Hansard, 1962-07-05

Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 1 of the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 12 midnight."-[Mr K. M. Byrne].

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee. 2.32 p.m. Clause 41-

The original Question was, In page A20, line 13, after "(1)" to insert "No person shall wear, use, carry or display or cause to he 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.". Since which an amendment has been moved, To leave out the words proposed to be inserted 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". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was explaining how it would be very difficult for us to canvass if we were not allowed posters, banners and placards. Sir, when you Column : 796 want to communicate with the masses, the commonest way, as you know, at the prescnt moment, is by way of the newspapers, the radio and Rediffusion. So far as we know, orders have been given to newspapers that at least two-thirds of newspaper space be given to Government Benches and only one-third of newspaper space be given to Opposition Benches. Since we have been limited under such circumstances, Sir, we will have to depend on other means of communication with the public, and one of these very important means is by the use of posers, placards and banners. The use of posters, placards and banners can be seen this way, Sir. When you have a mass rally or a referendum meeting, you speak to the parsons who can come to listen to you. There are many persons in Singapore who may not be able to attend rallies because the time is not suitable, because they may have to do work or because of the distance between their homes and the places at which rallies are held. Under those circumstances, the only other means left for us to communicate with the masses would be by means of posters, banners and placards. On the banners, on the placards and on the posters we shall be able to tell the people what we may not be able to tell them directly by word of mouth. It is imperative that this be allowed in order that we may really and truly communicate with the masses and let them know what we would like them to know. Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has already explained that canvassing would be allowed as in general elections and when I asked him last night whether rallies would be allowed in parks, playgrounds and other places which are now prohibited, he said, "Yes." In other words, places like Hong Lim Green, Fullerton Square and other parks and playgrounds will be available to political Parties for the holding of rallies when canvassing starts for the referendum. Sir, all these localities are available to political Parties at least three months before the date of a general election. Today we know that the referendum will probably be held either at the end of July or early August. There is already a guillotine on Column : 797 our debate in order that the Prime Minister may sell the rights of Singapore down the river on time. Therefore, if we were to ask for the use of Fullerton Square and Hong Lim Green at this moment, the Government should have no reason to reject our applications for the use of these places. Yet, we have their curious official explanation as to why they have disallowed three public rallies which have been requested for by the Council of Joint Action. Concerning the application for the use of Dhoby Ghaut, they say that the details have not been sent in; so they cannot give the answer. As regards the application for a rally in Colombo Court, they say that it is too near the precincts of the Assembly. Then as regards the application to hold a rally at Fullerton Square, I will read the explanation given by the Government, Sir, It is in the Malay Mail of today, col. 7: 'The Government statement explained that application for Fullerton Square rally was refused because meetings there during office hours were allowed only during election time.' Well, this is already referendum time. Election time means three months before the date of the general election. If the Ministers are sincere in their granting of canvassing as in a general election, then they have no justification whatsoever for refusing us the use of Fullerton Square at the present moment, unless they want to give us a promise that the referendum will not be held within the next three months.

On a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

I thought I heard the Member saying that an election campaign starts three months before polling day. Did he say that? If so, will he quote an authority for this statement?

Sir, I think the Minister is talking with his tongue in his cheek. He knew what happened during the 1959 elections. The campaign started, I think, even four months before polling day of general elections, and the Column : 798 former Chief Minister can confirm it right here. I do not have to quote chapter and verse every time. I do not carry a library with me. Surely, the Minister does not expect me to carry a whole library with me every time I come here to speak. He must know better than that.

On a point of information, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Will the Member please say whether during the series of pre-election meetings we had whether we ever mounted a platform in Fullerton Square?

Sir, I will tell you the story about Fullerton Square-

Say yes or no.

Order.

-because at that time I was in the Ministry of Home Affairs-

Answer the question.

You see in previous by-elections, rallies could only be held in the division where the by-election was to be held. You see in the case of Hong Lim, Fullerton Square is outside Hong Lim and therefore, by right, any rally in Fullerton Square should not have been allowed. But then, Sir, the Prime Minister, being the Prime Minister, can do anything that he likes. He gazetted a notice saying that Fullerton Square was allowed because it was on a national issue, or because the P.A.P. wanted to explain more things to the people. That was exactly how it was done. It was done overnight, Sir, I was quite surprised. We in the P.A.P. at that time complained to him of his dictatorial abuse of powers, because we thought it would be unfair to do things arbitrarily like that. For example, on many occasions when meetings were held and when they were supposed to terminate Column : 799 by a certain time, say 10 p.m., just because our Prime Minister was speaking, he could extend it to 10.30 p.m. In the case of permits up to 2 p.m. he would extend it to 2.30 p.m. They always went beyond the time allotted whenever-

Sir, on a point of information.

Order. The Member has not given way. The Minister will be able to speak later.

I will give him a chance to explain, Sir. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat. 2.45 p.m.

Sir, I asked a simple question, "yes" or "no"? It is not a question of whether he likes. I said, "Did we during the three months before the last general election hold meetings in Fullerton Square?" Yes or No?

He has been trained by the P.A.P.

You see how the P.A.P. can twist and distort. Whenever the argument suits them, "This is a general Referendum Bill." When the argument does not suit them, "This is a specific Bill."

Order. The Member for Queenstown gave way on a point of elucidation, and the point of elucidation has been raised. The Member for Queenstown now either answers it or says he does not wish to answer.

Yes or no? That is all I ask.

In the case of the P.A.P., in spite of their being a minority Government, they will still be able to do whatever they want to do. If they want to allow us to hold a rally, they will say, "Yes." If they do not want to, they will say, "No." This is an abuse of power, and it is because of the lack of human material that parliamentary democracy in this part of the world has failed. Column : 800 Sir, we need these posters, banners and placards to inform the people of the true position because, as has already been indicated by the Government, the questions which they want to pose in the referendum will be more or less on a party to party basis. And they have distorted the Opposition's stand to mean completely - am I out of order?

I would like to hear what is said first.

I just want to explain that since the P.A.P. have all the time been boosting their own version of the P.A.P.'s stand on merger and distorting the Opposition's stand, if we are not allowed the same facilities to canvass and to tell the people, then only the falsehoods of the P.A.P. Government will be made known to the people.

Order. I have already remarked right through the course of this debate that there has been a great deal of repetition, and repetition, of course, eats into time. I think the Member for Queenstown was very vociferous when there was the debate on the guillotine motion. I would suggest that if there has not been and will not be any repetition. Members will probably find that the time allotted will be quite sufficient to complete all the amendments that we have to go through today.

Anyway, Sir, since the Minister for Health and Law is here, I want a categorical answer whether or not we in the Opposition will be allowed to hold rallies in parks, children's playgrounds and Fullerton Square as in a general election, i.e. at least two or three months before the date of the referendum.

Forgive me for pressing this, Mr Speaker, but I really rise on a matter of elucidation. I would first point out that we have had no indication why it is necessary to have this provision preventing these five articles from being utilised during the period of propaganda. That is one. Two: I have pointed out, Sir, that having, say, this placard showing the sign of the Workers' Party outside our headquarters is political propaganda, although it is not referable to Column : 801 the referendum. It is unfortunate that they have not sought to substitute the word "referendum" for "political" here because it would make criminal those whom they have no intention, I am satisfied, to attack. Now, Sir, further than that, I would also ask you to notice this: the amendment under this clause refers to five articles: (1) a symbol; (2) a set of colours; (3) a flag; (4) a banner; and (5) a placard. Now, Mr Speaker, if you will look at the next amendment, amendment (ii) to clause 41, it seeks to leave out the same.

What about rosettes?

All these are dealt with and they are purely for the purposes of polling day. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that there is one other matter I would like to obtain clarification on. Do the Government distinguish between placard and poster, or do they say that those two mean the same thing? I do not know; I am really asking.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a placard is something that you can carry about. It may be the size of a poster in which there is a handle for you to carry it. A poster is something which you stick on the wall.

Sir, in answer to that, would the Minister look at his own amendment, which is amendment (iv)*, to the same clause? There, he talks of anybody carrying or displaying a poster, not a placard. If you carry a placard and you merely exhibit a poster, surely he has used the wrong term there. He seems to use it interchangeably in the first amendment and the fourth amendment - poster meaning placard, and placard meaning poster. * Amendment (iv), standing in the name follows:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is obviously with respect to the display of Column : 802 any poster during the period of the referendum. Only posters that are printed by the Superintendent will be permitted to be displayed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we made an amendment to the provision in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance by which there is specific reference to prohibition with regard to the use of any badge, symbol, rosette, favour, set of colours, flag, banner, advertisement, handbill, placard, or poster, or any replica of a ballot paper to be used on polling day itself. In fact. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this amendment to this clause the provisions with regard to the use of badges, rosettes, favours, advertisements -

What is a favour?

- handbills and placards have been deleted for use in connection with a referendum. This is the equipment which political Parties use in the course of their canvassing.

What is a favour?

What is a favour? It is something that political Parties devise and distribute for use by its members. That can be a favour; anything can be a favour. Or sometimes, Mr Speaker, Sir, they give little children little symbols which they exhibit on their clothing during the period of an election - those are favours.

Is it not a Ministry of Culture-

Order.

Like political badges, huh!

I suppose the Minister for Law can say that a poster can be worn or used.

I mean it can be an eccentric circle like the Member for Anson is wearing about him. Column : 803

A poster could be worn?

Sir, I suppose it could be worn like what we see the cinemas do - sandwichmen. They are men who wear one poster in front and another at the back.

With the man carrying a hammer!

That, of course, is what the Minister for Home Affairs calls a placard.

Thank you. Sir.

Well, I think the best thing is for somebody to offend and then the Judge decides.

He has not answered my question, Sir.

They have not answered theirs yet.

No Minister is compelled to answer any question.

I think there was an assurance given yesterday by the Minister for Home Affairs that during the period of the referendum the political Parties would be given the opportunity to use parks and playgrounds for the referendum meetings. That assurance was given in this House yesterday. But no assurance is given that these facilities will be open to political Parties three months before the referendum; but only during the period of the referendum. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. 3.00 p.m. The Committee divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 27; Absent, 10. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Abdul Hamid bin Chan Sun Wing. Haji Jumat. Lee Siew Choh. Ahmad Jabri bin Leong Keng Seng. Mohamed Akib. Lin You Eng. Buang bin Lingam, S. V. Omar Junid. Low Por Tuck. Byrne, K. M. Marshall, David. Chan Chee Seng. Ng Teng Kian. Chan Choy Siong, Ong Chang Sam. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Chor Yeok Eng. Tee Kim Leng. Goh Chew Chua. Teo Hock Guan. Goh Keng Swee. Wong Soon Fong. Kandasamy, G. Lee Khoon Choy. Absent. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Ahmad bin Lim Yew Hock. Ibrahim. Mammen, John. Fung Yin Ching, Mohd. Ali bin Miss. Alwi. Hoe Puay Choo, Mohd. Ariff bin Madam. Suradi. Koh, C. H. M. Ismail Rahim. Lee Kuan Yew. Ong Pang Boon. Ong Eng Guan. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Ramaswamy, S. Sahorah binte Tan Kia Gan. Ahmat, Madam. Thio Chan Bee. Seow Peck Leng, Toh Chin Chye. Mrs. Wee Toon Boon. Sheng Nam Chin. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Amendment accordingly negatived.

I will just put the Question on the Minister's amendment formally, which is to insert the words after the figure "(1)".

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to. Amendment (i) accordingly agreed to.

Amendment (ii) then falls. Amendment (iii)* is not being moved. Amendment (iv), Mr Minister. * Amendment (iii) , standing 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".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendment+ simpliciter. + Amendment (iv), standing in the name of Mr Ong Pang Boon, 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 : 805

I have not indicated that the debate will be shut out even if the amendment is moved simpliciter. There may be other points raised in the sub-clause itself. All I said was that the debate should range over it. Amendment agreed to.

There are consequential amendments to re-number the subsequent sub-clauses (2) and (3) as (3) and (4) respectively. Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42-

I take it the Member for Anson is not moving his amendment?

Mr Speaker, I wish to move for the record of a voice vote. The matter having been debated, Sir, I just wish to go on record as drawing the attention of the Assembly to the fact that the provisions which I seek to be deleted are ultra vires. I therefore formally move, In page A20, line 36, to leave out from "Ordinance" to the end of line 39.

It really should be line 37 from the word "Assembly". That is the point made.

I am so sorry. That is so. Amendment negatived. Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A21, line 4, after "shall", to insert "on polling day"*. * The same amendment also stood in the names of Dr Lee Siew Choh and Mr David Marshall. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment is so obvious that no explanation is necessary.

Why was it not put there originally? Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to move, In page A21, to leave out lines 9 and 10. Let me remind the House that these Column : 806 are the lines I want left out: 'visit an elector on polling day at his home or place of work for any purpose in connection with a referendum.' Mr Speaker, first let me indulge in the delightful gambit of reductio ad absurduin. I go to the Singapore Cold Storage Creameries on polling day and I buy hot coffee and curry puffs for the counting agents of the Workers' Party at the various counting stations. I have committed a criminal offence, because I have visited an elector. There is no doubt, Sir, that the adults in the Cold Storage Creameries are Singapore citizens who are electors, and I have visited them at their place of work, that is, the Singapore Cold Storage Creameries, for a purpose in connection with a referendum in that I am supplying refreshment to a person who is being engaged in referendum work. Let us take another instance, Sir, I go and visit a friend in his home, and together we share a taxi to go to the polling station. I have visited a person who is an elector in his own home for a purpose in connection with a referendum. I do not understand, Sir, the purpose of this extraordinary provision. The fact that it has no precedent is accepted. But that in itself, I agree, does not necessarily mean that it is bad. The question is, what is it intended to meet and why is it so ineptly framed? As it stands, it is going to make everybody in Singapore a criminal, including the P.A.P. only they will not be prosecuted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a provision taken word for word from the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, 1959. The whole purpose of this sub-clause is to prohibit canvassing completely on polling day.

I am sorry, Sir, I did not get it. Could the Minister assist me again? What section is it?

Section 73A.

Mr Speaker, in those circumstances, could I ask whether it would be acceptable to the Minister if, Column : 807 instead of the words "for any purpose" the words "for the purpose of canvassing" be inserted? 3.15 p.m.

It is tautologous in view of clause 43 (1) (a) which prohibits all forms of canvassing on referendum day.

That is rather delightful, Sir. We are told that the purpose is to prevent canvassing and when it is suggested that those words be used, we are told, "Well, we are already covered by clause 43 (1) (a). So that would be tautologous." If that is the purpose and the purpose is tautologous, then I am sure the Minister will agree with me that logic requires he supports my amendment. I trust that logic will carry the day for a change.

No. I think it is necessary for a clause which prohibits all forms of canvassing to include in the same clause a prevision that all visits to electors at their homes or places of work on referendum day in connection with the referendum should be prohibited and punished as an offence. Amendment negatived.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page A21, line 10, at end, to add "(c) wear, use, carry or display or cause to he worn, used, carried or displayed and badge, rosette or favour in connection with a referendum." Mr Speaker, Sir, in allowing the use and display of badges, rosettes or favour during the referendum period, it is necessary to have this provision to prohibit their use on polling day. I think there was a similar provision in the case of elections on polling day.

No.

Whatever it is, there is a total prohibition on the use of any propaganda material in connection with elections on polling day.

Mr Speaker, I rise merely to highlight the fact that a Column : 808 responsible Opposition Member is prepared to concede amendments which are just, in contrast with an irresponsible Government which will not listen to logic. This amendment is just and it is right. I will be happy to vote for it. Amendment agreed to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move [amendment (iv)], In page A2l, line 13, at end, to add - Cap. 132. "(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the powers of search of any police officer, if any police officer has reasonable cause to believe that an offence is being committed under the provisions of this section, the said officer by virtue of his office shall be empowered to enter and search any premises or place for the purpose of ascertaining whether such an offence is being committed." Sir, this sub-clause (3) is to empower any police officer who "has reasonable cause to believe that an offence is being committed under the provisions of this section" to enter and search any premises or place for the purpose of ascertaining whether the offence of canvassing is being committed. From previous experience, it was found difficult to prove that such canvassing was taking place under the provisions of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance and therefore this amendment is introduced.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government is always ready to add to its police powers without right of redress from the Court. The Minister emphasised "if a police officer has reasonable cause to believe". Who is to judge that? Of course, the police officer. Who is a police officer? Anybody from a constable upwards. Good show! Now, Sir, he will be empowered to go into any home and into any office at his will and pleasure to indulge in inquisitorial activities. Why? Mr Speaker, we are not unconscious - in fact, we are all too conscious - of the activities of this Government in abusing the powers it has for intimidatory Column : 809 purposes. I say to you that this provision is the seed of the possible abuse of the police for political intimidation. The offences that it is sought to unearth are not of that gravity which would normally require the utilisation of power of search. If you will notice, Sir, Section 73A of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance to which the Minister referred me, there is no power to go in and search. The only power is to arrest if the offence is committed in the view of a police officer - not even otherwise. I do not like these additional powers. I do not consider they are necessary. In the context of our experience of the conduct of this Government, I say it is not unreasonable to assume that they may be abused.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we strongly oppose the addition of this sub-clause especially when the Government have passed unreasonable clauses to ensure that they will always win. The addition of such a sub-clause goes to show that the Government intend to use it to deal a blow at the people who do not support them and also against Members sitting on this side of the House. The police officers should be employed in other fields. They should use their power in a more useful way. The Government should make use of policemen on criminal offences, such as thefts and robberies. etc. It is not right to give the police such powers as are embodied here because the P.A.P. and their supporters may suppress our supporters with the help of police officers. For instance, police officers can always resort to the powers given under sub-clause (3) to enter any home or place of work to disturb our supporters and cause trouble to us by searching for documents, papers, and other things in our premises. We know this from experience when we found it necessary to carry out publicity work to educate the people. If the Government want to suppress and persecute any of our members, they will find it easy to resort to the powers provided in this sub-clause. That is why I say that after Column : 810 the Government have passed clause 29 and other unreasonable clauses, the addition of this sub-clause is unnecessary. It is very wrong to have this provision in the Bill. Amendment agreed to. 3.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move [amendment (v)], In page A21, line 17, at end, to add- "(5) For the purposes of this section any person who enters or is seen at more than two houses or places of work of electors in the same polling district other than his own home or place of work on polling day, shall, unless he proves the contrary, be presumed to have committed an offence under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section.". Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a clause which presumes that any person who enters or is seen to enter more than two houses or places of work of electors in the same polling district - I wish to repeat "in the same polling district" - other than his own home or place of work on polling day, shall, unless he proves the contrary, be presumed to have committed an offence of canvassing. The purpose of this new amendment is to make detection and production of evidence of canvassing easier. From past experience, it was found that it was almost impossible to produce such evidence. As the Member for Anson has said just now, the police can only make an arrest if the offence is committed in his view. Unless there is this presumption clause, it will be almost impossible for the police to do anything.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, we are going to have a field day on polling day. Every single political opponent whom they dislike can be arrested by the P.A.P. because there is not a single human being I should imagine who does not on the same day visit more than two places in the same polling district. I will not refer you, Sir, merely to salesmen who go from house to house and from shop to shop. I will not refer you merely to the housewife who goes to one shop in Orchard Road, another shop in Orchard Column : 811 Road, another shop for flowers in Orchard Road, another shop to have a cup of coffee; she is presumed and is required to be arrested. Sir, we have reduced legislation to the point of a farce.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this new sub-clause is the more absurd because the previous amendment allowed the police to search any premises or place which the police suspect. With this new sub-clause, it means if the police go into premises to search and if nothing incriminating is found, then the people whom the police have searched will be asked to prove that they have not done anything wrong although they have not committed any offence. Now this is very ridiculous and absurd. This National Referendum Bill is infringing on and destroying the basic rights of our citizens. This sub-clause proposed by the Minister for Home Affairs will even infringe on the normal freedom of our citizens in their daily activities. If the P.A.P. Government want to make use of this sort of absurd provision to safeguard democracy, then the peopie will ask: how much is this sort of democracy worth per katty?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has worked himself up to such a passion over the provision which is so necessary for the enforcement of the law against canvassing on polling day. All that this sub-clause does is to lay down a legal presumption that if one is found going into two or more houses or places of work of electors in the same polling district on referendum day, one is presumed to be canvassing. It is just a presumption and it does not follow that one is convicted just because one does that. One can then, Mr Speaker. Sir, be given the opportunity of proving the contrary. These presumptions are found in all legislation dealing with the enforcement of laws, Mr Speaker. It is not anything new that we are introducing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are Column : 812 tied hand and foot by the Government. Even our mouths are gagged by the Government. This sort of Government is worse than the Hitler Government. If Hitler were alive today, then he would have to learn from the P.A.P. This sort of democracy is ridiculous and absurd. On polling day, if women living in the rural areas are caught in the rain when they are on their way to cast their votes, where will they go for shelter? If they meet their friends on the road, of course, they will be able to go to their friends' houses to get shelter from the rain. Now, can we say that these women have committed an offence? Therefore, I say the whole National Referendum Bill is absurd. The most important part of the Bill is the clause on blank votes. I hope the Minister concerned can give us an explanation as to why there should be such a provision.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Law expresses surprise that I should fly into a passion. May I, Sir, draw your attention to the existing clause 43 (3)? What will happen to a lady with her shopping basket who goes first to Lim Koon Ann and then goes to Prince's Flower Shop? She has been found in two "places of work of electors in the same polling district" - places which are other than her home or her place of work. What happens to her, Sir? Let me read sub-clause (3): 'Any police officer [an officer includes a constable] may arrest without warrant any person offending in his view against any of the Provisions of this section and take him before Magistrate's Court to be dealt with according to law.' So the lady can be forthwith arrested and she will be taken to the police station. If it happens to be a Saturday - and it happens after Court hours - she will be detained in the police station until she gives bail. Then she will be released until the following Monday morning, when she will have to appear and a date will be fixed for hearing on the charges against her and thereafter she will have to defend herself as a person presumed to be a criminal, not according to the law which we have the privilege of having inherited - and which the P.A.P. seeks to sully in this fashion - that a person is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Here she is deemed to be guilty until she proves herself innocent. So, Sir, why should a man get excited if all non-P.A.P. citizens in Singapore can be arrested, can be taken to the police station, can be produced in a Magistrate's Court, can then be prosecuted and can be subjected to this persecution, although they are decent and law-abiding and have done nothing wrong except pursue their normal vocations, exercise their normal right of going shopping and doing their normal work on polling day? Why should one get excited? 3.45 p.m. Mr Speaker, there are perfidious provisions in this Bill. The very spirit of the Bill is perfidious. But I do want to say this, and I do not think I am exaggerating. To make everybody in Singapore a presumptive criminal is even more perfidious than the clause which says that all negative votes shall be deemed to be positive. Sir, this sub-clause that takes it as a matter of course that every Singapore citizen by definition is a criminal is the most perfidious thing I have seen. Sir, you will forgive me if I take up the time of this House to call for a division in respect of this clause.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the general law existing in Singapore, for example, if the police arrest a person who is suspected of robbery, they have to produce enough evidence to prove his crime in Court. Only if there is ample evidence to prove his criminal activity can he be deemed a criminal and be convicted. But according to the words in this sub-clause "unless he proves the contrary", a person seen entering more than two houses or places of work will have to prove that he has not committed an offence. This sub-clause is contrary to the general law prevailing in this country. It also goes to prove that the police are incompetent because they cannot produce ample evidence and they have to ask the suspected person to prove his innocence, it looks as if the Government are going to deal with its political opponents in an unfair manner by using this provision. If this provision is passed, there may be an atmosphere of fear on polling day, and electors will be forced to cast their votes in an atmosphere of fear on polling day. When an elector goes to cast his vote, he cannot enter more than two houses to talk to the people living in them on polling day. On that day, if a person on his way to the polling station enters a coffee shop to buy a packet of cigarettes, and at the same time has a chit-chat with the shopkeeper, and after that because he forgets to buy a box of matches, he enters a grocer's shop to buy it and if at the same time he talks to the shop, keeper, then by virtue of this provision, he can be deemed as having committed an offence because he has entered more than two shophouses and talked to the different shopkeepers. He can be accused of canvassing and therefore the police can arrest him. But the police cannot produce ample evidence, and, therefore, he is required to prove his innocence. This provision is very unfair and infringes upon the individual freedom of the citizens. I oppose it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, amendments (iv)* and (v)+ were introduced because of experience in past elections. Numerous complaints have been received in the past that canvassing took place on polling day despite the fact that there was a prohibition on canvassing activities. The police officers were helpless to deal with such breaches of the law as they had to catch the culprits red-handed. * See col. 808. + See col. 810 Mr Speaker, Sir, canvassing always takes place in the homes of electors, and unless the police officers have the power to enter the premises, it will not be possible for a police officer to witness canvassing that is going on. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we are sincere in wanting to prohibit canvassing completely on polling day, then we must see to it that such prohibition can be effectively enforced. It is no use supporting prohibition on canvassing on polling day while at the same time no provision is made for its effective enforcement. Complaints of intimidation and canvassing were well known in the past, and if there is still any conscience left in the Barisan Sosialis Members of the Assembly, they will admit that the assistance of secret societies had been sought by unscrupulous politicians in the past-

P.A.P.

- to canvass for the support of voters by intimidation and instilling fear into the hearts of the voters. Take the Hong Lim by-election, for instance, which took place in 1961. The Barisan Sosialis Members of the Assembly were then on this side of the Floor, and they knew that considerable canvassing activities took place despite the prohibition. In fact, some of them made reports to the Police at that time. The Hong Lim by-election is a good example because many of the Member for Hong Lim's canvassers happened also to be ex-P.A.P. members and therefore they were easily identified. Complaints were made to the Police but they were-

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker.

Order. I think the Member will be able to speak later.

Numerous complaints were made to the police, as I said, but the police officers were just helpless. Nothing could be done. There were no less than five or six elections in the past and there was not a single instance where the police were able to apprehend the culprit on polling day. From this, I think Members of the House will realise that it is almost impossible to enforce prohibition on polling day unless we have this presumptive clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I, just want to clarify what happened in the Hong Lim by-election. I had been in the P.A.P. since its formation and I knew most of the members of the P.A.P. During the Hong Lim by-election I saw more P.A.P. members than anyone else going on a house-to-house canvassing even on polling day. We had never authorised people to canvass. You see, the P.A.P. canvassers in those days had identification marks - lieutenants had one red ball-point pen, colonels had one red and one blue ball-point pens, generals had two red and one blue ball-point pens. And we picked them all out, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Get the Member for Queenstown to confirm!

They were all issued free of charge from businessmen.

I am surprised, Sir, at the Minister for Home Affairs talking of conscience. If the P.A.P. Ministers had any conscience left in them, they would not try to push through this Referendum Bill. The whole of Singapore are against them on this particular Bill. Whatever their ideology may be, whatever their political stand and beliefs may be. For the Minister for Home Affairs to talk of conscience makes one laugh. Sir, this clause here says anybody who enters or is seen to enter will be presumed to have committed an offence. This additional clause, if you will remember, is an entirely new clause and is not found in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, and has been put in because of the P.A.P. plot to force the voters to choose between alternatives. Even if canvassing were to take place on the final day, I do not think it would have made any difference, Sir, If you remember, in Select Committee we thrashed this out in some detail, and it was pointed out to the Ministers that long before polling day the people had already made up their minds. So what difference does it make whether canvassing is really done on polling day or not? That is just to argue against the allegation that people who visit houses will be canvassing. Sir, we have all the time been stressing on one thing - that we have been denied our democratic rights. And what do we see here? Anybody who is seen entering a house is already presumed to be committing an offence.

Or of place of work.

What sort of democracy is this? What sort of freedom are we supposed to get? Just the P.A.P.'s democracy and the P.A.P.'s freedom. Anybody who happens to be doing business or paying a social call will be presumed to be canvassing. As you know, Sir, the police have already been used on many occasions to intimidate workers and to prevent workers from even holding meetings. And the fear we have about this clause is that abuse of this clause will lead to further intimidation and the destruction of democracy. The Minister talks of experience in past elections. The Member for Hong Lim knows more about abuse or experiences than he knows. But surely the Minister is not contending that our running along to pay social calls on that particular day will make much difference to our present type of referendum. 4.00 p.m. Yes, in actual fact, allowing canvassing under the circumstances will have no meaning. They are relaxing on canvassing simply because they have this sure-win plot in clause 29.

Order. Let us not have all that over and over again. Here is a clause which raises a presumption. Let us argue for or against that presumption.

As I said, Sir, what we fear about this presumptive clause is that there will be grave misuse and abuse of the powers. And from past experience we know that the P.A.P. will be using this clause in such a way as to make a mockery of democracy. This clause is open to a lot of interpretations, and from the abuse that follows such different interpretations, it will actually mean a curfew in Singapore on polling day.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the passing of this clause will mean that on referendum day the P.A.P. wants everybody to be dead. First of all, we know this clause gives police officers too great a power. If your memory is good, you will remember that the Assembly has amended the definition of a "police officer". From what I know, before the definition was amended, a "police officer" meant a police inspector or the Police Commissioner. But with the amendment, the P.A.P. has amended the definition to mean any policeman. Therefore, applying that definition to this clause, we see that any policeman, irrespective of his political affiliations, will have the power to arrest anybody who commits an offence under this clause. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to procedure in the judiciary, if a person commits an offence it is up to the police to charge the offender in court, that is to say, the police must bring up the charge against the offender in court, and also to produce evidence. And in prosecuting, the police must at least be represented by a police officer who must produce the evidence to prove his charge. But under this clause the Government is going against common judiciary procedure. It is not the accuser who has to produce the evidence but the accused who has to prove his innocence. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. has every day been crying out in defence of legal procedure, but at the same time, as we can see from this clause, they are disrupting the rule of law. This procedure for prosecution is completely unacceptable to us. It is also an infringement on personal freedom. For instance, a teacher finds that his student has committed a dishonest act in an examination. Now, he must produce evidence before he can punish the student. And according to the definition laid down by Government, the student must himself produce evidence to show that he has not committed this dishonest act. Mr Speaker, Sir, this kind of provision of the law can only be made by the P.A.P. Government which has no serious regard for the law. According to this amendment, of which we are very much afraid, during the poll on the referendum, the Government allows only the Superintendent to supervise the proceedings. But every Opposition Party has its offices, and there will be a lot of workers in each of these offices. Those workers may be transferred from one office to another. Accordingly the Opposition workers will be prosecuted by the provisions of this clause, unless they can prove that they have not been canvassing and have not infringed any of the clauses in the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that in a referendum, unlike in a general election, there are no candidates, and the Government will do all the work of the referendum. Since it is like this there is no necessity for the inclusion of this clause. Therefore, we can see very clearly the motive of the Government and the plot behind it in bringing out this clause. The Government are making use of this clause to deal with their political opponents, that is, those who do not agree with the P.A.P. The Government will be able to use this clause for this type of suppressive act. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the reply of the Minister for Home Affairs was to the effect that according to past experience in the elections, there was a necessity for adding this clause. He also pointed out that in the Hong Lim by-election certain things took place which make the inclusion of this clause necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, are the P.A.P. Government adding this clause after their experience in the Hong Lim by-election? I can see it is not like this at all, if the explanation of the Minister for Home Affairs is well founded on the Hong Lim by-election, such incidents took place. The Minister for Home Affairs should have amended the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance before the Anson by-election and added this clause 82 to that Ordinance. The addition of this clause is not for the purpose of preventing other political Parties from canvassing on polling day or influencing the voters in their decision on the referendum, but the Government's real intention is to take action, through this clause, to deal with those people whom the P.A.P. do not like. 4.15 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has pleaded that we should give powers which would provide effective enforcement of the provision against canvassing on polling day. Let us see how this clause will work if it is passed. Imagine me for a moment, Sir, to be one of those deep-dyed cleverly trained subversive P.A.P. cadres. I am trained to go on polling day with contempt for the law in order to canvass house-to-house for the P.A.P. point of view. I go into one house and I say, "If you do not vote for this referendum, you know what the Government will do?" I come out and I go into another house, and then let us assume that there is a policeman with courage enough to arrest the known P.A.P. canvasser and I am arrested. It is Saturday afternoon. I am taken to the police station. I am granted bail. I come back on Monday morning to the Magistrate's Court. A date is fixed for trial and in about two months I am tried. The evidence is given that the police constable watched me as I went into house A, remained there for some time, and I went into house B and I went into house C. Now, Sir, that is all the evidence. If that is all the evidence, it means that the persons who are resident in houses A, B and C or shops are not prepared to give evidence against me. Otherwise there will be no need of a presumption and those witnesses can come forward and say, "This man came to our house and tried to canvass for this referendum." There would be no need for this clause. So it is when we envisage the possibility that if no witnesses are forth, coming to support the prosecution's case, it means that those witnesses will be coming to support the defence case and the defence case will be, "Oh yes, I went to house A and inquired after his daughter's health; I went into house B in order to have a drink with an old friend of mine, and I went to house C in order to play mahjong." And I call these people and they all say that it is true. Where is the effectiveness of this clause? Quite seriously, the Minister, I see, was earnest, and in his earnestness he stumbled upon a horrible provision, a provision which says that everybody shall be deemed to be guilty unless he proves himself innocent. Even then, Sir, does it provide an effective means of enforcing this clause? The truth is it does not. Unless you can get evidence from the persons who are approached by the canvassers, no amount of presumptions are going to be of any weight. The Minister says that not a single person has been apprehended in the years past for this offence of canvassing on polling day. Surely the Minister recognises that there can be two or more answers to that. First, no such offence was committed. He says he knows the P.A.P. had committed it. All right. I will accept his word for that. Second, if the offence was committed, the police did not notice it. Third, if the police did notice it, they were afraid to arrest the P.A.P. Now, Sir, a presumption is necessary in order to bring home a conviction to a person already apprehended, it does not help you to apprehend him. The Minister tells us that no person has been apprehended for this offence. The Minister for Law has made an extraordinary statement, considering that he is the Minister for Law, Sir. He says that this is in the tradition of presumptions of guilt which are to be found peppered in our law. I say to you with respect, Sir, I question that statement. There are presumptions of various kinds but never a presumption of guilt of this character in respect of circumstances which are wholly consistent with innocence. Sir, can there be any circumstances more consistent with innocence that you should in a twenty-four day - let us make it a twelve-hour day in order not to exaggerate - in a twelve-hour day that you should visit more than two homes or places of work in one polling district? Can you imagine anything more consistent with innocence than that? Where is the indication of guilt in the conduct of that character? Where in all the laws, whether democratic or not, can the Minister find me a presumption which makes all human beings in the normal pursuit of their ordinary activities, criminals in the eyes of the law, unless they prove themselves innocent? This is a horrible provision, Sir, I could see the value of clause 29 to them. I am not going into it. But I could understand the Machiavellian plan behind it whereby the Government had to have it for their own nefarious purpose. All right. They went through it with cold-blooded calculating dishonesty. They need it. But this one is not necessary for their plan. This clause is not necessary for a Machiavellian purpose. This clause is merely a gratuitous exhibition of inordinate sadism. This clause is totally unnecessary. This clause merely proves in a manner beyond question the incapacity of the Government to understand the elements not only of democracy but of the concept of criminal law that is inherent in respect for the human being. The Minister speaks of conscience. Mr Speaker, I do not like to say this because the Minister may well in his private capacity be a man of complete decency. I have no reason to think otherwise. But I do say to the Minister that in the context of the present debate, the word "conscience" comes ill from his mouth. I say this, however necessary the other foul clauses of this Bill, however necessary we might think it was to make an exhibition of the potential of democracy for cold-blooded traitorous conduct towards their own people, this is not necessary. There is no sense in pursuing this clause.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it necessary to add something to our reason for objecting to this sub-clause. 4.23 p.m.

This provision for a presumption as embodied in this sub-clause will cause trouble to the person who is presumed to have committed an offence under this clause. Let us examine the person who is presumed to have committed the offence. Let us see what is the nature of the offence a person would presumably have committed. Does it mean that he has destroyed any State property? Has he infringed on the personal liberty of other people? Or has he attacked or done any harm or wounded anybody? Has he slandered the reputation of any other citizen? No. It is not so. And yet to presume that such a person has committed an offence the presumption is only that he has tried to influence the thoughts of other electors! For instance, can he influence anyone just by a chance meeting? The answer is no. That is impossible. When an elector goes into a polling station at the time of voting, nobody would he able to threaten or intimidate him. That is why I say this presumed offence is in fact groundless because this person has not done anything wrong. He has not caused any damage to State property and has not infringed on the right of freedom of any other citizen. Under such circumstances, why should the Government give so much trouble to that person? The Government itself has obviously deprived the people of speech and freedom of expression by passing certain laws. Why do the Government not provide some provision to make such an act an offence? I would like to tell this to the Ministers of the P.A.P. The people will remember who have committed offences. The people will know how to deal with such people who have committed such offences against the people.

Mr Mammen, I do not wish to play the same old record again and again like the Members of the Barisan Sosialis. I just want to be brief about it. The purpose of this amendment is to see that the prohibition on canvassing on polling day would be effectively enforced. It is not to prevent law-abiding citizens from their normal pursuit of earning their living. That is not the purpose. The examples quoted by the Member for Punggol and the Member for Tampines are ridiculous. No sensible police officers will try to interfere [Laughter]. Those examples - The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order. The Member for Upper Serangoon, not the Member for Tampines.

Yes. Mr Mammen, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon was saying that this is not a serious offence. He said this is not an offence that infringes on the security of the nation. Mr Mammen, Sir, an election, or for that matter a referendum, is a national matter. If the true wishes of the people are to be ascertained, then the Government must ensure that the referendum or the elections are properly carried out. Knowing very well that the Communists and their stooges are intent on wrecking the referendum and thus trying to prevent merger and Malaysia taking place, it is not beyond their capacity, judging from past experience, to resort to all forms of canvassing by means of intimidation to get the voters to do the things which they want them to do. 4.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, let us examine again why the leaders of the P.A.P. want to provide such a sub-clause as this in the National Referendum Bill. We can see very clearly from this provision that the Government has been and will continue to be very undemocratic and very unreasonable in carrying but the national referendum. We can further see, from this provision, the Government's intention and its guilty conscience. Mr Mammen, the Government has this provision in the National Referendum Bill for the purpose of carrying out an undemocratic national referendum and to provide for occasions when there may be certain incidents when the proceedings of voting cannot be continued, so that the Government may find scapegoats for not carrying out the national referendum. Mr Mammen, you can see that this Bill is very unpopular, unconvincing and unacceptable to the people. We can also see that the leaders of the Party in power are very, very cunning, and that their usual trick is to set up commissions of inquiry. That is what they are most clever in doing, but in future when their falsehoods and the true nature of the national referendum are disclosed to the people - when everybody can see through their acts - then they may set up again Commissions of Inquiry to cover up their shameful acts with regard to the provisions in this Bill. Their acts are usually very ugly, and these are facts which everybody can see. Mr Mammen, Sir, today the fact is that the Government are bent on forcing through their White Paper merger proposals. They will resort to all kinds of tactics and methods, however mean, to achieve their purpose. Through this provision, they try to explain that they want to better their relations between the police and the people, but in fact it is to the contrary. We can see that since the P.A.P. Government came to power, they have only been pretending to do good things. Though they have been giving wide publicity to the co-operation between the police and the people and co-operation between all classes, the fact is that their true colours have been revealed. For the purpose of forcing through their White Paper merger proposals, they even try to make use of police officers to achieve their purpose. Mr Mammen, Sir, in the past, the relationship between the police and the people was very bad. Indeed, we could all see that. The people were not happy about how the police carried out the policies of the colonial government and the Lint Yew Hock Government. The P.A.P. Government was aware of this. After coming to power the P.A.P. used to say that the people and the police should mix well, and the people should regard police officers as public servants. But today the addition of this provision in the National Referendum Bill is giving the police great powers. There is such a provision here and I believe that all responsible policemen will feel that such powers given to them are really a burden, and they can realise that the addition of such a provision is for the purpose of asking them to arrest more people during a national referendum, especially those whom the P.A.P. do not like. In other words, if there is a policeman more liked by the P;A.P. or an officer liked by the P.A.P. and eager to get promotion, he can always arrest more people to please the P.A.P. From this we can see that the plots and intrigues of the Government have been exposed. Mr Mammen, Sir, in the system of parliamentary democracy, the people have democratic rights. They elect their representatives in order to improve their livelihood and to pass good laws to provide for good government. In deciding on any matter of national importance, the Government should let the people take part in the decisions on such matters. The people will then be pleased if they are given such a chance. Today the matter before us is another chance for the Government to let the people participate in deciding on matters of national importance, but the P.A.P. Government are trying to make use of the Bill for the purpose of achieving their own ends at the expense of the people, forcing them to vote, and this is contrary to the spirit of democracy. Everybody knows it very well, Mr Mammen. From this provision, we can see that on the day when the people go to cast their votes to decide their destiny, it should be a happy day for them to cast sacred votes. But what should be so will, instead, become a day of terror for the people, as they will not have the occasion to be merry because polling day will be like a curfew day to them. The P.A.P. are only trying to use good names to cover their shameful acts. In the past the P.A.P. used to accuse the Lim Yew Hock Government of showing a goat's head while selling dog's meat, but the P.A.P. Government are now doing the same, that is, selling dog's meat while showing a goat's head. Mr Mammen, Sir, I wish to point out to the Government leaders that to sup press by force will not achieve good results. The people will not succumb to force. The strength of the people will decide everything. They are confident of the future.

(In Malay): Mr Mammen, we have wasted a lot of the time of this Assembly, because there are, too many people who claim themselves to be champions of liberty and democracy. If we had counted we would have noted how many times democracy has been mentioned and that any step taken by the Government is not democratic Yes, I should also like to explain more of this in my future speeches; but now I would just like to say this - they say that every law and procedure is anti-democracy, because there is unity under that one law and one procedure. "Nothing can be done as one likes; this is to limit liberty," they say, because there is one law. Thus they say that this Bill is to limit their liberty. Up to this time, they have been free and independent to rob; now because there is a law to restrict that freedom, they cannot do what they like. For a thief to say that there is a restriction on their liberty is not democratic; so also for the gangsters, the thieves and the robbers and so too for those who commit offences. "There is no democracy," they say, "and the purpose of this law is to retaliate." But because of this same law the public are at liberty to move about and to liberate themselves from gangsters and evil-doers. Their peace in life will not be interfered with because there is law and order. So the term "good" or "bad" of any arrangement or law depends on the motive of the person making use of the law. If the mind of the person is dirty, then the interpretation is also dirty. But there are some Members of the Barisan Sosialis, not the people, who have to be forced to see that there are Members of this Assembly who cannot be forced. They are the persons who bring letters to compel people! We have seen what they have done! Yet they protest against just anything, against any law which gives freedom to the people to think and so on: they say this is an arrangement which restricts freedom and is not democratic! 4.45 p.m. The problem before us is a national problem. It is a national matter. It is a thing which will decide our future and that of our children - a future that is free from all suppression and evil influence - so that people can go and vote according to their own feeling and conscience. I ask the Member for Anson to say, if a person wants to buy meat here and fish there, or if a person goes to a textile store to buy cloth, whether all this is nonsense? If he wants to buy some fabric, surely it is reasonable. If we shake hands with a woman, for instance; if we are honest and do not have a guilty conscience, we do not think otherwise. It all depends on the motive of the person shaking hands with the woman; and this can be proved. In the same way too, it all depends on the mind of the person who interprets this law.,

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is rather delightful, but I think he will agree with me that it would be undemocratic to pass a law to say that everybody who shakes hands with a woman is to be presumed to do so lustfully and criminally, unless he proves the contrary. Ha, ha, ha! He must agree that, Sir. And this is what, in fact, this law is doing. You see, this law says that if a person enters more than two places, whether a house or a place of work in the same polling district, he is presumed to be a guilty person and he can be arrested. It is presuming it and that is why I say language has no meaning if this is not undemocratic. I know he has his feelings and we should repeat it, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to recognise, for example, that the Singapore National Union of Journalists - it is not a Communist body, it is not a Barisan body - but does he know that in their anxiety, they have today issued a public statement in which with moderation and with dignity they protest against the undemocratic Referendum Bill, whereby they say the people are to be barred from expressing their free and frank will on constitutional propositions, and where they are appealing to us, Members of the Assembly, to allow the people of Singapore to express the right to express their views freely and frankly on all constitutional issues? Now, I admire them for having had the courage to do this, since they are employees of newspapers whose proprietors with a healthy eye to their own commercial prosperity have bowed their necks to the yoke of Government propaganda. And these men who have issued this appeal know that their Committee members would henceforth be pinpointed and singled out for attack by this Government, and that they will thereby be deemed by their employers to be an embarrassment and may - probably will - find them in a position where their public-spirited courage will mean personal sacrifice and discrimination in their careers. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister must bear with us. This is perhaps the occasion when we must refer to the basic concepts of democracy which are in essence the basic concepts of decent relations between man and his fellowman. I think he will agree with me that apart from these issues, we have not been unfair in our attitude towards the Government when we make these charges, and they come from various facets of the Opposition; they come even from a Member who was loyal to her Party until the day before yesterday. I really cannot understand the insistence on this clause. The Minister has said that it will help the police. He knows very well that it can do no such thing. It is not giving the police the right to arrest somebody whom they suspect; it is giving them the right to arrest anybody whom they want to. Can the Minister seriously tell me that on polling day he will not go to three different places in the same polling district? Can he really say that? Can any Member on the Government Benches tell me - tell this House - that on polling day he will not be seen in more than two places in the same polling district? Does not every Member on the Government Benches recognise that there are thousands of people whom he respects who are close to him, who are honest, decent people, who will on polling day be going to more than two, places in the same polling district? Does he not recognise that those people are subject to immediate arrest? That is the point at issue.

He would have us believe that society consists of only a few innocent people! Mr Mammen, it is true that people do go shopping. If I go shopping to three different places on polling day, it does riot follow that I will be arrested. What I say to the Barisan is that if they are found organising canvassing in a big way, it is this section of the law which will enable their activities to be detected and which will enable some meaning to be given to the prohibition of canvassing on referendum day. That is the purpose of this section. To a lawyer of distinction, that is clearly known and clearly apparent, but the Member for Anson chose to pull the wool over everybody's eyes and make all sorts of emotional appeals for his own glorification and in order to mislead Members of this House.

As the Minister for Health and Law has clearly indicated, the whole design of this clause is aimed at the Barisan Sosialis boys. Are we not human beings? Today, if there are people who can be worse than human beings, they are the Ministers opposite. The whole of Singapore condemn them. Can they deny that? Can they convince the people? If the Minister for Education should ever go back to Geylang West, I can assure him he will lose his deposit.[Interruption]

Order. I hope this debate is not getting out of hand. If the Member for Queenstown will just address the Chair and ignore the interjections, he will not be so furious. I hope the Member for Queenstown will come to the amendment we are debating now. So if there is any interjection, please look at the Chair and address the Chair; he will be more happy and comfortable.

I wish I could look at you all the time, Sir. But obviously those words from the Minister for Health and Law were meant to irritate all of us on this side of the House. Why should they put in a law for looking after the Barisan Sosialis boys? Just because of the Barisan Sosialis boys, there is now going to be a curfew and nobody can go to more than two places in any polling district, otherwise that person is presumed to have committed an offence. Sir, we have had occasion to say that justice must not only be done but also must be manifestly seen to be done. [Interruption]

Order. Dr Lee.

There is no justice in this Bill. All civic organisations and all respectable bodies in Singapore have come up openly against this Bill. But that does not prevent the P.A.P. from steam-rollering this Bill through in spite of their being a minority Government now. I ask the Ministers on the Front Benches to go back and search their conscience - if they ever had any. Possibly we might he spared a further catastrophe.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said just flow, if the Barisan Sosialis' and the Member for Anson arc really sincere in wanting to prohibit canvassing completely on polling day, I would have expected some concrete suggestions to be put forward to see that this total prohibition could be enforced effectively, but instead there is not only no concrete suggestion- [Interruption].

Order. If the Member for Anson has any point of elucidation or point of information, I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs will give way. Mr Ong Pang Boon.

Not only is there no concrete suggestion forthcoming from the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Anson, but what the Government propose is asked to be deleted. How do they expect this total prohibition of canvassing on polling day to be enforced?

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, we have now spent about two hours discussing this clause and the time spent is worth our while - at least the Ministers opposite have exposed the purpose and design of this clause. Mr Mammen, as a responsible Opposition Party, we cannot tolerate the Government because of its design to deal with its political opponents and to try to deprive the rights of the people of Singapore.

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

I suspend the sitting and the sitting will resume at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed. Clause 43-

(contd)

Clause 43 - amendment (v)- Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now before the break I was saying that we have spent about two hours debating the amendment of the Minister for Home Affairs and the facts have shown that the time we have spent is not wasted. The Minister for Health and Law eventually confessed that the purpose of this new provision is to deal with the Barisan Sosilias boys. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a responsible Opposition Party, we cannot allow the Government to make use of legal machinery to deal with its opponents in an unfair way because we will have to face all the people of Singapore. The object of any government legislation should be for the interest of all the people of Singapore, but the Minister for Health and Law has clearly said that the purpose of this provision is specifically to deal with the Barisan Sosialis boys. We cannot allow the Government to abuse the provisions of the law to protect their own interests. Just now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that we were undemocratic. He said that if a thief is arrested, we cannot say that democracy is at fault. Now, what he meant was that the Barisan Sosialis is an undemocratic Party because we are supposed to know the fact very well. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is common logic. Nobody denies that if a thief is arrested he should be tried by law. According to the law, if he is proved to have committed an offence, then he should be legally punished. But if you just shout saying that certain people are thieves without any concrete evidence, then you cannot be right. The P.A.P. Government have been shouting that we are not democratic; that is not right. Now, what is the actual fact? The fact is that the P.A.P. are the thieves because they want to deprive the people of their basic democratic rights in broad daylight. The Government want to resort to legislation and to all sorts of legal provisions to carry out their undemocratic act under cover of democracy. In doing this, they are acting contrary to the basic democratic rights of the people. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the purpose of this additional sub-clause is to enable all good law-abiding citizens to be protected to express their free choice and views. Mr Speaker, Sir, according to paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-clause (1) of clause 43, we can see that all citizens on polling day will not be able to carry out canvassing. When there is such a specific provision, how can there be any fear that canvassing will take place on polling day? Now, the logic of the Parliamentary Secretary is only the logic of the P.A.P., and it is not the kind of logic acceptable to the common people. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are most concerned that under this new provision, anybody can at any time be arrested by any police officer. The Minister for Health and Law has also very clearly disclosed that the purpose of this additional provision is to deal with the Barisan Sosialis boys, and now we can see clearly the true purpose of this new provision of the Government, which is to suppress the people and political Parties which are working in the interests of the people. The Member for Anson and the United People's Party' representatives here have also expressed their views against this undemocratic provision. I am of the opinion that if the Government want to forge through the passage of this provision; it will only go to show that they are making a mockery of democracy. Question put, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 17; Absent, 7; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes. Noes. Abdul Hamid bin Bani, S. T. Haji Jumat. Chan Sun Wing. Ahmad Jabri bin Fung Yin Ching, Mohammad Akib. Miss. Buang bin Hoe Puay Choo, Omar Junid. Madam. Byrne, K. M. Koh, C. H. Chan Chee Seng. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Choy Siong, Leong Keng Seng. Madam. Lin You Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Low Por Tuck. Goh Chew Chua. Marshall, David. Goh Keng Seng. Ng Teng Kian. Kandasamy, G. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Khoon Choy. Ong Eng Guan. Lee Teck Him. Tan Cheng Tong. Lim Cheng Lock. Tee Kim Leng. Lim Yew Hock. Teo Hock Guan. Mammen, John. Wong Soon Fong. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Abstention. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Nil. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Pang Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Tan Kia Gan. Thio Chan Bee. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Lee Kuan Yew. Lingam, S. V. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Sheng Nam Chin. Amendment accordingly agreed to. Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 5.45 p.m. Clause 52-

Mr Speaker. I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name. * The amendment, which is also stood in the name of Mr Marshall, reads as follows: In page A24, lines 16 to 24, to leave out the whole of sub-clause (5). This amendment is a new clause and is not found in the Elections Ordinance. You will probably have heard what the Minister for Health and Law said about the previous amendment. He said it was entirely meant for the Barisan Sosialis. In other words, Sir, if anyone should petition to a Judge and if there is some secret information against him placed at the disposal of the Referendum Judge by the Special Branch, or whatever branch the Ministers can think of, then he can say, "Oh! this man is a Communist. You do not have to have a referendum petition any more." Is that the meaning of this clause?

You are scared, are you not?

Again, Sir, if for any reason the referendum result should not be as expected by the P.A.P. then the P.A.P. can put in anything for a petition. Our fear is this. If any written or other report is presented to the Referendum Judge and treated as secret, and therefore not available to the defendant or to the petitioner, then he will not be in a position to rebut the charge made against him. We want to stress once again, Sir, that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. There is no reason, as far as we can see, why this clause should be put in.

Mr Speaker, let us read out this clause which we seek to delete: 'When determining upon a referendum petition the Referendum Judge shall take into account any written or other report, information, document or evidence which may be the direction of the State Advocate-General be placed before the Referendum Judge: Provided that no such written or other report, information, document or evidence or any part thereof which is specified as secret shall be disclosed to any person other than the Referendum Judge.' Mr Speaker, if you will notice clause 54 (a) for a moment a referendum petition may be presented, inter alia, on the ground that the voters were confused or misled into recording their votes on any question by - general intimidation or other misconduct.

Which clause?

54 (a).

54? It is the end of (a)?

That is right. I am just referring to the material part. I do not wish to take up unduly the time of the House. Mr Speaker, you will remember that originally this Government in presenting this Bill made no provision at all for a referendum petition. They knew that they were going to extract a 100 per cent return through their own tortuous way and they wanted no referendum petition. When this extraordinary lacuna was drawn to their attention and they recognised that it was indefensible, they brought in provisions, loaded ones, Sir. Now, Sir, I know of no similar provisions it the democratic world whereby the State Advocate-General must, according to the Minister for Law, hand over to the Referendum Judge any memoranda he receives from the police or from Ministers or, no doubt, from P.A.P. organisations. And those passages that are marked secret will not be disclosed to the petitioner, will not be disclosed to the public, and the Judge is required to take them into consideration. Sir, first and foremost, let us ask ourselves whether it is fair to the Judge, with his sense of integrity, to compel him by law to act in this dishonest fashion. For it is dishonest to take into consideration a statement not on oath, prepared in secret, compiled from sources unknown, not subjected to cross-examination and in respect of which the persons accused cannot make a defence because they do not even know the accusation. I say to you, Sir, that this is grossly unfair to our Judges, to seek of them P.A.P. conduct. You know, Mr Speaker, that if you make a law that a defendant shall not know what the plaintiff says, he shall not know what the plaintiff claims, he may not cross-examine the plaintiff, every plaintiff would necessarily win his case because it is only the power to cross-examine him, the power to give contrary evidence which helps to bring out the truth and often to rebut a claim which, on the face of it, may seem legitimate. Mr Speaker, if there was a law, as this law, whereby I could go to court and say you borrowed $1,000 from me but you are not allowed to hear what I said, the Judge is not allowed to tell you what I said to him, and I said to him, "This is your signature agreeing that you borrowed $1,000 from me" and you are not allowed to cross-examine me; you are not even allowed to know what I said. What can the Judge do but give me a judgment against you for $1,000? You will appreciate that the Referendum Judge has the power to send to prison and to disfranchise citizens and Assemblymen. I ask you, Sir, in what possible circumstances can there be the need for the secrecy reminiscent of the Star Chamber? 6.00 p.m. Mr Speaker, I would enquire, are there other countries in the world where there are Communists? I would enquire, are there democracies honestly seeking to meet the forces of subversion and seeking a healthy development of the human personality and human society? And I would ask in the context of the reply whether this Government knows of any country in the world with a provision similar to this, if they want a loaded verdict, put in the clause in respect of every referendum petition, the Referendum Judge shall make such findings as the Minister for Home Affairs directs. Can he not recognise, Mr Speaker, that one day, maybe, given the opportunity, the Barisan would seek to play on him the same foul tricks that he is playing on the people of Singapore? I know they are making certain that these provisions will not apply to them. Because of the extent of filth which is beginning to seep through the consciousness of all the people of Singapore, the Government recognises that it cannot cannot keep this Bill on the statute book for its own health. But I ask, wherein lies the necessity for this additional perfidy? What is it conceived for? What set of circumstances would require our Judges to be made the tools of darkness, the instruments of P.A.P. dishonesty, who are compelled to give judgment in accordance with the reports received from the Special Branch and from the Minister for Home Affairs? Even if those reports are honestly compiled, does the Minister not recognise the possible dubious character of the sources from which such reports are compiled? He will tell you, Sir, it is in the discretion of the Judge to reject the memorandum. What discretion has the poor Judge when he cannot even ask whether this is true of the petitioner, because that which is marked "Secret" may not be communicated to anybody else? What discretion is there? He may not hear the defendant. He may not tell the defendant what the accusation is, but you say that there is a discretion whether he accepts the plaintiff's case or no. On what basis? Sir, in a long list of classic perfidious provisions, let us add one more example of a government that has not the slightest clue or understanding of democracy or respect for the people; a government that would have been more appropriate in the time of Hitler and in his country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said before that there is very little coordination between the brain of the Member for Anson and his tongue -

Cannot you say something new?

Order.

- but today I found that there is no proper co-ordination between his eyes and his mouth, Sir. He has not looked at these clauses very carefully as we have done. I see nothing objectionable in the sub-clause. The Member for Anson has said that this sub-clause is objectionable because it will allow the plaintiff's case to be put without the defendant knowing what it is, and being given an opportunity to cross-examine and the court therefore can be bamboozled. That is what he said before the Select Committee, Sir. What is the purpose of a referendum petition? It invites a judicial determination whether or not the whole of the referendum or part of it held in any electoral division or polling district should be held to be void because of general bribery, general treating, general intimidation and other forms of misconduct which may have prevented or misled or confused a voter in recording his vote at the referendum; or because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill where it can be shown that such non-compliance materially affected the result of the whole of the returns or the return of any electoral division or polling district. That is the purpose of a referendum petition. Clause 52 (5), to which he has taken objection, would be necessary and useful to inform the Referendum Judge of what has taken place. This information would reach the Referendum Judge through the State Advocate-General, and only such information as is classified to be secret cannot be disclosed. The rest of it can be disclosed. This protection of secrecy is obviously in the protection of witnesses. This sub-clause itself provides that the Judge can only use this information when determining upon a referendum petition. It is so stated in sub-clause (5). Sir, the petitioners in a referendum petition can only be the Superintendent or a person who has voted or has the right to vote at the referendum. In a referendum petition there are no accused persons and there is no danger of this secret information, which is made available to the Judge, being used to the prejudice of any individual person in the way the Member for Anson has suggested. Sir, in addition to making a determination on the merits of the referendum petition itself when such secret information can be seen by the Judge, the Judge can also at the conclusion of the trial of the referendum petition report the names of all those who have been concerned in illegal and corrupt practices. Referendum proceedings are not secret judicial proceedings and clause 52 (6) provides that the Referendum Judge shall be attended at the trial of a referendum petition in the same manner as if he were a Judge of the High Court sitting at the Assizes. But before the Judge can report those who have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices, he is required under clause 57 (2) to give such persons an opportunity of being heard and of giving and calling witnesses to show why they should not be so reported. The proceedings for calling upon persons to show cause why they should not be separated are separate from the proceedings of the referendum petition itself, and in such proceedings this Bill does not permit secret information available to the Judge on the referendum petition itself to be used against them. Where then is the injustice of which the Member for Anson complains?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to involve you in a legal argument, but bear with me for a moment. The Minister says there is no accused person before the Referendum Judge. In truth and in fact, Sir, under clause 57 sub-clause (3):- 'When a Referendum Judge reports that a corrupt or illegal practice has been committed by any person, that person shall be subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the said report he had been convicted of that practice. You will see, Sir, he will be subject to the incapacities of standing for election or voting, and, if he is an Assemblyman, he shall forthwith vacate his seat according to the law if passed. Sir, it is said that before that can happen he must be given an opportunity to reply. But do not forget that already it has been proved in his absence that he is guilty. He is merely given the opportunity to rebut. To rebut what, Sir? [Interjection] The Minister is making noises of protest. Let me read it: 'Before any person, not being a party to a referendum petition...'. which does not include the petitioner. Supposing I am a petitioner in a referendum petition; I am not allowed to see those secret documents. I can be condemned, Sir, without any further ado. I can be condemned under sub-clause (3). But supposing there are other persons who have never been in court; the Judge shall call them before he makes that report naming them. And he shall ask them to give evidence to show cause why they should not be found guilty. You follow, Sir, the presumption is one of guilt, the finding is there, and they are given a chance to rebut. Rebut what, Sir? Will the secret documents be read out to them? Oh, no, Sir. Have the secret documents had an effect on the Judge? Sir, if they were not supposed to have an effect, they would not be supplied with them. So, where am I being misleading in saying to this Assembly that in truth and in fact a person can be deprived of his citizenship rights by the Referendum Judge guided by secret documents of which the poor citizen knows nothing, not even their existence. Is that fair enough? Not only that, Sir, but insofar as the petitioner himself is concerned, he has no right even of being heard. Apart from these penalties - let us look at the general issue. I bring a petition to say that through dishonest manoeuvering the P.A.P. has misled the people into thinking that the Penang and Malacca type of merger means depriving our citizens of their citizenship and, therefore, many of them have been misled. Right. I go and present my evidence. The Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Law submit memoranda to the State Advocate-General. According to the Minister for Law, it will be the duty of the State Advocate-General to send those memoranda on.

Surely.

I am glad he agrees, because I could quote chapter and verse. Some people study the Bible. I have the unhappiness of combing these tragic proceedings from their inception last March. So it is the duty of the State Advocate-General to submit the memoranda, and in the memoranda, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs will collect all the scandal - as being reliable information - and you know, Sir, that does happen - you know the Special Branch, with a straight face, again and again and again produces so-called reports from reliable sources which are of pure invention. But whether invention or not, the point is that I, who am honestly, openly and publicly presenting a petition in the public interest, have met with a blank wall. I do not even know that documents have been produced, marked secret. Now, Sir, you will say, "Yes, but it will not be marked secret unless it was serious." Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure you I know of an instance where the Ministry of Home Affairs chopped, as secret documents for the P.P.S.O. Committee, newspapers which have been selling in Singapore at 10 cents a copy. Those were chopped as secret to the horror of the Judges who saw them. But the minions of the Ministry of Home Affairs - they no doubt have their instructions - 'when in doubt mark it secret.' So they mark everything secret. In that way they could not get into trouble with their bosses. So the petitioner is met with a blank wall, and the poor Judge is in the acutely unhappy position of not being able to tell him what is in the memoranda before him. Not being able to ask him whether he could answer or refute because he cannot tell him what it is he is to answer and refute since he may disclose no part of those memoranda. P.A.P. justice? I remember once, Sir, on the Privileges Bill. I said that I would rather be judged by a peon or the lowest constable than by a Minister of the P.A.P. 6.15 p.m. How right I have been proved. P.A.P. justice! If they get a referendum petition they do not like, the Judge is coerced and manoeuvered into the horrible position of having to take a decision on so-called responsible Ministers' memoranda of which he cannot give an inkling to the petitioner and to which he himself cannot have access. That is the answer to the Minister for Law. I do not see. My eye does not co-ordinate with my tongue. I wish the Minister could see the image that he presents.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motive of this provision is to make use of the name of the Judge to cover up the P.A.P.'s crime. The Member for Anson has clearly pointed out that this provision is unreasonable and is contrary to the procedure of law. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law has just said that the Referendum Judge has obtained the secret information from reports, but in those reports he will point out the names of those persons who are committed for corruption. The Minister for Law is seeking to explain and prove to the House that the secret report of the Government is democratic. But in fact the Referendum Judge can indicate in his memorandum the list of those persons who are committed for bribery and corruption. Mr Speaker, we cannot accept his explanation. His explanation is grossly contrary to common sense. When you say that a person is guilty, first of all, he has the right to ask what he is guilty of. But under this provision this person has not the right to find out what crime he has committed and against what provision in the law. Concerning the secrecy of the report and information, we realise that the so-called secret report is a report of the Special Branch. But is this secret report reliable? And will the Referendum Judge he influenced and misled by this secret report? Mr Speaker, I can say categorically that the Judge will be misled by this secret information and pass a wrong judgment. I can give you a very simple example which the Government cannot deny. Sir, a few months ago the Singapore Chinese Secondary IV Examination created a crisis. The Minister for Education, during a session of this House, submitted a report to the House halfway during the sitting, saying that there were some Communist elements exciting and propagating this examination boycott, that these elements participated in this boycott, and that Tommy Koh was one of them.

The Member for Choa Chu Kang is going too much into details. The other objection is that the subject is the subject of a Commission of Inquiry.

(In Mandarin): Let me prove to you that the information from the Special Branch is not reliable. On that day Tommy Koh was in Kuala Lumpur but the Minister for Education-

The point at issue is whether or not that information should be disclosed or made use of in the manner suggested in the clause.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my argument is this: just as you have directed this House, all information should be disclosed, otherwise the person accused or judged will not be able to know what kind of crime he has committed. For instance, the incident of Tommy Koh. If the Minister for Education did not disclose that information in the Assembly, then Tommy Koh would have been reported wrongly by the Special Branch that he had taken part in the agitation of the students' boycott. Mr Speaker, Sir, you can see from the incident of Tommy Koh that the information of the Special Branch is not reliable. Therefore, unreliable secret information should be disclosed to enable the accused to understand the source of this information and to enable him to have a chance to prove to the Judge that he has not committed any crime of which he has been accused. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs can present his secret report to the State Advocate-General for submission to the Judge. The Minister for Home Affairs, in addition to getting information from the Special Branch, can also get other information from his P.A.P. Branches. And he can also present such information to the Judge. If this secret information or report is not disclosed, then what about the Government's accusation that unionists, workers and cultural workers are engaging in subversive activities, sabotaging Malaysia and merger? The Minister for Home Affairs and the Government may make use of unreliable and groundless information to prosecute them. If this information is presented to the Judge, then such people will be wronged and will have no chance to clear themselves. Therefore, under such circumstances, the P.A.P. would be able to make use of the Judge to deal with their opponents and to escape the blame for their crime. Therefore, we cannot accept this provision. The argument of the Member for Anson is in keeping with the basic demands and reasoning of the common people. It is important to let the accused person know what he is accused of and the grounds for such accusation. Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 17; Noes, 25; Absent, 9. 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 Madam. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. 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 Absent. Suradi. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. M. Ismail Rahim. Koh, C. H. Ong Pang Boon. Lee Kuan Yew. Ramaswamy, S. Lim Yew Hock. Tan Kia Gan. Lingam, S. V. Thio Chan Bee. Rajah, A. P. Toh Chin Chye. Rajaratnam, S. Wee Toon Boon. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Yaacob bin Mohamed. Madam. Yong Nyuk Lin. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Amendment accordingly negatived. Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 6.30 p.m. Clause 54-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name. * The amendment reads as follows: In page A24, line 40, to page A25, line 4, to leave out the whole paragraph (a). The words which have caused us uneasiness have already been referred to in the previous amendment. The words which I would like to draw your attention to are on page A25 in the third line "confused or misled". We are not very happy with these words and we would be most grateful to the Government if they could give us an adequate explanation as to why these words are necessary.

Do I understand the Member for Queenstown then that he has not really moved the amendment, which is to leave out the whole of paragraph (a), but wishes to leave out only "confused or misled"?

Yes, Sir, the whole paragraph is linked up with those two words.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Queenstown does not understand what this clause means, then I fail to understand why he is moving for its deletion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is taken from the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody will ever complain that it does not do justice. There must be these provisions if you want to keep elections clean, and if you want to bring to book those who commit such offences as general intimidation of voters, general bribery, general treating, so that you could get an election or a referendum declared void when those offences are committed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now our Party Chairman has pointed out that we are objecting to this particular provision because in it there are such words as "confused" and "misled". "confused" and "misled" cannot have a very objective definition. For example, during the by-election in Hong Lim, the people did not support the P.A.P. Government, but the Government said that the people in Hong Lim had been misled. Then when the result of the Anson by-election was against the Government, they, looking from their own point of view, said that the people in Anson had been misled. So if you have this provision in the Bill, and should the White Paper be objected to and rejected by the people, the Government can turn round and say, "Oh, the people have been misled again." So we want to ask whether it is the intention of this provision to declare the referendum null and void. We do not agree to this provision if it is so. Then you have the question of confusion. All along we have been advocating that if there is only one simple question to allow the people an opportunity to say 'yes' or 'no', then there should not he any opportunity for any confusion to arise. If the manner in which the electorate vote and the ballot papers and symbols connected therewith are different from those used in the general elections, therefore, some of the electors, because of these changes, may be confused. This confusion arises out of ballot papers, and so if the Government allow the various Parties in Singapore to reproduce some documents similar to the ballot papers to explain to the people, then this confusion will be considerably reduced. But now it is not possible to do so and so we feel that should there be any confusion at all, this confusion is brought about by the Government itself and because of this we propose that this provision should not be incorporated in this Bill.

Mr Speaker, could I ask the Minister for Law to indicate the provision he states that is copied from the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Minister for Law is looking up the Elections Ordinance, I just want to reply to one point raised by the Member for Upper Serangoon. He has mentioned that a replica of the ballot paper is prohibited during the referendum period. I thought I had just moved an amendment to allow for the printing and the use of replicas of ballot papers. Evidently, the Member for Upper Serangoon is still sleeping.

May I refer the Member for Anson to section 78 (a) of the Singapore legislative Assembly Elections. Ordinance where there can be a reference to an election Judge if it is shown- 'that by reason of general bribery, general treating or general intimidation, or other misconduct, or other circumstances, whether similar to those before enumerated or not, the majority of electors were or may have been prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred;' Now, there is no question of electing candidates in a referendum, Sir. They could be misled by lies about the issues. This is the origin of this clause.

I thought that was the clause, and I am a little astonished. My capacity for astonishment and for expectation of decent conduct on the part of the Government seems unlimited. And I am astonished, Sir, that the Minister should have said that this is taken word for word from the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance and should have made us assume that this was correct. I checked on it, Sir, and you will notice that there is a radical difference. Section 78 (a) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance speaks of persons being prevented from voting - 'from electing the candidate" - that is to say, from voting. Here, we have it in the first part "or may have been prevented from voting". From there, one can say, although it is not word for word, that it is in fact the identical provision mutatis mutandis. But the phrase "or confused or misled" which is complained of by the Member for Queenstown is, in fact, something totally new, both in spirit and in word. To transform section 78 (a) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance into clause 54 (a) of the Bill mutatis mutatis, one should stop at line 3 of the Bill after the word "voting": 'the majority of electors were or may have been prevented from electing the candidate whom they preferred.'- 'the majority of electors in any electoral division or polling district were or may have been prevented from voting.' Sir, I am not, in this instance, going to say that it is right or it is wrong, but I am drawing attention to a radical distinction and a new element introduced. It is not taken from the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance word for word.

It is rather obvious, Sir, that the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance provision was used as a precedent for this clause. It is quite obvious to the Member for Anson. 6.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move the amendment because these words are not found in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, and it is because of this that we want the Minister to explain the definition of these words at the same time. We did not move this amendment for the fun of it. We have checked through the Elections Ordinance. It is because the P.A.P. have departed from the Elections Ordinance that we moved the amendment. And you see, Sir, they have special reasons for doing it; but we will hear the explanation first.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs in his reply failed to give any explanation to our query regarding the use of the words "confused or misled". The Minister should tell us that if, under this unreasonable and undemocratic provision, the White Paper is rejected by the people whether the people have been misled.

The Chair is quite puzzled. I did ask from the very beginning whether the attack was only on the words "or confused or misled" or on the whole of the paragraph. I do not know at the moment.

It is linked up with those words, Sir. The explanation given by the Member for Upper Serangoon has already given an indication, through you, of our thinking. I thought I wanted to reserve that until they gave their reply, but we will see what they have to say now.

Mr Speaker, if I try to understand what goes on in the mind of the Member for Queenstown, I will be confused, but if I believe everything that the Member for Anson has said to me, I will be misled.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we asked the Government to explain clearly the meaning of the words "confused" and "misled". If the Government is not sincere and will not give a clarification, then we have every reason to believe that there is something wrong with this provision and doubt the intention there in. Although the Government allow people to carry out house-to-house visits with regard to the referendum, then according to this particular provision, they can well claim that such persons are going out to visit people in order to intimidate, mislead and confuse the electors or voters. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister will he setting two questions in the referendum. Let us examine the whole position. At the time of the referendum, the Opposition Parties Can go Out to the electorate to explain to them their political stand on merger. At the present moment, the Opposition Parties are against the White Paper. Now, if we should, in our canvassing, persuade the people to vote against the White Paper, then the Government can make use of this provision to say that we are trying to confuse and mislead the people by intimidation. So I hope the Government can give an explanation for these to words, otherwise their so-called permission for canvassing work by political Parties is all eyewash. Amendment negatived. Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

We now come back to the postponed clauses. Clause 2-

Clause 2 is consequential on the amendment of clause 41.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, In page Al, line 16, at end, to add- "The period of any referendum" means the period from the date of the issue of the order of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara made under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 5 of this Ordinance up to and including the day fixed for the taking of a referendum;'. The definition of "The period of any referendum" is tied up with clause 41, and, read together, states what the period of any referendum means and what can and cannot be done during that period. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6-

Clause 6 was postponed. I think the Member for Anson wishes to move simpilciter.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move. In page A2, line 33, to leave out "fourteen" and insert twenty-eight"*. *The same amendment also stodd in the name of Dr Lee Siew Choh. In the light of the decision of the Assembly on the first amendment to clause 13, I have nothing to add. Amendment negatived. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

We now come to the new clauses. New Clause (A)- "Result of referendum. The result of the referendum shall not be valid unless a proposition is supported in the affirmative by not less than fifty-one per cent of the total votes cast."-[Dr Lee Siew Choh.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is the accepted principle in any institution that only the majority can truly represent the view of that particular institution. That majority especially when it concerns a national matter is fifty-one per cent. Without this provision, Sir, there will be a danger of the minority imposing its will on the majority and, as we all know, Sir, if a minority imposes its will on the majority, then it is a dictatorship. I am strengthened in my belief, Sir, by a chance remark of the Minister for Finance when he said, if the majority is slim and the results close, then it would be very courageous for any Government to claim that a referendum is carried. It is a very important principle, Sir, and I am glad that the Minister for Finance, on that particular occasion, expressed his views so clearly, because we believe that the minority view must not be covered up and dressed up and presented as a majority view. It is because of this majority principle on national matters that you have safeguards in general elections every few years. Sir, we realise that with the passing of clause 29 the Government can easily turn a minority into a majority. I do not think we need go over old ground, but I would nevertheless urge that the Ministers at least listen to reason and logic on this occasion before they carry all of Singapore along with them in their plunge to the depths of doom and perdition. I am also strengthened in my contention by the words of the Minister for Finance on another occasion when he said that on any referendum the will of the majority must be demonstrated beyond all doubt, because, according to the Minister for Finance, no proposition can be said to have the support of the people unless it is supported by the majority of the people beyond all doubt. To push through a national issue without obtaining the genuine support of the majority of the people of Singapore will not only be a mockery of democracy, but will, in fact, kill democracy in Singapore. I may even say this, Sir, that on many national issues of less importance, governments have resigned and gone back to the people for a new mandate, but it looks as if the P.A.P. Ministers are so desperate and want to cling to power so very much that they think only of themselves and not of the people of Singapore. Merger, as everybody knows, is a major national issue; it concerns everyone of us in Singapore and future generations to come. The P.A.P. have always boasted from the very first day, when they started on their merger negotiations with the Federation Government, that their White Paper merger proposals have the support of the people. I do not see any reason why they should fear to put it to the test and make sure that their merger proposals have the support of the majority of the people of Singapore, at least fifty-one per cent. 7.00 p.m. I was greatly amused, Sir, seeing the way the Government Ministers have been going about, how the Minister for Education not so very long ago, after his interview with a school boy in a ward of the General Hospital, gave a statement to the Press - I have not got the newspaper with me, Sir, but I can refer you to the Straits Times of the 23rd of May, page 18, column 3, these are the words which I have copied down: 'The Minister for Education said, "Democracy will only work where the views of the majority are accepted by the people and where the views of the minority are not pushed down the throats of others.".' I heartily agree with him, Sir, and I only hope that the other Ministers will share the same views as the Minister for Education. Unless they accept our amendment, it looks as if they will be pushing down the throats of others their merger proposals. The Minister for Education further stated that only Fascists and Communists in the minority would like to force their views on the majority. Sir, these are noble sentiments and nobody could disagree with him, but look what has happened today. The Government already intends to turn a minority into a majority through their clause 29. Another short sentence of the Minister for Education - he said: 'It is necessary for everyone to maintain democracy in Singapore-' We all agree - 'and to stand up for their rights and not be cowed by threats and intimidation.' Noble words, Sir, and now we in the Opposition are standing for the rights of democracy. Let us hope the Ministers of the Government will not make use of their police and their Special Branch to coerce us by threats and intimidation. Sir, may I refer you to the transcript of the 16th of March? It was the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill and the Prime Minister said, in page 31, third paragraph [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 284]: 'A referendum is a process - these are carefully chosen words for the benefit of the Member for Queenstown - [Well, I have listened, and I am quoting him to remind him of the words he told me, Sir] by which we ascertain the wishes of the majority of the people.' And then further down he said it again: 'I am reasonably confident that this accords with the wishes of the majority of the people.' Again: 'But if it so happens that the majority of the people want a different mode and manner . Again "the majority", Sir. These are very important words and the Prime Minister stressed the meaning of a referendum for my special benefit. "Those are the carefully chosen words for the benefit of the Member for Queenstown". Now, may I refer you again, Sir, to the 18th of April when the Prime Minister spoke on a motion by the Member for Anson. It is on page 34, the third paragraph [Vol. 17, No. 9, col. 894]: 'It is the duty of the Government to ascertain the will of the majority.' "The will of the majority". "It is the duty of the Government to ascertain the will of the majority." I hope the Prime Minister will not go back on those words because, according to the Minister for Finance, these are all solemn words not lightly spoken and "these are words that resulted from perfect co-ordination between the brain and the tongue", according to the Minister for Health and Law. And of course only the Prime Minister could do a thing like that - nobody else! Now, Sir, may I refer you to what the Minister for Health and Law himself said. I refer to column 209, of 11th May, Sir. He told us about the Statesman's Year-Book for 1958, issued by MacMillan & Co. Ltd. There is this report, he said: '"Two referenda were held. In the first referendum (June 1948) the three forms of government submitted to the people were: commission of government or 5 years [At that time I think Newfoundland was a Crown Colony], confederation with Canada and responsible government as it existed in 1933." Then further down he said: '"No one form of government received a clear majority of the votes polled," '-

Is it a quotation from a Report?

Yes, Sir.

It should be made clear that the Minister was reading a quotation from a Report.

This is a quotation by the Minister for Health and Law*. * From the Official Report of the Select Committee on the Singapore National Referendum Bill, No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962. '"No one form of government received a clear majority of the votes polled, and commission of government, receiving the fewest votes, was eliminated." And then he further explained: 'As a result of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, they had to hold a second referendum.' '"In the second referendum (July 1948) confederation with Canada received 78,408 and responsible government 71,464 votes."' After this, he said these very important words: 'So it appears, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in the first referendum in June 1948, three questions were posed to the electorate and each elector had to make a choice of one. As there was not a clear majority [these are very important words "As there was not a clear majority"] in that first referendum for any one of the three issues, a second referendum was held.' In other words, Sir, in the case of Newfoundland they had two referenda. In the first one that was held, there was no clear majority. And because there was no clear majority, a second one had to be held to make sure that there was a clear majority on any one of the propositions put to the people. Then in column 210, the Member for Anson said: 'Arising out of that, it reinforces the argument. You see, Sir, it is a fair inference to say that that referendum must be in pursuance of the law which required a clear majority of votes east in respect of one of the issues and, not having got that, they had to have a second referendum.'. This should be clearly understood by the Minister for Health and Law. And he is such an expert that he had to be quoted as a reference by the Minister for Finance!

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

Sir, I just want to know whether the Member for Queenstown would count in the total number of votes cast the blank votes as well. Or would he say that the only votes to be considered would be the valid votes - positive votes; either yes or no - for any one of the alternatives? 7.15 p.m.

You see, Sir, in the case of Canada and Newfoundland, they never forced them to choose some unacceptable alternative. They gave them alternatives which they thought were acceptable and if the people did not accept them, they could say no. In our particular case in Singapore, the P.A.P. Government do not want to give us, and instead want to deny us, the right to say no.

On a point of elucidation.

I suppose the Minister could make a speech later on. It would be rather interesting.

I want to quote the words of these illustrious Ministers just to show that they have been eating their own words. They say one thing but they mean another thing. All the time they say that this is a general Referendum Bill but now they officially admit that this is going to be a specific Referendum Bill.

On a point of elucidation.

Order. I think I had better acquaint the Minister for Finance of the relevant Standing Order on the question of elucidation. I think he really did not rise on a point of elucidation on the speech being made. He was anticipating probably what he himself was going to say. Standing Order 47 reads: 'No Member shall interrupt another Member except -

May I then carry on, Sir? In col. 211 of the same day, 11th May.

He has not answered my question.

The Minister for Health and Law who always shows perfect co-ordination between his tongue and brain, says, "in the case of amendments to the Constitution of Australia, these amendments are put to the electorate and they must be supported by a majority of the electorate..." - these are words quoted by the Minister for Health and Law - "as well as by a majority of the States." This is a most interesting bit of information which, of course, I need not pursue. In the same column, the Member for Anson - 2 paragraphs down - said: "It is interesting to notice that in Australia, Sir, where there is an amendment to the constitution, it is the majority of votes cast, not a majority of valid votes." I think that answers the question which the Minister for Finance earlier on asked.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

If the Member will give way. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

That speech - was it from Hansard, or was that an addition?

He has just quoted the Member for Anson.

You see, Sir, they did not have a P.A.P. Government there and they never provided a clause for blank votes.

Nor a Barisan either.

Sir, the next paragraph is very interesting, because it comes from you.

Me?

The Chairman said: 'There is another interesting method adopted in South Australia. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance of looking at it. This is the case where the resolutions submitted are - this is again about closing hours of bar-rooms - that the hours should be (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. [This is the most interesting part, Sir.] The curious method adopted was: "If the votes recorded in favour of resolution (a) constitute a majority of the votes recorded at the referendum, resolution (a) shall be regarded as carried; if the votes recorded in favour of resolution (a) do not constitute a majority of the votes recorded, those recorded in favour of resolution (a), shall be added to those recorded in favour of resolution (b) . . .". and so on.' Until they get a clear majority of 51 per cent. Then, Sir, may I refer you to col. 230?

Order. I think the hon. Member should make it quite clear, that the Chairman then was just reading from a report and in that report there was nothing said about 51 per cent.

But, Sir, it is a clear majority. Any clear majority means at least 51 per cent.

Nonsense!

Order.

May I refer you again, Sir, to col. 230, on the same day, when the Minister for Health and Law said: 'The precedent most appropriate for our purposes would be the referendum held in Newfoundland. There it was quite clear that three questions and later two questions were posed and the voter was asked to state what sort of constitutional arrangements he would like to have...'. I do not think I need read further, Sir, I have earlier on quoted the same incident of the Newfoundland referendum, and there two referenda had to be held because the first one did not give a clear-cut majority. Only the second one gave a clear-cut majority, where one had 78,000 votes and the other one had 71,000 votes. It is a pity the Minister for Finance has run away.

Order. Why does the Member for Queenstown use expressions which might be offensive? The Minister for Finance has not run away. He has walked out of this Chamber. He is entitled to do that, just as the Member for Queenstown is entitled to do that.

It is a pity that he has walked away, because I intend to quote him this time. He should be here to listen to it. It is in col. 300 of the 15th of May [Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 5 dated 15th May, 1962]. And it is this paragraph that I referred to as having strengthened my conviction that he possibly would admit the logic and common sense of our argument and maybe accede to our amendment. The Minister for Finance says: 'I should imagine, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the result of the referendum were so close as to show a difference of, say, 300 votes one way or the other, it would be a very audacious government to say one way or the other, because the population has, for practical purposes, been split into half. I think the best way and the reasonable thing for the government to do, under the circumstances, is either to hold another referendum or just leave matters at the status quo.' In other words, if there is no clear-cut majority. Sir, it would be a most audacious government to claim that the referendum has been carried one way or the other. And 300 votes is not good enough for the Minister for Finance. Therefore, I propose, and he will admit, that at least 51 per cent would be the minimum for a clear-cut majority. I may also mention here from the "Plebeian", 8th of June, on page 3, an article by the Member for Anson. He was quoting - it is only a short paragraph - a few lines. It is in col. 2. The Member for Anson said, "I found in Hitler's law, on the 14th of July 1933, under which three referendums were held in 1933, 1934 and 1938 - 7.30 p.m. The following is in section 3: "The majority of the votes for or against in a particular issue decides the result of the plebiscite. Not even Hitler had the gall to be openly dishonest, at least in this matter, as the P.A.P. Government. The P.A.P. can take credit for out-Hitlering Hitler in one aspect of public dishonesty.'

Order. I take it then that the Member for Anson is not taking part in this debate, as the Member is now quoting the Member for Anson, who is a Member of this Assembly. Unless the Member can say the same words in his own words, I do not think it is right for the Member to read the opinion of a Member of this Assembly verbatim.

I merely quote, Sir, to show you the quotation of Hitler's law of 1933. Therefore, all this shows that the Prime Minister, the Ministers for Home Affairs, for Health and Law, and for Finance all recognise the logic of this 51 per cent principle. Because the essence of democracy is that the Government must be truly representative of the majority will of the people. I have explained to you that, because any government should represent the majority will of the people, we have this system of periodic elections. Under any circumstances, the simplest majority is fifty-one per cent. Therefore, if the Government are fair and just, they have no reason not to accept our amendment. Our claims are not excessive. They are perfectly reasonable, especially when our contentions are reinforced by these words of the Minister for Finance when he said that if the majority was slim, and the result was close, then the Government would be very courageous indeed if they ever claimed that the referendum was carried. The P.A.P. have repeatedly said that they will follow the will of the people. So there is no need to fear this fifty-one per cent provision, and they need not baulk at and reject it. Let them make certain and demonstrate that they really accept the will of the majority of the people. The White Paper which they will be posing as one of the questions to the people has been much publicised. Day in and day out they say what a good thing it is over Radio P.A.P. and Rediffusion. Now is the time to put it to the test and to show the people that their merger proposals really have the support of the people. May I also reinforce my argument by reminding the House that any constitutional change will need at least a two-thirds majority? And may I refer you, Sir, to section 105 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council: 'The Assembly may, by law enacted under this Order, amend, add to, replace or revoke any of the provisions of this Order set out in the first column of the Third Schedule to this Order to the extent specified in the second column of that Schedule: Provided that no Bill for that purpose shall be deemed to be passed unless at the final vote thereon it has received the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all the Members of the Assembly.' In this particular case, Sir, it is not just the case of Members voting, but of the total number of Members in the Assembly and it is laid down that it should be two-thirds and not just 51 per cent. Sir, what I ask for -

Something extra.

I think, Sir, I can quote precedents in many places of the world, in Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, France, Jamaica, Newfoundland. But I would like to say, Sir, that this 51 per cent principle is also intimately related to what we said a few days ago when we were debating clause 5, namely, that this 51 per cent is related to Chyuen Min Fu Chyueh because Chyuen Mm Fu Chyueh says that if any law or Bill has been passed in the Assembly, it must be taken to the people for their endorsement, and endorsement means at least 51 per cent support from the people of Singapore. In the case of Switzerland, Bills cannot become laws unless they have the majority support of 51 per cent. In the case of Jamaica, may I refer you, Sir, to column 480 at the top. I was referring to the Referendum Federation Law, 1960, section 3, subsection (3), and the quotation is as follows: 'For the purpose of determining under this section the opinion of the people of Jamaica regard shall be had of the opinion expressed by a majority of the electors voting at the referendum Of the electors voting - majority, that is, of course, 51 per cent minimum. Then, further down, Sir, I also quoted from the Statesman's Year-Book of 1958 which again tells you that it is a case of the majority of all electors voting. Then, at the bottom of the same column 480, it specifically explains how in South Australia a majority is constituted: 'For the purposes of ascertaining the result a majority shall be deemed to mean any number which is more than half the total number of votes recorded:'. This is a clear indication that in any majority it must be 51 per cent. May I quote the last referendum held in Australia in 1949. I do not have the actual quotation, Sir, but the referendum held on that particular occasion was about the sale of liquor in hotel bars and the majority there was again stated to be at least more than half. I do not think I want to take the time of the House any further-

Thank you.

- except to remind the Ministers sitting opposite that our merger issue is a national issue. We cannot allow only a tiny minority of people, say ten per cent, to impose their will and decide the fate of the vast majority - 90 per cent - of the people. If they want to impose the will of the minority on the majority, then it is clear dictatorship and not democracy. Let us play the game according to the rules - Queensberry Rules, not Siamese boxing-

Queenstown rules!

But it looks as if the P.A.P. only use Siamese boxing. When we proposed this 51 per cent provision, the Government tried to use this to justify their blank paper clause. They tried to draw a red herring across the path by saying that since we want to claim blank votes as negative votes, therefore, they have every justification to claim blank votes as positive votes. I thought I gave the explanation the other night and I did not talk of positive or negative votes. The blanks to us simply mean non-supporting.

Also not opposing.

To make sure that they do not try to draw more red herrings across the path, let us remind the Minister for Finance that their blank paper clause was introduced before the Second Reading, whereas our 51 per cent clause was introduced only after Select Committee and again today. I do not know, Sir, but today we find the Government using all sorts of methods to impose their minority will on the majority of the people. Opposition from all walks of life, all sections of the people, all strata of society, has been voiced against the undemocratic and dishonest provisions in this Bill. The political Parties outside together with the Workers' Party and the Barisan Sosialis inside this Assembly have formed the Council of Joint Action.

Order. I think we are now going round in circles. Let us now concentrate on this 51 per cent and let us get on with it.

I realise the gravity of the situation facing us, but I have just received news that the Government have banned the People's National Convention that the Council of Joint Action intend to hold tomorrow.

On a point of order. What has that got to do with the new clause we are now talking about?

The answer is that it has nothing at all to do with this new clause before us. Let us concentrate on this 51 per cent.

Nothing at all, Sir, true-

Order. If the Member for Queenstown wishes to mention that, I suppose he can slip it in when we are dealing with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Yes, Sir, I just want to wind up with one sentence, namely; that in spite of majority opposition both inside and outside this House, the Government still insist on imposing their tiny minority will on the majority of the people of Singapore. 7.45 p.m.

I do not want to waste the time of the House on this completely futile amendment. However, I hope to spend the next few minutes trying to teach the Member for Queenstown simple arithmetic, which he should have learned in his primary school. Now, the Member for Queenstown imagines or believes that a simple majority means fifty-one per cent. How a professional person of his standing with a University education can make such stupid mistakes is beyond my comprehension!

You do not understand anything. The Chairman (Mr Mammen): Order.

Sir, I am trying to give him a simple lesson to show that a simple majority does not mean 51 per cent. I made attempts in Select Committee but I failed. So I will make another attempt to give the Member for Queenstown a very simple lesson in arithmetic. Possibly, I may not succeed. You see, Mr Mammen, Sir, there are uncivilised tribes in the world who cannot count beyond the number 2. 'They count one, there is a word for 'two', and for three onwards they have just the word "many". It seems to me that so far as counting numbers is concerned, the Member for Queenstown is not on the level of intellectual comprehension of numbers. He is not much better than those primitive tribes who cannot count beyond the number 2.

You said the same thing in Select Committee.

Order.

Say something new.

Order.

This is very rich, Mr Mammen, Sir, coming from this person who has been repeating his arguments day in and day out, either in the Assembly, in Select Committee, in radio forums and in mass meetings.

You do not like our mass meetings.

Nobody attends your mass meetings.

Order. It would be better for the Minister for Finance to ignore these interjections and concentrate on this new clause.

Well, Sir, you see in the techniques of teaching one way to deliver a lecture - or hoping that the point the teacher wants to make will be understood by those who are being taught, but the skull of the Member for Queenstown is so thick-

Yes.

- that I think that method of teaching will not work. In Select Committee he already admitted his skull was so thick that he could not understand the simplest propositions we were trying to put to him. [lnterruption]

Order.

Now, Mr Mammen, Sir, I shall treat him for what he really is, that is, I shall assume - and I think, in this instance, with every justification - that the level of his intellectual understanding is equivalent to that of a child of eight. Therefore, in trying to convince him that a simple majority does not mean 51 per cent, I intend, with your kind permission, Mr Mammen, Sir, to ask him a few questions-

25 versus 26?

Order.

- and by the process of -

Order. I have already indicated that this debate is getting a little out of hand. May I remind Members of Standing Order No. 47 (a), that while a Member is speaking, all other Members shall be silent and shall not make interruptions except as permitted under the provisions of Standing Order No. 47, that is, interruptions.

Sir, this is simple arithmetic. Let me get on with it. Supposing there are ten people. Six vote "Yes", four vote "No". Where is the majority? Is it not, yes or no?

Order. I think the Minister is inviting debate on this. The Minister for Finance is not supposed to put questions straight, across to the Member on the opposite side. Whatever he thinks he wants to put across, he can put it to the Chairman. If lie is going to ask yes or no, I think we shall not be able to end this debate at all.

Mr Mammen, but as I have said- An hon. Member: Ask the Chair.

Certainly, as I have said, I am faced with this extremely difficult problem of trying to convince a man who has got the brains of a child of eight of a simple proposition in arithmetic. However, since you have ruled that I cannot ask him directly, I shall ask him indirectly. Now, let us take a case where ten people are voting. Six say "Yes", four say "No". An hon. Member: We cannot say "No" here.

There is a simple majority of one An hon. Member: Of 60 per cent.

All right, a simple majority of - [Interruption]

Order.

- 60 per cent of the votes cast. Let us go in stages from 10, say, to 100 and at great risk of taxing the intellectual capacity of the Member for Queenstown, I will say if 100 people vote and if 51 people vote "Yes" and 49 people vote "No", then there is a majority of "Yes". I see the light of comprehension dawning on his face, Mr Mammen, Sir. When there are 100 people voting, 51, say, vote "Yes", 49 vote "No", then 51 per cent of the votes cast are "Yes". So up to 100 votes the Member for Queenstown is quite right. A simple majority means 51 votes. Now, supposing we go through this exercise just one more stage, and I do beg of the Member for Queenstown to concentrate very carefully on this argument. Supposing 1,000 people vote, and supposing 501 vote "Yes"; is that a simple majority or is that not a simple majority?

You want me to say something?

Yes, please.

Mr Mammen, Sir, just because he has gone to the London School of Economics, the Minister for Finance thinks he is very smart.

Order. I hope the Minister for Finance will not invite this kind of debate with the Opposition side. Please concentrate on the new clause.

Indeed I am concentrating. I am trying to say that a simple majority is not 51 per cent. I am having considerable difficulty from the Member for Queenstown to understand this proposition which I thought would be self-evident to anyone who has passed Primary Five, but he has clearly not understood it. Democracy demands that all issues should be made quite clear. So with your permission, Mr Mammen. Sir, I shall continue with this lesson in simple arithmetic to convince the Member for Queenstown beyond all doubt that a simple majority does not mean 51 per cent. If I have made this point clear to the Member for Queenstown, then I think Mr Mammen, Sir, a great blow has been struck for democracy. Now, so far we have gone up to 100. An hon. Member: 1,000. 8.00 p.m.

We have not finished with the argument of 1,000. 501 persons vote "Yes", 499 vote "No". Now, is that a simple majority or is that not a simple majority? I have asked a simple question, Mr Mammen, Sir, which admits of a "yes" or "no" answer - the sort of question the Member for Queenstown likes. Now, I say if he wants to challenge me, I am prepared to sit down and listen to his other point of view. If you have 1,000 voters, 501 vote "Yes", 499 vote "No", I say that there has been a simple majority, but there has been less than 51 per cent. The light of comprehension dawns on his mind, Mr Speaker, Sir. So, if that is the case, need we go to 10,000, need we go to 100,000, need we go to 600,000? I think it is completely unnecessary, Mr Mammen, Sir. Obviously, the Member for Queenstown now concedes that a simple majority does not mean 51 per cent. He has taken 45 minutes of the time of this House on this completely erroneous, this simple fallacy which a schoolboy in the fourth standard would be ashamed to make. So we have cleared this point, Mr Mammen, Sir, that a simple majority does not mean 51 per cent. And I say a signal victory has been struck in the cause of democracy, because the Member for Queenstown acknowledges this fact. Throughout the debate in Select Committee, everyone was trying to convince him that that was not so; and when it came to the vote, he was the only one in support of this proposition. Now, the other point I want to make is blank votes. You will recall, Mr Mammen, Sir, that we asked him if he preferred a simple majority of all votes cast or a simple majority of the effective votes cast. As usual, we got a lot of waffle from the Member for Queenstown from which I drew the inference - and you can correct me if I am wrong - that he meant all votes cast, whether "Yes" or "No", whether "a" or "b" or "c" or blank votes. He is admitting -

Admit what? Say something.

Order. I think the Minister for Finance should set an example. [Mr Marshall walked out and tripped over some wiring.]

I beg your pardon, Mr Mammen, Sir, but I saw the Member for Anson in such distress that I thought I should not continue speaking until he is seen safely through this Chamber. Now, it is obvious from what the Member for Queenstown says that he wants blank votes to count as anti-merger votes. That is the simple, logical and inescapable inference from what he says. He says blank votes mean "no support" votes. Will he not agree also that blank votes mean "no oppose" votes - if I can use the sort of grammar which he is now accustomed to use grammar.

Barisan grammar.

Barisan grammar. Blank votes, no support; blank votes also mean no oppose. It is a simple proposition. I am glad to hear from the Member for Queenstown two things. First, he acknowledges that a simple majority does not mean 51 per cent; second, blank votes do not mean that the votes are anti-merger.

Mr Mammen, Sir, the Minister for Finance is so good at arithmetic that he does not even know when he has lost one Member. He does not know that 26 has become 25. Obviously, that is too difficult for him to comprehend. Sir, he gave us some rigmarole about simple majority and things like that. I wish he had listened to what I said when I started, and I said that I was strengthened in my belief by what the Minister for Finance himself had said. I refer you again, Sir, to col. 300 of the Official Report of the Select Committee of 15th May, 1962. I have already indicated to you and enumerated so many instances of a clear-cut majority. This is what the Minister for Finance said in col. 300: 'I should imagine, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the result of the referendum were so close as to show a difference of, say, 300 votes one way or the other, it would be a very audacious government to say one way or the other, because the population has, for practical purposes, been split into half. I think the best way and the reasonable thing for the government to do, under the circumstances, is either to hold another referendum or just leave matters at the status quo.' Sir, these words clearly show that the Minister for Finance admits that if it is a case of just one or two or three or four majority out of a large number, then it is not considered a majority even 300, according to the Minister for Finance, is not considered to be a majority of any consequence. He has recommended that under those circumstances, we either hold another referendum or leave matters just at the status quo. This is a clear admission from the Minister for Finance himself, and it is a pity that he never heard me when I first began, otherwise he would not have queried and quoted all those small piddling figures. What we want is a clear-cut majority. If it is the Minister's contention that he does not like the figure 51 per cent, can he give me an assurance that he will not consider the referendum carried unless there is a majority? Can he give us that assurance? I would like an answer before I carry on. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Dr Lee.

Would the Minister care to give an explanation? I would not mind sitting down again, Sir-

The Minister will give a reply at the appropriate time.

- because this is a very interesting question. All I want is a majority. If he thinks 51 per cent is a wrong figure, let him amend it to any majority. Surely he does not want to carry through a national matter on a minority view. Is he trying to say that it is correct to impose the minority will on the majority of the people? Let him give us a categorical answer. If he does not like 51 per cent, he can amend it and make it 52 per cent. If he does not like 52, he can make it 60, 70, or 80, or just say any majority with a plus one. Say something. I am prepared to accept. Let him give us that assurance, Sir. Now, I said that he was trying to draw a red herring across the path by saying that blank votes are negative votes. I have no wish to repeat what I said the other night, but he is asking me to do so again. This explanation or this supposition of the Minister for Finance is just an excuse to justify the P.A.P. for their pinching blank votes as votes for the Government. I have already explained to you, Sir, that this 51 per cent principle has nothing to do with blank votes. Any important national matter must have at least 51 per cent or a clear majority - if he does not like the words "51 per cent", "a clear majority" - to indicate that that issue has the support of the majority of the people of Singapore. It is a very simple proposition, it has nothing to do with blank votes one way or the other. However, just to take him on his argument that blank votes are supposed to be anti-government votes. According to the questions that are going to be posed to the people - one is the P.A.P. merger and one is the so-called complete merger - both of them are on merger. I am telling the Minister that blank votes do not mean anti-a or anti-b. If the Minister wants to claim that they are anti-P.A.P. merger votes, similarly they can be anti-b, c, d, e, f and g proposition votes. Therefore, supporters of the other propositions b, c, d, e, f and g, can similarly claim that they are anti- b, c, d, e, f and g votes. Can they not see their own illogical argument? That has nothing to do with the 51 per cent principle, the majority principle.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I would like to remind the Member for Queenstown of what his colleague in the Opposition said last night. I am referring, of course, to the Member for Hong Lim, who understands this matter much more clearly than the Member for Queenstown. He said the result of this referendum was a foregone conclusion 90 per cent-

Yes, because of the rigging.

Order.

- 90 per cent, in his estimation, not mine -

You told me 95 per cent.

Order. If the Member for Queenstown wants to stand on a point of elucidation or information, the Minister for Finance will probably give way. This is not the way to get information from the Minister for Finance. Dr Lee, on a point of information?

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Just to remind the Minister for Finance, he himself told me when I asked him what chances the P.A.P. had in this referendum that they were going to win by 95 per cent. Now that you know what the "blank" clause means, surely you can expect even 100 per cent - not 95 per cent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am quite glad that the Member for Queenstown knows his goose is cooked! He is in a zugzwang - there is no way whatsoever for him and his Party to frustrate merger.

That is what you think.

Certainly, Mr Mammen, Sir. Now, to deal with the quotation of my remarks. I said that - and I meant it - if it is a matter of 200 to 300 votes either way in a referendum in which some 600,000 votes are cast, then obviously no clear-cut decision has been reached. But this is a matter of judgment and a matter of policy of the Government. It is not a matter of legislation. If the Member for Queenstown makes it a matter of legislation, and instead of 51 per cent, let us say a majority of the votes, then I think we would have been spared all these tedious arguments on what a clear majority means. But it is obvious that somewhere in the process of his education, he has got his understanding of simple arithmetic mixed up, and therefore we are subjected to an hour of completely unnecessary argument. As regards blank votes, Mr Mammen, Sir, he does not understand why we ask him whether he wants to pinch blank votes. He thinks it is just a rhetorical question or that we are arranging it in order to provide an excuse for our clauses 28 and 29. But every time they speak about blank votes, i.e. blank votes should count as anti-merger votes, it provides further proof that it is the intention of the Barisan Sosialis to induce people to cast blank votes in this referendum.

Is that something new?

Nothing new. Mr Mammen, Sir, when this clause on blank votes was -

Order. I think the Minister for Finance is going back. We are now discussing this new clause, and if the Minister for Finance wants to bring in these clauses 28 and 29, I say it would be proper for him to bring them up on the Third Reading of the Bill. So perhaps it will be better for the Minister for Finance to leave out that point and come back to this new clause. Otherwise he is inviting more debate on the blank votes which has already been disposed of.

I am mentioning this not to justify our stand on the blank votes, because, as you say, Mr Mammen, Sir, that has already been gone into in the debate on clauses 28 and 29. But I am making a new point here following on what the Member for Queenstown said. He said quite a lot of words on what blank votes mean. All I am saying is that every time the Barisan Sosialis make a statement on blank votes, it all goes to prove their evil intention to confuse people into casting blank votes. And that was the point that was not understood when we put our new clause on blank votes. That was not understood by the general public, and I am very glad-

What about the majority principle? Come on!

And we have been inviting their opinion on blank votes. On the majority principle, Mr Mammen, Sir, surely it is obvious that if he wants an assurance, I will give him an assurance. But as I said, his own colleague in the Opposition said that a thumping majority is not a matter of 50.001 per cent or 51 per cent but in the region of 90 per cent. And he says "95" all right, we will settle for 85 per cent if he wants.

Give two sides of the point. 8.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Mammen, Sir, in moving the introduction of this new clause, our Party Chairman has clearly said that the Government should get the consent of the majority of the people. Our Prime Minister, Mr Lee, is a legal expert. Perhaps that is why he wants to juggle, and our economist, the Minister for Finance, has also indulged in this juggling of -

Order. From what I have heard through the interpretation, the Member for Upper Serangoon mentioned "Mr Lee, a legal expert." May I ask him whether he is referring to any Member of this Assembly?

Yes.

The Prime Minister.

In that case, he must refer to that Member as "the Prime Minister".

(In Mandarin): I find it necessary to point out to the Minister for Finance a little while ago about the examples quoted by him - when 10 per cent of the people cast their votes, or when 100 per cent cast, or when 100,000 people cast their votes or when 10,000 or 100,000 people cast their votes. He gave these examples to show that 51 per cent is, in fact, not 51 per cent, but there is one common characteristic in our argument, which is that the people casting affirmative votes should be more than half of those casting votes, and the Minister for Finance will not be able to refute this argument. The common characteristic is that the votes cast in the affirmative should be over half. That is why we have mentioned 51 per cent to provide for that fact. That is a very logical argument and is in keeping with common sense. That also is our principle in relation to this amendment. Our contention is that as the matter is in relation to our constitutional arrangements, it should get the support and consent of more than half of the electorate before it can be put into effect. Our Party Chairman has just now quoted the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council to show that f you want to amend certain sections of the Constitution, it needs a two-thirds majority of votes in the Assembly before an amendment can be carried, in the Federation there are also examples. Recently the Government of the Federation also introduced certain amendments to their Constitution. But there are also provisions saying that although a two-thirds majority will not be required in future, the affirmative votes should be more than half of the total number. The question facing us is more serious than the other questions. That is why our request for 51 per cent of the votes cast in the affirmative is very reasonable and very logical. I would like here to remind politicians in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya that if the Federation / Singapore constitutional arrangements cannot get the positive affirmative support of more than half of the people, then the consequences will be bad. I give an example. I mention the United Arab Republic as an example to show how the United Arab Republic was later on divided again. That is a lesson from history.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I have already pointed out in the Select Committee proceedings that in a by-election or in a general election in a constituency where the votes are split even, an additional vote is given by lot and the candidate who is lucky enough to get this additional vote is returned as the candidate for that particular constituency. This is so laid down in section 47 (8) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Furthermore, in a constituency, if there are, say, three candidates, it is also possible for the votes to be split almost even amongst these three candidates. The one who gets the highest number of votes is returned for that particular constituency. But in the case of a referendum, anything that is more than half - that is what the Minister for Finance has said just now - would be considered to be a simple majority. We cannot work on percentages like 51 or 52 or 53.

I am surprised at the examples given by the Minister for Health and Law. He brought up that example in the Select Committee and it was rebutted. The comparison is no comparison at all. He is bringing up the example of a by-election concerning the individual, and he wants to compare it with a national matter that concerns 1.7 million people in the whole of Singapore. What sort of a comparison is that? But in spite of that, until now they have not even answered our questions. If they do not like the words "51 per cent", are they willing to accept the principle that it must be a clear-cut majority? If they are willing to accept, let them say so. Let them say so categorically in this Chamber. If 51 per cent is not acceptable, we can come to certain arrangements. We will let them make the amendment. As long as it is a clear majority - if it is 60 per cent - good. Whatever it is. But it must be the majority because only then can you say that you have the majority support of the people. In no other way can you say that you have the majority support of the people. I have quoted the sayings of all the Ministers: the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Health and Law, and even the Minister for Education. I quoted all of them, Sir, a little while back. Are they going to live up to their words or are they going to eat their words again? Let them give us a categorical answer.

Just to remind the Member that the Minister for Finance has already told him that this is a sort of provision that cannot be written into the Bill itself. He said just now in this Assembly that there might be 620,000 people voting. If the difference was about 300, it would have to be left to the good sense of the Government in matters like this. But he anticipated that there would be a return which is very much more than, say, 50 per cent. 8.30 p.m.

Mr Mammen, Sir, I quoted precedents for him, from Australia, from South Australia, from Newfoundland, from Jamaica. Or did he not hear them? Does he want me to repeat all that again? What does he mean by matters of judgment for the Government - "cannot be written into the law"? Is it just to allow the P.A.P. flexibility for dishonest maneuver, according to the words of the Member for Cairnhill; flexibility for dishonest manoeuvre? Why cannot they stand up like men and say, "Yes, a majority." Question put, "That the clause be read a Second time."

Division. The Committee divided: Ayes, 14; Noes, 23; Absent, 14. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Sun Wing. Mohammad Akib. Fung Yin Ching, Buang bin Miss. Omar Junid. Lee Siew Choh. Byrne, K. M. Leong Keng Seng. Chan Chee Seng. Lin You Eng. Chan Choy Siong, Low Por Tuck. Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Chor Yeok Eng. Ong Chang Sam. 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. Mammen, John. Absent. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Abdul Hamid bin Mohd. Ariff bin Haji Jumat. Suradi. Ahmad bin M. Ismail Rahim. Ibrahim. Ong Pang Boon. Hoe Puay Choo, Ramaswamy, S. Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Koh, C. H. Toh Chin Chye. Lee Kuan Yew. Wee Toon Boon. Lim Yew Hock. Yaacob bin Lingam, S. V. Mohamed. Marshall, David. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent.

(contd) Ong Eng Guan. Rajah, A. P. Rajaratnam, S. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Thio Chan Bee. Question accordingly negatived. New Clause (A) accordingly disagreed to.

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 thirty-five minutes past nine. Sitting accordingly suspended at 8.35 p.m. until 9.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 9.35 p.m.

Debate in Committee resumed.

New Clause (B) - 'Part VI. DURATION. Duration. This Ordinance shall cease to have effect on the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.'.-[Mr Ong Pang Boon]. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, throughout the early part of the debate on this Bill, Opposition Members have criticised the bill for being a general Bill. They were of the opinion that this National Referendum Bill should be a specific Bill dealing with the current merger issue. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said a few days ago that since it is the wish of the Opposition that this Bill should be a specific one, I now move this present amendment.

Now, this is an endless round of ramming falsehoods down the throats that never seem to go parched for more falsehoods. We did not criticise the Bill because it was a general Bill. We pointed out the falsehoods from the Front Bench - which I shall not repeat at this stage because I shall be coming to them - where first the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the Second Reading and then in April told us that it is a specific Bill, and then the Minster for Law, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Finance told us that it is a general Bill and shut us off a proper discussion on the proper principle of the Bill in Select Committee. And back into this Assembly, Sir, for the first two days, they attempted to shut us off again. We did not say we wanted this Bill to be a specific Bill. We said - , again, Sir, in order not to tire you, I shall not be repeating myself because I shall be coming to it at the Third Reading - that we wanted a specific Bill on proper constitutional principles to deal with a specific issue. Can the Minister tell us what this inelegant clause means? What does merger mean to him? Is it a deer or a horse?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the new clause is so simple that the meaning is obvious to everybody.

Confused.

Order.

The Bill merely says that this Ordinance shall cease to have effect on the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. When merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya has taken place, this Bill ceases to have any effect.

We will have another referendum on smoking! [Interruption]

I am waiting for the Minister for Law to complete his unruly interjections. I think he is beginning to have no respect for the Chair.

I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee has considered the Bill on recommittal and has made amendments thereto.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is an abortion fathered by dishonesty out of ineptitude. I should like to adopt the words of a group of organisations of our intellectual youth - 39 of them, Sir, headed by the Nanyang University Graduates Guild, the Singapore University Socialist Club, the Singapore Polytechnic Political Society, the Nanyang University Students Union and the Nanyang University Political Science Society - when they say in their memorandum: 'We wish to point out that the proposed Referendum Bill by its very nature will pave the way for an oppressive and tyrannical system which will dig the grave of parliamentary democracy.'. Today, Mr Speaker, marks the beginning of the end of that parliamentary democracy and this is a rearguard action that we are fighting. I move to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof- 'this Assembly, conscious that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of holding a Referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people in relation to the issue of reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, declines to give it a third reading on the ground that the provisions therein are inappropriate and inadequate for that purpose.'. Mr Speaker, you may recognise that my amendment follows closely the wording of a motion approved by this Assembly at the instance of the Deputy Prime Minister on the 18th of April to be found at page 48 of the revised transcript of that date [Vol. 17, No. 9, col. 914]. It was passed by 23 Government votes to 16 Opposition. The operative words of that motion are: 'welcomes the Government's introduction of the Singapore National Referendum Bill in order to hold a referendum to ascertain [I emphasise the word "ascertain"] the wishes of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya'. This was a Government amendment which negated my motion and it was they who passed it. It became a motion of this House. I shall first deal with the manner in which the Government has played ducks and drakes with this House to prevent this House from producing a coherent law on the basis of a coherent policy. The Bill, on Second Reading, was treated by the Government and understood by the House as a specific Bill for the purpose of a referendum on proposals for closer constitutional relations with the Federation, call it 'merger' or by any other name. In this context, Sir, I would refer you - I trust you will find my references mercifully brief - first to the Prime Minister's statement on the Second Reading on the 16th of March, to be found in the revised transcript at page 29 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 280]. He said: 'This Referendum Bill has been brought in to determine the wish of the majority of the people on the mode and manner of the inevitable reunification of these two territories.' And on the same day, Sir, a little earlier, the Minister for Finance at page 2 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 241] said: 'Everybody knows that this referendum will be on merger,' And even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs had his little contribution, on the same day, Sir, at page 24 [Vol. 17, No. 3, col. 273]. He said: 'This ought to be a simple and meaningful Bill. Its purpose is to reunite Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.' Surely, Sir, nothing could be clearer and there was no dissentient voice on the Government benches as to the fact that this was a specific Bill exclusively for merger. They emphasised it, Sir, when one month later I moved a motion seeking a referendum in respect of the White Paper proposals, and on that day the Deputy Prime Minister moved an amendment, to which I referred earlier, and in moving that amendment, Sir, he said, on the 17th of April, at page 8 of the revised transcript [Vol. 17, No. 8, col. 774]: 'Sir, as I have already explained, the Minister for Home Affairs last year, during the debate on merger, introduced the Singapore National Referendum Bill with one prospect, and that was to enable the people of Singapore in their own interest to go to a referendum to state specifically how the reunification of Singapore and the Federation should be brought about.' In the original Bill itself, Sir - and I would like to draw your attention to it as a matter of curiosity - you will find at page 23 under "Expenditure of Public Money", this Explanatory Statement at the end of the Bill: "This Bill will involve the Government in an estimated expenditure of $400,000." We have been told by the Minister for Finance that it costs $400,000 to hold one referendum. If any further confirmation was required, there is a confirmation that the Bill was intended at that juncture for one referendum - the only referendum anybody inside or outside this House had in mind. On that basis, the Bill was committed to Select Committee. On that basis the opposition filed its amendments. You will remember, Mr Speaker, the heavy weather we had in Select Committee when the Government through its three Ministers - the Minister for Home Affairs in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Law and the Minister for Finance - repeatedly stated that they could not accept the Opposition's amendments because the Bill was a general Bill for all referenda, including possible referenda on toddy shops, smoking and the Malay language. I draw attention to this, Mr Speaker, not merely to rub salt in the wound - the wound is ours, Mr Speaker, the people's. I draw attention to this devious and dishonest conduct in order to explain how by these dishonest tactics in Select Committee the Ministers sought a facade of logic for the rejection of legitimate Opposition amendments and forced the Select Committee into a discussion of the Bill on false premises. I would refer, for example, Sir, to the very first day, when the Member for Cairnhill in utter exasperation said, at column 108 [Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962]: 'In regard to the point raised by the Minister for Finance that this is a general law, we all know that this Bill is introduced to meet the proposed referendum on merger.' He went on, and you, Sir, as Chairman, pulled him up: 'Order. I must pull the Member back to the idea that this, in fact, is a general Bill, and as the Minister for Finance has indicated...'. This was a manoeuvre of the Government to treat the Bill as a general Bill in the semblance of logic to some of the objections they raised to Opposition's amendments both in Select Committee and in this Assembly. Sir, it is pertinent to see how they sought to destroy the logic of our amendments by this dishonest manoeuvre that we were dealing with a general Referendum Bill for toddy shops, smoking and the Malay Language. Let us take only a few examples: I am not here, Mr Speaker, to filibuster, nor can I hope to achieve more than to register a constitutional protest. Let us take clause 5, Sir, In the debate in Select Committee, the Minister for Law stated, on the issue whether the Assembly should frame the question - I refer you to column 110, the very first day: 'My point here, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this is a general referendum Bill. If there was before the Committee a Bill dealing with a specific referendum issue, there is nothing to prevent the Legislative Assembly from deciding the questions to be put to a Referendum.' Now we have a specific Referendum Bill, but no questions framed. At column 118 of the same day, still on the same clause, the same Minister for Law said: 'Sir, this is a general referendum Bill. There might be various matters. One is the matter of smoking - whether the public should be allowed to smoke. The Member for Anion does not like smoking. One day we might hold a referendum on this. That is one matter. Merger is another matter.' You see? Sir, merger is as if of no more importance than smoking. These matters involve all sorts of questions. Then, Sir, at column 138 on the 8th of May: 'The Member for Anson has moved an amendment that there shall be only one question on one issue. Mr Chairman, I have pointed out repeatedly that this is a general Referendum Bill and there is a procedure in the Bill for the putting of questions. But the difficulty is to put the questions. Quite apart from the precedents that I have brought to the notice of this Committee, when we met the respective associations that came here, it was pointed out that difficulties could arise in the putting of questions. For instance, there may be circumstances where it is not possible to put a single question - the Member for Anson admitted that just now. Take the case of toddy shops . . . [and then] the Malay language.' The Minister for Law has the assistance of the Minister for Finance in this dishonest manoeuvre to confuse the Select Committee. I refer to the Minister for Finance's statement still on this clause. At col. 131 - still on the very first day, this is very interesting: 'There is an advantage, in principle, in restricting a referendum to posing one question.' I wonder how he will try to dodge that when we come to the issue of the questions. 'There is an advantage, in principle, in restricting a referendum to posing one question. But whether that should apply to all referenda which may be carried out in future I am not so certain.' And he went on to refer to the Malay language and whether it should be official in three, seven or ten years. Again, Sir, at column 134, the Minister for Finance stated: 'In view of the practice in other countries, I think it is unduly restrictive in the general referendum law - such as we are considering now - to limit the questions of the type which require only a yes or no answer.' Is it fair to state that by inference he would have been prepared in a specific referendum law to permit a question which requires a yes or a no? Then, Sir, on the question of forms. You know that in Australia and in other legislation which we have examined, there are always Schedules of the form of ballot paper and of the form of the Superintendent's returns. In fact, Sir, our own Elections Ordinance has seventeen forms in the Schedule including a form of ballot paper and a form or returns. What has the Minister for Home Affairs to say on the amendment of the Member for Queenstown to introduce a Schedule to provide for a ballot paper? I refer to column 228 [Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 4 dated 11th May, 1962]: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a difference between the Jamaican Referendum Ordinance and this Bill. This is a general referendum Bill. The Jamaica one is a specific one; and therefore the ballot paper could be suitably designed beforehand for that particular referendum. The Schedule proposed will not be suitable or appropriate to the nature of this Bill which covers all future referenda and not one particular referendum.' Well, Sir, we now have one particular referendum, and the Minister had before him the model of Jamaica. He did admit that where there is a specific referendum in mind, one can draft an appropriate paper. Has he done it? This attitude, Sir, in rejecting the ballot paper which the Member for Queenstown sought to introduce was supported by the Minister for Law. At column 233, if I might read only excerpts instead of reading a long column - Mr Speaker, you can check my accuracy: 'The Minister for Home Affairs has quite rightly pointed out that this is a general referendum Bill and we cannot possibly frame Schedules on the forms of questions in such a Bill.' So, according to the Minister for Law on a specific Bill, a little later he said: 'We have shown good reasons why we cannot frame Schedules on the forms of questions in a general referendum Bill. It is not possible.' And again, a little down - the way they obstruct us; the way they are unashamedly, calculatedly dishonest: 'There are so many different matters on which referenda can be held and so many different questions can be posed in each referendum. So it is not possible to do that.' That is on the ballot paper. We cannot have questions, because it is a general Bill. We cannot have a yes or no, because it is a general Bill. We cannot have a ballot paper because it is a general Bill. Sir, I come to the returns of the Superintendent where, again in answer to the Member for Queenstown's efforts to clarify the Bill and to make it conform to constitutional principles - he has introduced a Schedule incorporating a form of return by the Superintendent - this is what the Minister for Home Affairs had to say on 16th of May, at column 388 [Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 6]: 'Finally, one common form of statement prescribed in the Bill, which is a general referendum Bill, may not be suitable for use on all occasions when a referendum is held. The declaration of the result of the poll is an administrative matter and it is for the Superintendent to compile the statement in the form best suited for a particular referendum. It is a general referendum Bill. We should not have a Schedule which will be only suitable for a particular type of referendum.' Well, according to him, this is now for a particular type of a referendum. Has he introduced the Schedule? No. Sir, only a little more. In the next column 389, you will find the same Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, this Bill is a general referendum Bill and we should not have in it a definite form of Schedule which cannot be applicable for all occasions.' Again, on the same day, Sir, at column 392: '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 type of question will be posed in future, and it is difficult to design a set Form in the Schedule to this Bill.' Well, Sir, have these officers also advised him now that he cannot draft a set Form for a specific Referendum Bill? Why not? Let us hear what the Minister for Finance had to say, Sir, In the same column, that is column 392: 'This is a general referendum Bill. We are trying to straitjacket everything into a set pattern to "as near as may be". We must allow a certain amount of flexibility.' "Flexibility for dishonest manoeuvre", as the Member for Cairnhill puts it. I am not going to weary you with more, Sir. The purpose is merely to highlight the way this House has been kicked about in a most shameful exhibition within my experience in the last seven years. I think I have made my point that this Bill, which was dealt with by the Government on the Second Reading as a specific Referendum Bill for the specific purpose of the merger, was, in Select Committee, treated as a general Bill and had the Government Members been honest or at least consistent, if not honest, then there would have been no arguments in Select Committee against the inclusion of provisions for the Assembly to frame the questions, inclusion of provisions for an answer of 'yes' or 'no', inclusion of provisions for a ballot paper where the answer was 'yes' Or 'no', inclusion of provisions for a return by the Superintendent of the polling results. The attempts to introduce those legitimate provisions and specific law were shut out by this dishonest manoeuvre. Now, Sir, we come to this House, I would like to remind you of the time chronologically. The Second Reading when the Government had made up its mind that this was a specific Bill was 16th and 17th March. The Ministers, in the absence abroad of the Prime Minister, decided in Select Committee to treat this Bill as a general Bill. This was between the 8th of May and, I think, the 16th or 17th of May. Recommittal of the Bill started on the 27th of June. Between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage two months had passed. Between Committee stage and recommittal here in public, we had a little over a month. On the first two days, Sir, the 27th and 28th of June, last Wednesday and Thursday. the Government sought to keep up this dishonest suggestion that it is a general Referendum Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister at page 91 of the transcript of the 27th of June [Vol. 18, No. 1, col. 127] said: Mr Chairman, I think the great difficulty in our discussions in this Committee is to come back to the point - to the amendments which are being moved in the National Referendum Bill.' That was his great difficulty, Sir, to bring us to the point, and what is the point? The main contention of the Opposition is that the Bill should contain provisions for only one question to be asked. I pointed out during the debate on the motion moved by the Member for.Anson on the 17th of April, 1962, that the National Referendum Bill was a general Referendum Bill. He did not point that out; on the contrary, he made exactly the opposite statement. He said on the 17th that this Bill was for one prospect only, the merger prospect. Fortunately, Sir, we have Hansard. Some comfort, some comfort! Then, Sir, if I might skip the middle part because I do not wish to weary you, and go to the latter half, "I put to you a very simple question" still the Deputy Prime Minister, "If it is agreed that the National Referendum Bill is a general Bill for referenda that may be held in the future, it is pretty obvious that it is not possible to pre-determine, the nature of the question that may be asked. Therefore, allowance must be given to the fact that the question to be formulated in future years will vary according to the problem that is put before the people." To this shameless specious humbug, he sought to field the legitimate request, the legitimate amendment moved. And in that very statement, Sir, it is clearly implied that if the Bill were a specific Bill for referendum on merger, then not only could the questions but the questions should be formulated in the law itself. On Thursday, Sir, only Thursday last, the 28th of June, the Minister for Finance at page 42, second paragraph [Vol. 18, No. 2, col. 205]: 'Let me get down to the gist of the matter. These people (that is us, Sir) want the referendum to contain only one question, which will admit only a "yes" or "no" answer. We have stated quite correctly that in a general Referendum Bill such a limitation is unnecessarily restrictive.' Right now, this is a specific Referendum Bill; obviously it is not unnecessarily restrictive. Do we have such a provision? No. It was still a general Referendum Bill to Thursday, the 28th of June. On the next day, Sir, the 29th of June, the Minister for Law supported his colleagues on the same ground that, as this is a general Referendum Bill, there could not be a provision that there should be one question and that the answer should be a 'yes' or 'no'. This is a particularly edifying passage and I crave your indulgence if I read it out full. I refer to page 14 of the transcript of Friday, the 29th of June [Vol. 18, No. 3, col. 303]. The Minister said: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, we on the Government side have all along maintained that this Bill is a general Referendum Bill...'. I trust I have said enough to prove how false that statement is. '. . . and that it would be improper to incorporate in it a provision like the amendment proposed which would have the effect of limiting the scope of the Bill. The Member for Anson argued that if it was clearly the intention of the Government to use this Bill for the purpose of holding a referendum on merger, would the Government not have acted more appropriately and fairly if it introduced a specific Referendum Bill to hold a referendum on merger? He said that this was done in all countries where referenda were held. Is there any merit in this argument?' And, Sir, the curious thing is, the Minister for Finance on the previous day charged me for not asking for a specific Bill. But on the 29th June, the Minister for Law found no merit in the suggestion that there should be a specific Referendum Bill. But let us read on: '. . . All Bills which deal with referenda matters, whether they are called general Referendum Bills or specific Referendum Bills, must provide the machinery whereby questions can be put to the electorate, and whereby the choice of the electorate can be ascertained through the usual electoral procedures.' Now, Sir, notice this. The only difference between a Bill to hold a referendum on a specific issue and a general Referendum Bill is that in the former the questions are framed as a clause in the Bill. Well, now it is admitted that this is a specific Referendum Bill. Is there a clause incorporating the question? No. Finally, Sir, may I refer you to the Minister for Finance who on the 28th June said specifically that some of our amendments were unacceptable because they are inappropriate to a general Referendum Bill. And, by necessary inference, implied that if this were a specific Referendum Bill, of course, the Government, would accept them. Sir, it is at page 41 of the transcript of the 28th June [Vol. 18, No. 2, col. 205]: 'Some proposed amendments are unacceptable,' he said, 'because they are inappropriate to a general Referendum Bill, and others are because the Bill will be used to carry out a referendum on merger.' You will notice the next day the Minister for Law said there was no merit in any suggestion for a specific law, but notice what the Minister for Finance said on the 28th June on page 42 [Vol. 18, No. 2, col. 205]: 'The hon. Member even offered the utterly preposterous suggestion that in addition to this general Referendum Bill, we should have a specific Referendum Bill on merger. Sir, I can see some point, in logic, if he maintains that we should scrap this general Referendum Bill and in its place have one specifically for the referendum on merger. I can see some point in this.' In fact, on the very first day in Select Committee, I asked the Government for a specific Referendum Bill. I refer to column 135. [Official Report of Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 3 dated 8th May, 1962]: 'Would the Government consider introducing legislation on the basis of the Jamaican Referendum Federation Law, 1960, specifically dealing with a change of constitutional status, . And, Sir, we went on and at column 136 you pulled me up, and you said: '. . .the Member for Anson has a method: he can move a motion for leave to bring in a Bill.' I had that in mind, Sir, and as you are aware, after the conclusion of the Select Committee on this Bill, I did send you on the 14th June a motion reading: 'That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a referendum to be held to ascertain the wishes of the adult citizens of Singapore on the proposed closer relations with the Federation of Malaya in Paper Command 33 of 1961.' I had, in fact, drafted a simple Bill. I believe an adequate Bill based on the Jamaican Ordinance, and you no doubt will remember, Sir, that on the 19th, through the Clerk of the Assembly, you informed me that my motion was out of order. May I, Sir, read just one paragraph - paragraph 6 - thereof? This is paragraph 6 of the letter of the Clerk of the decision: 'The proposed motion of the Member for Anson therefore in effect ignores the vote of the Assembly agreeing to the Second Reading of the Singapore National Referendum Bill, paragraph 2 above, and the vote of the Assembly as embodied in the resolution of the 18th April, 1962, paragraph 5 above. These votes indicate that the Assembly has agreed in principle that the Singapore National Referendum Bill will be the vehicle whereby a referendum on the merger issue will be taken. The proposed motion of the Member for Anson is therefore a reflection on these votes, and on this ground the notice thereof cannot be allowed.' It is only the Government that could introduce a Bill for a specific referendum or could have modified this Bill even at this late stage into an appropriate Bill for a referendum on merger. So, Sir, we have reached now the second day of debate here - the 28th June and part of the 29th June - and then suddenly, Sir, on the 29th June, a little on in the afternoon, I was drawing attention to the curious conduct of the Deputy Prime Minister in these words. At page 31 [Vol. 18, No. 3, col. 330], Sir, I said: 'We now go back to the curious somersault of the Deputy Prime Minister. I am told that was unfortunate. It came about unfortunately because he did not hear the expos� earlier on of how I indicated that they had all said that it was a specific provision for a specific purpose. I think he said "one prospect only", Sir; I take it whichever way you read P.A.P. English, "one prospect only" means one purpose only.' That was with reference to his speech in April. And here the Deputy Prime Minister interjected across the Floor, and said: 'All right, let us make it one purpose.' And an hour or so later we had the Minister for Home Affairs, very sheepishly at the end of a speech to the point where I had heard him indistinctly, but obviously it was heard by the Official Reporter. He said this, Sir, at page 50 [Vol. 18, No. 3, col. 360]: 'Mr Speaker, I take it that it is the wish of the Opposition that this Bill should not be a general Bill and that it should apply only to the referendum on merger. Now that being the case, the Government are prepared to scrap the Bill on merger with the Federation.' Mr Speaker, he tried that again today, although it was pointed out to him that what was objected to was not its general character, but its odious provisions and the fact that it did not follow constitutional precepts in the framing of legislative provisions for a specific referendum. After that we had the amendment which you heard since dinner time, this inelegant Part VI: 'This Ordinance shall cease to have effect on the merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.'. So, we have come full cycle after having kicked this Assembly round and round from specific on the Second Reading in March, to general in Select Committee in May and the first two days of this sitting in June, to specific this week. We have therefore, Mr Speaker, before us today I think incontrovertibly in any language, except P.A.P. language, a Bill that is truthfully an abortion in that it is drafted neither on the principles of a general nor on the principles of a specific Bill for a referendum. Now that we recognise it is a Bill, not merely intended, but by law, required to be used, only for ascertaining the wishes of the people on the proposed closer relations with the Federation, I say it is inappropriate in that in a specific Bill for that specific purpose, there should be, according to the Minister for Law himself, in the Bill itself a clause incorporating the questions to be asked of the people. I have read to you that passage where he said he had examined all laws and the only distinction between general referendum Bills and specific referendum Bills is that specific referendum Bills have a clause incorporating the questions. This was at page 14, if you remember, on the 29th of June [Vol. 18, No. 3, col. 303]. Furthermore, in a specific Referendum Bill, according to the statement of the Minister for Finance on the 28th of June, page 42 [Vol. 18, No. 2, col. 205], it would not be appropriate to have a provision whereby the answer should be yes or no. I would like to quote him exactly. Page 42: 'These people want the referendum to contain only one question, which will admit only a "yes" or "no" answer. We have stated quite correctly that in a general Referendum Bill such a limitation is unnecessarily restrictive.' Again, Sir, you will recognise that in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, as in all other Ordinances dealing with elections and referenda, there are, as I pointed out, some 17 Forms, and if this was a specific Referendum Bill, then there should be at least the Form of a ballot paper. You will remember, Sir, that the Member for Queenstown moved a Form in Select Committee which is the one at page 146 of our Supplement No. 17, whereby the ballot paper is given and the answer is required to be a yes or a no. When the Minister for Home Affairs on the 11th of May at col. 228 of the Official 'Report of the Select Committee said, "This is a general Referendum Bill. The Jamaica one is a specific one; and therefore the ballot paper could be suitably designed beforehand for that particular referendum," - I do not want to repeat it, Sir - on his own showing that since this is a specific one, we could copy Jamaica; and he recognizes that there should be a Form of a ballot paper and that there would be no objection to the Form indicated by the Member for Queenstown. We have no Form. On the issue of returns of the Superintendent, it is another Form that is missing. I have drawn your attention to the statement of the Minister for Home Affairs who ended up by telling you pathetically that he had consulted his officials and that they were against a Form of returns because no one can anticipate what type of referendum or what kind of questions will be posed in future and it is difficult to design a set Form. His entire approach, Sir, to be seen from col. 388 [Official Report, Select Committee on Singapore National Referendum Bill No. 6 dated 16th May, 1962] - and the approach of the Government - was that because this is a general Referendum Bill, we should not have any Forms: Now, this is a specific 'Referendum Bill, still should not have any forms. Mr Speaker, I sought to prove to you - and I trust you have noticed this - by the words of the Government Ministers, not the words of the Opposition, that this Bill is inadequate in that it lacks essential elements which the Government Ministers (not Government Back benchers or the Opposition) indicate would have been most appropriate in a specific Bill. Now, it is a specific Bill and we still do not have them. And what are those elements? They are four in number, Sir, according to the Government: (i) a clause incorporating the questions to be asked; (ii) provisions for an answer - yes or no; (iii) a schedule giving the Form of ballot paper which would include provisions for the answer to be yes or no; and (iv) a schedule giving Forms of the Superintendent's returns. Why are they lacking, Mr Speaker? They are lacking because the Government have set out consciously to seek legal cover for dishonest manoeuvre. Constitutionally, as the Minister for Law states correctly, a law can provide that a man shall be deemed a woman. The law can provide that what is dishonest is honest, that what is false is deemed true. Yes, constitutionally the law can so provide. But there have so far not been found any human beings or any government which so lack human decency and human shame and have so much contempt for the people, to exercise that power, until the P.A.P. came into existence. Sir, I have shown you that it is inadequate. Now I want to show you why it is inappropriate. You will remember, Sir, that the purpose, according to the motion of the 18th of April, is "to ascertain the wishes ..." - that is the operative phrase. Now, how is this Bill going to work? Let us start off with clause 21, Sir. Under this clause, every citizen must vote. If he refuses to vote or if he does not vote his name is struck off the electoral register and he cannot vote or stand for election for several years until that register is revised and until he has paid a fine or given a satisfactory explanation. But the point is, Sir, that if he does not vote at this referendum, he will be deprived of voting at next year's general election, or for standing for election himself. But that is immaterial; that affects only a few. I will not say "immaterial", but that affects a few. But the important point is that the names of those who do not vote at the referendum, because it goes against their conscience to vote for what is before them, will be struck off the electoral register and they will not vote at the next general election, and the P.A.P. would be only too happy if that happens to all those who hate this Bill because with those remaining, they can fight for them with the S.P.A. and stand the possible chance of getting a few into the Assembly. So, Sir, our voter is compelled to go to the polling booth. In the polling booth, he will be presented with a ballot paper. On that ballot paper, according to the motion of the Prime Minister who by the grace of the S.P.A. can have what he will of this country, there will be two questions. One will be on the P.A.P. merger proposals - Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961. Now, Sir, that is a perfectly fair and proper alternative to put, not merely because there are many people who honestly think it is good, and who want it, and I can assure you, Sir, many of my friends honestly believe that it is good and sincerely want it, but also it has been fully discussed in this Assembly; because it has some precision, although the draft constitution is not before us, nevertheless there is a Command Paper which has spelt it out. So I say that one is a fair proposition. Now, if the voter does not want it, he will have another one, Sir, and the other one is a complete and unconditional merger as a State on an equal basis with the other 11 States in accordance with the Constitutional Documents of the Federation of Malaya. On the face of it, it looks fair, because we all understood exactly what this meant before the P.A.P. started distorting it or rather we understood what -

Order. There is a Standing Order which says that an hon. Member cannot anticipate a motion which will come before the House. He can just mention it in passing, but he cannot comment in detail as to whether the proposal is a good proposal or a bad proposal. He can just say proposals A and B and pass his comments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only seeking coherence to my explanation of how this Referendum Bill will work. You will forgive me if I show you briefly why it is unacceptable, or why it could be unacceptable to a fairly substantial section of our people. I will try and be very brief, Sir.

Order. I think all the hon. Member need say is, "Take proposition B," which is, in fact, unacceptable, and argue on that premise.

I have received a notice of a motion which is specifically for merger which will be posed.

I cannot agree. It is only a notice of a motion. The hon. Member cannot anticipate that the motion will be carried in that form.

No?

No. So I would suggest to the hon. Member that he can suggest merger proposal A and merger proposal B, one of which is possibly acceptable and the other one is not.

Let us say that the merger proposal A is Cmd. Paper 33 of 1961, which I say is perfectly fair and proper and the alternative B is a merger proposal like Penang and Malacca with our citizens having to reapply for citizenship in the Federation and more than half of them being unable to obtain citizenship. Now, proposal B is not acceptable to anybody. I know nobody who has ever said he wanted that kind of merger, however much the Government may say that it is wanted. I understand that the last known remark made was by the gentleman who is the Prime Minister's Political Secretary and he said that it is the Communists who want it.

And the Barisan Sosialis.

Now, Sir, the Government knows that nobody wants alternative B. They know it. In fact, that is why they put it. In order to provide for the ascertainment of the wishes of the people, therefore, you have got to give the people a chance to say yes or no to A, then you will know, if 100 people go to vote, 40 vote yes and 60 vote no, or 60 vote yes and 40 vote no, exactly what the wishes of the people are. But, no, Sir. Those repeated attempts of the Opposition to give our people a chance to say yes or no have been repeatedly defeated by the Government and their friends and allies across the Floor on the Front benches of the Opposition. No, Sir. The people are going to be told, "You have a choice. Your choice is to strike out the one you do not want, or to put a cross against the one you want". But if you do not want Cmd. Paper 33, and if you do not want the alternative, what are you to do? You cannot say "no" to both because if you put "no" to both, that will be deemed to be ambiguous and, according to clause 29, it will be a P.A.P. vote for Cmd. Paper 33 although you specifically say "no". You cannot leave it blank, Sir - better at least than it counting as a Government vote - because if you leave it blank you are a Communist confused stooge and are deemed to vote for the Government. That is the perfidy of clause 29 which has shaken even the Member for Bras Basah, who was able until now to stomach so much that was dishonest in this Government. And not only has she been disgusted, Mr Speaker - I tell you quite frankly that I move in circles where daily I meet far more people who want Cmd. Paper 33 than those who do not, but never mind the argument about it, Sir, they feel it is good and they say we should have it - but even they, these people, Sir, are shocked and really disgusted at the suggestion that if a man votes "no", the law says it is "yes". Those are the people, Sir, who for months and months have been defending the P.A.P. to me, and at last they are stunned into silence - not that it gives me pleasure, Sir, because amongst them are those who are very close to me, amongst them are those who are my very good friends. So there is no way to say "no". If you cast a blank vote, it is a Government vote. You try defacing the paper - Mr Speaker, Sir, if you deface the paper, you know you will go to gaol and you know also that for several years you will have no right to vote or to stand for election. The Prime Minister has a brainwave. He says, "Tell the people to mark their preference, and to sign their names and put their addresses. Then it will count at least as a blank." How good of the Prime Minister! Sir, the Prime Minister knows, first and foremost, that there are many who are unfortunately still illiterate in Singapore. That is why we provide our ballot papers with symbols, the way we do. But there is something much more important than the fact that the illiterate will not be able to vote. The serious objection is that those who seek at least to salve their conscience by casting a blank vote are required to violate the basic principle of democratic voting, and that is the secrecy of the vote. The Prime Minister, in order to enable a man to cast a blank or void vote, requires him to transgress and to destroy, or he himself destroys, the principle of the secret vote. It seems that the man, who at least does not want to say "yes" to either proposition, must, in order to salve his conscience, deprive himself of the right to a secret vote. That is P.A.P. democracy. He must give his name and address to the P.A.P. and lay himself open to what may well follow. Sir, the final act of perfidy - though "final" is the wrong term in the context of the P.A.P., there will only be a final act of perfidy when they are well and truly buried politically (this corpse that stinks still stands up) - they ask, Sir, that the number of those votes which have been cast blank shall be added to the Government votes. The people know that these will count for the Government because they do not know how to put in a "no", and they do not know how at least to put in a blank or a void paper, and so cast a blank one. And not only that, Sir, but that these shall be surreptitiously added to the Government votes. Those who vote "yes" for Command Paper 33 and those who do not want Command Paper 33 are to be added up together. And the P.A.P. Government will publish in the newspapers, and the Straits Times will come out with banner headlines, "P.A.P. Victory. 100 per cent for Merger". For, Sir, they have shamelessly, and with the assistance of the S.P.A., rejected the provision which would have enabled at least an identification of the number of blank votes. Even if legally you want to deem them to be "yes", and even if legally you want to give a value to zero, let us know the number of zeros. Even that, we are not to have the solace, Sir. Sir, this may seem a minor point to you but it is such a breach of the rule of law that though it may not seem serious to others, to me it is important, and I ask your indulgence if I refer to it. If a man brings a referendum petition, the Judge will be required by law to read secret memoranda prepared by the Government and its police and Special Branch personnel of which the petitioner is not to be allowed to know anything at all. And the Judge will have to read memoranda if submitted by Ministers and by their henchmen. And the Judge will have to take them into consideration without letting the petitioner know what is in them or enabling him to rebut them; because the law prevents the Judge from exercising a judicial discretion which, in justice, he would otherwise do. Sir, this Bill marks the turning point in the history of the attempts that we have made to introduce the parliamentary democratic system in Singapore. For seven years I have been railed at, I have been abused, and I have at times wondered why I was submitting to the tortures which only masochists would enjoy. Sir, whether it is believed or not. I tell you it is my firm conviction that our people, who it is true have never had any traditions of democracy, could be imbued with an understanding and a respect for what is patently the healthiest form of government evolved by the mind of man. Our people are young; they are vital. They are different from others, Sir, I do say with respect and no arrogance here, that if you go to other countries and travel round, when you come back to Singapore you will feel reinvigorated once you meet the people here. There is a vitality about them. There is a burning decency about them. There is an intense urge to seek human justice, Sir, others are in the struggle for democracy. I have had but a small part myself. I say to you, not with any exaggeration, that we were succeeding, I do believe we were succeeding, in our efforts. Tonight marks the turn of the tide, and a very low tide it was at that.

Seven years too long!

Seven years is not a long time to win over a people to a new tradition and a new way of life. And I would have been glad to continue for yet another seven years. Who was the gentleman in the Bible, Sir, who worked for seven years for his potential father-in-law in order to marry a lady, and on his wedding night was cheated with her sister? And so he worked for still another seven years until he got the lady he wanted.

It cannot be done here.

Sir, I tell you, I am prepared to work for still another seven years-

To get a lady!

- if we could win, win fully and sincerely, our people to the democratic way, not only because of ourselves but because this is a crucial point for the world and not only for Asia. Singapore is a crucial pivot culturally, not merely militarily. Sir, the lesson that the P.A.P. has taught of the potential for dictatorship - and so perfidious a dictatorship at that - of the democratic process is one which you can be sure there will be power-lusting men in the future who will seek to imitate. And I ask the P.A.P. if ever they are in the Opposition, or the S.P.A. or the U.M.N.O. who are supporting them in this Bill, how can they in future ever criticise a government for dishonesty, when they themselves are initiating a Bill, with the S.P.A. and U.M.N.O. supporting it, that is patently dishonest? How can our people, Sir, the people of Singapore, be expected to respect the democratic process, to seek to adopt and adapt it when the Government is proving that through this democratic process it can act in the spirit of the most barbarous and violent dictators? This Bill is intended to conceal the wishes of the people of Singapore in relation to the issue of the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. What is sought is a legalistic smokescreen to cover dishonest manoeuvres whereby the Government can pretend to a 100 per cent support for its proposals, proposals which in themselves may well be acceptable but which the Government has not the courage to put the test. I say, Sir, I shall vote against giving it a Third Reading because this Bill, in fact and in truth, seeks to conceal the wishes of the people with reference to the constitutional proposals that may be posed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, very soon, under the provisions of the National Referendum Bill, each of the 624,000 voters in the electoral list of Singapore will receive a card and be asked to go and cast the vote on the constitutional future for ourselves and our children and of future generations to come.

11.02 p.m. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Anson has said, the vote is compulsory and everybody must go and cast his or her vote to decide his or her future. But under the present Bill as it stands, the voters of Singapore have very little choice to decide what is to be the political future of this country. We have debated for many days the undemocratic provisions of the Bill, and in particular clause 5 and clause 29. We will receive a card very soon, perhaps towards the end of the month or just the beginning of next month. We will go to the polling station and we will receive a ballot paper with two symbols, perhaps hardly understood by the voter because the Opposition Parties will have only less than seven days to explain to the voter what those symbols mean. I am afraid that during the seven days, with all the restrictions imposed on the Opposition Parties, we can hardly convene a few referendum mass meetings in order to explain the issues at stake and what each symbol will represent. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the voter will face a ballot paper and he knows that proposal No. A, which is the White Paper constitutional proposals of the P.A.P. Government, through all these months of discussion, is unacceptable to him. In the next column there will be a second proposal which, on the face of it - and this has been mentioned in the Prime Minister's proposed motion to be brought up in the next few days - after its exposure, will also appear unacceptable, or even more unacceptable than the first proposal, which is the White Paper proposal. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have only 14 days between the date of the announcement of the referendum and polling day; 14 days is hardly sufficient to explain what the two proposals mean. Then we will only have seven days to explain to the voters what the symbols mean. Sir, the voter will go to the polling booth and in front of him will be a ballot paper. What is he going to do? He does not want to vote for the White Paper. Neither does he want to vote for the second proposal. And there will be four choices open to him. Firstly, he can abstain from going to vote; and the Member for Anson has said just now that he will be fined $5 and he will lose the right to vote in coming elections. If he does not abstain from going to the polling booth, he can write his name and address and the vote will be considered a void vote. Or else he can tear off the ballot paper, or he can cast a blank vote. There are three alternatives open to him - write his name and address; tear off the ballot paper or cast a blank vote. Let us analyse the consequences of each way. If he writes his name and address; those who can write their names and addresses would be afraid of being called up by the Government and have to take all the consequences. But what I am afraid is that many people who are illiterate or semi-illiterate would not be able to write even their names and addresses. Some who could would be so scared to write. The second alternative is to tear up the ballot paper, and he will face a long gaol sentence. If he chooses the third alternative of casting a blank vote, it will be considered as a Government vote. I do not want to repeat here all the arguments which have been used earlier. Even if we repeat them here, what we are afraid is that it will not get very much space in tomorrow's newspapers, because we have noticed in the last few days that the space allotted to the opposition Parties is less than 20 per cent or 15 per cent of all the political speeches made in this Assembly. Sir, we want a fair and honest referendum which will decide whether the White Paper proposals are acceptable to the people. This referendum should be an honest one which will reflect the real and true wishes of the people; in other words, to ascertain the wishes of the majority of the people. We do not want a dishonest and a sham referendum. But under the present Bill as it stands, we will not have an honest referendum. The result, as I said yesterday, is a foregone conclusion. We can expect that in the coming referendum, the Government will win perhaps with a 99 per cent landslide victory for their White Paper proposals. Actually, in these circumstances, is it really necessary for the Government to put forward this facade of democracy? The Government has not only been content to muzzle the views of the people in the Referendum Bill -

Sir, on a point of information.

If the Member will give way. Mr Ong Eng Guan resumed his seat.

If, as the Member has alleged, the Government is anxious to muzzle the views and the voice of the people, would the Member for Hong Lim explain why he did not turn up at a radio forum to which he was invited on Wednesday? Nobody wants to muzzle him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have already written to Radio Singapore to put forward our stand on the radio forum. We have not got a reply. That is the reason why we did not go to the radio forum. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no need for the Government to put up this sham democracy, this sham facade of democracy. Under the provisions of the Referendum Bill, not only will there be a sham referendum, but the Opposition Parties will not be allowed even freedom to expose the sham referendum. Political propaganda during the referendum period against the White Paper proposals will be restricted. Referendum mass meetings will be subject to all forms of restrictions. The number of blank votes cast during the coming referendum against the Government's White Paper proposals will not be known. Never have we heard in the history of the world of such a sham and dishonest referendum being held. Singapore will become famous overnight after polling day for having held such a perfidious and dishonest referendum in the history of referenda in the world. The name of the P.A.P. Government will always be remembered for a long time to come, even after they have left the political scene. The 1962 referendum held in Singapore will be the subject of much research in subsequent history, so that students of history, political science and the art of political manipulation will have much to learn from the 1962 referendum held in Singapore. It is indeed. Sir, a great contribution to the present Government, one more chapter in the history of restriction of freedom and democracy. 11.15 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am speaking on behalf of the majority of the people in Singapore to show my dissatisfaction with this Bill and I am now speaking with deep sorrow of what I think of this Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill originally aimed at giving the people the chance to say whether they accept or reject the merger plan of the P.A.P. Those who have said so include the Chairman of the P.A.P., its Prime Minister, and others. The Chairman of the P.A.P. said sometime in September last year, in reply to queries from three leaders of the Opposition, namely, the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, those of the U.P.P. and the Workers' Party, that arrangements between the Singapore and the Federation Governments had been made and that they wanted to find out from the people whether these were acceptable or not. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, even the Prime Minister himself said - and he said this on the 25th of September last year over Radio Singapore in a Press conference - something to this effect: 'In the National Referendum there will be about 650,000 of the electorate -'

Order. If the Member is quoting from any document he will have to give the name and the type of document he is quoting from.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said this over Radio Singapore. It was on the 25th of September. At that time he said that if the people wanted merger, they could mark a cross in the square for yes; and if they did not, then they could put a cross in the square for no. The Prime Minister even said at the Teachers' Day celebration that the merger plan would be given to the people for a decision. There were many others who said so, and I do not wish to take up too much time of this Assembly to make quotations. However, as sincere leaders in the Government, they should carry out what they have promised. They should not deviate from what they have promised. But unfortunately, the P.A.P. leaders before us have already forgotten entirely the promises they made in the past. In fact, they are trying to pay a very unfair game in order to change their promises. Now they have turned round to say that they will find out from the people what type of merger they want. The mode and manner of merger is actually Cmd. Paper 33 of this Assembly. The people of Singapore know full well the contents of this White Paper. They also know that the White Paper on merger is going to be detrimental to the future of the people. It is not going to provide any safeguard for the rights of the people in Singapore. According to the intention of the Government, it seems that another type of merger will be put to the people for a decision. What is the content of this other type of merger? What will be its provisions? Not only do the people of Singapore not know, but even the people in this House do not know what type of merger is to be put. We have not received any report on the other type of merger. If after the passage of this National Referendum Bill, the Government should hold a referendum immediately, then the Government can pose two questions. The first question could be the White Paper on merger. The second question could be the type of merger whose contents the people of Singapore do not know. So when this question should be put before the people, how are they going to make a choice? So in their rage the people have no alternative but to put in blank votes or to draw tortoises, birds and other signs on the ballot papers. According to clause 29 of this Bill, blank votes and votes that contain indecent signs and other marks will be taken as votes in support of the Government. So on a matter that concerns the entire interests of the people, the Government is trying to mislead the people by this National Referendum Bill and to ignore the true wishes and will of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been drafted with unconstitutional principles on a very illegal basis. The true spirit of this Bill is to indulge in illegitimate means, and if we should allow this Bill to pass, then that will mean that it is against the principle of the basic constitutional spirit and it will be criticised by the world. As a representative of the people, it is my duty to see that democracy is safeguarded to show that the true spirit of democracy is not damaged by the pseudo democrats. Not only do we want to show the pseudo democrats for what they are, but we also want to see that the basic rights of the people are secured in order that every man in Singapore will be able to express his own will in a constitutional matter. But before us today, there appear some P.A.P. leaders who attempt to undermine democracy and the rights of the people. This they want to do by the National Referendum Bill. When this Bill came up for Second Reading, the Minister for Home Affairs tried to make amendments thereto and tried to include certain undemocratic clauses. So when this Bill was up for Second Reading, almost every Member in the Opposition, together with the people, showed their dissatisfaction with all these clauses. They exposed the fact that the P.A.P. was trying to have a dishonest victory in the referendum on merger. They would not allow the people to have a chance to say 'no'. In the course of the heated debate, it was suggested that the Bill should be committed to a Select Committee. Representations and memoranda came from the people's organisations, such as the organisation of hawkers -

Order. I think the Member for Pasir Panjang is going straight back to all the arguments which were put in Select Committee as well as when the Bill was committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. For the convenience of Members, may I quote the Standing Order regarding Third Reading, Standing Order 78 (1) : 'On the third reading of a Bill amendments may be proposed to the question "That the Bill be now read a third time" similar to those which may be proposed on second reading: but the debate shall be confined to the contents of the Bill and any reasoned amendment which raises matters not included in the Bill shall be out of order.' So if the Member for Pasir Panjang is going to repeat all the memoranda and representations received in Select Committee and the same arguments which have been dealt with for the past many days in this Assembly, he will be completely out of order.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to mention all this because the Government does not want to accept the views of the people. That is why I have to remind this House of what has been submitted in order to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. In Select Committee, the Government maintained its obstinacy and refused to respect the views of the people. The Government did not even consider the amendments which were reasonable and which were moved by the Barisan Sosialis. We spent a lot of time in Select Committee discussing this Bill, and that was the treatment we got. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the Third Reading of this Bill is passed and the Bill thereby becoming law, we will then have the responsibility to oppose its Third Reading, because it is the basic intention of this Bill to encroach upon the basic rights of the people.

11.31 p.m. Nowhere in the world can we find such provisions as those contained in this Bill put forward by the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 5 of the Bill says that the Government can pose two questions to the people for a decision and that the people must choose one of these two questions; the people will have no right to say no. This provision is trying to force the people to accept one of two questions which are equally unacceptable; that is to say, the provision wants to force the people to do things which are detrimental to their future. So Mr Speaker, Sir, this compulsory provision in this Bill has encroached upon the basic rights of the people to make a choice. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 29 regarding blank votes provides that blank votes will be taken as votes in support of the Government. Why should the P.A.P. Government provide that blank votes should be deemed to be votes in support of the Government? This is because of the provision in clause 5 which will allow the Government to pose two unacceptable questions to the people and, on the other hand, disallow them to say no.

Order. I do hope that the Member is not going back to that debate as to whether or not there should be two questions and all other provisions of clause 29.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, talking on principles, we can see that the leaders of the PA.P. have openly admitted - and even the Minister for Finance has admitted - that this Bill is not in keeping with legal principles or constitutional principles. He said so in Select Committee. So the Minister for Finance has admitted openly that this Bill is not based on constitutional principles. That means that he is trying to make something illegitimate into something which is legal.

Order. We are now debating an amendment which asks the House to decline to give a Third Reading to this Bill "on the ground that the provisions therein are inappropriate and inadequate for that purpose", that is, for the purpose of holding a referendum. That is all that the debate must be confined to. The debate should be confined to the contents of the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when we were debating this Bill on its Second Reading, Members of the Opposition, especially those of the S.P.A., were opposed to this Bill. But after some time, these Members have somersaulted and they now support this Bill. All of a sudden, they have now become supporters of the Bill. So we can see that the S.P.A. has joined forces with the P.A.P. and we know-

Order. I cannot see how the fact that the S.P.A. has supported the Bill makes the Bill inappropriate or inadequate for a referendum, which is what we are debating. The hon. Member must try and show how the provisions of this Bill - or some of the provisions - are inappropriate and inadequate for the purpose of holding a referendum on merger. That is all we are debating.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Bill should be allowed to pass, we the representatives of the people will be condemned by all democratic countries in the world. We will be condemned for insulting democracy and for undermining democracy. Therefore, as a responsible representative, I suggest two courses in the interests of democracy. First, do we want to be condemned as traitors to democracy? Second, in order to safeguard the spirit of democracy and to act in accordance with the law and legal principles, we must oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. 11.40 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Referendum Bill is full of unreasonable and undemocratic provisions. At the same time, the P.A.P. Government is making use of these ambiguous provisions to cheat and intimidate the people. As representatives of the people, if we are faced with the dictatorship of the P.A.P. under cover of democracy, we have a duty to expose their plots.

Order. I might remind the Member for Jalan Kayu that he is addressing the Speaker, and the Speaker is not sitting in the Back benches of the Government.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after this Bill has gone through two Committees, the P.A.P. Government are going to pose two questions to the people. They have already stated categorically that they will pose two questions for the choice of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the circumstances described - I do not have to elaborate on these - how are the people going to make a choice between these two questions? This act of depriving the right of the people will anger them. There are provisions which provide some restrictions. For example, the people cannot cast blank votes because they will be taken as Government votes. The explanation given by the Government is that it is necessary because the Communists are trying to sabotage and wreck the referendum by working up the people. Is this a justifiable explanation?

Order. I am not interested in that at the moment. We have already debated clause 29, and we have already debated the allegation of the Government. The fact remains that clause 29 is in the Bill, and all that the Member can say now is that it is probably inappropriate for this referendum on merger. I do not want the merits of the clause to be debated again.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, there are some important points in the provision. What I have said just now is most important. This provision is very ambiguous, and the Government may make use of it to cheat the people. Therefore, I am here to reiterate the point. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will realise that blank votes mean that the people give up their rights. It means the people who abstain. If we look around the world, whatever the government may be, whether it is a party or any organisation, blank votes mean abstention. They can never be considered as votes in support of-

Order. The hon. Member is now arguing against clause 29. He cannot do that. We have finished arguing against clause 29. We are on the Third Reading. We are not in Committee. He must accept the fact that clause 29 is part of the Bill. All he can say is that clause 29 is not an appropriate clause for the purpose of a referendum on merger between Singapore and the Federation. There are several arguments he can advance. I could suggest them, but I will let him do it himself.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am explaining the point that this Bill is undemocratic and that it cannot be passed for the Third Reading because it cannot ascertain the wishes of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already pointed out that the Bill cheats. It is also full of ridiculous provisions and intimidation. The intimidating provision is barbarious and it is regulated by the Government. When this Bill becomes an Ordinance, the people have no choice at all. If they do not want to vote, then there is Provision in the Bill to intimidate the people, saying that there will be a fine imposed on them and they will be deprived of their citizenship. If the people are confronted with this restriction, they may get so angry that they may deface, tear or destroy the ballot paper. Then according to this Bill they will have committed an offence. When the people deface their own ballot papers, it is just like the people tearing their own money. Yet there is provision in the Bill to deprive the people of their own rights. They will be subject to imprisonment.

Order. He must accept that it is now part of the Bill. The hon. Member must learn to accept these things. Now we are debating whether or not these clauses are appropriate or adequate for the purpose of this referendum. That is all we are arguing.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of the Bill is to launch a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

(In Mandarin): On a point of order.

Point of order. Mr Tan Cheng Tong resumed his seat.

(In Mandarin): The Member has been repeating his words. I wonder whether he is trying to filibuster and waste the time of the Assembly. [Interruption]

Order. I should imagine the Member for Queenstown ought to be able to behave himself. I have not noticed that the Member for Jalan Kayu has been repeating himself too much. He has been repeating himself, but he has not become tedious.

(In Mandarin): This Bill is merely for the purpose of merger. Let me explain the word "merger" to show that the Bill is for the purpose of cheating. Mr Speaker, merger actually means -

Order. The Member is completely out of order. The Member is completely irrelevant. I have indicated the trend of the debate. I think the hon. Member must accept, as I say, what has been written into the Bill, and he must now show by specific reference to certain clauses of the Bill that those clauses, in fact, are inappropriate or inadequate for the purpose of holding a referendum on merger or the reunification between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. I do not think a definition of merger will help.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the provisions of this Bill contain much that is undemocratic and the Opposition Parties have to attack them. Our criticisms and attacks have been suppressed by the Government. As regards the space in the Press for their publication -

Order. The space in the Press has nothing to do with the Third Reading of this Bill. As I say, the hon. Member must accept that clauses have been written into this Bill. Now he must show that these clauses or certain of these clauses are not appropriate or adequate for the purpose of a referendum on merger between Singapore and the Federation. That is all the issue. I do not want to hear anything more about the freedom of the Press or blocking of Opposition Members in that direction, unless the hon. Member can make a specific reference to a clause, and there are clauses to which he can make specific reference.

(In Mandarin): in that case, I will not speak any more. When the appropriate questions arise, I will make further speeches.

Sir, I support the amendment of the Member for Anson that we decline to give this Bill -

Sir, on a point of order. Sir, as this is the last major speech on the Third Reading, I think we will be quite happy to sit through until the Member for Queenstown has finished in order that we will have more time tomorrow to discuss many other matters. We have given them up to Thursday for the Second Reading. Obviously everything has been thoroughly canvassed, but if they want to finish the Third Reading tonight, I will recommend that we do so. We are quite prepared to oblige them and they will have an extra day tomorrow for many other things.

The answer I think is no! Dr Lee, please continue.

I am surprised that the Prime Minister wants to sell out the rights of Singapore so quickly on time, Sir-

We are giving you more time! [Interruption]

Order.

That is his whole idea of guillotining our speeches and debate, Sir. He just wants to serve foreign interests on time.

Order. The Prime Minister got up on quite a legitimate point of order. He made an offer and I answered for the Opposition, and that is the end of it.

Sir, this Bill has been the object of severe condemnation amongst all classes of people in Singapore, all strata of society, the workers, farmers- An hon. Member: Doctors!

- professional men, yes, doctors, dentists-

Grave diggers!

Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Queenstown that I likened him to an orchestra leader last night when, instead of addressing the Chair, he addressed Members on the Government Benches directly. Of course, this invites interjections. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

Order. It is midnight.

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