Hansard, 1961-11-20

asked the Minister for Finance whether, in the light of the finding of the Commission of Inquiry into the Constructional Capacity of Singapore that "the employment of technical men to do administrative work is a wasteful use of an extremely scarce resource", the Government would consider reorganisation of administrative work in all departments where technical and professional men discharge administrative functions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission and with the agreement of the Member for Anson, I propose to table the answer. Copy of answer handed in.

Of course, the formula would be that the Minister will publish the answer in the Official Report. He is entitled to do that even without asking for permission of the Member who asked the question. Following is the answer: (a) The quotation in the Interim Report of the Commission referred to by the Honour-able Member has specific reference to the circumstances existing in the P.W.D. and the City Engineer's Department. The Commission pointed out the adverse effect, from the point of administration, on the D.P.W. and his Deputy who are too involved with the daily routine administrative work of the department which could be equally well discharged by an Administrative Officer. In this connection, it was recommended that the former post of A.O. in the P.W.D. which was abolished in January, 1958, should be resuscitated. This recommendation of the Commission was accepted and the post of A.O. was created in January. (b) The Honourable Member has suggested the extension of this finding to the other departments in which technical and professional officers perform administrative functions. This is not a new idea and is an important factor to be considered in any organisation. The fact of the matter is that the Head or his Deputy Head of a technical department would have to discharge a certain amount of administrative work which cannot he delegated to any one. Further, at the present moment, experienced administrative officers are scarce, insufficient to man all the posts in the establishments of Government, it is always a problem of getting on with what you have and not with what you would want to have. In the case of certain Ministries, such as the Health and Education Ministries, which have a preponderant number of professional officers, some officers who show a flair for administrative work can be posted for administrative duties.

asked the Minister for Finance, with regard to the Commission of Inquiry into the Constructional Capacity of Singapore, whether he would (a) explain why the Interim Report submitted by the Commission on 4th October, 1960, was only presented to the Assembly on 12th September, 1961; (b) state when is it anticipated that the final report would be received and presented; and (c) make a statement on the Interim Report indicating, inter alia, Government's policy as regards the reported acute shortages of staff.

May I similarly ask permission to have the answer published in the Official Report?

Yes. Copy of answer handed in. Following is the answer: (a) The Commission, in their earls deliberations, realised the importance of the immediate problems relating to the capacity of the Government departments concerned with the Government's construction problem and to those departments whose functions and work affect construction activity and the utilization construction capacity, and decided to submit an Interim Report on the first 2 items of the Terms of Reference. Briefly these are to enquire into the capacity of the building industry in Singapore and how it can be expanded. I agree that an early publication should have been given to the Interim Report but it was not possible to get this done owing to the other commitments, which are of a more urgent nature in some cases, of the Printing Department. But I may state that the recommendations have not, been delayed in implementation in any way through delay in printing. Before the publication of the Report, six of the major recommendations, including the one relating to the creation of the post of Administrative Officer in the P.W.D., were implemented; due publicity had been given to some of them. (b) The Final Report of the Commission of inquiry was submitted to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on the 16th June. Although the printing of the Report is in an advanced stage, I would not like to say when it will be presented to the Assembly. But it would not be long. (c) The existing shortage of technical officers is due largely to the retirement of experienced officers under the Malayanisation Scheme and partly to lack of fore-sight to fill this vacuum. This deficiency is accentuated in a way by the development of these technical services. Since the Government took office, it has realised the importance of an interim measure of overseas recruitment of these technical officers on a temporary basis to tide over this shortage and had carried out negotiations with a number of governments who are in a position to assist. The results have so far been meagre as technical personnel are in demand all over the world. In addition, the number of under-graduate and postgraduate scholarships in all branches of engineering, medicine, architecture, etc, have been greatly increased. It will be many years, however, before we reap the benefit.

2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Ordinance to amend the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance (Chapter 214 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time.

Second Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I lay upon the Table a Certificate of Urgency signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Negara in respect of the Control of Imports and Exports (Amendment) Bill, 1961. Certificate of Urgency handed in.

The Certificate is in order. Are typed copies of the Bill available for the use of Members?

Yes. Typed copies of the Bill handed in to the Clerk and distributed to hon. Members.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to make the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance a permanent Ordinance. The Ordinance was promulgated on 8th December, 1950, initially for one year. It has since been extended for ten further periods of a year each and will expire on 7th December, 1961. Although the Ordinance provides that the Assembly may extend its operation for such period or periods as it may think fit, in practice extensions have been for periods of one year. The Ordinance empowers the Minister to make orders to regulate or prohibit the import and export of goods. The reason why this Ordinance had such a temporary nature at the time it was introduced was due to the opposition from the trading community who feared that controls, if made permanent, would be detrimental to trade and Singapore's free port status. During the past ten years, most import and export regulations have been removed and those at present in being are imposed mainly for health, security and exchange control reasons. In present world conditions, the power to exercise controls on imports and exports is one maintained by all trading countries as being essential in a lesser or greater degree to the requirement of their economic policies concerning trade and industry. In the interest of the economy of the State of Singapore. it is necessary that the Government should have the powers to restrict or direct imports and exports as might be required. My Trade and Commerce Advisory Council, which is composed of representatives of the four Chambers of Commerce, has been consulted and has no objection to the proposal that the Ordinance be made a permanent one. As matters now stand, it is necessary to extend the life of the Ordinance from time to time. It is considered that this procedure takes up unduly the time of the House and that the basic reason for its temporary nature, namely, the fear of the trading community over controls, has now been allayed over these last ten years. For these reasons, it is proposed to make the Ordinance a permanent statute of the State, but in so moving, I wish to assure the House that as before the powers under the Ordinance will only be exercised after careful examination and with due consideration to the needs of Singapore's trade. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I acknowledge that the powers of this Ordinance have been exercised with moderation and for the welfare of the State. I fully appreciate the reasons which our Finance Minister has given for making it a permanent Ordinance and I am fully with him in every one of the reasons indicated. What I cannot understand, Sir, is that this Bill should be brought under a Certificate of Urgency. Our Standing Orders provide that a Certificate of Urgency may be utilised, and it has all along been envisaged that it could be utilised for matters of urgency which cannot await a lengthy debate or a postponement of a month. Here in this case the Minister must agree with me that there is, in so far as one can ascertain, no urgency of any character whatsoever. There is no question of the Bill lapsing in any shape or form. [Interruption]. It is to lapse shortly. Well, I am interested, Sir, to be corrected, perhaps not in a quite procedural manner. In that statement, the Minister did not see fit to tell us that the Bill was about to lapse; but if that were so, would it not have been appropriate to bring this up at an earlier stage? I do urge the Government - we have had two Bills in this Session and in both there were Certificates of Urgency - that when it comes to exercising the very unusual powers in the Standing Orders, they should not utilise that power unless absolutely essential.

Dr Goh, in reply?

Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Member for Anson did not hear the words in the beginning of my speech and I may be permitted to repeat that section of it. I said: `The Ordinance was promulgated on 8th December, 1950, initially for one year. It has since been extended for ten further periods of a year each and will expire on 7th December, 1961.' That is the reason why this Bill must be taken through all stages under a Certificate of Urgency. We had, of course, originally intended that the Bill should he presented to the House some months ago but events have been such that it was not possible to place this Bill before the House then. Finally we are caught very short time and have to follow this procedure of urgency. I can assure the Member for Anson that there is no intention at all to pull a fast one either over this House or over the public. This is really not a controversial matter for reasons already stated. We have the assent of leaders of the trading community, and it is clear to both the Government and leaders of the trading community that the best course now open to us is to put this Bill on the permanent Statute.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly. Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.- [ Dr Goh Keng Swee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment read a Third time and passed.

"for making Final Provision for the Public Service for the year 1959", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after Wednesday, 29th November, 1961, and to be printed.

"to amend the Private Lotteries Ordinance (Chapter 167 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Finance; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after Wednesday, 29th November, 1961, and to be printed.

"to amend the law relating to Admiralty jurisdiction, legal proceedings in connection with ships and aircraft and the arrest of ships and other property and for purposes connected therewith and to repeal certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Chapter 207 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after Wednesday, 29th November, 1961, and to be printed.

"to provide for the licensing and control of sand quarries and for matters incidental thereto", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Tan Kia Gan); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after Wednesday, 29th, November, 1961, and to be printed.

"to provide for the establishment and incorporation of the University of Singapore and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Yong Nyuk Lin); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the first available sitting day after Wednesday, 29th November, 1961, and to be printed.

2.52 p.m. Resolved. "That this Assembly, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 93, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- Dr Toh Chin Chye Mr Lee Khoon Choy Mr Wee Toon Boon Inche Yaacob Bin Mohamed Tun Lim Yew Hock Dr Sheng Nam Chin Mr Ong Eng Guan." -[The Deputy Prime Minister - Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move. That this Assembly orders that the Commissioner of Police do take care that during the present session of this House the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder he allowed in the passages leading to this House, and that there be no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that the Clerk of this Assembly do communicate this order to the Commissioner aforesaid. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,I fully appreciate that in so far as the precincts of the House are concerned the police officers are here at our invitation and it is right and proper that the House should not seek to bind another assembly. Therefore, we have annually at the opening of each Session this motion. In this connection, Sir, I trust you will not consider it inappropriate if I express appreciation of the courtesy and quiet efficiency with which the police have discharged their responsibilities in this House. But what I cannot understand and I trust the Leader of the House will explain it, is why we need to ask the Commissioner of Police to discharge functions in the streets outside the House in respect of which, in so far as I am aware, he has ample powers. There are laws against obstructions in the streets. There are laws against processions of five or more persons - they require a licence. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could inform the House why that part of the motion is necessary in order to invite the assistance of the Commissioner.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Anson, formerly Chief Minister in this House, had himself on past occasions moved such a motion. I would have thought that he would have understood the purpose of that motion without asking me today to explain it to him. Nonetheless, I am told that, for example, in the House of Commons there are certain regulations governing the holding of demonstrations round a certain area within the precincts of the House. And it is in the light of this tradition that we have also followed this ritual. In fact, it falls upon me, as Leader of this House, to maintain this ritual at every new Session of the Assembly. But if the Member for Anson would suggest that such a provision could be incorporated into some Ordinance, I would be only too happy to do so in future. I would like to remind the Member for Anson and other Members in this House that the last thing that we wish to see occurring in Singapore are demonstrations similar to what happened in Tokyo, when the Zengakuren organised demonstrations to prevent Members of the Diet from passing a Bill. The police then were quite helpless and, in fact, an attempt by the Diet to pass such a motion was defeated when Members in the Diet themselves fought against one another over this same motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly orders that the Commissioner of Police do take care that during the present session of this House the passages through the streets leading to this House he kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder he allowed in the passages leading to this House, and that there he no annoyance therein and thereabouts; and that the Clerk of this Assembly do communicate this order to the Commissioner aforesaid. 3.00 p.m.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I formally move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows:- That this Assembly, pursuant to section 36 of the Singapore (Consitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the salary of the Speaker with effect from 1st September, 1961, shall be $3000 a month. That this Assembly, pursuant to section 36 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the salary of the Speaker with effect from 1st September, 1961, shall be $3,000 a month. The House will remember that when we moved a motion fixing the remuneration of the Speaker after he was reelected to this Assembly, I indicated that adjustments had been made in order to take into account the loss of variable allowances for the rest of the civil service. These variable allowances having been restored as from the 1st of September this year, it falls upon me to move formally that the Speaker shall also, from the 1st of September, 1961, be paid his former remuneration of $3,000 per month.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to section 36 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, revolves that the salary of the Speaker with effect from 1st September, 1961, shall be $3,000 a month.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I formally move the motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (I) of section 79 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the remuneration of the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service Commission established under section 76 of the aforesaid Order shall with effect from 1st September, 1961, be as follows:-

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly, pursuant to subsection (1) of section 79 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, resolves that the remuneration of the Chairman and other Members of the Public Service Commission established under section 76 of the aforesaid Order shall with effect from 1st. September, 1961, be as follows:-

(In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to move the motion+ in my name. The separation of Singapore from the Federation is a criminal act committed by the British colonialists in 1945 when the Federated Malay States and the Unfederated Malay States with the two Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca were united as a Federation. At that time. Singapore was excluded from the Federation. All anti-colonialists did not cease to fight against the separation created by mankind. Sir, I intentionally used the word "anti-colonialists" because the nationalists and the Communists have both opposed colonialism and have fought against the separation. +The motion reads as follows: That, whereas it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya and to remove the artificial division created by the British by their policy of "divide and rule", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. 3.05 p.m. Therefore, for the last 16 years, one of the slogans which was constantly heard in the nationalists' circle, including the Communists, was merger and the reunification of Singapore with the Federation. Therefore, Sir, it is no exaggeration if I move such a motion asking all Members of this House to support this merger in principle. We must presume that all Members of this House are nationalists. If they are not nationalists, then I feel that they will call themselves anti-colonialists and non-Communists. Whatever name they may call themselves, we do not ask them to say what is their stand, or whether they are in support of or that they oppose the principle of merger. As you know, only the Members of the Barisan Sosialis will be in an embarrassing position and will be in a predicament to support this merger in principle, and the principle of merger which is asked in this motion. To the members of the public, they say that they wish for merger more than anything else, anti more than anything else that has been fought for by the P.A.P. Government. Therefore, it will he strange if they vote against this motion. However, we know, anti they also know, that in their heart of hearts, merger is a matter which they do not wish, because merger means that the question of internal security will be placed in the hands of the Central Government of the Federation of Malaya, and that their hope to establish Singapore as an area separate from Malaya `will disappear. But that is their problem. To the public, they say they want merger more than the type of merger which the P.A.P. is asking for. But, in actual fact, they fear merger. We now ask them to say in this House whether they support or oppose this principle of merger. If they support merger, then we may be able to discuss the details which should be placed in the hands of the Central Government when merger is achieved. Thus, on the one hand, they oppose merger, but in public they are forced to support it. Then when we discuss the details concerning their type of merger, it will he more difficult. There is no doubt, Mr Speaker, that the strong men in their Committee have carefully considered the position. What we want now is that each Member says, "agree" or "not agree". If they say they agree, then we will proceed to discuss motion No. 7 on the Order Paper in the name of the Prime Minister today which will ask the House to accept the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper agreed to between the Governments of Singapore and the Federation and the working basis for the reunification of the two territories. Mr Speaker, there is no need to have an unnecessary debate. What is required is to count the people who agree and those who do not agree in order to record their stand on the question of principle of merger. Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion standing in my name. Ouestion proposed. 3.14 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis are in full agreement with the sentiments conveyed by the words in this motion by the Minister for Labour. In fact, these are the sentiments which we have repeatedly expressed in the past. These are the sentiments dear to the hearts of all socialists since our country was divided by the colonial power. It is not necessary for me to recall to your memory, Sir, the People's Constitutional Proposals of 1947 put forward by the PUTERA and A.M.C.J.A. which strongly opposed the artificial separation of Singapore from the mainland. I would like to take this opportunity to remind our Prime Minister, who seems to he smiling to himself, that the leaders of the M.D.U. whom he had recently smeared as Communists and pro-Communists were among the prime movers of these proposals. Sir, we would have supported 100 per cent this motion before the House, but for the shameful record of the Government in the last two years, and especially in the recent months. [Laughter.]

Order.

We have seen the P.A.P. leadership blatantly abusing the word "merger" and exploiting the people's aspirations for unity in order to smuggle in a constitutional arrangement which - The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. I have in item 7 of the Order Paper a motion which will give the Member for Queenstown ample scope to take to task every single paragraph of that paper to express his ire, his anguish and' his rancour. And I hope we will be spared, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of relevancy. a repetition of these sentiments on two separate occasions. As I have said, this is purely one on principle. If he agrees, we all count heads and we can start disagreeing on item No. 7.

I think we ought to wait and see how the Member for Queenstown develops his argument. It appears to me on a casual reading of the motion that there may be a dispute as to what is merger; whether merger is a merger in the dictionary sense of the word, or under the heads of agreement.

Thank you very much, Sir, I know they would try tricks like this -

Order. I think the Prime Minister was justified in raising a point of order, and I do not think that can he named as a trick.

My apologies to you then, Sir. I was saying, Sir, that we have seen the P.A.P. leadership blatantly abusing the word "merger' and exploiting the people's aspirations for unity in order to smuggle in a constitutional arrangement which can in no way be called merger. It is only an arrangement aimed solely at keeping themselves in office. We have seen them twisting the meaning of the word "merger" into something entirely different from what it is normally understood to be. The words of this motion. Sir, convey high and noble sentiments to which none of us can disagree. But, Sir, the record of the Government in recent months has clearly shown that their actions do not in any way match these high-sounding words. We must judge a government by its actions and not by its words. Judging from its actions. Sir, we have every justification to suspect that the Government is not sincere in what it says. It is abundantly clear that the P.A.P. is moving this motion purely for propaganda purposes. It is clear that the P.A.P. hopes that the people will mistake any support for the noble principles enunciated in this motion as a support for the P.A.P.'s type of tipu orang merger. In other words. Sir, the aim of the P.A.P. in moving this motion is to ask this House to give it a blank cheque. But. Sir, we are not prepared to give this blank cheque and we are not prepared to trust this politically bankrupt government - An hon. Member: Rubbish!

- a blank cheque.

So you are against merger.

In order that they may clearly understand the real motives behind this motion, we must review the political events in recent months so that we can see things all in clear perspective. Let me do the review for you and for everybody, and let us all see how this motion has come about. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all of us can still remember that historic crisis sitting of the Assembly on the 20th of July, 1961. At that time 39 Members were still sitting on the Government benches. But what do we see today? Not only is there a complete change in the landscape in this Chamber, hut there is also not the same smug arrogance on the faces of the Government Front benchers any more. They try and laugh. You remember, Sir, when the P.A.P. Assemblymen first marched in 1959, there was not sufficient elbow room for all the 43 of them on the Government side. Within a year -

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order.

Mr Speaker, as you mentioned to me at the last sitting of the Assembly, that was last Friday, you told me not to go back to history. I am just wondering whether what the Member for Queenstown has uttered is relevant to the motion on merger. I do not think the landscape in this Chamber is comparable to the landscape in the Federal Parliament at all.

I was listening very carefully to the Member for Queenstown, as indeed I will have to listen very carefully to all speeches in this debate, and it appears to me that perhaps the Member for Queenstown is going into a little more detail than he ought to in these reminiscences. I cannot see at the moment how these reminiscences have any hearing on the motion, hut perhaps he could assist the Chair by suggesting how they are relevant.

I hope, Sir, to quote the words of the Prime Minister when he said this sometime back: 'If at the end of my speech I fail to bring the pieces into pattern and if the people and you. Sir, fail to see the pattern, then I will have wasted the time of the Chair as well as that of the House and that of the people of Singapore.' As I was saying, Sir, within a year the number had dwindled down to 40, which was later further reduced to 39. But that still did not materially upset the strength of the Government. With 39 against 12 on the Opposition, they still had a majority of 27 in this Assembly. By any standards the P.A.P. Government was still a strong and stable Government. But today, it is such a contrast. It grieves me to see those vacant seats on -

Order. I am still endeavouring to put the pieces together in this jig-saw puzzle, and I still cannot see how this historical precis as to what has happened in the past has anything to do with the motion.

He is hoping to come back!

I beg your indulgence, Sir. It is to show how from a strong stable Government it has gone down to a weak and wobbly Government -

Order. That may be so in the view of the Member for Queenstown, but has that any hearing on the motion which seeks agreement in principle to the reunification of the two territories in a merger of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I just mentioned to you a little while hack that I wanted to show you the real motive behind this motion - that it is for propaganda purposes. I want to show you how it is meant for propaganda purposes. I will enlarge on that a little and I will not digress too much. From a comfortable and overwhelming majority of 27, it has now been reduced to a miserable and uneasy majority of only one. By no stretch of imagination can this Government be called strong or stable, in fact, it is so weak and unstable now -

Order. I am very sorry to be interrupting like this, but if the hon. Member goes into expressions of opinion like that, then, of course, that opens up a debate on quite a different aspect of the whole case. He is now debating whether or not the Government is now stable; and if he goes into detail, that will open up a debate whereon the Government side will say they are still stable. So I would suggest that all that the Member need do to make this point is to say that, in his opinion, the Government is not stable and leave it at that. But if he goes into more details, then I am afraid he will become more and more irrelevant.

I will skip some parts of it then, Sir - parts which would be very interesting reading, I am sure.

Reading for the Government benches.

Anyway, Sir, today all those on the Government benches know that there is not much time left for the P.A.P. to be in office. The Member for Tanjong Pagar knows that his days as Prime Minister -

Order. May I know who the Member for Tanjong Pagar is vis-a-vis the Assembly?

Well, I qualified it with "his days as Prime Minister", Sir, are already numbered. I would like to add that the future of the rest is too grim to be mentioned.

What about your days?

Order.

Anyway, Sir, to cut a long story short, I do not need to repeat what is now well known to the whole of Singapore. An hon. Member: Quite true!

Everyone - workers, farmers, students, teachers, office workers, office girls even, and civil servants, hawkers, taxi-drivers - everyone, Sir, knows today -

The Member for Queenstown.

- of the arrogance and haughtiness of the Lee Kuan Yew Government. It has deviated from its avowed party stand and policy -

On a point of order, Sir. Could I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the great difficulty the Member for Queenstown has in knowing which parts of his speech to read out and which parts to leave out, he might be given a few minutes' adjournment to consult his ghost writer?

Order. I think the Prime Minister ought to restrain himself and leave points of order to the Chair. The point he has raised, of course, is not a point of order, unless he says the Member for Queenstown is reading, in which event I have not noticed that he has been referring to his notes much too much.

I do not have the Thomsons, the Blades and the Meadows to help me.

You have got Lim Hock Siew.

Order. The debate on this particular topic, one should imagine, is one of gravity to Singapore. I would suggest to Members on the Government benches to try and contain themselves and listen with patience to what the Member for Queenstown has to say.

Thank you very much, Sir. They have always been trying to intimidate people. If not the Special Branch following around -

If the Member for Queenstown invites interference or interjections, then, of course, the Chair is unable to protect him. I would suggest that he goes on with his speech and ignores what is happening on the Government benches. Dr Lee.

Anyway, Sir, the P.A.P. has so deviated from its party stand and policy of anti-colonialism that it is now desperately trying to sell Singapore down the river. In their mood of despair, they are making all-out efforts to transmute a personal and party crisis into a national one. The destiny of our people now becomes tied to the foibles and weaknesses of a few men in power. During the so-called national crisis following the crisis debate, the Prime Minister and two other Ministers left their posts in the hour of so-called grave national peril and went back to work in their Party headquarters at 62c, South Bridge Road. The Prime Minister ostensibly went to ascertain the people's views on problems facing the country and affecting the livelihood and welfare of the people. In actual fact, drawing his salary as Prime Minister -

Order. Can the hon. Member indicate how that is relevant to the motion? The motion asks the House to affirm and declare that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of the two territories in a merger of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was hoping that I could lead you down to [Interruption]

Order. Dr Lee.

They want to mislead the people into believing that there is this so-called Communist threat, and because of that, so many things have happened. He was drawing his salary as Prime Minister and, hiding behind the facilities of Radio Singapore, he lashed out his twelve talks, trying to create an artificial tension of fear and uncertainty in the people. The Prime Minister had hoped to divert attention from the fact that he was selling us all out. Thus for the last three months, since that fateful all-night Assembly sitting on 20th July, there have been nothing but Communists, Communist cadres, Communist-front men, Communist-front organisations, pro-Communists and, of course, the P.A.P. brand of merger. Did we not learn from the Prime Minister that Chinese middle schools, old boys' associations and cultural organisations are hotbeds of Communist activities? And did not the Prime Minister say that office workers, office girls and even the English school teachers are getting to become pro-Communists?

On a point of explanation, Sir.

If the Member will give way? The Member will not give way.

Then on a point of order.

Yes, if it is a point of order. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his seat.

Will the Member produce the document which shows me as saying those things? I never said that.

That, of course, is not a point of order. Dr Lee.

The Tunku said in the special General Assembly of U.M.N.O. at Kuala Lumpur on 5th November, 1961, that it was because of those frightening stories of the Prime Minister of Singapore, which had been poured into his ears, that finally convinced him to accept merger. Why do we not hear of this, and how is it we have not heard how he has managed to convince the Tunku? Merger between Singapore and the Federation, as it is understood by everyone, had never been an immediate objective of the P.A.P. In all the writings, all through the years, of the P.A.P. hierarchy, merger had always been mentioned as a long-term objective. For example, Sir, in the two booklets "The Tasks Ahead", there is no talk of immediate or early merger. On the other hand, there is "The Five-Year Plan". In this Plan are the development of industries, agriculture and fisheries, streamlining of State administration, strengthening education, improving the health of the people, improving the welfare of the workers, and the emancipation of women - all of which have now been forgotten by the P.A.P. leadership, as it was proved during Question Time only two days ago. But at no stage, Sir, is there mention of the attainment, or the possibility even, of merger within the next five years. Similarly, during the First Session of the Legislative Assembly in 1959, the emphasis was "On the road towards a more equal and just society". "A more equal and just society" - how inspiring, Sir, but that is now all forgotten. You will note that there was no mention of an early merger. Again, during the Second Session in 1960, the emphasis was on the year of construction. "Construction" again, how inspiring, Sir, but again there was no mention of an early merger. There was no progress even on the common market which the P.A.P. talked so much about. Even now the common market has to wait, as we have learnt only a couple of days ago. Yet within the short space of a few months, all of a sudden, as it were, merger has become a matter of practical politics for the P.A.P. and startling developments have been pushed with stunning speed.

Thanks to you!

What then will this be a year of? It has been suggested that the first year of the P.A.P. Government was the year of excitement. The leadership soon blundered the second year into the year of confusion, and has made the third year the year of desperation. But, Sir, it is quite evident that there is more than mere desperation in this - the third year. It is already the talk of the town that this year of the P.A.P Government is the year of the sell-out - "the year of the sell-out". Yes, "sell-out", Sir, because no other word describes it. No other word quite describes the action of the few leaders of the P.A.P. who have so degenerated with the taste of power that they have now turned against the people in their actions and policies. Sir, the leap from no-merger and no-common-market to merger and to the P.A.P.'s so-called 12th State of the Federation, is something that calls for explanation, for it may well be a leap in the wrong direction and a leap in the dark. Objective realities do not disappear with a wave of the magic wand. The reasons previously advanced for the separation of Singapore from the Federation are still present. The very same people who objected to merger in the past are still at the helm in the Federation. There has been no cataclysmic upheaval in the political situation over the Cause, way. In Singapore, there is still the same peace and quiet. All of us daily go about our work as usual.

That is right, and night too!

We have not seen anything that has caused us to miss our meals or our sleep, though of late we see more dirt, mosquitoes and flies around, a more inept administration, water rationing in the midst of floods and monsoons, and greater inefficiency all-round. What then has happened during the last few months that has caused this so-called merger to dominate every other issue in Malayan politics? Sir, it is our duty as an Opposition Party to explain the circumstances that have led to the P.A.P. deal with the Federation Government. It is also our duty to expose the true nature of this deal, and thereby to draw the urgent attention of the people to the dangers pregnant in the so-called merger proposals of the P.A.P. Let me first preface my remarks by saying that we in the Barisan Sosialis are students of politics. We shall always be so, unlike the Prime Minister who maintains that he - and he alone - decides, and later on condescendingly adding his Committee as well. We in the Barisan Sosialis accept a position of humility and shall always learn what the wants and demands of the people are, no matter from what strata of society they may come from. We shall learn from our own experiences and from the experiences of others. We shall endeavour to explain issues clearly to the people and we shall seek to establish a government that rules by consultation and not by decree. It is a position that we, when we were in the P.A.P., Sir, had all sought to establish. We failed in our efforts because the Prime Minister suffers from an enormous personality problem. I regret to say that his psychological make-up is that of a mandore.

Order. I think the hon. Member for Queenstown must realise that what he is saying now is completely irrelevant to the motion. He should now come to the point. He can say whether he or his Party affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya. The impression I have had up till now is perhaps that there is a quarrel with the word "merger". But I may be wrong.

I am coming to it, Sir. Those of us who have followed the papers will know that the Prime Minister of Singapore has been shuttling back and forth between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, the Cameron Highlands and Penang every fortnight or so for the last three months.

We meet a very big man.

We see photos of the Prime Minister carrying golf clubs all over Malaya -

Order. If I allow these personalities, I do not think we will be able to get on with the debate. We have three other motions on the same topic. I must ask that all personalities be forgotten. Let us come down to the pith of the motion.

Newsmen, both local and foreign, were kept busy with Press interviews every time our Prime Minister left Kuala Lumpur or arrived back in Singapore. Meetings of the Prime Ministers of the Federation and Singapore were followed by joint statements which were issued at regular intervals. On the 23rd of August, we learned that agreement between the two Prime Ministers had been reached in principle. And on the 14th of September, agreement had been reached that a Working Party should work out details of merger with a view to bringing about the integration of the two territories and its peoples in or before June 1963. From no-common market, and even a little coolness and unfriendliness, to integration in or before 1963! All in a couple of months, Sir. Really fast work! Fast work that can only come out of the last gamble of the P.A.P. Let us look into the matter a little more closely, Sir. The Federation had all along been against merger. Both inside and outside Malaya, the Tunku had always indicated that he did not want merger. In fact, he had said that he would not even touch Singapore with a barge pole. How come then, Sir, that the Tunku now suddenly wants merger in spite of all his fears and prejudices? If there was high-pressure cooking, who was doing the cooking? Was it a piece of fast sales talk on the part of the Prime Minister of Singapore? And was the country gentleman impressed by the City slicker? The Tunku, Sir, had previously given three reasons for not wanting merger. He said that the Federation has a kingship and a sultanate: it has Islam as the State religion, and Malay as the national language. He was afraid that the people of Singapore were not used to these things, and I will quote, Sir: `because of the differences in outlook of the people of Singapore and the Federation', with merger `differences of the people might clash and thus create problems which would be difficult to resolve.' This is in the Straits Times of 17th October. Sir, these are reasons given by a diplomat, reasons that appear plausible on the surface, but reasons which cannot really stand up to critical examination. For example, Malay is also the national language of Singapore. Then there is freedom of worship in Singapore as well as in the Federation. And we have already indicated that we would accept the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as our constitutional head, just as Queen Elizabeth II is accepted as the constitutional head of the British Commonwealth. Therefore, these reasons given by the Federation Government are not the true reasons; they are not reasons that can stand up to critical examination. What then are the true reasons that prevented merger in the past? Sir, they are reasons which the Prime Minister has repeated times out of number. They are reasons which the Prime Minister has often quoted in this House in the past. They are reasons which are on record in the Fourth Anniversary Souvenir of the Petir - reasons which the Tunku had admitted as such in the Special General Assembly of the U.M.N.O. in Kuala Lumpur on 5th November, 1961. The reasons are: (1) Singapore has too many Chinese; (2) Singapore has too many Leftists. Sir, whether we like it or not, these are the basic fears of the present Government of the Federation. They had been used by the Federation for not wanting merger in the past, and they are still the reasons given for the continued division of our country and our peoples today. But times have changed. So must our outlook. "Times have changed so must our outlook", says the Tunku. How have the times changed? The number of Chinese in Singapore continue only to increase by natural growth. So has the number of Leftists. Let us, therefore, find out how this change of outlook has come about. Sir, this so-called merger issue involves Singapore and the Federation. First, let us take a look of things in the Federation. In the Federation, progressive forces are daily gaining ground, both in the town and in the country. More and more support is going to the Socialist Front, as was demonstrated in the recent elections. Though the U.M.N.O. is still firmly in the saddle, they cannot afford to be complacent any further. There is every indication that the Tunku is becoming anxious and a little apprehensive. If the socialist forces -

Order. I am wondering whether this motion which we are now debating would open up a debate on the policy of the Federation in regard to this particular subject. I am not quite certain whether the hon. Member is relevant.

If you will allow me, Sir, I am going to show you the different situations existing in the Federation and in Singapore. It is only by comparison and contrast that you see things more clearly. It will be very short. Sir,If the socialist forces are allowed to develop and expand unimpeded, then there is every possibility that the present Government may be ousted from office in the Federation in the not too distant future. But by and large, it is unlikely that there will be any major change in the Federation political situation, at least not until the next general elections in 1964. And except for occasional news of skirmishes at the Thai-Malayan border, all is peace and quiet. The U.M.N.O. is still the strong and stable Government that can claim to represent the majority of the people, and the Prime Minister is still the respected Prime Minister of the people of the Federation. But in Singapore, Sir - now I come to Singapore - the picture is entirely different. Here we have an unstable Government that by no stretch of the imagination can claim to represent the people of Singapore. Column : 298 We have a Prime Minister who is completely discredited in the eyes of the people. Once a strong and robust Government with 43 out of 51 in this House, it is now weak and wobbly with only 26 seats. The original majority of 35 has dwindled down to a majority of only one. Sir, today the Government stays in office only on sufferance. There is no doubt in the mind of everyone, both inside and outside Singapore, that the present P.A.P. Government is on its last legs. That the leadership has had to get all the Assemblymen still existing on the Government benches, to sign a pledge to support the leadership of the P.A.P., shows how desperate they are in their efforts and in their anxiety to remain in power. Sir, with the exposure of the true opportunistic nature of the P.A.P. leadership, a great change has taken place in Singapore in the last few months. These changes, Sir, have put the fear of God in the hearts of the Prime Minister and his opportunistic friends. It is a political situation in which the P.A.P., after having held the political stage of Singapore for a time, is now on the decline and on its way out. A new star, Sir, has arisen. It is outshining the P.A.P. and it will not be long before the P.A.P. will be totally eclipsed. This new star, Sir, is the Barisan Sosialis. And it is this new force in Singapore politics, the Barisan Sosialis, that has caused our Prime Minister to belly-crawl to the Federation for help -

Order. I do not think I can allow that expression of a Member of this Assembly. I myself do not know how to do it. But I would suggest that the word "belly-crawl" is unparliamentary. Will the Member withdraw that word?

I withdraw, Sir. May I substitute kow-tow? Let me, Sir, briefly,, in order that we may better understand the political changes, go back just a little into the background to the present Singapore situation. It will be all very brief, Sir. With the heavy defeat in Hong Lim, the Prime Minister and his -

Order. The difficulty with the Chair is to try and see that motions do not overlap one another. It appears to me that what the hon. Member is saying may well be said in support of his own motion which appears as item 10 on the Order Paper. Perhaps it is inevitable that there should be some overlapping. But if there is to be overlapping, then I would suggest that references should be just in passing and detailed remarks be made on a particular subject when we come to the particular motion to which the remarks apply.

May I, Sir, just show you how merger has been used as a diversion by the P.A.P. to distract the attention of the people from the failings of the Party leadership? I want to show you how this was deliberately taken out and made into an issue during the Anson by-election.

Order. I am afraid I will have to try and draw a line somewhere. May I remind the hon. Member again of the terms of the motion we are debating, i.e., the House is asked to affirm and declare "that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya." I understand the Member for Queenstown to indicate that perhaps this is not an appropriate time for merger. If that is so, he will, I have no doubt, move an amendment on those lines. But, of course, that is left entirely to him. But I cannot see how the Hong Lim by-election, or what use was made of merger in the Hong Lim by-election, has anything to do with the motion itself.

That was only an aside. Sir. What I intended to mention was the Anson by-election. May I inform you also, Sir, that I intend to move an amendment? I will mention that as I come to the appropriate part of my speech. I will try and skip some parts of it. The Prime Minister knew, even before the rise of the Barisan Sosialis, that he was faced with a situation that was a challenge to his leadership. He did not meet this challenge in a democratic way. Instead he conjured up the old trick of the colonial master - the Communist bogey. Sir, history has shown that whenever a despot or a dictator is confronted with an untenable political situation, when the growing unpopularity of the dictator brings with it mounting unrest and instability inside the country, the unpopular dictator seeks some foreign diversion to distract the attention of the people, away from the real and genuine grievances. Similarly in Singapore. The discredited P.A.P. leadership has to find some diversion for the people so that their attention may be distracted from the failings and blunders of the P.A.P. That diversion, Sir, is merger. The P.A.P. has always shouted, "independence-through-merger." And since they have been exposed as pro-colonial in spite of all the show about Lumumba, the Algerian Fund and mock protests about the British bases, this merger issue, in addition to being a diversion, would also give an opportunity to the P.A.P. to put up the time-worn mask and smokescreen of the "independence-through-merger" slogan to refute the charge of being pro-colonial. Of course, this will not deceive the people. Though they are trying to suggest that their type of merger is a panacea for all the ills in Singapore, the truth is that with merger, the Prime Minister hopes to be able to defeat and eliminate his political opponents with the help of his Federation friends. He will then he able to remain in office and live happily ever after. That is what the Prime Minister thinks. But first let me show how the P.A.P made merger the issue at the Anson by-election. On 2nd June, 1961, six unionists had come out with their first statement asking for full and complete internal self-government as the minimum demand in the 1963 constitutional talks. This included the abolition of the Internal Security Council. The Tunku on 27th May, 1961, had already come out with the Malaysia Plan, and the Prime Minister of Singapore had responded with full support on the 3rd of June, 1961. Thus, to go one better on his critics, Dr Toh, the Chairman of the P.A.P., declared that the P.A.P. Government would in the June 1963 constitutional talks seek "complete eradication of colonialism in Singapore, asking for complete independence through merger with the Federation or within a larger federation." So what began as a skirmish in the Hong Lim by-election - I will not mention anything about Hong Lim - had become in Anson a real battle-ground, for contending Parties and candidates, on the question of the constitutional future of Singapore. The S.P.A.-U.M.N.O. Alliance called for a confederation in which there would be separate electoral registers and separate legislatures, with a Joint Consultative Committee to co-ordinate economic, financial and other policies. External defence and the like would be under the control of the Federation Government. This, Sir, is an arrangement which would not give the people of Singapore any say in the appointment or removal of their Government. We know how the people of Anson had rejected this plan. But the P.A.P. went one further. It was merger. Merger then, but we know it is different now. So you see, Sir, the P.A.P. had deliberately brought out this question of merger in Anson, and had made it clear that a vote for the P.A.P. was a vote for the merger policy of the P.A.P. I do not need, Sir, to quote how the P.A.P. had made merger their cardinal issue in Anson. It had all been done by the Member for Anson during the last so-called crisis debate on the 20th of July, 1961. But I would like to quote just one from the Straits Times of 26th June, 1961. The Prime Minister was reported to have said, "We must accept the Tenku's Malaysian proposal. Confederation acceptable to states concerned because Malays would still form the predominant part of the population." You see, Sir, the P.A.P., thinking they were going to win, had taken great pains to explain that Anson is a typically representative constituency in Singapore. Which means that if the P.A.P. had won they would have claimed that the people of Singapore, as a whole, had given their support to the P.A.P. merger plan. Let me summarise the political situation then existing, Sir, in the Federation and in Singapore in a few words. In the Federation, on the one hand, there is a stable U.M.N.O. Government, that though firmly in the saddle, is nevertheless fearful of the slow but steady inroads into the U.M.N.O. spheres of influence made by progressive socialist forces in the town and in the country. In Singapore, on the other hand, there is a discredited and unstable P.A.P. Government that has lost the support of the people: so the leaders of the P.A.P. have to find a scapegoat for their own failings. That scapegoat is the Left. Now that the Barisan Sosialis has been formed, the P.A.P. has to face a strong, virile Opposition that is daily growing stronger and stronger and that is daily getting more and more support from the people.

Why did you stop your mass rally?

Both the Federation Government and the Singapore P.A.P. Government have a common fear of the socialist forces. Both the Governments, therefore, have a common interest in suppressing opposing socialist forces. But despite this common interest to knock out the socialist forces, the Federation still would not want to dabble in the affairs of Singapore. Because of Singapore's too many Chinese and too many Leftists, a bait, therefore, had to be used. What then was the bait that was made and offered to the Federation? in other words, how did our Prime Minister induce an anti-merger Federation to accept the P.A.P. brand of merger? Sir, the P.A.P. leaders have always boasted of their skill and ingenuity in meeting awkward and difficult situations. I have no doubt they put their skill and ingenuity to good use. Since the Tunku is unhappy and fearful of the expanding influence of the socialist forces, what better line is there then to increase this fear? Because of the two fears - too many Chinese and too many Leftists - the Tunku has been led into the belief that, of the two evils, he has to choose one, whichever is the lesser. And the Tunku is convinced by these frightening stories of the Prime Minister of Singapore. So he now proposes to acquire Singapore, to take the path where previously even angels feared to tread. The Prime Minister may think he can congratulate himself on his success for having persuaded the Tunku to fall in with his personal objects and plans. But let me tell him this. The name Lee Kuan Yew will be remembered in history like those of Wang Cheng-wei, Syngman Rhee. Chiang Kai-shek. That is what he is, Sir. The Prime Minister rose -

Is it on a point of order?

No, Sir, on a point of information.

The Member is not giving way. Dr Lee.

Sir, this motion must therefore be viewed in the light of the P.A.P.'s impending demise. We have seen how its desperate leaders are clutching at every straw in order to keep themselves in office. The P.A.P. is trying al all costs to get Singapore under the political control of the Federation Government and it hopes that the Federation Government will save it from its inevitable downfall by doing the dirty work -

What dirty work?

- of removing its political opponents from the political field. The word "merger", instead of symbolising the noble aim of uniting our peoples, now symbolises a manoeuvre of the P.A.P. so that it may safeguard its political future. Sir, the meaning of the word "merger" has been stretched beyond all recognition. It is clear, as you have already indicated, Sir, that when the P.A.P. talks about merger, they do not mean what you or I and everybody else understands by merger.

Order. I am afraid the Member for Queenstown must have misunderstood the Chair, because the Chair never dabbles in politics. The Chair has not enunciated what true merger is. Dr Lee.

Sir, we are dealing with desperate men struggling for survival. We have seen how everyday events and personal conversations have been twisted and misrepresented -

Take action.

- so as to lit in with their diabolical schemes. Sir, we cannot trust desperate men with blank cheques. We must, as it were, fill up the cheque before giving it to them, and it has therefore become necessary for us to state what we mean by merger in this motion. We must ensure that the Government does not debase the word "merger" to mean something entirely different. Even the Tunku has said that the present arrangement is not a merger. I will therefore move an amendment to the motion before the House at the end of my speech as follows. Would you like me to tell you my amendment now. Sir?

Please proceed.

My amendment reads as follows, To leave out from "a" in the last line to the end, and to insert- "genuine merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya, with Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth State and with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens on Merger Day".

Can I have a copy of the amendment? Amendment handed in.

Order. I have indicated the difficulty of the Chair in the matters we are faced with regarding substantive motions on the question of merger between Singapore and the Federation. There is also the motion in respect of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which also would touch on merger. Therefore, the difficulty the Chair is faced with is, how far could procedural barriers be placed in debates on one motion if there is an overlapping in other motions? It appears to me that this amendment might be said to overlap the motion which the Prime Minister will be moving later on in connection with the White Paper on the reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. That portion reads: `That this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper -' and one of the heads of agreement is "Citizenship and Nationality". The Member for Queenstown has, in fact, consulted me on this amendment. I have had the opportunity of studying this amendment rather carefully, and it seems to me that it would be convenient for the Assembly to debate this aspect of merger which appears. I suppose, to be one of the great points of deviation between the Barisan Sosialis and the Government. So on that argument, I propose to allow this amendment. Dr Lee.

Sir, to the people of Singapore - and I am sure to the P.A.P. of bygone days as well - merger has always meant one thing and one thing only. It is the complete political integration of Singapore and the Federation, with a common electoral register and a central administration and legislature. In other words, it means a true and genuine reunification of the territories and peoples of Singapore and the Federation, with all the people sharing a common citizenship and a common life and destiny. To put it in another way, merger or genuine integration means the entry of Singapore into the Federation as one of its constituent States, with all Singapore citizens becoming Federation citizens, having equal rights and equal status with the rest of the Federation citizens. Let me explain the importance of this sharing a common political life and destiny. In the Federation today, the Federal Parliament is representative of the Malayan electorate as a whole. The Federal citizens living in a constituent State, say Johore, may stand for election to the Federal Parliament in any constituency in any State - Perak or Kedah for instance - in the Federation and have the right to influence the people throughout the length and breadth of Malaya on all political issues. In turn, the people of Johore, for example, may elect as their representative, any citizen from outside their State - for example, from Perak or Selangor - who seeks to represent them. That is, they in turn can be influenced by people throughout Malaya. This right to influence and be influenced, is the right of every fellow citizen in the country. It is all for the common good. It is one of the basic conditions for the practice of parliamentary democracy. It is a pre-condition for ensuring that the Federal Parliament reflects the views and aspirations of the people as a whole. It is a condition which we now have in Singapore. A Singapore citizen now has the right to influence and be influenced by his fellow citizens throughout the island. But what does the constitutional arrangement of the P.A.P. amount to? According to the Tunku, "the merger proposals between Singapore and the Federation amount to an association of such a nature as would recognise the Federation of Malaysia with Singapore as partners in one identity". Note, Sir, the words "the Federation of Malaysia" and "partners". Let me now examine the various aspects of merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to deal with the very important citizenship issue in all its aspects. Then if you will allow me, Sir, I shall discuss the word "national" and the words "proportional representation".

On a point of order, Sir,In view of the decision you have made in allowing this amendment, may I suggest that motion No. 7 be taken and debated together with motion No. 5, otherwise we shall be debating this matter twice over, Mr Speaker. I do not want to have to answer the Member for Queenstown and no doubt other speakers on citizenship, nationality, a common political life, and people living in Singapore standing for elections in Trengganu, and so on, and repeat the whole business again in motion No. 7. If I may suggest. I would say that we put motion No. 5 as it is as the first limb of the motion, and motion No. 7 as the second limb of the motion. No. 7 being then amended by the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown who will ask for those words to be deleted - the one in No. 7 - and to say that what he asks for in merger is, as he has stated, complete with all reserve powers and with automatic conversion from Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship. Then we will have disposed of the whole of the question at the end of the debate.

I was hoping that that suggestion could have been put to the Speaker before today because, as I have indicated, it is difficult for the Chair to draw lines between the three motions I have mentioned. The three motions are as shown in item 5, which we are now debating, item 7* and item 10+. If it is for the convenience of the Assembly that all aspects of the merger between Singapore and the Federation should now be touched on, then the procedure would be that the debate on which we have now entered would range over item 7 and item 10; and then after the debate has been completed, there will only be a vote, if a vote is called for on a division, on item 7 and item 10. * Motion (Item) No 7 reads as follows:- That this House accepts the heads of agreement set out in the White Paper Cmd.33 of 1961 agreed to between the Government of the State of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya as a working basis for a reunification of the two territories. + Item 10 reads as follows:- That this Assembly views with grave concern and anxiety the exclusion of the Opposition Parties in the current "merger" negotiations, and demands that the Government convene forthwith an All-Party Conference to discuss and to agree on all basic questions on the constitutional future of Singapore; and failing agreement, demands that the Government seek without delay a new mandate from the people.

So be it. We are prepared for the debate to commence now.

In that event then, Members will be permitted to range over items 7 and 10, so that the Member for Queenstown could now cover all aspects of the suggested merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. So we will have a complete picture before the House, and Members will then be able to know how to vote when we come to items 7 and 10.

Mr Speaker. Sir, can you please explain once more the voting procedure? I am not very clear about that.

The parliamentary procedure is this. If there are several motions before the Assembly which appear to overlap or, in fact, do overlap, then it is permissible, with the assent of hon. Members of course, for the debate on one motion to range over the aspects of the other motions. In this particular instance, we are now debating item 5, which has the word "merger" in it, and which the hon. Member for Queenstown is not satisfied with. And in order to explain why he is dissatisfied with merger, he has moved an amendment which in effect asks permission to range over certain items which have been covered in Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961, the subject matter of the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister as item 7 on the Order Paper. Then again, in item 10, we also have a motion on merger and the constitutional future of Singapore - the motion standing in the names of the Members for Queenstown and Havelock - which reads: `That this Assembly views with grave concern and anxiety the exclusion of the Opposition Parties in the current `merger' negotiations, and demands that the Government convene forthwith an All-Party Conference to discuss and to agree on all basic questions on the constitutional future of Singapore; and failing agreement, demands that the Government seek without delay a new mandate from the people.' That appears to me also to be an offshoot of the whole subject which we are discussing today. And I think it would be convenient if that could be done, as that would, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, obviate any over-lapping or repetition which might become tedious. Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

On a point of order. Mr Speaker, Sir.

Is the Member for Queenstown addressing the Chair on a point of order?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am only wondering if you will allow us to adjourn at this hour so that we can discuss this properly - just in case we should mistake things. We do not want to go wrong.

Mr Marshall, on a point of order?

Entirely, Sir. I was wondering, Sir, whether item No. 10 is purely procedural. I rather like the idea of joining items 5 and 7, if you so feel; then we can cover the points with substance. Item No. 10 merely raises a question of procedure - the way the Opposition is being treated on the question of having an All-Party Conference. The speeches are already inordinately lengthy and can be expected to be so. Could we keep that one apart, Sir?

May I raise a further point? My inclination is very much in the opposite direction. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that since you want to include item 10 in it, you might as well allow the speeches to range over that part of item 8* which is covered in the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown. And then at the end of this no doubt lengthy, exhaustive and fruitful - I hope - debate, we would at least have come to some conclusion and finality on all aspects of merger, and could then go on to discuss the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, the Federation of Malaysia on principle, Nepotism, and a Commission of Inquiry. *Item 8 reads as follows:- That the following Address in reply to the speech of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara be agreed to:- "We, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Singapore, express our thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the opening of the present session of this Assembly.". Dr Lee Siew Choh (Member for Queenstown): As an amendment, "at end, to add - "but regrets that the Government is pursuing a "merger" policy of unequal rights contrary to the interests of the people of the two territories, and urges the Government to re-orientate its policy in confirmity with the ardent desires of the people for genuine unification'."

The point raised by the Member for Anson perhaps has been well taken, because it is, in fact, an off-shoot of the whole debate. I do not know whether the Prime Minister agrees that item 10 perhaps would bring in matters which could, in fact, be easily separated from the main debate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my only intention is to avoid having to repeat ourselves. I know that we are all very interesting to listen to. We have written speeches or have memorised speeches written by us; and, of course, it is a bit upsetting if we have to repeat these things too often.

Well then, I will allow the debate to range over item 7, and I agree with the Prime Minister that the amendment of the Member for Queens-town which escaped me, and of which notice has been given, and which he wishes to move to the Address of Thanks, also covers the same subject matter of merger between the two territories; and therefore perhaps the debate could range over that as well. I also agree with the Member for Anson that item No. 10 should be kept separate. But it is a major departure from the procedure we are following now and I do agree with the Member for Queenstown that he is entitled to some consultation, and I therefore propose to suspend this sitting until 5.30 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.38 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate on motion resumed. Question again proposed.

The position now is that the debate may range over all aspects of merger as covered by item 5, that is, the motion I have just read, item 7, the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, on the White Paper on reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, and on such aspects in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which touch on merger, including the amendment which is proposed to be moved by the Member for Queenstown as shown in item 8*. The Member for Queenstown, after completing his speech on all aspects of merger covered by items 5, 7 and 8, will, as he has indicated, move his amendment to the motion set out in item No. 5. Debate will then be confined to this amendment. After the amendment has been disposed of, the debate will continue on all aspects of merger covered by items 5, 7 and 8 of the Order Paper other than the aspect already disposed of, that is, the amendment proposed to be moved by the Member for Queenstown to item 5. At the end of the debate, a vote will he taken on item 5 in the first instance. When items 7 and 8 are called, no Member will be permitted to speak again on the topic of merger, but the Prime Minister in regard to item 7 and the Member for Queenstown in regard to his amendment as shown in item 8 may, if they so desire, propose the motion as shown in item 7 and the amendment as shown in item 8 respectively simpliciter for the purpose of taking a vote. I have reduced all that to writing, and I propose to pass copies of that ruling to Members so that they will have that ruling before them when the debate continues. If any matter requires elucidation, perhaps hon. Members will indicate.

As indicated by the hon. Member for Queenstown, it is of a sweeping character. I wonder whether you will permit Members when speaking - since the Member for Queenstown is going to move the amendment, we will all be speaking after - to speak on all the items indicated by you and not limit ourselves to the issue of citizenship. You see, the Member for Queenstown does speak of genuine and complete merger. Could we not speak on items 5, 7 and 8 so that, if the amendment is lost, there is no question of speaking again on any of the motions?

I think paragraph 2 of the ruling meets the point.

The Member will move his amendment. I was referring to paragraph 3, Mr Speaker.

Order. The position will be as shown in paragraph 2. The Member for Queenstown, after completing his speech on all aspects of merger covered by items 5, 7 and 8 will, as he has indicated, move his amendment to the motion set out in item 5. Once that amendment is moved, the debate will be confined to the aspects of that amendment to start off with. But the Member for Queenstown, of course, having already spoken to the main, motion and on all aspects covered in items 5, 7 and 8, will not be able to speak again. I trust that is all clear.

May I just seek elucidation on this point? The debate will be on the amendment to be moved by the Member for Queenstown to item 5. But will he then be again making another amendment as stated in item 8?

Item 8 contains the amendment of which the Member for Queenstown has given notice in the usual way. I have indicated that he should speak on every aspect covered not only by items 5 and 7 but also by his own amendment. Then when item 8 is called and the motion has been duly proposed by the Prime Minister, the Member for Queenstown, if he so desires, could just move the amendment simpliciter only for the purpose of taking a vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one more small point. Coming back to paragraph 3 here, "Debate will then be confined to this amendment." That means that while I am speaking on the amendment of the Member for Queenstown, I would not be allowed to wander around, say, to item 7 or item 8?

The position is that the Member for Nee Soon then would be entitled to speak on the amendment, as every other Member would be entitled to speak on the amendment, alone. After the amendment has been disposed of, the Member for Nee Soon not having spoken to the main motion, can speak again to the main motion and range over item 7 and item 8. Dr Lee will continue his speech. 5.40 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to deal with the very important citizenship issue in all aspects. Then I shall discuss "national" and proportional representation. Then I shall discuss this so-called autonomy on labour and education, which is being used as a sop to cover this lack of proportional representation. After all that, I shall then discuss whether the P.A.P.'s so-called merger proposals will help us attain the desirable objectives which merger is supposed to achieve, namely, independence, economic prosperity and national unity. It is unfortunate, Sir, that the Federation is prepared only to accept Singapore as a partner. In fact, the Federation only wants our country but not our people. It wants our country only, if the political influence of the people of Singapore could be reduced to the minimum. Thus we find that the P.A.P.'s brand of merger is an unholy scheme whereby the people of Singapore become politically castrated by being segregated, with separate citizenship and without proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. This, Sir, is worse than second-class citizenship to the people of Singapore. Thus, under the P.A.P. scheme of things, the political influence of the people of Singapore will be kept to the minimum possible by two methods: (1) by segregating the people of Singapore from the people of the Federation under separate citizenship arrangements; (2) by not giving the people of Singapore the right of proportional representation in the Federal Parliament. These are ugly features which the P.A.P. hopes to sugarcoat and make acceptable to our people. It is against this background of unholy intrigues and machinations that we must view the P.A.P.'s present propaganda on "merger" (inverted commas), "merger" in general and on the citizenship issue in particular. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point let me first answer the malicious falsehood put up by the P.A.P. that we in the Barisan Sosialis are afraid of merger because we are afraid of internal security being controlled by the Central Government. Even last night over Radio Singapore, which has now become the private organ of the P.A.P., the Prime Minister repeated the same falsehood. He said we are opposing his so-called merger plans because we are afraid that Internal Security will come under the control of a strong Central Government. The only truth in this, Sir, is that he has admitted, by implication, that his own Government is not strong, and this, the whole lot of people, everyone of us, already know. Sir, we have already stated in the most unequivocal terms that we are fully prepared to accept a complete merger, and we will only be too glad to say "yes" if the Tunku says tomorrow that we should have complete merger. As everybody realises, and the Prime Minister above all, though he is not prepared to admit this, internal security will be, of course, under the control of the Central Government in a complete merger. Where then is the truth of the Prime Minister's statement? Sir, we are prepared to accept a complete and genuine merger even when we are fully aware that this means that the internal security of Singapore will, under such an arrangement, come under the control of the Central Government. We are fully aware that the socialist forces in Singapore will after complete merger face the probability of having to make certain sacrifices - sacrifices which our socialist comrades in the Federation are now making. But, Sir, we are prepared to make these sacrifices. The Secretary-General of my Party, Mr Lim Ching Siong, has said as much at the inaugural meeting of the Barisan Sosialis on the 17th of September. Let me quote him - Straits Times, Monday, 18th September, 1961: `"As one who has tasted political detention and repression, I say [this is what Ching Siong said we are prepared for this sacrifice. As socialists we should not allow our personal security to stand in the way of national unity...".' Sir, whatever one may think of the political views of Mr Lim Ching Siong, no one can doubt his sincerity and dedication. This is more than what we can possibly say of the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew -

Order. The hon. Member does know the Standing Order which says he must not refer to a Member by name.

I will repeat then. Sir, that this is more than what can possibly be said for the Prime Minister. Mr Lim Ching Siong has suffered Imprisonment for his political convictions, and I have no doubt he is prepared for further sacrifices if it is necessary to bring about a genuine reunification of our people. Is our Prime Minister, Sir, prepared to do the same? As far as we know, he is not prepared even to risk being considered dotty, let alone go to prison for the interests of our people -

Order. I am not quite certain whether I heard the word "dotty" being used.

"Dorothy" or something like that.

Will the hon. Member for Queenstown indicated what word he used? Did he use "dotty", meaning a lunatic?

I did say "dotty", Sir. I merely quoted the Prime Minister himself.

Huh?

Order. I know of no occasion when the Prime Minister called himself dotty. I think that word with reference to a Member of the Assembly is unparliamentary and ought to he withdrawn.

I will leave it out, Sir, but I can quote chapter and verse if you like. I am sure you do not think that is necessary. I was told that, in fact, our Prime Minister once told a political detainee that he would like to go to prison in order to glorify his political career -

At least he is prepared to, but are you?

But then it should be only - you see, this is the snag - for a few days, and provided he would be allowed to stay by the seaside - Some hon. Members: And play golf.

I may add - The Prime Minister rose -

Point of order?

Point of order. Sir, can a Member of this Assembly be so grossly misrepresented when he has never said any such thing to anybody?

That, of course, is not a point of order. It might perhaps amount to an abuse of privilege, but I do not see any privilege being abused in this particular instance.

Of course, Sir, I may add, as some of the Members over this side of the House have been saying, provided they also build him a golf course within the prison grounds -

Order. I have indicated earlier on that I am not going to allow any personalities to creep into this debate. I think the Member for Queenstown did hear me very clearly and he should take cognizance of what the Chair desires.

Anyway, Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to make sacrifices for genuine reunification. But no one in his sanity will be prepared to sacrifice for this phoney merger which is a treacherous betrayal of the people. Let me now deal with the vital question of citizenship. The Prime Minister sometime back indicated that he would like to have a debate in a forum on the citizenship question.

Why did you decline one?

Order.

Now is his chance. In fact, only last Friday at about 5.30 p.m. I received a very urgent letter from the acting Head of the Broadcasting Department. He suggested we have a forum to discuss the White Paper tabled here only a couple of days back, and he wanted us to discuss that White Paper in that forum. I think, Sir, since you have always been ruling about anticipation, this is a gross case of anticipation. In my reply, I suggested that the civil servant concerned should suggest, to his Minister that a live broadcast be allowed for the proceedings that are taking place in the Assembly today. An hon. Member: God forbid!

Order. Of course, the Member for Queenstown will realise that that would be completely out of order and that I would fight with all the rhetoric at my command against that. The Speaker is against a live broadcast of any debate in this Chamber.

That was why he invited you to Radio Singapore.

Let us, Sir, examine how the P.A.P. hopes to effect the political castration of the people of Singapore. Firstly, it appears that the Prime Minister hopes to achieve this by confusing the people with the use of the magic word "national". He hopes -

Order. There is a word which has been used by the Member for Queenstown which is slowly sinking into my tired brain. That is the word "castration". I do not think that is a parliamentary word to be used in this Assembly, and I think he should avoid using that word.

Virile.

May I suggest the word "emasculation", Sir?

Order. I think even the word "emasculation" is akin to "castration" and, therefore, I will not allow that word either.

The Prime Minister hopes thus to mislead the people into believing that there is no significant difference between the word "citizen" and the word "national". He would like the people of Singapore to believe that a Federal National is not materially different from a Federal Citizen. That is point No. 1. Secondly, the Prime Minister hopes to frighten a large number of the Singapore electorate into believing that complete merger must lead to automatic disenfranchisement of a large number of Singapore citizens. That is point No. 2. And the third one, the Prime Minister wants to make the people believe is that it is unreasonable to demand Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. Let me first brace the various statements made by the P.A.P. on the question of citizenship. Let us trace their twists and turns over this vital matter in their attempt to fool the people. On 23rd August, 1961, the Prime Minister gave a Press conference after the first joint statement by the two Prime Ministers was issued. While the joint statement stressed Singapore's autonomy on labour and education as important principles to be agreed upon beforehand between the two Prime Ministers, it was significantly silent on the vital question of citizenship rights for the Singapore citizen. The Prime Minister, when pressed by a reporter dismissed the citizenship question as also another matter for the Working Committee, to be considered together with other mundane things such as postal and telegraph communications. Sir,I think almost everyone smelled a rat. We had all along suspected that the P.A.P. in its desperation was selling out the citizenship rights of the people of Singapore in return for help and succour - An hon. Member: Who is the sucker?

- from the Right-Wing Government of the Federation. But as yet it was not clear to the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis immediately pressed for full citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens in the, event of merger. What did the P.A.P. Government do? They threw a dirty smoke bomb to confuse the citizenship issue instead. On 21st September, 1961, the Minister for Finance at a radio forum [Interruption] said that according to the Federation Constitution -

You have read it, have you?

Let me quote from the Straits Times of Friday, 22nd September, 1961. The Minister for Finance said that it was impossible for all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens on complete merger. That is what you said, did you not?

Order. I can assure the Member for Queenstown that I never said those words. He must remember that he is addressing the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir. The Minister for Finance declared that complete merger would mean the automatic disenfranchisement of about half of Singapore's citizens who were not born in Singapore. The next day the Barisan Sosialis in a statement pointed out the falsehood of the statement of the Minister for Finance. I will quote, Sir -

Do not be so long about it.

- from the Straits Times of 23rd September, 1961: `Citizenship status after merger: Barisan points to Federal Constitution'. An hon. Member: Article 22.

And they point out that Article 22 -

The magic wand.

The thing that kills the P.A.P. Article 22 of the Federal Constitution reads: `If any territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from which such persons are to be citizens.' I quote further from the Straits Times of 23rd September, 1961: `Article 2, the Barisan Sosialis statement said, merely provided for the admission of other States to the Federation and the alteration of the boundaries of any State.' Article 22 of the Federal Constitution therefore provides the Federal Government with full powers to decide on the terms of citizenship for the people of a new territory joining the Federation. It is crystal clear to all, therefore, that the question of citizenship on merger is essentially a matter for negotiation - remember that - between the parties concerned. There is no such thing as automatic disenfranchisement except when agreed upon by the two parties concerned. Dr Goh's -

Order.

The Minister for Finance's intentional bluff was thus exposed -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it proper for a Member of the Assembly to accuse another Member of bluffing? An hon. Member: No bluff.

Order. I was under the impression that bluffing is a good attribute of a politician! But it the Minister for Finance says that it is offensive, then, of course, it becomes unparliamentary. Probably on second thoughts he might think it is not offensive, because it might well be that the Member for Queenstown is bluffing. Dr Lee.

Although it has been shown that the Minister for Finance has been bluffing, this did not stop the Prime Minister from repeating this same falsehood in his many subsequent Press conferences. The Prime Minister, like Dr Goebbels. evidently believes that a lie told often enough may be taken for the truth.

Order. It is so difficult for me to draw the line. I have in the past drawn the line at "lie" and I have allowed the word "falsehood". I have also allowed the words "terminological inexactitude". Now I permit the word "falsehood" but I will never permit the word "lie". It is unparliamentary to use "lie".

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I said "lie", of course, I was referring to Dr Goebbels.

Order. The Member for Queenstown cannot get round my ruling by saying that. He must withdraw that word.

I withdraw the word "lie" and I will substitute the word "falsehood". But soon afterwards, the Prime Minister must have realised that his bluff was not selling well among the people. So he started to shift his ground. In graphic language, he tried to show that the demand for automatic citizenship for all Singapore citizens was unreasonable because of what he claimed to be different residential qualifications for citizenship in the two territories. He compared the citizenship demand with a dishonest blackmarket operation in currency. Let me quote him, Sir. He was talking about citizenship and this is the relevant portion from the Straits Times of Monday, 25th September, 1961: `This, Mr Lee said, was like people crossing frontiers with currency. One could change a dollar for 100 rupiahs on the black market and then on returning, ask for conversion at the official rate of 30 rupiahs for a dollar.' Perhaps our Prime Minister is an expert on black-marketing, as we were told by the Member for Hong Lim at the Chua Commission of Inquiry before the Hong Lim by-election that the Prime Minister was once a black marketeer. The Prime Minister further declared that he was not prepared to put forward such an unreasonable demand, as he thought it would definitely be unacceptable to the Tunku. Our Prime Minister also intimated that the Tunku would also think him dotty if he brought up such a demand. I will quote from the Straits Times of Monday, 25th September. The relevant paragraph is this, Sir: "I mean I wouldn't for one moment put forward a proposition because the Tunku may think that I [i.e., the Prime Minister have already gone dotty," the Premier added.' There you are, right there, Sir! Then on 25th October, 1961, again at one of his frequent Press conferences, our Prime Minister unabashedly

Un-what?

Unabashedly suggested that-let me quote him again. Sir. This is the Straits Times of Thursday, 26th October, 1961: `Mr Lee suggested that those who demanded automatic Federation Citizenship should ask their friends in the Federation Parliament, such as Mr Lim Kean Siew, a Socialist Front leader.' -

A Front leader, not socialist.

- `or Mr D. R. Seenivasagam, of the People's Progressive Party, to introduce a resolution supporting automatic conversion from Singapore to Federation citizenship.' In effect, our Prime Minister reluctantly admitted that it was constitutionally possible and correct to have automatic Federation citizenship for all Singapore citizens. That is as we have pointed out - the question of citizenship rights for Singapore citizens on merger is a matter which the Federal Parliament has the power to decide. But at the same Press conference, our Prime Minister also brought in another red herring to confuse the picture. He said that in a complete merger all those Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore would be required to register again and to pass a language test in addition to satisfying the necessary residential qualification. Let me now, Sir, summarise the twists and turns of the Prime Minister in his many attempts to find an excuse for not fighting for equal citizenship rights for the people of Singapore. It was originally supposed to be constitutionally "impossible." Then it became politically "unreasonable," "dishonest," "black-marketing;" and finally, it has become a matter of need for further registration and requiring a language test. Mr Speaker. Sir, let me ask: why has the Prime Minister got to twist and turn over this vital question of citizenship? Why? Why has he got to reveal information in dribs and drabs?

Hear, hear!

Why must the Prime Minister - Dr Lee Siew Choh gesticulated. [Laughter].

Order. I suppose it is time for me to intervene. Perhaps the Speaker did not intervene in view of all the levity that has been created by a lone voice on the back bench of the Opposition! May I perhaps point out that this is a very serious subject which we are discussing, and perhaps less levity would be more in keeping with it. The Member for Queenstown also should realise that he is endeavouring to put forward a serious point of view, and levity on his part would not advance his cause, in my opinion, more than he could without levity.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I crave your indulgence. To us in the Barisan Sosialis there is never a more serious question than this citizenship issue. This citizenship issue proves to the people of Singapore that the Front Benchers of the P.A.P are selling the rights of Singapore down the river. I was asking, Sir, why have they got to reveal information in dribs and drabs? And I want to ask another question, Sir. Why must they go on trying to strip and tease?

Strip tease.

The answer, Sir, is simple. The Prime Minister simply has not been telling the truth. He has not got the guts to tell the people the truth.

On a point of order, Sir,I have been accused of many a thing. It has been suggested that parts of my abdomen be removed. But to be accused of not having guts, I think, is a very serious proposition.

Order. I do not know whether the Hon, the Prime Minister is saying that that expression is offensive. I have allowed that expression in the past. I do recollect a Member of the Front Bench on the Government side - I do not wish to mention the name - using the same expression in different circumstances.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring to the word "guts" literally. I have been listening with great admiration to the Member for Queenstown, and as he himself does not take it seriously, I wonder if he was using the word "guts" in its literal sense - that I do not have sufficient bowels, Sir.

Since the Member for Queenstown is a medical man, I suppose he should know. Dr Lee.

I know more about guts than the Prime Minister ever knows about anything. I was saying, Sir, that the Prime Minister simply did not have the guts to tell the people the truth. He hopes to sell out in bits and pieces, at times heavily sugar-coated and at times he threw a dirty smoke bomb and a dirty smokescreen. The people might be misled. In fact, the P.A.P.'s present propaganda method may be likened to throwing clay pigeons. They throw a clay pigeon and you shoot, Sir. And just when you think you have got it, they throw another one for you to aim at.

You will have had a lot of practice then.

The idea being, of course, to keep us so busy and confused, shooting dummy clay pigeons that we miss the real thing when it does come out. We know they are quite capable of confusing the people, Sir, for they have the whole propaganda machinery of the State in their hands, including what has now become a very, very friendly English Press. In the debates and arguments in the coming months, it will become more and more evident that the P.A.P. cannot be trusted even on simple things like constitutional facts. They have shifted their stand once too often. Only two days ago, Sir, the Straits Times reported the Tunku as having said at the Airport - let me quote, Sir -

On a point of order, Sir. Is it in order for the hon. Member to have his back pointing [Laughter] -

I am afraid I did not hear that. Will the Minister for Finance repeat it?

Sir, I ask whether it is in order for the Member to present his back to the other side.

Order. I suppose it is another protest about the use of a word which refers to the anatomy of a person. But I would suggest once again that this unseemly levity be stopped. Let us get on with the serious business of this debate. Even if levity is considered to be the best form of attack, I would suggest it is not proper to use that attack in this Assembly. Dr Lee.

This is the Straits Times of Friday, 17th November, 1961. The Tunku was talking about merger and citizenship. "He reiterated that the present Federal Parliament would not, though it could - I stress, Sir, though it could - grant automatic Federation citizenship to Singapore citizens on merger". That clearly shows that the P.A.P. has all along not been speaking the truth.

On a point of order.

Point of order?

Is it in order for the Member for Queenstown to quote just half a sentence without completing the rest of the sentence which gives the substance of the statement quoted?

Only extracts are allowed!

Order. If the Hon. The Minister for Finance can point out that the subsequent sentence or sentences are relevant, then, of course, the Member for Queenstown will be asked to - Dr Goh Keng Swee rose -

Will the Minister please take his seat? There seems to be too much of a hurry in this matter. If the Minister can assure me that the quotation is incomplete, then, of course, I will ask the Member for Queenstown to continue with his quotation.

Mr Speaker. Sir, the statement quoted is very fresh in my memory. The Tunku did say that the Federal Parliament could grant all Singapore citizens automatic conversion. But he also added that they would not do so. And I suggest that this omission is deliberate, mischievous and dishonest.

To satisfy the Minister for Finance, I will even quote the following paragraph. I quoted one full paragraph, Sir, a little while ago. I will quote the following paragraph. The following paragraph says -

Order. I think it would be more satisfactory if both paragraphs are quoted from the very beginning.

I will quote both paragraphs then, Sir,It is the Straits Times of 17th November, 1961. The heading is on merger. `He reiterated that the present Federal Parliament would not, though it could, grant automatic Federation citizenship to Singapore citizens on merger.' Now this is the following paragraph which the Minister for Finance is so eager to hear: "This was because there had been laxity in awarding the first citizenships in Singapore he said.'

Order. Perhaps the Minister for Finance will his recollection of what for Queenstown said in stance was wrong. Satisfied?

I did not hear the Member very accurately, Mr Speaker, Sir. For some reason, a few words escaped my notice.

If the Minister for Finance did not hear the Member for Queenstown accurately, how could he stand up and protest?

Order. Every Member in this Assembly has a right to get up a point of order, provided it is a point of order. And that was a point of order, properly but mistakenly taken.

Of course, he has a right. I agree with you. But I would suggest that the Minister for Finance -

Order. I do not want a debate on my ruling. Will the Member for Queenstown carry on?

I will carry on, Sir. I was only going to suggest that he might see a ear specialist.

Order. I am getting a little tired saying "order". I would suggest that Members pay some heed to the Chair, because the Chair might get as tough as the Prime Minister hopes to get in the near future.

I will continue, Sir. Let me first state the Barisan Sosialis stand on citizenship. The stand of the Barisan Sosialis has been clarified time and time again. I shall repeat it here once more. Our stand is that every Singapore citizen should automatically become a Federal citizen on merger. That is, on merger, all 624,000 Singapore citizens, irrespective of whether they were born in Singapore, India, China, or Timbuctoo, will automatically become 624,000 Federal citizens. No more, no less. To us in the Barisan Sosialis, this is, to use the favourite phrase of the Prime Minister, basic and fundamental. On this there can be no compromise, no retreat, because in the practice of parliamentary democracy, only citizens who have the vote will be able to elect representatives, or become elected as representatives, to the Legislative Assembly or Parliament. And since the Legislative Assembly or Parliament is the highest seat of authority in the country, it means that only those who have representatives in the Legislative Assembly or Parliament will have a say in the running of the country. This is how the one man one vote system of parliamentary democracy works. Citizenship entitles you to the right to vote and to stand for election in any part of the country. It means you can determine your own political destiny. It means you can decide what your society should be like. It means you can decide the extent of your freedom; the government you want; the law you want and do not want; the type of working conditions you wish to have; the type of education you wish your children to have; the type of health facilities you would like, and so on and so forth. Citizenship entitles you to play your part in effecting political changes in your country that will help improve the society you live in. It means you can share with the rest of your fellow citizens a common political life and destiny. Besides the vote, of course, there are a host of other rights and privileges which are only enjoyed by citizens and not enjoyed by non-citizens. In Singapore, for example, only citizens get permanent employment in the Government offices. Children born in Singapore or are born of Singapore citizens, are given preference over others for places in Government schools. Only children born in Singapore or born of Singapore citizens, will be awarded scholarships and bursaries in schools and universities. Only citizens get legal aid and public assistance. Only citizens can be given land for resettlement. Only citizens can apply for Housing Board flats. Only Citizens are given Singapore passports. Citizens - and this is a very important point, Sir - cannot be banished from the country. Thus we see the importance of citizenship, Sir. It is not something that comes into the life of the people only at election time. It is intimately connected with every facet of our everyday life. The way we live, work, eat, travel, learn, study, associate and so on. Sir, if merger is to have any meaning, then the Singapore citizen must become a Federation citizen. Only then will the Singapore citizen have the opportunity of sharing a common political life and destiny with his brothers across the Causeway. If, the Singapore citizen does not become a Federal citizen on merger, then merger has lost its soul. It becomes meaningless. It is no more merger. It is only a sell-out - the P.A.P. sell-out. You can realise, therefore, Sir, that citizenship is the lifeblood of the people. Any person who claims that he represents the people, any person who has the interests of the people at heart, any person elected by the people, must, therefore, bear these basic interests of the people in mind in everything he does. He must fight for the people's rights, and especially when the person is the Prime Minister and claims to represent the people of Singapore. He must fight for these basic and fundamental rights of the people of Singapore. But has the Prime Minister done that? Has he thought of the Federal citizenship rights of the people of Singapore? No. Instead of fighting for these rights, he makes excuses. He throws up clay pigeons. He strips and teases. The Minister for Finance first says it is impossible. Then the Prime Minister says it is unreasonable; and then the Prime Minister says he would be "dotty". Let us now examine why our Prime Minister and his friends do not want to fight for the rights of the people of Singapore. First, let me deal with the representation of the Minister for Finance. He says that under the Federal Constitution it is impossible - impossible, he says - to have automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens. He says that complete merger would automatically disenfranchise about half of Singapore's 630,000 citizens who are not born in Singapore. I have already quoted that, Sir, so it is not necessary for me to quote again. Or maybe I did not quote, I think. May I quote, Sir?

Yes.

This is the Straits Times, Friday, 22nd September. He says "nearly half of the total electorate would be disenfranchised." Similarly, on the 25th of September, the Prime Minister is reported to have said that those who were clamouring for complete merger knew that it was impossible for Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens automatically on merger. Sir, I would first like to say that there is no such thing as impossible in the matter of advancing the interests of the people. It all depends on whether or not you have the will to do it. I am sure the Minister for Finance knows the saying that if there is a will, there is a way. The trouble is that the Minister for Finance has not got the will to fight for the people's interests any more. I am sorry he is not here, Sir,I would like him to hear this. He is now fighting for his personal political survival which evidently depends on forces outside Singapore. He knows that if he should go back to Kreta Ayer at the next general elections, he will be very lucky if he does not lose his deposit. He, therefore, has to consider first, the interests of forces outside Singapore, and not the interests of Singapore itself. The interests of the people of Singapore, to him, come second. Laws, Sir, are made to serve man, not the other way round. If a law does not serve the interests of the people but merely obstructs the advancement of the people's interests, then it becomes our duty to remove or modify this law. As politicians and statesmen - that is what the Prime Minister claims himself to be - it is our duty to protect and advance the interests of the people. Law and legal experts come in only to give legal expression and effect to the interests and aspirations of our people. It is sheer irresponsibility, to say the least, for any politician to refuse to fight for the interests of the people, just because he chooses to think that certain laws are in the way. He should not sit by and just cry "impossible". But since the P.A.P. chooses to harp on constitutional limitations, let us find out whether there is indeed any truth that there are laws existing which stand in the way of automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens on merger. As I have said earlier on, we in the Barisan Sosialis are students of politics. We shall always be so. I am a medical doctor, not a lawyer. Neither am I an economist pretending to he a constitutional expert. But we have consulted experts in our own way. Sir, and I venture to suggest to the Government Front Benchers that if they doubt the Barisan Sosialis' interpretation of the present constitutional position, they are at liberty to go and consult the constitutional experts, both inside and outside Malaya, on the matter. Maybe the Prime Minister does not care to consult the experts any more because the Tunku has already said that it is possible to have automatic Federal citizenship. However, let us see what the Federal Constitution says about citizenship for the people of a new territory joining the Federation of Malaya. The Constitution of the Federation requires that when the Federation Parliament admits a new territory into the Federation it must provide by law as to who from the new territory are to be citizens of the Federation and when. This is known as automatic citizenship on merger. Let me read it out once more for the record, Sir. Article 22 says (this is in the Malayan Constitution Documents): `If any new territory is admitted to the Federation in pursuance of Article 2, Parliament may by law determine what persons are to he citizens by reason of their connection with that territory and the date or dates from which such persons are to be citizens.' Article 2 of the Federal Constitution merely provides for the admission of new territories into the Federation. It is clear from this that the Federation Parliament has complete discretion in this matter and, therefore, on the question of citizenship, either in a complete or a phoney merger, it has in any case to provide the exact terms of citizenship. It is crystal clear, therefore, that the terms of citizenship are entirely a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned. In this case, the two parties concerned are the representatives of Singapore and the Federation. The Federal Parliament has the power to say that none of the Singapore citizens should become Federal citizens. It has also the power to say that all of the Singapore citizens should be Federal, citizens. It is, therefore, absolute nonsense for the Minister for Finance to say that under the Federal Constitution it is impossible for all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens on merger. It is only impracticable if the Federation Government refuses to agree on this. But that is entirely a different matter from being "constitutionally impossible", as he alleges. On the 9th of October, 1961, the Prime Minister, in one of his numerous radio talks, alleged that "I learned" - I will quote, Sir, from the Straits Times, Tuesday, 10th October, 196l - "for the first time from the Minister for Finance at a radio forum that out of (I will quote the figures as mentioned here) 650,000 Singapore citizens, only half - about 325,000 - were born here and would automatically get Federal citizenship on complete merger." This, Sir, is false and the Prime Minister knows it is false; for to state that "I learned" is to say that I learned of the existence of a fact. It is true I heard the Minister for Finance say this, but what he said was not a fact but a falsehood. Again there is no such thing as "automatic disenfranchisement" except as to be provided by the Federal law which will be passed by the Federal Parliament to admit Singapore into the Federation and to provide for citizenship. Sir, it is of the utmost importance that the people of Singapore must know that, on merger, citizenship depends on an Act of the Federation Parliament, which in turn depends on the agreement reached during negotations between the two Governments. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to challenge the P.A.P. Government to seek expert opinion on constitutional law, whether from Singapore or from outside, to check the correctness of my statement. You will find that I am telling you the simple truth. The stand of the Barisan Sosialis is simply this. In the negotiations for merger both Governments should agree that all Singapore citizens on the date of merger become Federation citizens. It is for the Governments to agree that all persons who are already citizens of Singapore immediately before the merger date will, by operation of law, become Federal citizens. Such an agreement could be given legal effect in pursuance of Article 22 of the Federal Constitution. Whether or not the Federation Government is agreeable is a matter for negotiation. We in the Barisan Sosialis believe that merger is a unification not only of our territories but also of our people. We believe that on merger all Singapore citizens must be given the same rights and status as those enjoyed by the citizens of the Federation. The only way to do that is for the Singapore citizen to become the Federal citizen. The Tunku has categorically stated in the recent Federal Parliament debate on merger that he is prepared to give these equal rights and equal status to the citizens of the Borneo territories. Does not the Minister for Finance now admit that it was silly and foolish of him to say that it is constitutionally not possible for all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens on merger, when the Tunku himself is prepared to grant citizenship rights to all citizens of the Borneo territories? I wonder what the Minister for Finance was thinking about when he pulled this fast one on the people. Yes, why did he do it? Does he really think that fighting for political power is so much more important than advancing the interests of the people? Let me stress once again in this House our views on citizenship. The Barisan Sosialis regards as absolutely fundamental that merger must mean that, (1) all those persons who are considered fit to be citizens of Singapore should also be considered fit to be citizens of the Federation on merger - that is, they must all be made citizens of the Federation by operation of law; and (2) these citizenship rights once granted must not be revocable for political reasons. Anything short of this is not merger but a sell-out. Let me, Sir, explain why we regard these two points as absolutely fundamental. It is important that the conversion of Singapore citizenship to Federation citizenship must be effected by operation of law, because "registration" may mean that Federation politicians could deprive the citizenship of Singaporeans who do not agree with their politics. For the same reason, to ensure that citizenship rights must not be left to the whims and fancies of politicians, we believe it is essential that these rights, once effected by operation of law, must be irrevocable for political reasons. In terms of constitutional procedure, it is in fact much more simple to let all Singapore citizens become Federal citizens by operation of law than to effect the P.A.P.'s proposals of separate citizenship and the establishment of a Federal nationality, a term that is not found in the present Federal Constitution at all. In fact, the P.A.P., by bringing in the Federal national, merely proves our point, that there is nothing that is impossible under the Constitution. When it suits the P.A.P.'s purpose of camouflaging a sell-out, it is possible for them to introduce a whole set of laws to frame an entirely new invention - the Federal national - whereas when it does not suit the P.A.P., everything becomes impossible. I am no constitutional expert but I could suggest to them the following. As the Federal Constitution was not written to include Singapore, it can only be applied by analogy. Words like "Merdeka Day" would have to be read "Merger Day". The provisions for automatic Federal citizenship on merdeka is governed by Article 14 of the Federal Constitution, Part II, under Citizenship, which reads as follows: '(1) Subject to Clause (2), the following persons are citizens by operation of law, that is to say: (a) every person who, immediately before Merdeka Day, was a citizen of the Federation by virtue of any of the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, whether by operation of law or otherwise;.' The other clauses in this Article of the Constitution do not concern us here. The above clause clearly provides that all those who were citizens of the Federation immediately before Merdeka Day should automatically become citizens of the Federation of Malaya on its attainment of independence. Similarly' it can be easily provided by law that all those who were citizens of Singapore immediately before Merger Day should automatically become citizens of the new Federation of Malaya on merger. Under such a simple legal arrangement, no citizen of Singapore will be deprived of the Singapore citizenship status on Merger, for a Singapore citizenship status will be automatically converted to Federal citizenship status by the operation of such a law. Under such an arrangement, therefore, those Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore and who have obtained Singapore citizenship either by registration or by naturalization need not have to register again for Federal citizenship rights. I repeat "need not have to register again for Federal citizenship rights". The question of residential qualification and language test will therefore be irrelevant. This law will apply only to persons who immediately before Merger Day are already citizens of Singapore; that is, all persons who are already citizens of Singapore immediately before merger will, by operation of this law, automatically become Federal citizens. It is therefore only a transitional provision and is not intended to apply to any other person whatever his connection with Singapore after merger. After merger, the position of citizenship rights for those persons who are not Singapore citizens before Merger Day will be governed by non-transitional citizenship laws as stated in Part III of the Federal Constitution. In other words, Sir, all persons born in Singapore on or after the date of merger will automatically become Federal citizens by right of birth, just like any person born now in the Federation; whereas those persons in Singapore who are not citizens of Singapore immediately before merger - and therefore not entitled to automatic Federal citizenship by operation of the above-mentioned transitional provision - may subsequently become Federal citizens either by registration or by naturalization under existing Federal citizenship laws, which for practical purposes are the same as the present citizenship laws in Singapore. I think our legal luminaries in this Chamber can verify all this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have clearly shown that under the Constitution of the Federation, it is not only not impossible but, on the contrary, absolutely possible - and in fact also quite simple - for all Singapore citizens to become Federal citizens on merger. The problem only lies in obtaining the Federation Government's consent to agreeing on the just and legitimate aspirations of the people of Singapore. Sir, all this is a matter for negotiation. Our Prime Minister has a responsibility to look after the interests of the people of Singapore. Why has he not done so? Has he to depend on Lim Kean Siew and Seenivasagam? If the Federation Government is truly sincere in wanting merger and achieving the genuine unification of the peoples of the two territories, then it must accept all Singapore citizens as citizens of the Federation on merger in the same way as it is prepared to accept the citizens of the Borneo territories on formation of the Tunku's Malaysia. This is not a demand that can be construed as "Communist-inspired or placing ob stacles" - the Prime Minister's words - in the way of merger. It is simply a fair and democratic way of achieving the political integration of the people of both territories based on equality, democracy and justice. The Prime Minister said, "Conditions must be fair and just." Is it fair and just to the Singapore citizen when he does not automatically become a Federal citizen on merger? If there is no merger, why harp on merger all the time? Why does the Prime Minister want Federation Members of Parliament to fight the battle of citizenship on behalf of the people of Singapore? Who is the Member for Tanjong Pagar? Was he not elected by the people of Singapore? Is he not the Prime Minister of Singapore? Then why does he not fight for the interests of the people of Singapore? If our Prime Minister wants to fight for the interests of non-Singaporeans, why does he not resign and give up the post of Prime Minister? Does he think that having several classes of citizenship is fair and just? [Laughter] They laugh. Dare they laugh this off in the face of the people?

Why don't you -

Order.

Is that what they want? The Prime Minister says, "To a more equal and just society" - Is that fair? Is that equal? Is that just?

On a point of order, Sir,I see no reason why my eardrums should be so much disturbed. I do not require an E.N.T. specialist.

I suppose that is a point of order. The Member for Queenstown should try and modulate his voice.

What about mine?

Sir, when one talks of citizenship, when one sees how people have been selling out the interests of the people, one cannot help becoming angry. They are traitors, treacherous traitors! If the Prime Minister of Singapore fights for the interests of non-Singaporeans and for forces outside Singapore, he is not only a traitor hut a super-traitor. If the P.A.P. Government is sincere in guarding the interests of the people of Singapore, he must not negotiate for merger with an attitude of defeatism and submissiveness. Merger is something that should bring mutual benefit to the peoples of both territories. The people of Singapore must, therefore, not approach the negotiations on merger with an inferiority complex. The P.A.P. in its booklet, The Tasks Ahead, issued in 1959 before the general elections, declared - this is the famous Tasks Ahead, the P.A.P.'s Five-year Plan which the P.A.P. has completely forgotten - Part I, page 21 (they are talking about the common market): `A P.A.P. government [I will leave out the irrelevant parts] . . . need not approach the Federation government in the role of supplicants for favours.' Now they are begging on all fours. The P.A.P. was able to say this at that time because they then had the support of the people of Singapore, and because they then knew that all the people were behind them. Now that they have lost the people's support, it is clear that they are now approaching the Tunku not only on bended knees but also with outstretched hands waiting for alms. Mr Speaker, Sir, the basis of our negotiations on merger must be on whether it is to the interests of the people of Singapore, and not whether it is acceptable to the Federation Government. What is unacceptable to the Federation Government may not necessarily be bad for the people of Singapore, and what is acceptable to the Federation Government may not necessarily be good for the people of Singapore. If the interests of our people have to be looked after, then it is our duty to fight for them, even at `the risk of being considered dotty. It is for us then to convince our friends across the table that we are, in fact, not dotty but are merely asking for something that is legitimate and reasonable for our people. It may be that our Prime Minister in his desperation has gone dotty in not having fought for the basic interests of the people of Singapore. For the Singapore Prime Minister to ask our friends in the Federation Parliament to move a motion to give Federal citizenship to all Singapore citizens merely shows the irresponsibility of the Prime Minister.

Order. I think the hon. Member for Queenstown has touched on that aspect on at least three occasions. There is a certain amount of repetition which might eventually be tedious. Perhaps he should try not to repeat what he has said so often.

I merely want to emphasise the irresponsibility of the Prime Minister, Sir. We implore the Prime Minister not to shirk his responsibility and not to pass the buck. Incidentally that ridiculous statement by the Prime Minister only serves further to prove that he has reluctantly accepted the Barisan Sosialis' position as being the correct one, namely, that the Federal Constitution empowers the Federal Parliament to a full discussion over the terms of citizenship on merger, and that it is up to our Prime Minister to negotiate on Singapore's behalf. We challenge the P.A.P. Government to a general election on this basic issue of people's citizenship -

By-election.

- for all citizens on merger. Have they the guts to accept? Let me now, Sir, deal with the Prime Minister's lame excuse - that it is unreasonable to demand that all Singapore citizens should become Federal citizens on merger. The P.A.P. line is that on full and complete merger it is not reasonable to demand for Federal citizenship for those Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore, because (1) these Singapore citizens do not have the residential qualification required under the present Federal citizenship laws; (2) they have not passed a language test as required by the Federation law. In the first place, as I have pointed out earlier, Sir, it is possible for all Singapore citizens automatically to become Federal citizens by operation of law passed in pursuance of Article 22 of the Federal Constitution, in which case, of course, all this talk of residential qualification and language test becomes completely irrelevant. They are only red herrings. But let me, nevertheless, deal with these mischievous arguments of the P.A.P. just to expose their hollowness. Let us examine the facts. Let me first summarise the requirements of the Federation Constitution on citizenship. Under the Federation Constitution, Federal citizenship can be acquired by one of three procedures. Let me quote "Citizenship by operation of law" as set out in Article 14. The salient features are that a person can become a Federal citizen `by operation of law if he was (a) a citizen of the Federation before Merdeka Day, or (b) was born in the Federation of Malaya on or after Merdeka Day. "Citizenship by registration" - I have no wish to read this out, Sir, but for the record I think it is useful. There are three main categories: (a) Citizenship by registration (wives and children of citizens) as provided in Article 15: residential qualification and language test are not required in these cases. (b) Citizenship by registration (persons born in the Federation before Merdeka Day) as provided for in Article 16: the main requirements here are a residential qualification of at least five years during the seven years immediately preceding the date of application, that he is of good character, that he must have an elementary knowledge of the Malay language. This language requirement is waived where the applications were made within one year after Merdeka Day - for one year they need not have to bother about the Malay language test. And then under (c) "Citizenship by registration (persons resident in the Federation on Merdeka Day)" as specified in Article 17. Here the requirement is similar to that in Article 16 except that the residential qualification is 8 out of the 12 years immediately preceding application. The language requirement is also waived during the first year of Merdeka, and also for those who have attained the age of 45 on the date of application. Then comes "Citizenship by naturalization". Here the main requirements are a residential qualification of 10 years out of the 12 years preceding application. He must be of good character. He must have an adequate knowledge of the Malay language. You will note that the Prime Minister is playing only on the ten-year residential qualification and the language barrier in the naturalization laws in order to frighten the citizens of Singapore who were not born here. Let us now briefly, Sir, see how the citizenship laws in Singapore operate. The Singapore Citizenship Ordinance, 1957, came into force on 1st November, 1957. Under this Ordinance, Singapore citizenship could be acquired by birth in Singapore, citizenship by descent, citizenship by registration, which has two main categories - those born in the Federation and those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and British colonies. The residential qualification here was only two years. For those who were born in China and other foreign countries, the residential qualification here was that they must have 8 years' residence immediately preceding the date when application for this category of citizenship should be made within two years from 1st November, 1957. Incidentally, Sir, citizenship by naturalization did not come into force on 1st November, 1957. The Prime Minister has chosen to emphasise this residential qualification of two years for those born in the Federation and the U.K. and Colonies, and 8 years for those born elsewhere, and argues that it is therefore not reasonable for these groups of Singapore citizens to demand Federation citizenship rights in view of the ten-year residential qualification and language tests required under the naturalization laws of the Federation. In support of his argument, the Prime Minister takes on those Singapore citizens who were not born here. The Prime Minister has conceded that all Singapore citizens who were born here have the right to automatic Federal citizenship on complete merger though, and we must note this very carefully, Sir, the P.A.P.'s phoney merger does not even give these rights. But I shall deal with that later. The argument of the Prime Minister centres on those Singapore citizens who were not born here and is based on two points: (a) an alleged lack of residential qualification of ten years as required by the Federation naturalisation law; and (b) the fact that these Singapore citizens did not undergo a Malay language test as required by the Federation laws. At first the Minister for Finance, on the 21st of September, 1961, contended that "all these 300,000-odd citizens" - those were the figures at the moment, Sir - "not born here would automatically lose their citizenship rights on complete merger." But later, on the 27th October, 1961, the Prime Minister cut this down to 200,000. saying that 100,000 - of course, the figure now is 110,000 - of this 300,000 may successfully apply for registration and pass the language test. Let me first dismiss all this hullabaloo about the language qualification. Under the Federation Constitution, this language requirement was waived for applicants during the first year after Merdeka Day, as I have already mentioned, and for those reaching 45 years of age, it is not necessary at all. Is the Prime Minister saying that this cannot also be done in the case of merger, and that the language barrier cannot be waived during the first year after merger? Does the Prime Minister want to lay down conditions even harsher and more stringent than the Federation constitution? Already as the result of memoranda and representations from Assemblymen and past P.A.P. Branch executives who are now with the Barisan Sosialis - An hon. Member: Oh God!

- the Malay language test in Singapore is now waived for all those over thirty. I wonder if it has been done. It has been recommended. We recommended it, and I hope they have carried this out. So the Malay language test should not be a barrier. Let me then deal with alleged lack of residential qualification. Here again the Prime Minister is trying to be more stringent than the Federation Government. He must insist on the ten-year residential qualification required under the naturalization laws, and conveniently forgets that the Federation Constitution provides for citizenship by registration for those who were resident in the Federation on Merdeka Day, the residential qualification here being only 8 years. We want to ask: Why cannot this pro-vision be given to those who are resident in Singapore on Merger Day? After all, is not the Prime Minister trying to tell us that he is getting us Merdeka through merger? But let me argue on the basis of his ten-year qualification. The fact is that most of the people in Singapore who were not born here have been residing here since 1952, except for those who come from the Federation and who cannot be considered as aliens anyway. Stringent safeguards were made to guard against the large influx of aliens after the war, and according to immigration reports of post-war years a policy of selective immigration on a severely restricted basis was introduced. When the Immigration Ordinance of 1952 was passed providing for selective immigration, control of entry of aliens became even more strict. Most of the Singapore citizens who obtained their citizenship by registration in 1957 did so under the requirements of 8 years' residential qualification. In fact, the reason given by the then chief Minister for this 8-year residential qualification was that it was to facilitate the registration procedure, as the identity card system was introduced in late 1948. The registration of these citizens was done mainly on the basis of the 1948 identity card. That is to say, most of the Singapore citizens who obtained their citizenship by registration in 1957 have, in fact, been resident here since -

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way. The Member will not give way. The Minister will take his seat. Dr Goh Keng Swee resumed his seat.

It is a manoeuvre. Sir.

Please continue. Dr Lee.

I bow to your decision. Sir.

Scared!

I was saying, Sir, that most of the Singapore citizens who obtained their citizenship by registration in 1957 have, in fact, been resident here since 1948. 1948-1961, 13 years ago. That is more than the ten-year residential qualification required under the Federation naturalization law, which only require 10 years out of 12. And by 1963 when "merger" is supposed to take place (inverted commas "merger"), they will have 13 plus two, which means 15 years' residence.

Where? In Singapore or the Federation?

What more does the Prime Minister want? Does he think this is not fair and just, Sir? After 15 years' residence in Singapore and still -

On a point of order.

Point of order?

When a speaker asks me a question, am I not allowed to reply, Sir?

Order. Those questions, of course, are rhetorical and the Prime Minister will have an opportunity of replying in due course.

As I have pointed out, Sir, this provision of the 1957 Singapore Citizenship Ordinance allowing only 8 year's residential qualification was operative only for a two-year period, that is from 1957 to 1959. Even where those citizens registered themselves at the end of this two-year period, that is, in 1959 - let us calculate arithmetic, Sir - they still have by now at least ten years' residential qualification, because when they registered two years ago, in 1959, they must have at that time at least 8 years residence in order to qualify. Let us add 2 to 8, that is by 1961 - that gives you 10, which should already satisfy the 10-year residential qualification. And if we should add 2 to 10, that is to say by 1963, when this phoney merger is supposed to take place. they will have already 12 years' residential qualification. The fact, therefore, then is that most of the 300,000 Singapore citizens who were not born here have by now at least 10 years' residence in Singapore, and by 1963 it will be at least 12 years. The few that do not have 10 years' residence are those who have obtained citizenship rights with the 2-year residential qualification provided for in the 1957 Singapore Citizenship Ordinance for those either born in the Federation or in the U.K. and Colonies. Most of them in this group were, in fact, born in the Federation and cannot be considered as aliens to this country at any rate. These Singapore citizens born in the Federation could in any case obtain Federal citizenship by registration under Federal citizenship laws with only a 5-year residential qualification and not 10 years - not 10 years. Moreover, in May 1960, the P.A.P. amended the citizenship laws in Singapore. I have got it down here as No. 40 of 1960 - I am not going to quote that, Sir - and thereafter persons born in the Federation require an 8-year residence in Singapore before they can become Singapore citizens. So what is all this talk about black marketing and currency exchange cheating and all that? Why all this cheating? Why cannot the P.A.P. leaders come out with the truth and tell the people that they have not been doing their duty, that they have been irresponsible to the people of Singapore, and that they have not been looking after the interests of the people? The number of persons born in the U.K. and Colonies who have obtained Singapore citizenship under the 1957 Singapore Citizenship Ordinance is probably very small, perhaps a few thousand. They comprise, I believe, mainly ex-servicemen and expatriates who choose to settle here for one reason or another. The Prime Minister cannot escape responsibility for this awkward provision of the 1957 Singapore Citizenship Ordinance as he was a member of the Select Committee which drew up the Bill. It is clear, however, that the Prime Minister is using the existence of this small number of Singapore citizens born in the U.K. and Colonies -

And India.

- as a feeble excuse to block genuine merger and to grant second-rate citizenship status to our people in Singapore. Is it fair that just because of these few citizens all of us are denied an equal citizenship status? This is nothing but a lousy camouflage for a treacherous sell-out. Just because of these few Europeans and ex-servicemen who do not have the 10-year residential qualification, the P.A.P. is trying to bring about a phoney merger under which not a single Singapore citizen will obtain Federal citizenship rights. Is this fair and just? The P.A.P. alleges that under complete merger only those 323,000 citizens who were born here - maybe I will have to change that figure because of the new development of 624,000 from 650,000; anyway I will stick to this 323,000, Sir - that is, about half of Singapore's 624,000 citizens, will automatically get Federal citizenship. But Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact is that under the P.A.P. phoney merger, even these 323,00 citizens born in Singapore, or the new figure of 284,000, will not get automatic Federal citizenshp rights. The fact is that under the P.A.P.'s phone y merger not a single Singapore citizen, not even those who were born in Singapore, will get automatic Federal citizenship rights. This is a very ugly fact which the Prime Minister has so far successfully concealed from the people and I challenge the Prime Minister to categorically deny this - Mr Lee Teck Him (Tiong Bahru) sneezed. [Laughter]

I challenge the Prime Minister - Mr Lee Teck Him sneezed again. [Laughter]

Order. I was under the impression that the first sneeze was perhaps due to the dryness of this atmosphere; but if the Member for Tiong Bahru cannot behave himself, I may have to apply Standing Orders, which might mean that he will have to leave this Assembly Chamber. He must not make noises. He must not, in fact, emulate the Member for Anson.

I was saying. Sir, I challenge the Prime Minister to state categorically in this Chamber if there is a single group of Singapore citizens who will have automatic Federal citizenship rights under their brand of merger. Let the people know the truth.

Order. This is another occasion. I suppose, when the Member for Queenstown is losing his temper. He is getting angry. But I think he should try and modulate his voice.

I am sorry, Sir. When one meets with treachery like this, one cannot help but be angry, Sir. In fact, on the 26th of October, 1961, the Straits Times attempted to misrepresent what the Prime Minister had said at a Press conference held the previous day, trying to mislead the people into believing that under the P.A.P.'s phoney merger all those who were born in Singapore would automatically become Federal citizens. Let me quote, Sir, the Straits Times, Thursday, 26th October, under bold headlines - "ALL SINGAPORE BORN - AUTOMATIC CITIZENS". And it says - The Prime Minister rose -

On a point of order?

Yes. When the Member is fully aware that that, in fact, was a misreport and he has read the correction, ought he not really to have read the correction instead of reading the misreport and adding to the confusion of this House?

If, in fact, there was a correction, I think the Member for Queenstown should point it out.

I will show the correction, Sir, in due course.

On a point of order. Sir. My point of order is this. That what the Member for Queenstown proposes now to read will create confusion which requires correction; and he is now proposing to add to the confusion by repeating that mistake.

I think the Member for Queenstown is trying to be historically accurate, but he must say, of course, before `he reads that statement that it was subsequently corrected.

I want to be historically correct, Sir. It says here: `Mr Lee said that after merger, (meaning the P.A.P. brand of merger) Singapore-born citizens would automatically become Federation citizens, but other Singapore citizens would have to satisfy the Federation citizenship laws on residence and pass a language test.' I am going to show the correction, Sir. The next day the Prime Minister quickly issued a statement which said that the Straits Times report of his Press conference held the previous day on the question of citizenship needed clarification and correction. In the statement he was - now this is important - significantly silent on the subject of automatic Federal citizenship rights for Singapore citizens born in Singapore after the P.A.P.'s phoney merger. In fact, the only thing he said of Singapore citizens being able to obtain Federal citizenship is this. Now, I will quote him, Sir. This is the Straits Timex of 27th October: `Any Singapore citizen who wishes to live in the present Federation and become a citizen of the present Federation can apply for citizenship of the present Federation under the laws of the present Federation.' All the time it was present Federation laws.

You said they would all qualify, so why worry?

Sir, this innocent-looking statement -

Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

On a point of order. Dr Lee Siew Choh resumed his .seat.

Could we have the date on which the speech or the interview given by the Prime Minister was published in the Straits Times? Both of them, Sir.

That was given. If the Member was listening, the date of the paper was given.

I did give the date, Sir. It was the 26th and now it is the 27th, the day following. This innocent-looking statement, Sir, covers a multitude of sins, it means, in the first place, that if a Singapore citizen goes to the Federation after the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, he will become disenfranchised and will not be allowed to vote or to stand for election in the Federation.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock p.m.

Monday, 20th November, 1961 First Offenders

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what was the number of first offenders sentenced to six months' imprisonment or less in (a) 1959; (b) 1960; and (c) the first ten months of 1961.

The number of first offenders sentenced to six months' imprisonment or less in -