Hansard, 1967-03-16

I have been informed by the President: that, on the day stated, he assented to the following Bill:- 16th March, 1967 National Service (Amendment) Bill (P.COOMARASWAMY) Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [14th March, 1967], "That this House takes note of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, presented to this House as Command Paper No. 29 of 1966, and endorses the Government's views thereon as set out in the Statement by the Minister for Law and National Development made at the sitting of this House on 21st December, 1966". --[Mr E. W. Barker] Question again proposed. 2.31 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that the Report has been received with acclaim by all sections of the population speaks for itself, and the fact that no minority group has expressed dissatisfaction with it speaks volumes for the wise coverage of the fundamental rights of individuals which the Commission feels adequately safeguard the rights and opportunities of minority communities. The Commission has done the right thing - to recommend the retention of Article 89 of the present Constitution of Singapore which provides that: `The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.' It is my view and that of my colleagues of all races in the People's Action Party that the indigenous people of Singapore, now that Singapore has been separated from Malaysia and has become a sovereign and independent Republic, should continue at all times to be accorded the special position which they have enjoyed in the present Constitution and in the Federal Constitution when Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963. We feel that this special position of the Malays will in no way infringe upon the fundamental opportunities and human rights which the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will accord to citizens of all races, religions, and classes. In other words, the right to freedom of speech, thought, expression, and assembly, and the right to form associations will in no way be affected by the extension of the special position to the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore. Every person or citizen, regardless of his race, religion, or class, is equal before the law and the necessity for recognising the special position of the Malays has, in fact, no racial basis or connotation other than the fact that this recognition is based on the reality that, as the indigenous people, the Malays as a group are in most need of assistance. Malays realise that they need to catch up in the fields of education and economy with other peoples of Singapore. With this in view, it shall, of course, be the responsibility of the Government to encourage and instill the spirit of competition among Malays with peoples of other races and communal groups in Singapore with a view to fostering the principles of equality and justice, and with the ultimate aim that the situation will be brought about where Malays, as Singaporeans, will feel as one with Singaporeans of other races; and whereas the Prime Minister said yesterday that the Malays, as a minority group, were no longer conscious of the fact that they were a minority. This means that it shall be the deliberate and conscious policy of the Singapore Government to continue to recognise and take concrete steps to give meaning to the special position of the Malays by extending effective and adequate assistance to them. And in extending this assistance, I know that the non-Malays in Singapore are broad-minded enough to sympathise with their Malay brethren and big-hearted enough not to grudge them this assistance. In a recent address to a gathering of Singaporeans, I addressed them that the type of assistance which the Malays are in most need of is the general upliftment in the field of education and economy, without such assistance being limited to a particular class or group of Malays, or to create under cover of assistance a privileged minority of Malays working hand-in-glove with those of other races, while leaving the vast majority of Malays to continue suffering in their state of poverty and backwardness. In this matter, I know that any superficial attempt to solve the problems of Malay economic poverty by promoting and creating a new class of Malays comprising businessmen, company directors, shareholders, holders of free shares, for example, will at best amount to self-deception and which, in fact, is an economic fallacy and is bound to fail. I think any racialist approach to the solution of the backward economic position of the Malays will fail, so long as it is not based on sound economic basis. The alleviation of the economic poverty of the Malays, as of Singaporeans of other races, is to be measured by the increase and improvement of their real earnings or consumption and not by the concentration of wealth in the bands of a few of them. The poverty of the Malays has little or nothing to do with the absence of a Malay capitalist class or the smallness of members or the absence of Malay businessmen or capitalists. The creation of a Malay capitalist class to exist side by side with capitalists of other races will not solve the economic problem of the Malays, because the causes which lead to their state of poverty will then still remain the same. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's views, as set out in the Statement by the Minister for Law and National Development made at the December 1966 sitting of Parliament in regard to all the clauses which it accepts, will be incorporated in the new Constitution of the Republic of Singapore when it is finally drawn up. We accept the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission, which is very wisely stated, that it will not alter the status quo in respect of the special position of the Malays. The P.A.P. Government agrees with the recommendation regarding the special position of the Malays, and it will see to it that the relevant provisions and clauses will be embodied in the Constitution in perpetuity. Only a group which controls two-thirds of Members of Parliament who are so inclined can remove this special position of the Malays and it is in our interests to see that this never comes to pass. The Malays of Singapore need not, therefore, fear that the special position which they enjoy will be taken away from them. In fact, they do not harbour any fears except that certain sinister elements in our otherwise peaceful society from time to time, in order to make political capital and perhaps to recover lost ground, deliberately raise the fear that the Singapore Government oppresses the Malays, deprives them of their special position, and generally are out to do them in. The people of Singapore are by now quite familiar with these foul tactics of bankrupt politicians, whose only hope of getting political support is the appeal to racial and religious sentiments based on lies and distortions of the facts of the situation. Mr Speaker, it is not right for any political Party, particularly communal or racial Parties, to arrogate to itself the right that only that Party can represent a particular community or race, and that only that Party can safeguard the religion of those whom they represent. The leaders of U.M.N.O, have from time to time made utterances to the effect that only U.M.N.O. can safeguard the rights of the Malays and Islam, the religion of the Malays. Apart from the fact that this is not true and not at all logical, as Muslims they know that this is takbur ---something bombastic, arrogant and excessive in a claim. Special rights or the special position extended to any particular minority community certainly does not mean the right for leaders to utter abuse and for newspapers to distort and misrepresent facts in their news reports. These abuses, distortions and lies are bound to show up sooner or later in a sophisticated and highly literate society such as we have in Singapore. These campaigns of half-truths and lies will not impress the people imbued with ideals of democracy, justice and fair play. In fact, the people will increasingly despise and reject these perpetrators of foul and unfair methods of political practice. In paragraph 35 of the Report the Commission mentions that a Malay political organisation which, in fact, was the U.M.N.O., had urged upon it to consider recommending a definition for the word "Malays", suggesting that a definition should be similar to that found in the Constitution of Malaysia but conceding that it should be limited to citizens only. The definition in the Constitution of Malaysia describes a Malay as being a person "who professes the Muslim religion, habitually speaks the Malay language, and conforms to Malay custom." Mr Speaker, Sir, ten legal luminaries who sat on the Commission have judiciously felt that having regard to the description of Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore in Article 89 of the Constitution of Singapore, two objections could be made to the definition suggested by U.M.N.O. The first was that: `Certain citizens of Singapore who were not of the Malay race and were not born in Singapore would be accorded "the special position" by virtue of their profession of Islam, their observance of Malay custom and their habitual speaking of the Malay language.' In other words, Sir, by no stretch of the imagination would the Malays, for example, consider Mr Tan Siew Sin a Malay because he does not speak any Chinese dialect, because he follows Malay customs, and because he becomes a Muslim if he chooses to be one day. Mr Speaker, Sir, the eleventh Member of the Commission, a very wise man, endorsed this view. He also happens to belong to a minority racial group - the Arabs - and he is at the same time the Secretary-General of U.M.N.O., the organisation which sought to have the name "Malays" defined in the Constitution. The other objection of the Commission was that: 'All those Malays,... who choose to renounce Islam (admittedly very few) would be excluded from the benefit of "the special position."' The position is that the Government does not intend to define the term "Malay" in the Constitution or anywhere else, except that by usage the term "Malay" is widely understood to mean people of the Malay race who inhabit Malaya, Singapore, Sabah, Sarawak, Brunei, Indonesia and other parts of the Malay Archipelago. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are in Singapore about 300,000 people of the Malay race born and brought up in the multiracial, multi-cultural and multi-religious environment of our Republic, with a sprinkling from Malaya, and possibly slightly more from Indonesia. They know of no other social milieu. As Malays, it is, of course, true that they are indigenous to the whole region covered by the Malay Archipelago. But as citizens they belong only to Singapore. They must remain to be part and parcel of the growth and development of every aspect of the social, political and economic life of Singapore. Recently, despite tantalising offers of many acres of free land in a neighbouring State, the Malays have of their own free choice, free will, chosen to remain in Singapore. Must they be taken away from the general state of progress and prosperity to some unknown future? Must we allow them to be misled by selfish politicians acting at the bidding of others who do not like to see Singapore Malays flourish in a multi-racial State and enjoy the ideal of increasingly successful experiment of multi-racial policies which benefit them and all others alike as never before, for fear that their ideals will fail in the shadow of our success? No. The Malays of Singapore have a stake here, and they should not be allowed to fall victim to the empty promises of people acting as agents for outsiders. The Malays of Singapore have a contribution to make to the success of a multi-racial society and the greater success of the ideology of democratic socialism in Singapore. We do not desire to be bogged down and be impeded by 16th century traditions and ideas. They will not do us and our children any good. in this age of science and technology we cannot progress and advance with them, however glorious they be in our history, however proud we might be of the past. Of course, the Malays are proud of their past golden age, but the point is that we want to make the present era our golden age so that we can live in and be proud of the present and the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, race does not solve problems. After almost twenty-two years of rule, after almost twenty-two sears in the position of leadership in Indonesia, Dr Soekarno has ended in the way he has because 105 million other Malays decided that he should go in that manner. His colleagues. Dr Subandrio, Omar Dani, Supardjo, and others are Malays, and Malays sitting in judgment have not hesitated to pass the death sentence on them, because, in the last analysis, it is what leaders and men do for their own people which matters. It is the crimes and the things which they have failed their people which will be used against them. Mr Speaker, Sir, you come from a minority community, the Ceylon Tamil community. Incidentally, I saw the smile on your face when One of the Members across the Floor yesterday described the Speaker as an Indian. When the first Ceylon Tamils came to this country, they did not bring much wealth with them. But they brought the mental attitude to the question of education, which is wealth indeed in the richest sense of the word. I have been told that in your community mothers often vie with one another over their children's progress at school. A Ceylonese told me that in their gossips some mothers even tell a lie that their children are top boys in their class examinations when they are not, in fact. This is good competition, when mothers feel proud to say that their children are doing well at school. It reveals an attitude in life. It shows the premium they put on their children's education. The result, among other factors, is that despite a small community of 20,000, if I am not mistaken, Sir, there are many Ceylon Tamils in all the professions - lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, university teachers and so on - and through education the Ceylon. Tamil community, small as it is, has emerged and their sons flourish. We Malays must also do the same. Diligence, industry, perseverance, patience and grit are not the monopoly of any one race. It is open to members of all races and all communities. The important thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Malays of Singapore will realise and find ways and means to see to what good and beneficial use they put the special position which has been accorded them. In the years ahead, if the special position is not exploited and put to maximum use by them, then there can be no progress. The special position of the Malays can be written into the Constitution a million times, but there will he no progress if realisation and the correct mental attitude towards this special position and what it offers is not exploited. 2.51 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having read the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, I must congratulate the various members of the Commission on performing a thorough job. Two recommendations of the Commission, in particular, attract my attention. One is the recommendation of the Commission to set up a Council of State. I appreciate the Commission went into the matter carefully and exhaustively before it decided to make its recommendation for such a Council. But I do not agree with this recommendation in view of the other recommendation made by the Commission in respect of an Ombudsman, or Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. As I see it, the two proposals, that is, the Council of State and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, are designed to serve as a check on Parliament. In my view, the Council of State is superfluous to the need of Singapore at present and in the foreseeable future. Singapore is physically a small Republic which does not require such a Council of State to oversee or restrain Parliament. However, I am influenced by the restrictions the Commission has recommended to be placed on the functions and powers of the proposed Council. On the other hand, the proposal relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is more suitable for the need of Singapore, for in my experience as Member of Parliament for the Telok Blangah Constituency, I have come across many grievances and complaints for which there is no appropriate or effective redress by the existing machinery of administration in Singapore. That is why I am very much impressed by the recommendation of the Commission to recommend the creation of the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and to give suitable redress to citizens in the event of any maladministration or anomaly arising out of loopholes in the prevailing legislation in Singapore. While I support such recommendation for the creation of the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I must also emphasise my agreement with the declaration of the Commission that it has high regard for the traditions of the integrity, impartiality and competence of the public administration in Singapore. in my view, the creation of the post of Ombudsman would not serve as an implicit criticism of the existing system of administration, but rather it would serve as an affirmation of the sincere desire of the Government to ensure that every citizen of Singapore would not have his rights as a, citizen prejudiced in any way that is within the power of this Government to prevent or remedy. I can say this with confidence, because in our Republic we have already an efficient and competent machinery to prevent or restrain the deliberate abuse of power or deliberate omission to carry out the duties by various public officers in the service of Singapore. I support the creation of the post of Ombudsman, because it is his obvious function to give redress to citizens who are in any way aggrieved by Unintentional oversights in the course of the execution of duties by various public officers. Reading through the recommendation of the Commission on the creation of the post of Ombudsman. I can find nothing to indicate that the reason for the Commission to make such a recommendation is otherwise than I have stated. In concluding, I would like to say that the existence of the Ombudsman would serve to add to the public confidence in the public administration of Singapore or the execution of duties by public officers. 2.56 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, volumes have been spoken on almost every aspect of the Report of the Constitutional Commission. I will merely devote my time to the consideration of two institutions that the Commission has recommended. The first one is the creation of an Ombudsman. The second one is the Council of State. This institution of the Ombudsman is such a novel idea, so far as Singapore is concerned, that I would like to consider its history as it has evolved in other countries in considerable detail. The institution of Ombudsman has existed in Sweden for about 150 years. It was established in Finland in 1919 and in Denmark in 1954. It was as recently as 1963 that Norway set up an Ombudsman on Danish lines. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman varies from country to country, even in Scandinavia. In Sweden, where the institution has its roots going back to the Middle Ages, the Ombudsman is, in theory, not unlike the Chancellor in medieval England, with as wide and extensive jurisdiction ---

Mr Selvadurai, while I am familiar with your speaking speed, I think the Reporters and the Interpreters are having difficulty. Could you try to speak a little slower? The Reporters and the Interpreters will appreciate it if you will speak a little slower.

I will try my level best. In Sweden, where the institution has its roots going back to the Middle Ages, the Ombudsman is, in theory, not unlike the Chancellor in medieval England, with as wide and extensive jurisdiction as he had when the Court of Equity was a separate branch of the English legal system. He is there essentially to help those who have no redress in the law. Hence the term "Ombudsman" or, translated literally, "a man of the people", a man to whom a citizen, who is dissatisfied with decisions taken by administrative authority, may appeal. Indeed, to this day the Ombudsman in Sweden has so wide jurisdiction that he may even review judicial as well as administrative decisions. But, in practice, it is only where there is no possibility of bringing these grievances before an ordinary court for review, or for the purpose of reviewing an administrative decision with which he is dissatisfied, that the citizens could complain to the Ombudsman. In Finland, the Swedish system has been followed to a certain degree, but there the Ombudsman is but one of two institutions who are the supreme guardians of the law, the Chancellor of Justice and the Ombudsman. The reason for this close affinity between Sweden and Finland is that in both these Scandinavian countries there are administrative courts that are distinct in their jurisdiction and powers from the ordinary courts. In Denmark and Norway there are no administrative courts. The ordinary courts generally have competent control and authority over administrative decisions. Like the United Kingdom, the Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the conduct of administration. The Danish Ombudsman's jurisdiction extends not only to a review of the decisions of the lower administrative authorities, but also those of Ministers as well as military authorities. The Ombudsman in Scandinavia was established as an instrument of Parliament for the supervision and control of administration. It is for this reason that those Commonwealth countries that have adopted this institution call him the Parliamentary Commissioner. He is, in practice, however, independent of the Government. In fact, he is also independent of Parliament in the performance of his duties. Parliament only lays down general rules for his activities. His position is equivalent to that of a people's tribunal drawing authority from the people's elected representatives who invest him with great authority. The Ombudsman would perhaps function properly only where the population is, to a large extent homogeneous. I doubt whether in a large country where the population is heterogeneous, the institution might work as well. One of the reasons why the former United Kingdom Government had rejected the Whyatt Report recommending the creation of a Parliamentary Commissioner, who was to work through Parliament, was that there were already 650-odd Ombudsmen (Members of Parliament) in England who could receive complaints from their constituents and bring these matters to light in Parliament during Question Time. However, in view of the fact that an Ombudsman in the United Kingdom was appointed last year in October, it would appear that these objections have been rejected by the present United Kingdom Government. It might be pertinent to note that since his appointment, little has been heard of the Ombudsman in England, and I have been told that the very reason that gave rise to the clamour for an Ombudsman in England, namely, to check the excesses of local government - you will remember the Critchel-Down case that led to this clamour for an Ombudsman, Mr Speaker, Sir - has now been excluded from the area of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the United Kingdom. In October 1962 the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner, the first Ombudsman in the Commonwealth, was appointed. He had roughly the same jurisdiction as the Ombudsman in Scandinavia, but did not have powers of investigation extended to local authorities. He was, however, unlike the Scandinavian Ombudsman, to act through Parliament as it were. His principal function was to investigate complaints made to him or referred to him by anyone, including Ministers, any decision or recommendation, including recommendations made to a Minister, acts done or omitted relating to administration ---

Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt you once again, but could you try to speak a little slower?

As I was saying, the principal function of the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner was to investigate complaints made to him or referred to him by anyone, including Ministers, any decision or recommendation, including recommendations made to a Minister, acts done or omitted relating to administration and affecting any person or body of persons in his or her personal capacity, in any of the departments or organisations set out in the Schedule to the Act. In the Schedule have been listed various Government departments as well as the various boards of the Armed Services and Public Service Commission. But then there was a proviso to the effect that the Parliamentary Commissioner shall not be authorised to investigate any judicial decision, nor was he to touch on matters relating to terms of service in the Armed Forces or orders, commands, decisions, penalties, punishments given to members of the Armed Forces. And if any question shall arise as to the extent of the jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter. The Parliamentary Commissioner was also given absolute discretion to refuse to investigate the facts. Apart from New Zealand and the United Kingdom, there are no other Parliamentary Commissioners appointed in the Commonwealth. There is provision in the Guyana Constitution for the appointment of an Ombudsman who is to have more or less the same jurisdiction as the Parliamentary Commissioner of New Zealand. In the United Kingdom the Parliamentary Commissioner has powers to investigate where a written complaint is duly made, first to a Member of the House of Commons by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of maladministration in connection with the action so taken; and, secondly, the complaint is referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner, with the consent of the person who made it, by a Member of the House with a request to conduct an investigation into it. But he is not to investigate into any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had the right of appeal, reference or review to or before a tribunal constituted by or under any enactment, or by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative; and any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law. The Commissioner may, however, conduct an investigation, notwithstanding that the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law, if he is satisfied that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonable to expect the aggrieved person to take or to have taken such proceedings. So much for the Ombudsman, Mr Speaker, Sir,It is my view that Singapore, being a heterogeneous community, future constitutional commissions will have to think very deeply and carefully before it recommends the institution of an Ombudsman in Singapore. I do not have anything against it in principle. I think it is a very good institution, but before it can introduced into a developing country - Singapore being one - great care should be taken as to whether it will fit into the social circumstances that obtain in Singapore. The second institution recommended by the Commission which I would like to consider, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Council of State. I would, if I may take some time, like to quote fairly extensively from the Report itself. The idea is first referred to in the Report in paragraph 16 which reads: `We recommend the creation of a non-elected advisory body to be called "the Council of State" with a small membership, not subject to dissolution but renewing itself at regular intervals by the retirement and replacement of a proportion of its members in rotation. The members should be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion from amongst able, mature citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed who have attained eminence or responsible positions in their respective walks of life but who are not members of any political party. We believe such a body can play an effective and vital part in the affairs of the nation in many ways. It will be able in its debates to focus the attention of the public on any matter originating from Parliament which may adversely affect the interests of any minority group. It will also be able to serve as an additional check on new legislation and this would be particularly useful on matters of great public importance and on matters which might affect the minorities. Also, it will be able, especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament, to put forward where it considers it necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticism or amendments of measures proposed in Parliament. We have not been unmindful of the cost of having such an advisory body, and our detailed recommendations contain proposals which we think will to a great extent, if accepted, reduce the cost to a sum well within the economy of the country to sustain.' Now, this idea is further adumberated in paragraphs 51 to 54 of the Report, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really interested in paragraphs 52 and 54. Paragraph 52 says: `The functions and powers of the Council of State will be to consider all proposed legislation, except all Supply Bills or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency, and to report thereon to Parliament. We consider it is essential that the public must have con fidence that the members of this body are independent of the Executive and can publicly express their views, criticisms and suggestions in respect of any proposed legislation. To achieve this we think it is desirable that the members should be appointed to hold office for a substantially long period by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion, that the Council of State should not be subject to dissolution hut renewing itself at regular intervals by the retirement and replacement of its members in rotation, that the proceedings of the Council of State shall be conducted in public as in Parliament and finally that the Council and the members thereof shall have the same immunities and privileges mutatis ,mutandis as Parliament and the members thereof.' This is a very novel recommendation, Mr Speaker, Sir, because as everyone knows and as many members of the Constitutional Commission themselves must have known as lawyers, it cannot be justified on any accepted constitutional theory. Having created a creature like this in this Report, in paragraph 54 they seem to have had second thoughts about the constitutional propriety of having a House like this which is not elective. And they go on to say: `It will be seen that this body has many of the attributes commonly associated with an Upper House of Parliament and we have given long and anxious consideration to the important question whether, this being so, we should recommend that it should be a part of Parliament. We think we should not, because we envisage it as a purely advisory body not as part of the Legislature. It will be a body separate from Parliament but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. En this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament take upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.' They cannot have it both ways. If they want to have a Council of State in terms of what they have recommended, it must be based upon the elective principle. If they are not interested in having a House based upon the elective principle, then, of course, if we must have an Upper Chamber at all, we can have a Committee, like the Privy Council in the United Kingdom, which will have its deliberations in private and make its recommendations to the President. What I am really concerned with is this. The problem that we in this House face is the simple one of not having the intellectuals of Singapore participating in parliamentary life. If we create a body like the Council of State, as recommended by this Report, what will actually happen is that the intellectuals will walk off from the parliamentary arena and will not go into the constituencies and meet the people in their homes, but they will try to get into the Council of State by being appointed by the President. In principle, Mr Speaker, Sir, this would be detrimental to public life in Singapore, and I would recommend that this recommendation be not accepted at all. Apart from this, I would commend the way in which the Report has been written. It is an exquisite document, and after having read it. I was really sad that it was not a longer document with the complete Constitution written out which could be used as a prototype when the final Constitution comes to be written for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Law and National Development. 3.16 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of my colleagues have spoken in support of the Report of the Constitutional Commission, 1966, but I am unable to share the views of all of them. Sir, I never read law and never had I the chance to do so. I wish to leave the legal aspects to the more highly educated Members of this House to deal with. Sir, as I go through the Report of the Commission, I ask myself whether I am stupid or the Commission has gone out of its way. May I refer to page 1 of the Report - the terms of reference of the Commission? In short - to give recommendations and consider the question of the minorities as to how best their rights can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution of the Republic. Sir, this House is supposed to have a Report on minority rights, but it has become a Report of the whole Constitution, as the very title itself shows. Mr Speaker, Sir, with the greatest respect to the legal luminaries who signed the Constitution, I say that the correct title should be "The Report of the Constitutional Commission on Minority Rights". I repeat, Sir, " . . . on Minority Rights" alone. If the Minister for Law and National Development had required advice on how to write the Constitution, he would have appointed a special Commission for that very purpose. But, Sir, he did not, and I am sure that between him, the Attorney-General and some of the legal Back-benchers, we are well armed to write the Constitution. Sir, what the Government wants to know is how the minorities should be protected - however, I stand to be corrected - because in our cosmopolitan city, there are several racial, religious and linguistic minorities and we are, therefore, concerned to see that the majority will not bully the minorities, or vice versa. That having been said, let us look at and examine the contents of the Report. The quickest way is to look at the last page where the conclusions should be. What do we see on pages 26 and 27? On page 26 is "The Judiciary" and on page 27 is "The Public Service Commission". I would like to ask the Minister, are the Judiciary and the Public Service Commission minority groups? Sir, I dare not criticise the Judges. In fact, the Standing Orders prevent me from doing so. So I will not say more. But if you put the Public Service Commission in the Report, why not the Port of Singapore Authority, the Public Utilities Board or, last but not least, the National Trades Union Congress? Surely, they should be included too. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for Law and National Development for his -reasonableness in having taken the trouble to read and accept many of the recommendations of the Commission on matters outside the actual terms of reference of the Commission. 3.23 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to congratulate the eleven Members of the Constitutional Commission on having done a good job. They have prepared a Report after a period of eight months during which they were engaged in private investigations and -public hearings with individuals and organisations representing the minority races. The members of the Commission included eminent lawyers of various races and, after careful scrutiny and study, they have put up this weighty and perfect Report on the safeguards of the rights and interests of the minority races. I believe that this Report not only provides constitutional safeguards for the rights and interests of the minority races, but it also lays down a permanent foundation for the development of Singapore as a model multi-racial country. The recommendations of the Commission providing for the basic rights of the minority races should be effectively safeguarded and entrenched in the Constitution so that the minorities may not be discriminated against. Thus, all the races will be able to live harmoniously together and play their part as citizens of the country. The Constitutional Commission was appointed to investigate the problem of safeguarding the interests and rights of the minority races. This action on the part of the Government goes to show that it is very judicious and far-sighted. The Government took this move on its own volition only four months after Singapore attained its independence. It shows that the Government is really concerned with the interests and rights of the minority races, that it is conscious of its duty and obligations to all the races, and that it is very keen on building a Republic in which all races are equal and can enjoy equal rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is encouraging to see that when the Report was published, it received warm support from people in all walks of life, including all political parties and Chambers of Commerce. They consider it to be very constructive and they also support the Government for its acceptance of the recommendations on the setting up of a Council of State, although they do not agree with the recommendation that the Council should hold its sittings in private. They also praise the recommendation that safeguards for the basic rights of the minorities should be provided in the Constitution. One question that interests us is, "Why is the Barisan Sosialis still keeping quiet on this Report?" Is it because it is ashamed of itself for not being able to represent the people any more? The Commission has recommended the adoption of certain provisions of the Malaysian Constitution which relate to basic human rights. Let me quote briefly these provisions in the Malaysian Constitution. They appear in Appendix III on page 34 of the Constitutional Report. Article 5 is entitled "Liberty of the person." It reads: `No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.' Article 6 is entitled "Slavery and Forced labour prohibited." It reads: `(1) No person shall be held in slavery. (2) All forms of forced labour are prohibited,...'. Article 7 is entitled "Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials." It reads: `(1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made,. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence...'. Article 8 is entitled "Equality" and it reads: `(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. (2) ...there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth...'. Article 9 is entitled "Prohibition of banishment, and freedom of movement.' Article 10 relates to freedom of speech, assembly and association. Article 11 is about freedom of religion. So these two articles provide the freedoms in regard to speech, assembly, association and religion. There is a provision in Article 13 for the right of property; it says that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with the law. So all these provisions which I have quoted are in keeping with the principle and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations on basic human rights, and the Government has also accepted the recommendations of the Commission relating to such provisions. Sir, about the provision on the acquisition of property, the Government's intention is to delete the phrase, "except upon just terms". I have a doubt about this. I am not sure whether this will raise any suspicion or anxiety on the part of members of the public. I would like the Minister to clarify this to this House. The Commission also recommends the inclusion in the Constitution of three new provisions, namely: (1) No person shall be subjected to torture. (2) It should be granted to the citizens of Singapore the right to elect a government of their own choice by secret ballot periodically. (3) All citizens should be given the right to apply to the court for the enforcement of those provisions relating to fundamental rights and liberties. These are very appropriate provisions, because we are a democratic country. For the sake of the country and the people, we must ensure that no law is abused by anybody. Any criminal punishment or any penalty imposed should be carried out in accordance with the spirit of humanitarianism. Only in this way can we clearly distinguish the differences between a democratic country and a Fascist and dictatorial one. Regarding periodical general elections, this is a unique characteristic of the democratic system. Only with this provision can we safeguard the fundamental spirit of the democratic system. On the right of the citizens to apply to the court for the enforcement of those-provisions relating to fundamental rights and liberties, this also goes to show that it is a unique manifestation of the rule of law of a democratic country where the judiciary is independent. I would now like to talk about the setting up of the Council of State which is recommended by the Commission. I feel that this is a very constructive and valuable recommendation. The Government has accepted this in principle and has announced that the Council of State will only be a consultative body and that its sittings be best held in private. There are two categories of members. One category consists of permanent members and the other, removable members. Permanent members will only include those people who have contributed to public service. Such people will include the Chief Justice, Cabinet Ministers, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, and others. Removable members will be appointed for a term of three years and they will be-those citizens with mature minds who have rendered distinguished public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life. Here I would like to touch upon the nature of the sittings of the Council in private. I agree with what the Prime Minister has said - that the holding of sittings in private would ensure that all opinions can be frankly and openly expressed, that it will be easier to arrive at constructive conclusions on any matter, and that it will also enable any Bill to be more in keeping with the aspirations and needs of the country and the interests of the people after it has gone through the careful scrutiny of the Council members. On this point, I am aware that certain political parties have criticised the Government for wanting the Council to hold its sittings in private. They say that it is because the Government is afraid of open criticism. I feel that this kind of argument is incorrect. In fact, in a democratic country like ours and in an open society such as we have in Singapore, every policy and measure of the Government has to withstand the test of criticism and we have been engaged in a series of open argument with the Barisan Sosialis for a period of more than two years. They have accused us of being Fascists, dictatorial and undemocratic. But in the end it has been proved, as a result of this open argument, that the truth lies in the hands of the masses. Therefore, in the 1963 general elections they gave us their support and voted us into power. Thus, to say that the Government wishes to see that the Council of State hold sittings in private because it is afraid of public criticism is a wrong accusation and is very unconvincing. The Commission also recommends that the present Article 89 should be retained in the future Constitution, namely, that the Government should recognize the special position of the Malays and should take all steps to promote, safeguard and foster the various interests of the Malays. This recommendation is most appropriate. Sir, ever since my election as a representative of the Sembawang Constituency, I have always been in close touch with my constituents, and so I can very well understand the living conditions of the Malays. That is why I agree that this provision should be retained in the future Constitution. We know that compared with other races, in many aspects the Malays have much room for improving their situation. So they should get the assistance and protection as provided for in the Constitution and they should have this special position. Ever since the P.A.P. Government came to power, we have given every possible assistance to the Malays, such as the provision of free education from primary to university level and the allocation of lands to the Malays for resettlement. Sir, the Commission has also recommended three methods to entrench the provisions in the Constitution. The Minister has said that the Government wants to adopt the second method of entrenchment, namely: `That the Bill for an Act of Parliament altering certain named provisions of the Constitution shall not be passed by Parliament unless the Bill is supported at the final voting in Parliament by the votes of not less than two-thirds of all the elected Members of Parliament.' This method is only applicable to certain provisions and institutions stipulated in the Constitution relating to the P.S.C., the Judiciary, the Council of State, citizenship, etc., and only when Parliament has approved any such Bill by a two-thirds majority can such a Bill be put into effect. I feel that on such an important question as amendment of the Constitution, the Government's adoption of this method is correct. This attitude of the Government is wise, because on this important matter of amending the Constitution, the Government should weigh the matter carefully, and it is only right for it to give this right to the elected representatives of the people to consider any such amendment in this House. Regarding the office of the Ombudsman, in principle, I feel that this suggestion is very good as the Ombudsman will take part in the task of supervising our democratic system. But I am also aware that as our country has been independent for less than two years and has only a few years of experience in democratic politics, our people are still in the stage of learning the democratic system. So the setting up of an Ombudsman is an innovation, and it is better to wait for a time before setting it up. So I agree with the Prime Minister's explanation why the Government should delay adopting this recommendation until we know the results of the experiments in New Zealand and other countries. Sir, I very much appreciate this steady and mature attitude of the Minister. Generally speaking, this Constitutional Report is very progressive and highly constructive. I believe that it will play a substantial part in contributing towards the drafting of our future Constitution. It will safeguard the basic rights and interests of the minorities and will lay the foundation stone for our democratic system and help build a multi-racial and equal society and a model Republic. Sir, I support the motion. 3.44 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, though this Commission was set up to deliberate upon and make recommendations on the question of minority rights. There is, oddly enough, very little reference to or discussion of the specific questions of minorities in the Report. The bulk of the 86 paragraphs in the 37-page Report are concerned, not with minority rights and freedoms, but with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens generally. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of minority rights which the Commission was set up to inquire into is referred to in less than half a dozen paragraphs in Chapter II of the Report. Moreover, the heading to this Chapter II is entitled, not "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Minorities," but "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the individual." Mr Speaker, I do not think the Commission misunderstood its terms of reference. If you look at the Report, Sir, you will find that all its four terms of reference refer explicitly to the specific question of minority rights and how these could be constitutionally safeguarded. Perhaps it will be helpful to refer to these four terms of reference: `(a) To receive and consider representations on how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution. (b) To consider what provisions should be made to ensure that no legislation, which by its practical application is considered likely to be discriminatory against members of any racial, linguistic or religious group, should be enacted before adequate opportunities have been given for representation from parties likely to be aggrieved. (c) To consider what remedies should be provided for any citizen or group of citizens who claim that he or they have been discriminated against by any act or decision of the Government or the administration or any statutory board or public body constituted by law, and to recommend the machinery for the redress of any complaints. (d) To consider how such provisions can be entrenched in the Constitution.' Therefore, in the context it is quite clear that what the Commission was asked to look into was the question of minority rights. But even more pertinent is that the public was clear in its mind, and understood that the Commission was set up to inquire into the rights of minorities and not the general constitutional rights of the citizens. And this is brought up clearly in Appendix I of the Report, listing the individuals and organisations who submitted memoranda to the Commission. With one or two possible exceptions, if you look through the list, all the memoranda came either from religious groups associated with minorities or from organisations of minority communities. There were 83 of these. In fact, it is significant that there was no representation from organisations representing the majority community, nor for that matter, which is equally significant, was there any representation from non-communal organisations such as multi-racial political parties or multi-racial organisations like the trade unions or civic organisations. It does not mean that these organisations representing the majority or non-communal organisations were disinterested in constitutional matters, or that they were indifferent to the questions which are raised in this Report. The reason, I think, is that the majority community and non-communal organisations regarded the Commission's work as relating specifically to the question of minority rights and not to the general constitutional rights relating to the citizens generally. So why then, it may be asked, has the Commission, which was set up to look into the question of minority rights, appear - I say appear - to have paid very scant attention to the problem of minority rights? Is it possible that the Commission has evaded grappling with the tricky and complex problem of minority rights by focusing attention on the broader and more general aspects of constitutional rights and freedoms? I think this appearance of evasion of the problem arises from the particular approach the Commission made to the minority question. It approached it purely as a constitutional problem when, in fact, as we all know, there are many more facets to this problem, many more complicated and perhaps far more relevant aspects to the problem of minorities. But having decided to tackle the minority question purely as a constitutional and legal problem, it was inevitable that the Commission should discuss the issue in general constitutional terms and principles. This being so, within the limits of this particular and narrow approach to the subject, I think the Commission has very ably and succinctly said all that could be said on the subject in a few paragraphs. It has, for all practical purposes, resolved the problem of minorities in terms of constitutional - rights and safeguards. True, there could have been more detailed elaboration and discussion of the minority question in terms of the Constitution, but the relevant and pertinent point on the subject, I think, has been amply and succinctly made by the Commission.

3.55 p.m. The essence of the matter is that, as the Commission sees it, in a democracy there can be no distinction between majority rights and minority rights. Once you tackle this as a constitutional problem, there is no getting away from the fact that there cannot be majority and minority rights. There can only be equality of rights, the same rights for all without regard to race, colour, religion or language. In fact, the Report says: `No one citizen has or ought to have less or more rights than another citizen and similarly no one individual has or ought to have less or more rights than another individual in a democratic nation.' In other words, in a democratic society it is futile, impractical and dangerous for minorities to try to find security in so-called minority rights, for minority rights mean rights different from those or additional to those enjoyed by the majority. If that is the way the minorities try to resolve the problem, I say it is not only impractical, but worse, it is dangerous for the minorities. According to the Commission, it would appear that minority rights were sought after not because the minorities fear the majority, but because they wanted more rights than the majority. You will note, Sir, it says: `...the bulk of the representations, both oral and written, made to us by the minority racial groups consisted of requests for preferential treatment in some matters rather than allegations of or fears regarding discriminatory treatment on the grounds of race, language or religion.' In other words, those minority groups who want minority rights are not asking for these rights because they are afraid of the majority - because they genuinely believe that the majority was denying them equal rights - but because they want more rights than the others. If this is true, then, as I have said, what the minorities are asking for is not equality of rights but unequal rights in a democracy. They are trying to safeguard themselves - at least they believe they are safeguarding themselves - against possible discrimination by the majority by asking for favoured constitutional treatment, by seeking constitutional provisions which, in fact, discriminate against the majority. In a democracy, as I have said, it is futile and impractical for the minorities to strive to safeguard their rights in terms of minority rights. It is impossible in a democracy, because I cannot imagine under the system of one man one vote, which is what democracy means, the majority willingly and freely agreeing to be discriminated against in this fashion: that is, to ask the majority to say, "Please vote for more rights for the minorities." This is impossible in a democracy, unless the majority happens to be all saints. In other words, to quote the famous English novelist, George Orwell, who wrote a novel called "Animal Farm", "All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others." If that is the basis on which minority rights are pursued, then I say it is impractical. The only way a minority can ensure preferential treatment, unequal treatment in their favour is by scrapping democracy altogether or by ruling over the majority by force or the threat of force. That is the only way the minority can compel the majority to give it minority rights, which are defined as rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority. Sir, apart from the futility of trying to secure for themselves minority rights, there is also the danger in minorities seeking to buy security in terms of minority rights and what are often termed "special rights" and preferential treatment for themselves. Because once you start defining "minority rights" as special rights or preferential treatment, then you are breaching an essential principle of democracy, which is the principle of equal rights. Once the principle of equal rights for all citizens is denied as a valid principle, even in theory: once the minorities propound the theory that minority rights is a breach of principle of equality of rights, even in theory let alone in practice, then the minorities are, in fact, encouraging the growth of the very danger that they fear, i.e., tyranny by the majority. Because once the minorities repudiate the principle of equal rights, they automatically free the majority from adherence to the democratic principle of equal rights. They cannot expect the majority to adhere to the belief in equality of rights when they demand inequality of rights. Once equality of rights is breached or is qualified, then the path is readily open to the majority to pursue constitutionally its own interests; and, worse still, without regard to the rights of the minority. Because once you say there is such a thing as minority rights, the majority can say that there is such a thing as majority rights. It is quite self-evident, Sir, that if such a situation arises - the conflict between minority rights and majority rights - then in a democracy I have not the slightest doubt who is going to win: the majority can win hands down over the minority who believe in minority rights. And this the majority can do quite constitutionally, by sheer weight of numbers. That is why I believe the minorities are being short-sighted and suicidal in upholding the theory that so-called minority rights defined as "special rights" are the best safeguards against oppression by the majority, against injustice by the majority. I believe that in Singapore the greatest danger to the minority today is not tyranny by the majority, but the attempt by certain minority leaders to pursue the futile and illusory goal of minority rights. This is a dangerous illusion bred by panic, emotion, ignorance or opportunism. It is based on ignorance of the realities underlying a constitution. Therefore, the real objective of the minorities should not be to run after the will-o'-the-wisp called "minority rights", but to make certain that they will always enjoy equal rights. Their real problem is, not of safeguarding minority rights, but whether they can always make sure that the principle of' equal rights is safeguarded in the constitution, i.e., the same rights as those enjoyed by the majority. In other words, the real safeguard for the minorities is not to seek special rights written into the constitution, hut the sustenance and safeguarding of the constitution based on the principle of equal rights. What the minority should strive for is to ensure always that no one citizen, regardless of his race or colour or creed, enjoys more rights than himself. If that kind of constitution can be drawn up, the minority is always safeguarded. The real safeguard is equality always and not special rights written into the constitution. In fact, Sir, I would say that more than the majority community, the-minorities have a vested and vital interest in preserving the constitution based on the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual based on the principle of equality. That is their greatest safeguard. Whether they survive or perish will depend on their ability to preserve the constitution which recognises equality always. Equal rights for the majority, equal rights for the minority, and a member of the minority constitutionally is the equal of a member of the majority community. That is the important point. Because what the minority should always remember is that once a community, either based on race, language or religion, confers special rights on itself and if it happens to be a minority, then in no time the majority will say, "Well, since you can ask for special rights, I too will vote special rights for myself. I am in a better position to do so because I can always win in an election." So I can see why the Commission dismissed minority rights in a few paragraphs and concentrated on the real safeguard for the minorities, which is the protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the individual. That is the only safeguard - a true democratic constitution. In fact, the minority leader or the member of a minority community should be the most ardent supporter of a democratic constitution and of the equality of rights. He should never depart from that principle. The moment he talks in terms of minority rights, he is lost and his community is lost. Sir, as I have said, all this may explain why the Commission has concerned itself not with so-called minority rights but with inquiring into the fundamental rights and freedom of every citizen and it is within the wider framework of fundamental rights and liberties, suggests the Commission, that the minorities can really find the security that they crave for. This. I submit, is sound practical advice. Once the minorities always and everywhere dedicate themselves single-mindedly to the preservation and defence of fundamental rights and freedom, they will discover that they are not fighting alone, because the overwhelming bulk of the members of the majority community too are interested in basic freedoms, and in the desirability of equal rights. But the majority will never be interested in defending minority rights. I cannot imagine a member of the minority community going to a constituency and telling the majority community, "Please vote me in because I am going to defend minority rights." They will say, "Well, try to get a member of the minority to come and stand here and see whether he will be voted in." Therefore, by the minority identifying its rights with those of the majority and getting the majority to identify its rights with those of the minority, that is, when both enjoy equal rights, the same rights, the majority will always be prepared to defend equal rights because its own rights are involved. Therefore, so long as the minority seeks equal rights with the majority, it can always rely on the support of the majority to defend its rights, because injustice or the denial of equal rights to the minority must eventually mean denial and withdrawal of equal rights from the majority. Therefore, when we view the minority question purely from the constitutional angle, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the rights and freedom of citizens in a democratic society cannot be classified, defined and distinguished in terms of race, language or religion. They must be the same for all citizens. They must transcend racial, linguistic and religious differences. Therefore, in so far as constitutional safeguards are concerned, the most sensible and practical course for the minorities to take is to lend their support to a democratic constitution not postulated either on minority rights or majority rights but on equality of rights for all citizens. Even if the Commission, for some reason, had recommended minority rights in this Constitution - I as a member of one of the smallest minorities - I for one would have opposed it. If the minorities are fools enough to fall into what would really be a trap by accepting special rights, then I say that they are goners because any constitutional provision which confers extra rights on the minorities, as I said earlier, precludes the majority from adhering to the principle of equal rights. The majority could perhaps set up a Commission. That is quite possible. Once you have a Minorities Commission to inquire into minority rights, there is nothing to prevent the majority from setting up a Commission to look into majority rights. Therefore, the best constitutional safeguard is really a constitution which makes no reference to minority rights or special rights, but to equal rights. Insofar as it is a constitutional problem and so long as there is a constitution based on equal rights, I say that the future of the minorities, constitutionally, is permanently and adequately safeguarded, because even if, for example, we decided to write into the Constitution special minority rights, that would not guarantee that the rights would be safeguarded, for, we all know, constitutions can be modified, changed overnight, manipulated or scrapped altogether. We know of countries around us where major constitutional changes are made in a matter of minutes or hours - or rights are sometimes ignored completely. This can be done by legal chicanery or even by the express will of the majority in Parliament; and the only way for a minority to dispense with the constitution is to seize power by violent means or by intimidation of the majority. A constitution is, after all, a formal document expressing an orderly way of exercising political power by the community as a whole or by those who have constituted themselves as the ruling class. If the government or the ruling class is dedicated to and really believes in democratic ideals, then the constitution will be democratic. In fact, even without a constitution, it will be democratic, as this Parliament is at the moment. We have no Constitution in the real sense of the word, but there is democracy, because it is the spirit of the thing that counts. You can have the most democratic constitution in the world - and there are many totalitarian and tyrannical governments which have the most democratic constitutions on paper - but there is no democracy. There are other governments which have no constitutions at all; for example, the British Government, and yet it is one of the most democratic governments in the world. 4.20 p.m.

So the nature of a constitution is not as it is expressed on a piece of paper but as it works in a country - which is the most important thing. It is ultimately determined by the political temper and ideals of the community and the government in power or the kind of interest that the ruling party represents. That is the best safeguard for a democratic constitution - not a piece of paper. But if the party in power or if the community as a whole is undemocratic, racialist or communal in outlook, then whatever safeguards might be written into the constitution against the evils of discrimination and inequality, these can be brushed aside and real tyranny exercised over the people. Therefore, the minorities would be kidding themselves if they believed that they could find permanent and reliable safeguards against discrimination, injustice and oppression by an unreasonable majority simply because such safeguards have been written into the constitution. Even if they are written into the constitution, my advice to the minorities is that they must reinforce them and make sure that these constitutional provisions are sustained by political action all the time. In the final analysis, the minorities can and must find safeguards for themselves, not merely in pursuit of constitutional guarantees on nicely written documents, but in political and economic solutions to reinforce whatever may be written into the constitution. I notice that the Commission did not touch on the important and what I consider to be the relevant aspects of the so-called minority problem. This may be because it thought that this really was outside its terms of reference or it may be because it was reluctant to venture into spheres fraught with great complexity and delicacy. But I believe that the political, economic and psychological aspects of the so-called minority problem are more relevant and decisive to the problem which the Commission was called upon to investigate. I would therefore like, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, to supplement the admirable Report of the Constitutional Commission by touching briefly on the political aspects of the minority question. The main point I would like to make is that the so-called minority problem is but a particular aspect of what is generally referred to as the communal problem. The minority problem arises only when psychologically a minority feels itself to be a minority. That is the psychological aspects of the problem. So long as a minority feels that it is a minority, then it becomes aware of the majority as somebody outside itself, and therefore a minority problem, a minority attitude, a minority complex is created. If you were to read the history of modern nations, for example Britain - I used to read English history when I was a boy - you will discover that once upon a time, there was no such thing as "Britain". There were "English", "Saxons" and "Normans". They thought of themselves as minority groups. Only 100 years ago, there was no such thing as a German nation; there was no such thing as an Italian nation. In fact, there was no such thing as an American nation when Malacca was founded. There were Poles, immigrants of all kinds - just like us. Then over a period of years, the Americans had to constitute themselves into a nation. It was necessary. For example, the early settlers of America thought of themselves as Dutch, French, German, English and Irish, and over a period of 100 years or more, they had learned to think of themselves as Americans. They have not yet completed the process, but today, a Dutchman or even a Japanese or Chinese or Negro from America will tell you that he is an American. So the problem of minorities is partly - not altogether - a psychological problem created by the minorities. So the first step for the minorities to take is to stop thinking of themselves as minorities and, more important, to stop acting politically as minorities. Unless they can make that mental leap, there will always be a minority problem. In some countries where there is a minority problem, the minorities become a problem to the majority because they keep apart from the rest. The more you act and think like a minority, the more you create a problem with tension and conflict and, in fact, you encourage the majority to think of you as a problem to them too. Once the majority begin to think of you not as a citizen, not as part of themselves or as part of the nation or the community, then you are really storing up trouble, because once the majority somehow fix in their minds that you, the minority, are a problem, then they will have an insoluble minority problem on their hands. But in a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society like ours, the communal problem, which is what the minority problem is at the present stage of our political and social development, must be and will always remain one of the major problems which, if we do not resolve intelligently, could break our society, especially of an independent Singapore. We all know what has happened in neighbouring countries which had allowed the communal problem to get out of hand. We are fortunate because we are one of the last countries in Asia to become independent. Twenty years after the decolonisation process began, we are in the fortunate position of being able to learn from the mistakes and illusions of other countries which acquired their independence two decades or so ago. In countries like India and Ceylon, 20 years ago when the people were talking about the communal problem, they genuinely believed that this problem was wholly the creation of the imperial power and that it was the result or consequence wholly of a divide and rule policy - playing one community against the other. Perhaps there is some truth in this - colonial powers did keep the communities divided and play one community against the other. And so in India, when the people were fighting for their freedom, there was communal harmony and racial unity based on nothing more than common hatred of the imperial power. Another good example is Ceylon. I remember when I was a student the articles that were being written. Ceylon was pointed to as a success story of British colonial policy because in Ceylon the British had deliberately refused to allow a communal Parliament-no communal representation, a high literacy rate, a sound economy. So here was one place where you could really create a united nation out of Tamils, Singhalese, Christians and Buddhists over a period of 10 years. And it looked as if communalism was not a problem in Ceylon and that somehow they had broken through this prejudice based on race, language or religion. But, unfortunately, the leaders assumed that the communal problem had been solved because they subscribed to the thesis that communalism was really the creation of the colonial power and that once colonialism was out the problem was solved. So they thought, "Yes, that is true - once the British are out, there would he communal harmony." But we know, Sir, that that is not so and that today the country is torn asunder; that people who have lived together for centuries and who really are of the same racial group are now bitter enemies, and their economy is ruined. And it will be a long, long time before the problem, based largely on linguistic differences, is resolved. I do not think that in India or Ceylon, the leaders who fought for freedom really studied the communal problem intensely and in depth. Therefore, Sir, we in Singapore should not delude ourselves into believing that once the imperialists are out, there would be no communal or racial problem, or that because there is harmony now there is no racial problem. Fortunately, the problem is under control. Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to bear in mind that if the communal problem is allowed to get out of hand because of ignorance or because we do not understand it or because we do not take adequate measures now to control it, then the consequence must be violence of a most barbaric kind, accompanied by economic chaos and smouldering unrelenting hatreds. This is the point which is often overlooked by those who play with communal fire. There are those who play with communal fire. They may just think of scaring people by raising the communal bogey or by playing on communal passions, but they must realise the inevitable consequences that must follow once the communal problem is allowed to get out of control. Once you start playing with fire and the spark sets up some conflagration, then we get a situation even worse than what has happened either in Ceylon, India or any other part of this world, because in the case of Singapore the consequences of communal conflict will be far more total and far more disastrous than they have been in some of the other countries where communal violence was allowed to overwhelm the society. Sir, in other countries the sources of communal conflict have been either religion, language, race, or culture. For example, in India it was primarily religion that was the basis of conflict. Because the Hindus and Muslims are racially alike, speak more or less the same language depending on what area they come from, and more or less share the same history and culture. Again in Ceylon the Tamils and Singhalese are culturally and racially alike. The dividing line - the point of conflict - was just language. In fact, Sir, I was told that both in Ceylon and in India during the communal conflict there was no way for a Muslim to know that the other man was a Hindu. A Muslim might look like a Hindu. There was no way of distinguishing except by rather devious means as to who was a Hindu or a Muslim. Similarly it was difficult to distinguish between a Tamil and a Singhalese. But in Singapore the communities are divided in every conceivable way. The criteria include all the factors which make for communal conflict - race, language, religion and culture. Each community is divided on every one of these points. The situation is not like that of the other countries where only one factor making for communal conflict is present. Here all the four factors - race, language, religion and culture - are present. If we have a conflict, we will know who belongs to which community. So once you precipitate a conflict, I say, Sir, it must be a total conflict. Therefore, unlike some of the other countries, it is more than ever necessary for those here who start playing around with language or religion in the hope of arousing support for themselves to be cautious of saying, "Oh, so-and-so is anti-Malay; so-and-so is anti-Chinese." They might think that they are making these statements purely to get short-term benefits, but once these statements spark off a conflagration, then the consequences will be far more horrible and terrible than has been the case in some of the other countries. I notice that communal politicians and communal parties in Singapore are well aware of all these factors that make for possible communal conflict. Therefore, they make deliberate appeals to race, language, religion and culture. I have yet to see a man or a leader of a Party, which claims to represent a particular minority community, making appeals to all on the basis of general ideology. He talks in terms of specialised appeals - language, race, religion and culture. One day the appeal may be to race solidarity or blood brotherhood. On other occasions he will appear as the defender of language or religion, and for a change may come forward as the champion of their culture. And in moments of desperation, especially just before an election or during an election, all the four instruments may be played simultaneously. These appeals to communal factors are resorted to by both the majority community and the minority communities, i.e, all those who believe that communal solidarity or racial solidarity is the soundest basis for political action. I can well understand, though I deplore, those communal leaders who strive to advance themselves politically by appealing to the communal sentiments of the majority. I can understand a member of the majority community wanting to play communalism. Such leaders at least have a fairly good chance of success for the simple reason that the majority community can always win hands down in a communal political contest. 4.45 p.m.

Mr Rajaratnam, you have just reached one hour. Would you like me to obtain the general assent of the House for you to proceed a little beyond that?

If it please you, Sir.

Is it the general assent of the House that the Minister be permitted to proceed? Hon. Members: Aye.

Sir, this being so, I cannot understand why minority leaders should become fervent advocates of communal parties and communal politics, because in Singapore there is not the slightest prospect of minority communal parties getting anywhere politically by either constitutional means or otherwise. Sir, if I were a communal politician from the majority community, the first thing I would do is to subsidise communal politicians from minority communities. I would encourage communal political parties from the minorities. This would be the quickest and easiest way to assure permanent and unbridled dominance by the majority community. If I were a Chinese communalist in Singapore, what I would do is not only to encourage communal parties but even pass legislation to say that minority communities should only belong to minority parties or that one racial community should belong to a specific political party and ban multi-racial parties. If I were a Chinese communal leader, that is what I would do. I would encourage minorities to form their own political parties. I would be generous enough to write a constitution granting a few seats for the minorities in Parliament. Five or ten seats do not matter. I would give them that because I have nothing to lose and everything to gain as a Chinese communalist by doing this, because then the minorities would forever remain a minority in Parliament - an ineffective minority - and forever play the role of just a permanent but ineffective opposition in the country. If I were a Chinese communalist in Singapore, I would see another advantage in encouraging communal parties among the minorities. I would pretend to take very seriously the claims of communal political party leaders that only communal or racial parties can be trusted to look after the interests and welfare of the community concerned. I would say that is quite correct. This would suit the majority leaders fine. They could then with a clear conscience confine themselves to looking after the interests only of the majority on the same principle that only a particular race can look after the interest of that particular race. They could further disavow any responsibility for the welfare of the minorities, if the minorities should complain, the leaders of the majority could quite logically maintain that this responsibility has been transferred to the leaders and representatives of minority political parties. After all, the minority communal leaders justify communal parties on the basis that only members of a particular race can look after the interest of that particular race. But, worse of all is that once minority communalists turn to communal politics as the only solution, then the majority community is also free to go in for uninhibited communal politics themselves. It would be illogical for the minority leaders to object to communal politics on the part of the majority while at the same time extolling communal politics for themselves. The minorities cannot insist that the majority community should adhere to multi-racial parties and make a multi-racial approach while the minorities should go in for communal politics and racial politics. In any case, if the minority communal leaders were successful in getting support for their communal parties, if they could really mobilise all Malays, all Chinese, all Ceylonese, all Eurasians to join only communal parties, then unwittingly, even if the majority were multi-racial-minded, non-communal-minded, they would organisationally become a communal party. In the case of Singapore, where there is a vast majority - in fact, almost totally - of Chinese, if a Malay communal party succeeds in rallying only the Malays around them, there would be no Malays, no Indians and no Ceylonese inside the majority party; so the Chinese party organisationally, in terms of membership, must become communal. If the majority party happens, because of the stupidity of the minorities, to be a party only of Chinese, then it is inevitable that one day it must drift into communalism. So it would appear to me that the more minority communities turn to communal politics, the more certain they make the advent of what they fear, and that is communalism of the majority. Therefore, Sir, minority communalism is all the more foolish and suicidal in Singapore, because as of today there are no effective Chinese communal parties. That is an interesting fact. The majority has not resorted to the formation of communal parties. There was some time ago, it is true, the M.C.A., but it has vanished from political life simply because it could not get support from the majority community. Therefore, today we are in the fortunate position that the majority community in Singapore is expressing itself through multi-racial parties and this has acted as a brake-on Chinese communalism which undoubtedly exists as a latent force and will continue to do so for some time. But so long as the Chinese express-themselves politically through multi-racial parties, the communalists among the majority will always be under check. Therefore, as we see it, the best guarantee against communalism by the majority is the emergence and consolidation of multi-racial parties. Only through multi-racial parties can the minorities get the majority to reach accommodation with them, by compelling the majority to pay regard to the interests of all, the majority as well as the minorities. Any minority leader who tells his people that the united strength of his community can prevail over the united strength of the majority is leading his people to perdition. The truth that must be got across to the minority communities as soon as possible is this. The majority community has more to gain from communal politics. That is fact number one. Somehow we must drive into the minds of the minority communities that if they want to play communal politics, then victory would go to the majority community. Make no mistake about it. And for the minorities, the day that multi-racial parties decline in Singapore, that is their day of doom. More than the majority community, therefore, the minorities have a vital interest in the growth and dominance of multi-racial parties whether of the Right or of the Left. So when I hear leaders from the minority communities mouthing communal slogans day in and day out, hoping to succeed in deluding the minorities into taking the communal road, I am convinced that they will turn out to be, historically and objectively, the men who have betrayed and destroyed the race, the language and religion which they now profess to defend, because every time a minority leader talks of "Malays unite," or "Indians unite," or "Eurasians unite," or Ceylonese unite," I know the day will come when somebody will get up and say, "Chinese unite." If the minorities keep on talking about Malays unite, Indians unite, then there must come a day when the Chinese will say, "All right, now I will say what you people say. Chinese unite." And when that day comes, then I say whatever might be written into the constitution, the minorities are lost. The other way, as I have said, which constitutionally is the best safeguard for the minorities, is to ask for equal rights politically. The best guarantee for minorities is to fight always and everywhere for multi-racial parties. And the best way to do that is for them to get out from their own communal parties. Then I say, politically and constitutionally the future for the minorities will be bright, safe and secure.

I think this is a convenient time to suspend. I will suspend the sitting now and take the Chair again at half-past Five. Sitting accordingly suspended at one minute to Five o'clock p.m, until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the Constitutional Commission for the very speedy Report which is fundamentally well-conceived and clearly expressed. Like any other piece of work, there are shortcomings, and if I appear to touch only on them, I wish to emphasise that it is only the pressure of time that compels me to by-pass its virtues. This Commission was appointed to consider and advise on ways and means to safeguard minority interests. It has recommended a Council of State to consider all Bills other than Supply and urgent ones. Not all Bills impinge or infringe minority interests. I feel the Commission should have recommended a Council that will only consider Bills certified by the Speaker as likely to affect minority interests. This Commission has also recommended that the Council, consisting of nominees of the President, should publicly debate Bills before Parliament does so. This may give rise to bad effects. Firstly, the focus of the spotlight will be switched adversely from Parliament to the Council. The House of Lords in the United Kingdom, the Senate and Upper House in other countries debate Bills after and not before Parliament. The spotlight must be on those answerable to the people and not on those who do not have to face the electorate. Secondly, friction may arise between Parliament and the Council. Parliament generally is composed of people educated in the rough and tumble of life. Their education is a strenuous one which the electorate has endorsed. Members of the Council, on the other hand, will consist of eminent men who are very likely to be learned professionals. After the Council has publicly debated on the proposed legislation, Members of Parliament can either repeat their wisdom and apt phrases, in which case their public image will be tarnished. Or they can try to unearth something new for the sake of being new and run the risk of more damage to their public image. The germs of friction are abundant in such a situation. The Council is not answerable to the electorate and there is no basic reason for it to debate in public. It is far better that it does its work without casting anxious glances at the Public Gallery. Thus I feel the Commission should have recommended a Council that will debate Bills certified by the Speaker as likely to affect minority interests after and not before Parliament does so, privately and not publicly. Of course, with this suggestion must go the further suggestion that the Council should be able to refer the Bills back to Parliament once again for further consideration. In our present structure of elected representative government, Parliament is the supreme legislative institution second to none and answerable to none except the electorate. This must be so. The recommendation of the Commission for an Ombudsman really exceeds its terms of reference, although it is obvious that it has been done so with the best of intentions. The Ombudsman does not really look for infringement of minority interests. His task is to ensure that with the increasing need for wider discretionary powers in the Executive, such discretions are not to be abused. The need for his services is to be debated in the context of the good of the whole society and not in the limited context of how minority interests can be safeguarded. Before I sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish, with your permission, to touch on a lighter point of view. I refer you to paragraph 84 of the Commission's Report. May I draw the attention of the trade unionists in this House to this new method of taking a wage claim? 5.38 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at the Report of the Commission as a whole, we can clearly understand that the position of the minorities in Singapore is being respected and protected. There is no racial discrimination or prejudice in this country as can be seen in this Report, and most of the recommendations are very enlightened. All this can make Singapore a model to other countries. But there is still room for improvement to perfect the Republic of Singapore. Therefore, I would like to touch upon the various recommendations of the Report in order to air my views. First of all, we can see clearly from the Report that the special position and the privileges of the Malays are specially stressed. I would like to draw your attention to the rights of one of the minorities. Paragraph 34 refers to Article 89 (2) which provides that the Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, and to protect their various interests, etc. In other provisions, we can also find the same kind of special care and emphasis on safeguarding the interest of the Malays without seeing any mention about the same safeguards for other minority races. In principle, I support the above protection for the Malays. But obviously the Malays are not the only minority race in our Republic. The Report also points out that in the June 1963 censorship of Singapore, the Chinese comprised 75 per cent, the Malays 14 per cent, the Indians and the Pakistanis 8 per cent, and the rest 3 per cent of the total population. So from this we can see that there are other minority races besides the Malay race. These other minority races should also have their rights and interests protected in the same way by the Government. The provisions relating to the rights and interests of the minority Malays should also cover them. Only then can it be in keeping with the spirit and principle of the multi-racial society of Singapore where there are also multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious forms and systems. Paragraph 36 recommends that Article 9 of the Malaysian Constitution be amended to provide that no citizen shall be banished or excluded from Singapore and it is recommended by the Commission to be included in the Singapore Constitution. If we accept this, then by this provision we will be able to lessen any worry among people not born here who want to be or have be come citizens of Singapore and they can be assured of their freedom of movement and human rights. This is a necessary human right to be accorded to the people by an elected responsible government and a Parliamentary democracy. But on this point I would point out that it is not mentioned whether such citizenship can be cancelled. Therefore, I would like the Minister to pay attention to this and say whether citizenship can still be deprived when this provision s accepted, namely, the provision that no citizen shall be banished or excluded from Singapore. If this point is not made clear in the provision and a person who has received citizenship has had it cancelled, he will no longer become a citizen of Singapore and may be liable to be banished from Singapore. This is somewhat inconsistent with the provisions in the Report. Therefore, with reference to paragraph 36 of the Report. I suggest in the provision which reads: `9. -

(In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, every citizen should be entitled to his rights and this Constitutional Commission has accordingly submitted its recommendations. If we trace the political changes or recent times, in 1954 the Rendel Commission's Report was put up and, as a result, a minority was able to rule this country. Those who were registered voters at that time were the only ones entitled to vote. The people, to a large extent, did not come forward to claim their right to vote, because they realised that they were living under minority rule. In 1959, compulsory voting was introduced and all adults were given the franchise to vote. Therefore, every one of them was able to exercise his right to vote and a democratic government was made possible. The People's Action Party then came to power with a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Assembly. The reason for this victory was that their policies were multi-lingual, multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural. They are still carrying out these policies. But one section of the people broke away from the People's Action Party and attempted to set up their own Party and form their own government. They brought their views to the people, but in 1963 the People's Action Party was again returned to power with a two-thirds majority in the Legislative Assembly. The main reason for its success was its belief in multi-racial policies and democratic socialism. In 1965, when we broke away from Malaysia and Singapore became independent, the minority groups in this country wondered whether they would get equal rights and status. In order to remove such fears, the Government appointed the Constitutional Commission in 1966. About 50 individuals or representatives of associations and, groups gave evidence before this Commission. The Commission studied the evidence carefully and then prepared its Report. Even so, it appears that the evidence given to the Commission has not been cited anywhere in the Report. Did the evidence ask for special rights and equal status? We do not quite know what the evidence was. However, the Report of the Constitutional Commission deals with equal rights and status for various sections of the people. A Council of State with a membership of 21 has been proposed' by the Commission, but I would regard this number as too big. A membership of 15 would be appropriate. It does not appear right to me that the Council of State should function for a period of nine years, because elections take place once every five years. Therefore, I would suggest that the nine-year period should be reduced to a five-year period and that the Council of State should be formed with due cognisance of the membership of Parliament. I now come to the office of Ombudsman. In principle, the suggestion of such an office may be acceptable, but I do not think it is appropriate in the present circumstances of our country, because we are now just progressing in the political field and the people have not yet acquired sufficient political experience. But when their political knowledge advances and they feel that an Ombudsman is necessary, then the matter can be reviewed. Members of Parliament are representatives of the people and they should strive to rectify the grievances of the people. The office of Ombudsman raises another doubt. Is it possible to get an individual with a sense of real purpose to fill such an office? There are many races, many religions and many cultures in this country and, therefore. I feel that the question of appointing an Ombudsman is not quite appropriate at this juncture. Certain opinions have been expressed about ballot papers. It has been suggested that serial numbers on ballot papers are not quite right and perhaps not in keeping with democratic procedures, that the secrecy of the vote will be preserved if serial numbers on ballot papers are removed, and that it should be possible to do away with serial numbers on ballot papers if the administration is efficient. If there are no serial numbers on ballot papers, there will be forged ballot papers. That is why I feel that the serialisation of ballot papers is an appropriate measure. Nobody will be taken for a ride. Otherwise one voter can take four or five ballot papers to the polls and nobody will be the wiser. Therefore, I am unable to accept the' suggestion that serial numbers on ballot papers should be removed. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Foreign Affairs spoke at length on the status of minorities. The minorities should have equal rights and status with the majority. This would be the right attitude to take to ensure that the rights and status of the minorities are safeguarded. It was with this in mind that the Commission has made certain recommendations. It has not been made-explicitly clear in the Report that equal rights will be given to the minorities. In any country where there are minorities and a majority, the seeds of destruction are ever present. If the fears of minorities are to be removed by the majority, such a Report would not have been necessary. This Report, as far as possible, has made provision for equal rights for minorities and, therefore, we should be in a position to accept the recommendations wholeheartedly. 6.00 p.m.

(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the view that the main contribution of the Report of the Constitutional Commission is not the suggestion of a Council of State. On this particular recommendation we should apply our minds, because this institution would affect the supreme law of our State touching directly on the implementation of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. First of all, I must point out that there is some inconsistency in the logic behind the recommendation to set up the Council. There are flaws in the reasoning. In paragraph 47 of the Report, it is stressed that: `The Commission feels that the elected chamber should not be diluted by the presence of any member who has not been elected on a general franchise.' Yet in paragraph 59, it is suggested that: `(viii) the Council of State shall have power to consider all proposed legislation except all Supply Bills or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency; (ix) every Bill except all Supply Bills or an "Urgent" Bill shall after its First reading and after the Minister in charge has made his opening speech during the Second reading but before any debate takes place on the principle of the Bill be submitted to the Council of State.' This will more or less affect what the Commission has said in paragraph 47 above, that is to say, there is, in actual fact, the necessary channel for all the Bills, except those Bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency or Supply Bills, to go through this Council, an advisory body outside Parliament, and the Bills will be affected by the consideration of members who are not elected. Secondly, as mentioned in paragraph 54, the Commission has also recognised that there are certain similarities between the Council of State and the Upper House, and the Commission has no intention of making the Council an Upper House and it has not directly suggested the setting up of an Upper House in Parliament because an Upper House in our present situation is really a retrogressive step and also it cannot be truly representative of the views of the electorate. I would like to give an example. In 1909 the Budget introduced by Mr David Lloyd George on behalf of the Liberal Government was defeated in the Upper House. In the end a constitutional crisis ensued resulting in the holding of a general election. Finally the Liberal Party got the support of the people and it led to the decline of power of the Upper House. So this has a very great significance in the justification of an Upper House. From 1948 the Labour Party also began to reduce the power of the Upper House. The decline of the Upper House and the ascendancy of the Lower House can be said to show that the life of the democratic system depends on the basis of the people. In Switzerland, apart from the representative chamber called Kantonsgemeinde, there is also a Council or Senate with mainly elected members. The Senate can also prepare Bills for discussion by the elected chamber and can, on behalf of the elected chamber, supervise administrative and judicial organisations. Thus it also inherits the powers of the Ombudsman which has been suggested by this Constitutional Commission. It is only because the Senate is also elected that there is some justification for that institution to be part and parcel of the political system in Switzerland. But the situation here in Singapore is different. Members of the Council are to be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister. With this provision, perhaps we can feel somewhat at ease. Although we know that the President is the Head of State and the Prime Minister himself is elected, it does not mean that because of this the members appointed would, of course, represent the Prime Minister. Also we cannot say that the Councillors are representatives of the people. In the final analysis, this Council of State is not an absolutely representative organisation. It is only an organisation which has many similarities with the Upper House. It is not an Upper House, and if we do not deal with it properly, it may become a twin of the Upper House. That is the second point. The third point is that the Council of State, as suggested, may not be able to take up the responsibilities and duties of the Opposition. At the moment, although we do not have an Opposition Party in the House, this Council cannot act on their behalf because, according to the suggestion of the Commission, the Council of State will be composed of members who are not members of any political Party. With such limitation the Council of State will tend to become something like a consultative body outside of party politics. I would have thought that the Report should have stressed the importance of checks and balances to be exercised by the Council of State in party politics in order to ensure that the Council of State will have a more clearly defined position in the democratic system. If it is so, then at the present juncture when there is no Opposition in the House, although the Party in power is not faced with an Opposition, the House can still get some active assistance from the non-partisan advisory body known as the Council of State. If this is set up on this basis, then it may be that such an establishment may be justified. But the Commission was vague about its purpose in paragraph 51: `We are however convinced it would be in the best interests of the many peoples within our small island Republic and for their future well-being and that of the Republic ... that an advisory body to be called "the Council of State" be created ...'. Thus it may give people a vague impression that without such an institution like the Council of State and even with an elected Parliament, the interests and welfare of the people would not be well taken care of or safeguarded. Such a concept may well be construed as a lack of confidence in the elected Parliament, and it may benefit the propaganda of anti-national elements. Finally, in view of the above analysis, I feel that among the merits of the Council of State one can mention that when it is uplifted, it can become some kind of assistant or supplement to Parliament and can exercise the checking and balancing function in party politics as a non-party organisation. But regarding the demerits, one can say that it may in future change its nature and become an Upper House. Because of this, I suggest that it should be given a trial period of five years, at the end of which Parliament can review its position. Then, if it is thought that it would be proper and necessary to have such an institution, we can provide for it to be perpetuated in our Constitution. But, at the moment, we are still short of facts which may merit its establishment. Therefore, I feel that it is not justified for us now to set up this institution permanently. So only with a trial period will it be safer all round. 6.13 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in Tamil. (In Tamil) On the 9th August, 1965, Singapore separated from Malaysia and became independent. At that time, in the administration of the welfare of the' people and in the protection of the interests of the minority, a Commission was appointed to look into constitutional matters. There are people of many races in Singapore and it is important that the rights of the minority should be looked into. But the people of the various races should not look after their own interests only. If they look after the interests of the whole' community, then this problem will not arise. If we look into the history of any country of the world, we will see that no country is evolved with one separate race. We can take America, Britain, or Russia as examples. These are countries far from us. There are countries nearer to us, such as Burma, Thailand, Indo-China, Indonesia, and the Philippines, and we can take the histories of these countries as examples. These countries did not have one single race at any one time. The negroes and the whites in America consider themselves as Americans. In New Zealand the Maoris and the immigrant Englishmen consider themselves as New Zealanders. In Australia the natives and the Englishmen who were banished from England as criminals think themselves as Australians. When they think like that, there is no reason why the minority people in Singapore, the Indians and Malays, should not consider themselves as Singaporeans. From the science of geography, we know that the world is a satellite. At the beginning, there was no territory known as America. The Chinese, Indians and Malays did not join their territories and made this world round. There is no history, geography or social science to prove this. According to Darwin's theory, human development took place in stages. It took the shapes of reptiles, birds, animals, and monkeys, and from the monkeys, men finally came out. This is the science of human development. Even those people who say that man was created by God, or Adam and Eve were created by God, the present human race never says for any reason that men came into being with different races or cultures. Therefore, the world in which we live is the world around us, and the people who live in this world are one. We cannot say that you are different from us, I am different from you, and he is different from us. There is no place for such differences. Even the sects created by religion have mentioned God by different names. They never say that your God and my God are different. They have never created such differences. The Christians call the Son of God Jesus. The Muslims have no image of God, but they think that Mohammed was their God's messenger. The Hindus believe that their gods have gone through different incarnations. Like the Christians and Muslims, they also believe in incarnation. They think Siva, Rama and Krishna were different incarnations of God. Buddha and Confucius were human beings and they lived as human beings. On the basis of land, man and religion, all are equal. They are not different. This we can see for ourselves. When we realise that, no one can be differentiated. Though men were created on the same basis, because of certain changes in different parts of the world, and because of the geographical divisions due to mountains, jungles, rivers, seas and distances, people who live near to one another are closer to each other, and because such people understand each other better through signs and signals, they have more or less the same living habits. So the human race has been divided into Chinese, Malays, Indians, Europeans, Africans, etc. Mankind did not evolve at the beginning into many races. It is wrong to say that. I can call my Malay and Chinese colleagues as members of the same human race to which I belong. You may be surprised by that. But we may be different because of habits. I come from the southern part of India, where it is very hot. I may be different due to my living habits and speaking a different language. But all of us belong to the same human race. We have differences in appearance, but it is difficult to change immediately. In spite of that, we can always change our habits, languages, and opinions, and when we co-ordinate all these things together, we can become as one race. We have to give time for such changes. As the days go by, history will change. The multi-racial links which we are going to forge now will become stronger in the next two or three generations. Then there will be no place for minorities and majorities. There will be no differences at all. But till that time comes, some protection may be given to the minorities or one section of the people. In this country, if we live in goodwill with one another, the social links will be forged automatically and there will be no necessity for any rules and laws. At the beginning, men live in caves and satisfied their hunger by killing animals for food. Later they matured in intelligence and founded cities. They developed themselves in various fields. Men progressed in different ways. At first, it was thought that floods, storms and earthquakes were due to God's anger. Now men are beginning to go nearer to the moon. We are not bothered whether the Russians or the Americans are going to land on the moon first. Whoever get there first belong to the same human race, and their victory is a victory for the human race. In the same way, we have to condemn atrocities committed by one human being on another human being. In Vietnam, whether the Vietnamese kill the Americans or the Americans kill the Vietnamese, whoever is the cause of such atrocities should be condemned. What is the thing that has led people along the path of destruction? It is the law practised and the policies adopted by human beings. It is said that man is a creature of habit. Man has to adopt certain principles even in his daily affairs. One should know what time one should get up from bed, what time one should go to the office, and what time one should go back to one's house. Naturally man will adopt these habits. When he does so, he will gradually get into the habit of living together with other people as a community, and finally he will decide that he will do such anti such a thing. This is how man devised laws for himself and started to live according to the law. Rousseau had said that man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. Therefore, the laws drafted by experts may at times be repressive to the peace of mankind. And when they are repressive, they may be compared to an ass which bites in front and kicks from the back. I am not opposing any passing of laws, but the laws should help to advance mankind. I wish to point out one or two points in the Report. At first, I wish to mention the Council of State.

I am afraid I must ask you to read from the Report, as translated into Tamil, but if you will refer to the paragraph, it will help us to identify it.

(In Tamil): It is page 13, paragraph 46. I consider the proposals mentioned therein are not necessary at all. Parliament has been established by popular vote, and if it is not in a position to protect the people, then the people have the right to change it. So the people who elect their representatives to Parliament should be very careful in their choice. Parliament is based on popular vote, and if we are going to doubt its integrity, then I consider the proposals mentioned in paragraph 46 are not efficient at all. I support paragraphs 47, 48 and 49 of the Report. Secondly, I wish to touch on the Ombudsman. It is page 18, Chapter IV, paragraph 60. At times there may be circumstances in which the people's complaints may not be attended to. In such cases, the people concerned should go to their Members of Parliament and explain things to them if they want to find solutions to their problems. Should this fail, then I say that even the Ombudsman will be a failure. I do not know how much power this Ombudsman will have to find solutions to problems. Will he have more powers than Parliament? In which case, will he have more powers than the Head of State? If he is going to have less powers than the Head of State, then people can always appeal to the Head of State. Will the Ombudsman be of help to the people? We will have to consider all these points. If Parliament, which has been elected on popular vote, is not going to be effective, then I will have to give the same reason that I have given before. The only thing we can do is to improve upon the present system. That will help us a lot.

Mr Rajoo, was it a coincidence that you finished at the stroke of the clock?

With your permission, Sir, and that of Members present here, I would like to move the adjournment motion now.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." -[Mr Barker] Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock p.m.