Hansard, 1963-10-22

The following Members have, under the provisions of subsection (2) (d) of section 30 of the Singapore (State Constitution) Order in Council, 1963, obtained from the Speaker, (Sir George Oehlers) permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of the Assembly: Mr Bernard E. Rodrigues (Telok Blangah) - from 17th October to 7th November, 1963. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Minister for Culture - from 17th October to 17th December, 1963.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Dr Toh Chin Chye) (Rochore) stood up, and addressing himself to the Clerk of the Assembly (who, standing up, pointed to him and then sat down) said: Mr Loke Weng Chee, I propose. That Mr Edmund William Barker do take the Chair of this Assembly as Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng) (Jalan Besar) stood up, and addressing himself to the Clerk of the Assembly (who, standing up, pointed to him and then sat down) said: Mr Loke Weng Chee, I beg to support the proposal. There being no other proposal, the Clerk then declared Mr Edmund William Barker to have been elected as Speaker of the Assembly.

Mr Speaker, standing at the Table, took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance. Mr Speaker went to the Chair and sat down. Then the Mace (which before lay below the Table) was placed upon the Table.

Order, order. Honourable Members will now proceed to take their Oaths or Affirmations, commencing with the Prime Minister and in the order as arranged. Members took and subscribed the Oath of Allegiance, or made Affirmation of Allegiance, in the order below: Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar), Prime Minister. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore), Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House. Dr Goh Keng Swee (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer), Minister for Education. Mr Yong Nyuk Lin (Geylang West), Minister for Health. Mr Lim Kim San (Cairnhill), Minister for National Development. Mr Jek Yuen Thong (Queenstown), Minister for Labour. Inche Othman Bin Wok (Pasir Panjang), Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Chan Chee Seng (Jalan Besar), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Chio Cheng Thun (Choa Chu Kang). Mr Kow Kee Seng (Paya Lebar). Mr Lim Huan Boon (Bukit Merah). Mr Chia Thye Poh (Jurong). Mr Koo Young (Thomson). Mr P. Govindasamy (Anson). Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah). Mr Wee Toon Boon (Sepoy Lines), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour. Mr Ho Cheng Choon (Geylang East), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development. Mr Andrew Fong (Stamford), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture. Inche Buang Bin Omar Junid (Kallang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Al-Haj (Southern Islands), Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. Inche A. Rahim Ishak (Siglap), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education. Mr Sia Kah Hui (tipper Serangoon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health. Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru). Mr Poh Ber Liak (Tampines). Mr Ong Lian Teng (Bukit Panjang). Mr Tan Cheng Tong (Jalan Kayu). Mr R. A. Gonzales (Serangoon Gardens). Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor). Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta). Mrs Devan Nair (Moulmein). Mr Fong Kim Heng (Joo Chiat). Mr Lim Cheng Lock (River Valley). Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten). Mr S. V. Lingam (Aljunied). Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi (Kampong Kembangan). Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim). Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai). Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol). Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang). Mr Chow Chiok Hock (Ulu Pandan). Mr S. Rajoo (Farrer Park). Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi). 10.47 a.m.

Mr Prime Minister, Leader of the House, Members of the Government and Members of the, Opposition --- I am honoured to be elected Speaker of this House. I would, however, be more comfortable in the seat below reserved for the Member for Tanglin. I am consoled by the assurance that I will be required to shoulder the responsibility for only a short period. Whilst I am here, I will endeavour to discharge my duties to the best of my ability with patience and impartiality and, I hope, to the satisfaction of both sides of the House. I would ask all the Members to assist me to conduct these proceedings in accordance with the rules of procedure and the Standing Orders of this House and, above all, with decorum.

Mr Speaker, it is the practice of parliamentary legislatures modelled after Westminster to elect a Speaker from among Members of the House who have, in turn, been elected by the people. However, it has been provided in the Constitution of the State of Singapore that our Legislature can elect as Speaker either a Member of this House itself, or a person from outside the House. Your election, Mr Speaker, is in keeping with our constitutional procedure and parliamentary practice prevailing in many countries. You yourself, Mr Speaker, have indicated that you will occupy the Chair for only a temporary period. It is our intention at a future date to elect a Puisne Judge to the Chair. The consent of the Central Government, who is now responsible for the judiciary, must of course be sought. Mr Speaker, it has been an honour to have proposed you as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I have no doubt that the experience you have acquired as a respected member of the Bar will stand you in good stead in your present office. You have had a distinguished academic record in your student days and, if I can recollect accurately, you were, besides being a scholar, a skilled sportsman. I am told cricket was your favourite game - a very fair game indeed compared to the hurly burly of soccer and rugby football, in which sometimes the referee becomes the object of uncomplimentary remarks and the target of missiles from the players and the gallery. You yourself, Mr Speaker, must have umpired many a cricket game in your time, and just as you have fairly acted as umpire on the cricket pitch, we have no doubt that you will also be an able umpire in this House, and that you will observe that the rules of the game are played as indicated in the Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as one who has known you for many years, I have no doubt, as you have said just now, that you will chair the sittings of this Assembly, during the time when you are the Speaker or later on when you are the Deputy Speaker, with fairness, patience and impartiality that will transcend party politics despite the fact that you are a Member of the Government Party, as the previous Deputy Speaker of this House who was also a Member of the Government had done so. Of course, we in the Opposition do mourn the loss of Mr George Oehlers - the great Speaker who has established parliamentary democracy in this State - and we do not hesitate to say that we would like to see him here with us again, but that is something about which we in the Opposition cannot do very much. But anyway, Mr Speaker, Sir, with for many years, we have no doubt of your impartiality and we have every confidence that you will be able to carry out the traditions which have been laid in this Assembly by the previous Speaker.

10.55 a.m.

Hon. Members are required to propose and second candidates for election as Senators to the Senate of the Parliament of Malaysia.

Mr Speaker, I propose that Mr Ko Teck Kin and Mr Ahmad bin Haji Taff be elected as Senators to the Senate. I hand the Clerk herewith written consent from both the two gentlemen. Written consent handed in.

The statements are in order. Can I have a seconder?

Mr Speaker, I second it.

Any other nominations? The persons nominated are Mr Ko Teck Kin and Mr Ahmad bin Haji Taff. Hon. Members are entitled to vote for at least two Senators. The names of the candidates will be put to the vote in alphabetical order. Upon the name of each Member being called, he shall voice his vote in the usual way.

If I may be of some assistance to the House, I think the procedure for the election of Senators provides that where there are no more than two candidates being nominated, they could be declared as having been elected.

There is one provision which relates to the period of office of the Senators, and though both are elected, the Senator obtaining more votes serves for a longer period. It appears therefore that we will have to put the names of these Senators to the vote.

I bow to your ruling. Sir.

We will vote first for Mr Ko Teck Kin. The voting was as follows: - Ayes Noes. A. Rahim Ishak. Nil. Barker, E. W. Buang bin Omar Junid. Abstentions. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Chia Thye Poh. Chow Chiok Hock. Chio Cheng Tun. Andrew Fong. Koo Young. Fong Kim Heng. Kow Kee Seng. Goh Keng Swee. Lim Huan Boon. Gonzales, R. A. Ong Eng Guan. Govindasamy, P. Ong Lian Teng. Ho Cheng Choon. Poh Ber Liak. Ho See Beng. Tan Cheng Tong. Jek Yeun Thong. Lee Kuan Yew. Absent. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Bani. S. T. Lim Kim San. Chan Sun Wing. Lingam, S. V. Lee Tee Tong. Mahmud Awang. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Rajaratnam, S. Devan Nair, Mrs. Bernard Rodrigues. Ng Kah Ting. Wong Soon Fong. Ng Yeow Chong. Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok. Rahamat bin Kenap. Rajoo, S. Sia Kah Hui. Sim Boon Woo. Ayes.-contd. Teong Eng Siong. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin.

We will now vote for Mr Ahmad bin Haji Taff. The voting was as follows: - Ayes. Noes A. Rahim Ishak. Nil. Barker, E. W. Buang bin Omar Junid. Abstentions. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Chan Chee Seng. Chow Chiok Hock. Chia Thye Poh. Andrew Fong. Chio Cheng Thun. Fong Kim Heng. Koo Young. Goh Keng Swee. Kow Kee Seng. Gonzales, R. A. Lim Huan Boon. Govindasamy, P. Mahmud Awang. Ho Cheng Choon. Ong Eng Guan. Ho See Beng. Ong Lian Teng. Jek Yeun Thong. Poh Ber Liak. Lee Kuan Yew. Tan Cheng Tong. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Absent. Lim Kim San. Bani. S. T. Lingam, S. V. Chan Sun Wing. Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi. Lee Tee Tong. Devan Nair, Mrs. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss. Ng Kah Ting. Rajaratnam, S. Ng Yeow Chong. Bernard Rodrigues. Ong Pang Boon. Wong Soon Fong. Othman bin Wok. Rahamat bin Kenap. Rajoo, S. Sia Kah Hui. Sim Boon Woo. Teong Eng Siong. Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon. Yaacob bin Mohamed Al-Haj. Yong Nyuk Lin.

The result of the voting is as follows: Mr Ko Teck Kin - 35 votes. Mr Ahmad bin Haji Taff - 33 votes. I declare Mr Ko Teck Kin and Mr Ahmad bin Haji Taff to be duly elected to the Senate of the Parliament of Malaysia. The term of office of Mr Ko Teck Kin who has received the larger number of votes shall be the period ending at the end of August 1968. The term of office of Mr Ahmad bin Haji Taff who has received the fewer votes shall be the period ending at the end of August 1965.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain briefly why it has not been possible to have the ceremonial opening of the Assembly with a speech from His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara at the first meeting following upon the general elections. On the 23rd July this year in the last Assembly, all the Opposition Parties - the Barisan Sosialis, the Alliance, and the United People's Party - and two Independents blocked a Bill for general election of 15 Members to the Central Parliament. Members are aware that the Speaker of Parliament has asked us for the names of the 15 representatives from Singapore. These Members will take their places as Members of the House of Representatives on 2nd November, in just over a week's time. It is not possible before the 2nd of November to have a speech by His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, thereafter seven clear days' adjournment, followed by a debate on the motion of thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, and then a Bill for the election of 15 seats - all this to be completed before 2nd November. We have, therefore, had to make an adjustment and have, in today's business session, the swearing in of new Members and the passage of this Bill for 15 Members to the Central Parliament. After we have ascertained when the business sittings of Parliament in Kuala Lumpur will be in November and December, the date for the ceremonial opening of this Assembly will be fixed when His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara will give his speech setting out the programme and policy of the Government for the next year.

Mr Speaker, the reasons given by the Prime Minister for today's proceedings do not convince us in the Opposition. This Government was elected on the 21st of September, and if they had wanted they could have had the ceremonial opening sometime towards the end of September.

A debate on a ministerial statement is not regular. Members, however, can ask questions arising from the contents of the statement provided that these questions are phrased in the form of questions and are relevant to the subject matter of the statement. Would the Member for Hong Lim please phrase his question?

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it was possible to have a Government formed by the 23rd or 25th of September and the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech made towards the end of September and the beginning of October. If that could have been done, we could have this Bill to send 15 representatives to Parliament even earlier than today, which is the 22nd of October.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not wish to quarrel with what the Member for Hong Lim were to do if he were the Government and he were the Prime Minister. That is the prerogative which I would accord him if he were in fact the leader of the majority Party. However, he should accord us at least the courtesy of allowing us to conduct the affairs of Singapore in a manner which befits the solemnity of the business of State which we have to dispose of. Ministers are not appointed at random. Matters of State are not disposed of in order to suit the newspapers or, for that matter, in order to suit the opening of the Federal Parliament. There are certain matters which have to be considered in their respective priorities, and we consider that the first policy statement of this Government which shall he contained in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech is one which deserves careful consideration before its delivery.

Any other Member who would like to put questions? There are no further questions. I proceed to the next item.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I lay upon the table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Singapore (Election to the House of Representatives) Bill. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to provide for the first election of Members of the House of Representatives of the Federation from Singapore." Printed copies of the Bill have already been handed to the Clerk earlier this morning. Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir, If the Clerk will distribute copies of the Bill to hon. Members. Printed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.

Please proceed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, Members will notice that the Bill provides for the election of 15 Members to the Central Parliament in accordance with section 95 of the Malaysia Act. For the enlightenment of Members who were not present at the last Assembly when this Act was adopted, if I may read section 95 (1) of the Act. It says: `Subject to subsection (2), Part VIII of the Constitution shall not have effect for the purpose of elections of members of the House of Representatives from Singapore until the second general election to that House held after Malaysia Day, and so long as this subsection applies to those elections those members shall, subject to subsection (2), be elected as may be provided by any law passed by the Legislature of Singapore with the concurrence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (including any law so passed before Malaysia Day), and the period for which they are elected should be the period until the second dissolution of Parliament after Malaysia Day.' Sir, Members on the Opposition side, even those who were not Members of this Chamber in the last session, will know that the Government introduced a Bill for the election of 15 Members direct from 15 constituencies in Singapore, such constituencies to be formed by grouping in threes and fours the existing 51 constituencies to form 15. My colleague, the then Minister for Home Affairs, invited all leaders of the Opposition Parties to put up their proposals as to how these constituencies were to be formed. For diverse reasons, each Party having a separate reason, the Opposition teamed up to defeat or, if I may be more accurate, to prevent the passage of the Bill, with the votes tying on the Second Reading. Sir, on the eve of nomination on the 11th of September, I made a broadcast in which I stated as a main plank of the Government's platform, the P.A.P. platform, that the election was to be one for 51 seats and also for 15 seats, the 15 to be elected from the 51. I do not recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, having read any contrary platform being put forward by any Opposition Party. I did, however, subsequently read, when the election results had been declared for the 51 seats, that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, who is no longer in this Chamber, would now prefer to go back to 15 seats in a direct election. Sir, I do not wish to labour this point. But it does not require much ingenuity, now that we know the results of the elections on a party basis, constituency by constituency, to so re-arrange the 51 constituencies in such a way as to give a parity of total votes in 15 in which the Barisan would probably not win even a single seat. But that would be an exercise in ingenuity which would not necessarily be in the interest of the country. We could even, by this collegiate election which we have done and which we made an issue of at the elections, like the Borneo territories, take all the 15 seats to ourselves. But again that would not be in the interest of the country. It is useful to Malaysia and its 10 million inhabitants to be constantly reminded of the presence of people who, whatever they now piously say about defending the sovereignty of Malaysia, have as their primary object the destruction of the nation we have founded. I would not wish to arrogate to Members of this Chamber generally the right to nominate and vote for three Members of the Barisan Sosialis, because that is a matter for them to decide. Whether they would wish to send three of their most affable and amiable colleagues in order to smooth the way with the other 159 Members in Parliament, or whether they would choose to send their three fiercest ones is a matter I leave completely in their hands. But I would say to them that they should bear this in mind - that all the great issues which have agitated this Chamber over the last nine years since 1955 - anti-colonialism, abolition of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, denunciation and condemnation of arrests and detention without trial, brutality of Fascist police force - all these burning issues of the moment unfortunately are no longer within the preserve of the jurisdiction of this Chamber. Mr Speaker, we meet now, as I hope from time to time we will, for the more constructive if less exciting purpose of getting on with the job of building an industrial base in Singapore, rebuilding the old City and producing the things for which the people have elected us. There will not be the great issues of foreign policy, defence, security, confrontation, all the things that filled this Chamber with so many long hours of debate. I do not know whether the Central Parliament will concede to what we have followed in this Chamber, allowing them on one occasion, if I remember correctly, no less than eight continuous hours of filibustering. I would say it is for them to decide how they would wish to take advantage of the three seats that they will have out of the 159 seats in the Central Parliament. No doubt it is their desire and their express intention to join up with other so-called Socialist forces in the Central Parliament. We look forward to meeting them there for the exciting debates on security, defence and foreign affairs and all the other great things in life which agitate the Communists and the pro-Communists. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.35 a.m.

(In Mandarin): The Member for Tanjong Pagar has introduced this Bill known as the Singapore (Election to the House of Representatives) Bill. The basic spirit and principles of this Bill, he says, are founded on the results of the State election according to the proportion of representation of the Party in power and the Opposition to elect 15 Members to the Central Parliament. We must point out that the P.A.P. conducted a very unfair and undemocratic general election, and after this unfair and undemocratic election, the P.A.P. is tabling another unreasonable Bill in this House. We must point out, in the first place, that the State election was meant for the election of State Assemblymen. Before the election and even in the course of the election in all the Government's statements and circulars and in the platforms of the various political Parties, there was no disclosure of the intention to elect Members from the State Assembly ---

May I on a point of information, Sir?

Yes.

The Member who was speaking had not the advantage of being in the last Chamber. If I may more slowly read this section of the Malaysia Act, a great deal of the written material which he has, I am quite sure with great diligence, compiled may appear to him to he completely irrelevant. Section 95 of the Malaysia Act, which is adopted in this House, provides that legislation shall be introduced either before or after Malaysia Day in this Legislative Assembly for the election of 15 Members. We introduced direct elections for 15 Members. The Bill was blocked. We then had general elections of 51 seats, and on the eve of nomination we, the Government Party, made it an issue that if we were returned, a Bill would be introduced in order to select 15 representatives from Members of this House. The normal principle underlining such an issue is quite simple. A matter has been made the main plank in an election issue. The votes have been given, the matter is resolved. I am quite happy to hear the Member out and answer him. But he should bear in mind that these points have already been taken up in this Chamber and he has to pick up the argument from the fact that his own Party had blocked the election of 15 seats, brought about the general elections in which we said that we had no intention of repeating another general election for 15 seats at the expense of three-quarters of a million dollars.

Will the Member for Jurong please proceed?

(In Mandarin): The Member for Tanjong Pagar has just now said that we prevented the passage of the Bill to elect 15 representatives to the Central Parliament. That is why this matter was made an election issue in the State general election. That is why it is the intention of the Government to elect from among the Members in this House 15 persons to the Central Parliament. I must point out that in the last Assembly, our Party opposed the Bill known as the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. That was a matter of chronological order which has nothing to do with the principles of this Bill. Our opposition then was one matter and this Bill now is another matter. We must point out that the State general election was intended for the people to elect State Assemblymen. In the minds of the people, after the general election, there would be another election for the election of representatives to the Central Parliament. That was the impression the people got. It was very simple. In the minds of the people, in the general election they only had to elect representatives to this House and not representatives to the Central Parliament as well. So, if one is to base the representation on the results of the State general election and elect 15 Members to the Central Parliament, then that will not be a true election made by the people, because some people who have elected Members to this House may not agree to the same representatives to the Central Parliament. Then some people who have not been elected to this House might be agreed to as being suitable representatives to the Central Parliament. So shortly before the general election, the P.A.P. declared that the State general election would also be an election for representatives to the Central Parliament. But there was no mention of the nomination of representatives by the Assembly in the State to the Central Parliament ---

Sir, if the Member will allow me, I will produce a copy of my broadcast which will set out the issues that I placed on the 11th of September ---

On a point of information. If the Member for Jurong wishes to give way to the Prime Minister, he may; otherwise, please proceed.

(In Mandarin): But after the undemocratic and unfair State general election, the P.A.P. saw that it was able to obtain a majority vote in the State general election. So according to the proportion represented by both sides, the Party in power is getting an advantage. That is why the Party in power has chosen to discard the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. Instead, it is now tabling the Singapore (Election to the House of Representatives) Bill. In fact, before the House was convened, the Government declared that it would choose 12 out of 15 seats from the Party in power, thus giving three seats to the Opposition only. This is a means to deprive the democratic rights of the Opposition. So we say that the Government intends to get more from its own side by taking advantage of the present situation to have more representatives in the Central House of Parliament. The right thing to do now is to have another election before the people, so that the people will be able to elect their own representatives truly representing them in the Central Parliament. That is why we are rising to oppose this Bill, which has not obtained the consent of the people, to nominate Members from this House to the Central Parliament, particularly in view of the undemocratic general election. We have to oppose this Bill all the more. We must point out that in the course of the general election held last September, the conditions of competition were very disadvantageous and unfair to the Opposition because the P.A.P. itself was making use of public funds to carry out propaganda work. The P.A.P. Prime Minister was touring all the constituencies on public funds. The P.A.P. leaders said that there is democracy in Singapore, but when the Opposition applied for permits to hold mass rallies, such applications were invariably turned down. After this, the P.A.P. all of a sudden declared that a general election was to be held. That was to catch the Opposition unawares. So the P.A.P. was put on a more advantageous level as compared to the Opposition. This last general election allowed only nine days ---

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to prevent the Member from raising anything about the last election, but we are talking about the Bill for the election of 15 Members from this Assembly. As I understand the Standing Orders, the debate is one on principle, and if he is against it on principle, let us hear why not about the last election.

(In Mandarin): I must point out that in the course of the last general election, there was unfairness all around and there was no specific mention that the State election was also an election of the Central Parliament's representatives. In the last general elections, the political Parties were given only nine days to carry out their propaganda work. In spite of that, the P.A.P. was not quite assured. So it also resorted to further means. It made use of all the State machinery, the radio, television and all the propaganda and publicity machinery to propagate for the P.A.P. In the last few days of the general election, it even went to the extent of threatening the people into believing that in the event of the Barisan Sosialis being elected the Central Government would send troops to Singapore. Those who worked for the Barisan Sosialis by pasting posters at different places were also threatened with arrest. Some of our workers were even assaulted during the election campaign. If it is said that we had a fair and democratic election, why is it that the P.A.P. was not prepared to give up its dictatorial means? We must stress again that before the last State general election, the P.A.P. and the colonial Government together with the Alliance arrested some 100 progressive elements of Singapore on the 2nd February this year. The reason for the arrests was that these people were agitating for violence and were engaged in subversive activities. But up to the present date, the Government has not been able to produce any concrete evidence to prove their guilt. These people have not been tried in court ---

I must ask the Member for Jurong to abide by the rules of this House. This House has no constitutional jurisdiction to talk about security matters. I have just explained it in the opening.

Mr Prime Minister, the Member for Jurong is new here. Will the Member for Jurong try to confine his remarks to the matter under consideration? If we go on debating on the last election, we will be here for days. He should confine himself to the matter in question. If he wishes to make reference to the last election, he can do so merely in passing.

(In Mandarin): Before dealing with the Bill, I have to mention that the State general election was held under most undemocratic and unfair conditions and this has relevance to this Bill. What we would like to say now is that by resorting to various means the Government intends to deal the Opposition a great blow, to suppress it so that the Government will have a victorious status in the Central Parliament. So if one is to base the election of representatives to the Central Parliament on the results of the last general election, then I say that such an election is not representative of the views of the people because the general election was not conducted in a fair and just manner. We have to point out again that this Bill is unreasonable by itself, it is unfair again to elect Members in proportion to the number of representatives in this House. We know that the Party in power has 37 seats in this House and that it has some 70 per cent of the total number of seats in this House, but the Government was able to pool only about 40 per cent of the total number of votes cast in the general election; whereas the Barisan Sosialis, which has only seven seats in this House, was able to pool more than 30 per cent of the total number of votes cast. That is to say, each P.A.P. Assemblyman represents only about 7,000 people, whereas each Barisan Assemblyman represents about 15,000 people. Therefore, it is most unfair if we are to elect the representatives according to the present number of Members in this House. The Prime Minister has said that the State elections were meant to return a political Party to form the Government. In other words, the political Party should elect its own representatives to the Central Parliament according to the party stand. Another matter I would like to point out is that three Barisan Members have been arrested and two have been ---

I think the Member for Jurong is going out of his way again. As the Prime Minister has explained earlier - if the Member could understand what the Prime Minister has said - we have no control whatsoever over the security aspect of the State of Singapore. If the Member for Jurong can understand this, then I say it is worthwhile for him to stand up and speak.

The Member for Jurong had not completed his sentence when he was interrupted. Mr Chia, please proceed.

(In Mandarin): Under these circumstances, when Opposition Members have been arrested and are still under detention, it seems unfair for this Assembly to nominate Members to the House of Representatives. We want to protest in the strongest terms against the Government's act of suppressing the Barisan Members. Our attitude is this. We are of the opinion that this Bill is most unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, we say that if any representatives are to be elected to the Central Parliament, this should be done by the people themselves under fair and democratic conditions. The P.A.P. has won the last election, but we would like to point out that though it has boasted about its so-called open confrontation, it has failed because at present the so-called democracy belongs only to the Party in power. [Interruption in Mandarin] The representatives to the House of Representatives should be elected by the people themselves. Before this, all the basic rights of the people should be restored and all the political detainees should be released. After this, the election of Members to the House of Representatives can be conducted.

First of all, I would like to compliment the Members of the Barisan Sosialis on pledging their support for Malaysia when they took their oaths of allegiance. I do not know whether they were compelled to do that, but I think in their heart of hearts they do support Malaysia now, seeing that there is no other way out. Mr Speaker, we read in this morning's papers about the Barisan Sosialis coming out in support of Malaysia. I do not wish to go deeply into replying to the statements made by the Member for Jurong because I feel that they are empty and childish. He did convey the impression that the election last September - Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to go back to the election in September but nevertheless I would like to make the Member for Jurong a little bit happier by telling him a little bit more about the election - he alleged that the election was conducted in a most undemocratic, most unfair and most unreasonable way. It seems to me that the impression I got from him just now was that every Member elected to this House through democratic voting cannot represent the people of Singapore. But in any case the Communists never believe in democratic voting. If we were returned in an undemocratic way, I would like to ask Members of the Barisan Sosialis under what conditions they were returned to this House. This includes the Member for Hong Lim as he was also involved in the game. As regards the election of 15 Members to the Central Parliament, I feel that it is quite in order to have our 15 Members elected from this House because we were elected by the people. But if the Member for Jurong or other Members of the Barisan Sosialis believe that they were not elected by the people, that is their own funeral. The Member for Jurong was also concerned about the number of representatives to be elected from the Government benches that is to say, as he stated, 12 from the Government and three from the Barisan Sosialis. I think this percentage is strictly in order because, as we can see, the Opposition consist of only a handful of sour faces and I doubt very much whether they can represent the people of Singapore. Frankly speaking, they were elected on threats and violence, and they say in this House that they are the only people returned to this House under democratic voting and that we on the Government benches were elected under undemocratic conditions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we were given this Bill, which has tremendous repercussions on the interest of the Slate of Singapore and the Malaysian Parliament, at 11.25 a.m., and at 11.26 a.m. the Prime Minister delivered his policy speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. Mr Speaker, this is a Bill which is very important, which is supposed to elect or appoint 15 Members to represent Singapore in the Central Parliament for nearly six years. The Opposition Members were given a few minutes to consider such an important Bill. I must strongly protest against the highhanded method of Government by not giving a fair opportunity to the Opposition Members to study the merits or demerits of this important Bill. I must put it on record that we hope this will not be the beginning of a series of acts of undemocratic suppression of the rights of the Opposition, however we might be in the minority, because once we are elected, we are here to voice whatever grievances and feelings there are on behalf of the people. Mr Speaker, as for the merits or demerits of the Bill, I must admit that the Prime Minister had, before nomination, made a statement that the first Parliament would be appointed by this Assembly. But you will see that in those circumstances the people were quite confused because of the short period of the election campaign.

Why did you not say then?

There were only 9 days given to the Opposition Members. An hon. Member: You had nearly two years.

No more interruptions, please.

The issues in the State election were different from the issues in the Federal election. We are sure that when the people voted for representatives to the State Assembly, they believed that they were voting for a State Government which would look after public housing, public utilities, education and various other aspects of local government. But this Bill is going to appoint Members who are going to represent different aspects of the interests of the people of Singapore. It is going to appoint Members to represent Singapore's' interests in the Central Parliament. And there, whether one is for or against, Malaysia looms huge on the horizon. Whereas in the State Assembly election, the issue of Malaysia is not of so much importance. I am sure many voters who voted for the P.A.P. in the last election, and during the last four weeks have experienced this so-called "New York of Malaysia", would not have voted for the P.A.P. in the election to the Central Parliament. I believe there are many voters who voted for the P.A.P. because they want the P.A.P., who believe that the P.A.P. can provide better housing and better public utilities, but who do not believe that the P.A.P.'s stand on Malaysia is the correct stand. For instance, because of Singapore's incorporation into Malaysia, Indonesia has staged an economic boycott against Singapore, and I understand that at least over 20,000 people are unemployed because of this boycott. Business and factories are on the verge of collapse and many of them are closing down. These people who voted for the P.A.P. in the last election would not have voted P.A.P. if the P.A.P. stands for Malaysia. Mr Speaker, the situation in Sabah and Sarawak is different because in Sahah and Sarawak there is direct appointment from the Assembly to the Central Parliament. The situation there is different because that was the first time election was held. Whereas in Singapore we have long years of democratic elections. So what applies in Sarawak and Sabah should not apply to Singapore. When the Prime Minister made his statement, he did not make it clear to the public of Singapore - and even this Bill did not make it clear - that the appointment of 15 Members to the House of Representatives would be for a term of nearly six years. Many thought that these Members of Parliament would only serve until the term of the present Malaysia Parliament expires, which is about March or June next year. Therefore, I feel, Sir, since the appointment of these Members will be for a long period of six years, we will agree to the Government appointing 15 Members of Parliament for the period until this Malaysia Parliament expires, that is, March or June 1964. But for subsequent periods we propose that there should be pan-Malaysian Federal elections which should include the State of Singapore, that is, after the first Malaysian Parliament has expired sometime in the middle of next year, we should have election of the 15 representatives to the Malaysian Parliament.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I consider what the Member for Jurong has said as irrelevant. What we are talking about now is the Singapore (Election to the House of Representives) Bill. Yet he was talking about the general election held about a month ago. To discuss the last election at this time is irrelevant. I rather gather the impression that he has nothing to say but to talk on the general election. During the election the Prime Minister announced to the whole nation that if the P.A.P. were returned to power the 15 representatives to the Central Parliament would be chosen from this House. We have now got a new mandate from the people. So we now propose this Bill. Our aim is just to fulfil an election pledge. The people will feel proud because the Government which they have chosen has fulfilled its election pledge. The Barisan Sosialis has not proposed this Bill. Is it its intention to ask us not to fulfil our pledge? We will fulfil our pledge. In every election we have to spend $700,000. We have made preparations, and we know that if this money is not spent we can make use of it in other useful ways, such as building community centres, constructing roads and the rest of it. If there were any election, it should be based on the democratic system and this money should be used for a good cause, otherwise we would just be squandering away the people's money which are public funds. Do the Barisan Sosialis mean that we should waste this sum of public money in order to satisfy their personal wishes? Of course, there is no need to talk about what the Member for Jurong has termed the undemocratic and unjust general election. If he does not want the 15 representatives to be elected from this House, why is it that in August when we wanted to pass a Bill in this House so that the people of Singapore could elect 15 representatives, they prevented its passage? It is because at that time, for the sake of party politics, they collaborated with Lim Yew Hock's clique in their own interest. Therefore, the so-called democracy to them means nothing. It is not worth more than a cent to them. They will try to achieve their aims by any means, as long as the means justify the end. Our original intention was to have popularly elected representatives to the Central Parliament. If they were able to do it, the Barisan Sosialis should have supported the Bill which we then proposed and they could well have been in a position, as they thought, to be elected. But they were so scared and they dared not see the Bill passed. Now they have turned round and said that the number of three seats for them is not enough and they have boasted that they have the support of the masses. If that is true, why did they not dare have elections held in August to elect the 15 representatives? If they did not want these elections in the past, what more do they have to say now? As for their so-called terms "undemocratic" and "dictatorial", we in the P.A.P. know that we have been unreasonably attacked and criticised by the Barisan Sosialis for more than two and a half years. Every day these people have been attacking the P.A.P. Even our P.A.P. branch property, such as chairs, tables and daily utensils, has been removed by these people - by their party executives. They went among the rural people spreading the rumours that after merger the Chinese would no longer be permitted to eat pork; there would not be any provision for the Chinese to live according to their customs; all Chinese males would be circumcised, and all that rubbish talk. We have endured this rubbish talk for about two and a half years and in the end the people have proved that they have not listened to them. What more do they have to say? The Member for Jurong has said that he wants to protest against the Government's high-handed action in arresting their Members and their fellow travellers. But I would like to tell him that they should not shirk their responsibilities and put the blame on the Government. If they want to play with fire, that is their own business. Long ago we warned them about this, if they were to carry on in such a manner, it would not pay. They should return to our fold. Even on the eve of their break-away from us, I had talks with the Member for Nee Soon for several days and nights. I told him, "Your way will not be profitable. It is useless." Now the people have proved that they have no trust in these people. They have shown that these people's rumours are useless. The Member has also said that the present democracy belongs only to the Party in power. But I would say that democracy belongs to all the people. All those anti-national and subversive elements should not be protected by the State. Democracy should not be used as a cover for their subversive and anti-national activities. We have introduced this Bill in this House today as the first step towards fulfilling our election pledges. After that, we will further carry out our election pledges. We hope that this House can consider this Bill and avoid a meaningless debate because the main issues that concern Malaysia will be debated in the Central Parliament and not here. Let us save time now and come to the point. 12.19 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in order not to give you a wrong impression. I have to make some clarification. What the newly-appointed Minister for Labour has said is contrary to facts. The former Speaker would be laughing if he heard what the Minister has said. When the Government introduced the Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill the last time, we opposed it. We opposed it because it gave powers to the Minister to monopolise the whole affair. He would ensure that the P.A.P. would win. That was why we opposed it at that time. The Minister for Labour has just said that we are trying to cheat the people by telling lies. But, in actual fact, our Prime Minister is also the previous Prime Minister. I can give three examples. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a few days before the election, the P.A.P. at first thought that they would be finished, so they tried to make use of the State machinery to propagate lies. They said that the Prime Minister in the Federation is the Tunku and not Mr Lee. The decision was made by the Tunku and not Mr Lee. How would he know what the Federation would do? One of the biggest rumours they spread was that if we won, Federal troops would come into Singapore. Now, how could they know? They should be ashamed of what they had said. Just now the new Minister for Labour has said that he had tried to persuade the Member for Nee Soon. What he was talking about was the M.C.P. Plen. What they wanted to tell us has already been made known to all the people, so it would be better if the new Minister did not waste the time of this House by talking this sort of rubbish.

Is it a convenient time to suspend?

As you wish, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Any objections? I propose to suspend this House till half-past two, the usual lunch break. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.24 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, this morning the Prime Minister has said that the powers relating to internal security lie with the Central Government and that there is no necessity for us to discuss it here. I have something to add to that. We have already expressed our attitude towards Malaysia. We have all along said that we will lose our rights after Malaysia. What the Prime Minister has said proves this point. The Singapore Government will have no rights over the internal security of Singapore. The last general elections were undemocratic. Our three Members are still under detention. And now the Government have introduced a Bill for debate here. They have detained many of our members during the mass arrests. The P.A.P. should not say that there is nothing to complain about regarding these arrests. We would like to question the so-called open argument of the P.A.P. If it is really worth believing, then how would the P.A.P. Government ---

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are debating the Singapore (Election to the House of Representatives) Bill and not the arrest's, detention and so forth. If the speaker is so interested in these matters, perhaps he should offer himself for election to the House of Representatives.

We had this point this morning. I had to rule on it this morning. Could the Member confine his remarks to the Bill? If he likes to make passing references to the elections or to internal security, he may. But try, if possible, to speak on the Bill.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, what I have said up till now has all been as a result of the Prime Minister's questions. That is why I have to make some explanation. In 1955, when the P.A.P. was still in the Opposition, the Members of the Legislative Assembly had one kind of attitude towards the Queen's Government. At that time we were under colonial rule. But now we are still under the same colonial influence. That is why we are persisting in our principle. We have taken up the task that is left over for us. We would like to point out that because of the P.A.P.'s suppressive acts against our members, it has resulted n the disappearance of a certain number of Assemblymen. If the P.A.P. say that the people are not on our side, why did they not dare to allow us to carry out an election campaign? If democracy still existed in Singapore, we would be witnessing a different situation. What do all these arrests and suppression mean? Mr Speaker, no matter how the P.A.P. boast about carrying out their pledges and promises, they cannot deceive the people. Why did they not allow the Opposition Parties to have enough time to carry out their election campaign, instead of giving them only nine days?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, this morning the Member for Queenstown has said that what the Member for Jurong was saying was entirely irrelevant. I would like to say something on this. I say that the 15 representatives to the Central Parliament should be directly elected by the people. The P.A.P.'s present victory has been the result of their undemocratic tactics. Therefore, it is not reasonable to have Federal representatives elected from this Assembly. As to the question of the previous Bill in this House providing for the election of 15 representatives to the Central Parliament, we opposed that Bill then because the right to manage the elections was given to the Minister concerned. All the Opposition Parties in the House then unanimously opposed the Bill, and this could be found in the Assembly records. As to what the P.A.P. have said about giving effect to their election pledges, we would like to point out that all this is false. What have they achieved up to now? We can see that they have not done anything. What they have achieved is only the arrest of political opponents. The P.A.P. promised the people of Singapore that they were going to amend the Master Plan. This Master Plan had been drawn up by the Lim Yew Hock Government and the P.A.P. had opposed it in the past. But when the P.A.P. came into office, they did not carry out their promise to abolish the Master Plan. As to the compensation ---

On a point of order. The speakers have not been speaking on the subject matter under discussion but have been making continuous references to the last election. I do not think we want to sit here the whole afternoon listening to the same thing over and over again. Let us get on with the business of the day.

Unless the Member for Choa Chu Kang satisfies me that the Master Plan is relevant to the discussion of the Bill before this House, I am afraid he will have to stop those remarks. Can he satisfy me in any way?

(In Mandarin): I have mentioned that because the Member for Queenstown touched upon our opposition to the Bill. He said that the P.A.P. had this as one of their pledges, and now they have brought up this Bill in order to fulfil their pledges made during the election. What I have been trying to do is to point out that this is not so. He also said that the election of the 15 representatives to the Central Parliament would be wasting public funds. I would also say that this is not so. I do not know how much the P.A.P. Government has wasted on State banquets, Prime Minister's feasts and dinners given to V.I.P.s. All this money, came from public funds. If it had been saved, it could have been used for the election of the 15 representatives. From the incidents today, we can see that ever since merger, the P.A.P. have caused a sense of insecurity in the minds of the people. There are many things which the P.A.P. have done or are doing which go to prove that our allegations and accusations in the past have been true. Prices have risen. For instance, the prices of coffee, sugar and the rest of it have all gone up ---

Will the Member for Choa Chu Kang confine his remarks to matters relating to this Bill? Otherwise, we will go on and on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Government side. I do wish to thank you for putting an end to this performance on the gramophone record manufactured by the Barisan headquarters. Obviously, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a debate on the Bill before the House whereby Singapore has to send some representatives to the Federal Parliament. Without exception, the Barisan Members claim that the last election in which they were heavily defeated was unfairly conducted, that the Government engaged in all manner of unfair tactics and strategy to ensure their defeat. Sir, this is a point which has been made so consistently by them that I think it calls for a reply by the Government side, although it is not strictly relevant to the debate itself ---

Then will the Minister for Finance make his speech as short as possible?

Mr Speaker. Sir, I only want to quote certain things which they said before the elections to prove beyond all doubt that they were then satisfied that the elections were fairly and correctly conducted. Sir, I quote from the Straits Times, polling day, Saturday, 21st September, when the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis said this: `Dr Lee Siew Choh, the Barisan Chairman, said, "We expect an overwhelming landslide victory. All the P.A.P. Ministers will lose their seats and some will lose their deposits." Obviously, Sir, if the elections had been unfairly conducted, Dr Lee Siew Choh would not have said all these things. When the results came to them as a surprise, may I quote what Dr Lee Siew Choh said on 29th September, the Malayan Times: `He said that the results came as a complete surprise to many of his supporters. He described an incident in which one of the Barisan supporters literally smashed a Rediffusion set in order to give vent to his pent-up feelings of dissatisfaction. And Mr Lee also disclosed that some of his supporters had cried and others even fainted on learning the results.' Sir, obviously, while the campaign was fought, they were quite satisfied that they were winning and that they were given all the opportunity to canvass and to hold as many mass meetings as they liked. No obstruction was placed in their way. Voting was done strictly according to the laws laid down, There were checks and counter-checks at each stage. They lost not because there was any monkeying with procedures or unfairness in the conduct of the elections. They lost because their strategy was incorrect, their political appraisal was inaccurate, and the manner in which they conducted the campaign was in many aspects stupid. They lost quite simply because they did not have the support of the majority of the people. The sooner they accept that as a fact, the better for them and possibly they may put up a better performance if they go about their business in a more intelligent way. Now, Sir, as regards the merits of the Bill, this is absolutely clear and beyond all doubt. We stated to the electorate and during the elections that if we formed the Government after the general elections we did not propose to have another election for the Central Parliament because that opportunity was offered to all Parties in Singapore in July this year, and the Barisan Sosialis, for reasons best known to itself, saw fit to reject this offer of elections to the Central Parliament. That being the case, we decided that there was absolutely no point in having two general elections within a short space of a few weeks to decide on the membership of the Central Parliament coming from Singapore, in fact, that issue was made clear beyond doubt, and in this very copy of the Straits Times on polling day, it states here in headlines - IF P.A.P. WINS NO NEW POSTS FOR CENTRAL PARLIAMENT MEMBERS. So what is all this fuss about? I honestly cannot understand the song and dance which the Barisan Members are creating today. If they want to attack Government policy and show up inadequacies of the administration in any field of activity, they will have the opportunity in due course. So please be patient. The time will come when under the rules of debate of the Assembly there will be opportunity for them to debate on rural development, farmers, rural areas, extravagant expenditure, this, that and the other. But today we are discussing the merits and the demerits of this Bill. It is obvious that the Barisan Members have not quite understood the procedures of debate. However, this is their first performance and we must not judge them too harshly, but I do hope that they will show rapid improvement in their future endeavours. Mr Poh Ber Liak rose ---

The Member for Tampines has spoken. I do not think he has the privilege of speaking again.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has spoken on what our Party Chairman said during the last election. He says that our Chairman stated that the election was conducted in a fair and just manner. Nobody will believe him, because during the election we found that the people were on the side of the Barisan Sosialis. So the P.A.P. started all sorts of stories during the election campaign, such as in the event of a Barisan victory Federation troops would come to Singapore. All these threats and intimidation are the usual tactics of the P.A.P. If it did not feel that a Barisan victory was possible, then why did it resort to such threats and intimidation? The Prime Minister even went to the extent of simply making statements at random to the effect that Federation troops would come to Singapore because he himself did not enjoy the confidence of the Federation Government. That was the tactic he adopted to intimidate the people of Singapore, but we must see what the Prime Minister of the Federation says with regard to this matter. The people can see for themselves. There is no need for the Prime Minster to say it. If the Federation had really intended to send troops to Singapore, then the Prime Minister of the Federation, during his visit to Singapore, after the statement of the Prime Minister of Singapore, would have ---

I think the Member for Thomson is again digressing from this point. We are now debating this Bill. Sir, I hope he will confine himself to the Bill.

I have allowed the Member for Thomson to go on and speak in that line because the Minister for Finance has just replied to the speeches made by the Opposition on the question of the elections. I did ask the Minister to be as brief as possible, but seeing that I have allowed him to speak on the election, I propose to allow the Member for Thomson to at least reply to him. Again I will ask the Member for Thomson to make his remarks as brief as possible and to get on quickly to the matter under debate.

(In Mandarin): I am much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The PAP, always boast of their skill in open argument but we want an open argument now. When we come to an open argument with them, they say that we are irrelevant and that we should not talk. What is this? This line of open argument is not reserved for the Prime Minister alone. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will do my best to explain things in the shortest possible time. But there are matters which have been referred to by the Party in power in connection with the open argument. So I wish to make my reply. I was saying just now that if Tunku Abdul Rahman had really endorsed the views of the Prime Minister of Singapore, then he would not have come to Singapore on the eve of the election and denied what the Prime Minister of Singapore had said. This goes to show that the calculation of Dr Lee Siew Choh was correct. It was because the Prime Minister was afraid of a possible Barisan victory that he resorted to tactics such as threats and intimidation and said that. We wanted to merge with Indonesia. We must come to an open debate as gentlemen, but did the P.A.P. do so? They did not. They resorted to cheating, deceit and threats. I am opposed to the intention of electing Members to the House of Representatives from this Assembly in proportion to the representation in this House. The reason put forward by the P.A.P. Members is that another election would cost some more public funds. This is again another way of deception. We all know that the last general election was conducted in a most unusual manner and I do not have to repeat the facts relating thereto. So we have the right to demand the Party in power to put this matter of the election of representatives to the Central Parliament to the people again. I remember that soon after the general elections, the Prime Minister in his victory speech said that the people were for the P.A.P. Since it has been said that the people are supporting the P.A.P., then how is it that the P.A.P. do not have the guts to allow the people to elect representatives to the House of Representatives? [Interruption in Mandarin] We have already explained that as far as the money is concerned, this is not important because the P.A.P. is very good in wasting public money. It makes use of the Work Brigade for its own ends. It talks about the rural development plan. Has it done so? It talks about the construction of roads, bridges, and so on. Has it done so? It sent some members of the Work Brigade to tear off the posters of the Barisan Sosialis. This is the way in which the P.A.P. has wasted public funds. We do not oppose in principle the construction of community centres but the P.A.P. is making use of these centres as Party branches. Now is this not a waste of public funds? Insofar as the interest of the P.A.P. is concerned, public funds can be wasted. Now if such funds can be wasted in this manner, then the people of Singapore should be given an opportunity to elect directly Members to the House of Representatives. If the P.A.P. is prepared to spend a few hundred thousand dollars on this election, then there would not be any grumble or complaint from the people. The amount of money involved is not very great and the people will not grudge such an amount of money spent. [Interruption] I do not, know what you are talking about. I cannot get what you are talking. Would you repeat? Have you heard that? If there are fewer P.A.P. members going abroad for a holiday, then public funds could be saved.

The Member for Thomson is making this Chamber like a market. Mr Speaker, Sir, you have advised the Member for Thomson to make his speech short. As he has gone far away from the Bill which we are debating, I hope he will get down to our real business and not carry on with all this "gone-case" business in this House.

I did point out to the Member for Thomson that he could speak about the past election provided he made his remarks as short as possible. I ask him to remember that again. But, at the same time, I would ask Members on the Government side not to interrupt the Member for Thomson while he is speaking.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members of the Party in power have accused me of being too long-winded. Had it not been for their interruptions, I would not have taken so much time in explaining away the points that they have raised. Since they have raised certain matters, certainly I should be given a chance to reply.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I was not very eager to speak on this matter at the beginning. Seeing new Members and new faces in this Assembly, I believe surely they would give new opinions and arguments. But it appears that their arguments are not different. They are the same as the arguments which the various Opposition leaders gave before, Opposition leaders who are no longer in this Assembly. They talk about the recent election, saying that it was not democratic and so on because only nine days were given to them. I feel, however, that that was in conformity with the election laws which were passed unanimously in this Assembly, that is, the minimum time is nine days. Therefore, there is no ground for saying that the election was not democratic. The old Members in this Assembly will know how their leader, the ex-Member for Queenstown, had challenged the Government to resign immediately and to hold a general election in the shortest possible time. They had guaranteed that if elections were held immediately, then the chairs of the Ministers would become vacant. I feel, Mr Speaker, that we have given enough opportunity to them to carry out secret campaigns and they had entered the rural areas every week to influence the people. We have also given them sufficient opportunities without binding them in any way and without shutting the mouths of their supporters. We know that the Rural Dwellers' Association and also a large number of trade unions supported them and we did not interfere with their campaign. We allowed the Barisan to use them so that they could have the opportunity to contest the elections.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary get on with the matter under discussion and leave the election alone? Otherwise we are going to have replies from the other side. He should try to confine himself to the Bill under discussion.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, I have said just now that I have no wish to talk about this matter. But three or four Members in the Opposition have talked about it. I see that only one of them is an old Member and the rest are new. Therefore, it is necessary for me to offer an explanation so that we will know the real situation, that is, what took place in this Assembly before they come here. As a matter of fact, the Member for Hong Lim at one time said that the P.A.P.'s struggle in politics would come to an end. But it would appear that only he himself managed to come in and the rest of his Party had vanished. Therefore, Mr Speaker, there is a difference about this matter. It was the policy of the last Government that if we were elected we would not have another election for representatives to the Central Parliament. It means that we have obtained a mandate from the people. Arguments have been put forward but they have no validity. I feel that is enough. We have now obtained a mandate from the people not only to sit in this Assembly but also to elect Members of this Assembly to sit in the Federal Parliament.

Mr Speaker, I wish to remind the Opposition that this House is debating a Bill in respect of the election of 15 Members to the Federal Parliament and not a matter concerning the past general election. That is a matter of the past, and it is useless for the Opposition to cry over spilt milk. I quite agree that a number of Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen here were not Members of the last Assembly. However, I believe they were aware of the Bill in respect of the election of Members to the Federal Parliament which the former Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ong Pang Boon, introduced. For no rhyme or reason, the Barisan Sosialis combined with the U.P.P. and the Alliance to block its passage. That was an indication that these people did not want the election. Now I do not know for what reason they oppose this Bill in respect of the election of 15 Members to the Central Parliament. The Barisan Sosialis, instead of debating its merits or demerits, were pleased to go on talking about the general election. I would like to advise the Opposition Members that if they are going to win the next general election, they had better work harder than the P.A.P., but do not work hard for their foreign masters.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, since this morning the Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen have spoken and their common point is to stress that the last general election was undemocratic. The Member for Jurong did not say why it was not democratic. I would like to ask him whether the Assemblymen here were elected by the people directly, if popular elections had been one of the principles of the Barisan Sosialis. I would like to ask them this question. If they say that the election of 15 representatives from this House is undemocratic, then I would like to ask them this. Will the wishes of the people change in the course of just one month? This only shows that they are only arguing for the sake of argument. The result of the recent State general election is concrete proof of the people's wishes. Before the general election the Barisan Sosialis were saying that the result of the general election would be the judgment of the people. But things did not turn out the way they had hoped for. The P.A.P. did not perish. Instead, certain Right-wing opportunist Parties were crushed. Why did the P.A.P. win this general election? It is because it has done many things. There has been great progress in Singapore. There have been all-round achievements. The greatest merit is that we have secured a merger with Malaya to form Malaysia. That is why the people have wholeheartedly voted for us and returned us to office. As to the election of 15 representatives to the Federal House of Representatives, we are of the opinion that by electing these representatives from this House, it will be saving public money. Before the recent general election, the Prime Minister already told the people of Singapore about our intention to do so. At that time, Members of the Opposition Parties did not say anything against it. A little while ago, the Member for Thomson has said that the P.A.P. is most clever in squandering public funds. If that were true, then I would like to ask: From where did Singapore get the $400 million surplus in the four and a half years of the P.A.P.'s term of office? It is the duty of the P.A.P. Government to call the Barisan's bluff and tell the people not to be deceived by them. Had we been deceiving the people, we would have been defeated. The most important thing is to let the people know what we have been doing and disclose the whole truth to the people. This does not mean that it is the P.A.P.'s threat to the people ---

I ask the Member to be relevant. He is continuing to be irrelevant. Can he go on to the Bill under discussion and forget about the record of the P.A.P.?

(In Mandarin): Thank you for your direction, Mr Speaker. I will not repeat any more of the things done in the past. Now to deal with the Bill before us. It is very correct for this Bill to be introduced in this House today. I fully support it.

In reply, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Any more Members from the Opposition wishing to speak? Otherwise the Prime Minister will reply.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have suspected at the beginning of the debate today that we may once again go back to the old repetitious sound-track. We have had our fill of it for the last two and a half years. I had only a faint hope that perhaps the lesson of the last two and a half years would have dawned in all its vividness on Members opposite. However, that is not to be, and we are resigned to this constant plugging of the big lie. They did not want the 15 seats. Now they say they want the 15 seats. We offered them the 15 seats. They refused. Now they say we are undemocratic. But I do not believe the memory of the people of Singapore is that short or that defective. Members on the other side do not recognise that. With that last Assembly which ended in July, it was the end of an era. We meet today under different circumstances. I no longer hold the gun. The gun is in Kuala Lumpur. I do not have to be a contestant with the gun. The referee has the gun. Therefore, the fight between us is one on debate, peaceful persuasion and, if they are foolish enough to resort to unconstitutional methods, they face the consequences. Sir, I have called for a copy of the papers this morning because it is interesting to note that they now say they will defend the integrity and sovereignty of the nation and they have all taken their oath to defend Malaysia which they have sworn previously to destroy. They should realise, when they took that oath, however light-heartedly they may have done so, that it means that the authority of the State will bear down upon them like a ton of bricks if they try to destroy Malaysia. It is treachery and treason. In many other Socialist countries - 15 Socialist countries in the world - they line them up against the wall and shoot them at dawn without any ceremony at all. But in this country, they are fed and clothed, all free of charge at public expense. I seriously urge them to rethink and reappraise their position. Sir, this Assembly is no longer the arena for dogfights. I hope that with the end of this debate and in our next session we go on to the constructive things over which the State has authority. Defence, security, foreign affairs, confrontation, denouncing, troops being sent to Borneo or Sarawak - all that goes to Kuala Lumpur. But we are not running away from it. We look forward to meeting them and their counterparts from Penang and from other parts of the Federation. But I would like to congratulate them today on showing more intelligence than the Member for Hong Lim in wanting to redeem themselves from an untenable position. The Member for Hong Lim is a little bit out of his depth now. At least the Barisan Sosialis realises that if you go on just denouncing Malaysia, you are going down the drain. The Member for Hong Lim has not taken the precaution of redeeming himself; the Barisan Sosialis has. But mind you, Sir, the qualifications on their loyalty are so enormous and multi-farious that one doubts whether in fact their intention is to be loyal at all to the country and its institutions in whose name - the name of democracy, democratic privileges - they are seeking to destroy the nation. Sir, if we had lost the election, if it were a free-for-all, that would have been the last. That was the reason why we held the elections after Malaysia Day, so that even if we had lost, there would have been further elections. And we offered them, Mr Speaker, Sir, an opportunity which they would otherwise never have got. I do not expect to receive gratitude for it. I did not do it because it was in their interests. But at least I would have thought they would have realised that here was the last chance to prove this boast about the masses. There were no masses on the 21st of September. That is the plain, brutal fact of the matter. Everything thrown in, every communal pull sentiment thrown into the kitty. It could not be done and never will again. Sir, just to wind up for the record; what I said, what they heard me say over the wireless and over television on the evening of the 11th of September. May I quote from my broadcast? `The next reason (for calling for elections immediately) is that the Opposition Parties had blocked our Bill for the election of 15 Members in Singapore to the Federal Parliament. We must have the 15 Members to represent Singapore in the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur as soon as possible. It is our intention that these elections for the 51 seats will also decide the 15 seats for Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, for we shall pass a Bill for the election of the 15 Members from the 51 Members you are now electing in proportion to the Party representation as shown by the results of this election. Every general election costs the Government about three-quarters of a million dollars, money of the taxpayer which could be more usefully spent on constructive projects. Now it is up to you (meaning the people) to elect the next government of Singapore and at the same time decide who will represent Singapore in the Federal Parliament in Kuala Lumpur; who will stand up and speak for Singapore.' Nothing can be more simple, nothing can be more clear, and nothing could have been more decisive. As my colleague the Minister for Labour has said, we gave them an opportunity - 15 seats. For very unwise reasons, they ganged up with the opportunist Right and blocked it. The Right had different reasons. The Right was planning their complete destruction and extinction before the elections. We wanted them to be destroyed, not in a physical action, but in the hearts and minds of the people, and that was what happened on the 21st of September. Never mind the traitors who went to gaol on the 1st of February; people who by their activities brought about confrontation; people who encouraged the anti-Malaysia line, that today has brought about a situation in which we and our neighbours have broken all diplomatic ties. If we had waited till after the 16th of September for the elections, maybe the Member for Thomson may not be here. I do not expect him to thank us, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I did not do it for him. I did it for Singapore. We can well look after him here or in the Federal Parliament - word for word, argument for argument, in any language he chooses; in Mandarin if he wishes, in English, in Malay or even in Tamil. Also for the record, may I just refer to Hansard, Vol. 21, No. 2, Thursday, 25th July, 1963, when the vote was taken on the Bill intituled "Singapore (Elections to the Federal House of Representatives) Bill. The final division - 23-23; 4 paired - and all the Barisan lined up, including the Member for Jalan Kayu. We welcome him back as one of the old ones who knew what happened. Those are halcyon days gone. He voted against it. Now he says he wants another try. No. If they are prepared to put up $750,000 and pay for the cost of removing all the wretched posters that they put up illegally in excess of the numbers allowed them and all the mess they made of the City in 18 days, running around, campaigning they started their campaign from the day we issued the writ; they know that we knew that - then I say we can have another show. Let us have another runaround. Not this defeat; this is finished and closed. There can be other issues. For instance, we could have a referendum to decide whether or not pro-Communist Parties should be allowed to continue or whether they should be closed down. Then they could run around. Once more, we allow their mass meetings. I say that that is an offer I make. Let them ponder on these things. If they are prepared to pay for it, we are quite prepared to meet the verdict of the people. An hon. Member: Fair enough!

Sir, the Member for Hong Lim - before I close for the record - has said that Malaysia has brought about confrontation and unemployment for 20,000 people, is he still against Malaysia? He has got to make up his mind. The Barisan is a more intelligent outfit. It has more I.Q., more brains. I am not saying that the Member for Hong Lim is not a very intelligent chap. He reads The Three Kingdoms backwards from cover to cover, but he has to learn how to analyse. The Barisan have analysed that if they continue to oppose Malaysia, there is only one conclusion - up against the pillar! So this qualified loyalty. First they condemn the despatch of troops to Sarawak. Then they say they stand for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our Malaysia. The impudence of it, Mr Speaker, Sir! We brought it about in spite of their obstruction. Now they say it is theirs. Where are we going? What is all this about? Then they go back again - "serving the interest of imperialists and colonialists". This is all gone. Nobody believes all this. Let me tell them that we are here to serve the interest of the people and that we have the great advantage of no longer being the referee with the gun. We are just a contestant. The referee is somebody else. He has the gun. Anybody who breaks the rules gets it. They wind up by saying, "Our loyalty to our country". I do not know whether they mean loyalty includes loyalty to Sarawak and Sabah - also our country; or whether they mean, like the other statement issued by Dr Lee Siew Choh, only Malayan. "...does not mean loyalty to the party in power." What does it mean? It means loyalty to themselves - the party not in power? Is that what they mean? Do they suggest that in the Soviet Union or in all the great socialist countries anybody can stand up in the House of Representatives in Moscow and say, "I am loyal to Russia but not to the party in power."? I would like to see what happens to that gentleman. What are we talking about? "We are denied the freedom of speech." All this drivel being published. Sedition, that is what it is; spreading disaffection, disloyalty to the Government and constitutional authority. However, there is time enough for us to meet again in Kuala Lumpur and we shall pick up the argument from there - security, defence, foreign affairs and confrontation. But let them always remember this - that they have contributed to the unemployment of about 10,000 people at the moment. It may become 20,000, 25,000 at the end of one year. But they encouraged certain neighbouring countries into believing that Malaysia could be stopped. They led the agitation inside Singapore linked up with the S.U.P.P. of Sarawak. They are the chaps who agitated all this. They are the people who encouraged Azahari, who lined up with the Filipinos, finally brought about the revolt - armed insurrection - and landed up in Jakarta. They encouraged others to believe that it was possible to stop Malaysia via fifth column elements in our midst. The Member for Hong Lim encouraged it - "Down with Malaysia! Neo colonialism!" As a result, foreign powers took heart and finally found themselves in a position of confrontation ending up with a break in ties. If all of us had remained solidly united, whatever our ideological and political differences, for the survival of the people, the nation and the country, foreign elements might have not made this mistake of believing that Malaysia could be stopped. It was because they believed that it could be stopped through the use of traitors in our midst that today the situation has come about. I say that the hardship that has befallen those connected in the entrepot trade with Indonesia can be traced squarely back to the Barisan Sosialis, the S.U.P.P., the United People's Party of the Member for Hong Lim and even some absent Members in this House like the former Member for Anson. They are the gentlemen who led themselves into this facade of democratic opposition to Malaysia that made the Indonesians and the Filipinos believe that the United Nations team can go down to Sarawak and Borneo and give a verdict against Malaysia. Why not? They went to the United Nations - the President of the Barisan Sosialis and the former Member for Anson. They led themselves to this. My last parting word of advice to them is, "Please desist from further stupidities." Enough calamity has befallen them and befallen about 10,000 workers. We have to retrieve the position and pay out from our savings in conjunction with enlightened employers paying out one-third, but it cannot go on indefinitely. We have to find alternatives. If they start more trouble in the unions and factories close down, or they try to make them close down and try to create more unemployment, then I say that this time they ought to rethink the position, read the law book. They always say that they like to work constitutionally, Mr Speaker, Sir, but they inevitably wind up by calling a political strike to paralyse the country. I advise them, however agonising it is, to reappraise themselves of the realities of life in and around Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. -[The Prime Minister]. Bill considered in Committee.

3.40 p.m. Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4-

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, In page 2, line 18, to leave out "elected from the Members of the Legislative Assembly" and insert "nominated by the People's Action Party and the Barisan Sosialis". Amendment handed in.

The amendment is in order. Please continue, Mr Chia.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I will say this on the amendment. The P.A.P. has said on several occasions that representatives to the House of Representatives will be nominated by political Parties. Mr Speaker, I would like to ask about sub-clause (2) of clause 4 because we intend to move an amendment to that sub-clause. I would like your advice as to whether I can move it now.

Dispose of this amendment first and then ---

May I be of assistance, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Yes.

For the purposes of the debate - I may be wrong - but I think I understand the Member for Jurong and the way his Party mind thinks. The intention is to have nomination by the Party and then the nomination need not be confined to Members of the Assembly, which is the second sub-clause. It might be of some advantage in disposing of the matter on principle if sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (2) were taken together. Am I right? The Member for Jurong could confirm that.

Would the Member prefer to deal with his proposed amendment to clause 4 (2) now?

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, In page 2, line 19, to leave out from "(2)" to the end of line 22, and insert "Eleven Members of the House of Representatives shall be nominated by the People's Action Party and four Members by the Barisan Sosialis". Amendment handed in.

The second amendment is in order. Please proceed.

(In Mandarin): The reason for this amendment is this. On the basis of the 37 seats which the P.A.P. have acquired, it is only 72 per cent out of a total of 51 seats in this House. If they were to elect representatives, then they could only he entitled to 10.8 representatives, and the Barisan Sosialis should have 3.8 representatives. This is why we should have this amendment to this effect. It is based on fair and just principles, and not like the P.A.P.'s unfair tactics.

It has been proposed, as the first amendment to clause 4 (1), in page 2, line 18, to leave out "elected from the Members of the Legislative Assembly" and insert "nominated by the People's Action Party and the Barisan Sosialis". Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the problems which confront hon. Members on the other side of the House is the illogical nature of their stand, the constant contradiction of stand being altered on one argument to another, cancelling each other out. They were given 15 seats through direct elections. They said no. They wanted 51. We gave them 51, and, at the same time, said that if we won, 15 would be chosen from the Assembly. It was clearly stated. I read the excerpt. It is on radio tape and also on magnetic tape. Even if they had protested, by the election results we have a clear mandate. That is the first democratic principle, if they believe in democracy and democratic principles and majority will. But far from protesting, they acquiesced in it in the hope, as my colleague has pointed out, that they would have a landslide victory and then they would take all the 15. Now the unfortunate event has taken place, and we have been generous enough to give them three seats. I have told them just now, Mr Speaker, that in Sabah and Sarawak the winners take all. All the 40 seats go to the Alliance. They will miss their friends from the S.U.P.P. in Sarawak because they have not even found themselves in sufficient numbers to get into the Council Negri, let alone Parliament. Many of them have crossed over the border to help those who are confronting us. Their friends. Again they are responsible for our trials and tribulations. Sir, I must reject this as hypocritical and deceitful. First they say we are not democratic. They want to go back to the people. Here are 51 representatives of the people. Three regrettably are absent - force majeure. But the other two have willingly absented themselves. Now I do not want to press this point. But if we start calculating on the abacus, 8 to 37, - five on the Front benches and three on the Back benches - 8 to 37, we will wind up by getting 13 to 2. And again I think it would be wrong because it is in the interest of Malaysia -10 million people - to know that there are such human beings amongst us, to hear them and see them in the flesh in Kuala Lumpur. Mind you, it may not be that they can always go there for five years. One never knows how these things develop! But I will give them this one assurance. I know they have another fear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if we elect them instead of nominate them, then we might not elect the most experienced of all their Assemblymen. The Member for Jalan Kayu is a man of great experience. He has been through it all. I can assure Members opposite that we have no intention of electing their three stupidest chaps. In fact, if we have any say in the matter at all, we want to elect their three most intelligent and their three fiercest revolutionaries to carry the red flag to Kuala Lumpur. But in the name of democracy, we have decided that we will leave it to them to decide, as I have said at the opening. Whether they want to choose the three stupidest fellows, most amiable to drink brandy and beer with and wine in Kuala Lumpur at the bar and make friends and slowly insinuate their way among the Alliance friends and capture the Alliance Party, or whether they want to send their three fiercest chaps to scare everybody so that power will drop from the Alliance grasp, they suddenly stricken down with fear, they decide. But let us have none of this hypocrisy of not only having 51 to choose from, but also wanting to get in by the back door. By this clause, they now wish to nominate somebody who cannot even get a seat in this Assembly! Just this morning we heard a lecture on democracy, democratic rights, freedom, human liberty and how we terrorise them. And now we have the unholy spectacle of seeing this little amendment being sneaked in whereby the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, who is not a Member of this Assembly, can be nominated. I am not a great supporter of the democratic system in its absolute and prudish form. But this is carrying it too far. Had they only mentioned this to me, I would have brought it to the notice of my colleagues and perhaps we might have considered him for senatorship and given him a voice in Kuala Lumpur. Even now it is not too late. We might mention it to the Federal Government. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong has powers. He has a few extra senatorships and the Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis can join an honourable phalanx of men, but not through this back door. This Assembly is not the back door to the Federal Parliament. 4.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has talked about something very far away from the topic. We have said that the P.A.P. is trying to force through this Bill to elect 15 Members from this House to the Central Parliament. The P.A.P. and its Prime Minister talk about fairness and justice. We say it is unjust and unfair, but they say we were given a chance and all that. If you go according to the simple arithmetic learnt by primary students, from 51 Members of this Assembly, if one is to get 15 Members, then we will get 3.

4. In other words, 3.4 persons will be entitled to elect one Central Parliament representative. If you divide 37 by 3.4. then you will get 10.8 as the answer. I think my arithmetic is still quite sound. Now, of the 13 Barisan Members, we will say that if this figure of 13 is to be divided 3.8. then where is the .5 going to? Is it to be carried forward or just to he left out? We ask the P.A.P. The P.A.P. knows full well. The Assemblymen are elected by the people. Now, if the P.A.P. says that these elected Members are pro-Communists or Communists or anti-nationalists, then why allow these people to stand for election? Why arrest these people after the election? It is because of their victory. If they were defeated, then there is nothing to say. Because they are victorious, so they must put them behind bars. Is that democracy? If the three leaders of the unions happened to be in the P.A.P. and happened to be leading P.A.P. unions, like our friend, Mr Devan Nair, leading the N.T.U.C., then we say that these three leaders could have been appointed representatives to the Central Parliament --- The Prime Minister rose ---

(In Mandarin): I will try to cut short what I am going to say with respect to fairness and justice. The Prime Minister just cannot interrupt me whenever I am trying to explain. If I try to reply to his interruption, then his Back-benchers will come out on a point of order and say that I am irrelevant. He seems to think that he is trying to present these three seats to us as gifts. But how is he going to explain to the people? We have not been elected as Members of this House by the Party but by the people. If he wants to be fair and just and wants to play the game in the constitutional way, then let these representatives of the people be given a chance to go to the Central Parliament to express the views of the people in their capacity as representatives. If he agrees, then we will show by facts in the next five years. Let them show by deeds in the next five years that we are wrong and let them prove in the next five years whether they have been doing things in a fair and just manner. But the people have been given the impression by the P.A.P. that they are not so, because, in the first place, the three Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been arrested; the reason is that they were agitating for strikes. Now, where is our autonomy in labour? They talk about autonomy in labour. The anti-P.A.P. trade unions have grievances against the P.A.P. trade unions. That is why there were strikes. But he comes to arrest them. Why? How is it that no member of the P.A.P. has ever stood up to say that we have labour autonomy and it is wrong for the Central Government to arrest the leaders of the trade unions belonging to the Opposition? I am talking for you. I am not talking for us. We are talking about a constitutional and peaceful struggle. If that is so, then the people can very clearly indeed see for themselves that the arrests of these three leaders of the Barisan Sosialis were done by the Alliance in order to save the P.A.P. If the P.A.P. do not admit this, then they should come out with a statement that they are no longer interested in a constitutional and peaceful struggle. They should come out and say that under our constitution we have autonomy in the field of labour and they should not arrest these trade unionists. I hope the Members of the Party in power should know this. If they do not know, they should return home. Talking about the two Assemblymen, it is said that the police want to contact them about the investigation of Communist activities. All this is humbug. If the purpose is just to arrest them, can the P.A.P. say that because they are now Left and no longer here and there are only eight of our Members here? We still have 13; no matter whether you say 13 is unlucky. We still have 3.

8. We are still entitled to 3.8 representatives. The P.A.P. are only entitled to 10.8. which can mean 11. On our side 3.8 can also be equal to four. Then we should be entitled to four representatives and if the P.A.P. are sincere, then they should accept our suggestion - from our side four and from them 11. If the P.A.P., because of the fact that they have already proposed 12, find it difficult to retract after wanting to force through the Bill, then they have to look after their own business. But, on the whole, I would say that they should act fair and just according to strict calculations. Even when they have 11 and we have four, they are still in the majority. That is according to the constitution. Mr Jek Yuen Thong (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to say anything more about it, but because of the persistence of the Barisan Members, I would like to say a few words on these amendments. I am very sympathetic towards them. I sympathise with their pains in introducing these amendments. Just look at them! You can see that there are only a few of them. Some of them have been arrested, some have disappeared, some have not been elected, and some are not here. That is why they propose this new figure and that is why they strike a compromise, making a suggestion to enable certain of their members who have either disappeared or not elected to be their representatives in the Central Parliament. But I will say that if these people are not elected by the people of Singapore to be Assemblymen in this House, then they cannot be appointed representatives to the House of Representatives. There is another point. If they want to elect anyone outside this House to be a representative of the people to the Central Parliament, then I ask whether he is a representative of the people and can become a Federal representative as well. If he has no qualifications and cannot represent Singapore, then he should not be a representative in the Federal House of Representatives. As to the number of representatives, why should they argue about this? They should admit their defeat. Why should they haggle over these figures? They say we have not been democratic and do not act democratically. But I would ask whether their way is democratic. Those people have not been elected by the people and yet they want them to be representatives in the Federal House of Representatives. This sort of bargaining is really cheap. Talking about their arguments of percentage and decimal points and round figures, perhaps they are quite good in science and mathematics, but I think perhaps they have been calculated for the first time by Dr Tan Chee Koon who belongs to the Socialist Front in the Federation. Is it because the present Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis has disappeared from this House that they have to have Dr Tan Chee Koon from the Socialist Front in the Federation to calculate for them? If representatives who are not Members of the House can be appointed to be Federal representatives, then I cannot understand what democracy means.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown has said that the Barisan Assemblymen here no longer need to follow our Party Chairman. But I would say that the Member need not worry about it. We are solidly with the rank and file of our Party. We will follow Dr Lee's leadership and guidance according to the party line and policy in the interest of the people. In the past we opposed Malaysia because the terms of Malaysia stipulated that the citizens of Singapore could not become Malaysian citizens. This is most unreasonable. The second point of our opposition to Malaysia is that we could not have equal representation to the Federal House of Representatives. That is why our Party in the past opposed Malaysia. I believe that in the Press and in the records of Hansard, it is clearly stated why we opposed Malaysia. It does not mean that we are not loyal to Malaysia or to the people. At that time we believed that Malaysia would not bring about peace, prosperity and happiness to the people and in their interests, we opposed it. The Member has said that the P.A.P. were victorious in the general election, but the people of Singapore know why they were able to get 37 seats. At the same time, they are very clear about the P.A.P.'s tactics of deceit and intimidation which contributed to their getting 37 seats. The election was conducted in an atmosphere of fear. In these circumstances, the P.A.P. were returned to power, securing 37 seats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just draw your attention to a section of the Standing Orders relating to irrelevance in debate? I believe we have not come here to listen to the Barisan Sosialis doing their own postmortem on the results of the elections.

Will the Member for Paya Lebar confine his remarks to the proposed amendments? He seems to have drifted away and is not even discussing the principle of the Bill. If he can, please concentrate on the proposed amendments to sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 4.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I mentioned those things because the P.A.P. thought that they could, by their majority, suppress our arguments and speeches. For instance, when Members on this side of the House made their speeches, they were interrupted by the P.A.P. Members. That is why it is necessary to point out that the people of Singapore should be given a fair chance to understand what is going on here about this Bill in a quiet and peaceful atmosphere. As the P.A.P. Members have spoken on certain matters, we have no alternative but to make our replies to them. Our arguments are based on these reasons. The general elections are State elections, whereas the representatives to the Federal Parliament are to represent the people of Singapore in the Federal Parliament. According to the proportional representation in this House, the P.A.P. cannot get 12. We have been pointing out our reasons to show why we should be entitled to four. Whether there is a decimal point or not or a round figure, they should he able to understand simple arithmetic. What is their basis of calculation which will give them 12 seats? Is it based on 37 seats or on the total votes cast? We just want to understand the basis of their calculation which they claim would entitle them to 12 seats. According to our calculation, we should be entitled to four seats. What we want to understand is, how they can be entitled to 12? We insist on having four.

I have to admit that when I was in school I was very poor in mathematics. But what I really cannot understand is why the Barisan Sosialis do not want to be frank. The beginning and the end of the story of the Barisan Sosialis is that they want more seats in the Federal Parliament. So, why not be frank and say so? As the Prime Minister has said, we are even willing to hold another election for 15 Members if the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to pay for the cost of the election. So, why not he a hero and accept the challenge instead of touching on irrelevant matters - "We calculate 3.8 and so on."? I advise them to do it this way. Be very sincere and loyal. As I have said just now, "Work harder for the people of Singapore and do not work hard for the foreign masters." If they will not do this, then the next time they will not even get one and three but they will get one upon three.

Before I put the Question, in order to avoid confusion, the first Question I will put is on the amendment to clause 4 (1) - as there are two amendments to sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 4. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Amendment negatived.

It has also been moved as an amendment to clause 4 (2): To leave out all the words in sub-clause (2) and insert- "Eleven Members of the House of Representatives shall be nominated by the People's Action Party and four Members by the Barisan Sosialis". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Amendment negatived. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Preamble ordered to be the Preamble to the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose: Mr Lee Kuan Yew Dr Toh Chin Chye Dr Goh Keng Swee Mr S. Rajaratnam Mr Ong Pang Boon Mr Yong Nyuk Lin Mr Lim Kim San Mr Jek Yeun Thong Mr Othman bin Wok Mr Abdul Rahim Ishak Mr Wee Toon Boon and Mr Ho See Beng be elected as Members of the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament from Singapore.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker. Sir, I propose: Mr Lim Huan Boon Mr Kow Kee Seng and Mr Chia Thye Poh be elected as Members of the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament from Singapore. Pursuant to the provisions of the Singapore (Election to tile House of Representatives) Ordinance, 1963, the persons proposed above were elected accordingly as Members of the House of Representatives from Singapore. Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn to a date to be fixed by the Leader of the House." -[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at thirty-two minutes past Four o'clock p.m.