Hansard, 1961-11-23

I have to inform Honourable Members that, under the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) respectively of Standing Order No. 93, I have appointed Mr A. P. Rajah to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Mr John Mammen to be Chairman of the Estimates Committee.

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", this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a merger of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya.".- (The Minister for Labour-Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim). 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, be left out." 2.33 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said yesterday that it would be relevant to the merger issue to find out (a) exactly when the Barisan Sosialis decided that the P.A.P. merger plan on the basis of autonomy in education and labour should be branded as phoney and a sell-out; and (b) when the puppet masters who manipulate the Barisan Sosialis decided on the new line of full merger on the basic of automatic Federal citizenship for Singapore citizens. If you recollect, Sir, I quoted a letter from Mr Lim Ching Siong, dated 24th June, in which he indicated that merger should not involve a setback for the people not only in terms of freedom and democracy but also as regards autonomy in labour and education. He did not then (i.e., 24th June) brand the P.A.P.'s demand for merger on the basis of autonomy in labour and education as phoney or a sell-out. As far as we can determine, Sir, the constitutional stand of the Barisan Sosialis leaders in June was internal self-government, not merger, because they then believed, presumably on the basis of consultation and clarification with the U.K. Commission, that the P.A.P. type of merger would not be acceptable to the Federation and that, therefore, the P.A.P. would have no choice but to fight for full internal self-government and the abolition of the I.S.C., which are the aims not only of the Barisan Sosialis, but as I shall show later, of the M.C.P. That was the constitutional stand of the Barisan Sosialis in June and July. However on 25th August, the Singapore and Federation Governments issued a joint statement agreeing to merger on the basis of autonomy in education and labour. The Barisan Sosialis prophets and Brains Trust discovered that they had miscalculated - and not for the first time either. They had miscalculated in taking an uncompromising stand on the basis of fighting for full internal self-government. What they believed improbable and impossible had happened. Therefore, as I have said, Sir, there was a state of befuddlement, which was exemplified, as I indicated yesterday, in the "Declaration of meeting of convenors of the Barisan Sosialis", dated 3rd September. Things had moved so fast that they were not quite sure what was happening. They knew there was a race on, but they did not know who were in the race or what the race was all about. Therefore, in the declaration under the heading, "Our stand on the constitutional future", they decided that the safest thing under the circumstances was to back as many horses as possible. So, Sir, under the heading, "Our stand on the constitutional future" they declared that the way ahead, therefore, for a real reunification of our people and of our country is in one of two directions: (a) immediate full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State, like Penang or Malacca; (b) as an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible." Sir, in June the Barisan Sosialis was not yet formed, but it was already a twinkle in the eyes of its parents. In June, Sir, it was internal self-government minus the I.S.C. - a negation of merger. But after it became obvious that merger on the basis of autonomy in labour and education was possible, the gentlemen of the Barisan Sosialis did a triple somersault and fell fiat on their faces. Sir, if they had stopped short of what they suggested was one of two courses - immediate, full and complete merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State like Penang and Malacca: or (it does not matter what it is) an autonomous unit within a confederation with the Borneo territories coming in when possible - then we, however much we might have disagreed with the Barisan Sosialis, would never have called into question whether they are for or against merger. We would have said that at least, however badly they miscalculated when they left the P.A.P., they did not miscalculate the trend of political events in Singapore. But, Sir, immediately after all these professions of enthusiasm for merger and confederation, they go on, in the last paragraph entitled "Conclusion", - after a long rigmarole, we are now presented with the "Conclusion". Having said that there are two courses for Singapore - complete merger, or confederation, they conclude - nothing. I think this is a classic example of how the thinking of the leaders of the Barisan Sosialis differs from ordinary mortals. Having said that there are two courses open - complete merger or confederation, they conclude, and I will read, Sir: "The immediate task, therefore, is to acquire the right of self-determination and achieve full internal self-government." That is the conclusion. The logic is this. The way ahead is in one of two directions - complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, or confederation. Therefore, we conclude that the Barisan Sosialis should fight for internal self-government. Full merger is good; confederation is good; therefore, let us fight not for merger or confederation, but for internal self-government and the abolition of the I.S.C. This, perhaps the Members of the Barisan Sosialis would claim, is the logic higher dialectical materialism, a classic example of progress - Dr Sheng Nam Chim (Nee Soon) rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, Sir. I think the Minister for Culture is deliberately misquoting the document. My contention is that in that document we stated that there are three courses.

Order. If there is any quotation of a document out of context, then all the hon. Member need say is that there is a quotation out of context and indicate how it is out of context. The Minister will then be asked to read the whole paragraph or any other paragraph indicated by the Member. He is now entering into a debate which, of course, he will have the opportunity to do when he speaks.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister's contention is that the first is good, the second is good, but let us fight for the third. That is a misrepresentation of that Conclusion.

Order. Is the Member alleging that the quotations are out of context and so have a different meaning? If he alleges that, then will he indicate which paragraphs he requires the Minister to read? The Member is now entering into a debate.

I will just ask the Minister for Culture to read the whole of the last paragraph.

The whole of the last paragraph, Mr Minister.

Sir, the last paragraph reads "Forward with Barisan Sosialis - Merdeka!" [Interruption].

Order. Will the Minister please let me have the document? Copy of document handed in.

The Member for Nee Soon means the whole of that part of the document under the heading "6. Conclusion".

Under 5. When I was quoting I was doing so without the pamphlet, but from memory only.

That is much too long an extract. If the Minister would read the whole of the "Conclusion", I think that would probably sum up the whole of the conclusion, including "Forward with Barisan Sosialis -Merdeka!". Copy of document handed hack to the Minister for Culture.

I think the Member for Nee Soon will have the opportunity later on of contradicting what the Minister has said. Mr Minister.

The "Conclusion" reads: 'The immediate task, therefore, is to acquire the right of self-determination and achieve full internal self-government. To achieve this, we must strive for the unity of our people. As a Left-Wing political Party, we must join hands with all genuine Left-Wing forces. Only this way can we satisfy the legitimate expectations of the people. Forward with the Barisan Sosialis - Merdeka!' An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Order.

Sir, as far as I can gather - and as any reasonable man can gather - the logic is that there is one of two ways: merger or confederation, and that therefore the immediate task is to fight for something which is opposite of the two, and that is full internal self-government. This is very much like the young and nervous lawyer who concluded his speech to the jury with the words, "Gentlemen, these then are the conclusions on which I base my facts." The Member for Queenstown took 7½ hours to tell us the conclusions on which he based his facts. We discovered that when he concluded his speech on Tuesday. After saying that he was for merger and that he was prepared to sacrificed not only Mr Lim Ching Siong but possibly also the 12 or 13 other anxious Members in this Assembly in the cause of merger, he said. "But if all this fails, let us fight for full internal self-government minus the Internal Security Council." So far as we can determine. on 3rd September, the stands of the Barisan Sosialis on the constitutional future were complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca, confederation, and full internal self-government minus the I.S.C. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, they were here, there and everywhere. They were animal, vegetable and mineral. They were atheists, monotheists and pantheists. They could not possibly go wrong - so they thought. The ways of mice and men! On 21st September, one of their stands collapsed. It had to be abandoned. This was their stand on full and complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca. The tragedy - if I may so call it - occurred in the course of a radio forum in which the Member for Queenstown participated - together with the Member for Farrer Park and. I believe, the Member for Hong Lim - prompted. I have no doubt, more by valour than discretion. There he discovered to his horror that merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca would have meant that only about half of Singapore's citizens would automatically qualify for Federal citizenship. Since then, I understand that the Member for Queenstown has developed a kind of phobia about radio forums. Perhaps it is not the Member for Queenstown so much as his colleagues who sweat at the thought of having to let him loose at radio forums. Sir, after this disastrous radio encounter, the demand for full and complete merger on the basis of Penang and Malacca - I repeat on the basis of Penang and Malacca - was quietly dropped but was heard all around. Everybody knew. Just as the late Mr Stalin was disinterred and buried outside the grounds of the Kremlin, so did this Party pillar vanish from the hymn book of the Barisan Sosialis. Since then, the Barisan Sosialis choir has rearranged the merger music. We hear, Sir, more and more about something called Article 22 and, of course, automatic Federal citizenship. We had a rendering of this new choral arrangement from the robust throat of the Member for Queenstown for the best part of 7½ hours. So today the new tune, the new line is automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. As I explained yesterday, Sir, this demand for automatic Federal citizenship is being put forward not with a view to enhancing the prospects for merger, but to make sure that merger does not come about, so that we would be forced to adopt the true and only objective of the real leaders of the Barisan Sosialis - a self-governing Singapore minus the I.S.C. Sir, if the Barisan Sosialis leaders are genuinely determined to achieve merger, then let them repudiate, without any qualification, their objective of internal self-government for Singapore, because internal self-government is a complete negation of the objective of merger. If they are really for merger, if they claim that they are interested in the reunification of the two territories, and if they claim that they are in the mainstream of Malayan nationalism, then let them say that internal self-government is not their objective under any circumstances. If they are prepared to do that, then on this side of the House, many people, many Malayan nationalists will not taunt them by saying that they are not sincere when they ask for merger. In other words, the Barisan Sosialis should really stick to section 5 of the declaration that the way ahead for a real reunification of our people and territories is in one of two directions-full merger with Singapore joining the Federation as a constituent State or a Confederation. Let them put forward two choices both of which would lead to merger, but not three. Therefore, I propose that the three points the Barisan Sosialis should consider are - merger as outlined in the White Paper proposals; merger as put forward by them on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship; and repudiation of full internal self-government with the T.S.C. abolished. Then the choice will be not between merger and no merger, but between different kinds of merger. That is the true choice. That is the choice of anyone who claims to be a Malayan nationalist and who claims to be interested in the reunification of the two territories. Scrap this constant demand which boils down to this: let us have full internal self-government minus the I.S.C. In fact, that is a choice which every Socialist and nationalist repudiates as unbecoming. dangerous and anti-nationalistic. Let us therefore put forward the two choices to the people for their consideration: merger as outlined in the White Paper -

Phoney merger!

- or merger as demanded by the Barisan Sosialis with automatic Federal citizenship for all. If that is the choice - we for our own part believe that our proposals will be acceptable to the Federation and to the people of Singapore - if the Barisan Sosialis believe, as they say, that it is a phoney merger, well and good. [Interruption]

Order.

Let them put forward their proposal of merger on the basis of automatic Federal citizenship with no rider, that "If we cannot get merger, then let us go back to full internal self-government." Everytime they say that, they are giving the game away. As I said yesterday, Sir, there is nothing wrong in principle in the Barisan Sosialis asking for automatic Federal citizenship, or for more seats in the Federal Legislature, or for any other conditions which they think are favourable and acceptable to the people of Singapore, provided these demands are not made on the assumption that if these are not acceded to, then merger should be scrapped and we should revert to the demand for full internal self-government minus the I.S.C. By all means let the Barisan Sosialis ask for better terms for Singapore than are contained in the White Paper, for we admit that the proposals in the White Paper are the result of a lot of give and take between Singapore and II other States. The Barisan Sosialis - An hon. Member: Secret deal!

Sir, talking about secret deals, we say publicly without any fear what we think. But lots of gentlemen on the other side vanish round about tea time or dinner time; lots of gentlemen go into a huddle. They even have to appoint I believe what is known as "Keeper of the Privy Script". One gentleman speaks and the other gentleman keeps on feeding him with scripts. I am using the word "privy". Sir, in a parliamentary sense. Sir, by all means let the Barisan Sosialis ask for conditions which they think would be more favourable. As I said, Sir, we concede that the White Paper proposals are the result of a lot of give and take between Singapore and 11 other States which constitute the Federation. And no doubt the Barisan Sosialis may feel that we should have given less and taken more, just as no doubt the Federation feel that they should have taken more and given less. But what we will resist, and all Malayan nationalists must resist, is the proposition that if we cannot get merger on the terms demanded by the Barisan Sosialis, then we will fight for full internal self-government minus the I.S.C.

You don't like freedom, huh!

Order. Interjections are all very well if they are short and not too frequent. But the interjections coming from the Opposition Benches, the Barisan Sosialis section, are becoming too frequent.

In other words, Sir, there is a world of difference between putting forward demands with a view to getting the best possible terms for Singapore, and putting forward demands with a view to sabotaging merger and presenting us with the disastrous alternative of a self-governing Singapore. Sir, to judge by the speech made by the Member for Queenstown on Tuesday, the Barisan Sosialis appear to he determined that Singapore should not take the course of merger but the course o complete internal self-government. For example, Sir, it was reported in the Straits Times of 22nd November, 1961, that the Member for Queenstown after a long and passionate plea for merger and after shedding a lot of tears about how the two peoples are separated and how our blood brothers in the Federation have been inhumanly kept apart h3 the British colonialists - we shall come to the Barisan colonialists later, but, anyway, for the time being British colonialists - said [22nd November]: '"We must therefore reject the merger proposals. But it' it is possible for Singapore to form a confederation of Malaysia as an autonomous unit, then we shall welcome this advance... If none of these ways are open to us..."' and I can assure you, Sir, that lots of gentlemen are working overtime to see that none of these ways are available - '"...then we should, in the discharge of our constitutional obligations, go to London in 1963 when the demand should he for complete internal self-government."'. So, Sir, there we have it. After 7½ hours of oration and consultation, the Barisan Sosialis have reached the pre-determined conclusions on which it based its arguments - that if we cannot get merger, then let us reject the White Paper proposals; let us reject the P.A.P. proposals for merger and bet us go back to internal self-government minus the I.S.C. Sir, the Member for Queenstown spent practically all his 7½ hours telling how terrible things would be for Singaporeans. Singaporeans, he said, would be second-class citizens. There would be apartheid. Singaporeans would be treated like social outcastes, not fit and not allowed to mix with our brothers in the Federation. Singaporeans, he said, would he treated like illegitimate citizens. Singaporeans would be treated as though they were suffering from some infectious disease. And all these, Sir, come from people who believe in merger! They were saying that merger is a wonderful thing, but if a P.A.P. type of merger comes about, then there would be apartheid, and Singaporeans would be treated like social outcastes, not fit to mix with their brothers in the Federation, and treated like somebody suffering from an infectious disease. This is the propaganda of men who want to sell the idea of merger. We know, Sir, that it is just the opposite, and that this fits in with our thesis - that they dread and are terrified of merger; not them but their mentors are terrified of merger. It is like those matchmakers who go around and, if they do not want someone to marry someone else, they say. "Yes, we are not in a position to get a very good girl. You know she has false teeth, a glass eye and she is wearing a wig!" They say. "Terrible, you know, but it is a very good thing. Singaporeans would be treated like outcastes. You would be treated like somebody who has got an infectious disease. Out with merger! Forward with the Barisan!"

That is your phoney merger.

Sir, I have read and re-read what was published in the Straits Times, but I have not been able to acquire a full, voluminous version of his script obviously composed by many hands. All I could gather was that he spent 7½ hours telling us that Singaporeans would be treated like social out-castes, illegitimate citizens, people with an infectious disease. But he did not produce one iota of fact or evidence to substantiate in what way under the White Paper proposals would Singaporeans be treated as outcastes, as people ridden with disease, as illegitimate children, and so on. He did not produce one single - Dr Lee Siew Choh rose -

On a point of order?

Clarification, Sir.

If the Minister will give way.

Yes, Sir, I am always willing to be clarified.

May I ask the Minister if that is the reason why no mention was ever made of citizenship over Radio Singapore?

Does the Minister understand that for clarification?

No. Sir, there is no reason to clarify that, because I do not know whether he had tried to compress into 10 or 15 minutes, something which took even him 7½ hours to recite in this Assembly. If certain things were left out, perhaps we have been merciful to the Member for Queenstown. Sir, he did not produce a single argument. In what way are we "outcastes"? Is there anything in the White Paper proposals to suggest that we are going to be treated as illegitimate children? When merger comes, if the Member for Queenstown should go to the Federation, is it likely that his status would be questioned? Would they ask him, "Legitimate or illegitimate?" Sir, he did not produce a single bit of evidence to justify his claim that merger under the White Paper proposals presented us with this terrifying aspect. But the only argument was that under the White Paper proposals, Singapore citizens cannot vote or stand for election in the Federation. Therefore. Singaporeans are illegitimate. That is the argument, Sir - the Member for Queenstown cannot stand for election in the Federation and it follows logically that Singaporeans are illegitimate: Singaporeans are disease-ridden. Anyway, Sir, if the fact that Singapore citizens cannot stand for election in the Federation makes Singapore citizens outcastes, make them second-class citizens, then on the same argument, Federation citizens also are outcastes, and second-class citizens. Therefore, what are the grounds that the Barisan Sosialis have for saying that the White Paper proposals discriminate against the people of Singapore? Sir, let me at this juncture remind Members of the Barisan Sosialis that this battle-cry of second-class citizens was also raised by certain people in the Federation when the Federation was struggling for independence. The same cry was raised. "Let us resist this new Constitution granting independence to the Federation because lots of people are going to be second-class citizens." And since the Members of the Barisan Sosialis claim to be on the side of history, to live with history, to sleep with history, they would do well to ponder over the fact that all the hue and cry over second-class citizens failed to halt the advent of Merdeka in the Federation. Today not even the P.P.P. leaders find it profitable to revive the question of second-class citizenship, simply because there was very little to this cry. So the Barisan Sosialis, who are never original (you can see. Sir, that they even have the same colours as the Party that they left; in fact, they have a circle for their symbol but they have not quite dared to complete it, so they put a star in) are merely repeating the tactics (well, there is no harm in repeating tactics) which were unsuccessfully tried in the Federation in the hope of halting independence. Today the Barisan Sosialis are also committed to halting independence through merger for Singapore. So like the gentlemen who failed in the Federation, they too are raising a hue and cry about second-class citizenship. Sir, in the course of his speech on Tuesday, the Member for Queenstown tried to create fears and doubts about merger in the minds of civil servants, contractors, students, businessmen and bus companies. This he did, not by saying in what way these categories of people would suffer under the citizenship proposals contained in the White Paper, but by simply asking a number of questions and hoping to leave behind the impression that all these people would suffer under the White Paper merger proposals. For example, in the speech he said: 'Would not this segregation and isolation of the people of Singapore from the people of the Federation lead to a further widening of differences that existed? He did not say that it would. But he asked the question. He did not reply. He did not say, "Yes, that would be so." Then he asked, 'What would the civil servants gain with merger?' Again a question. No reply. 'Would they get more opportunities for promotion in a wider service under the same terms existing, or under better terms?' Again a question. No answer. 'Would bus companies be allowed to operate freely on new routes in the Federation?' Question - no answer. 'Would they be treated equally with others?' Question - no answer. 'Would contractors get the same opportunities for business in the Federation as in Singapore?' Question - no answer. And he went on in a similar vein dragging in workers, businessmen, Nanyang University students. Now, Sir, since he has asked questions -

Answer them!

Order.

May I ask the Barisan Sosialis what would be the prospects for all these people if Singapore accepted the Barisan Sosialis' objective of full internal self-government for Singapore? Would it obviate segregation and isolation of the people of Singapore from the people of the Federation? Would civil servants be able to get more opportunities for promotion in Federal civil service if we had internal self-government? Would bus companies he allowed to operate a new route in the Federation if we got an internally self-governing Singapore? Would contractors get opportunities in the Federation if we have full internal self-government for Singapore? Sir, it is quite clear what the whole purpose of that long series of unanswered questions is. Let me say this - the Member for Havelock asked. "Would you please answer?" All right. Let me answer. If we have full internal self-government as demanded by the Barisan Sosialis (and that actually is the real objective of the Barisan Sosialis), the prospects are open for bitter economic rivalry between the two territories. Singapore businessmen, Singapore civil servants, and contractors would not be able to survive economically in Singapore, let alone in the Federation. That is the logical outcome of the Barisan Sosialis' rhetorical questions - what will happen to this? What will happen to that? But we know what will happen to the Barisan Sosialis if there is full merger. That is the question to which they themselves do not know the answer. Sir, in any case, let me point out that at the present moment Singapore businessmen can and do do business in the Federation. So do Singapore contractors. In so far as there is preference for Federal citizens in the matter of Government jobs or contracts, may I point out that in Singapore too there is priority for Singapore citizens in the matter of certain types of Government jobs? In any case, Sir, under the Barisan Sosialis' type of complete merger, I can provide the answers to the questions that the Member for Queenstown asked. Singapore's civil servants definitely will suffer - An hon. Member: No!

- because they will have to accept the 4: 1 ratio that now obtains in the Federation. An hon. Member: Nonsense!

So too under the Barisan Sosialis type of merger they must accept the policy of preferential treatment for Malays in certain economic fields. What the Member for Queenstown has really done without wanting to, is to support the White Paper proposals under which some of the Federation's policies in regard to admission into the civil service and the granting of contracts would not apply in Singapore when it becomes a part of the Federation. Sir, when all is said and done, is the Member for Queens town seriously suggesting that full internal self-government would wipe out different classes of citizenship and prevent the widening of differences between the two territories? The Member for Anson occasionally whispers, which somewhat drifts across to this side of the floor. He said, "Yes." And I am certainly very glad to hear how the establishment of an internally self-governing Singapore - if he will listen to my argument. perhaps he will reconsider his interjection. We contend that to fight for internal self-government is but the thin end of the wedge - Mr David Marshall rose -

Point of order?

Point of clarification, if the Minister would permit. Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

I am much obliged to the Minister. I understood him, Sir, to ask the rhetorical question, would a complete merger prevent the growing differentiation between Singapore and the Federation? He said "would a complete merger", not "would a Singapore with internal security". That is what I suggest too.

Sir, perhaps I was not myself. It was a slip of the tongue. What I meant was, would an internally self-governing Singapore help to bridge the widening rift between the two territories?

The answer is "Yes"?

No, Sir, it would not.

I am glad, Sir, that this minor difference has been resolved happily.

Point of order. Sir

Point of order?

I thought we were discussing merger, not internal self-government.

Order. I think the point of order is not well taken, because we are now talking about merger as against genuine merger, and what is really behind the amendment. I think all Members have spoken in that strain. I have, I admit, tried to draw a line somewhere, although the line is very difficult to draw sometimes. Mr Minister.

Mr Speaker, I can quite well understand the anxiety of the Member for Queenstown. Sir, another criticism of the White Paper proposals is that its citizenship provisions deny Singapore politicians the opportunity of shaping the course of national politics. There is this obsession on the part of the Member for Queenstown and his Barisan Sosialis colleagues then .somehow they are men of destiny by the men whom the regard as God, to lead the people of the Federation into the Promised Land. Somehow they feel that they are the saviours. This is an obsession, I think, which is well worth studying by students of psychology. In fact, the Member for Queenstown harped a great deal on this aspect of the matter: that somehow Singapore politicians must save the natives in the Federation; that without their guidance, their benevolent influence, the people of the Federation are doomed to relapse into the dark ages. He harped on it for so long that I got the distinct impression - and I only meant that it was only an impression - that there were a lot of 10-carat Messiahs dissatisfied with having to operate within the confines of the Singapore parish. Sir, we of the P.A.P. are sometimes accommodating and we have been considerate enough in the White Paper proposals to provide opportunities for Messiahs whose egos are too big to find expression within the confines of a small island. Under our proposals. Singapore politicians can help to shape national politics and policies through the 15 seats allotted to us in the Federal Legislature. However, may I remind the Barisan Sosialis Messiahs, the men of destiny, that there are Messiahs too in the Federation who may not feel well disposed towards Singapore Messiahs with the propensity for a seven-hour sermon. An hon. Member: Seven and a half!

In any case, Sir, the attempt by the Barisan Sosialis to prove t1lat Singapore is not getting a chance to shape national politics, because it has 15 instead of 25 or 30 seats in the Federal Legislature, is again based on a fallacy. Policies in the Federal Parliament, or for that matter any Parliament, are 1101 decided on a territorial line-up. It is not a question of 15 Singapore representatives ganging up against Penang and Pahang representatives on any issue. Voting on any issue will be on the basis of concord between groups and individuals in the legislature. The 15 representatives from Singapore, (and I have no need to remind you of that, Sir,) will not he more solid on any issue than the delegates from other States. For example. Sir, if we were debating this merger issue in the Federal Legislature with representatives from Singapore, the chances are that the Barisan Sosialis representatives, ii there were any, would line up with the P.M.I.P. and the P.P.P. in rejecting merger - An hon. Member: Nonsense!

A clear case of different minds thinking alike. So the shaping of national policies is not primarily dependent on how many seats Singapore has, or Penang has, or Kedah has. National issues are, in the final analysis, decided by the Federal Legislature as a whole. If there are like-minded people in the Federation, then the Barisan Sosialis can line up with their counterparts in the Federation on any issue. It is not necessary, say, for the Member for Thomson to stand for election in Ipoh to espouse the anti-merger cause. I am sure there will be individuals in lpoh who think along lines that the Member for Thomson thinks. The only difficulty, Sir, I admit, is to get him elected.

Get whom elected?

After all, Sir, the Member for Thomson was elected on the P.A.P. ticket, and though we are told that the people are behind the Barisan Sosialis not one of the former P.A.P. members has dared to put this unproved theory to the test yet. As far as I can see, Sir, the Barisan Sosialis' constitutional stand is that if we cannot get merger on their terms, then we should go back to the original proposition of fighting for internal self-government. Let us accept this proposition for the sake of argument and find out exactly what would be the result of all this. Sir, the Barisan Sosialis reject the White Paper proposals because they confer on Singaporeans a Singapore citizenship and a Federal nationality. These, they say, are extremely humiliating. It reduces Singaporeans to lepers, to outcaste. This is the status of inferiority. That is their contention. All right. What would be the status of Singaporeans under full internal self-government? They would still be Singapore citizens. But instead of being Federal nationals, they would be British nationals -

British subjects.

- or British subjects. So here we have the great anti-colonialists of the Barisan Sosialis put in a position of saying that they would rather Singapore citizens be British nationals than Federation nationals. They would rather be subjects of an alien colonial power than nationals of an independent Federation. That is the position to which the logic of internal self-government reduces the great anti-colonialists. They are ashamed and feel like social outcastes, because, "There you are, we will be Singapore citizens with a Federation nationality." Therefore, as great anti-colonialists, mind you, they are going to fight for the status of a Singapore citizen carrying a British passport and saying, "I am a British subject." That, Sir, is the irrefutable humiliating logic to which the great anti-colonialists of the Barisan Sosialis are reduced. Again, under our proposals, foreign affairs and defence would be in the hands of the Federal Parliament in which we would have representation and, therefore, would play some part in shaping defence and foreign policy. But the great anti-colonialists of the Barisan Sosialis would rather fight for internal self-government so that foreign affairs and defence can be in British hands in the shaping of which they will have no say. We of the P.A.P. have not quite heard the Member for Havelock say that we are playing the British game. Here, Sir, you have the logic of full internal self-government. In rejecting merger and posing self-government as the alternative, the great anti-colonialists of the Barisan Sosialis find themselves in the ludicrous and humiliating position of having to admit publicly - that is, not yet but soon they will have to - that they would rather be British nationals than Federation nationals; that they would rather have British control over our foreign affairs and defence than that of the Federation, their blood brothers, their kith and kin, for whom they feel such great concern. Here then is the logic of internal self-government. Sir, you can imagine the laughter that would resound in anti-colonial Asia and Africa when they learn that in Singapore we have great anti-colonialists who prefer British nationality to Federation nationality, who are fighting to ensure that the control of foreign policy and defence remains in British hands rather than be transferred to the Federal Parliament in which Singaporeans would be represented - Mr S. T. Bani (Thomson) rose -

Is it a point of order?

Yes. I was just wondering where the Minister for Culture got that bit that he ended up with, by saying that we would rather prefer -

That is obviously not a point of order. It is an argument.

No, Sir, it is a point of order.

If it is a point order, please come to it.

I would rather the Minister quote the portions that he is referring to, because the way he is going about it, he gives a distorted picture of the views expressed by the Member for Queenstown.

Surely it is an argument. I do not know whether the Minister is quoting from a hook or a newspaper. My impression is that he is making a speech out of notes of his own. Mr Minister?

Sir, these are inferences which I draw from the logic of what would happen if we followed the policy of internal self-government. Let me say here that there will be a time when the gentlemen concerned would be forced as anti-colonialists to say publicly - and I shall be glad to wait for that day - "We will be British nationals or work towards a situation where we will continue to be British nationals rather than Federation nationals." That day will come, Sir, as many things have come to pass which the Members of the Barisan Sosialis did not expect. Anyway, I am just trying to save the few anti-colonialists who are still left in the Barisan Sosialis. To follow the policy they advocate of full internal self-government, the logic of events must inevitably lead them - as it has already led them, as their speeches have indicated; the Member for Queenstown spent a great deal of time yesterday and the day before saying that we were going to be social outcastes and lepers - to Singapore citizenship with British nationality; that Singapore citizens prefer that defence and foreign affairs should be run by the British without Singapore citizens having a say in determining foreign policy and defence. But under our proposals which they regard as phoney and which they say are terrible, at least we become Federal nationals, the same as our brothers in the Federation. We have a say in determining defence and foreign policy. Sir, that then is the position to which they must inevitably drift. They will have to put themselves in the humiliating position of appearing, in the eyes of anti-colonial Asia and Africa, to fight for a situation where they will have to ensure that they would rather that the people of Singapore continue to the British subjects and Singapore citizens, than be Singapore citizens, and Federation nationals. I can imagine, Sir, Lumumba, Lenin, Marx and Stalin turning in disgust in their graves.

Stalin has got no grave now!

Sir, the Barisan Sosialis leaders are in this humiliating predicament of having to get cover behind the British, just as it became necessary for them, at a critical phase in recent months, to run to the U.K. Commission for consultation and clarification - An hon. Member: We never go there!

Simply because they are holding on to an untenable and illogical position in resisting merger. To put it more bluntly, Sir, the real and only objective of the M.C.P. is to secure the abolition of the Internal Security Council so that Singapore can be converted into a base for Communist operations in this part of the world. Merger frustrates this plan. Merger denies them this opportunity. Therefore, merger must be resisted, but without giving the appearance of resisting merger, and this is not an easy thing to do, simply because the motive force behind merger is the powerful and irresistible force of Malayan nationalism, and by an unhappy combination of circumstances in Malaya, the M.C.P. has been put in the position of having to combat not colonialism, but the force of Malayan nationalism. We do not know, Sir, whether this is the decision of the top brains of the M.C.P. or only of its sergeant-majors, but whoever made this decision, the fact remains that the Barisan Sosialis have been manoeuvred into an untenable position of having to resist the irrestible force of Malayan nationalism. It may be that many Members of the Barisan Sosialis may not he aware of this. But two facts should make it clear to most of them, that in embarking on a trail of strength with the force of Malayan nationalism, they have chosen the wrong opponent. The first fact is that though the real leaders of the Barisan Sosialis have made every effort since June to stop the drift to merger, they have failed. Let them ponder over that. They have used every device from betrayal of their comrades to attempts to capture the government and yet they have failed. Let them ponder over this. Why? Sir, in the Federation, the M.C.P. thought they could capture the place. They came quite close to it, but the day that the British granted the Federation independence, the M.C.P. leaders became wise. The M.C.P. decided that they were taking on the wrong enemy - Malayan nationalism - and so for the time being they abandoned the terrorist war. They knew that anyone who fights the force of Malayan nationalism must be crushed. The colonialists discovered it. The M.C.P. leaders discovered it. There were a lot of people at that time who said that it was a phoney independence and that Tunku Abdul Rahman was a stooge of the British. But do you remember, Sir, the question put by the Tunku to Chin Peng, "Do you regard me as a British stooge?" The answer was, "No, I regard you as the leader of Malayan nationalism." Immediately after the Baling talks, the M.C.P. armed revolt -

On a point of order. I wonder if the Baling talks are relevant to the amendment.

It is not surprising perhaps that the Minister is going further and further away from the amendment. I expect he will come back quickly to it. Mr Minister.

Sir, perhaps in my anxiety to help the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to resolve their difficulties, I may have overstated my case. I will come back to the main trend of my argument, though that should not prevent them from cogitating over what I have said. Sir, as I said, in embarking on a trial of strength with the force of Malayan nationalism, the Members of the Barisan Sosialis - or at least those who direct its destinies - have chosen the wrong opponent and that explains why after making every effort - betraying the trust that was placed in them - they have not been able to stop the drift towards merger. Those of them who have read today's newspapers must realise that they are standing in the way - and here I am quite sure that there will be no interjection - of what Lenin called "the locomotive of history". Sir, Lenin - would I be straying from the point? - a man who happened to have written books (the others are people who only read the front pages of his books) said that there are times in history when what he called "the locomotive of history" gets into motion, and you can determine it by knowing whether the force which is going forward is on the ascendancy or not. Sir, those of us who have read today's newspapers will know that the fateful day is coming nearer and nearer. We are now coming on to 1962. The drive for merger is not P.A.P.'s or anybody else's, because it is part of history - "the locomotive of history". Any gentleman who stands in front would perhaps be unrecognisable when "the locomotive of history" has passed on. An hon. Member: Except the British!

Another evidence of the miscalculation of the Barisan Sosialis is the stand - as I said earlier - which leads them to favour a British national status and British control over foreign affairs and defence. How is it that they are put in this false position? It is simply because their initial assumptions were wrong. They have based their calculations and efforts on the wrong force - a dying force - in resisting merger. Merger is of the future. But the Barisan Sosialis are trying to preserve something that belongs to the past. Therefore, because of that and not because of the P.A.P.'s cleverness or the Tunku's cleverness. (we are with the tide of history) that they have picked the wrong opponent and they have taken the wrong stand. Therefore, they find themselves in this predicament of having to humiliate themselves by saying publicly, "I would rather be a British national than a Federal national." We are not saying that you are fighting for it. They have fought into that situation.

Order. The Speaker is never a fighter. He listens. Mr Minister.

I referred to you by proxy, but I was not fighting you, Sir. Anyway, it is my contention that the Barisan Sosialis have miscalculated for the reasons which I have indicated. They may believe otherwise. Today in this debate it will be possible for the Members of the Barisan Sosialis to dismiss them as fairly tales. They can dismiss our contention today - it may be tomorrow: it may be the day after tomorrow - that the Barisan Sosialis is lighting the M.C.P. battle against Malayan nationalism as a fairy tale. They can laugh it oil today. But there will come a time very soon when merger is finally realised and the M.C.P. gives the signal to launch a do-or-die offensive. The signs of such an offensive are already here. When that time comes, the battle lines will be clearly drawn. There will he no equivocation then, because there will be no no-man's-land. There will only be a thin red line dividing the forces of Malayan nationalism from the anti-nationalist forces. Sir, in 1959, when we were fighting the British colonialists, there was a vast stretch of no-man's-land because the light then was between the pro-colonialists and the anti-colonialists. The ideological lines were blurred and therefore there were rescue parties to let out of gaol those who had made false moves. But, Sir, this is 1961 and not 1959. The battle is of a different kind - An hon. Member: Anti-Communist.

It is not a battle between the colonialists and the anti-colonists hut between nationalists and anti-nationalists, between those who are for merger and against merger. When this battle comes, there will be no rescue parties, because all the contestants will be in the battle-field taking position on this or that side of the line. Then it is not words but deeds which will decide who is on which side of the thin red line. Those who oppose merger - and the time has come when merger obviously can be opposed not by words but by deeds - then cannot say that they are really nationalists at heart. They must take their chances, as I said, Sir, against "the locomotive of history". Of course, people can opt out of the battle in the nick of time, provided they get their timing right. I understand, Sir, that some people are already passing the word around that they may cease being students of politics to take up law or medicine abroad. Let me reiterate, Sir, that our basic opposition to the Barisan Sosialis is not over the question of automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens. If they can persuade the Federation and the people of Singapore to accept their type of merger, we of the P.A.P., though we stand by our White Paper proposals, would be only too happy to doff our caps to the Barisan Sosialis, whatever our differences with them. But in so far as they sabotage merger and attempt to fight for full internal self-government for Singapore, then in our view the Barisan Sosialis is no ally of Malayan nationalism and will be fought to the bitter end. Sir, may I end remarks on a happy and hopeful note? I remember seeing an anti-war film called "On the Beach". In that film, the whole world is devastated by atomic radiation. All forms of life have ceased to exist. The last shot in the film shows dead leaves and old newspapers being wafted over and a Salvation Army banner fluttering in the breeze. Sir, it reads, "There is still time, brother". But in case it should be suggested that I am making use of religious appeals. may I say. "There is still time, comrade." A final piece of hopeful message. May I refer to the Member for Queenstown who told us a great deal about the rising Barisan 'Star'? I took the precaution of looking up the Free Press to read what the Stars had to say. Perhaps it is a very inappropriate reading. If the Star happens to be Virgo, it says, "Be thankful today and join others in a spiritual recognition of the day's meaning." But. Sir, if it is Capricorn, it says, "Let down tensions and enjoy a day of rest and relaxation. You could use it." 3.58 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you have repeatedly remined us that the issues we are debating are of the gravest character - perhaps the gravest; in fact, the gravest that this Assembly has yet debated. For myself, Sir, I shall seek to deal dispassionately with the facts and the law. I am in a curiously independent position in this House. I do not belong to the three P.A.P. factions who are sitting facing each other across this House, nor do I belong to the major communities whose interests may well be reflected in the speeches you have heard. I have listened to all that has been said. As to whether I am going to be dispassionate is for others to judge. I can only say that I shall honestly seek to do so. Sir, I look at the original motion as it stands in the name of the Minister for Labour, and I say, with respect to him, that in the context of today it is blasphemy. You remember the Third Commandment, Sir: Thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Many of us in the political field feel as deeply and as fervently about merger as those who are religious feel about God. And I say to you, Sir, to us the word "merger" means ultimate peace. In this motion it has been degraded. What is sacred to our people has been cheapened and misrepresented. It is an abuse of the word. To me it is as though in this House, while debating about shipment of monkeys and their treatment on planes, suddenly the Minister for Labour stood up and said, "I move a motion of respect for our ancestors."

So what?

They may be yours, not mine. I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw that. I do not wish to be personal, and I hope they are not provoking. And the Minister for Finance, Sir, has reminded us of the propaganda abuse of the word "socialist" in Communist countries. He has pointed out truly that in Russia and in China the word "socialist" is made to mean Communist. I myself have experienced yet another word that is grossly abused in Communist countries, and that is the word "democracy". The Communist countries. both Russia and China, make the word "democracy" mean the dictatorship of the few over the terrorised hundreds of millions. In the United States, Sir a modern civilised western democracy, the capitalist Press has so vilified and filthied the word "socialist" that to many Americans it evokes a picture of the dripping fangs of Communism fastened on the quivering flesh of capitalism. The P.A.P., recognising to what extent propaganda can abuse the word, have decided to get on the bandwagon, and they have taken the most sacred word in our local political dictionary and turned it off its meaning and are making it apply seemingly to a colonial transfer. It is in this manner. Sir, that the word "merger" is being used in the motion. The Prime Minister thought he was clever - and often he is clever - and instead of permitting us to debate, as we should have, the motion of thanks to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara on his speech and the amendment thereon, and thereafter to debate the White Paper, had brought in this totally irrelevant motion in the context of today, because he hoped to - what was the Minister for Finance's word? - zugzwang us into voting for what, on the face of it, appears honest, but what in the context of its introduction is false and misleading. The Leader of the House, Sir, informed the Opposition in one of his letters that the constitutional proposals constitute merger because we will be voting for representatives in the Federal Parliament. The Finance Minister says that the proposals constitute merger because, in his words, "We will share a common political life with our brothers across the Causeway." And the Minister for Culture recognises the illogical stand and speaks of P.A.P. merger. But the Prime Minister uses the word "Merger", "Merger", "Merger", incessantly. I ask the House to turn its eyes away from the Front Bench and to see what the Federation Prime Minister said, Sir, - I am quoting from the Straits Times - I shall be handing in these papers, Mr Speaker -

Order. It is, of course, not necessary to hand in the paper if it is made available in the Library, and any Member who wishes to look at it may do so.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker. Sir, for your guidance. They are all available. The quotation is from the Straits Times, 17th October, page 9, column 2, the Federation Prime Minister to his Parliament on the Malaysia motion: 'But one thing is certain, and that is that we cannot take Singapore with us in complete merger without a great deal of unhappiness and trouble, and so we must find a middle course.' "We must find a middle course", that is to say, a middle course between separation and merger. Furthermore, Sir, as has already been pointed out to you in this House, at the Press conference last Thursday, the Prime Minister of the Federation with his typical honesty and frankness said to the Press, "No, you can't call these constitutional proposals merger. It would be more correct to say a form of every close association." Mr Speaker. Sir, I have known the Federation Prime Minister for some ten years. I have watched him closely in his public utterances for the last seven years, and I can say to you, in all sincerity, that I have never known the Federation Prime Minister to make one statement that was false. That is a pretty fine record. And though, as a citizen of Singapore, I am ashamed to confess it, I will say to you, Mr Speaker, that when it comes to our Government, our Prime Minister and our Deputy Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the Minister for Culture, and any of the others, saying one thing, and the Federation Prime Minister saying something different, I accept without hesitation, though ashamed, the truth of what the Federation Prime Minister says. It is unfortunate for our people that our Government and our Prime Minister seem constitutionally incapable of achieving even to some degree the integrity and the frankness with his people that the Federation Prime Minister is capable of. If our Government had had but a modicum of the decency and the frankness which the Federation Prime Minister has always had, we would not have had, Sir, this motion before us, a motion which, whatever the motives of the Government, is calculated and calculated only to mislead the people. We would have had a Government come to say to us, " Look, in our view, merger is impossible. We have achieved some sort of closer relationship. This White Paper is that closer relationship. We urge you to accept it." That would have been clean; that would have been honest; that would have been the decent thing to do. But it is a P.A.P. Government. Sir, I may not accept the White Paper. But the point is, if they had come to us in this fashion, I would not and I could not criticise them. Though I tried with all my heart, I failed. And they have, in failing, achieved more than I have succeeded in achieving. So I would be the last man to have criticised them if they had come to us quite honestly and said, "This isn't merger. Of course not. We can't achieve merger. But this is the most we can do. How about accepting it?" No. Sir, we are not permitted even in these fateful matters to debate the truth without seven veils of filth. Instead of a motion which, we could have understood, which we could have debated, we have this totally irrelevant motion in the name of the Minister for Labour - not that I am blaming him, Sir, I know he has to accept his master's voice. Sir, in the context of what the Federation Prime Minister has told us, that this is not a merger, as we can see for ourselves, but a form of closer relation. we can understand the Barisan Sosialis' amendment to this motion, an amendment which seeks to restore to the word "merger" its true meaning. In fact, Sir, it is a misnomer to call it an amendment except in the technical sense, for it is no more than a clarification, an attempt to restore to the word "merger", as for the word "socialist", the meaning that honest people give it. Sir, the Minister for Culture, if I may say so without seeming to be patronising, has indicated quite clearly his recognition of the inappropriateness of that word and has sought to change it to "P.A.P. merger". Sir, you just cannot take a word which belongs to everybody and make it a P.A.P. property and give it any meaning you like. But he has not talked of merger. He has said, however, something that surprises me and disappoints me. Until I heard him, I had believed that the P.A.P. all genuinely wanted complete merger, but, not being able to achieve it. Sir, were bringing us the best they could. But the Minister told us categorically yesterday, Sir, if you will remember, that the P.A.P. does not believe in a complete merger, because a complete merger with Singapore as the twelfth State would be harmful to Singapore. Well, of course, Sir, if that is so, I can understand them voting against the amendment, and I should expect them to vote against the motion. If you do not believe in a merger because it is going to harm Singapore, vote against the motion and let us talk about the White Paper.

That is right.

I must say, Sir, although he is not here - perhaps it is better when he is not here, since I am going to compliment him - I heard with pleasure the Member for Cairnhill -

He is here.

Oh, I beg your pardon - when he said merger can only mean merger; it can only mean complete unification of our two territories, and our citizens completely identified as citizens of the Federation. I say I could not agree with him more. I agree with him whole-heartedly. That is true. That is the only honest, only real, only meaning of the word "merger". His phrase, "complete unification of our two territories, and our citizens completely identified as citizens of the Federation". And that is what the Barisan Sosialis' amendment is seeking to clarify. But then, Sir, the Member for Cairnhill went on to say that he was voting against the amendment. I am puzzled, Sir, as in politics one is always puzzled. I am not a student even. I am an amateur, and I confess it. Sir, if he is voting against the amendment which says, "genuine merger [adding the word "genuine"].with Singapore coming in as the twelfth State and Singapore citizens being automatically citizens" - but that is a clarification of the word "merger". If you vote against that, then you do not want Singapore in as the twelfth State; you do not want genuine merger; you do not want our citizens as citizens of the Federation. Then what are you voting for when you vote for the Minister for Labour's motion? Sir, he said. "I am voting against it because it is tautologous and redundant." Lovely words, Sir. But forgive me. I am sure you know it, if I refresh your memory as to the fact that "tautologous" and "redundant" mean the same thing. And anybody who uses those two words is himself tautologous or redundant. Sir, his colleague, the Member for Geylang Serai, put his finger on it but in a curious and mysterious fashion. He said - this is something I have been trying to understand; these are his words - "Quite bluntly, I cannot vote for the amendment because it is a political amendment." Sir, does he mean that just as the word "merger" in the motion is a false word, is an abuse of the word, so the amendment itself does not mean what it says, but is being false? I do wish, Sir, that he had expanded that, because I should have liked to understand him. Sir, to say "political amendment" - of course, the motion is political. I mean, we are discussing a political issue in that motion - the political issue of merger - so the amendment is naturally political from that point of view. I repeat, I do wish the Member for Geylang Serai had assisted us a little further, because let me say this quite frankly, Sir,I cannot look into the minds or the hearts of the Barisan Sosialis. I heard some terrible allegations from the other side of the House about them. I have not even spoken to them. In so far as I am aware, they were too terrified to speak to me! But I do not know. I cannot judge. All I can judge is from the amendment they have brought iii, and to me it looks an honest, reasonable and proper amendment to restore to the word "merger" its true meaning. Sir, that amendment to me is like somebody moving a motion that this House believes in the institution of marriage, and somebody else moving an amendment - "marriage according to law". It is a clarification. They do not mean a common law marriage, but a marriage according to law. I do not see how anybody can object to the clarification of the word. The leader of the S.P.A. - I trust you will absolve me of any suggestion of patronage which I do not intend to indulge in, Sir - said in the best speech I have heard him make in this House (and I have heard him make many, Sir, which other Members have not), and I believe him, Sir; I believe he was sincere, Sir, - he said, "We want complete merger for Singapore. But we cannot have it, and we think that this White Paper is the best possible because, with the P.A.P. in Government, they could not get anything better than we could." Let us leave the controversial aspect apart. Let us just look at the first part of that sentence which he enunciated. He said, "We want complete merger for Singapore." He is speaking for his Party. Sir. Is it not exactly what the amendment to the motion says? "We want complete merger." These are the words, Sir. "affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya k to achieve the reunification of these two territories in a genuine merger with Singapore coming in as the twelfth State and with automatic citizenship." It is a question of principle. This is what we want. It is not what we can get. And surely to me, Sir, one can vote for the principle of the merger motion as amended and vote for the White Paper. If you believe, as he has indicated that he believes, that the provisions of the White Paper are the best possible today, that they are good for Singapore, and they go some way towards bringing Singapore to the ultimate realisation of complete merger. That is an honest view. He is entitled to it. But I am seeking to point out, if I might, to the Members on the Opposition Front Bench, that it is completely logical to vote both for the amendment to the motion and for the White Paper. And it is illogical to vote against the amendment to the merger motion and yet vote for the motion in the name of the Minister for Labour. An hon. Member: How does the Barisan feel about it?

I am afraid I did not hear the hon. Member. Perhaps if he would like to stand, I will certainly give way. Sir.

Order. Please continue.

Sir, the P.A.P., not only through their Minister for Culture, but in the solemn policy pronouncement made by His Excellency to us on the 31st of last month, stated quite categorically that they do not want complete merger. Column 11, paragraph 5: 'We do not recommend complete merger because one of the most important consequences of complete merger is the application of the more stringent citizenship laws of the Federation under which over 350,000 Singapore citizens who were not born here will be disenfranchised and will have to re-apply for registration as citizens.' Sir, I shall deal with that in due course. It is completely false reasoning. It has absolutely no validity. But the importance of that quotation is: 'We do not recommend complete merger'. They do not recommend complete merger. Why do they bring up this motion? Why? "We do not recommend complete merger." Would the Minister for Labour, as an act of courtesy to the Opposition, perhaps even more as an act of respect to the people of Singapore, explain how he can square the position of his Government by saying, "We do not want complete merger" with the motion which says. "We re-affirm our faith in merger"? How? And why? The time of this House is being wasted in this irrelevant motion.

The time will come!

The time will come! Sir, this motion says, "...it has always been the avowed objective of all nationalists of Malaya to achieve the reunification of Singapore with the Federation of Malaya . . . and this House affirms and declares that the first objective of all true patriots of Malaya is to achieve the reunification of these two territories...'. Perfectly true! Completely true! True but harnessed to what? As far back as 1956, Sir, it was my privilege and my pleasure, in the name of all the parties in this Assembly and in the name of the people of Singapore, to present a memorandum to Her Britannic Majesty's Government, through her Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which there appears, Sir, now Command Paper No. 31 of 1956, page 47, paragraph 6. It was on April 1956. Sir, I would remind the House. 'We have at all times been conscious that geographically, ethnically, culturally and economically the Federation and Singapore are one entity - ours is a common destiny calling for political unity. No concept of parochial aggrandisement inspires our desire for unity - we recognise that financially and in our Social Services we will suffer - but we believe that the people of Singapore and the Federation, as well as people beyond our shores, will benefit considerably by the stability and stature of a united Greater Malaya.' And, Sir, in case there is any suggestion as to when I and My Party began to believe in merger, here is a dog-eared copy of the very first and the only party platform of the Workers' Party on its formation in December of 1957. In the very first paragraph and in the very first sentence, it says, 'The basis and framework of all policy must be recognition of the fact that Singapore is geographically, ethnically, and economically part of Malaya and the only healthy ultimate solution is integration with Malaya on an equal basis with other states...'. Sir, it is miraculous that we used that phrase "on an equal basis with other states" at a time when there was no question about it. And we did not have the P.A.P. in office. It is true. We did not suspect any treachery. We did not suspect that the word "merger" would be abused. But perhaps out of caution. Sir, which our training sometimes gives us, that phrase "on an equal basis" was inserted in that party platform of December 1957. To come down, Sir, to recent times, as recently as the day of the Anson election, the major part of my very short speech at the Victoria Memorial Hall, long before the two Prime Ministers met to talk about merger, I said - and the quotation is from the back page of the Sunday Mail of the 16th July: 'Tungku, the stars are smiling on you again as they did four years ago when you crowned your people's struggle for Merdeka. This could be an historic moment not only for Malaya hut also for the world. May you and we and the British he equal to our opportunities, rising above the immediate petty fears and trivialities to create a united Happy Malaya that would be a dynamic stabilising force for world peace and a shining example of genuine interracial co-operation.' Sir, in the unhappy atmosphere of perhaps not unnatural friction between parted spouses with the wife throwing all the kitchen utensils at the running husband, we have forgotten the position of Singapore. Nobody has far put in a word about our worth, our status, our value. We have been reminded by the Government itself, Mr Speaker, in the speech of His Excellency that Singapore is the largest port in Asia. It is the world's fifth largest port and it is expected to handle next year 70 million tons of shipping. We have a highly developed financial and commercial organisation and a tremendous potential for economic expansion. Even under the P.A.P. our revenue has been expanding fast. Mr Speaker, this will astonish you. For the year 1960 they presented a budget that was going to be $14 million in deficit. They slashed salaries. I am not talking about salaries, but I want to remind you that they slashed the civil servants' salaries. Then only a few days ago, Sir, I mentioned to this House that I discovered that there was a $9 million surplus instead of a $14 million deficit, which made an increase of $23 million from what was expected. But, Sir, we had a supplementary since that day and do you know what our surplus for 1960 was? $34 million. So that there was $43 million more than they expected. That is the way our economy is expanding in spite of the P.A.P., in spite of the fear which we all recognise and which they themselves admit was created amongst somewhat infantile members of the commercial community. Sir, in 1956, when I could obtain facts without obstruction, I was reliably informed that the per capita income of Singapore was four times that of the Federation. Spreading our annual income over every map, woman and child in Singapore, we were earning four times more than an equal number of people in the Federation. Singapore is not only one of the wealthiest States in the world, it is also one of the healthiest. We are a dynamic and industrious people, who are both peaceful and friendly, in spite of the attacks from the Front Bench as to our so-called Communist leanings to which I hope to come in due course. Finally, Sir, Singapore is vital for the Federation. The Federation is vital to us, and this is not only economically, but also emotionally and culturally. Sir, it has been my unhappy lot for long and lonely years to seek to awaken the people of Singapore to the fact that if we cannot get complete merger, then we should not, and I disagree violently with the Barisan Sosialis on this, seek internal self-government. But we should seek independence. [Laughter] Ah, gales of laughter!

You want to go to the U.N.?

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Mr Speaker, Sir, forgive me for a moment if I digress, but have you noticed that there is amongst our population this curious eccentricity in the immature? They indulge in chittering laughter like gibbons in a forest that is on fire. [Laughter.]

Order. I take it that that expression was not meant to apply to any Member of this Assembly, but may I remind the hon. Member for Anson that he did start off by saying he would try to be dispassionate.

I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir, -

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.

Yes.

Would we be committing breaches of order if we laugh, Mr Speaker, Sir?

I suppose the answer is that if the laughter is like the laughter of gibbons, then perhaps the laughter is out of order.

I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is a disturbing defence.

I have ruled.

Indeed, Sir. I was saying, Sir, all right, nobody agrees with me. It is fair enough. We in the Workers' Party accept the fact that in seeking independence we stand alone and we bow to the majority will. You disagree with us, Sir, it is fair enough. But what I was trying to point out, Sir, is that in our efforts to educate the people as to the meaning and value of this approach, we have again and again come across many who are not only Malays but Chinese and Indians as well, who say "No. If we cannot have merger, we do not want independence. We do not want to be separated from our people across the Causeway." Sir, that is a genuine phenomenon in Singapore. Merger would mean this - I shall show you to what extent the people of Singapore have to make sacrifices. Our taxes and our income would be in the hands of the Federation Government. Our wealth would be in the hands of the Federation Government. Sir, we have had a White Paper tabled which does not show the extent. It says it is going to be arranged. The Prime Minister, though, when dealing with this House perhaps he looks upon the Opposition in the light of nitwits compared to his gigantic brain and does not really feel interested in telling us the facts which are so important to the people, but when he is discussing things with his pals, the Press, particularly over Radio Singapore, which has borne for so long his dreary diarrhoea of words, Sir, then we have some facts. And one of them, which he ennunciated, Sir, and which I learnt through the Press is that the financial arrangement with the Federation is that we give the Federation one-fourth of our annual income. The estimate for 1961 is $350 million and it is growing, so we are going to give the Federation, Sir, $90 million a year. For what? To defend us? But under the present treaty arrangements between England and the Federation, it is the Federation's duty to defend us. $90 million a year income for what? Honourable Members sitting opposite - Health, Education - where is Social Welfare? Absent - The Minister for Labour (Inche Ahmad Bin Ibrahim) raised his head.

Ah, thank you. They must recognise. Sir, what a terrible thing this is going to be. It is no exaggeration to say it is lopping off one of our limbs. $90 million a year, and we have to pay for Federal citizens and Federal officials who work here, Sir -

Order. I have promised not to intervene if there are irrelevancies. Perhaps the Member will agree that this could be debated in detail when we come back to the motion.

I am much obliged. Mr Speaker, Sir,In a complete merger, Sir, it may well be that we want it so much that we would accept the lopping off of a limb. But, now for what? Sir, the people of Singapore, I believe, recognise that if we want unity, if we want equal privileges, we must carry heavy responsibilities. We must recognise that there can be no reality of unity, no identification of the Federation and Singapore if we pursue different policies in education and labour. I do honestly believe, Sir, that the P.A.P. errs when it says that the people of Singapore will not accept that the whole of Malaya should be in control of our education and labour policies. I believe that if the issue were put to the people of Singapore, "Do you want unconditional merger complete or do you want the P.A.P. White Paper?" we would have 90 per cent of the people voting for unconditional and complete merger. In his opening speech to Parliament on merger last month, the Federation Prime Minister is reported to have said - I do apologise, Sir, for quoting from a newspaper. I have sought and found it impossible to obtain the Official Reports of the Federation Parliament Debates because they have not as yet, I understand, been printed. I am quoting from the Straits Times of 17th October, page 8, col. 5: "...time would come when Singapore would ask for and be given independence, and that time is not far off, for new talks on the Constitution are to be held in 1963." And a little later in that debate, the Federation Prime Minister added: "We must prevent a situation in which an independent Singapore would go one way and the Federation another. The way Singapore would go then would be towards another camp which is hostile to the Federation, and this would be quite unacceptable to us." So we see, Sir, that though the Borneo territories, which are much smaller in size, population and wealth, are being invited to come in as full brothers in a Malaysia family, Singapore is told, "We will have you as a junior partner, so we can keep an eye on you, so you don't give us trouble." What are the reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, for this differentiation of approach on the part of the Federation towards Singapore and towards the Borneo territories? I know the leader of the Barisan Sosialis in a remarkable effort did touch on it, but, if I might, Sir, give my opinions very briefly and perhaps from a different point of view. The Federation Prime Minister gave three reasons to Parliament which were not repeated in His Excellency's speech to us in the policy statement of the Government. The three reasons are to be found in the Straits Times of the 17th October, page 8, column 4. "The idea of Kingship, the Malay language and Islam as the official religion would not he readily acceptable to people the majority of whom profess religions other than Islam and to whom Malay is not a lingua franca, and who moreover have never had a King of their own." Now, Sir, we find in the White Paper that, in fact, His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong will be our King and I have not heard and do not expect to hear a single person complain or murmur about it. The White Paper indicates that Islam will hold the same honoured position as in Malacca and Penang. I am quite sure there is not a single person in Singapore who would complain about that, and already, Sir, in Ordinance 52 of 1960, Malay has by this very Government been made the national language. So, Sir, the three reasons which were not repeated here have, in fact, disappeared. But this Government in the speech of His Excellency gave six reasons why we cannot have complete merger. Before I refer to them, Sir, I would refer to paragraph 4 of col. 11. To understand it, they put the preface at the end: "The people must know that these interests [those are the six which I am going to retail] cannot he protected in a complete merger as a 12th State like one of the other 11 States of the present Federation, for then automatically all these matters will he controlled by the Central Government and must follow the pattern of what happened in the 11 States of the [Federation]." What are these matters, Sir, which cannot be protected in a complete merger? Is that the word? Yes, "these interests cannot be protected in a complete merger". Sir, the Minister for Culture is not here. I had hoped that he, who had stressed so much the civil service aspect, would be here at least so that he might be able to assist us. Sir, the first reason given in His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, which is to be found in column 10, paragraph 1, is the protection of the civil service from the applicability of the 4:1 ratio between Malays and non-Malays. Sir, I confess to a rather dreadful thing, to have to make allegations that the facts as alleged in so solemn a policy statement as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech in a short column arid a half are repeatedly inaccurate. They are simple matters of fact. Sir, let us look at this 4:1 ratio. It arises from the provisions of Articles 153 (2) of the Federation Constitution. Ah, the Minister himself! I will be very happy to table Federation of Malaya Constitution (L. A. Sheridan) if any Member wishes to consult it. Article 153 (2) reads: 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, hut subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary -'.

Order. The hon. Member must remember that his speech is being translated.

I am glad of the reminder, Mr Speaker, Sir, and my apologies to the translators: "...the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may he necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and to ensure the reservation for Malays of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service...'. Now, Sir, notice, in brackets: '....(other than the public service of a State)...'. Sir, the application of the 4:1 ratio is not to the service of a State. It is to the Federal service. Let me read one more Article, Article 132 (2): '...the qualifications for appointment and conditions of service of persons in the public services other than those mentioned in para. (g) of Clause (1) may be regulated by federal law and, subject to the provisions of any such law, by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong...'. And now, Sir, this is the part: '...and the qualifications for appointment and conditions of service of persons in the public service of any state may he regulated by State Law...'. The Government has perhaps the acutest legal brain in its State Advocate-General and it is a pity they do not use him to consult him on some of the legal aspects of their submissions to this Assembly. Under a full merger, Sir, I say to this House that all civil servants of the State of Singapore would be appointed according to the qualifications required by the State of Singapore. The 4:1 ratio would not apply to the civil servants of the State of Singapore. It would apply only to Federal civil servants. What is the position, Sir, indicated in the White Paper? The position is that the existing Singapore civil service will be retained as a State civil service which would apply in any event in a complete merger. However, Sir, I want you to notice that departments which were Pan-Malayan prior to Merdeka Day will henceforth revert to former arrangements. They will become Federal departments and then the Federal ratio of 4:1 would apply. So wherein the distinction between complete merger - I would not use the words "phoney merger"; I know it is short and perhaps sweet to some ears - and the P.A.P. proposals? There is no distinction in treatment at all between the conditions under which the civil servants would work in a complete merger and the conditions as applicable under the White Paper. I say. Sir, that it is not true, as alleged, that it is necessary for the protection of the civil service that we should have the arrangements proposed by the P.A.P. instead of a complete merger. The next reason given by the Government, Sir, is that Chinese parents who send their children to Chinese schools want a policy of equal treatment for all streams of education and equal opportunities for employment. Sir, the P.A.P. seem harassed by this Chinese question, because, in this context, I do not know why it is necessary to say Chinese parents. I have always understood in this Assembly since 1956 that it is all parents of Singapore who would like a policy of equal treatment for all streams of education. It was an almost unanimous decision, as far as I can remember. On the question of equal opportunities after school - I may be wrong - I understand that equal opportunities to a large extent do exist. There are some exceptions including, of course, the major exception of the Federal civil service. But on the main issue of equality of treatment for all streams of education, I agree completely with the inference in the statement in the White Paper that there seems to be a radical difference between the policies in Singapore and those in the Federation. Sir, I must say that I learned with some surprise and delight from the Member for Queenstown that his Party - to me, as far as I can understand, a Party that represents the industrial Chinese worker, I do not know about the others - were prepared to accept Federation control of education policy, and I say hear, hear! [Interruption]. I am sorry. Did I misquote the hon. Member?

Please continue.

Perhaps, Sir, I shall refrain from quoting from memory. But for myself, I would like to say this. I do not agree that Singapore should have a different educational policy from the Federation. [Interruption] I do not care how much we may not like the Federation educational policy. That is not the point [Interruption]. Ha, ha, ha!

Order. I think the hon. Member should ignore laughter from that side of the House if he is addressing the Speaker. The Speaker has not even heard the laughter, theoretically.

Mr Speaker, I am but human, but I will follow your instructions. Sir, I was saying that for myself and for my Party, it is our firm view that it is gravely dangerous to the welfare of the people of Singapore as well as to the welfare of the Federation that in a merger there should be any differentiation of education policy. But though we may not agree with their education policy, as democrats we accept the rule of the majority and, of course, we will seek constitutionally to persuade the Federation or those who disagree with our view at least to come to some modus vivendi, it is not the point if we succeed or not. We are prepared to accept unconditionally Federation control over education policy. But, Sir, the P.A.P. say they are not prepared to accept it. All right, they are a majority of one. They are a majority still. So I ask them, ask with respect, "If you do not agree that we should give the Federation control over education, then would you recognise that in a complete merger, all that is necessary is for a Federal Act to he passed which will vest in Singapore the control over the education policy?" If they can get it under the White Paper, they can get it, Sir, by virtue of an Act of the Federation Parliament. The third reason is in column 10, paragraph 3 of Hansard dated 31st October. 1961. I do not want to misquote them and am sure you will check me if I do. The third reason is that the workers want the particular labour policy and legislation that they have enjoyed in Singapore to continue. If this were not tragic, Sir, I would laugh. But when I am uncomfortable and when I feel the tragedy of the moment - unlike hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite - I do not indulge in hollow laughter. The workers did believe in the P.A.P. They did believe that the P.A.P. was pro-labour. That was why they voted P.A.P. But since the elections two and a half years ago, where is the pro-labour legislation? The T.U.C. Bill introduced by the Government, passed by the Government, one Reading, two Readings, Select Committee, three Readings, passed; and then they go to His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara and they say, "Stop, do not sign." Why? Is it unfair, Mr Speaker, Sir, to suggest - and I do suggest - it seems apparent on the face of their conduct that they had hoped by that Bill to rivet the workers of Singapore to the P.A.P. political machine and that when they saw a possibility of a split with their colleagues who are now opposite, they decided that maybe the enslavement of the workers would not be to the P.A.P. but would be to the Opposition Parties and they did not want to risk it? I do say that. To me, that seems the obvious answer. Their attitude has been one of the political exploitation of the workers. We have the Industrial Arbitration Ordinance. But let us face it and I am only dealing with it en passant. The industrial Arbitration Court is good, but it is no more pro-labour than it is pro-employer. So, Sir, where is the pro-labour policy that the workers of Singapore have enjoyed? is it the conduct of the Government in the recent strikes of non-P.A.P. unions? But even assuming that there is such a policy of which I am not aware - perhaps of my jaundiced blindness to the merits of the gentlemen opposite whose leader has so often angered - where is the difficulty, Sir, in obtaining from the Federation in a complete merger the transfer of such powers to our local Government? [Interruption] Not that I want it, Mr Speaker, Sir. Again for my Party and for myself in answer to the Minister for Culture, I say - and I trust if he needs any clarification he will ask for it - we accept unequivocally Federation control over our labour policy with our constitutional right to seek to persuade the Federation to modify to such extent as we may think proper and as they may be prepared to agree to such policy. But we as citizens and as democrats accept the rule of the majority and the control of the Federation in a complete merger. Now, Sir, the fourth reason given -

Order. It might be a convenient time to suspend.

If it please you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I will take this Chair again at half-past five. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 p.m. until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at least my speech seems to have quite an effect in that it has emptied the Government Benches. They do feel uncomfortable when criticism is justified.

I am here.

Yes, holding the fort. Mr Speaker, I would like to correct one matter, Sir, in explaining the expanding economy of Singapore. I spoke of the year 1960 and I should like to correct that to 1959. Now, Sir, when we adjourned, I was pointing out the six reasons given by Government for not having complete merger because these interests could not be protected, and I have given three of them. The fourth reason, Mr Speaker, is that the Singapore businessmen, contractors and bus companies do not want priorities or special rights for anybody. Sir, by the word "anybody", the Government intended us to understand that we do not want special rights for the Malays. First and foremost, let me say that I do not believe that it is true that our people do not want to give special consideration to nursing our Malay citizens to participate fully in our economic life. The Malays of Singapore, Mr Speaker, have had a very raw deal in the last 150 years. Their way of life has been smashed, their culture deep frozen, their education neglected. They have been isolated, and we should recognise that. It is elementary justice that special consideration should be given to our Malay citizens, and special measures taken to nurse them to full partnership in our economic community. I do not believe the people of Singapore are so selfish as to be unjust, or so mercenary as to be mean. But even apart from the call of justice, I say that it is unhealthy for our national life that an important segment of our population should be economically isolated. I say: special encouragement to the Malays in the economic field is good socialism in practice.

Hear, hear!

I am heartened to hear, "Hear, hear!" instead of hollow laughter.

Hear, hear!

And I say that we should, even though some may object, give special encouragement to our Malay citizens. Such encouragement would invigorate our economy, and it would not materially affect the interest of any other community. Sir, this is the good fortune sometimes of being alone - that I' can at least seek to follow the dictates of justice without always being suspected of grinding a communal axe. But, Sir, even if our people are not just, even if we are mean, even if we are blind on larger issues, may I point out to the Government that it is not true that the interests of the contractors, the Singapore businessmen and the bus companies cannot be protected under complete merger? The special position of the Malays. Sir, comes under Article 153, section 2 of the Federal Constitution. It is a matter of discretion of the Federation Government, and it is a question of the exercise of this discretion which in the context of Singapore could be limited to minimum interference. But, Sir, it makes the most curious and illogical reading in this nightmarish debate, which is almost reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland, that, on the one hand, this Government says, "We do not want complete merger", and, on the other, it brings in a motion to urge merger. On the one hand, it says. "We do not want complete merger because we would then have to give special consideration to the Malays". On the other hand, it presents a White Paper in which the special position of the Malays is specifically recognised in the new Constitution, as it should be. Do not misunderstand me, Mr Speaker, I agree with it. But that paragraph 7 of the White Paper quite obviously envisages that a similar protection for the Malays should prevail in Singapore as prevails in the Federation of Malaya. Therefore, Sir, under the P.A.P. proposals, we have the position that would be identical with that under a merger. So even if the P.A.P. object to special privileges for the Malays, or say that the people of Singapore object, then I repeat, that is not true. Even if they do object though, there is no special protection for the contractor or the business man, and it is untrue to say, as the speech of His Excellency says, "that the interests of the contractor, of the business man, and the bus conductor, cannot be protected in a full merger." The fifth reason given by the Government in His Excellency's policy speech is that the merchants of Singapore want a continuance of our free port status and maintenance of our trade with the whole world. Sir, it is almost unbelievable. I refuse to believe that this Government is not aware that there is such a State as the State of Penang. I refuse to believe that this Government is not aware that Penang is a free port by virtue of a small part of the Federation Customs Ordinance. I refuse to believe that this Government is not conscious of the fact that the free port status of Singapore could be fully protected under complete merger. So how is it that they have the audacity to say, in His Excellency's speech, that the interests of the merchants who want a continuance of our free port status and maintenance of our trade relations cannot he protected under a complete merger? Furthermore, Sir, might I draw your attention to the White Paper under the fifth head: '...the special position of Singapore in relation to entrepot trade will he safeguarded. Measures to protect the interest of Singapore trade overseas will include the establishment of a section within any of the Federal missions as may he necessary to deal with trade matters of Singapore. In any trade negotiation or arrangements undertaken or entered into by the Federal Government with another country due consideration will he given to the commercial needs of Singapore.' These are administrative matters, Mr Speaker, which could and normally would he provided by the Federation Government. The Federation need Singapore as a free port. It would not be helpful to the Federation to destroy our free port status. They want to encourage our trade because we would he part of the sinews of the Federation. Here again, Sir, I say to you, it is completely untrue to say, as has been said in the Government policy statement, that one of the reasons for not having complete merger is because the interests of the merchants who want our free port status and who want our trade with the whole world protected could not be protected. It is untrue. What is much more curious, Sir, is, if you look at the White Paper - you know, we were supposed only to give the Federation internal security, external defence, external affairs - under Finance. Mr Speaker, Sir, are a vast host of items. Who has control? Yes, they know. We have control, Sir, exclusively for Singapore in dangerous and in inflammable substances and factories. That is the protection of our free port status and our trade with the world. Sir, on this topic of our merchants. I do ask this House to recognise that there is missing perhaps one of the most important factors which might have induced us to accept the proposals, and that is the factor of the common market. Of course, it is not mentioned there, but as a result of the reply from the Minister for Finance earlier this Session to my questions, a, reply which was tabled and which Members have, it is clear that the new proposals will not achieve a common market. I do not intend to point to Penang, Sir, because let us be quite fair, though the Government has made propaganda hay out of Penang for citizenship purposes, I do not intend to point to Penang, it has not got any major industries, but we should face the fact that under items 7 (h) and 8 (b) of List I on the White Paper, the Federation will be able to tax any commodities coming from Singapore, but Singapore will not he able to tax imports from the Federation. I hope that sinks in. Today they move against us. We have something. But taxation will be in their hands. At the same time, Sir, I think it is fair to accept, At least in some measure, the implication in the statement of the leader of the S.P.A. that the closer relationship which would arise out of an acceptance of these P.A.P. proposals would bring about a climate where a common market may be quicker achieved, think that is true, Sir. I now come to the most crucial of the reasons given by the Government for not having complete merger, and one that has so deeply exercised the leader of the Barisan Sosialis. Sir, I can do no better. The Minister for Culture, who does not indulge in the hollow laugh like some of his colleagues when he is uncomfortable, nevertheless tried to elide it on the very good principle that attack is the best means of defence. So he counter-attacked. He said, "Why? Why do you keep referring to Article 22? Of course, we all know Article 22 of the Constitution permits the Parliament of the Federation to give you citizenship. Nobody has said anything different. Why do you harp on it? Why?" The innocent Minister! Sir, you know that constitutionally the most solemn enunciation of Government policy is in the form of a speech which the Head of the State enunciates in the House in the name of the government of the day. I have no doubt that the Minister, however much subservient to his master's voice, had a word in the dictation of this policy, the Minister for Culture must have at least read it. If he did not read it, he must have heard it. He was here when it was read by His Excellency. I quote from column 11, paragraph 5: 'We do not recommend complete merger because one of the most important consequences of complete merger is the application of the more stringent citizenship laws of the Federation under which over 350,000 Singapore citizens who were not born here will he disenfranchised and will have to re-apply for registration as citizens.' Sir, with my full sense of responsibility to this House, I say this is - may I say false, Sir? - or inaccurate. They complained that the poor Barisan Sosialis referred to Article 22. Because it is not true. It is not true - and it is a terrible thing to say of the Government - that in a complete merger. 350,000 Singapore citizens who were not born here will be disenfranchised. And I shall show it to you, Sir, chapter and verse. The Federation Constitution nowhere has the power to deprive the citizens of a State of the citizenship of that State, nor have the Federation ever tried to do that. Before merger there were subjects of the rulers of Johore, of Kedah, of Selangor, of Trengganu, all the nine States. We will come to Penang and Malacca where the Barisan Sosialis, having no legal consultant, really slipped, and the Government made full propaganda play. But let us for a moment look at the truth, Sir. There were nine out of the eleven States of the Federation which had subjects of the ruler. On Merdeka Day, those subjects of the rulers became Federal citizens and remained subjects of the rulers. Nowhere was a single subject of a ruler deprived of his citizenship. It is not true to say that on complete merger there is anything in the Constitution of the Federation which would permit a citizen of Singapore to be deprived of his citizenship of Singapore. [Laughter]. They laughed, Sir.

Order. Just for the record, for the sake perhaps of clarity, because this is in fact confusing me as well, perhaps the hon. Member would look at col. 10 the last two paragraphs, which perhaps clarify the matter. I know the Speaker is not supposed to take part in any debate, but it seems to me that confusion mounts on confusion.

I am coming to those two if you will permit me. Sir, in discussing nationalism. I am so sorry, Sir, that my enunciation of what are simple facts has confused you. Perhaps, Sir. the position is this. I know that it happens, for example, in a prosecution in a court, everybody assumes the police are right and the accused is guilty. Of course, the law must take its course. and thee when the defence brings facts which, disprove it, there is confusion at first and disbelief. Here the Government has made statements of fact. I repeat. Sir. Nowhere in the Federal Constitution does it provide or can it provide the power, nor has the Federation exercised any power which would deprive the subject of a State of his citizenship of that State. And apart from that -

Order. Can I ask the hon. Member to look at the last paragraph at col. 10?

I will go on to it: 'The most important interest that will be protected in a merger based on the principle of partnership is that Singapore citizens, whether born here or born elsewhere, will keep all their present citizenship rights and, in addition, acquire national rights as nationals of the new Federation. Nobody will lose any rights. On the other hand, every citizen will gain new national status as a member of an independent and larger political unit. Yes, Mr Speaker. I am coming to that. But what I am saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that here it says that it is necessary in a merger based on the principle of partnership only in that merger, the P.A.P. merger, is it possible to protect the rights of the citizens whether born here or elsewhere, to keep their existing rights. I am saying, Sir, that in a complete merger, those rights will remain by law, and it is not correct to suggest that, as is suggested in paragraph 5 of col. 11, that 350,000 citizens who were not born here would be disenfranchised.

On a point of elucidation.

If the Member will give way.

Certainly.

We are not yet members of the Federation. We are not a State in the Federation. That would be true if we were already a State in the Federation. But we are not a State in the Federation.

Am I asked to elucidate? I can hear no question. Mr Speaker.

Order. That, of course, illustrates my point, that confusion seems to be mounting on confusion. Mr David Marshall, please continue.

I am sorry if you think I am confusing anybody, Mr Speaker.

Order. I have never said that. I will never say to the Member for Anson that he is, in fact, confusing. In other words, that he is deliberately confusing. I only say that there is confusion mounting on confusion.

All right. I will try again. Sir, at the end of my address, I am going to appeal to the Government that we should have a constitutional commission, or at least a consultant, on these matters in which I am taking the responsibility, in all sincerity, of saying to this Government that this is not true. In so far as I, according to my light, my training and my work for 25 years, am concerned, I believe at least we can have an impartial expert body who can judge and from whom the people can accept the truth. Let me repeat. Sir, that I believe, in accordance with my training, my work and my understanding, that the position in a complete merger would be that Singapore citizens would all retain their citizenship, and that the Federation Constitution does not permit of any Singapore citizen to be deprived of any of his rights as a citizen in the State of Singapore. But, Sir, what has the Federal Constitution done in the Federation? The Constitution not only made every subject of the ruler retain his citizenship of the State, but it made every subject of the ruler a Federal citizen. In a legally admirable exposition by the Minister for Law, apart from one major error, which was, I am quite sure, inadvertent, he drew our attention to Part XII of the citizenship of the Federation of Malaya provisions under the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1949, as amended in 1952, Sir. And he read, but did not emphasise, that section 125, paragraph (a) states: 'On and after the prescribed date, the following persons shall be citizens of the Federation of Malaya by operation of law: (a) any subject of His Highness the Ruler of any State;'. Sir, the citizens of Singapore are in a position analogous to the subject of a ruler. Where the Barisan Sosialis blundered was in drawing attention to Penang and Malacca. Penang and Malacca, Sir, by virtue of the fact that they were British colonies with no rajahs, had no citizens of the ruler. They are the only two States which had no subjects of the ruler, and consequently to speak of Penang and Malacca would be to invoke not paragraph (a) of section 125 but paragraph (b) of section 125 which says that all those who were born in Penang and Malacca would achieve automatic citizenship which would make, as was quite rightly pointed out by Dr Goh Keng Swee, 284,000 -

The Minister for Finance.

I do apologise, Mr Speaker, Sir. Thank you. The Minister for Finance. They pointed out, and perfectly properly, an error, but the unfair-ness of it was that they did not go on to say that, in respect of the other States, if we came in as Johore, or Selangor, Kelantan, or Trengganu, then, on the analogous provision. Sir, the citizens of Singapore would all be citizens of the Federation because we would have the comparable position of being subjects of a ruler. Sir, these issues are in fact academic, and this is hardly a forum for the academic discussion of constitutional law; because in truth and in fact, Article 22, in so far as new territories are concerned, supersedes all other provisions. What I was trying to show was if we came into the Federation on the same basis as any of the nine Malay States, then we would have all our citizens. But there is Article 22, and under Article 22, of course, it is the will of the Federation Parliament as to the provisions for our admission. But I do want to point out that it is untrue to say that under a complete merger it would necessarily follow that 350,000 of those citizens not born in Singapore would be disenfranchised. Sir, why this issue about citizenship? What is it that makes it so burning a question? The leader of the Barisan Sosialis spoke of second-class citizenship, and I completely agree with the Minister for Culture that "there ain't no such animal". Of course, there is not. There is no question of second-class citizenship. But why this complaint? Article 8 (2) of the Federal Constitution says: 'Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or...'. Sir, that is why I ask the Member for Queenstown to read that second section when he read the first one. Article 8 provides against discrimination of citizens only in the Federation. Sir, we would not be Federal citizens and we could quite properly be discriminated against because we have not got the fundamental right guaranteed by section (2) of Article 8. Now, look at the next Article if you will, Mr Speaker, and that is Article 9. I am not so much interested in banishment, Sir, because if a man gets to that stage of being a burden on the country where he lives, then I am not interested. But let us get to Article 9 (2): 'Subject to any restriction imposed by any law relating to the security of the Federation, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof.'. Sir, not "every person", but "every citizen", and therefore, only Federal citizens may move freely in the Federation and may reside freely in the Federation. Let us take the next article, Article 10: 'every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; all citizens have the right to form associations.' Not "every person", but "every citizen", and the guaranteed rights are the rights to assemble peacefully, to form associations and to freedom of speech and expression. Sir, they say and they are entitled to ask, what is the practical effect of this? Is there any immigration barrier between Singapore and the Federation? I think one of them already pointed out that a number of us live and work in the Federation. So, what is the excitement about? Sir, the position is this. We are not second-class citizens vis-a-vis the Federation. We are foreigners. We are in the position of most favoured foreigners and, by virtue of the executive discretion of the Government as permitted in its immigration laws, are permitted to go into the Federation without any visas and work there. We have the same law applicable to them. But these rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution. There is nothing to prevent the Federation from raising barriers of immigration against us now or under the White Paper. Sir. But we could today reciprocate whilst under the White Paper, and it is curious to notice this omission, but I believe that under the White Paper immigration would be in the hands of the Federation. You see, Sir, the leader of the Barisan Sosialis used a layman's phrase, picturesque but legally inaccurate when he spoke about second-class citizens. The position in law, as I see it, is that the Singapore citizen is a foreigner in the Federation; there by the grace and courtesy and the goodwill of the Federation Government, but without any constitutional right. But the Federation citizen will have a right to he here and no Singapore Government can keep him out, for no Singapore Government will have the power to prohibit by immigration laws or otherwise his entry. Finally, Sir, Article 47 of the Federal Constitution provides that only Federal citizens can sit in the Federal Parliament, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Sir, will the people of Singapore have to vote for Federal citizens to represent them, or is the Federal Constitution going to be amended to permit Singapore citizens to represent Singapore citizens? It is possible, Sir, and knowing the Federation, I think that they would naturally wish to be fair in this matter. In fairness, I think, though it has not been indicated, the arrangement will probably be that the Federal Constitution would be amended in order to permit our representatives to sit in the Federation. So, Sir, apart from that one aspect which no doubt would be clarified, the true position is that the Singapore citizens will have no more rights than he has today to enter, to live in, to work in the Federation or to join any political Parties or trade unions in the Federation. You see, Sir, we have, for example, branches & the Alliance Parties in Singapore, but no Singapore political Party has branches in the Federation. Nor under the new arrangement would any Singapore political Party have any right to have branches in the Federation. Is this, Sir, the position of Northern Ireland as has been so repeatedly suggested? is it? Mr Speaker, the answer is "no". The people of Northern Ireland have an identity of citizenship with the United Kingdom. They have every right to be in England, to work in England and to vote in England; not that it is important, Sir, that vote, because I do not expect masses of our people to go over to the Federation. That I agree with the Minister for Culture, that the objection that we cannot go and vote in Johore or cannot stand in Trengganu is in itself trivial. That is not the point. The point is that we cannot have what the Minister for Finance has so aptly called "a common political life". We cannot have that, Sir, under this new arrangement. Sir, the Federation Prime Minister at the Airport Press conference stated he could not recommend to his Parliament to grant Federal citizenship to all Singapore citizens, because Singapore had been lax in admitting citizens requiring in some cases only two years' residence, whereas the Federation required eight. I would like to point out, Mr Speaker, that the provision about two years' residence only applies to Federation citizens and to British subjects. The British subjects involved are those who were born in India. But the major number of those who obtained citizenship under our Citizenship Ordinance are those who qualified under section 9, Sir, eight out of the previous 12 years' residence in Singapore. This is somewhat similar to the Federation provision in Article 17, which the Minister for Law read, which requires eight years' total residence. The provision that the Federal applicant should be 45 years old and should know the Malay language, as was pointed out by the Member for Queenstown, was not made applicable in the Federation until one year after Merdeka Day. Finally, Sir, I come back to the last paragraph on page 10 [Hansard]. I would like to refresh Members' memories: 'The most important interest that will be protected in a merger based on the principle of partnership is that Singapore citizens, whether born here or born elsewhere, will keep all their present citizenship rights and, in addition, acquire national rights as nationals of the new Federation. Nobody will lose any rights. On the other hand, every citizen will gain new national status as a member of an independent and larger political unit.' Sir, you have been told, and I will not repeat it, that "Federal national" is a phrase which does not appear in any part of the Federation. This is perfectly true. It was explained to you that there was a concept of nationalism which is as distinct as the concept of citizenship, which is also true. What you have not been told, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that a Federal national is a British subject. I am sorry the Minister for Culture is so engrossed he did not hear that. I shall repeat. A Federal national is a British subject. That is a curious thing to say. Can I prove it? Sir, Article 29 (1) of the Federal Constitution: 'In accordance with the position of the Federation within the Commonwealth, every person who is a citizen of the Federation enjoys by virtue of that citizenship the status of a Commonwealth citizen in common with the citizens of other Commonwealth countries.' And by virtue, Sir, of section 1 of the British Nationality Act, every citizen of the Federation has the status of a British subject. Our present position, Mr Speaker, is that we are British subjects. We are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and are also British subjects. Now, what would happen, Sir, is that we would be citizens of Malaysia and British subjects under the new agreement, because "Federal national" is, by its own Article 29 and the equivalent British provisions, just a phrase which means "British subject". An hon. Member: Paper tiger!

Devastating!

Sir, I do not want to devastate. I want to persuade. Is it curious that we question this relationship which seems to give everything to one side and nothing at all to the other? Well, what is it we want, Mr Speaker, for the Workers' Party, for the people of Anson and for myself'? I say that we want a full and unconditional merger. We want to accept the same responsibilities and enjoy the same privileges. We want to come in as a brother, not a partner. Partnerships can be dissolved and can be dangerous. If we talk of Ireland, let us remember the tragedy of Southern Ireland. We do not want even the possibility of such a tragedy to occur in this area. I want to say this quite frankly and very clearly. What I honestly and sincerely fear in the very marrow of my bones is that an arrangement of the character envisaged, which gives our people different educational upbringing, gives our workers different treatment as compared to the Federation, would create different types of citizens; and because of the overall Federal rule, would create friction which would all the time be blamed on the Federal Government. There is a very genuine danger, Sir,I am sorry to have to put a name to it. I think we have to face it. There is a very genuine danger that such differentiation in policies of education and labour would exacerbate and emphasise communal differences and would bring about communal explosion and tragedy. I say that those of us who are genuine about merger must accept - I repeat must accept - Federal control over our education, labour and our internal security. We should not seek to be different from any of the other States in matters which affect the mood and the character of our citizens. We seek to build a common citizenship. The Minister for Education knows only too well his own efforts in that direction. He knows only too well the aim of any State which must seek a common culture to have a common loyalty. A differentiation in education, which seems to be the basis of the P.A.P. policy, is full of danger not only for us but also for the Federation. If you ask, would we be better if we were separate - and that is a fair question that was asked, I think, by the Minister for Culture - the point, Mr Speaker, is this, that there would not be the antagonism directed towards the Federation if there was differentiation whilst we were separate. But whilst we are associated, where the blame seems to be at the Federation doorstep for anything different that we think is not right because we think it is not right - whether we think it rightly or wrongly - we will always be blaming the Federation. That is something we do not want. Sir, we have experienced here in Singapore already the tragedy of differentiation of education policy. We know that as a result of the meanness of the Imperial Government which did not want to spend money for the education of immigrants - "Leave them in the gutter. Their own people can look after them. We can only give education to fodder for our commercial machine." That meanness, Sir, has brought about today a differentiation in outlook between our respective communities - the Minister for Education knows that; hon. Members across the Floor know that - a differentiation which is the basic tragedy of Singapore today. Do we want to perpetuate and accentuate, to enlarge this distinction on to the Malaysia scene? Sir, I do not want to exaggerate. I cannot exaggerate. But I shall put it very simply. In fact, Sir, I will be quite frank that if education and labour were given to the Federation, the White Paper would be more acceptable to me, and I do not care if it means the end of my political career. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

I do not care. An hon. Member: Say it again a second time!

I will say it again and I mean it. These differentiation in labour and education, in my view, must ultimately affect the stability of the entire Malaysia concept. Singapore is the pivot in the Malaysia concept. Sir, the Federation Prime Minister informed U.M.N.O. that the Federation Malays fear that they would be swamped by our Chinese. That is true, Sir. That is a genuine fear. But there does not seem to have been any consistent effort to explain to them that Singapore in a complete merger would have no more than 25 representatives in the House of Representatives and two representatives in a Senate of 30 of Malaysia. Sir, many figures have been given to you - involved arithmetic in which our Prime Minister excels - and I suggest that there is a major error which the Minister for Law failed to observe when he suggested that proportionate representation is not provided for in the Constitution. In fact, Article 116 (3) does provided as between a State and a country, whereas clause (4) applies to the constituencies in a State. Sir, clause (4) is not material in this context but clause (3) is material as between a State and a country. There must be given to that State a proportion of the seats in accordance with the proportion of its voters to the total voters of the Federation. Sir, I think one of the Members opposite - it may well be the Minister for Law - gave us the latest Federation figure as 2,345,000 voters. Sir, assuming - as he said quite rightly - that in 1964 the Federation will have a House of 100. So the proportion is 23,500. Now, Sir, Singapore has 624,000 voters. The Barisan Sosialis are not so far wrong when they tell you that, in fact, the exact number is somewhere about 27 seats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have here with me the Report of the Election Commission on the Delimitation of Parliamentary and State Constituencies, 1960. Table I of this Report works out the Federal seats State by State, and it is worked out in this way. The total Federation population is divided by the number of constituencies which are fixed by Article 46. Article 46 fixes them at 100. The total population is given as 6,278,763. Now that is divided by the number of constituencies which are fixed in Article 46. If you divide that figure by 100, then you will get the population quota of 62,787. In the same way, if you take the total electorate of the Federation which is 2,310,747 and divide that also by 100, then you will get the electoral quota of 23,107. They do it this way, Mr Speaker, Sir. (A) They divide the State population by the population quota - just the overall population figure divided by 100. (B) They take the total voting power of the State and divide it by the electoral quota. They have a formula, Mr Speaker, Sir. They add the allocation according to the population quota (A) to twice the allocation according to the electoral quota (B) and divide the result by three, State by State. That is how they get the number of Federal seats for each State. So that I have also worked it out in this way. I checked in the Electoral Office this morning and I was told that the latest figure of Singapore electors is 619,867. Sir, if you add the population of Singapore, which is 1,600,000, to 6,278,763 and if you add 619,867 to the total Federation electorate of 2,310,747 the new population quota will be 78,787 and the new electoral quota will be 29,306 and use the same formula, you will get the total of 20.87 or 21 Federal seats for Singapore - mathematically accurate, Sir. An hon. Member: Well done!

Order. I wonder whether that adds confusion on confusion. Mr David Marshall.

Mr Speaker, I had received courtesy from the Minister and I thought it only fair to give it to him. But if you will remember some of the figures he gave, he said that the Federation have a population of 6,278,000 and that we have 1,600,000. Now, Sir, that makes us just a quarter of them, and my arithmetic of a quarter of 100 is 25, but of course I do not know the P.A.P. way of arriving at figures.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of information. Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the P.A.P. way. It is the method that has been adopted by the Electoral Commission in the Federation of Malaya and not by the P.A.P. The same formula is being used. You can blame the P.A.P. when they deserve to be blamed, but blame other people if they deserve to be blamed and not us, Sir.

If going by the Constitution those figures are correct, I will accept them. But I make the figure, Sir, 25. I would like you to understand this. Sir. The fact that we are getting less - I am not making any issue of that - is, to my mind, a minor point. But what I am trying to explain is, if the Federation could explain to these people that there is no swamping and that, in fact, if they are worried about 25, we would rather have 15, I would gladly concede it. If there was really integration, Sir, I will gladly concede it. The Barisan Sosialis looked very pained at me - sometimes I am a hero, and sometimes I am not! But, to my mind, that is the way it works. I am not unconscious, Mr Speaker, that the Federation has got its own problems in labour and education which are a headache, and that it fears that with the additions of Singapore it would enhance and magnify these problems. And I would add that these are legitimate fears. But the real fear, Sir - that could be controlled, I think, and could be provided for - was given in a short interjection by the Member for Geylang Serai. It consisted of three words. It was worth a speech. The Member for Queen-town asked a rhetorical question, "Why does the Federation not want to accept Singapore in a complete merger?" And the Member for Geylang Serai said, "Too many Communists!" Sir, that is the true reason. Whether it is right or wrong is not the question. Let us face it. People are afraid of putting names to ugly things. But in this Assembly, I think we should as far as possible face the facts and not indulge too much in euphemisms. That is a basic fact. Now, Sir, are there really so many Communists in Singapore? I do not know.

Plague-carrying rats!

Well, that kind of interjection is not helpful. What I want to know are facts. I think what we all should have are facts. We have had a diarrhoea of words and a constipation of facts. What I would like the Prime Minister, whose pet hobby this is, to do is to tell us quite frankly how many Communists there are. My own impression is that there might be a threat tomorrow. I can see no threat today. I understand that the total number of Communists in the whole of the Federation was some 545 - I may be wrong in my figure, I am quoting from memory.

How did you get that?

I read very recently, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they are supposed to be limited to the Thai border. I should like to know and I think this House should be given the information - since the Prime Minister not only has information available to the Special Branch but information available from his pals - what is the number of Communists in Singapore? He has pointed to, I think, about a dozen in a dozen radio speeches - which one could almost appropriately name as the art of treachery - how I stabbed my friends and double-crossed my colleagues. Even working in the dark as we are, I would like to ask this question: would not the Federation be in a stronger position to deal with our Communists if we were fully merged as it could deal with them under the present arrangement? If the Federation cannot, I would like to know why, Sir,I think we should have these reasons. Some of us are capable of persuasion, and I think it is important that basic reasons and not the hates passing back and forth should be given to the people of Singapore. That is one of the reasons I would like to hear it claimed why is the Federation in a stronger position to deal with Singapore Communist, who are only Singapore citizens, than it is to deal with Singapore Communists who are Federal citizens? Sir, I have tried to read the Constitution, and I can see one reason. That is, if you are a Federal citizen by operation of law, then they cannot deprive you of citizenship. And I say, fair enough. That is reasonable. Again I am going to be awfully unpopular, but for myself, I am prepared to accept that the citizenship of the people of Singapore as citizens of the Federation should be deemed to be registered Federal citizens under the provisions of Article 17. There is a distinction, Sir. Those who are citizens by operation of law, you cannot deprive them of citizenship. But those who are citizens by registration, you can deprive them of citizenship. And I am prepared to accept that: that we should all have a citizenship that is deemed to be a citizenship under the provisions of Article 17 by registration. So that those of us whom the Central Government of Malaysia considers to be inimical to the welfare of the State by virtue of our activities can be deprived of our citizenship in the same way as Federal citizens today under the Constitution who are citizens by registration. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether those who say that Singapore has too many Communists really mean Communists or mean persons who are, shall we say, sympathetic to Communism. Because again, let us recognise the basic fact of our life here - many people believe, that a number of the industrial workers of Singapore are sympathetic to Communism. Sir, there has been so much misunderstanding about the Chinese. I should like for a very brief period to give what I understand to be the true position. I say it is true that by virtue of cultural heritage the majority of our industrial Chinese have strong emotional attachments to China. I say it is true, in my view, that our idealistic Chinese youth are attracted to Marxian concepts of social justice. I believe it is equally true that these youth are learning that social justice can only be achieved by the evolutionary process of parliamentary democracy. They are learning that the Communist procedure of dictatorship, of brutality, and of destruction of human liberties, may have been necessary to restore order and cohesion in a country of 600 million people who are prostrate before the carrion-crows, imperialist commercial exploiters. But such a procedure and such an ideology is not merely inappropriate but retrograde and repressive where, as in this territory, the democratic process is a fact and the rule of the majority can be achieved by a patient wait of four years at the most. No one believes the Chinese to be fools. They are not. I say to you, they are a practical people and so are their youth, however idealistic. They are not unconscious of the terrible price in human suffering, human degradation and inhuman limitations which is exacted by the Communist dictatorship. They will learn. We all, not only the Chinese, Sir, are learning that human beings can only develop healthfully in conditions of respect for the individual within the context of the rule of the majority, with respect for the minority. The blasphemy of Communism is that it has no respect for the individual. And our people are learning it. They know from stories they hear from Chinese, of stories they hear from Hong Kong, that the people in Communist China are crushed into a common mould producing men like ants. No one wants this here, Sir. I know I have heard sneers - forgive the expression, Sir, but they sound like it to me that the Barisan Sosialis want it. For myself, I cannot see it. For myself, I have talked to the Member for Queenstown and the Member for Nee Soon, and they seem to me genuinely intelligent people. It is true I cannot judge. I cannot look into their hearts. I do not know. But I find it very difficult to believe that they are not conscious of the basic facts of life and the inhumanity of the blasphemy of Communism.

Let them say so.

I am not speaking for them. I am not their spokesman. Forgive me, Sir, no, I am speaking for myself. I mean, I do not know. They can speak for themselves, but I am sure when it comes to their turn, I hope they will. Sir, there are some people in Singapore, I accept, who are so dedicated to the Marxian concepts of social justice that they are blind. And they blind themselves consciously, and they plug their ears to logic in order to prevent themselves from learning that those methods of cruelty, of violence to the human spirit, are not the methods which can bring about social justice. There are such people. But there are cranks in every way of life, Sir, and in every field of life. I say, the mass of our people do not want the methods of the Communist dictatorship. Sir, when the P.A.P. was returned with 43 seats - a fantastic majority - everybody said, "Huh, the people of Singapore are Communists. They voted a Communist Party in." Let us be fair, Sir, I said at Nanyang University to my political opponent before election day, "The only vote is for the P.A.P. because it is the only Party that today [i.e., at that time, not today, but in 1959] could offer an honest, efficient government." And that is why the people of Singapore voted them in, not because the people of Singapore are Left or because they want Communists. Sir, our people want a just, decent government, want a fair way of life. And they know the only way to achieve it is by the sometimes cumbersome, sometimes hypocritical, sometimes inefficient, but in the long run the only way, and that is the way of evolutionary parliamentary democracy.

Hear, hear!

Singapore is the crucible where people of different cultures are learning these valuable lessons. These lessons are being digested. And I say, with patience and, above all, with a just government, our people of Singapore will come through and will come good. Very few of us, Sir, seeing the trees only and forgetting the forest, are conscious how far we have gone, Sir, and you who were with us from the beginning, you can cast your mind back how far we have come. Sir, along the road during these seven years. How far we have come in maturity in understanding the democratic process.

Six and a half.

Seven I said? I am wrong. Six and a half. Thank you. We compromise. Sir, we have been asked, is there an alternative if complete merger is refused? Yes, there is an alternative I do not want to raise at this juncture a roar of laughter. I shall reserve this on the main motion when hon. Members can again have some relief from throwing kitchen utensils across the floor. It is not that I have not got it now. But I am reserving it, Sir. I would like now to say this. Do not let us give up hope of complete merger. I will compliment the P.A.P. on having got what it has, even though what it has got so far is, to my mind, not merely inadequate but, by virtue of what it has in reserve, is dangerous and by virtue of our financial contribution is, in a measure, suicidal. I would urge, Sir, that we do not give up hope of complete merger. We have come a long way. Singapore is vita] to the Federation. I was reminded, Sir, by the gentleman who represented U.M.N.O. at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He said, "Marshall, you remember addressing U.M.N.O. Assembly in Kuala Lumpur in 1956 and you compared Singapore to the thumb of a hand? The Federation are the, four fingers and Singapore is the thumb." He said, "I have always remembered that." Singapore is the thumb.

Malaysia is five.

I am happy in the interjection. I am indebted to the Deputy Prime Minister. We are the thumb of the five States. No. That will be giving us pride of place which, as a humble citizen, I would not seek. Pride of place belongs as of right to the Federation. But we are certainly a vital, absolutely vital element, the pivot. And the Tunku who has proved himself a statesman, not for One year, not for two years, not for three years but over the last seven years with his command of expert advisers, with his treasure-house of available information, must be all too conscious of that. And I say, Sir, what deters him, to my mind, is that not that he does not want Singapore - I do not know whether he does - but to my mind, what deters him is the belief, and I accept that it is a correct belief, that the Federation of Malaya citizens as a whole would be alarmed by the prospect of a complete merger because of the constant denigration by our Prime Minister, the constant denigration by our own politicians of our own people, the constant cheapening of Singapore - Communists, Communists, Communists, lepers, lepers, lepers.

There are lepers.

There are lepers. How many lepers are there in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir? Are we all lepers? So I say, given time, given patience, given that the Federation recognises - they are not playing a game of bluff; I do not believe that a bit - but if they can get Singapore under these conditions, why should they give us any other condition which might make life a little politically difficult? I believe that they do recognise how vital we are. Given time and given patience, I say I believe that the Federation would itself recognise its long-term interest. And I mean the people of the Federation, not merely the Government. They recognise their long-term interest. So the people of Singapore should grow the same flowers in the same garden as the Federation; the same educational policy; the same labour policy; the same people; the same interest; the same loyalty.

No weeds?

No - I am sorry I did not hear that.

No lallang?

Lallang? Oh. Mr Speaker, you have a lovely garden.

Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is ta1king metaphorically or referring to my actual garden. Because if he is talking of my actual garden. I can assure him there is lallang there.

With respect, Mr Speaker, to the gardener. I was going to suggest that though the garden is beautiful there is lallang there. There will always be lallang in every garden. But so long as the lallang is kept in hand and so long as the lallang does not outgrow the grass, and the best way of having the same grass is to have all under one gardener. Otherwise you grow lallang here, how are you going to prevent this lallang from going to the Federation? I have said, for two hours, that we must have a common educational policy; we must have a common labour policy; we must have a common central government. Sir, only a last matter. Here [make a plea. I have, not without anxious thought, I assure you, Mr Speaker, but with considerable thought, worked on these constitutional problems without any assistance because I sought assistance and was refused it. And I shall come to that later on. I was refused it. I say in all sincerity to you, Mr Speaker, and with a sense of my responsibility as an Assemblyman that the reasons given in His Excellency's policy speech are not true. In these circumstances, I appeal to the Government to appoint a constitutional commission which will assist the Government, which will receive representations, which could answer queries. The cost, if we slip up, because the Prime Minister thinks he is a wonderful lawyer - he may be; we saw the exhibition in the Ong Eng Guan tribunal; he may be a wonderful lawyer - but he can slip. I say let us appoint a constitutional commission of experts, not politicians; international experts with no axes to grind so that they guide the Government, the people and the Assembly. I am so heartened, Sir, that I had nods of the head from the Deputy Premier and it should give me considerable pleasure, after all the effort, that in fact that is one suggestion he has in mind and he is going to carry it out. Thank you, Sir. 6.55 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak against the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown to the motion standing in the name of my colleague the Minister for Labour, 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." My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has very ably described the background of the real forces behind the Barisan Sosialis and their intent. The thirteen - an unlucky number, and I shudder to think of the inevitable fate that must befall them - who claim to represent the Barisan Sosialis in this Assembly were returned on the P.A.P. ticket, which the Member for Cairnhill had occasion to remind them of. They would do well to look themselves in the mirror now and again if only to ensure that they recognise their own faces as they contort themselves each time they hurl abuse at the Government and the Party which brought them up and nurtured them for the last two years. To use the colourful saying of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, in the national language, "meludah ka-langit menimpa ka-muka sendiri juga", that is, they spit into the sky and the spittal falls on their own faces. I shall be more prosaic and say, may their conscience gnaw their vitals to their dying day. Mr David Marshall rose -

On a point of order?

Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no axe to grind for the Barisan Sosialis. But this business about laying curses upon Members of the Assembly, I do protest Sir, and I ask your ruling with respect.

I suppose it is only when it becomes offensive to the person addressed that I can rule that it is unparliamentary, and the person addressed has not risen on a point of order. But. what is being said now is completely irrelevant to the motion, it might be permitted as an exordium. But I do suggest to the Minister to come to the motion itself.

In replying to the Member for Queenstown, I shall, of course, not only direct my remarks to the Barisan Sosialis of which the Member for Queenstown is supposed to be the Chairman, who incidentally seems frequently to be quoting what his Secretary-General has to say -

On a point of order, Sir.

Point of order?

Clarification, if you like, Sir.

Is it a point of order?

Well, I am Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis.

Order. Is it a point of order? If it is a point of order, the Member should rise on a point of order. If it is clarification, the Member cannot speak until the Minister sits down. Is it a point of order?

Clarification, Sir.

Will the Minster sit down? Mr Yong Nyuk Lin remaining standing.

No.

But I shall also direct my remarks to the real forces that operate behind the 13 braves opposite. Whilst I shall confine my remarks to problems of education as are affected by the amendment to the motion before the House, I shall, of course, deal with its implications on other aspects of merger. The official beginning of trouble with the forces behind the Barisan Sosialis was the statement published by the six unionists on 2nd June, 1961, the eve of National Day, for full internal self-government and abolition of the Internal Security Council at the 1963 constitutional talks. These big six were supposedly comrades of ours - three ex-Political Secretaries, the Member for Thomson, who is not in the House at this moment, and two others who are now in the Strangers' Gallery -

Order. The Minister, I think, must know that no direct reference can ever be made to any stranger in the Gallery. The Hon. Minister is addressing the Chair.

I apologise for the slip. Mr Speaker. These forces were quite happy operating under a tolerant P.A.P. Left-wing Government which ensured full exercise of their democratic rights. The Member for Queenstown took great pains to point out that there was nothing in "The Tasks Ahead", i.e. our 1959 election programme, which states that immediate merger was a target under the 1959/1964 programme of the P.A.P. Correct. The forces behind the Barisan Sosialis talk of merger; that, of course, they support merger; that merger is inevitable and the whole singsong. But sheer lip service and nothing else. Their calculations are not for a forseeable merger, but merger which is far, far away like the horizon - always there, but never reached. Conclusion - no merger. They are not Malayan patriots. They have other designs. What these so-called great anti-colonialists want is to continue to live under the British colonialists and internal self-government as we have now. The only difference? No Internal Security Council. Only those who are security risks fear the Internal Security Council. However, to make their proposition appear more in accord with their customary anti-colonial pose, they add the phrase, "minimum demands". But I say that these are not minimum demands. They have always been what they stood for. The last five months and also after 7½ hours of tedious twists and turns by the Member for Queenstown, he came back to the same theme that under the present constitution the Government is required to go back to the United Kingdom in 1963 and there to reopen talks for "minimum demands" if the Barisan Sosialis type of merger as expressed in the amendment to the motion is rejected. Now, what is the exact implication of the amendment to the motion? It is simply a case of a swing by the Barisan Sosialis from one extreme to the other, from minimum demands to maximum demands, from full internal self-government without the Internal Security Council, which is what the Barisan Sosialis really want, to asking for unreasonable terms for merger with the Federation, which neither the Government of Singapore nor the Government of the Federation nor its peoples can accept, at the stage of history, and therefore, to frustrate merger. The Barisan Sosialis do not want merger despite pious statements made in this Assembly by the Member for Queenstown that the Barisan Sosialis are not afraid of merger and not afraid of internal security being controlled by a strong central government, ad nauseam. They are empty words which rung hollow to the ears of true Malayan nationalists. My colleague, the Minister for Health and Law, has already explained fully the constitutional position regarding citizenship, that the amendment to the motion seeking automatic Federal citizenship for all Singapore citizens is an unreasonable demand in that we shall be asking for more favoured treatment for Singapore citizens than the Federation Constitution is prepared to give to its own local-born in the original States of the Federation. The principle of jus soli only became operative in the Federation from 31st August, 1957. In negotiations, one should know in what position one stands. It is not a case of a colonial Federation of Malaya wanting to merge with an independent Singapore, but a self-governing Singapore under British suzerainty wanting to achieve independence through merger with the independent Federation of Malaya. We must come to reasonable terms with the Federation, and that we have. We should discuss and talk reason, not balderdash. As elected representatives of the people, we must be responsible and be political realists and not hot air slogan shouters. Whilst the Member for Cairnhill was correct in calling for the unanimous support of the House for the motion for merger standing in the name of the Minister for Labour and has asked the Barisan Sosialis to withdraw its amendment to the motion, which is not likely to succeed, he tried at the same time to belittle the White Paper, Cmd. 33 of 1961, as not being a merger at all. We say it is a merger because if we see Head 5 of the White Paper, it says, "Singapore will be a State within the Federation but on special conditions and with a larger measure of local autonomy than the other States forming the Federation." if we turn to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara's speech, that is, Hansard, Vol. 15, No. 1, col. 11, the first sentence of paragraph 5, which the Member for Anson referred to quite considerably, it reads: 'We do not recommend complete merger...'. for a number of reasons. So perhaps the Member for Cairnhill - unfortunately he is not in the House - should at least clear in his own mind the difference between the words "merger" and "complete merger" and the motion before the House is "merger". The amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown, however, introduces the word "genuine" to merger, which again is different from complete merger. The Barisan Sosialis type of so-called genuine merger goes very much further than complete merger. In the case of complete merger, like Penang and Malacca, there can be no autonomy for education and labour, which must go to the central government, and only those born in Singapore may become Federal citizens by operation of law if agreed to by the Federation. Those not born in Singapore would have to apply to be registered or naturalized as Federal citizens, which means disenfranchising half of the present number of Singapore citizens. The Barisan Sosialis type of so-called genuine merger means more than complete merger, because they want all Singapore citizens, of which one-half are estimated to be not born in Singapore, to be automatically Federal citizens on Merger Day; and not only that but that such Federal citizenship be irrevocable. The Minister for Health and Law has already explained the unreasonableness of these conditions. To ordinary people, the word "complete" cannot be qualified. To ask for more than complete merger as required by the Barisan Sosialis shows a lack of sincerity and reasonableness. The term "genuine merger" used by the Barisan Sosialis, therefore, has as much meaning as counterfeit coins being passed around as genuine. Now, why do we recommend merger with autonomy, in education and other agreed subjects? The Member for Queenstown first described our proposed autonomy in education as a sop and later as a source of disunity and not unity of the Malayan nation, because he said we shall be pursuing a different educational system from that existing in the Federation, and this received a Hear, hear!" from a Backbencher, the Member for Anson, who also has left the House. If the Barisan Sosialis has described the Federation's education policy as being misguided and, on the other hand, wants Singapore to give up its autonomy on education, then to suggest that we should follow what they consider to be a misguided policy, we have to ask - what, in fact, are they advocating? My colleague, the Minister for Culture, has asked the Barisan Sosialis - and that will also apply to the United People's Party - to indicate categorically to this House that they do fully support the Rahman-Talib Report on Education of the Federation with all its implications. I shall state the position in full. First, does the Barisan Sosialis accept the condition that Government aid should not be granted to Chinese secondary schools unless they convert them to national-type schools? That is, where Chinese as a language of instruction may be used or taught up to one-third of the curriculum time, and students are to be prepared for public examinations using the official languages, Malay and English. At this stage, may I, Mr Speaker, with your permission, read the English text of the speech of the Federation's Minister for Education, the Hon. Inche Abdul Rahman Bin Haji Talib when he moved the Second Reading of the Education Act, 1961, in the Dewan Ra'ayat, October, 1961. I managed to get a copy which I shall later on lay before the House.

I think the hon. Member is acquainted with the Standing Order which enables a Member to read short extracts from books or papers in support of his argument. So it must be short extracts. But, of course, there is nothing to prevent the Hon. Minister from paraphrasing any long paragraphs.

Thank you. I just thought that I should really use the words of the Federation Minister for Education instead of paraphrasing. It is rather an important matter.

It should be short extracts.

Yes. I will read the last two sentences at page 8, paragraph 30: 'In the interest of national unity, therefore, the Government [that means the Federation Government] has decided that education financed from public funds after the primary stage must be mainly through one of the official languages. This is not a new decision. It has been the Government's policy for five years.' The second question I shall put is: Will the Barisan Sosialis support the discontinuance by Government of public examinations in the Chinese medium for secondary schools? The third question is: Is the Barisan Sosialis prepared to accept the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Federation of Malaya in his address at the last Convocation of the University of Malaya held at Kuala Lumpur on 10th June, 1961, published in the University of Malaya Gazette Vol. 2, No. 3, June 1961, page 8? I shall read the third paragraph: 'I would like to add that it is the firm view of the Federation Government that any institution of higher education in this country must come within our National Structure of Education. The Government will not allow any such institution to grow outside the main stream of our National Education system as it would obviously be an obstacle to the creation and growth of a united Malayan Nation with an undivided loyalty to this country.' What are the answers from the Barisan Sosialis to these three questions? So far, silence, except a counter retort, "What do you think about it?" It is because we know what those Questions and problems mean that we have asked for local autonomy in education. We subscribe to the 1955 Report of the All Party Committee of the Singapore Legislative Assembly on Chinese Education which first announced the principle of equal treatment for the four language streams in Singapore. May we ask what is the educational policy of the Barisan Sosialis? Every meeting of the Barisan Sosialis is nothing but a denunciation of the P.A.P. and a call for a general election. The people of Singapore and indeed the Federation want to know what they stand for and how they propose to achieve them. It is to the great credit of the Tunku and his Government that they appreciate the position of Singapore and have full confidence in the sincerity of the P.A.P. Government to bring about Malayan loyalty and consciousness in its present educational policy. I refer, Sir, to Part 2 - The Tasks Ahead, page 4 - "Spring Source of our Nation", which is the educational policy of the P.A.P. issued during the last elections. I shall read just one paragraph: 'Since 1955 there has been a considerable change in the political conditions in Malaya. The Federation is now an independent country. It has a constitution which recognises Malay as the only national and official language, and for a transition period, English is to be the other official language. If the ultimate independence of Singapore, to which we aspire, is intimately linked with a merger with the Federation then it is obvious our education policy must also take cognisance of the fact that we must also accept Malay as the national language. The case for Malay as the national language has already been presented in detail in the P.A.P. souvenir publication in November 1958 and again recently in our party organ "Petir". Acceptance of Malay as the national language does not contradict, but on the contrary supplements the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Chinese education. [It should be the Report of All-Party Committee on Chinese Education. That is a misprint.] The study of the Malay language will not only act as a bridge that will span simultaneously our four streams of education but it will also help us to cross the Straits of Johore into the Federation.' The P.A.P. therefore had the political foresight to put forward acceptance of Malay as the national language before our predominantly Chinese electorate in the 1959 elections and won by an over-whelming vote. With only six per cent of the present school population in Singapore using Malay as the language medium of instruction, the task of making Malay the national language de facto is a herculean task which needs both time and effort to accomplish. Our record of work in this regard for the past 24 years bears testimony to our earnestness in achieving this objective at the earliest possible date. Pious protestations of loyalty are not sufficient. We are judged by deeds and actions. It is to avoid all possibility of misunderstanding and unhappiness over Chinese education in Singapore that we insisted on local autonomy for education in our merger proposals. The Member for Queenstown, in criticising our proposed autonomy in education, referred to the wholesale influx of Chinese from the Federation coming to Singapore to join our schools in order to take examinations in the Chinese medium, but expressed regret that these certificates would not be recognised outside of Singapore. The moral to this is clear. Those in Singapore who are currently agitating against the Government with the mischievous allegation that "Chinese education is being eliminated" when Singapore is the only place in the whole of South-East Asia to give it equal treatment, should ponder why many Chinese from the Federation have come and are still coming to Singapore to join our schools, if Chinese education is really being eliminated, would people migrate here? Only those who feed on lies, distortion, misrepresentation and who go out of their way to bring about misery and unhappiness pursue this line of action, and they are evil men indeed. The Member for Queenstown asked whether there would be a ban on the entry of Federation students to Singapore. This does not arise. We admit to our schools children of permanent residents of Singapore. As for our examination certificates, we cannot force others to recognise the certificates we issue. But so long as we maintain adequate standards in the conduct of our public examinations, it is, I consider, Mr Speaker, Sir, reasonable to assume that friendly governments would accept the worth of certificates which the Singapore Government is prepared to recognise. That is why we pay so much attention to the maintenance of academic standards in our educational institutions, and we allot one-quarter of our Budget for education, because Singapore has no natural resources and our only assets are human resources to be educated and trained to the highest pitch possible. The Member for Queenstown, before he ended his marathon speech - for length of speech and not for quality of contents - proudly announced the rise of a new star in the political firmament. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the late thirties, the world was enthralled with Edgar Snow's account of "Red Star over China". Perhaps the Member for Queenstown has visions of seeing his Red Star over Malaya. I say the Red Star of the Barisan Sosialis is an evil star and bodes ill for those who follow its reckless course. On the same note, I say the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown should be rejected. 7.30 p.m.

Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise to support our Party's amendment to this motion. This amendment is as important as the action we have taken - to quit from the Government side. Mr Speaker, Sir, the country would have no peace if one side is trying to exploit the other side trying to take away the interests of the people, such as the case of merger between Singapore and the Federation proposed by the P.A.P. Singapore citizens cannot automatically become citizens of the Federation. Mr Speaker, Sir, exploitation is made by man, made by the privileged class against the under-privileged class and the non-privileged class. That is why the world has no peace for the last few thousand years. These no-peace periods in our world are still existing. Mr Speaker. Sir, citizenship is the fundamental right of the people. Without citizenship, there is no necessity to talk of other rights, powers and interests. Merger can only take place if the interests, rights and powers of the people are safeguarded. It can only take place with the people's consent. There will be no consent whatsoever if their basic rights are not protected. Our demands are clear - we want all Singapore citizens to become automatically citizens of the Federation once merger has taken place. We also want proportionate representation in the Central Government between the two territories. These are our minimum demands. If the people are to be united, we cannot have two types of citizens in one country. If such a thing happens, there is sure to be a conflict between the two territories. Instances can be cited. Sir. Racial conflicts always happen in the U.S.A. and South Africa and in some other territories. These instances should have taught us to change our minds and bring splits to unity. Mr Speaker, Sir, today in every corner of Singapore, we can hear people talking about merger, and at the same time and at the same place they are scolding the P.A.P. Government. It is very interesting, Sir, to sit in the coffeeshops and at hawker stalls on the roadside and hear the people gossip about merger. Although it is gossip, they mean it. They talk so frankly that we know they care very much for this merger issue. Why, Sir? Because they care for their livelihood. They care for their future generation. They care for the welfare of the majority of the people in Singapore. They care for the destiny of our country, unlike the P.A.P. which just cares for her own interests. On the question of merger, the people are worrying about the interests of our country. But the P.A.P. only cares for the interests of the Party. Perhaps the interests of the P.A.P. are above the people, because the P.A.P. comes from the people. Those who dare not fight for the interests of the people on this merger issue are fools. If they are not fools they are co-wards. They always bow to something for nothing. But I would like to tell them that the people of Singapore will not bow to a ruling clique for nothing. We are not forcing the Tunku to accept our demands. We only put down all reasonable facts and arguments for the Tunku and the P.A.P. Government to see and to study. Our demands can be achieved through negotiations between the representatives of the people of both territories, not the P.A.P. Government, Sir. After putting our reasonable facts and arguments before them, the P.A.P. Government still continues to ignore the wishes of the people and carries a one-Party conference with the Tunku. Then the P.A.P. must shoulder all consequences if anything happens and not be like Chew Swee Kee who once called himself a man of honour. After many talks on merger between the Prime Ministers of the Federation and Singapore and in the Legislative Assembly of Malaya, the term "merger" becomes clearer. And now the people know what merger means. The Federation Government has said that she would take Singapore in as a partner with no power to deal with foreign affairs, defence and internal security. Singapore will become, Sir, "independent through partnership -"

On a point of of order, Sir. The statement made by the Member for Changi is not factually correct, i.e., that Singapore will not have any say in foreign affairs, and so on and so forth, when we are represented in the Parliament in the Federation.

Of course, that is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Sir, before I came to this House I know there will be many interruptions from the Government side.

Only one.

They will come. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a merger as proposed by the P.A.P., Singapore will have less power and less rights than we are now enjoying. Is that called "independence" when our powers, rights and interests are taken away? Is that called "independence" when our destiny is handed from a colonial regime to the P.A.P. ruling clique, then to a Right-wing Government in the Federation? Is that called "independence" when our citizenship is deprived? The people of Singapore are not a football that can be kicked about. The P.A.P. has no right to talk of merger with Malaya because the P.A.P. is not trusted by the people any more. We want a true and complete merger between Singapore and Malaya that will bring all citizens of Singapore and Malaya to become one single Malayan citizen. These new citizens must enjoy equal rights. The P.A.P. leaders say that if a true and complete merger proposed by the Barisan Sosialis is accepted by the Federation Government, then more than half of the Singapore citizens who were not born in Singapore will be deprived of it, and they must re-apply for new citizenship. Such an argument is very childish because Singapore is a country and so is Malaya. They are two separate countries, Sir, -and two separate governments, if these two countries are merged to form a bigger country, therefore, both sides must have the same rights. How can they say that Singapore citizens must reapply for new Malayan citizenship? If such is the case, we can also say that Malayan citizens must also re-apply for new citizenship. Sir, for both sides to re-apply - [Laughter] They laugh, Sir, a cunning laugh. It is nonsensical. But for Singapore to re-apply for new citizenship means that Singapore citizenship is inferior to the other. It means that Singapore must surrender. Sir, it is something like a big fish trying to swallow a small fish. Merger between Singapore and Malaya is not for the good of Singapore and Malaya alone. It is for the good of both. They depend on each other for survival. But the leaders of the P.A.P. say that the Malayan Government will not accept Singapore citizens, who were born in foreign countries. Why? Are they not citizens, or second-class citizens? If not, the Party in power must persuade the Malayan Government to accept, since the Party in power does not want to consult the Opposition Parties about merger. If the Party is unable to fight for the interests of the people, then she must resign and return the power to the people. How silly the PAP, leaders are by telling the people of Singapore that if they want citizenship of the Federation they must ask the Progressive Party, the Socialist Front in the Federation to fight for them. Perhaps the P.A.P. leaders have forgotten that they are the representatives of the people - they need bodyguards when they see the people. On the merger issue, the P.A.P. Government stated in its policy speech that the Prime Minister of the Federation received overwhelming support from the House. It shows, Sir, that the Tunku had consulted at least the Opposition Parties in the House in the Federation. But did the P.A.P. Government do that? Where is the overwhelming support'? The Prime Minister of Singapore only consulted his Ministers - only his Ministers, Mr Speaker. But the Parliamentary Secretaries of the P.A.P. and the Assemblymen were still in the dark, and they are still in the dark. Sir, for their own interests and also for the people's, the P.A.P. must resign. And if she does not want to do so, the P.A.P. must fight for the demands of the people.

He.

There are many types of laughing. Sir. The cunning laugh; the smile is also a laugh; but their laugh is a cunning laugh. As I said just now, Sir, citizenship is the fundamental right of the people. Without this fundamental right, the people will suffer, spiritually and materially. Without it, they have no future. Likewise the children cannot go to school. They cannot apply for Government jobs. They also cannot enjoy benefits which a citizen can enjoy. They also cannot take part in many activities. If the people lose their citizenship rights, that is not only a loss to the people but also a loss to the State of Singapore. I give you one simple example, Sir. Anon-citizen not only cannot get a job m Government, but also it is very hard for him to find a job in any private firm. It means unemployment for him. And these non-citizens, in order to struggle for survival, are sure to commit illegal acts to get a living. These illegal acts are detrimental not only to the people but also to the State. To lose citizenship rights means to lose everything. If merger takes place, the rights and interest of the people are taken away. I think the people will not be satisfied. Evil men lie behind and within this dissatisfaction. This is the cause which brings chaos to the people and to the State. The Prime Minister, who is also a famous lawyer, has explained to us the definitions of "citizenship", "citizens" and "nationals". He said something like that. These were not the exact words he said - that he could not see the word "citizen" in any Commonwealth constitutional law. He could only see the word "national" in such a law. He also said that a national of a new Federation would have equal rights and responsibilities. But Mr Speaker, Sir, if you turn to the memorandum on merger on page 4, it states: 'All Singapore citizens will continue to enjoy their State right and privileges within Singapore. And citizens of Singapore will vote only in Singapore.' Sir, all these rights we have already enjoyed and are still enjoying. In this memorandum we can see that the citizens of Singapore not only cannot enjoy voting rights, privileges and other benefits but also cannot enjoy many benefits and privileges which we are now enjoying in Singapore. Equal rights and privileges should be defined in this way, Sir - that all nationals of a new larger Federation, that is, Singapore and Malaya, should enjoy all benefits and privileges within the larger Federation. We do not want false equal rights and privileges as defined in page 4 of this memorandum. If we examine it carefully, Sir, the so-called nationals in Singapore would bear the same responsibilities and serve the country within the larger Federation but cannot enjoy the benefits within the larger Federation, but only enjoy the limited benefits within Singapore. This means that the nationals in Singapore have the duty to serve the country but have not the right to enjoy the benefits. Sir, I am not a famous lawyer like our Prime Minister, and yet I am able to define the term "equal rights and privileges". Our Prime Minister may have defined wrongly. If not wrongly, he is trying to deceive and trying to fool the people of Singapore into believing that his definition is correct and that their rights and privileges are protected. Sir, the people of Singapore want a complete and full merger between Singapore and Malaya, and all Singapore and Malayan citizens to become automatically citizens of a larger, new Federation. All citizens of a larger, new Federation should have equal rights and responsibilities and proportionate representation in the Central Government of the two territories. Mr Speaker, Sir, today the merger issue becomes an important item in this debate. It is because of this merger issue that the reactionary forces in the P.A.P. have become so desperate and so mad. For two and a half years the PAP, leaders have pretended to be sincere democrate and patriots and to be different from the S.P.A. Now the truth is out, and so their political career has become bankrupt. In order to save their political bankruptcy, they suggest a phoney merger in the hope of rising on their political platform. They try to drive a wedge between the masses and the Barisan Sosialis by telling the people that the Barisan Sosialis is trying to bring chaos to the State of Singapore. Because the P.A.P. does not believe in the strength of the people, now therefore the people cannot trust the P.A.P. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people voted the P.A.P. to office not because they supported the Party's plan for merger alone. I said "alone". The people voted the P.A.P. to office because it has so many true socialists inside the Party and because they trusted these socialists. With this in view, the people thought that the P.A.P. would bring unity among all races, would raise their standard of living, and would provide more employment for the people. That it would give more freedom of speech, assembly and organisation to the people; would give equal treatment to the four streams of education and so on. The P.A.P., therefore, was voted to form the government. Sir, the Tunku had on many occasions rejected the merger proposals. I remember the Tunku once said that unless the Leftists in Singapore were completely cleaned up, there was no necessity to talk of merger. But now the Leftists are still here, Sir, and the Tunku wants merger.

Point of order.

Point of order.

I am not against the Member's opinion but it appears to me that you are allowing him to read in this Assembly.

This is a debate where I think the Speaker can afford to be a bit lenient. All speakers up till now have been referring to their notes very frequently, and I think the Member for Changi is no exception. Please continue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even the Prime Minister reads his speech.

Order. I think the hon. Member must be careful to draw a distinction between reading and referring to his notes. Because if he admits that he is reading, then, of course, he is out of order.

I am not reading my speech, Sir. Even the Minister for Education has done that

Order. Perhaps the Member for Changi does not quite appreciate the difference. The difference is as shown in the Standing Order which reads: 'A Member shall not read his speech.' That is, if the Member's eyes are glued to the paper he is reading. But if he is merely referring to his notes, he is obviously addressing the Speaker.

I bow to your ruling, Mr Speaker. But as I have said, the Leftists are still here in Singapore and the Tunku wants the merger proposed by the P.A.P. What does it mean? Is it because the Malayan Government has enough strength to combat the Left-wing forces in Singapore? Is it because the Left-wing forces are now armed with weapons to put the P.A.P. down? Is it because the P.A.P. Government is unable to defeat the Leftists? The P.A.P. leaders said that the Leftists were afraid of the strength of the Central Government of Malaya. Therefore, they wanted to be ruled by the colonialists. They also said that once Singapore was under the Malayan Government, the Leftists could not say that they were fighting for the good of the people, because they were fighting the Malayan Government elected by the people, and if Singapore was under the hands of the colonialists, then the Leftists could claim to be anti-colonial heroes. This is what they said. And that was why we liked the British. Sir, this is what the P.A.P. said. This is very childish. The colonialists are more powerful than the Malayan Government, and the people fight against them not because they are colonialists or foreigners but because these colonialists are trying to exploit the people of Singapore. That is why the people are fighting against them. It is not because they are foreigners or that they are British. Sir, history has taught us that the people will fight against those who try to exploit them. That is why the people are now trying to fight against the P.A.P. Sir, when the British go away from our country, our people may say, "Bye-bye" to the British. But if the P.A.P. go away, there will be no people waving hands and saying, "Bye-bye" to the Party. What a pitiful situation they will face! Therefore, for the good of the P.A.P., we urge them to resign and go home for a rest. They must resign for a rest and clear their minds, and they must think about the mistakes they have made in the past.

Point of order.

Point of order?

Yes. The Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis has moved an amendment to this effect. We are now discussing the amendment proposed by the Member for Queenstown. So I think the Member should touch on it.

I do not know whether the Deputy Speaker was in this Chamber when I made my position clear, that I was not going to be very strict about procedural points in this particular motion. Perhaps it is lucky for the Member for Changi that the Deputy Speaker was not in the Chair! Moment of interruption. Mr Yong.

Resolved, "That this Assembly do now adjourn".-[Mr Yong Nyuk Lin]. Adjourned accordingly at 8.00 o'clock p.m.