Hansard, 1961-11-22

Question. Mr Marshall.

Question No. 1*, Sir. * The Question reads as follows: - To ask the Minister for Finance how many permits were granted in respect of fruit machins in 1956 and in 1960, and the number of fruit machines which it is anticipated require replacement under the provisions of the Prohibition of Imports (Amusement Machines) (Amendment) Order, 1961. The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee) (not being in his seat) --

The Minister not being here, the answer will be circulated and be printed in the Official Report.

2.32 p.m. Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [21st November, 1961] to 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", third 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 Minster for Labour-Inche Ahmad bin Ibrahim). Which Amendment was, 'To leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and 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".'-(Dr Lee Siew Choh). Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, he left out."

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday when I was saving that we were against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown, the adjournment took place and that was that. But then, unfortunately, over Radio Singapore, it was reported that the Member for Cairnhill said that he was against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown for a genuine merger making Singapore the twelfth State of the Federation and that all citizens of Singapore shall enjoy citizenship rights. That, I think, Sir, is a distortion. I said we were against the amendment - and I say it again - we are against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown. But we are not against a merger that is genuine, a merger that brings Singapore into the Federation as an integral part of the Federation, where all the citizens of Singapore enjoy the same benefits as all other citizens in the various States of the Federation of Malaya. We are against the amendment because some of the words are redundant, others are tautologous. and the motive behind the amendment is nothing but political. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis, being a new star that has arisen - before it arose it was a different star - say they are for merger. Everyone says, "Merger"; "We are for merger!" We all know what we mean by the word "merger". Merger means the integration of Singapore as a part of the Federation and the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the Federation will be conferred on the citizens of Singapore when merger takes place. That is what we all mean by merger, and what we all know. But unfortunately, because of the political moves on the part of politicians, the Prime Minister and his ex-comrades, merger has been twisted to mean something else. And that is not what merger really means. Merger can only mean one thing: it is a state whereby those that are separated are brought together again into a happy family. That is the merger we know of. It is that state. But the form that this merger should take can be genuine or cannot be genuine. All the attacks that the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has been levelling at the government are towards the form that this merger should take, but not towards the state of merger itself. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis made that very clear in his opening speech. He said he was for it. If I may quote him, he said, "the words of this motion moved by the Minister for Labour convey high and noble meanings which none of us can disagree." He does not disagree. That is in the Straits Times, Sir; I am not quoting from it but I was just refreshing my memory about the words he said. It is not a quotation. I thought he said, "words that convey a noble sentiment with which none of us in this Chamber can disagree." It was clear. He said that, and he said again earlier - and this I quote from the Straits Times of 21st November: '"We would have supported this motion before the House 100 per cent had it not been for the shameful record of the Government in recent months."' It was clear. The Barisan Sosialis would have supported this motion .100 per cent, but as the leader said, because of the twists and turns of the Government in trying to present the negotiations that the Government has been having with the Government of the Federation of Malaya, he became unhappy. That caused him to focus attention on the fact that the merger that the Government is trying to foist - I think the word was "foist" - on the people of Singapore is not a genuine merger. And that caused him to move an amendment. But surely he should not have moved it. He is in full support of the noble sentiments expressed in the motion moved by the Minister for Labour. I can understand, Sir, why he was stirred into speaking for so long and so bitterly against the P.A.P. It was because the Minister for Labour, in moving a motion that is of the gravest importance to the livelihood and welfare of the people of Singapore, had thought it necessary, in spite of the Government's boast of having a Ministry of Culture, to dare their ex-comrades (the Barisan Sosialis) to state their stand. And even if they say it is white, they will not believe it. They smear. "No, it is not white. It could be black." And even if they say, "Black", they say, "No, it could be white." How could they do that? If the Government is sincere in getting a unanimous vote on a motion of such importance - and everyone cannot deny it is a motion of importance - the Government should not go out of its way and start casting doubts on their own ex-comrades. That is the P.A.P.'s style - every time they stand up in this Assembly, they say, "We couldn't care less how the Opposition vote", and yet they want a unanimous vote. That is the kind of culture they have been indoctrinating themselves. Sir, again, on a motion of such grave importance, what do we see? The P.A.P. Ministers showing such levity - laughing, and laughing, and laughing at everything that the Member for Queenstown said. And it was then disclosed by the Minister for Finance yesterday that they laughed it off because what the Member for Queenstown said about them was not true, and that was the only way for them to show their contempt. That is their kind of culture. I am sure the people of Singapore do not relish that kind of culture. Sir, I have said that we oppose this amendment because it is just so many extra words put in. I know, and as I have endeavoured to explain, the Bansan Sosialis leader has said that he is for the sentiments expressed in that simple motion. "We all want merger." Yes, we all want merger. How to achieve that merger? What form that merger should take is a different thing, and a debate would have arisen when the motion of the Prime Minister on Paper Cmd. 33 of 1961 was moved. But because of the trend of the debate, Sir, you have ruled that we can speak on the other two related motions. Now, what the Barisan Sosialis is against is the form of merger. Unfortunately they have got the wrong end of the stick. But they have been misguided by the Prime Minister in all his utterances in public, over Radio Singapore, and even here. He calls it merger. Sir, the closer relationship that we are getting with the Federation of Malaya is not merger. Let us get away from that word. It is not merger. Even the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya says, "It is more correct to describe this as a very close relationship." That is all.

Association.

Association. We are getting closer and closer. It is not merger. So if the P.A.P. would get away from that word "merger", then I think the Barisan Sosialis would have said, "All that we have said about phoney merger, humbug merger, would not apply." But it is because of the attempt by the P.A.P. to try to claim political credit for something that is not of their own making - they claim, "Now we are getting merger." Sir, when we oppose this amendment, it must not be taken to mean that we are anxious to defend the P.A.P. - the P.A.P. in our eyes and in the eyes of the public stands condemned. But we cannot, just for political expediency, support an amendment moved by the new star, which came out of the old star, just because we are in the Opposition. To us, Sir, and to the public, the P.A.P. means those that now remain of that torn organisation and those that have come out, the P.A.P. on that side of the House, and the P.A.P. who have come to this side of the House. They are still the P.A.P., no matter what they call themselves - Barisan Sosialis, or whatever new star they want to claim has arisen over the horizon. It is strange that ex-comrades have challenged their erstwhile comrades, the P.A.P., to resign because they have lost their mandate. "Hold a general election. They have lost their mandate." But, Sir, may I remind the retired members of the P.A.P., the new star, the Barisan Sosialis, that they were the P.A.P. too when they were elected to this Assembly? In fact, in 1959 all of them were fighting under one banner. All of them were so united, presenting a united front, thereby getting the public of Singapore to work for them. Therefore, the Members who are now on this side, forming the Barisan Sosialis, were voted by the people of Singapore as representatives of the P.A.P. So if they think they want a fresh mandate in this House to show that they are no longer members of the P.A.P., but that they are the only Party which can save the country from the P.A.P., may I, therefore, suggest that if they keep on talking of going out for elections and getting a fresh mandate, they should get a fresh mandate from the electorate which returned them to this Chamber as representatives of the now, to them, contemptible P.A.P. if they do not do that, I hope they will not come and claim that they are the genuine representatives, the genuine opposition, the people who can give succour to the people of Singapore, and that they are the only strong Opposition with a good number - 13. Sir, to us, those who remain on that side and those who have come to this side are still the P.A.P. They are still people who, during the last two years, have caused so much damage to Singapore and who have -

Order. I was hoping that the hon. Member would come to the end of his peroration. We are now on an 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 Federation Citizens on Merger Day." Perhaps the Member could now concentrate on the amendment.

I will have to touch on the point raised by the Member for Queenstown when he moved the amendment. In moving that amendment he was trying to say that those who are left of the P.A.P. are people who are indulging in a sell-out, and that those who have come out of the P.A.P. are the people who are not going to buy it.

Order. I think the hon. Member does know that the Member for Queenstown was compelled, as he was speaking on the main motion, to speak on all items touching on merger. That is, items 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, he had to range over a wide field and then move his amendment. The procedure is that once an amendment is moved, we have to dispose of that amendment first. That would not prevent the Member for Cairnhill from coming back to his attack when we come back to the main motion, either as originally posed or as amended. I did suggest a procedural device yesterday, hoping that there would not be any procedural barriers put up to Members. But in order to enforce that device, I had to have it assented to by all Members. I think it was the Member for Cairnhill who disagreed with that device. Therefore, I must now insist that the debate should be confined to the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your ruling. Sir, merger has been, shall we say, the platform of every political Party in Singapore, even political Parties that are now defunct. Why is it so? Why is it that Parties that claim to be socialists and Parties which are described as Rightists and all sorts of unkind names all think alike? Merger - they want to get closer. They want to get integrated with the Federation of Malaya into one happy family. We all want that, and I am sure there can be no opposition to that noble sentiment flat has been expressed inside and outside this Assembly: that we want to merge with the Federation of Malaya. In fact, Sir, if it can be said in this Assembly, even during the first negotiations of the Singapore Constitutional delegation led by the Member for Anson in London, it was suggested to the British Government that in discussions on constitutional evolution Singapore should sit in with the Federation of Malaya so that there could be one constitution for the whole of Malaya. Even as far back as that. The unfortunate thing is that the Government has tried to describe something which is not merger as merger, and thereby has caused this unhappiness in the minds and hearts of many people. I can sympathise with the leader of the Barisan Sosialis when he spoke so bitterly against the P.A.P. All I can say is that he has been misled. If he would just stand up and say that the arrangement which the Singapore Government has come to with the Federation Government is not merger, everything would have been forgiven. Instead of which, we had 7½ hours of debate just talking about citizenship rights. The Barisan Sosialis now make out that they are the biggest Opposition party and the only defenders of the rights of the citizens of Singapore. May I, Sir, in this hall, with humility, remind the Barisan Sosialis that it was the previous Government, the Labour Front Coalition Government, that brought citizenship to the people of Singapore? Out of that, three of us still remain in this Assembly - the Member for Anson, the Member for Geylang Serai and myself. We can assure the people of Singapore and this House that we will fight tooth and nail to see that their rights are preserved, and to see that their rights are not sold down the drain. But what has been agreed between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government is not merger. Therefore, citizens of Singapore cannot become citizens of the Federation of Malaya. There is no loss of rights at all of the citizens of Singapore. I will touch on that later on. But there is one thing I would like to point out now. The fact that the Member for Queenstown spoke for 7½ hours shows that he is a virile man. He is in top form. He is quite a good cock that can crow. But. Sir, merger is like marriage. It requires the consent of two parties. Even if a prospective bridegroom can show how virile he is, how amorous he is, how fond he is of that union, but if the bride says - or be it be the bride or the bridegroom - "Sudah lah, chakap terlampau banyak", then that would be the end. There can be no merger. What the leader of the Barisan Sosialis has forgotten is that it takes two parties to this merger. It is not left to what we say in this Assembly. If it is just left to what we say. I do not know how many more will be saying about what the P.A.P. Government is, and that the sooner they get out the better for all concerned. But it is something that has to do with the other party not represented in this House. Let us face facts. The other party is in a stronger position. He is in a position to say this way, that way or sit still, because he is the elder brother. Take Malaya. In size, it is bigger than Singapore. In population it is still bigger than Singapore. Even in revenue. Therefore, we are in the position of a younger brother going to an elder brother and saying, "Come on, let us live together. Do not let us have this separation which was forced upon us by the British." But no. The Member for Queenstown seems to think that the louder we shout, the more we run down our elder brother, the surer we will get complete merger. That will be the surer way to frighten the elder brother into saying, "Let us not have this younger brother who is going to cause trouble in my household." Therefore, all what he has said against the Federation, against the Government of the Federation is not going to help his Party or the people of Singapore to achieve something which he himself says is a noble sentiment. Let us get together and live together again as one happy family. Sir, the Member for Queenstown found occasion yesterday to criticise the Tunku, and I want to say to this Assembly that the criticisms which he has levelled at the Tunku are unjustified. He says also that he is new to politics, a student of politics. Because he is new, because he is a student, perhaps we can overlook that. But may I say a few things to him about the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya, and how important it is to Singapore that his friendship, his sentiments towards Singapore, should be properly realised and appreciated by everyone in Singapore? Sir, hon. Members will remember that the Singapore Constitutional delegation went to London and negotiated. The first one was not successful because of the insistence of the British on internal security resting in their hands. But the second delegation, knowing the stand of the British Government, thought of a way to overcome that difficulty. It was left to me to speak to my good friend, Tunku Abdul Rahman, from London on the telephone and to seek, his agreement to sit in as a member of the Internal Security Council. To tell the truth, he did not quite like it. But because he felt that as Malaya and Singapore were close together and as Singapore was in need of help from the Federation to get a new constitution, he agreed. Therefore, I want to say this in this Assembly. Without the Tunku's consent to be a member of the internal Security Council, there would have been no self-governing constitution for Singapore. There would have been no 43 P.A.P. Members taking office in 1959. In 1961, 26 are left, So as far back as 1957, Tunku Abdul Rahman has shown that he is a good and true friend of Singapore. Today he is in London having discussions, with the British Government, and he is getting independence for us. What we are more concerned, the socialists particularly, is that we should get away from the British colonial yoke. That is the first goal to achieve. The British colonial yoke will be taken away from our necks, and that is being done by a true friend of Singapore, Tunku Abdul Rahman. We have in Tunku Abdul Rahman a very staunch champion, a man who faces facts, a man who was prepared, even in the 1959 general elections in the Federation, when there was trouble in the M.C.A. ranks and he was facing this trouble from the Chinese; and when there was a group of U.M.N.O. members who suggested that they should tear away from the M.C.A. and stand on their own, but not Tunku Abdul Rahman -

Order. I did indicate that there are procedural barriers and I really do not like to interrupt too often. But will the hon. Member for Cairnhill indicate how those statements relate to the amendment? They, I think, will be very relevant when we come to debate all three items on merger. But we are now on the amendment.

Merger, Sir, surely means the getting together of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and, therefore, the leaders in these two countries will have to come up in our discussions. What I am trying to point out to those who have spoken bitterly against the Federation of Malaya and the Federation Government is that they are doing a disservice to Singapore, and that the attacks which they are levelling are unjustified. They do not know that the man today who is helping Singapore to get nearer towards merger is Tunku Abdul Rahman, and that is the man who has come in for attacks by the Barisan Sosialis.

Order. The hon. Member for Cairnhill has brought this trouble upon himself. When the procedural device was suggested which would have given him a free hand, he objected to it, and therefore, I, as Speaker, am bound by the Standing Orders to try and keep Members within bounds. We are now on the amendment. The hon. Member is talking on merger, which would be proper when we deal with the main motion which merely speaks of a merger. The amendment says that they want a genuine merger With Singapore entering the Federation as the twelfth state and with all its Citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day. The meat of that amendment seems to be the question of citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day. Let us try and get on with the amendment. The sooner we dispose of the amendment, the sooner we can go back to the three motions. The hon. Member will have as much time perhaps as the Member for Queenstown to develop his argument.

Sir, on a point of elucidation. Sir, I notice that in the amendment it states: 'to leave out from "a" in the second last line to the end and 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".' So you see. Mr Speaker, it is not that I have come to the defence of the Member for Cairnhill only, but I think to the defence generally of all those Members who wish to speak on this amendment. I am not in concord with you. Mr Speaker, that all that we are confined to talking about on this amendment is this bit on Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal Citizens on Merger Day.

I never said that. I indicated that the pith of the amendment seems to be that. There is nothing to prevent Members from saying how the amendment is wrong when they speak of genuine merger as against merger, which, of course, the hon. Member for Cairnhill has already touched upon. There is nothing to prevent Members from saying whether or not Singapore should enter the Federation as the twelfth state. What I am trying to indicate is that all details which will be properly debated on an overall picture of all three items should be reserved for the proper time.

On a point of order, Sir.

Yes.

Mr Speaker, since I find that some Members have difficulty in confining themselves to speaking on the amendment, because the issues are overlapping and inter-related, why do we not ascertain the views of Members whether to adopt the procedure as you suggested yesterday, which I think is better for all of us, because most of us have prepared our speeches which should cover all the three or four motions.

May I, Mr Speaker, associate myself with the gentleman who just spoke? It seems to me, Sir, not a question of having prepared one's speeches, but we must appreciate that when we are speaking on the amendment about genuine merger, the twelfth state, we must balance what we mean by genuine merger with the merger proposals of the P.A.P. which bring in the White Paper. I have every sympathy, Sir, not only for you, if I may say with respect, but also for the hon. Member for Cairnhill in seeking to draw the line. I would like to accept the suggestion made by you yesterday in so far as it is possible for me.

That is exactly the trouble which I anticipated Members would find themselves in, and which the Speaker would find himself in, because all these issues seem to be overlapping and it is very difficult to draw the line. It is not too late for hon. Members to assent that we should adopt that procedure, that is to say, that the debate will now be again thrown completely open, which will mean that all Members other than the Minster for Labour will be allowed one speech and one speech only, and then at the end of the debate the Minister for Labour will reply and then votes could be taken, firstly, on this amendment, then on the main motion, and then on item 3. That, of course, will then get rid of any procedural harriers that might present themselves.

Mr Speaker, it is not clear to me. This means that immediately after our having disposed of the amendment and when we go back to the main motion, no one will he allowed to speak on the main motion?

I thought I made myself clear. If the procedural device is accepted, then the debate from now on will range over all three items and will range over the amendment which has been proposed. And at the end of the debate after the Minister for Labour has replied, the question on the amendment will he put just for the purpose of taking a vote. The question on item I will be put just for the purpose of taking a vote; then on item 3 just for the purpose of taking a vote; and when item 4 is reached, we will wait until the Address of Thanks to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara is moved, then we will put the amendment of the Member for Queens-town to the vote if he so wishes. That seems to me a more tidy way of debating the matter; that is, if Members agree. As I say, I cannot foist any procedural device on Members unless I have their assent.

Sir, did I hear you say just now something about an amendment to the amendment by the Member for Queenstown?

The point we are discussing now?

No. I was wondering what would happen to the procedure then if that ever occurs?

Amendment to the amendment?

Sir, I thought I heard you mention just now something about an amendment to the amendment by the Member for Queenstown.

I did not mention anything of that sort.

Only one point of clarification. Assuming we accept this procedure, we would nevertheless he able to speak on other aspects of the speech of His Excellency than that of merger. We dispose of the amendment by vote and then we can speak on the motion?

Yes, certainly.

I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you suspend this Assembly for 10 or 15 minutes so that I can discuss this with my colleagues.

Mr Speaker, since the Member for Queenstown has moved his amendment, two speakers have followed him. The Minister for Finance yesterday and the Member for Cairnhill yesterday and today. You have found that it is quite difficult to keep them within the confines of this amendment. For some reason or other, perhaps because most of us have prepared our speeches. So I think we should adopt this new procedure whereby we will avoid a lot of repetitious arguments and it will be easier for the Speaker to guide the proceedings of the sitting.

May I suggest then that I suspend for half an hour, allowing Members to confer amongst themselves for a quarter of an hour, and then I would suggest that the leaders of the Parties come to my Chambers and settle this procedural device? If that is acceptable, I will do so. Is that acceptable? The Member affected, of course, is the Member for Cairnhill.

I agree.

In that case, I will suspend and take this Chair again at a quarter to four. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.12 p.m. until 3.45 p.m. Sitting resumed at 3.45 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Order. The procedural device I suggested has been accepted by the Opposition Parties but not by the Government side. The original ruling therefore stands. But I think Members will agree that as the matter we are discussing is of grave import to Singapore - and there should, I think to my mind, be continuity in debate - I do not propose of my own volition to stop Members should they wander away from the amendment. But that, of course, will not prevent Members who so desire from rising on, a point of order when they consider that the Member who is speaking is irrelevant, and the Chair will then rule at that stage. Tun Lim. 3.47 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown was endeavouring to impress on this House and the public of Singapore that he is a very virile man, that he knows what the public wants, and that he is fighting tooth and nail to get what it wants. On this merger, Sir, I said earlier that a merger is just like a marriage, and a happy marriage cannot take place unless there is some courting being done, in this moment of courting - and this is like a moment of courting because we are not yet married to the Federation of Malaya - I would suggest to the prospective bridegroom or bride that the way to win the love of the other party is not to try to say how good or how clever one is and how bad or how ugly the other party is. It does not help. I remember, Sir, during the time when I was in office, I did all I could in this technique of courting. I went up to the Federation. I was as friendly as possible and I believe I had made some headway. There was very good understanding and there were certain sentiments that had germinated towards, if not a marriage, then at least an engagement. But then at that time, Sir, it was the P.A.P. who were in the Opposition. What did the Prime Minister himself say when he was the leader of the Opposition? "Huh, look at this disgraceful Chief Minister of Singapore licking the boots of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya!" He said such harsh words in this House. And today, since the Malaysia idea was made known by the Tunku in May this year, he has made so many trips to the Federation. In fact, on 17th November, we saw him at the Airport and we saw some pictures of him in Kuala Lumpur. He described the courting that I had been doing as bootlicking, but the Barisan Sosialis say that the Prime Minister has been going on all fours. I think they are fond of using such words without thought, having come from the same school. I do not want to say that the Prime Minister of Singapore has been doing more than bootlicking! But what I would like to say is this, that if all the overtures of the Prime Minister are directed towards reunification of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, then I will wish him the best of luck.

Hear, hear!

But not so the Barisan Sosialis. They say the Prime Minister is crawling on all fours on outstretched hands. Sir, we do not graduate from that same school - the P.A.P. school of culture! Sir, the Member for Queenstown - the leader of the Barisan Sosialis - is for merger, according to what he said in his speech. I do not say I doubt that. I say it is good that we should all wish for merger. But the way he goes about trying to achieve this is wrong. Of course. I can find excuses for the ravings he levelled at the P.A.P. It was because he felt so strongly that the P.A.P. had been leading Singapore up the garden path on this question of merger. But he should have restrained himself in his attacks on his ex-comrades. in fact, I think he knows better. Having been with them, he therefore knows the kind of smell that he is smelling. But he should not have indulged in an attack on the Government of the Federation of Malaya by saying that it was bad and that the sooner we had a general election on the question of merger the quicker it would be out. Sir, we have had in Singapore a so-called Socialist Government for the past two years, and the .13 Members of the new "Star" were associated with that Government. For two years, they were in office. What do we see in Singapore today? They criticise the type of government in the Federation. May I ask them to take just a trip to Kuala Lumpur and see for themselves the vast progress that is taking place there as compared with Singapore? In Singapore, we find comrades disintegrating; but in the Federation we find genuine progress towards economic stability. Over here, the Government claims that it is a true Socialist, non-Communist Government - I do not know what more to describe them - but it has done nothing other than playing party politics in the trade union field.

On a point of order. Sir. I think we are now on the question of merger. I think I have received notice that the Member for Cairnhill will be speaking on the motion for adjournment on trade unionism, and if he now confines his remarks until he comes to the motion, I think it will be in proper order.

Perhaps the Leader of the House is thinking of the Standing Order on anticipation?

Irrelevancy.

If the Leader of the House rises on the question whether or not the Member for Cairnhill is irrelevant in regard to the amendment we are discussing, then I say that the Member is not irrelevant. Tun Lim, please continue.

Sir, the subject that I wish to touch on will be covered by me in a speech on the adjournment on the 24th. Sir, what I am trying to lead up to is this. Here is a P.A.P. Government that says in this negotiation for merger, "You know, we just gave away this, that and the other; but we insisted on education and labour and we got it." I was leading up to that - education and labour - when I was talking about the trade union movement. As if they fought so hard that they wanted education and labour. Look at the kind of labour movement that is going on in Singapore. Look at the sufferings of the workers in Singapore today as a result of political rivalry in the trade union field.

Hear, hear!

Look at the education problem today - although the Government might want to hide it - when the students in the middle schools refuse to take the examinations of the Government and are now organising protests. Very good education policy! Everybody is in favour of it! Sir, what I was trying to say just now was to answer the charges levelled by the Barisan Sosialis at the Government of the Federation of Malaya. They kept on saying that they are Socialists. But since they used the word "genuine" merger, perhaps they should apply that adjective "genuine" to themselves - genuine Socialism or their own special brand of Socialism. In Malaya today, there is economic progress, but Singapore is beginning to feel the pinch. Now, Sir, I would like to talk about merger. Every Party that exists today - and even every Party that came into existence years and years ago, and every Party that will come into existence before Merger Day - will have as the first item "Merger with the Federation of Malaya". In fact, the P.A.P. played on that line in the general elections in 1959, and when they came into power they did say that they were pledged to merger. Going back to what I said a little while ago on the courtship that I carried on with the Federation of Malaya during the time when I was Chief Minister up to 1959 when the P.A.P. came into power, all the attempts that I had made had been totally damaged by the presence of the P.A.P. form of Government. Although they in 1959 said that they had nothing to do with the Communists, "We are non-Communists and we hold no truck with the Communists. We are clean. We are Socialists," yet today they have admitted that they have been sleeping with the Communists who have now left them and are now perhaps sleeping with the Barisan Sosialis. That is what they say now. They admit it. So it was because of the very presence in the Party and in the Government of people whom they now describe as Communists, Communist-front men, and all sorts of things, and whom they were trying to defend and trying to explain away - it was because of all that that they could make no headway with the Government of the Federation of Malaya. The Prime Minister, in the very first year of office, said, "Huh, we have thought of a wonderful scheme - a Common Commodity Market. The previous Government never dreamed of it. A grand idea. The Common Commodity Market will help industrialisation." The question of the Common Commodity Market is still not settled. What has happened? The P.A.P. were returned on their pledge to achieve merger. What happened to the relationship between the Federation and Singapore? Further and further apart, drawing away the whole time, so much so that in the second year of office the Prime Minister could not, in all honesty, stand up and say, "Merger is on the way." He even gave up. "The less we talk of merger, the less heartache." So he would not talk of merger because he knew merger was out. But then in May this year the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya came over here and, addressing a luncheon of foreign journalists, touched on the subject of Malaysia. When the Singapore Government heard that, they were so jubilant that they almost fell down on their feet - I think they nearly fainted. They said, "Ah merger is on the way." At that time, there was the Anson by-election. So they thought, "Huh, now that merger is on the way, let us cash in." But they knew at that time, from the speech of the Tunku to the foreign journalists, that it was not going to be merger. In fact, if it had been merger, they would also have said the same thing - merger, they would want merger. But because they knew it was not merger but only something closer, their strategist - I do not know if he was a special tactician in the Party - came out with a new programme, "We, the P.A.P. will work towards merger with the Federation. But we will see to it that we retain education and labour." I am now coming to what I describe as the misrepresentation of the true facts of the case. If the P.A.P. Government had said at that time that what was possible under the plan outlined by the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya was some closer association whereby the Federation of Malaya just wanted external affairs, defence and security, and Singapore could have everything else in which they were not interested, then that would have been more right. Then the people would know that it was not merger in the true sense of the word "merger". There can be only one meaning for merger - complete in tegration. They straightaway said, "Merger", "Merger", "Merger". And everytime they have to retreat - "This kind of merger for citizenship, no. Singapore citizenship - does not qualify." Another time when they are questioned, "Oh, but don't you see, the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya states that in a merger only those born in the State can automatically become citizens, but all the others have to apply." And later on, all sorts of retreat - retreating the whole time. At another time, they say, "Oh, yes. They could apply. 110,000 out of the 350,000." Yet they knew the reasons why it was not a merger proposed by the Federation Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman. Now, Sir, let us try to trace back. We were all anxious for merger, but we must admit that trends in Singapore and in the Federation were in the opposite direction. We in Singapore have a more sophisticated electorate. We have the P.A.P. with the lightning flash, and now the Barisan Sosialis. The P.A.P. is still here. And we have had the kind of politics where even, in the words of the Government today as enunciated by the Minister for Finance, they had to work with the Communists. So obviously you find in the Federation a different form of government that has been waging war against the Communists for years and years and has suffered quite a lot at their hands. Surely they would be very, very careful now in taking in people into the family. They have to be more careful now as a result of their bitter experience, to see that what they take in is not going to damage what they already have. But then why this sudden idea of Malaysia? I would like to say what I know about this, although I must say that I stand to be corrected. I have said outside and inside this Chamber that questions have been asked of me by Pressmen and foreign correspondents, "Do I believe and do I think that merger will take place?" I said, "Merger is inevitable. Merger will have to take place. Even if the two Governments do not see eye to eye, the developments in this area would be at such a pace that it would be in the vital interests of the territories concerned to come together."

Hear, hear!

Therefore, much as the Tunku did not like it, much as the Federation Government would not like to have anything to do with Singapore, they came to a proper appreciation of the situation that has developed in this part of the world. And therefore, it was felt in the Federation that the only way to ensure that there is no complete split of the artificial split that is now in evidence is to get together. And then they have to think of the form of getting together. There are very, very grave or legitimate objections on the part of the Federation to take Singapore into a complete merger. That, we all know, is not the reason why all this talk about merger has been slapped down by the Tunku. At least for the first time, because of the trends of political events in this part of the world. Singapore is going to be allowed to live along the same street as the Federation of Malaya. If we go by the heads of agreement reached between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government, we have not yet been allowed to stay in the same house as one big family. But we will now be living in the same street as really close neighbours. That is what we are. Then why do we oppose this amendment? I would like to repeat: we oppose the amendment not because we do not believe in genuine merger. We want genuine merger. Everyone wants merger. But merger is merger. We cannot call it genuine merger or not genuine merger. A marriage is a marriage. You cannot say that a marriage between, a man and a woman is not genuine. Merger is merger. We want to see merger. And to us, and to everyone, I am sure, merger means a complete reunification of Singapore into the Federation of Malaya as one big happy family.

Hear, hear!

Therefore, we oppose the amendment proposed by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis because the qualifications of a genuine merger (note the adjective) have never before even been thought of by them years and years ago. Their Four-Year programme, their Anniversary Souvenir -

Sir, on a point of clarification, if the hon. Member will give way? Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Would he accept the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, if for the word "genuine", the word "complete" were substituted?

There can only be one form of merger, Sir, and that kind of merger is complete and satisfying. We -do not have to say "complete merger", or that a marriage is a complete marriage as it is still a marriage. Now, another reason why we object to that is this: here we know - on the second part of the amendment - that the fact that Singapore and Malaya cannot come into a merger is because of the fears, if you want to call them fears, that are in the minds -of the Federation vis-a-vis the citizens of Singapore. That, I should say, is the main reason why merger cannot take place. And to focus attention, as does this amendment here, and say that there must be genuine merger, that the citizens of Singapore should automatically become citizens, is not to allay the fears of the Federation, but is going to make it worse. Why should it be'? Why should we try to frighten away people with whom we want very much to become friends? Therefore, we object to that. And according to our view, the amendment proposed by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis is just political, and nothing else. It is just to tell the people of Singapore, "There you are. We are braver than the P.A.P. We ask for this. We ask for that." Sir, in a matter that concerns the very livelihood and welfare of the people of Singapore, we - the different political Parties represented in this Assembly - should not play party politics. We should, in fact, show the people in the Federation of Malaya and in London, where today negotiations are now taking place between the British Government and the Federation Government, that there is one desire of the people of Singapore as expressed in the unanimous vote in this Assembly. We believe in and we want merger. Instead of which, the newspapers will carry headline news when the vote is taken, Barisan Sosialis for the amendment; some people are against it, and the amendment is won or lost; whatever it is that is won or lost is immaterial. Lost, and the P.A.P. starts their original motion, which is carried. All that is playing party politics. It does not help us in the eyes of the people of the Federation of Malaya, nor in the eyes of the people of Singapore. We should not do it. In this one, we must have a unanimous vote. We should say, "Yes, we are all for it.' Then when we come to Command Paper 33, of course, the Barisan Sosialis will be free to say it - if they want, they can say it: it is a sell-out. Go ahead. Criticise the heads of agreement as much as they want. Criticise the form that the P.A.P. is now taking to get a unanimous vote of this House. If that is the way they achieve merger, that is the way they can attack. But on this important issue, we want to tell the world in the strongest possible terms that we in this Assembly want merger, but not to start having an amendment to cause split votes in this House. Then again on the Government side, somebody would be for and others would be against. That is no good vis-a-vis our relationship with the Federation of Malaya. So, if the Barisan Sosialis, after more mature thought, feel that they have stressed their point, and that all speakers after this will just touch on Cmd. Paper 33, call it by whatever name they like to call it; say that it is a sell-out or not a complete merger; that that is not the way the Government should go on, carry out the unanimous decision of the Assembly. They are free to do so. But on this main motion on merger, let us all with one voice forget politics, forget whether they were in the P.A.P. at one time, or out of the P.A.P. now; forget their personal animosity; both sides are trying their best to run the other down. Forget all that in this very important motion. Let us tell the world that we can sink our political differences just once, when the welfare of the people of Singapore, and when a very important matter is just around the corner, that we can all be united. I would urge the Barisan Sosialis to think this over. In fact, I am in sympathy with them on most of the attacks that they have levelled at the P.A.P. I am in sympathy with them. But on the motion I would ask them to forget politics - just to say, accept the motion as it stands and then take the Government to task on the next motion. Sir,I would urge upon this House, and. I have explained why I stepped in so early in the debate, it is because I would caution moderation. Please, if we want to achieve this merger, if we want to get closer with the people in the Federation of Malaya, let us not in this Assembly say anything that may cause misgivings in their minds or that may hurt their feelings. They are just as human as we are. If the Barisan Sosialis feel that they must do all they can to expose their ex-comrades, the P.A.P., go ahead, do it on another motion. Or even on this motion if they want, say anything they like. But do not bring in anything that can be said to the derogatory of the Government of the Federation of Malaya or the people of the Federation of Malaya. Do not do it. If we want to be friends, let us show that we really mean to be friends, and that it is not a question of gaining political kudos and saying, "You see, we fight for everything. We speak so much. We expose everybody. We are for the people of Singapore." Remember this, Singapore cannot stand alone now, especially as - and I will just touch on it in passing - the Borneo territories are now coming into the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore cannot stand alone. Even today, with all the overtures of the Prime Minister for closer relationship with the Federation of Malaya, we were told at an earlier sitting that the Minister for Education had tabled a Bill to incorporate the University of Singapore. Before their time, there was a University of Malaya, one university for the whole of Malaya. In the time of the P.A.P. - University of Malaya, University of Singapore! Radio Malaya, Radio Singapore, Suara Singapore - that is the twelfth awful disclosure of the Prime Minister - Suara Singapore! Even on industrialisation, how difficult it is for Singapore to industrialise, especially when prospective investors come along to this part of the world and then go to Kuala Lumpur, and they see the vast difference. And they always say, "It is better to be in the Federation of Malaya than in Singapore." So talking of moderation of language again, I would urge upon all speakers of the Barisan Sosialis and the P.A.P. to remember this. That the motion that is before the House - of course, there are other motions - but the main motion before the House is one that calls for calm judgment, that calls for, shall we say, one united voice, and they should not take this opportunity to run down their ex-comrades. The Barisan Sosialis exposing the P.A.P., and the P.A.P. exposing the Barisan Sosialis. All that does not matter on this motion. After that, I could assure the Barisan Sosialis that they are free to do what they want. In fact, I can even say this. That their criticism of the P.A.P. might not even be on the same scale as the criticism that we will level at the P.A.P. in discussions on other matters that will come up for debate. And why I say let us be moderate in our language is, as I said, that for merger to take place, it is vitally necessary to get the agreement of the other party, and the other party in this case is the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Fortunately for Singapore, we have, as the head of that Government in the Federation of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, a real friend. He is a real friend of Singapore. We can trust him to see that Singapore is not placed in any disadvantageous position. Now, Sir, I would urge upon the P.A.P. in all their speeches after this not to try to claim that Cmd. Paper No. 33 is bringing about merger. Talk no more of merger because it is not merger. The least they say about merger, the better it will be for them, and the easier ii will be for their ex-comrades to take it. The plan that they agreed to is just to bring Singapore closer to the Federation of Malaya. Instead of trying to prove things that need not be proved, because it is their conscience that is pricking them the whole time because they seem to think that people will say it is a sell-out, if they are to come out and say plainly, "This is the best that we can get under the circumstances and we advise you that this is better than nothing," then there will be less attack. People will then say, "At least they have told the truth. There could be no allegations of twists and turns. There could be no allegations of a phoney, a sell-out or humbug. It is because of the way the P.A.P. present these talks that have been going on in the Federation between Singapore and the Federation, present them in a way which they think could give them political credit, it is because of that that they are now in this mess. They need not have to be in this mess. They are now in this mess. Every-time we tell them that it is not merger, they keep on repeating that it is merger, merger, merger. And Suara Singapore - An hon. Member: Suara P.A.P.!

And from Suara Singapore, I keep on hearing, "Merger, merger." I must say, Sir, I tune it off when I know it is not merger. It is not merger. The Tunku himself has said that it is a form of closer association. That is for the P.A.P. For the Barisan Sosialis, if they really believe in merger, and I do not doubt it, if they really believe it and want to achieve it, -if they want to get married - some of them, I think, are still not married - the period of courtship is a period when there are great trials and tribulations. Do not try to say that you are rich; that you are good; that you are this; that you are that. It will not help. But try to win the heart and mind of the other party. In order to win that, I would tell them that they should not -

Order. May I remind the Member for Cairnhill that the Chair is on this side?

Mr Speaker. Sir, the Chair does not require to be .reminded. But Members of the Barisan Sosialis have to be reminded that whatever utterances they make in this Assembly may have repercussions on the merger discussion that is taking place -

Order. That perhaps is quite agreed. But the rule says that the Member must speak to the Chair, or rather perhaps speak to the Assemblymen through the Chair. Dr Sheng Nam Chin (Nee Soon) rose -

Is it a point of order?

No. On a point of clarification. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, it would appear that the Member for Cairnhill is directing his advice to this side of the House, and it appears to me that he is advocating premarital relationship before marriage. Can he clarify that, Sir?

Mr Speaker. Sir, evil is he who evil thinks. Maybe the Member for Nee Soon his mind is so full of such ideas that when you start courtship, that is premarital relationship. Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

Is it a point of order?

Clarification.

It has been clarified.

Sometimes it is very difficult for doctors to understand. It is only laymen like us -

You are a doctor yourself.

Sir, so in this courtship, which is still a courtship even although when the agreement reached with the Government of the Federation of Malaya is accepted in this House, the period of courtship is still there; but then, at least, we are allowed to stay still. We can even talk through the window. We do not have to cross to Kuala Lumpur any more. There is a period of courtship. Let us, as leaders of the people in this House, try and win over the Government of the Federation of Malaya, the people of the Federation of Malaya, so that in the shortest possible time there can be merger. And when I say merger. I mean real lasting merger where the citizens of Singapore are the citizens of the Federation of Malaya. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

To achieve that, one must be careful in the choice of words when one speaks to someone whom one is courting. Sir, I do not know whether there is real and genuine enmity between the P.A.P. and the ex-P.A.P., because the leader of the Barisan Sosialis on the first day said. "It grieves me to see so man)' vacant seats." May be he was suggesting to the P.A.P., "Come on, call me back. I'll come hack. There are so many vacant seats." And yesterday, the Minister for Finance said that they were doing their best to save the Barisan Sosialis from the clutches of the Communists, and he ended his speech by saying, "Hop it while the going is good". Sir, from all these suggestions, perhaps it is clear to us that there is really no difference although they are in opposite camps; they are together. They cannot deny the fact that they have been together. They have been together for two years. To every criticism of the Opposition, we found that those who are now sitting on this side were the greatest champions of P.A.P. policy, in fact, if I remember rightly, the Member for Queenstown, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis, touched on what he called the arbitrary imposition of the pay-cuts of the civil service. Those were the words used by us when we were just eight of us here -

Mr Speaker, on a point of order. This is not relevant to the motion we are talking about at the moment.

The point of order has, of course, been correctly taken. The hon. Member is straying away from the amendment. He should try not to stray away from the amendment. Dr Toh Chin Chye rose -

Is it another point of order?

On a point of explanation, Sir,I do not want to appear -

If the Member will give way. Tun Lim Yew Hock resumed his seat.

He has given way.

Sir, I do not want to appear as if I were the Speaker, hut as you have said just now, you would give leave to the House to pull up a Member if he is out of order. I only wish to remind the Member for Cairnhill that there is ample opportunity for him to debate or bring out whatever remarks he has on the second half of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech.

Does it hurt?

Order. That, of course, is exactly what I have been saying from the very beginning of this debate. There will be opportunities for Members to say what they want to say when we debate the other items on the Order Paper. I have indicated that since the procedural device I have suggested has not been agreed to by one side of the House, I will not take -it upon myself to pull up Members for irrelevancies. The Leader of the House, of course, is at liberty to get up on points of order when Members are irrelevant.

Mr Speaker, it seems I have been trying to tell Members the art of courtship. I must take in the right spirit what the Leader of the House is trying to say in his explanation. I know, Sir, that it is very difficult for a speaker not to apparently stray, but it is so difficult to do justification to the stand that we take in opposing the amendment of the Barisan Sosialis unless we have an opportunity to explain and to answer the criticisms that the Leader of the Barisan Sosialis has brought before this House for 7½ hours; unless we have a chance to explain that all that he has been saying is not all right. It will be difficult.

Order. When the Member for Cairnhill I said that the speaker was straying, I take it he means the Member speaking and not the Speaker?

Sir, I mean the man who speaks, not the Speaker who seldom speaks! Mr Speaker, Sir, the words of the leader of the Barisan Sosialis can cause, and for all we know may have already caused, misgivings in the hearts of the people of the Federation. He touched so much on citizenship. In fact, most of his speech, the attack that he levelled at the P.A.P. Government, was on citizenship. Of course, we know, Sir, that only citizens of Singapore will have the vote and they are hoping that there might be a general election soon as they are calling on the Government to resign. Sir, the arrangement that the Government of Singapore has reached with the Government of the Federation, as contained in Cmd. Paper No. 33, clearly shows that it is not merger, and because it is not merger, therefore, the citizens of Singapore cannot claim to be citizens of the Federation of Malaya. All the confusion that has arisen is as a result of the Prime Minister trying to explain away this citizenship by telling the Ban-san Sosialis and the people of Singapore that citizenship is citizenship, but there is nationality. Federal nationality? Everyone will become a Federal national; but citizenship, why worry. Singapore citizens are still Singapore citizens, and Federal citizens are still Federal citizens. If the Prime Minister had not tried to show that he was too clever, everything would have been easily understood and everybody would have been happy. The arrangement that has been reached between the Singapore Government and the Federation Government is that, in so far as external affairs, defence and internal security are concerned, these shall be vested in the Government of the Federation of Malaya. Apart from that, and apart from pan-Malayan matters which could be concurrent with or vested in the Government of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore is to be autonomous. Singapore, at least is going to have an opportunity to send great leaders like the leader of the Barisan Sosialis to the Federal Parliament where he can speak on behalf of the people of Singapore and protect the interests of the people of Singapore. Fifteen of them. Whether 15 is enough or not enough is a matter that I am sure the Assembly would like to touch on. The leader of the Barisan Sosialis says it is too small. He has suggested it could be 30. But the line that my Party will take is this. I say here in all sincerity. Had it been an Alliance Government here today, we would have got a better deal. But because the P.A.P. which is now the Government has agreed on this and departed from that, we will support them on that. It would appear that that is the best they can do. We should be thankful.

Hear, hear!

That at least Singapore is going to live side by side along the same street with the Federation of Malaya and the Bornean territories; that these territories which were at one time under one British administrative control will now come back together and be in the Federation of Malaysia. And that is a good start. Although, of course, there will be some like the Barisan Sosialis who want complete merger straightaway. It is easy to say what you want, Sir,It is very easy to say that we want complete merger; that we want this and that we want that. But one must remember that we must also take into consideration the wants of the other party. Even take Singapore for instance. Years and years ago, we all wanted in-dependence, but then we were quite satisfied with natural evolution towards independence -

No!

We had a Rendel Constitution when the Member for Anson was the first Chief Minister - An hon. Member: Yes.

- and quite rightly, he was not satisfied with the Rendel Constitution. He went forward to get the present Constitution. What is the next step? The next step, he says, is independence through merger, but since merger is not taking place, it is still independence through closer association with the Federation of Malaya. Today - and in fact for the last three days - Tunku Abdul Rahman and his colleagues have been holding discussions in London and it appears strange that it is left to the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya to go and talk of independence for Singapore. He is such a good man. He goes there to help us out, and yet we have Members of the Barisan Sosialis trying to tell him off [Interruption]. I see. Sir, that the Member for Queenstown is still as excited as ever. The first day when he stood up to give his speech, he was so excited that he forgot my poor head. His hand came into contact with my poor head! An hon. Member: Blistered!

And the Member for Farrer Park got it too!

The Member for Farrer Park and I do not have sufficient hair, and we had our heads fertilised by the Member for Queenstown when he got excited! Sir, what is offered to us in this Cmd. Paper No. 33 is the best possible under the circumstances, and I would urge the representatives in this House to accept it because it will just make certain of our desire for merger - call it complete merger or genuine merger. We will be taking the first step. We will be getting one foot in. The P.A.P. has exposed itself to an attack that what they are trying to deliver is not merger, because in their attempt to describe merger, they have tried to get political credit for themselves. But much as we do not like it, we must be thankful that for the first time after so many, many years of separation, we have a Government in the Federation of Malaya which is prepared to extend a friendly hand so that we can be closer together, so that we can at least have the opportunity of knowing each other at close range, and so that we can really become one in the years ahead. So let us not try to say that the citizens of Singapore have been let down. They have not been let down. The only question you can ask is, why should the P.A.P. Government be so anxious to give away internal security? That you can ask the P.A.P. Government. But I know why. I do not have to ask. They want to shirk their responsibility for internal security even under this Constitution. Internal security is the responsibility of the Government of Singapore. But what do they always say? They says "The Internal Security Council." Every time they hide behind the cloak of the Internal Security Council, and this was referred to by the Minister for Finance yesterday when he said, "Oh, this is not true." Not true! Of course, they do not like it. Therefore, when they say, "Give away internal security to the Federation," and at the same time a series of 12 awful disclosures is made by the Prime Minister over Radio Singapore, Radio Singapura -

Radio P.A.P.!

- I can feel sorry for the Members of the Barisan Sosialis who fear that all this is leading up to something, that the P.A.P. Government is working all this up so that later on the Federation Government will step in and clean the house for the PAP. I cannot blame the Barisan Sosialis for thinking along those lines. But in so far as the statement is derogatory to the Government of the Federation of Malaya, I want to say this. The Government of the Federation of Malaya has been associated with us for the past two years in the Internal Security Council. I am sure that the Singapore Government can say, with all sincerity, that the representative of the Federation of Malaya has never at any time interfered or given orders to the Singapore Government as to what should or should not be done. In fact, questions have been asked - even at this sitting - by the Member for Anson whether or not the Federation Government has asked the Singapore Government to take certain actions in the Internal Security Council, and the answer has been "No". So for the two years that the Federation Government has been associated with us in the Internal Security Council, they have not done-anything to make us fear them. Therefore, in this new arrangement where internal security is to be vested in the Federation of Malaya, need we have any fear'? Can we not understand that a Governmen - particularly an elected Government - cannot do what h wants, that it has to face the electorate even in the Federation of Malaya if it does things that are unconstitutional, undemocratic and not in keeping with the Constitution? Sir, we can understand that the Federation Government is interested in internal security. Internal security is a problem that affects the whole of Malaysia. It does not only affect Singapore. Therefore, the Federation says that it has to be interested in internal security, for what happens in Singapore is going to have repercussions in the Federation. Therefore, as an older brother, the Federation feels that it must at least have a say in the internal security of Singapore which cannot be divorced from the internal security of the whole of Malaysia. On external affairs, I think we are satisfied, as there has been no challenge made. Defence is Malayan-wide. We cannot defend Singapore without defending the whole of Malaya. Therefore, I think no one can quarrel with defence and external affairs, although the Barisan Sosialis have touched on internal security by saving, as a result of that, that the big bad ogre in the Federation will be doing all sorts of nasty things to help the P.A.P. Government to remain in office. Sir, the P.A.P., or the Government, are wont to accuse the Barisan Sosialis - and I am sure they will keep on accusing them - of not being for genuine merger or for complete merger. They will try to ridicule the Barisan Sosialis. I am not speaking for the Barisan Sosialis, but I hope that in what they say they must remember this, that in whatever speeches they may want to make on this very important issue, they must get away from party politics. Let us look at - the matter in its proper perspective and not be swayed by personal animosity. Sir, on this amendment that is before the House, I would like to say that we oppose it not because we do not believe in genuine merger or that the citizens of Singapore should not become citizens of the Federation of Malaya, but we oppose it because the words added by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis are tautologous, redundant and are of a political character. We hope that the Barisan Sosialis, if they sincerely believe in merger - and I say they do sincerely believe in merger - will withdraw the amendment and take a unanimous vote on the motion that has been moved by the Minister for Labour. They can then level as much criticism as they want on the form of merger that the P.A.P. proposes to take in Cmd. Paper No. 33. But on an expression of noble sentiments, let us all be united. Let us criticise as much as we want on the method of achieving our goal, but let us also remember that merger is just the ultimate goal. For so many years, the ball has never been at our feet. Today we have the ball. Let us dribble it closer and closer to the goal-mouth and we will wait for the opportune time to shoot it into that goal of merger. 5.00 p.m.

Sir, it is the moment of interruption.

Order. It is not really the moment of interruption. I was think, ing of carrying -on until half-past five since we had half an hour's break. Mr Byrne.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all genuine nationalists and patriots have always wanted merger except the Communists and the British who, although they have never been able to obstruct the tide of nationalism in the Federation, have nevertheless been happy to acquiesce in arrangements in which they could still exercise sovereignty over their base in Singapore, which is vital for the protection of their interests in this area. There are some, Sir, who say they believe in merger and who have seized upon two Articles of the Federation Constitution, just two Articles of that Constitution, namely, Articles 2 and 22. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have here with me an authoritative exposition on the Constitution of the Federation of Malaya, and I would refer the House now to Article 2 which provides that the Federation Parliament may by law admit other States to the Federation; and Article 22 which provides that the Parliament may determine what persons are to be citizens by reason of their connection with the territory which is admitted. Mr Speaker, Sir, they have seized upon these two Articles of the Federation Constitution to base their claim for a complete merger with automatic Federation citizen fights for all Singapore citizens, and they have maintained that if these two Articles were invoked, the Federation Parliament could have been persuaded to agree to this demand. They have even gone to the extent of accusing those who have had due regard to the other important Articles of the Federation Constitution as well as these two Articles of being guilty of what they call a sell-out. Mr Speaker, Sir, before we claim automatic Federation citizenship rights for our citizens, it is important for us first to find out the circumstances in which automatic citizenship rights are granted in the Federation. That is of paramount importance in these discussions. That brings us, Sir, directly to a consideration of Article 14 (1) of the Federation Constitution. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is laid down who are the persons who are citizens by operation of law, i.e., who are the persons who are entitled to an automatic grant of Federation citizenship. They are the following persons: Every person who, immediately before Merdeka Day. was a citizen of the Federation by virtue of any of the provisions of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, whether by operation of law or otherwise. Let us take that first provision, Sir. It becomes necessary for us to enquire who are these persons who became citizens by operation of law under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948; and to find out who they are, we must look at the terms of this Agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir,I have arranged for copies of this Agreement to be circulated this afternoon. As a matter of historical interest, this Federation of Malaya Agreement. 1948, which is scheduled to the Order-in-council implementing the Federation of Malaya Agreement which is reproduced in the subsidiary legislation and the legal notifications of the Federation of Malaya of 1948 - Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

No, Sir. Just to assist you, Sir, we have copies. They have been given to us by the Assembly Clerk.

The Librarian.

I am sorry. The Librarian.

As a matter of historical interest, this Federation of Malaya Agreement was subsequently amended by the Federation of Malaya (Agreement) Ordinance, 1952. That amendment was necessary because of the passing of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act by the British Parliament, and also, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the stricter provisions that the Federation Government wished to introduce into their citizenship arrangements after the outbreak of the Emergency in the Federation in 1948. Mr Speaker, Sir, the two relevant sections for the purpose of this discussion are section 124 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and section 125 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952. By virtue of the provisions of the Interpretation and General Clauses Enactment in the Federation of Malaya, it is necessary for us to read the Agreement of 1948 in relation to the amendments that were made by the (Amendment) Ordinance of 1952. Mr Speaker, Sir, if these two sections - section 124 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and section 125 of the Federation of Malaya Agreement (Amendment) Ordinance, 1952-are studied in relation to each other, it will be observed that a person born in Penang or Malacca (what is referred to in the agreement as British Settlements) become Federation citizens by operation of law. A person born in any other part of the Federation does not become a citizen by operation of law unless -

On a point of clarification. Sir. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

I am indebted to the hon. Member. May I point out that that is not correct'? The jus soli applies to all those born in Penang and Malacca before Merdeka Day. They became Federal citizens under the Federation of Malaya Agreement and they became Federal citizens under the Constitution by virtue of Article XIV.

Mr Speaker, this is the actual note of Professor Sheridan. I am referring to Article XIV of the Federation Constitution, and I have the notes of Professor Sheridan on Article XIV, and he says, -

Order. Would the Minister identify the book for the record?

I refer to "The Federation Constitution," by L. A. Sheridan. Page 24. It is a general note under his comments on Article XIV of the Constitution. He says: "There is no omnibus provision for citizenship by operation of law for those born within the Federation before Merdeka Day." Mr David Marshall rose -

Order. Will the Minister give way? Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

I am much obliged. I was pointing out, Sir, that the Constitution makes Federal citizens of all those who were Federation citizens before Merdeka Day, and Article 125, as amended, of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948 and 1952, by virtue of subsection (b) says: "Any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born before, on or after the prescribed date, that is to say, 15th September, 1952, in either of the Settlements becomes by operation of law a citizen of the Federation." So all who were born in Penang and Malacca before Merdeka Day were, by virtue of the Federation of Malaya Agreement, Federal citizens, and by virtue of Article XIV, became citizens of the Federation.

I will accept that. Mr Speaker, Sir, this being so, if we were to c]aim automatic Federation citizenship for all persons born in Singapore on merger, is it reasonable for us to believe that the Federation Parliament, which is responsible to the people of the Federation, would agree to grant the Singapore-born more favourable terms than it has been prepared to concede-to those who were born in the associated States of the Federation, outside Malacca and Penang, before Merdeka Day and who are not eligible for an automatic grant of Federal citizenship. Even if we were able to persuade the Federation Parliament to grant more favourable terms to our local-born by asking that they should be accorded the same citizenship terms as those accorded to persons born in Penang and Malacca under the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, as amended by the (Amendment) Ordinance of 1952, could this not be construed to be selling out the political rights of the larger number of Singapore citizens who have acquired Singapore citizenship by residence? And, Sir, if the Federation Parliament has not granted automatic Federation citizenship to persons born in the associated States of the Federation, outside Penang and Malacca, would it be reasonable to expect the Federation Parliament to grant automatic citizenship rights to persons who have only acquired citizenship rights in Singapore by residence? Dr Sheng Nam Chin rose -

On a point of order?

On a point of clarification.

If the Minister will give way. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon, the Minister for Health and Law whether he is representing the people of Singapore or representing the people of the Federation?

Order. That is not a point of clarification. That may be a point of argument. If the hon. Member wants clarification on the legal treatise which we are being treated to, he may seek it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been stated in this House that we have sold out on the people of Singapore because we have failed to make an uncompromising demand for automatic Federation citizenship. Mr Speaker, Sir, I put this argument to the Barisan Sosialis for their serious consideration. Mr Speaker, the Member for Queenstown went to great lengths speaking on our Singapore citizenship laws. We agree that it is true that there is a large number of people in Singapore who are either Singapore citizens by birth or who have obtained Singapore citizenship by virtue of their long residence here. Most of them very likely have had residence of 15 and more years. That is all accepted by us. Can we, however, reasonably expect the Federation Parliament to grant our citizens more favourable terms than they are prepared to grant to their own local-born. This is the point at issue. It is obvious, Sir, that under the provisions of Articles 4 and 22 of the Federation Constitution. special arrangements would have to be made on citizenship at the time of merger. An hon. Member: What articles?

I am sorry. Articles 2 and 22. Mr Speaker, on Article 22, there is a note on page 30 of Sheridan's commentaries. It says: "Presumably this is a transitional provision relating to the connection these persons have with the territories before its admission to the Federation." And it says thereafter: 'The matter is presumably governed by Article 8 (1) and the non-transitional provisions of Chapter 1 of Part III. The non-transitional provisions are Article 14 of the Federation Constitution.' Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the argument of the Barisan Sosialis that if all our 624,000 Singapore citizens were to become Federal citizens, we would have, on the basis of counting heads, about 25 to 30 seats in the Central Legislature. Sir, do they seriously suggest that political representation in electoral areas is determined just by the counting of heads of those who are eligible to vote? There are in this House, Sir, Members returned from the rural areas which are more than 20 times the size of some of the city constituencies and where the eligible voters are about half the number of some of the very small but compact city constituencies. Yet their representation in this House is equal. Has the Barisan Sosialis ever claimed that this was unfair and unequal representation? Similarly in the Federation, only about 26.5 per cent of the estimated total population of 6.7 million is urbanised: the rest of the population is thinly distributed outside the urban areas. Because of the geography and the distribution of population in the Federation, the electoral areas have had to be fairly distributed between the small compact and more heavily populated urban areas and the larger and more thinly populated rural areas. A fair and just balance has had to be worked out. If political representation were to he worked out on the basis of just counting the heads of those who are eligible to vote, then it would mean that there would be vast tracts of Federation territory where there are sizeable populations who would be deprived of political rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, there were 2,240,000 registered voters in the Federation for the general election of 1959 and the number of voters increased to 2,310,000 in March 1960. A figure of 2,345,000 was forecast for March 1961. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of interest, I have all the facts and figures from the official Year Book of the Federation of Malaya, 1961. The present House of Representatives of the Federation has a membership of 104 and this is to be reduced to 100 when the next general election takes place in spite of the fact that the voting population has been estimated to increase by 105,000 from the last general election to March this year. In Singapore itself there are constituencies, as I have said just now, of larger size with smaller voting populations which enjoy equal representation to smaller and more compact constituencies with larger voting populations. Similar conditions are reproduced in the Federation. On this basis, it does not follow that if the electorate of the Federation is increased by another 624,000 on the basis of the automatic citizenship proposals of the Barisan Sosialis, there must -be a proportionate increase in the number of seats. There are other factors, Sir, which must also be considered. Mr David Marshall rose -

Is it on a point of order?

A point of clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way. Mr Byrne resumed his seat.

Indeed, he is being very good, Sir. May I draw attention to Article 116 of the Constitution, which specifically provides for that very condition: that you must give proportionate representation to each area in accordance with the number of voters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are other factors which must also be considered. In the Federation, the urbanised population amounts to 26.5 per cent of the total population. In Singapore conditions are the reverse. There is a relatively smaller population in the rural areas and a larger concentration of population in the city area, of about five square miles in a total area of 220 square miles. We would have to have regard to the relation of the total number of seats in the urbanised areas to the total number of seats in the non-urbanised areas of the Federation, and if only voting heads were to be counted on the basis of the Barisan Sosialis proposals, it would upset the present electoral arrangements in the Federation and give an unfair advantage to the urbanised areas of the integrated territories at the expense of the non-urbanised areas. These are weighty considerations which the Barisan Sosialis have deliberately chosen to overlook in pressing their claim for proportionate representation.

Order. It may be a convenient time to suspend?

Yes.

I will take the Chair again at 6.00 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.30 p.m. until 6.00 p.m. Sitting resumed at 6.00 p.m.

Debate resumed.

The amendment moved by the Member for Queenstown is before the House. Mr Byrne.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson just now referred me to Article 116, which required that representation should be based on population. May I read Article 116 (4): 'Each State shall be divided into constituencies in such manner that each constituencies contains a number of electors as nearly equal to the electoral quota of the State as may be after making due allowance for the distribution of the different communities and for differences in density of population and the means of communication; but the allowance so made shall not increase or reduce the number of electors in any constituency to a number differing from the electoral quota be more than fifteen per cent.' This, Sir, just confirms what I have been saying, namely, that allowance must be made for rural and urban representation. Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has referred to subsection (4) of Article 116, which deals with constituencies in a State. We are talking about a quota of a State with reference to the Federation, and I ask that he read subsection (3) which deals with that, if he is reading subsection (4).

That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. You cannot divorce subsection (3) from subsection (4) - An hon. Member: Read it!

Yes. 'Constituencies shall be allocated to the several States in such manner that the electoral quota of each State is as nearly equal to the electoral quota of the Federation as it can be without causing undue disparity between the population quota of that State and the population quota of the Federation.', and then you come to subsection (4). Mr Speaker, Sir, say they are in a State, constituencies of 10,000 voters. Say there are 100,000 voters in a State and there are 10 constituencies. There must be leverage of 15 per cent either way, Mr Speaker, Sir. You see the number of voters per candidate will vary between 8,500 and 11,500. There must be that interplay between 8,500 and 11,500, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is strange that only when merger is in prospect that the Barisan Sosialis has for the first time advanced the argument that, in fact, there are two classes of Singapore citizens, the second-class who are local-born, and the third-class who has acquired Singapore citizenship by residence. This is the first time I have known that I am a second-class citizen and my colleagues in the Government are third-class citizens. Sir, merger or no merger, there will always be persons in the Federation who will be acquiring citizenship by residence as opposed to those who are citizens by birth. Why does the Barisan Sosialis not seek to draw such distinctions between the local-born and the rest in the Federation. Then again, Sir, merger or no merger, Singapore citizens, whether they are local-born or have acquired Singapore citizenship by residence, can qualify to become Federal citizens if they comply with the Federation citizenship laws. Does the Barisan Sosialis reasonably con end that a Singapore citizen by residence, who qualifies to become a Federal citizen by complying with the Federation citizenship laws, promotes himself from a third-class citizen to a first-class citizen and that a Federal citizen by birth who acquires Singapore citizenship reduces himself from a first-class to a third-class citizen? Sir, all these spurious arguments about classes of citizens have been invented by those who seek to oppose merger. Nationalists and patriots do not try to pretend that there are different classes of citizens when everybody knows that, in fact, no such distinction exist. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have accused the Federation Government of wanting to enforce a policy of apartheid in Singapore. I cannot see the relevance of such a charge. Surely apartheid, as we call understand it, is the deliberate political, social and economic subjugation of a larger community or group by a minority - in the interests of that minority - on the basis of colour. Can any such intention be seen in the merger proposals before this House? If it is mischievously contended by the Barisan Sosialis that the Federation Government is seeking to impose a Malay hegemony (the word "hegemony" was used, Mr Speaker, Sir) over the Chinese in Singapore through the merger proposals, then this is a complete distortion of the facts and of the truth. Are there not 3.1 million Malaysian and 2.3 million Chinese in the Federation and 0.2 million Malaysians and 1.2 million Chinese in Singapore? Do not these figures show a preponderance in favour of the Chinese? Where is the minority group which is trying to subjugate the majority group? And are not the Federation born Malays in Singapore in the third-class citizenship and the Federation-born Chinese in the first-class citizenship invented by the Barisan Sosialis? Do not the Chinese enjoy political rights both in the Federation and in the Singapore Legislatures, and is there any question of the Chinese being refused representation in the new Central Legislature? How then can the Barisan Sosialis read into these merger proposals an attempt on the part of the Federation Government to enforce a policy of apartheid in Singapore? Mr Speaker, Sir, we were also told that before we proceed with these merger proposals we should take note of the experience of the Irish in their struggle for independence. Sir, Ireland was annexed after bloody wars and merged in the territories of England, Wales and Scotland to constitute the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the early nineteenth century. These political arrangements were resisted by Irish nationalists. They are still resisted by Irish nationalists. After more bloody wars in the twenties of this century, Ulster was partitioned from the rest of Ireland and the Irish Free State was constituted. These are the historical facts. The partition of Ireland was effected against the will of all Irish nationalists. In the case of Singapore, it was the British who, in pursuance of their divide and rule policy, separated Singapore from the Federation and the genuine nationalists both in Singapore and the Federation are doing their utmost to reunite these territories. Is not the stand of the Barisan Sosialis that if automatic citizenship rights are not granted to all Singapore citizens, then there should be no merger and that Singapore should remain a fully self-governing State with control over internal security? In fact, Sir, their stand is that if merger is not effected on their terms, then they are quite content that Singapore should remain a British colony. Who are those who are trying to divide Singapore from the Federation? Are they not the Barisan Sosialis? Like the Irish nationalist who condemned the partition of Ireland, we shall not rest until we have put an end to the divide and rule policy of the British and have obtained the reunification of Singapore with the Federation mainland. The Barisan Sosialis have contended that it is a humiliating fact that all persons born in Singapore after merger comes into being, will not yet become Federal citizens by right of birth. What is there humiliating about this to the people of Singapore? Is not the converse also true that all persons born in the Federation after the two territories are integrated will not become citizens of Singapore by right of birth? If Singapore citizenship were granted to all Federal citizens after merger and Federal citizenship denied to all Singapore citizens, then such terms could be said to be humiliating to the people of Singapore. I have shown, Sir, in the earlier part of my address that if we pressed for automatic Federal citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens who are local-born on the same terms as those accorded to the local-born in Penang and Malacca, then our local citizens who have become citizens by residence would have been disenfranchised and this would have been a humiliating imposition. Would we have been justified in sacrificing the political rights of these citizens to gain the objective of a single citizenship for all persons born in the integrated territories after merger? Sir, we believe that complete merger will be totally unacceptable to the Federation Parliament, and they have said so. It is being pursued by those who have political ambitions for the purpose of enabling them to stand as candidates for election to the new Federal Parliament anywhere in the integrated territories. It is obvious, Sir, that any Party which insists on pursuing a claim for automatic Federation citizenship rights for all Singapore citizens, which the Federation Parliament cannot possibly accept without discriminating against its own local-born, does so for reasons which must be suspect. It is equally obvious that conditions for merger can be formulated and advanced by those who are genuinely seeking merger in the national interest as well as by those who are really anti-nationalist and who are deliberately seeking to frustrate merger because they are afraid of merger. No true nationalist will ever attempt to base his claim for merger on just two Articles of a constitutional instrument whilst turning a blind eye to the rest of the Articles of the Constitution. If he does so, then his intention is clearly not to advance the cause of merger but to oppose it. Other Articles of the Federation Constitution are just as important on the issue of merger as the Articles dealing with the acquisition of citizenship. For instance, those Articles of the Federation Constitution dealing with the distribution of legislative powers as between the Federal Government and the State Governments, must be looked at as well as the Articles and the Schedule dealing with the financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the State Governments. If the Ninth Schedule of the Federation Constitution dealing with the distribution of legislative powers between the Federal Government and the State Governments, and the Tenth Schedule dealing with the financial arrangements between the Federal Government and the State Governments are studied closely, it will be seen at a glance that complete merger on the basis of the Barisan Sosialis' proposals would work to the prejudice of Singapore. No nationalist or patriot would want to propose terms which he knows would be prejudicial to the interests of the peoples he wishes to serve. Could we in this House and the Government of Singapore discharge our responsibilities in a realistic manner to the people of Singapore, whether they are citizens or resident aliens, if the powers of this House are reduced to those of a State Assembly under the existing Federation constitutional arrangements, and if the executive and financial powers of the Singapore Government are placed within the narrow confines of the powers reserved for the State Governments in the Ninth and Tenth Schedules of the present Federation Constitution? It is for these reasons, Sir, that we have sought a partnership with the Federation rather than complete merger. The Barisan Sosialis have argued that we should have entered into negotiations with the Federation Government for complete merger on the basis of automatic Federation citizenship for all Singapore citizens, and should have pressed this demand uncompromisingly. It takes two to make any bargain and I cannot see how anyone can press a claim uncompromisingly in a genuine negotiation. We, Sir, have preferred to negotiate rather than make uncompromising demands. We know that in genuine negotiations no terms and conditions can be liberal and generous to both Singapore and the Federation, nor can they satisfy all parties on both sides of the Causeway. We, Sir, have preferred to strike the golden mean, and this golden mean finds expression in the White Paper setting out the heads of agreement for merger between the Federation and Singapore which the Prime Minister has asked this House to approve. In demanding complete merger, the Barisan Sosialis has stated in this House that it couples this demand with a further demand, that once automatic Federation citizenship rights are obtained for all Singapore citizens, then there can be no deprivation. In Article 25 of the Federation Constitution, there can be no deprivation of citizenship in respect of a person born in the Federation before, on or after Merdeka Day, but deprivation of citizenship is provided for in respect of those resident in the Federation on Merdeka Day who became citizens or those who become citizens by naturalisation if they show themselves by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards the Federation. Is it reasonable. Sir, for the Barisan Sosialis to claim that, assuming all Singapore citizens become Federal citizens on merger, those Singapore citizens who have acquired Singapore citizenship by residence or who have been naturalised should be specially protected from deprivation of citizenship when their counterparts in the Federation do not enjoy this protection? This proposition, Sir, is, to my mind, utterly absurd and clearly proves that those who press such claims, knowing them to be unreasonable, do so because they wish to frustrate merger rather than to advance the cause of merger. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis have also stated that the Federal nationality that Singapore citizens and Federation citizens will obtain after merger is spurious. There is nothing constitutionally irregular or spurious in political arrangements which provide for separate citizenship and for a common nationality. The concept of nationality connotes ideas of allegiance to a Head of State, whether it is a President or a King, and undivided loyalty to the country of one's birth or adoption. It is from this concept that political rights and responsibility stem, and in return for this allegiance and loyalty, the national is protected abroad by the sovereign authority of his State. This notion of a common nationality can provide the link between separate territories which are under different citizenship laws. This is the concept at the root of the idea of the British Commonwealth of Nations where territories with separate and distinct citizenship laws agree to acknowledge a common Head of State. Similarly in the separate territories of Malaysia, this idea of common nationality in a common allegiance to a single Head of State can bind these territories together in a single political unit and thereby enhance its prestige and influence in international affairs. Sir, I ask this House to reject the claim for complete merger as advanced by the Barisan Sosialis on the grounds that if these proposals are implemented, they will work to the prejudice of the people of Singapore, whether they are citizens by birth and residence or resident aliens. I would say that, as nationalists, we have prepared a businesslike and practical plan for merger with separate citizenship arrangements and a common nationality. We have not sold out any of the existing political rights of our citizens, but have taken the precaution of ensuring that our citizens will have their fair share of representation in the new legislature of the integrated territories. 6.20 p.m.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise today to oppose the amendment moved by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. I oppose it not with the object of supporting or strengthening the stand of the P.A.P. - because, in my opinion, the P.A.P. is no longer a force to be reckoned with and they will be finished in the next election - but we do so on the ground that it is of a political nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask: what is the stand of the Barisan Sosialis in connection with this question of merger? They want Singapore to be integrated with the Federation of Malaysia as the twelfth State with all Singapore citizens automatically becoming Federal citizens. The Member for Queenstown said that the proposals of the Tunku, in effect, would mean that Singapore citizens cannot stand as candidates for election in the Federation and that Singapore citizens residing in the Federation cannot vote, and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, have the Barisan Sosialis forgotten that if Singapore citizens cannot become voters or stand as candidates for election in the Federation, similarly Federal citizens cannot vote or stand as candidates for election in Singapore? Another charge made by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis on Monday was on the Tunku's proposal for a merger between Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. In this connection. I would like to emphasise that it is the proposal of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya and not the proposal of the P.A.P. The Member for Queenstown said that the Tunku's proposal would mean that the people of Singapore would be disenfranchised and sold out. To whom have they been sold out and who have been sold out? Is it the contention of the Barisan Sosialis that the people of Singapore have been sold out? Or do they mean that the 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis have been sold out? Do they mean that only the electorate of their 13 constituencies have been sold out? I know that we, on behalf of the Alliance and other representatives present in this House, also represent the people. We have our own supporters. But it is immaterial if I were to say that the charge made by the Member for Queenstown is correct that the people of Singapore have been sold out to the Federation. As a son of the soil, I agree to my family being sold to the Federation of Malaya instead of our being sold to the Communist Party or to a Communist government. Do the Barisan Sosialis realise the meaning of their amendment'? It means that the position of Singapore will be the same as that of Johore, Malacca or Selangor. Is this what the Barisan Sosialis want? I hope when the other Members of the Barisan Sosialis speak, they will clarify this point. Let us not deceive the people. Of course, at this very moment, there are many political organisations or political leaders preaching one thing but practising another. On the charge made by the Prime Minister against the Barisan Sosialis, that a statement of the Barisan Sosialis which appeared in a Malay newspaper was different from that which appeared in an English newspaper - and similarly, different versions were given in the Chinese newspapers - I would like to ask the Barisan Sosialis to clarify their position. I ask of them to do so because the Member for Queenstown in his speech condemned the Federation of Malaya on its educational policy, the internal security policy, and so on. According to them, all these policies of the Federation Government are wrong, inadequate, and not in accord with Socialist policies: the Government is oppressive and sending people to prison. Although they say that the policies of the Federation Government are bad, yet they seek complete merger. I am at a loss to understand this because I feel that even a mad man would not speak that way. Briefly, if we compare the desires of the Barisan Sosialis with the amendment to the motion moved by their leader, it contains poison. On the other hand, Mr Speaker, if the Tunku agreed at the beginning to a complete merger, I am sure the Barisan Sosialis would oppose that too. They would advance the reason that with complete merger, the special position of Singapore would be jeopardised, the education policy would not be guaranteed, and the labour position would be endangered. In my opinion, even if complete merger is offered, the Barisan Sosialis will reject it, or for that matter accept the merger as contained in the amendment. In his speech the Member for Queens-town commended the Tunku on his policy towards apartheid. This is good. I myself and my Party, the U.M.N.O. Alliance, and I am sure all right-thinking people, subscribe to the Tunku's policy on apartheid. But if the Member for Queenstown had stopped there, it would have been right However, he went further. He said that merger as proposed by the Tunku means that Singapore citizens will be discriminated by the Federation. It is my intention to speak at length on this matter, but a Minister from the Government has already dealt on this matter, and so it is not necessary for me to go further on it. But what grieves me, Mr Speaker, is that the Member for Queenstown has gone to some lengths to attack the Federation Government. The other point, Mr Speaker, is that the Barisan Sosialis have said that with the proposed merger, socialists like the Barisan Sosialis in Singapore are prepared to make sacrifices. Their leader also said that he supported complete merger because he knew that the position of internal security rests with the Federation of Malaya and, on behalf of the socialists, they would be prepared to sacrifice themselves. In his words, the socialists in the Federation today are experiencing hardship, which means that the Federation Government has put the socialists in gaol. I do not know, Mr Speaker, but what I do know is that those in the Federation who have sacrificed themselves are not the socialists. If that is the stand of the Federation of Malaya, then it follows that the counterparts of the Barisan Sosialis in the Federation, Mr Urn Kean Siew, Mr David, and other colleagues of another opposition Party, Mr Seenivasagam, will no doubt be sent to gaol. But they are free now. So this allegation, coming as it does from a responsible Member without any foundation, is to be regretted. Another point, Mr Speaker, is that the Member for Queenstown has been repeating "socialism". I do not know what is "socialism", and I would like to know whether his "socialism" is based on nationalism or Communism or communalism. I do not know what is his interpretation or definition of "socialism". Then when he used the word "socialism", he dragged in the Federation Government, saying that this Government is a Right-wing Government, which means that it is an irresponsible Government not discharging its responsibilities to the people of the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, it means that merger will mean that the Right-wing Government will neglect the citizens of Singapore. I can say this, Mr Speaker, I challenge the Barisan Sosialis. I can tell them that although today the Federation Government has been charged as a Right-wing Government, a feudalistic Government, just the same I can assure them unreservedly that although it is a Right-wing Government or a feudalistic Govern ment, yet the administration of the Federation of Malaya is based more on genuine socialism than the address made by the leader of the Barisan Sosialis both in Singapore and in the Federation of Malaya. If we compare the people of the Federation of Malaya to our neighbours, say, the people of Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, Laos, or even Indonesia, it is obviously clear that the people of the Federation are enjoying the fruits of independence more than the people of the other countries mentioned.

Hear, hear!

(In Malay): That is the true position. I am glad to hear the words "Hear, hear!" from the Back-bench. Also when the Member for Cairnhill, when attacking the Barisan Sosialis, asked them not to slur the Federation Government or condemn the Tunku, we also heard "Hear, hear!" from the Backbench - the Worker's Party. When his turn to speak comes, I hope he will not attack the Tunku. Mr Speaker, another charge made by the Barisan Sosialis is that the Tunku had been influenced by our Prime Minister who had struck terror into the heart of the Tunku, with the result that he was forced to agree to the proposed merger as contained in the motion today. I personally know the Tunku for a number of years and, to my mind, a thousand Prime Ministers like Mr Lee Kuan Yew cannot exercise influence over him. Similarly, a thousand Dr Lee Siew Chohs cannot influence him. Mr Speaker, what frightens the Tunku, me and my colleagues - and I do not know what the Government side feels - is that one day, on waking up, we might find that the Singapore harbour is filled not with English warships but with Communist warships. That is what we are afraid of. But it does not mean that I have any love for English warships; they have to leave our shores in the not too distant future. It is merely to emphasise my stand and the stand of U.M.N.O. and the Alliance. Another problem which I wish to deal with relates to my Indian and Chinese friends. Although we represent the Malay community, when we struggle for the fate of Singapore, it is our ardent desire to work in close co-operation with our Chinese and Indian brothers who owe undivided loyalty to the State. But unfortunately when my colleagues from U.M.N.O. and myself speak in this House we have been charged as representing a communal body and acting with irresponsibility. We have also been accused of harping on communal affairs. The reasons are that the speech of the Member for Queenstown on Monday, the arguments he put forward for 7½ hours (lasting two days) - some Members had no time for lunch - are all based on communalism. I would like to ask not only the Member for Queenstown but also all Members of the Barisan Sosialis these questions - whom does the Barisan Sosialis represent, and whom are they fighting for? Is the Barisan Sosialis fighting for the fate of the people of Singapore? For whose interests is the Barisan Sosialis fighting or struggling? I am sure we, who have heard the speech made by the Member for Queenstown and the facts enumerated by the Barisan Sosialis in the newspapers, must come to the conclusion that the Barisan Sosialis do not fight for the interests of the people of Singapore. We are not fools. We are not children. We are adults. We know how to play politics and we also know how to play cards. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I accuse the Barisan Sosialis of using communal sentiments to achieve their own aims. The problem confronting us. that is the amendment which seeks to make Federal citizenship automatic, and Singapore becoming the twelfth state, does not present a problem at all to the Barisan Sosialis. This is a manoeuvre on the part of the Barisan Sosialis. Who are really behind the Barisan Sosialis? Throw their cards on the table. My accusation is not counted because I have heard the speeches of the Government Ministers. I have my own means of finding out information. I accuse the Barisan Sosialis of using communal emotion and sentiment, not because they want to struggle for the interests of the people of Singapore but solely for their own interests. We in the Opposition, the Alliance, cannot take action. Only the Government can. This is the last weapon, Mr Speaker, employed by the Barisan Sosialis, the communal weapon. The struggle of the Barisan Sosialis can be equated to the struggle of the socialist Parties in the Federation of Malaya. I am duty bound to warn the Barisan Sosialis, who are fond of using these communal sentiments - this warning comes from U.M.N.O. and I am sure the great majority of the people of Singapore can warn the Barisan Sosialis - not to use the communal weapon, lest the weapon resorted to by the Barisan Sosialis will devour itself. If the Barisan Sosialis use these communal sentiments as an instrument, we from U.M.N.O. will be prepared to resort to communal tactics. Mr Speaker, we, as leaders, whether in political Parties or in Government, or leaders in a small village, if we want to he treated as leaders, we should keep our sense of proportion. We must give examples to the villagers or to the people whom we represent. If a leader or a Party does not know his or its responsibilities, and does not know where he or it is going, naturally the people whom he or it represents will be misled, though such leaders will be able to achieve their own ends. For the Barisan Sosialis, when discussing this problem, which is an important one, on merger between Singapore and the Federation, let them forget, that they are Malays or they are Indians, if they cannot forget that, then it means that we must be prepared for long axes or long parangs. 6.52 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first pay tribute to the Member for Queenstown for the tenacity and, may I add, pugnacity with which he plodded through a 7½ hours' speech some seven hours after it had really ended? This tribute should properly be extended to his ghost writers who, I thought, looked most disconcerted as he weaved and wavered his way through his maze of words. Since in this amendment we are dealing with the request that all Singapore citizens should automatically become Federal citizens, I shall confine my remarks to this aspect of his exhaustive discourse. It would be tedious for me to belabour all the points that the Member fur Queenstown made to support his contention that the citizenship proposals contained in the White Paper were a sell-out. The Member for Queenstown belaboured his points so mercilessly here yesterday and the day before that most of them have been reduced to mere pulp. Now the one point he belaboured was this: that if the Federal Legislature wanted to declare all Singapore citizens Federal citizens, it could do so by law. Sir,, never before was so much effort wasted by the ghost writers to make this obvious point. Nobody disputes that, the Federal Legislature, being a sovereign body, can pass any laws it likes. It can, in theory, enact legislation saying that the Member for Queenstown is dotty. For all I know, he may not he so in fact, but, in theory, he would he pronounced so. The Member for Queenstown need not have tied himself into knots trying to state the obvious point that the Federal Legislature has the power, in theory, to declare not only citizens of Singapore but, all non-citizens as well, Federal citizens. We, however, have to devise citizenship laws not in the abstract but in the light of hard political realities. The first point to bear in mind is whether the 11 other States now comprising the Federation are prepared to grant Federal citizenship to Singapore citizens on terms more favourable than they were prepared to grant to their own people. As we all know, lots of people became Singapore citizens under terms more liberal than those accorded to people in the Federation. What the Barisan Sosialis are asking for is privileged treatment for Singapore citizens. Originally the Barisan Sosialis leaders demanded merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca - I repeat, Sir, on the basis of Penang and Malacca. We correctly pointed out that the Barisan Sosialis' proposal would have meant that only about 284,000 out of the 624,000 Singapore citizens would automatically qualify for Federal citizenship under the present citizenship laws of the Federation. When the Barisan Sosialis discovered that they had made a blunder in demanding merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, they developed a new propaganda line. They said. "Why not get the Federation Parliament to accept all Singapore citizens as Federal citizens automatically?" There was no longer any reference to merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis leaders are really sincere when they say that what they are really worried about is the fate of about 624,000 Singapore citizens and that they are really bursting with enthusiasm for complete merger, then let them state quite categorically that in return for automatic Federal citizenship they are prepared to support actively the Federation's education policy, the Federation's labour policy and give complete control over Singapore's finances and trade to the Federation Government. It is my contention, Sir, that this demand for automatic Federal citizenship is merely a device to sabotage merger. All this simulation of enthusiasm for complete merger cannot conceal the fact that the Barisan Sosialis leaders - and I am referring to the Barisan Sosialis leaders who are not in this Chamber - are terrified of merger. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us recollect that the 13 Assemblymen broke away from the P.A.P. not over the question of complete merger as they term it now, but because they wanted the P.A.P. to fight for full internal self-government - An hon. Member: Shame!

- which is a contradiction and a negation of merger. That was the real genesis of the breakaway. Since then they have found new reasons. But let us remember that the 13 P.A.P. Assemblymen broke away from us on the question of full internal self-government and not on the question of complete merger or automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens. Also, the second reason was that they wanted internal security to be in the hands of the Singapore Government That was the reason for the 13 P.A.P. Assemblymen sitting on the other side. Now they have discovered new reasons If we bear this constantly in mind - that the break occurred not over the question of complete merger, but over the question of full internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government - then we shall understand the twists and turns of the Barisan Sosialis policy in recent months. However, Sir, that is a question we shall deal with when we come to discuss the main motion. This demand for complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship is therefore a relatively new line. The idea is to ask for conditions which would be unacceptable to the Federation so that there would be no merger of any kind. Then the Barisan Sosialis leaders can come forward and tell the people, "What a pity there cannot be merger. So, comrades, let us fight for the next best thing - for full internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government."

And the I.S.C. abolished!

And the I.S.C. abolished. If it is not automatic Federal citizenship, then the Barisan Sosialis would - even if automatic citizenship had been granted - have put forward some other condition which they knew would be unacceptable to the Federation, such as that the condition for merger should be, in addition to automatic Federal citizenship, say, the abolition of the Internal Security Council, or even, as a desperate measure, that the Member for Queenstown should be made the first Prime Minister of Malaysia. The Barisan Sosialis leaders are putting forward this demand for automatic Federal citizenship because they believe that not only would there be opposition to merger on this basis from the Federation, hut also from the people of Singapore. As I observed earlier, automatic Federal citizenship would not meet with the approval of the 11 other States which are partners to any agreement. They would not agree to this because that would put them in the position of having to grant more favourable terms than were granted to their own citizens. It would mean not equal treatment for Singapore but giving more favoured treatment to Singapore citizens. In addition to that, there would also be resistance on political grounds. Sir, in our party publications and speeches by P.A.P. leaders in the past, we have stated repeatedly that in any political calculation, either in Singapore or in the Federation, we must take note of the fact that there are communal fears and communal prejudices. Any solution, however fine and reasonable it might sound in theory, which leads the Malays to believe, however wrongly, that it is an attempt to bend them to the will of another community, is bound to fail; certainly to lead to disaster. Similarly, any measure which excites the communal fears of the Chinese or Indians is also doomed to failure. Sir, communal fears and suspicions may, in the final analysis, be based on prejudices and illusions, but unfortunately, they are there and it is the duty of any practical politician to take these unjustified fears, prejudices and superstitions into consideration. We have always stated - and this thesis has been accepted and endorsed publicly not only by the 13 Barisan Assemblymen opposite, but also by people like Mr Lim Ching Siong and others - that merger has been resisted by the Federation in the past because of the fear that Malays would be politically swamped by the Chinese of Singapore. This we have stated publicly. and we have endorsed ii as a piece of analysis. We ourselves do not believe that this is so, but we have always recognised that this is a political fact and that many Malays in Singapore and the Federation believe this. Therefore, Sir, to press for automatic citizenship, at the present juncture, would certainly meet with resistance from the Malays in the Federation. The Ban-san Sosialis leaders are not so innocent. They know that by asking at this juncture for automatic Federal citizenship, they would assist, say a communal Party like the P.M.I.P., to mobilise Malay opposition to merger. If our submission is correct - that what they are really interested in is to sabotage merger at all costs - then in pressing for this new demand for automatic Federal citizenship (of which we have never heard) it is now quite clear that in their recklessness and in their fear of merger, the Barisan Sosialis leaders are quite prepared to put forward proposals which they know full well would help to revive the fading political fortunes of a communist and racialist party in the Federation. After all, Sir, not so long ago the Fajar, some of whose activists have been aiding and abetting the Barisan Sosialis, claimed in one of the articles that the Alliance Government was more communal than the P.M.I.P. When desperate fireside revolutionaries can believe this sort of thing, then they are well past the borderline between sanity and insanity. In putting forward their proposals for automatic Federal citizenship, the Barisan Sosialis are hoping that communal parties like the P.M.I.P. can mobilise Malays into not only opposing merger, but perhaps opposing the Alliance as well, which probably give some credence to the claim by the Member for Queens-town that perhaps in the not so distant future, the Alliance Government would not be there. In order to attain their immediate objective of sabotaging merger, the Barisan Sosialis are therefore prepared to enhance the political prospects of a racialist party like the P.M.I.P., because they know that any demand like that would automatically arouse, first, the suspicions of the Malays (which we have always said so): that any demand which leads the Malays to fear that Singapore is going to swamp them politically would excite the latent communal prejudices which are always there, and which we must take into consideration. They know that. They also know that the P.M.I.P. has already said that merger in any form is unacceptable to them, so any demand by the Singapore Government that we should get automatic Federal citizenship for all the Singapore citizens would certainly bring into the arena the P.M.I.P. who can then mobilise the Malays who would, in any case, feel that this demand at this juncture is an attempt by Singapore to swamp them politically. So, Sir, while the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are prepared to shed crocodile tears over the sufferings of the people, they turn a blind eye to the fact that their demand for automatic Federal citizenship could strengthen the communal parties and would result in consequences which could only mean conflict and bloodshed between the various communities. Maybe not them but their leaders will say this is the price that has to be paid for revolution. But - An hon. Member: But what?

- the attack on the Federation Government by the Member for Queenstown, the threat that not only do they want a type of merger which they know would arouse the antagonism and suspicions of the Malays, but also the threat that their type of merger would result in the overthrow of the Federation Government, are designed to create suspicion and fear, on the part of the Federation Government into rejecting any type of merger. Supposing the Federation refuses to accept merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship, what then is the alternative? We come back to the alternative which is what they really want - an internally self-governing Singapore minus the Internal Security Council. Have they sup, plied any other solution? That is the inference they expect us to draw; that if we cannot have merger with automatic Federal citizenship, then, let us go back to what they really want - internal self-government minus the I.S.C. -

Under the British!

So let us not think that the Barisan Sosialis are really interested in what happens to the people here or in the Federation so long as they can generate opposition to merger. The Member for Queenstown is well aware that his condition for merger - automatic Federal citizenship - would be rejected by the Federation. One of the points he belaboured here yesterday and the day before yesterday was that he was prepared for the Singapore Government to press for automatic Federal citizenship. But he said, and I quote from yesterday's Straits Times, that automatic Federal citizenship "was only impractical if the Federation Government refused to agree on this. But that was entirely a different matter from being constitutionally impossible". So he knows that this demand will be unacceptable to the Federation Government. He believes that it will be unacceptable, and that is what he wants - any condition which would stop merger - so that he and his friends can go back to what they are really after: full internal self-government minus the Internal Security Council. Sir, they always go together, like ham and egg.

Are you the egg?

In other words, the Member for Queenstown knows full well that merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship would be rejected by the 11 other States comprising the Federation. That is precisely what the Barisan Sosialis want - the rejection of merger - so that after a sorry shaking of heads, the shedding of crocodile tears, they can pick up the original wan-cry which brought about the break with the P.A.P. - the cry of full internal self-government, with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government, and a British passport. This demand for automatic Federal citizenship is also calculated, as I said, Sir, to mobilise opposition to merger in Singapore as well - not only the Federation but Singapore too. You will have noticed that the Member for Queenstown did not - though he spoke for 7½ hours - elaborate on certain implications of complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens, it is true, Sir, that he waxed eloquent on the, willingness of Mr Lim Ching Siong to sacrifice himself - I cannot recollect, Sir, hut I do not think the Member for Queenstown included himself - by going to gaol to get automatic Federal citizenship for the people. Sir,I know of no law in the Federation which entitles a count to send Mr Lim Ching Siong or even the Member for Queenstown to gaol if there should be a reunification of the two territories. People get sent to gaol for all sorts of things, but not for bringing about a reunification of Singapore with the Federation.

We are fighting for other reasons.

That is not what the Member for Queenstown said. He said, for the edification of his vast public - which I understand numbers about 200 - that here was this great man willing to go to gaol to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation. This only proves my point that there are certain people who do not want merger because they feel that it will get them into trouble. The Member for Queenstown was putting forward our thesis in a slightly different way. In any case, he is convinced that there would be no merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship. Therefore, his promise of self-sacrifice on the part of Mr Lim Ching Siong and possibly himself is one which can be safely made. However. Sir, the people of Singapore are not interested in whether it is necessary for Mr Lim Ching Siong and the Member for Queenstown to make sacrifices in order to get merger. What the Member for Queenstown has avoided discussing are the sacrifices the people of Singapore would have to make in return for the kind of merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis: that is, merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship. He was singularly silent on this point. It is quite clean that the proposal of the Barisan Sosialis would mean the control and direction of education being in the hands of the Federation Government. I ask Members of the Barisan Sosialis - I am quite sure many of them will have a great deal to say, though not as much as the Member for Queenstown, for having exhausted their ammunition, the ghost writers will not be able to churn out another 7½ hours' speech - that when they do speak, I hope they will state categorically that they are willing to accept the Federation's education policy and all that it implies.

That is right. We have been waiting to hear that.

Let them state categorically here that they accept the Federation's education policy and all that it implies.

On a point of order. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that we the Barisan Sosialis are not easily intimidated. The fact that the Minister points his finger too often at Members of the Barisan Sosialis is, to say the least, provoking.

I have remarked in the past that I discourage gestures in the Assembly, and I did fear that they might be construed as being intimidatory or perhaps provocative. Perhaps the Minister could turn and point to the Chair. Mr Rajaratnam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall take great care not to intimidate Members opposite with my finger. If they are of the stuff of which revolutionaries are made, they should not be too easily intimidated, for after all it is a very, very small finger that I am pointing. Therefore, I shall not attempt to point a finger even at you, Mr Speaker, but at myself. There are 13 Members of the Barisan Sosialis. One of them has shot his bolt. There are 12 left. I suggest that when they do make a passionate declaration for a complete merger, they will say that they will accept the Federation's education policy in toto.

What is your attitude?

We do not. That is why we have asked for autonomy over education and labour. In addition to that, they must state categorically that they are prepared to accept the Federation's policy on labour, for that is what full merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship means. Let them state that. They must state categorically that they are prepared to accept the 4:1 ratio that now obtains in the Federation's civil service. They must also state that they are prepared to give the Federation complete control over our finances and trade. If the 12 other gentlemen - after due consultation with the people who really guide the destinies in the Barisan 'Star' - can give us these categorical assurances, then we will consider taking seriously their amendment for full merger -

Did you -

Order.

- on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. It is quite clear, Sir, that this business of complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens was really intended as a trap for the P.A.P., for if the P.A.P. Government was foolish enough to say, "Yes, we want to outbid the Barisan Sosialis," - we would not only want full merger but we would want full, full merger with automatic Federal citizenship - then the Barisan Sosialis leaders, having nothing to lose except their seats, would go around telling the people of Singapore that it would be terrible if they were to accept complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship and all that it implies. They would say. "Look, this merger means that we have to accept the Federation's education policies: the workers would have to accept the Federation's labour policies; the traders would have to accept complete financial and trade control by the Federation, and the civil servants in Singapore would have to accept the 4:1 ratio." An hon. Member: The Nanyang University.

And also the Nan-yang University. But now, Sir, they are left with that baby. They hope to get out of it by slurring over the implications of the merger that they propose - a merger which would really be a sell-out in the present situation. Or if by some chance the Federation Government should have accepted automatic merger with all that it implies, then the Barisan Sosialis had hoped to mobilise students, workers, traders, and civil servants to resist merger, for they could have gone around saying that the new merger proposals would mean the loss of control over education, Nanyang University, civil servants having to compete on the basis of 4:1. They would hold mass meetings or they would get somebody else to hold mass meetings at which they would say, "In view of the opposition of the people of Singapore to merger, it is with regret that the Barisan Sosialis has decided to heed the voice of the people - which we always do - and we will fight instead for full internal self-government with internal security in the hands of the Singapore Government." [Interruption] I am just quoting a phrase that is always repeated by Members of the Barisan Sosialis and certainly by their mentors [Interruption].

Order.

The proposal in our White Paper regarding citizenship took cognisance of the different interests and of the different developments in the two territories during the last 15 years. In theory, Sir, we approve of a single citizenship and a single nationality for all, but we have to work within the framework of hard realities. After all, no constitutional arrangement is final. Conditions change and political facts change. As practical men, we must devise solutions not in the abstract but in relation to hard political facts.

Without political facts, you are finished!

We believe that our proposals for citizenship and nationality have helped to resolve conflicting interests between the two territories without detriment to the legitimate interests of the people of Singapore as well as the people of the Federation. Sir, one of the points the Member for Queenstown belaboured until it was reduced to pulp was that under the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens would become second-class citizens. I listened to him not for all the 7½ hours (occasionally I got out for a hit of fresh air) but he could not give a single instance of how under our proposals a Singapore citizen was going to he a second-class citizen.

That was why no word was mentioned over the radio.

Order. I do not mind perhaps an occasional interjection. But when these interjections become perpetual or continuous, then I must stop them. Mr Rajaratnam.

Obviously the 7½ hours was not enough for the gentleman to unburden himself! In fact, it was significant that the Member could only give one instance to substantiate his claim that under the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens would become second-class citizens. He said, "It is terrible that Singapore citizens are going to become second-class citizens, because they could not either vote or stand for election in the Federation." That was his main theme right through. He took 7½ hours to say what can be said in exactly two seconds - that it is terrible because Singapore citizens cannot vote or stand for election in the Federation. That was his major point and that was what he described as a betrayal. May I ask, Sir, how many of Singapore's 624,000 citizens are yearning to go and stand for election in the Federation'?

Ask the P.A.P.!

How many of them would consider it imperative that they should contest elections in the States of the Federation? Sir, I can well understand the Member for Queenstown having to look for a new constituency in the Federation. It may be that the Member for Nee Soon, who I understand inaugurated the opening of his branch in front of a wide open field with almost an uninterrupted view - is losing a lot of sleep over the thought that perhaps the people in Kelantan or Trengganu must forego the pleasure of having him represent them in the Federal Parliament. For some Members in the Barisan Sosialis, it may be a legitimate source of exasperation that they cannot find new political pastures in the Federation. But, Sir, is it seriously suggested that, therefore, merger should be abandoned simply because Mr Lim Ching Siong and his Barisan Sosialis friends cannot stand for election in the Federation? But as far as the vast majority of the voters or citizens of Singapore are concerned, they are not interested in fighting for election in any of the eleven States in the Federation. In any case, the Member for Queenstown will not be deprived of an opportunity to be represented in the Federal Parliament. All he need do is to move from Queenstown to a new constituency in Singapore to contest for one of the 15 seats to which Singapore -

Kampong Glam!

Certainly Kampong Glam is a very fatal choice, for I think the Member will have to go back to his medical practice. All he need do is to move from Queenstown to a new constituency in Singapore to contest one of the 15 seats to which Singapore is entitled in the Federal Parliament. And may I make this point, Sir? It is true that a Singapore citizen, as a Singapore citizen, cannot vote or stand for election in any of the States in the Federation. But it is equally true that a Federation citizen cannot, as a Federation citizen, vote or stand for election in Singapore. If this makes a Singapore citizen a second-class citizen, then it makes a Federation citizen a second-class citizen in relation to Singapore. So if two people are second-class, they are of one class. The term "second-class" would have meaning only if a Federal citizen is treated more favourably than a Singapore citizen. For example, if a Federal citizen were allowed to vote in and contest an election in Singapore, and a Singapore citizen were denied reciprocal rights, then the contention of a second-class citizenship becomes valid. If, say, the leader of the P.P.P. came over and contested in Queenstown and the Member for Queenstown were denied the privilege of being able to go to Menglembu, then I would say that obviously the Member for Queenstown was being treated as perhaps not even a second-class citizen but a third-class citizen -as against Mr Seenivasagam of the P.P.P. But where there is reciprocity, then I say that is equality. So, in demanding automatic citizenship simply because a few perambulatory politicians - people who move around from one place to another, very often at night - cannot move to the Federation maybe to make a clean start - and the opposition to these White Paper proposals is purely on that basis - then, the melodramatic gestures of Mr Lim Ching Siong, the Member for Queenstown, and perhaps the Member for Nee Soon and others that they are prepared to sacrifice themselves so that the people of Singapore can all become automatically Federal citizens, is a lot of eyewash. What they are really interested in is promoting the sectional interests of a small group of perambulating, nomadic politicians who are hoping to seek better political fortunes in the Federation. Under our proposals, Sir, none of the existing Singapore citizens lose any of their rights. They can vote representatives into the Federal Parliament. As a matter of fact, we would be having the second largest number of seats among the States in the Federal Legislature. Any Singapore citizen can be elected to the Federal Parliament. Under our present citizenship arrangement, it is also possible for Singapore to retain control over such matters as labour and education. Therefore, Sir, all that the case put forward by the Member for Queenstown over a period of 7½ hours amounted to was this - that this is a terrible thing, this is a betrayal, because it will prevent a few nomadic politicians from becoming, possibly, the first Prime Minister of Malaysia. But the ordinary people, the 600,000-odd Singapore citizens, lose nothing and enjoy new and equal rights in the Federal Legislature and autonomy in matters which they consider vital to their lives and existence. So, whether Mr Lim Ching Siong or Mr Woodhull can stand for election in Tanjong Rambutan is not vital. The people's interests, welfare and dignity are vital. Sir, as I said earlier, in any agreement it is not a question of Singapore just saying, "Well, this is what we want." It is a question of Singapore persuading 11 other States. So any agreement must be mutual and must be satisfactory to all the 12 States, and the White Paper proposals are agreeable to the 11 States in the Federation. It is not helpful now to put forward suggestions which make certain in advance that merger will not come about. As I said. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis' proposals are all designed to wreck merger so that they can force the people into accepting their disastrous alternative - may I repeat the slogan, Sir? - full internal self-government with control over internal security. The leaders of the Barisan Sosialis are nut really interested in education or the interests of the workers or the rights of citizens. What they want is full internal self-government, so that the men who manipulate them can further the plans which they are not at the moment ready to endorse and espouse publicity. To do that, they must Stop merger at all costs. Let us remember that. Sir - they must stop merger at all cost Sir, even if the Federation Government were persuaded to grant the conditions put forward by the Barisan Sosialis, they would come out with some other conditions - "Oh, this is still not what we want. There is no equality." And, therefore, they might even ask, "Let there he equal representation of seats in the Federal Legislature between Singapore and the Federation. If there are 100 seats, let Singapore have 51 or 60 seats. Anything less than that is unequal treatment." They will bring up any excuse to stop merger. In this connection, it would be worth while finding out exactly (a) when did the Barisan Sosialis decide that the P.A.P.'s plan for merger was phoney and a sell-out? Exactly when did they decide that, because that is very important. And (b) when did the puppet masters who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis think up the new line of full merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for all existing Singapore citizens? The time factor is very important Sir, let me quote from a letter from Mr Lim Ching Siong - I always notice, when I mention this gentleman's name, that there is almost an awe-struck silence - which he wrote to the Straits Times on 24th June, 1961. We had heard a great deal about this colonial paper. I notice that the Member for Queenstown was quoting extensively from on1y one paper. Obviously this gentleman only reads one newspaper in this part of the world.

There is only one English newspaper!

Oh, there are two. And also Mr Lim Ching Siong occasionally writes for the Straits Tunes. Anyway, this is what he had to say in connection with - I think the title is-called, "The conditions for merger". He says: 'To begin with, let us not pretend that anyone is against merger. Malaya and Singapore are not two separate states. The present division is an act of the British Colonial Government and every genuine Malayan seeks. a union of these two territories.' Remember, Sir, this was written on 24th June, though on 2nd June the 6 trade unionists had already, without consulting the P.A.P. - Sir, I understand they consulted the U.K. Commissioner - decided to make a demand that we should fight for internal self-government, which is a complete negation of merger. But here he says, nobody is, really against merger and we should all support it. Then he goes on to say: 'Merger, we have hitherto come to understand, was a thing of the distant future. However, recent statements by leaders of the Federation hold out an earlier promise of the union of these two territories. Encouraging as it is, the question now arises: on what terms will this be effected? The right-wing Government in the Federation and a left-wing Government in Singapore apply certain conflicting policies.' This, Sir, is the operative sentence. 'This is recognised in the statement by Dr Toh, the P.A.P. Chairman, that whatever the constitutional position of the future, we must have control over labour and education. This is exactly our concern. We have stated that any constitutional arrangement must not mean a setback for the people in terms of freedom. and democracy.' Surely, no one can quarrel with this. So, Sir, on 24th June Mr Lim Ching Siong wrote to the Straits Times saying that though the P.A.P. had asked for merger on the basis of autonomy in labour and education, that was also the concern of Mr Lim Ching Siong. At that time, Mr Lim Ching Siong did not say that the P.A.P. proposals for merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour were a phoney or a sell-out.

Because we did not know the details!

He was saying that that was also his concern. So many of his runner-boys at that time did not denounce the P.A.P. merger proposals as a phoney, but were repeating the hymn that they had been trained to say: internal self-government, and the abolition of the Internal Security Council. Sir, their demand at that time, on 24th June, was internal self-government, and they blessed the P.A.P. in its struggle to get merger on the basis of autonomy in labour and education. Of course, in making their demand for full internal self-government, they did not then realise that they had made a major political blunder, though they were trained as poodles to echo dutifully their master's voice, saying that the P.A.P. was terrible because it was not prepared to fight for full internal self-government. Sir, why did Mr Lim and his performing poodles take an indulgent attitude, even an attitude of approval to wards the P.A.P. merger terms? The reason is simple. They thought the Federation would not consent to merger on the P.A.P.'s terms. After all, had not Mr Lim Ching Siong, Mr Wood-hull, Mr Puthucheary and Mr Fong Swee Suan had tea and double-cross buns in secret with members of the U.K. Commission? Had they not heard things directly from the lion's mouth? They thought that they had read the Indian signs correctly, though it would appear that the Indian signs were in Greek! At that time, that is, in June, Mr Lim and his friends thought that the P.A.P. merger proposals would not be accepted by the Federation. So, therefore, they felt, maybe on the basis of whatever clarification was made to the U.K. Commission, that they were safe enough in supporting the P.A.P. type of merger because that would never come about, and, therefore, what harm was there in supporting a line of action which was doomed; in which case they could go back to the original, the real and consistent demand: internal self-government. Then, Sir, you will notice that then we never heard a single word about full merger, automatic Federal citizenship. Then on 25th August, the Federation and the Singapore Governments issued a joint statement supporting merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour. The impossible and the improbable had happened! Mr Lim and his friends had once again miscalculated. They had read the Indian signs with a Greek dictionary! I can only guess what happened after that. There were possibly many nocturnal meetings and a lot of running around. What they thought would not happen had happened. So the old slogans had to be scrapped. The top tunes of the Barisan Sosialis singers which probably until then were "Merger is impossible" and "Internal self-government under British protection", had to be abandoned as tunes not in keeping with the times. So it became necessary for the Barisan Sosialis choir to strike up a new tune. The only problem was, what tune? Very often it was clear that they had been singing the wrong tune. Times have changed. The tunes have to be changed. So we can only gather, Sir, that for a period after 25th August the Barisan Sosialis were in a state that can only be described as befuddlement. They did not know what to do. That is best exemplified, Sir, in the "Declaration of meeting of convenors of the Barisan Sosialis" published on 3rd September, 1961. In fact, I am going to read it out, and I hope you will be listening to it very carefully, because -

Order. The Speaker will be listening to it very carefully. Perhaps the Minister would like to address his remarks to the Chair.

Sir, the first thing you will note is that you will not find a single reference to, a single chorus from the current popular hit - complete merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. Not a word of it here. But they declared in paragraph 5 what they termed as "Our stand on the constitutional future". That phrase gives the impression of gentlemen who have decided on what they want. They are standing firm. In fact, it is quite clear, Sir, that they were so uncertain of what was really going on, who was going to win the race, that on 3rd September, they decided that the best thing to do, in view of all sorts of funny things happening, was to bet on all horses, They stood for the following things: (a) for full and complete merger, with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca. This I have no doubt they thought was a very smart move against the P.A.P.'s proposals for merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour, which round about June they thought would never come about, and have now come about. They said, "Well, this is a counter-stroke. Let us ask for full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca." And thereby they felt that they could counter what they often described as the P.A.P.'s slander that they are not behind merger. In fact, it proved that they were not merely 100 per cent behind merger, but were 200 per cent behind merger. Quite clearly they wanted an immediate full and complete merger, with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca. On the other hand -

Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Toh.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye]. Adjourned accordingly at 8.00 o'clock p.m.

Wednesday, 22nd November, 1961 The following Question for Oral Answer stood on the Order Paper of 22nd November, 1961:- Fruit Machines

To ask the Minister for Finance how many permits were granted in respect of fruit machines in 1956 and in 1960, and the number of fruit machines which it is anticipated require replacement under the provisions of the Prohibition of Imports (Amusement Machines) (Amendment) Order, 1961." The Minister for Finance, not being present to answer the question, the following answer was supplied pursuant to Standing Order No. 20 (3):- "Thirty-six premits in 1956 and 45 in 1960 were granted in respect of fruit machines. It is anticipated that not more than 10 machines a year will require replacement."