Hansard, 1961-11-21

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [20th November, 1961], "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."-(The Minister for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim). Question again proposed. 2.32 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I was speaking about citizenship - the issue that is going to be the nail in the coffin of the P.A.P. Unfortunately, although the vernacular Press has given a fair coverage - and a good coverage - of the issue which is so very important to every person in Singapore, the English Press has left it almost completely out. I hope in future such an important issue like citizenship would be given decent coverage, so that every person in Singapore can see both sides of the question. Only then can everybody decide properly the future for himself as well as for the whole of Singapore. I saw in the papers also, Sir, that they referred to my mention of the U.M.N.O. Government. Of course, that was a technical error. I really meant the Alliance Government. When the House adjourned yesterday, Sir, I was quoting the Prime Minister on his clarification of citizenship as published in the Straits Times of 26th October, 1961. The words I quoted read as follows: '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.' I was saying, Sir, this innocent-looking statement covered a multitude of sins. It means, in the first place, 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. Secondly, he can get Federal citizenship rights only if he stays there for ten years in order to satisfy the necessary residential qualification, pass a Malay language test, and must be considered by the Federation Government to be of good character. You know what this means, Sir. It means that if you do not agree with the Federation Government politics, you can go and whistle for your citizenship. In short, he will be treated like any alien, although he has a so-called Federal nationality that is supposed to make him equal to the Federal citizen. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the present moment, so I am informed, a Singapore citizen born in Singapore, and thereby also a British subject, has the right to vote and stand for election if he goes to the United Kingdom - the colonial master's country. But - and this is the irony of it - after the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, even those who are born here will not have those rights in the Federation - our so-called partner. It is humiliating, Sir, that under this phoney merger a Singapore citizen when he goes to the Federation will receive less equality and trust than what he receives today in the country of his colonial master. Mr Speaker, Sir, the word "phoney" is indeed a gross understatement in describing this so-called merger of the P.A.P. There is also, Sir, another humiliating fact about the P.A.P.'s phoney merger; that is, under this phoney merger, all those persons who will be born in Singapore after the date of this phoney merger will not become Federal citizens by right of birth. This is something which the P.A.P. has concealed from our people and I challenge the P.A.P. to deny this. Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to clarify the earlier clarification in order to clarify his conscience for this shameful, disreputable and unpardonable betrayal of the people. Let me now, Sir, discuss the differences between the term "citizen" and "national". "Citizenship" and "nationality" are two distinct concepts. "Citizenship" expresses the rights of an individual within a State, and "nationality" his rights outside the State.

Lawyer baharu!

When the Prime Minister says that everyone is going to get something more, he means that every Singapore citizen is to become a Federal national. But what are the rights and privileges of a national? The Prime Minister has not been able to give anything more than the right to a Federal passport. In fact, there is really nothing more. I am not saying that the right to a passport is not good, but that is what every Singapore citizen today already has. To the citizen of Singapore, what difference is there whether or not he possesses the same passport as the Federation citizen? How many of our people in the first place can afford to go abroad and so need passports? Our workers, farmers and hawkers earn hardly enough to keep body and soul together, let alone have money to go abroad. It would be different with the Ministers. I think the Prime Minister must be getting quite tired of Cameron Highlands. The Federal passport does not benefit the vast majority of our people one wee bit. It is what the Chinese would describe as something good to look at but not so good to eat.

How can you eat a passport?

Or is it the intention of the P.A.P. Government to deny passports even to Singapore citizens in future? Is it the intention to restrict still further the freedom of travel? The P.A.P. also says that being a Federal national would make the Singapore citizen equal to the Federation citizen before the law and the courts. But, Sir, this is again something we already possess. So where is the additional "more"? Where is the additional gain? If this is a truly democratic society, it makes no difference whether a person is a citizen or a non-citizen, a national or a non-national, in a court of law. One would Imagine that all persons would be equal before the law in a democratic society, and not just nationals. So what is so wonderful about being a national? The only other distinction - and this is the latest development - is that a national may be called up for military service in future. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to confuse people with the new phrase called "new Federal citizen". This is sheer sophistry. If the Prime Minister did not want to cause confusion, he should not have brought in the new word "national". The fact that after becoming a Federal national the Singapore citizen still has to apply for registration to become a Federal citizen is proof enough that what the people of Singapore are getting is even worse than second-class citizenship. In fact, the P.A.P. arrangement will mean three types of citizens as far as Singapore is concerned. I shall enlarge on this later. This talk of citizen and national reminds me of an article I read sometime ago, which rather vividly brings out the deception and sleight of hand which is being practised by the Prime Minister. The story says the Prime Minister takes out a 20-cent piece and a 50-cent piece. He holds up the two coins showing the front face, or obverse side, to the people. And he says, "See the head of Queen Elizabeth II on the two coins. They are the same. The words on both pieces read 'Queen Elizabeth II' and therefore they are the same, and equal." That is what the Prime Minister says. But the Prime Minister also has been very cunning. He has hidden the reverse side of the coins which, if read carefully, will tell us that the coins are of different denominations. One is a 20-cent piece, the other a 50-cent piece. They are not the same, and they are not equal. So, Sir, you can see what a smart alec our Prime Minister is. There is a Chinese proverb which describes this very accurately and picturesquely. The Prime Minister, according to the proverb, wants to pass fish eyes for pearls. Does he hope thus to make everybody satisfied, everybody happy? Let me quote, Sir, the Straits Times of 25th August. He was talking to the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation: '"We want to make Malaya happy and Singapore happy". And Mr Lee echoed him, "Everybody happy".'

Except Tun Lim.

Who is "everybody"? Dare he go to the country and prove that?

Order. The Member for Queenstown must know that I have already said in this Assembly many, many times that I do not wish to hear voices raised. He must remember that. Dr Lee.

I apologise, Sir. I shall try and control my emotions especially when I conic to those parts which tell everybody of the base treachery of the people sitting opposite.

Order. Perhaps if the hon. Member for Queenstown remembers that he is addressing the Chair, he will not try and intimidate the Chair by raising his voice. Remember that he is addressing the Chair, and not Members opposite.

I shall bear that in mind, Sir. I would ask the Prime Minister and the not-so-expert Minister for Finance to read the Federal Constitution, Part II, pertaining to fundamental liberties. These are the rights of all persons resident in the Federation. They apply equally to citizens and non-citizens. Most of these rights apply even to enemy aliens. In fact, Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states - I will quote, Sir: '8 (1).-All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.'

Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. The very next subsection makes a very vital distinction. I would ask him to read it to this House - there is a vast distinction where only citizens are protected.

I will read that second subsection as well. '(2).-Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination [no discrimination] against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.' For me, Sir, the relevant portion, to a not-so-legal-minded doctor, is the first one. And you will note, Sir, it does not say all citizens but all persons, i.e. whether they are citizens or non-citizens. So what does this equality before the courts mean to the ordinary man in the street? It means that before he can become recognised as an equal under the P.A.P. merger, he must first be arrested and brought to court. Sir, we -

What is all this about? I do not -

Order.

Only people like the Minister for Health and Law who expect to be arrested sometime or other -

By whom?

Order.

- will find the the need for such protection. The rest of us, who are all peace-loving and law-abiding citizens and who will never have the misfortune to be brought to a court of law, do not want such equality. We want equality, not just inside the court but outside the court as well. That is what we mean by "equality". The concept of Federal national could have very little meaning and significance within the Federation. What really counts in the Federation is citizenship, and there would at least be two types of citizenship under the P.A.P.'s type of merger, i.e. a Federal and a Singapore citizenship. The Singapore citizen, under such an arrangement as we are told, will only be able to vote in Singapore. The Federal citizen, on the other hand, will vote in the Federation. In other words, a Singapore citizen who goes to the Federation after this so-called merger will automatically become disenfranchised. What sort of a merger is this when a citizen of one part in one identity is treated like an alien when he steps into the other part in the same identity? What sort of a unification of our people is this, when Singapore citizens will possess separate citizenship rights and will not be able to share a common political life and destiny with the citizens in the Federation? Under the P.A.P.'s so-called merger, without this common political life and destiny with the people of the Federation, the people of Singapore will not be able to give expression to and obtain redress for their grievances and aspirations through the normal democratic channels.

Order. I do not know whether the Member for Queenstown does realise that he has been repeating that sentiment time and time again. I know it is difficult perhaps when dealing with three motions at the same time, but he must so reorientate his speech that there should not be any repetition as far as it can be helped. We have a Standing Order which is aimed at trying to cut the debate short. I had better read that Standing Order for the benefit of all Members: '54. The Speaker or the Chairman, after having drawn attention to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.' But I will not say that the repetition up to now has reached the stage of being tedious. Anyway, I think that Standing Order should be borne in mind by all Members of the Assembly when they make their speeches. Dr Lee.

Sir, it is unavoidable that there must be some repetition in places, because facts have to be brought out at every stage to prove certain points; and if they are not brought out again, then the whole relevance and the whole emphasis is lost. You will appreciate my difficulty, Sir, and I understand your impatience too about that. I was saying, Sir, that while the people in the Federation can interfere with the affairs of the people of Singapore, through the Federation Government, the people of Singapore will not have the full democratic right to inform and influence the people of the Federation. The only contact we will have with the people in the Federation under such a treacherous arrangement will be through the few token representatives from Singapore in the Federation legislature. Under this phoney merger with separate citizenship, the people of Singapore will be kept politically isolated from the people of the Federation. We in Singapore will be treated as though we are suffering from some infectious disease that requires us to be permanently segregated from the people of the Federation, because we will not possess Federation citizenship under this phoney merger. All Singaporeans who do not see eye to eye with the Federation Government can be conveniently prevented from crossing the Causeway. Already, Sir, we have an outstanding example almost staring us in the face. The Federation Government has debarred permanently one Inche Said Zahari, prominent Malay citizen of Singapore and a former editor of the Utusan Melayu, from entering the Federation. The Prime Minister touched on Said Zahari's case only a couple of days ago. Inche Said Zahari, Sir -

I cannot allow the Member for Queenstown to go into the details of that case. It has nothing to do with this particular problem we are discussing. He can just mention it in passing as illustrative of an allegation he has made. But I do not think he should go into details.

I am not going into details, Sir. I just want to bring out the point, Sir, that although Inche Said Zahari is a son of the soil, but just because he happens to hold different political views - views different from those held by the politicians who are in power in the Federation - he has, therefore, been debarred from entering the Federation.

Order. The hon. Member must not make statements like that unless he can substantiate them. If he can do so, then, of course, he is entitled to make that statement. If he cannot substantiate it, then he might find himself guilty of abuse of privilege.

Anyway. Sir, that proves the point, that people from Singapore can be prevented from going into the Federation. Under these circumstances, how can anyone say that there is a bringing-together of the peoples of the two territories? What sort of merger then is this? It is like telling the people, say, of Mountbatten constituency or Farrer Park constituency that they are not fit to share a common citizenship with the rest of the people of Singapore; that they must have a separate citizenship; that they can vote and stand for election only in their own constituencies; that they cannot come out and campaign outside their own constituencies; and that if they wish to vote outside their own constituencies they must re-apply all over again for the citizenship right possessed by the rest of the people of Singapore. I am sure the Member for Farrer Park and the Member for Mount-batten will not relish things like this. How would the people of Mountbatten feel if they were to be treated like this? But this is precisely how the people of Singapore will be treated if the P.A.P.'s phoney merger is pushed through. They will be treated as second-rate citizens. First segregated, then devitalised and throttled. In fact, the Prime Minister's merger amounts to this. All the people of Malaya, including Singapore, will belong to one club, the Federal National Club. This club is only a show-case to the outside world, a pretence that the people of Malaya and Singapore are united as one. But, within this club is another more important and privileged club, the Federal Citizens Club, in which all the citizens of the present eleven States of the Federation will be Members, but from which Singapore citizens will be completely excluded. We will be treated like social outcastes, not fit and not allowed to mix freely as equals with our Federation brothers across the Causeway. This exclusive snobbish club is reminiscent of the exclusive Tanglin Club which the Prime Minister was so fond of ridiculing in his former anti-colonial days. The Tunku is prepared to throw open the doors of this exclusive Federal Citizens Club also to the citizens of the three Borneo territories. But he is not prepared to open its doors to the citizens of Singapore. On 26th October, 1961, the Tunku said in the Federal Parliament debate on merger - I quote here, Sir, from the Straits Times of 17th October: 'All the states in Malaysia would enjoy equal rights and equal status. But because of the special position of Singapore as a City state, to my mind, it would be best if Singapore came in on a partnership basis.' And when elaborating on what he meant by Malaysia, the Tunku said: 'What I have in mind is to call such an association or Federation of states the Federation of Malaysia, that is, all the Federation of Malaya states, the Borneo territories and Singapore, in which the states of Borneo territories and the states of the Federation of Malaya join in together as Federation of Malaysia and Singapore is joined in partnership -' Mr David Marshall rose -

Is it a point of order?

It is a point of order, Sir. Could the Member finish the sentence? It is important, Sir.

"in partnership" - I will just follow from there, Sir. '... on a footing something like that which exists between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.' Sir, from all indications so far, we can say that this partnership is going to be a very unequal partnership. The Federation of Malaya wants to take the Borneo territories as the 12th, 13th, and 14th States of the Federation. But Singapore will not form the extra 15th or 12th if you like, State of the Federation. Singapore will only go in as a partner, In other words, the Borneo territories will truly be integrated with the Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia. But Singapore will be kept away. Why?

Too many Communists.

Why have we to be segregated instead? Has the Member for Geylang Serai small-pox, or have all the people of Singapore smallpox? Are we going in as an equal constituent unit of the Federation? No. Are we having a merger of the peoples? No. And are we, under the so-called socialists on the other side, Sir, expediting the progress of socialism in Malaya? Again, no. Yet, all along, the P.A.P. has been saying that the present constitutional arrangement is merger. In fact, the Federation may be likened to a man getting ready to take on a first, a second and a third wife. These three wives are the three States in the Borneo territories. All the children, that is, the citizens, are legitimate children with equal rights to the family estate and to the use of family property, namely, Federation citizenship. But Singapore is going to be taken in not as a fourth wife but only as a mistress, and all the children of this mistress are going to be treated as illegitimate children with no rights to the family estate or to the use of family property, that is Federation citizenship. Poor Singapore citizens! They are all going to be treated like bastards, illegitimate children with no Federal citizenship rights. The Acting Prime Minister in his letter to the Opposition Leaders on 6-9-61 says - I will quote, Sir. This is the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to me as Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. The relevant words are here, Sir: 'The only difference between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will be more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government.'

That is correct.

Is this true, Sir?

That is correct. These are the heads of agreement.

No. Is Singapore, just like Johore or Selangor, really a part of the Federation? No. Can a person from Singapore stand for election in Kuala Lumpur for example, just like a person from Ipoh or Seremban? No. Is there complete freedom of travel between Singapore and the Federation just as amongst other States in the Federation? Again no. Then why did the Acting Prime Minister deliberately mislead us? Why the deliberate misrepresentation? Why this game of bluff? Dr Toh says - Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, Sir. He has just quoted me from a letter and the relevant portion has been read out. Now, he has used that little paragraph to misconstrue what I said in there, and that I intended to mislead him. I think there is provision under the Standing Orders that no imputation should be made against a Member.

I cannot see any imputation up to this stage. But if the point is that other parts of the letter would throw a little more light on the subject, then I think the Member for Queenstown should read the whole letter. Perhaps he should read the whole letter and we will see whether there will be any more light shed on the topic.

If you would like me to read the whole letter. I could. Sir, but I do not think -

Please do.

Here is the letter from the Acting Prime Minister, Singapore, dated 6th September, 1961, addressed to Dr Lee Siew Choh, Chairman, Barisan Sosialis. Singapore. 'Dear Dr Lee, I have received replies to my letter of the 26th August from leaders of the four political Parties represented in the Legislative Assembly. I enclose herewith copies of their replies for your reference. I must point out that my letter of the 26th August was prompted by the statements made in the Press by Opposition Party leaders, some asking for an All-Party conference in order that their views may he heard. If an All-Party conference is to he of value to assist and guide the Government in its deliberations on the constitutional arrangements for merger, there must be unanimity on the main points. It is clear from the replies that there is no agreement on the main points among the political Parties in the Opposition, although all are forced by circumstances and the pressure of public opinion to pay lip service to the principle of merger. I had raised two points upon which I sought explicit clarification of the stand of cacti political Party. Do you agree that in the merger arrangements (1) Defence, External Affairs and Security come under the control of the Central Government? (Point considered basic by the Federation). (2) Singapore should retain autonomy on Education and Labour? (Point considered essential by the Singapore Government). In none of the replies is there any answer to these two points. All Parties have chosen to evade these two points. The respective stands of the four political Parties in the Assembly are as follows: (a) Barisan Sosialis stand for complete merger as a 12th State on the basis of Penang and Malacca. Its second preference is for confederation between Singapore and the Federation and the three Borneo territories in which Defence and External Affairs excluding Security go to the Central Government. Security is to remain a subject for local autonomy. (b) Alliance of S.P.A., U.M.N.O., M.C.A.. M.I.C gives no answer, but raises a query as to whether the arrangements amount to a merger or a confederation. (c) United People's Party stand for complete merger as a State of the Federation. (d) Workers' Party wholeheartedly believes in merger with the Federation and considers confederation a very valuable concept. I must point out that complete merger means that both point (1) External Affairs and Security and point (2) Education and labour will all be under the control of the Central Government. Since most Opposition Party leaders in the Assembly propose complete merger as their first objective, if I get a categorical assurance from Opposition Political Parties that they will ask their followers to support complete merger, the Government is prepared to put forward complete merger as an alternative basis for negotiations between Singapore and the Federation. The P.A.P. believes that it represents the wishes of the majority of people in Singapore in insisting that Education and Labour should he under local autonomy. However, we are prepared to follow the will of the people, if it is the majority wish that Education and Labour should also be under Central Government control. May I point out that 42 out of the 51 Assemblymen today were elected in 1959 on a P.A.P. ticket. Of these 42, 16 have broken away - 13 now in the Barisan Sosialis and three in the United People's Party. All P.A.P. candidates who contested the 1959 general elections signed a pledge in April 1959 in which they categorically pledged to support the policy of merger between the Federation and Singapore as set out in the Central Executive Committee statement published in the 1958 Fourth Anniversary Souvenir number." Then with quotations. Do I read all this also, Sir?

I think the point that the Leader of the House was making is that the quotation taken out of context might not indicate what is its real meaning. Perhaps if the hon. Member - I do not know whether this is another lengthy -

It is a very lengthy quotation.

Perhaps if the hon. Member will come to the relevant passage from where his quotation came.

The only relevant part was the part I quoted, Sir. Well, this is more or less relevant. I will read this part - a small part will do. 'In order to clarify the position, may I briefly explain [this is Dr Toh's letter] that the arrangements between Singapore and the Federation are those of a merger as a State of the Federation. They do not constitute a confederation. A confederation is an association of independent States and no citizens of a constituent State vote for representatives direct to the central confederation government. Our arrangements amount to merger because the people of Singapore will be voting representatives direct into the Federal Parliament. The only difference [these are the words I used, Sir] between Singapore and any one of the other States in the Federation is that there will be more powers reserved to the Singapore State Government.' That is good enough already, Sir.

That is quite correct, is it not?

Correct? I do not have to read some more. Having heard all that, Sir, when We all know the present state is entirely different from what the Deputy Prime Minister has been trying to make us believe, can we ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he thinks he can fool the people all the time?

I do not want to fool anybody.

Under those circumstances, Sir, are we not justified in calling the Deputy Prime Minister - I would like to use the word, Sir, but - An hon. Member: Do not use it!

- a liar. That is the word, Sir.

Order. The Member for Queenstown must not be deliberately unparliamentary and then hope that the Speaker will just ask him to withdraw that word and not take any further action. I will not allow any deliberate use of any unparliamentary word. That is a deliberate use of an unparliamentary word and an attempt has been made to disguise it. I will not countenance any such attempt in future.

I apologise, Sir, and I withdraw that word. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Federation Government can justly boast of a proud record in its fight against the apartheid policy in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

And the Tunku has stood out prominently in this noble endeavour to restore the dignity and self-respect of the black man in South Africa. We earnestly hope that the Tunku above all others will not impose on Singapore a constitutional setup that smacks heavily of apartheid. We have already warned that the P.A.P.'s so-called "merger" proposals, if bulldozed through, will provide fertile grounds for communal politicians to thrive upon. It may lead to a disastrous disruption of the harmony and unity of our people. We have repeatedly appealed to all those who sincerely believe in harmony amongst our people to carefully ponder over this. Let all decent people realise the extremely dangerous situation that desperate politicians in the P.A.P. are bringing upon our people in their attempt to salvage their own political future. Sir, before I go on to discuss representation in the Federal Parliament, let me touch briefly on the relationship between Northern Ireland and the U.K. As I have just quoted a little while back, there is this proposal that Singapore should join the Federation in more or less the same partnership as Northern Ireland did with Great Britain. Sir, a brief review of Irish history is essential in our understanding of the problem. Let us hope we may learn a lesson from the history of Ireland. Let the history of the Irish struggle first for home rule and later for independence be a lesson to the rulers of one State who try to impose their will upon another. For this was exactly what happened between England and Ireland in 1801 when Ireland was incorporated into the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. The arguments given by British apologetics in favour of this union were significantly economic. Ireland, they said, would be ensured the happiness, prosperity and welfare which prevailed in England. What more could she desire when she was united to one of the most progressive, prosperous and enlightened countries in the whole world? But the manner in which this was achieved was characteristically undemocratic. The vote was bought by open bribery of those who had the right to vote. In Singapore, we are seeing the same thing happening. An hon. Member: Open bribery.

The P.A.P. is receiving, in return for the betrayal of the people, the protection of the Federation Government. Later historians revealed that the real objective behind the union in 1801 was England's desire to protect her flank from the threat of invasion. Nevertheless, it was easy enough for the Englishman to be taken in by this myth, and it was not until one century later that the Irish finally forced a truce on England and freed themselves from this yoke. The Irish national struggle was long, bitter and costly. Throughout the 19th century, the Irish leaders confined themselves to manoeuvres within the English Parliament hoping to achieve their objectives of the repeal of the union by this way. These Irish Members of Parliament first allied themselves with the Whigs and then with the Liberals in the House of Commons who in the last analysis proved weak and unreliable. But what was worse was that this policy only increased English political activities in Ireland, and the English policies cost Ireland dear. It made the partition between Ulster, that is Northern Ireland today, and the Irish Free State possible. When the Irish at last realised the incapacity of the English Parliament to solve the Irish question, they began to organise themselves for a final showdown with England. The name of their new organisation - I do not know how it is pronounced - Sinn Fein was significant. It means, I am told, "We ourselves" [Interruption]. The spelling of Sinn Fein is S-i-n-n F-e-i-n. They were determined to achieve independence through their own efforts. During the First World War, the Irish Parliamentary Group accepted the postponement of home rule as inevitable. The Sinn Fein Group seized the opportunity when England was at war to stage a rising. Though their rising failed and there were mass arrests and executions of the Sinn Fein leaders by the British Government, it only helped to bring them more supporters. In the 1918 General Election held immediately after the war, Sinn Fein scored a resounding victory. Thereupon they proclaimed to the world independence for Ireland. England tried suppression by force, and guerilla war in Ireland broke out.

Order. May I suggest that the Member for Queenstown come down to what we are really interested in - that is, the constitutional arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? All this historical reference might perhaps encourage that same thing in Singapore - I do not know. Let us try not to encourage that sort of thing in Singapore.

I am not going to touch on the constitutional arrangements, Sir. I merely want to bring up one point, that the history of this Irish struggle should provide a very good lesson to Singapore and the bankrupt politicians. An hon. Member: What lesson?

They should learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes and blunders that have taken place in other parts of the world. If we want to take anything as an example, we must bring up the best and not follow the worst. The difference between the social and political conditions in Singapore and the Federation remind us strongly of the position of Ireland with regard to England. If the Government in the Federation have the same motive for merger as England had for the union, if they think they could coerce the people of Singapore into subjugation, it is well that they should learn the lesson from Irish history. Let no one attempt to impose a situation in Singapore that will lead to the permanent division of our peoples.

Is there any more? An hon. Member: About 15 pages more!

Now, Sir, let me come to discuss representation. I have here a copy of the Straits Times of Monday, 20th November, and I quote just one paragraph, Sir. This is a Press interview given by the Prime Minister: 'In a complete merger, Mr Lee said, 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation. And they would send 14 representatives to the Central Parliament.' Let us just do a bit of arithmetic, Sir,If 284,000 possible citizens can give us 14 representatives in this P.A.P.-type of phoney merger, then, in a complete merger in the position where every citizen of Singapore becomes a citizen of the Federation, when 624,000 Singapore citizens become 624,000 Federation citizens, simple arithmetic will give us 30 seats in the Federal Parliament. Therefore it is not 14. However, Sir, let us now examine how the P.A.P. hopes to hoodwink the people of Singapore into accepting less -

On a point of order, Sir. Surely the Member for Queenstown, in making reference to 240,000 citizens of Singapore who would automatically become Federation citizens, is speaking of the Penang type of merger. He should therefore disclose the full facts and not try to say that the 624,000 Singapore citizens who would automatically become Federation citizens - according to the Barisan Sosialis pattern - would produce 30 seats.

I think the point of order is once again that the quotation from the paper is not quoted completely. Is that the point of order?

Yes.

Will the Member for Queenstown then please read the whole quotation?

Sir, it is one full page of it.

Order. I do not think the Speaker would like to be caught again as he was with the letter. I think the Minister is entitled to the whole passage from which the quotation has come. The hon. Member should read the passage or a paragraph from which the quotation has come.

The whole paragraph, Sir?

May I have it?

Yes. Copy of the Straits Times handed in.

In fairness to the House, not only should that paragraph be read but also the following two paragraphs.

The two paragraphs read as follows: 'Johore , with 291,000 citizens, was entitled to 14 seats. Now, the remaining 340,000 present Singapore citizens, who were not horn in Singapore, would have to apply for citizenship under the present system in the Federation (which calls for eight years' residence out of 12 years plus knowledge of Malay and so on).'

Will the hon. Member complete that paragraph?

It is actually a new paragraph, Sir, but I will read on: 'Statistically worked out, the proportion of those in the Federation who had obtained citizenship although not born there would come up to one-third, Mr Lee added.' Now, can I proceed, Sir?

Order. I think the point really is, if a quotation is to be made from a newspaper or from a book, then hon. Members must be careful that the quotation is not taken out of context and so bear a meaning which it would not bear if the whole of the context is read. I do not say that that has happened up to now, but it is only a precaution. Dr Lee.

I have always taken that precaution also, Sir. Let us now examine how the P.A.P. hopes to hoodwink the people of Singapore into accepting less than proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. First, I wish to point out that with complete merger, when all 624,000 Singapore citizens will become 624,000 Federal citizens and therefore become entitled to the right of proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament, Singapore will have about one-quarter to one-third the total number of representatives in the present Federal Parliament. That is, Singapore will have between 25 and 30 - I worked it out to 30 a little while ago - representatives in a Federal Parliament of 100. If we work on the present number of 104, it will be slightly more. Under the P.A.P.'s type of merger, we will be getting only 15, that is, at least 10 less than what we are entitled to. Let us see how the P.A.P. tries to justify this sell-out of our people's democratic rights. The first P.A.P. justification is the myth that large numbers of Singapore citizens do not have the necessary residential qualifications for Federal citizenship. I will quote the Straits Times of 27th October, Sir, (this is one full paragraph): 'The number of representatives Singapore citizens can vote for into the new Federation Parliament cannot exceed the number which Singapore would he entitled to if there were complete merger like Penang as in Proposal "A".' That is the complete paragraph. In the same issue of the Straits Times, the Prime Minister also repeated the bluff that in complete merger only - if I quote from this newspaper, then the figure is slightly wrong; it was 323,000 and now they have changed it to 284,000; that is quite typical of the P.A.P. They give different figures at different times just to confuse the people. I will quote the relevant new figures. In only -

Order. If the hon. Member is quoting from a paper, he must quote from the paper, whether the figures are right or wrong, and then say how those figures are wrong in his estimation.

It says here: '... 323,000 Singapore citizens born in Singapore could automatically qualify in this way if we ask for complete merger like Penang.' The 323,000 today would become 284,000. Those 327,000 (now the figure has become 340,000) who were not born here will have to apply for Federal citizenship. And, of course, the Prime Minister tried to put a fright into them by saying that only about 100,000 of these 327,000 (as the figure then quoted) would probably qualify. The figure today would be, Sir, 110,000 of the 340,000. These figures are very confusing, Sir, so let us leave the figures out for a little while. In other words, what the Prime Minister wanted to say, but did not say in so many words, was that the number of representatives Singapore will vote to the Federation Parliament, if they can really vote, under the phoney merger, would not be based op 624,000 Singapore citizens but will he based on 340,000 Singapore citizens born here, plus 110,000 whom he assumed would have the necessary qualifications for Federal citizenship, making a total of about 400,000. To put it in another way. Under the P.A.P.'s phoney merger, although all 624,000 Singapore citizens will become so-called Federal nationals, and who are all supposed to have equal rights with the Federation citizens, the number of representatives we will have in the Federal Parliament will not be calculated on the basis of these 624,000 nationals, but on the basis of 400,000 Singapore citizens who are considered by the Prime Minister to be fit to become Federal citizens. Calculated on this basis, Singapore would only have about two-thirds of the representation it should have got. And that is why the Prime Minister said in a Press interview on the 19th that Singapore should get about 19 seats - two-thirds of 30. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, all this sounds very complicated, but this is exactly the situation posed by the P.A.P.'s phoney merger. Utter confusion - all deliberately built up by skilful and cunning misrepresentation on the part of the P.A.P., to bamboozle and befuddle the people into accepting their sell-out. So much so that unless you read carefully in between the lines of the statements made by this smart alec - you will be completely taken in by them. Even the Straits Times of 20th November, 1961 says 284,000 will get automatic citizenship. This is a very clever and double-twisting way of argument. On the one hand, they cook up a myth that only 400,000 out of Singapore's 624,000 citizens would get Federal citizenship on complete merger. By this they hope to frighten and dissuade our people from demanding a complete merger. On the other hand, they apply this same myth to their phoney merger to justify their non-proportionate representation. This is a very clever double use of a myth. Mr Speaker, Sir, I really regret that such evident ingenuity, that such evident, mental acrobatics of the P.A.P. could not have been put to better use for the service of our people. But this is not the end of the story. The P.A.P. has yet another justification for cutting down Singapore's meagre representation even further. Let me quote the Prime Minister again as reported in the Straits Times of 27th October, 1961 (I will quote one full paragraph, Sir): 'The fact, that unlike the other States in the new Federation, Singapore will keep a considerable proportion of her revenue for the discharge of her responsibilities in education, labour and several other subjects of local autonomy, must also be considered in deciding on the number of representatives for the new Federation Parliament.' In other words, the P.A.P. is using the phoney autonomy over labour and education as another excuse to cut down even further our already meagre representation in the Federal Parliament. And we say, "phoney autonomy", because autonomy over any matter is completely meaningless when internal security is in the hands of a government completely unsympathetic to our policies on these matters. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the P.A.P. are trying to make believe that because they are preserving autonomy over labour and education, we must therefore have less than proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. In fact, we know it is the other way round. The fact is that the Federation Government is prepared to take in Singapore today only if our political influence is kept to the minimum possible. That is, only if we are politically isolated and without proportionate representation, it is to make this lack of proportionate representation look acceptable to us that the Federation Government is giving us as sops this apparent autonomy over labour and education. The Federation is only interested in the control of our internal security. From the tone of the recent debate on merger in the Federal Parliament, it is clear to all that the Federation Government just cannot he bothered with the internal administrative problem of Singapore other than that of internal security. So the P.A.P. has to try to cover up this humiliating situation with all sorts of evil tricks and subterfuges. But from the issue of representation in the Federal Parliament, we discover how the Prime Minister has tried to give the people of Singapore three types of citizenship rights, thereby creating, in fact but not in name, three classes of citizens. First, the first-class citizen with first-class citizenship rights is the Federal citizen. He has voting rights in the Federation and he can stand as a candidate for election in any part of the Federation. Of course, he can elect representatives to the Federal Parliament. To this group of first-class citizens belong all the existing Federal citizens in the country. Second, the second-class citizen with second-class citizenship rights is the Singapore citizen who was born in Singapore. He has voting rights in Singapore only. He can also stand as a candidate for election in any part of Singapore. Theoretically, he is considered to have the qualifications to be registered as a Federal citizen. And because of this he would be entitled to have representation in the Federal Parliament. This group of second-class citizens numbers 284,000. That is slightly less than half the present number of citizens of Singapore. That is how the Prime Minister worked out the 14 representatives. I come to the third-class. The third class of citizens with third-class citizenship rights is the Singapore citizen who was not born in Singapore. He is the Singapore citizen who was born in the Federation, India, China, the United Kingdom and the Colonies. He has voting rights confined to Singapore only. He can stand as a candidate for election in any part of Singapore. But - and this is very important, Sir - he would not be considered to have the qualifications to be registered as a Federal citizen. And because of this, he would not be entitled to representation in the Federal Parliament. This group of third-class, citizens numbers 340,000 - more than half' the number of citizens in Singapore. I wonder if the Prime Minister can see what he is doing. Is he so blind that he: does not see that this will lead to a lot of unhappiness? The P.A.P. has said: Merger means merger of peoples. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if this is the merger of the peoples. How does division of the peoples into different classes of citizens, with different classes of citizenship rights, lead to national unity? Will not this segregation and isolation of the people of Singapore from the people of the Federation lead instead to a further widening of the differences that exist? How can we say in the P.A.P. brand of Tipu orang merger that Singapore will form an integrated part of the new Federation? The Deputy Prime Minister said that "our arrangements amount to merger because the people of Singapore will be voting representatives direct into the Federal Parliament." I would like to ask him once more. Does he think he can fool the people all the time? Sir, this is not merger. I think you also will probably agree with us that it is only a phoney and a sell-out. It is not -

Order. I think I had better make it quite clear that the Speaker should not be drawn into this controversy.

I would not like to involve the Chair, Sir. But anybody in his senses listening to this will have to agree with us that it is a phoney and a sell-out. An hon. Member: Nonsense!

It is not a thing a socialist will want. It is not the deed of a man who professes to go towards the goal of an egalitarian society. It is not a deed of a true Malayan patriot. No, Sir. It is a deed of a traitor to the people. It is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here. I would like to urge him once more - turn back while there is still time. Let him turn back before the curse of all' true Malayans, the curse of their children and their children's children, be on him.

He is not worried!

Sir, knowing that this humbug merger will not get the support of the people, the Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain that the various sectional interests are looked after. But all these sectional interests which are listed in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech are things we already enjoy at present. The Chinese parents and the Chinese-educated, the workers, the businessmen, contractors and bus companies, merchants, a whole lot of them.

What about the English-educated?

All are enjoying whatever rights they now have. They do not have to have merger before they can have these rights. Neither will they lose these rights if there is no merger. If the Prime Minister wants to tell the people that he is concerned about their welfare, then merely safeguarding their interests will not be enough, because under any circumstances their interests must be safeguarded and preserved. But the Prime Minister should exert himself a little more and ask - how are all these interests and rights promoted, expanded and advanced with merger? Since he has forgotten this highly important aspect, let us try and help him with some questions. Such as, what can the civil service gain with merger? That is what we would like to know. For example, can the civil servants get more opportunities for promotion in a wider service under the same terms now existing or on improved and better terms? Will the terms and conditions of service be improved and bettered? Will promotion be accelerated? Sir, the past derogatory attitude of the P.A.P. leadership towards the civil service is well known. In 1959, during the first session, soon after the arbitrary imposition of pay cuts, the Prime Minister said this - volume 11, No. 6, column 368: 'I say to the Civil Service and their present rather inept leaders who have begun what they believe to be a revolutionary movement against the Government, that lf nothing else more catastrophic happens to them than the loss of allowances in the top brackets of the Civil Service, and the fact that they have to face fiercer competition from the non-English educated members of the service, then they should go down on their bended knees and thank the Gods that their souls have been spared.' Now, hoping to pacify the civil servants and hoping to buy their votes, the discredited leadership of the P.A.P. restored the pay cuts.

Order. I just want to avoid the danger of our entering into a debate on the restoration of the pay cuts on this particular motion. The restoration of pay cuts, I take it, will be debated at length during the Committee of Supply or on some other occasion. But let us not enter into a debate on the restoration of pay cuts on these motions.

I only want to mention that the P.A.P. makes this restoration of pay cuts a condition. They link it up with their phoney merger proposals, Sir, because they say: 'with merger now in prospect it is possible to relax many of the stringent measures adopted.' I think this is sheer hypocrisy.

Order. The Member for Queenstown has been straying on the border line for some time on unparliamentary words. But I have always disallowed the word "hypocrisy" if used in relation to a Member of this Assembly. Therefore, I think the hon. Member should withdraw the word.

I withdraw that word, Sir. Very dishonest behaviour, Sir.

Order. The Member for Queenstown is still forgetting himself. I do not think he should, in this context anyway, use the words "very dishonest behaviour".

A very bad excuse, Sir.

Order. All I want is a withdrawal of unparliamentary words, and I do not think I should allow even a substitution at this stage.

I withdraw, Sir. I would ask them: Why do they not just speak the truth and shame the devil, because what has this restoration of pay cuts to do with merger anyway? Surely they do not hope that they may fool the civil servants all the time? At the present moment, what I would like to ask is this: Who is going down on bended knees and who is thanking the Gods that their souls have been spared? The Prime Minister also says that the businessmen, contractors and bus companies want a merger under conditions in which priority for tenders and licences will be as before. Of course -

That appears to be a quotation from the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech. If that is so, then I do not think the Member for Queenstown is entitled to say that the Prime Minister says that. It is the policy speech of the Government as a whole.

The Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech which was delivered on behalf of the Government, Sir. Does the Government then suppose that these sectional interests will expect less? That should be the minimum demand. But they will ask the Government, and the Prime Minister specially, what additional benefits will they get with merger? Will they get the same opportunities for business in the Federation as in Singapore? Will the bus companies be allowed to operate freely on new routes in the Federation? And if allowed, will Singapore bus companies be treated equally as others and provided with equal facilities? So you see, Sir, by merely saying that certain rights will be safeguarded is not of much use, because these rights are rights we already have. What we want are more rights, more facilities, and equality with merger. Otherwise, how can merger be of benefit to the people of Singapore? I think the Prime Minister will have to try another line if he wants to fish for support for his so-called merger proposals. The Prime Minister has also once said that no one is going to lose his citizenship; no one is going to lose any of the rights he has got. 'To that again I say: "of course." Is there anything he can boast of and crow about? For the greater majority, the P.A.P. proposal is the end of the road for more rights. They will forever remain third-class citizens. But the Prime Minister added, "Everyone will be getting something more." How nice. But let us ask him what this "something more" is. I have publicly posed many questions to the P.A.P. before on citizenship as well as on other issues, but have not received any reply from them so far. I wish to pose these questions again in this Assembly and let us hope they will have the guts to answer them this time. Let them answer these questions in clear-cut categorical terms and not in a flood of meaningless verbal diarrhoea. 1. Will Singapore citizens be able to apply for jobs direct into the Federation Government services like other citizens from the Federation, or will they be discriminated against just because they are not Federal citizens? 2. Will the products of Singapore schools and universities be treated on the same footing as their Federation counterparts when they apply for jobs in the Federation? 3. Will Singapore citizens be able to move freely or enter or leave the Federation freely without any restriction? 4. Will Singapore citizens have full freedom of speech and expression in the Federation? 5. Will students from Singapore schools and universities, particularly Nanyang University, have the right to travel freely in the Federation, inter-mingle with the Federation students, and participate in the student movements in the Federation, without discrimination if they are not Federal citizens? 6. Will the workers of Singapore be able to apply for jobs in the Federation on an equal footing with Federal citizens? 7. Will the workers of Singapore be allowed to join the trade unions in the Federation? 8. Will the workers of Singapore and the Federation be allowed to form pan Malayan trade unions so that they can unite and strengthen their organisation in their struggle to improve their livelihood? 9. Will the businessmen in Singapore have equal rights and opportunities as Federation businessmen if they choose to do their business in the Federation? 10. Will their lack of Federation citizenship be a discriminating factor if they apply for business licences, etc.? Let the Government answer all these questions. Let the truth be out. Let us not try to cover up all the ugly facts. Let there be no more bluff. Let the people know all there is to know. They have the right to know the truth. In spite of all their unprincipled propaganda over Radio Singapore, using civil servants as mouthpieces, let the Prime Minister tell the people how this special type of sell-out merger is good for Singapore? The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. The Member for Queenstown has just now alleged that civil servants have been improperly used, or are themselves improperly engaged in political activities. Is it in order to make implications against members of the civil service who are not here to defend themselves?

As far as the point of order is concerned, all I think this Assembly is concerned with is to see that any Member does not say anything which is, in fact, untrue or which in fact cannot be substantiated. And if the allegation made by the Member for Queenstown is correct, then, of course, he is entitled to say what he did say, and the Minister for Finance, when his opportunity arrives, can defend the civil servant, as it is his duty to do so, of course, as Minister in charge of Establishment.

It seems the Minister for Finance has -

Order. I have already ruled.

I bow to your decision, Sir. Let us now examine the P.A.P.'s so-called merger proposals in yet another way. Let us examine them in terms of the desirable objectives which merger with the Federation is to achieve. The desirable objectives fall into three major groups, which may be represented by the following three slogans:- 1. Economic prosperity through merger. 2. National unity through merger. 3. Independence through merger. Let us first take Economic Prosperity through Merger. Merger by itself has little or nothing to contribute, to the prosperity of Singapore. Merger does not by itself mean that there will be bigger markets for Singapore manufactures, nor does it mean that the customs barrier at Johore Bahru would be taken off on Merger Day. After merger, the position of Singapore would be similar to that of Penang - politically a part of the Federation, but economically outside the Federation's tariff walls. Therefore, at best, merger would make a common commodity market possible. But this is largely a theoretical possibility. A common commodity market which opens the Federation market to Singapore would have in some cases to be at the expense of the economic development of the Federation. Even the Minister for Finance of Singapore once believed, as I am told, that if Singapore is to achieve a common commodity market with the Federation, Singapore must be in a position to twist the Federation's arm. I am sure the Minister could confirm this. It is this capacity, Sir, to twist the Federation's arm, that would be lost when there is a merger without proportionate representation. With proportionate representation, Singapore would be in a position of strength comparatively in the Federal Parliament, and whosoever forms the Government would have to make reasonable concessions to safeguard Singapore's interests. It is an established fact that political representation is the key to economic progress. Our fight, Sir, against colonialism was not purely to have local men driving State-owned air-conditioned cars, or for the beauty of a new State Flag. It stems from an age-old maxim - no taxation without representation. That is, economic interests cannot be safeguarded without political rights. Anybody who has made a study of Government expenditure should know that Government in spending money tends to conciliate pressure groups. We have only just had a demonstration of it by the P.A.P. When they thought that the English-educated were of no consequence, as I have already a little while quoted, they cut their salaries without even attempting to go through the motions of negotiation.

.Hear, hear!

Then when they lost the Chinese-educated and the working class support, they gave back all' the salaries. Everyone knows that the restoration of the pay cuts was not because of the merger arrangements, as the P.A.P. would like us to believe. It was purely and simply a blatant attempt by the P.A.P. to buy the votes of the civil service. The whole quotation -

Order. Here again, I must point out that there is repetition. Almost the same words are being used, and I would suggest to the Member for Queenstown that he should try and avoid that sort of repetition.

It is only in passing, Sir,I am not labouring on it at all. I just want to mention the fact that this whole operation has a moral, that we can only disregard at our peril. If we do not negotiate and get proportionate representation in the Federation Parliament, and if we do not negotiate and get reasonable and legitimate rights to common citizenship, then economic prosperity would be as hollow a promise as all other P.A.P. promises. Sir, there has been a concerted effort to present merger as the key to Singapore's economic problems, but the solutions to economic problems do not depend on markets alone. Markets are important, and these would depend on political concessions that could be got from the Federation by a common commodity market arrangement which the Minister for Finance says is not immediately possible. Economic solutions to Singapore's problem would also depend, Sir - even if we had the common commodity market - on the economic policy of the Government and the expenditure of money in pursuance of this policy. This, Sir, I have learnt from people who should know. The economic prosperity of Singapore is thus dependent on political considerations, and we have no right to pretend that merger per se is the solution. Merger by itself will not solve the unemployment problem also in Singapore. In the first place, unemployment problems are also present in the Federation. The increasing poverty resulting from the exploitation in the kampongs has driven more and more peasants into the town, thus swelling the number in unemployment. A large number of the unemployed in the Federation have been coming to Singapore looking for jobs. In spite of all the propaganda of the flight of capital from Singapore to the Federation, the net inflow of people from the Federation to Singapore in 1959 was about 8,000. In fact, the merger proposals of the P.A.P. would weaken Singapore's economic position. It would place the livelihood of our people at the will and pleasure of Federation politicians over whom the people of Singapore will not have an appropriate influence. It is therefore a matter which merits the most thoughtful consideration of all the people. The business community especially would do well to realise that the demand for citizenship rights and proportionate representation is not a bid for political power or an attempt to build Singapore as a base for the Communists. It is indeed, Sir, a matter of safeguarding the livelihood of the people of Singapore. The politicians who gaily talk about merger which is a surrender of legitimate political rights are the ones who are jeopardising the livelihood of the people. Their narrow, selfish interests of retaining political power, the vindictive desire to fix their political opponents, have blinded them to the consequences of their acts. They have Economic Ph.Ds, and highly paid experts, and yet in their singleminded desire to destroy their political opponents, they would destroy the livelihood of the people. It is the cynical nihilism of these arrogant men who would destroy the people of Singapore if they cannot lord over them. They are arrogant and cynical enough to believe that they can persuade the people of Singapore, by the use of all the means of propaganda at their disposal', to agree to this scheme of destruction. As I have said, Sir, they even use civil servants on this. They, in their cynical arrogance, think that the people can be beguiled into accepting their destruction by branding all opposition to their mad scheme as Communist-inspired. Sir, there is a large mass of literature on the problems of Federal economic and fiscal policy; literature on the needs for constitutional checks and balances in order to prevent the destruction of the legitimate interests of component States; literature on the necessity of political safeguards and the paramount significance of proportional representation. Is this all Communist-inspired? Or has the desperation of arrogant men faced with political oblivion gone so far as to blind themselves completely? We of the Barisan Sosialis have said over and over again that the problems of merger are matters of national importance and merit united action if we are to achieve what is best in the interests of the people of Singapore and the Federation. We have said over and over again, "Do not betray the people's interests by making it a party issue. Let us safeguard the interests of the people by thrashing out our differences. But the interests of the people must come first." Sir, this phoney merger is not - I repeat not - intended to solve the economic problems of Singapore, and we know this from the Tunku himself. Let me quote him from the Straits Times of 18th November. This is a report of his interview in London: 'He [that is, the Tunku] considered that merger of Singapore and Federation would benefit both territories to a small extent economically, but far more important was the benefit it would bring to the whole area politically.' Earlier, the Tunku explained what he meant by "political benefits", and it is in the same report here. I will quote again: 'By merging with Singapore, the Federation would take on more than it wanted, but he felt this was necessary if it was not to have a Communist or pro-Communist government in power in its neighbouring territory.' Sir, the primary motive of this phoney merger is not to benefit us economically but to fight Communism. In other words, Sir, the purpose of this phoney merger is not a positive one but simply a negative one - that of anti-Communism. The P.A.P. stated in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech at column 12 of Hansard dated 31st October, 1961: 'With merger now in prospect, the assumptions on which the original economic policies of the Government were based must be reviewed. As part of a greater entity, Singapore can stand up better to its economic difficulties than by tackling them in isolation. Hence it was possible to relax many of the measures adopted.' Sir, the P.A.P. is trying to deceive the people of Singapore that after the P.A.P. type of merger the coffers of Singapore will be filled with money from the Federation and that our revenue will be increased. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, after this phoney merger, at least one-quarter of Singapore's present revenue will go to the Federation. That we have learnt from the Prime Minister. Now let me proceed with the second objective: national unity through merger. The P.A.P.'s proposal claims to give different educational rights to the Chinese living in Singapore from those available to those living across the Causeway. We are to have a system of education that would isolate the people of Singapore from those in the Federation, and in addition to the existing cleavage among the different communities, we are to create new cleavages through different educational rights. The effect of this would be that unless we ban the entry of young Chinese from the Federation or deny them the right of entry to our schools, there would be wholesale movement of youth from the Federation to Singapore to study and to take examinations that would be held in the Chinese language. What is to happen to these youths after taking the examinations in Singapore? Their certificates would have no value in the Federation, and they would have to stick in Singapore in order to get jobs. The number of unemployed in Singapore will thereby increase and not decrease under the P.A.P. type of merger. Singapore with its dispossessed youths from the Federation would become the centre of agitation for Chinese educational rights in the Federation. In the Federation the special rights available in Singapore would become cause and justification for agitation. Sooner or later all this agitation would be labelled Communist, like all the strikes not involving the P.A.P.-sponsored unions so far, and the dragon teeth of unrest and repression sown by the P.A.P. would produce widespread grievances and dissension. Surely this is not the way to national unity. It is a path leading not to national unity but to national disunity and civil war.

Hear, hear!

It is a path on which other sidepaths arising from discontent over restricted political rights and limited representation would converge. It is a path that every man, however desperate, must avoid. It is a path that the desperate men of the P.A.P. must, if they have any decency left in them, not create. If they do, generation after generation of their survivors shall curse them for their part in the holocaust that was brought on the people of the country. The present arrangement is no solution to the problems of Chinese education. If there is to be one, it would have to be hammered out in the Federal Parliament. And the solution which would contribute to political harmony and national unity must apply to the whole of Malaya. In hammering out the solution, Singapore must have its say, a say that can only be assured if there is proportionate representation in the Federal Parliament. As the proposal now stands, it is not a contribution to national unity, but a contribution to national disunity and disaster.

Hear, hear!

Let us also examine whether this different educational policy is a good one. If we, for a moment, disregard national interests and consider this only in terms of the interests of the people in Singapore. I have already indicated the dangers that would be posed to the employment market and the educational system if youths from the Federation came to Singapore and acquired qualifications that have no meaning outside Singapore. In addition to this, Chinese schools would become centres of agitation against the educational system in the rest of the Federation, and they would be harassed as centres of Communist and pro-Communist activity. The causes and the legitimate grievances would be forgotten and only the effects would remain. How would this bring happiness to the people? If the people of Singapore truly have autonomy over education, then the educational policy must he based on the aspiration of the people. We, in Singapore, are predominantly socialist in outlook. If the people's aspirations were met, the products of the schools and universities in Singapore would be more progressive in their political outlook than what the present Federation Government would allow. Do you think that the internal security boys under the control of the present Federation Government would remain idle over this? From what has been said by those in authority in the Federation in the recent Parliament debate, the likelihood is that the products of Singapore's schools and universities will be crowding the gaols in Changi and Batu Gajah if the P.A.P.'s sell-out is pushed through. The autonomy in education then, which is being offered as a great achievement of the intelligence and realism of the P.A.P. leaders, would be crushed between agitation and internal security, in the final analysis, autonomy in Chinese education would vanish almost as soon as it was given. The statements of the Prime Minister, too, have been very contradictory in his advocating local autonomy for education. The Prime Minister has said that local autonomy might go on for 30 to 50 years, in one of his Press interviews. By this, he means that there would not he complete unification of our country and our people for 30 to 50 years. Again, the Prime Minister has also advocated nation-building through unification of the education policy. And the merger proposals, according to the P.A.P., will lead to unification of our people. How does the Prime Minister reconcile this avowed policy of nation-building towards national unification on the one hand, and the maintenance of separate education policies in the Federation and in Singapore for as long as 30 to 50 years on the other? What sort of a double talk is this? Even here I see - I am reading from the text of a speech by the Deputy Speaker at the opening of the Labrador Primary School, Pasir Panjang, on 28th October - that he said, "With merger the children in the schools in Singapore will be the children of Malaya. We have one destination ahead of us." Where is the "one destination"?

End of P.A.P.!

Nil. It is clear, therefore, that all this talk of autonomy on education and labour in the face of the avowed policy of nation-building towards the national unification not only deceives other people but the P.A.P. themselves as well. I wonder if the Back-benchers know this line of double talk of the Prime Minister. Such too, Sir, would be the fate of autonomy in labour.

Order. The Member for Queenstown appears to be going on to a different subject. I think it may be convenient to suspend. Is it convenient?

Not exactly, Sir. An hon. Member: He has not finished yet!

It is convenient to suspend. I suspend the Assembly. I will take this Chair again at half-past Five. Order, order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.57 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed. Question again proposed.

I was saying, Sir, that all this talk of autonomy in education and labour in the face of the avowed policy of nation-building towards national unification, not only deceives other people, but the P.A.P. themselves as well. Such, too, would be the fate of autonomy in labour. I am not going in detail on that. I will leave it to my colleagues. The only guarantee for safeguarding the workers' rights is the existence of a strong, independent trade union movement. The workers have also seen their effective trade union leaders being imprisoned without trial both in Singapore and in the Federation, all in the name of security risks. The workers are by now politically matured. They know that the control of internal security by a Government that is unsympathetic to labour would make a mockery of any so-called autonomy in labour. The workers in Singapore cannot be bluffed by the P.A.P. Government any more. The P.A.P. Government is dangling these empty promises of autonomy over labour and education like carrots before the mule. But the people of Singapore are not mules. It is an insult to the people for the P.A.P. Government to think that they can be so easily duped. We have been asked to see the question of representation and these apparent concessions in the wrong order. The P.A.P. line is that, as a consequence of the need for autonomy in education and labour - something that they want us to believe they have wrested from the Federation Government with great difficulty - they have conceded, as a just price, limited political representation. Surely this is not the truth. In fact, it is the other way round. From the recent Federal Parliament debate on merger, it is quite evident that the Federation Government is only interested in obtaining control of the internal security of Singapore and keeping our political rights at the minimum. The truth is that in order to make limited political representation acceptable, they have offered as sops apparent autonomy in education and labour - apparent autonomy, because internal security would make mincemeat of it before you can say Jack Robinson. In fact, the Tunku has already said that all provisions will have to be transitional and temporary. I will quote, Sir, from the Straits Times, Friday, 17th November. The Tunku said: 'All provisions will have to be transitional and temporary until a workable constitution can be agreed upon and enshrined in a main constitution of the Federation.' We see, therefore, that the P.A.P.'s so-called autonomy on education and labour is a false autonomy and is not based on facts. Regarding Singapore's autonomy on education in relation to its clash with the Rahman-Talib Report, the Prime Minister of the Federation already said - and I quote, Sir; this is the Straits Times of 19th October; he was talking about the clash of the Rahman-Talib Report with the autonomy on education in Singapore. He said: 'But if it was found later that changes should be made then steps would be taken to do so.' Sir, I have no doubt that the Federation would. So where is the autonomy? Can the Prime Minister, if he is here - or let his colleagues tell him - answer that? I have already shown that local autonomy on education, in its final analysis, would not lead to the relief of the economic problems and unemployment in Singapore. All economists know that only full industrial development and expansion can possibly do that. But full industrial expansion and development for Singapore would mean expansion and development in competition and possibly even in conflict with the industrial expansion and development of the Federation. This clash of economic policies will not be allowed by the Federation. The Minister for Finance of the Federation, Mr Tan Siew Sin, has said as much. I will quote, Sir, from the Straits Times of 17th October. Mr Tan Siew Sin said: 'The Central Government must have enough powers in reserve so that if any state Government should pursue a policy affecting the economic stability of the whole country he can cope with such policies effectively.' So, how can Singapore have free industrial development to provide more opportunities of employment for the thousands and thousands of our present unemployed and for those coming out from our schools and universities year after year? No, Sir. The economy of Singapore will be hamstrung at every turn. It is even possible, Sir, for example, since they want to have pineapple canning factories in the Federation, such factories will be limited in scope or not even be allowed to operate in Singapore. How good will this autonomy be when the livelihood of all the people can be interfered with by the powers that be outside Singapore? How will the interests of the people be looked after? The third objective that we seek to achieve through merger is independence. What does independence mean to the people? If it means anything at all, it means the increase of political freedom for the people. The struggle for independence is not a struggle to stop white men driving in Humber-Daimlers, Pullmans or Rolls-Royce, and have local men driving in air-conditioned Daimlers. Nor is the struggle for independence satisfied by the skill with which new flags are designed or by a new national anthem. Behind all this, there must be an increase in political freedom, and the use of that political freedom for improving the livelihood of the people. Independence cannot mean the restriction of political freedom. The overthrow of foreign rule in whatever form it may exist is only a means to achieve greater political freedom for the community and the individuals that form that community. Sir, the P.A.P. has mistaken the means for the end. 'They think that the transfer of political hegemony from the British to the Federation is independence even if it would mean a decrease in the political rights of the people of Singapore. If we enjoy more political rights as a colony of the British and the P.A.P.'s proposals would lead to less political rights as a "partner" of the Federation, then it is not independence through merger. Partnership becomes only an euphemism, a word more acceptable than "colony". At present Singapore enjoys very real autonomy in all internal matters and has equal say with Britain on matters of internal security. It is true that the British can take away our rights under the Constitution, but they can only do that by establishing a military government. As long as the peo ple support the Government, whatever the constitutional limitations, the power of the Government is very real. We have seen that being practised. Under the P.A.P. proposals this hegemony would be transferred from the British to the Federation Government, and in addition the Federation Government would be able to interfere in Singapore, as the British would never be able to without revoking the Constitution. There is no need to go into details, but what is inescapable is that the Singapore Government would not be allowed to do anything that displeases the Federation Government. Singapore under such an arrangement would be like a fly stuck in glue. It will become an un-sexed part of the Federation. The Federal representation is to be such that Singapore's part in the Legislature is to be kept at the minimum and her participation in the Federation Government almost impossible. The P.A.P. plan for independence through merger is such that we would give up whatever rights we have and accept a political status designed to keep our influence in national politics at the minimum possible. This is not the same thing, Sir, as taking our chances with the rest -of the people of the country. If the majority can be convinced that things should be run in a different way, then they should have the constitutional right to form a government that will carry out their desires. Is that not the democracy the Prime Minister expounded to us night after night over Radio Singapore sometime back? But it is not democracy when, by constitutional gerrymandering and verbal soothing syrup, the people of Singapore are to be cast-rated or caponised - sorry.

Even if the hon. Member for Queenstown has a prepared speech, he must see that those words are altered.

Caponised, Sir.

I do not think that word is any better that the other word which I have already ruled out.

I will change the word to devirilised politically. This political de-virilisation cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be called a step towards independence. There is only one word, Sir, to describe this, and that is "sell-out". Yes, sell-out. The Prime Minister says that because we are going to have the so-called autonomy over 'this or that, the people of Singapore will be free after the phoney merger. But, Sir, let us remember that internal security, the key to -our freedom, will be in the hands of a Government over which we shall not have the appropriate influence. It is just like saying that the arms and legs are free when there is a noose around your neck. A noose held by the Federation. And who is going to apply this noose round the necks of the people of Singapore? Who indeed is the hangman of the people of Singapore? There is only one answer, Sir. The hangman is the Prime Minister of Singapore. The hangman of Singapore? The Prime Minister of Singapore. Sir, let me summarise. The P.A.P. had at first said that automatic Federal citizenship was impossible. I have already shown that automatic Federal citizenship is possible. This has also been confirmed by the Tunku himself. The Prime Minister also said that the demand for automatic Federal citizenship and proportionate representation was unreasonable. That is still his line. I have shown that it is not only not unreasonable but also completely reasonable, fair and just. Then the Prime Minister used the lack of residential qualification and the Malay language test as arguments to justify his not wanting to fight for the democratic rights of equality and justice for the people of Singapore. I have similarly shown those arguments to be false and untenable. Then the P.A.P. line is that through merger Singapore will get economic prosperity, national unity and independence. I have also shown the hollowness of their arguments. Then the P.A.P. tries to appease sectional interests. I have similarly shown that the P.A.P. has not advanced the various sectional interests one wee bit. in fact, all the P.A.P. actions have been one long shameful record of treacherous betrayal of the basic interests of the people of Singapore. The Prime Minister knows only too well that ultimately he will be unmasked and be exposed. Hence, the diversion with the Communist bogey. He hopes thus to use this diversion to distract the attention of the people from the treacherous sell-out carried out under -the name of merger. Of course, the P.A.P. leaders do also hope that they will be able to cling on to power. When discredited politicians want to transmute a personal party crisis into a national one, then we are indeed at the crossroads. But the Government is in such a mess that it has got the main highway and the side path all mixed up, so engrossed are they in their hid for survival and in the play of party politics. The main highway is the highway of genuine unification of our country and our people. There will be peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, democracy and justice for all peoples irrespective of race, religion or creed. There will be no exploitation of man by man. Has the P.A.P. stepped on to this main highway? They call themselves a socialist party. What is socialist about it today? Where are all their socialist principles? The other path, Sir, is a side path that leads to a dead end. Yes, that is where the P.A.P. Government wants to lead us. They want to lead us to a dead end where there is no true unification of our country and our people. No democracy, no equality, no freedom and no justice, and where repressive action is exercised for the benefit of a privileged few. That is the road of an unequal partnership. That is a road that leads not to independence nor to constitutional advance for the people of Singapore. On the contrary, it is a road that leads to enslavement of the people of Singapore in another form. Instead of London that controls, it will now be Kuala Lumpur. Colonialism goes out through the front door and is re-admitted through the back door.

Where is the back? We have no back door.

I will ask the P.A.P. leaders - as the local saying goes - to go back home, rest their heads high on their pillows and ponder over it. Turn back before it is too late. Get back to land, as another saying goes, instead of going further and further into the deep, deep sea. Turn back for the sake of the people. Let the P.A.P. leaders undo the mistakes they have made before they go down in the annals of history as the traitors of the people of Singapore. Let me now wind up.

He winds up with six pages!

It is utterly dishonest to call the P.A.P. deal a merger. The plain and simple fact is that by the P.A.P. proposals the Federation Government would be free to interfere in all spheres of our lives, even though we are supposed to have local autonomy over labour and education. On the other hand, we shall not have the proportionate influence in the Federal legislature. We have stated in no uncertain terms that even though we desire a merger to come about, this does not mean that we agree with the policies of the present Government of the Federation. On the contrary, we have stated our differences with the Right-wing Government of the Federation. Sir, why have the P.A.P. Government deliberately used the word "merger" when it is obvious that what is being proposed is far from anything that can be called merger, when it is something that is simply and plainly a sell-out? it is fraudulent practice to confuse the people by the repeated use of the word "merger". It is like trying to sell a faked commodity for the real one. It is bound to be found out. Let us now look at the propaganda line of the Government. The Prime Minister and his troubled men have run up against numerous problems. They know that run one in Singapore is against merger. They know that we in the Barisan Sosialis are in favour of full unification of the two territories. Why then have they put out this falsehood that we are against merger? The answer, Sir, can clearly be seen in their anxiety to force their proposals on the people. When we expose their proposals and prove the whole scheme to be a sell-out, they hope to silence us by saying that we are against merger. And hoping to bulldoze the people into accepting those thoroughly dishonest proposals, they also have the Communist alarm raised. The people of Singapore are not frightened by the Communist bogey. In fact, too many people are sick to the bone of the absurdities that have come from the Prime Minister about the Communist menace. Everyone who is a serious threat to the Prime Minister becomes a Communist, a pro-Communist, a Communist sympathiser, and so on. We do not wish to waste our time listening to the Prime Minister's own nightmares. In fact, if he had a good night's rest every time, things would have been much better for all of us, particularly those who have not been completely bored by listening to Radio Singapore. But I wish to say that all this talk about Communism is, in the main, directed to London. Washington and Kuala Lumpur. By raising a scare about Communism, the Prime Minister hopes that he would force various foreign interests to bring the right pressure in the right places to assist him in his plans for a sell-out. The Tunku has revealed the true character of the Prime Minister by admitting that he' had been persuaded to accept merger after listening to the frightening stories of our tale-bearing Prime Minister. For one thing, I give the Prime Minister credit for having taken the Tunku for a jolly good ride.

Do you think he is so foolish?

Sir, we in the Barisan Sosialis made a policy statement on 28th August outlining in unequivocal terms our stand on the constitutional future. Let me quote parts of that statement. This is our stand on merger: 'Let us once again reiterate that we are fully in support of unity between the Federation and Singapore. We believe that separation is a result of colonial domination. We are unreservedly dedicated to the building of a Malayan nation and resolutely opposed to Chauvinism. We shall struggle for the unity of the peasants, workers and intellectuals of all races. We support Malay as the national language and arc convinced that the Malayan nation will develop a great new cultural life common to all its people. The way ahead for real unification for our country and our people is in one of two directions: (a) an immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State; (b) as an autonomous unit within the Confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible. On the first direction, we are fully aware of the difficulties that face us in our struggle for Malayan unity. As a result of colonial rule, the differences of race and religion have been emphasised and much work will be needed to repair the damage done by colonialism. However, we declare that if the representatives of the people of the Federation are agreeable to do the same, we will pledge ourselves to wholeheartedly exert our influence to win the people of Singapore to accept full and complete merger forthwith, that is, with Singapore as the twelfth State of the Federation and Singapore citizens automatically becoming Malayan citizens with proportional representation in the Federal Parliament like any of the present eleven States constituting the Federation of Malaya. We believe that this is a vital question that can only be decided by the people of Singapore and the Federation. In Singapore, we believe that the only genuine way of allowing the people to decide is by a general election during which we will be prepared to persuade our people to give us a mandate for a full and complete merger. Let the Government of the Federation of Malaya tell us if it is prepared to persuade the people of the Federation to accept the people of Singapore in a full and complete merger before 1963. We fully realise that many of the policies of the present Right-wing Government in the Federation are unacceptable to us. The present Federation Government is in close alliance with a foreign country. It has bound the country to the so-called British/Malaya Mutual Defence Treaty and turned our motherland into a military base for the British armed forces. Its foreign policy has alienated our country from the mainstream of Afro-Asia, particularly Indonesia, Ghana and India. Its internal policies are -'.

Order. I was just wondering whether this is an extract from a document, or is it part of the speech? It is so difficult now to follow the Member for Queenstown. I understood he was going to read extracts from a policy statement of his Party. If all these words during the last five minutes are extracts, then I think I have missed the meaning of the word "extracts". Dr Lee.

It is an extract, Sir. Our policy statement was a very long one and I am only reading a very short part of it. I have only a few lines more to go, Sir. I was saying: 'Its internal policies are repressive. Organisations and other civil liberties are curbed and its education policy is misguided. Nevertheless, we are willing to accept these disabilities and join up with the Socialist forces in the Federation to build a great alliance with peasants, workers and intellectuals, to defeat by constitutional means the reactionary forces at the general elections. Our Socialist comrades in the Federation have long been waging a determined struggle against the reactionary policies of the Federation Government. We will strengthen this struggle by joining hands with them. We are prepared to accept merger under these conditions provided it occurs immediately and is followed by a Pan-Malayan general election. We are confident that the people of the present two territories will effect by constitutional means a change in whatever reactionary policies of the Government.' That, Sir, is the whole extract. Sir, unlike others, we in the Barisan Sosialis mean what we say. Our stand on the unification of the two territories by complete merger has been taken not on account of technical reasons as our opponents have insinuated. They are, of course, entitled to believe what they want to believe and live in their own fear-ridden world. On this question of merger, may I finally quote from the speech of our Secretary-General made at the inaugural mass meeting of the Party - Straits Times, Monday, 18th September: 'Mr Lim said that recently critics had described the party as "anti-merger" and as being prepared to accept merger only as an alternative. "How can anyone who likes only half-boiled potatoes accuse those who like boiled potatoes of being people who do not like potatoes?" Mr Lim asked. "We are serious and genuine in our stand for full and complete merger. If the Federation Government says tomorrow that it will accept us as an integral part of the Federation, we will only be too glad to support it whole-heartedly..."'. We know now, Sir, that the Tunku does not want merger. He wants our country but not our people. He is not interested in the unity of our people. He is only interested in getting the powers to control the destiny of our people. And it is our duty. Sir, to warn that the desire to acquire more territory on one side, and the desire to sell out on the other, is only going to aggravate the present differences among our people. The Irish history should provide a good objective lesson. Merger cannot be achieved by politicians with a communal outlook or even by those who outwardly profess to be non-communal but willingly pander to communal views. We in the Barisan Sosialis maintain that there is no conflict of interests between the vast majority of the Chinese in Singapore and, for that matter, in Malaya, and the Malays in the Federation, for the majority of both communities are poor. The Malay rakyat and the Malay workers have nothing to fear from the workers in Singapore. The Chinese and the Indians in Singapore have demonstrated their loyalty to this country both in the anti-Japanese war and in the anti-colonial struggle. They owe their undivided loyalty to this country which they have now come to regard as their own. It is true that a few have ties with China and with India, just as some Malays have ties with Indonesia. But all ties in the last decade have grown thin and weak, while new ones to this land are being forged and further strengthened. But what is of more importance is that the vast majority of the Chinese in Singapore are poor. They are men who work and toil for a living. In Singapore the Chinese workers work together with Malay and Indian workers. They struggle together against the exploiting class of whatever race and for a better livelihood. They man the picket lines shoulder to shoulder. The recent strike by the Public Daily Rated Employees is an example of there being no basic conflict between the Malay workers, the Indian workers and the Chinese workers. To approach merger from a communal angle will not only lead us on the road to failure but also to chaos. For this approach brings in its train serious repercussions to communal harmony. This attitude of mind in itself precludes any solution to the problem of reunification. Let me, on behalf of the Bansan Sosialis, crystallise our approach to the Constitutional question. Under the terms of our last constitutional agreement, we are obliged to return to London to reexamine the position in the light of our experience as to what and how our Constitution has succeeded. But in the meantime the questions of merger and Malaysia have been raised, it is evident that what is called merger-is not merger. It is sheer domination of Singapore by the Federation. We must, therefore, reject these proposals. But if it is possible for Singapore to join in a confederation of Malaysia as an autonomous unit, then we shall welcome this advance as a step towards complete merger. And if none of these ways are open to us, then we should in the discharge of our constitutional obligations go to London in 1963 when the demand should be -

Independence.

- for full and complete internal self-government. In these circumstances it is our responsibility to bring about a greater measure of freedom for the people of Singapore and the movement should be for the minimum demand - let us emphasise - for the minimum demand for full and complete internal self-government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said at the beginning that we do not believe that the P.A.P. Government is at all sincere when it calls for merger. I have said that they are abusing the word "merger" for their selfish aims. They are using the word "merger" when they mean something else. Even the Tunku yesterday told us that the P.A.P.'s scheme is not merger. Let me quote him [Straits Times] 17th November: '"It would be more correct to say it is a form of very close association," he said.' Sir, let the P.A.P. Government prove its sincerity in its call for merger by voting for our amendment. Let them not try to give excuses for not wanting a genuine merger. Let them not just say, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, that they are prepared to accept a genuine merger as an alternative and do nothing about it. We have stated in no uncertain terms that we are prepared to convince our people in a general election to accept a genuine merger.

Hear, hear.

If the P.A.P. is sincere in its desire for unity, let them join us in our efforts to convince the people. Let them not stand by at the ringside and merely wish us good luck. We implore them for the sake of our people not to maintain their opportunistic stand. If the P.A.P. votes against this amendment, then they stand exposed as opportunists, as double dealers, as men who are not sincere in what they say. They will be exposed as anti-merger, as anti-genuine reunification of our people. They will be exposed as power-mad people obsessed only with the aims of keeping themselves in power. We all know why the P.A.P. is bringing about this phoney merger. It is because the P.A.P. leaders hope to use this phoney merger as a means to crush their political opponents. But let them remember this that in their attempts to crush their political opponents, they are also bringing degradation, disunity, and disaster to our people as well. Sir, we are confident that the socialist movement will not be crushed by this P.A.P. scheme. The socialist forces in Malaya have survived far greater dangers than this. History has shown that no politician can maintain his power for long merely by constitutional manipulation and political repression. History has shown that what really matters is the support of the people. We in the Barisan Sosialis, Sir, are confident of the support of the people. We have repeatedly challenged the Government to a general election on this merger issue, and it is significant that they give all sorts of excuses just to avoid our challenge. Let me, Sir, urge the P.A.P. leaders once again not to place their own political survival above the interests of the people. The future of a few politicians does not really matter. Let us not forget that we have entered politics in order to help the people and not ourselves. Let them search their conscience. Let them be honest with themselves. Are they doing this really for the good of the people or for themselves? Let them remember that no matter what they do, the people shall one day pass judgment on them. As the Prime Minister himself has once said. "The verdict of the people is a terrible thing." Yes, Sir, the verdict of the people can be a terrible thing. But, Sir, it will be terrible only to those who refuse to remain faithful to the people. Sir, I beg to move.

Has the hon. Member copies of his amendment which may be distributed? Copies of the amendment handed in to the Clerk and distributed to Members.

The original Question was, "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." Since which an amendment has been moved to leave out from "a" in the second 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". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." The debate may, and of necessity will, range over the other part of the amendment which seeks to insert the words. The debate now, of course, will be confined to the amendment. Dr Goh. 6.34 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the marathon performance of the Member for Queenstown to which we have just been subjected was frankly a disappointment to me. This was his first major speech in this House as a leader of his Party. One was entitled to expect a searching analysis of political trends with a profound and comprehensive review of the merger proposals agreed to with the two Governments. One hoped to hear from the Member for Queenstown some solid justification for the Barisan Sosialis plan for so-called complete merger. One also hoped to hear how he proposes to get automatic conversion of Singapore citizens into Federal citizens now that the Prime Minister of the Federation had already declared that the Federation Government was not prepared to agree to this. None of The things that we had expected came from the Member for Queenstown. Instead, Sir, we were treated to a dreary repetition of the old slogans trotted out by the Barisan Sosialis propaganda machine. In fairness to the Member for Queenstown, I will concede that, yesterday at any rate, what might have been a completely weary, boring and dispirited address was relieved by a few joyous moments of hilarity. For these small mercies, we are duly grateful. In line with the Barisan Sosialis propaganda line, the Member for Queenstown keeps on repeating a number of set themes. The P.A.P. merger plan is a sell-out; it is phoney merger; Singapore citizens will be reduced to second-class status. As in previous Barisan Sosialis propaganda statements, not the slightest bit of relevant evidence has been produced in support. Who has been sold out? In what way is the merger phoney? How are Singapore citizens relegated to second-class status after merger compared to the Federation? All we got from the Member for Queenstown was a dreary repetition of these assertions. No doubt by constantly asserting a statement, he hopes to induce some people to believe that it is true. Sellers of headache cures and toothpastes also use this technique. But on such a serious matter as our people's future, we want evidence in support of any assertion or allegation. It is not sufficient, Sir, to keep on repeating, like a worn-out gramophone record, that there has been a sell-out, a phoney merger, and that we will be reduced to second-class citizens. Let me first deal with the subject of citizenship. The Barisan Sosialis say that Singapore citizens will be reduced to second-class citizens. But they do not explain how this is so. The Member for Queenstown stressed the importance of citizenship. No one will dispute it. He said, "Citizenship is intimately connected with every facet of our everyday life - in the way we live, work, eat, travel, learn, study, associate and so forth." This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I will let it pass. What is his criterion for evaluating the worth of citizenship? Obviously if you say one class of citizens is first-class and another second-class, you must have certain standards of judgment. What are they? The test which the Member himself applies is that the Singapore citizen should - and I quote him, "have the opportunity of sharing a common political life and destiny with his brothers across the Causeway". To do this, we should have the right to vote and stand for election to the same Parliament, for only then can we decide, and I quote him, "the extent of your freedom, the Government you want, the laws which you want and do not want, the type of working conditions you wish to have, the type of education which your children would have, the type of health facilities we would like, and so on and so forth." Sir, let us apply his own standards to Singapore citizenship after merger. Will the Singapore citizens have the opportunity of sharing a common political life and destiny with his brothers across the Causeway? The answer is surely yes. He will vote for representatives into the same Federal Parliament. He can stand for election to the Federal Parliament and, if successful, share with his brothers across the Causeway authority in the supreme law-making authority in the country. Not one Singapore citizen would be deprived of this right. What the Member for Queenstown and the Barisan Sosialis object to, and find deficient in the merger arrangement, is that the right to vote and the right to stand for election to the Federal Parliament can be exercised by Singapore citizens only in Singapore. Contrarywise, the present Federal citizens can exercise such rights in the Federation. In what way can we be regarded as second-class? Both groups are treated alike, and receive identical treatment on a wide range of affairs of the State. In practice, the vast majority of citizens exercise their electoral rights at the place in which they are permanently resident. The ordinary Singapore citizen is not going to be highly excited nor does he lose anything, because he cannot, for instance, stand for election in Trengganu. If a Singapore candidate is of any worth he would have built a reputation for himself in this island and would have more chances of winning an election here, not in the Federation. Why is the Barisan Sosialis making a song and dance about this comparatively trivial issue? The answer is not that there has been any breach of fundamental human right or any betrayal of Singapore citizens. The reason why they want to be able to stand for election in the Federation is best explained in one of the early public statements that their leaders made on the subject. This was published in the Straits Times of 30th August and indeed has been quoted by the Member for Queenstown. But to refresh the memory and to make sure that Members of the House know what I am referring to, perhaps I may be permitted to re-read the statement. They made it clear that they would accept merger only if there were general elections immediately after merger in the Federation and Singapore. They stated in practically so many words that their real objective in merger was the eventual overthrow of what they termed the Right-wing feudalistic Government in the Federation of Malaya by strengthening the determined struggle that is now being waged against it by socialist forces. Sir, the term "socialist forces" is an elastic one. It can cover "democratic socialist"; it can also cover the Malayan Communist Party. The Member for Queenstown, in reference to socialist forces, qualified it with the adjective "progressive" socialist forces. Sir, we who are familiar with Marxist literature are quite clear in our own minds what is the significance of this word. Sir, the general statement of the Barisan Sosialis was set out in aggressive and indeed in truculent terms. The tone of the statement was not that of a group of people who want to reach real agreement with the Federation Government to effect merger. Rather they displayed the mood of a group of angry young men setting out to tell the Tunku just where he got off. May I quote -

There seems to be some interference from earphones which have not been turned off. I do not know whether Members can trace them. Will Members just turn off any earphone that has not been turned off? I am sorry about the interruption, Dr Goh.

May I quote some extracts, Sir? Indeed the Member for Queenstown has obliged me by reading out the more truculent bit of the statement without perhaps realising its implication. The statement said: 'We fully realise that many of the policies of the present Right-wing Government in the Federation are unacceptable to us. The present Federation Government in close alliance with foreign capital has bound the country to the so-called British/Malaya mutual defence treaty, turned the motherland into a military base for British armed forces ...'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Vice-Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis. Mr Sidney Woodhull, when talking to the Naval Base Workers Union, advocated a policy of continuation of the British Defence Services in Singapore. To continue, Sir: 'The Federation's foreign policy has alienated our country from the main stream of Asia. Its internal policies are repressive particularly to trade unions and intellectuals [these are the terms which the Member for Queenstown did not read out]. Freedom of expression, organisation and other civil liberties are curbed and its education policy is misguided.' Nevertheless, they stated that they were prepared to accept merger under these conditions provided it occurs immediately and is followed by pan-Malayan general elections. Sir, no one is going to take statements of this sort as a genuine and sincere attempt to solve the very difficult problem that exists in relations between Singapore (with its preponderant Chinese population) and the Federation of Malaya, where political power rests mainly with the Malays. This kind of approach, Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest, is intended to incite trouble and not seek concord and agreement. Sir, if I may go back to the subject of citizenship. I refer briefly to the radio forum of the 21st September in which both the Member for Queenstown and I took part. He said that I was either trying to deceive him or else I got my facts wrong. Sir, neither of this is true. The forum was recorded on the evening of Tuesday, 19th September, and on the previous day, 18th September, the Barisan Sosialis' view on merger was splashed as headlines in the Straits Times. May I read an extract of Mr Lim Ching Siong's view on what he meant by a full and complete merger with the Federation? He said that "this was a genuine reunification of our country and our peoples and the entry of Singapore into the Federation as one of its constituent states like Malacca or Penang with all its citizens automatically becoming citizens of the Federation." I pointed out in the forum the inconsistencies of this so-called true merger plan. If they wanted Singapore to be treated in the same way as Penang and Malacca, then obviously the citizenship laws applicable to those States must apply to Singapore. In this event, only persons born in Singapore would acquire automatic citizenship. The others would be disenfranchised and have to get on to the electoral list, if they wanted to, by the process of registration. This is what I said. The Barisan Sosialis then realised that they had perpetrated a howler. Henceforth from that moment, there was no more reference either to Penang or Malacca. The reason is simple, Sir. They wanted to be treated even more favourably than Penang or Malacca. They invoked Article 22 of the Federal Constitution to say that this is a perfectly possible proposition. I expect if we use the word "possible" in its widest sense, they are right. But dealing in a real world and with practical people, its possibility is purely academic. The Tunku has put it quite nicely. He said he could agree, if he would, but he would not. And there the matter ends, unless the Barisan Sosialis can say just how the Tunku and the Federation Government can be persuaded to change their minds. In our discussions with the Federation Government, it was made clear to us that Penang and Malacca were treated with special consideration. Further, they were part of the Federation at the time of merger, and indeed since 1948. Residence in Penang or Malacca would count as residence in the Federation, because these territories had been part of the Federation. Residence in Singapore in the past, say, 12 years might well not be considered as residence in the Federation, for the simple reason that Singapore is not yet part of the Federation. Sir, I do not wish to go into the complexities of the law. But what the Barisan Sosialis must establish and prove is that Singapore citizens have been reduced to a second-class status. What are they losing after merger? The Member for Queenstown considered this answer and agreed that no Singapore citizen loses anything. Every citizen gains something. The most obvious and immediate gain is that he has the right to vote for the Central Parliament, the right to stand as a candidate to this Parliament. How can this be a phoney merger if Singapore citizens have the right to vote for and stand in the Federation Parliament, and, at the same time, we retain all the essential powers - reserve powers - which are necessary to keep our entrepot economy going, to ensure that our education system and policies are acceptable to parents and students? Sir, in his preliminary remarks, the Member for Queenstown gave a highly distorted account of the recent political events in Singapore. May I refresh the memories of Members of this House by a brief summary? He said that there had been a serious decline in the original massive majority of the P.A.P. Government in this House. As a result of this, the P.A.P. raised the bogey of Communism to divert the attention of the people from their dire predicament. This technique, he claimed, is a familiar one to dictatorial regimes clutching desperately at any straw for its survival. Thus the P.A.P. clutched at the straw of merger, and immediately made the proposal to the Tunku. The Tunku became convinced of their argument that a take-over by pro-Communist elements in Singapore was imminent and therefore his intervention was necessary in the interests of the Federation itself. Sir, finally, and this is the point I must rebut, he said that the P.A.P. went through the intricate exercise of manipulating the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya solely with the object of getting the Federation Government to do what the Member called the dirty work for them. He was referring to the incarceration of political opponents of the Government. I think, Sir, this summary sets out fairly the thesis of the Member for Queenstown. His account, of course, was punctuated by frequent personal attacks on the person of the Prime Minister. Sir, he repeatedly warned the House that we are desperate men. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that this seemingly damning and devastating indictment of the Government was met not by machine-gun fire expected of dictators in desperation, but with outbursts of merriment in which the Member himself on several occasions took part. Indeed, on one occasion, he was so seized with laughter that you had to come to his rescue. Sir, if we were men of desperation, I suggest we would not meet calumnies of this kind with gentle laughter. We would have been, in fact, we were - [Interruption] Sir, misbehaviour? If I may be permitted to continue, Mr Speaker, Sir? If we were a dictatorial regime, a bunch of toughs that the Member for Queenstown made us out to be, we might have seen the sinister figure of the Minister for Home Affairs departing from this Chamber to the nearest telephone to summon his strong-arm squad to deal expeditiously with the Member for Queenstown.

On a point of order, Sir. I wonder whether it is in order for the Minister to read his speech.

I must confess I have not noticed that the Minister has, in fact, been reading, but he has been referring to his notes a great deal, perhaps just as much as the Member for Queenstown.

At least he has the credit of writing it himself.

Order.

Sir, the truth is that we are not desperate men, because we have no reason to feel desperate.

All mad people say that!

Order.

The Member for Queenstown, and I think the Member for Nee Soon too, seem to be under the illusion that our fortunes are irretrievably lost while the red star of the Barisan Sosialis rises in the ascendancy. Sir, I do not know what reasons have induced such a state of euphoria in the hon. Member's mind.

Hold a mass rally and you will find out!

Indeed, Sir, they held a series of mass rallies and they had to abandon them because two or three hundred people turned up. They tried to blame us for that. Sir, if I were the Member for Queenstown, far from experiencing a state of euphoria, I would view the future with the gravest forebodings, for I see in it nothing to justify any elation on his part. May I explain myself? The Member for Queenstown is a chess player, as I have said that before, and I will use a sample chess analogy to explain to him the trouble that he and his colleagues are in.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are discussing the trouble in which this country might be. Can we refrain from discussing the Barisan Sosialis' trouble and stick to the motion?

I have not, at the moment, spotted anything which is irrelevant to the amendment. I think the Minister is probably leading up to the point which was made by the Barisan Sosialis Member in support of the amendment. Dr Goh.

Sir, I would have thought that the relevance is both immediate and clear, because it was the Member for Queenstown who brought up all these points and came to the conclusion that it is the wicked Government which cooked up merger in a hurry in order to fix them. I am just trying to explain that that is not the position, and that what trouble we are in now is as a result, of their own stupidities. If I may continue, Sir, to pursue my chess analogy. There is in the game of chess a position known as zugzwang [Interruption].

I must confess that that word is completely strange to me, and I ask the Minister's assurance that it is parliamentary.

Sir, it is not only parliamentary but immediately relevant, because a player, as the Member for Queenstown knows, who is in a state of zugzwang finds that whatever moves he makes results in immediate calamity. Sir, to reduce an opponent into this rather dreadful state, a chess player does not go charging recklessly across the chessboard as if he were a rugger forward - another accomplishment of the Member for Queenstown. A chess player makes a number of fine moves whereby his pieces occupy dominant squares on the board while his opponent gets progressively more and more constricted. I suggest that the Member for Queenstown and his colleagues should review their position in a more realistic manner. They should plant their feet firmly on the ground and ask themselves where they get from here. They will suddenly discover that they are in zugzwang. Sir, when they staged their treacherous defection from the Party, they were confident that with the support of the Communists they could bring the Government down, force a general election in Singapore, and take over the government. It is clear that this plan of theirs, which they blithely called the October Revolution, has grossly misfired. When October came to a close and they were asked what of their October Revolution, they replied - and they were correct historically - that the October Revolution in Russia took place in November. Sir, we still have a few more days left of November, but I am afraid that the sands of time are running out very fast.

You sound nervous.

Who said that? Sir, the Member for Thomson should reserve any anxiety he may feel for his own person. Sir, the Government is in office and it is not within their power to throw it out of office. Merger is around the corner, as an inevitable historical process. What could they expect after merger? I suggest to them - that is, the non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis, and nobody is suggesting that every member of that Party is a Communist - that they should review their relations with the Communists and stop pretending, as the Member for Queenstown is now doing, that Communism is merely a bogey invented by the P.A.P. Sir, everybody knows that when the P.A.P. was formed in 1954, it was heavily infiltrated right from the beginning by the Communists and their sympathisers.

Dissidents, not Communists.

The years 1954-55 was one phase in Singapore. It was a phase of the anti-colonial struggle. We have explained many times in the past that in this phase the common enemy were the colonialists and that all those who hated them had to gang up to fight them. For the P.A.P., this was a difficult period, because in the minds of many people we had been completely identified with the Communist cause.

Order. We are now on the amendment and I am just wondering how what the Minister is saying ties up with the amendment. I just have not got it at the moment. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain.

My line of argument, briefly, is this. The Barisan Sosialis, in all its political propaganda line, has been saying that merger, the agreement that we have come to with the Tunku, was as a result of certain fears that we instilled in his mind about Communism, that the Communist fear is only a bogey, that it is not a threat to Singapore, and that we have raised this bogey for our personal interest in order that the Tunku can come and suppress our political opponents. My point is that the existence of Communists is a reality and, more than any other people, we can testify to their existence and to the reality of the Communist threat.

I was just wondering whether that line of argument would not be better advanced when we deal with the substantive motion. We are now dealing with the amendment which suggests that "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 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." I was just wondering whether the debate could not be confined to the question of Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day. Dr Goh. [Interruption].

Sir, I think it is only fair that since the Member for Queenstown has made his allegation - not once but repeatedly - at least today I should have the opportunity to rebut his arguments.

Perhaps the procedure is not known to the Minister. If the Minister just confines himself to the amendment, then when we do come back to the substantive motion he will have another opportunity of speaking. [Interruption]. The Prime Minister may, if he likes to, speak on a point of order.

If I may explain it? My colleague, the Minister for Finance, is suffering from a heavy cold, and for that reason he did not hear the Member for Queenstown. I think he is having some difficulty hearing you also, Mr Speaker. I was explaining to him the point you have made. I think the point the Minister for Finance wishes to make is this. The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is that Singapore should go in as the twelfth State of the Federation, with automatic conversion of Singapore citizens to Federation citizens. The point that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, wishes to make is that the Federation Government is fully aware of whom it is taking in as the twelfth State, and who are the persons who are clamouring for automatic conversion, and they include Communists. That is the point that requires to be made.

Now I see the point. The Minister then is indicating to the House that it is not possible for Singapore to enter the Federation as the twelfth State with all its citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens because of the Communist threat. Yes, Dr Goh. An hon. Member: 340,000 Communists!

Order.

Sir, as I was saying, the period 1954-55 was one phase in Singapore. It was a phase of the straight anti-colonial struggle. We have explained that in this phase the common enemy we faced were the colonialists, and all those who hated them had to gang up to fight them. For the P.A.P., this was a most difficult period. It was not possible on our part to break away from the Communists, because this would seriously weaken the anti-colonial struggle. When we went along with them, we ran certain risks - the risk of suppression by force and political detention. Those risks we took, for there was no other way out. At the same time, we attempted to minimise the risk by drawing quite clearly the line between the pro-Communists and the non-Communists. As early as 1955, we pointed out that in Malaya, then under colonial rule, there was a three-cornered fight going on between the British, Malayan nationals and the Communists. We made it quite clear at that time that we did not want a Communist Malaya. May I quote from an article in the P.A.P.'s First Souvenir Number dated November 1955, by the Secretary-General: 'The P.A.P. was formed with the object of rallying the forces which are striving for independence. It is the vehicle for all those who seek to build a free and democratic Malaya. We do not want a colonial Malaya because we do not want to build Malaya whose resources are developed for the benefit of the British people. We do not want a Communist Malaya because we do not want a one party State. We believe that the best way for us is an independent, democratic and non-Communist Malaya.' Sir, when the P.A.P. was in the Opposition, the task before us was a straight one - to wrest power from the British with the aid and support of all those who were prepared to fight them, including the Communists. While the objective was clear, the method of operation needed to be carefully mapped. Having the Communists with you in the anti-colonial struggle, or indeed in any form of struggle, you have to take certain precautions. First, to ensure that they do not swallow you up. Second, in the event they stray away from your policy of constitutional struggle -

On a point of order, Sir, I do apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it seems to me, Sir, that this history of the P.A.P. has nothing to do with the motion. I do ask you to consider it, Sir.

I understood the Minister to say that he is leading up to the point that amongst those citizens who are claiming to be Federal citizens automatically on Merger Day, there are the Communists who have been building up in Singapore. If I am right, then, of course, the Minister is in order.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is one of our difficulties. If the position were such that there were no Communists around us, that the whole thing was a myth and a bogey, then a lot of the difficulties which we have to encounter would not arise. Sir, to explain the nature of these difficulties, I must pursue this little narrative. We have to take precautions to ensure that the Communists do not swallow us up. Secondly, in the event that they stray away from your policy of constitutional struggle and launch into a wild adventure on their own, you should take precautions that in the event of action being taken against them, those who decide how such action is to be taken understand that there is a difference between the Communists and the non-Communists. Sir, in our experience, we have found the greatest difficulty in carrying out operations of this kind, which are both complex and risky. We can reduce the risks but cannot totally eliminate them. One of the ways in which the risks can be reduced is to make as clear as is possible -

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I would like to seek your advice whether we could go back to the quotation of the Minister just now. He made a quotation from the Prime Minister's speech in the First Anniversary Souvenir copy of the P.A.P., and he only quoted one part of it. Is it in order for me, Sir, to ask him to quote the other part?

Of course, it would have been in order if the hon. Member had got up in time. He is a bit late, Dr Goh.

As I have said, the risks involved in making common cause with the Communists can be reduced if we can make clear - as clear as is possible in the circumstances - the dividing line between the Communists and ourselves. And this must be done not only in words. It should be done by overt action from which a reasonable and well-informed man can draw his inferences. As you can well imagine, Sir, this whole business involves the practice of the art of brinkmanship to a high degree of skill. For without this very necessary safeguard, and indeed some element of sheer good luck, it could well have been the fate of the P.A.P. to have been swallowed up long ago by the Communists, or to have been suppressed, banned, and its leaders, including the non-Communists, incarcerated long ago. So we took the precaution and we survived. Now being Ministers of State we have been able to check that the margin of escape had been much narrower and more hazardous than we ourselves had imagined at the times the events took place. Sir, in this respect the policy of the P.A.P. then differed directly from the line the Barisan Sosialis is taking. When the Prime Minister was then the' Member for Tanjong Pagar in the Opposition, he had on several occasions to speak on the subject of Communists and their relations with the Party, on the future of Singapore and Malaya in the three-cornered struggle between the British, the nationalists and the Communists. And a great deal of what he said in the past is relevant to the issues that we are debating today. Because it is the existence of Communists, many of whom have taken citizenship in Singapore, that we find reluctance on the part of the Federation Government in matters of citizenship proposals. We have never gone as far as the Barisan Sosialis in denying, as they now deny, the existence of Communists or dismissing them as bogeys. We accepted that they were a real force to be reckoned with, but that the question of identifying a man as a Communist was not an easy one. In one of his speeches, the then Member for Tanjong Pagar said - and here I am only speaking From recollection -

Hansard.

He said that no Communist would ever admit -

On a point of order, Sir. So far I do not see any reference to the amendment in his speech. I do not find any relevance to the amendment to the motion.

I think I have just heard the Member say something about those Communists who have obtained Singapore citizenship. Am I right?

Yes.

I cannot see how that is irrelevant. Dr Goh.

Sir, our trouble and indeed the trouble of any government, is to say who is a Communist and who is not. That is the question between the man and God. Between God and him, however, there lies the Special Branch whose business it is to find out what is going on. The Special Branch consists of professional officers who are experienced in tracking Communist subversion in all its multifarious forms. In security matters, it is usually the Minister of the Interior of the Government who decides what to do after he has been furnished with appraisals by his professional officers. The position in Singapore is somewhat different, because the supreme authority in these matters is the Internal Security Council and not my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs. After merger, it would be the Minister of the Interior of the Government of the Federation who decide on these matters. Sir, what I am going to say about the risks of playing with the Communists and the difficulties of identifying them is not what the Federation Minister of the Interior told me. He is a personal friend of mine and, indeed, a former contemporary of the Member for Queenstown iii the College of Medicine. I do not discuss security matters with the Minister of the Interior, and, of course, it would be quite improper for me to try and ascertain what his opinions are. My views on the hazards of the course of action decided upon by the Barisan Sosialis and the general problem of working with the Communists are based on the personal experience of myself and other colleagues of mine in the People's Action Party before we formed the Government. For the Barisan Sosialis are now in the same position that we were in in the old days, and much of the considerations that we took into account apply with equal force now, and with the prospect of merger perhaps with even greater force. I mentioned the Minister of the Interior a moment ago. He did make a remark to me which may be of interest to the Member for Queenstown. The last time I played a round of golf with him in Kuala Lumpur, he enquired after the Member for Queenstown. He asked me whether the man was in his right mind. I hastened to the defence of the Member and said that Singapore can be an excitable place at times and people do tend somewhat to lose their sense of proportion. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior had in mind any special activity on the part of the Member for Queenstown, or whether he was merely making a casual reference to a previous occasion when all three of us met. That occasion is worth recollecting. It was at a cocktail party on National Day -

Are all these details really relevant to the motion we are discussing? I cannot see how they are relevant.

Sir, in matters of application of citizenship wh re, for instance, the Member for Queenstown is not horn in Singapore but in the Federation, where there is a case for believing that he is playing an important role in a Communist-front organisation, I suggest that relations between the Member for Queenstown and the Minister of the Interior of the Federation are of some significance. The whole attitude, if you will allow me, of this narrative has a moral. It shows that the approach of the Member for Queenstown in this matter is just "out of this world". He does not understand what is going on.

Order. It is a pity that the Minister is associating this very interesting narrative with the Member for Queenstown, because it seems to me that he is now touching on perhaps the personal conduct of the Member for Queenstown. If he wishes to do so, he has to file a substantive motion. If the Minister had started this narrative and spoken of a character not associated with the Member for Queenstown, then perhaps he would have been in order to illustrate his point. But I have already indicated that I do not wish to have any personalities in this debate.

Mr Speaker, may I be of assistance? I think my colleague is finding it difficult to follow you because he is having a heavy cold. It happens to be true, and he is supposed to consult a doctor. The point is quite simple, Sir. The persons who hope to smuggle themselves into the Federal citizenship clause by automatic conversion include, among others, those not born in Singapore, like the Member for Queenstown. The point that my colleague was wanting to make is this. That not only is the Federation Government anxious to see that Communists do not get Federation citizenship in the process of reapplication for registration - I do not think I am giving away any secret when I say this; their policy is quite clear-cut - but that no Communist gets his registration through; and the point my colleague wants to make is, so will neo-Communists or those who assist the Communists.

I think that is appreciated by everybody. But my point is that the Minister was talking about a cocktail party, which is, of course, completely irrelevant. If he just sticks to the moral to be drawn from these matters, then that is all right; he is in order. But when he talks about cocktail parties and little social gatherings like that, he is going into details which takes him away from the motion.

Sir, I suggest that relations between the Minister of the Interior of the Federation Government and the leader of the largest Opposition party is a matter of some relevance to this matter. If they get on well together, then there is implicit trust between them. Then certain attitudes of mind would form in the minds of the Ministers in the Federation. But if, on the other hand, attitudes are different, then we could expect the same difficulties to arise over this problem. However, Sir, if you think that I should skip over these matters, I will do so.

Order. I have never suggested that the Minister should skip over the matters, if by matters he means the matters which have been touched upon by the Prime Minister. They are very important matters. What I am trying to stop is the bringing in of personalities. That must stop.

Sir, the point is this. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The relationship between the Minister of the Interior and the leader of the largest Opposition party is a matter of some relevance in what is going on between the two Governments, because the Member for Queenstown is believed by many people, including people in high office in the Federation, to be lea-ding Communist open-front organisation, and he is one of the persons born outside Singapore who would automatically qualify for citizenship under the proposals of the amended motion.

Order. The Minister is looking at the Speaker in such a way that he is inviting perhaps further comment. I think a statement of that nature introduces the personal conduct of Members. Under our Standing Orders, the personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose. I have indicated that if the Minister had mentioned an abstract case, not pin-pointing a Member of the Assembly, then he would have been in order.

Sir, it is not personal conduct in the sense that there is anything derogatory attached to it. I just wanted to relate some conversation between the Minister of the Interior and the Member for Queenstown to show that relations between them are not what they should be and could be a cause of difficulty in the future. I will not press the point. I will return to my principal theme, which is that the Member for Queenstown charged us - and this is a most serious allegation which he made several times in the course of his address - as wanting to egg the Federation Government on or connive with them to bring about merger in order to swipe our political opponents. Sir, that is a very serious charge. We of the P.A.P. have done and will do no such thing. Events must take their inevitable course, for the folly of our adversaries will bring about their own retribution. For these reasons, perhaps we may discuss these matters in order to save as many of them as possible from future agony by pointing out the dangers lurking ahead and how they may be avoided. In the event the Barisan Sosialis fail or prove unsuccessful in avoiding these dangers, then may I say that they could hardly blame us, for now we are making - I am making a special effort to save them from these dangers. Sir, one way of getting round these difficulties is, as I said before, adroit brinkmanship. In this regard, Sir, we may ask how the Member for Queenstown has measured up in his performance of brinkmanship. Judging by the address that we have just heard, I would venture to say that he has not even learnt the elements of the game. He has been as adroit as a blind elephant. Nor are his colleagues any better. Far from attempting to draw the line between himself and the Communists, they have gone out of their way to blur the line. In fact, they have decided, for practical purposes, to provide the Communists with 100 per cent cover. As an example, they have derided the recent broadcast of the Prime Minister on Communist activities as smear. The Prime Minister's broadcast was a factual account of Communist activities in Singapore as he knew them. Persons were identified. If what the Prime Minister had said was not true, then these persons have a legal redress in a court of law at which the Prime Minister will have to substantiate the truth of his statements, failing which the aggrieved party stands to gain considerable sums of money in the way of damages for defamation of character. All this is widely known. Yet the Member for Queenstown and other Barisan Sosialis leaders dismiss this account as a smear. The Member for Queenstown has repeatedly said that this is merely raising the bogey of Communism. If the communists are mere bogeys, then it means, in effect, that they are non-existent. Does the Member for Queenstown seriously suggest that there are no Communists in Singapore? The Communists have been able to mount a military campaign of some dimension in the Federation of Malaya, which has taken a large armed force some ten years to suppress. They have mounted strikes and riots in Singapore at periodical intervals since 1946. Where have they all gone to? Have they, like the Arabs, folded up their tents and disappeared into the night? We of the P.A.P. who have been working with these people say that they are right in our midst. Does the Member for Queenstown really believe that this is not the case? The Member for Queenstown, in trying to explain why such rapid progress had been made toward merger, said that the P.A.P. has led the Tunku into the belief that without merger there would be a take-over of the State by the pro-Communist groups; and the Tunku, formerly indifferent or even hostile to merger, has now accepted it as necessary and in the interest of the Federation to frustrate the aspiration of the Communists. The Tunku has himself expressed this belief in public not once but on several occasions, both in Malaya and abroad. How was the Tunku brought to this state of mind? The Member for Queens-town places the whole credit for this on the Prime Minister. May I suggest that his explanation is altogether too naive? It is at the same time unduly complimentary to the Prime Minister as well as unduly derogatory of the Tunku. The Tunku possesses a shrewdness of judgment of which the Member for Queenstown is completely unaware. The real fact of the matter is that it is the Communists who have succeeded in convincing the Tunku that early merger is to the interests of both Singapore and the Federation. Members will recall what happened during the Anson by-election. The Member for Queenstown himself here has made reference to some incidents. But he can hardly expect us to accept his interpretation of events that took place. The Tunku made certain general proposals about Greater Malaysia which the P.A.P. supported in principle, if Greater Malaysia would lead to merger between Singapore and the Federation. Almost immediately, Mr Lim Ching Siong, on the other hand, came out with a counter proposal for complete internal self-government as the next constitutional advance for Singapore - in addition to complete internal self-government, that steps should be taken to abolish the Internal Security Council. Sir, before long, the Communists suddenly got the idea that the Greater Malaysia Plan had been completely worked out in detail, had been agreed to and signed by all the Governments concerned. It would be curious to know what had led them to this belief, but the fact that they so believed is beyond doubt. We the P.A.P. felt the full repercussions of their activities whilst they came to this conclusion. Our Parliamentary Secretaries who were flirting with pro-Communist groups at that time pressed Ministers for a full, frank and complete revelation of the Greater Malaysia Plan. They were so certain that we had agreed to it that they would not accept any denial on our part whatsoever. They were certain that some secret document was locked up in somebody's safe containing all the details of the super merger, whose sole intention, according to these groups, was to have the Communists fixed. Sir, when they came to this belief which turned out in the end to be completely without foundation, as they realised it themselves today, there was a general rampage throughout Singapore - the unions, party branches, associations and elsewhere. In so doing they clearly revealed their intentions, their fears and apprehensions, and disclosed their hand. If nothing else was needed to convince the Tunku that merger was necessary, then the extraordinary conduct of the pro-Communist groups and their allies during and after the Anson by-election just provided that final conclusive bit of evidence that was necessary to convince the Tunku. So, Merger is now before us. The Communists and their front men want to frustrate it. They have two ways of doing so, each of which will prove equally unprofitable and unavailing. For merger is an inevitable historical process and cannot be checked by manoeuvres of groups or frustrated by the ambitions of a few. These groups, however, if they choose, can play it the constitutional way, abiding by the Queensberry rules. If they so choose to do, we too in the Government will abide by Queensberry rules. But if, as the Prime Minister has said, they go for Siamese boxing, then they need not have any doubt that an adequate reply will be forthcoming. The choice rests with them. In the meantime, Sir, I conclude my address with this advice to those non-Communists in the Barisan Sosialis - to study the art of brinkmanship, or better still, to hop it while the going is good. 7.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not thought of participating in the debate so early, but as there is a possibility that the trend of this debate may create misunderstanding in the minds of people in the Federation with whom we all long to be friends, I feel that I must speak at this particular time. First of all, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis said yesterday that a new star was born. Sir,I know very little about stars and "starology", or whatever you call it. As far as I know, stars are not born at all. They just rise in the firmament, In fact, stars have no parentage. So stars are not born. But if they say that a star is born, then perhaps they mean a film star; and the performance of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis yesterday and today for about 7� hours does not, in our view, qualify him for an Oscar, because it is repetitive and in certain parts highly indiscreet -

Gone with the wind!

But I do not blame them for all the mistakes they have made, and I will explain why, Sir. The Minister for Labour, in moving the motion which is of such an important character, has found it necessary, in spite of the claim that the P.A.P. has a Ministry of Culture, to dare the Barisan Sosialis to declare their stand, and they try to cast doubts in the minds of Members of the Assembly that the Barisan Sosialis are people who say one thing and mean another thing -

Order. It has now become quite apparent that hon. Members will not be able to draw a line between the main substantive motion and the amendment. I appreciate the difficulty because the subjects are intertwined. There is, of course, another procedural method of overcoming that, and that is that the vote on the amendment could be taken at the end of the complete debate, so that if hon. Members then wish to speak on the main motion and on the amendment together they can do so. The only difference is that they can make only one speech. The only person who can reply will be the Minister who, in fact, moved the substantive motion. That is the procedural device which perhaps Members should think about, if that is a better way of dealing with the subject, then I will rule that that should be done. But if we are to continue on the line that we are to debate only on the amendment, then I am afraid Members will get out of order, as the Minister for Finance has and as the Member for Cairnhill is about to do. I would like views on that procedural device.

Could I ask for some clarification, Sir? Yesterday, if you remember, you said you would permit us to debate on what are now items 1 and 3 and the amendment to item 4. If we accept your suggestion, Sir, would those speaking on the present amendment have to cover the entire field of items 1, 3 and 4, or could we just cover item 1 with its amendment, and when the question is proposed we may be allowed to deal with item 3 and the amendment to item 4?

No. The suggestion I make is that the ruling I made yesterday should stand, except paragraph 3 - "Debate will then be confined to this amendment." That is all. If it is convenient for Members to deal with the whole aspect of merger, including now the aspect which is indicated in the amendment which has been proposed to item 1, then I am prepared to make the ruling that that should be so. But I might indicate that that would mean that Members who now speak would only be given one speech, and at the end of all speeches, the Minister for Labour will have the right to reply and votes can he taken not only on item 1, but also on this present amendment, and again on item 3 and the amendment as shown in item 4. It is only a matter of convenience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the amendment and reserve my right to speak on the main motion at a later stage.

That is all right as far as I am concerned, but if the Member for Cairnhill goes outside the amendment, then he will be pulled up. That is all there is to it.

With due respect, Sir, I did not. What I was doing was to try to find a reason for the blistering attack which the leader of the Barisan Sosialis had levelled against the P.A.P. on a motion that is of such an important character that we should all of us sink our differences, and think and debate together whether or not it is in the best interests of the people of Singapore to have merger with the Federation of Malaya. Instead of which, the debate has turned into a fight between the ex-P.A.P., which is now the Barisan Sosialis, and the P.A.P. that remains.

All that the Member for Cairnhill has said is completely irrelevant to the amendment. The amendment merely suggests to the House that it "affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a 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." If Members assure me that the debate can be confined to the amendment, then, of course, we will stick to the first ruling.

I rise to oppose the amendment. But I want it to be understood clearly in this House, Sir, that far be it from me and my Party to come to the defence of the P.A.P. that is fast disintegrating, we oppose the amendment not because we want to defend the P.A.P., but we oppose it because we think that the amendment proposed by the Barisan Sosialis - 8.00 p.m.

Order. Moment of interruption.

Mr Speaker, I move, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will only take five minutes. I know the House will be happy to hear that. Mr Speaker, Sir, I acted in a professional capacity for a man called Sardara Singh, a former Acting Sergeant of the Singapore Police Force. The matter is ended. He has left Singapore. I have no further pecuniary or professional interest in the matter, nor any personal interest apart from certain facts which I have gleaned which, to my mind, raise very grave public issues. However, Sir, you have indicated that it might possibly be deemed improper for me to bring forward a matter in which I have professionally acted in spite of the fact that I have no further pecuniary interest. In the circumstances, I quite naturally am anxious to have even that important principle clarified. In the circumstances, Sir, I would welcome a reference of this matter to the Committee of Privileges, and until such time as the Committee of Privileges decides the issue, the subject matter of my motion will stay in abeyance. I would like to invite, if I may, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House, who normally does these matters, to move that this subject be committed to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Speaker, I confirm that we have discussed this matter brought up by the Member for Anson and I raise it as a matter of privilege.

I have satisfied myself that it is a matter prima facie affecting the privileges of the House, and I therefore refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Assembly do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Two minutes past Eight o'clock p.m.