Sir, the motion is to the effect that the President shall have the power to disallow amendments which seek to make merely verbal, grammatical or formal changes. I have already submitted that they can always be ruled out on grounds of irrelevance, repetition and various other well-known reasons. But can they be properly rejected, merely on the ground that they are verbal? Can there be any amendment which can be described as merely verbal which changes the meaning of the context? Then, there is the question of grammatical amendments. I think the little mistakes which the honourable Mover of the Draft Constitution has committed have startled many Members. I ask you, Sir, in all humility: should you rule out an amendment merely because it is a grammatical amendment? Does it necessarily follow that a grammatical amendment is an unsubstantial amendment, that it has no relation to the clauses to which it appertains? I believe grammar is an agreed set of rules for the sake of clarity and clearness of meaning. Grammar is nothing if it does not add to clarity of thought, expression and writing. In these circumstances, I believe that the proposed sub-clause (2) of rule 38-P is absolutely misconceived.
