Hansard, 1963-07-24

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (g) of section 42 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, obtained from the Speaker, permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly:- Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Bukit Panjang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - from 21st June to 12th July, 1963. Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister - from 26th June to 25th July, 1963.

I have to report that on the days stated, His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara assented to the following Bills:- 20th June, 1963. (i) The Appropriation Bill. (ii) The Auctioneers' Licences (Amendment) Bill. (iii) The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill. (iv) The Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill. (v) The Pensions (Amendment) Bill. 21st June, 1963. (i) The Rubber Estates Assessment (Amendment) Bill. (ii) The Post Office (Amendment) Bill. (iii) The Financial Procedure (Amendment) Bill. (iv) The Planning (Amendment) Bill. (v) The Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill. 24th June, 1963. The Singapore Society of Accountants Bill.

Questions 1* and 2+ have been postponed to 29th July, 1963. *Question No. 1 stood in the name of Mr Low Por Tuck - To ask the Prime Minister who were the members of the Singapore team that attended the inter-governmental financial talks in Kuala Lumpur on 10th and 11th April, 1963. +Question No. 2 stood in the name of Mr Tee Kim Leng - To ask the Prime Minister what is the progress in negotiations on the question of compensation for the massacres by the Japanese Army in Singapore in the last war and what further action he intends to take.

asked the Minister for Finance what progress has been made in the action taken against bogus insurance companies since 9th April. 1963.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Member for Choa Chu Kang will recall that in the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly in April, he was informed that the process of liquidating bogus insurance companies was in the hands of liquidators appointed by the High Court of Singapore in respect of three insurance companies incorporated in the State, and by the High Court of Malaya in respect of the other 13 insurance companies incorporated in the Federation. The liquidators of most of these companies are still processing, summarising and sorting out tens of thousands of claims from all over Malaya and Singapore, as well as realising the assets of companies where available. The liquidators of two insurance companies - one from Singapore and the other from Malaya - however, have already begun paying out claims to policy holders, and payments are now almost completed. These payments are practically in full satisfaction of claims by policy holders. The process to make payments of claims to policy holders for another two companies - again one from Singapore and the other from the Federation - is reaching its final stages and claimants will receive their payments within the next three months. The liquidators for the Singapore company reported that all claims from policy holders can be met in full. The remaining one Singapore insurance company under liquidation proved to be insolvent and some legal action is still necessary before any payment can be made. As for the other bogus insurance companies incorporated in Malaya, it is not known how long the liquidators will take before any payment to policy holders can be made. However, as stated before, many of these companies were in a poor financial position and it would be optimistic for any policy holder to expect more than a small fraction of his claims to be honoured.

asked the Minister for Finance since 3rd June, 1959 (i) how many loans have so far been floated by the Government; (ii) what is the amount for each loan; and (iii) what has been done with them.

Sir, since 3rd June, 1959, five loans have been floated by the Government, one for each year from 1959 to1963. The total amount of loan in respect of the five loans is $247,514,000. The breakdown of this figure is as follows: In 1959, $40 million was floated under the Development Loan (Local) Ordinance, 1959 (No. 50 of 1959). In 1960, $30 million under the same Ordinance. In 1961, $50 million was floated under the Development Loan Ordinance, 1961 (No. 7 of 1961). In 1962, $60 million under that Ordinance, and in 1963, $67,514,000 under the same Ordinance. Sir, the funds raised by these loans have been paid into the State Development Fund to finance development projects in the State in accordance with section 5 of the Development Loan (Local) Ordinance, 1959, in respect of those loans floated in 1959 and 1960, and in accordance with section 5 of the Development Loan Ordinance, 1961, in respect of those loans floated in 1961, 1962 and 1963.

Question No. 5* stood in the name of Mr Ong Chang Sam. * Question No. 5 reads as follows:- To ask the Minister for Finance when will the Rueff Report be presented to this Assembly.

Mr Ong Chang Sam.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this House has only just now received a report on the Common Market. That is why I do not wish to raise any question now.

The hon. Member, by rising when his name was called, has in fact asked the Question*. I notice that there is Question 6 which is in similar terms. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to make any reply. Technically, Question No. 5* has been asked. No reply? Mr Marshall. Question No. 5 reads as follows:- To ask the Minister for Finance when will the Rueff Report be presented to this Assembly

asked the Minister for Finance whether he would consider tabling the Rueff Report and when this may be expected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report has been presented today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister indicate whether any copies of the Report were supplied to the Press last week before being communicated to this House?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know. We were in communication with the Federation Government and we were informed that the Federation Government would be releasing this Report to the Press as from today. I do not know whether copies were made available to the Press previous to that.

Is the Minister not aware that in the Straits Times of last Saturday, there was a report purporting to contain a summary of the Rueff Report? Would he indicate why Members of this House could not have received the copies earlier?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, there was a tie-up between this Government and the Federation Government and there was an understanding that the Report would be released to the Press as from today.

At whose request was that understanding arrived at?

In an agreement between both Governments, Sir.

I do not think the Minister quite understood me. There is a report in Saturday's Straits Times - "Rueff Report Recommends industrialisation, 109 pages." I am asking the Minister whether he was aware of how the newspaper came to be in possession of a copy of the Report before it was presented to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it was not released by the Singapore Government.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many voters did not vote in the National Referendum held on 1st September, 1962; (b) how many of them applied for their names to be restored to the 1962 Registers of Electors; (c) how many have had their names restored in the 1962 Registers of Electors; and (d) how many applications were rejected and why.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 53,581 persons did not vote at the National Referendum. 7,418 applied to have their names restored to the 1962 Register of Electors. 6,467 have had their names restored to the 1962 Register of Electors. None were rejected.

Could the Minister indicate then why the discrepancy between the number of applications and the number of restoration?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the difference of 951 applications is in respect of applicants who have not produced documentary evidence to prove their absence from Singapore in time for consideration and approval for inclusion in the 1962 Registers. They will, therefore, be considered in connection with the 1963 Registers.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many people in Singapore became entitled to have their names entered in the Registers of Electors, on reaching the age of 21 in 1962, under section 5 (1) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance; and (b) how many have had their names entered in the 1962 Registers of Electors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to (a) is: All Singapore citizens reaching the age of 21 in July 1962 are entitled to have their names in the Registers of Electors. The answer to (b) is: It is presumed that the Member for Choa Chu Kang is referring to the number of new voters who have had their names entered in the 1962 Registers of Electors. 45,066 new voters have had their names inserted in the 1962 Registers of Electors.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister did not answer the question on (a) , that is, how many people? I wonder whether the Minister can give us the answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that all Singapore citizens reaching the age of 21 are entitled to have their names entered in the Registers. As to how many, no record has been kept. His guess is as good as mine.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many people in Singapore became entitled to have their names entered in the Registers of Electors, on reaching the age of 21 in 1963, under section 5 (1) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance; (b) how many will have their names entered in the 1963 Registers of Electors; and (c) when will the 1963 Registers of Electors be ready.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to (a) is: All Singapore citizens reaching the age of 21 in July 1963 will be entitled to have their names entered in the Registers of Electors. The answer to (b) is: It is presumed that the Member for Choa Chu Kang is referring to the number of new voters whose names will be entered in the 1963 Registers of Electors. If that is so, then the information required can only be supplied after the publication of the 1963 Lists "A" and "B" and the number of claims from new voters that have been approved during the 1963 revision of registers is known. The answer to (c) is: It is hoped that it will be possible to have the 1963 Registers of Electors ready by 1st March,1964.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he has received a report from the International Red Cross on the visit of their delegate to Singapore to investigate conditions of detainees, and whether he would make public the recommendations therein contained, and what action, if any, he proposes to take thereon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a report has been received from the Vice-President of the International Red Cross. A reply has been sent to the Vice-President thanking him for the report and informing him that steps have been taken to improve the conditions of detainees which are now better, and, therefore, the Government does not consider it necessary to publish this private report.

Will the Minister reconsider the question particularly in the light of the inaccurate appellation that it is a "private" report? The International Red Cross is a public organisation. It was invited here for a public purpose at the request of public personalities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main objection, as far as we gather from the report, is that the detainees were confined individually in their cells in Outram Prison. No detainee is being confined individually in his cell at Outram Prison now. So there is no need to publish the report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for your indulgence. Would the Minister consider that if, in fact, everything now is rosy in the garden there is no real reason why the report and its recommendations should be prevented from being known by the citizens of this country. What is there the Government is afraid or ashamed of?

Mr Speaker, there is nothing to be ashamed of. Most of the recommendations have already been carried out.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he has received any request from a detainee named Tai Yuen for release to enable him to pursue studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, and what action he proposes to take thereon.

Mr Speaker, Sir, a request has been received from the father of detainee Tai Yuen appealing for the release of Tai Yuen to pursue his studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. The request has been forwarded to the Internal Security Council for consideration.

Would the Minister indicate whether, in fact, that request was received in the month of June; whether he is aware that it has the support of a public body in the United Kingdom; and whether he is aware that there is urgency in obtaining a decision because Tai Yuen's place is being kept open by the somewhat important organisation of learning where it is difficult to get entrance?

That, of course, is giving information. I take it the hon. Member wishes to know whether the Minister would do something about it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said just now, the request has been forwarded to the Internal Security Council for consideration.

Would the Minister at least indicate when he anticipates a decision might be available?

Mr Speaker, Sir, unfortunately, I am not attending the I.S.C. meeting today in Cameron Highlands, so I would not know.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will make a statement on the incident of the detainees assaulting the prison officers in Pulau Senang in April 1963.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the appointment and the terms of reference of the three-man Commission of Inquiry headed by Mr Justice Ambrose, it is not proposed to make a statement on the incident of the detainees assaulting the prison officers in Pulau Senang in April 1963.

Would the Minister indicate whether any interim measures are being taken pending receipt of the commission's report?

I wonder if the Member for Anson could clarify his question. What measures is he thinking of?

Order. I do not think we can allow a thing like that. The question was, what interim measures? The answer is, the Minister knows of no interim measures. The Member for Choa Chu Kang wishes to ask a supplementary question?

(In Mandarin): According to my knowledge, the Government has established a Commission of Inquiry into the incident that occurred in Pulau Senang in April this year. At the time of the debate on the Budget, the Minister for Home Affairs gave me an undertaking to investigate into this matter. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Commission appointed by him has already given him any report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand him correctly, the Member for Choa Chu Kang was referring to the Commission appointed by Government in April 1963. There is no such Commission of Inquiry appointed in April. It is in July.

May I just be quite certain that the Commission which has now been appointed will be looking into the incident in Pulau Senang in April1963?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commission has just been appointed. It will look into the incident that took place on 12th July, and I would imagine that it will also look into this incident, because it may have some bearing on the incident in July.

I asked that question because if this incident will come within the province of the Commission of Inquiry, then, of course, it is completely out of order to ask any question in regard to that incident.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs who were the officers killed or injured in Pulau Senang on 12th July, 1963, stating their names and appointments; and what action will be taken in regard to their families.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the officers who were killed in Pulau Senang were:-

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (i) what was the total number of detainees detained in Pulau Senang on 12th July, 1963; (ii) the names of detainees who were killed or injured in Pulau Senang on 12th July, 1963, when were they first detained, and how long had they been detained in Pulau Senang.

Mr Speaker, Sir, (i) The total number of Criminal Law detainees detained in Pulau Senang on 12th July, 1963, was 320. (ii) None of the detainees was killed in Pulau Senang on 12th July, 1963. (iii) Only six of the detainees received superficial head injuries during the riots, and they are receiving attention in the Prison Hospital. These six are:-

asked the Minister for Education whether and when the Government will build a Chinese-medium school in Tampines Road.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the policy of Government to build schools to meet the demand for places as far as possible, provided suitable sites can be obtained and at reasonable cost. In the case of Tampines Road, which is more than 7 miles long, there are at present 11 Primary schools serving this area. Of these, 9 are Government Aided Chinese schools with 82 classes and total enrolment of 2,873 pupils. It would seem that these 9 schools are more than adequate to serve the needs of Chinese primary classes in this area, when judged by the registration for Primary I classes for 1964 which was completed recently. Although these schools could admit 808 pupils next year, only 404 or 50 per cent of capacity have registered for admission. When the Prime Minister visited Tampines constituency in February this year, 4 petitions were - 3.00 p.m. Committee of Supply. Later - 3.15 p.m.

As I was saying, Mr Speaker. Sir, when the Prime Minister visited Tampines Constituency in February this year, four petitions were received for the building of a Government Chinese secondary school in the Tampines area. A survey was immediately conducted by the Ministry. Again it would seem that the Tampines area is reasonably served by no less than five Chinese secondary schools in the neighbouring Upper Serangoon area, namely, the Hai Sing Girls' High School at 7¼ m.s. (483 Upper Serangoon Road), the school just opposite the Holy Innocents High School; the Sin Min High School -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Point of order.

The point of order being this: it is a very simple question and whether it is permissible that statements of such verbosity be permitted at Question Time.

The general rule is that answers should be as short as possible. Of course, there is nothing to prevent a Minister from elaborating on what he has to say. The general parliamentary practice is that if the answer tends to be long, the Minister could say that he will make a Ministerial statement after Questions. But I have allowed rather lengthy statements in answer to Questions, for the simple reason that we have not had so very many questions on our Order Papers. Perhaps Ministers will bear in mind in future that if their statements are lengthy, they could easily make Ministerial statements at the end of Question Time. Mr Yong may continue.

I shall gloss over the details, Sir, and just say that there are five Chinese secondary schools in the neighbouring Upper Serangoon area. On the south side there are another three Chinese secondary schools within reasonable distance from Tampines. However, Government has decided to acquire two pieces of land, one of four acres at 10 m.s. Upper Changi Road, and the other over three acres at 7½ m.s. Upper East Coast Road. The land acquisition notices of these lands were published in the Government Gazette Notifications No. 609 dated 22nd March, 1963, and No. 1088 dated 17th May, 1963, respectively. It is planned to build three integrated schools (one primary and two secondary) at these sites to serve both the Changi and Tampines areas.

asked the Minister for Education from 10th June, 1963, to 6th July, 1963, what was the total number of applications for admission in 1964 to the Government and aided primary schools in (a) the Malay medium, (b) the Chinese medium, (c) the English medium, and (d) the Tamil medium.

In accordance with the express wishes of parents for the admission of their children to Primary I classes in 1964 to Government and Government-aided Primary schools during the four-week registration period from 10th June to 6th July, 1963, the final figures were as follows: Number Number of of children Centres registered (a) Malay medium 49 4,970 (b) Chinese medium 239 17,309 (c) English medium 169 36,676 (d) Tamil medium 15 129 Total 472 59,084

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider instituting a sociological enquiry into the effects on persons re-housed in units erected by the Singapore Improvement Trust and the Housing and Development Board in the past ten years.

Sir, I do not see that any useful purpose will be served at this stage by instituting a sociological enquiry of the type envisaged by the Member for Anson. For the Member's information, trained housing management personnel of the Board from time to time have already conducted specific sociological surveys to assist the manage, ment, planning, and administration of housing estates as well as to assess sociological practice relevant to clearance of slum areas.

Do I understand from the Minister that, in fact, there have been sociological surveys? And if so, would he consider publishing them?

Sir, these are surveys conducted by the Housing Board itself, and the recommendations are meant for the use of the Housing Board.

I would like to get this clear, Sir. Is the Minister telling us that surveys by trained sociologists have been made? Are they merely sampling surveys or full surveys? If there are full surveys, would it not be helpful to publish a full report?

If the Member for Anson had listened to me carefully, he would have realised that I said, for his information, that trained housing management personnel of the Board from time to time have conducted specific sociological surveys. I did not mention anything about expert sociology, sociologic -

Sociologists.

Order. I think the Member for Anson must realise that sometimes people get tongue-tied inside as well as outside the Assembly. The Speaker gets tongue-tied sometimes!

May I ask of the tongue-tied Minister -

Order. The hon. Member for Anson is completely out of order if he starts using epithets during Question Time.

May I ask the Minister whether he would reconsider the decision in the light of the value that trained, independent sociologists' reports can be in planning future buildings?

Sir, for the information of the Member for Anson again, recently we have attempted to get an expert from the United Nations to do some survey for us, but we have not been successful.

I am happy to learn of that effort. Mr Speaker, Sir. Unfortunately, I know two highly trained persons who are just leaving Singapore next week but who have been available in Singapore. If that is all that is holding up the Minister, is the answer then that he is prepared to reconsider the decision if sociologists are available?

Sir, at the outset, I have told the Member for Anson that at this stage we do not consider a sociological survey of this kind necessary.

A Ministerial statement. Mr Leader of the House.

3.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Members of the House will be aware that there is a motion in the name of the Prime Minister on the Malaysia Agreement and that this motion has been set down as item 10 on the Order Paper. Several documents are at the moment being prepared by the Government Printer, and they include the Malaysia Agreement itself with annexes embodying the Malaysia Bill, the Constitution of Singapore, the Financial Agreements arrived at, the exchange of letters and memoranda between the Inter-Governmental Committees. Unfortunately, these documents will not be ready for distribution until Friday. The intention of the Government then would be to permit Members of this House time and opportunity to study them during the weekend, and we hope that the debate on this motion could be taken on Monday, the 29th of July. I believe it will also be convenient, Mr Speaker, if all other motions which have been submitted and which have relationship with the Malaysia Agreement can also be taken on Monday the 29th. This will give us four days' debate on the motion relating to the Malaysia Agreement - from Monday, 29th July, to Thursday, 1st August -before the sitting ends for the August holidays. If Members of the House think that the time for debate on this motion is not adequate, then, and if the House agrees, I am quite willing to lift Standing Orders to extend the sittings to 12 o'clock midnight if necessary. However, I would like to give due notice that it is my intention sometime next week to introduce a motion to terminate the debate at 12 o'clock midnight on Thursday. 1st August, if necessary.

I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the intention is that the present matters on the Order Paper will be proceeded with today, tomorrow and Friday, falling on normal times, and if completed before then, adjourn till Monday at 2.30 p.m.

Sir, it is our intention to proceed with items 1 to 9, as they stand on the Order Paper, until 8 o'clock. Should these items be disposed of earlier than Friday, then it is my intention to adjourn this Assembly to Monday, the 29th.

All right.

On a point of clarification, Sir. The Leader of the House has said just now that he will try his best to dispose of all items up to item No. 9. What about the motion standing in the names of the Member for Thomson and the Member for Upper Serangoon, i.e., item No. 11?

I am sorry, Mr Speaker. It is our intention to proceed with that motion this week.

3.00 p.m. Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted day].

We are on the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 (Cmd. 21 of 1963). Will the Minister signify the recommendation of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara before the Committee proceeds with the consideration of these Supplementary Estimates?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I so signify. Head 36 -

There is one Head - Head 36 - Contributions and Charitable Allowances. There is an amendment standing in the name of the Member for Kampong Kembangan in relation to the new subhead - Contribution to the Seafarers' Welfare Board - $205,168.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 36 be reduced by $10 in respect of new subhead "Contribution to the Seafarers' Welfare Board". Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification of this matter. Firstly, what are the methods to be carried out in taking in trainees in respect of this plan? Secondly, will the authorities clarify whether any allowance or fixed salary will be paid to every trainee? Thirdly, will the opportunity to become trainees he open to those who have passed out of school in all language media in Singapore? Fourthly, with these qualified trainees and those seamen who are at present unemployed, will there be a Government plan to guarantee employment for these people?

Mr Speaker, Sir, with regard to the matter of recruitment, the details of the qualifications and experience will have to be finalised by the Seafarers' Welfare Board. But, of course, as a matter of principle, an advertisement will be inserted to invite applications for trainees. On the point whether an allowance or a fixed salary will be given during the period of training, the Government has spent so much money mainly to create employment opportunities to seamen. The better our seamen are trained, the more employment opportunities there are for them. Therefore, since the Government has provided such facilities and at such expense, it is only fair that the trainees should be expected, as a matter of dedication, to pay for their own food. However, in deserving cases, the Seafarers' Welfare Board will consider subsidising them with a food allowance. As to whether the opportunity to become trainees will be open to all those who have passed out of school, yes, of course, as far as practicable, it will be. Regarding question number four, I have mentioned just now that guarantee of employment depends on how successful this scheme is. If our seamen are experienced and well qualified, I am sure that shipping quarters from all over the world will come to Singapore to recruit our seamen. In fact, the training scheme is being mooted for this purpose.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from that, there is a matter on which I would like to seek clarification from this House, or from the Seafarers' Welfare Board, or other bodies. At the moment, seafarers are grouped in various divisions - the engine-room is mostly Chinese, the catering department is for Chinese, and other categories are for Malays. So if this is the case, I believe this is not very healthy. Could the authorities concerned give a definite clarification in this House in regard to the matter so that it could be clearly understood and no problems will arise from that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this point lies mainly with the employers. It is up to them to stipulate whether they like Malay people to be employed in the engine-room or in the catering department or in the deck department. In this connection, there are other factors which influence employers to make such a decision. For instance, if they have Chinese and Malays or other nationalities in one department, then they have to provide catering facilities. From the point of view of convenience and economy, they will have to decide whether they would like to have an entire section of their crew of one nationality.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel I need not debate this matter further, but I would like to draw attention to what I have already said in this House, and that is that with the existence of a plan to train our seamen, with the contribution of so much money, I wonder if the Government will still want to register seamen who are non-citizens, especially from Indonesia, among whom quite a good number are registered with the Seamen's Registry Board, and who are given opportunities of employment? With this state of affairs existing, what is the position regarding our own citizens? Mr Wee Toon Boon conferred with the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye).

Is it Dr Toh or Mr Wee?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure -

Order. I trust there is no misunderstanding. Any Minister may speak if he chooses. It is not confined to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before a person can be registered, he must be a Singapore citizen. So as far as the Seamen's Registry Board is concerned, the person must be a Singapore citizen before he can be registered as a seaman.

(In Malay): For the record, I would like to say there are people who are non-Singapore citizens who have been registered.

May I answer that? Mr Speaker, it is international practice that seamen who drop in at any port will be registered at that port. Therefore, in following the custom we also register all seamen who leave their ships in Singapore. However, it is the practice here to register only new entrants who are Singapore citizens. Those who are registered for the first time must possess Singapore citizenship. But it is equally true, as the Member for Kampong Kembangan says, that our Registry does contain names of seamen from other parts of the world. Well, the privilege which we accord to seamen from other ports is also extended by other governments to our own Singapore seamen who happen to leave their ships in other countries. Therefore, reciprocity is carried out.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, what has been stated by the Deputy Prime Minister is quite so. But can he give an assurance that not only do we not want Indonesians to be registered in Singapore, but even today, seamen from Penang cannot be registered in Singapore? I think he is more aware of this matter.

Does the Member wish for a vote?

No. I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $720,168 for Head 36 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963.

Question, "That the sum of $720,168 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 21 of 1963", put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $720,168 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for 1963 contained in Paper Cmd. 21 of 1963.".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the Assembly doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to. 3.30 p.m.

"to amend the Planning Ordinance, 1959 (No. 12 of 1959)", presented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj) (for the Prime Minister); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available date after 1st August. 1963, and to be printed.

"to provide for the stabilisation of the value of land to be acquired for public purposes", presented by Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj (for the Prime Minister); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available date after 1st August, 1963, and to be printed.

"for making Final Provision for the Public Service for the year 1962", presented by Mr Byrne (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available date after 1st August, 1963, and to be printed.

"to amend the Property Tax Ordinance, 1960 (No. 72 of 1960)", presented by Mr Byrne (for the Minister for Finance); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available date after 1st August, 1963, and to be printed.

3.35 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963 (No. 7 of 1963)". Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, as far as the Government is concerned, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, which extended the period for the revision of the 1962 Registers of Electors until 30th June. 1962, and which was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 15th June, 1963, is a good and sufficient Ordinance for the purpose for which it was introduced. However, in view of the doubts expressed and the fears raised by some Members of the Opposition, particularly the Member for Farrer Park, that this Bill would not have the effect of validating the acts done by the Registration Officer in connection with the revision of the 1962 Electoral Registers, this short Bill has been introduced for the purpose of removing any doubt that may exist or avoiding any possible dispute in the future as regards the legality of the revised 1962 Registers. This Bill, therefore, expressly validates all acts done by the Registration Officer in connection with the revision of the Registers of Electors for 1962, whether done before or after the coming into operation of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, and provides that such acts shall not be challenged or called in question in any court. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would seem that the Minister is still unrepentant. He tries to tell this House that what the Government did in June was right. If it was right, why is it necessary to table this amending Bill? It was because the opinion given to the Minister at a later stage after that debate confirmed that what the Opposition said was right. Surely the Government would not want to introduce a Bill unless it is vitally necessary to prevent any possibility of any doubts that could be legally raised as to the validity of the 1962 Electoral Registers. The Government, through the Minister's speech, is just trying to cover up this glaring example of the dictatorial P.A.P. Government trying to ride roughshod over the Opposition. I warn the Government to stop playing this kind of game or it will find itself thrown out unceremoniously -

Fighting the elections?

Sir, on the 15th of June, this House debated the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which has now become law, against the objection of a united Opposition. The Government carried the day with 23 votes against 20 Opposition votes. The present Bill seeks to introduce an amendment to that Bill which was debated and forced through only last month, and this Bill is introduced on a Certificate of Urgency. Sir, let us take our minds back to the debate on the 15th of June. My colleague, the Member for Farrer Park, was the first Opposition Member to open our guns on the dictatorial P.A.P. Government. I seek your indulgence, Sir, and the indulgence of hon. Members to quote two paragraphs of his speech which are very relevant to the matter now before the House. I quote from the Official Report of the debate of the 15th June [Unrevised Transcript, page 31- Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 11, cols. 1356-7]. This is what the Member for Farrer Park said: `Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is one difficulty which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister in charge of this Bill and the Minister for Law. Under this Ordinance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the whole of the registration process must be completed within the year of registration. What the Minister wants to do now, what the Minister is asking the House to do rather, is to extend the time to the 30th June in order to enable the 1962 registers to be completed. I understand that steps have already been taken by the Registration Officer some time towards the end of February this year to start the compilation of the 1962 registers. To my mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all those steps which he has now taken are ultra vires, null and void, of no legal effect, so that all the claims and objections which have been registered, all the tentative registers which he has put up (Lists A and B) are all illegal and have no effect. That is the present position. All that the Minister is asking the House to do is to extend the time for the certification of the registers. The certification of the registers on the steps taken, to my mind, will be an illegality; without the sanction of the law. I do not see how, even if this Assembly passes the Bill in the way it is framed, any certification resulting from the steps already having been taken by the Registration Officer can make these registers valid. Thai is my view which I put forward to this House. In spite of this, if the Minister carried this Bill through, it could well be that somebody would contest the validity of these registers, and any elections which were held on the 1962 registers might all be null and void and have no effect. I would ask the Minister whether he has taken the advice of the State Advocate-General on the present position on this specific proposition - that steps already having been taken to compile the registers (which stops are illegal at the moment) and the Bill drafted in the way that it is without further provisions which would cover the illegal steps already taken by the Registration Officer, whether this Bill would, in fact, enable a proper valid legal register for 1962 to be completed.' Sir, I also spoke at this sitting, and I would like to quote from the same Official Report the relevant part of which deals with this legal point. That is at page 38 [Hansard, cols. 1368-9]: `Do not press on with something that might turn out to be a legal problem, as pointed out by the Member for Farrer Park. Let us say we have the by-election in Sembawang based on these 1962 electoral registers. What is to prevent any candidate who lost in the by-election to file a petition on the ground that the 1962 electoral registers are illegal and not in accordance with the law? I would urge upon the Government to reconsider its stand on this issue.' Sir, the Minister for Law was silent on this very important legal point although we had expected to hear gems of wisdom from him. But the Minister for Home Affairs replied and that is at page 38 of the unrevised transcript [Hansard, col. 1369]: `Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a temporary provisions Bill seeking the Assembly's approval to extend the time for the revision of the registers of elections, which should have been completed in 1962. This Bill was drafted and vetted by the State Advocate-General, and so far as I can see, the legal aspect of it would have been taken care of by the State Advocate-General's Department.' We cautioned the Government. We urged it to reconsider its stand in the light of the legal point raised by us. If it had been a democratic Government giving due weight to reasons advanced by the Opposition, if it had not been an arrogant and a dictatorial Government, surely, Sir, it could have deferred the Committee stage of the Bill for just a few hours in order to give the Government time to consult the State Advocate-General on this very valid legal point raised by the Opposition. If this step had been taken, as it should have been taken, then this amending Bill would not have been necessary. All our cautioning, all our urging on the good sense of the Government, was just brushed aside by the dictatorial P.A.P. Government whose leaders consider themselves to be cleverer than anybody else. The whole Opposition fought them. We lost. But we were not dismayed. We knew we were right and we would be proved right. We lost. But we were aroused and would fight again and again and again until we delivered a knock-out blow on a dictatorial Government that sets party interests above the interests of the people of Singapore. Sir, the Bill now before the House is a complete admission that we were right, and with right on our side we will renew our opposition and will vote against the Bill as we did last month. 3.50 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no consolation to us to say that we were right. No, Sir. All of us have been saying for a long, long time that the P.A.P. has been arrogant and dictatorial. It is only now that the S.P.A. has chimed what we have been saying.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

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

I only want the Member to understand that we who sit in front are the Singapore Alliance, and not S.P.A. or the U.M.N.O. And as one united force, we will knock out the P.A.P.

S.P.A., Singapore Alliance, Labour Party, or whatnot - they have been changing names for a long time. This Bill before the House, from what we can see, is important from a very different aspect. It is important not in the way that the leader of the new Alliance has stated - the arrogant and dictatorial ways of the P.A.P. It is more important than that. It is important in that this is an example of the P.A.P. always doing anything and everything to turn something illegal into something legal. Anything which is wrong is turned into right. Anything which is white is turned into black, and a traitor into a so-called hero. This is exact proof of what we have been saying all along. Now that the P.A.P. realises that it has done wrong, it is trying to "legalise" that wrong. But does the legalising of that wrong make it right? However many legal phrases it uses to right this wrong afterwards, a wrong still remains a wrong. Under no circumstances will the wrong be made into a right, either morally or legally. Sir, the Bill that was passed on 15th June should have been thrown Out. But, as usual, the Government steam-rollers through everything that it wants to push through. This is an abuse of power by the Government. We have seen this for quite some time. As it is, parliamentary democracy in Singapore has fallen into great disrepute. Who does not know that today in Singapore we have a dictatorial Government and a pocket dictator in the Prime Minister.

Pocket emperor.

Pocket emperor? Yes, he wants to think that he is an emperor. He goes round the constituencies -

To your dismay.

Not to our dismay, Sir, because the way that the Prime Minister has been compelling people to pay for receptions in order to welcome the Prime Minister, forcing school children to line the streets -

Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Queenstown that we are debating an amending Bill, and we are not debating the Prime Minister's visits to the constituencies.

I have no intention of touching on that aspect of the Prime Minister's activities, because the intention and the way that he has done it is now well known all over Singapore. I want to point out that the way the Government has gone about in this Bill has, in fact, emasculated in many ways the powers of the Judiciary. It says here that any act done by such and such a person "shall be valid and shall not be challenged or called in question in any court." If anything pleases the P.A.P., it can be made unchallengeable in court, and therefore -

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information.

He can wait.

Order. I would suggest to Members that if there is, on the face of it, a reasonable request that some information or elucidation he given, then the Member speaking should give way. If the parliamentary practice of a Member giving way is abused, then the Member is entitled in future not to give way. Is the Member for Queenstown giving way?

I take your advice, Sir, and give way.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I rightly heard, the Member for Queenstown said that any act, however unlawful, would be legalised under the terms of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, I would refer the Member to this particular clause that we propose to introduce into this Bill. All the acts referred to are acts which are necessary for the purpose of revising the Registers of Electors: not any acts, Mr Speaker, Sir.

That proves my point, Sir. Any act for the purpose of revising the registers in order to suit the P.A.P. That is exactly what I have been trying to tell the Minister. Well, I do not know what sort of a skull he has got.

A very good skull!

It takes some time to penetrate. That, Sir, only proves to you that the P.A.P. to suit the P.A.P. can do things any way, anyhow, at any time; and all not to please the people of Singapore, as the Prime Minister has been trying to tell us all along, but to please those few persons sitting on the Front Benches there, the puppets and stooges of the colonial masters in Britain. Those are the people who have been selling out the rights of the people of Singapore. It is time that they, who want to give the impression that they are working in the interests of the people, should wake up. This Bill, as far as the people of Singapore are concerned, is merely a repetition of what they have known all along, namely P.A.P. deceit. The most important significance of this Bill as well as the Bill which was passed on 15th June, 1963, lies in the fact that it allows the P.A.P. to exclude a large number of voters from the coming elections and possibly from the 1964 elections. Whether the Government holds the general elections immediately after the elections to the 15 seats to the Central Parliament or next year, it is clear that the intention of the Government is to exclude a large number of voters from the electoral registers. The electoral registers for 1962 will be used for the elections this time, and unless the Government changes this and has the 1963 Electoral Registers ready for 1964, according to law, it will be using the 1962 Electoral Registers for the 1964 general elections. Every year, Sir, round about 60,000 babies are born, and only about 10,000 people die. So there should be an addition of at least 50,000 people to the electoral registers every year. We have already pointed out that the 1962 Electoral Registers have less voters than the 1961 electoral registers. We asked the Minister many questions, but somehow or other, he fought shy of answering any one of them. We must remember that this Bill serves, in effect, to exclude from the electoral registers a large number of young men and women who the P.A.P. know will be against them. That is the meaning of this Bill. We will oppose it right through all its stages, and we hope that consequent on the criticisms that we bring up, the Government will not try to shut out the huge number of voters who should, by right, have a chance to vote. They must not be denied their right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must confess that I enjoy hearing the P.A.P. Minister for Home Affairs sound like Burns' - Wee little cowering mousie. He says, "We are introducing this Bill" in his most timid, smiling and frightened manner - the new Pelandok - "because the Opposition has -"

Order. May I suggest to the Member for Anson that all these epithets, descriptive phrases are completely unnecessary?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to you for your advice, but if you will permit me, the description in pictures is worth a great deal of verbosity which would otherwise be necessary.

Order. I have not wished to over-rule the Member for Anson, but I will be forced to if he uses those descriptive phrases which can be - I do not know whether they are - offensive.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir, a pelandok is a national animal. I was referring to the terms in which the Minister introduced this Bill - "out of deference for doubts expressed by the Opposition". Sweet words - words that one expects from a constitutional government - and it is the first time I have heard these words from the P.A.P. Front benchers in all my experience here! That is the amusing part. The other aspect that I would like to point out is that if they were capable of modesty, of the constitutional approach of giving due weight and consideration to Opposition views, they would, as has been pointed out by the Member for Cairnhill, have adjourned or sought adjournment of that debate for a day or for a few hours to clarify the position. But they were convinced they were right, and with their normal arrogance and in their traditional manner, they proceeded with it. Sir, why have they suddenly changed their minds? There has been no representation since the Bill was passed. It is not because of the doubts that were expressed on the day that they forced through the measure, hut it is because they have learnt since then that in fact the Opposition advice is correct and the conduct of the Executive in purported pursuance of the Ordinance was illegal. But have they the courage and the decency to admit it? That is asking more than even the new facade the P.A.P. can support, that they should honestly and frankly say, "You were right. We were wrong. We would like to have an amendment." No, Sir. No possible question. God and the P.A.P. can do no wrong; or perhaps the P.A.P. and God.

Only one.

Sir, one other aspect that I would like to draw your attention to, and that is the intervention of the Minister for Law. He tells you that the Member of the Barisan Sosialis who spoke on this measure erred in saying that this clause validates all criminal acts because it says "all acts in pursance of the purposes of the revision of such registers". Well, Mr Speaker, I would suggest that if the Minister were to consult those who read the law without P.A.P. spectacles, he would find that in fact a person can, in purported pursuance of the revision of the registers, commit criminal acts and that the Registration Officer could, for example - not that I say he does - conspire with the Minister or other political Parties for the purposes of criminally refusing or admitting persons who would be entitled to be registered or who are not entitled to be registered. We could have, for example, 5,000 members of the Work Brigade registered in every one of our constituencies in purported pursuance of the powers for the purposes of the revision of such registers. This clause, Mr Speaker, does not deal merely with acts that are done bona fide. It deals with all acts - criminal and legitimate. I say that that is yet another approach, that they should seek an amendment is right, since there has been this passage of time and acts have been performed. But the spirit in which it is sought and the manner in which the amendment is placed before this House, I say to you, Mr Speaker, are wrong.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have read the Explanatory Statement provided by the Government in support of this Bill. On page 2, it says: `... this Bill seeks to remove any doubt that may exist as to the validity of acts done ...'. This Explanatory Statement, I take it, is a statement being put out by the Government to persuade the whole House to agree to this Bill. Normally, the speech by the Minister in conduct of any particular Bill will be in the spirit of the Explanatory Statement. Whereas listening to the Minister's speech, he most definitely said that the Government was satisfied that the Bill as passed by the House was sufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, if that is the stand of the Government, then I think it would have been completely logical if the Government had refused to bring in this amending Bill. The reason given by the Minister was that he wished to accommodate certain Opposition views, although he himself was not convinced of those views but that in order to accommodate those views even though they are incorrect this amending Bill has been introduced. Now really, Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask you, in all seriousness, should the Minister in his right senses get up in this House and say. "The Government is not convinced that certain sections of the Opposition are correct," and yet waste the time of the House by bringing in a useless Bill which in his view is a useless Bill? Mr Speaker, Sir, quite frankly, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned, if the Minister does, in fact, think that this does not add one iota to the legality of the previous Bill that has been passed, let him withdraw this Bill. I challenge him to withdraw this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point I wish to raise is a matter which I think has been touched upon by the Member for Anson. As the clause is phrased, it could cover two aspects of all acts taken by the Registration Officer. One set of acts taken by the Registrar are procedural steps which result in the registers being compiled and certified. The second set of acts taken by the Registrar is in the nature of a quasi-judicial inquiry which affects the rights of the citizen. Now it could be that the way this clause is worded it could affect the rights of an individual on the question of his name having been left out from the register. If this is intended as a covering act for all those acts which deprive the citizen of his basic electoral rights, then I think this clause as phrased here should be objected to. But if it is merely a question of saying that all acts taken by the Registrar with a view to producing the registers after 31st December shall be deemed to have been taken before 31st December, there is some point in this amending Bill. But if it is to validate the rejection of an application to have a name put on the register, then this clause should be objected to.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, regarding the Bill on the compilation of the electoral registers for 1962, today the Government has introduced another Bill for the approval of the House to validate the actions of the Registration Officer before or after the passing of the Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Opposition has always been against this method. We oppose such actions because, as I have said on previous Bills, we want a House which practises parliamentary democracy. I hope the Government will introduce Bills into this House in a fair way. The practice is to inform the Opposition according to parliamentary democracy. Here, I do not expect it to be carried out that far, but the Government should not suddenly introduce Bills in this Assembly and give no chance to the Opposition to consider them. If we study the Explanatory Statement, it is clear that the Government wants to play down the allegation that it is acting unfairly and illegally in carrying out its objectives. In this way, the Government is obstructing us from finding out what it wants to carry out and so bringing their actions before the court. This is one of the things we are not happy about. If we live in a free country where we can practise democracy, there must be the right to bring a matter to court. This should be encouraged because it will not only smoothen our administration, but it will also give an assurance to the people that they can practise their rights. If the Government takes the opportunity to legalise the wrong that it has done, this will be bad for a healthy country. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Explanatory Statement - I will read this in English. (In English) In this Bill -

Order. The difficulty we are faced with here is the simultaneous interpretation. That is why we have a Standing Order which says that once a Member commences his speech in one language, he must continue to speak in that language. So that if the Member for Southern Islands wishes to refer to the Explanatory Statement, he should just paraphrase what is in it in Malay.

(In Malay): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw attention to the Explanatory Statement. At the end of this Explanatory Statement, there is a sentence which says that this Bill seeks to remove any doubt which may exist as to the validity of acts done by the Registration Officer for the purposes of revising the registers in question. As I have said, Mr Speaker, we have heard doubts and rumours that the Government is carrying out a campaign to transfer their voters and supporters. This is an act which they are trying to cover up through this Bill, and which later on we cannot take to court. Lately we have heard over the radio and television that the Prime Minister made visits. This is not questioned, Mr Speaker, because we know that the Government has all the facilities, all the machinery, in their hands. The Prime Minister himself has challenged the workers in the Harbour Board and made them frightened - "We are not stupid," and so on.

Order. I suggest to the hon. Member that all that is completely irrelevant to this particular Bill.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, if I cannot touch on that point, I will not do so. But I would like to state here that we Members of the Opposition are not people who cannot think what is right and what is wrong. If it is good, it is our duty to support it, to allow and to approve it. But I am sorry to say, and I would like to emphasise, that if the Government carries out this practice, our hope to establish a country which practises parliamentary democracy cannot be realised. 4.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, it is quite clear that we are near election time because everybody has been making a lot of fuss over what is a very simple issue. The last time I think the Opposition Members, in particular, the Member for Farrer Park, indicated that they had some doubts about the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance. They expressed some doubts that if elections were carried out, somebody could invalidate all the provisions of the Ordinance. The Government was certain, hut what we are doing, in view of the representations made, is that we are making it more certain that the provisions of the Ordinance would not be questioned later on in the courts of law. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I understand that most lawyers flourish because provisions of the law are never a hundred per cent certain. Therefore, if somebody has indicated some kind of loophole in the law, then it is our duty to bring forward an amendment to ensure that that loophole is closed. And that is what this amendment seeks to do. For all I know, Sir, if the S.P.A. or the Barisan should win the next election, then it is quite possible that somebody may query the whole validity of the elections, bring it before a court of law and invalidate the whole process. To that extent, this amendment would ensure that if the S.P.A. or the Barisan should win the next election, the whole process is not invalidated because of a loophole in the law. Therefore, probably it is quite possible that the Barisan have decided that they are not going to win the next election, so, "Let us make a fuss about this little amendment." So I suggest, Sir, that there is no question of the P.A.P. or the Government trying to pull a fast one. This Bill does not favour either the P.A.P. or the Barisan or the S.P.A. It ensures that the Ordinance is more foolproof than it is at the moment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture repeats what the Government has said earlier on. If, as the Member for Farrer Park says, the Government is certain of the legality of the earlier Ordinance, then there is no necessity for it to bring in this Bill, and the Member for Farrer Park has challenged it to withdraw the Bill. If it is certain, I do not see what can prevent it from withdrawing this Bill. Sir, the Minister tries to suggest that out of kindness to the Barisan and the S.P.A., if the Barisan or the S.P.A. should win, the P.A.P. do not want someone to go to court and invalidate the elections. And out of kindness they want to introduce this Bill. Surely, Sir, we know the P.A.P. well, and the people know the P.A.P. well. They are not going to do anything out of kindness - out of anything - for any Opposition group, be it the Right-wing S.P.A. or the Barisan or anybody else for that matter. Sir, we must call a spade a spade. The Government seeks by this Bill to legalise illegal acts. What it seeks to do is to legalise criminal acts. Sir, we know that its intention is to legalise illegal criminal acts which can be done by a few civil servants because they would be forced to do them on instruction from the P.A.P. Sir, the conduct of the Government in the past is ample proof that it will not hesitate to stoop to any indecent level. By any standard, the Referendum Ordinance is a legal rigging, because they passed the Bill here. It was adopted, made into law and, therefore, it has legal backing. But, in effect, what happened was rigging. I do not think any man who chooses to be honest can stand up and say with a clear conscience that the results of the national referendum reflected the will and the desire of the people. Sir, having judged them by their manner of conducting the National Referendum and by various other acts, they are capable of rigging the elections. We have said this in the past. We say it again. This particular clause, Mr Speaker, Sir, can be used to deny the Opposition certain fundamental rights. For example, we know the Government has quite an efficient security system. They are trying to find out who the Opposition candidates are going to be and so on. If they can find out the list of candidates that the Opposition may field, their names can easily be left out of the electoral registers.

Rubbish!

And to stand for election, one must have one's name in the electoral register. An hon. Member: Your name is already there.

Sir, the clause says not only acts done before the coming into operation of this Ordinance, but also after the coming into operation of this Ordinance. What other revision is going to be done to the registers, we do not know. We do not even know definitely when they are going to hold the elections.

You will find out.

It is no use telling us that they have certified the registers. Sir, this is a very serious matter because it affects certain basic tenets of democracy. Sir, elections and the one-man-one-vote system are fundamental to the success of any democracy. It is only in an election that the people can have an opportunity to choose their representatives, to choose their leaders, to choose their Government. If the Government had wanted to be sincere in giving the people a fair opportunity, then it should have followed our earlier suggestion to set up an independent Commission for the conduct of elections. Sir, if it is confident, as it has always said it is confident, of winning the elections and that the people are on their side, why is it afraid of appointing an independent Commission which can conduct the elections as is the case in the Federation of Malaya, instead of -

Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member that that is possibly irrelevant to the Bill we are discussing?

Sir, I have to refer to this earlier call we made. The Government seeks to try and justify all the illegal acts it has done because it has some means of pushing through any Bill it wants to push through. We say in fairness, if the Government is sincere in this, all right, let us have it fair - set up an independent Commission and let this independent Commission conduct the elections as is the case in the Federation of Malaya. 4.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Culture has said that the issue involved in this Bill is a simple one. Sir, if the issue is really simple, why must it go through three Readings on a Certificate of Urgency? Why cannot we let the Bill go through the ordinary parliamentary procedure of three separate Readings? The fact that the Government have seen fit to rush a Bill like this through the unusual procedure of three Readings shows that, to them, it has become a vital issue. The public must not be given a chance to know that this is being discussed in the House. Sir, we would like to ask the Government this question. Why do they consider Bills relating to elections as being so urgent at this stage? They have seen fit to postpone the Sembawang by-election for nearly a year. Their reason was that the electoral registers were not quite ready and there must be time for revision and so on. And now, all of a sudden, all Bills relating to elections must be rushed through. They know the reason why. They sought to conceal the reason, Sir. They have gone ahead electioneering in an improper manner, without giving the other Parties knowledge that an election is pending; using public funds and all the propaganda machinery under the control of the Government, which we consider improper. If they believe that they have logic and reason and any sense of fair play, how could they, without giving due notice to the runners, summon their own runners ahead, get them on the mark, get set and fire the pistol? That is what they are trying to do. If the Party in power dare not follow the rules of the game, they are setting a bad example for future governments. Parliamentary democracy will not succeed if the rules are easily pushed aside just because it is to the advantage of the Party in power so to do. Sir, to be really fair, honest and democratic and since they claim for justice here, they should have the decency not to pass this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. To try to do that is to show that they are trying to do things in their own way and to catch the Opposition and the public by surprise. Sir, another issue was mentioned by the Member for Anson, and that is this clause where the words "all acts" practically validate or legalise any wrong acts of the Registration Officer. It is a serious matter. "All acts" - very comprehensive. The Registration Officer surely is a human being liable to err. But under this Bill, if passed, he becomes somebody who cannot err, or if he errs, then his errors must become legal and right. Sir, it is a big issue to give all that power to a man, unless the idea, the aim, of the Government is that through this particular gentleman, they can from their bag of tricks, which have been quite plentiful, produce something which they can push through this gentleman and mislead the electorate. Sir, I am afraid this Bill involves quite a big issue and a dangerous issue which we dare not accept. Sir, on 15th June, page 39 in the typescript, the sixth paragraph [unrevised transcript] (Hansard, Vol. 20, No. 11, col. 1370), the Minister for Home Affairs said: `As for the revision of the 1963 pre-electoral registers, I wish to inform the House that work has already been set in motion. In fact, revision of the 1963 registers is being carried out now ...'. Sir, if the revision of the 1963 registers is being carried out now, why should there be this unholy haste where everything, including mistakes made in the 1962 registers, is legalised? Sir, I venture the reason; that after giving the public the impression that there will be no Federal elections until one year after Malaysia Day, as discussed between them and the Federation Government, without the Opposition being consulted, they suddenly decided it is to their advantage to start the football match, not at the regular time of five o'clock, but at their own time, at one o'clock, while the others are having lunch. That, to them, is fair play. So, all of a sudden, thinking that that is the best way to catch the Opposition by surprise and have an unfair advantage in the elections, they have decided, "Well, we let the Prime Minister go round on his fashion parade. Do not say it is electioneering. No, say he is on his State visit. Then when we have covered enough ground, we rush through all these Bills." Sir, if what we have surmised is not true, well, the Party in power can easily do the right thing. Withdraw this Bill, let us have the 1963 registers prepared; let us have an election based on registers which cannot be regarded as being cooked; let us not have this Bill which will validate and legalise all acts of the Registration Officer. 4.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand how the Opposition can lead themselves into believing that we are being arrogant and being dictatorial because we introduce this Bill before the House. A point of legal difficulty was pointed out to us in the course of the debate the last time the Bill was before this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, there might be some substance in that point of legal difficulty or there might be nothing in it at all. The constitutional course open to us would have been to adjourn the Third Reading of the Bill and look into the matter further at that time, or introduce this new Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also been accused of rushing through this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. Now, this Bill provides that a new clause should be added to the previous Bill, a clause of only eight lines. Mr Speaker, Sir, the revision of the electoral registers for 1962 should have been completed on or before the 15th of September, 1962. This was not done for a variety of reasons which the Minister for Home Affairs has already explained to the House at the last sitting. The Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, extended the date of completion of the 1962 electoral registers to the 30th of June, 1963. The issue is whether notwithstanding the extension of the date of the completion of the 1962 registers, there would be legal validity for the procedural work to be carried out in the preparation of the revised registers for 1962 outside of the time limits prescribed by sections 10 (1) and 15 (1) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53). There it is provided, Mr Speaker, Sir, that every year work on the preparation of the revised registers should begin sometime after the 1st of February and be completed by the 15th of September of that same year. Surely it is not our intention to ask the House to give legal validity to criminal acts done by anybody. The State Advocate-General is satisfied that the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance passed at the last sitting of the Assembly is sufficient in law to validate the work of the Registration Officer in preparing the revised registers for 1962 outside the limits of time prescribed by sections 10 (1) and 15 (1) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance (Chapter 53). But to make doubly sure, we have included this new validity section in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance ex abundante cautela. 4.45 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the P.A.P. system of parliamentary democracy. When moving the Second Reading, the Minister for Home Affairs explained the reasons for this Bill. He said that the amending Bill passed on 15th June this year was sufficient for the purpose, but in order to clear the doubts of the Opposition, it was necessary to table this Bill to further amend the Ordinance. On the 15th June, when the Minister for Home Affairs tabled the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Assembly spent some three hours debating this undemocratic Bill. At that time we pointed out to the Government that the amendment was a great departure from the system of parliamentary democracy. We said that it was the intention of the Government to legalise their illegal acts. Today, the Minister introduces another Bill, the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, only after the Government has discovered that the previous amending Bill was insufficient for a particular purpose, that is to say, although they tried to legalise their illegal acts previously, those illegal acts are still illegal and they remain illegal. That is why it is necessary for the Minister to introduce this Bill to further legalise those illegal acts. That is to say, on 15th June the P.A.P. Government "killed" 500,000 voters. But they were unable to "kill" all of them, although they "killed" some. So they are now trying to legalise their act of "murdering" these voters in this House today. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few moments ago, in reply to my question No. 8 on the Order Paper, the Minister said that the 1962 Electoral Registers have about 45,000 new voters. But in reply to my question No. 9, he said that those new electors would have their names entered in the 1963 Electoral Registers, and he finally pointed out that the 1963 Electoral Registers would be completed before 1st March next year. This accounts for the intention of this Bill before the House. It explains why the Government are unable to answer the question with regard to the number of persons who are actually entitled to vote. They know that through this Bill the 1963 Electoral Registers will not be ready and therefore the people will not be able to vote. But this is quite different from what the Minister for Culture has said - that this Bill is introduced to look after the interests of the Barisan Sosialis or the S.P.A. and to prevent anybody from going to court to get an order that the election is illegal. Mr Speaker, this is the first time that we have heard the Minister for Culture saying such kind words to Members of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, it is the intention and purpose of the Government to legalise through this Assembly all their undemocratic and dictatorial acts. Mr Speaker, the revision of electoral registers is not difficult in so far as printing is concerned. If the Minister finds it impossible to complete the 1963 Electoral Registers because of a shortage of staff or because of financial difficulties or for some other reason, then the simple thing for him to do is to ask the Minister for Finance to put in a Supplementary Estimate with which to recruit additional staff for this particular purpose. Mr Speaker, we have seen the Government spending thousands and thousands of dollars on expanding television programmes and the Army. If the Elections Office has not got enough money, then I believe the Government can easily put before the Assembly a Supplementary Estimate, and this will not endanger the financial position of Singapore to any substantial extent. I am certain that if the Government were to put in a Supplementary Estimate, as I have suggested, then Members on this side of the House would fully support it without any opposition. So one can very clearly see that the motive of the Government in introducing this Bill is not that they are incapable of completing the registers in time but because they want to preserve their political life. Mr Speaker, I say that all Bills relating to elections are introduced by the Government for the purpose of ensuring their own political life. They say that the previous amending Bill was good. Of course, it is good to the P.A.P., but to the people of Singapore it is bad. It is undemocratic. Mr Speaker, the 1962 Electoral Registers were only completed at the beginning of this month, and were put up for inspection by the public only recently. Many people who voted at the National Referendum discovered that their names do not appear in the latest Electoral Registers. In the eyes of the P.A.P. Government, these people would courageously come forward in the next elections and vote against the candidates of the P.A.P. Unfortunately their names do not appear in the 1962 Electoral Registers.

On a point of elucidation, Sir.

No. (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, all these things that I have said are based on facts. I am not making allegations that cannot be substantiated. Mr Speaker, we can see very clearly that if the P.A.P. did not introduce the amending Bill on 15th June, they would have to complete the Electoral Registers within the time limit set out in the Ordinance, and I believe that those people whom I have mentioned just now would then have their names entered in the Register. But because of that amending Bill, these people do not have their names entered in the latest Electoral Registers. Mr Speaker, whatever the People's Action Party do, and whatever Bills they bring before the House, they only show clearly that they are undemocratic and dictatorial. They have shown their true colours. Their legislation is PAP, legislation, which is oppressive and suppressive and is not aimed at promoting the interests of the people.

Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply?

Mr Speaker. Sir, this amending Bill is not designed to deprive anybody of his electoral rights, as feared by the Member for Farrer Park. It is just to validate all procedural steps taken by the Registration Officer to compile the 1962 Registers. The Bill was drawn up by the State Advocate-General's Chambers and approved by the State Advocate-General himself. I am sure Opposition Members will agree that the S.A.G. will be the last person to approve any Bill that is specifically designed to cover any criminal act. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Thomson has alleged that the Bill could conveniently leave out the names of any prospective candidates of the Barisan Sosialis. The Registers have been compiled and certified last month, and I do not see how any names could have been left out of the Registers now. I can assure the Member for Thomson that the Government took exceptional care to ensure that the names of the 14 Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen are in the Registers. The Member for Choa Chu Kang has alleged just now that many people who voted at the National Referendum have found that their names have not been included in the 1962 Registers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I tried to elucidate this information from him just now, but he refused to give way. There is a Claims and Objections period during which persons who voted at the National Referendum and who found that their names were not included in the Registers could file claims to have their names restored in the Registers. Unless the Member for Choa Chu Kang can give details or particulars of these persons whom he has alleged were deliberately excluded from the Registers by the Registration Officer, then I think it is quite proper for me to call him a liar.

Order. The hon. Minister must know that that word is absolutely out of order in this Assembly, whether used directly or indirectly of a Member. He must withdraw.

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw that word.

Order. I do not think a qualified withdrawal like that would suit me or the House. The Speaker is here to uphold the dignity of the House, not only his own dignity. I want just a simple withdrawal.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw that word. 5.00 p.m. The Member for Queenstown could not understand why there have been less voters in the 1962 Registers than in the 1961 Registers -

Order. I take it that the Minister will take a few more minutes. I intend therefore to suspend now. I will take this Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.01 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying just now before we adjourned that the Member for Queenstown seemed not able to understand why there should be less voters in the 1962 Registers than in the 1961 Registers. If he is clearly ignorant why there should be less voters in the 1962 Registers, then I am afraid I have credited him with more intelligence than he should deserve. Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier in the day, in answer to the Member for Choa Chu Kang, I have stated that there were more than 53,000 persons who did not vote at the National Referendum, and if he had paid attention to the answer I have given he would have understood why there should be less voters in the 1962 Registers. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a straightforward amendment to remove the doubts of the Opposition Members, particularly the Member for Farrer Park, and to make the legality of the 1962 Registers doubly certain. Inasfar as the Government's position is concerned, we are satisfied that the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, 1963, is sufficient for the purpose. However, because doubts have been raised by the Opposition Members as to the legality of the procedural acts taken by the Registration Officer, this amendment is introduced today. The amendment has been introduced at the instance of the Opposition Members. If now the Opposition Members after having first cast doubts on the legality of the 1962 Registers, are unhappy about this amendment, then I wish to withdraw this Bill and in this respect I wish to seek your guidance.

At the moment, the House is seized of a motion, that is, the motion that the Bill be now read a Second time. Therefore, the first step would be for the Minister to proceed under Standing Order No. 40 which deals with withdrawal of motions. I will read the relevant part. Standing Order No. 40, paragraph (1): `A motion ... may be withdrawn, at the request of the mover, by leave of the Assembly ... before the question is fully put thereon, provided that there is no dissentient voice ..'. That is the position. If the Minister seeks the leave of the Assembly that the motion be withdrawn and the Assembly agrees, the motion will be withdrawn. Then there will be another step which will have to be taken to discharge the Order of the House for the Second Reading of the Bill, Will the Minister then proceed under Standing Order No. 40 in the first instance?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave of the Assembly, under Standing Order No. 40, to withdraw the motion for Second Reading.

Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be withdrawn?

No.

The motion is not withdrawn. Does the Minister wish to say anything further?

No.

I will put the Question then. The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. Some hon. Members: Aye.

To the contrary, say Some hon. Members: No.

I think the Noes have it? The Noes have it. An hon. Member: Division, Sir.

Too late. There is no other further step to be taken. The motion for the Second Reading has been defeated. The Bill will remain on the Order Book until such `me as the Minister, if he so desires, wishes to replace it on the Order Paper.

Order for Second Reading read. 5.37 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to introduce into Singapore the provisions of the English Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of 1938. As this Bill will change the existing law and will affect the right of a person to will away his property as he likes, it is proposed to refer it to a Select Committee so that full consideration can be given to its provisions. Sir, the former English law did provide for family provision in giving the wife a right to dower, by virtue of which if the wife survived her husband she became entitled to an estate for life in a third of all her husband's freeholds of which she has been seized at any time during the marriage. As this right to the wife attached even though the husband alienated the land, it gave rise to a great deal of practical inconvenience and was eventually abolished by the Dower Act of 1833. After that there was nothing to stop a man (or a woman with respect to her separate property), from devising and bequeathing his whole estate to charity or to a complete stranger and leaving his widow and children penniless. It was to prevent this evil that the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of 1938 was enacted. The Act did not cast upon the testator any positive duty to make reasonable provision for his dependants, for it would be impossible to impose any such obligation, but it provides that if he fails to do so the Court may order such reasonable provision as it thinks fit to be made out of the estate for his dependants as defined in the Act. The Act was further amended in 1952 to extend it to cases of intestacy, as it was felt that the general laws of intestacy might leave a child inadequately provided for. The provisions relating to family provisions appear to have worked well in England and it is proposed to introduce them into Singapore. Sir, the Muslim Law contains provisions to safeguard the position of widows and children in cases of intestacy. As there is already existing provision in section 41 of the Muslims Ordinance, 1957, to enable the court to vary the will of a Muslim testator to make provision for his heirs, it is therefore not pro, posed to extend the legislation to Muslims. The Bill has been considered by the Singapore Bar Committee and has been agreed to by them. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the first measure, to my knowledge, that this Government has introduced in deference to Opposition sentiment, and I would like to say that I welcome it and I am particularly pleased that the Government is conscious of the impact that this will have on our people for generations to come, and the need therefore to refer it to a Select Committee. It is my earnest hope that public-spirited citizens and organisations will be made conscious of the importance of this measure, will seek to study it and will make representations. It is an important Bill to meet a social evil whereby a man could deprive, by his will, his dependants from adequate support. Though I welcome the Bill, I am frankly dubious as to certain aspects and the way they might work out, and I am, as I have said, glad that further consideration in Committee will be given to this Bill and, I hope, given to it in a completely non-partisan spirit. 5.43 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first I want to echo what the Member for Anson has said about organisations and woman leaders in Singapore being made conscious of the importance of this Bill, and I hope the Government will also invite them to express their views before the Select Committee as they did on the Women's Charter. The second point is that I would like to remind the Government that when the Member for Anson and I brought up the question in connection with inheritance, that when a man dies intestate his wife inherits only a portion of the property, whereas when the wife dies intestate the husband inherits all her property, the Government did promise to put it right. I hope this will be remembered during Select Committee. The other promise was that when a man dies intestate and without children, the wife inherits half and the other half goes to the State. The Government also said it would do something about it when they do introduce a new Inheritance Bill to see that justice is done to women. So I would just like to remind the Government of their two promises and I also hope that women organisations will be given a chance to air their views. 5.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill but there are certain aspects of it which are, in fact, troubling me, and on which I had wished to speak this afternoon. But looking at the Order Paper, I found that the Government is going to refer it to Select Committee and so I will not raise the point this afternoon. The Minister has said that the Bar Committee has cleared it, but there are certain legal aspects of the Bill which are, in fact, troubling me, and I do hope that when the Bill is referred to Select Committee, the Bar Committee will be invited to come and answer certain questions which could arise on this Bill.

Order. May I just give some guidance? If the Member for Farrer Park wishes to touch upon certain aspects of the Bill in order to guide the Select Committee, then I think this is the appropriate moment, because we cannot presume that the Member for Farrer Park will be nominated to the Select Committee. Mr Rajah.

Sir, there are one or two points which, with your permission, I wish to touch upon. It is clause 3 of the Bill - that is the important clause of the Bill. The Bill deals with the net estate, the net estate being the estate less debts and funeral and testamentary expenses and estate duty as on the date of death of the deceased person. Now, the intention of the Bill is, in so far as the family is concerned, to protect the husband or the wife and the children. There is nothing in the Bill which will preclude a person from assigning all his property away to somebody before his death. If the intention of the Bill is social, and it wishes to protect the wife and child, that position could be defeated, it seems to me, under this Bill by a man assigning his property away two days before his death, because the property which is affected by this Bill is the net estate on the date of his death. That is the first point. The second point could be this. A husband during his lifetime might have made adequate provision for his wife and children and die intestate, but under the provision of clause 3, it would appear that .a further provision would become necessary for the wife and the children. This is the second point. The third point which readily occurs to my mind is a daughter who has not been married or who is by reason of some mental or physical disability incapable of maintaining herself. Supposing such a daughter is married and dies with her husband, what then is the position? Sir, these are what strike me as being some of the matters which could arise if the Bill were passed in its present form. I may be wrong, Sir, but these are matters which readily arise to my mind at the moment.

I will certainly take note of what the Member for Farrer Park has said.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Mr Byrne].

Order for Second Reading read. 5.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation that this Bill be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Central Provident Fund Ordinance so that the Central Provident Fund Board may not be restricted in declaring a higher rate of interest than 2« per cent per annum to contributions of the Fund. At present, the Board is precluded from declaring a higher interest than 2½ per cent per annum unless the assets of the Board at current market value exceed its liabilities by ten per cent. This amendment of the Central Provident Fund Ordinance is in line with what has been introduced in the Employees Provident Fund (Amendment No. 2) Act, 1960 of the Federation of Malaya which came into force on 31st December, 1960. The Board is in a financial position to declare a higher rate of interest than 2½ per cent per annum, as the redemption value of the Board's investments is very much more than its liabilities. The other amendments to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance have been introduced on the recommendation of the Central Provident Fund Board from the experience gained in administering the Ordinance since it came into force on 1st July, 1955. As I will be moving that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee after its Second Reading, I shall only touch briefly on the other important amendments which this Bill seeks to make to the Central Provident Fund Ordinance. Clause 2 introduces a definition of the word "employed" and modifies the existing definitions of the words "employee" and "employer" in section 2 of the Ordinance. The objects of the amendments read in conjunction with clause 9 are: (i) to extend the benefits of the Ordinance to certain classes of workers who at present because of their conditions of employment do not benefit from the provisions of the Ordinance. (ii) to make the principal employer who may not be the immediate employer of an employee liable to pay contributions under the Ordinance, and (iii) to limit the application of the Ordinance in the case of seamen to Singapore citizens only, and to anticipate the possibility that it may be desirous to exempt owners of vessels who do not have a place of business in Singapore from the provisions of the Ordinance. Clause 2 also introduces a new definition of "wages" as the existing definition is extremely cumbersome and has led to difficulties in interpretation. The proposed amendment defines "wages" simply as remuneration in money due `to a person in respect of his employment as an employee. The effect of the amendment is, however, modified by paragraph (g) of clause 5 which provides that, for the purpose of calculating contributions payable in accordance with the Schedule of the Ordinance, any casual overtime earned by a time-rated employee in regular employment over and above his usual earnings may be disregarded. In the case of employees who are not paid by time or who are not in regular employment, contributions to the Fund will be based on the total remuneration in money. Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 4 of the Ordinance to empower an inspector to examine or summon for examination an employer in the same manner as an employee in regard to matters connected with the Ordinance. The existing Ordinance limits the power of an inspector to examine only an employee and not an employer. Clause 3 of the Bill also provides that the members of the Board and its employees shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of the Penal Code. This amendment follows what has been introduced in regard to members and employees of other Boards such as the Public Utilities Board and the Housing and Development Board. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 6 of the Ordinance whereby a higher rate of interest than 2½ per cent per annum on contributions to the Fund could be declared by the Board on approval of the Minister for Finance. The present provision prevents the Board from declaring a higher rate of interest than 2½ per cent per annum because the Board's assets valued at current market value exceed its liabilities by ten per cent. This provision is considered to be unduly restrictive. The Board is in a financial position at present to justify the payment of a higher rate of interest of more than 2½ per cent per annum. This clause also amends subsection (4) of section 6 of the Ordinance to clarify Government's liabilities in respect of the Fund as the meaning of the existing subsection (4) is considered obscure. Clause 5 (a) of the Bill amends section 7 of the Ordinance by removing the provision requiring employees to work for an employer continuously for one month before contributions become payable for them. This amendment, read in conjunction with the amendment to the Schedule of the Ordinance, will make it necessary for contributions to be made for all employees who earn more than $20 from the date of employment and not after one month of employment as at present. Clause 5 (d) amends section 7 of the Ordinance to enable employers and employees to contribute excess contributions to the Fund at any time and not only at regular monthly payments as at present. Clause 5 (g) introduces a subsection (6) to replace the existing subsection (7) . The new subsection specifies more clearly the way the amount of wages for a calendar month is to be determined in the case of employees whose wages are paid at intervals of longer than a month. The proviso to the new subsection modifies the amendment to the definition of "wages" which has already been explained in clause 2 above. Clause 6 amends section 10 of the Ordinance to remove the provision under which employees over the age of 55 may become members of the Fund by giving notice to the Board within one month of the coming into force of the Ordinance that they desire to be members of the Fund. As the Ordinance has now been in force for over seven years, there is no longer any need for this provision. Clause 7 of the Bill deletes section 23 which being transitional is no longer required. It introduces a new section which will enable money to be transferred to the Fund from private provident funds. This is considered necessary because many private provident funds make provisions in their rules for such transfers to be made, but there is at present no provision in the Ordinance enabling the transfers to be accepted by the Fund. Clause 8 of the Bill repeals section 24 of the Ordinance in regard to return of excess contributions and inserts in its place the provisions of Rule 15 of the Central Provident Fund Rules. This new section will give power to the Board to retain certain monies paid in error. Clause 9 of the Bill amends section 25 of the Ordinance to enable the Minister to make regulations to extend the benefits of the Ordinance to workers whose terms of employment do not constitute a contract of service or apprenticeship and to provide that when an employee is employed in a specified employment under the control or management of a principal employer or is engaged and paid by a supplier of labour, such principal employer or supplier of labour shall be treated as employer of the employee and liable to pay contributions for him under the Ordinance, even though the employee may have an immediate employer directly in control of him. This clause has been introduced in order that certain classes of casual employees who at present do not have contributions made for them are benefited by the Ordinance. Clause 10 of the Bill amends the Schedule to the Ordinance by increasing the maximum amount of wages in respect of which contributions are not payable from $10 to $200. The amendment is considered necessary as a result of the amendment whereby contributions for an employee become liable as soon as he commences employment. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I raise a point which I feel that the Select Committee should pay attention to? I brought up this point at the last sitting and the Minister for Finance did not quite catch it. I thought then that the women were trying to get the best of both worlds, but later on, in the C.P.A. Room, when I explained it to him, he actually thought that there was gross injustice there and he promised that something would be done about it to remedy the situation. I did bring out the fact that it is very dubious whether a married woman in Government service after 15 years is pensionable or not, as this may not apply to future generations and future employees. But there are a great number of married women who were in the service before parity or equal pay was given to women, and who are still in the service, and this affects them, and their position is dubious. After they have served for 15 years and they retire, they will get three-quarters of their pension and they will therefore not be eligible for provident fund. But they will have to wait till they are 55 years old to withdraw whatever money they have put in. On retirement, not only will they have to wait for their money, but whatever gratuity or money they get from Government has to be used to pay back what Government has put into their provident fund. Therefore, such a married woman is penalised, once, for having to subscribe to the provident fund when she is not entitled to draw out her money later on, and, secondly, to pay Government's share, and then wait till several years more - she retires at 45 and she has to wait till she is 55 - to draw out not only her money, but also the money she has to pay on behalf of the Government. As the Minister for Finance felt that it was grossly unfair, would the Select Committee look into it?

Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the point raised by the Member for Mountbatten could be looked into by the Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. -[Mr Ong Pang Boon].

Order for Second Reading read. 6.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the transfer of responsibility for the provision of parking places, which is now vested in the Highway Authority, to the Minister upon the final integration of the Local Government Authority with the Government. Under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 227), the responsibility for the provision of parking places is vested in the Highway Authority which is, by definition, the City Council within the limits of the City, and' the Chairman of the Rural Board within the Rural Board area. However, as soon as the Local Government Integration Bill - which is now before the Select Committee - becomes law, the integration process will be completed. The Local Authority, which at present constitutes the Highway Authority for the purpose of the `the Road Traffic Ordinance, will go out of existence and the Minister will have to assume these functions. It is already provided in section 63 of the new Road Traffic Ordinance (No. 26 of 1961) that the Minister shall provide parking spaces for vehicles, and not the Highway Authority as in section 64 of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 227). With the coming of merger, road transport will become a Federal subject, and the administration of the new Road Traffic Ordinance will come under the Federal Government of Malaysia. It is, therefore, desirable that separate legislation should be prepared to enable the Minister to assume the responsibility for parking places which is essentially a local government function. The present Bill re-enacts substantially section 63 of the new Road Traffic Ordinance, 1961, and the only new provision is in clause 8 which provides for revenue collected from the operation of the car parking scheme to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Tan Kia Gan]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.10 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the object of this Bill is to provide for a separate and more effective control of broadcasting and television services, such control to be maintained by the Ministry of Finance. At present, the statutory authority for levying broadcast listening station licence fees is embodied in the Telegraphs Ordinance (Chapter 108). This Ordinance is administered by the Deputy Prime Minister's Office mainly in connection with matters pertaining to telecommunications. As telecommunications will be a Federal subject after merger, so will the Telegraphs Ordinance become a Federal Ordinance. However, it has been agreed that radio licence fees are an item of State revenue. As such, it is only proper to divorce the statutory authority for collecting such fees from the Telegraphs Ordinance. It is also decided to transfer the responsibility of enforcing radio licensing, hitherto carried on by the Broadcasting Division of the Ministry of Culture, to the Inland Revenue Department, since, with the extension of broadcasting services and the introduction of television, the Broadcasting Division has found it more and more difficult to devote its time to look after the enforcement of licensing. Nevertheless, it has become more urgent to tighten the control and to curb the evasion of licence fees. The present Bill to which the statutory authority will be transferred is based on Part V of the Telegraphs Ordinance, which deals with the control of wireless telegraphy generally. The Bill will continue to confer on the Government the exclusive privilege of establishing any broadcasting station and of installing or working any apparatus for the purpose of transmitting or receiving broadcasting matter. The present system of licensing is to be maintained and those establishing a broadcasting station or installing, or working any broadcasting apparatus without a licence will be punished. To facilitate the day-to-day administration, the Minister is empowered to delegate his powers under the new Ordinance, except that of making subsidiary legislation. He is also empowered to authorise the refund of any licence fees out of the Consolidated Fund and to exempt any person from the provisions of the Ordinance or of any related subsidiary legislation. Sir, under the existing law - section 38 (2) of the Telegraphs Ordinance - a search can only be made by a police officer who has been granted a search warrant by a magistrate in order that preventive action can be carried out more promptly and more effectively. Clause 8 of the present Bill empowers the officers, who have been duly authorised by the Minister and who have reasonable cause to believe that an offence has been or is being committed in any broadcasting station or other places, to make a search of such station or other places. Again, the provisions of the existing Radio Communication Regulations can only be enforced through a prosecution and threat of prosecution. However, the temptation to evade is strong, particularly with owners of the cheap transistor sets which cost as little as $20 per set and are easy to conceal. Radio dealers have been ignoring the requirement to supply the Telecommunications Department with names and addresses of persons who have purchased new radio sets, and the only remedial action of cancelling the dealers' licences has been found to be too drastic a step to resort to in most cases. In the circumstances, it is considered more expedient and expeditious to provide for the compounding of offences, and such provisions are now made in the clauses in the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.20 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The object of this Bill is to divest from the ambit of the Telegraphs Ordinance certain matters mainly relating to the licensing of broadcasting stations and broadcasting apparatus by the insertion of a new section to the principal Ordinance. The amendment that this Bill seeks to make to the principal Ordinance is purely consequential to the Broadcasting and Television Bill which provides for the separate control of broadcasting and television services and which has just been dealt with by this House a few minutes ago. Sir, I beg, to move.

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; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

6.22 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with the Bill. I also lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by His Excellency in respect of this Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

I take it that hon. Members have copies of the Bill with them. If any Member wishes to have another copy, he can apply to the Clerk. The Certificate is in order. Mr Minister, please move.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Section 95 of the Malaysia Bill which is attached as Annex "A" to the Malaysia Agreement and which will be presented to the Assembly on Friday, 26th July, states that Part VIII of the Federal Constitution which deals with elections shall not have effect for the purpose of election of Members of the House of Representatives from Singapore until the second general election to that House held after Malaysia Day, and those Members shall be elected as may be provided by any law passed by the Legislature of Singapore with the concurrence of' the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, including any laws so passed before Malaysia Day, and the period for which they are elected should be the period until the second dissolution of Parliament after Malaysia Day. Therefore, Singapore elected representatives to the Federal Parliament will, under normal circumstances, represent the people of Singapore in the first and second Malaysian Parliament. One of the preambles to the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill, 1963, states that it has been agreed that 15 Members of the House of Representatives should be elected from Singapore in such manner as may be determined by the Legislature of Singapore with the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Section 9 of the Malaysia Bill lays down that there will be 15 Members from Singapore in the House of Representatives. There will, therefore, be no nomination of the 15 Members from amongst the present Members of the Legislative Assembly. There will be elections and those elected will serve until the second dissolution of Parliament after Malaysia Day. Section 95 (2) of the Malaysia Bill also provides that the delimitation of constituencies by the Elections Commission will not apply to the first elections of Members of the House of Representatives from Singapore. This delimitation of constituencies in connection with the first elections will be under the provisions of section 8 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides for the election of these 15 Members and proposes that the manner and procedure of these elections shall follow that of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance with the amendments and modifications as set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Provision is also made to empower the Minister to make further amendments and modifications to the Rules and Regulations made under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which may appear necessary for the purpose of elections under this Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that the Ordinance shall come into operation on such a day as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara may by notification in the Gazette appoint. Clause 2 provides that the elections should be held at any time after the coming into operation of this Ordinance, as decided by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Clause 3 refers to the manner and procedure of the elections which I have already mentioned. Clause 4 provides that the Electoral Registers prepared under the Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance shall be conclusive evidence of a person's entitlement to vote at the elections to the House of Representatives of the Federation of Malaysia. It also provides that where any electoral divisions for the Federal elections consist of two or more electoral divisions for the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections, the Electoral Registers in respect of the two or three electoral divisions for the Singapore Legislative Assembly elections shall together be deemed to be the electoral division for the Federal elections. A further provision in this clause makes it an offence for any person to vote at the Federal elections in Singapore under this Bill if he is not entitled to vote under the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. A person can vote only in the electoral division in which he is registered as an elector. As I have stated previously, the manner and procedure of the elections shall follow that of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance with amendments and modifications as set out in the Schedule to the Bill. In the Schedule to the Bill, a number of amendments and modifications contained in the Schedule are consequential changes to definitions arising from the elections taking place to the House of Representatives of the Federation of Malaysia. There are a number of other amendments of which note should be taken. One of the amendments set out to the Schedule is the modification to section 47 (4) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which provides for the mixing and counting of the ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes relating to a Federal electoral division or such part as the Returning Officer considers expedient. This provision enabling the Returning Officer to count any part of the ballot papers of the Federal electoral division separately would make it possible for him to count separately the ballot papers for the Singapore Legislative Assembly electoral divisions which are grouped together to form part of the Federal division, although when the result is declared only the total figures for the electoral division will be announced. Under this arrangement, candidates will be able to know how each component Singapore Legislative Assembly electoral division forming part of the new electoral division voted. As the House is already aware, the Government's intention is to group the 51 Singapore Legislative Assembly electoral divisions into groups of threes and fours to form each new Federal division. Another amendment to section 65 (1) provides for the increase in election expenses from $6,000 or 50 cents per elector, whichever is the larger, as provided in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance, to $12,000 or 50 cents per elector, whichever is the larger. The increase in the expenses is due to the increase in the electorate for the Federal electoral divisions. Provision is also made in the amendments and modifications to section 73A for the inclusion of increased powers of search by the police where it is expected that canvassing is being conducted by any person on polling day. Where a person enters or is seen at more than two houses or places of work of electors in the same polling district other than his own house or place of work on polling day, he is presumed to have committed an offence of canvassing, unless the contrary is proved by him. These provisions were included in the National Referendum Ordinance and it is considered desirable to include them in this Bill. A further provision taken from the National Referendum Ordinance is in respect of persons debarred from taking part in election activities. Under this provision, it is an offence for any person who attends a primary or secondary school as a student or a person against whom an order has been made under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance or secret society activities to take part in election activities. This provision is included in the Bill by way of modification to section 73c. The House will note that modifications are made to sections 57 (2) and 73 (1) . These two sections relate to the disqualifications of persons from being either registered as electors or Members of the Legislative Assembly when convicted of corrupt or illegal practices. While such persons can be convicted and sentenced for these offences, it follows that any disqualifications arising out of these convictions should be a matter under the Federal law, since these elections are in respect of membership to the House of Representatives of the Federation of Malaysia. Similarly in the Schedule under this Bill, section 79 is deleted, because it refers only to disqualifications of elected Members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore. The last amendment to note is with regard to section 94 (1) which enables the Returning Officer to use free of charge as a polling station any school or part thereof. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the House is aware, I have already given notice of amendments to the Schedule. At the Committee stage, I shall give reasons in detail for these amendments, but at this stage, I need only mention that the amendments refer to the qualifications of persons to be elected as Members of the House of Representatives of the Federation of Malaysia, the notification to be issued by the Minister specifying Federal electoral divisions in Singapore for purposes of elections to the House of Representatives in the Federation of Malaysia, and provision for persons conducting election activities to be in possession of written authorities signed by candidates or their election agent. Mr Speaker, Sir, the time is drawing near when elections will be held for the first time in Singapore for the people to choose their 15 representatives to the House of Representatives in the Federation of Malaysia, and it is very important that these elections are carried out in a smooth, effective, impartial and efficient manner. This Bill seeks to achieve that objective by adopting, in the main, with a few modifications, the provisions of the time-tested machinery and procedure laid down in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the Bill, and my reasons are - An hon. Member: Obvious.

One, we have not yet debated the Prime Minister's motion on the Malaysia Agreement - item 10 on the Order Paper. Until this has been adopted - if it is adopted - the question of the manner of electing 15 Members to the Federal House of Representatives does not arise. The Government should have arranged the order of business in its proper sequence, and the Second Reading of this Bill should rightly come after item 10 has been disposed of. The Opposition would then be in possession of the documents relating to the Malaysia Agreement, and it would be in a better position to debate this Bill in the light of the disclosures that can be gleaned from such documents. Two, the second paragraph of the Preamble to the Bill reads: `AND WHEREAS it has been agreed that fifteen members of the House of Representatives should be elected from Singapore in such manner as may be determined by the Legislature of Singapore with the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong:' I repeat, Sir, "with the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong". I am not a lawyer, Sir, but it is my humble view that until after Malaysia Day, that is the 31st of August, His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong has no constitutional sovereignty over Singapore, and I respectfully submit that he has therefore no constitutional jurisdiction to concur. I do not say that I am right, but this is a matter for constitutional experts to advise. I cannot help but recall the mess the Government was in over the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill. And because of this glaring example of the Government's lack of consultation of legal opinion, I would ask the Government to inform the House whether it has received advice as to whether or not it is constitutionally right for His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to concur with the laws of Singapore before Malaysia Day. The third reason is that a Certificate of Urgency has been introduced for the Second Reading of this Bill. This is indeed very strange and unprecedented. The Second Reading of any Bill, unless introduced on a Certificate of Urgency, takes its normal course under Standing Orders, and under Standing Order 71 (3) (a), "... no amendment shall be proposed unless two clear days' notice thereof has been given." The Government have already given notice of certain amendments which they propose to move. On a Certificate of Urgency, however, no notice need be given of any amendment, and the fact that the Government has taken this unprecedented step is an indication to us that some surprise amendments are in their bag of tricks which they may pull out, depending on the trend of the debate on the Second Reading. Moreover, Sir, under Standing Order 81, because of the introduction of a Certificate of Urgency, the Opposition is deprived of any move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I charge the Government for wanting to play out the Opposition and therefore the interests of the people. Otherwise, such a Certificate of Urgency for a Second Reading is not necessary as the Government has already given notice of certain amendments which the Minister proposes to move during the Committee stage of the Bill. Sir, the Minister in his speech just now has said that it is only after the first elections to the Federal Parliament that the statutory autonomous Elections Commission in Kuala Lumpur will operate in Singapore. This shows us how important it is that the Malaysia Agreement should have been in our hands. Then we' will know what it is all about. As it is, are we to trust the words of the Minister when he says that such are the facts? There have been many instances of the P.A.P. Government trying to prove that white is black and then prove that black is white -

Please name them.

- until the Prime Minister was red in the face. They have done it. If this is true, it is just unfortunate that the statutory autonomous Elections Commission will not operate until after the second elections to the Federal Parliament - if what the Minister says is correct. And now the elections that will be held under this Bill will be under the control of an Election Office squeezed like anything by the Government. But the debate on the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Bill has disclosed - it is left to the Government to deny the disgraceful interference of the Government with the working of the Elections Office -

Nonsense.

- in carrying out the duties imposed on the Registration Officer by section 15 of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. The Minister for Law says nonsense, but under section 15 of this Ordinance, if there had been no interference by the Executive Government, the Registration Officer would have easily carried on with the registration and carried out his duties as demanded by the law. But no, the P.A.P. wanted to play the referendum game. Therefore, the Registration Officer was told, "Wait a minute. We say stop, you stop. We say go ahead, you go ahead. If you behave well, maybe we will give you a medal after that." That is what the P.A.P. is doing always. Added to this, Sir, is the unholy haste - as evidenced by the introduction of a Certificate of Urgency on a Second Reading - of the Government to hold elections for the 15 Members to represent Singapore in the Federal House of Representatives. Sir, we have ample instances of the Government indulging in practices which are apparently undemocratic and dictatorial.

Apparently.

I use the word "apparently", Sir, because although I did not have a Minister for Culture with me when I was the Chief Minister, I would like to be at least more cultured than the Ministers of the Front Bench who, in spite of their Minister for Culture, cannot be cultured at all. I use the word "apparently", but it would seem that it hurts the Minister for Culture more than if you were to say it is a fact.

What are you trying to say?

Sir, it is apparently undemocratic and dictatorial. They can deny it. I use the word "apparently". Why is there a move to deprive Mr Markandu of his citizenship, just because he said, "I will fight the Prime Minister for his interference with the fight of my union, with the industrial activity of my particular union."? And what is more shocking to us, Sir, is that the Prime Minister himself on television, I think it was - he likes to see his face on television, said, "Oh, Mr Markandu, I know, man, you are no Communist." "But why do you deprive me of my citizenship if I am not a Communist?", Mr Markandu asked. This is what the P.A.P. does. Is this not dictatorial? There is another one. Suddenly with all the fun that they had in the Harbour Board, gates closed; 10,000 workers not allowed to go out for lunch, listening to the Prime Minister, "Eh, I am going to give you an award." And then after that, he said, "Oh, I trust the good sense of the workers of the Harbour Board." What happens now? Deregistration is -

Order. I am wondering whether the Member for Cairnhill can bring his remarks within the ambit of the Bill we are discussing.

With respect, Sir, I am pointing out where we cannot trust the Government. These are the instances that the Government have given to the public and to that extent we cannot trust them. They are always doing undemocratic and dictatorial things and what better instances than the instances that only occurred the night before. Can we trust them? Sir, they de-registered this Union just because it refused to bow to the blandishments and threats of the Prime Minister.

Order. I must stop the Member for Cairnhill because he is going too much into detail. He can just mention these things in passing, but he is going too much into detail.

Thank you, Sir. That happens to be the last sentence and the most important sentence.

An election speech.

Sir, the Minister for Culture says that it is an election speech. I do not know what the Prime Minister does going round the constituencies kissing babies. Oh, not election at all! The Prime Minister, the great hero of Singapore seeing the people of Singapore! But when we say something here, it is an election speech. Never mind, if the P.A.P. want elections, if they will just go for general elections tomorrow -

We may.

God help you then.

It is strange, Sir, that the Minister for Law should call on God now when he had denied God when he became a Minister in 1959! May God look after them!

I denied God, in what way?

Sir, when we add all these together and bearing in mind the acts of the Government, we can justifiably say that we do not trust the P.A.P. Government. We say that the P.A.P. Government by this Bill is attempting to force Opposition Parties to fight the elections on P.A.P.'s dishonest terms, which are loaded to ensure a P.A.P. victory at the polls. An hon. Member: I thought you had mass support.

Up till today, Sir, we have not yet received copies of the Malaysia Agreement, although it has been officially released in London and the British Parliament has already approved the Agreement reached in London. The fact that the Government is attempting to give as little time as possible to the Opposition to study the implications of the Malaysia Agreement signed in London shows that there may be something for the Government to hide. An hon. Member: For how long?

We want to know the terms of the Agreement reached in London. The Minister has just told us, "Yes, the terms are, we will have elections for the first time and the Singapore Government is free to hold elections until after the dissolution of the second Federal Parliament." This is what the Minister said. But he did not say that whoever gets elected now under this proposed law, will remain until after the general elections to the second Federal House of Representatives. It is not here. And we do not trust the P.A.P. because if the P.A.P. just get one man in - "All right, election overnight." If they get twenty men in - "Tidak apa lah, go to Kuala Lumpur and say, can we make it three terms instead of two terms?" That is what the P.A.P. are good for - twist and turn, and cheat as much as possible. They would not say it, but now they say, "How long? It is not in the Bill." We do not trust the P.A.P., when it is not in the Bill. [Interruption] Sir, the Minister keeps on saying that this is what has been written in the White Paper. Why not give us the White Paper? We have enough evidence, and we do not believe the word of the P.A.P. until we receive documentary proof. We remember the Prime Minister when he came back as a great hero saying, "Ah, we give them loans. It has been agreed that Singapore will send 50 per cent of workmen to the Borneo territories." Straightaway there was a denial by the Chief Minister Designate of Sabah, saying, "There has been no such agreement." And what did the Prime Minister say? "Ah, semua (everything) is written at the back of an envelope." My God, the fate of the people of Singapore at the back of an envelope! Now we ask where is the Malaysia Agreement? We want to see the terms agreed upon for this representation to the Central Parliament. We have not seen it, but the Minister for Home Affairs says, "Until after the second Federal Parliament." We do not believe it. Or is the Minister now going to say, like his great Prime Minister, "Oh, all that is written on an envelope." He can say it if he likes. We do not know all these things other than what the Minister for Home Affairs feels that he should let us know. Why can he not give us the Malaysia Agreement documents and defer the Second Reading until after the debate on the Malaysia Agreement has been disposed of? Oh no, P.A.P. style, run down the Opposition as much as you can! Sir, the sinister motive behind this is apparent to us. Why is the Government so anxious and so desperate to hold these elections to the Federal House of Representatives when it has most dictatorially withheld the by-election in Sembawang for one year? God rest the soul of Ahmad bin Ibrahim - a good man. The Sembawang seat is the most vital as the strength in this Assembly of the Government and the Opposition is evenly divided. The success or defeat of the P.A.P. candidate in the Sembawang by-election will mean either the right of the P.A.P. Government to continue in office or that it has no moral right to cling to office. Why has the Government conveniently withheld this vital by-election for a year, and is now so anxious and desperate to hold elections to the Federal House of Representatives, the result of which will not mean the fall of the Government should the P.A.P. fail to get the majority of seats? The motive is clear. The P.A.P. are adopting these tactics to test the market. Are the P.A.P. popular with the people -

Find out.

Or are the P.A.P. a dead duck? If they win in this election, they will straightaway have the Assembly dissolved and call for general elections. If they lose, then they still have many months left to rectify their mistakes. They can make full use of the radio and television and indulge in a number of undemocratic acts and political corruption in a desperate attempt to bluff the people once again, so that when general elections take place next year, when the life of this Government comes to a natural end, they hope to be able to recoup their losses. And to play this game to suit their own selfish ends, they are prepared to make the public pay about $400,000 to meet the cost of holding these elections. We strongly oppose the use of public funds for a purpose to suit the selfish ends of the Party in power. These, Sir, are the grounds on which we oppose the Bill. I know that P.A.P. top propagandists, trained in the same camp with ex-comrades and ex-Political Secretaries who are now under detention and branded by the Government as Communists, Communist front leaders and Communist stooges, will twist and distort our stand by saying that the Alliance is afraid to meet the P.A.P. in an election. Let me tell them straight to their faces, the Alliance will meet the P.A.P. at the polls any time - An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

-anywhere and anyhow. What I have said is aimed at exposing the P.A.P. which has been up to tricks for far too long. The P.A.P. has already made full and complete plans to win the elections by hook or by crook. Their candidates are ready. They have been grooming the Political Secretaries to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Culture, Mr Jek Yuen Thong and Inche Rahim Ishak, and these two men will definitely be put up as P.A.P. candidates. They have been groomed out of public funds and are valuable sycophants of Emperor Lee - "our beloved Prime Minister," so say banners put up by the P.A.P. We do not say it; P.A.P. banners put it up. Sir, the Prime Minister has been conducting an election campaign for the P.A.P. for some months now at the expense of the public, and the delineation of the electoral divisions is already known to the P.A.P. for some time. The P.A.P. is ready and well prepared and will not hesitate to take unfair and unjust advantage over its political opponents who will have to fight the elections against great odds imposed by P.A.P. trickery. Did the Prime Minister not say to City Council employees at that memorable meeting, "I can fix you but you can't fix me!"? Sure, the Government can fix the Opposition but the Opposition cannot out the Alliance, I mean, can knock out - [Interruption] I like that remark, that is my phrase, Sir,I would like to say that because - An hon. Member: You are groggy.

Sir, they have some sense of humour left in them. But the Alliance will knock out the P.A.P. if they but dare come out for a general election tomorrow. An hon. Member: And be voted out.

If they but dare. But the P.A.P. dare not. The P.A.P. wants to test the market first through these elections to the Federal Parliament, and then do a little bit of juggling in the State elections. Sir, I do not think we can defeat this Bill. Who knows? If each and every Member in the Opposition will attend and vote as one united force - united not in ideology or political beliefs but united in a concerted effort to teach this arrogant, this dictatorial Government a lesson that is long overdue -

On a point of clarification and on a point of information too, I would be much obliged. Does the Member for Cairnhill call on Opposition Members to support him in his opposition to the Bill? Would he indicate whether his Party stands for the principle of direct representation from the people to the Federal Parliament? Tim Lim Yew Hock: Sir, the Member for Anson has not heard me out because I leave the more important ones towards the end. I can assure him now that we stand for direct representation and we will fight the elections. An hon. Member: How?

We will not allow the P.A.P. Government to make use of the election machinery to suit their own political ends, and we do this as an attempt to expose them and they are exposed. Sir, as I have said, if we can just be united in a concerted effort to teach this arrogant, this dictatorial Government a lesson that is long overdue, then the situation will change for the better. Then there is hope that the Government can be knocked out and that the Opposition can overthrow the Government. Two Alliance Members are paired with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance because they are in Kuala Lumpur on official business, but this pairing will not affect the voting if each and every Member in the Opposition will vote as one united force. On the question of pairing, I now give notice to the Government that Alliance Members will not in future pair with any Government Member as the Government has not done the decent thing to arrange a pairing-off when the Member for Bras Basah was indisposed and could not attend the June sittings of the Assembly. I spoke about this on the 7th June and I do not propose to quote from Hansard to strengthen my point. Sir, I say I do not think we can defeat this Bill but we still may, and the Government will definitely go ahead and hold these elections on terms all loaded in their favour. Despite this the Alliance will field candidates to fight. Sir, the Prime Minister in his recent campaigning and television broadcasts has stooped so low as to put into practice his training in the Communist camp at character assassination. He has made use of the radio and television to say a number of personal things about me. I did not care to reply and retaliate on the same level as I cannot bring myself to sink to the depth that the Prime Minister has fallen. I will, however, meet him in the elections to the Federal House of Representatives. I will not lay down conditions of delineation of the electoral divisions, but I will go to his stronghold, Tanjong Pagar, and meet him there. If, however, the Prime Minister feels that the Federal constituency that includes Tanjong Pagar is not safe for him, then I ask him to be good enough to give me advance notice of his intentions so that I can give him the pleasure of ascertaining from the voters in Tanjong Pagar and other contiguous wards, or in any constituency chosen by the Prime Minister, whether they give their confidence, their trust and their support to him or to me. [Interruption] By this Bill, the Government should choose its own ground for the fight. To them, it is a laughing matter. Cheating to them, Sir, is a laughing matter. I will meet the Prime Minister on any ground that he cares to choose, and I am doing this not out of bravado. I am doing this because I am so sick of the political dishonesty of the P.A.P. that I consider it my duty to try and rid Singapore of this menace to democracy and fair play. Sir, I say the people are fed up with the P.A.P. and, knowing this, the Government is therefore afraid to face us in a general election. The proper and decent thing for the Government to do, now that it does not have the moral majority in the Assembly to continue in office, is to hold the by-election in Sembawang or to hold general elections. The Government has most dictatorially withheld the by-election in Sembawang for one year, simply because the P.A.P. knows that its fate will be sealed, as it was in Hong Lim and Anson, but the P.A.P. keeps on crowing that the Prime Minister is a great hero. If the P.A.P. sincerely believes in this claim, then let us have general elections soon instead of its wanting desperately to hold elections to the Federal House of Representatives with the ulterior motive of testing the pulse of the electorate to enable the arrogant and dictatorial Government to plan strategy for the general elections. Let us have general elections soon and then hold elections to the Federal House of Representatives later. The P.A.P. dare not because it knows deep down in its heart - if it has any heart at all - that the people, if given the opportunity now to cast their votes in a general election, will give a clear verdict. And what will be their verdict? R.I.P. P.A.P. May their wicked souls rest in peace!

Mr Speaker, I do not need to go over some of the points which the Member for Cairnhill has already touched on. It is ridiculous of the Government to ask us in the Opposition to discuss something which we have not as yet seen. The Minister talks of -[Interruption]

Order. I do not know what is the purpose of the Front Benches of the Government interrupting unnecessarily. Perhaps we can have a silent debate from now on. Dr Lee.

He talks of section 95 of the Malaysia Agreement, he talks of Annex J. What are all these things? What is section 95 and what is Annex J or Alex Josey? [Laughter] Sir, this is the first time that we hear that those elected will serve until the second dissolution of Parliament after Malaysia Day. In other words, those who are elected in the forthcoming 15-seat elections to the Central Parliament will serve six years and not five years. Is that correct? Would the Minister confirm this right now?

Could well be.

It might well be. Therefore, it is for six years. Sir, the whole idea of this Bill today is to allow the Government a chance to hold snap elections, and, what is more important, to allow the Government to choose safe seats for the Government Ministers - of course, holding snap elections, taking advantage of us is nothing new - the only question is, why they are doing this so blatantly and openly, throwing away their mask of democracy, even their sense of fair play, everything? They just throw aside everything and now in their desperate situation they are holding on to any straw, hoping thereby to give their Ministers a chance to serve in the Central Parliament. Let me just touch on what the Member for Cairnhill has referred to. He has mentioned the fact that in the Preamble to the Bill it says that the manner of elections to the House of Representatives must have the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. I do not want to refer to that again, but I would like to refer to clause 2 which says that the Yang di-Pertuan Negara can at any time hold elections, that is, at any time the P.A.P. decides to hold elections. If you will notice carefully, Sir, all the amendments which the Government has put forward are to give the P.A.P. the chance to hold a snap election in order to place Opposition Parties completely at a disadvantage. In clause 3 (2) it says that the Minister may at any time make adaptations, modifications, amendments to the forms in the First Schedule. This must be linked with the new amendment in page 5, line 6, which says: `(2) No person shall conduct any election activity unless he is in possession of a written authority signed by a candidate or his election agent in the Form 22 (A) or the Form 22 (B), as the case may be, in the First Schedule to this Ordinance. Such authority ...'. Now, Sir, these are the important words - "shall be issued only on or after the day of nomination." Section 24 (2) of the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance reads - it refers, first of all, to the writ of election being issued by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and it follows in subsection (2): `Every such writ shall be in the Form 1 in the First Schedule to this Ordinance and shall specify the date or dates hereinafter referred to as the day of nomination not being less than 9 days nor more than one month after the date of the writ and the place or places of nomination hereinafter referred to as the place of nomination.' In other words, Sir, the day of writ to the day of nomination, will take 9 days. But elections can be held from the day of writ to the day of poll, all in 21 days. In fact, this period of 21 days can be further reduced even to 18 or 19 days. I have worked in the Ministry of Home Affairs and I know exactly what the minimum period for elections can be. It means that within three weeks from the day of writ by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, general elections can take place or any elections can take place. If we take away 9 days from the day of writ to the day of nomination, there will be only 10 days or 12 days left, and within these 10 to 12 days, those who wish to take part in elections - Parties or candidates - will have to get their election agents; print their symbols; look for places for election offices. They will have to do all sorts of difficult things in a short campaign that will last only 10 days. Of course, the Government will thus take full advantage - -unfair advantage, according to the Alliance Members - by playing out the Opposition according to the Member for Lim Yew Hock -

Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Queenstown can locate the constituency called "Lim Yew Hock".

The Member for Cairnhill. Sir, the Government taking advantage of the Opposition is no surprise to us at all. But as I have already mentioned, the wonder of it is that, in its desperation, it is ready to take off completely their mask and openly try to, legally again, as in the Referendum Ordinance, rig the elections. Today, as everybody knows, the P.A.P. is making use of the office of the Prime Minister to allow the Secretary-General of the PAP, to conduct an election campaign for the P.A.P. It has the use of the radio, television, all the space in the newspapers, and everytime it talks of the P.A.P. - how good the P.A.P. is. But, of course, we can come to debate later on what the Prime Minister today has been doing. Everybody knows that he has sold out the rights and interests of the people of Singapore. The P.A.P. has also denied the Opposition all opportunities of direct Contact with the masses. For example, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis applied for a permit to hold a rally at Pulau Saigon two weeks ago. Last week we applied for a permit to hold a rally in Bukit Timah, 7½ milestone. But on both occasions the P.A.P. have denied us the right of assembly. Not even a registered political Party has the right of assembly and the right of direct contact with the masses! This is what they mean when they talk of democracy today. When they give reasons, they say it is because they do not have enough policemen to guard the Prime Minister. The next time they change their tune. I am sure there will be more changing of tunes very soon. I do not know what the Government intends to do, but it is quite clear that the P.A.P. today is openly intimidating not only Assemblymen in the Barisan. Sosialis but also all trade union leaders. It is taking away their citizenship and intimating that they might be put away, arrested. We are not afraid of these bankrupt P.A.P. politicians trying to cling on to straws in their last desperate gasp. The people's verdict will prove that it is a thing which they cannot fight against. They may make use of the State power to hinder us in our work, but they will be struck off from the political stage anyway, anyhow, soon. Sir, in the amendment which the P.A.P. seeks, namely, to allow them to amend, adapt and modify those forms and regulations in the First Scheduler the P.A.P. seeks to allow Opposition Members start the election campaign only after nomination day. The P.A.P. hopes not only to take advantage of the fact that they know already the electoral divisions and have everything prepared for the election but also to confuse and make more and more difficult for Opposition Members and candidates to fight the elections. For example, Sir, new rules can be so fixed that even election agents may have to submit ten photographs or something like that to Government before they can become election agents, or some such ridiculous things like this. But, of course, the main reason behind this Bill is for the P.A.P. to get safe seats for P.A.P. Ministers. You will remember, Sir, in the referendum, that the counting of votes was done in such a haphazard way that opposition counting agents were in no position to know what was really happening. Today with that experience in mind they are hoping to repeat the same performance. They want to count the votes of the various divisions and know how many votes there are for the P.A.P. in each particular division. But the Opposition Members will not be allowed to have such knowledge. The P.A.P. wants to mix up all the ballot papers -

You will be allowed.

- and then, of course, nobody will really know except the P.A.P. The P.A.P. can count the number of votes in such a division, and then the Prime Minister will stand in a division that is "safe". If not safe, then, of course, the second-rate Back-benchers, the third-rate Back-benchers will stand in them. That is exactly what is going to happen. The Back-benchers will have no hope of getting safe seats for themselves. If they have a chance of standing again, they will be just starters. Just starters! That is all. Even their Front bench Ministers will also be starters anyway.

Where do you start?

The start is, if at any time they tell us where they want to go, we will make sure of sending suitable opponents to topple all of them. I do not wish to waste the time of the House, Sir, but we must realise that the whole object of this present Bill and the amendments thereto are to allow the P.A.P. to seek an unfair advantage over the Opposition Parties and to allow the P.A.P. to seek safe seats for their Ministers. 7.25 p.m.

Mr Speaker, I think we must not allow what the Member for Cairnhill has said just now to go by. He unfortunately has a little obsession and he makes great pretence that he is a scholarly lawyer trying to interpret Ordinances at a time when even lawyers are very quiet. He has mentioned just now that this Bill makes no sense because it mentions in the Preamble that "WHEREAS it has been agreed that fifteen members of the House of Representatives should be elected from Singapore in such manner as may be determined by the Legislature of Singapore with the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong." Surely it will occur to him that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in this sense represents the Federation Government and that this Bill is being introduced in this Legislature with the agreement of the Federation Government. He further says that by moving the Second and Third Readings of this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency, the Opposition has no opportunity to put forward amendments to this Bill. Members will remember that this Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill was introduced at the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly, and if they really have any intention or desire to make amendments they could have done so. The trouble with the Opposition is that they have adopted an attitude that whatever the Government does is always wrong. They showed this attitude only a little while ago. When the Minister for Home Affairs expressed his willingness to withdraw the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, because the Opposition did not like it, they opposed even his attempt to withdraw. They did not like the Bill, and yet they said to the Minister for Home Affairs, "Thou shall not withdraw." It is just a lot of hot air and dust that has been generated by the Member for Cairnhill over this Bill. In reality, as he must admit, the Opposition is really reluctant to face the people and allow the people to choose 15 representatives to the Federal Parliament. Now, let us be quite honest about Opposition attempts to denigrate the Government and sneer at the lack of a majority on the Government benches. They had many times in the past an opportunity to outvote the Government on any important issue. If we had been defeated on any decisive Bill - on the Budget, for instance - we would have had no alternative but to resign. Now, the Opposition's reluctance to face the people, of course, is quite understandable. If we go to elections either for the 15 seats or for the 51 seats, the P.A.P. will stand on its record of achievements during the last four years. The S.P.A. can only stand on the memories of the Lim Yew Hock Government. The Barisan will stand on its record of infamy and betrayal. The U.P.P. will stand on the famous Hong Lim resolutions. Let me put it this way. If the S.P.A. -

What S.P.A.? The Alliance.

If the Alliance wishes to form a united front with the Barisan Sosialis and the others - pro-Malaysia elements sleeping on the same bed with anti-Malaysia elements - and seriously consider that they must oppose this Bill, then, of course, they avoid going to elections on the 15 seats -

You should resign.

But they cannot avoid elections on the 51 seats -

Hear, hear!

That is what we want.

And I would say to them that it is inevitable. It is going to happen sooner or later -

Well, make it sooner.

And it is the intention of the S.P.A. -

The Alliance. I told you.

The S.P.A.-U.M.N.O.-M.C.A.-M.I.C. Alliance?

Yes.

At a suitable opportunity, perhaps after 31st August, if not earlier, they will combine forces and seek to outvote the Government on a critical issue. That is going to happen. It did not happen at the last Budget sitting or on the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, but it may well happen on this crucial Bill. I am very glad indeed that the Member for Anson asked the Member for Cairnhill to clarify his Party's stand on whether he wanted direct representation to the Federal Parliament from this Assembly. The Member for Cairnhill was only too eager to have himself appointed from this Assembly into the Federal Parliament Tun Lim Yew Hock rose ---

On a point of order?

Point of clarification.

No. Sir, let us face this simple fact. None of us 50 Members in this House were elected or were given a mandate to represent the people in the House of Representatives in Kuala Lumpur -

Nor do you have a mandate -

- and therefore for the Member for Anson or the Member for Cairnhill ever to suggest that this should be the method by which the people of Singapore should choose - Mr David Marshall rose ---

Point of clarification?

Point of clarification, if the Deputy Prime Minister would permit.

Yes.

Sir, I spoke of direct representation from the people - the principle of direct representation from the people to the Federal House of Parliament. Now, this is not direct representation if you are nominated by the Assembly. I never suggested that, and I am against it.

I am obliged to the Member for Anson, Mr Speaker, for clarifying his point. But let me warn any Member in this House who cherishes the idea that the correct thing to do would be to appoint or nominate 15 Members from this Chamber to the House of Representatives that he is taking upon himself powers and a mandate which were never given to any of us. It would be a shameful thing indeed for 15 people to be directly nominated from this Assembly to enter the House of Representatives because that would mean entering Parliament by the back door. I am quite sure that none of us have the hides of elephants in that we wish to cherish this way of finding ourselves seated in Parliament in Kuala Lumpur. Now, much air has been given out by the Member for Cairnhill that the Prime Minister has been using his State visits as a preamble to an election campaign. The Member for Cairnhill is quite at liberty to visit the people and I hope he uses that opportunity -

How can I use Government funds and television? What are you talking about?

However, let us face this problem. The first Federal Parliament will probably sit either in September or October. We do not know which month. But the people of Singapore will have to find 15 representatives to represent them in the first Malaysian Parliament. There is one peculiar attitude of the Opposition which is very difficult to understand. I remember the Minister for Home Affairs did write to Members on the Opposition Benches, asking them for their proposals or their views on the delineation of 15 constituencies in order to facilitate elections to the Federal House of Representatives. And we had curious replies; not direct replies to the Minister for Home Affairs, but replies in the Press. Take the S.P.A. for instance. Their Secretary-General first issued a statement that Tun Lim Yew Hock was going to represent the S.P.A. at an All-Party meeting; the Barisan called for an All-Party meeting; and the U.P.P. called for an All-Party meeting. Since the Minister for Home Affairs had no replies in respect of their proposals on the delineation of 15 constituencies, he therefore sent out another letter inviting them to an All-Party meeting -

Point of information. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

(In Malay): In connection with the request by the Minister for Home Affairs to the Opposition Parties to send representatives, U.M.N.O. replied to the effect that we did not wish to participate in the meeting.

I thank the Member for the Southern Islands for the information he has given. He has been courteous enough to reply to the Minister for Home Affairs directly and not through the Press. As I was saying just now, when the Minister for Home Affairs invited the Opposition to an All-Party meeting, the excuse they gave was that they were going to be outvoted at this All-Party meeting and so on and so forth, because there were going to be five P.A.P. representatives and four Opposition representatives. I would really like to be very fair and would still like to open the door to them. If they believe that five P.A.P. representatives will outvote four Opposition representatives on the delineation of boundaries, then I say that we are prepared to meet four to four. Therefore, some form of agreement can be arrived at on the delineation of boundaries. I am quite sure that the opportunity will be used in the future by those defeated in these elections to say that these boundaries had been rigged up, that there was gerrymandering in the elections in order to try to cover up their defeat. However, to those who claim that they have always the support of the masses, I am sure they are not worried as to where they stand. The Member for Cairnhill has been brave enough to announce in the House just now that he is going to meet the Prime Minister. You are not withdrawing, are you?

Point of clarification. Dr Toh Chin Chye resumed his seat.

There is no need for bravery to meet the Prime Minister. Decency and common sense will knock him out.

Prudence!

I do not require bravery.

Sir, besides decency and common sense you also need guts, and it is a quality which I am sure the Member for Cairnhill is not lacking in, knowing his record in the past years when he was in Government and when he was the Chief Minister -

He wants to be a Senator.

I appeal to the House. Let us deal with this problem seriously. Do not let us be fatuous about the whole business. I do not think we really want to ram it down the Opposition throats that the reason why they are opposing this Bill is that they are afraid to meet the people. We are responsible people; we have a job to do; we have to lay the basis so that the people, the electorate, in Singapore can find 15 qualified representatives who can represent them in the Federal Parliament. And one of the reasons, I may add here, why we should oppose at all cost nominations direct from this Assembly is that some Members in this House do not qualify for elections under the Federal law, simply because they do not satisfy the qualifications which are required. The Member for Cairnhill has mentioned just now that we really ought to have debated the Second Reading of this Bill after item 10, that is, after the Malaysia Agreement has been dealt with in this Assembly. Up to a point, he is correct, because I think one of the points he has raised in this debate is that the 15 representatives will only have a life of nine months or less than a year as, according to the Federal Constitution, the Federal Parliament must dissolve in 1964. Therefore, if we have elections to the Federal Assembly now, we will probably face a second Federal election in 1964. But as the Minister for Home Affairs has informed the House, this is not the case. It has been agreed with the Federation Government that the first 15 representatives who will represent Singapore in the Federal House of Representatives will leave Parliament only at the second dissolution of the Malaysia Parliament. In other words, if the Federal Parliament should be dissolved in 1964 and fresh elections are held in the Federation of Malaya, the 15 Singapore representatives will continue to retain their seats in the second Malaysia Parliament. Finally, may I add that we are honest about holding elections to the Malaysia Parliament? Let me reiterate that we would still like to open the door to the Opposition, and if they so desire, they can meet to discuss the broad basis on how these 15 constituencies should be drawn up. Let it not be said in the future by any candidate who should lose in these elections that all this has been rigged. That is a point which the Member for Cairnhill has been trying to ram down our throats, that we have been twisting their tails and that we have been trying to rig the elections. If he is honest about this, let him accept our offer.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, because my colleague, the Member for Hong Lim, is not feeling well today and is unable to take part in the debate, I rise on behalf of my Party to say a few words. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. Government have introduced the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. It can be clearly seen by us that this Bill is equally dictatorial and undemocratic as the National Referendum Bill. This Bill gives the P.A.P. Minister full control of the elections. He will have the power to formulate rules and regulations governing elections without coming to this Assembly. Actually, in so far as matters of elections are concerned, the formulation of rules and regulations should lie with this Assembly, because elections are very important. But the P.A.P. Government are now trying to make use of undemocratic means to deprive this Assembly of the right to make rules for the elections. They want to transfer all such powers to the Minister so that undemocratic means can be resorted to in the elections to the Federal Parliament. We do not trust or believe that the P.A.P. will be clean in the coming elections to the Federal Parliament. According to the provisions of the White Paper, representatives to the Federal Parliament should be elected under the supervision of an independent Elections Commission. Why is it that the P.A.P. Government refuse to follow this procedure? Why must they resort to this undemocratic and dictatorial Bill to ensure that the Minister will have the power to regulate the election of 15 representatives to the Federal Parliament? It is because we know that the P.A.P. are not confident of winning the elections. They do not want to give the Opposition a chance of being returned. With regard to the delineation of the constituencies, the P.A.P. again are not very fair. We are of the opinion that each Party should send representatives to attend an All-Party conference on this matter. Even during the regime of the Lim Yew Hock Government, democratic methods were adopted. If the P.A.P. are sincere about this, then after two or three meetings of the All-Party conference, the problem could be solved. I hope the P.A.P. will pay heed to my advice. I believe the delineation of constituencies was done on 1st June this year even before the request was made to the various Opposition Parties. In order to cover up their undemocratic ways and tactics, the P.A.P. put up the pretext that representatives of other political Parties would be allowed in a conference to be held to consider the delineation of the constituencies. Only one representative of each Party was to be allowed, and that would mean four representatives from the Opposition. But the P.A.P. would have five representatives. Where is the democracy - five against four? All this is done to cover up their undemocratic acts. That is why all Parties in the Opposition refused to attend this meeting. As far back as 1st May this year, we heard that the P.A.P. had already finalised arrangements for the delineation of the constituencies. We also heard that the constituencies of Geylang East and Mountbatten would be combined into one constituency for the purpose of election to the Federal Parliament. In this particular combined constituency, the constituency for the U.M.N.O. candidate was excluded to ensure that the U.M.N.O. representative would not be defeated. So the P.A.P. is now resorting to all sorts of undemocratic means to ensure that they would be returned to the Federal Parliament. They are now trying to make use of public funds to hold mass rallies during the Prime Minister's visits to the constituencies. In fact, when the Prime Minister returned from London, it was reported that some 20,000 people went to the Airport to welcome him. The information I received was that the P.A.P. hired about 50 S.T.C. buses to go round the rural areas to drive the residents to the Airport. But, in fact, some buses were quite empty throughout the whole night. The P.A.P. are trying to deprive my Party of its symbol. I mentioned this during the last Budget debate. I said to the Minister for Home Affairs that my Party symbol was approved by the Registrar of Societies and the Registrar of Trade Unions, and he replied that there might be a possible confusion between my Party symbol and other emblems. I then said that my Party symbol was a unique three-circle symbol. My Party also suggested that the elections should be conducted by an independent Elections Commission, but the P.A.P. were not in favour of this suggestion. After some bargaining, the P.A.P. were able to reach an agreement with the Federation Government to the effect that the first elections to the House of Representatives would be left entirely in the hands of the P.A.P. Who knows whether, before these elections are conducted, the P.A.P. would not have a desire to arrest the prospective candidates of the Opposition so that their own chances of being returned to the House of Representatives would greatly increase? All this threat of foul play and undemocratic means will not frighten the people. In fact, the people will see that the P.A.P. is defeated. On 31st August, 1963, when the Central Government takes over the responsibility of elections and the police, the P.A.P. will lose all control over the police. I believe this behaviour of the P.A.P. is going to bring about their own downfall.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length on this matter. It is clear that if we wish to see a Malaysia Parliament whose Members are truly representatives of the people, then I cannot understand why some people are afraid to face the elections. The Member for Cairnhill who talked at length in a raised voice charged that the P.A.P. Government has made preparations for safe seats for its Ministers to contest in the forthcoming elections. He has clearly shown that he is trying to measure his coat according to the measurement of others. Fortunately, because of his adaptability and the name of the Labour Party, he won the election in the Keppel Ward. But in 1955, he ran from Keppel Ward to Havelock. Subsequently, because his colleagues in the Labour Front contested against him in Havelock, he fled to Cairnhill for safety, so that none of his former Labour Front colleagues could be found in this Assembly, excepting himself - from the defunct Labour Party to the defunct Labour Front, thence to the S.P.A. and now to the Singapore Alliance. Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill thumped his chest in this Chamber saying, "We challenge the Prime Minister to contest in bur ward, or we will go to the Prime Minister's constituency."

Order. I thought I heard the Parliamentary Secretary accusing the Member for Cairnhill of shouting in this House. He is doing the same thing now. 8.00 p.m. Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.

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

Wednesday, 24th July, 1963

asked the Minister for Finance (a) the amount of Japanese capital invested in Singapore and the names of the firms in which such capital is invested (i) between 1956 and 31st May, 1959, and (ii) between 1st June, 1959, and 30th June, 1963; (b) the extent of Japanese capital invested in Singapore in joint-venture firms (in which local capital is also invested), the extent of the local capital invested in these firms, and the number of firms involved; and (c) the number of Japanese firms in Singapore working exclusively on Japanese capital, and the extent of such capital.

The amount of Japanese capital invested in Singapore and the names of the firms in which such capital is invested (i) Between 1956 and 31st May, 1959 $1,200,000. Singapore Cement Industrial Co. Ltd. (ii) Between 1st June, 1959 and 30th June, 1963 $54,094,000. New Oriental Navigation Co. Singapore Cement Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Simalpan Steel Industry Ltd. Diawa (Malaya) Ltd. Jurong Shipyard Ltd. Maruzen Toyo Oil Co. (S) Ltd. (b) The extent of Japanese capital invested in Singapore in joint-venture firms (in which local capital is also invested), the extent of the local capital invested in these companies and the number of firms involved. Japanese capital invested in joint-venture firms amounts to $15,294,000 - local capital involved in these ventures amounts to $10,421,000. There are altogether six such Japanese joint-venture firms in Singapore. (c) The number of Japanese firms in Singapore working exclusively on Japanese capital, and the extent of such capital. There is only one Japanese firm in Singapore working exclusively on Japanese capital and the extent of such capital amounts to $40,000,000.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the number of work permits given to Japanese nationals in the years 1961. 1962, and the first six months of 1963; (b) how many Japanese nationals at present in Singapore have work permits; and (c) what are the firms in which such Japanese nationals are working, and the number of such Japanese nationals per firm.

The number of Professional Visit Passes given to Japanese Nationals in 1961, 1962 and the first six months of 1963 are 129, 88 and 32 respectively. The number of Japanese Nationals at prevent in Singapore granted Professional Visit Passes is 164. Following is a list of firms in which such Japanese nationals are working and the number of such Japanese nationals per firm:- List of Firms in which such Japanese nationals are working, and the number of such Japanese nationals per firm. 1. Ataka & Co. Ltd 2 2. Ajinomoto & Co 1 3. C. Itoh & Co 4 4. Daido Yoshiten Ltd 1 5. Iwai & Co. Ltd 1 6. Iino Kaiun Kaisba Ltd 1 7. Japan Trade Centre 4 8. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 1 9. Kokusai Denshui Denwa 2 10. Kinoshita & Co. Ltd 3 11. Keiko Bussan Co. Ltd 1 12. Mitsui Steamship 1 13. Matsushita Electric Trading Co. Ltd 1 14. Nissho Co. Ltd. 3 15. Tokyo Tsusho Kaisha 3 16. Tokyo Senpaku Kabushiki Kaisha 1 17. Yamashita Kisen Kaisha Ltd. 1 18. Nippon Kokan Kabushiki Kaisha 3 19. Nippon Yusen Kaisha 2 20. Okaya & Co. Ltd. 1 21. New Oriental Navigation Co. Ltd 1 22. Daiwa (Malaya) Ltd. 2 23. Hitachi Ltd. . 2 24. Kanematsu & Co. Ltd. 1 25. Sumitomo Shoji Kaisha 2 26. Shin Mitsubishi Heavy Industries 2 27. Sekisui Chemical Co. Ltd. 1 28. Yomuira Shimbun 1 29. T. Yamamoto & Co. Ltd. 1 30. Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co. Ltd 1 31. Jiji Press of Japan 2 32. Kyodo News' Service 1 33. Onoda Cement Co. Ltd. (S'pore Cement Manufacturing Co. Ltd.) 1 34. Nitto Shosen Shipping Line 1 35. Yagi & Co. Ltd. 1 36. Kowa Co. Ltd 1 37. Osaka Shosen Kaisha 1 38. Takisada & Co. Ltd. 1 39. Shiseido Co. Ltd. 1 40. Bank of Tokyo 10 41. Gosho Co. Ltd. 3 42. Japan Air Lines 12 43. Kasho Co. Ltd. 2 44. Marubeni Iido Co. 5 45. Mitsui Busan Kaisha 3 46. Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha 2 47. Nomura Trading Co. Ltd. 3 48. Nichimen Co. Ltd 3 49. Toyo Menka Kaisha Ltd 4 50. Mitsui Bank Ltd 3 51. Marusen Toyo Oil Co 44 52. Echigoya & Co., 1955 Ltd 1 53. Bridgestone Tire Co. Ltd 1