amendment long before he received the letter from the Government.

Why not?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we heard a few moments ago a ridiculous suggestion from the Member for Queenstown that he wanted an opportunity to be able to carry banners and placards into the houses of electors to do canvassing. This is the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard of. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you know how canvassing takes place during the election, you will realise that in canvassing, only literature - election pamphlets, election manifestoes, the candidate's history - and pictures of the candidate are used, never banners. 11.45 p.m. I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that canvassing would be allowed during the referendum as in the case of an election when canvassing is allowed except on polling day. And in the course of canvassing, the canvasser can distribute whatever literature he wants to distribute. There is no prohibition on that. It is true that posters will be totally prohibited during the referendum period. But, as I have pointed out earlier, if we allow posters to be displayed by political Parties during the referendum period, then whatever posters put up by the Superintendent which are factual and instructional will be either completely blotted out or confused. As I said, this will be the first referendum that the State is conducting, and it is necessary that such instructional posters put up by the Superintendent should receive the prominence that they deserve. As for the allegation made by the Member for Choa Chu Kang that banners put up by the Barisan Sosialis and the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions are not allowed, the simple reason is that under normal circumstances, before one can display a banner or poster, a permit Column : 786 is necessary from the Ministry of National Development. This the Barisan Sosialis and the S.A.T.U. group of unions obviously did not intend to do. And even when notices of warning were served on the Barisan Sosialis and the S.A.T.U. unions, the notices were ignored and flouted. They had no intention of obeying any rules. Then there was the allegation that P.A.P. banners were left without interference from the Government. I just want to inform the Member for Choa Chu Kang - in case he is still ignorant of the fact - that all the banners put up by the P.A.P. at the P.A.P. branch premises were taken from the Ministry of Culture. These were Ministry of Culture banners and posters.

They are P.A.P. banners.

Of the P.A.P. branches.

Order.

And the significant point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that whenever we display banners and posters produced by the Ministry of Culture, you will find these articles either disappear overnight or torn down overnight; whereas the banners put up by the Barisan Sosialis and the S.A.T.U. group of trade unions are left intact even until today. As regards the allegation that various obstacles were placed before the Barisan Sosialis in their applications for permits to hold mass meetings, I must inform the Member for Choa Chu Kang that similar rules and procedures apply to all political Parties, including the P.A.P. We always make it a point to observe these rules, and when the Barisan Sosialis were on this side of the House they went through all these procedures in their applications for permits to hold meetings, and if they still have a conscience, they will have to admit this fact.

Sir, we have an admission from the horse's mouth - that there is Party use of Government money for Party propaganda. Column : 787

Hooray!

Point of clarification.

A clear admission

Twister!

He says the Party, through the Ministry of Culture, is using Government money in order to put up Party propaganda.

Order. There has been gross misrepresentation. I think the Minister must be allowed to correct the misrepresentation. Mr Ong Pang Boon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, that was, as you said, gross misrepresentation. This is Government propaganda. It is not party propaganda. In fact, if the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to assist the Government to publicise whatever the Government wish to publicise, they are welcome to all these propaganda materials produced by the Ministry of Culture. In fact, if they are patriots and they really have the interest of the country and the nation at heart, they should assist the Government to publicise the concept of Malaysia.

Sir, it is because we are conscious of our duty to the people of Singapore that we ask that the people be given the other side of the picture. So far the Government have been giving distorted versions of the plan on Malaysia and merger to the people. For example, Sir - i can come to this later on - I asked a question from the Minister whether parks and open spaces would be allowed for referendum meetings. No answer has come from him. I would rather wait for an answer before I continue. And if he could give an answer now, would he enlighten us?

Please continue. Mr Ong Pang Boon rose -

Is the Minister accepting the invitation? Column : 788

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. As in an election, parks and playgrounds can be used and will be used.

And in Fullerton Square?

Sir, now I have got it from the Minister. He says, "As in general elections, parks and open playgrounds will be allowed". Let me remind the Minister now that in a general election, three months ahead, the people and the political Parties are allowed to make use of these playgrounds and parks. We know the Government intend to hold this referendum very soon. Why do they not allow us now to make use of these parks and open spaces? Why? Can the Minister give an answer? I am ready to wait, Sir.

Order. Please continue. It is now seven minutes to twelve.

See the distortion, Sir. The way they say one thing and mean another.

You have said you will wait.

Then wait.

They say "as in a general election". All right, we accept that. Yet we are restricted in every way. In other words, the Government all the time are just spouting out falsehoods. Sir, the explanation given by the Minister for Home Affairs is that if the Opposition should be allowed posters, then the people would be confused. I do not know how they can ever think of such a silly excuse. It simply will not go down. If you want to invent an excuse, at least go back to the Ministry of Culture and ask them to give you a better one. At least say something which the people can accept. Just because we put up posters, therefore the people will be confused? In fact, Sir, Column : 789 I am going to suggest that it is because the P.A.P. keep on giving their own version on posters that the people are confused. Look at what is happening to this so-called Penang type of merger.

Barisan type.

Everyday they have been spouting out this Penang type of merger over Radio Singapore, Radio P.A.P., Rediffusion [Interruption].

There is a nice chorus coming from the Government Benches.

All the time they are trying to convince the people that "national" is the same as "citizen". [Interruption].

Order. The Member for Queenstown, I think, is now acting like an orchestra leader! If he looks at the Government Benches and accepts interjections and then waits for further interjections, then of course we will have a midnight chorus!

Sir, we ask for canvassing and not without reason. Banners at the present moment [Interruption]-

Order. Dr Lee.

Sir, our Party branches put up certain banners, and the P.A.P., through the Ministers, asked the National Development - An hon. Member: Chief Surveyor's Department.

- the Chief Surveyor's Department to serve notices on our branches saying that because we put up the banners -

You had no permits.

I suppose it is the late hour. I think the Member for Queenstown is going much too far away from this amendment. This question of banners, permits, and so on, does not arise at the moment. We are now on the Column : 790 question whether or not there should be this propaganda during the period of referendum. That is all.

You see, Sir, in canvassing we do not carry banners around. Quite true. But sometimes there may be occasions where banners are very useful. Why must the P.A.P. say that we cannot carry banners around? If we in the Barisan Sosialis think that banners will serve a useful purpose, why are they denying us that right? Is it because the P.A.P. cannot do it themselves? Because they have no organisation? Because there is nobody to help them? Why must they deny us a right which we claim, and which we know should be given? I think, Sir, all these amendments have been put in with a view to restricting our means of communication with the masses. The Government have all along been saying that we are isolated, that we have lost the support of the people, and yet they go on trying to restrict our activities because they fear that we can, according to them, "confuse" the people. No, Sir, we do not confuse the people. We want to tell the people the truth. And it is because the people know that we are telling the truth-

The tooth and nothing but the tooth!

- that there is hardly any support left for the P.A.P.

A good contribution from the Deputy Prime Minister. He has just walked in, and contributes one sentence.

I do not know, Sir, whether the Deputy Prime Minister, once a physiologist, has now become a dentist.

A what? A dentist?

Order. I do not mind a Member rising on a point of order if it is only to stop the Member from speaking. There are only two minutes more. Dr Lee. Column : 791

Sir, the P.A.P. have all along been telling us that in the future referendum there will be two questions. And they have also been telling the people that these two questions will be based on the stand of the P.A.P. as well as on the stand of the Barisan Sosialis. Therefore, as was pointed out to you by the Member for Upper Serangoon, it looks as if it is going to be a Party to Party fight instead of a referendum on a really national issue. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

We do not mind making it a Party to Party fight, Sir, at any time. In fact, we have challenged them. If only they dare to go back to the people. Column : 792

Order. All that is irrelevant, and it is midnight. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

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

So be it.

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