Hansard, 1962-07-06

Mr David Marshall asked the Minister for Education whether he has any information as to the probable date of receipt of the Interim Report on the 6-day Week from the Commission of Inquiry into the Government's Education Policy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been informed that the Commission of Inquiry into Government's Education Policy, headed by Prof. Lim Tay Boh, has completed the Interim Report on the Six-day Week. Coincidentally the Report will be presented to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara at 3.15 p.m. today.

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

Is the Prime Minister taking his business motion* now? * The motion, standing in the name of the Prime Minister, reads as follows:- That the proceedings on the motion in regard to a referendum being held for the people to decide between two alternatives of reunification standing in my name, and the motion in the names of the Members for Anson and Queenstown that the people of Singapore shall be asked only one question on Polling Day and that Government shall name Polling Day as a day four weeks from the date of the Order therefor, and another motion in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Upper Serangoon that the House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand on the merger issue, shall all be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight on the 11th July, 1962.

Now, Sir.

That business motion, of course, also takes in items 11 and 12 on the Order Paper. Perhaps it would be convenient if there is also a business motion moved under Standing Order 10, paragraph 2 - "That items 11 and 12 on the Order Paper be taken immediately after item 3."

That is not the intention. The intention is that, since it is not anticipated that there will be any debate of any length on items 4 to 10 (since they are all going to Select Committee, except items 4 and 5 which are non-controversial), items 11 and 12 be taken after item 10.

After item 10?

Yes.

In that case the business motion can be "That item 3 be taken after item 10." Is that it?

That is so.

Will the Prime Minster please move?

Sir, I move under Standing Order 10 (2), That item 3 on the Order Paper be taken after item 10.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That item 3 on the Order Paper be taken after item 10. 2.37 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the motion in regard to a referendum being held for the people to decide between two alternatives of reunification standing in my name, and the motion in the names of the Members for Anson and Queenstown that the people of Singapore shall be asked only one question on Polling Day and that Government shall name Polling Day as a day four weeks from the date of the Order therefor, and another motion in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Upper Serangoon that the House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand on the merger issue, shall all be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight on the 11th July, 1962. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have estimated a debating time of 2 to 3 days for these three items. They are issues which have already been discussed over and over again at considerable length, and no doubt Members of the Opposition would want some considerable time to restate all their propositions in as interesting a way as I hope they can. Mr Speaker, Sir, it gives us roughly 24 hours of debating time, the House sitting from 2.30 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. However, if the Third Reading of the Referendum Bill finishes earlier today - as I think it would be earlier than 12 midnight - then no doubt the debating time will be suitably extended by the rapidity with which conclusions on the Third Reading are brought to a close. Question proposed.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, you will remember that when the Deputy Prime Minister moved his closure motion with reference to the stages of the Referendum Bill, I urge that it was unnecessary.

Order. It was not really a closure motion; it was a guillotine motion.

Thank you for your terminological correction, Mr Speaker. Sir, I think I will be proved right - I was certainly proved right as regards the first part as we ended before midnight yesterday - and I am sincerely hoping that I will be proved right as regards the second part, and it would have been much happier if things could have taken their normal course. I do urge with respect, Mr Speaker, and this might assist the Government - they are conscious that by virtue of their prerogative, and I am not complaining of their prerogative, the Prime Minister has introduced a motion which completely blankets out mine, which is item 11 - the one that I put in with the Member for Queenstown - except for the part thereof which speaks of naming the polling day as four weeks from the date of the Order. Now, Mr Speaker, the issue of four weeks from the date of the Order has been fully discussed in this Assembly - it is true on the basis that, the Bill was a general referendum Bill at the time - but we all recognise that there would be no useful purpose served by rediscussing that issue and, I repeat, I for one am not here to filibuster, Mr Speaker, and since the other part of the motion is covered by the Prime Minister, it is my intention not to move the motion appearing as item No. 11 of the Order Paper, since the Government has anticipated it in the Prime Minister's motion. Now, in the light of that statement, perhaps the Government will agree with me that it is highly improbable that we would exceed the time limit indicated of the 11th July and they may well wish to consider postponing consideration of this motion, let us say, till Tuesday the 10th and if they are prepared to accept it, I will be happy, Sir, to move under Standing Order, that this motion do stand adjourned to the 10th of July. I am sure that they are no more happy than I am, Sir, to apply guillotine motions which are unnecessary, and I do suggest that this one is unnecessary, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government have always said that they want to allow full discussion, and here again they want to limit our discussions to only a few days.

Point of order, Sir. The point of order being that perhaps the Member for Queenstown may not be aware that he is not necessarily obliged to make a speech just because the Member for Anson has done so, although the Member for Anson has touched upon his motion on the Order Paper, item No, 11, I think. So Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps you can give the Member for Queenstown and the House a ruling that no Member is thereby obliged to speak; there is no compulsive speaking in this Assembly.

That is not a point of order. There is, of course, freedom of speech and the Member for Queenstown can, of course, attack this motion. He is probably going on a different tack. The Member for Anson wishes for a postponement, but the Member for Queenstown considers this is not sufficient time, I suppose.

You see, Sir, even here he tries to muzzle me.

To try to help you.

Of course, he realises that ultimately it may be that it does not help because he has already sold out Singapore and he has already promised to sell out Singapore on time. That is why we have this guillotine. I am sure if the Prime Minister were honest to the people of Singapore; he would inform the people what he has actually promised. Is it because he has already promised the Federation that he would hand over Singapore by a certain date?

Order. Let us come back to the guillotine motion, and the only debate can be as to whether or not there should be sufficient time. Dr Lee, nothing further?

No.

All I need say to the Member for Anson is that I am obliged to him for reminding the House that we gave more than ample time in our guillotine motion on the recommittal of the Bill, and I am obliged to him further in his agreeing with our estimation that there is more than ample time for the guillotine on this motion. Sir I will be happy to postpone the moving of this motion till Tuesday provided he promises me his wholehearted support and asures me that we finish even before Tuesday.

I thought the Member said the 10th, i.e. Monday.

I beg your Pardon - Tuesday.

Yes. The 10th is Tuesday.

The suggestion, Sir, was that the motion should be moved on Tuesday for effect on Wednesday as suggested.

Can I suggest that since there might be great disagreement, we take a resolution today? It makes no difference. If it is going to be finished on Tuesday, well it is finished on Tuesday.

I am much obliged to you for drawing the logical conclusion - of our respective positions, Mr Speaker, and I bow to your ruling.

I think the Prime Minister must not mistake the Chair. There is no ruling at all. It is just a suggestion that we might save some time on Tuesday anyway. Perhaps there might be a debate on that motion an Tuesday.

Then, Sir, may I move, That this motion do stand adjourned to Tuesday, the 10th July, 1962.

May I, Sir, in view of the fact that you gave no such ruling, gratefully accept your suggestion, and suggest to the Member for Anson that perhaps some valuable time on Tuesday which might otherwise be used for elaborating some of the finer points of argument of the Member, for Queenstown would otherwise be lost, in his once again trying to feel obliged to have to say something on that motion. I have already saved, himself a few minutes this afternoon and I think we should save himself a few other minutes on Tuesday. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Does the Member for Anson insist? I might say that these guillotine motions are not unusual in any Parliament. Mr Marshall indicated he did not insist.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the motion in regard to a referendum being held for the people, to decide between two alternatives of reunification standing in my name, and the motion in the names of the Members for Anson and Queenstown that the people of Singapore shall be asked only one question on Polling Day and that Government shall name Polling Day as a day four weeks from the date of the Order therefor, and another motion in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Upper Serangoon that the House condemns the Government for its dishonest and malicious distortion of the Opposition's stand on the merger issue, shall all be brought to a conclusion at 12 midnight on the 11th July, 1962.

Order for Second and Third Readings read. 2.46 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, pursuant to section 97 (2) of the, Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, the Finance Minister shall, after the end of each financial year, introduce into the Assembly a Final Appropriation Bill pertaining to such items which have not, yet, been included in any Appropriation Bill. Supplementary, estimates totalling $100,523,174 were submitted and approved by the Assembly in 1961 The Bill seeks to live legal cover to these supplementary estimates. Sir I beg to move. Question put and agreed to Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Will the Minister proceed with the Third Reading?

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Order for resumed Third Reading

The original Question was, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Since which an amendment has been proposed 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". Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Dr Lee Siew Choh had the Floor. 2.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying last night, this Referendum Bill has been the object of severe attack from all sections of the, people and from all strata of society in Singapore. Office workers, factory workers farmers, students, the intelligentsia, both English-educated, and Chinese educated, businessmen, professional men, all have joined in condemnation of this undemocratic, unjust, unfair and dishonest Referendum Bill. The odium and the Fascist nature of the Bill are clearly evident. There is hardly anyone in Singapore today who can stand up and honestly say that this is a democratic, fair and honest Bill. The Member for Anson called it an abortion fathered by dishonesty out of ineptitude I wish it was true Sir but I say it is not an abortion. An abortion, Sir is something born dead. An hon. Member: You are an expert.

It is something not even properly formed when born, Therefore, the more appropriate word for this Bill is not abortion but a monster. Sir, in medical parlance, a monster is something that comes out from the womb and can still be alive. An abortion is dead. You do not see it any more. Therefore, this Bill is a monster born out of dishonesty and Fascist dictatorship. It is a monster which will be born alive because of the somersault of the S.P.A., but a monster which even the dishonest and dictatorial P.A.P. themselves, the parents of this monster, cannot keep alive for very long. This monster of a Bill will only become law for the execution and sell-out of the people of Singapore, and the dishonest P.A.P. parents are themselves so ashamed of this monster that they will have to kill it immediately after their dirty work has been done. It is too indecent for parade and has to be kept away from public view. Sir, amongst the political Parties represented in this House, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party and the Barisan Sosialis have all condemned this Bill. And until the critical hour not so very long ago, even the S.P.A. had been loud in condemnation of the dishonesty in clause 29 of the Bill. The S.P.A. unfortunately -

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order, yes. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Is all this relevant to the motion before the House?

I suppose that every Member is entitled to an exordium. But I think the Member for Queenstown is now going back to the debate on clause 29 which has already been concluded. He must now concentrate his efforts on indicating to the House how he thinks clause 29 or any other clause is inappropriate or inadequate for the purpose of holding a referendum. We do not want to near any debate for or against any particular clause in this motion in principle.

It hurts the Member for Farrer Park -

The Member for Queenstown has been ruled out of order. That part of his speech is out of order.

I merely wanted to point out, Sir, that had the S.P.A. not joined in the dishonesty of the P.A.P., possibly through pressure from-

Order. That all is too late. That speech should have been made when we were discussing clause 29. I think I have said this before and I will say it again, Members must accept the fact that these clauses have been written into the Bill. Whether they like those clauses or not makes no difference. These clauses have been written into the Bill. Members must now show how they think those clauses are inappropriate or inadequate.

Let me preface this, Sir, by saying that even outside this House all the other political Parties, whatever their political beliefs and policies, have come out openly against this Bill, because everyone in Singapore now recognises that this Fascist Bill of the P.A.P. has infringed the very basic aid inherent right of individual free choice and of the individual right to say "no". For example, the Liberal-Socialists, the Parts Rakyat, the United Democratic Party, the Workers' Party and the Barisan Sosialis, although they have different political ideologies and different platforms, have nevertheless, in the face of this common danger, joined together and formed a Council of Joint Action. We had hoped, Sir, that this Council of Joint Action might influence the Government to give up their Fascist ways and possibly put the interest of the people above the interests of the few Ministers. Even professional bodies, from doctors, dental surgeons, pharmacists and journalists, have come out with strong statements condemning the dishonesty and the undemocratic provisions in the Bill. Everywhere we go, Sir, in buses-

Order. I really hate having to interrupt the hon. Member because I know how strongly he feels in these matters, but he must realise that we are on the Third Reading. He is now advancing an argument against the clauses in the Bill when they were drafted. He must now accept the position that this Assembly has accepted those clauses. The position now is that there is a motion to decline to give this Bill a Third Reading. And the reason for that is that in the view of some Members those clauses are inappropriate or inadequate for the specific purpose which has been declared, and that is for the purpose of holding a referendum. That is the position. We have finished with the Second Reading debate. We have finished with the Committee stage; we are now on the Third Reading, and the, debate on the Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill as they are there now.

I realise, Sir, that it is not permissible, if we go according to the usual rules of debate, to harp back on things we have spoken before. But, Sir, the P.A.P. Ministers must know what is happening outside this House as well. This has a direct bearing on out discussions here in this House, and if we do not take the feelings and views outside the House into consideration, then we may be ignoring a large section of opinion and be merely discussing the subject with a limited view.

Order. The opinions outside this House were relevant when we were discussing the Bill in principle. When we were debating on the Second Reading, those opinions were very relevant; when we were discussing The Bill in Committee, those opinions were very relevant. Now, as I say, we are in the position where the Bill has gone through Committee and has come up for a Third Reading. All that Members can do now is to refer to the contents of the Bill and say this clause, that clause, is inappropriate or inadequate, and cannot be used properly for the purpose which has been declared, that is, for the purpose of holding a referendum. If there are opinions which the Member would like to express as to why they are inappropriate or inadequate, then, of course, he is entitled to give those opinions.

I will come to that by and by, Sir. But allow me to remind the Ministers opposite of what the people outside are saying. The Ministers have been hiding behind air-conditioned rooms and Radio P.A.P. and they have not -

Order. I wonder if the Member could point to a certain clause in this Bill which indicates that Ministers are in air-conditioned rooms, working under easy conditions and so on. What has that to do with the Third Reading? An hon. Member: Air-conditioned Chamber!

Order.

My point is this, Sir, that if they had gone to meet the people outside and had heard what they said, they would not have pursued the course they are taking today.

Order. Yes, all that would have been relevant, as I say, before the Third Reading. But now we are on the Third Reading of this Bill. Let us be relevant.

I will come to it straightaway, Sir. But just one sentence to let the P.A.P. know-

Order. If that sentence is a continuation of previous sentences, that sentence must be disallowed.

Sir, this sentence can be related to so many things at the same time, but definitely it will be related to clause 29, because the people are saying there is nothing dirtier than the P.A.P. today. In Hokkien, the words they use are Chin Chia Chow.

Shut up!

Order. I heard a Member on the Government side taking objection to that expression. Well, I do not know what that expression means. If the Member on the Government side would like to tell the Chair what that expression means and how that expression is offensive, then I will have to make a ruling on it.

Sir, the leader of the Barisan says Chin Chia Chow which means very bad. What makes him say it is very bad?

Order. First let the Chair know the meaning of that expression. That is not Mandarin. I do rot know whether there is a Mandarin equivalent. I think he says it is Hokkien. Now, let us have the meaning of it, unless it is so bad that the Parliamentary Secretary does not wish to give me the meaning.

Sir, in Hokkien it is very bad. He says that the people are saying the Party is very, very bad. Does he mean to say he comes here-

Order. So the meaning of that expression is "very, very bad"?

Yes.

I do not think that is disorderly. It is not unparliamentary.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister -

Order. Let us carry on.

- for his kind explanation, Sir. Sir, this Bill, as we have said before, has no parallel in history. It is, to use the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, so dirty and unprecedented that the Bill, after it has become law and has done its dirty deed, will have to be repealed immediately. From this alone, Sir, we can see the dishonesty and Fascist nature of the Bill. It is like a traitorous murderer, after the shameful and traitorous deed has been done, wanting hurriedly to get rid of all evidence, of that instrument, that has been used for the treacherous and shameful deed. It is like the P.A.P., after they have plunged a knife into the hearts of the people of Singapore, wanting to get rid of this knife as soon as possible. But let us ask them, where can this evidence, this Bill or this law, or this knife, where can this evidence be hidden? The knife, Sir, can be buried in the bowels of the earth or thrown into the deep sea and may not be found again. But this Bill, Sir, this referendum law as it will be, will forever be recorded in the annals of history as the foulest and the most shameful act of treachery of the P.A.P. leadership and all those who condone and connive at such treachery. Sir, we have spent many days of debate on this Bill. There were five days of it in Select Committee and another seven days in the Legislative Assembly on the Second Reading and on recommittal. No Bill in the history of Singapore has been so controversial or has been the object of so much adverse criticism. Why? Because it is a most undemocratic, unfair, unjust and most dishonest Bill. The Member for Anson has given many examples of the dishonesty of the P.A.P. The P.A.P. Ministers themselves know this, and they know they cannot justify their undemocratic principles embodied in the various undemocratic clauses of the Bill. So, time and time again in Select Committee, the P.A.P. Ministers had to defend themselves with evasive and irrelevant arguments. Whenever the Ministers were cornered, whenever they could find no more excuses, they sought refuge in their stock-in-trade answer, "This is a general Referendum Bill." They talk of toddy shops, they talk of tobacco smoking, pipe smoking, cigarette smoking, and they keep on repeating, "This is a general Referendum Bill. This is a general Referendum Bill." Altogether I have counted about 30 times their saying this in Select Committee. Even in this Assembly, the Deputy Prime Minister tried to pull the same stunt again. He said, "This is a general Referendum Bill." The only unfortunate part was that he did not know that we had referred to all this before. He was out of the Assembly Chamber and he came in stuttering those same silly excuses. Yet all along in their arguments, and especially when we were discussing clause 5 of the Bill, they indicated that this Bill was meant for merger. They said we had had enough discussion and canvassing on the merger issue as we had house-to-house canvassing, rallies and discussion groups long, long before. Therefore, they considered there was enough time for canvassing. But when the arguments suited them, they came out openly admitting that this Bill is specifically a Referendum Bill for merger. The Minister for Finance especially came out blatantly and said, "Let us come down to brass tacks. This Bill will be for merger." Similarly. I had occasion to quote, during the Second Reading, the Minister for Home Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister all saying that the present Referendum Bill is for merger. I think the Member for Anson referred to the Government amending his motion in April and the wording of the amendment specifically said that this Bill is meant for merger. Altogether, Sir, both in Select Committee and in the examples I have quoted, they have said 20 times that this is a Bill for merger. So if you cancel the two figures out, 30 against 20, it sounds as if it ultimately should turn out to be a general Referendum Bill - 30 times general Referendum Bill, 20 times specific Bill. But now we have the final admission from the Minister for Home Affairs that this Bill is going to be for merger. They are going to scrap the Bill, scrap the law immediately after the dirty work has been done. They are too ashamed to keep it after merger any more. This shows the utter dishonesty of the P.A.P. and the twists and turns of the P.A.P. Ministers. The Member for Anson gave a series of detailed quotations. I do not think it is necessary for me to bore you with those very same quotations again. But I would like to bring the House back to the time when the Select Committee requested views from the public. If you remember, Sir, advertisements were in serted in the newspapers and all views and memoranda were supposed to be submitted by the 6th April. There were altogether 12 meetings, daily from 2.30 to 7.30 p.m., sometimes 8 o'clock, and much time and energy was spent in the taking of oral evidence. Much play was made of the credentials of those who made representations.

Order. That is completely irrelevant. The Member for Queenstown must know that that is irrelevant to the Third Reading. I take it he is coming to the point where these people were met with the suggestion that this was a general Referendum Bill. If that is so, all he need say is that that was so, and pass on to the next topic.

You see, Sir, what I would like to point out is that the Ministers had all the time been saying that it was a general Referendum Bill. They had no intention of listening to all the evidence that was brought before the Select Committee, because in many of the observations and evidence given to the Select Committee, merger was the subject topmost in their minds. And inspite of all the evidence and points of argument put forward in the memoranda from the various organisations and unions, it really did not make much difference with the P.A.P. Because, Sir, at that time they already had in mind their plot to pose two unacceptable questions.

Order. I do not know what point the hon. Member is making. If the point is that these representors were met with the suggestion that this was a general Referendum Bill, then the point is in order. But if he goes beyond that, he will be out of order. We are on the Third Reading.

Sir, I was just trying to point out that while we were deliberating and while the Ministers were trying to prove to us how impossible it was to pose one question in clause 5, we thought that by getting the evidence and the arguments from the various bodies, possibly we might be able to convince the Government to posing only one question. However the Prime Minister at that time had already told the world that it was going to be a referendum on two questions - on the mode and manner of merger. Sir, in trying to criticise why this Bill should not have its Third Reading, we must try and look into the motivation behind the Bill. Only then, Sir, can we understand why certain clauses are not put in, why certain amendments have not been accepted.

Order. That, of course, is completely out of order. The amendments which were not accepted cannot now be debated. We are now debating only the contents of the Bill, and the Member must show how those contents are not suitable for a referendum.

My point is this, Sir: the Prime Minister had all the time been saying that the purpose of the Bill is to ascertain the views of the majority of the people of Singapore. If this was truly and honestly carried out, no one would be able to quarrel with the P.A.P. on that. But that is not their true intention. The Bill is not meant to ascertain the views of the people truly, honestly and correctly. The Bill is meant to distort and manufacture views. The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye): For a factory.

Sir, the most revealing words of the Prime Minister about this Bill are that this Bill must be made to serve what it is intended to serve. Those were his words, Sir - "it must be made to serve what it is intended to serve." You link these few words of his with his words of "no risk" and "happier position" in the Second Reading and on many other occasions afterwards, we will understand what this Bill is intended to serve. This Bill is not intended to ascertain honestly the views of the majority of the people of Singapore. It is intended to confuse the people, to deceive them, and to ensure that although the people do not support the P.A.P., nevertheless they have to support the P.A.P. That is the purpose that this Bill is intended to serve. I wish the Prime Minister would give his own explanation on this, because all this fits in very well with why certain clauses are phrased and worded the way they are. We had all the time known of this plot, Sir, and it was not difficult for us to pinpoint the various clauses that fit into this plot. There is enough objective evidence in the Bill itself and in the various clauses, and I have already indicated where those clauses fit in. But if you remember. Sir, our difficulty was to get the P.A.P. themselves to admit this plot. You may remember my difficulty in Select Committee when I tried to indicate to the House the thinking and the machinations of the Government. And every time I was thwarted because you said it was a general Referendum Bill. Of course, you were quite correct, Sir; you had indications from the Government Ministers that it was going to be a general Referendum Bill, and so it was supposed to be.

Order. I do not think the Chair should be dragged into this controversial subject. All I need say is that anybody who reads that Bill would, on first impression, agree that it is a general Referendum Bill and drafted as a general Referendum Bill. That is all there is to it.

I would not presume to drag the Chair into this at any time, Sir, but only to draw your attention to this fact in order to clinch the argument which I want to put forward. If you remember, Sir, it was very difficult for me at that particular stage to present you with the full picture of this Machiavellian plot. The Ministers maintained it was a general Referendum Bill and we had to accept the words of the Minister at that particular time. But, as I said, our difficulty was to let the Ministers themselves admit that it was their plot. And that is why, Sir, when they said I had a thick skull, I said, "Yes, let us assume that I have a thick skull."

On a point of order, Sir. Has the thickness of the skull of the Member for Queenstown anything to do with the debate?

I have already indicated to the Member for Queenstown how the debate should go. And if he persists in irrelevancies, I must intervene a little more than that. He is now advancing an argument against clauses in the Bill which he was entitled to argue at the proper time. As I have indicated, those clauses have now been written into this Bill, and he must now indicate how those clauses are in, appropriate or inadequate for the purposes of holding a referendum. That is all. He cannot now argue against the clauses as such.

I will come to all this by and by, Sir.

By and by!

He wants to tell us bedtime stories!

No, I do not really intend to tell any bedtime stories, Sir, but just to tell you the story of my difficulty in drawing an admission from the Ministers themselves of what they were plotting in this referendum.

Order. I think hon. Members in the Assembly now know the hon. Member had a difficulty. Let us come back to the Third Reading. Let us come to "by and by". [Laughter]

Since the Prime Minister is laughing, he probably understands our difficulty. He is a lawyer. He knows what it is all about. It is difficult for us to get a person in the dock to admit all that they had in mind. Our only course is to give them enough rope and let them hang themselves.

It looks as if you are the chaps who are so used to it!

Sir, to come to the clauses. We must always remember this P.A.P. plot to pose two unacceptable questions to the people in a referendum, because a one-question referendum would spell certain defeat and finis for the P.A.P. The voter is compelled to make a choice and he will not be allowed to say "no". If the voter should decide not to vote any of the two alternatives and throw in an uncertain or blank vote, the P.A.P. want to grab this blank or uncertain vote and convert it into a P.A.P. vote. This is the main plot. I dare say it must have come from the fertile, imaginative evil genius of the Minister for Finance-

Order. May I indicate that how this clause came into the Bill is now past history? The clause is in the Bill. Therefore, the Member is in order up to the stage when he says that this Bill is not appropriate because a "yes" means a yes in favour of the Legislative Assembly decision.

You see the Prime Minister laughs very loudly. I am sure he has a hand in this. The only thing is that I could not say what per cent share he has in this plot.

Order. Will the Member for Queenstown try and appreciate what the Chair is trying to do, to keep this debate on an even keel and as relevant as possible to what, in fact, we are debating?

Very well, Sir. Let us come to some of the undemocratic and unconstitutional clauses in this Bill. In clause 5, the Government brought in precedents from various countries like New Zealand and Australia to prove their point that multiple questions had been posed in a referendum. But the earlier examples they gave were all on the sale of liquor and on the hour at which bars are supposed to be closed. The only decent precedent the Ministers brought forward was Newfoundland. But in every case, in all those examples, which the Ministers quoted, the voter is allowed to say no. He is never forced to choose alternatives which are unacceptable to him. The Member for Anson has gone to great details on this to prove the contortionist tricks of the P.A.P. in hiding behind the excuse of "This is a general Referendum Bill." The Member for Anson even mentioned the fact that he sought to introduce a specific referendum Bill to counter the arguments put forward by the Ministers that this is a Referendum Bill. I explained in great detail, as did some of the memoranda that were submitted to the Select Committee, that the correct translation of this Referendum Bill is not in Mandarin, "Chuen min tow piou" but "Chuen min fu chyueh."

That is your translation. No dictionary.

You see, Sir, the Prime Minister asked me to quote the other night and I brought the quotation the next day. It was very unfortunate that the Prime Minister never heard me and I presume that since the Prime Minister had wanted me to produce authority and quotations, he would agree, if I could bring the authoritative quotations. Otherwise there is no point in asking, if you wanted me to quote, it means that once I quote, you could agree to what I quote -

Order. Let the Member for Queenstown speak to the Chair. He has made his point. He did, in fact, bring some authority.

Of course, the whole trouble with the Government is that they have already made up their minds. It does not matter what authority you quote. Their whole plot is to pose two questions, and when the expected reaction is to throw in blank votes or uncertain votes in disgust, the Government want to make sure that that blank vote and uncertain vote belongs to the P.A.P. It sounds a very simple plot. But it is so dishonest and so unfair to the voter that this shame of the P.A.P. will be with the Ministers for a long, long time. All their lives they will not be able to live it down. Sir, I asked that a form of the ballot paper be put in the Schedule. This is done, Sir, in every country - in fact, in the whole world. And yet what happened? Silly excuses were given and again they used the same old phrase, "This is a general Referendum Bill." I remember, Sir, when we were discussing this ballot paper clause - clause 18 - you suggested that it would be best that I discuss it at this juncture. I will now put the case before the Prime Minister that in every country, in every honest democratic Government, they always have a form of the ballot paper to be used in a general election or in a referendum.

Order. Can I be of some guidance to the hon. Member? That is an argument for or against the ballot paper. His line now would be that the Bill itself has not got the form of the ballot paper, and therefore, for that reason, it is inappropriate or inadequate for a referendum in connection with merger. He is now advancing an argument which was advanced in Committee. The position we are faced with now is that there is no form of a ballot paper and the Member then argues that because there is no form of a ballot paper the Bill is not quite complete for this specific purpose.

May I briefly mention, Sir, that in the Australian referendum, in New Zealand, the Compulsory Military Training Poll Referendum, in the Jamaica Referendum, and in fact, in any instance that we can quote, there are always specific Forms of the ballot papers for the voters. If the P.A.P. were really honest, they would also provide for the form to be included in a Schedule in the Bill. But, of course, when talking of this, one must remember that it was the original intention of the P.A.P. Government to spring a snap referendum on the people so that no one would know how the questions would be posed, whether it would be one question or two questions, and the voter would be confused as to how voting would take place. But one more reason, as far as the P.A.P. are concerned, is that they wanted to prevent the Opposition political Parties from even knowing what to expect and so from telling the people how to vote. Now that the Government have indicated what questions they want to pose, I suppose it should be a simple matter for the Government to have, the Form of the ballot paper in a Schedule in the Bill. But I suppose their decision to let people know the questions came a bit too late and they have stuck to their original intention of not letting the people know what the ballot paper should look like. In any honest government the first thing that will have to be done is to show a sample of the ballot paper to the people. We must remember, Sir, that this referendum will be the first referendum we have in Singapore, and probably the last, and the people have the right to know what to expect. Without this ballot paper, the people may not know in what form the questions will be posed, and not know how to indicate their vote, even if they should decide to vote for those unacceptable alternatives which the Government will pose to the people. For this reason, I would say this Bill is not appropriate and should not have a Third Reading. But my more important reasons are in clauses 27, 29 and 30. These are the notorious clauses of the P.A.P. and they stand as concrete evidence of P.A.P. dictatorship and P.A.P. dishonesty. They also stand as concrete evidence of the depths to which human nature can sink in futile attempts to salvage their sinking personal fortunes. Clause 29, Sir, according to the Minister for Finance, is not based on any constitutional or legal principle, but the P.A.P. Government think they should introduce such illegal and unconstitutional principles. They want to legalise such unconstitutional principles to help them in their devilish plot to sell out the rights of the people of Singapore. This clause has caused a raising of eyebrows in polite and diplomatic circles. But it has caused absolute horror to the vast majority of the people of Singapore, so much so that the Prime Minister cannot even explain how they really want to use those blank clauses. This clause, Sir, of course, ties up with clause 5, in that clause 5 allows the Government to pose two unacceptable questions to the people; and when two unacceptable questions are posed to the people and when they do not know how to answer those questions, the P.A.P. hope, under those circumstances, to reap the harvest of their plot. This is the most undemocratic clause that has come to the notice not only of Singapore but of the whole world. The Member for Anson has said even Dictator Hitler allowed the people a chance to say 'no', and did not force them to put in blank votes which ultimately meant votes for the Government. This is a clause that has caused a further reduction in the ranks of the P.A.P. and I only hope that more will be able to stand up for the rights and interests of the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. say that this Bill is based on the traditions of the best parliamentary system. I want to know where in the world they can produce an example or a precedent of such a parliamentary system -

Order. If any Minister tries to do that at this stage, he will be out of order. We are on the Third Reading.

This clause, Sir, must also be linked with clause 32, sub-clause (2). Imagine, Sir, a voter faced with two unacceptable questions. What is he to do? If he does not go to vote, if he boycotts the referendum, clause 21, sub-clause (5) says that his name will be expunged from the electoral register. Sub-clause (7) says that he can have his name restored after payment of $5, but his name may not be restored to the electoral register until the next ensuing revision of such electoral register. In fact, there may be no revision at all and, in the meantime, after this referendum, a general election may be held. So the voter will be deprived of a voice in the formation and in the choosing of a new government. We do not think this is justice. I suppose these are the finer points which the Prime Minister with his legal training has added, in order that the voter may be forced into that so-called zugzwang position - An hon. Member: You are in a zugzwang!

Suppose the voter goes to the booth to cast his vote and is again faced with the impossible situation of not being able to choose one or the other of the alternatives -

Why not?

He does not like the Minister for Finance, he does not like the Prime Minister and so he throws in a blank vote.

Who gets it?

Yet these uncertain and blank votes will be pinched if not by the Prime Minister, then by the Minister for Finance. So, although the voter does not support either of them, yet the law makes it that he must support what the P.A.P. decides on -

Assembly.

You get a chance to have a seat.

If the voter had really decided to support the White Paper, he would have voted for the White Paper, because the White Paper is one of the alternatives offered in the ballot paper. It is because he rejects the White Paper and cannot accept the other alternative offered that he puts in a blank or an uncertain vote. Yet, the Prime Minister says the voter is offered free choice. They refuse to admit, Sir, under the circumstances, that this clause is doing an injustice to the voter. For this alone the House should not approve the Third Reading of the Bill. Let us suppose the voter does not want to be swindled by the P.A.P. Let us suppose he is so disgusted and annoyed with the questions that have been posed to him that he destroys his own ballot paper or defaces his own ballot paper. See what punishment is meted out to him. In clause 32, sub-clause (2), he may be imprisoned for one year; he may not have his name on the electoral register for three years; and he will not be able to stand for election as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Sir, all these are new things which- The Prime Minister rose-

On a point of order?

On a point of order. The Member has alleged that these provisions are new, which is not only incorrect but known to him to be incorrect.

It is not strictly a point of order. But the Prime Minister is correct. The Member must not in turn make statements which are not, in fact, correct. I think the hon. Member for Queenstown does know that there is a 75 per cent similar section in the old Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance.

That is my point, Sir, It is not the same. For example, in the Elections Ordinance, there is no such thing as a blank ballot paper clause. Why does he not follow the Elections Ordinance? In the Preamble-

Order. The Prime Minister is referring to clause 32 (2). Perhaps the Member can make the point straightaway. Really he should point out that there is no such thing as "intentional" defacing under the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. The word used is "fraudulently" defacing. Let us hurry up about it.

Sir, I pointed this out when we spoke on it on the Second Reading. The words "intentionally destroys and intentionally defaces" have been put in because only in this way will the P.A.P. be able to force the voter to go to the voting booth and cast his vote. That is the whole idea of this punishment which they have put into the Bill. The Prime Minister has suggested a way out. He says, why do they not indicate their vote and write their names and addresses? But surely the Prime Minister himself knows. He himself has repeatedly said that quite a lot of people in Singapore do not know how to read and write. That is the reason why symbols have to be used. Yet he is suggesting this to the voter. The Member for Anson has already pointed out that this solution of the Prime Minister will only cause the voter to contravene the basic principle of voting and destroy the secrecy of the vote. But I would like to say, Sir, that this suggestion of the Prime Minister has something more sinister. The powers of the Government are very great. Although they have only 25, they are still the Government, and it would be very difficult for a lot of people to come out openly to oppose them. People like us will tell them so, straight in the face, that we oppose them all the time. But there are a lot of people who are not in the happy position that we are in, and they dare not openly tell the Government that they oppose them although in their heart of hearts they wish that the P.A.P. Government were dead and gone, and gone forever, never to return. So this suggestion of the Prime Minister has something more sinister and cannot so easily be accepted by the people. So you see, Sir, what sort of a zugzwang the voter finds himself in. If he boycotts the voting, he will get some punishment. If he comes along and tears his own ballot paper one way or another, he will be punished in one form or another. If he puts in his vote, it is against his conscience. If he puts in a blank vote, he gets swindled by a very dishonest Government. Is this the meaning of free choice? Is this the meaning of democracy that the P.A.P. always talk so much about? Sir, as has already been repeatedly pointed out to you, this blank vote clause is merely to allow the Government a chance to convert their minority of, say, 10 per cent votes into a 100 per cent victory. But what makes this plot more sinful and devilish is that in stealing those votes the P.A.P. Government dare not reveal how many votes they have stolen. Sir, in clause 27, sub-clause (7), I asked for a declaration of the result of the voting.

Point of order, Sir. As I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking on the Third Reading does not mean going seriatim clause by clause. It means one discusses the whole Bill as it has already been passed. Or is he talking on the amendment moved by the Member for Anson? But whatever it is, it does not mean he has to go through seriatim clause by clause.

The debate on the Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill. Therefore, references to clauses are permitted. But I think the Member for Queenstown is in danger of re-opening a debate on an amendment which has been rejected in Committee. That he cannot do. What he can do is to say that the clause is defective because it does not tell the Superintendent to declare the result of the voting detail by detail. That is all he can say, and he cannot now debate on the merits of the amendment.

No, Sir, I was not going to bring out the merits or demerits of the amendment. But I have to explain and tell the people and Members of this House that such non-declaration of the result of the voting or of polling is never known in the history of the world, except in dictatorships. But our P.A.P. Government still claim that they are democratic, and, according to the Minister for Health and Law, our Bill is based on the traditions of the best of British parliamentary systems. Where can they quote any incident, any example, any precedent where -

Order. There again the Member for Queenstown is going quite far away from what can be permitted on the Third Reading. We are not interested in other countries at the moment. That interest is past. That interest was present when we were in Committee discussing the amendments. Now, as I have indicated, the Bill is as appears before us and, therefore, all that the Member must do now, if he wishes to be relevant, is to indicate how these clauses or any particular clause is, taking the amendment, inadequate or inappropriate for the purposes of a referendum.

Sir, in any election or in any referendum, the result of the voting must be declared and the full details must be made known to the people. It is the right of the people to know and it is the duty of the Government to lay all the facts before the people. Yet in our Referendum Bill there is no proper form in which the results of the voting can be stated clearly for the information of the people. Then what sort of voting is this? They might as well grab all the votes and say, "We have won." Why have the voting? How are the people to know how they have voted? Surely even if the P.A.P. want to steal those votes, let them be brave enough and courageous enough to tell the people the number of votes they have stolen. This declaration here, Sir, to be included by the Superintendent in his declaration of the result of the referendum, has been specially put in and is meant to be vague and to mislead the people so that they might not know about the evil intentions of the Government concerning the blank votes. And what is more revealing is that the Minister for Finance - I see that he has come in.

Order. I have already indicated that Members must be permitted to leave the Chamber and to come in with decorum. They must not be referred to as they are doing that. Otherwise we will have a very disorderly House.

I am glad, Sir, that the Minister is here to listen to it because I want to refer to him particularly. If you will remember in the Select Committee, when the Minister for Finance was asked about the declaration of the result of the voting, he said that the Government reserved the right to disclose or not to disclose -

Surely.

- the result of the voting to the people. I have already mentioned that this Bill is supposed to be based on the best traditions of British parliamentary practice. Can the Minister quote any precedent which says that the Government reserves the right to disclose or not to disclose the result of the voting?

Order. There again the Member is going off the track. That is an argument which has been advanced in Committee and cannot now be advanced on the Third Reading. He must now accept the fact that that is so. The clause is in the Bill. Now he should attack the clause as it is written. He must not now debate to say that the clause should not be there. It is there.

Anyway, I do not intend to pursue that subject any further.

Thank God!

The Prime Minister says. "Thank God!" because he is afraid that more exposure will follow.

You are boring yourself!

Then in the matter of canvassing. Although it is the intention of the Government to allow canvassing, it still limits the facilities of the Opposition to use posters, placards and banners. Since it is a very important national matter, we consider that it is not a good thing not to allow posters and banners. I need only refer now to the presumptive clause - clause 52 - of the Bill. All this has been adequately pointed out by the Member for Anson, and I do not think I need go further into the points raised by him. But we must try and stress one thing. The provisions which stop people from paying visits to houses will make polling day a day of curfew. Such provisions are inappropriate in a Bill of this Sort. This Bill really deserves to be an abortion., I hope it will be. The only thing is that now that it is being supported by the S.P.A., the Government will be sure to push through, this merger Referendum Bill. We are against it because of the pretence and the dishonesty seen in every page of this Bill; because there is no ballot form, because there is no statement of the result of the voting in a specially prescribed form, and because we say definitely it is not in the best of traditions of parliamentary democracy. The Member for Anson has on many occasions said that this Bill is based on a Fascist dictatorship with our Prime Minister trying to out-Hitler Hitler. I do not think we should have a Third Reading and allow this Bill to become law so as to besmirch the good record that we have in this Assembly. We should not allow the annals -

He does not know what he is talking about.

- of history in Singapore to record such deceit and shameful dishonesty of the P.A.P. The Prime Minister says that there is too much at stake. I agree with him, Sir. The only difference between us being that when the Prime Minister says that there is too much at stake, he means that there is too much at stake for the P.A.P. and for himself.

You must be a simple man. That is the point.

For us we feel that there is too much at stake for the people of Singapore for generations to come. I would urge the Prime Minister, before he takes the, final plunge to think again - think of the consequence that may follow. Governments have resigned and gone back to the people for a new mandate on much smaller issues. But we have here Ministers so intoxicated with, power that they must cling on to power -

Order. May I remind the hon. Member that we are on the Third Reading of the Bill, and all this is irrelevant? I, was under the impression that, this was a peroration. If it is a peroration, it must be a short one. The Member should wind up his speech. But, it he goes on and on in this trend he is completely irrelevant. I will allow a peroration.

I have no wish to say much more, Sir, except to tell the Prime Minister, for heaven's sake, not to threaten and intimidate the people of Singapore. Every time he opens his mouth, he says, "Either you have merger peacefully and harmoniously or willy-nilly..." What does he mean by that?[Interruption]

Order. If the Prime Minister tries to answer that question I will have to pull him up because it is completely irrelevant. Has the Member for Queenstown completed his speech?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am unable to agree with the Member for Anson in his amendment that this Bill is either inappropriate or inadequate for the purpose for which it is set out to do, namely, to find out what the majority of the people of Singapore consider about the mode and manner of merger. Mr Speaker, since I last spoke, I have come upon another referendum which is going to be held in the territory of Uganda. I refer you now to the London Times of 28th June, page 9. The issue involved is how two countries in Uganda are to be disposed of: whether it belongs to the Kingdom of Bunyoro or to the Kingdom of Buganda. Both kingdoms claim these two what they call lost counties. A referendum is going to be held in these two lost counties to ask the people to decide between three choices. First, to remain under the rule of Buganda. Second, to be transferred to Bunyoro's rule. Third, to remain permanently under Central Government control, namely, that of the central Government of Uganda, which includes the kingdoms of Bunyoro and Buganda. Sir, this has been processed no doubt by some of their best men in the British Treasury, on the Bench, men trained in the highest traditions of, parliamentary democracy. They are presented with a thorny problem - two kingdoms claim two lost counties. Nobody has been mad enough to suggest to ask the people of Buganda, "Do you wish to join Buganda; yes or no? And if the answer is no, then you remain lost counties." But very sensibly they have said, "Your future can be determined in one of three practicable alternatives - either you go with Buganda, under which you are now administered; or you go with Bunyoro; or you remain outside Buganda and outside Bunyoro under the Central Government. Nobody has said this is undemocratic. The London Times of the 28th of June -

No blank votes?

Well, Sir, I am glad we are coming to something because I am grateful for the interjections of the Member for Anson, because from time to time he helps to clarify the situation. By his interjection he has clarified that 15 representatives is fair. He has written to the newspapers now to say that it is fair. By his interjection now he says it is fair to put these choices to the people.

On a point of clarification. The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

I am obliged to the Prime Minister. I trust he will not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say it was fair. I said it would be fair to have proportionate representation, but we are prepared to accept the discrimination in reference to 15 representatives because it is not vital. As regards the blank votes, I shall say nothing. Sir, Let him continue.

That is not my, Recollection of what I read in the, newspapers. He was at great pains to point out to the editorial writer -

Order. That is a bit irrelevant and the argument can continue afterwards in the C.P.A. room.

Sir I am told that the argument has already, been started here. Before I go back to the debate, may I just point out to the Member for Anson that he, in effect, admitted in the radio forum on a certain date that if he were allowed to put what he calls complete and unconditional merger as a choice, it would be a fair choice-

Yes or no.

Order. I think the Prime Minister will appreciate that all this will come out, I suppose, when we debate his own motion. Let us come back to the Third Reading of this Bill.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, coming to the reasonable voter who goes into the polling booth, he is being asked by the Government, which is not obliged to ask him; the Government has a mandate to carry this thing through. It is not obliged to ask him. But because we wish to give him the choice of complete and unconditional merger -Penang/Malacca, says the Member for Queenstown; unconditional, says the Member for Anson, Johore, says the Member for Hong Lim - An hon. Member: Brunei!

Well then, there it is. He can indicate his choice. We in this Assembly by a majority of 32 recommend to the voter that certain arrangements we have made are just and equitable. But if he decides to reject them, he can do so, and he can go in as a complete constituent State with no reserve powers. Therefore, he marks his choice; he indicates his vote. Sir, it was the Member for Queenstown who said in the radio forum in September last year that he was against a referendum in general. He wanted a general election. He is not interested in a referendum, it does not achieve his purpose. People are not accustomed, he said, to a referendum; they do not understand. Sir, we have paid due regard to what he says. We always do, Sir. Whatever they say, we listen most attentively, even when it is repeated for the tenth time, in case there is a variation or a change of mind, or a change of heart. Because possibly some people may not understand. They may not cast their vote at all, because they may not be able to understand the symbols, they may not be able to read the two propositions that we intend to put to them. Therefore, since nobody suggests that because some voters cannot understand, the whole nation should remain undecided. Obviously, the nation must decide; a decision has to be made and proceeded with. The obvious thing is not to proceed against the resolution of this House, but in accordance with the resolution of this House. What is undemocratic about that? If a man understands the issues, intelligent, educated man like the Member for Queenstown; he is literate, Sir, although from time to time he makes noises which suggest there are more primeval instincts in him. I am sure he understands. I was talking of primeval instincts and it immediately drew a response. He understands it, he knows the process, and he marks his choice. All right. So be it, the lesser of the two evils. He does not want both. Either way, he knows a cordon will be closed. He knows this is zugzwang. He does not want merger. He is against it on principle. But, of course, he made the unfortunate mistake of publicly saying he wanted more merger -

Order. I think the Prime Minister is going far away from the Third Reading. The Third Reading is confined to the contents of the Bill. If the Prime Minister can relate what he says to the contents of the Bill, then he is in order.

The voter having indicated that he likes Penang and Malacca - he does not like it at all really, he does not want to let us have his vote - he then writes his name and address. As he has said, he is going to do that. Well and good. Then we say. here is a man who has not been cheated by anybody, he is literate, he has gone through the process and he invalidates his vote. It is fair enough. At the end of it all, what do we get? We have two bundles and a little bit extra, a third, where chaps like the Member for Queenstown will indicate that they do not wish to be counted in at all. One bundle will indicate those who are in favour of alternative A; one bundle will indicate those who are in favour of alternative B, and the duty of the Superintendent is to announce the result; thereby it becomes the duty of the Government to follow the will of the electorate and bring about merger; much to the discomfiture of the Member for Queenstown. I wish to tell him that I cannot, at this stage, tell him exactly when the happy day will be, but I can assure him that it will be well within the allotted programme, the target date of June 1963, and all being well, I hope June 1963 - [Interruption]

Order.

All being well, we hope to have the pleasure, if not of his company, at least of his felicitations, when we celebrate the great event. 4.30 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, everytime I want to face the Prime Minister to ask him something, he shows boredom and discomfort. After what I have heard him say, I feel he has not answered the Member for Anson and the Chairman of our Party as regards the passing of the Third Reading of this Referendum Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel the Third Reading stage of this Referendum Bill should not be passed. Physically using such a Bill to defend democracy is just like asking a patient to take opium or morphine. In the whole history of this Legislature, this Bill is on the negative side. There is not in the Bill a single positive encouragement to the people's confidence in democracy. There are many clauses in the Referendum Bill but no clause to encourage the people to express freely their choice in regard to the questions on merger. On the contrary, the Bill contains many clauses which seek to restrict and exploit the people's right to express their free choice. There is not a single clause that encourages the people and the different political Parties to express their detailed plans for merger. On the contrary, the Referendum Bill prohibits people from expressing their views as regards merger which are contrary to those held by the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, because of this, I feel that by using such methods to pass such a Bill, the Government cannot achieve the aim of protecting democracy. 4.35 p.m.

On the Second Reading of this Bill and in the consideration of this Bill in Select Committee we saw that the Government did not intend to follow the views of the people. Actually the main aims of the debates in this House and discussions in the Select Committee are to accept the views of the people. Representatives of various people's societies and organisations have appeared before the Select Committee and expressed their criticisms and suggestions in regard to the unreasonable clauses in the Bill, but the Government has paid no attention whatsoever to these criticisms and suggestions. On the contrary, after the Second Reading and the Committee stage on this Bill, the Government have imposed another more unreasonable clause. During the proceedings on the Second Reading, we can see another characteristic of the Government, that is, they have no answers to the criticisms by societies and unions and political Parties. On the other hand, the Government are afraid of the views of the political Parties and of being put into a mess. At the final stage of the Second Reading, some Ministers suggested some clauses that after the merger of Singapore and the Federation, the Bill would be discarded. This proves that the Government agree that many clauses in this Bill do not have the approval of the people, because these clauses are unreasonable. Mr Mammen, Sir, this Bill should not be read a Third time, because the clauses in the Bill are basically inadequate. During its Second Reading, we have seen the Government use unreasonable ways to get it through. We are not prepared to go through clause by clause to say which clause is inadequate and unreasonable and which is forcibly put in. We can only generally say that, on the whole, in the whole history of this Legislature, the sole aim of the ruling Party is to attack the Opposition Parties through the clauses of this Bill. To achieve this, some of the clauses of the Bill exploit the fundamental rights of the people - that is, they are contrary to established and ordinary laws. Just now, our Leader as well as the Member for Anson pointed out the inadequacies of the Bill, because, as regards the choice between "Yes" and "No", the Bill does not specify the form of the ballot paper or how the Superintendent should announce the voting results. The Member for Anson has clearly pointed out that in our Elections Ordinance, there are altogether 17 Schedules. In our present National Referendum Bill, there is not even a Schedule, but there are some inadequacies. That is why this Bill should not be read a Third time. I would like to point out something that is of special interest and requires special attention. This point has been mentioned by the Member for Anson on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is clause 32. When a voter commits an offence under this clause, and if he is a Member of this House, he will have to vacate his seat here. But this is contrary to section 42, subsection (3), paragraph (a) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958. The Minister for Health on the Second Reading of this Bill confessed that this was a legal point needing the solution of legal experts. From this we can know that the provisions, the wording and the power as provided in the clauses of this Bill are ultra vires the present Constitution. Whether those provisions are correct, proper or legal will have to be decided upon by international constitutional lawyers. The Government have decided upon those provisions only by the strength of their majority vote of one. That is not the proper attitude to take in legislation by a government. The whole purpose of this Bill appears to be to put the Opposition Parties to death. If that is so, this Bill should not be read a Third time, and we oppose its Third Reading. Mr Mammen, Sir, I am of the opinion that the P.A.P. Government, when passing the Second Reading of this Bill did not have the majority support of the Members of the House. We consider that the P.A.P. gets its support mainly from U.M.N.O. and S.P.A.; and even U.M.N.O. and S.P.A., in fact, not long ago condemned this Bill, arguing that it is contrary to the views and will of the people and is undemocratic. On the Second Reading of the Bill, when several unreasonable and undemocratic provisions were discussed in this House, U.M.N.O. and S.P.A. Members took our side and criticised those clauses; but now under pressure from the Government of the Federation of Malaya, they have changed their stand. That is why the Bill passed its Second Reading. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr John Mammen): The Member for Upper Serangoon is completely out of order when he alleges that the Opposition Members of U.M.N.O. and S.P.A. are under pressure from the Federation Government. As he knows, a friendly government should not be dragged into a debate in this Chamber. Mr Chan Sun Wing.

(In Mandarin): I only wanted to point out that what I meant was that the P.A.P. Government could get the Bill through its Second Reading because of that characteristic event which helped them. Mr Mammen, the passage of the Second Reading of this Bill will give the people of Singapore a very profound political lesson. That is why we support the contention that the Bill should not be read a Third time. It is because we feel that if this National Referendum Bill were passed under the present circumstances, it would make the people come to the inevitable conclusion that the law can be manipulated by the Party in power. If this House were to pass such an unreasonable Bill, then the House would be debasing the concept of law and would confuse the people as regards the true value of legislation, and that would go contrary to the protection, preservation and maintenance of the democratic system. Mr Mammen, Sir, this point is very important, because the purpose of legislation is to enable the people to respect the process of legislation and to see the value of law. Only when legislation is done in such a positive way can it bring something good to the system of democracy. I recall that in 1959 at the general elections, the Prime Minister made a speech at a mass rally in Fullerton Square, and quoted the history of the Asian revolution.

We are now having a general debate on the Third Reading of this Bill, and I do not see any relevancy in the reference to the Prime Minister when he talked about the Asian revolution in 1959. If the Member continues on that line, he is completely irrelevant to the Third Reading of this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe this point is very relevant. I only want to quote a very short passage - just one instance. It is because the P.A.P. Government want to force this Bill through. We oppose this Bill and we tell them they cannot achieve the purpose of democracy and service to the people which they claimed was what they wanted to do. As they have said before, the value of a government does not depend on how many houses or hospitals or what - not the Government have built. The most important thing is to reform society and to enable the people to understand the system of democracy, the Legislature and to change their views in regard to this House and their views on the government machinery; because in the past the people did not value very much these organi sations because they were under a colonial government. But if the Government were to pass this Bill in this House, they would not be able to change our people's hatred towards these organisations and institutions as they had under a colonial government. Under these circumstances, as I have earlier pointed out, the measures adopted by the Government are just like giving a patient opium or morphine. It may perhaps prolong the life of the patient or stimulate him for some time, but in the end, the days of the patient will be numbered. It is only a matter of time. For these reasons, we cannot agree that the Bill should be read a Third time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the debate on the Referendum Bill, which is designed for the people of Singapore to decide on the mode and manner of merger, has reached its final stages in this Assembly. The Communists and their stooges in the Barisan Sosialis have made strenuous efforts to prevent the Bill from being passed. They tried to do so on the First Reading of the Bill; again on the Second Reading, and in the Select Committee. Having already failed on three occasions, they are now making a desperate bid to prevent the legislation of this Bill at all costs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the debate has elicited one stark fact, and that is, the nefarious motives of the Communists and their stooges to prevent merger. They are basically opposed to merger. It was because of this basic difference that they decided to part company with the P.A.P. and take a negative attitude towards merger and this Bill. Because they have failed in their bid to foil merger, they are now raising the cry that we are being undemocratic and dishonest to the people. These charges are, of course, unfounded, because when we examine their attitude during the debate on merger and the Referendum Bill, we are able to expose their real intentions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, firstly, every political Party has stood for the reunification of Singapore with the Federation. The Barisan overtly want merger, but covertly do not want merger.

Point of order, Sir. Are we debating this Bill or the merger issue?

I was listening to the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and was trying to discern this particular point affecting merger, but before I could pull the Parliamentary secretary up for being irrelevant, the Member for Choa Chu Kang jumped up on a point of order. If he had been a little late, of course, the Chair would have carried out its natural role and stopped anything that is out of order. Mr Wee Toon Boon.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was saying just now, I just want to establish the negative attitude of the Barisan towards merger and this Referendum Bill. As I have said just now, the Barisan overtly want merger, but covertly do not want it. When the Communists and their stooges were confronted with open discussion on merger, they immediately shifted their stand and demanded only complete internal self-government- [Interruption].

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour is going into an argument, or inviting the Opposition to go into an argument, on the merger aspect. He should skip that particular part of the merger issue and come back to the Third Reading of the Referendum Bill, as the general principle and the clauses have been accented in the Committee stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what I wish to establish. They are criticising that the Government is dishonest, because the Government is not going to put the White Paper as a question only in the referendum. Their reasons for this are too obvious and I will not belabour this point. When the absurdity of their stand, which, in fact, would mean the perpetuation of colonial rule, was exposed, they shifted their stand. When the Government announced that it would negotiate with the Federation Government for a merger with autonomy in Labour and Education, as now contained in Command Paper No. 33, the immediate reaction of the Communists and their stooges was that the White Paper -

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is completely irrelevant at this stage. There will be a motion on the White Paper aspect, and when we come to debate that motion, the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to put all his views regarding Command Paper No. 33 and the Opposition's views - particularly, the Barisan's views - on the merger issue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you please. But what I was trying to say just now was first to establish their stand.

I have made my ruling and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to skip that particular part and come back to the Third Reading of this National Referendum Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, - 5.00 p.m.

Will the Member take a long time?

No, it will not be long, Sir - only a few minutes. The question of merger has been fully debated in this Assembly, and the Assembly has accepted the principle of merger. What remains to be done now is to get the views of the people on the mode and manner in which merger should be realised. It is only for this reason that the Referendum Bill has been introduced. Having failed in every other way to frustrate merger, they are now attempting to prevent this Bill from becoming law by attacking especially clause 29 pertaining to unmarked and uncertain ballot papers. If they had their own way, they would probably have a clause of their own to legalise the destruction and defacement of ballot papers, so that their sinister aims could be achieved. Clause 29 would never have found its way into the Bill had it not been for the attempt by the Communists to destroy and deface ballot papers. This is the only way to defeat the Communists and their stooges in their further attempt to wreck the referendum and merger. The Government's intention in introducing clause 29 is only to prevent the Communists from wrecking the Referendum Bill with a view to frustrating merger. Under normal circumstances, the percentage of blank votes would be negligible, and there is no reason to suppose that it will be other than negligible in this referendum. But the Communists and their stooges have shown beyond doubt that they want to cajole the people into casting blank votes by confusing them with such falsehoods as saying that they would lose their citizenship if they were to cast properly marked ballot papers. If, on the other hand, the people were left to decide freely for themselves, there will, I am sure, be very few blank votes, which is exactly what the Barisan and their Communist ranks fear. Instead, they are trying to divert the people from expressing their free will. They are trying to cheat the people, but they say we are trying to hoodwink the people instead. Mr Speaker, Sir, -

(In Mandarin): Sir, on a point of order. What should be the quorum in this House before the Assembly can continue? May I know the quorum?

The quorum should be one-fourth of the Members present in the Assembly. I allowed the Parliamentary Secretary to carry on with his speech because he said he would take only a few minutes. The Member has now raised the question of a quorum of the Assembly. There is no quorum. Therefore, I suspend this sitting until 5.35 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I was about to conclude my speech but, unfortunately, my exposure hurt the Barisan Members so much that they had to interrupt the proceedings. However, now, Sir, I will proceed from where I left. Instead, they are trying to divert the people from expressing their free will. They are trying to cheat the people, but they say that we are trying to hoodwink the people instead.

Order. This seems to be completely irrelevant. I do not know how that arises in the Third Reading. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was explaining how the clause on the blank votes was being brought into this Bill.

That is, of course, completely irrelevant too, because we have done all that. We have debated as to how the clause came into the Bill. I have already indicated, and I think I will do it once more. Clause 29, however it came into the Bill, is in the Bill and therefore must be accepted as being in the Bill, and if hon. Members want to touch upon it on the Third Reading, they can say how desirable it is, what the effect is, what it might do and could do and then say from those reasons whether they give the Bill a Third Reading or do not give the Bill a Third Reading. That is what must be done in the Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept your guidance and I have made my point. But in conclusion, I would like to say that the separation of Singapore from the Federation was a painful incision which was not of our making. As nationalists, it is our sacred duty to rejoin the people of the two territories because we are intrinsically one and the same people. We are therefore determined to see that merger is not foiled by the evil machinations of the Communists. The reunion of the two territories will bring possible an economic stability which will enable us to build a more prosperous society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I therefore oppose the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a nursery song which used to be very popular among little children called "Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush" and the refrain goes, "The Mulberry Bush, the Mulberry Bush and so on till 12 o'clock in the evening." Now, Sir, the debate in the Committee of the Assembly on the Referendum Bill seems to show that the Member for Queenstown in his early childhood must have been very fond of this song. It seems to have left a permanent impression on his mind that this is the proper way to conduct debates in this House, for his performance has come to no more than endless circuits round the mulberry bush. To take a very simple example, yesterday, the hon. Member said that our refusal to grant him permission to hold a meeting in Fullerton Square was-

Order. I must not allow this. If the Minister now goes on that tack, that is going to invite a debate on that subject. I cannot allow it on the Third Reading of this Bill.

I just wanted to make the position clear; it is not a matter of great moment. Well, let us get down to the basic issues of this Bill. To me, they are clear and simple, and all the arguments have been concentrated in the main on two clauses - clause 5 and clause 29. In the first instance, that is clause 5, the issue was whether only one form of merger should be posed for acceptance or rejection or whether, as Government claims, there should be alternative choices or possible forms of merger. As regards the latter, the Government claims that if the choices offered in the referendum are honest, then our amendments to clause 28 and 29 on the blank votes are fully justified. Now, Sir, there is very little doubt that both common sense and constitutional precedents elsewhere support the Government's stand in regard to clause 5; that is, it will be perfectly correct and proper to pose alternatives in the referendum. All the Opposition did was to quote examples in other countries where a single question is submitted to a referendum which admits of a yes or no answer, but they have conveniently ignored referenda in other countries whose situations at that time were distinctly similar to ours. So I think in regard to the amendments to clause 5, the Government's case is overwhelming. So the Opposition's next line of attack is to say that the alternative we are posing in the referendum is a dishonest representation of their stand. Now, as there is going to be a debate on this subject, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to dwell at length on it. I only want to say that if charges of dishonesty are made, then there must be certain tests which can be applied, so that a proper judgment can be reached. One test is a purely technical one which requires that the question should be clear, unbiased and easily understood, and I think on this ground there is not much difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition. But there is the other test which gives rise to heated debate and upon which I want to dwell at some length. The Barisan Sosialis and the Workers' Party say that an honest question is one that is acceptable to them; that is to say, they say that the form of a merger to be put to a referendum can be considered honest only if it is approved by the Barisan Sosialis or the Workers' Party. Now, Sir, I regard this contention as sheer nonsense. Whether a party approves or disapproves any question or questions put to the referendum is purely a subjective matter.

Order. I think if the Minister goes into details he will be irrelevant to the Third Reading. This would be an argument which can be put forward when we debate the Prime Minister's motion. In passing, he can just indicate what is in his mind, but he should not go into details, otherwise he will excite a debate in a debate.

I am just trying to summarise the arguments that were advanced in the Committee of the Assembly on clause 5.

Order. That is exactly what the Minister cannot do. We have finished with the Committee. We have now got a clause and I have indicated that what Members must address themselves to is the effect of that clause, and if the effect of that clause is desirable, then of course there is nothing against the Third Reading. If a Member thinks it is undesirable, then he votes against the Third Reading. It is a question of accepting that the clause is in the Bill; and then arguing whether it is desirable or undesirable, or how it fails.

Now, Sir, clause 5, as it now stands in the Bill, to me is completely desirable because it allows proper alternatives to be put to the people of Singapore at the coming referendum. I cannot understand why the Barisan Sosialis should say that the clause as proposed by the Government is improper and would lead to undesirable consequences. I think they base their objections to the Government position on this clause in that they will not be able to put their own proposition at the referendum. They will not be able to say that the type of merger which they favour - complete merger with automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens - will not go in, and in particular the Member for Nee Soon, who is the most agile intellectual among them, tried to justify the Barisan Sosialis stand on that and he stated the position of his Party in page 62 of the script dated 28th June, 1962 [Hansard Vol. 18, No. 2, col. 236]. He disagreed with our stand, that the two choices offered under this clause would be adequate and acceptable because we say that one of the alternatives would be complete equality with the other States. Now, he says and he has quoted me in this reference: 'The Minister for Finance keeps on harping on his theme that we can get only what the other eleven States got. But the Prime Minister himself at the Radio Forum, during one of the moments when he thought he was clever, stated that the various States of the Federation of Malaya got into the Federation at different levels. For instance, he said that Pahang got in on better terms than Johore and Johore go in on better terms than Penang or Malacca. And all this business of getting in on different terms or better terms took place before Merdeka Day. . ' and he goes on to say that the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya allows variations and that what the Barisan Sosialis ask for is not very much. Now, Sir, if you cut through all his waffle, what the hon. Member meant really is this; that all the States of the Federation are equal but some are more equal than others. Singapore, however, must be the most equal of them all and he says he is not asking very much.

Order. I think the Minister must agree with me in view of what I have said that this is irrelevant to the Third Reading. It will be very relevant when we come to debating the Prime Minister's motion.

Sir, I wind up my observations on clause 5 merely with a proposition that the objection of the Barisan Sosialis to clause 5 was based on a completely dishonest attempt to force through a form of merger referendum which will give them the best chances of wrecking the referendum. Now, Sir, as regards clauses 28 and 29 on the blank votes, these clauses are obviously necessary in order to ensure a proper referendum to be carried out under circumstances in which we know the Barisan Sosialis will attempt to create mischief and I would say that in getting these two clauses through this Assembly, the Government has scored its greatest victory in this debate. I am not, of course, referring to the actual results of the voting. I am referring to the fact that the real purpose of these clauses has at last been made clear through the debate in the Assembly, and for this, we on the Government side can take credit for presenting the problems as we see them. But more than that, we owe a great deal to the Barisan Sosialis for helping us to convince the people of the necessity of these two clauses. May I say, Sir, before the debate, we tried to convince the people of Singapore of two things which clauses 28 and 29 are intended to safeguard? First, we said that the Barisan Sosialis did not want merger although they pretended that they did, and secondly, we tried to convince the people that given the honest alternative of complete merger on equal terms with any of the eleven States of the Federation or the alternative of merger under the White Paper proposals, the Barisan Sosialis would instigate them to cast blank votes. That was what we told the people through all the possible media of publicity, but we found that before the debate it was rather difficult to convince the majority of the people. Many of them said that we were trying to impute motives on our political opponents and they therefore preferred to reserve their judgment, but during the debate on these two clauses we found that more and more people began to understand the real purpose of these two clauses and they are now convinced - as I have said before, not because of what we have said but of what the Barisan Sosialis have said - that the Barisan Sosialis are opposed to any form of merger and that they will instigate people to cast blank votes. Now, let me give a concrete example of this, and I refer to a Member of this Assembly who will be able to bear witness here. Before these two clauses were discussed in this Assembly, I tried to convince the Member for Tanglin that these two clauses are desirable because we want to checkmate the Barisan Sosialis from creating mischief. I said that they did not want merger in any form whatsoever and that during the referendum they would instigate people to cast blank votes. Now, Sir, everybody knows that the Member for Tanglin is not only an honest man but a God-fearing man and his sincerity in matters of personal conviction, I think, is beyond any dispute. But when I tried to convince him of our stand on these two clauses, he was most dubious. He asked me, why should the Barisan Sosialis want to do this shady, complicated and dishonest thing? I tried to give a political analysis with reasons, but he thought it still looked very odd to him although he was willing to concede that having worked with the Communists and their stooges for so long we were in the best position to understand how they think, plot and act. He conceded that there might be something in what we said about these two clauses. Nevertheless, he preferred to reserve judgment. But after listening to the speeches of the Barisan Sosialis in this Chamber, he is now completely convinced that what we said is correct. In fact, he went on further and told me that in the situation which we are facing on this referendum, blank votes are not blank votes in the ordinary sense of the word. In normal circumstances, a blank vote means a person is undecided and has no opinion one way or the other, but the Member for Tanglin said - and he can confirm it that blank votes in the coming referendum would have a most sinister meaning; the Barisan Sosialis would instigate the people to cast blank votes through the racialist and pro-Communist propaganda line they would claim that merger in any form whatsoever would mean the subjection of the Chinese by the Malays.

Order. I do not think the Minister will be right if he goes on with those details. Up till now, he is all right; he is completely relevant. I do not think he should go into further details.

Now, Sir, the point I want to make is that these clauses are desirable and in this matter I made the point that the Member for Tanglin, who could not understand the position at the outset, is now completely convinced; after having heard what the Barisan Sosialis themselves have said, he says that a blank vote in these circumstances is not a blank vote but a loaded vote and, as such, clauses 28 and 29 are necessary to ensure that this menace is properly dealt with. Well, I am greatly gratified at this change of conviction on the part of the Member for Tanglin, but as I said. I cannot claim much credit for it because it was really the Barisan Sosialis who convinced him of it, because speaker after speaker from the Barisan Sosialis said that if the choice were complete merger on an equal basis with any of the eleven States of the White Paper merger, then the people would cast blank votes and would make no bones about their position in this event. Therefore, this is a complete justification for clauses 28 and 29. As I say, the real purpose and intention of these clauses is now getting wider and wider recognition. To me, the fact that people are now becoming more and more aware of the purposes which clauses 28 and 29 are intended to serve is a major victory on the part of the Government, a victory which, as I have said before, was gained by us with the unintended and unwitting assistance of the Barisan Sosialis. I would almost like to thank them for that, but since the results which we have achieved are very gratifying - though they were unintended - I must, therefore, withhold any expression of gratitude.

Mr Speaker, this is the final round that we, the Opposition, are fighting against the Bill and against the P.A.P. Government in this Assembly. But we shall continue to fight against the Bill and against the Government and the P.A.P. type of merger outside the Assembly. Sir, if the P.A.P. Government is sincere enough and honest enough to the people, then this Bill should be introduced for the purpose of holding a referendum to ascertain the wishes of the people on the question of merger with the Federation of Malaya. Sir, if there is no such merger issue in which the basic rights of our people are to be deprived, then I believe there will not be such a heated debate in this Assembly. Sir, the merger issue and the Referendum Bill, which are both inter-related, would not become a controversial issue in this country. Now in every corner of Singapore people are cursing the Bill and cursing the P.A.P. Ministers. We in this Assembly time and again reminded and warned the P.A.P. Ministers that if they insisted on the sell-out merger and the undemocratic clauses of the Referendum Bill, then they would face great opposition in this Assembly and outside the Assembly. In the P.A.P. the Member for Bras Basah has now walked across the Floor to oppose the dictatorial and undemocratic attitude of the leadership of the P.A.P. and to oppose the sell-out merger that the P.A.P. Government prepares to carry through. Her decision to walk across the Floor clearly proves that the P.A.P. Government wants to take away the democratic rights of our people in order not to allow our people to have their final say.

Order. I see the Member for Bras Basah is in the Chamber. I do not know whether the Member for Changi is expressing what is in her mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah issued a statement in the Press accusing the dictatorial attitude of the P.A.P. Ministers. Sir, the P.A.P. Government does not allow people to have the final say on any and all matters affecting their constitutional status. All the illegal steps to stop the people from expressing their own free will are now put into words and clauses in this Referendum Bill. The will of the people shall be the will of the Government. That is to say, the Government must do things according to the wishes of the people and in the interests of the people. In other words, the Government must first consult the people on matters affecting the people and affecting the nation. After having got a mandate from the people, the Government can then proceed according to the wishes of the people. Only by this way can the views of the people be freely expressed and freely consulted. But what do we see in this Bill? I am not going to read out the clauses which have been thoroughly discussed in the Committee. All I want to say is that when a referendum is held to decide the matter of merger the people will not be allowed to say yes and no. The people will be forced to choose between two and more unacceptable proposals submitted to them by the Government in the referendum. They will not be given a chance to abstain or to reject any questions proposed by the Government. Since the people have no right to reject or to abstain but to accept, where then are the democratic rights of the people? Sir, the period of referendum is the period of fear and torture, it is a period where people, especially political workers and party members, excluding, of course, the P.A.P. members, will not be able to move freely, to talk freely and to work freely so as to explain to the people about merger and about the referendum. Sir, where can we exercise our democratic rights that the people of Singapore are fighting for? Now we see the basic rights of our people deprived by the Government whom the people elected in 1959. Just now I said the will of the people shall be the will of the Government, but the will of the Government cannot be the will of the people especially on matters affecting all the people of the nation. Why then did the P.A.P. Government, who were elected by the people, become so dictatorial? Why did the Government introduce such a Bill with so many clauses prohibiting people from exercising their democratic rights on a national issue such as merger? It is because the interest of the P.A.P., the interest of the colonialists, and the interests of the colonial stooges are now coming into conflict with the people and there are only two ways for them to choose. One- The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Lee Khoon Choy): Point of order. Is it relevant to say all these things on the Third Reading?

The Member has indicated that there are certain clauses that prevent the people from making their free choice and perhaps he is on the border of being relevant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I have said there are only two choices for the P.A.P. One is to fight for the interest of the people but against the interest of the colonialists and the colonial agents. The second is to fight for the interest of themselves and for the colonialists and their agents but against the interest of the people. But it is a pity the the P.A.P. choose the second one. They want to appear as democrats and leaders of the people. They say to the people, "You will have a say in matters of merger and we will have a referendum." But what do we see in this P.A.P. Referendum Bill? It is a Bill no better than the P.P.S.O. The present provisions of the Bill do not allow our people to reflect their true wishes especially when the blank and uncertain votes are to be counted as in support of the P.A.P. merger stated in Command Paper No. 33. It is a very curious provision because the basic right of our people to decide their constitutional future is deprived. This basic right is the right to abstain, accept or reject. We urge the Government that any proposed constitutional changes must first have the approval of our people, otherwise there will be chaos in our country. We on this side of the House will take steps to prevent any move that threatens or undermines the democratic rights of our people.

What is that? Are you afraid?

Order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a flood of words, mostly foul epithets, flowed in torrents from the mouth of the Member for Anson last night when he moved his amendment to the Third Reading of this Bill. He said that the Bill was a specific Bill to enable a referendum on merger to be held, but that Government has dishonestly said that this is a general Referendum Bill and pretended that under this Bill referenda could be held on toddy shops, Malay as the official language, and smoking, so that the provisions which were usually found in specific Referendum Bills would not find a place in this Bill. He said that if the Bill were a specific Bill on merger, it would have included Schedules providing for the form of a ballot paper and a format for the returns to be made by the Superintendent. He quoted, as examples, the Referendum (Federation) Law, 1960, of Jamaica and the Newfoundland Referendum Act. Sir, the scope of a Bill is indicated by its Long Title, and if the Member for Anson had taken the trouble to look more closely at the legislation to which he referred the House, he would have found that there is a difference in the Long Titles of these enactments and the Long Title of our Bill. The Long Title of the Referendum Federation Law, 1960, of Jamaica is in the following terms: 'A law to provide for the ascertainment by means of a referendum of the opinion of the people of Jamaica with respect to the continued participation of Jamaica in the Federation of the West Indies.'. The Long Title of the Referendum Act of Newfoundland of 1948 is in the following terms: 'An Act to provide for ascertaining at the referendum the wish of the people as to the future form of government of Newfoundland.'. The Long Title of the New Zealand Military Training Poll Act of 1949 which the Select Committee has also considered is in the following terms: 'An Act to provide for a poll relating to compulsory military training.'. Sir, the Long Title of our Referendum Bill, on the other hand, states that Bill is an Ordinance to provide for the holding of a national referendum and for matters connected therewith. It does not follow that any legislation enabling a referendum to be held in Singapore on merger must take the form of a specific Referendum Bill restricting the scope of the Bill to the merger issue, and if it does not, then the Bill is open to the charge that it does not conform to accepted parliamentary practice. This is utter nonsense, Sir. Sir, whether the long Title of a Bill restricts its scope to the holding of a referendum on a specific national issue or whether it enlarges the scope of the Bill to enable a referendum to be held on any national issue is not of any importance, as all referendum legislation, whether it takes the form of specific Referendum Bills or a general Bill, must contain provisions which will enable the question or questions to be put to the electorate, must include the procedure which is to be followed in the holding of a referendum, and must provide safeguards to ensure that the referendum is fairly and honestly conducted. That is why all referendum legislation either imports the identical provisions of the electoral procedures and the laws governing the holding of general elections in the referendum legislation itself, or specifically requires that recourse should be had to the procedure set out in the laws governing the holding of general elections for the purpose of holding a referendum. In a Referendum Bill on a specific national issue, it is usual for a clause to be incorporated setting out the question or questions that are to be put to the electorate, and this was the procedure followed in the Jamaican, Newfoundland and New Zealand referendum legislation to which I have referred. Sir, the Member for Anson moved amendments to clause 5 of the Bill to provide that the matter should be submitted to the electors for a referendum by the Head of State only when he is advised by the Minister at the request of the Legislative Assembly, and a further amendment to this clause to provide that not more than one question should he submitted to the electors in any one referendum, and such question shall contain only one issue and the electors shall only be required to answer such question in the simple affirmative or negative. We on the Government side have maintained that as the Long Title of the Bill very clearly indicates that the scope of this Bill is not limited to the holding of a referendum on a specific national issue, powers must be given to the Head of State to submit the matter to the electors for a referendum on any national issue by way of an Order made under clause 5 of the Bill, and under section 20 (2) of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in. Council he must act on the advice of the Cabinet when he makes the Order. Sir, we have maintained that the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson limiting the matter to be put to the electorate for a referendum under the provisions of this Bill to a single question containing one issue and requiring the elector to answer such a question in the affirmative or negative, is a limitation which is contrary to the scope of this Bill. Such a limitation is also without precedent as referenda have been held in Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and the Cameroons, where more than one question have been put to the electorate and where the electors have been invited to make a choice of one question without being required to answer in the affirmative or negative to each of the questions put. In the case of the Cameroons, the referendum was supervised by the United Nations itself, and the procedure of the choice of one of two questions received the approval from an unimpeachable source. The only difference between our Bill and the referendum enactments of Newfoundland, New Zealand and Jamaica is that the questions placed before the electorate in these enactments are incorporated in a section of these enactments. Government has already tabled a notice of a motion indicating the questions to be put to the electorate on the merger issue, and this motion will soon be debated in the Assembly. If these questions receive the approval of the Assembly, then they will be put to the electorate by an Order of the Head of State made under the provisions of clause 5 of the Bill. Sir, what difference then does it make whether the questions are incorporated in the text of the Bill itself in a specific referendum Bill, or whether the questions, after debate and approval of the Legislative Assembly are put to the electorate by way of an Order of the Head of State made under the provisions of clause 5 of the Bill? The Member for Anson has also said that if a specific Referendum Bill had been introduced by Government on the question of merger, the Bill would have contained Schedules indicating the form of the ballot paper and the format of the return which the Superintendent would have been required to make after the holding of the referendum. Sir, I have here with me the actual texts of the Federation Act, of Newfoundland of 1948, the Federation Law of Jamaica of 1960, and the New Zealand Military Training Poll Act of 1949; all copies printed by the Government Printers of these territories. The Newfoundland Referendum Act of 1948 has 25 clauses with not a single Schedule. The Jamaica Referendum Act has six clauses with not a single Schedule, and the New Zealand Military Training Poll Act of 1949 has six clauses with one Schedule indicating the question that is to be put to the electorate. How then can the Member for Anson say that our general Referendum Bill is open to the objection that it does not conform to accepted parliamentary practice, because no Schedules are indicated in the text of the Bill? The Member for Anson has also said that clause 21, which incorporates the identical provisions of compulsory voting found in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance into this Referendum Bill, is to be deplored because the voter who fails to vote will have to wait until the next revision of the electoral register before he can exercise his right to vote again. The Minister for Home Affairs has already told the House that 58,000 electors failed to record their votes in the last general election, and up to date a very small number of them have taken the trouble to get their names restored to the electoral register. I cannot see how, in view of this evidence, it can seriously be stated that clause 21 is perfidious and dishonest and should not have been included in the Referendum Bill. A provision like clause 21 would have the advantage of bringing home to the elector the existence of this added penalty which will serve as a deterrent to voters keeping away from the referendum polls and stimulating larger attendances at the polls, thereby helping to achieve the object for which compulsory voting has been introduced. There is nothing undemocratic that I can see in such a provision. Sir, on the objection that the court should be given a discretion to impose a fine in respect of the offences enumerated in clauses 32, 38 and 42 of the Bill; these are serious offences, and it is the practice, in the framing of legislation where offences are serious, not to give the court a discretion to impose a fine. Furthermore, Sir, the argument that the deprivation of civic rights following on a conviction for an offence under these clauses should be left to the discretion of the court is without any substance. If there is to be a deprivation of civic rights following upon a conviction for any of these offences, the deprivation should be the same for everybody. It would make nonsense of the deprivation if it could vary from person to person. Nor is there any substance in the argument that when an offence is committed by a Member of the Assembly, he should, although deprived of his civic rights, nevertheless continue as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Sir, the proposition that it should not be an offence for an elector to intentionally deface his own ballot paper is too absurd to require any serious consideration. The Member for Anson and the Barisan Sosialis have attacked clause 29 of the Bill which provides that any person whose ballot paper is unmarked or uncertain is thereby deemed to accept or is willing to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred to referendum. They have argued that as there is to be compulsory voting, under this provision in the Bill, a citizen is deprived of the fundamental human right of recording a blank vote and saying 'no' if unacceptable proposals from their point of view are put to the electorate. What they are contending for is what they claim to be a democratic right to organise a campaign for the recording of blank votes, if the questions put to the electorate are unacceptable from their point of view. They are making a pretence that they are champions of parliamentary democracy and, at the same time, they say they are not prepared to accept questions which will be put to the electorate after debate and approval by the Assembly. They contend that even if the choice of questions receives the approval of the Assembly after debate, if it is not acceptable from their point of view, then they should have the democratic right to organise a campaign for the recording of blank votes to frustrate the referendum on merger. This clause in the Bill will effectively check any move on their part to mount such a campaign, which they could easily do by the malicious spreading of rumours and whispers that the voter would lose his citizenship if he made a choice. Surely there is nothing undemocratic and unconstitutional in taking counter measures to put a stop to this, so long as the elector is given the freedom to make a democratic choice. It is well known that in elections and by-elections blank votes form a very negligible proportion of the total votes cast, as there is no temptation for anyone to organise a campaign for the recording of blank votes. Is it not right, therefore, that Government should take countermeasures to frustrate what they propose to do? As the Prime Minister has already pointed out to the House, the elector has under the provision of clause 28 (1) (b) of the Bill the right to say 'no' if he indicates his choice on the ballot paper and then writes in his name and address by which he can be identified. Such votes will be rejected and not included in the count. Where then is there any substance in the argument that if an unacceptable choice from their point of view is put to the elector, he has no right to say 'no' if he considers his choice to be unacceptable? In section 48 (1) (c) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, there is a similar provision. The only modification made is that he will have to indicate his choice before he identifies himself to nullify his vote. Speakers on the Government side have during this debate repeatedly exposed the dishonesty of the proposal which the Barisan Sosialis and its allies consider to be an acceptable choice from their point of view. They, in fact, do not want merger but they have not got the courage to say so openly. The Barisan Sosialis and its allies have also pressed for separate returns to be shown, electoral division by electoral division, of all unmarked and uncertain votes cast. It has been explained that as there is no political contest among candidates in constituencies in a referendum, there is no reason why such separate returns should he included in the Statement of the Referendum which the Superintendent has to publish under the provision of clause 30 of the Bill. The only information of any relevance in a referendum is the number of votes cast in respect of the questions put to the electorate, and this information will be provided. Furthermore, there is no reason why we should give the Barisan Sosialis and their manipulators outside the Assembly an opportunity of mounting a campaign of calumny and falsehoods by showing separate returns of such votes. Sir, the new amendment which the Minister for Home Affairs has introduced to clause 43 of the Bill has been referred to as an example of the depths of perfidy and dishonesty to which the Government has descended in this un democratic Bill. The housewife who goes shopping on referendum polling day and the farmer and hawker who go about their daily routine on referendum polling day have no reason whatsoever to be afraid of the provisions of this clause. These provisions provide the machinery whereby those who organise canvassing on referendum polling day can be detected and brought to book for their misdeeds. There is nothing undemocratic in including such provisions in this Bill, as experience has shown that where there are no means of detecting and bringing offenders to book for canvassing on polling day, the prohibition against canvassing on polling day is quite meaningless. An objection has also been taken by the Member for Anson to clause 52 (5) of the Bill, which enables the Referendum Judge to take account of secret documents referred to him by the State Advocate-General when he is to make a decision on a referendum petition. I have already pointed out to the House that in a referendum petition, there are no accused persons and there is no danger of this secret information being used to the prejudice of any individual person. Such information is necessary and useful to inform the Referendum Judge of what has taken place to enable him to make a determination on the referendum petition. I have also pointed out that those who are called upon to show cause why they should not be reported for corrupt or illegal practices in a referendum will be given an opportunity of being heard and of giving evidence and calling witnesses to show why they should not be so reported, and in such proceedings The Bill does not permit secret information available to the Judge on the referendum petition itself to be used against them. As there has been a hue and cry that a specific Referendum Bill should have been introduced for the merger issue itself, although, as I have shown, there is no substance in this objection, the Government has introduced a new clause to the Bill to provide that it will be repealed when merger is accomplished. Sir, I have disposed of all the matters which the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown claim to be undemocratic in this Bill. As this Bill is entirely satisfactory for the holding of a national referendum on merger and will give the elector an opportunity to make a democratic choice of the questions to be put to him after such questions have received the approval of the Legislative Assembly., there is, therefore, no substance in the arguments which we have heard from the Member for Anson and the Member for Queenstown. I ask the House to reject the amendment of the Member for Anson to the motion for the Third Reading of this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after the P.A.P. has been in power for three years, this is the first time that this House has asked for the rejection of a Bill proposed by the P.A.P., that is, the National Referendum Bill. I believe this is the first time in this House that we have this incident. If my memory is correct, during the previous Lim Yew Hock Government no occasion arose when Members of this House asked for the rejection of a certain Bill by the Government. Therefore, we can see very clearly that the request for the rejection of the Third Reading of this Bill by the Opposition is justified. Mr Speaker, Sir, this National Referendum Bill was tabled for the First Reading in December last year, and we, the Opposition Parties, found that there were many undemocratic provisions in the original Bill.

We cannot go as far back as that. We must come straight on to the Third Reading. Members must accept the clauses as they have been put in. And when I say accept, I mean accept the fact that these clauses have been inserted in the Bill, and then show how these clauses are unsatisfactory, undesirable, or, from the Government's point of view, desirable.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out to you that the Opposition Parties have introduced about 34 amendments, but all these amendments were rejected by the Government. These amendments, in our opinion, would have a very great effect on the democratic rights of the people of Singapore. We cannot accept the fact that the Government should reject our reasonable amendments. I do not wish to speak at length on all these 34 amendments, but I wish to refer to the speeches made by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Law. Their explanations cannot cover up their dictatorial acts and approach to this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law, a while ago, said that clause 5 is very reasonable because in Newfoundland, New Zealand and Jamaica, there have been similar provisions. Therefore, the Government is correct in posing more than one question to the people in the coming national referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law tried to justify the P.A.P. Government as being democratic by citing examples from various foreign countries. Just now the Minister for Law said that the main purpose of this Bill is that it should be used to conduct a national referendum on the question of merger. Therefore, this is of national importance and affects the whole State. But we cannot accept the simple examples given by the Minister for Law. Mr Speaker, Sir, this question of national importance will be proposed by the P.A.P. Government, namely, Command Paper No. 33, which is passed by the Government with the support of the S.P.A. Therefore, the question to be posed to the people should be Command Paper No. 33 and not other questions. This House has not debated other questions as to the form of merger and, at the same time, the Government has not proposed other forms of merger to be debated in this House.

The Member says that the Government has not proposed any other forms of merger to be debated in this House. Is that correct?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out to you that the motion tabled by the Prime Minister, that is, the question of a national referendum, completely distorts our stand which we proposed in this House on 21st November last year.

I do not wish to stop the Member unnecessarily, but that is what the Member will say and can say when we come to debating the Prime Minister's motion. All he can say now is that in his view these two questions are unacceptable, and finish with that. But he cannot go into details. Those details can be debated when we come to debating the Prime Minister's motion.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that since the Minister for Law has said that this Bill was a specific Bill on the question of merger, therefore, the question to be posed to the people should be Command Paper No. 33, that is, the White Paper merger proposals. Mr Speaker. Sir, a while ago the Minister for Finance gave reasons why the Government wanted to put in clause 5 and clause 29 in this Bill. It was because these two clauses were intended to be used against the Communists, and also because we, the Barisan Sosialis, wanted to take the blank votes as negative votes. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not demanded that blank votes should be regarded as negative votes. Our stand is very clear and the Member for Queenstown has also expressed this stand on the question of blank votes very clearly in the Select Committee. What we want is that blank votes should be considered as void and not as votes in support of or opposed to any proposal or question. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 4th July, when clause 29 was debated in this House, the Member for Hong Lim moved an amendment, namely. In page A12, line 16, to delete the words "accepts or is willing" and insert the words "rejects or is unwilling". That is to say, the Member for Hong Lim wanted the Government to consider blank votes, which the Government wanted to consider as votes accepting the decision of this House, to be considered as votes which are against the decision of this House. When the amendment was put to the vote, the Member for Hong Lim asked for a division. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the Official Report of this House on the 4th of July, and the result of the voting was that three votes were in favour, that is, the Member for Aljunied, the Member for Punggol and the Member for Hong Lim. These were the votes in favour of the amendment. 25 votes were against, 4 were absent, and 19 votes abstained. Mr Speaker, Sir, these 19 votes that abstained included the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis. Therefore, our stand is very clear from this voting. We have not requested that blank votes should be deemed as negative votes. Therefore, the tactics of debate adopted by the P.A.P. are like that. When they are cornered, when they have no more arguments to offer, they will try to distort our stand. However, the record of this House clearly shows our stand on the question of blank votes. Mr Speaker, Sir, the only explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Finance with regard to the blank votes is Communist instigation, because the Government are unable to cite other precedents and examples to justify their stand that blank votes should be deemed as votes in support of the Government. They are not able to justify their stand. Therefore, under these circumstances, the Government can only produce the pretext of Communists hoping to confuse the people and to make them believe that these two clauses are reasonable. Mr Speaker, Sir, the opposition to clause 29 is not only confined to the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Anson, the U.P.P., the Liberal Socialists, but the S.P.A. had also objected to clause 29. But because of events a few days ago, the S.P.A. have to save the P.A.P. from collapsing and to maintain their Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Secretary General of the S.P.A., at a mass rally organised by the Workers' Party, strongly opposed-

Sir, is all this relevant to the motion now before the House?

The Member for Choa Chu Kang is endeavouring to answer a point made by the Minister for Finance. He has answered that point and now he is becoming irrelevant by going into details.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am trying to explain now that the blank vote clause was opposed openly by the S.P.A. on the 24th of June. In the Select Committee the Member for Cairnhill also opposed it.

Order. I must stop the hon. Member because all that took place in Committee. We have finished with that. I have said repeatedly that the Member must accept the fact that clause 29 is in the Bill. Now he can indicate why he thinks it is undesirable if it is in the Bill, and will not serve the purpose of holding a referendum on merger.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept your instructions, but I have to point out to the Government here that their attitude towards blank votes, their only explanation is because of Communist instigation. Such an explanation will not convince the people of Singapore. Their statement that this is for use against the Communists will not be accepted. The Government has said that all those who oppose the Bill are Communists. I can tell the P.A.P. Government that all the people of Singapore, everyone of them, are against this clause with the exception of a few in front. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister for Law said that, according to past election and by-election experience, blank votes were negligible; therefore clause 29 was necessary. In the elections and by-elections blank votes were negligible, it is true, but this time this is not an election or a by-election, it is a national referendum. Especially with regard to clause 5 of the Bill, such a clause makes the people of Singapore choiceless, so they have to put in blank votes. Therefore, the explanation put forward by the Minister for Law was just to hide their dirty tactics so as to enable some people to believe that their ways are reasonable. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law also said that clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill were necessary, but we feel that such severe penalties should not appear in a democratic society. If the questions suggested by the Government were to be supported by the people, there should not be such clauses. If the people would not object, such clauses would not be necessary. The questions posed by the Government are not wanted by the people. Therefore, in order to force all the citizens of Singapore to accept the P.A.P. suggestions, therefore, the Government has suggested clauses 38 and 39 to oppress those citizens who are dissatisfied with the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law wants to give the impression to some people that such occurrences are few, but in actual fact it is not so. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law also said that if people organised parties for canvassing on polling day, then clause 43 was necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, we debated this question lengthily yesterday. The conclusion was that the Minister for Law pointed out that such a provision was to deal with the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Speaker, Sir, I pointed out yesterday that according to paragraph (a) of clause 43 (1), no one can visit others. The Government thought that such a paragraph was necessary, and tried to suppress the people from visiting others and also their political opponents. Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot let the Government have such a provision to abuse their powers to deal with those whom they do not like. If such a provision were to be put to use, then I say that in future referenda the Government could easily make use of this provision to take action against their political opponents when they now cannot do so. The Government could then use this provision to the full to suppress those whom they do not like and also their political opponents. So we can clearly see that the whole Bill is in opposition to the will of the people. Therefore, the amendment moved by the Member for Anson clearly explained that the Opposition Parties were thinking of the interests of the people. If the Government do not take into consideration our views, then in future national referenda they will adopt the tactics of Hitler to oppress the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, why are the people of Singapore showing dissatisfaction with this Bill? The Member for Cairnhil has often said that his Party is a responsible Party and is one that looks after the welfare of the people. It is now time for the S.P.A. to show their real stand as to whether or not they are in support of the P.A.P. Government on this issue. This is the time for them to show their real attitude towards the people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government really want to look after the interest of the people, then they should accept the motion by the Member for Anson. 7.02 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support the Third Reading of this National Referendum Bill. Such a Referendum Bill has lost its original meaning. There is no democratic justice in it any more. Therefore, I cannot support it. The Minister for Finance has just said that clause 29 is their victory. The victory as conceived by the Minister for Finance is not glorious. Therefore I cannot support this Bill. An hon. Member: Hear, hear! 7.03 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bras Basah has said that she is against the Third Reading of this Bill. Why did she agree to it during the First Reading? Why does she now object to it during this Third Reading?

The Member for Tiong Bahru is far, far behind time. We have finished the First Reading, the Second Reading and Committee. In the Select Committee, certain amendments were made, and in this whole Assembly, amendments were also made. It is at this stage that I think the Member for Bras Basah is objecting - after the Bill has been amended.

(In Mandarin): I have nothing more to add. 7.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the National Referendum Bill is now at its last stage, and once the Bill is approved by this House, it will become law and the chances are that within the next couple of weeks or so - in any case before the end of July - there is going to be a referendum held under the provisions of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I may be wrong in this, but if I am wrong, I am always prepared to stand to be corrected. I think I know exactly when they want to hold the referendum, but in any case. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no doubt in the mind of the Barisan Sosialis that this Bill is primarily meant for holding of a referendum on the merger issue. Sir, in the Select Committee and also the Committee of the whole Assembly, and even just now when the Minister for Labour was speaking - An hon. Member: Minister for Law.

I always think of him as the Minister for Labour and Law because of my past association with him. But, anyway, even when the Minister for Health and Law was speaking just now, he gave us the impression, as they did in Select Committee and in the Committee of the whole Assembly, that this is still a general Referendum Bill. But I say to this House that if it was in fact a general Referendum Bill to decide on matters like whether one should drink toddy or whether one should smoke a pipe, we in the Barisan Sosialis would not have initiated a marathon debate - which I am sure the Members have found a little tiresome. But because we know that the primary purpose of this Bill is to hold a referendum on the issue of merger, we have thought fit to make sure that we put forward all our arguments as clearly as possible, because after this Bill is passed, then, Sir, what is to happen is just anybody's guess. There has been so much talk of parliamentary democracy. There has been a lot to talk of the glories of parliamentary democracy, and so on. I can only say, Sir, that if this Bill is passed with the present provisions, then it simply means - whether the Government Members want to admit it or not - that the people of Singapore will lose confidence in the parliamentary system.

That is what you want.

Sir, I have already stated that I do not want to claim to be a champion of parliamentary democracy. It is for people like the Minister for Finance to say that his life is dedicated to preserving the democratic system. It is for them to realise that the very act they are indulging in now will spell the doom of parliamentary democracy. Sir, all this talk - all these contradicting statements - and conflicting talk of this general Referendum Bill, Merger Referendum Bill and so on and so on, I do not want to go and quote the various statements the Ministers have made; they have been making contradicting statements. At times to suit their convenience they have said this is a general Referendum Bill; at times to suit their convenience again they have said this is a Merger Referendum Bill. All this has confused and misled our people. Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis, knowing well that this is a Referendum Bill for merger, are absolutely clear in our minds that the Bill is inadequate and that the provisions contained in it are completely inappropriate for the purpose of ascertaining the views of our people on any issue, particularly on the issue of merger which affects all our lives and the lives of our generations to come. It is the Government's aim to hold a referendum under the provisions of this Bill to ensure continuity of their political survival. Sir, they think that if they hold a referendum under this Bill they will zugzwang the Barisan Sosialis, they will fix their political opponents, they will ultimately get a result which they can proudly say has been in favour of their White Paper Merger proposals. Sir, I do not want to go back and discuss once again the merits or otherwise of clause 29, but the Referendum Bill as it stands, particularly with clause 29, means even if 90 per cent of the people oppose the Government's White Paper Merger, the Government would bring about a result of the referendum on this merger issue to show that more than 90 per cent support the White Paper proposals and that, I think, is the fundamental position that every Member in this House must recognise. Sir, there are so many provisions which, in our view, are completely inadequate for this purpose, but the main provision is clause 29 and we have stated this over and over in the Select Committee debate and the debate of the whole Committee. I repeat what I said; it is possible that even if 90 per cent oppose the Government's White Paper merger and if that 90 per cent is unwilling to choose between two alternatives, the Government would bring about a result to show that more than 90 per cent support the White Paper merger. I say. Mr Speaker, Sir, any man who suggests that this Bill with this certain provision is adequate, is a reasonable Bill, is a Bill which will provide a fair and reasonable machinery for consulting the views of the people, must either be lying or must be insane. Sir, I say with a clear conscience and a clear understanding of the P.A.P. thinking that the sole purpose of this Bill is to fix their political opponents, is to ensure the continuity of P.A.P. political survival; and my answer to this is, the political opponents of the P.A.P. are those in the Barisan Sosialis or the Communists that are talked about so much by the P.A.P. leaders. I am not going to make a statement. Sir, if it were a question of 300 odd Communists getting into a zugzwang because of this Referendum Bill, then I say it is a waste of time having sat here and talked this Bill over day in and day out for the last week or so. This Bill, whatever the purpose of the Government, will fix the future of our people without giving our people a fair chance to state clearly, without ambiguity, whether they support the constitutional arrangements or not. Sir, it is the responsibility of all of us in this House, whether we are in the Barisan Sosialis, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party, S.P.A. or P.A.P., to make sure that we do not put a vote in support of a Bill that will mean putting our people in a zugzwang, in the words of the Minister for Finance. It is as simple as that. Sir, if they want to fix the Barisan Sosialis, there are various means other than this Bill to fix the Barisan Sosialis. I do not have to suggest what they ought to do, but they know, as I said, it is not the 300 Communists, or whatever membership the Barisan Sosialis has, who would be involved in just voting; it means 624,000 people going to the polls on a referendum on merger and saying whether they support the Government's White Paper proposals or whether they support any other proposal. An hon. Member: What is wrong?

We will come to that. Mr Speaker, Sir, we will have a lot of time for the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. There is a motion standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown. We will come to that as to whether it should be complete merger, whether it should be unconditional merger, or whether it should be merger on certain terms. As far as this Bill is concerned, so long as clause 29 is there, even ignoring the other undemocratic features of the Bill, it means if a vast majority of the people, even if 90 per cent of the people, oppose the White Paper merger, the Government will bring about a result to show more than 90 per cent support for the White Paper merger. As I said, if 90 per cent of our electorate are unwilling to choose between two unacceptable alternatives and put in blank votes, five per cent vote for the Government's White Paper merger, and five per cent vote for something else, then the ultimate result declared will be 95 per cent in support of the White Paper merger, and this is something they cannot get away from. This is their zugzwang and I say this is something that fundamentally is not acceptable to the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, with the passing of this Bill, it means all opposition through debates in this honourable House is over and the Bill will be passed. I do not think there are very many people in the Government at the moment who would have the courage to stand up and say, "I oppose it." The Bill will be passed, and when it is passed, the consequences following the implementation of a referendum under the provisions of this Bill shall rest solely and squarely on the shoulders of the men who hold power. Ten Ministers and the higher-ups in the P.A.P. hierarchy who, for their own political future, are thinking of fixing 624,000 voters and the lives of 1.7 million people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the S.P.A. has attacked certain provisions of the Bill and, because of their strong and responsible opposition, we have secured certain concessions from the Government in that the questions to be posed in the referendum will be fully debated and decided by the Legislative Assembly and that the life of the National Referendum Ordinance will come to an end after the merger referendum. Having secured those important concessions, the S.P.A. see no objection to this Bill passing into law. The S.P.A. wants a merger referendum and the S.P.A. therefore supports the Third Reading of the Bill. Sir, most of the attacks of the Member for Anson and some other Members from the Barisan Sosialis have been on the grounds that the Government had claimed that this National Referendum Bill was a general Referendum Bill, and later on it became a specific Referendum Bill, and still later on it became a general Referendum Bill. Sir, the Government could have carried on with this pretence of a general Referendum Bill had it not been for the opposition of the S.P.A. who insisted that if they wanted to adopt certain provisions in the Bill to contain the Communists and to frustrate any merger referendum, they would not have met with our strong opposition and so they made up their minds that the life of the law would come to an end after the merger referendum. So, in one way, if one were to read the Bill over and over again after it had gone through a Committee of this Assembly, it could still be maintained that it was a general Referendum Bill. But let us not worry ourselves whether it is a general Referendum Bill or a specific Bill for merger. The fact is that it will be a law brought in to see to it that a referendum on merger is held under conditions that will be free from Communist subversive activities. Sir, the questions are to be debated in this Assembly. Notice has already been given and I too have given notice of an amendment which I propose to move. All the attacks by the Members on my side of the House have been based on the belief that there would be two questions. Surely, Sir, when the motion is being discussed Members of the Opposition, even the Barisan, the Workers' Party, the United People's Party, can put up their ideas about what questions should be submitted for a referendum and have them fully debated here. There could be two, there could be three, there could be five. We do not know, because we cannot anticipate the debate on the motion, nor can we foretell what would be the result of that debate. Sir, I have this to say of the Member for Anson. His vitriolic attack on this Bill is due to his lofty ideals. He has lofty ideals and he always maintains that he should fight for parliamentary democracy and is prepared even to lay down his life for parliamentary democracy. But I would like to make this point to him and ask him to ponder whether it is right that he should put up this strong fight without thinking of what may happen. What is behind this clause 29? The Barisan Sosialis, of course, speak very strongly against clause 29 for obvious reasons. They want to frustrate the merger referendum and they want to be given free rein to do it, but the Member for Anson is guided by different motives. He says it is democratic. I agree with him it is democratic, but in as much as the P.P.S.O. was democratic, so is this.

Undemocratic!

Undemocratic. I am sorry. In as much as the P.P.S.O. was undemocratic, so is this. And it was the Member for Anson, when he was Chief Minister, who introduced that undemocratic law and maintained it in this House against all opposition. Why did he do it? Because he said the security and the well-being of the people of Singapore must come first, the Labour Front second.

Hear, hear!

In as much as he was guided by that lofty ideal, may I say this, that the interest of the people of Singapore must come first, the Workers' Party second? And yet the Members of the Barisan Sosialis shout and shout and shout against this undemocratic provision of clause 29 in the Bill. And when they, the 13, who are now sitting behind me were sitting on that side of the House, they were the people who were a party to increasing the life of the P.P.S.O. from three years to five years. At that time they never thought it was undemocratic, because they were doing it, so what they did was right and what other people did should be wrong. That should not be the way to behave as responsible representatives of the people of Singapore. I have been asked whether I would declare our stand, whether I would fight for an undemocratic act. I have abstained from voting, but if that is the way the Barisan Sosialis want to dare the Singapore People's Alliance, the Singapore People's Alliance say this, "Any time the Singapore People's Alliance will fight the Barisan; any time." And the Singapore People's Alliance now say, if they want us to declare our stand, we have only just to repeat, "We will see to it that any attempt by the Communists, by Communist front leaders, by Communist front organisations, to damage the interest and welfare of the people of Singapore will be dealt with by us ruthlessly."

The Minister for Home Affairs.

The Member for Changi stood up and said this is the final round. I hope to God it is the final round and that one of the two contending parties would be knocked out, maybe the Barisan, maybe the P.A.P. But it is the wish of the people of Singapore that in this final round both parties be knocked out. Another Barisan Party Member says this clause 29 is to revive the P.A.P. I say the P.A.P. is dead. No amount of rejuvenation could make them alive.[Interruption]

Order.

They are dead. But the purpose of their having this clause 29 is to see to it that the Communists who had been sleeping with them would not be given an opportunity to damage the interests of the people of Singapore. For that, I would like to pay tribute to their fight. Do not have any qualms. If it is the Communists who are trying to endanger the security of Singapore, fight to the bitter end and we will stand behind you. Let then say what they like, the Singapore People's Alliance is supporting the P.A.P. The Singapore People's Alliance will and continue to support what is right, support justice. The Singapore People's Alliance will fight with any Party against any attempt to damage the well-being of the people of Singapore. Sir, we have been ridiculed by the Barisan Sosialis and it would seem that they are now centering their attack on the Singapore People's Alliance, or perhaps they are reading the stars. The Singapore People's Alliance will be the only force left to teach them that lesson if they survive. I do not think they will ever survive. In fact, they have been well and truly contained and in this fight to exterminate them, we will be with the P.A.P.

Shame on you.

Strange, Sir, another member of the Barisan Sosialis, I think it was the Member for Choa Chu Kang, praised the Singapore People's Alliance again. The Singapore People's Alliance is not so bad. During the time of the previous Lim Yew Hock Government there had been no Bills that had been attacked on the Third Reading. Sir, all I can say is I am always wary of the kiss of Judas. I will not be deterred by them from doing what I think is right. What the S.P.A. maintain is right. The security of the country comes first. Let the Barisan Sosialis ridicule us as much as they want. The time will come when we will meet them if they are still alive, when the next general election takes place.

Mr Speaker, thousands of words have been uttered by the Barisan Sosialis against the Referendum Bill and it would be difficult for the general public to understand the vehemence of their opposition unless we reveal in this House the line of their thinking. Members in this House will recollect a radio forum held on 21st September. 1961, in which the Member for Hong Lim, the Member for Farrer Park, the Member for Queenstown and the Minister for Finance took part on the subject of "The political situation in Singapore today". This was what the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, the Member for Queenstown, had to say. He said: 'As regards the referendum. I don't think it is suitable, because a referendum is something new in Malaya. As you know, the people are not very conversant with the democratic process and it will take some time before people will realise what it is all about.' This utterance by the Member for Queenstown betrays the real line of thinking of the Barisan Sosialis, namely, that right from the beginning, they were against a referendum. Therefore when we proposed this Bill, their line of action was to oppose it and during the past few days, we have seen how they have tried to filibuster, adopt delaying tactics, to prevent this Bill from being passed. Now what the Member for Queenstown has said reveals two important points. One, in relation to the attitude of the Barisan Sesialis towards the people. Two, what they have to say about clause 29. In effect, the Member for Queenstown displayed absolute arrogance towards the people when he said that the people are not very conversant with the democratic process and that it will take some time before they will realise what it is all about. When the Barisan Sosialis talk of preserving parliamentary democracy and accuse the Government of breaking down the democratic process, it is the Barisan Sosialis really who do not believe that the people are fitted for the democratic process. Assuming what the Member for Queenstown has said is true, that it will take some time before the people will realise what it is all about, then it is pretty obvious - in spite of whatever explanations the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues in the Barisan Sosialis may care to offer about the referendum - that it will take a very long time for the people to understand even what the referendum is all about. Under the circumstances, would it not be expected then that blank votes will be cast if the people do not understand the purpose of the referendum? There is a possibility indeed that blank votes will be cast. Surely, if blank votes are cast, then that would indicate that those who cast them would have done so because they did not understand what the referendum was all about. It is pretty obvious that we cannot allow people who do not understand what it is all about to decide the destiny of 1.6 million people in Singapore. We are the elected representatives and if those who cast blank votes do not understand what it is all about, it is right and proper that we in the Assembly should decide the question on their behalf. Therefore, clause 29 provides that blank votes will be decided by the Assembly. But as the Member for Cairnhill has said just now, the Barisan Sosialis have a conspiracy to instigate the people and may be even to intimidate the voters to cast blank votes. Under a cloud of such a possibility, we cannot allow this conspiracy to succeed. Those who cast blank votes cannot be allowed to decide our fate and our future. So we come back again to clause 29 which provides that such blank votes will be decided by the Assembly, by us who have been elected, by us who are here as legislators. The other objection which the Barisan Sosialis has raised is to clause 5 which relates to the type of question or questions that can be asked in the referendum. During the debate in Committee on clause 5, the Barisan Sosialis, and even the Member for Anson, insisted that there should be a simple yes or no answer. May I refer the House again to what the spokesman for the Barisan Sosialis had to say in the radio forum? This is what he said: 'In principle, all of us are agreed on merger. But how is that question to be posed? If an elector should agree with the principle of merger but disagrees with the details of merger, how is he going to vote yes or no?' Precisely, Mr Speaker. It is ridiculous if in the referendum on merger we are to ask the voter to vote yes or no. Because we understand the impossibility of the position, this Bill provides that a question or questions can be asked in the referendum. As Members in this House are now aware, a motion in the name of the Prime Minister has been tabled in which the nature of the questions which will be asked in the referendum on merger will be debated and the Member for Cairnhill has also indicated that he will be moving an amendment to this motion. In other words, in this referendum for merger, since all of us have agreed on the principle of merger, what is now necessary is to ask the electorate the mode and manner in which reunification with the Federation will take place - whether they want merger or closer relationship along the lines of Command Paper No. 33 with autonomy in education and labour; whether they want complete merger, or whe ther they want merger as proposed by the Member for Cairnhill. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, what I sought to do was to prove to this House the insincerity and "humbuggery" of the Barisan Sosiahs.

Humbugging?

Right from the beginning they have never been in favour a referendum, because in their arrogance they do not believe that the people are ready for the democratic process; and to hammer it down the throats of the Barisan Sosialis again, let me repeat what their Chairman said, "The people are not very conversant with the democratic process and it will take some time before the people will realise what it is all about." These are the so-called champions of parliamentary democracy, when at the same time they despise the people. Mr Speaker, all the dust that has been raised by the Barisan Sosialis over clause 5 and clause 29 on the question of the blank votes is just to confuse the issue-

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Since none of us are in a position to reply - having spoken, Sir - is it proper for the Deputy Prime Minister to go into the merits or demerits of individual clauses as though we were on the Second Reading or at the Committee stage?

I have not understood the Deputy Prime Minister to be going into the merits and demerits. He is only saying how those clauses will affect the Barisan Sosialis when they are applied. I do not think that he is arguing in favour or against. He has accepted the fact that the clauses are there.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all I am trying to prove to the House is that the dust that has been kicked up by the Opposition - in particular by the Barisan Sosialis, aided and abetted by the Member for Anson - is simply to confuse the people over the referendum. They do not want the referendum.

That which has no meaning to it.

Therefore, they seek to create confusion in the minds of the people over the Bill in this way. Let me ask the House simply and clearly: this Bill which contains several clauses is a piece of legislation containing many legal technicalities; how many of the 600,000 odd voters have really read the. Bill and how many have really been angered by the opposition which has been raised to clause 29 or clause 5? And there is a reason for their conspiracy to cover their utter rejection of the referendum. They do not believe in parliamentary democracy.

Hooray! An hon. Member: Shame.

Order.

They despise the people because they are not ready for the democratic process. But, Sir, we all know that constitutionally and legally the Government have the right to negotiate merger.

Order. There I think the Deputy Prime Minister is going too far.

Sir, I was just trying to compare the attitude adopted by the Government with the attitude of the Barisan Sosialis, namely, that unlike them, we believe that this question on merger must he submitted to the people, because although we believe that the Government-

Order. I think that is irrelevant. I think we must come back to the Third Reading and the speech made must have specific reference to the clauses.

I now come to the part of the Bill against which the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues on the opposite side strongly and vigorously protested, and that is those clauses dealing with the time for the referendum campaign. The Members of this House heard, only this very afternoon, an admission by the Member for Queenstown that his Party had already started the referendum campaign "long, long ago." Those were his very words. They started on April the 1st. They went visiting houses, they held mass meetings and public rallies. But I will tell them this, they can visit as many houses as they please; they can hold as many rallies as they please, but merger is inevitable, just as it is inevitable that the sun will rise over the horizon tomorrow.

Order. That certainly is not an argument in favour of any clause.

Sir, I will just end up by saying that the protest by the Barisan Sosialis that they do not have adequate time to carry out a referendum campaign is sheer nonsense. They have been carrying out this campaign since April the 1st, on their own admission. Therefore, the clauses relating to the times in respect of the referendum campaign, as stated in this Bill, are adequate.

I had not intended to speak on this Third Reading of the Bill -

Then why do you rise?

- until the Deputy Prime Minister's remarks have forced me to stand up to speak. The main theme of his argument, Sir, is that the Barisan Sosialis are insincere about the referendum. He went on at great lengths to quote the leader of the Barisan Sosialis in his radio forum address -

"Leader" in quotes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis that on all matters of national importance a referendum should be held, but that referendum should be an honest referendum in which the people are able to express their views and their wishes and are able to record down whatever they feel. In whatever way they vote or record their feelings, their expression must be respected by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister contradicts himself when, on the one hand, he says that all the people who are likely to cast blank votes are blind chickens.

I did not say it; you said it.

The equivalent of that, Mr Speaker, that they are confused and unable to exercise their minds and therefore they have no business deciding the future of the people of Singapore. I believe I am quoting what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, and I stand here subject to any correction. The Deputy Prime Minister has said those people who are incapable of saying either 'yes' or 'no' and who return a blank vote -

You do not want 'yes' or 'no'.

- have no business to decide the future of Singapore. He further says, therefore, those votes must be counted as Government votes. An hon. Member: Assembly votes.

Mr Speaker. Sir, this happens to be a friendly note from the Member for Anson. [Interruption]. As a man with a great deal of humility, I never hesitate to accept any advice from anybody provided that advice is given in honesty and in sincerity. I have acknowledged, Mr Speaker, in this House [Interruption].

Order. If the Member for Nee Soon takes notice of all these interjections, I think we will never finish the debate. I would suggest that he just ignore all these interjections and speak to the Speaker. [Interruption.] Order. May I ask the Government Bench also not to interject? Just when I have pulled up the Member for Nee Soon, we get further interjections. There seems to be some disrespect for the Chair.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to put on record what I said previously, and that is, I always acknowledge advice from the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister when that advice is good and sincere. I note with a great deal of pleasure, Sir, that the Deputy Prime Minister just hesitated before he left the Chamber.

Now, if the hon. Member for Nee Soon deliberately gets out of order, I must exercise my powers under the Standing Orders. He was pulled up before when he was making speeches for being out of order. I have always said a Member is entitled to walk out of this Chamber without any reference being made to that fact.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your pardon. As I was saying, the Deputy Prime Minister was arguing that those people who cast blank votes do not know what they want and therefore they have no business to decide the future of the people of Singapore. I cannot understand the logic of his second argument, because he says, since they are not able to decide the future of the people of Singapore, their votes become Government votes. Surely, Mr, speaker, Sir, when a subject matter is sent for a referendum, the answer must be either this way or that way, and people who cannot decide must not be allowed to use their votes to be weighted in favour of the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister is exactly contradicting himself because he says since they cannot decide, let them decide in favour of Government.

Order. I do not think the Member for Nee Soon must put those words into the mouth of the Deputy Prime Minister. I do not think he said "Government". I think he said "Assembly". I do not think he can say that the Deputy Prime Minister said "Government". All that the Member can imply is that he means the Government, but he cannot say that the Deputy Prime Minister said "Government"; he said "Assembly".

Thank you for your guidance. In parliamentary democracy, as I understand it, Sir, the Assembly is, in fact, the Government, because the Government have a majority.

Order. The Member for Nee Soon does not understand or does not choose to understand. What I am trying to indicate is that the Member is wrong in putting words into the mouth of another Member which never came out from that Member's mouth. He can put his own interpretation, yes, he is entitled to that; but he must not say a Member said A.B.C. when in fact the Member never said A.B.C.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the outstanding thing about the Deputy Prime Minister's speech just now was that it contained so many contradictions. The first contradiction I have just mentioned. The second contradiction is that he has ridiculed the Barisan Sosialis. [Interruption.] I am very tempted to reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I try very hard to look at you. The Deputy Prime Minister contradicted himself when he tried to put up a facade that he believed that the people of Singapore were ripe for democracy and that the Barisan Sosialis did not believe that they were ripe for democracy. The first part of his contention may be true, but the second part is certainly not true. The Barisan Sosialis believe that the people are ripe for democracy, but in the presence of legal rigging by the Government, democracy takes on added meaning and such democracy, I am sure, the people of Singapore cannot understand. So, on the one hand, he says that the Singapore people are ripe for democracy, and yet, on the other hand, he justifies his stand that they are not ripe for democracy by saying that when they cast blank votes, they are all confused and know nothing about democracy. If in this referendum more than half the people of Singapore actually cast blank votes, then the Deputy Prime Minister must swallow his words. Of course, under the legal provisions of this Referendum Bill, it is not possible for us to know how many per cent of the people have actually cast blank votes because the Government have taken great care to hide that figure and because the Government know that if ever that figure became known, the mock democracy the Government practise will be completely exposed. The Deputy Prime Minister asks, why all the dust kicked up over this Bill? He answers it himself; that it is because the Barisan Sosialis want to confuse the people. But have the Barisan Sosialis the apparatus to confuse the people? Have the Barisan Sosialis control of Radio Singapore and their Radio P.A.P.? Have the Opposition control of the Press, the Ministry of Culture vans? Have the Barisan Sosialis-

Television.

Television will be coming later, Mr Speaker, Sir, but when it comes it may be very welcome under the Barisan Sosialis.

The S.P.A.

It may well be the S.P.A. But those who look at reality will know which is more real.

The Workers' Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis minus all the propaganda apparatus available to the Government is able to help more than half the people of Singapore to make up their minds, it only means one thing, Sir - that the people believe in the Barisan Sosialis.

Less than half the people.

If the Deputy Prime Minister disputes that fact, surely then the Deputy Prime Minister should persuade the Government in the forthcoming referendum to record the percentage of blank votes cast.

Order. I think the hon. Member has made his point. Let us now come back to the Third Reading.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister asked a question: how many people in Singapore have been angered by clause 29?

Clause 5.

Clause 29.

Clause 5.

I will come to that by and by. I will endeavour to look at you.

Take your time.

I submit to you, Sir, that all people with intelligence have expressed their anger and their disgust with clause 29. [Interruption] Even the Member for Cairnhill, when he was in Select Committee and away from the eyes and ears of the people from the Gallery-

Order. There again the Member for Nee Soon is disorderly, making reference to people in the Gallery. They are not part of this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had just intended to say that the Member for Cairnhill, on behalf of the S.P.A., opposed clause 29 in Select Committee. And I grant him, Sir, intelligence because he has opposed it. And I say: all intelligent people in Singapore oppose it. We have seen statements from the University of Singapore Students' Union, we have seen statements from the other University unions, we have seen statements from so many organisations

Including the Animal Lovers League.

Order. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was at one time the Deputy Speaker of this Assembly, and I think he ought to know the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I say it is my contention that most of the people, intellectual or otherwise, in Singapore have been angered by clause 29. The Deputy Prime Minister is, of course, entitled to his own views. He is entitled to believe that, say, only one per cent, perhaps a half per cent of the people had been angered by it. Now, it is a matter of my opinion against his. And the only way to have a concrete figure as to how many people oppose clause 29, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would submit, is to have a referendum. If that referendum was ever held, the results would certainly be a foregone conclusion.

Is that on blank votes?

I beg your pardon?

Will there be any blank votes?

Oh, Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for your advice. I nearly forgot about all the blank votes. You see, if clause 29 is put to the electorate, and if only one simple question is posed, I am sure there would not be any blank votes because there is no confusion. And in the absence of confusion, I do not see any reason why blank votes should be cast. To that extent, Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe that the people of Singapore are ripe for democracy. 8.05 p.m.

We believe that if a referendum is not rigged, where the questions have not been complicated, there will be no confusion. So if the Deputy Prime Minister is really keen on finding out how many people oppose clause 29, I will tell him that a good way to do so is to put the matter to a referendum. Clause 29, being such an important clause, I am sure, is worth the $400,000, that is the cost of a referendum. He further said, "Let us contrast the attitude of the Government with the attitude of the Opposition on the Referendum Bill." He went on to say that in so far as the Government is concerned, the Government believes that the issue of merger must be submitted to the people for a definite decision. Of course, the Government tosses a coin on the table and tells us, "Heads, I win; tails, you lose. Let's bet." What kind of a bet can there be, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the coin turns out to be heads on both sides? Even if it was tails on the other side of the coin, still the Opposition lose if it turns out to be tails. Then on the matter of time for campaigning, the Deputy Prime Minister justifies the Government's stand by saying that the Barisan Sosialis have already started campaigning since the 1st April this year. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is a statement of fact.

Whose statement?

And why is it openly acknowledged that it is a statement of fact? It is acknowledged because it shows that the Barisan Sosialis is the only organisation today that is able to have a house-to-house campaign on such a scale in the circumstances. If you will just cast your mind to the later days of 1958 and the early days of 1959, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir -

On a point of order. I do not see how all this has any relevance to the motion at hand. The provisions therein are "inappropriate and inadequate" for the purpose. I do not see the relevance, Sir.

I think the Member for Nee Soon is trying to reply to the point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister that canvassing by the Barisan Sosialis started on April 1st.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. My argument is: in 1958 and in 1959 the P.A.P. had the organisation-

If the Member for Nee Soon is going back to 1958 and 1959 he is going completely away from the Third Reading of the Bill. As regards the point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister, I think the Member for Nee Soon has made his point.

With great respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would say, in so far as the P.A.P. won the 1959 elections because of its better organisation and its campaigns and mass rallies, having taken precedence in time over the other Parties, so would the Barisan win the referendum if the referendum is not rigged. Even with the provisions of the Bill hamstringing the Barisan in all ways, should the Government be sincere and honest enough to allow the Barisan to pose the Barisan's stand on merger as interpreted by the Barisan on the ballot paper -

Order. There is no such clause on the posing of questions in this Bill. There is a motion which will come up for debate in this Assembly on the posing of questions. So all these arguments - what type of questions should be posed and so on - can, I think, be brought up by the Member and a full length debate on it can be held in this Assembly when we come to it. Perhaps he will skip this now and come back to the Third Reading debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I suggest one final point which I would like to make on the Deputy Prime Minister's remark before I sit down? He quoted at length what the Member for Queenstown said at the radio forum. After so many days of debate, both on Malaysia and on the Referendum Bill, it has turned out that the suspicions of the Member for Queenstown were well founded. He had contended that unless the issues were posed to the people in clear and unequivocal terms, the electorate would be bound to be confused. I believe most of us would agree with such a statement. In the circumstances, our stand that as referendum is not the best way of ascertaining the wishes and aspirations of the people becomes very solidly founded. I would like to quote the Minister for Finance on his views about questions on the Referendum-

Order. I have already indicated that we are not debating on the questions to be posed in the referendum. We are debating on the amendment to the Third Reading of the Bill. If the Member for Nee Soon wants to bring the Minister for Finance's views on the questions to be posed, the appropriate time will be when we come to item No. 3, that is, the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister in the Order Paper. When we come to that, he can then quote all these things - the manner of the questions, how they are to be posed, and so on.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps if I were to relate my remarks to clause 5 of the Bill, I might be able to explain to you in what way I have brought this matter up. It is the contention of the Opposition that there should be one simple and clear question.

On a point of order. Are we debating on the merits or demerits of clause 5?

I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance should be a little patient. The Member for Nee Soon has indicated that he will convince the Chair that his arguments - not in detail but in general - have some connection with clause 5.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was just endeavouring to relate clause 5 to the Opposition stand that there should be one clear, simple and unequivocal question. In respect of that, may I refer you, Sir, to the Select Committee Report No. 3 of the 8th May, 1962 -

Order. May I remind the Member again that we are not going into details on the clauses while we are on the Third Reading of this Bill? We are only discussing the general principles of the Bill. If the Member for Nee Soon wants to quote from the Official Report of the Select Committee and go into the details of the clauses, he is completely out of order. He can deal with the general principle of any clause.

I do appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am only endeavouring to quote one short sentence to show that our stand is right and relate that to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. Can I refer you, Sir, to the debate in the Select Committee on 8th May, 1962, at column 136? The Minister for Finance said: 'As a statistician, it is part of my discipline to study the composition of questionnaires in public opinion polls, and it is an absolute primary condition that the questions should be clear and unambiguous.' My point, Sir, is that if that view had been accepted by the Deputy Prime Minister and if that position is going to be the position of the referendum that is coming ahead, then the Barisan Sosialis stand on the referendum is that it would be an honest referendum. But that is not to be so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We know that unacceptable alternatives are to be posed to the people, and in the light of two unacceptable propositions, a lot of people may not want to vote at all. What is worse, blank votes are going to be Government votes. An hon. Member: Assembly votes.

Assembly votes, may it please you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In view of that, Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot accept the result of the referendum, in view of that, Sir, the remarks made by the Member for Queenstown at the radio forum and quoted at length too by the Deputy Prime Minister, are surely sensible.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have been debating this National Referendum Bill for the past few days. We in the Opposition Parties have pointed out many of the undemocratic provisions in the Bill. We have moved many amendments to these undemocratic provisions without success. If the Government want to pose a question of national importance to the people for their decision, it should be done in a democratic and fair manner. Our object in moving the amendments is to ask the Government to conduct the national referendum in a fair, reasonable and democratic way. But the Government have rejected all our amendments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to the National Referendum Bill, the Ministers and their Parliamentary Secretaries stressed in the Select Committee that this Bill is a general referendum Bill. At the same time, they pointed out that this Bill may be used to ascertain the views of the people on the question of smoking or the hours for the sale of toddy. All these examples cited by the Government cannot convince us. Therefore, when the Second Reading of this Bill was debated in this House, the Ministers also said that this Bill was a general Referendum Bill. But when we sought to amend the undemocratic provisions, the Government could not advance reasonable arguments to rebut us, and so they had to change their stand by saying that this Bill was a specific one to hold a referendum on the merger issue. Our Minister for Home Affairs then suggested that when the national referendum on the merger question has been held, this Bill will be repealed. From their contradictory statements and their inconsistent arguments, we can be certain that the Government is not sincere in moving this Bill. The Government will not ascertain the views of the people in a democratic manner. The introduction of this Bill was motivated by their personal selfish interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we the Barisan Sosialis have stressed time and again that the people must be consulted on any question of national importance. Then the Government must sincerely put forward the question to be decided by the people in a fair and democratic way. But they dare not do so. Therefore, we feel that this National Referendum Bill cannot ascertain the wishes and views of the people of Singapore. We therefore oppose its Third Reading. Not only will this Bill not reflect the views of the people, but at the same time the Government will have to spend $400,000 on this national referendum, and on polling day the 600,000 Singapore citizens will have to lose one working day and at the same time they have to face two unacceptable alternatives and make a decision on that. The Government cannot convince the people by their trying to bulldoze through the National Referendum Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance says that they have been able to convince the people and rally their support for their stand on the blank votes question. Now, that is the spirit of Ah Q. Their so-called great victory on clause 29 is humbug. Even the Member for Bras Basah, who had been a member of the Executive Committee of the P.A.P. for several years, resigned from the Party on account of this undemocratic provision. This goes to how the Ah Q spirit of the Minister for Finance. We are not able to understand their logic. What kind of a logic have they? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have also heard the Ministers and their Parliamentary Secretaries say the opposition to the blank votes clause is instigated by the Barisan Sosialis, or inspired by the Communists. Now, if they are going to try and explain away their stand, the resignation of the Member for Bras Basah can be termed-

I think the hon. Member for Toa Payoh must know that all these arguments, except the resignation of the Member for Bras Basah, were dealt with at length during the Committee stage when the Assembly was in full session. If the Member is going into the reasons as to why the Member for Bras Basah resigned and so on, it will be completely irrelevant.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now we heard the Minister for Finance and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour say that all those people who are opposed to clause 29 are Communists or encouraged by the Barisan Sosialis to do so. I am trying to point out the fallacy of their arguments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, today it is only the S.P.A. who are acting on the same lines as the P.A.P. Why does the Member for Cairn hill strongly oppose this National Referendum Bill and the undemocratic provisions therein in the Select Committee?

Order. I think this is going to be a mere repetition of what the Member for Nee Soon has said. I must ask the Member for Toa Payoh as far as possible to avoid repetition.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to give one example to illustrate my point, i.e., the Member for Cairnhill -

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

Debate resumed.

Order. The Original Question was, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Since which an amendment has been moved to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof the words which appear on the Order Paper. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I talked on the subject of the national referendum. This Bill was not put forward on democratic terms. The Government have no intention, of ascertaining the will and wishes of the people through democratic means. That is why we on the Opposition side are strongly opposed to it, and that is why some societies and organisations have protested vigorously. On the other hand, in spite of the request by the Opposition Parties to the Government to let us have sufficient time to go and explain to the people on such subjects like voting, the Government insist on having their own way. Therefore, we feel that the Government have not considered carefully the opinions of the Opposition Parties of this House; neither have they considered the opinions of other people. They have insisted on carrying out the undemocratic provisions of this Bill. On the grounds of interest and welfare of the people, we vigorously oppose the passing of the Third Reading of this Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that when the people of Singapore could not make a decision as a result of which they cast blank votes, then such blank votes should be taken as in favour of the Government. This shows his low estimation of the political knowledge of the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore actually know everything about this. The Government can look after the welfare of the people of Singapore. The people of Singapore are capable of making their own decision. They are capable of voting for the Party which seeks their welfare and interest. Therefore, when the Deputy Prime Minister says that the people of Singapore, when they could not make a decision, would cast blank votes, I say that he is not correct.

The Member for Toa Payoh, like every other Barisan Sosialis Member, is always referring to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister says that a blank ballot paper would be in support of the Government's question. Sir, this is a continuous repetition of a falsehood.

I think I have mentioned the point before. The hon. Member must not put words into another Member's mouth. The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that a blank vote would be in favour of the decision of the Legislative Assembly, not the decision of the Government. There is a distinction. The Member might say that means the decision of the Government, but that is quite a different thing entirely. He must not say that the Deputy Prime Minister has said that it is in favour of the decision of the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Deputy Prime Minister has just expressed the opinion that when the people could not make a decision they would cast blank votes, so I am replying to him.

The Member has probably misunderstood me. Of course, he can make a reply. I am not stopping him from making a reply. The point is that the Member has alleged that the Deputy Prime Minister said that a blank vote cast was a vote cast in favour of the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister never said that. He said that a blank vote cast was a vote cast in favour of the decision of the Legislative Assembly. The Member, of course, is entitled to say that his interpretation of what the Deputy Prime Minister said is that the decision of the Legislative Assembly, in fact, is the decision of the majority Party, which is the Government. He is entitled to say that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the White Paper was passed by this House, it amounted to the P.A.P. passing it. We have just heard the Deputy Prime Minister saying that we the Barisan Sosialis would confuse the people during the national referendum, but if there is such confusion, it is not because of the Barisan Sosialis. In the past we have heard the Prime Minister over the radio on national citizenship and so on. This confused the people as regards the terms "national" and "citizen". Mr Speaker, Sir, according to our views on this Bill, we feel that it is most undemocratic that the P.A.P. should pass it just in the interests of the Ministers. Therefore, I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has expressed his surprise at my abstention. Probably he will be more surprised when he hears that I am standing up to oppose the amendment and support the Third Reading. I would like to say, Sir, that I appreciate and am grateful for the courtesy he has accorded me when he said that, in spite of that, he still thought that I was sincere and honest in my actions. The Member for Queenstown also, Sir, not in this Chamber but in the C.P.A. Room, has claimed that he did not mention what I had said at the forum outside, that is, condemning the Referendum Bill, in order to spare me from embarrassment. I am glad to know that chivalry still exists and I am indebted to him for the chivalry and consideration that he has accorded to a lady Member of this House. However, Sir, I would like to state that I do not need to be spared. In fact, I cannot understand why it is so difficult for the Member for Queenstown, or any Member of the Barisan Sosialis, to understand why I and my colleagues in the S.P.A. have condemned the Bill outside but are now supporting it here. Can they not see the reason? Can they not see the difference of the Referendum Bill then and the Referendum Bill today in these circumstances? Sir, at that time we were against the Bill because we felt that clause 29 was a clause which would force the people, as the Member for Anson said, to choose between beating your wife or beating your daughter. It was true then, Sir, but now since our leader, the Member for Cairnhill, has suggested - and it has been accepted by the Government - that the questions should he discussed and debated here and each political Party should be allowed to pose the question that they want to pose and present the type of merger that they want, where would there be the necessity to cast blank votes then?

On a point of elucidation, Sir, I am indeed indebted to the Lady. Is the Lady from Mountbatten satisfied? Can she point to any part of Hansard where we have the assurance that each political Party will be permitted to pose the question that it wishes?

Sir, I think the Minister has agreed, and the Member for Cairnhill has mentioned it several times, and the Government have not denied it, that they are now agreed that the questions will be discussed and posed here, at least discussed here and each Opposition Party or each Party in this House is, of course, entitled to put their views, the type of merger that they want and the questions that they want to pose in the referendum. Sir, the Members of this House have been voted into this Assembly by the majority of the electorate. Parliamentary democracy deems us to be the representatives of the majority of the people. Laws are passed here which have been accepted by the people outside. In the case of merger, it is true there has been a certain amount of doubt as to the type of merger the people want, and this House has agreed that there should be a referendum. Sir, in this House none of us have ever said we do not want merger, and the referendum is only to find out what type of merger we want. If we, the people in this House, are supposed to be the representatives of the majority, and each Party has presented its views on the type of merger and the type of questions they want to be posed, then surely we can expect the electorate to choose one of them. Supposing, Sir, in spite of all these questions posed by all the political Parties here, a majority of the electorate say, "We do not want all of them." What does that mean? It can only mean one of two things; that there has been an effort to wreck the referendum in order to obstruct merger, or something has gone so very wrong that the P.A.P. supporters are rejecting their P.A.P. representatives here, the S.P.A. supporters are rejecting the S.P.A. representatives here, the Barisan Sosialis supporters are rejecting the Barisan Sosialis representatives here, and soon with all the others. Now, I am sure it would be ridiculous to assume that otherwise what else can it be, if all of us have posed all our questions and all the questions are rejected? That means nobody in Singapore wants any of us in this Assembly, which I think would be a ridiculous thing to assume. Therefore, if inspite of the fact that all the questions of the different Parties have been posed, the majority of them still put in blank votes, then there may be some truth in the Government's claim that there has been an effort by the Communists to wreck the referendum. After all, Sir, we must give credit to this fact, that the P.A.P., the Party in power, has had a lot of experience, having worked together with the Communists - I would even say corroborated with them, protected them and advised them, and have been put into power by them. We must admit that they do know a lot more about the Communist tactics than we do, and we cannot just dismiss that claim of theirs that it is the Communist tactic to wreck the referendum, and if clause 29 is not in, the Communists will succeed. We cannot dismiss this threat, Sir, without a certain amount of risk. Therefore, I think the leader of the S.P.A. has done very well because, instead of taking that risk and saying, "No, we insist that clause 29 be out," instead of taking the risk that there may be some truth in the Government's claim, he has very efficiently and effectively handled the situation so that you get the same effect without a risk. The effect is that clause 29 no longer means that the people will have to choose between two undesirable things, that they will have the question of their own representatives in this House posed to them. Is it reasonable then to expect that they should vote for one of them? The other point, Sir, is the change of the situation that has made us vote for the Third Reading rather than oppose it which we thought we were going to do, Sir. When I spoke, I meant every word that I said. In all honesty and with sincerity, I meant to come and vote against and speak against. But in view of the change in the situation, we felt that it is wiser to take the step that we have taken. Moreover, Sir, as I have said, in the excitement and anxiety of the different Members of this House - some to see merger through; others to block merger - a very important point has been dealt with very lightly and it has not been given sufficient emphasis.

Justice.

I refer to the Bill, Sir, if it was to be used at all times under all conditions, on all national issues, in the way that it was when I spoke at a forum, not with the special conditions that have been agreed to by the Government today. At that time, under those conditions, I said that there is no guarantee that if it is a general referendum Bill in the next referendum the Government is going to allow the Assembly to discuss and debate the questions or pose the questions. The conditions will be worse still if the next Government happens to be a pro-Communist Government. Can you see the danger of this - what our General Secretary calls a lethal weapon in the hands of the Government to be used as they wish, when they wish and for whatever they wish? Personally I was against the Bill because it was going to be a general referendum Bill, at least for merger, even without the special conditions, Sir. Although we do not advocate undemocratic measures, we can be consoled by the fact that if it results in the proposals set out in Command Paper No. 33 - whatever the Barisan thought about Command Paper No. 33, the Member for Anson admitted that he respected this view of the S.P.A. - it will be the first step towards closer relations. Now, if the Member for Anson respects that, then in spite of all the undemocratic terms of the Referendum Bill, if it leads to prosperity for Singapore in closer relation with the Federation, at least we can be consoled by that thought. As I said, Sir, although we do not advocate it, we can be consoled if it must be so. But today we have sought means and ways to take the undemocratic sting out of clause 29. Now that the Bill is not going to be a general referendum Bill, we are supporting the Third Reading because we feel that we have won the day. We wanted the questions to be posed here and to be debated here. We have got it. We wanted the Bill to be only on merger and not a general Referendum Bill. We have got it. Now, talking about the questions being debated here, it has been the desire of the Barisan Sosialis - they have been clamouring for it for a long time - that this should be done. But with all their clamouring, shouting, scolding, abusing and the washing of dirty linen here, they have not achieved it. It was because the Member for Cairnhill at a radio forum claimed that clause 29 was undemocratic and also because of the way he handled the matter here that the Government have been forced to agree to the questions to be debated here. An hon. Member: Hooray!

That is why I feel that it is we who have won the day and there is no reason now for us not to support the Third Reading. The second reason is that we feel that the special clauses now will not be able to be used in the future under different conditions and different terms at the expense of freedom and democracy. The Member for Anson has always shown a very unbiased attitude, and I must give him credit for that, Sir. He has never looked at things from a biased point of view, which is rare amongst politicians. They are always prejudiced or biased when they talk to you of their views about what you think. But the hon. Member has always been unbiased and I ask him, Sir, to consider this. We are now faced with two alternatives. Are we going to be democratic and kill democracy or be undemocratic and preserve democracy?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this Bill has been debated for seven days in Select Committee. Today we are on the Third Reading of this Bill before this House. From the debate, you can see that the position of the P.A.P. Government is not steady now. They are rather uneasy and their refusal to accept the views and opinions advanced by others is similar to the attitude adopted by the Ministers in Select Committee when they refused to accept the views contained in the representations of civic organisations. During the Select Committee sittings the Ministers of the P.A.P. refused to accept the views of the Opposition.

I have said time and time again that we have completed Committee work. We had a Select Committee and we had a Committee of the whole Assembly. We are now on the Third Reading and the Member must address himself to the clauses which appear in the Bill and then he must try to indicate how those clauses are undesirable, or inappropriate, or inadequate in relation to the referendum on merger.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I only want to point out simply how the Bill had been carried in the Second Reading because it was-

Order. We have passed the Second Reading. We are now on the Third Reading. The Member must urge that there should be no Third Reading.

(In Mandarin): Although this Bill has passed the Committee stage, we know that outside this House there are five political Parties which have joined hands to oppose the P.A.P. in relation to this Bill and their other actions. The P.A.P. have refused this Joint Action Council to hold meetings in protest against this Bill. We know that even inside the P.A.P. itself the few leaders have adopted a monopolising attitude and they do not accept the opinions of executive members and members of the Party. That is why today they have only 25 seats in this House. For instance, the Member for Bras Basah recently resigned and crossed the Floor to sit on this side of the House because she objects to clause 29 of this Bill. Mr Ramaswamy rose and then resumed his seat.

The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, anticipated the Speaker who was rather busy. It is in fact irrelevant. Let us come back to this Third Reading. I have indicated what the Member must do, and he must do what I have indicated. We are on the Third Reading of this Bill. He must look at the clauses and tell us how he thinks those clauses are quite unsuitable for a referendum on merger.

(In Mandarin): I was just trying to say how their Executive Committee members have been dissatisfied with certain provisions of the Bill.

That is irrelevant. I am not interested in what the Executive Committee members of the Party are doing, or whether they are dissatisfied. We are not interested in that in this particular debate. We are interested only in discussing the clauses which are in the Bill. The Member must indicate how those clauses are not suitable for a referendum on merger. Under Standing Order 54- 'The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.' I do not like to do that. I have not done that and I do not want to set a precedent. Mr Leong.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept your ruling on that. I will now touch on the main topic. As a result of the debate in the last few days, we can have access to certain secrets of the P.A.P. in relation to this Bill. Let me quote a few examples. For instance, this Bill has been said to be a general Referendum Bill, but later on it becomes a specific Referendum Bill. It is intended by the Government that after the holding of the referendum the Bill will be repealed. It would appear, therefore, that the P.A.P. is not honest and is not consistent throughout. The second point is that the P.A.P. has no confidence in its White Paper on merger. That is why it will pose two questions to let the people choose, because they know that the people will not support them. The third point is that the P.A.P. has recognised that the people are not satisfied with certain provisions of the Bill. That is why they are adopting the present tactics. The fourth point is this. The provision in relation to the limitation of the publicity campaign; we can see that the P.A.P. is afraid of the Barisan Sosialis carrying out a publicity campaign, thus disclosing the dictatorial manner of the P.A.P. to the people. They want to curb us. As a representative of the people, I have the duty to air my opinion here, that the National Referendum Bill of the P.A.P is not a democratic one, because its purpose is to enable the P.A.P. to adulterate the views of the people. Because the provisions of the Bill are undemocratic and unreasonable, I support the amendment moved by the Member for Anson, and we should refuse to let the Assembly have the Third Reading of this Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of the debate in the past few days on the National Referendum Bill, the Bill has passed the Committee stage. Now, let us examine the details of this National Referendum Bill and let us ask whether we should give it a Third Reading. The P.A.P. in bringing up this National Referendum Bill want to prevent the people from opposing their merger proposals. Many unreasonable clauses have been written into the Bill with the support of the reactionary political forces which survive up till today. Although unreasonable clauses have been incorporated into the Bill, this Bill looks like this - that is, the Government has let loose a tiger embodied in this Bill to harm the people of Singapore. You can see, Mr Speaker, that the clause in relation to blank votes and uncertain votes is unprecedented in the history of the world, but it has been incorporated into the Bill. It is put in with the purpose of deceiving the people of Singapore, so as to carry on with-

I have to mention that the Member for Moulmein is the eleventh speaker from the Barisan Sosialis and he seems to be repeating the arguments which have been advanced by the other ten speakers. I would suggest to him that this repetition is now becoming a bit tedious. The Speaker has this power under Standing Order 54 - If a Member persists in tedious repetition either of his own arguments or arguments used by other Members in the debate, the Speaker may direct that he discontinue his speech. So I would ask the Member not to repeat what his fellow Members have said.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this National Referendum Bill has passed the Committee stage with all the unreasonable clauses incorporated into it, and my colleagues have explained very clearly how these clauses are unreasonable and undemocratic. Let me quote to you the Sixth Anniversary Celebration Souvenir of the P.A.P., 1960. The title of the article is "Nation Building and Socialism", Written by Dr Toh Chin Chye, on page 50 [Mandarin version]: 'A government rules by the consent of the people, it is a first axiom in politics. This of course implies that the government must not be divorced from mass thinking and mass aspirations. However, keeping in touch with the people must take an active form by mass participation and co-operation in the plans and administration of the government.' Mr Speaker, Sir, from here we can see what they said before, but the provisions in the National Referendum Bill are used to preserve their party prestige. Formerly they had 26 seats opposite, but today they have only 25.

I wonder if the hon. Member will indicate which clause in the Bill has any reference to the Party in power now having 25 seats as against 26 seats?

(In Mandarin): It is relevant to this point. The said Member, if he cannot be relevant, to wind up his speech. I do not want to exercise my power unser Standing Order No. 54 if I can help it.

(In Mandarin): Although today the P.A.P. is acting contrary to the interest and will of the people by trying to force through this unreasonable and undemocratic Bill, the people of Singapore will remember forever their unreasonable and undemocratic acts in bulldozing through this Bill. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 18; Noes. 26; Absent, 7. Ayes. Noes. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Chan Sun Wing. Omar Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Byrne, K. M. Miss. Chan Chee Seng. Hoe Puay Choo, Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Madam. Lee Siew Choh. Chor Yeok Eng. Leong Keng Seng. Goh Chew Chua. Lin You Eng. Goh Keng Swee. Lingam, S. V. Kandasamy, G. Low Por Tuck. Lee Khoon Choy. Marshall, David. Lee Kuan Yew. Ng Teng Kian. Lee Teck Him. Ong Chang Sam. Lim Cheng Lock. Ong Eng Guan. Lim Yew Hock. Sheng Nam Chin. Mammen, John. Tan Cheng Tong. Mohd. Ali bin Tee Kim Leng. Alwi. Teo Hock Guan. Mohd. Ariff bin Wong Soon Fong. Suradi. M. Ismail Rahim. Absent. Ong Pang Boon. Ramaswamy, S. Abdul Hamid bin Seow Peck Leng, Haji Jumat. Mrs. Ahmad bin Tan Kia Gan. Ibrahim. Thio Chan Bee. Ahmad Jabri bin Toh Chin Chye. Mohammad Akib. Wee Toon Boon. Koh, C. H. Yaacob bin Rajah, A. P. Mohamed. Rajaratnam, S. Yong Nyuk Lin. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Madam. Question accordingly negatived.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Third time," put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. 10.20 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As Members are aware, the Government have decided to implement the principle of equality for woman officers in the Government service. The difference in treatment of woman officers is historical. It began in pre-war days when few branches of the civil service had woman officers. Only in the teaching service were women employed in great numbers compared to men but were paid four-fifths of the men's rate. In fact, with very few exceptions, the woman officers in the civil service receive roughly 80 per cent of the pay of their male colleagues. As for the conditions of service, they are also less advantageous. Woman officers lose their permanent status when they marry, for then they are required to resign and are re-employed on a temporary basis. They therefore lose their pension rights when they reach retiring age. They are also required to retire at 45 years but are not allowed to serve up to the normal retiring age which was, until recently, 55 years. This policy of discrimination against women has no place in a just society. The P.A.P. announced in the 1959 general election that it would observe the equality of status for women in our society so far as this is possible. This pledge has now been fulfilled in respect of woman officers in the civil service. However, it will not be possible to rectify the anomalies overnight. They will have to be brought about by stages and by January 1965, all woman officers in the civil service will be paid the same salary for the same type of work as men officers. Administrative measures have been taken to carry out this policy. It is also necessary to amend the relevant sections of the Pensions Ordinance to give effect to equal terms of employment to woman officers. Woman officers appointed to the service on or after 1st March, 1962, will no longer be required to resign or to retire on marriage. They will remain permanent officers and be allowed to serve up to the same retiring age as men. It is, however, necessary to make provision that woman officers in the service prior to 1st March, 1962, can opt to retire at the existing age of retirement or to retire on marriage to qualify for gratuity. The opportunity is also taken to implement the decision to allow Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha Contingent in the Singapore Police Force to retire with full pension benefits on or after completing 15 years of service, as it has been ascertained that the average span of service of a Gurkha soldier in the British Army is 15 years. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. By this Bill the injustice that has been imposed on women officers in the civil service will be removed. I cannot help but observe that this Bill is brought in only at a time when the P.A.P. Government is having its last gasp.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee. 10.31 p.m.

Clause 1-

There is another Pensions (Amendment) Bill which is going to Select Committee. So in clause 1 of this particular Bill which reads: This Ordinance may be cited as the Pensions (Amendment No. 2) Ordinance, 1962.'. probably the "No. 2" should come out. Will the Minister agree?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another Pensions (Amendment) Bill.

Yes, but this is being dealt with first in time, and so I think "No. 2" should come out of this Bill and should be inserted in the other (Amendment) Bill.

I see. Yes, I quite agree.

We will take "No. 2" out then as a typographical amendment. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2- Question proposed, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, only on a point of elucidation. Sir, the proviso to clause 2 (i) states: '"Provided that in the case of a female officer she was in the service before the 1st day of March, 1962, and has opted to retire on or after attaining the age of forty-five years; or";'. Does that mean that a woman who has a child and who was in the service before the 1st day of March but has opted to retire before that date - does that include women who have already retired before the 1st day of March?

Mr Speaker, Sir, section 7 of the Pensions Ordinance allows the payment of pensions, gratuity and other allowances to certain grades of persons. This amendment is to enable pensions and other allowances to be paid to women who are already in the service but who opt to remain on the present terms. Put it this way: women officers who are engaged on or after the 1st of March, 1962, are employed on exactly the same terms as men, that is to say, even if they are married, they still retain their pensionable status. It does not affect them at all. And they cannot retire at the age of 45. They have not got the option of retiring at that age. Now, if they were employed before that date, they have certain privileges which they may want to retain. For instance, if they marry and if they have put in 10 years of service, section 17 of the Pensions Ordinance entitles them to a marriage gratuity of one month per year of service. This section is to allow such women who want to retain these rights that they have. On the other hand, of course, they may want to opt into the new terms, and they are particularly entitled to do so, which means that they will retain their pensionable status after marriage, at a price, of course, of foregoing these benefits of marriage gratuities. I hope I have made the position clear.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understood that that meant what the Minister has said it to mean. But my question is: on top of all that, the proviso: '"Provided that in the case of a female officer she was in the service before the 1st day of March, 1962, and has opted to retire..."'. Now, if a woman has opted to retire and has retired, then do the words "has opted to retire" mean that? Or do they mean that she has opted to retire but has not retired? Which does it mean?

This is all very confusing.

Can the Minister answer that at this time of the night?

It means that she has opted to retire but has not retired. I think the question which the hon. Member wants to ask really is this: in the case of women who have already retired, what are their pension rights? Now, with this amendment, when all women who take advantage of this option of a complete equality with men - whether they marry or do not get married - retire, they get full pension rights. Formerly, that was not the case. A married woman loses her pensionable status on marriage, and if she has served for say 10 to 15 years, she draws an allowance of half the full pension rights. And if she has completed more than 15 years, she gets 60 per cent of full pension rights. These quantums are regulated not by this Ordinance but by regulations. Regulation 22 sets down the allowances payable to persons in non-pensionable establishment - both men and women who have retired after so many years of service. Therefore, the eligibility to pensions of women officers who have already retired remains as before, and is not affected by this Ordinance. If we want to give them the pensions to which they would have been entitled if this policy had been in force in the past, then amendments to these regulations made under the Pensions Ordinance would be necessary. Whether or not there is a case for doing so is an extremely complicated matter. There are arguments for and against. The obvious argument is that women officers who retired before 1st March, 1962, are in a sense done out of something. Supposing she retires on 28th February, then she would have lost certain rights. Therefore, it could be said that there is a case for giving such women full pension entitlement. But there are many horrible complications. I have gone through these in some detail. For instance, some women draw pensions in respect of services both in Singapore and in the Federation. Then what do we do about that? Then certain women have drawn their pensions in the form of capital grants; others have not. Although I have not made up my mind finally on this subject, it does seem to me that the case for preserving the status quo is rather stronger than the case for making further changes to the regulations made under the Pensions Ordinance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in dealing with women, of course, there will be a lot of complications. It could be horrible; it could be exciting; or it could be romantic. There is the other complication which I would ask the Minister to explain - if it is a complication. What happens to a female officer in the service before the operative date? She got married, she got her marriage allowance, but can she now apply to be on the pensionable status, after having taken the marriage allowance? Would it also mean that she would have her marriage allowance deducted from her pensions?

Yes, she can apply for transfer into the permanent service in the usual way. I think what the hon. Member meant is that they have retired on marriage and have been re-engaged on a temporary status. Such women can apply for admission into the permanent service. And if their original appointment had been made by the Public Service Commission, then the transfer would be automatic. As regards pension rights, the service in respect of which marriage allowance had been drawn, would not naturally count as pensionable service. Pensionable service would begin from the date of re-engagement.

Mr Speaker, I think what the Member for Cairnhill has in mind is this: supposing a woman gets married after 9 years of service and has drawn only one year's salary maximum. There is a maximum to the gratuity. But if that 9� years is given to her and counted in her years of service, then when the pensions are calculated, it would mean much more to her than the one year's salary which she has received as gratuity. Can she return that one year's service and claim pensions from the day that she was originally appointed, which would mean that in her old age she would have a bigger pension to live on?

That is why I say, never deal with women.

There are two reasons. Technically, there has been a break in service because she has retired. And, of course, the other reason is that such a woman would then try to get the best of two worlds.

They always do!

Question put, and agreed to. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. 10.45 p.m.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to provide for the more effective supervision, of advocates and solicitors and of solicitors' clerks. The Bill seeks in the proposed section 41A to empower the Singapore Bar Committee to make rules to provide for the keeping of accounts by advocates and solicitors in respect of money held by them on behalf of their clients. In the proposed section 41B provision is made for the delivering of an annual certificate by an accountant in respect of such accounts. It is felt that these provisions will enable a more effective control to be exercised over the keeping of clients' money by advocates and solicitors. The proposed section 41B provides for the maintenance and administration of a compensation fund to enable compensation to be paid where any person has sustained loss in consequence of the dishonesty of any advocate or solicitor or any clerk or servant employed by him in connection with his practice. Failure to comply with the rules relating to the keeping of accounts will constitute a disciplinary offence for which a complaint can he made to the Bar Committee, and it is also provided that a certificate to practise will not be issued to an advocate and solicitor unless he satisfies the Registrar that he has complied with the provisions relating to the keeping of accounts and the delivery of an accountant's certificate. Power is given to the State Advocate-General to refer any information touching on the conduct of a solicitor in his professional capacity to the Bar Committee. That is provided for in clause 7. In order to prevent abuses, it is proposed that a solicitor will not be allowed to make an agreement with his client for the payment of a commission, percentage or salary to him. This is provided for in clause 11. The provisions relating to the employment of solicitors' clerks are contained in the proposed new section 35, which is clause 8 of the Bill. It is provided that no solicitor shall, without the consent of the court, employ any person who has been struck off the roll, or suspended from practice, or who has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty of touting or of holding himself out to be a qualified person or who has been listed as a tout or who is a public servant. The purpose of this amendment is to remove all opportunities for touting and to ensure that only persons of integrity will be employed in the offices of advocates and solicitors. It is, however, intended to permit the employment of advocates and solicitors and qualified persons even if they had previously been in Government service. I will move an amendment at the Committee stage of the Bill to make this intention clear. Provision is made for the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel to appear in cases in Singapore. I shall be moving an amendment to this clause to provide that such Queen's Counsel may only be admitted by the court for one or more special reasons in the public interest and that such Queen's Counsel have special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case for which they are to be admitted. Before admitting such persons, the court will have regard to the views of the State Advocate-General and the Bar Committee. Sir, the present position in Singapore is that Queen's Counsel can be admitted to the Singapore Bar without much formality, and the practice has been that no opposition is raised by the Singapore Bar Committee or the State Advocate-General. In the Federation of Malaya, however, statutory provisions have been strictly enforced, and in a recent case, the Chief Justice of the Federation has decided that the provisions of section 7 of the Federation Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, 1947, must be complied with. This requires, inter alia, that the person applying to be admitted must satisfy the Board appointed by the Bar Council that he has an adequate knowledge of the laws of the Federation. There is no corresponding provision requiring knowledge of the laws of Singapore in Singapore. All that is required in Singapore is that the persons seeking admission should satisfy the examiners that they have an adequate knowledge of the practice and etiquette of the profession and of the English language. Queen's Counsel, therefore, have had no difficulty in satisfying the examiners. In the Federation there have been no applications other than the one which recently came before the Chief Justice made by a non-resident practitioner, while in Singapore there has been a number of such admissions. The proposal for ad hoc admissions will restrict the admission of non-resident practitioners, as Queen's Counsel will only be admitted to appear in a particular case. It is proposed to restrict the right still further by requiring the Queen's Counsel seeking admission to show that he has special qualifications and experience for the purpose of the case. The court is further required to have regard to the views of the State Advocate-General and of the Bar Committee before admitting such a person. Sir, the power to grant leave to qualified persons and managing clerks to appear before the Judge or Registrar in Chambers is to be extended to enable such persons to appear in Chambers before a District Judge or Registrar of a District Court. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a good Bill and I welcome it. I compliment the Government particularly on the tact and good sense shown by them in listening to criticisms - unfortunately not usual - in weighing those criticisms and reappraising their stand with sincerity. The Government has now produced a Bill which I believe and hope will receive a welcome from all sides of this House in respect of all its aspects. Sir, though the Government is roasting the people of Singapore on a spit like a barbecued lamb -

Order. Are those extravagant phrases really necessary? They are completely irrelevant to the Bill. We are dealing with the Advocates and Solicitors (Amendment) Bill, and the Member for Anson is endeavouring to generate heat.

No, Sir, I am not seeking to generate heat. I am seeking to explain, Mr Speaker, that however strongly we may feel about some other conduct, nevertheless, in this context where they offer us a drop of water, I want to say that I am grateful for that drop of water and I thank them for this Bill.

Hear, hear!

Order. That is perfectly in order. But I think when the Member embarks on extravagant phrases which are completely irrelevant to the Bill, I think the Speaker is entitled to pull him up.

I will not argue with your entitlement, Sir, I would like to say that the members of the Bar, as a group of professional persons with special privileges, privileges which give them the right to a career of dignity and, in most cases, of profit [Laughter] Should I add, Sir, or would this generate heat? Not as much profit nor power as certain lustful politicians for politics and position. The members of the Bar are conscious that they carry special responsibilities to the community they serve. I know that there has been considerable anxiety, Mr Speaker, caused amongst members of the Bar of Singapore as a result of the widely publicized occasion when a member of the Bar committed a breach of trust of vast sums of money. The extent of the defalcations and the repute of the advocate and solicitor concerned brought home with a shock to all in the Bar the possibility that this incident or similar incidents may recur. And it is in these circumstances that the Bar has been very anxious to create a compensation fund to which the Bar itself would contribute whereby clients who suffer pecuniary loss from the misconduct of a member of the Bar may be compensated out of a fund for which all members of the Bar would be equally responsible. And in conformity with the high traditions of its profession, the Singapore Bar seeks to implement the concept, Sir, that all members should be responsible for the pecuniary loss arising from the professional misconduct of any one member, in order to protect the community in its trust of this professional group. The proposed section 41D, which creates the compensation fund, is the first effort in this part of the world to implement the concept of the pecuniary responsibility of a group of professional men for the misconduct of one of themselves. This clause is only part of the answer to the problem. It is my hope, and I believe the hope of many members of the Bar, that as soon as the fund grows in strength, amending legislation will be introduced to enable clients who suffer pecuniary loss from criminal misconduct of solicitors to claim from the fund the full loss and not merely to receive an ex-gratia grant. Furthermore, Sir, I would like to see in due course this fund becoming the insurer for all pecuniary loss arising not only from criminal misconduct but also from the negligence of a member of the Bar. When this is achieved, the Bar will have made adequate provisions to meet to the full its responsibilities commensurate with the privileges which it enjoys. I appreciate that this is not at present possible and will not be possible for some time until the fund is of adequate size. It is my hope that the aim will be kept in sight and that the Bar, as a whole, must carry the full burden of pecuniary loss arising out of negligence or misconduct of its individual members in order to maintain and enhance the trust and respect of the community. The compensation fund will be of particular assistance to many young men now coming into the profession whose background is not publicly known, and whom the public will be the readier to trust if they know that should their trust be misplaced they can always seek redress from the compensation fund. It is my hope, Sir, that though the younger members of the Bar are the ones who will benefit most by this provision, nevertheless the Bar Committee will see to it that there will be differential payments to the compensation fund in order to assist junior members of the Bar in their first few years when they may be unable to meet the full normal quota that is expected of all of us. I would also like to say, Sir, that I welcome the provisions for compulsory and exhaustive accounting by solicitors. Sir, it is a curious thing that many members of the Bar, in common with most members of the public, loathe accounts.

What about accountants?

Many have but a sketchy idea of accounting. It is true that, this will help accountants. But I am certain that the Government did not introduce these provisions to help the accountants. But these provisions, and I refer to sections 41A and 41B, are good in that they compel exhaustive accounting under the supervision of professional accountants to avoid any possibility not merely of conscious fraud, Sir, which is very rare, but of innocent mishandling of clients' funds. I know that it would mean a certain expense to the member of the Bar and bear heavily again on the younger members who have recently joined the profession and who practise on their own. This additional burden can be heavy for this small group, but for the welfare of the profession as a whole it seems to me that the provisions of sections 41A and 41B are essential and the small group of junior advocates and solicitors who are practising on their own must carry the additional burden. Sir, I am particularly delighted with the action of the Government in adverting to views expressed in respect of section 7A, the clause whereby Queen's Counsel are permitted to come to Singapore' specifically for one case. As it originally stood, Sir, that clause would have permitted Queen's Counsel to come at will and pleasure. Very fortunately Sir, and I would like to say this; that it is not a matter of professional jealousy cm the part of the Bar, but it is a matter of reoognising that if the members of the Bar in Singapore are deprived of the opportunity of handling important cases, such deprivation can have an effect on their own efficiency. I say, Sir, that I am indeed glad that, by a fortuitous coincidence, there was a widely publicized case which went before the Chief Justice of the Federation of Malaya, himself an expatriate, who nevertheless criticised any suggestion that Queen's Counsel may practise in the Federation as of right. I think it is important to read it and to recognise the good sense the Government showed in giving weight to the view expressed by the Chief Justice of the Federation and in seeking to amend their provisions to conform with a view which clarified the position. Sir, I am reading from the Straits Times of the 5th of April, 1962 and the heading is: THE CHIEF JUSTICE ON 'OUTSIDE COMPETITTON'. It is dated from Kuala Lumpur and it says: The Chief Justice, Dato Sir James Thomson, today dismissed an application by an eminent Queen's Counsel to appear in a civil appeal here next week, saying that the legal profession here should enjoy a certain measure of protection from competition from outside. At one stage of the hearing, Dato Sir James commented: "If all the cream is taken away by members of the English Bar, there will only remain skimmed milk for local lawyers."' Sir, a sense of consideration for the local Bar which does him credit. 'In his judgment, the Chief Justice said: "The application is made by a very eminent Queen's Counsel and it is admittedly made for the purpose of coming to this country on a single occasion to appear in a single case. It is to be noted that it is the first occasion since the setting up of a judicial system of the modern type in this country that it has been thought necessary or desirable to make any such application. I am, of course, aware that such applications have been made from time to time in the former Straits Settlements and the State of Singapore, but this is the first occasion in the history of this country that such an application has been made." Dato Sir James said the application raised two difficult questions. In the first place, the public interest had to he considered.' I am happy to note, Sir, that that phrase has been utilised by the Government: He said: "There is here a young, rising legal profession, and in the public interest it may well be that the profession should enjoy a certain measure of protection from competition from outside. For myself, I would not countenance for a moment, unless compelled to do so by the strongest statutory requirement, any attempt to protect the local profession simply and solely for the benefit of its members. That would be wrong in itself, and it would be contrary to the intention of the Statute which is clearly to be construed with an eye to one thing and one thing only - and that is the public interest. The point, however, is whether it is not in the public interest, as distinct from the individual interests of practitioners, that the profession should enjoy a certain measure of protection." Dato Sir James added: "Again it would appear that, as between the profession locally and the profession in England, there is no reciprocity. If it is to be a one-way traffic, the question arises whether that is altogether consistent with the status of an independent country." Unfortunately, we cannot claim that last element. But you will see, Sir, how vigorously he came out. A sense of justice, not merely for the profession, individuals, but for the stature of the profession and in the public interest. I am happy to note, Sir, that we do not exclude a Queen's Counsel completely. I am sure no member of the Bar would seek that. But rather, we permit Queen's Counsel to be admitted in the court's discretion, Sir, and not in that of any administrative or Government officer - if it is in the public interest. You will recognise, Sir, that in a State where there are, I understand, some 150 members of the Bar, there are certain aspects of the law which are rarely adumbrated. I have in mind, for example, Sir, a case of two or three years back, or maybe a little more, where one oil company was claiming over $5 million from another oil company in respect of deposits of oil which were taken over by the Japanese. Now, that was a particularly difficult case with overtones of international law, the law of confiscation during the War, and in that case it was quite appropriate that the Government itself should have had Queen's Counsel from England, and the oil companies concerned themselves engaged Queen's Counsel. But, Sir, you are not unconscious of other occasions which, if not frivolous, and however important to the individuals concerned, were not of a character to require the presence of eminent Queen's Counsel, since the issues involved were such as were dealt with daily by members of the Bar locally. But because of the wealth of the parties, Sir, we saw not one, or two, but teams from the English Bar to handle the issues. Sir, it is not Queen's Counsel we want, except very rarely, and I am glad to see the provision made where on such occasions they can be admitted, but it is solicitors that we need, and that is why I have not moved, and I would like to emphasise it, will not as yet move, any amendment to this Bill to prevent non-citizens of Singapore and Malaya from practising in Singapore. This should come, Sir, this must come, but I will not seek to urge it until I am completely satisfied that, in fact, we have from our University an adequate supply of those trained of a calibre such as those we have had the pleasure of seeing graduate but recently. Sir, it will be my pleasure to support and vote for this Bill. 11.09 p.m.

Sir, this is indeed a very happy occasion. To be able to agree with the Member for Anson on anything that he propounds in this Assembly has been one of my dearest wishes since he entered this Assembly. This evening, Mr Speaker, we are completely at one. This is made doubly pleasurable when the Member for Anson and I can agree completely and wholeheartedly with the Government. I wonder if such occasions will occur in the future. I hope they do; perhaps after merger, they might. Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Bill and, if I may say so, I am in complete agreement with its provisions. As the explanatory statement says, Mr Speaker: 'This Bill amends the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance to provide for the more effective supervision of solicitors and solicitors' accounts and the control of the employment of solicitors' clerks.' Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may be forgiven, I am myself a solicitor practising in this country, and I do not object one bit to the more effective supervision that is being imposed upon me and my firm and those like me who are practising in Singapore. I do not object to it, Mr Speaker, for this reason: it is my good fortune to practise as a solicitor, and as a solicitor, it is my duty and my privilege to uphold the rule of law in this country. Without the rule of law, the basic foundation of our system of government will disappear. On that basis, I am happy to be a solicitor and I am happy to be associated in the maintenance of the rule of law. But when one occupies a position of privilege and, if I may say so, a position of power, that position necessitates that one does not exercise privilege and power wantonly, that there must be curbs on that power. I am glad that these curbs are being imposed on this honourable profession in order that it might remain and continue to remain and, if I may say so, occupy an even more honourable position in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, the other point which might be controversial and on which I wish to speak, is the question of admission of Queen's Counsel. I only recently came to understand that a part of the provision of this new section is not entirely in accord with the wishes of the general members of the Bar. I was only informed this afternoon that during my absence from Singapore this particular provision was posed before the general meeting of the Bar Committee and they felt in their wisdom that the phrase "in the public interest" should be omitted. I am not in a position to know the reasons for that conclusion which the meeting of the Bar came to. But as a Member of the Assembly, I am speaking more in the general interest of the country and of the future of Singapore in relation to the Federation. I would say that in all such matters, the Singapore Bar should work in unity with the Federation Bar, and I support this provision although it would appear that I am at variance with my fellow practitioners at the Bar on the basis that in future the Singapore Bar and the Federation Bar, in view of the political future of the two territories, should work together. I say that in all earnestness, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Bar is intimately connected with politics and because we are the upholders of the rule of law and, without the rule of law, our political system cannot survive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am delighted to hear the words of kindness that flowed from the Member for Anson for once in our lifetime.

It will never happen again!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are sagacious enough to know that it would be useful for us to take these words at their mere face value.

That is churlish.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the matter which the Member for Farrer Park referred to just now, I was surprised to receive a note from the State Advocate-General this morning informing us that this particular provision of the Bill had been considered by the Bar Committee and that they were most dissatisfied with it. And in the letter to the State Advocate-General from the Secretary of the Bar Committee, the Bar Committee referred the State Advocate-General to a resolution approved at a general meeting of the Singapore Bar held on 28th April, 1962, where the Member for Anson's amendment to include a proviso after the words "discretion", "for special reasons in the public interest" was considered. He drew our attention to the fact that the proviso was defeated by a majority vote. But nevertheless, I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is necessary in all these matters for us to keep in line with the Federation, and I think despite the views that the Bar Committee holds we would be acting appropriately if we proceeded to enact this clause.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]. Bill considered in Committee. 11.18 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2-

The first amendment* is dependent on the new clause. I think we will deal with that under the provisions of Standing Order 71, paragraph 11. We will come back to that after we have passed the new clause. Amendment (ii) then. Mr Minister. *The amendment, standing in the name of the Minister for Health and Law, reads as follows : - . In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out 'Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance (hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as the "principal Ordinance")' and insert "principal Ordinance".

Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, to leave out lines 10 to 18 inclusive, and In page 2, to leave out lines 1 to 4 inclusive, and insert- " Ad hoc 7A.-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 17, at end, to insert- "(3) Before admitting a person under the provisions of this section the Court shall have regard to the views of the State Advocate-General and the Singapore Bar Committee.". I have also explained the purpose of this amendment.

Will the Minister please take his seat? I think amendment (iv)* should have come before that in order of time. * Amendment (iv), standing in the name of Mr Marshall, reads as follows:- In page 1, line 12, to leave out "at its discretion" and insert "for special reasons in the public interest".

If it please you, Mr Speaker, when I come to it I will inform the House that I am not moving. I am happy to have seen it incorporated.

Thank you. Then will the Minister move?

I have moved, Mr Speaker, Sir. Amendment agreed to.

There are consequential amendments on the addition of new sub-clause (3). Those consequential amendments will be made. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 1, to leave out "Section" and insert "Subsection (1) of section". Sir, this is a typographical error. The relevant provision is contained in subsection (1) of section 21 of the Ordinance. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8- Amendment made: In page 3, lines 27 and 28, to leave out "(other than an advocate and solicitor or a qualified person)".-[Mr Byrne]

Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 6, at end, to add- "Provided that the provisions of paragraph (g) of this subsection shall not apply to any public officer who is an advocate and solicitor or a qualified person.". The amendment, Sir, is to clarify the intention of the section, that is, the restriction arising from service in the Government shall not apply to advocates and solicitors or qualified persons. As it stands, the clause will appear to allow a solicitor to employ an advocate and solicitor or a qualified person who has, for example, been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty. This is not the intention, and the amendment makes the provision clear. Amendment agreed to.

There is a consequential amendment+ which will be made. + The consequential amendment reads as follows: In page 4, line 6, to leave out the full-stop and insert a colon. Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9-

There is an amendment to the marginal note: In page 5, to leave out "41B and 41C" and insert "41B, 41C and 41D". That will be done. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 11, line 11, to leave out "Section" and insert "Subsection (1) of section". This also is a typographical error. The relevant provision is contained in sub section (1) of section 49 of the Ordinance. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New clause- 'Amendment Section 2 of the Advocates and of section 2 Solicitors Ordinance (hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as the 2. "principal Ordinance") is hereby amended by inserting immediately after the word "Malaya" at the end of the definition of "qualified person" appearing therein the words "or in the University of Singapore".'-[Mr Byrne]. Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Sir, this new clause is to provide for the admission of graduates of the University of Singapore. The University of Singapore was constituted on the 13th December, 1961, and the graduates in law are now graduates of the University of Singapore. At the same time, it is proposed to reserve the right of law graduates of the University of Malaya to apply for admission.

Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The usual consequential amendments will be made. Clause 2-

Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, lines 6 and 7, to leave out 'Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance (hereinafter in this Ordinance referred to as the "principal Ordinance")' and insert "principal Ordinance". This, Sir, is a consequential amendment. Amendment agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker, at the request of the Opposition Parties, I wish to move a motion for the adjournment. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, That notwithstanding the resolution of the Assembly made this day, this Assembly do now adjourn.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That notwithstanding the resolution of the Assembly made this day, this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock p.m.