Rubbish? Well, I will prove it to you. You ask the officer in the Prime Minister's Office whether it was not changed overnight. It was changed so as to keep the Opposition Member out of the Residents' Committees, not that I wanted to, but the rules were changed. Then the members of the Management Committees of the Community Centres and the Citizens' Consultative Committees were told, "You are not to have anything to do with the Opposition MP." I had to wait eight months before I could get my office in the Constituency. Before my election, the PAP Member of Parliament had his office. And as I said it once before, I was told, "No, you can't have that. We have given it to somebody else." I understand from my colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, that he is still waiting for his office. There was the National Day Dinner that was organized in my Constituency in 1982 or was it 1983. One would have thought that the people's representative from Anson would have been invited. No. As an insult to the people of Anson, the then Second Deputy Prime Minister - I see he was opening an animal hospital yesterday, I was glad to see that he is well - was the Guest-of-Honour. And he talked to the people present, people who were more or less forced to attend the dinner, because the Anson residents were not going to have anything to do with it. He gave them a lecture on what the PAP was going to do about recapturing Anson. So this went on. Not only was the Opposition MP denied outside but in Parliament, an attempt was made to try and get him off the rails. When all this failed, when they saw that all this was not going to get them anywhere, the Government decided that perhaps it was time to change, not because of any genuine change of heart but because they felt that the policy that they were carrying out was not going to help them in any way. We were told by the Prime Minister that there was a conversion, that he and his Senior Ministers decided that perhaps - this was 18 months or so after the Anson voters elected the first Opposition MP into Parliament - it was a good thing for Singapore to have an Opposition. But what was he saying in 1956? What was he saying in 1966? But at least he was truthful enough to say that he decided, 18 months after 31st October 1981, to change his mind about the Opposition. But was it a genuine change? Was this Government really interested in building up a constitutional Opposition so that Singapore may become a viable democracy? Or was it further intrigue, further play-acting by this Government to somehow hold on to power? I ask this because the Government came up with this ingenuous idea, first for Singapore, of having non-constituency MPs elected into Parliament. If anything was hypocritical, I say this is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It was quite clear that the Government was not interested in the emergence of a constitutional Opposition. What the Government was interested in was in a form of Opposition which could be managed and controlled by the Government. But very luckily for Singapore, the people of Singapore saw through this intrigue, saw that this was a phoney Opposition that the PAP Government was planning for them and they rejected it. They returned two Opposition Members into Parliament, not through the non- constituency method, but through direct elections. There is so much talk, Sir, about the present Opposition in Singapore not accepting the fundamentals of our society, about the need to defend Singapore. All this is a sort of smokescreen. I am asking the Government now: do you accept the fundamentals of a truly democratic state in Singapore? I would ask the Government to declare its stand now, whether or not it is for a truly democratic state in Singapore. Along with the non-constituency MP idea, the Prime Minister said in this House that his Government was considering amending the Constitution to give the President certain executive powers because of an imaginary fear that if another government got into office they might spend all the reserves. I asked him then whether any proposed change would be referred to the people in a referendum and he said he might consider it. Well, I would like an answer now without any equivocation, whether the Government intends to go ahead with its move to amend the Constitution to give the President powers, limited though they may be. Let us not have any shilly-shallying on this. Let us have clear answers, direct answers. If that is the intention, may I ask whether it will be referred to the people in a referendum or is it the Government's intention to introduce a Bill in this House without a referendum? Then, at the end of the elections in 1984, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Government realized that all that it had done to try and keep off Opposition Members had failed, when all its intrigues and all its devices to keep off Opposition Members from Parliament had failed, we had the Prime Minister going into a rage after the polling results were declared, saying that it was time that the one-man-one-vote system was looked at for us to consider whether there should be any change. I ask now of this Government to say here and now without any further hesitation: are you going to do anything to tinker with this one-man-one-vote system? I would ask the Government to come out into the open. You cannot keep these things to yourself. And if that is the intention, would it be referred also to the people in a referendum? I see that the Prime Minister went abroad to announce that he had persuaded his Cabinet Ministers to accept an amendment to the Constitution to give the President some powers. May I know if that is true, if that is the case, that the Cabinet has accepted this? Then after the 1984 elections, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we had many statements from the Government Ministers that I have found it very difficult to follow them in this maze of statements that have been uttered. There was the President's hope at the swearing-in of the Cabinet Ministers that the Government and the Opposition would engage in a meaningful dialogue. I have not seen any evidence of this from the Government benches. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister speaking to community leaders on 8th February, 1985, said this - I am quoting from a letter written by his Senior Parliamentary Secretary to me on 20th April 1985: 'Our attitude towards the Opposition will depend on the Opposition themselves. If an Opposition sets out to topple the Government through instigations, agitations, distortions, half-truths, unfounded rumours, then surely we cannot be expected to stand by with folded arms. We have got to react and to come down very hard on them. But if the Opposition is constructive and challenges us with constructive ideas, policies, then we must give them a chance, We must listen to them because they might have some ideas which we can borrow and implement. Let us contest on ideas, on policies. [I say Amen to that.] Who have better ideas and who have better people in implementing good ideas? The contest of ideas must take place not only in Parliament but also in the constituencies. If an MP preaches a certain policy, for example, if he is against our fining people for littering, for inconsiderate parking and driving, then we should perhaps waive the implementation of such rules in his constituency, He believes in that. The people have voted him. Let us take an enlightened approach. Let us implement what he wants to do in his constituency. If an MP, whether he is a PAP MP or Opposition MP, argues for a race circuit for hell-drivers, well, let us put the race track in the MP's constituency. He wants it. No other MPs want it. Put it in his constituency and let it go round and round his particular constituency.' These were the words spoken by the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I have said before, I do not want a racing circuit in Anson. What I want, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, are classrooms for conducting classes for students from poor families, not classrooms for students to be taught revolutionary songs or Communist songs. I say this, Sir, because from time to time we have heard from the Government an insinuation that in those days somehow Parties, other than the PAP, were responsible for the riots in 1955 and 1956. There was talk about wild men in those days and do we want to go back to those wild years. But let me lay that ghost to rest here. I see there was a full-scale debate in the Legislative Assembly following the riots and there, the PAP was accused of being at the back of all the riots, not the Prime Minister personally, but that Members of his Party were behind it. So I hope we shall not hear any more about wild men in 1955, 1956, creating trouble. And we do not want to go back to those days. Now, as I said, I have asked for classrooms and do I get them? In spite of the First Deputy Prime Minister saying, "Well, if they have got something constructive, we will help them. We will let them do what they want." I get a reply from the People's Association to say, "You can't have the classrooms. You can't have the conference rooms for meetings." I asked for the rooms for the Anson Council that I had formed. I then wrote again to the First Deputy Prime Minister asking him for clarification of the statement made by his Parliamentary Secretary that community centres are Government properties and no MP can do what he likes with them. Well, I have not had a reply to that yet, except to say that the People's Association would be replying to me. The question is this: are you going to put obstacles in the way of the Opposition MPs attempting to do anything in their own constituencies? If you are, then what does one make of the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement on the 8th February 1985 to community leaders? Was that all mere mumbo jumbo, not intended to be carried out? This is why I have raised this question, not as an academic exercise, because I am almost desperate in trying to understand what the Government's policy is towards a constitutional Opposition. So, I repeat, please declare your stand now, unequivocally. What is it that you stand for? Are you saying that all Opposition Parties are instigators and agitators? Are you making that allegation against the present Opposition Parties? If so, come out with it, and bring the evidence. I must carry on, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because I see time is running on. On the 1st of May at a meeting for trade unions, attended by about 1,000 people, the First Deputy Prime Minister was thinking aloud about the social unrest in Singapore that had been noted by an American company, the Business Environment Risk Information. The First Deputy Prime Minister tried to explain what was the cause of this social unrest that was noted by this company. And he said, "Could it be the loss of Anson in a by-election to the Workers' Party in 1981?" May I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister to say in this House what is it that he is trying to say in that? Because I do not understand it. Neither do the people of Singapore understand it. Is the First Deputy Prime Minister saying that there is social unrest in Singapore because Anson voters elected an Opposition Member into Parliament in 1981? Are you saying that there is social unrest in Singapore because in 1984, the voters in Anson and Potong Pasir elected Opposition Members? Because if you are saying that, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, I am saying to you that you are completely out of touch with reality. So will you please explain your stand? It should be quite clear to the Government and this motion assumes that - that the people of Singapore want to see the growth of a genuine constitutional Opposition in Singapore. That is quite evident. It is quite evident that the people of Singapore have grown up, as was noted by a foreign observer commenting on the 1984 Election results. The question is this: has this Government grown up? Is this Government mature enough to accept a constitutional Opposition? Or is it so insecure? I ask you, are you so insecure that you are afraid of any Opposition? It is as plain as that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. One more utterance of the First Deputy Prime Minister, and this was only yesterday. In an interview with Business Week, Miss Cheryl Debes, he was quoted having said that: 'Political self-renewal in the People's Action Party is proceeding well and this is one of the three key factors which will ensure stability and progress in Singapore after Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew retires.' Sir, may I say that that is a piece of arrogance because it assumes that only the People's Action Party can continue to look after Singapore. If anybody is to look after Singapore, it will be the people of Singapore, not the People's Action Party. And one of the key factors which will ensure stability and progress in Singapore is not political self-renewal in the People's Action Party. The key factor is whether you allow the free play of ideas that the Prime Minister was advocating in 1956, whether you allow the expression of constitutional rights by the citizens. That, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, is what will make for political stability. If you do not, as the Prime Minister then said, the alternative would be an armed struggle. I should have thought that the PAP would welcome our efforts in the Opposition because we are here to see that an armed conflict does not come about. We want constitutional progress in this country, not throwing of bombs, of going round beating up people. We want to see constitutional progress through the ballot box. And I should have thought that any sane, sensible government would welcome that from the Opposition Parties. But no, not from this Government. So, before I sit down, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I spell out what I would like to hear this afternoon from the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I have said, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. He should be here to answer these questions. At least, he was battling with this way back in 1956. The questions that I would like answered are: does this Government believe in a parliamentary democracy for Singapore? And may I say that parliamentary democracy can only come about if you have constitutional Opposition in the House, in Parliament, if you afford opportunities to the people to elect their representatives who can then make their representations known to you. So the question is this: do you believe in a parliamentary democracy for Singapore? Secondly, are you committed to that? It is one thing to believe, but are you committed to that? Third, if you are committed, what steps does the Government propose to take to encourage the growth of parliamentary democracy? I have said in this House that one of the things that we can do is to remove the restriction on the freedom of speech. Time does not permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but I will refer to the public meetings we have asked for, which have been denied time and time again. We asked for a meeting on the 1st of May, not to sing Communist songs or subversive songs, but to explain to the people what we meant by parliamentary democracy and constitutional Opposition. That was denied to us, even though the First Deputy Prime Minister then said that he would support it. And we had, I am sorry to say, a specious reply from the Minister for Home Affairs to May Day is only for trade unions." He was sitting here next to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said he would support it. We have asked for another meeting on the 25th May. We have been told that we would be granted a permit. But we are still waiting to hear from the Singapore Sports Council whether they would give us the Toa Payoh Athletic Stadium. What is the Government's attitude to this? Because we know that the Toa Payoh Athletic Stadium will be available on the 25th May. It is not being used. Will the Government tell the Singapore Sports Council to grant us the Stadium, that they would have no objections if they gave it? Or am I going to be told tomorrow by the Singapore Sports Council, "You can't have it." When we come down to specifics, are you going to obstruct the Opposition MPs from discharing their duties to serve the voters in their constituencies? To get down to more specifics, are you going to allow the Anson Community Centre classrooms for classes for children of residents in that constituency? Or are you going to shut them out? Why, if you are going to shut them out? Are you going to allow the use of the Conference Room for residents? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not the only one who want the answers to these questions. It does not matter if I am the only one who want the answers. The Government can ignore me. It can even ignore them if it was only the voters of Anson who want the answers to these questions. But, unfortunately for the Government, the people of Singapore want the answers to these questions. And so I trust the Government will answer these questions this afternoon. The people of Singapore demonstrated, in no uncertain way, their preference for a constitutional Opposition when 13% of the voters swung over to the Opposition. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.