Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore
“Sir, I had not intended to intervene in any debate. But I was doing physiotherapy just now and reading the newspapers and I thought I should bring the House back to earth. Mr Rajaratnam had great virtues in the midst of despondency after a series of race riots when we were thrown out during Independence.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. Can I ask him if he considers Singapore's population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?”
“The Member has not answered my question. Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples? Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower? Can they do that?”
“I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification. He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland. Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.”
“At the end of the day, that will be the same for the Malays, for the Indians and for all the others. S Rajaratnam was aiming for the stars. I went along with him with the pledge, and we must try to live up to the pledge. But to say, let us forget race, language, religion, culture, that is not doable.”
“So there is a wide range of options open and it depends on your judgment on the quality of the people you appoint, and also what is the objective of appointing people to these positions, whether you want them to stay effectively until retirement, which means you have to avoid appointing good people to these positions early which is, I thi…”
The complete record
Every one of 506 lines we hold for Lee Kuan Yew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 11.
“I would like, in urging the House to endorse the Motion in the name of the Minister for Law, to urge our representatives here to bring this message down to the people in the kampongs, in the crowded streets of the town, community centres or in the consultative committees, that whilst we operate on the basis of exhortation, tolerance, understanding, forbearance, and whilst we keep these sometimes competing interests relatively accommodated one to the other through constant consultation at all the levels of decision-making, eventually there is no way other than the inculcation of loyalty to the country which we all consider our home. Either we believe that what we have inherited after 150 years of British commercialism - very successful commercialism -- is worth preserving in some of its forms, or we do not. The British succeeded in holding this because they had superior power. Anybody who acted contrary to the general interests of somebody else other than the British was held in line. And if you acted against the interest of the British, then you would he smartly dealt with. But here is a situation where the Government must remember, as any such elected government must, that its capacity to deal with a particular problem depends upon its capacity to carry its majority with it. This is a slightly different kind of power structure. A Governor can order that a highly popular mass movement he destroyed and its leaders incarcerated, and his career prospects are brightened by the expeditious way in which he dealt with the dangerous situation. But a popularly elected Cabinet that deals with a situation in such a way that it has alienated the following, the sympathy and the support of the majority on whom its power rests, must either he a very bold or a foolhardy government.”
“What we want to do is to try to establish, until we reach the point where we accept each other, the point where we are not conscious of the fact that you are different, certain conventions whereby we ensure that everybody, no matter whether he be of a majority or a minority group, feels that he has some access to his own little community, some access to someone in the seat of power where decisions have to be made. This is the real contribution which can be made by a Council of State. It is not something which will window-dress the legislation of this Chamber. To succeed it must be a real means of consultation and participation in the mechanics of management of a community by itself. So long as there are certain conventions practised whereby there is always enough majority and minority representation in the exercise of these positions of power, we should be able to ride the transition to a more consolidated and to a more secure position in the next 10 or 15 years. But in the long term, let us be honest enough and admit that if either because our policies are not effective enough internally to generate and inculcate these multi-racial values, or because external forces have had a deleterious effect on our own community, then new forms will have to be found to keep this very diverse community together.”
“If, in fact, the policy of this Government is based on considerations of race or language or culture, then it is impossible to have in certain key positions, key institutions of the State, people who share other than the majority view because the policy and the secrets of the implementation of that policy must be known. There are certain institutions of power in the State, and it is impossible completely to seal off or isolate or prevent knowledge of policies which are being pursued and the known raison d'etre of these policies from the President. He gets a copy of every Cabinet agenda, the papers, the decisions and the reasons therefor. In the Cabinet itself are ten people of very different views on ordinary matters or non-political interests. It is impossible to make decisions inimical to any single minority group without their being known to the persons who do not share the majority view or the majority affinity. There is a Chief Justice with six Judges who have to execute and implement the administration and interpretation of the laws. I do not think anybody can, by any stretch of the imagination, say that there is any ethnic group there which intends to dominate the situation, although by the very nature of their education, quite a number of our Judges are people with the qualities for bisecting, disecting and trisecting words and phrases. Then there is the Speaker who presides over so many pieces of legislation and there is the Attorney-General in his Chambers who has to draft them. There is the Commissioner of Police who has to implement the laws. There are key officials in the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance who must know the basic policies.”
“When a man walks into a job or walks into an office, he is cheered or abused and he does not feel that he has received an ovation or been rebuked because of his ethnic qualities. A group of cleansing workers went on strike and they had to be punished because they were acting foolishly. Because the majority of the leaders were Indians, it was possible for them to go back to the ground and cover up the misdeeds of the leaders by saying, "Oh, what can you expect? This is an awful government because it really does not have much time for Indians." So you see we are in such a mess as long as that situation prevails and people can be deluded into believing, as indeed for all I know, large numbers of cleansing workers may believe, that their poor leaders lost because they were Indians. Perhaps my task might have been easier if, in fact, the first group of unionists had challenged the policy that the economy of Singapore is paramount and sectional interests come second. It would have been better if there had been a group of majority Chinese leadership to put it to the test. Then the lesson would have been learnt. But to be able to admit these things openly and to face them, is a much healthier situation than to pretend that they do not exist, and to refer to anybody raising these issues or even mentioning these issues as dangerous communalists. We face them, Mr Speaker, because they do happen. They do, in fact, take place and people do, in fact, believe them. I can only say this, that if these things are true, then this must be a very strange government.”
“Even assuming a major catastrophe were to take place with the political structure of power here, it would still take some time for emotional attitudes on the ground to be soured up and to change. Our problem really is how do we, within the ten perhaps slightly more, perhaps less years at our disposal, (1) institutionalise these checks and balances; and (2) ensure that the next generation is able to carry this process one step further'? If 10 years from now, in the late 1970, a new group of leaders have emerged and we are still making pious exhortations to religious tolerance and the virtues of a multi-racial society, just paying lip-service to it, then we have failed. For once the controlling hand of authority that believes in these things is weakened, then all the extremist tendencies which have been inhibited whilst there was a strong hand will again come to the fore. We have seen what happens in other parts of the world. Nobody attempts to deny the fact that there are these extremist potentials. They were there. In Ceylon, before Mr Bandaranaike became Prime Minister, they were there. In India, before the present government faced this awkward and difficult problem of the holy men and the cows as an election issue. The difference was that the grip at the helm was not so strong. Our problem is how to institutionalise and to perpetuate this strong hand at the helm. It is not possible to reduplicate ourselves in the next generation. But it is possible to deepen and ingrain certain values until they become instinctive reflexes of our people. And it is the consolidation of these values in the next generation which must occupy a large part of our time. When a minority no longer is conscious of the fact that it is a minority, that is the final state of success.”
“We could have all the checks and balances we want within the Constitution. But if you have a bad elected government, a whole cabinet consisting of people properly elected and determined to wreck the country, there is nothing that can be done other than to get such a government out as quickly as possible, if possible constitutionally, if not some other means must be found by the community. It is as simple as that. I read with interest recently about the personal fortunes and activities and the political future of some American Congressman, how his popularity seems to increase with every revelation of public misconduct. There is very little you can do if that is the given situation. If the things an elected leader does are the things which the people who support him hanker secretly to do, if only they were given the chance, then every disclosure of every such fulfilment of a secret ambition must raise him in the estimation of his followers. I think we discovered that in a slightly different sort of way in our own political experience in Singapore and elsewhere in South-east Asia. We go back to the fundamental problem of one man one vote. Is that one man sufficiently possessed of enough sense to make the right decision for his own interest? In other words, is he able to identify and discern where his personal and his community's interests lie? Hence the importance again of teaching values and educating our children in attitudes and standards of conduct, community reactions, group reactions in order to ensure their continued well-being. I would like to end on this note, Mr Speaker, Sir. Nobody really fears any racial or religious or linguistic persecution or suppression in Singapore, not at least for a decade. For these things take some time to wear off.”
“Your only protection in the long run must be a highly sophisticated and educated electorate which will see that no bad government, bad in the sense that it is unable to tend to the needs of the community, will ever be allowed to take office constitutionally. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Prime Minister, I am afraid we have reached the time limit under Standing Orders. May I obtain the general assent of the House for you to continue? Do I have the general assent of Members for the Prime Minister to speak beyond the time permitted by Standing Orders? Hon. Members indicated assent.”
“This is a social burden, and for us to leave this land vacant to the landowner is to give him a fortuitous gain which he cannot expect unless he is prepared to commit arson. I am quite sure that the crime of arson has been at an all-time low, partly because landowners have a vested interest in not having arson take place. But in the long run, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to understand our problem in some perspective. There are two particular recommendations which I think show the signs of wishful thinking. Apart from wanting the Judges to appoint themselves, they also want the President in his discretion to appoint the Council of State. The President is what he is and is accepted by all groups because he does not have to make unpleasant decisions of who shall get what and who shall be denied. If there is one piece of cake and it is given to two persons when five want it, then three must in the nature of things be unhappy at not having been the recipients. If you have, by way of illustration, to choose a representative to this Council of State from, say, a galaxy of five able exponents of the art of accounting and you only really need one to ensure that that particular profession is adequately represented, and the committee had met and short-listed the five, four must necessarily be disappointed. I think the political participants are much better equipped to carry these unpleasant decisions than a constitutional Head of State. What it means is that you cannot by the Constitution protect yourself against a bad elected Government. There can be no such protection.”
“These developments having taken place and a new express highway at enormous public cost having been put in, all the land and all the surrounding areas which are fed by this highway must go up in price inevitably because the city centre becomes that much closer. It is unconscionable for us as a Government to spend these vast sums of public revenue and in the end allow a very small percentage of the population to profit. Nobody expects this Government or any subsequent government to expropriate. The question is, what is just compensation? And to accept the formula as it stands: `No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property except for a public purpose or a purpose useful or beneficial to the public and except upon just terms.' must mean endless litigation. This Chamber would then be unable to say that where your property has gone up in value on account of public expenditure on development around it, you will not profit from it. Therefore, we propose to adopt the provisions of the Indian Constitution, which I think is most democratic and sound, and say, in effect, that the legislative chamber shall decide the principles upon which such compensation shall be paid. The principle will be one on which we have acted so constantly in the past, that nobody will gain, nobody will get a windfall on account of public expenditure. A fire has just taken place a few days ago in, I think, Syed Alwi Road. A few hundred people have been displaced. We had to make a decision a few hours ago that the place shall be acquired. For we have, as a Government, to carry the burden of rehabilitating these few hundred people.”
“It would have been uneconomic and impossible to develop if we have had to acquire the property under the ordinary machinery of the Land Acquisition Ordinance with a right of appeal in the case of every award contested, to the High Court, with two assessors who are both trained and accept as part of their ethos the right and sanctity of private property. This becomes all the more compelling when vast sums of public revenue is being spent on developing huge areas like Jurong, Toa Payoh, Bedok. The whole of the Bedok reclamation scheme, from Bedok right up to Tanjong Rhu, would not have been possible if the concept of private property and all the rules and regulations that have been elaborated over hundreds of years were complied with, for it must mean that if you deprive a man of a sea frontage, some assessment of his loss in monetary terms must be made. A man wakes up and has awakened for the last 50 years with the sea breezes blowing in through the window. He goes off on a holiday, comes back from Europe and America and wakes up one morning - assuming he arrives late at night at Paya Lebar Airport - opens his windows and finds half a mile of rolling brown laterite. We hope in five years there will be grass lands, playing fields, a motor express highway into the city. The compensation that would have to be paid that man for the loss of his foreshore amenities - the foreshore belongs to the Government in any case - but the loss of the amenities that goes with the piece of land - would have been prohibitive. It is not possible to develop it.”
“I can only express the hope that faith in the judicial system will never be diminished, and I am sure it will not, so long as we allow a review of the judicial processes that takes place here in some other tribunal where obviously undue influence cannot be brought to bear. As long as governments are wise enough to leave alone the rights of appeal to some superior body outside Singapore, then there must be a higher degree of confidence in the integrity of our judicial process. This is most important because so many contracts of a maritime nature with parties from many parts of the world being involved often have to choose the venue of the litigation. I see no credit in our trying to run a close circuit judicial system on our own. The other proposition concerns that of property rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, here again it is not strictly relevant to the terms of reference. But I think it was a result of the lawyers' English legal training - the sanctity of property is one of the tenets of English laws. The whole of the British judicial system outside the criminal law rests upon the concept of private property. Sir, whether we like it or not, we have to accept the fact that not only a large portion of all this thinking but also the mechanics of our economy is based on the concept of property. But land is a special situation in Singapore. If we are swayed by considerations of private property, had we been swayed in the past by these considerations, I venture to suggest that representative government in Singapore today would not have been possible. In this Chamber in 1961 we rushed through the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act for the acquisition of fire sites; the Bukit Ho Swee fire having just taken place and some 30,000 people having had their homes destroyed.”
“There was grave danger that whoever became the government, particularly in view of the Malayanisation of all the Judges then and a large number of vacancies to be filled, would then be in a position to pack the judiciary. After strenuous argument, the points of views, depending upon who was going to form the next government, a compromise was worked out whereby we allowed the Judges amongst themselves to decide how these large numbers of vacancies were to be filled. I do not think that system has been perpetuated in any constitution anywhere else in the British Commonwealth. It would be not only derogatory of the capacity of the Government to do what is right and proper, but even more important, there would be a very serious risk of a very inbred judiciary. People are what they are, Mr Speaker, Sir. They have their good points; they have their bad points. But we should not have a small group of about six or seven Judges to decide who is to join their ranks from people for whom they must have positive reactions, either likes, dislikes, admiration, annoyance. It is a very small group from which you can appoint Judges. 170 or 200 practising members of whom only about 30 or 40 both in and outside private practice and in and outside the Government are possible candidates. It will be an unfair test of human infallibility to endow a small group of men with these powers. Having run this very Catholic system of the cadres - you know, the Pope appoints the Cardinals, the Cardinals together appoint the Pope - we are fully aware not only of the virtues but also the vices of the system. I think it would not be in the wider interests of the administration of justice or in the public interest.”
“A position may be reached one day when there is no decision taken anywhere along the line which would be any different if they were to sit back and think "What would happen to my career." There is no desire to hide the political hand. I say quite openly of what has happened in Geylang Serai and I am quite prepared to justify it politically, that it is wrong. They should be offered cheaper rent and be made to live in Tanjong Rhu or Queenstown or elsewhere. But if the officer who often has to take this decision on broad policy directives, finds he may blot his copybook because somebody has complained, and he was found to have exercised his judgment unwisely and erroneously, it is bound to slow up the process. He is bound in the nature of things to pass it up for a decision and ask for a directive, even on specific issues. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that we have not rejected this. We have only said, "Let us wait and see." First, how does it work in its limited form elsewhere? Second, in five years let us see whether we have more able digits in our administration to be able to take on this stringent test of knowing that every decision affecting every single citizen can be reopened for scrutiny. The Commission made several other recommendations which were not strictly within the terms of reference of the Commission, but since they have made them, it is right and proper that I should express our views on this. First, the question of the Judges. They have suggested, in fact, that we revert back to the system which existed - I think nowhere else in the world other than in Singapore before it went into Malaysia. That was a standstill arrangement and I knew how it came about because I participated in the deliberations in London which reached that compromise proposal.”
“If after five years it is found that we have a sufficiently high degree of administration to be able to take on the added burden of having every administrative decision scrutinised by some overlord, then I think the position should be reviewed. It must be a position which we would try to attain. But faced with the realities of what we have, and the knowledge that very often the whole machinery of government depends on the capacity of two dozen really good digits in the administration, to put upon them this load is bound to slow up the whole process of decision-making. If every Commissioner of Lands, every Housing Board executive who allocates flats has at the back of his mind when he makes a decision the thought that the wisdom of his decision will be called into question and all the paraphernalia - secret minutes passed between each other of the whys and wherefores and who and what for - can be regurgitated, it is bound to make him hesitate. "I am refusing accommodation in the Geylang Serai block of flats to Malays who have just had their attap huts burnt in Lorong 3." It is a decision made partly by the Board and partly by an unofficial committee of M.P.s who feel that this creation of a ghetto atmosphere would be bad and inimical for our own society. If every such decision can be reopened and it is said, "You have refused me a flat in Geylang Serai, although I am a Malay and that is a Malay area" - then it is bound to slow up the process of decision-making. I am not saying this in wanting to protect or perpetuate this state of affairs. I would like to believe that in the next 5 or 10 years more and more able administrators will be trained to man the institutions of the State.”
“I would like to believe that such a group of men representing accumulated experience, representing the various professional and technical institutions who are important digits in the functioning of a modern society - they could provide the kind of ballast which a very young Legislature may not necessarily have. I would urge my Members opposite - all are really on the Government side - to think sometimes of these criticisms which they take very sensitively as really an expression of tribute in a back-handed way to them. It is all right provided there are certain checks and balances which modulate the whole and so everything can work. But there must come a time when the same checks and balances may no longer apply, and it is our duty to create a situation where, even if a composition of this Chamber were different, there are still enough checks and balances to ensure the continuance of tolerant and permissive policies. Therefore, in the drafting of the duties of the Council of State, part of the functions which might have been done by an Ombudsman or Parliamentary Commissioner will be taken up through this particular Council of State. In rejecting for the time being the innovation of a Parliamentary Commissioner - let me say that we have not written off this proposition. Legislation for such an institution has just been attempted in Britain in a very limited sort of way. There is no possibility of any member of the public asking for a writ to be issued by the Commissioner for a matter to be investigated. It is very limited not only in the initiative of the inquiry but also in the fields where the inquiries can take place.”
“A retired Permanent Secretary who does not have to speak his mind in public, but can quietly tell the President in his presence, or through the Chairman who will be the Speaker of this House, what his experiences were with regard to similar circumstances, will make a valuable contribution. A retired Commissioner of Police who had lived through several riots, not just between gangsters and warring bands of robbers, can make a valuable addition to the data upon which an administration must base its decisions. We are unable to accept the recommendation that those with political affiliations should be excluded, for I think it is often those with political affiliations who can make the biggest contribution to discussion; if nothing else, from the folly and error of their past ways. There is a lot to be learned, not just by what was done right, but by what was done wrong. Again, I think it is more likely that we get honest advice in private than in public. This brings us to the second role which I think the Council of State can provide. It means, in effect, if there is a wise and sufficiently broad-enough range of talent and expertise, that there is no single group - either functional, racial, linguistic, or religious - that has not got some access to the top institutions of power. This, in itself, has a deep psychological assurance. It acts more by the fears it makes unnecessary, than by any actual evil that is remedied. The very fact that there is almost no minority group in Singapore that can say that they are not represented by someone in this Constitutional Commission who understands some part of their life and practices makes its findings all that much more valuable.”
“Hence we differed profoundly with the proposition that such a meeting of the Council should be in public. If anybody challenges the right of the representatives of the people to take a particular course of action, then they must have the courage to come out openly into the political arena and denounce these policies. But if they reserve to themselves the right to advise caution or perhaps to take a middle course, without entering the political arena, then this advice should not be given in public, for it is impossible for any elected government to accept a change of its policies once it has been joined in political debate. We envisage this Council of State to be more than just a scrutineer of prospective legislation, if it consists of men who have had experience of our community - and there are very few such men. As my colleagues can testify, every time a senior appointment has to be made, which in other parts of the world will bring forth long screeds of highly qualified and highly able men in semi-retirement, we are scraping the bottom of the barrel, and the reason is obvious. All the men in high professional, administrative, judicial or any other positions were from abroad, and when they retired they went abroad. There were very few men who understand the texture and the flavour of our society, having looked after it in some important sphere of activity, who are around to give us that knowledge of what happened under certain given conditions, of the possible reactions, modes of behaviour, patterns of conduct of the various sectors of our population.”
“It is the view of my colleagues and myself that the elders in this community - and the problem is that there are not very many such elders in the community - can make a positive contribution to a good and tolerant government. I have mentioned one reason why the older generation may not be adequately represented in Parliament with the passage of time. There is a second reason why many people of scholarship and distinction in their particular profession or vocation are reluctant or emotionally unfit to enter into the sharp conflict of the open political arena. They and many people find it distasteful. It is not natural for people educated and brought up in a more sheltered atmosphere to expose themselves, their public stance and their private lives to open and sometimes vicious political attack. My colleagues and I appreciate this very much, not because we enjoy these political attacks but because over a passage of time we have developed a certain tolerance to all this constant snipping and cudgelling. But we are extremely conscious of the fact that it is not easy to get men of intellectual qualities to join us in this open arena, because the heat and the dust is something they find uncongenial. A President's Council, which really is what the Council of State will be, a kind of Privy Council to the Queen, and so an advisory council for the President, can make a valuable contribution to the mechanics of a representative government, provided that there are sufficient safeguards to see that no sectional or functional interest can be peddled. In other words, nobody can get on a hobby-horse either for life or for a specific period to pursue a particular sectional interest, whether for gain or for any other reason.”
“But that having been said, I think provided there are certain safeguards as to the possible misuse or abuse of the forum which we will create by constituting this Council of State, a genuine contribution can be made to give that participation and consultation which could make for much happier living for everybody. By the very nature of our population, it is likely as the years go by that Members of this House will become younger and younger and not older and older. The young have a habit of choosing those most like themselves, of voicing the sentiments, the styles and the moods of their generation, and over the next ten years or even in the next five years, two-thirds of the electorate will be below the age of 35. I do not say that a young representative Chamber is a bad thing in itself, but I do say that - perhaps this is part of the consolation of growing old, Mr Speaker, Sir - there is something about the process of learning which, by the very nature of things, take time. If we had been older, less idealistic, more cynical and we had with greater circumspection weighed the possibilities of amalgamation between two very different textures of society, perhaps we may not have gone into merger and Malaysia with the zest, enthusiasm and idealism with which we were fired. Perhaps a lot of unhappiness might have been avoided. It is not that we would not have tried to do it, and I think it was right that we did. But our actions would have been tempered with a great deal of circumspection as to the way in which one could slowly and gradually interlock two very different ways of life.”
“Hence the importance of having some mechanism whereby members of our society are given some assurance until long-term values are inculcated in the whole society, that there will be more than fair play, more than what they could normally have had the right to expect as citizens free and equal of the others in the society. It is against this background that we had to decide what parts of the recommendation to accept and what parts to reject. The acid test is, does this particular recommendation, first, help to promote this feeling of oneness regardless of all the ethnic, religious and linguistic differences, and in the long run promote the sense of being and feeling as a community? Second, even if it does not do that in the long run, does it in the interim provide that assurance of consultation and participation by minority groups in the management of our society, which consultation and participation would not normally have been open to them on the basis of one man one vote? I will now deal with the principal recommendations of the Commission. The Council of State. I know that many Members in this House, particularly those with some training on the elective principles of representative government, feel that this is a proposition which runs contrary to the whole thesis of representative government. It is true that by whatever name we call it and however we disguise its advisory capacity, it is, in effect, clothing with some authority the views of a group of people who really cannot be said to be representative of the electorate, because they cannot claim to speak on behalf of the majority of any particular section of the community.”
“Villages were burnt, other human miseries occurred which led them to take this very desperate step of seeking sanctuary, knowing that, in fact, the chances of getting sanctuary were negligible. If, swayed by human sympathy, we permitted this, then we must be prepared to admit some two million or maybe three million people in similar circumstances who will seek refuge in Singapore within the next few years. Even assuming that our economy can carry them, or that they come in with sufficient resources to make a contribution to our economy, it must mean a mutation in our attitude, because they must have their repercussions on the attitudes of the rest of the population. This is what happened in India and Pakistan with each successive collision, as victims of atrocities streamed across the boundaries carrying their tales of horror of what happened to people on the basis of the colour of their skin, the structure of their nose, their eyes, the texture of their hair. Emotions are aroused which jell people into either unquestioning loyalties to those of like appearance, or blind hate and fear and hostility to those groups who look different from them. The fact that the majority in my Cabinet are ethnically and linguistically of similar types to those who landed here, made our decision all that much more meaningful to those of my colleagues who do not share these ethnic and linguistic characteristics. What we must constantly remember is that, despite ourselves, a situation may arise in which xenophobia actively encouraged or otherwise accidentally allowed out of hand spreads its pernicious influence throughout our own society.”
“I am happy to report that after a sober but sometimes trying exploration of all the compromise proposals, the Inter-Religious Council was able to reach some common principle upon which all such practices or innovations will be dealt with, and it was agreed that so far as was possible, such electronic devices should be confined to the precincts of a religious place. But sometimes either by non-enforcement of the law or otherwise, exemptions had been made in the past, and this particular practice had not been complied with. In such cases, if there were undue invasions of the privacy of other persons, self-restraint would be applied. Self-restraint, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the people who were otherwise permitted and have, in fact, been permitted to practise particular forms of calls to prayer. Under the new circumstances of it being cited as a precedent for others to do likewise, they have agreed to inhibit their own practices. If there had not been this capacity to appreciate a problem, if the attitude is, "I have always been allowed to do this. You have never been allowed to do this. Therefore, that must be so," then it is impossible to maintain this easy relationship. Eventually, the success of our efforts must be measured by the ability to build these attitudes and these reflections into the next generation. But however assiduously and zealously we pursue these policies, there are events which can take place outside and around us which will have deep and searing repercussions on our own social fabric. Recently my colleagues and I were confronted with the very unpleasant task of deciding what to do with two sampan loads of refugees who came seeking sanctuary from depredations which had overtaken them in some island to the south-west of us.”
“We by our educational policies, by the values which we systematically inculcate in our people, can ensure that the next generation will find it much more natural to accept a scheme of things in which the exercise of authority in this society by one person over another does not depend upon his colour, his name, the kind of church or temple he goes to, or the language he speaks to his family at home. In turn, the inculcation of these values in our children becomes easier if the opinion formulaters in all these various community groups are conscious of the fact that their attitudes and their actions cause either a favourable or an unfavourable reaction on the others. In other words, it is not just a process of exhortation. It is exhortation of values which are desirable, and the constant reaction of the individual who is being exhorted to adopt a particular scale of values, against the experiences of his own life. If he finds the exhortation incongruous to the experience of his life, the exhortation will be rejected. Let me elaborate. Recently the Government was confronted with a difficult and a delicate problem, for all religious problems are delicate. A group of Buddhists applied for permission to use loudspeakers for their religious services. All churches or temples wish to expand their flock and, with modern electronic aid, the desire to modernise the proselytising zeal is only natural. If the answer from the Commissioner of Police who is in charge of these applications was "No", then inevitably unjust conclusions would be drawn that some denominations are more favoured than others. For instance, it is well known that the followers of the Muslim religion are summoned to prayer with modern electronic aid.”
“We felt that the Commission would get the problem in perspective. It would also make people with a proclivity towards politics, based on loyalties of either ethnic, linguistic or religious ties, assess their possibilities of attaining power on the basis of such manipulations. The Commission gave a patient hearing to all those who appeared before it. And, if I may add, not only a patient but an extremely polite hearing to all manner of propositions which were placed before it as sound political propositions. Their unanimous conclusion is that it is a man's position as a citizen and his ability to exercise his rights as a citizen and be protected in the exercise of his rights regardless of race, language or religion, that must be ensured. That is the biggest single contribution the Commission made to multi-racial understanding, tolerance and acceptance of each other's differences in our society. But let me hasten to add that this is not a sound and enduring basis on which we can secure that such a society will always be tolerant and will always be permissive. The problem is, how do we institutionalise some of these forms and practices so that in the next generation these things become part of the accepted way of life? What are the factors which will influence our social fabric? I suggest they can be divided roughly into two categories, our own internal policies and, second, international policies affecting our own internal policies.”
“Multi-racialism in a permissive, tolerant society becomes an imperative for us and those societies like us, which, for one reason or another, have taken into one geographic whole large components of people with diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds. The reasons we advanced before merger and Malaysia why such a larger whole would have provided a much more stable, a broader basis for the survival of the values which we would like to carry forward from the old into the new society, are still valid. And when we found ourselves confronted suddenly with the problem of an independent Singapore, our pre-occupation was how to ensure that the perils of communal politics shall not inflict us. Unless care is exercised, we could so easily be torn as-under. The problem is how to create a situation where the minority either in ethnic, linguistic or religious terms, is not conscious that it is a minority; where the exercise of its rights as an equal citizen is so natural and so accepted a part of our society that it is not conscious of the fact that it is sharing, within this wider whole, equal rights with the dominant ethnic groups who accept its equality as a matter of fact. First, let me review the events which led us to the necessity of having such a Commission. Multi-racialism is a tenet which has been espoused by every responsible political party from the very beginnings of party politics in Singapore. It was almost something taken for granted as an axiom before you expounded your political credo. But we discovered in the years 1964 and 1965 how easily it was stretched to breaking point just by a small group of people being permitted to expound extreme philosophies of political forms of government based on ethnic, religious and linguistic loyalties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in giving my views on the motion before this House in the name of the Minister for Law, I would like, first, to express the gratification of the Government that a unanimous report was, in fact, possible despite the fact that almost every minority group in Singapore was represented in the Constitutional Commission. It is a reminder, in fact, of the value of having certain common denominators in any group of people if they are to function effectively and cohesively. The common denominators in this case were that, first, they were lawyers in the English tradition, and, second, whatever their religious, their ethnic and their linguistic origins may have been, they had not got embroiled in, and debased by the excesses of communal mass politics. I am not suggesting that a multi-racial society is the ideal society in all circumstances. In fact, the great powers of this world today consist of nations which are ethno-centric in composition. True, both the Americans and the Russians have more than one single race or one single language group or one single religion. But there is in both countries one single race or ethnic group which shares one common language and whose culture is, by reason of its dynamism or aggressiveness, far in dominance over the others comprised in the nation. Be that as it may for aspirants to world powers, we are confronted, as a young migrant community, with the problem of continuing a tolerant, meaningful society for some two million people nearly all of whom cannot trace their links with the Republic for more than 150 years. For when Stamford Raffles landed here in February 1819, there were only 120 Malays and 30 Chinese, and there cannot be very many of us here who can trace our ancestors to those 120 Malays and 30 Chinese.”
“But by an unfortunate turn of events, it is now of no value to the family and it has landed in the pool for cars for official use. I may just add, in case there is any lingering doubt in the mind of the Member for Bras Basah, that there is no money to give away at $1 per day to the Public Daily-Rated Employees or anybody else in this country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it so happens that the staff employed by Temasek, Kuala Lumpur, are Malaysian citizens because they had been employed there for several years even before we were in Malaysia. It was found more convenient to employ people who were already, so to speak, at hand, if there should be further expansion in the domestic staff of our High Commission there, we shall bear in mind what has been said by the Member for Mountbatten and perhaps some of our own citizens can be posted for duty there. But I think it would serve very little purpose in making painful adjustments now by getting rid of satisfactory domestic staff just because they happen to be Malaysian citizens. Whilst I am on this subject, I might also add for the benefit of the Member for Bras Basah, that the Rolls Royce he mentioned as having been acquired by the Prime Minister's Office was, in fact, acquired by the former High Commissioner for Singapore in Kuala Lumpur. It was part of his own purchases, and when he passed away, his executors, who, I think, include his wife, decided that they had no use for it and they have donated it to the Government for the use of the Ministers. It is in the motor car pool. I would like to assure the Member for Bras Basah - I. know what he has in his mind, that if we have money for Rolls Royces, then surely we can give a dollar a day more to all the Public Daily-Rated Employees' Unions Federation - that we have not got money to throw around on Rolls Royces, that we do not intend to throw money around on Rolls Royces, and, in fact, even if we did, it would not impress anybody in Singapore at all. But it so happens that in this particular case, our former High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur thought it might be in keeping with his duties there if he had a Rolls Royce.”
“He should have raised this question then.”
“I do not wish in any way to curb or restrict Members of this House from having their say during Budget time, but I must ask the Member who has raised this particular head for discussion to confine himself to the policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers. I have followed with considerable interest the details of this particular driver, but I would like to know from the Member how this affects the policy of the Attorney-General's Chambers. If he will let me know how this affects it, then I will follow his story with even greater interest and more understanding.”
“The wealthier the parent or the more he can afford, the less the State will assist. As for Malay students, I would like to point out that we are continuing our policy of giving free education from primary school to university to all Singapore citizens who are Malays and can obtain admission to these institutions of learning. The reduction in the sum in no way affects the number of pupils who will be getting scholarships or bursaries from Malay secondary schools to higher institutions of learning. 3.15 p.m. By way of giving the House some idea of the spread of these bursaries and scholarships, may I just briefly give the round total figures for the various institutions for this year: 146 awards to the University of Singapore, making a total of 472; 3 awards to the University of Malaya, making a total of 23; 77 awards to the Polytechnic, making a total of 186; 97 awards to Nanyang University, making a total of 235; 10 to Ngee Ann College, making a total of 119; 40 to the Singapore Vocational Institute, making a total of 59; 20 to the Teachers' Training College, making a total of 20 - there had been no previous awards to the Teachers' Training College. This is the sum total of bursary awards for the year 1966.”
“Sir, the short and direct answer to the query posed by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is that a number of bursaries to certain Nanyang University students have been cancelled. We provide bursaries to our students in order that they will make a contribution to higher learning, higher discipline, and ultimately a higher level of economic activity in our country. But when students take advantage of these facilities not in order to promote the welfare of the community but to bring into disrepute the institutions of higher learning to which they gain admission, then I think it is the duty of the Government to terminate these bursaries. First, I want to point out to Members generally that there is a distinction between a scholarship and a bursary. I have pointed out that the best of all the scholarships which we give are now known as the President's scholarships. A scholarship is awarded on the basis of merit regardless of the financial standing of the parents of the student. But if all students can get assistance only on the basis of higher academic performance, then a large body of very good but less than brilliant students would be denied this opportunity. Therefore, a large number of students are given assistance by what are known as bursaries. For the award of a bursary, other considerations, besides just academic competence, are taken into consideration. First, the financial capacity of the parents of the student; second, the subject which the student wishes to pursue. If the subject is one which is likely to make a contribution to our society, then a bursary will be more readily forthcoming. The amount of the bursary given to the student will depend upon the financial resources of his parents.”
“This is a subject which has drawn considerable comment from other political leaders in other countries, and I would like to state just the bare facts. The Singapore Government paid for one-third of the capital cost in acquiring the premises of Malaysia Hall, and we have since then paid one-third of the recurrent expenditure annually for its upkeep. We shall be prepared to do this till the end of time, perhaps until such time as the building needs rebuilding. But whatever it is, we are in equity - owners of one-third of Malaysia Hall. I believe it used to be three separate buildings which are now joined into one, and we pay for one-third of its annual recurrent expenditure.”
“Sir, I am afraid I may not have made myself sufficiently clear. There are nine scholarships open to the nine best students from the H.S.C. classes of all language streams. The winners of these scholarships can choose to go to any university anywhere in the world to which they can gain admission. If they do not gain any other scholarship, then the Government will pay their passage to that university, their tuition fees, and their subsistence cost. But the students who win these scholarships usually also win other scholarships, and when they do that, as a mark of distinction over and above the other students who have won similar scholarships, they get an additional £50 per annum. I am not suggesting that any student anywhere in the world can survive on £50 per annum, but the £50 is only given to the student who has, before he gets the President's scholarship, already qualified for some other scholarship. Then, by virtue of his getting the President's scholarship, he gets an extra £50.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I expect all Members of this House to know the rules - and the rules are being applied with greater and greater diligence - that all these privileges are only open to members of our society and some membership card must be produced. The membership card here is the red identity card. If the pupil cannot produce that card, then he does not come within the scope of people on whom the privileges would be showered.”
“I will certainly touch on that, Mr Speaker, Sir, when I come to the next item in the Estimates, namely, my own Office expenditure. I have no intention of dodging that question.”
“In fact, what happens is that he gets all his fees and expenses met by some other scholarship which he has won, and in the end is granted an allowance of £50 sterling per annum in addition to the other allowances that he gets. In this way, it is hoped to continue a supply of men not only well qualified and competent in their own fields of study but with all the social and other graces which make for the difficult to define quality called leadership.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in former days there used to be scholarships open to candidates on the basis of competitive examinations, and the winners of these scholarships were given sufficient funds to travel to almost any university where they wished to receive training. We decided, as from 1966, to reinstitute these scholarships which were previously known as Queen's Scholarships. These scholarships, which were highly prized by successive generations of students, were instrumental in getting a small corps of able and highly-trained men into several of the professions then open. With the establishment of the University of Singapore, these scholarships were transferred to the University to be used by way of post-graduate courses. However, my colleagues and I have for some time been rather concerned with the problems which have not altogether been resolved in the University, in throwing up people who not only have the academic training and intellectual discipline, but also qualities of leadership and an interest in matters outside their particular field of discipline. We have therefore reinstituted this scholarship at the Higher School Certificate level and all winners of the scholarship, of which there are nine this year, can choose to go to any university to which they can get admission, and their expenses will be met by the Government. They are known as President's Scholars to denote that they are people who have won signal distinction for themselves to merit special privileges for further education. As a rule, the President's Scholar is usually able to get some other scholarship.”
“This happens all over the world. But in every society, values are different, and ours is a new and young one. We could take the other point of view - the Government could be purely negative and say, "Well, in that case, we should not have this community property. We should not have fountains. We should not have these parks. We should not have these amenities, because they are likely to be destroyed, mutilated and losses will be heavy." I think that is a defeatist attitude. By and large, I would say that the majority of the people are law- abiding and respect community property, and if we can check the misbehaviour of this minority, then we can move into wider fields of public amenities with greater confidence that, first, the expenditure will not be wasted, and, second, the maintenance will be what the planners estimate it to be and not what we subsequently find ourselves carrying. I hope eventually that the remarks I have made here in this House will also be heeded not only by the offenders but also by those who participate in the administration of justice. I have a feeling that often in the younger ranks of the service, the administration of justice is believed to be the application of the law. It is because they believe that, that we are forced to take these measures. I think a wider grasp that administration of justice means the application of the letter of the law in such a spirit that society is able to protect itself, is fundamental. If we are able to implement these provisions with efficacy in the first few months, I am quite sure that this will be a dead letter in our statute book.”
“A reward will be given in order that these culprits will be apprehended and these crimes will stop. On the other hand, a fine will not deter the type of criminal we are facing here. He is quite prepared to go to gaol, having defaced public buildings with red paint. Flaunting the values of his ideology, he is quite prepared to make a martyr of himself and go to gaol. He will not pay the fine and make a demonstration of his martyrdom. But if he knows he is going to get three of the best, I think he will lose a great deal of enthusiasm, because there is little glory attached to the rather humiliating experience of having to be caned. I am not suggesting, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am quite sure that this is going to solve our problem, but I am convinced that if we are not prepared to innovate, if we are just to stick to old formal channels of legislation or old forms and modes of social control, then these are areas of public behaviour over which society will have no control whatsoever. I hope that there will never be any cause, once these provisions are known, for them ever to be invoked. But I feel reasonably confident that if the offenders are apprehended - as I think they can be apprehended; these are seizable offences and there are enough people in the Vigilante Corps and public-spirited members of the ordinary public - and an example is made of a few, then we will not have the discomfiture of finding the electric power supply failing, because somebody risks blowing up a whole transformer substation for a few dollars' worth of public property which is not sufficiently guarded. If this is understood - and they have a tendency to understand very quickly once the word gets around -I am quite sure that there will be a healthier respect for community property.”
“I do not think it is possible for us to go back to the old British practice where people who are administrators, having served a term in the business of running the government, then do a spell of two or more years on the Bench, and so there is a constant flow of fairly matter-of-fact gentlemen who understand the mechanics of how the system works and know the other side of the coin, not just what happens in the courtroom. The Bill makes a clear distinction between what is considered a lesser offence, something which just dirties up the wall - which is delible - and where you deliberately seek to mess up the place from time to time with red paint, which is a very difficult substance to eradicate, on bus shelters and public buildings. Large sums of money are expended in order to remove the unsightly scars which they leave behind. Recently the problem has been complicated by the ease of access to public property which, in the nature of things, is difficult to prevent. Thefts of fountain heads made of copper, copper tubes outside Housing and Development Board premises used for boilers and other things - and copper is in short supply because of the transportation problem of Rhodesian and Zambian copper - and thefts of valuable parts of non-ferrous metals have taken place, to be sold for a fraction of their actual cost. I do not think we can allow this to go on, and I know how strongly the profession and the penologists are against caning. But we have a society which, unfortunately, I think, understands only two things - the incentive and the deterrent. We intend to use both, the carrot and the stick. The carrot is good citizenship. It is a seizable offence to do any of these acts of vandalism, and any member of the Vigilante Corps, any member of the public, can apprehend.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to explain to the House what we are seeking to do by making this departure from what is normal criminal law legislation. One of the problems we face in running the British system of administration of justice is that the law is often being administered, particularly in recent years, by legally trained magistrates who do not have the advantage of the wider background of the problems of the society and of administering that society. So it is that by the time the offender of a particularly vicious social misdemeanour, like taking a pot of paint and going to every bus stand and chalking up anti-American or anti-British or pro-Vietcong slogans, is apprehended and brought to court, from the vicious petty slogan-shouting hooligan that he is outside, he converts himself into a meek, humble breadwinner of a large family who was doing no more than just giving vent to his political exuberance. And he gets off with a caution and sometimes a light fine. The net result is that this particularly vicious social misdemeanour is not capable of being checked, let alone stopped. It is difficult enough to apprehend these offenders. Under the section in the Minor Offences Ordinance which we have to operate, this is a non-seizable offence. So if you are not a police officer, or even if you are a member of the Vigilante Corps, you will be a very brave man to go and apprehend such a culprit.”
“Now, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division Bells rung. The House divided: Ayes, 37; Absent, 14. Ayes. Absent A. Rahim Ishak. Bani, S.T. Barker, E. W. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Omar Junid. Chia Thye Poh Chan Chee Seng. Chio Cheng Thun Chan Choy Siong, Fong Kim Heng Madam. Chow Chiok Hock Koo Young Fong Sip Chee Kow Kee Seng Goh Keng Swee Lee Tee Tong Gonzales, R. A. Lim Huan Boon Govindaswamy, P. Loh Miaw Gong, Miss. Ho Cheng Choon Ong Lian Teng Ho See Beng Poh Ber Liak Jek Yeun Thong Tan Cheng Tong Lee Khoon Choy Wong Soon Fong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Lingam, S. V. Mahmud Awang Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Nair. Mrs. Devan. Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon. Othman bin Wok Rahamat bin Kenap Ayes - contd. Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamed A1-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin”
“Mr Speaker; Sir, I beg to move, "That the New Clause (to be inserted after clause 13) be read a Second time." Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. Bill reported with amendments. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Third Reading”
“Ex abundante cautela, I would urge that the House take a division after the Committee stage and on the Third Reading, the reason being as follows, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think a strict interpretation of the responsibilities as set out in the State of Singapore Constitution Act refers to amendments to the Singapore Constitution. But it is open to anyone to urge upon the Judiciary that the passage of this Bill, in fact, does make a fundamental alteration to the nature of the Singapore Constitution enactment, for it incorporates into that enactment all the Federal powers which were, whilst we were in Malaysia, part of the Federal Constitution. So that there can be no doubts about this matter, I would urge that the Bill be passed by a two-thirds majority and that a vote be taken.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of the Constitutional procedure, again it will require a two-thirds majority on Second Reading.”
“Sir, I have already dealt with the contents of this Bill in some detail when I moved the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and it is not my intention to re-cover the grounds. But I would just like to sum up what I have said, namely, that those parts of the Federal Constitution which were part of the Constitution of Singapore and are still relevant for us in our new situation - first, no longer as a member of the Federal whole, and, second, as a sovereign State and Legislature on our own - have been adopted. The changes made are changes in nomenclature and the transfer of powers from the various bodies that exercise this authority in Malaysia to the persons and bodies who will exercise this authority here. It is the view of my colleague, the Minister for Law, and that of the State Advocate-General and his Chambers that it is possible, by the end of next year after the Constitution Commission has concluded its deliberations, for us to decide to bring into one complete document the Constitution which is now in four Parts - the Federation of Malaysia Constitution, the State of Singapore Constitution, the Amendments to the Federation of Malaysia Constitution by this the Republic of Singapore Act, and the Amendments to the Singapore Constitution by the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. In bringing these together, of course, it will also be our intention, as I have indicated, to bring about such changes as I think will be possible to liberalise the Constitution and make the weight of executive authority less inhibitive to the Legislature and to the Judiciary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question put.”
“I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Mr Speaker: The procedure that was adopted on the Second Reading will again he adopted on this Bill. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Division Bells rung. The house divided: Ayes, 36; Absent, 15. Ayes. Absent. A. Rahim Ishak Bani, S.T Barker, E. W. Chan Sun Wing Buang bin Chia Thye Poh Omar Junid Chio Cheng Thun Chan Chee Seng Fong Kim Heng Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Goh Keng Swee Chow Chiok Hock Koo Young Fong Sip Chee Kow Kee Seng Gonzales, R.A Lee Tee Tong Govindaswamy, P. Lim Huan Boon Ho Cheng Choon Loh Miaw Gong, Miss Ho See Beng Ong Lian Teng Jek Yeun Thong Poh Ber Liak Lee Khoon Choy Tan Cheng Tong Lee Kuan Yew Wong Soon Fong Lee Teck Him Lim Cheng Lock Lim Kim San Lingam, S. V Mahmud Awang Mohd. Ariff bin Suradi Nair, Mrs. Devan Ng Kah Ting Ng Yeow Chong Ong Pang Boon Othman bin Wok, Rahamat bin Kenap, Rajaratnam, S. Rajoo, S. Rodrigues, Bernard. Sia Kah Hui Sim Boon Woo Teong Eng Siong Toh Chin Chye. Wee Toon Boon Yaacob bin Mohamad Al-Haj Yong Nyuk Lin”
“I should hate to believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we would be foolish enough to call five jurists to draw up a perfect legal document for ourselves over which we and our successors may have to spend considerable time taking division, as a two-thirds majority is required for each amendment, for no less than 250 times, all in the space of about seven years. It is my hope that we will he able to produce before this House a document which will be workmanlike, with a fair spread of the powers of Executive authority, checks and balances for a proper account of the use of these powers, and, most important of all, ensure without major amendment the continuance of good and orderly government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." May I, in moving this, remind the House that perforce we will have to take a division. Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."”
“That is not the situation we would like and, therefore, we want to get away from it where, by a series of judicious appointments in certain key echelons of institutions of the State, in fact, power resides within a very small and compact group of persons. I think one of the theories of democratic government is that power should be effectively placed in the Executive and there must be counter-balance, counter-checking and counter-vailing forces in the Legislature and in the Executive. Thereby we ensure that government is for the majority in the majority interest, and not in the interest of the continuance of any specific regime. With those remarks, I would hike to urge the Second Reading of this Bill. I have read somewhere that this is not a very tidy way of doing things. I do not claim it is, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an extremely competent set of legal draftsmen in the Advocate-General and his Chambers, and I can assure the House that when due consideration has been given to what we seek to do with these enormous executive powers which were available to the Federal Executive, then we shall put forward a comprehensive document which I hope will endure. The main thing about the Constitution is that it must work. Never mind whether it is the work of good judicial or juristic training. The Federation Constitution in 1957 was the product of five eminent jurists. But the fact that it has had to be amended no less than 250 times shows that either the people who had to work the Constitution were inadequate to the demands of such a liberal Constitution, or that the Constitution assumed a state of orderly society which did not prevail; and, I think, to be kind and fair, probably certain factors caused the necessity for 250 amendments.”