Hansard, 1963-07-25

asked the Minister for Health and Law whether he will consider extending the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance to criminal matters before the High Court, and what is the estimated cost of such extension.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the view of the Government is that the present structure of the legal aid system in Singapore is not suitable for extension to criminal cases. The legal aid system in England as administered by the Law Society is not concerned with criminal legal aid. The system of criminal legal aid in England is administered through the Courts themselves. The Chairman of Quarter Sessions himself considers all applications for legal aid in his court and grants or rejects applications in his sole discretion. Likewise do the Magistrates. So also does the Judge or Commissioner in the Old Bailey. If a legal aid scheme for criminal cases is introduced, it must, if it is to be fairly administered, apply to all cases whether before the High Court or before the subordinate Courts. This is the practice in England. There is already in existence a scheme whereby lawyers are assigned to accused persons charged with capital offences. All provisions in the Legal Aid and Advice Ordinance envisage recourse to the English system. This would mean the Courts administering criminal legal aid, considering all such applications and assigning all cases which they think should be granted legal aid to members of the profession. The profession therefore would have to play an even more active role in participating in such a legal aid scheme if legal aid is to be extended to criminal cases. Such an extension of the legal aid system must apply to all criminal cases, not only the High Court cases, and the members of the profession must be prepared to participate on the basis that no assigned brief can be refused at the rates to be prescribed even though members of the profession can command higher fees on other work in respect of the time employed on such assigned cases. The Government would prefer legal aid to be given in criminal cases by the Bench with the full co-operation of the Bar as it is the practice in England, rather than legal aid to be provided by lawyers in full-time Government employment. It does seem odd that the State should prosecute offenders and, at the same time, engage lawyers in full-time employment to defend these offenders. I know this is the practice in certain States in Australia, but we have been used to the practice here of assigning counsel for the defence in capital charges, and this system could very well be extended by adopting the English practice in regard to the grant of legal aid in criminal cases. One great advantage of the English system of legal aid in criminal cases, which is completely outside the English legal aid service operated by the Law Society in civil cases, is that it is operated by the Judiciary and the Bar. Judges can be depended on to look fairly into the legal points of criminal cases which are before them for trial and can be depended on to reject applications for legal aid in criminal cases where no points of legal difficulty are likely to arise. It is not the intention of the scheme of legal aid in criminal cases in England or here to grant legal aid to all and sundry but to grant it in criminal cases involving fine points of the law. It is not possible to estimate accurately the cost of extending the legal aid scheme to all criminal matters before the High Court. There were 152 criminal cases tried in the High Court in 1961 and 1962, and if the costs per case are estimated at $1,000, the cost to Government of extending legal aid to all criminal cases in the High Court will be around $76,000 a year. As the administration of justice will be a Federal matter, estimates for such a scheme will have to be approved by the Central Government, and the Singapore Government is in no position to accept any such commitment on its own responsibility.

Is the Minister aware that the Bar Committee fully support the suggestion of the extension of free legal aid to all criminal cases in the High Court, whether the appellate or original jurisdiction? If he is, would he consider negotiating with them with a view to evolving a scheme satisfactory to that end?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already explained, the administration of justice is a Federal responsibility. We cannot as a Government enter into any commitments on our own responsibility. If the Bar Committee had been really keen on the extension of legal aid to criminal cases, they would have taken steps to see that such a system was introduced. But so far, they have only voiced the opinion that the legal aid system is acceptable to them. But they have done nothing to further their demand for the extension of legal aid.

Does the Minister not consider that the provision of legal and is a social amenity and not in the course of the administration of justice?

You have to run the legal aid system in a proper way. I have just pointed out to Members of the House that in England it is administered by the Bar in co-operation with the Judiciary. It is not the intention to give legal aid to everybody who makes a claim for legal aid in criminal cases. It is only granted in cases where there are points of law involved and it is only the Judge who can decide what case is fit and proper for the grant of legal aid.

I will not take much of the time of the Minister. I have just one more question to ask. Is he not conscious that throughout Australia and the United States free legal aid is granted in all criminal cases? I am sure he is conscious that in Singapore, where the vast majority of our population do not speak the language of the administration of justice, it is particularly important that they should have legal assistance not merely where points of law arise but for the proper presentation of their cases. In these circumstances, would he reconsider the position?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said all that needs to be said on this matter. If the Bar Committee in Singapore really want the extension of legal aid to criminal matters, it is up to them to press this demand more vigorously than they have done in the past.

asked the Minister for Education to state (a) the number of students studying in the University of Singapore in (i) 1962, and (ii) 1963; (b) the amount of the Government grants to the University in 1962/63; and (c) the basis on which such grants are made.

The number of students studying in the University of Singapore in 1962 was 2,149 and in 1963 is 2,431. The amount of Government grants to the University in 1962 was $8.5 million of which $400,000 was subject to Treasury sanction. For 1963, which was passed by the Legislative Assembly on the 14th of last month, the sum voted was $8,754,550 of which $254,550 is subject to Treasury sanction. Grants are made on the basis of estimates of income and expenditure of the University submitted by the University authorities to the Government for its consideration. On the basis of past experience, the Government then decides on the annual grant to be made to the University.

From the figures indicated by the Minister, there seems to be a 14 per cent increase in enrolment but not a proportionate increase in grant, is the Minister satisfied that the grant is adequate for the needs of the University for the year in question?

I should like to say to the Member for Anson that it is not quite necessary for the annual grant to the University to be kept in proportion to the number of students. In fact, as the number of students increases, the cost to tile University per student should decrease. I will say this, that for 1962, on an estimated student enrolment of 2,120, the University requested a grant of $9.91 million. Of this, $680,000 was to be for research and post-graduate education. Although the Government grant was $1.4 million short of the University's expectation, it is reliably understood that despite an increased enrolment of 2,149 instead of 2,120 as estimated by the University, there will still be a surplus.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider setting up a Commission to inquire into the functioning of the Work Brigade and to make recommendation for its future.

Sir, the Work Brigade was set up in March 1960 with the following objects: Firstly, to keep in useful and gainful occupation youths between the ages of 16 and 30 who would otherwise he swelling the ranks of the unemployed. Secondly, to place them in permanent employment in Government and other organisations in the State after a period of training designed to turn them into useful citizens. Through the years since March 1960, thousands of youths have been kept in useful and gainful occupation and over 2,000 youths have found employment through the Work Brigade. Sir, the Singapore Work Brigade has been functioning satisfactorily and I see no reason for setting up a Commission to inquire into the functioning of the Work Brigade.

May I ask the Minister whether he is not aware that it is generally believed that the Work Brigade is being used for political demonstrations and some of the members are being coerced thereto and paid public monies therefor? And would he not consider it helpful in the public interest that these rumours - whether true or untrue - should be nailed down by a public inquiry which would also assist in considering the future of these people?

I can imagine all sorts of rumours about the Work Brigade because the election for the 15 seats to the Federal Parliament is drawing very near. Rumours will fly round anyway. For the Member's information, other than doing the routine work of the Work Brigade, Work Brigade members do crowd control work. For instance, on National Day or during Singapore Air Show Day or during the Singapore or Malaysian Grand Prix, Work Brigade members are used to prepare the site, to help in crowd control and many other things. These are the duties which the Work Brigade have performed to our satisfaction and we are satisfied with the functioning of the Work Brigade. As I have said, there is no necessity to set up this Commission of Inquiry.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister for National Development aware that members of the Work Brigade have been selling P.A.P. party organs during their working hours? I would like to ask him whether he intends to set up a Commission to inquire into this matter and to see that members of the Work Brigade should be employed in their proper functions and not do something else for the benefit of the Party in power.

Sir, during the days when the Member for Choa Chu Kang and the Member for Toa Payoh were with us on this side of the Assembly, I also heard that they were using Work Brigade members for their own purpose. At that time, of course, it was for P.A.P. purpose, and there was no necessity for a Commission of Inquiry because these were mere rumours. If the Member for Choa Chu Kang can substantiate what he has said just now, I will set up a Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Speaker, after having run the Work Brigade for nearly three years, would the Government not consider that a Commission of Inquiry would be able to inquire whether the present $1.50 per day allowance is sufficient for their purpose and whether we should increase it to $3 per day?

Sir, the idea of admitting unemployed youths into the Work Brigade is to give them a period of training and find proper employment for them outside the Work Brigade. We do not intend to keep them in the Work Brigade forever. The allowance of $1.50 a day is to tide them over their weekend, the days when they are free to go out and enjoy a bit. This sum of $1.50 is not intended as a salary for them.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago the Minister for National Development said that if I could produce the evidence, then he would consider setting up a Commission of Inquiry. Now I ask the Minister to set it up to look into the whole task of the Work Brigade and then we will get evidence as to -

Order. The Member is now entering into a debate. He has been asked to substantiate what he has to say, and if he can do so, then the Minister has undertaken to make an inquiry. That is the end of it. He must not enter into a debate now. Is it a question, he wishes to ask?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, my question is very simple. If the Minister would like to set up a Commission of Inquiry, then we would be prepared to give evidence to this Commission.

That is not a question.

Would the Minister indicate what is the average period that a member of the Work Brigade remains in the organisation, if he is in possession of that information at the moment?

The maximum period is nine months.

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [24th July, 1963], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 2.50 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday, I was touching on the arrogant attitude of the Member for Cairnhill, who claimed to be the representative of the Alliance which opposed the Bill now under discussion. In passing, I also replied to his charges that the object of this Bill was to ensure safe seats for P.A.P. Ministers and strong men in the P.A.P. In point of fact, as I said yesterday, the Member for Cairnhill did practise this tactic for his own benefit, and now he is throwing the same charges at others. I know how efficient the Member for Cairnhill is in protecting himself or in saving himself from extinction. In the first election when he contested the Keppel Ward, he stood in the name of the Labour Party. In 1955 he contested in the name of the Labour Front, and in 1959 again on the S.P.A. ticket, and maybe the next year in the name of the Alliance. He reminds me of the proverbial hermit-crab, whose anterior is similar to that of a crab but whose posterior is that of a snail. The body of this hermit-crab is weak. This hermit-crab has no shell for its lodging. He has only another's shell to ensure his safety. Now it is clear that the lodging where this hermit-crab is sheltering will not be safe for the creature. This is the type of tactic that will be employed by people like Members who are afraid of being defeated in elections; leaving the Labour Party and later on the Labour Front and S.P.A. Now he makes the charge against the Government that this Bill is designed to ensure safe seats for P.A.P. Ministers. The Prime Minister will not run away from Tanjong Pagar; likewise each and every Member of the P.A.P. will return to his constituency to face the people. We are prepared to face the people at the appropriate time. Mr Speaker, we saw the behaviour of the Member for Cairnhill yesterday when he heat his chest as though to claim that only the Alliance represents the people of Singapore. But he forgets that the Alliance Headquarters is in Kuala Lumpur. In spite of all his boast, the Alliance has not been able to find a suitable Chairman from one of its colleagues in Singapore. They have to run to Kuala Lumpur to find the Chairman. If -

Order. May I remind the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that we are not debating the Alliance'? He is in order up till now. He has attacked the Member for Cairnhill. That is in order. When he goes further and starts debating about the Alliance, and who the Chairman of the Alliance is, I think he is going a hit too far, and going further and further away from the Bill itself.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, we know that the object of this Bill is to provide for the election of 15 representatives to the Federal House of Representatives. But the Member for Cairnhill is so scared to face the people that in his speech yesterday he said that the 15 elected Members should be nominated from among the 51 Assemblymen in Singapore. This is clear proof that he wants to save himself. The 15 representatives must be elected by the people. Where then is the logic that we must nominate them - not elected by the people to represent them - to the Federal House of Representatives? Mr Speaker, the Member for Cairnhill also said that the forthcoming Federal elections, if this Bill is passed, mean nothing more than a waste of public funds. Every five years there is this opportunity for the people to pass judgment on their elected representatives whether in the Legislative Assembly or in the future Federal House of Representatives. We must give this opportunity to the people to choose their representatives. Does he consider that such expenses are a misuse of public funds, if they claim to be champions of democracy'? Now we are going to expend money to enable the people to elect their representatives. He considers this a waste of money! I do not see the logic, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, although you have pulled me up just now, I should like to say a little more. The real motive behind the Member for Cairnhill's opposition to this Bill is I his, and it is a coincidence that this appeared in today's Utusan Melayu in an article headed "Federal House of Representatives Elections". It says that the UMNO-MCA-MIC will each get four seats, and the balance will be for the S.P.A. Because the S.P.A. get a less number of seats, they have shown opposition and they are not prepared to contest the elections. It may be that when the elections take place, we might see a lot of S.P.A. and Independent candidates contesting.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary can tell us where he got that information from. Inche Yaacob continued speaking in Malay.

Order, I suppose the answer is "from the newspaper". Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us which newspaper and of which date.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I did say I was quoting from today's Utusan Melayu under the heading "Federal Elections - UMNO-MCA-MIC each to get 4 seats." This means that the S.P.A. will get three seats. This is what they fear. This will result in many Independent candidates from the S.P.A. contesting against their own Singapore Alliance candidates, as happened in the previous City Council and Legislative Assembly elections when they fought against UMNO candidates in the constituencies. The reason why the Member for Cairnhill strongly opposes this Bill is due to party interests. Yesterday a representative of the Barisan Sosialis sang the same old song; the same gramophone record. There were nothing but the oft-repeated terms, "dictatorship", "undemocratic", and, at the same time, they accused the Government of adopting an attitude that is nothing short of dictatorship. We are going to face the people now. Because Singapore held its first referendum, she was able to solve the merger problem. Now where is her self-respect if we cannot send elected representatives to the Federal Parliament? If the Opposition Members claim to have the support of the people, then they should have no fear. Let them go back to the people and let the people judge. That is democracy. We pass this Bill and we then face the people. We do not want to see Singapore sending nominated representatives to the Federal Parliament. Yesterday the Member for Punggol, in prefacing his speech, apologised and said that his speech should have been delivered by his Party leader, the Member for Hong Lim, who was then indisposed. I sympathise with the Member for Hong Lim. My friend informed me yesterday that a Chinese newspaper reported that committee members of the U.P.P. Branch in Havelock had resigned en bloc. I feel very sorry for the Member for Hong Lim. The Member for Punggol said yesterday that this Bill deprives the right of the Assembly, because all election Bills must be approved by the Assembly. We are now debating this election Bill and this Assembly will have to approve this Bill to make it law in order to enable us to face the people in the elections. There is no meaning in shouting out that the people are behind them when, in asking the Opposition to approve this Bill, they turn around and charge us by saying that the Bill is dictatorial, undemocratic and so on. Mr Speaker, on the delineation of the constituencies, Members opposite have said that there should be an All-Party conference. My colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, emphasised yesterday that the door is still open. We are prepared to meet the Opposition on an equal basis, i.e. four to four. If they really represent the people of Singapore, there is nothing for them to be afraid of about the boundaries of the constituency. We must be prepared to stand in any constituency, whether it be Bukit Timah or Tanjong Pagar, if we are sure of the support of the masses. This is only their manoeuvre to cover up their faults and weaknesses. Briefly, Mr Speaker, this Bill provides for the election of 15 representatives from Singapore to sit in the Federal Parliament, and not of representatives to be nominated by this Assembly. 3.09 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill is a real menace to the democratic system. It is a shame of the P.A.P. Government, and provides a fitting concluding chapter to the P.A.P. reign of four years which, in the beginning, came in like a crest of wave but is reduced to nothing, like the foam which we see after the wave has rolled out into the ocean. Mr Speaker, Sir, this sitting is the most vital in the history of this Assembly in the past four years. As far as the P.A.P.'s fate is concerned, this Bill is the most vital one. To the P.A.P. it outweighs in importance the debates on the Malaysia Agreement and other motions. It will provide the Minister with all the powers necessary to run the coming Parliamentary election of 15 seats as he likes. The rule of law has given way to the rule of decree. Just remember the days of the Japanese occupation when whatever the Japanese Kempeitai said either by imperial edict or by decree, had the force of law. Even a chop by a Kempeitai officer on a piece of scrap paper could mean life or death to thousands of people. Although we have not approached that state, we are seeing the beginnings of such a state. In the past few months we have seen more and more the Government's intention to introduce government by decree, government by edict, instead of government by consent, government by rule of law. So why does the P.A.P. not abolish this Legislature and, at the same time, appoint a Japanese type of judiciary so that tyranny can be more complete?

Yes, we will appoint you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in that case the first person I will fix up is the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps it is not that the P.A.P. Government lacks the intent or the will hut the powers behind the scenes could see the catastrophe if the present cat-and-mouse type of democracy is further allowed to deteriorate. As I myself see it, the Bill has three purposes. Its primary purpose is to avoid Federal elections for Singapore's 15 representatives being conducted not under the more independent Federation Elections Commission but under P.A.P. control. We can expect and envisage what the course of these elections would be like, particularly after our experience in the National Referendum campaign. The P.A.P. hopes that by rigging the elections it can win a few seats, and if these elections could be held before 31st August they would then still have control over the Police machinery - the Special Branch and the C.I.D. - which would be useful weapons in rigging the elections. Further, with all this paraphernalia of State control, the P.A.P. can hope to win a few seats which will provide a prop in the coming State elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, months ago in our Party paper we have already analysed what these elections would be like. We have already foreseen that there would be elections before 31st August if the P.A.P. Government had its way. We have already foreseen as far hack as May this year that there would be an undemocratic delineation of boundaries. I already have a draft list of what the P.A.P. proposes to do with the boundaries. As stated in our Party organ, we have already foreseen that one of the purposes was to seek safe seats for the P.A.P. Ministers. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Health and Law will not have a safe seat at all because he is now not in the good hooks of the Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the P.A.P. can win a few seats, then we can expect the coming State elections to be held very soon; it might be after a few weeks. But if the P.A.P. faces complete calamity, then we can expect the P.A.P. Prime Minister running again after the British and asking them to provide more time so that he can find further ways and means to save the P.A.P. from complete disaster. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second purpose of this Bill is to provide for special counting - and this we foresaw long ago - so that the results of the 51 State constituencies, although regrouped into 15 for Federal constituencies, could be known only to the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, this is the way it will be done. Suppose Geylang West, Geylang East, Mountbatten and Joo Chiat were regrouped into one Federal constituency; during the counting there would be four tables and the tour Presiding Officers would know the actual number of P.A.P. votes for each State division. But the Opposition candidates and their counting agents could only know the total number of votes cast for each of the Parties. In other words, the P.A.P. would have the additional advantage of knowing their exact strength in each of the 51 State constituencies. Let us assume that out of the 51 constituencies, the P.A.P. can pick up five or six. Kreta Ayer is supposed to be their strongest constituency. They want to know exactly how the people there vote. Tanjong Pagar, they want to know how the people there vote. Anson, with the Work Brigade, they want to know how the people there vote. Now, these five or six safe seats would be allotted to the most trusted Ministers of the P.A.P. And as I have said just now, the Minister for Health and Law is not one of the trusted Ministers -

He seems to be a prophet, Sir.

The P.A.P. Ministers will hope, therefore, by such an operation to pick out the safe seats, if any is left, and leave the P.A.P. Back-benchers to swim on their own. The third purpose of this Bill, as I see it, is to see that the Prime Minister himself is elected to the Malaysian Parliament. This - we knew it for the first time yesterday - is for a period of six years. We were given the impression that it would be for a period of nine months. But it is for a period of six years. So that he, having failed to deceive the people of Singapore and us here, could be able to manipulate and play his political pranks with the Members of Parliament from the Sabah territories, from Sarawak and from the Federation, both on the Opposition and the Government benches. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite a wild venture, but if he gets in, I can assure you that he can do a lot of pranks. Sir, everything is being done to see that the Prime Minister is one of the 15 to go in. Whether any other P.A.P. Minister gets in or not, whether any of the other 14 is P.A.P. or non-P.A.P. actually is not so important as the Prime Minister himself getting in. Because if the Prime Minister can get into the Federation Parliament, he will be able to convince Donald Stephens and then the Sarawak delegation's all totalling 40 votes; he will try to get the Opposition benches in the Federation Parliament, because, Mr Speaker, Sir, nobody in the Malaysian Parliament can beat, as we must acknowledge, his powers of oratory. Those who admire him say his powers of oratory; those who do not admire him say his powers to twist and turn. But he will be able to convince the Sabah M.P.s. the Sarawak M.P.s. the Opposition M.P.s and even the Alliance Back benchers. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federal Parliament will be like a cauldron where water would be boiling. Everything is now being done in Singapore to see that our great Prime Minister goes into the Malaysian Parliament. Last week, a $2 million so-called Malaysian bonus - it is not a Malaysian bonus, it is the Prime Minister's Federation M.P. bonus at our expense - was given to the workers and they have been waiting for four years. Why not give to them earlier? They were all part of the P.A.P.'s election promises to give a better way of life to the workers, not only the Singapore Harbour Board workers, but all the workers of Singapore, all the poor people of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, months ago we forecast this move to increase the pay of the Harbour Board workers, it is in our Party organ. There is no genuine concern for the workers. Incidentally, since I am discussing this Bill, I would like to ask the P.A.P. Government how many Work Brigade members are in the electoral registers of Anson and Tanjong Pagar. Personally I do not think all the Work Brigade members will vote for the Prime Minister for their $1.50 a day. But I just wish to know how many of them are living and have their names in the electoral registers of Anson and Tanjong Pagar-[Interruption]. The Member for Anson is not on the electoral register of Anson. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill, as I see it, envisages the following undemocratic features for the purpose of the Federal elections. First, delineation of boundaries to be undemocratic. The whole setup was ready months ago. The delineation of boundaries, as far as I know, was ready. The candidates were all ready. Everyday we see the papers boosting up candidates; Dr Fong Kim Heng with his programme for bringing rain from Australia down here - An hon. Member: Bring what?

Bringing artificial rain. Jek Yuen Thong, a possible candidate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, a potential candidate. Everyday we see the papers boosting them up. We know. The election machinery was ready. Everything was ready. The Secretary o our Branch in Tanjong Pagar was detained. This is all part of the operation. We knew it long ago. Why this farce of inviting the Opposition Parties to send four representatives to delineate boundaries which have already been decided? We send four, the Government sends five; first, the Government hopes that the four in the Opposition will give four different views. Of course, we will. If we ask four brothers to give their views on delineation, all four will come out with four different methods of delineation. And if in case we do not fight and we agre e among ourselves first before we meet the P.A.P. representatives, then, Mr Speaker, Sir, they will have five to outvote us four. Mr Speaker, Sir, what democracy? We have seen previously that there were two Commissions on the delineation of boundaries; one was for the 32 -

Order. I think the hon. Member should at least pay heed to what the Deputy Prime Minister has said. Now it is not 5-4, it is 4-4.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Chairman has got a casting vote or not.

Well said!

We have seen that during the past many years, there were two commissions for the delineation of boundaries, and in both these commissions, appointed by colonial and semi-colonial governments, we had an impartial Chairman and each Party sent one representative. It only took two or three sittings of one or two hours each to delineate those boundaries - The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ong Pang Boon): Not impartial. Mr G. Thomson was the Chairman and "an MI 5 agent".

But, Mr Speaker, Sir, even though George Thomson was the Chairman of those delineation of boundaries commissions, even though George Thomson wanted to side with the Government, and commit a travesty of justice, it would be impossible with Government's one nominee and the Government Party itself, because there were three Opposition Parties. The Opposition Parties still had a say. But this is unusual: 4-5, now 4-4. A deadlock, what happens? Mr Speaker, Sir, the second undemocratic feature of the Bill is to provide for snap elections. We do not know when the elections for the 15 seats are coming. If the P.A.P. had its way, we expected polling day would be before 31st August, that is, when the P.A.P. still has control of the police, the Special Branch, the C.I.D. and all the organs of suppression. We will also expect that there might be a second sweep of political opponents whereby the Parties would be paralysed. The organisations would he paralysed for a few weeks because of the reign of terror and fear imposed in Singapore and the P.A.P. will rush in with a snap election. Mr Speaker, Sir, the P.A.P. only need to give a minimum of nine days between nomination and polling days. And we know that at any time after the sweep it takes at least a minimum of one or two months for any Party to recover from the sweep. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must watch with interest the activities in Cameron Highlands -

Sapu.

The third undemocratic feature is that this Bill provides for the P.A.P. Minister to improvise without the consent of the Assembly, without the notice of the Assembly, his own by-laws, his own election schedules, his own forms of ballot papers. All this is known to us. Mr Speaker, Sir, like our Party symbol. They gave us plenty of trouble over our Party Symbol, and today we have decided, because we are forced, to change our Party symbol to that of a key. They thought that by intimidating us and by cancelling our Party symbol on nomination day, every one of our candidates would he given a different symbol. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us say the Returning Officer appointed by the P.A.P. gives the first candidate we have for, say, Hong Lim, an elephant -[Laughter] It is their choice, Sir. We have no choice. Our candidate for Havelock, a cat -

A cow!

Our candidate for Stamford -

A pig!

- a pig. Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, what happens? A genuine Independent candidate in Hong Lim would have a pig, in Havelock it could be a different thing, a different animal, in Stamford a different animal. It is very difficult for us to canvass and this is what the P.A.P. has done to us. But we know their tricks. They thought that we would not be prepared at this late hour to change our Party symbol because we have only a few more weeks to go - one week, two weeks, three weeks to go. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, so long as we are given two weeks we can make the people of Singapore know what is our new symbol. The P.A.P. thought that we would not be prepared to sacrifice at this late hour and change our symbol and that we would rather take the risk on nomination day, when the P.A.P. appointed Returning Officer could refuse our candidates the use of our three-ring symbol. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, we foresee what is in the evil minds of the P.A.P. Government and we have decided to take this challenge. We have decided today to change this symbol of three rings to a key. We hope the P.A.P. Government will not seek a second excuse, "Oh, Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody uses a key; everybody has a bunch of keys. So how can the U.P.P. use the key? They are taking everybody's symbol?" -

Order. I think the hon. Member has made his point. Let us try and come back to the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, because of all these undemocratic features of the Bill and because we have no faith that this coming election for 15 seats to the Federal Parliament would be conducted in a clean and democratic manner, we ask the Government to have the elections run by a genuinely independent commission, otherwise we can just expect the result. Now about my ex-Parliamentary Secretary - the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I just want to clear up one point which he has mentioned just now. It has never been my practice to say anything against any person whom I consider my junior in the P.A.P.

You are in the junior league yourself!

That is why in the past few years I have refused to comment on anything about my ex-Parliamentary Secretary. Mr Speaker, Sir, it pains me to comment on one whom I have brought up from rags to riches; one who was disavowed by the U.M.N.O., and having found no place and the P.A.P. Central Committee having refused to accept him, I fought for his acceptance. I got him a job in the City Council; got him nominated as a candidate; and got him appointed as my Parliamentary Secretary. And you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I heard, not long after he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary, having risen up from rags to riches, he changed. He ordered five suits in one day, and I knew he was a hopeless case.

He ordered five what?

He ordered five suits in one day.

Order. I wonder whether all this is necessary when we are debating this Bill. Is all this necessary, all these personalities? It will never end.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he talked about the U.P.P. Havelock Branch. We knew all this was coming. We knew it long ago. We already said two months ago in our Party organ that the P.A.P. has spies in our midst waiting for the chance to make Press releases when the time comes. Nineteen chaps! We have hundreds of members in Havelock, and out of the 19 chaps only two are members of the Interim Havelock Committee. We know all this. Mr Speaker, Sir, our organisation is even more watertight and better organised than the P.A.P. organisation. I helped them to draft the constitution.

Better watch the Barisan!

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan are not giving us any trouble in the Branches. The main trouble is money, and money is being spent in a big way. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this note I must conclude: that we feel very sorry that we should see this Bill, but we hope that it will be like yesterday's Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, when the Government faced the first crisis in its life - 23 to 23. Although I was sick, I was waiting in the room to come in and vote. They knew it - they saw me there - and so, Mr Speaker, Sir, they withdrew the Bill. I hope today, seeing the same situation, 23-23, and the Member for ion Chiat has promised to vote with us, the Government will see sense and withdraw the Bill, Sir.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, yesterday at 6.22 in the evening, the Minister for Home Affairs introduced the Bill, which is the same as the National Referendum Bill. The P.A.P. has introduced a Bill like this in a hurry, with the same intention as they had when they introduced the National Referendum Bill sometime ago. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Minister for Home Affairs moved the Second Reading of the Bill, he said at the very beginning that according to Annexure A, section 95 of the Malaysia Agreement, the relevant Bill will be presented to the Legislative Assembly. Mr Speaker, this is the first time the P.A.P. has introduced such a Bill without letting the House know about the contents of the Malaysia Agreement. And they want the House to pass this Bill in a dictatorial and undemocratic way. Mr Speaker, last year after debating the White Paper on Merger, the Government introduced the National Referendum Bill. But today, the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill has been introduced by the Government in this House without allowing the House a debate on the Malaysia Agreement. According to the Order Paper, the item on the Malaysia Agreement will be debated next Monday. This attitude of the Government is more undemocratic and more dictatorial than that shown to the National Referendum Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, this House cannot be made a kind of blank cheque by the P.A.P. which would authorise them to fill in the amount of money on the cheque. Before we make out a blank cheque, we should know in advance the purpose of the cheque, that is, whether it is correct or whether it is for the right use. Even up till today we do not know the purpose of the cheque. The Malaysia Bill is still in the despatch bag of the Prime Minister. Members on this side of the House are still in the dark about the Malaysia Agreement and the Malaysia Bill. Yet the Government is asking the House to pass the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. Mr Speaker, we cannot and must not be made use of by the P.A.P. for their personal interests. Mr Speaker, the Government has introduced this Bill in this way. There is a saying - counting your chickens before they are hatched. In the same way, the Government is making use of this House to pass a Bill to hold an election of 15 representatives to the Central Parliament. This Bill is very undemocratic. We should understand the reason why the Government introduce a Bill that is more undemocratic than the National Referendum Bill. Their motive is to preserve their future political life so that they could have seats in the Federal House of Representatives, and hey have therefore put aside anything that is democratic. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that the P.A.P. is thinking of sending their representatives to the House of Representatives. The Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out to the House that the Singapore representatives elected under this Bill will stay in Parliament for six years. From what the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs have said, we can see the purpose of their urgent introduction of this Bill. We can also see the motive behind it - that the P.A.P. Ministers are very concerned about their places in the House of Representatives. It was about three weeks ago when the Minister for Home Affairs, who is also the Organising Secretary of the P.A.P., held a meeting of the Bukit Timah Branch of the P.A.P. He said that in the elections to the Federal Parliament, the P.A.P. would be able to gain 13 seats; the other two seats would perhaps be gained by U.M.N.O. He therefore urged P.A.P. members to find out their positive chances in the elections. He also told the cadres that the elections would begin in the middle of August and polling day would be around the end of August. We can also see that the P.A.P. is making full use of the Work Brigade, People's Association and Party members for election purposes. The Minister for Home Affairs also told the cadres that if the P.A.P. could get 13 seats in the elections to the Federal House of Representatives, they would then be able to do propaganda work in the Federal Parliament. In this way, they would be able to continue to control the State Legislature and would also be able to influence the Malay voters in the Federation and also a certain number of Chinese voters. Thus, after 15 years, the Prime Minister would be able to become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Mr Speaker, all this was said three weeks ago by the Organising Secretary of the P.A.P. to Party cadres. From what the Minister for Home Affairs said to the cadres, we can see that the P.A.P. is quite certain of getting into the Federal Parliament. But this self-confidence is not due to the support of the people behind them but to their introduction of this Bill which enables them to play dirty games like carrying out dishonest elections. Mr Speaker, if this Bill gets through its Third Reading today, then tomorrow the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will be able to give his assent and so make this Bill a law. And on Monday when this House debates the Malaysia Agreement, which is expected to end on Thursday, as said by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will give his assent to the Malaysia Bill on Saturday. And a week later the Government can hold elections. That is the motive behind this Bill. Why does the P.A.P. not dare to hold elections in a fair and honest way but wants to monopolise the elections? Why does it want to hold a snap election? It is because it knows very well that under the White Paper merger agreement, control of the Police, Television and Broadcasting and the Press will go to the Central Government after 31st August, 1963. So if these elections are held after 31st August they will not have the control of these departments as they do now, in which case they will not have control of the Work Brigade or the People's Association. Also after that date the Singapore Government will be responsible only for its day-to-day administration. The P.A.P. know very well that in future elections if they want to hold mass rallies, State conferences, there will be nobody to attend them; they got a very good result from the National Referendum. That is why the Government is now trying to carry out full-scale television and broadcasting work. The Government's intention is to monopolise the Federal elections. Mr Speaker, the P.A.P. knows that its prestige is diminishing with the people. Even the Prime Minister himself is not sure of the support of the people of his own constituency. The Hong Lim and Anson by-elections have proved that the P.A.P. is now going down the drain. The Sembawang by-election has been postponed for about one year now. This all the more shows that even in the coming Sembawang by-election, the P.A.P. will suffer a heavy loss. That is why a snap Federal election will be the best chance for the P.A.P. If the election is held fairly and democratically, then the P.A.P. oligarchy will meet with a disastrous defeat. Just now, the Member for Hong Lim has said that the P.A.P. intends to test their safe seats in the 15 divisions to see to which constituencies they can send their representatives. It is because no other political Party will know the voting results in the 51 constituencies, but the Returning Officer will know the results. In other words, the P.A.P. will know. Mr Speaker, the calculation of the votes for this Federal election will enable the P.A.P. to know the reaction of the people. The first time the P.A.P. tested the people's intention was on the 1st of September, 1962, when the National Referendum was held, so that the P.A.P. could know their strength in the respective constituencies. Since then, after this one year of propaganda by the P.A.P., the P.A.P. is now trying to assess the opinions and the wishes of the people to see whether their propaganda in the past year has been successful and whether the reaction of the people is favourable to them. Therefore, under these circumstances, the P.A.P.'s intention is to assess their strength in the 51 constituencies. That is the intrigue of the P.A.P. behind this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance which is sufficient for us to carry out our elections in the 15 Parliament constituencies. The only difference is that these 51 constituencies will be grouped into 15 constituencies and the Electoral Registers are the same. There is no difficulty in this. However, this Bill which has been introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs is contrary to the present Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the business of elections is a national matter. It is not a party matter. However, the Government regards the election of these 15 representatives as its own party affair. Therefore, they have now introduced a Bill which is a departure from our present Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 3 of this Bill provides that the Minister be given powers to make rules and regulations. These powers are just like powers given to an emperor and the order or edict of the Minister will become the law of the country. In the past, the first Schedule to the Elections Ordinance provides for 23 forms. If this amending Bill is passed, the present Elections Ordinance will give the Minister power to change or amend all the forms in the Schedule. Does it mean that the Minister, in introducing these amendments, can assure that parliamentary democracy can be smoothly carried out and can be more effective so that the people will have more confidence in our parliamentary system? On the contrary, this Bill shows clearly to the people that there is no democracy in Singapore. Mr Speaker, the 23 forms provide for Party symbols, the nomination of candidates, the appointment of election agents and the counting of ballot papers, etc. But if this Ordinance is amended by the Government, the Minister for Home Affairs will have all the powers to alter all the procedures adopted in the past for election purposes. Under these circumstances, to whom will this be of advantage? Of course, it is to the P.A.P. This will be a disadvantage to all the Opposition Parties and the people of Singapore. This has been carried on by the P.A.P. all along. After passing these amendments, the procedures for elections used in the past can be altered by the Minister. Under these circumstances, how can other Parties carry out their election campaigns? We know that the Government is ready with all their candidates and election officers. At the same time, the staff in the Elections Department have already started writing out election cards. This work was speeded up two weeks ago when they called in students to help in this job. The tabling of this Bill and the acts of the Government can only lead us to this conclusion. After the passing of these amendments, the Opposition Parties will not be able to carry out their election campaigns within 10 to 12 days. Mr Speaker, Sir, the printing presses in Singapore dare not print our propaganda material because of the many restrictions imposed by the Minister for Home Affairs, particularly on the Barisan Sosialis. How can we then carry out our propaganda work within 10 to 12 days? We will not be able to carry out our election campaign within this short period. If the Government will not alter the First Schedule, then the Opposition Parties will be able to carry out their work according to the provisions in the Schedule and the law. But after these changes are made, we will not be able to follow past procedures in carrying out our election campaigns. We will have to wait for an announcement by the Minister for Home Affairs before we can carry out our election campaigns. He will not announce the changes and amendments to the forms in time. We have seen how the Singapore National Referendum Bill was debated one day and made law the very next day, and within two weeks polling was carried out. Therefore, on the election of the future 15 seats to the Federal House of Representatives, the P.A.P. will do the same thing; that is, they will announce the date of polling day immediately after the Bill has been passed. Thus the Opposition Parties are placed in a very difficult position to carry out their election campaigns. On the other hand, the P.A.P. are in control of all the media of publicity, like television, the radio and Rediffusion. In fact, they have been carrying out their election campaign for the last few months. Under these circumstances, they think they will be able to elect 13 representatives and that U.M.N.O. will only get two seats. This is their line of propaganda. Mr Speaker, Sir, the passing of this Bill will be the death knell of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. The provisions of this Bill contain various undemocratic features. In Committee, we will point out and expose the Government's motive in introducing this Bill. If the Government really want to carry out the election in an unfair way, then it is the P.A.P. who want to destroy parliamentary democracy, and the Opposition Parties will not be held responsible for it. Whether the 13 P.A.P. plutocrats will be elected to the Federal House of Representatives is merely a daydream, like a soap bubble which will burst in a few minutes. Their dream is only a fancy. 4.07 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are objectionable features to this Bill. The principal one is the traditional loophole whereby this Government gives itself the power to fix the date for the election at such time as pleases itself. Knowing this Government, it is not unreasonable to assume that what it will seek to do is, under the camouflage of ostensible expenditure for merger celebrations, to work for the election of the P.A.P. candidates, and perhaps a week before Merger Day to have voting day in order to garner the goodwill of public money spent in the party interests. In the normal course, that is an issue which the Opposition could well negotiate with a Government that is constitutional in approach, by seeking an amendment which would satisfy the Opposition as regards the date for this election. But the P.A.P. has consistently treated this House and the Opposition with contempt, as it has treated the people of Singapore with contempt. A much wider issue was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and I would like your indulgence to call the attention of Members of this House to it. The Deputy Prime Minister - I am referring to page 61 of the Unrevised Transcript, Vol. 21 No. 1 dated 24th July, 1963 - made it quite clear that the Government considered this Bill a "crucial" Bill and that if there was a defeat on this Bill then there would be elections for the 51 constituencies, that is to say, the Government will resign. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this wider issue, there can be no question. Now that one sees on whatever orders the former S.P.A. had to co-operate with the Government until merger agreement was reached, those orders are no longer in force with the Alliance and they perhaps can act according to their consciences. No one can but vote for the downfall of this Government who is a citizen of this country and who thinks only of the latest and greatest evil they have perpetrated without mandate from the people and without consultation with this House - that is the ending of our traditional economic pattern of life - the ending of our free port status. I am happy to learn that all Opposition Members are solidly in agreement and that all are here to vote. The people of Singapore have suffered enough. In four years, the P.A.P. has caused more damage than the British in 140 years. They have caused more damage than any group could cause to a comparable mass of people except in time of war. It is problematic that we will survive. We have through the Referendum debate learned conclusively and publicly that this Government is fundamentally dishonest. The end of our free port status without reference to the people and to this House proves to us that this Government is evil beyond any boundary which we can conceive. I hope to vote solidly with my colleagues, whatever are our differences, on this side of the House against the Government for the end of this reign of evil. I know not what the future brings. But, Sir, we must have faith that the people of Singapore are capable of producing something worthwhile. Meanwhile, there can be but this one objective - an end to this evil that has laid low the people of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, never have the Opposition been in a tighter spot than they are in today over this Bill to provide 15 representatives to the Central Government. On previous occasions, it was the Barisan Sosialis who were in a zugzwang position - any move meant disaster.

You are in a zugzwang now.

Today they are in a super zugzwang in that it involves not only the Communists who have only 36 days before Nemesis overtakes them but also the Right-wing S.P.A., the wingless U.P.P. and the motherless Member for Anson. In fact, Sir, the Member for Anson in his concluding speech probably summed up the attitude of mind of an opportunistic, witless Barisan Sosialis and their supporters. He said, "Let us bring this Government down. But I do not know what the future will bring." That is the attitude. They are not interested in the future. They are interested in bringing the Government down. Well, Sir, this is the super zugzwang the Opposition is in, because we have entered a new phase. This is the phase after the battle for merger, and Malaysia has been won. The position bluntly and honestly is this. The Opposition is opposing the Bill not because, as they have claimed, the provisions in the Bill are improper or because they believe that the elections will be dishonestly conducted or because the provisions are so weighted as to favour the Government in any election, hut because the Opposition, ranging from the Communist Barisan Sosialis, the Communist confrontationists in Singapore to the U.P.P. and the S.P.A., do not want to face an election. 4.17 p.m.

For all their brave and bombastic talk inside and outside the Assembly during the past two years that the P.A.P. Government was a discredited force and that the masses were only waiting for a chance to show their disapproval of the Government, the blunt truth is that the Opposition and the Communist front confrontationists in the Barisan Sosialis, the Right-wing S.P.A., the U.P.P. and the Member for Anson - are today terrified of facing the electorate. During the past two years, the Opposition could afford to fling wild challenges at the Government to resign or otherwise to test its strength by way of elections. They knew they could make these challenges safely because the Government was determined to see merger and Malaysia through, to discharge its election promises and to bring about merger and Malaysia. The S.P.A. knew that the Government was not going to jeopardise merger and Malaysia by embarking upon elections or by a show of strength with the electorate which would only provide the anti-Malaysia Communists with opportunities to divert public attention from the main issue of merger and Malaysia. Knowing this, the S.P.A. could safely challenge the Government to resign or fight this or that election and thus try to build up an image of a Government too scared to face the people in an electoral contest. For our own part, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we put up with all these taunts, knowing full well that after we have seen merger and Malaysia through safely we could call the S.P.A. bluff. The Barisan Sosialis are safely in their seats. They have not quitted their seats. But they challenged the Government to resign, knowing full well that this Government, whatever its other shortcomings, is single-minded in purpose. We have said we will get Malaysia and merger through, and we have got it. The Communists in the Barisan Sosialis and their confrontationist allies, whose stooges they have become in Singapore, will find out in 36 days - tomorrow it will be 35 days; the day after tomorrow 34 days - that this Government is purposive and calculating and is not going to be deviated from its objective of merger and Malaysia until it has merger and Malaysia safely in the bag. Sir, for two years we have put up with these taunts. Today we have seen merger and Malaysia through safely, despite attempts by the Barisan, by some of the S.P.A. leaders pressurising the Government into betraying the interests of Singapore and handing them over, especially in the case of certain S.P.A. leaders, bound over hand and foot, to certain M.C.A. Senators and other M.C.A. elements in search of loot and prey in Singapore. Now that Malaysia and merger are safely in the bag and on terms fair and just to both the people of Singapore and of Malaysia, we have called the S.P.A. bluff, and, as is to be expected, they are in a panic. This panic burst through all the bluster and rhetorical bombast of the Member for Cairnhill yesterday. His thesis, for the best part of two years, has been that the P.A.P. is a discredited force, that it dare not face the electorate, because the electorate is dying to vote for an S.P.A. Government. I beg your pardon, Sir, The Singapore Alliance. It is no longer the S.P.A. It is not S.P.A. but S.A. Sir, the P.A.P. Government is as obliging as ever. It is giving the S.P.A. and the Barisan Sosialis a chance to prove their thesis, that the 600,000 electors of Singapore are eager to show their disapproval of the Government and its policies. The Member for Cairnhill has been mourning about the Sembawang by-election. What about the Sembawang by-election? Sir, the Sembawang by-election cannot be - though it would be held - a true indication of the feelings of the people of Singapore, 1,700,000 of them. And, therefore, a nation-wide election for 15 seats where 600,000 electors can indicate their attitude towards the P.A.P., towards any of the other political Parties, a better indication of public feeling in Singapore. [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, this gentleman, this condemned man who has only got 36 days -

You hope.

We warned him two years ago there would be a zugzwang. We told him that merger and Malaysia would come through. We told him that he would be hounded out of Singapore by people who know that they are working as agents for foreign confrontationists, people who sell out to gentlemen who have not the slightest compunction about betraying and looting this country.

Betraying the people of Singapore.

That is why they are afraid of elections, because the elections would be fought in such a way that they will be running from one lamp-post to the other. Anyway, Sir, that will come in time. [Interruption]

Order.

36 days more we will be singing farewell to certain gentlemen.

Raja!

May I remind the Member for Queenstown that if he wants any point clarified, of course, the Minister will give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we always believe in allowing dying gentlemen to say their last words, and I am not put off by the interjections of the Member for Queenstown. But if the purpose is to determine which of the political Parties enjoy the confidence and trust of the people of Singapore as a whole, then these elections for the 15 seats are more pertinent than the by-election in Sembawang. In the elections for the 15 seats, the electorate in Sembawang too will get a chance to make known their attitudes towards the various Parties and to the Government in particular. Therefore, Sir, instead of welcoming this Bill and pressing the Government to have this by-election as soon as possible and thus proving to the Federation M.C.A. leaders that the S.P.A. has the backing of the people - An hon. Member: Alliance.

I notice, Sir, that I was reading last month's issue Volume 5. No. 2. The People. The symbol in the organ of the Singapore People's Alliance is a peculiar looking wheel. In Volume 5, No. 3, the wheel has vanished, Sir, and we have a slow boat to China. This is an indication of what the political trends are. Sir, I will come to that later on. For the time being, as far as we are concerned, it is the S.P.A., the S.A., or whatever they like to call themselves. But I am referring not to the Singapore Alliance but to a constituent member of the Singapore Alliance, because I understand the Singapore Alliance consists of many political Parties, of which the S.P.A. is one, if I am not wrong. So they have got a chance, through the elections for the 15 seats, to prove to certain Federation M.C.A. leaders who have been trying to interfere in Singapore politics, trying to build up their outfit at the expense of the Singaporeans. Instead of the S P.A. welcoming this chance to show that the people of Singapore reject the policy of the present Government, we find the Member for Cairnhill in a blue funk over the prospects of an election. It is true that he tried to cover up his panic yesterday by a rhetorical bombast about his readiness to go to Tanjong Pagar and take the Prime Minister on. As far as I can recollect, the Member for Cairnhill has never fought an election in the same constituency twice nor under the same banner twice. Like the lightning, he never strikes in the same place twice. Like Lon Chaney, a famous actor who is now dead, the Member for Cairnhill is a master of political disguise. He is the Hunchback of Notre Dime one day, he is the Phantom of the Opera the next day. He is a man of a thousand political faces. So if he has decided to move out of Cairnhill - I do not know if it is in deference to the Member for Tanglin, because when we start grouping the constituencies there will be a deal of trouble as to which Member should stand in which constituency - in search of fresh political pastures in Tanjong Pagar, he is only running true to form. Of course, he is welcome to go to Tanjong Pagar because I think he can well afford to lose his deposit. Between now and the elections, he may have second thoughts, of course, about going to Tanjong Pagar if he discovers (as the Member for Anson discovered last Sunday) that he cannot profitably exploit the Singapore Harbour Board issue. I notice the Member for Cairnhill has suddenly become interested in the same issue as the Barisan - how to exploit the discontent and strife in the Harbour Board. In fact, long ago the Member for Cairnhill revealed his interest in Mr Markandu. Mr Markandu approached the Member for Cairnhill to take up this issue. The Member for Anson tried to intervene by holding a meeting last Sunday in the hope of exploiting the issue. The Barisan Sosialis, in anticipation of confrontation - you can see in the newspapers today that they are passing arms and troops - are going to work up and start off a strike in the Harbour Board. The Member for Anson, however, decided to cash in first, and rushed in. On Friday, after announcing that he had applied for a meeting to be held at Anson, he said that the Government were going to oppose it. In fact, we had not the slightest intention of opposing him, but he wanted to build up an atmosphere of tension. But fortunately on that Friday the Prime Minister himself went to the Harbour Board to resolve the issue.

Order. Perhaps the Hon. Minister is going too much into detail. We are now debating the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill and not the Harbour Board issue, and I would ask the Minister to come back to the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all this is pertinent to the question as to why Opposition Members are opposing this Bill. It is because they have other ulterior motives and it is necessary, in the interests of the public, to show what their motives are. Therefore, Sir, I am not going into details. But since the Member for Cairnhill brought up this issue yesterday - that he was asked by Mr Markandu who was sitting with the Prime Minister on the platform but had nothing to say because the Communists were manipulating him - he had shown an interest in this political issue, which the Member for Anson also tried to response by going there on Sunday and trying to hold a meeting; but it had fizzled out. He got about 300 children, or that number with their parents, and when he shouted "Majulah Singapura" there was no response. He asked for questions; no response. So he got into his car and drove away. Now the Member for Cairnhill has decided to step in. Sir, in the first elections in Singapore, I think he stood in Anson -

Keppel.

Keppel, that is right. After that, he decided to move into Havelock, and then to Cairnhill - a promotion from a real working class area to a real plutocratic area, but now even the plutocrats have learnt to distrust him -

Next stop - Tanjong Pagar!

Back he goes, at least he claims, to Tanjong Pagar. Sir, these are indications of what the Member for Cairnhill's complete cycle is, in view of possible developments and despite what might happen in the Harbour Board - and I can assure the Member that the matter will be resolved - I hope he will keep his promise of going to Tanjong Pagar. I am quite sure that there he will be joined by the Member for Hong Lim who is also anxious to fight the Prime Minister. I shall be very happy to see both these gentlemen in that locality, one returning to the scene of his crimes and the other venturing into another dangerous adventure. Sir, the point is that the S.P.A., for all their bombastic talk about the people being fed up with P.A.P rule, are not prepared to put this thesis to the test by way of election to the 15 seats.

On a point of elucidation, Sir. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I would ask Ministers on that side to remember that it is the Singapore Alliance that they will have to meet, and not the S.P.A.

Sir, we are capable of differentiating between the sheep and the goats; we know which is the sheep and which is the goat. Whether they call themselves the S.P.A. or S.A., we shall differentiate between the A. and the S. I am only interested in one thing, if I am not mistaken, perhaps I should explain their own Party's structure to the Member for Cairnhill. The S.P.A. organ used to be printed in black; now it is n blue. This emblem, the wheel or the roda, has now become The People introducing the Singapore Alliance of UMNO-MCA-MIC-SPA. Its price is 10 cts. and I notice, Sir -

Order. From what the Minister is saying, it looks as if we are debating the formation of the Singapore Alliance and not the Elections Bill. I think the Minister has replied to the point raised by the Member for Cairnhill and has made the Government's stand, and I would suggest to him to come back to the Bill we are now debating.

Thank you, Sir, but I am sure I am not misleading anybody by distinguishing the S.P.A. from the S.A. For example, Sir, in Vol. 5, No. 2 issue of The People - it was then still a concern of the S.P.A. - there was an editorial. This issue is the last issue of the S.P.A. before it was caught up by the S.A. This editorial is entitled "P.A.P. must go". Perhaps it is pertinent for me to explain under what circumstances the editorial was written. It was written at a time when the M.C.A. -

Point of order, Sir.

The point of order being?

What has this S.P.A. editorial got to do with the Bill before the House, Sir?

That is not a point of order. The Member should have waited to hear what the Minister has to say first. And if what the Minister says has nothing to do with the Bill, then he could rise on a point of order. Mr Rajaratnam.

Sir, the Barisan is so perturbed at the wide publicity given to the S.P.A., but in course of time I shall give equally notorious publicity to the Barisan too. I hope you could be a little bit more patient while I deal with the S.P.A. The editorial is called "P.A.P. must go". Why? `This is the slogan ringing in the hearts of a vast majority of men and women of Singapore - the rural people, the trade unionists, taxi drivers, petty traders, businessmen, civil servants, housewives, and so on.' Sir, if this is the slogan "ringing in the hearts of the people", then why is the S.P.A. opposed to this Bill? It may be that what the S.P.A. want are elections to the 51 seats. If that is what they want, they can bring that about quite easily by voting against this Bill and thus preventing us from having elections first to the 15 seats to the Central Parliament. It is very simple. If the "P.A.P. must go" - that was the clarion cry of the S.P.A. and not of the Singapore Alliance, because it has no editorial to that effect - they can bring about elections to the 51 seats first by voting against this Bill. The S P.A. and the Opposition can have whichever way they want - first the elections to the 15 seats in the Central Parliament or the elections to the 51 seats. But before they make up their minds, it is necessary for me to explain why they should very carefully consider the decision they make - which elections do they first want? Let me make it quite clear, Sir, that a defeat for the Government in the elections to the 15 seats would in itself amount to a vote of censure on the Government by the people of Singapore, and the holding of elections to the 51 seats, including Sembawang, would become inevitable. It is a matter of their deciding which they want first. But there is one good and responsible reason why it is necessary, in the interests of merger and Malaysia and of the people of Singapore, to hold first the elections to the 15 seats. Perhaps it is necessary for me to make it quite clear why the Government want first the elections to the 15 seats. The Barisan knows it and maybe the S.P.A. also realises it. The Barisan knows that if elections to the 15 seats were held first, that would bury them completely. The Government has not brought this proposal for elections to the 15 seats first to frustrate the S.P.A. or anybody. We are carrying on the fight against the Communists, and that is why we have brought in this proposal. They know it. I will explain why by holding elections to the 15 seats it will frustrate the plan of the pro-Communists, confrontationists, and the Barisan Sosialis, as a last-minute attempt, to wreck merger and Malaysia. The S.P.A. may not be aware of this, but perhaps in their desperation and greed they have become oblivious to this obvious danger to merger and Malaysia from these Communist confrontationists in Singapore. As far as the P.A.P. is concerned, these elections to the 15 seats are part of our strategy to deal yet another blow at the Communists and crush their desperate attempt to wreck Malaysia and give supporting action for their confrontationist friends massing elsewhere. The Communists in the Barisan Sosialis realise the danger posed to them by our proposals by this Bill to have elections first for the 15 seats, and that is why they too are opposing this Bill under one pretext or the other. It is ironical. Sir, that this time the Communists should have as their allies in this fight to frustrate and sabotage merger and Malaysia, the Right-wing and opportunist group in the S.P.A. When the Member for Cairnhill yesterday appealed to all the Opposition to unite to defeat this Bill, the bleary eyes of the despondent Barisan Sosialis lit up with fresh hope. They saw in the attitude of the S.P.A adventurers an opportunity to stave off elections for the 15 seats which could well mean the end of Barisan Sosialis hopes of capturing power in Singapore through immediate general elections. The point is that elections for the 15 seats do not suit the strategic aims of the anti-Malaysia confrontationist Communists in the Barisan Sosialis. In the unlikelihood of their winning the 15 seats, then they would not be capturing State power. They know that. They can win all the 15 seats to the Central Parliament. They know they are not capturing any power because in an assembly of well over 100 seats, 15 seats do not give them effective political power to carry out their anti-Malaysia, anti-merger, pro-confrontationist policy. Their 15 seats in the Central Parliament could give them no power to sabotage Malaysia. Even if they are not calculating, their masters are calculating. If in the event of their winning the majority of the 15 seats, they know the consequences for them would be even more serious. Because if they should win the majority of the 15 seats, that would only result in a mobilising of all nationalist pro-merger forces against them in preparation for the 51 seats. It will result in a sequence of events which would lead to the utter annihilation of the Barisan Sosialis. But the prospects are that the Communists, provided we do not have any adventurous policies on the part of the S.P.A resulting in confusing the people, will be decisively defeated in the elections for the 15 seats. In other words, Sir, if they win they get nothing; if they lose, they lose everything - the 15 seats. That is part of our strategy. That is why we have the elections for the 15 seats first. They know it. They laugh, they smile, but -

You are cheating yourself.

No, Sir. We are outwitting them as we have outwitted them in the referendum, and we will continue to outwit them till they go back to their confrontationist friends outside of Singapore. That is our objective. We are going to drive every traitor out of Singapore to go and tie-up with their friends outside. That is what we intend to do and will continue to do. This is the second phase of our strategy. The first phase was defeating them in the referendum. Now we will start on the second phase. They know that the noose is around their necks and we will carry on hounding them and destroying them so that they can never be here to play the traitorous role that they have assigned to themselves. Therefore, Sir, the real fear of the Ban-san Sosialis is that if we have the elections for the 15 seats, they know they will be decisively defeated. Their stocks are pretty low. A very good indication was at a meeting. An indication of the low depth to which the morale of the Communists had sunk was when the Prime Minister had a meeting in Hong Lim. A Barisan Sosialis union put up lights and black banners mourning Malaysia. The Prime Minister just made a reference and, in fact, read out this banner condemning Malaysia and that the Prime Minister had sold out the people of Singapore. It was given free publicity over the radio and television. What happened? The lights went off. They scooted. That was what the Communists never did. In 1954/55 they fought back, Today we only make fun of them and they run for cover. Thousands of people were watching them. Television cameras caught them running and scooting. I understand that a few days later there was an inquiry at the same premises to find out why the Communists were scooting away before the eyes of the public. Sir, it is our duty, in bringing this election for the 15 seats first, not to hound the S.P.A. or even the U.P.P. but to carry on the real fight against the Communists. Because we know their stocks are pretty low and that is why even the Member for Hong Lim, who all this while had avoided attacking the Barisan Sosialis directly, has now picked up enough political courage to attack them openly and with impunity. The Member for Hong Lim knows the Barisan Sosialis are on the way out and all that he is interested in at the moment is inheriting their car-cases. He is a very cautious man. He is not in the habit of hitting out at people who he knows may hit back at him. But now he knows he can hit back at the Barisan Sosialis without any fear that they can hit back, so much so that even in the controversy, he, a one-man party, silenced the Barisan Sosialis outfit. They had no come-back and no reply. They said, "Please call off this controversy." That is the state of morale of the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis, today -

So what are you so afraid of?

That is why they are afraid to go to elections for the 15 seats -[Interruption].

Order.

They are afraid of that. That is why they do not want to go and face the election for the 15 Seats because they will be lucky if they have their G-strings left -

They do not wear them.

They know that. By having elections to the 15 seats first, it is the objective of the Government to crush and paralyse politically the Communist confrontationists as decisively as we did crush them during the referendum. And by paralysing the Communist confrontationists politically in the elections for the 15 seats, we will be able to ensure that the Communists will not be in a position, when the elections for the 51 seats are held, to capture State power, which is what they want. They are not interested so much in capturing power in the Central Government where their forces or their position cannot be used effectively. By the process of having elections first for the 15 seats, we can ensure that they will not have the slightest hope of ever being able to capture power in Singapore. The Barisan Sosialis and their Communist confrontationists see this clearly. That is why they are opposing this Bill to have elections for the 15 seats. What they want now are elections for the 51 seats first, for different reasons from the S.P.A. But as far as they are concerned, they want to have elections for the 51 seats first. In a general election they would have a slender chance of winning State power before 31st August if possible, and repudiating the Malaysia and Merger agreement. Then they can demand an independent Singapore and, if necessary, try to implement Mr Lim Ching Siong's plea for merger with Indonesia in preference to merger with Malaya. That is what they want. That is why they are scared to death of elections first to the 15 seats. The S.P.A. in their recklessness, wittingly or unwittingly, helping the Communists in their desperate last-minute effort to sabotage Malaysia -

The Prime Minister sleeping with the Communists!

No, Sir. It is one thing to sleep with the Communists and be able to get out of bed, but it is another thing to sleep with the Communists and be dead -

You will not be able to get out of bed this time.

Sir, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by opposing elections to the 15 seats first, the S.P.A. are indirectly helping and encouraging the Communists to forget what they want - elections to the 51 seats. This is what we meant when we said that the Right-wing S.P.A. are no match for the Communists who can, as they have repeatedly shown, outwit and outmanoeuvered the S.P.A. Therefore, Sir, these elections to the 15 seats are primarily intended once again as in the referendum to conscribe the Communists by forcing them to fight in an election in which they will be politically annihilated -

Are you not trying to catch the eye of -

Order.

Even if they win it - I do not know, Sir,I am trying to catch nobody's eye, but the gentlemen there has been trying to catch Aidit's eye for the last two years. And as far as I know, Aidit does not even know whether -

The Americans are all around you.

I have reminded the hon. Member for Queenstown that if he wishes to have any explanation or elucidation, then, of course, the Minister will give way. His interjections are becoming too disorderly.

Sir, the Member for Queenstown has caught Aidit's eye because he has been invited to Medan, I understand, to attend an anti-confrontationist meeting at which the people of Singapore are going to be shot up and he is going to sing praises in the honour of the confrontationists. That is what the Communists have been reduced to, to being traitors, to even extol the killing of their own people. The gentlemen will probably be sending us wreaths -

Ha, ha! He will send you one.

Yes, Sir. Not so long ago, a few Singapore fishermen got shot up. We never heard any protests from the great patriots, the great Singaporeans, the men who are loyal to Singapore - An hon. Member: The Barisan.

- the men who are supposed to be champions of the people of Singapore, the Barisan Communists, the Barisan confrontationists, Not a squeak. They always protest against injustices here and there. But a few of our own people got shot up, fishermen got shot up. Where were the Communists, the Barisan Communists? Did they protest? Did they denounce? You, the Communists, have now been reduced to the lowest form of treachery - conniving at and supporting the murder of your own people -

P.A.P.

Sir, that is why if they go to elections tomorrow for the 15 seats, they will be running for cover. Because the people are ready to meet you. They know what you are. They know what the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis, are. I have just said that they had to run away from Hong Lim, scooting for cover in front of about 6,000 people, caught by the television cameras, seen by a few more thousand people. That is the state of the Barisan Communists, confrontationists, today. This is what I mentioned earlier when I said that this is a super zugzwang. Not that zugzwang -

I believe the Minister will take some time more?

Yes.

It is better to suspend now. I suspend the sitting until half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was saying that today the Opposition is in the position of a super zugzwang. I was explaining why we think it is necessary to have elections first for the 15 seats. The main objective to pursue is to block the Communists last-minute effort to sabotage merger and Malaysia. But the S.P.A., the Member for Anson and the U.P.P. can help the Communists to get out of the super zugzwang by defeating this Bill. If what the Opposition want are elections for the 51 seats, well, let the elections for the 51 seats take place first. I understand that the Member for Anson is in here for the kill, as he was telling the Press and everybody. Yes, Sir, there will be a kill, and the toreador will be the P.A.P. exhibiting his ears to the audience and to the people.

Order. I was wondering why we should suddenly become so bloody!

I was just following a metaphor, that the Member for Anson is in for the kill. Speaking metaphorically, there will be a toreador to exhibit the ears. Anyway, obviously it is up to the Opposition to help or not help the Communists out of their position of super zugzwang.

So we are all Communists, Sir!

The Member for Anson has been in the habit of running with the Barisan hare and hunting with the pro-Malaysia hounds.

So has the P.A.P.!

One thing about the Member for Anson is that he never learns his lesson. He played "hooty-hooty" with the Communists, and his Party was lost. Today he is a motherless orphan prowling around Anson in the hope that he could exploit situations created by the Barisan. As it is, last Sunday he was there ready to help put out the fire with tins of kerosine he was pouring in. But unfortunately for him, there were 300 gentlemen who were not even interested in his report to the nation. He made one of his rare reports - it was his third report by which he hoped to exploit the situation in the Harbour Board. It turned out to be a flop. Anyway, Sir, that is his business. The trouble with running with the hare and hunting with the hounds is that the hounds insist on regarding him as a hare: the hare insists on regarding him as a hound. He gets into trouble both ways. Sir, coming back to the point. We shall know today whether the Right, wing and other opportunist groups are going to help the Communists get out of their difficulty. The S.P.A. have not the slightest chance of winning any elections. They know it, whether it is for the 15 or for the 51 seats. If in the unlikely event of the P.A.P. losing any elections, it would be the Barisan who would win. They still say that the biggest force is not the Barisan as such, but the powerful gentlemen behind them. I see in today's paper, "SOEKARNO THREATENING CONFRONTATION". You know, Sir, that things are boiling up. So it is not the Barisan that we are interested in - these are 14 gentlemen and gentle ladies whose time is up. We are not interested in them nor in the Member for Anson -

Then, why do they not resign?

- because it is very simple. Whether it be for 15 or 51 seats, whether in the course of a few days or a few weeks, there will be a lot of absent faces from this Assembly.

You will not be here either.

Sir, when the gentleman can go to Anson and collect 300 disinterested men, I have not the slightest doubt what his political future is going to be - whether in Anson, Cairnhill, or Tanjong Pagar. I hope the Member for Anson will follow the good example of the Member for Hong Lim and possibly the Member for Cairnhill by testing strength with the Prime Minister in Tanjong Pagar. Anyway, I would suggest if the S.P.A. have the interests of the country at heart as they claim, then the elections to the 15 seats would show the correctness of our analysis as to the potential strength of the various political Parties in Singapore. I would suggest to the S.P.A. and all those Members of the Opposition who, however they may disagree with us politically, are interested in safeguarding Malaysia, that they should support our strategy of having elections for the 15 seats first. If our thesis is correct, that it is a case of the Communists - not the Barisan Sosialis, they are the facade - winning if the P.A.P. loses, then the pro-Malaysia forces would be able to adjust their strategy correctly and accordingly when the elections for the 51 seats are held. Because from the Communist point of view, the real struggle is not for the 15 seats but for the 51 seats. If the elections for the 15 seats show that only the S.P.A. or the U.P.P. are the best counters to the anti-Malaysia Communists, confrontationists, then the people as well as the P.A.P. would in the interests of the country be prepared to make the necessary adjustment when the elections for the 51 seats are held. That is the purpose of the 15 seats - testing strength to the 15 seats. If, as the S.P.A. claim, that in the hearts of the vast majority - the slogan that rings in the hearts of the vast majority of the people is that "THE P.A.P.MUST GO!" -

Which paper is that?

Sorry, Sir, it is the S.P.A. organ, Volume 5, No. 2, before it became the Singapore Alliance organ -

I am not interested in that Date?

Volume 5, No. 2, dated 15th June, 1963. But if, as we believe, the best counter to the Communists is the P.A.P., then elections to the 15 seats would show whether our analysis is correct, and then the other pro-Malaysia groups - whether of the Right, Centre, Left - which want to prevent the Communists from capturing State power in Singapore should make the necessary adjustment for general elections for the 51 seats. All of us who are pro-Malaysia are only interested in countering the anti-Malaysia elements. It is no use, saying, as the Member for Anson said, "Yes, bring down the P.A.P., bring down this," and he ended up his speech by saying, "I do not know what the future will bring." We want to ensure what the future is for the people of Singapore. The Member for Anson may not care what the future brings. He has been in politics; he is not interested in what the future of the people in Singapore is. But we are interested, Sir, and every pro-Malaysia element is interested in ensuring that Malaysia is safeguarded against the anti-Malaysia confrontationists, the Communists, the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore. That is our objective. If the elections for the 15 seats show that the P.A.P. is a discredited force, then I can assure you that the P.A.P. will allow other forces, who can show to the electorate for the 15 seats that they are best able to counter the Communists, to do so; then we will adjust our policy accordingly. That is what we are interested in. For two years we have fought hard to bring about merger and Malaysia. We are not prepared to jeopardise it in the interests of the Communists or their stooges who hope to capitalise on any situation that the Communist might create. In other words, Sir, these elections to the 15 seats would be of great help - would be an indication - to the people as well as the pro-Malaysia group to devise the correct strategy, an effective strategy, to prevent the Communists from capturing power in the general elections. That is the whole purpose of this operation. As I have said, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis know it. That is why they are bitterly opposed to this Bill to provide elections for the 15 seats to the Central Parliament. That is why I believe that all pro-Malaysia groups in the Opposition should support this Bill. If they are opposing this Bill simply because their election prospects are not good, then when the time comes, the inevitable consequence of not having the elections for the 15 seats is the Communists winning the elections for the 51 seats, and the people would also have to make their adjustment. In this connection, Sir, what are the grounds on which this Bill is being opposed? One complaint put forward by the Member for Cairnhill is, well, why hold elections for the 15 seats? Because sometime next year there will be general elections for the whole of the Central Parliament. You will be wasting $380,000 for nothing. But the Minister for Home Affairs has made it quite clear that those who are elected from Singapore for the 15 seats would hold their seats until the second dissolution of the Central Parliament; so that argument falls to the ground. Secondly, Sir, this decision to hold elections to the Central Parliament has the sanction and approval of the Federation Government. Therefore this is not some plot cooked up by the P.A.P. The Central Federation Government itself approves of this in principle. What reasons have they to oppose this Bill? The third reason has been put forward at least by The People introducing the Singapore Alliance of U.M.N.O., M.C.A., M.I.C. and S.P.A. Volume 5, No. 3, 22nd July, 1963. They suggest, why have elections, why not nominate? I will tell you why. Again because of our own objective to conscribe the Communists and anti-Malaysia forces. If we have nominations from this Chamber, what will be the result? Proportional nomination? Who will have the largest representation? The anti-Malaysia Communist confrontationists to have about half - 7 or 8 seats. So by nomination we are giving a free gift to the Communists to get into the Central Parliament! The Member for Anson, of course, is opposed to nomination because he knows that after the division there will be only half the seats left for the other groups. But, we feel that we should not allow anti-Malaysia pro-confrontationists to get free seats, get in by the back door into the Central Parliament. But, by having elections to the 15 seats, we can deal the Communists a crushing blow; we can defeat them. Therefore, the power for a comeback for the 15 seats for the Communists will be reduced to zero in the eyes of the people.

Make it 51 seats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson will get a chance possibly if he succeeds. Wherever he goes, I can guarantee him, that he will not get a look-in, because in the last 1959 elections, he could not even contest against the Member for Cairnhill. He nearly lost his deposit. Every one knew that he won in Anson because of Communist support. [Laughter] That is why they laugh, Sir. They know. When he spoke on Sunday, there were only 300 people. During the election when the Barisan Sosialis and the Communists could mobilise the crowd, the Member for Anson was beside himself with joy. The whole of Singapore was there because they mobilised the crowd. Unless he wants to go back to run with the hare and experience the same humiliation that he did when the Communists pinched his own Party, as he himself admitted. That is not my business. Sir, I am only interested in ensuring that what we have struggled for in the last two years to get merger and Malaysia is safeguarded, because after 31st August, the battle to preserve merger and Malaysia enters a new phase. We are going to have other enemies, more powerful ones who are going to break up merger and Malaysia. A gentleman has already been invited to Medan to become part of the anti-Malaysia forces. The anti-Malaysia forces become bigger and more powerful and it is our duty to see that there is no fifth column in Singapore to sell out their own people, to be looted by outside forces. The second reason why we want elections to the Central Parliament first is that it is necessary so that the 15 who are in the Central Parliament can speak with authority. They can say that they represent the people, that they were voted by the people and that they are not there on sufferance, not there because they came in by the back door. Therefore we must elect these 15 Members to ensure that they are there, whoever they are, as people who can say that they represent the will of the people of Singapore. It is claimed now that obviously we are trying to hold a snap election, sneak in an election by bringing this Bill. Sir, all these professions of surprise over this Bill, of the possibility of a snap election by the S.P.A. is a lot of humbug. In the Malayan Times of 24th June, 1963, before the Prime Minister went to London, the Singapore Alliance was preparing to fight for elections before 31st August. I refer to a news item entitled "Singapore Alliance To Try All Seats": `The newly formed Singapore Alliance will contest all 15 seats allotted to Singapore in the new Malaysia Parliament. This was disclosed by the Secretary-General of U.M.N.O., Singapore, Dato Syed Esa Almenoar, today. The U M.N.O. leader said that the inaugural meeting of the Singapore Alliance's new Executive Council to be held tomorrow would, amongst other matters, discuss the parliamentary elections expected to be held before Malaysia Day.' This was as far back as 24th June, before the Malaysia Agreement was signed. The Singapore Alliance was working on the basis that there would be elections before 31st August. There was no protest. Therefore now to say that we are sneaking in a snap election by bringing in this Bill is I say completely not in accordance with Singapore Alliance's attitude towards the whole thing prior to now. The Member for Hong Lim has been publishing a series of articles in his paper saying that he expects snap elections before Malaysia by July. Again on 11th July, 1963, when the Singapore Government invited the Opposition Members to send representatives to a meeting to decide on the delineation of 51 constituencies, the Singapore Alliance was quite prepared to participate in it and, in fact, the S.P.A. Secretary-General. Mr Lee Kim Chuan, said that Tun Lim Yew Hock had been selected to represent the Party at the meeting and added, "We are prepared to meet the P.A.P. at elections any time, anywhere and anyhow."

Which paper is that?

The Straits Times, Sir, of 11th July, 1963. So, everybody for the last one month at least has been working on the basis that there will be elections for the 15 seats soon. What is it that has made them suddenly change their minds: that there should be no elections and that it would be improper to have elections for the Central Parliament as soon as possible? May I suggest that I do not know what the reasons are? I do not know who gives these directives. But the people of Singapore would be resentful if the representatives to the Central Parliament should be by way of nomination. Apart from other things, this will give a free voice to the Communists in the Central Parliament, to add their voice to the possible intensification of confrontation after 31st August. The other objection raised was, "Oh yes, we cannot trust this present `Government to run honest elections; therefore we must oppose the provisions of the Bill which will ensure crooked and unfair elections." But the Opposition line on this has been rather strange. Under this Government, we have tested the will of the electorate three times. First in Hong Lim. But they say, no, that was honest because the Government lost; so that must be honest. Anson, the Government lost; therefore, it must be honest. If the Government is crooked, if the Government wants to carry out dishonest elections, it is easy to fix crooked elections in one constituency. But their argument is this, that in so far as the Opposition can win an election that is an honest election. Then we had the Referendum. The gentlemen were there: everybody was there. Before they lost, Mr Lim Ching Siong was quite confident that they were going to win, that there would be more blank votes. But after they lost, when the votes were counted - they were there till half-past five, six or nine; I forget now, throughout the morning - then they said, "No, dishonest Referendum, crooked Referendum." In fact, on one occasion, the Barisan Sosialis leader asked for a recount. We wanted to recount, but he ran away. Therefore, if they lose an election or a cause, it must be dishonest. If they win, it is honest. Therefore, by implication, what are they trying to do now? They are trying to build up the atmosphere now that any elections held for the 15 constituencies will be crooked, because they know that they are going to lose. So they like to build up the atmosphere of a crooked Government manipulating and fixing elections. Unfortunately, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill yesterday echoed the Barisan Sosialis propaganda that the referendum was fixed and dishonest. In his speech, at first he said, "We cannot trust the Government. It interferes with the Election Supervisor, and so on." He is also helping to build up such an atmosphere knowing full well what the outcome of the next elections will be. Therefore, he feels it would be better to build up now the image of a dishonest government which is going to fix up the elections. But none of them have produced any such evidence in the Bill. Is there any clause in the Bill which is improper and which suggests that the elections have been fixed in favour of the Government? There have been general allegations of possible dishonesty, but no one has said that there is anything in the Bill which is improper and dishonest. But they are not really interested in the Bill or in the provisions of the Bill. What they are afraid of is that outside of the Bill the conditions are such that the Government has a very good chance of winning an election. That is what they are afraid of - not of the provisions of the Bill; we can change them in any way we like. They know that in any elections the Government will win. That is what they object to - that the Government should be foolish and dishonest enough to fight the elections to win. That is the substance of their charge: this Government is dishonest because it is going to an election at a time when it knows it will win. What they really want is for the Government to go into an election at a time when it knows that it will lose. That is what they want. Surely, Sir, that is nothing. Any Government, whether it is the P.A.P. Government or the S.P.A. government, would like to win at a time when it thinks its chances of winning are good. That is the purpose of any democratic government, first, to do things to ensure that it will win and to have elections at a time when it thinks it is most favourable to it. That happens in every democratic country. Snap elections are held everywhere. We are surely not fools enough to fight an election at a time when we know we are going to lose, just like, say, two years ago when the Barisan deserted us. Probably our stocks were low then. Probably there would have been great cheers from the Barisan side and the Communists if we had gone for elections then. But during the last two years, thanks to the fact that these Gentlemen left, we were able to consolidate our position, fight and come back to hound them out of the political arena of Singapore. Therefore, Sir, none of the Opposition Members have yet dealt with the provisions of the Bill to say that anything in it is irregular, improper and undemocratic. They have complained in the past and said, "Yes, the P.A.P. are using propaganda." It is our business to use propaganda to ensure that we win, especially against the Communists. In fact, the main part of the fight has been to circumscribe to defeat the Communists. We will continue to do it, to use every opportunity, if necessary political strategy, to outmanoeuvre and conscribe them. We have done that for the last two years and we will do it for the next 20 years. The Communists will be here for 20 years, 30 years, 50 years. The Barisan may be out, the Member for Anson may be out, but the Communists will be here, and it is our duty to fight them and keep them under control. Therefore, to claim that this Bill is dishonest, that by this Bill we are going to have snap elections, definitely, Sir, we will have elections at a time when we think we are going to win. Just as if the S.P.A. government were on this side they would have elections at a time they think they are going to win. If the Barisan were here, there would probably be no elections at all; so the problem does not arise. But I would suggest to the Opposition to disabuse their minds that this Bill to have elections first for 15 seats is directed against the S.P.A. or anybody else, but I say that it is primarily directed against the Communists. We ask them to consider carefully whether they want to allow the Communists to achieve what they want - that is, to have an election first for 51 seats. Sir, if there is an election for 51 seats as far as this Government is concerned, we will still fight the Communists and we are confident that we can beat them and crush them, as we think we can. To make it more difficult, more tricky, might confuse the situation. But the other way, we guarantee that we will contain and conscribe the Communists before 31st August, or not long after that. Politically, we will contain them. And that is the object of this Bill. If the S.P.A. wants to play party politics, that is a different thing; we also can play party politics up to a point. They have been doing that for the last four years. But during the referendum, the S.P.A., all the pro-Malaysia elements and we contained ourselves; we curbed our party political rivalry and we were able to contain and drive out the Communists. And I say, Sir, whatever our objectives, we should try and do the same because in about 36 days Malaysia will come about, our gentlemen the Communists will be hopping around. I saw in the paper today that confrontation is back in circulation. It is our duty to keep the fifth columnists under check. This Bill for elections to the 15 seats will allow us to expose the Communists in the eyes of the people, to get the people to repudiate them openly, publicly, so that any confrontationist who thinks that there is a fifth column here politically effective will have the biggest shock of his life. That is what we want to do. Have the elections for the 15 seats so that the confrontationists will say, "Our allies have been repudiated by the people," and we are quite confident that we can get the people to repudiate them in an election for 15 seats. That is what we want to do. Therefore, Sir, if it is to be 51 seats first, the Government is ready, though there are a lot of risks; 15 seats first, we are quite convinced that we can not only crush the Communists but we can also annihilate their agents, finish them off politically and then after that, if the S.P.A. or anybody wants to play party politics, at least the ground is safe. Even the Member for Anson can join in, but at least when we join in the fray, there will not be the slightest threat to Malaysia and merger from inside Singapore, from the traitors who have become stooges, puppets of foreign forces. This Bill is their political death warrant, and that is why, Sir, we have brought it to this Assembly today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I appear before you today in a very serious moment, with a very heavy load upon my shoulders. All my life, I have read about and studied democracy and I have always believed that the government must be a government of many people, that decisions of Parliaments must be the decisions come to by many people. Mr Speaker, Sir, now that the Ban, san Sosialis have committed themselves on this Bill and the Alliance have committed themselves on this Bill, so have the U.P.P. and my friend from Anson, it looks as if the whole turning point rests upon my narrow shoulders. An hon. Member: Not narrow shoulders.

Thank you very much. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have remained patiently silent in the Assembly for a long time, perhaps because I have become too elderly, but I did think that the Government should be allowed some time to carry out what they want to carry out. I do not belong to any Party, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I will say this: they have built many houses for the masses and we are glad of it, and they have done probably many good things. And, therefore, I have a bit of a headache. I do not know what attitude I should take except that I have for my background the spirit of democracy. It is not fair, Mr Speaker, to rest an important matter like this - the survival or the downfall of the P.A.P. Government - on my shoulders. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have decided to break my so-called silence. I have spoken once before if you will remember, and in this division, as I am sure there will be a division, I shall vote against the Government, because I feel that I should follow the rule of the majority. I should follow my colleagues on the same side that I am sitting. I hope I have made my position clear, Mr Speaker, Sir. Tun Lim Yew Hock rose ---

Is it on a point of order?

On a point of order. Under Standing Order 51(1) , Sir.

Closure? I will not accept a closure motion. Any other Member wishing to speak?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, every Member in this House clearly understands that the Opposition Members today have made speeches to carry out their propaganda. The tactic of the Member for Hong Lim is to stand on two boats. The Opposition do not care whether this Bill is passed or not. They only want to use a deceitful method to cheat the people in this House and outside. Their aim has been to get more votes. Mr Speaker, just now the Member for Hong Lim said that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was groomed by him and that had it not been for him and for his charity the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would not be where he is today. As far as I can remember, when the Member for Hong Lim joined the P.A.P., he was introduced by our present Minister for Culture. When he was about to be expelled from the P.A.P. in the Cultural Centre, he openly confessed to us that his political education was influenced by the ideology of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Culture. He learned his political theory from our Prime Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. Today he turned round and said that our Parliamentary Secretary was groomed and nurtured by him. Mr Speaker, we all know that when one joins a political Party, one must undergo many stages of political education before one can advance, before one can become an Assemblyman. We are not like the Member for Hong Lim who used to boast about his own achievements when he was the Mayor of the City Council.

Order. I allowed the Parliamentary Secretary to continue up to now. Perhaps it was in reply to what the Member for Hong Lim had to say. But I do not think he need go any further. That has nothing at all to do with the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was only mentioning a few things to rebut certain nonsensical utterances by the Member for Hong Lim. I do not intend to drag on with my speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, we know the P.A.P. have all along been in favour of merger. At that time the Members of the Barisan Sosialis and the Member for Hong Lim and his colleague were also in favour of this. Today, the introduction of this Bill is also due to the fact of our support for merger. But the Opposition Members have now forgotten their promises made in the past to the people. Now whatever Bills are introduced by the P.A.P. Government they will oppose. Talking about the Barisan Members, they are also people who have been nurtured by the P.A.P. Because of the fact that they have left the P.A.P. so early, they do not understand the major policies, measures and actions taken by the P.A.P. The people nowadays can see clearly that the Barisan Sosialis are rather infantile and their position is very poor indeed. They are in a zugzwang, just as what we Chinese say, they are like ants in a hot pot, because in their Party they do not have political leaders of good quality to lead. I remember a Cantonese saying that if there are no fish in the pond, then the small prawns will become generals there. In the Barisan Sosialis, there are no big fish, only small fry, and not even a cock in the Party.

On a point of order, Sir. Is it relevant to the Bill on which we are debating?

The answer is no, and I think the Member should now come back to the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I am only rebutting the attacks by these Members during these past few days. Of course, they feel the pinch of what I am saying. Mr Speaker, we know that the Bill introduced today is, in fact, quite a simple Bill, because it points out that before the establishment of the Central Government, Singapore, as a component part of Malaysia, should elect its representatives to enter the House of Representatives in the Federation. Because the Bill is drafted according to the needs of the nation, that is why it is introduced in this House today. Where have we been wrong in introducing this Bill? Of course, the Barisan Sosialis Members, who have all along been opposed to Malaysia and merger, will say whatever we do is wrong. One day when they are no longer in a position, perhaps their leaders will be opposing any measure. Today, I am of the opinion that their attitude is not linked up with the question whether there should be election of representatives to the Federal House of Representatives. They are not concerned with this matter of elections. What is uppermost in their minds is the fact that if they support this Bill, it means they will be supporting Malaysia. That is their fear. If the 15 representatives are elected, then, before this happens, the Barisan Sosialis will be exposed. Their past actions and intrigue will be exposed. Of course, at the time of their death throes they will have to oppose this Bill. Now, talking about the Member for Cairnhill, whenever people touch on his S.P.A., he feels rather abashed and would like people to call it the Singapore Alliance. In actual fact, there is not much difference between the S.P.A. and the Singapore Alliance, because to a politician like him, who is changing party names all the time, there is no true party to him. This sort of people every day change their label in the same way as they can change their stand every day. Members on this side of the House have the impression that whenever the Member for Cairnhill speaks, there are gold dollar trade marks on his face, reflecting his political conception. From this you can see that his political ideology is based on gold dollars. I would not like to say further about him. I am just touching on him because he has been attacking our stand. I remember that in the P.A.P. organ sometime ago -

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs is not relevant to the Bill on the Order Paper.

That is quite correct. I think about three-quarters of his speech is completely irrelevant. What he is trying to do, of course, is to reply to certain allegations made, but he must cut that short.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, today, in this House we are talking about our individual stands on this Bill. When the Opposition Members feel the pinch, of course, they will say that my speech is irrelevant, whereas their speeches were rather -

Order. I think the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary did not hear what the Speaker said. The Speaker has also said that his speech is irrelevant. Therefore, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he get on with the debate on the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask what the Member for Hong Lim meant when he said that our Prime Minister bought five shirts a day, and whether this was relevant to the Bill before us today.

If the Parliamentary Secretary tries to question the authority of the Speaker, then I must ask him to stop speaking. I have permitted him to be completely irrelevant simply because irrelevant remarks were passed on the other side of the House, but those irrelevant remarks were not half as lengthy as the irrelevant remarks that have now been passed by the Parliamentary Secretary.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I accept your ruling. My opinion is that this Bill before us today reflects the attitude of the P.A.P. in regard to the question of Malaysia. It has been introduced because of our sense of duty in regard to Malaysia. Therefore, this Bill is a good Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move under Standing Order 51, "That the Question be now put".

The Member for Cairnhill tried that and I said no. The answer is still no.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members of the Opposition are objecting to the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill, and it seems to me that the Opposition Members are afraid to face the verdict of the people. The constituencies are regrouped, they say, in order to benefit the Ministers and to provide safe seats for them. But, however the constituencies may be regrouped, how can they be in favour of the Ministers or, on the other hand, against the Opposition Members? The public will not vote differently because the same voters are going to vote for all the people. So, to say that some seats are safe or unsafe for Ministers does not make sense. There is no meaning in it. Moreover, we have invited the Opposition Members to have talks about the regrouping of constituencies, but they have rejected the invitation by giving some lame excuses.

Sir, is it necessary for the Back-benchers to repeat what the Leader of the House or the Front-benchers have said?

My answer is that, as far as the necessity is concerned, it depends entirely on the Assemblyman who is speaking. The Speaker who controls the debate can only intervene when he feels that repetition has become tedious. I have not as yet felt that, but I am close to beginning to feel that. Mr Ramaswamy.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, all the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis have repeated the same story many times. We have listened to them. I have so far not repeated what the Ministers and the Front-benchers have said. I was just saying that when we invited the Opposition Members to have talks about the regrouping of constituencies, they gave lame excuses and rejected the invitation. It is very easy for us to find out the reasons for this. The Alliance, in its election pamphlet, has said that there should be direct representation from this Assembly to the Federal Parliament during the interim period. From this we can find out -

On a point of order, Sir. The same argument has been repeated three times by the Government Benchers.

I have noticed that. I have indicated that the Speaker will intervene whenever he feels that these arguments are becoming tedious.

(In Tamil): The Alliance are afraid that their true colours will be shown when all these things are repeated. That is why they are stopping me from repeating all these things. They are afraid that if they stand for the elections, they will be defeated. Another reason stated by them is that if the elections are held before 31st August, the Party in power may not conduct the elections in a proper way, but that if the elections are held after 31st August, an independent Elections Commission will conduct the elections. This is what they think. They cannot cheat all the people by saying such things. Five years ago, when the Labour Front was ruling Singapore, there was a City Council by-election for the Kallang constituency. They used some gangsters in that by-election, and all the people knew this. The gangsters attacked the P.A.P.

Order. That is completely irrelevant. I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary now to turn his mind to the Bill and debate on it.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am prepared to obey your ruling. But what I am going to say will show why the Alliance want the elections to be held after 31st August. I am leading to that. That is why I explained the incident at the Kallang by-election. I have two or three sentences more to add. The P.A.P. supporters were attacked by the gangsters. After attacking them, they -

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can assist the Chair by saying what point he is leading up to. Then the Chair will be able to decide whether that is relevant.

(In Tamil): First, I will tell you what I intend to say and then you will understand it. What the Alliance say now is that they go to the hawkers along the streets -

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this is P.A.P. filibustering to save -

The point of order being?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has persisted -

The point of order being?

It is irrelevant and repetitious.

I am perfectly aware that it is irrelevant and repetitious and I have said that the Chair is watching it very closely. Mr Ramaswamy.

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will be a bit patient, then you will understand what I am leading up to. If the elections are held after Merger Day, then the administration of the Police will be under the Central Government. Then they might think under the influence of people like Khaw Kai Boh and S. H. Tan, the gangsters can be released, and with the help of the gangsters the Alliance can win the elections.

Order. The Parliamentary Secretary is making very serious allegations against two Senators of the Federal Parliament. He must be very careful when he makes these allegations, because he might be guilty of dishonourable conduct in this Assembly and abuse of privilege. Mr Ramaswamy.

(In Tamil): They think they can win the elections with the help of gangsters, and so they want to hold them after 31st August. This is what they prefer. There might be another reason too. If the elections are held here, the Alliance may not win because during the merger talks the Malayan Chinese Association did not behave in a way liked by the people.

Order. All these attacks, I think, must be stopped. They are completely irrelevant to the Bill. We are now debating this Bill. We have had enough of personalities and enough of irrelevancies.

(In Tamil): In that case, I will finish my speech by saying a few words. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that there was no possibility of nominating 15 Members directly from this Assembly. He said that this was undemocratic and that the power was not in our hands. The Members to the Federal House of Representatives must be elected by the people directly. That is important and that is democracy. And knowing that, I am supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government has no more ammunition from what we have heard, and since they have found fit to challenge the Alliance on its stand on this Bill, it is proper for them to put the issue to the vote right now. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta) rose ---

Before I call the Member for Delta, can I sound a little warning? I must hear some new arguments. If there are no new arguments, then I will intervene. Madam Chan, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we have seen that the Opposition Members are trying very hard to say things at random in order to bring out from their minds the different types of ideologies in order to find a way for concerted action against this Bill of the P.A.P. But although they are trying very hard to get together, I am going to tell them now that in spite of all their efforts, it is impossible. Although they are on the same bed, they are having different dreams. Why do I say this? Well, although in this House they seem to have common .arguments to the effect that the P.A.P. is undemocratic and that it has tried to destroy the parliamentary democratic system in Singapore, I want to ask them, is there anything undemocratic in our Bill? They are unable to answer this question. So I am going to deal with their arguments point by point, to disclose the fact that though they are on the same bed, they are having different dreams. All along we have been saying that the Barisan Sosialis are getting worried about this Bill and they are trying their best to oppose it. Every thinking person will understand the simple reason -that is, from the very outset, they have been against Malaysia. Although they are against Malaysia and in spite of what they do to oppose it, it will come on the 31st of August, 1953. Malaysia will be born by then. At the present juncture, their leaders are taking their instructions from foreign sources as to how to deal a final blow at the possible creation of Malaysia. That is their aim.

If my recollection is correct, that is the exact argument put up by the Minister for Culture. May we therefore have something new?

(In Mandarin): But there is another part which is quite different from the Minister for Culture's speech. And that is, because of this the Barisan Sosialis try to have a final showdown so that before Malaysia is born the whole of Singapore and the whole of the Malaysia territories will have confusion, so that there will be a riot in Singapore before Malaysia, in order to destroy Malaysia entirely. That is the intention behind their opposition to this Bill. To follow up the speech of the leader of the United People's Party. I will say that he is today opposing this Bill for this reason. Originally in their own Party organ, the Party have said that the Central Parliament elections are just around the corner. But why should they oppose this Bill? Well, it is because they know that if Malaysia is established on the 31st of August this year, the Central Government will have some control over every State within Malaysia, and in their minds, they hone that by then the Barisan Sosialis will have to put up their shutters, because they will be controlled by the Central Government. By then they hope the U.P.P. will be able to have something without any effort. They can shout the slogans of the Barisan Sosialis, wear their gloves, and then try to get something. And so they want this election of Federal representatives to be held after Malaysia, so that they may have a chance of being returned to the Central Parliament to curry out their party propaganda therein. Finally, I would like to analyse the arguments of the Singapore Alliance. Everybody is clear in his mind that the Lim Yew Hock Government had made a very bad impression on the people of Singapore. From the young to the old, I believe everybody will not forget what impression the Lim Yew Hock Government has left in the minds of the people of Singapore. So do they really have the guts to compete with the P.A.P. in this election? Although Mr Lim Yew Hock himself has challenged the P.A.P. and said that he is prepared to fight the P.A.P. at any time and in any place, and he has pointed out that he is particularly interested in fighting the Prime Minister in the Tanjong Pagar constituency, why does he then want to oppose this Bill? The reason is very simple. It is because he himself has said very clearly that according to procedures, this election of Federal representatives should be held after Malaysia. And so the Bill should be introduced only after Malaysia. That is his argument. But after Malaysia, his elder brother, the Federation Government, and his own colleagues will give them all sorts of facilities and afford them special conveniences.

Order. I think the hon. Lady has not started to touch on the Bill. We are debating a Bill. All this debate about the reasons why the Opposition is opposing must be disposed of in just a couple of sentences. We cannot debate the reasons. It is in order, of course, to say quite shortly what the Member thinks are the reasons, but she cannot go on and on and on giving lengthy reasons, or what she thinks are the reasons.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir I bow to your ruling. But as I have said earlier on, I am now trying to analyse the reasons for their opposition to this Bill, and that is why I must try to explain away their arguments. Otherwise, there will not be sufficient exposure of their opposition to this Bill and the motives behind it. Mr Speaker, at any rate. I will say that the fact that they have come out and opposed this Bill is inevitable, because they know that once it is passed in this Assembly, it amounts to saying that their political life will be ended, because they know that once it is passed, the People's Action Panty, though in their eyes a Party without the confidence and support of the people, but in their own hearts -

When I called upon the hon. Lady, she did indicate she had something new to say. So far I have not heard anything really new in support of the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be concluding my speech very soon because you seem to think that whatever I say is mainly irrelevant to the Bill. Finally, I will let them know that they are trying to wait for the last moment to vote against our Bill, but we are of the opinion that whether this Bill is passed or rejected in this House, we shall not be ashamed of ourselves. Our conscience is clear. Whether this Bill is passed or not does not really matter.

Point of order, Sir.

Yes, point of order.

I move under Standing Order 51(1) , "That the Question be now put," because since the Member for Cairnhill -

Order. There is no debate. I think I had better read Standing Order 51(1) : `After a question has been proposed a Member rising in his place may claim to move, "That the question be now put", and, unless it appears to the Speaker or Chairman that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the Assembly, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question. "That the question be now put", shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate, notwithstanding that the mover has had no opportunity to make his reply.' The difficulty with which the Speaker is faced is that he does not know who is in the minority at the moment. I would say that I am prepared to accept the motion for the closure. That would prevent the Minister for Home Affairs from replying. If he cares to reply, he can do so now. That would stop Members of the Back-benches from speaking. But if Members on the Back-benches stand up now and try to catch my eye, then I will accept the motion for the closure. Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley) rose ---

I will now accept the motion for the closure. The Minister cannot reply if it is carried. Mr Lim Cheng Lock resumed his seat.

The Member for River Valley sits down again. Mr Ong Pang Boon, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be brief and to the point. From the speeches made by the Opposition Members yesterday and today, it is clear that their objection is not against the Bill as such. What they really object to is the holding of an election of 15 seats to the Federal House of Representatives now or in the immediate future. Although the United People's Party, the Barisan Sosialis and the Singapore People's Alliance declared publicly that they were ready to take on any election at any time, they were in fact horrified at the prospect of an impending election. Otherwise, why should they oppose this Bill which only provides for the machinery to hold an election? Although the Opposition Parties are opposed to one another ideologically, yet on this question of opposition to elections to the Federal House of Representatives, they are on common ground. And what better means of preventing elections to the Federal House of Representatives than opposition to the passage of this Bill in this Assembly? Mr Speaker, Sir, to enable an election to the Federal House of Representatives to be held, there must be this Bill which provides for the machinery and the procedure to organise an election. Without this Bill no election can be held. Hence, Mr Speaker, Sir, all the opposition to this Bill is nothing but a cloak to hide their real intention of preventing an election to the Federal House of Representatives from being held. Once this real issue is understood, it is not difficult to understand why they oppose this Bill so strenuously by advancing all kinds of lame excuses and adopting an obstructive attitude. To take one instance - the problem of delineating boundaries of Federal Divisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 26th June I sent a letter to all political Parties represented in the Assembly, including the two Independents, calling for suggestions as to how the existing 51 electoral divisions could be grouped together in threes and fours to form the 15 Federal Electoral Divisions, in this matter of boundary delineation, the Government would like to consider the views and suggestions of the Opposition Parties so that a fair proposition could be drawn up for consideration. To assist the various political Parties and the two Independents in their deliberations, a list of 51 constituencies and the number of voters in each was attached to the letter. There was no response from the various political Parties. In the case of the Barisan Sosialis, I only received a printed copy of a Press statement in the form of a letter on the very same day of its publication in the Press. The statement contains nothing constructive except some hollow and worn-out remarks and a series of puerile questions. As it is desirable that as broad an agreement as possible should be arrived at on the question of electoral boundaries, a further reminder was sent on the 8th July, also inviting Opposition Parties to nominate a representative each to a meeting of all Parties represented in the Assembly. The U.M.N.O. replied on the 11th July that it did not wish to be represented in the meeting. From the Barisan Sosialis I received again only a printed copy of a Press statement in the form of a letter on the same day as it appeared in the Press. Apart from repeating the same diatribe, the statement contains no proposal regarding delineation of the 15 Federal Electoral Divisions. All the other Parties did not reply to my letter of 8th July. This goes to show that the Barisan Sosialis, the U.P.P. and the S.P.A. do not want elections to the Federal House of Representatives at this stage. In adopting this attitude they could subsequently, if they failed to be returned to the Parliament, blame the Government of unfair delineation of boundaries and so forth. The performance of the Member for Queenstown yesterday was rather pathetic. Gone were his bounce and confidence, even though they are rather artificial at times. He accused the Government of wanting to hold a snap election. The Member for Hong Lim too makes a similar complaint. Mr Speaker, Sir, not so very long ago the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. were hurling challenges after challenges to the Government to hold elections immediately. The Member for Queenstown was bragging and boasting in this Assembly that the masses were with them and that they were ready for elections any time. Now, if they were in such a state of readiness, why this fear of snap election now? Is it because the Barisan Sosialis have suddenly realised that their stock has gone down? Is the U.P.P. having second thoughts after what has happened to its Havelock Branch? Now, what is wrong with a snap election? It is the prerogative of the ruling Party in a parliamentary democracy to decide when to hold an election. Snap elections are regularly held in the United Kingdom where parliamentary democracy is at its best. Does it mean that in so doing the United Kingdom has become a dictatorial State? The Member for Queenstown also complained that the period between the issue of a Writ of Elections and the date of the poll is too short for his Party to carry out an election campaign. Now, Mr Speaker. Sir, he is a bit late in the day to complain of this provision. The minimum period for an election campaign was provided for in the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance and amended in 1960 with his support. He did not then consider the period too short. So how can he complain now just because he has crossed the Floor to the other side and has to fight an election against the P.A.P. The Member for Hong Lim alleged that one of the purposes of the Bill was to provide for special counting procedure so that the Opposition Parties would not know of the results of each existing Singapore Legislative Assembly Division making up a Federal Division. Unfortunately he was ill yesterday, and therefore he had not heard my speech on this particular point. Incidentally, it seems a curious coincidence that his illness coincided with the collapse of the U.P.P. Havelock Branch and the resignation of 19 leading members of that Branch. I said yesterday that this provision is made to expedite the counting of ballot papers and that the candidate or his counting agents would know the result of each component part making up the Federal Division although only the total results of the Federal Division would be declared. The Member for Hong Lim also asked how many Work Brigade members have been registered as electors in Tanjong Pagar and Anson. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last sitting of the Assembly, in answer to a question from the Member for the Southern Islands, I said that the Work Brigade members in the various camps are not required to change their addresses because their stay in the camp is temporary and they are liable to be transferred from camp to camp. Therefore, no Work Brigade member has been deliberately asked to change his address in order to have his name in the Electoral Register of Anson or Tanjong Pagan. He can be rest assured of this fact should be desire to contest in Tanjong Pagan against the Prime Minister. Nobody has compelled the Member for Hong Lim to change his party symbol of three interlinking circles, although it is a well-known fact that the interlinking circles was chosen with a view to drawing support by deception from the pro-Communist elements in the Nanyang University Students Union and also from the People's Association which have won public support. The U.P.P. was invited to give its views on how the boundaries should be delineated. It did not reply to my letter nor offer any proposal except to call for an All-Party conference in the Press. When the conference of all Panties represented in the Assembly was offered by the Government, the U.P.P. announced in the Press that it would boycott it. Mr Speaker, Sir, these obstructive attitudes of the Barisan Sosialis and the U.P.P. are not going to help the cause of democracy in any way. It only shows that they are bankrupt of ideas and therefore have no proposals to make. They are only interested in paving the way out by blaming any misfortune of their Party in any election to the Federal House of Representatives on Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the first Malaysian Parliament is convened in Kuala Lumpur soon after Malaysia Day, there must be 15 representatives from Singapore. The question of nominating 15 Members from this Assembly is out. These 15 representatives have to be elected by the people. We cannot wait for months or years for the Federal Elections Commission to set up its machinery in Singapore to go through the process of boundary delineations and so forth, and deprive the people of Singapore of their representatives in the Federal House of Representatives in the meantime. The Bill before the House is to set out the manner and the procedure by which the election of 15 Members to the House of Representatives can be held, and nothing more than that. It follows the same provision as the Singapore Legislative Assembly Elections Ordinance and the objections of the Opposition have very little to do with the substance of the Bill. The Bill is only used as a convenient pretext to prevent elections to the House of Representatives from being held. If the Opposition defeat this Bill, then they are guilty of depriving the people of Singapore of their representatives in the Malaysian Parliament in the first few crucial months of its inception. Whatever the outcome of this Bill, Malaysia is inevitable. There are only 36 days more to go. There is nothing that the combined Opposition can do to prevent it from being formed. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division. The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 23; Paired, 4. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Abdul Hamid bin Omar Junid. Haji Jumat. Byrne, K.M. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Chee Seng. Mohammad Akib. Chan Choy Siong, Bani, S. T. Madam. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy, G. Koh, C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Lingam, S. V. Lin You Eng. Mammen, John. Low Por Tuck. Mohd. Ariff bin Marshall, David. Suradi. Ng Teng Kian. M. Ismail Rahim. Ong Chang Sam. Ong Pang Boon. Ong Eng Guan. Rajaratnam, S. Seow Peck Leng, Ramaswamy , S. Mrs. Sahorah binte Sheng Nam Chin. Ahmat, Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Tan Kia Gan. Tee Kim Leng. Toh Chin Chye. Teo Hock Guan. Wee Toon Boon. Thio Chan Bee. Yaacob Bin Wang Soon Fong. Mohamed Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin. Paired. Goh Keng Swee. Lee Kuan Yew. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajah, A. P.

The votes being equal, the Question passes in the negative. I think I ought now to make the procedural position clear, because I heard the Minister for Home Affairs speaking of the defeat of the Bill as a result of this voting. That is not so. The procedural position is that the Bill, as a Bill, is still alive; it is not killed. The effect of the voting is that the Assembly has considered the Bill cannot be read a Second time now. "Now" is the operative word. So that, as I have indicated on a previous occasion, there is nothing to prevent the Minister, if he so chooses, from bringing the Bill forward again on a subsequent date for a Second Reading, perhaps after, if he so chooses, consultation with the Opposition.

On a point of guidance. As the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the Government would resign if this motion was defeated, is the motion in fact defeated?

I have indicated the procedural position. I do not think we should enter into a debate on that. The procedural position is as I have indicated. What the Government intend to do, of course, is their own concern. And I think the Deputy Prime Minister would like to indicate to the House - by leave of the House, I take it there is no objection - what the Government's stand is.

Mr Speaker, the Opposition, by adopting this attitude towards the Bill, have taken upon themselves the responsibility of blocking the election of the 15 representatives -

Order. I think in this particular statement, the Deputy Prime Minister must not say anything which will excite a debate. All he need say now is what the Government is going to do about it.

Mr Speaker, the challenge by the Opposition to hold State elections before the Federal elections is accepted. However, this Assembly has a duty to discharge. [Interruption] We will meet the Barisan in good time and on good grounds.

Order.

However, as I have said, this Assembly has a responsibility to discharge. There is the motion relating to the Malaysia Agreement which has been set down for debate on Monday, the 29th of July. In the national interest we will see this motion through so that the security of Malaysia is not put in jeopardy. Let the Barisan take note of that. An hon. Member: Shame!

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker.

Point of clarification. By way of a question?

That is right, Mr Speaker. And the question is this. Are we to understand from the Deputy Prime Minister then that at the end of the period indicated by him earlier, that is to say. Thursday, I think, the 1st of August, the Government will resign?

Sir, this will be the last sitting of this Assembly, and on Thursday I will adjourn the Assembly sine die.

Mr Speaker, can the Government give us an indication when it is going to resign and when elections are going to be held for the State Assembly?

Mr Speaker, I have made it very clear that we will hold elections for the 51 seats. An hon. Member: When?

At our own choosing and on our own grounds. Hon. Members: Oh!

Order. An hon. Member: Shame! [Interruption]

Order.

Sir, let it not be said that we are running away. On Thursday we will adjourn the Assembly sine die. I have no doubt the Prime Minister will advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara accordingly, and we will act according to the terms of the Constitution; that if his advice is that this Assembly should be dissolved, then naturally we will have to fight for the 51 seats. The Opposition are falling among themselves in their political greed. But -

Order. I have indicated to the Deputy Prime Minister that he should not excite a debate. A simple question was asked - when? - and a perfectly good answer has been given.

I have already replied, Mr Speaker. I was not really exciting a debate, but the Opposition was stimulating me. Mr Ong Eng Guan rose ---

Is it another question?

Yes, a supplementary question.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, would the Leader of the House inform this House when will the Prime Minister advise the Yang di-Pertuan Negara to dissolve this Assembly and announce the resignation of the P.A.P. Government?

The Leader of the House need not answer that question. No other questions? We pass on to the next item on the Order Paper.

7.28 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), that notwithstanding the provisions of section 37 of the said Ordinance the assessable income of persons contributing to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation Memorial Fund established for the purpose of constructing the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation Memorial in Singapore, shall be reduced by the amount of any such contribution. Sir, Members may recall having agreed to a motion to exempt from income tax contributions to the national monument in Kuala Lumpur sometime last year. The present motion is to seek Members' agreement to give similar exemption for contributions to the proposed memorial to the civilians of all races who died in Singapore at the hands of the Japanese Armed Forces during the Occupation. Sir, Members are no doubt aware that the Government has agreed to grant a suitable piece of land for the erection of this memorial and to contribute on a dollar-for-dollar basis a sum equivalent to that raised by voluntary public contributions. The total cost of erecting this memorial is estimated at $750,000, and the Singapore Chamber of Commerce has undertaken to raise the necessary funds through a Committee consisting of leading members of the different races. The Chamber intends to hand over the money to the Government as soon as the target of $375,000 is achieved. Sir, this is a perfectly straightforward and simple matter. I am sure Members will agree that exemption should be given for contributions to this worthy cause. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of section 106 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Chapter 166), that notwithstanding the provisions of section 37 of the said Ordinance the assessable income of persons contributing to the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation Memorial Fund established for the purpose of constructing the Civilian Victims of the Japanese Occupation Memorial in Singapore, shall be reduced by the amount of any such contribution.

7.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I have His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's recommendation for this motion to be proceeded with. Sir, I beg to move, That this Assembly resolves, in accordance with section 2 of the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance (Chapter 69) that the Minister be authorised to borrow, by the issue of Treasury Bills in the State, sums not exceeding Malayan $150,000,000 (Malayan Dollars One Hundred and Fifty Millions) in amount. Sir, under the provisions of section 2 of the Local Treasury Bills Ordinance the Minister is authorised to borrow, by the issue of Treasury Bills in the State, up to an amount of $40 million under a resolution made by the then Legislative Council on 13th July. 1948. That limit has now been reached and it is sought to increase that limit to $150 million. Treasury Bills of 91 days' maturity are issued on tap to statutory bodies as and when required and are also offered to the public every month on tender. Tap Bills now carry four per cent interest per annum and Tender Bills average 4.1 per cent interest per annum. The amounts outstanding on the issues are: Tap Bills $32.8 million, Tender Bills $17 million, bringing the total to $49.8 million. In the past year the monthly tenders have been well subscribed. In the last three months Tender Bills offered to the public have been $6 million every month. Tap Bills totalling about $9 million each time have been received. Surplus funds from the statutory bodies can still absorb a large quantity of Tap Treasury Bills. It is therefore necessary that a sufficiently large quantity of Treasury Bills should be made available to the public and the statutory bodies. It is Government's intention to establish a short-term money market in Singapore. There is evidence that one or two discount houses, or short-term money market dealers, are coming into operation. The dealers should be provided with an ample supply of Treasury Bills which will be their main stock-in-trade. There is a large quantity of surplus funds locally which are available for investment for short periods, and if suitable outlets are found in Singapore to absorb such funds, temporary surplus monies will be remitted overseas for investment. The new limit will improve the Treasury's ability to borrow on the local market and, at the same time, provide opportunities for the investment of surplus monies not immediately required Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to get a clarification on this. You will remember that yesterday the acting Minster for Finance, in, reply to a question, indicated five loans amounting to $247 million-odd, and of that I think the sum of $50 million was under this Local Treasury Bills Ordinance, is chat correct, Mr Minister? Mr Byrne indicated dissent.

Now, if the Assembly gives approval to this 5150 million loan under this Ordinance, does it mean that the Government - assuming that $50 million has already been approved - could, at all times throughout all the years until a resolution has been brought in again, continue to operate to $200 million under this Local Treasury Bills Ordinance?

Is there any other Member who wishes to speak?

I too want to seek some clarification from the Minister, Sir. We happen to know that the Prime Minister has promised to give a loan of $150 million to the Borneo territories. I do not know what relationship this motion has with that loan - whether this money is meant to be borrowed from the public in Singapore in order to be loaned to the Borneo territories or what. We want to know what use this money will be put to.

No other Member wishes to speak? Mr Byrne, in reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have already indicated earlier, it is Government's intention to borrow money on short-term loans - Treasury Bills which have a maturity of 91 days. There are two types of Bills; Tap Bills in which the local authorities invest, and Tender Bills which are open to the public for subscription. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that since the resolution that I have referred to just now was passed on 13th July, 1948, sums amounting to $39.8 million have been raised by public subscription and it is our intention to increase that limit by this motion to a total sum of $150 million. Question put.

Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 23; Paired, 4. Ayes. Noes. Buang bin Abdul Hamid bin Omar Junid. Haji Jumat. Byrne, K. M. Ahmad Jabri bin Chan Chee Seng. Mohammad Akib. Chan Choy Siong, Bani, S. T. Madam. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Hoe Puay Choo, Madam. Kandasamy, G. Koh, C. H. Lee Khoon Choy. Lee Siew Choh. Lee Teck Him. Leong Keng Seng. Lim Cheng Lock. Lim Yew Hock. Lingam, S. V. Lin You Eng. Mammen, John. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Ayes-contd. Noes-contd. M. Ismail Rahim. Low Por Tuck. Ong Pang Boon. Marshall, David. Rajaratnam, S. Ng Teng Kian. Ramaswamy, S. Ong Chang Sam. Sahorah binte Ahmat, Ong Eng Guan. Madam. Tan Kia Gan. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs. Toh Chin Chye. Sheng Nam Chin. Wee Toon Boon. Tan Cheng Tong. Yaacob bin Mohamed Tee Kim Leng. Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin. Teo Hock Guan. Thio Chan Bee. Wong Soon Fong. Paired. Goh Keng Swee. Lee Kuan Yew. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi. Rajah, A. P.

The votes being equal, the Question passes in the negative.

7.45 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That this Assembly condemns the People's Action Party Government for its use of State machinery against workers and their organisations in an attempt to disrupt non-P.A.P. trade unions and thereby further P.A.P. interests; and demands that this abuse of State power he forthwith stopped, that the Singapore Association of Trade Unions be given immediate registration and that the fundamental rights of association, assembly and publication of all workers be recognised and respected by the Government.* *The same motion also stood in the name of Mr Chan Sun Wing.

Sir, this motion was filed in April and though it is only being moved for debate now, the conditions prevailing in Singapore do not alter the fact that today the Government still uses State machinery against trade unions which reject the Government's political control. The situation still is such that the Government continues to deny the workers their legitimate rights of association, assembly and publication. As is known, even today, the Singapore Association of Trade Unions is not as yet registered. Sir, the P.A.P. Government was elected on a labour ticket. They came into office in 1959 on working-class votes. We have no doubt that it will go down also on working-class votes. Sir, prior to 1959, because the P.A.P. was looked upon by the workers and trade unions as a Party that represented the will and desire of the workers, it was put into office. But one of the first acts of the Government was, in fact, against organised labour. Sir, it will be remembered how in 1960 (as early as 1960), long before there was the Barisan Sosialis, the Government had used police in the case of workers of the Sassoon Company. It will also be remembered how soon after the elections, the allowances of civil servants were cut without reference to trade unions. Today, I refer to these two items, not because we are on this side of the House, but because we regarded then, as even now, the issues to be fundamental. On the pay cuts, those of us in the trade unions made our strongest protest against effecting any pay cut without negotiations with the unions concerned. The Minister for Finance is not here tonight. If he remembers and chooses to be honest, he will admit that personal objections were made to the manner in which the pay cuts were introduced. On the Sassoon strike, the day the police were used to assault the strikers, the Secretariat of the Singapore Trades Union Congress issued a public statement denouncing the use of the police. Therefore, Sir, do not let it be misconstrued that it is only now that we criticise these acts which were by any standard anti-union and anti-labour. Since 1961, the Government's use of State machinery against trade unions which were not P.A.P. controlled increased and we found that the police were being used against strikers of unions which were not P.A.P. unions. The police were used to break strikes. We found pressure was being applied on employers to prevent them from coming into agreements with unions which were non-P.A.P. We found the Labour Ministry, particularly the office of the Commissioner for Labour, was being used to discriminate against unions which were not P.A.P. controlled. The office of the Registrar of Trade Unions was also being used to disturb trade unions which were not P.A.P. controlled. Sir, on numerous occasions, we have quoted in this House examples of the blatant abuse of State power. I would like to just recall one or two examples and I do not wish to go into many of the statements that we have repeated here and outside the House. I would like to take one case first. It is the case of the Singapore Plywood, where the Government clearly attempted to apply pressure on the employer to refuse implementation of the terms of agreement. A collective agreement was signed between the Singapore General Employees' Union and the Plywood management. It was agreed that the bonus, an item contained in the agreement, he implemented the next day, the day after the signing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour and the Minister for Finance intervened and told the employer not to pay the bonus, to enable the Manual and Mercantile Workers' Union to make propaganda that the Singapore General Employees' Union was a useless union, that having signed an agreement, it could not get the employer to implement the terms. Sir, this is one example I quoted. There have been many other examples where Government pressure had been put on employers to refuse dealings with unions that were non-P.A.P., to refuse the rights and privileges of unions which were non-P.A.P., and to refuse implementation of the terms of agreements. I mentioned the Plywood case in particular because in this case, we had conclusive evidence that the Minister himself had called up certain officials of the company and told them that if they did not follow Government instructions, their permits for staying in Singapore would be withdrawn and they would be sent back to where they came from. In the course of the Arbitration Court hearing on the case of Plywood, I did say that the Minister had used his powers to prevent the implementation of terms of a collective agreement that had been agreed between the union and the employer. The Minister did not deny this. The Government had no statement issued and they did not deny it. Because if they had denied it then, that would have given us an opportunity to produce evidence in the Arbitration Court to show how and when and who had intervened to prevent the implementation of the terms. Sir, that is one example of pressure on an employer. An example of the abuse of the powers of the Commissioner for Labour. Sir, in the case of the Tiger Breweries and the Anchor Breweries, the Commissioner for Labour ordered a secret ballot which, in our view, was contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. He ordered a secret ballot to include a certain category of workers who were not involved in the claims made by the `Singapore General Employees' Union. I would like to say here that this was a case similar to the one that the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees had recently with the Government in relation to trade union representation. I do not know for what reason they did not proceed with the balloting as they had planned. But in the case of the General Employees' Union involving the Brewery workers, a ballot was proceeded with. Perhaps, Sir, officials of the Singapore General Employees' Union were not P.A.P. members, unlike officials of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees -

On a point of clarification, Sir, if the Member will give way. Mr Bani resumed his seat.

In the case of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, it was not stopped by the Government on the plea of P.A.P. Members, but it was ordered by Dr Charles Gamba, the President of the Court, not to have the ballot opened, counted or declared. Because any such act would have been prejudicial to the case before the Court.

However, Sir, in the case as I have said of the brewery workers, the balloting was proceeded with. There have been cases where the Commissioner for Labour had refused to conduct secret ballots -

On the contrary, you refused to accept a secret ballot.

Order.

- as has been the case of C. K. Tang which I have had occasion to mention earlier, where the Commissioner for Labour had refused to hold a secret ballot since December 1961. And, Sir - 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Mammen, Sir, may I raise a matter that I trust is non-political, but which should interest citizens of Singapore who take pride in this lovely island of ours where one of the most charming man-made prospects is the Padang area bounded by the sea, Queen Elizabeth's Walk, the Singapore Recreation Club, the Cathedral and this House? Mr Mammen, Sir, although those buildings grew up haphazardly, there is nevertheless a dignity about them and a real charm in the composite whole of that open area and its environs, or, should I say there was, Sir, because now, as I travel daily across Merdeka Highway, the prospect I used to enjoy of our beautiful harbour is to some extent spoilt by the concrete seaward railing, and the prospect I used to enjoy of that area we call the Padang is more than somewhat spoilt now by the monstrous advertising billboard in North Bridge Road with the Rising Sun of Japan dominating the entire scene from the sea and the air. This monstrous "National" monument - insolent name - stares proudly out as a `chop' of ownership of the whole island, this fair island of ours. The view from the back is no less disfiguring, with its bare steel ribs, and in case Members are not travelling along that vicinity, Mr Mammen. Sir, may I table some photographs of this area and I will place some also in the Library. Copies of photographs handed in. You can see the enormity of the ugliness which has been perpetrated upon our city by responsible Government servants who, according to the Minister for National Development, are from the Planning Department and the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. This monstrous sign sited in an industrial area may well not be objectionable, but to site it where it is, Sir, leering over our major public buildings and our main open space is an insult to the city of Singapore and its people. It is fantastic, it is unbelievable, that there should be responsible civil servants who, as the Minister for National Development has informed us, come from two separate Government Departments, who should have given permission for the erection and display of this commercial monument that at night transforms the lovely Cathedral and its grounds literally into a red light area, amid in the day and night it destroys the harmony of the very centre of public buildings of Singapore. Sir, I wish to say here that I have received information whose reliability I am not prepared to vouch for, but it is important that it should be known even though it may just be a rumour - that it is alleged that the civil servants from these two departments refused to give permission for this insult to our City, and that it was pressure from the Minister for Finance that compelled them to concede and to grant the necessary licences. Whether that information be true or not, I consider that the granting of licences for so patently monstrous and disfiguring a commercial monument, destructive of the harmony of our main public centre, requires a public inquiry, and those responsible should be considered incapable of discharging their responsibilities. Mr Mammen, Sir, I do not know if you remember, but I raised this matter at Question Time on the 11th of June. There was one interjection by the Member for Cairnhill, right at the very end, which quite startled me at the time and over which I have pondered since. It Consisted of one word, Sir, at the very end of the Minister for National Development's reply. That one word was "A-no-ne". A-no-ne, Sir, is a Japanese word known to all those who have suffered during the Occupation and even those who have played footsy with them and profited in being in their employ. It has since occurred to me, Mr Mammen, that whereas I was and am viewing this monstrous commercial advertising monument as a leprous blot on the fair face of Singapore, others in Singapore are viewing it as an act of national arrogance. At this juncture, I think I should make it clear that I was, at the material time, responsible for permitting and encouraging re-entry into Singapore of Japanese merchants and Japanese banking after the re-occupation, because I was convinced, as I am today, that Japan, being one of the foremost democratic nations in Asia, it is important that we should extend to her all our goowill and any assistance that in our way we can give. I think it important to say this, Sir, in case there is any suggestion that there is bias on my part, because I wish it to be recognised that conduct of the kind epitomised in this monstrous monument creates strong resentment, not merely directly towards those immediately responsible but spilling into wider and more dangerous areas. This "National" monument, insulting in its size and situation and insolent in its name, epitomises Japanese commercial arrogance. The Government's interest in permitting this insult to the City of Singapore requires explanation, for no man in his senses, barring a blind man, could tolerate the creation of this disfiguring monstrosity in the very centre of our public institutions. If such a sign were erected in front of the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, there would be a riot. The people of Singapore are docile, fortunately. But I think, Sir, that it is, and it should be recognised, necessary that this Government with its very short life - if it is capable of any decent act, and if it is not guilty of ministerial interference in executive conduct and the alleged compulsion brought to bear upon civil servants to give licences - should appoint a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain how and why this monstrosity comes to disfigure this island of ours, and they should furthermore give notice to the organisation immediately responsible for this commercial insult to our city that the licences for the display will be terminated when they rust out at the end of this year. I also take the liberty, Mr Mammen, Sir, to suggest to the Japanese mercantile community that it would be wiser in the long run in their own interests to see that a monument of ths character and this arrogance should not continue to insult and antagonise our citizens. Their friendship with the Minister for Finance today will, as it transpires, be found to be a very fleeting asset.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I cannot but express my agreement with the sentiments of the Member for Anson. This "National" monument is national, not in the sense of belonging to us, the people of Singapore, but belonging to the "National" radios, and commercial firms of Japan. This ugly monstrosity could never have past me during the time I was in the City Council or during the time I was in charge of the Ministry of National Development.

Hear, hear!

I remember that during my time there was another advertisement which was only one-tenth the size of this monument. It was situated in People's Park. The City Council decided that after the expiry of the lease given by the former City Council, we should not extend it any longer. As far as I can remember, under existing policies such a monument - I think "monument" is too good a word - such a structure can never get pass the Building Surveyor's Department or the City Planning Department. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not actually know how this disgrace to our landscape -

Hear, hear!

- this disfigurement to our city silhouette can get through the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there might be many reasons. One of the possible reasons, as the Member for Anson has said, may be that the Minister for Finance over-ruled the decision of civil servants. That reason is possible because I always have doubt, for instance, as to why the Government dare not press on with the claim against the Japanese Government for compensation. Was it because the P.A.P. Ministers were scared of the Japanese not coming to Singapore for further investment? Or was it because some of the P.A.P. Ministers had during the Japanese occupation worked for the Japanese? That we would not know. Anyway, I agree with the Member for Anson that we must probe into this disgrace to our city, how it came to pass, and that the Government should give us full details of how this monument was actually approved.

(In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, the "National" advertising tower is a great insult to the people of Singapore. We do not know why the Government approved the erection of this advertising tower. Does the erection of this tower mean that the Government approve of the Japanese massacre of our people in the Second World War? Civic organisations here have demanded compensation for the victims of the massacre, but the Government have not taken the issue seriously, but instead are adopting delaying tactics and so have annoyed the people of Singapore. The other point is that this advertising tower has a red background. Thousands of people in Singapore were massacred by the Japanese troops, and this debt cannot be cleared. And this tower by using red as the background symbolises the blood of the people of Singapore, and indirectly it insults the people of Singapore. Therefore, we suggest that the Government should order the company to pull down the tower and press the Japanese to compensate for the massacre.

Sir, during his speech the Member for Anson mentioned certain information that he had received - that according to his understanding of his information, the Chief Planner and the Chief Building Surveyor had, in fact, refused the erection of this tower but were pressured by the Finance Minister to agree to it. Sir, according to what I understand, this is very far from true. As I answered the Member for Anson sometime ago on this question of the "National" sign along North Bridge Road, I informed the Member that the approval of this sky-sign was given by the Planning Authority as well as the Chief Surveyor's Department. I would like to further inform him that before planning permission was granted to the proposed structure, this proposal was also referred to the Development Control Committee, whose members include the Chief Planner, the Director of Public Works, the Chief Building Surveyor, and a representative each of the Singapore Institute of Architects and the Malayan Society of Engineers. This Committee considered, amongst other factors, the aspects of this proposal, and was able to advise approval, subject to certain improvements being made to the design of the structure, which were duly complied with. Whether this particular structure is aesthetically objectionable is a matter of opinion. I might add that in any big cities such as ours, advertising sky-signs are an accepted feature of the city sky-line. In fact, at this moment, there are 121 sky-signs erected in Singapore, and it is odd that the Member for Anson, the Member for Hong Lim and even the Member for Pasir Panjang should object to only one of the -

But not of that size, nor of that height.

Order.

Sir, as regards size, I would like to inform the Member for Anson that there is also a Pan-American Airlines sky-sign which is very much higher than this sky-sign, but he has got no objection to it. This is not a sky-sign erected by a local -

On a point of clarification. [Interruption] P.A.P. courtesy to the last!

Order. Mr Tan Kia Gan resumed his seat.

Mr Mammen, Sir, the Pan-American Airlines sign is higher, but it is infinitesimally smaller, if the Minister knows what that means. It is an extremely small one - at the top of the Cathay building, not this monstrous structure going up from the ground floor to 160 odd feet high. Mr Tan Kia Gan rose - [Interruption]

Order.

I gave him the courtesy but he will not give me this courtesy. Although this "National" sky-sign is over a hundred feet high, the lighted area is not that long. Sir, I was very curious why the Member for Anson was so obsessed with this sky-sign. An hon. Member: He stays close by.

I was told yesterday after this matter was raised by the Member for Anson that he lives nearby, and for curiosity's -

That is not true.

- sake, I looked up the telephone directory. I found under the name of Mr David Marshall, there were two addresses. One I think is No. 17, or something to that effect, Meyer Mansions. For your information, Meyer Mansions is just a stone's throw from this sky-sign and I am told, rightly or wrongly, that this sky-sign must have disturbed him during his sleep.

On a point of order, I think, Sir, because this is misleading.

May I ask the Member whether it is a point of order or a point of clarification first?

I think it is a point of order. You can decide, Sir. The question is this. That he is misleading the House in respect of an issue of fact. Would you permit me to clarify it?

It is a point of clarification, I think. If the Minister will give way? Mr Tan Kia Gan rose -

You want to take over the forum.

I have extended to him the courtesy of elucidation. Sir, as I have said, in the telephone directory, in the name of David Marshall, the Member for Anson, there are two addresses: one, Tanah Merah Besar or something like that, and the other, Meyer Mansions. So I was very curious; in fact I went round to this building, and saw that when the lights come on on this sky-sign they really reflect into the Meyer Mansions. Sir, if it is because of the convenience of the Member for Anson, I will definitely not do a thing about this sky-sign.

And I would not ask you!

But, coming from the Member for Anson who lives, when it is convenient for him to do so, in town, at the Meyer Mansions -

That is not true. I go over there -

Order.

But how is it in the new telephone directory, his address is still there?

I have an address in the Bank of China.

Order.

But this is the residence - of Mr David Marshall, 17 Meyer Mansions, and then Tanah Merah Besar. The Member for Hong Lim just now said he agreed with the Member for Anson and he was also pursuing the line that this is not the work of the civil servants but the work or the Finance Minister. Sir, Ministers have very important duties to do. They do not spend their time deciding whether such sky-signs should be placed here or there. This is the work of civil servants. As I have mentioned just now, there is a Development Control Committee that goes into these cases. There are such things as prohibited areas where sky-signs will not be allowed, and the Committee in considering the applications for putting up this sky-sign went into all these things.

Where is their report?

Sir, the Member for Anson does not allow me to continue. He keeps on interjecting. As I have said just now, this Development Planning Committee decided to approve the plan before it was passed down to The Planning Department, and after the Planning Department went through it, it was passed down to the Chief Building Surveyor's Department, which is under my Ministry. Sir, this application has gone through the normal procedure of going through the Development Control Committee, the Planning Department and the Chief Building Surveyor's Department. At no time has this - The Question having been proposed at Eight o'clock p.m., and the time appointed for the termination of the sitting (half-past Eight p.m.) having arrived, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the Assembly without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock p.m.